Category Archives: Opinions

India based Media platform files false copyright claim

It goes to say that there are many predatorial media platforms. Distorting or outright fabricating truths is not an uncommon element. However, you would never expect one of these platforms to target an aspiring musician, simply trying to share their musical compositions. However, that is exactly what Manorama News TV, a platform based in India, did.

The copyright claim filed by the media giant. In the claim, they are simply attempting to get monetization for music that they do not own.

To preserve the reputation of the artist, he requested that we only refer to him as “Dark,” which we are more than happy to comply with. In 2017, “Dark” released one of his musical pieces, a song called “Raven.” The piece, as he tells us, was composed solely by him. He informed us that the YouTube release had “Royalty free” videos with it. Royalty free means that the video is accessible to the general public, free of charge, to use in a variety of ways.

For years, the young musician had no problems. That changed recently when he saw a copyright claim on the music. He sent our platform the original music file, confirming that it was in fact his piece. The questionable aspect of the claim comes in what they did within the claim. They didn’t request the music to be removed. Instead, they claimed to have it monetized, to which they would be paid for the views. If this sounds like a money scheme to you, we are inclined to agree.

When reaching out to the platform, we were surprised to see that they have over three million followers. So why would they waste their time on a small-time musician? We asked the platform this very question. Rather than replying, they blocked any member of our team who tried to make contact.  With that, we contacted them under the “War on Corruption” page. Though we haven’t been blocked as of yet, there is no expectation that they will respond in any form aside blocking the platform.

Shady journalism is something our platform has always strongly disagreed with. For a platform like “Manorama News TV” to falsely claim ownership of material they clearly do not own, is simply appalling. I can imagine that it’s not an easy feat being a musician. I also can imagine that it’s infuriating for something you’ve spent a lot of time on to be stolen in this fashion. This situation not only reveals Manorama News as a crooked platform, it also demonstrates the flaws within YouTube’s copyright system. It seems that anybody can file a claim on any video they so desire. Following  the claim, they can simply profit from the work of others. These parasites aren’t required to prove the claim, only file it.

Injured employee mistreated?

Unless you’re completely out of your mind, the last thing in the world that you would want to do is injure yourself at work. With any sort of injury, there is a loss of income, dealing with legal things that you may not had expected, and the list goes on. This story is brought to us by an individual, who requested to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. Given what we’ve been informed, it seems he maybe a bit late on avoiding the said retaliation, however. Though this isn’t our typical style, we decided to cover this simply because as a platform, we will always stand against bullies, no matter the situation.

Express Personnel is a nationwide employment agency. While they typically assist the unemployed in getting “temp” jobs,  They don’t hide the fact that their employees are nothing more than “cash cows” for the agency, especially if you have gotten a workplace injury. This brings us to the ‘Express Personnel’ services of Seminole, Oklahoma. In specific, we are going to be discussing the manager of this branch and her apparent lack of professionalism. As of this time, we have reached out to this specific agency, inviting them to issue a comment. However, as the past has shown, we don’t really have high expectations of receiving one.

The employee, who made us aware of this situation, had just started working at a local production plant, producing food products. According to the individual, things were going great, until he had gotten injured halfway through his shift. The injury apparently occurred when the employee lifted a box, potentially turning wrong, leading to a muscle and tendon being strained in his lower back. Even with the said injury, he stated that he remained at his work station for an additional hour. However, the pain increasingly became unbearable, forcing him to leave.

The next day, the employee reported the injury to his employer, ‘Express Personnel.’ At this point, he mentioned that he was almost unable to walk. For this reason, he had utilized a cane. Calling the employer, they demanded that he drive to their office, he informed them of the severity of the pain. However, this is when he claims the first round of hostility began. From one of the audio files sent to us, they are heard saying, “well, you need to get up here as soon as possible, TODAY,” before abruptly ending the call. As demanded, the employee drove to the location. According to him, upon entering the building, he was immediately with unnecessary statements regarding his cane.

While at the location, the branch manager had him sign various papers. One containing a rather questionable question: “What could you have done differently to prevent this injury?” The problem with this question is that it’s what they define as a “loaded question.” Essentially, there is no means of answering this question without placing the complete blame onto the employee. Basically, this is a legal trick to removing any accountability from Express. Initially, the employee refused to answer the question, only to be met with more hostility. According to him, he even tried to advise them that he wasn’t certain as to how to answer the question. He informs us that the fact he knew what they were trying to do, was partly to blame for this. The branch manager, at this point allegedly replied with, “Well, you better figure it out because they’re going to ask you the same thing,” though she never specified as to who “they” are. After answering the question, under duress, he informs us that he went to their doctor.

Upon completing the doctor visit, the employee began his 20 mile trip back to Express. He informs us that he was required to return so that he can give them a copy of the paperwork, provided by the doctor. When arriving, he decided to begin recording. He says this was because of the previous hostility, he simply wanted evidence of it. Currently, our platform has this audio recording.  Upon listening to it, it’s not only apparent that this manager lacks any form of professionalism, she is outright bullying this employee. If you haven’t guessed, while he may not of had any form of legal action previously, he most certainly could have one on these grounds.

