Category Archives: predatory

OCJDC article Follow-up (Evidence gallery)

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.

Man defends children from predator: Facebook’s response is appalling

It’s an all to common trend that we see online. Child predators who utilize social media as a means of targeting children. What is equally disturbing is how the social media giant, Facebook (Meta,) responds to those who defend against these individuals. For one Facebook user, however, the situation went further than just the social media site. The predator showed up at his house, unexpectedly and uninvited. So how does Facebook relate to a predator showing up to a man’s home? Before we get into that, let’s first go into the events that unfolded prior to the man’s account being “restricted” by the platform.

“Something felt off to me…”

According to the family, the registered sex offender, Lonnie Green had befriended the youngest adult sister. Though there is not much information as to how they met, the family did implicate Facebook as the method. At this time, neither the sister nor family, were aware of the fact that the man had just been placed onto the sex registry just months before. Though he was actively around children, he at no point, disclosed this information. However, that did not prevent the family from eventually finding out.

“When I met him, I don’t know if it was my law enforcement training, but something felt very off with this man.” The primary source informed us. He goes on to tell us that initially he began watching Lonnie, whom he repeatedly caught staring at his young nieces. “It was pretty screwed up, I would watch him as he’s watching them, he would see me and immediately divert his eyes to the horses.” Upon doing the background check on him, it was discovered that Lonnie had omitted some information about himself. That information was the fact that just a few months prior, he had been placed onto the Oklahoma sex offender’s registry for sexual acts with a minor under the age of 12.

Needing to alert his family, who was still oblivious to this information, he made a post onto Facebook. However, months later, that post has now gotten his account restricted. Why? According to Facebook, speaking out against a convicted pedophile, who is actively placing himself around small children, is considered “hate speech.” Meanwhile, the predator is allowed to maintain an active account, in complete violation of Facebook’s own terms of service. Why is this? Good question let’s discuss that very subject.

Facebook: The double standards

This situation isn’t the first of its kind, when it comes to Facebook. In fact, it happens more than what people may be aware. According to Facebook’s own policy, which we’ve posted below, a person who is on the registry is not allowed to have an account, and yet we see that happen on a near daily basis. When these accounts are reported, it seems that Facebook has taken the stance of punishing the individuals who report these accounts. But it goes beyond that. They have also apparently taken the position of restricting accounts who try to alert others of a predator’s presence. Let’s ignore the fact that this man now has access to countless children. Afterall, Facebook does. We can even ignore the fact that this predator utilized Facebook to befriend a mother, gain access into her real life, giving himself access to her children, and then proceeded to gain access to other children within a family. Again, Facebook clearly is ignoring this fact also. But why?

It’s no secret that there are a few progressives who wish to make pedophilia a recognized sexual orientation. Given the extreme views that Facebook has already demonstrated, it’s not to farfetched to believe that just maybe, Facebook shares in this ideology. After all, they’re apparently classifying it as hate speech to speak out against these people. Meanwhile, Facebook’s very own policy clearly states:

Convicted sex offenders aren’t allowed to use Facebook. If you’ve seen an account that may belong to a convicted sex offender, please report it to us.Make sure you provide one of the following types of information with your report:

http://www.facebook.com/help/210081519032737/?helpref=uf_share

Regardless of this policy, Facebook continues to create a dangerous and hostile environment within its platform. While the site consistently violates its own policies, it’s not a problem that has gone unnoticed. In fact, because of Facebook’s lack of responsibility toward its users, independent social media sites are on the uprise.

What happened in this situation is appalling, at best. The fact that speaking out against a predator, who is actively trying to gain access to children, as hate speech simply cannot go unnoticed, nor should it be ignored. While the individual only got restricted for a day, that isn’t the point here. The message that Facebooks conveyed in this action, matter. Worst, it’s as we’ve already stated, this isn’t an isolated event. The bottom line is this: From outer appearance, it looks as if Facebook is willfully protecting child predators at the expense of your right to protect your family.

Former employees reach out: A review into Transco Lines, inc.

Since the time of our previous article, in which we exposed a trucking company, we had gotten several complaints about others. Being that we believe in your right to support your family without being abused or treated poorly, we are going to look at a complaint that immediately caught our attention. The complaint we received earlier today was against Arkansas based company Transco Lines, Incorporated (TLI.) Before we get into the actual complaint, we want to point out that we have received complaints about this company prior to the one we will primarily be discussing, thus we are going to include the previous complaints also.

Transco Lines INC., is a company based out of Russellville Arkansas. However, that isn’t the location to which this article is about. Instead, we are going to be discussing their Maintenance terminal, which is based out of North Little Rock. Transco Lines is the “sister” company of Riverside Transportation, a company based in Kansas City, Kansas. While they are separate entities, as we have been informed, they operate using the same systems, programs, and even share trailers.

