It’s something we hear about more often than we should. It starts with an allegation, leads into an investigation, and often times ends with the family fighting for their future. This is the world of the family court system, their…
To view this article, please join our subscription program. You can join the free subscription and gain access to this content! What have you got to lose? It's absolutely free to you. Alternatively, you can join our paid subscription program and help the platform in the spread of information.
For those of us who are old enough to remember the September 11th attacks, it is a day that has forever been burned into our memories. The emotions we felt, the shock as this horrific attack unfolded are images that will never leave our collective minds.
While many of us feel compassion for the families, forced to watch the deaths of their loved ones, one individual has decided to release a completely unhinged video regarding the attacks. ‘That Vegan Teacher’ is no ordinary YouTuber. In fact, many have claimed her to not only be unhinged, but outright insane; this comes for good reason.
Over the years, ‘That Vegan Teacher’ has utilized bullying and threatening videos to, debatably, spread awareness toward the Vegan movement. In a recent video, uploaded on September 11, 2023, it was clear that she had crossed a line. Not so surprisingly, the internet has responded in uproar.
At the start of the video, which we will link here, the infamous YouTuber leaves a notation stating that she does not condone the attacks of 9/11. However, the entirety of the video seems to state the exact opposite. She starts out by discussing how the victims were killers themselves. How? Because they ate meat.
After making the above point, she proceeds to discuss how they “paid” for their alleged crimes, in other words, she justified why these innocent people deserved to die. But the video continues to go downhill. She then proceeds to advocate for Veganism, citing how “we now know what to eat when on a plane.”
It is clear that there something seriously wrong with this woman. It is clear that YouTube absolutely needs to take a stance against the type of content that she is producing. While Veganism in itself is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle, it is not acceptable to use that lifestyle to condone, or promote, acts of hate and pure evil. We are going to leave the full transcript for this video below. This is for those of you who do not wish to support her channel by watching its garbage.
We, at War on Corruption, LLC. are not saying that Daniel Holtzclaw is innocent, we are fully aware that he violated multiple policies which ultimately assisted in his downfall. In this article, we are merely discussing the topics that have led to debate. While we do acknowledge that there are many more questions surrounding his case, it is a very complex situation and would require multiple articles to fully address. Therefore, we are simply opening a door for discussion. At the end of this article, we have added additional links of information. These are so that any person interested may conduct their research and come to their own conclusion regarding the case. The article does not cover everything. This is due to the complexity of the case; it simply would require multiple articles to address the case in full.
The case of Daniel Holtzclaw, a former Oklahoma City Police Officer, has always been shrouded with debate. Starting with the questionable tactics used by the investigators, questionable witnesses, and even the evidence itself, there has always been scrutiny. For years, we have sat on this story, unsure as to rather or not it was one that should be written. It is very complicated, it may potentially open old wounds, or it simply may expose just how corrupt our justice system actually is. Either way, we’ve finally decided that it was time to write the article that will, without doubt, be our most controversial one. We’re going to discuss the Daniel Holtzclaw case and the problems within it.
Where it all began
Rather or not Holtzclaw sexually assaulted multiple women remains heavily debated. What isn’t debated, however, is the fact that he did initiate traffic stops to which he failed to report. While this alone does not prove guilt, it is a clear violation of protocol. Regardless of this violation, it was learned that Holtzclaw had initiated stops in, such as this, before.
Originally, he was faced with a total of 36 sexual based crimes. Among these were rape, sexual battery, forcible oral sodomy, and the list goes on. Out of the 36, Holtzclaw would be convicted of 18. With this conviction, began a very heated debate. This is a debate that is still ongoing. The only question to ask is why are people debating his guilt?
Originally, Holtzclaw was charged with more than 30 counts of sexually based crimes. However, by the end of his trial, only 18 would land convictions. Why is that? The simple answer is due to the lack of evidence and credibility issues with the alleged victims. That leads us to ask the most obvious question, “who are these victims?”