The one thing that really stood out, in this recording, was a statement made by the manager. “I’m going to be honest with you, I don’t care if you come to work or not, it’s less money that we have to spend.” I must ask the question: Is this Express Personnel’s policy regarding treatment of their employees? Is this their policy on how to treat an individual simply for having an accident at work? It would seem so. I turned to Google and began conducting some research. I wanted to confirm if this man could potentially have a case, not on his injury, but rather on how he has been treated as a result.

According to “injurycoach.com,” he very well may. The site reads as follows:

Most employers are immune to employee lawsuits due to a complicated web of workers’ compensation statutes protecting them. … If youve been injuredmistreated, or wrongfully fired from your jobyou may be well within your rights under state or federal laws to file a lawsuit against your employer.

Essentially, due to how the workers compensation laws are designed, the company can’t really be held financially liable for any injury, though he has already informed us that he was never intending for any of the post report events to occur. However, because they did mistreat him upon reporting the injury, he very well may have a case, depending on what the laws within his state say.

Nobody ever expects to be injured at their work. When these injuries do occur, the employee shouldn’t be treated as though they committed a crime, especially by their employer. Though this individual is still employed with them, he has made it abundantly clear that he has every intention of terminating that, once he is cleared for work. To that, we can only wish him good health and better employment.

serial criminal’s victim gets no justice

In a perfect world, the justice system would always triumph, taking the most dangerous and unstable people off the streets. However, because we do not live in a perfect world, victims are often left without any form of justice from their attackers. Our platform has been sitting on this case since 2019, waiting for the for the “okay” to finally write this article. Upon speaking to this victim, whom we will identify as “Jane Doe” for safety reasons, that “okay” finally arrived.  To understand the case we are going to be covering, we first must paint the picture of who her attacker is.

Extensive criminal background

Cade Taylor, an Oklahoma resident, is by no means unknown to the court system. With minor charges, such as speeding tickets, seven protective orders filed, stalking, and assault, Cade has had a rather colorful criminal past. To better understand how this man thinks, we’re going to breakdown some of the cases. In this, we are including public information. This include the case number, dates, and the charge. However, we are withholding the names of his victims. This is due to Cade’s obvious mental instability and willingness to be violent, especially toward women. It is also important to note that while three protection orders were dismissed, five were not. While we won’t be covering every case, we are going to cover enough to give you an idea of how potentially dangerous this man is.

Case: TR-2005-00216

Date:  02/07/2005

This case, in contrast to the rest, is a very simple one. It’s a speeding ticket to which he pled guilty and was fined $188.90. However, this isn’t about speeding tickets. Let’s move onto the next case.

Case: PO-2000-00046

Date: 05/05/2000

This is one of many protective orders filed against Cade. This case, was eventually merged with case: PO 2000-47, which is not shown on the court records site.

Case: PO-2008-00039

Date: 04/03/2008

As before, we have yet another Protection order, as identified with the case number starting with “PO.” This order was filed by one of his alleged victims, a woman who was granted the protection. In this instance, the case cost Cade $169.30. However, as we’re going to learn, he did not learn his lesson.

Case: PO-2009-00183

Date: 12/08/2009

Filed by a different woman, she too had filed an EPO against Cade Taylor. However, for reasons unknown, this order was denied. Case closed.

Though there are still other Protection order filings against Cade, these aren’t the only charges he’s had. A couple of his other charges include domestic abuse-assault and battery and a charge for malicious injury to property-over $1000. However, these aren’t the cases we’re going to be diving into. Now, we dive into the felony.

The criminal charges Cade has faced in the past.

Case: CF-2019-00079

Date: 02/11/2019

This case is one that is truly beyond mind blowing. What started out as a bad night of drinking, for Cade, ended with him abducting a young woman, holding her at knife point, and even going as far as to admitting to police his intention of murdering her. The victim was only able to escape after locking herself into the restroom and dialing 9-1-1. With his  confession and  abduction, began a process that would exceed a year. However, the court was anything but impartial in this. According to those who know Taylor’s family, the presiding judge, Michelle Roper, is actually friends with his parents.

Upon confessing that he intended to murder the young woman, the police decided to  arrest Taylor. With this confession, the local DA’s office began the process of pursuing charges. During the process of the trial, Cade made a point to harass his victim and her family, multiple times. In one confirmed instance, he drove more than 120 miles across the state just to stalk her. Upon learning of this, the police arrested Taylor, but this wouldn’t be the last arrest for behaviors of this nature. With every arrest, came a bond amount, something that his mother was more than happy to pay. Once released, Cade would once again seek out his victim, going as far as to locating her on a popular livestream app and leaving a comment. Our platform has obtained a screenshot of this event, it is posted below.

This comment was confirmed to be from Cade Taylor, a man with a notorious past of abuse, stalking, and so fourth.

By the time the above photograph occurred, for whatever reason the court dropped the Felony down to a misdemeanor. The man, who abducted his stalking victim, made bold statements of his intentions to murder her, just got away with it. Meanwhile, in another questionable move, the court forced the victim to attend counseling.  This ruling was made as a result of the victim having a mental breakdown in court. As a result of this breakdown, Judge Roper questioned the victim’s mental stability. Of course, I can’t help but question Judge Roper’s capability to perform her duties.

