Category Archives: Police

Are retailers violating the HIPAA ACT?

With the COVID situation running rampant, it shouldn’t be a surprise that your medical information is now being forced to be presented to employers. Failing to do so is met with consequences, loss of employment, or even suspension without pay. However, some employers, such as Dollar Tree, have taken this a step further. They not only ask for your medical information, they are accused of asking for information pertaining to related to the employee. With this accusation, a member of our team applied, got the job, and tested this theory out. This article is going to present information provided to us by a former employee and the results of what we learned first hand.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act was designed in 1996 with the purpose of protecting sensitive medical information. With this act, doctors are forbidden from divulging information of any patient without having prior written consent. However, the act expands beyond that aspect. With the HIPAA Act, patients have control of their medical information, they can choose who to provide this information to, and it limits what medical information an employer can obtain; this last portion is where our article is primarily focused.

While this act doesn’t necessarily pertain to employers, there are aspects of it that do. For instance, under the HIPPA Act, an employee is not required to divulge their medical files, or even diagnosis and treatment. While we are currently in a pandemic, this changes nothing as the HIPPA Act simply does not address situations such as this. An employer asking an employee the results of a Covid test could be taken as a violation as, once again, a patient is not required to give the employee their diagnosis or treatment information. This brings us to the retail industry, who seem to ask their employees for this very piece of vital information.

Retails intrusive questions

With the information we had obtained from a source, our platform decided to go “inside” and find out for ourselves. For this, a member of our team applied at a local “Dollar Tree.” This location was selected because it was the company that we had gotten the complaint about. Like magic, the application was approved and we had our feet in the door. At this point, the investigation commenced.

The first night was uneventful. No questions were asked, just the typical “pre-opening” work. Shelves were stocked, boxes were stored, that sort of thing. Our new insider had begun to question rather or not the accusations were, in fact, even true. After working for hours, we had initially thought the investigation was a fluke. This conclusion didn’t last long, however. Prior to the insider’s employment, we had already established that if they did ask any of the questions, they were to answer at least one of them with “yes.”

The reason behind this was simply to see what the store would do in this situation. We already had established that answering “no” gave you the “right” to work, we wanted the other end of the spectrum. On night two, our insider reports that they arrived at the store. Upon entering, they were immediately stopped and asked some questions. Because this was being recorded, we are providing the very questions that were asked. We are also providing the response given by our insider.

The questions

Q: Have you been around anybody who has tested positive for Covid?

A: If I had been, there is no way that I could possibly know, so I’m going to say no. It is important to note that the employer is marked with (Q) while our insider is marked with (A.)

Q: In the past 24 hours, have you been around anybody who has been tested for Covid?

A: Yes.

Q: Wait, you’ve been around somebody who got tested for Covid?

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you know the results of their tests? (Highlighted as this question potentially violates HIPPA.)

A: No, I don’t know their tests results. Why?

Q: Because that means you can’t come into work.

A: What do you mean I can’t come to work, why not?

Q: Because you’re putting the entire store at risk.

A: Uh, okay, that makes no sense but whatever.

It’s important to note a few things within these questions. The first is the redundancy of the first question. If this had not been our insider, but another employee, they would already be at a high risk of exposure, they’re working retail. The second thing to note is what HIPAA says about asking for test results: they aren’t permitted to know what a diagnosis or treatment is. If the test were to be a positive, the employer is not permitted to know this as the patient would be diagnosed with Covid. Branching beyond that, the employer is also not permitted to know what the treatment plan for the said diagnosis is. Essentially, asking this question is a legal situation in the making. With a good attorney, this company could face a rather hefty penalty.

While all of the questions are intrusive, the specific question asking for test results, especially regarding those not employed with the company, is the smoking gun for any “litigation-happy” disgruntled employee. Expanding beyond the questions, we are left with one unanswered question: why the inconsistency?  On the first night of employment, our insider received no questions prior to their shift. However, on the second night, they were questioned. If the employers policy regarding “safety” was so serious, wouldn’t they be asking these intrusive questions prior to every shift?

While this subject, especially now, remains highly controversial, it is one that should be discussed. The question asking, “how far is to far?” is simply not asked enough. In this year alone, we have seen some of the worst violations to our rights than at any point in America’s history. Our right to religious freedom being a primary example. During this time, we saw ministers being arrested simply for refusing to cease with the practice of their religious freedoms, in the way that their religions required. But the violations didn’t start, nor did they end, there. For now, we will simply ask this one question: Will Americans ever say “enough is enough?”