The women who made accusations against Holtzclaw had a few key similarities with one another. To start, they were all lower class, they were all Black, had interactions with Holtzclaw, and criminal backgrounds. While this has shed light into their credibility, this isn’t the main discussion when it comes to his victims. The discussion is rather or not Holtzclaw did anything at all. According to one victim, Tabitha Barnes, he apparently never lay a hand on her, though she had testified differently.
During the trial, Barnes had testified that Holtzclaw had inappropriately touched her breasts. Ultimately, her testimony was among the charges to which Holtzclaw was found guilty. But there’s a problem with her accusation, an issue that would come much later. As though having a change of heart matters, Barnes has done a complete 180 on her original testimony, now stating that he never did anything to her. In simple terms, she sat in a courtroom, under oath, and fabricated a story that got the former officer convicted. For this, you don’t need to take our word for it, you can watch the video for yourself, we’ve included it below.
While Barnes ultimately recanted her story, she was not alone in having a retraction in statement. Sherry Ellis Smith would later admit to never seeing Holtzclaw prior to the trial. In total, Daniel would be accused of more than thirty sexually based crimes, but only convicted of eighteen, giving him a grand total of 263 years in prison. We can go on and on about this subject, but the article isn’t about the victims. Ultimately, the question is, could Daniel have been innocent of the crimes?
The original accuser, 57 Y.O. Jenny Wiggins, the woman who initially triggered the investigation, has also been a focal point of debate. Prior to her being pulled over, it was discovered that her license had actually been suspended for around thirty years, she had also admitted to using the controlled substance, Cannabis shortly before the encounter. Furthermore, there would be no evidence on this victim linking her to Holtzclaw. The only link is in the interaction, to which he was in policy violation by conducting. The violation being that he failed to notify dispatch and disabling the car’s computer.
During the encounter with Holtzclaw, Wiggins claimed that he had her place her hands on the hood of his patrol car. However, there was no evidence on his car that supported this claim. The investigators explanation for this lack of evidence? The car was full of trash and therefore finding a fingerprint on the outside would be impossible. This is alarming because most of us know that the inside of a vehicle does not affect the outside. With that in mind, we have to ponder on how they were unable to find a simple fingerprint. Beyond this, we cannot ignore the fact that Wiggins actually had changed her story several times. In fact, the description she had given of Holtzclaw was completely off. She described him as having blonde hair and being several inches shorter than what he actually is. It’s important to note that Holtzclaw stands at just over six feet, a hard to miss feature. But this isn’t the only issue within the case. We will link a video that further discusses this in the links below.
Looking at the evidence used, at best, it wasn’t the greatest. In other words, it left a lot of room for debate, and it has. Aside the accusers, many whom had been discredited, and the later retraction, there was nothing that we could100% state tied Holtzclaw to anything criminal. The only thing we can say concretely is this: he broke policy by turning off the computer system in his patrol car, but that doesn’t mean he committed a crime.
The trial was a very heated and emotionally charged one, this was clear to anybody who followed it. Being charged for multiple crimes, primarily on no evidence aside from verbal statements, is absolutely terrifying, but it demonstrates a phrase that we have stated multiple times before: “Sex based crimes are the easiest to charge because they do not require evidence.” Did they have any evidence aside from verbal statements? They had one thing: one sample of DNA belonging to a 17 Y.O. girl, as well as an unknown male. Regardless of its location, this DNA is up for debate.
Under normal circumstances, DNA is a fairly reliable source of forensics. It’s so reliable that it’s used in virtually every criminal case. For the Holtzclaw case, however, it’s been one of many targets for debate. The DNA was located on the outside of the former officer’s pants, near the zipper. For some, this is concrete enough to suggest his guilt. But is it? Well, no. While we wish it were that simple, it’s not. If the officer had any form of contact with the girl, regardless of it being sexual or not, it’s very plausible that this DNA, being skin cells, would have gotten onto the former officer, including his hands. If he had done something as simple as using the restroom, that alone would explain why they were in the location that they were.