On the advice of Cade’s mother, the ultimate conclusion to this case was it being dropped. According to the mother, who has a confirmed history of bailing her son out of legal situations, Cade was simply to unstable to be held accountable. However, his mental capacity remains unconfirmed. In most instances, it is nearly impossible to get escape justice using the “insanity” plea. However, in some twist of magic, Cade has somehow managed to pull that very stunt off only to get “house arrest.” Meanwhile, the victim involved is left looking over her shoulder, not knowing when or where this deranged man may show up. If this case has demonstrated anything, it has only shown that having the right contacts is all it takes to evade the prison system.

Editorial update:

Since the time this article was initially released, it has been brought to our attention that the culprit, Cade Taylor, near the end of the trial, had made threats of not only murdering his initial victim, but her children as well. We stand by our belief that Judge Roper, knowing the culprit’s family, should be placed under investigation. Her inability to remain impartial, even with the evidence staring her in the face, only displays that the victim’s constitutional rights had to an unbias and impartial trial, may had been violated.

 

Man arrested for party: A review

If 2020 has shown us one thing, it’s shown us just how much freedom we truly do not have. Across the country, people are being fined, harassed, and even jailed over the controversial mask mandate. While some people hold to it as law, this is actually far from the reality. However, it is being enforced as though it were law nonetheless.  This brings us to Maryland, where a Hughesville resident was arrested for throwing a bonfire party.

As we all are clearly aware, the Governors of various states have enacted a questionable order that prevents gatherings of more than 10 people, for some residents, the government infringing into what they do in their private life, was a simple “no way.” On March 22nd, officers were called to the home of Shawn Marshall Myers. Myers was having a bonfire party with 60 people in attendance. While that violated what the governor stated, it is also a good time to note that this order is not law, nor does the government, under the constitution, have the ability to infringe into the lives of citizens in this manner; apparently, Myers wasn’t going to allow it.

Upon arriving, Myers began to argue with the police, which would be a logical course of action being that they were trespassing onto his land with no legal grounds. During this argument, Myers informed the police that they had every legal right to gather, which would be a correct and factual statement. However, the police didn’t agree. As a result of violating the “emergency” order, a judge sentenced Myers to a year in jail. While this is a very questionable reason to send a person to jail, this isn’t directly what we’re going to discuss.

According to the attorney, Myers was sent to jail for the “safety” of the community. The contradiction should be easily spotted, but if it’s not, let me point it out. Their idea of “safety” is to place a person in an enclosed area with more than 60 people, who may actually be carrying this virus. This arrest also brings concerns regarding our civil liberties as citizens and how the government has spent 2020 stampeding them into the ground. Of course, this is something we’ve previously covered.

One of the things that has become so controversial with this mandate is in how it’s enforced. While public areas are one thing, this party wasn’t in the public domain. This man was literally arrested, on his private property, an area that this mandate should have no merit of enforcement. It is due to the behaviors of both, law enforcement and government, that our platform is very skeptical of this mandate. Since the time of its initial announcement, we have seen other forms of constitutional violations. Religious centers, schools, and even privately owned businesses forced into shutting their doors all in the name of government compliance.

This specific arrest isn’t the first mandate related one and I doubt it will be the last. As people become exceedingly more fed up with the nonsense of our political figures, I can see more mandate resistance within our future. Arresting this man, and others of the past, isn’t about public safety. It is only serving to spread one message: “You will conform and obey, or you will be removed.” If this sounds a bit familiar, that is because this tactic has been utilized before. It was a similar tactic used by infamous leaders, Adolf Hitler and Stalin, who believed that the best way to gain power was by subduing the people. Up until their downfalls, it was a highly effective tactic as the people never saw what was happening until it was to late.

For similar articles, be sure to check out the below links:

Disabled individuals targeted?

The mask mandate: does it violate the ADA?

Is BLM about equality?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, since its founding, has held firm to the claim that it fights for equality, against police brutality, and various other issues that effect the black community. While tensions between the police and general public have been at an all time high, it has only enhanced the problem created by this movement. While we don’t disagree with anybody’s right to protest, what the movement has done exceeds what is constitutionally protected. rioting, looting, systematic targeting of innocent pedestrians, just to name a few of the deeds conducted by this group.

Riots and destruction

In what should have been a peaceful protest, we have seen various crimes. Some of these, if done by any other group, would had been deemed terroristic. However, somehow or another, this group has somehow bypassed charges of this severity. This isn’t to say that arrests have not been made. In Portland, the nation watched as BLM protestors, alongside a terroristic group, ANTIFA, burned countless vehicles and businesses to the ground. In this regard, their protest consisted of destroying the lives of innocent people, potentially living from paycheck to paycheck, simply because they could. However, this is just the starting point for their nefarious crimes.