 

Editorial Statement

Due to the backlash on Twitter, we are clarifying that this article is purely opinion. We are asking a question, noted by the title, and are simply responding with our thoughts. While the companies may not be violating HIPAA, by requesting information of people, who are not employed with them, we can at least establish that the privacy of those individuals have been violated.

Evading accountability: The report

In law enforcement, report writing is essential. Not only does it provide information involving various situations, it also works as a legal document, which can be used within the court system. On the dark side of things, this simple report can actually work in getting an officer out of trouble. Though it sounds farfetched, it’s not. Today, I am going to reveal to everybody how that can work. This isn’t coming from researched information. instead, this is coming from first hand information resulting from my time working within the system.

When writing a report, especially in instances to which use of force is used, the way the report is written can help or hurt that officer. This fact is so important that departments devote an entire training course on how reports are to be written. Included within that training is how to avoid having that report come back on the officer. The best way to explain this is to simply provide you a scenario.

In this example, we have a victim who has been body slammed by an officer. The victim was compliant and unarmed. Now, if the officer was being honest, the report would read something like this:

On (date) I intercepted (Victim’s name,) regarding complaints of (situation.) The individual was complying to orders when officer (name) proceeded to use less than lethal force. In this force, the individual was slammed to the ground, at which time they were cuffed.

Now, the way the above report is written, will vary depending on the officer. However, this version of events isn’t what people generally see. As you can imagine, the above would place fault for any injuries onto the department, as well as the officer. This is why the police are trained on how to word their reports. For this reason, you will never see the above report. However, what you will see is this:

On (date) I intercepted (Victim’s name,) regarding complaints of (situation.) The individual wasn’t complying  to orders. at this point, officer (name) proceeded to assist (name) to the ground and cuffed.

Notice the wording. In a report, rather than stating that the individual was “body-slammed,” the police will simply state that they “assisted” a person to the ground. This may not sound like a big deal but in the courts, that could mean the difference between doing your job and being charged with assault. Should the victim sue the department, this report would again be used to protect the officers involved.

This tactic is used in virtually every encounter that involves police. It doesn’t just include them, however. Every division of law enforcement, including the correctional system, utilize this method of report writing. In situations where an officer does make a report implicating abuse from other officers, another system of misinformation is utilized. The “Blue Brotherhood,” which we will be writing about in the near future, cannot be violated without consequence. An officer who writes a report, placing fault on a department or another officer, is faced with two separate situations.

To begin with, the officer will not be able to submit their report. When attempting to do so, the department will simply refuse to accept it until they modify it. Once the report has been altered, using the “appropriate” words, it can then be submitted. However, this doesn’t change the fact that this officer had violated the blue code. From this point forward, they face a real possibility of being targeted by not only other officers, but by those in charge.

The departments are about covering themselves, even if that means covering up their tracks. Because investigations are conducted by “internal affairs,” the methods used for writing these reports are never questioned. As a result, there is no accountability. Furthermore, officers who generally violate policy, or even the law, face no consequences for doing so. For this, and many other reasons, the way to which these reports are written do matter. As I said, it can come back to haunt the officer if done incorrectly.

Shoot first, ask later: Linden Cameron shooting review

You have most likely heard of the Linden Cameron situation. Cameron is a 13-yo child, living in Salt Lake City, UT., who was, back in September, shot by “highly” trained officers. This is an article that we had been sitting on for sometime now. While we enjoy critiquing law enforcement, we had decided that it...

This content is for Gold Status and Basic members only.
Login Join Now

The police mentality

We continue our journey into exposing the legal system and its various forms of corruption. So far, we have exposed an incompetent police department and its chief, how law enforcement evades accountability with report writing, and how being innocent of a crime still means guilt. With these things being exposed, it is now time that we expose the mentality of the police. If you believe this mentality is disturbing in public, behind the scenes will be even more shocking. While our platform, and specific members of our team, have been targeted because of these articles, it only furthers our reasons for writing them in the first place. In this article we are not only going to be talking about law enforcement but also revisiting the Department of Corrections.

 

Bully Pride

This is the most recorded aspect of law enforcement, next to what appears to be the random shooting of civilians. We see it all the time, a power tripping cop going on a warpath. We have also seen how these events generally end. However, while this is what when they interact with the public, we don’t see what happens behind closed doors.