What we couldn’t find, when looking at this particular form of evidence, was anything implicating that semen was located in the area. The fact of the matter is, if he had committed such an act, this would had most likely been present. If not, at minimum, pre-ejaculatory fluid, and yet we have found nothing implicating its presence, an abnormality in that he allegedly committed more than one crime while wearing them, and yet that florfenicol evidence was not present.
Regardless of all of the issues, we do know that Holtzclaw was trying to get close to some of the women he had contact with, however unprofessional that might be, it doesn’t necessarily mean he was trying to force anybody into such contacts with him. During his career, he had a couple of major issues involving Facebook messages and visiting a residence of a woman to which he had contact with while on duty. While this isn’t conclusive evidence to support he did anything illegal, it ultimately did come back to bite him at the worst possible time. Again, while the DNA is questionable, as mentioned, we can’t ignore that it was there and where it was located. For this, we would call that a double-edged sword; it doesn’t prove guilt, doesn’t prove innocence, but really looks bad for him.
While we cannot say with 100% certainty that he is guilty, we can’t say that he’s completely innocent, either. Holtzclaw violated policy, he was looking for intimate interactions, he had attempted romantic relations with some of the women he interacted with and appeared to act impulsively. His actions, especially in disabling the computer, does leave the possibility that he may have committed crimes, but it’s not absolute. Ultimately, his case was reckless and poorly constructed, at best. In many ways, the case appeared to an attempt to disarm any potential civil unrest rather than the actual seek for justice. The victims are questionable, with criminal histories, and potential motive for wanting to ruin an officer’s life. Of course, this is just mere observation, one that is heavily debated.
The following links are for informational purposes only. The links are not representative of the platform’s views or opinions of the case.
Sources have informed us that the woman, who had sexually harassed the man in this article, is allegedly doing the same to another man at this location. We would ask the question of “why,” but that answer is clear. The first time she conducted in this behavior, she was able to keep her job while the man, who made the report, was illegally terminated under false pretenses. The supervisors, who goes by ‘Bud,’ and his supervisor, Kelan, made their stance clear in this sort of situation: if you take this type of complaint to HR, you will be terminated. Meanwhile, the woman who continues her behavior remains completely safe from any consequences. The only question we can ask is simply, “how long will it be before this employer finds themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit?”
The following article is written based on information provided by the victim, witnesses, and phone recordings. We have also been made aware that another security officer, who had been sharing this very story to co-workers, was reportedly written up for doing so.
When making any form of complaint an employee should feel safe, regardless of their gender identities. The concept of being retaliated on simply for being a Male victim isn’t unheard of, this is especially true in sexual harassment cases. While we have been able to make contact with some current employees, the Citizens of Potawatomi Nation tribe has ignored all requests for contact. Regardless of their silence, we have chosen to move forward with this article because we have enough witness accounts, including the victim, to feel comfortable in publishing this information. It is important to note that we will not be revealing names. This is because of the retaliatory of the Firelake Grand Casino and its associated Tribe.
Events leading up to the claim
According to provided employment records, our victim began working for this Casino in early December of 2022. It would be around three weeks later that he would come into contact with a housekeeper, the individual of which the complaint would ultimately be filed against. According to both, witnesses and the victim, nothing appeared to be off. Overall, the conversations appeared to be normal and work friendly. This would not last very long, however.
The victim states that it began with her asking, “are you trying to flirt with me?” she allegedly followed up with, “people are telling me that shy guys tend talk to people they want to flirt with but are afraid of being rejected.” It was at this point, our victim informed the unknown woman that he was married. In most cases this would have been the end of the ordeal. In this instance, it appeared to be a challenge for the young woman. Following this conversation, we are told by witnesses and the victim, the conversations began to divert into the realm of ‘unprofessional.’
According to sources, initially the comments were in regard to the victim leaving his wife for her. As the weeks continued, so did her comments. According to one source, they had overheard her make a statement about how the victim’s wife was a piece of work. We spoke to our victim in regard to this. He confirmed that such a comment had been made shortly before he decided to file the report. he continued to inform us that the comments were so frequent he was beginning to despise going to work, contrary to him loving his job.