Harassment and violence

While the BLM movement continues to complain about how they’re being “treated,” we are going to look at the hypocrisy of their actions.  First, as BLM would say, let’s “say their names” as we review those victimized by the BLM movement.  Recently, we have the two Louisville officers who were gunned down during a BLM “protest.” Thankfully, these officers are expected to make a full recovery. However, the list doesn’t end there. Canon Hinnant, a 5(yo) child, was cruelly murdered in front of his siblings as he simply rode his bike. Of course, BLM defended this going as far as to say, “The neighbor was defending his life.” If that sounds insane, that’s because you are an individual capable of rational thought. But the list of deaths doesn’t end there. In Iowa City, 22 year old, Italia Marie Kelly, was randomly gunned down as she left a protest; she was one of two fatalities  During this specific protest. Five other white people were beaten by the BLM protestors simply for being white.

Moving away from murder victims, we look into random, unprovoked, harassment. In various videos, circulating the internet, we see BLM protestors harass various people as they eat. While there appears to be no provocation, it doesn’t stop these protestors from attempting to provoke an unnecessary fight. In other instances, we see these protestors, who claim to want to bring awareness to their cause, target journalists.

While bringing awareness to their cause would be a great idea, it is impossible when protestors target any journalist who isn’t black. In doing so, they have done a wonderful job of preventing this. When attempting to cover the protests, journalists are often aggressively confronted, berated, called racist (a go-to claim for the movement,) having umbrellas pushed into their face, and so fourth. For a group wanting to bring awareness, it appears that they are only bringing awareness to the fact that they are a hate group. To make matters worst, they are a hate group shrouding itself as a group fighting for equality.

Social viewpoints change/conclusion

Because of the actions of BLM, we have seen a shift in public opinion. As of recently, reports have begun to flood the internet discussing how the movement is losing popularity within the public eye. According to recent stats, BLM is most popular with the democratic party. Breaking things down, we find that they are most popular with the age group of 18-34. In the educational region, they are ironically most popular with post-grads. In the racial area, they are only popular within the black community, lacking any popularity in any other race. While there are many explanations for why the stats, which can be viewed here, it could be as simple as how they behave. Generally, burning down entire neighborhoods, targeting people of other races, and targeting journalists all while screaming the “victim card,” doesn’t fair well with most people.

The movement was one that held much potential. Rather than utilizing that potential, they have instead thrown away any accomplishments they could have achieved. Fighting hatred with hatred has shown, in history, to never be an effective measure. Rather than bringing the very thing they sought, unity, BLM has instead created more tension than what existed previously. Perhaps, they should evaluate how they conduct their protests, take measures in preventing these things, and actually fighting for what they claim to seek. Of course, as history has also shown, this is unlikely to happen.

Disabled individuals targeted?

It goes without say that we should all be entitled to medical care. For some people, this form of care means life or death. However, in all the splendor joys that 2020 has already provided us, we are finding that, for many people, medical care is outright being denied. In fact, for specific groups of people, they aren’t even being allowed in the door before being asked to leave the facility. Why? It all boils down to the mask mandate. I understand that many people will disagree with this article. I also understand that I will most likely catch a lot of grief for writing it, however, I simply refuse to sit back and watch as specific groups of disabled people continue to be targeted, denied their basic right to medical. After all, we have already seen other rights be stripped away, we’ll get into that also.

Mask Mandate

First, and foremost, it is important to understand that the mask mandate is that: a mandate. Although many people will try to claim this to be law, it’s not. The difference in a mandate and law comes down to a variety of factors, how it came to be is among them. While state and federal laws get run through every government house known to man, the mandate had never undergone such a process. Basically, this makes it unenforceable by law enforcement, though they are attempting to enforce it anyway. The issue in them enforcing it can be chalked down into what the very definition of their occupation: to uphold and enforce the law.

Initially, the mask mandate was a suggestion. Never intended to be required, the government composed a list of “safety” procedures for people to follow, if they so wished. However, what we ended up seeing completely opposed this initial stance. In a progressively slow measure, this request grew into the mandate. Some of the “safety” guidelines are as follow:

  1. Stay at least six feet apart from one another. Apparently, we are facing the only known virus in history that has a travel distance of six feet.
  2. Wear a mask. This is something we are going to really get into shortly.
  3. Avoid large crowds. Goes back to the whole six feet portion.

Enforcement vs. your rights

In enforcing this potential violation to the constitution, as well as civil liberties, we have seen the outright measures our very own government are willing to take. In the past several months, we have seen churches forced into closing their doors and their ministers arrested upon refusing to do so. If you aren’t well versed in the Constitution yet, let’s just recap, shall we?

Under the first amendment, you have the right to free speech, the press, religion, and so on. In regards to religion, the amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hence where their idea of enforcement now becomes a problem.

By forcing religious institutions into closing their doors, they directly violated the first amendment. Regardless of the reason as to why this was done, it changes nothing in regards to the result. To take it further, those who refused to cease practicing within their religious institutions, were simply arrested. Never, in the history of the United States, has a minister been arrested for refusing to terminate their religious practices; of course, this is no longer a truthful statement.