You wouldn’t think that other officers would be a target of such behavior; you would be wrong. Law enforcement, though they deny it, has what is called the “Blue Brotherhood.” Granted, this sounds like something from a mafia movie, but there is a good reason for that. In law enforcement, there are two types of officers: those who are “in” the brotherhood and those who aren’t. When it comes to this, you don’t want to be that guy who isn’t in it. Officers who find themselves in the “out,” find that their jobs become extremely difficult. They find themselves targets of other officers, supervisors, and even those within upper management. Basically, those who are not in the brotherhood, or violate it’s “code,” have no means of help from within the agency.

This mentality doesn’t just apply to the police, it also applies to the Department of Corrections, a harsh reality that was verified by our lead journalist, who once worked for this very system. Officers who are targeted find themselves alone and isolated within the very place they work. Harassment and bullying becomes extreme, until they finally give in and simply resign. Among the things that may happen to a targeted officer include: pay being withheld, false internal investigations from superiors, fabricated write-ups, and the list goes on. The ultimate goal is to push the officer into resigning. Though it would be easier to terminate that officer, termination means they could file unemployment while resigning makes that nearly impossible. Even if the officer resigns, the harassment doesn’t end there.

Once the officer resigns, they are immediately “blacklisted.” Blacklisting, to put it into simple terms, is a malicious method of ensuring that the former officer cannot obtain another law enforcement job. They are often put into a computer system, marked with “do not hire.” Should another agency contact the former place of employment, all they have to say is that he/she is not hirable, the blue brotherhood does the rest.

Bullying isn’t just subjected to the few good officers we have in this country. Inmates, who find themselves living within the prison systems, also become targets. While these individuals are in the prisons for a reason, it does not condone how they are treated by the officers working the facility. Within the Department of Corrections, there is a universal mentality: “we will take the word of an officer over an inmate.” This mentality immediately puts the inmate at a complete disadvantage. If the inmate is being targeted by an officer, files a complaint to which that officer denies the accusation, it becomes a case closed situation. No further investigation, nothing more is done.

Behind the scenes, officers have been known to joke, laugh, and even mock inmates, or those arrested. In one situation, our lead journalist had witnessed a conversation to which an officer laughed about body slamming a woman to the ground. Though the woman had to be taken to a medical ward for her injuries, that apparently only made the situation funnier for this officer. What’s worst about this? To this day, that officer remains employed with D.O.C.

Complete control

If you’ve ever looked at a Facebook profile belonging to an officer, you may notice how bland it is. There generally is a serious lack of information. Furthermore, they are cautious as to what they post. There is a reason for this. It’s not because the officer is in fear, though the department uses a fear tactic against them. The reason for this is because of the amount of control the departments have within the personal lives of its officers. All law enforcement agencies, including D.O.C. have policies that tell the officer what is allowed to be posted, what is forbidden, and what can get them fired. For instance, if the officer slams another department, or their own, that is grounds for punishment. Not only will the department force that officer, generally under duress, to remove the post, they could face further consequences. Demotion, pay withheld, write-ups are just a few examples of what that officer could face.

Law enforcement agencies control the behaviors of their officers with fear, intimidation, and various threats. On the flip side to this, officers within D.O.C do the same to the inmates, who are unlucky enough to find themselves within their facilities. On both ends of this spectrum, retaliation is a very real possibility. Those who dare to speak out, rather it be an officer or an inmate, often find themselves being made examples of. For the officers, the consequences could mean the loss of pay, targeted harassment from other officers, termination (or the threat of it,) and so fourth. For inmates, it’s almost the same aside the termination. For them, the possibility of being thrown into a segregation (SHU, Isolation, “The hole,” etc.,) is more than enough motive to keep them silent and obedient. While we often criticize every officer who works within these departments, most people are completely oblivious to what the “good cops” have to endure. We often wonder why they remain silent, why they rarely take action, and why they do nothing to make change. Unfortunately, this is the reason behind that.

Police department exposed

update

The Chief of police reached out to us, though she didn’t exactly answer our question. Below is that correspondence.

Chief: What are your questions about our policies?

WoC: Our platform was recently informed that your department rejected a potential application, partly on the grounds of an accusation to which an individual was found innocent. We know this because we were able to pull up this disposition. Though the individual involved has declined to comment on this, I thought I would touch base with you guys and find out how that was able to be used against this person, regardless of this disposition?

Chief: The individual you are talking about KNOWS why he was turned down. You have to tell the truth. I will be glad to talk to you I person. I will be in the office Monday.

At this point, the conversation was abruptly ended, she has not responded since this message.