Looking deeper into the company, one would believe it to be a rather decent place of employment. Of course, if that were the case, we wouldn’t had composed this article. Upon looking into the reviews, we found some common themes: Pay, hostile work environment, abandoning drivers who leave the company, and behaviors that demonstrate narcissistic tendencies. To one such comment, the company had made the following reply:

Good morning. Can you please provide us with your first and last name? Our team would like to gather your contact information from our system and then follow up with you on your experience.

What makes this reply something worth nothing? If you’ve looked at critical reviews, especially on Google, it’s not uncommon for companies to leave replies such as the one shown above. However, there is a consequence to providing this information. As we have already seen, especially within the commercial driving industry, replies such as these open doors for retaliation. In some cases, we have seen these companies attempt to “black-ball” the individual who left the review. Does this pertain to the company to which we are discussing? Let’s get into the complaints.

Hostile work environment

Among the emails we have gotten regarding TLI, the hostile work environment takes precedence. While the company claims to have a zero-tolerance policy, from the common theme that we’re seeing it appears this policy does not apply to the office staff. Among the various complaints we’ve seen/obtained, the office employees are known for creating a hostile work environment. This fact is especially true if a driver is terminated or resigns.

Multiple individuals have told us about an intimidation method that TLI utilizes when a driver is no longer employed with the company. According to these individuals, an employee of the office will silently follow the former employee around until they leave the premises. If the former employee says anything about it, the TLI “grunt” denies following them, although they continue to do so. The employee then begins to make derogatory statements towards the former employee. As if this wasn’t enough, the employee will only cease once the former employee has gotten into their vehicle.

While the company will maintain that this is not creating a hostile work environment, that would be far from the truth. In fact, they are utilizing a method commonly known as “intimidation with presence.” The basics to this is very simple: You intimidate the person into leaving by quietly following them, making the person uncomfortable. That method, within itself, is the creation of the hostile environment that the company claims to have zero tolerance for that other drivers in their terminals may be witness to. But the accusations don’t stop here.

Deceptive/Unethical business practices

Naturally, given what we’ve investigated thus far, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. The company has accusations going back years. Of course, from what we’ve covered in the past, it seems to be a rather common trend within this specifically industry. The accusations that fall into this category range from leaving drivers stranded, deceptive business practices, to providing misleading information. Though there are many other claims we could cover, these are the three we’ve decided to focus on.

The idea of being stranded far from home can be overwhelming at best. However, this is an all to common reality for those who keep America supplied. While many of us could lose our jobs, we can simply drive home. For these individuals, however, the reality of losing a job means being stuck in a city hundreds of miles away from their homes. This is because the companies refuse to help in getting them home. The worst part of this reality is in the fact that this practice is completely legal. TLI, from countless reviews and the emails we’ve received, is among the companies who allegedly utilize this practice.

When it comes to deceptive business practices and false information, one would think that a simple misrepresentation case would motivate against this practice. From what we’ve investigated, that does not appear to apply within this industry. According to one of the emails provided by a former employee, the company charges their drivers for their drug testing, physicals, etc. In the trucking industry, drug testing is a requirement for starting a new job. This is an aspect that neither the company, nor the driver, can control. So why is TLI charging their drivers for a test that is required? The simple answer to this: money for the company at the expense of what should be their most valued employees.

A company wanting to cut costs isn’t a new concept. When that company wants to forward their expenses to its employees, that’s where the problem begins. There was a time when companies could get away with this sort of behavior. There was also a time when companies could abuse their employees without consequence. However, those days have long since passed. With the modern world of technology, these employees now have a means of fighting back. A simple review can go a very long way into making or breaking a company’s reputation. Whistleblowers talking to independent media platforms can have the same effect.

While this is the second company we’ve decided to cover, primarily due to our existing knowledge of this industry, it isn’t the last. In our fight to help employees fight back against tyrannical companies, our war in this arena has just begun, and our war isn’t isolated to just this industry either.

Editorial Notation

This article does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the “War on Corruption” platform or its associates. The article was composed with the assistance of multiple sources, former employees, and online reviews. As per our policy, all contacts who have assisted with the creation of this article will remain anonymous. War on Corruption will not entertain questions that are intended to obtain such identities.

Company offers support to driver: This is what they did

When a company advertises itself as being one that supports its employees, one would like to think that they actually mean it. However, this is very rarely the case, as one individual recently learned. The trucking company, Freymiller Inc., is one that often advertises itself as being a company that is “built by drivers, for drivers.” However, this doesn’t appear to be factual. We have covered this toxic industry in the past. From horrific abuses to not paying drivers, we’ve seen it all. What we haven’t seen, however, is a company that offers an autistic employee a “safe place” only to further trigger, and then terminate, them. What exactly happened? Let’s talk about it.