Within the mask mandate, there are exemptions that must be noted. It is these exemptions that have lead to this article. The exemptions within themselves aren’t the problem, it’s how businesses treat individuals who are exempted that has become the problem.

  1. pre-existing respiratory conditions.
  2. seizures
  3. sensory disorders, such as those associated with autism.

The above are only a few examples of things that are exempted. Regardless of this, corporations, and even medical facilities, are making blanket policies that force everybody, exempted or not, to wear these masks. Furthermore, for those who are exempted, there doesn’t appear to be any form of help with fighting these illegal policies. So, let’s go ahead and arm our disabled friends with a few pieces of legal information that may be of assistance.

The ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is quickly becoming a critical law to know. Within this law, there are protections that could translate into the enforcement of these corporate policies, as well as the mandate itself though the mandate has exemptions for this very reason. The two titles that we are going to specifically focus on are II and III of the ADA.

Title II

“Title II applies to State and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities. Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance.”

Title III

Title III focuses on private businesses (also known as public accommodations). All new construction and modifications must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. For existing facilities, barriers to services must be removed if it is readily achievable. Public accommodations include facilities such hotels, restaurants, bars, theaters, grocery stores, hardware stores, dry-cleaners, banks, professional offices of health care providers, lawyers, and accountants, hospitals, private bus or train stations, museums, libraries, zoos, amusement parks, places of education, day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, and golf courses to name a few.

To read this in its entirety, please visit this link.

Essentially, these titles prevent corporations, etc. from denying disabled individuals services solely on the grounds of their disabilities. For those who are being denied, as we’ve recently seen, this act will quickly become your best friend in fighting these unjust policies.

The mandate has been met with such controversy that lawsuits are currently ongoing. States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, and Texas are just a few states to mention. Rather or not you are for, or against the mandate, one thing must be clear: For the disabled individuals who cannot wear such devices, life has become a much more difficult challenge than what was ever needed. Rather it requires a revocation, overhaul, or even clarification of the mandate, to resolve the issues that are apparently present, it is, without a doubt, that action must be taken.

Jacob Blake: shooting review

Update

It’s been discovered that Jacob Blake had a warrant. It’s possible this may have played into his encounter with police. Photos sent to us by an anonymous source

This article is my review of the shooting. In it, we have the video, as well as screenshots from that video. You may, or may not agree with my statements. Ultimately, it is up to you to make your own conclusion.

The video of the shooting.

From the video, we can see the events as they unfold. There are several problems that I have observed within the video, let’s just dive right into this situation.

Image one, showing the two involved officers.

From the very start of the video, two officers are seen holding weapons. While it is unclear if both are lethal force, we know that at least one officer has a pistol. At this point, Jacob is observed going to the driver side of his vehicle, where his children are currently located. Though one officer (left of the one pointing a weapon) maybe holding a taser, based on how he’s holding the weapon. I am left to question why the other officer has a pistol. At this point, Jacob shows no signs of aggression, though I cannot speak for events that may had arisen prior to the video.

Jacob makes a disasterous choice.

Upon arriving to his door, Jacob makes a choice that may prove fatal. For unknown reasons, he is seen bending to a 90° angle. While this may not seem like much, it was more than enough for officers to believe a threat was present. This is where things become very questionable. The officers are seen standing behind Jacob, placing them into a position of power. This means that, even in a hand-to-hand situation, the officers have the advantage as it is difficult to fight when your opponent is behind you. With this, I question the fact that this officer chose to open fire when he clearly could had taken Jacob down with no problem. After all, they are trained to do tactics such as this.

Even if Jacob had been reaching for a weapon, the officers would had been able to react faster than him. By the time Jacob could had grabbed the alleged weapon, turned around, and fired, he would had already been taken to the ground. This, if anything, demonstrates not only the flaw within their department’s training, but also a severe lack of competency from its officers.

Jacob attempts to get into his vehicle as the officer fires.

Seven shots were fired into Jacob’s back. In training, we are told to “fire to stop the action or threat.” After one, maybe even two, shots, any potential threat Jacob had posed, would had been eliminated. So why did this officer shoot seven rounds? Again, this is a reflection of incompetent training and officers. At this point, as he’s being fired upon, Jacob attempts to get into the vehicle. For this, I have three theories:

1. Jacob was trying to create a barrier between him and the officer’s hailstorm of bullets. The front seat, being the barrier, could had potentially stopped further bullets.

2. Jacob may had been trying to flee the scene. Bear in mind, he had children in that vehicle. These children already witnessed their father being shot, it is possible that he was trying to flee in hopes of getting them out of the situation.

3. Jacob was shot in the back, this os critical to understand. Vital organs, such as kidneys, liver, etc. could had been damaged. This means that, as he bled out, his vision, ability to walk, stand, or even speak could had been impaired. Sitting would had been his safest choice. If he was able to apply enough pressure to his back, he very well could had slowed the bleeding until actual help arrived.

Officers showing how little control they have.

As the gun toting officer fired, a woman is observed walking to the scene. At this point, the other officer has seemingly walked away. It is clear to me that these officers have very little self control, they can’t even control the location. In no respectful police agency would this woman be able to walk up onto a shooting scene like this. Where did the officer go? That’s a very good question.