The complaint and aftermath
“She began asking about his location when he was off work,” according to a witness. This would prompt the first of two complaints. With the other security officer, he made the first complaint to the third shift supervisor. The response he got was, “Ignore it. Policy says we can’t tell her anything anyway.” The comments themselves were completely disregarded. By the following day, another inappropriate comment would be made. This time the victim took the complaint to their Human Resources department. What unfolded, as a result of this, is nothing short of illegal.
Upon learning of the second complaint, the third shift supervisor had the victim meet with him. He was informed that the young woman was to have no contact with him; she continued having contact regardless. He was then reprimanded for bringing their HR department into the situation. “Because of you, they’re watching everybody closely now. We now have attention that wasn’t needed and could have been avoided if you had just listened to me.” According to the victim, he was then lectured about having ‘thicker skin.’
The following weeks would consist of various forms of retaliation from two of his three supervisors. Whenever trying to speak with the supervisors, they responded with, “what do you want?” The victim states that this only began after the report went to HR. The retaliation did not cease with just hostile words. According to sources, mobile phones were permitted at their postings if the facility was closed. Regardless of this supervisor approved activity, our victim found himself on the receiving end of a write-up. The reason: using his mobile device while on post.
Two days following the write-up, would mark the end of the victim’s employment. On Friday, 24/04/2023, the victim would be suspended pending an investigation. As of the writing of this article, no explanation as to why this suspension, or the investigation, have ever been explained. The end result of the investigation was the victim’s termination. Our reference for the reason comes directly from the call’s recording.
Within the recording, the victim is informed that he would be terminated due to ‘threats’ he allegedly made. No individual that we have spoken to could substantiate what these threats were, including the victim. The victim is heard contesting the accusation, stating that he had not made any threats. There is silence for approximately thirty seconds before the victim states that they altered the meaning of something he told a co-worker. We contacted that co-worker who confirmed that no threat was made within the conversation. Regardless of this, the victim was terminated by this tribe.
Everything we have seen, everybody we have spoken to, have confirmed that the events we covered were not only unethical, but also illegal. The hostility from the supervisors, the write-up on approved activities, the termination after an investigation; none of this would have occurred if the sexual harassment report had not been filed. It is clear that this company, and the Tribe who owns it, retaliated against this individual. As the situation currently is, the victim has no legal course of action. This is purely due to the fact that it is nearly impossible to file a case against a tribal nation.
The horrific shooting, which occurred in Uvalde Texas, has been discussed on multiple platforms. The shooting occurred when an 18 y.o. coward, Salvador Ramos, proceeded to walk into the Robb Elementary school and began to open fire on both, children and teachers. While this was a horrific event that has devastated many families, this isn’t our focal point. Instead, we are focusing on the police department and how they (didn’t) respond.
It’s standard that officers are trained for deadly situations, this includes mass shootings. In fact, law enforcement agencies run drills for such events. With that in mind, it leads to one question: Why did it take the Uvalde police 77 minutes to stop the shooter? For this, we’re going to have to review the timeline of events. In doing so, we can make a determination of exactly how long it took the Uvalde police to actually respond.
While we can say that this event took place very recently, the shooting was actually planned long before it occurred. In September of 2021, we know that the shooter requested his sister to purchase him a weapon. The reason for this is because, according to Federal law, you must be 18 years of age to buy a rifle. However, you must be 21 years of age to buy a pistol. Thankfully, in this situation, his sister declined his request.
At around March 1-3, 2022, images of weapons would be posted to the shooter’s Instagram account. On one such post, the shooter states the following, “10 more days.” To this, a user, ironically enough, asked about rather or not he had plans of shooting up a school. Around two months later, he would purchase weapons for the shooting.
The shooter’s final day
At roughly 11:00 AM, Ramos sent a Facebook message. This message was directed to a German girl that he had met online. In this message, he states that he planned to shoot his grandmother in the face. He than proceeded to carry out the act, however she called law enforcement. He than proceeds to steal her car and crashes it near Robb Elementary, the final phase of his diabolical plan.