—————————————

It was inevitable that this article would be written. In our current trend of exposing the “justice” system for all the glamorous corruption, it shouldn’t be to hard to conceive that we would begin targeting specific law enforcement agencies. Today, we are going after a small Oklahoma town, Earlsboro Police Department. This department was brought to our attention by a former applicant, denied a job on the basis of a charge, to which they were determined innocent. Upon conducting my own research into this department, it’s not all that surprising that they would had denied the individual’s application upon those grounds. After all, in 2018, the department was so corrupt it had gained state wide attention. Let’s review the Earlsboro Police Department.

History of abuse and corruption

As we have stated, this small town department is riddled with a past of corruption. In 2015, officer Michael Young, who is believed to still be with the department, targeted a freelance journalist. The journalist, associated with the organization “Cop Block,” had been filming the officer’s interaction with another citizen. To see that video, just click this link.  The situation, based upon the video, is rather disturbing.

It shows officer Young parked in front of a residence, lights enabled. Upon leaving, he does a U-turn. When getting to the corner, where the journalist is located, he stops at the stop sign. However, he doesn’t simply drive away. Instead, Young sits at this sign, blocking potential traffic. This goes on for several minutes.  Finally, after blocking the road for several minutes, officer Young decides to engage the journalist. The fact that the officer chose to even engage somebody, filming on a public road, is already questionable. But as we’ve said, this department doesn’t exactly operate with the legal scope.

More controversy hit the department in 2018. The former chief of police, Troy Magers found himself the centerfold of this event. Though this controversy was aimed at the private life of Magers, it spoke loudly for his character. So, we are going to give a quick rundown of the situation.

The former chief had rented a house. Upon leaving the residence, the home owner found it to be a complete wreck. Trash, feces, urine, roaches littered the home, it looked as if a hoarder had been living there. Though there is much debate as to why he was removed, one allegation is it was over sexual harassment claims and abuse of power. Though we haven’t been able to confirm the reasons leading up to his removal, we did find that he has an extensive history of misdemeanors and civil litigations dating back to the 1990’s. This leads us to our current question: If the EPD allowed this man to apart of the department, why did their current Chief of Police, Candie, deny a man who was found to be innocent of his charge?

Allegations against the former Chief of police didn’t just stop at how he destroyed a rental home. We were able to make contact with a man who had lived in the town during this time. According to this contact, the former chief had made a point of targeting a young woman and her children. In fact, the harassment had become so severe that she had allegedly bought a gun to protect her family from the police. Ultimately, after the officer attempted to remove her children, she and her family, was forced to move from their home.

We reached out to the department, in attempt to get answers. However, what we found was that any comment we left was  hastily removed. To ensure our question was seen, and hopefully answered, we left it for them on a Google review (pictured below.) One thing we noticed when looking at their reviews, was their rating. 2.6 out of 5. While it’s not uncommon to see lower scores with any law enforcement agency, this is still remarkably low. Reviews accuse officers of theft  to inaction in a potential life threatening situation.

Because they continue to delete any questions asked by the WoC team, we made our questions in a very public way. Doing it like this also ensures that the department cannot delete it.
The record showing the background of the EPD former police Chief, Troy Magers.

We find it interesting that a man with such a record of misdemeanors and civil suits was qualified to be a chief, but a man who was innocent wasn’t qualified to join the department.  While the department has allegedly pulled the “legalities” card, when we review the history of their previous chief, that is something we find to be rather suspicious. While the department has now become more active within its local community, it doesn’t necessarily excuse it from its past. When policies are being created on the spot, when officers, who still remain with the department, hold a history of abuse and intimidation,  we have more than enough reason to believe that nothing has truly changed.

It is unfathomable to believe that such a small department could be more corrupt than those in bigger cities. While we don’t believe the corruption has stopped, simply changed hands, it does appear that the department has made some drastic changes. While we still can’t confirm officer Young’s employment with this specific agency, we are told by a source that he maybe working for another department.  Allegedly the entire department was wiped clean, alongside Chief Magers. According to sources, this was brought about from accusations of “sexual misconduct.” However, neither the city of Earlsboro, nor it’s police department, will confirm this. One thing that is clear is they are still enforcing a non-existent law. There is no law barring a person employment purely based upon an accusation. After all, accusations happen all the time, it’s the establishment of guilt that matters. Because our journalist does live within the same state as this department, they can rest assure that we are going to be watching them very closely in the days to come.

Always guilty

“The system is broken.” At some point you have probably heard this expression. What if I were to tell you that this statement is wrong? The very system that you believe to be broken, in fact, was maliciously designed so that no matter what, you pay for the crime. If it sounds completely insane, it’s not. For many people, wrongfully strung into the court system, this is the reality that they face, regardless of disposition.