The other officer returns.

Although the other officer did return to the scene, I am stunned to see that nothing is done about the woman. They just shot a man, her presence there paces her in immediate danger. The officers involved clearly lack the cobtrol to use their training, aside lethal force. They further demonstrate their incompetence by failing to secure the scene, something that is more apparant in this photo.

It is, with my own training and evaluation, that I believe these officers used excessive deadly force. Their position from Jacob gave them more than enough alternatives that a shooting could had easily been avoided. While an investigation will ensue, as per department protocol, I do hold my reservations as to rather or not justice will come. The key evidence to this will really boil down to one question: did Jacob have a lethal weapon to which he was attempting to retrieve? Based on the current evidence, within this video, I don’t believe that is the case. The fact that his children were literally next to him, in the very vehicle to which he was shot, only furthers my belief toward this.

What happens next?

It goes without say that inmates have a form of hierarchy. While those who are convicted of murdering police officers are generally at the top, those who harm women and children typically find themselves at the bottom. Recently, 25yo Darius Sessoms, decided to abruptly end the life of 5yo Cannon Hinnant, in front of his two sisters. The child, who was simply enjoying riding his bike, was tragically shot by the neighbor. Though the motive has yet to be released by the Wilson PD., the suspect was apparently friends with the family, having dinner and drinking a beer with the father the night proceeding the shooting. We have a grieving family, a deceased child, and a complete scumbag in custody. What happens now?

While the question may seem a bit obvious in that he would be granted a life sentence, we are going to discuss what prison will be like for Darius, as we said, he’s at the bottom of the inmate hierarchy. Upon being convicted, It’s very likely that Darius will sit in jail, in some cases, this can last for several weeks as he awaits transport. For him, this isn’t going to really matter, it’s not like he’s got a life outside the DOC system. During this time, sitting at the county jail, it wouldn’t be to farfetched to believe that something could potentially happen. Inmates within these facilities, have a habit of throwing their fists. As word regarding his conviction spreads, the number of inmates wanting to knock his teeth out will increase. In severe cases such as this, it’s not unheard of that the inmate be placed in solitary confinement as they await to be transported. Of course, while jail comes with it’s own risks, prison is where the real storm could be.

As you can imagine, prison has inmates of various crimes, many will never see the free world again. For a man such as Darius, these individuals will become his greatest threat. The general mentality of a “lifer” is this: “I am never leaving this place alive, I have nothing to lose.” But our would-be inmate, Darius, has plenty of time to figure this out. Upon arriving to the facility, he will go through the intake process. Just as he had in jail, he will get a “mugshot,” finger printed, clothing and various other items such as bedding, and finally he will get his very own ID card with his lovely photo on it. Once he completes the intake process, this is where things begin to change. Every prison has their own way of handing inmates once this process is completed. For this, I am going to detail what some of the facilities I worked at did.

Most likely, he won’t be put into general population, not immediately at least. Many facilities have an evaluation period, especially if the state has what they call an “intake facility.” An intake facility is a prison that is designed for new arrivals within the system. This means that every new offender, as DOC defines them, goes to this one facility prior to being relocated, if that is to be done. During this evaluation period, they are generally placed into a “maximum security” setting. What this means is they are locked down for twenty-three hours a day, aside from weekends when they are locked down for twenty-four hours. Every aspect of their life is controlled. Depending on the facility, they may get three showers a week, though some only do two. In order to leave the cell, they are cuffed and escorted by roughly two or more guards. If they opt-in for going outside (rec. time,) they get one hour. If the facility has cages, as they are generally called, the offender is uncuffed and allowed to walk around his own little piece of hell. If the facility has a secluded yard, they remain cuffed and closely monitored by officers. This process is generally a minimum of a month.

So, let’s say he’s passed that point and is now in general population. First and foremost, he will be placed into one of two categories: Medium security or Maximum security (which we explained in the previous paragraph.) The medium security yard gives the inmates much more freedom.  Though they remain supervised at all times, most long-term inmates have already figured out the advantages they have, especially if they are wanting to eliminate a child killer. If an inmate were to make this choice, it isn’t implausible that it would be carried out in the yard itself. If it’s monitored, why would they do this? Simple: There are hundreds, if not thousands of them at any given facility. Though officers walk the yard, there simply isn’t enough of them to cover every aspect of that location. By the time an officer would notice that a situation had taken place, those involved would had already fled the scene; as most of you can guess, there are very few, if any inmates, who are going to tell. Though it is likely to happen in front of one of the many cameras, most inmates, especially the “lifers,” have already learned how to circumvent that problem. After all, they have 24/7 to think up strategies on keeping various crimes hidden from the officers.

Presuming something like this happened, there are practices in place. Obviously, this scumbag would be taken to the medical ward and potentially transported to a nearby hospital, depending on the severity of his injuries. Upon returning, he will most likely be placed into protective custody. This means that he is removed from general population, placed into a maximum security unit, and becomes a thorn for some poor guard who is most likely already having a great day. This phase, protective custody, varies on a case-by-case level. While in this custody, an officer will conduct an investigation. They will question inmates, generally living in the same unit as the victim. They will then review camera photage. If the attack is on camera, great. If not, the case is generally left dormant, the victim eventually returned to general population, and the unknown suspect(s) gets to wait for another chance.