War on Corruption obtained a variety of documents and recordings from the former employee. According to the documents, his wife had been transported to a local hospital, where doctors didn’t offer much hope in her survival. The reason for this transport: epilepsy-related seizures. Not knowing whether or not his wife would survive, the employee was placed on “emergency medical leave,” and this will become very important shortly. While trying to make medical decisions and visiting his wife who was suffering from a condition known as Postictal psychosis, he was actively working with the company to get a local job. At this point, the company had not made it known that they intended to terminate him.

It is important to mention that this employee is on the autism spectrum. The company operates a group, to which they said he would be allowed to post. However, upon doing so, they responded to their own initial suggestion by banning him. According to the former employee, he was already triggered and felt at this point he was being targeted by the company. He proceeded to reach out to the company’s official Facebook, making the suggestion of autism training. Again, they responded by banning him, furthering his already existing triggers, proving the company was, in fact, targeting him.

Upon release of his wife from the hospital, he proceeded to go back to the company in the attempt to discuss a local job. “What they told me was that there were no open positions,” a statement we confirmed via an audio recording he had sent to us. What we do know is that Freymiller lied. How do we know this? This is an image sent to us from their very site, taken moments before the writing of this article.

Now, you recall that we mentioned his emergency medical leave would be important, correct? This is where that is going to apply. Upon telling the former employee that there were no open positions, they then proceeded to terminate him, all of being secretly captured on an audio recorder. They attribute his termination to the very condition that ultimately sent his wife to the hospital. At this point, there is no indication that he was released from this medical leave, though he did express that he would be returning from it. Essentially, he was illegally terminated from his job.

The meeting was conducted with an HR representative and an Operations manager, though the former employee states that he was trying to speak to the owner but was effectively barred from doing so. The two representatives, through this termination, had accomplished two things: the first is getting our attention so that we may spread awareness about companies like this. The second, effectively putting themselves into a potential legal situation. Currently, we are unclear as to what the former employee plans to do, though he has expressed an interest in filing a case against the company. Should this occur, we will update this article.

are the vaccines really safe?

Editorial Disclaimer:

The below article merely explores a possible “what-if” scenario. It does not offer any medical advice, for or against the vaccine. Ultimately, that is a choice to which each individual must make for themselves. The article only explores the creation of this vaccine in contrast to how the process is typically done. As such, it does offer a viewpoint that conflicts with nearly every other media platform out there, we are fully aware of this controversy. We are also fully aware of the backlash that this article will most certainly bring. However, we are also aware of the fact that every individual has the right to express themselves. While this article may not represent the thoughts and feelings of every “WoC” admin, we all collectively decided to publish it.


Since its release, millions have lined up to get the Covid-19 vaccine. The thought of being immune to this “lethal” virus was simply to appealing to ignore. Regardless of the fact that the average vaccine takes roughly a decade to test, people happily injected themselves with this mixture of unknown medicine in hopes that they weren’t among the lucky thousands to not have serious adverse effects. For those who conformed to the will of the Government, the mask mandate simply vanished. That is, until now.

In a move that we expected, Pelosi decided to pass yet another mandate in the house. Rather a guest or Government worker, if you aren’t wearing a mask, you could be arrested. A move such as this will certainly raise questions, and it has. If this vaccine is so effective, than why the mandate? Why not just apply the mandate to those who aren’t vaccinated, or better yet, why not just allow people to choose what’s best for their own bodies? It’s simple: the vaccines are safe. But are they really?

After receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, Brandon has been left in a paralyzed state. Sadly, he is not alone in utilizing Social Media to report these generally unknown side-effects.

Unfortunately for Brandon, he is not alone in having these serious side effects. While the mainstream media, political figures, and the big pharmaceutical companies, ignore this, thousands have suffered irreversible damage to their bodies. The mainstream media report on how safe the vaccines are, even your doctor encourages you to get it. But unlike any other vaccine, why are they not talking about the potential side effects? In fact, conducting research for potential side effects only leads to watered-down lists of minor effects. Eventually, with enough searching, you start to find the serious side effects. It’s almost as though they don’t want people to know this information.

But where did things go wrong with this vaccine? To understand that, we have to know the actual testing procedure that developing vaccines go through. According to the very CDC that promoted the Covid vaccine, the procedure begins at the “investigational new drug application.” Basically, this is just the application that is required to even begin the process. From there, you enter the “Pre-licensure vaccine clinical trials.”