We know that he arrived at the school at 11:28. two minutes later, a teacher made a call to 9-1-1, informing them of the urgent situation. As Ramos proceeded to the building, he had already begun to fire rounds. He entered the building at 11:33, where he would roam around the building with the intent of taking as many lives as he possibly could.
The critical time in this sequence is 11:35. This is the time police arrived on scene. Although they proceeded to the door, previously used by Ramos, it was found to be closed. This meant the police could not enter the building. Presumably through another door, the police proceed to enter. Upon doing so, they are met with gunfire which results in grazing wounds.
Now, to explain what a grazing wound is. In short, it means that the officers were hit, but it barely went into them. Basically, it’s a very minor wound. Regardless of the fact that they outnumbered the shooter, the proceed to evacuate the school, leaving the shooter to take more lives. Within minutes, 16 additional rounds are heard from within the building. At 11:43, in what can only be an amazing display of incompetence, the Uvalde Police take to Facebook, posting that the school is under lockdown due to a shooter. They go onto to say the following, “The students and staff are safe in the building.” Since this time, the post itself was deleted but how could they have posted something so blatantly untrue?
At 11:43, the police again post to Facebook. In this post they claim to have the shooter in custody. If you have been following this case, you already know that this information is untrue, the shooter was actually fatally shot by a lone border patrol agent. While this information may seem minor, it’s important to note one major problem: Ramos was still very much alive and he was still firing his weapons inside the school.
It would be at 12:50 PM, around 77 minutes after the shooting began, that a border patrol agent, who refused to wait for backup, entered the school. This one brave man ultimately did what the Uvalde police were to incompetent to do: he eliminated the threat. How could the police have gotten so much of this wrong? Now, it’s time we review that.
What went wrong?
From reviewing the timeline of events, it is very clear that the Uvalde police were incompetent. But why? As I mentioned, law enforcement agencies typically train for this sort of event. Based on the fact that they were so quick to flee the building and stand around, it’s clear that this department on how to handle this situation. For that, I don’t blame the officers personally. To simply state this, they have no control over the training procedures. The blame in this instance would go toward the local government and the police chief. These individuals are tasked with ensuring that their officers are capable of handling events such as this.
Moving beyond that, we can hold the officers responsible for their abrupt evacuation of the building. Because of this choice, many more lives were needlessly taken. While I can understand the concept of fear, it is also important to recognize that these are men and women who signed up to run into danger, not away from it. While they stood outside, as we’ve seen, they proceeded to provide false information to the public. Stating that the individual was in custody, long before his life would be ended, is appalling! Not only did the combination of these two things make the department look bad, but it has also created a massive backlash on social media, more on that shortly.
Shortly after the threat was eliminated, the police would again state that he was in custody. Now, I don’t think I need to state the obvious, but I will. There is a fundamental difference in being fatally shot and being in custody. How so? One infers that the offender is still alive while the other one is rather obvious. By stating that he was in custody, they provided more false information in that they gave the perception that Ramos was still breathing. Now, let’s go into that social media backlash.
As a result of the horrific mishandling of this situation, the department’s Facebook page has been met with heavy critique. Reviews that slam the department’s incompetence are very common. To quote one such review, “great place to shoot kids. All the cops are cowards. 0/10 would defund.” This, and many other reviews, demonstrate just how the public feels about this department. However, the department had demonstrated exactly why the “anti-police” movement has gone into full throttle. People have every right to be upset at this department, and they absolutely should be. What this department did was unethical, and as a result of the department’s choices, many more lives were taken.
It’s clear that this law enforcement department has some serious integrity problems. It’s also clear that their training is in desperate need of an overhaul. Though they will continue to get backlash, for sometime, we do hope that they take this opportunity to review their policies and procedures. Even with much needed changes, it will not undo the events of that day. To those families, we can only offer our deepest condolences.