This article is all speculation, it isn’t saying that this will happen. However, this is a very real risk that Darius faces upon arriving at a facility. We wanted to present not just what this vile excuse for a man faces, but a little insight into how the prisons operate. The culture, the mentality, and so on, are completely different from that of the outside world. If you have worked in a facility previously, than you already know what it is that I’m talking about. Just as with any society, you have your “good” citizens. But, within this society, you also have your troublemakers. For a man, such as Darius, these are the people he will most likely come to fear. After all, as I have said, as far as the inmate hierarchy is concerned, he’s at the very bottom with the child predators.

If you want to read about a child predator, be sure to check out our previous article:

Sinclair hires sex offender, denies alleged comments made by him

 

The mask mandate: does it violate the ADA?

In email, PM, and amongst our team, this article has been a long time coming. We are going to be discussing the mask mandate and how it has cruely targeted individuals with disabilities. While we are aware that many people will not agree with this article, we believe the mandate to be in violation of the “Americans with disabilities act” (ADA.) While the mandate itself has exemptions, the many corporations who poorly enact this mandate also violate selective portions of it, thus our definition of violating the ADA.

Hollywood casino: Maryland Heights, Missouri

Doing something as mundane as going to a casino shouldn’t turn into a discrimination situation. For one woman, with various medical conditions, it did. Worst yet, she is allegedly not the only individual targeted by unfair, selective and enforcement of the mask mandate. She wrote us saying the following:

I walked into the casino. security stopped me and told me I could not enter without a mask. I handed them my dr. note and they called upstairs. They came back and told them they didn’t care about my Dr note but I had to wear a mask. Which that itself violates the mandate law in st louis. Health conditions are exempted on the mandate.

Wished to remain anonymous

She later informed us, via phone, that a relative of hers was forced to wear a mask. At first it seemed to be an “okay, whatever” sort of situation. She went on to explain that the relative is on an oxygen machine and had difficulty breathing as a result. To this, we requested permission to make mention of that ordeal within this article.

I attempted to contact the casino. I asked one simple question: “how many people have shown your employees doctor notes and was still forced to mask or leave?” The response I got was simply being hung up on, with no further communication. Upon recieving this response, I sent them an email (pictured at the end of this article) and am currently awaiting a reply.

Meanwhile, we were able to find some aspect of their policy. However, it says nothing in regards to disabled people. The policy we have found simply reads:

While the amenities our customers have come to know and love may be somewhat limited for the time being, the ability to safely welcome back our team members and guests remains our top priority. With this in mind, we worked closely with the Missouri Gaming Commission, state and local leaders, and public health officials to finalize comprehensive Phase I reopening protocols and new health and safety precautions. Our returning team members will be trained on these procedures and our guests will see reminder signage about them throughout the property. These new protocols include, but are not limited to, the following:

SOCIAL DISTANCING

  • Capacity on our gaming floor may be limited, but we do not expect this to impact the customer experience.
  • The installation of floor decals and signage to strictly enforce social distancing guidelines will be placed in areas where lines typically form.
  • Table game seating will be limited, and some slot machines will be placed out of service.
  • Live music, entertainment, convention, and banquet services will remain suspended.
  • There will be no large drawings, tournaments, or special events.
  • Restaurant offerings will be limited to Hops House, Hollywood & Grind, Phat Thai, Celebrity Grill, and Charlie Gitto’s.
  • The gift shop, fitness center and valet parking will also be closed.
  • Valet parking will be closed, and the parking area typically used for valet parked cars is available for self-parking. Additional handicap parking spaces will be added to both casino parking areas.
  • The hotel has reopened.

HEALTH & SAFETY

  • Team members and vendors will be required to wear masks and will undergo a health screening each day, including temperature checks, prior to their shift.
  • Based on the ruling by the St. Louis County Health Department, and in order to help reduce the spread of COVID – 19, Hollywood Casino St. Louis will be requiring all persons in public areas will be required to wear a mask covering the face and nose. Patrons may remove masks temporarily while eating or drinking or when asked by casino staff for identification. Guests not adhering to these requirements will be advised of the requirements and warned that if they continue to disregard they will be asked to leave the property.
  • Slots and table games will be thoroughly and regularly cleaned throughout the day.
  • Sanitizer stations will be installed on the casino floor and be readily available throughout the facility.
  • Plexi-glass separators will be installed at the players club, cage, security podiums and other locations.
  • Citation: https://www.hollywoodcasinostlouis.com/covid-19

Loves Travel Plaza

In this day and age even a simple road trip has become problematic. One of the emails recieved regarded the national travel plaza, Loves. As of March 29th, the corporation began enforcing the mask requirements, with no regard to disabled people. While we had gotten an email of one situation, I had already planned to target this company purely based on what I have personally seen, even prior to their mandate. With that, I will now tackle two birds with one stone.