For those who haven’t been through this auction for your freedom, the idea you have is probably along these lines: you are charged, you go to court. If you are found guilty, you do your time, and you’re free. Alternatively, you are found innocent and that’s simply the end of it. Well, that’s not entirely true, just ask any innocent person who has been charged with a crime. Regardless of the fact that they were found “innocent” of the charge, the reality for them is this: they still pay for that crime.

What many of these people harshly learn is that companies, government agencies, and so fourth, still hold that charge against them. Is this legal? Not really, but they still do it.  For these individuals, the concept of “innocent” simply does not exist. The embarrassment of being dragged into a courtroom, the loss of income, and people knowing what you were accused of but not accepting the disposition makes the words, “innocent until proven guilty” a lost luxury.

However, there is a way to obtain that luxury again, at least that’s the glimmer of light. The downside to it is in that it is going to cost you hundreds of dollars to do so. So, let’s break this court system down. For this breakdown, I’m going to presume innocence. You are charged with a crime. You are dragged to a courtroom for months, or even years on end. Finally, you get the verdict “innocent.” You think the humiliation is over, it’s not. Now, you have this charge on your background, still very publicly visible to those who look.

While it should be the responsibility of the court to remove this, when you were found innocent, they won’t. You have to spend money to bribe these political parasites into doing that. Without the bribe, your life spins into chaos. Every job you apply for, sees this charge. Although they see the disposition of that charge, it generally doesn’t matter. You’re denied jobs regardless. Meanwhile, these law enforcement agencies, judges, and various other parasitic leeches are banking off of this flawed system, all of it at your expense.

Once you pay the bribe, you get the expungement. However, that could take months to go through; it could also mean more court dates. The worst aspect to all of this is in the fact that the damage has already been done. While you’re left to deal with the broken pieces of your life, the cash cow within the (in)justice system continues it’s illusion that it is “for the people” rather than against them.

 

 

Texas mother accused of rape

34-year old, Brittany Rouleau, is sitting behind bars tonight. While it is the job of a parent to protect their children, she is accused of raping her 12-year old son in 2018. The Wichita Falls resident allegedly shared a bed with the child at the time the crime was committed. According to the victim, she began questioning the now eighth grader about masturbation as she undressed.

At some point, during the already uncomfortable conversation, she instructed the boy to do the same. It was, at this point, that forced herself onto the child. Afterward, she instructed the boy to clean himself and to tell nobody of what just transpired. She further informed the child that he could also get into trouble since he “accepted” it. It would take two years before he finally revealed what had happened. Upon telling another adult, he was immediately brought to police.

Shortly after his confession, Brittany was arrested. Though she initially denied the accusation, she later confessed to the act. According to reports, she had even confessed the act to a neighbor. Though she’s currently a resident of the county jail, no court date has been assigned at the time of this article.

Shawnee apartment complex drive-by.

We would like to believe that the safest place to be is at our home. However, those living at an apartment complex in Shawnee, OK., learned just how quickly that safety can be violated.  While this is just a preliminary article, using statements from various witnesses, we are going to post what our platform currently...

This content is for Gold Status and Basic members only.
Login Join Now

Famous adult film star faces life

Famous adult star, Ron Jeremy (67), is currently sitting behind bars,  awaiting trial. Jeremy had become popular in the 1970’s and 80’s, however, he has always had a reputation of being the “grabby” sort when it came to women. Jeremy, who is accused of more than 20 crimes against 13 women, with his victims ranging between 15-54 years of age, has a bail set at  $6.6 million. If he’s convicted, he faces the possibility of life in prison.

Currently, the list of crimes he’s being charged with include: forcible oral copulation, forcible rape, sexual battery by restraint, and this list just goes on. Each of these convictions make mention that the victim would need to be tested for the virus, commonly known as, AIDS. While the document, which can be read below, doesn’t state that Jeremy has the disease, given the sort of testing required, it is presumed that he does. If his victims do test positive for the AIDS virus, this could actually bring fourth additional charges, should the state pursue that avenue.

While Jeremy has pled “not guilty” to all accounts,  it is the test results that will ultimately be the deciding factor into that. Prior to his arrest, Jeremy posted one final tweet, saying:

In the meantime, Jeremy resides at the Los Angeles county jail, awaiting his  next court appearance, which is on October 28, 2020. Rather or not Jeremy is acquitted of the charges will depend solely on what the forensic evidence reveals, if it reveals anything at all.

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.

This content is for Gold Status and Basic members only.
Login Join Now