If you like what we do, please consider subscribing. This can be done via PayPal or Patreon, it’s as easy as clicking a button. You would not only help us continue our work, you would also help in maintaining the site. So, let’s make a difference and let’s fight the good fight together!
On Facebook, our platform received a message from an individual claiming to be associated with the agency, to which we previously wrote about. If you haven’t read that article, we’ll give you a quick recap into the tragic events that unfolded for a mentally disabled individual. Bear in mind, that we have learned additional details since the previous article, they will be included in this one.
To summarize the situation, a detention officer with autism was placed onto the overnight shift. Initially, he felt that it would be more suited for him, he could get better adjusted, and so on. Immediately following this switch, a night supervisor appeared to make him a target. According to the individual, she would berate him in front of the residents (children who are in Juvenile custody,) as well as in front of other officers. Eventually, due to the hostile work environment, created by his supervisor, he began reaching out to individuals who outranked her. Below are the emails, that apparently don’t exist, if we were to listen to an alleged employee of this detention center.
Though redacted from the above image, the unedited version shows that this email was sent to a Major (yes they apparently use military rankings.) We asked about the response email to which we have been informed that one was never given, as far as he knew, it had been ignored. This leads us to email number two.
Upon not receiving any form of feedback, he proceeded to go up the ranking system. The above email was sent to the detention center chief, whom we mentioned in the previous article. Again, there was no response. He presumed that it was ignored for a second time. With that, he went outside of their ranking system.
On 4-26-2022, he proceeded to send this email to the HR manager. The date is important to mention, as it plays a critical role into a potentially illegal termination. Though there was no immediate response, on 5-1-2022, he had gotten a phone call from the detention center chief. The Chief requested a meeting between him, HR, and the employee. Here’s what we now know took place during this meeting.
Initially, they discussed his concerns and problems. However, near the end of this discussion, they took an abrupt change. According to the former employee, they proceeded to gaslight him, asking him if he may had done something that would have warranted the treatment he had received. Now, we as a platform, wish to go on record and say this: “THIS IS NOT OKAY! ABUSE IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE REGARDLESS OF WHY IT HAD TAKEN PLACE!”
From this point, he learned that an officer filed a complaint against him. The reason? He made her uncomfortable. Alright, so we’re going to interject right here. If you know an individual with autism, then you already know how difficult social situations can be. In other words, it’s not surprising that he would make somebody uncomfortable. What is shocking is the fact that she, right after he began sending emails off, felt the need to report him. We can speculate as to why. However, we’ll refrain from doing so.
So, as we stated, this horrible excuse of a meeting had taken place on 5-1-2022. Again, this date is important. By the time this meeting even took place, the former employee informs us that he had placed an application with the county jail. He informs us that this was done due to the lack of response from those to whom he sent emails. In short, he felt as though he had no support.
It’s important that we mention that apparently all county-based agencies utilize the same emailing system. This, as with the dates, is also important to note as you are about to learn.
On 5-5-2022, the former employee received this email via his county inbox; it came from the county jail. Now, if you read the previous article, 5-5-2022 is a very critical date. Within three hours of seeing this email, the detention chief pulled this man from his post, escorted him out of the facility, and terminated his employment as they stood in a parking lot. Yes, you read that correctly. The man couldn’t even give the former employee the respect of terminating him in his office; he had to walk him outside, in public. Furthermore, according to the employee, the weather wasn’t exactly sunny, as it had been raining for most of that day.
While their employees may claim that these emails do not exist, we do have the unedited versions of these. We know the names of who received them, we know the email addresses to which they were sent. This timeline, in our opinion, shows a clear indication that a man was purposefully targeted by his supervisor. When he attempted to report it, he was purposefully ignored until he proceeded with placing job applications. At this point, they did a gaslighting, under the guise of a meeting. They not only justified the abuse he was alleging, but they also went as far as to target a social issue that directly stemmed from his condition. Finally, when another agency contacted him, in retaliation OCJDC terminated him on the spot.