First, let’s review the email sent to us:

Hello,

My name is (redacted) and I want to see if you would write an article about what just happened to me. I was recently on a roadtrip from my home in (redacted) Tennessee, going to New Mexico. On this trip, I stopped at a Loves travel center in Hazen Arkansas. I needed to get fuel among a few other things. I have COPD, the image sent to you is my Dr. statement explaining why I am unable to wear a mask. I brought this into the store with me, just in case. I go into the store and am immediately stopped by an employee. He informs me that I must wear a mask to enter. I explain to him that I can’t wear one and offer to show him the note. He becomes more aggressive, tells me that he doesn’t care about the note. If I will not wear a mask, I must leave the premises. No gas, no food, and no pit stop, I leave. Thankfully, a nearby gas station was more than happy to have my business. I hope to bring exposure to how people like me are being treated, I hope you will help.

Email sent to our platform.

If you aren’t aware, the mask mandate does have exemptions to it. Autism, COPD, and those with various other medical conditions are classified as exempt. These businesses denying these customers entrance not only violates the mask mandate exemptions code, it is also a violation of the ADA, title II. Title II of the ADA reads as follows:

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the regulation of the Department of Justice (Department) that implements title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in  State and local government services. The Department is issuing this final rule in order to adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the ADA that are consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), and to update or amend certain provisions of the title II regulation so that they comport with the Department’s legal and practical experiences in enforcing the ADA since 1991. Concurrently with the publication of this final rule for title II, the Department is publishing a final rule amending its ADA title III regulation, which covers nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities. 

 Citation: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.htm

What Title II is essentially saying is this: a business cannot treat a person differently simply because they have a disability. Regardless of this law, that is what we are seeing. Under the illusion of “protecting the public,” people with disabilities and medical conditions are being barred from various locations. While public safety is a concern, it is alarming that certain people can’t even go shopping without being forced to violate doctor orders. At this point, it no longer appears to be a matter of public safety, but a situation of compliance.

Our email sent to Hollywood Casino 

Our former journalist: Official statement

As most of you maybe aware, for a short stint we had another journalist, Sarah. Her articles covered the BLM movement and ended with the Shane Dawson controversy. Because of a series of events, some being from her, we have been placed into a situation to which we must reply. This article is our official statement regarding her time with us, and afterwards.

War on Corruption, from the day we announced her being brought aboard the team, was met with mix reviews, primarily negative. Members of our team, myself included, began recieving various warnings regarding Sarah’s presence. These warnings ranged from her being a compulsive liar to her past with backstabbing her friends. I ignored these warnings, giving her a fair chance, although they did not stop coming.

Recently, she had undergone, what appeared to me as a smear campaign. Against the advise of our other members, I took the initiative to confront this problem. Placing the reputation of myself, and the platform, at risk. This choice came from what I had been informed, a specific man had spent months harassing her. Upon speaking to the former journalist via the phone, it was clear that she was on the verge of mentally breaking. Something I wanted to avoid if possible.

In a tweet, our former journalist was being harassed regarding her editing skills. A reply to this post mocked her for how she speaks, comparing it to “nails on a chalkboard.”

Before acting, I spoke to her, informed her of my plan, and she was content with that. At no point did she speak up about being against any action that was performed. Without her objection, I showed public information, the Facebook profile belonging to the man. It was, at this time, the false allegations of doxing began. At this point, I could only hope that the man, and his friends, were leaving our journalist, and friend, alone. However, things did not work out as planned.

Sarah abruptly left the team, telling nobody within the platform. Upon questioning her, she informed me that she had left due to mental health reasons, never indicating that there was a problem or concern (image below.) During this discussion, she requests the removal of a video, however it has never been specified as to what video she was speaking of.

In our final discussion, Sarah states her reasons for leaving, this reason was proven to be a lie. While she states that she mentioned this within a group, it is unclear as to what group she is speaking.

What I didn’t know, at this time, was while she had given me this reason, she had also gave a public statement, conflicting what was said to me. Within her statement, she calls the platform out for “doxing,” a false allegation as we had only shown what was publically visible. Upon calling her out, within a reply, the tweet was abruptly deleted, though she may had deleted due to a later action. However, we have a copy of this tweet.

In a now deleted tweet, she makes a point to slander the platform, part of why we had to make a public statement of our own.

While she claimed we had “doxed” a man who was harassing her, she later proceeded to do, by her own definition and not the legal one, the samething. This action raised many questions for me, including the tweet she had deleted. While I understand that many people have an issue with the individualwbo she exposed, those issues are best left for a future article. What does matter here is the fact that she slandered our platform, simply because we were trying to help her, and later proceeded to perform the very act to which she slammed us for.

Further investigation showed a plausible motive. It appeared that some of the people, a few had pre-warned our platform, and her had a falling out at some point. Her agenda was to make amends with these people, we have no problem with that. Our issue stems from the fact that she chose to throw not just me, but my platform, under the bus in doing so. This speaks many words for her ethics and morales, worst yet, it had proven all the warnings to be factual while disproving my beliefs of giving fair chances and innocent until proven otherwise.