According to Pfizer, there are currently 70,000 people who are participating in their pre-licensure clinical trials. However, this is a number that should be questioned. If only 70,000 people are participating in the Pfizer trials, than how is it that the Pfizer vaccine has had 346 million doses distributed in the United States alone? In the UK, the numbers drop down to around 85 million, and in Canada the number drops to around 49 million. Obviously, this is much higher than the 70,000 that Pfizer claims is participating in their clinical trials. If we were being more accurate with the numbers, it would be a safe presumption that entire societies are being unwittingly used to test this vaccine. The disturbing aspect, going beyond this fact, is that we haven’t even discussed the other vaccines.

Once we get through all of this, the final steps are:

In total, this entire process takes anywhere between 10-15 years. If this vaccine upheld this standard, it would mean that they started this process at some point between the years 2005-2010. This means they either already knew that the Covid virus existed, or they violated the guidelines that were created for how vaccines were to be tested. Of course, that is a fact that should be rather obvious.

Rather you are “pro” or “against” the vaccine, it is ultimately your decision as to rather or not you get it. Mainstream media will continue to pump out its propaganda, ignoring nearly every other event that is unfolding around the Covid situation. Dr. Fauci andhis recent, potentially very legal, situation. They won’t even discuss the adverse effects that people could suffer. Information is power, they know this. By filtering what information the general population obtains, they maintain their control to this power. But you have to ask yourself the very important question, “why are they doing this?”

A predatorial rental company?

Almost everywhere you go, there is a rental company just waiting to give you some product at an “affordable” price. But are these prices actually affordable or are these companies preying off of their customers? While in most instances, we expect there to be a specific percentage of interest, it seems that Aaron’s has taken this to an extreme. Thanks to a current customer of “Aaron’s,” we will get to see just how extreme they are.

According to the individual, who we will identify as J., he was in the process of buying two items: a computer and an Xbox one. According to this individual, they had already placed over $700 into the Xbox alone, that got the expected reaction from us: This person was trying to get some clout, or were they? We decided to humor this and we looked for ourselves, this is what we found from Aaron’s own website:

The first payment for all of their Xboxes are $25.00, okay, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that’s pretty low. But that’s not where they nail you. The trick comes in the other payments. Let’s break it down by Xbox type as they have various versions.

XBox One X:

12 monthly payments of $129.99

At the end of the payment period, you would had spent a total of $1,559.88 for an Xbox.

The lowest payment available is for the XBox One S

12 monthly payments of 79.99 Sounds affordable?

The grand total for this console is: $959.88

The question at hand is can they legally charge these outlandish prices? Well, the simple answer that we have found in our research is: Yes. They can. I know, some of you guys are calling it price gouging, believe me, our own team went that direction. The problem is in the definition of price gouging. It reads:

Price gouging refers to when retailers and others take advantage of spikes in demand by charging exorbitant prices for necessities, often after a natural disaster or other state of emergency. In most states, price gouging is set as a violation of unfair or deceptive trade practices law.

The keywords in this are “often after a natural disaster.” and “necessities.” Which would bring the question down to this: Is an Xbox One a necessity or a luxury? This is a very important concept to have in mind when determining rather or not the company is price gouging. However, there is a second definition for the term. This to must be mentioned. The other definition reads as follows:

Price gouging occurs when a seller increases the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. Usually, this event occurs after a demand or supply shock. Common examples include price increases of basic necessities after natural disaster

If this definition were to be used, than we can establish that Aaron’s is price gouging its own customers. But this shouldn’t be to shocking. Holding a consumer rating of 1.27 and ranking at 147 among home appliance stores, it’s safe to presume that most of their customers are anything but satisfied with their service. According to the Better Business Bureau (BBB,) Aaron’s, as of the time of this article, has 1,107 complaints against it, and that’s just for one store. Though it states “usually after a natural disaster,” the phrasing implies that this isn’t always the case.

To find out the estimated rating for the company itself, we had to only look at their Facebook page. Holding at a 2.2/5 stars, it appears that their low scoring trend continued. So, we began looking at the reviews to find out why. One complaint stood out specifically to us. Though the complaint is alleging some very questionable things, it’s the fact that the rental store ignored this complaint, while responding to a reply of the review.

In another review, an Aaron’s employee is accused of being belligerent toward a customer. Something this extreme would normally have me raising an eyebrow, except for one thing: this all happened on video, which we are linking here. It’s not surprising that the company had no response to this video.

The bottom line is this: There are many options for renting an item to own. However, you have to do your research. Getting yourself into a trap, or predatorial contract, because you failed to conduct research isn’t the company’s fault. When looking into a company, you want to look at specific things: reviews, ratings, complaints, and if possible, check the BBB site; find out how many problems they’ve had in a short time. Every major company will have something negative, but when it’s a constant theme, it’s no longer a situation of a few unhappy customers. It’s a habitual environment within the company itself.