The termination not only makes it look bad for this man, who may now fail at obtaining this potential job, it was also illegal. In the United States, there are retaliation laws. Even if the State is a “Right to work,” or “At will” State, they can only fire you for legal reasons, a classification that retaliation does not fall into. Given the above timeline, the dates that we’ve seen on the emails, and the fact he did lose his job, retaliation does appear to be the reason for the end result. We are assisting him in acquiring an attorney. This form of injustice simply cannot be allowed to stand.
This is an article that we have been contemplating for sometime. When the, now former, officer initially contacted us, we weren’t completely convinced that he was being targeted. However, since that time of initial contact, we can no longer deny that possibility. We are not confirming that he was targeted, though it does now seem plausible. Instead, we will simply provide the timeline that was presented to us. It is important to note that he provided this timeline live. This means that as they were unfolding, he presented them to our platform in hopes that we would present them at the appropriate time. That time has come.
Around mid April of 2022, the contacting officer had been switched to night-shift. At this point, according to him, things went from going very well to very poorly. Withing two weeks of this switch, he made his initial contact with us. At this time he had made a complaint regarding his supervisor. In his complaint he had noted that specific officers were treated very well while others were treated poorly. He followed this up with complaints of derogatory statements that had been made specifically at his expense. At this point, WoC noted it for potential reference but made no indication of interest.
On 5-3-2022 the officer made contact with our platform. In this contact he noted that the abuse had only gotten worst. As a result, he had filed an informal complaint against the supervisor, which was discussed in a meeting. The meeting consisted of an HR representative, detention chief Bruce Henley, and himself. During this meeting, he had learned that one of the night officers, who were on the “favorites” list with the supervisor, made a claim against him. The unknown officer made sexual harassment allegations and overall discomfort around the officer.
We proceeded to follow this claim through with questions, as this is a serious accusation. He provided us Facebook conversations between him and the officer, some which were taken on the day she filed the complaint. Needless to say, we are comfortable with our belief that her claim was knowingly false. It is, at this point, that we began compiling his information as it was clear to us that he was, in fact, being targeted.
Following this meeting, the officer was placed back onto the swing shift (3-11pm.) He noted that he couldn’t shake the feeling that something was about to happen, he would be proven correct.
On 5-5-2022 WoC once again heard from the officer. This time, he had been escorted outside of the facility and terminated. He explains that no reason or explanation was given for this action. However, when we look at this timeline of events, the reason becomes apparent: retaliation. This man, who simply wished to perform his job, had not only become the victim of verbal abuse, he was terminated for reporting it. Though we hate to see this sort of thing happen, it’s far more common than one may realize. For people such as this former officer, we will happily stand with them while ensuring that deeds like this don’t go unnoticed. As it currently stands, we have not heard anything from the detention center. If we do, we will add it to this article.
Recently, we have seen some rather disturbing trends. Rather it be the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated or the mask mandate feud, division is one thing that seems to be going strong. For an Alaska airlines passenger, she was not targeted for what she did, but for the style of mask she wore.
Recently, a young woman boarded an unknown Alaska airlines flight, wearing a ‘Trump’ themed mask. While everything began with no issue, it wouldn’t last. A flight attendant, who appeared to have a problem with the mask, requested that she change it. Though she did nothing wrong, the woman complied. However, the event didn’t end there. The flight attendant returned with another, requested the woman the passenger leave the plane. Why? “The crew were uncomfortable with her being onboard.”
The passenger, seen in the above video, had initially worn a Trump themed mask. Apparently, this was a problem for the flight attendants. From what we have gathered, she was asked to remove the mask, let’s keep in mind that she was not in violation of their mandate. Instead, she was specifically targeted on the grounds of political affiliation.
In a later video, she announced that she did make contact with Alaska Airlines. Their response was, due to lack of a better phrase, “kick rocks.” Our platform also called the airlines and was given a similar response. This form of behavior shouldn’t be tolerated. The airline has not only destroyed their trust and credibility, they also managed to make themselves look like ‘thugs’ in the process.