Category Archives: predatory

children, CPS, Free Article, Law Enforcement, Media, Opinions, Police, predatory, Uncategorized

Accused Predator: An update on his case

Editorial Notation

The below updates are based upon statements provided to WoC. The statements were given by individuals who are either directly involved with the case or were former friends of the accused. We are presenting the information as it was presented to our platform.

Sometime ago, we covered a case involving Nathain Hisey. The 23 yo man was originally accused of sexually assaulting a young child, while residing in Berwick Pennsylvania. However, to say that this case has grown would be an understatement. Since that time, it seems that Hisey has kept himself busy in a not so good sort of way.

When the case initially began, Hisey really didn’t have much to be concerned about, after all, it was just an allegation. Since that time, things have apparently taken a much darker turn. To begin with, he is now facing an accusation involving an adult woman. According to sources, her assault occurred long after the case involving the child began. Because of this, it has added an additional layer of complexity to an already complicated situation.

With a downward spiral of dwindling support, Hisey has quickly found himself to be alone. Although every person who once called him ‘friend,’ had turned their backs, he did have his wife. Naturally, rather it be love or denial, she fully supported and believed in his innocence. This belief didn’t come without a cost, however. Due to her support, the children had been removed and placed with family outside of the home. It has since been revealed that at least one of these children suffer from an extreme case of night terrors, often being heard screaming, “no daddy! Don’t do it.” For this reason, it is speculated that his children could very well be additional victims of this accused deviant.

Within the past few months, Nathain’s wife has not only left, but has also filed for divorce. Though the reason is not what you would care to believe. Allegedly, the only reason she terminated her support was due to walking in on Nathain, who was actively having an affair. With no friends, or even family who supports him, Hisey now finds himself alone in a situation to which there is no escape.

At this point in time, it is highly unlikely that he will avoid prison. Currently, he sits in protective custody in a cell, located at a local correctional facility. While it is unclear as to rather or not he has additional victims, it is clear that at least two have spoken against him. Sadly, this is a case in which nobody wins. The victims will have to face each day remembering what was done to them. His soon to be ex-wife will never forget the betrayal that her loyalty was rewarded with, and their children will be without either parent. As if this wasn’t enough, we still have the many friends and additional family members who will have to struggle as they come to terms with the man they thought they knew.

children, Free Article, Law Enforcement, Media, Opinions, predatory, Uncategorized

Did an accused child predator walk free?

Recently, we covered a case from Berwick, PA. in which Nathain Hisey, at the accusation of a 6yo child, was facing serious charges. Since that time, a lot has apparently happened. For instance, he was initially evicted from his home, as a result of the accusation. However, because he refused to stay away from the home, which his family still resided in, they too have met the same fate. However, the stream of bad luck, didn’t seem to end there.

During the case, he was not only evicted, but he also lost his job, lost friends, and the list of losses just seems to go on. Was this right? To be honest, the eviction should had waited for a final verdict. At this point, he has no conviction, and for our platform, that is all that matters. Of course, as you may already be aware, the court of public opinion can be a vicious one. On the flip side to this coin, the accusation was from a very young child, and that matters.

According to the court documents, and those who know him, the assault was conducted orally. Unfortunately for the family, as well as the victim, this sort of assault can be very difficult to prove. But there are other elements to this. According to sources involved with the case, the child was able to give detail description of the assailant’s genital region, including a mole that he allegedly has in the area. So how did this man simply walk? The simple answer: the case may not actually be over.

According to the docket, which we’ve included at the bottom of this article, the case status says closed. However, the disposition of the case states, “Held for Court.” This sounds a bit contradictory. But don’t worry, we’re going to explain what it very well could mean in this case. At that point, this docket will make a lot more sense.

Initially, there is a police investigation, that should be a bit obvious. However, this investigation may still be ongoing even while the initial court proceedings occur. Within the docket there are four key areas that one would want to observe to fully understand what’s happening. Bear in mind, however, it can still be confusing. These areas are as follows: Disposition, Disposition date, Processing status, and Case status. It is important to understand, before we proceed, that the below information is only pertaining to this docket. Other states may have different methods, terms, and so on, that are used. It is also important to note that this information is based on the terms as we know them, though none of the WoC team live in this specific state.

Disposition

The disposition is the easiest part to comprehend. To put it in simple terms, this shows the current ruling made by the court. It can say innocent, dismissed, guilty, held for court, or it could have something else written in there. If the individual is innocent, guilty, or dismissed, the case is over. However, with a dismissed status, it could potentially be reopened in the future. But that’s not what this docket says. Instead, it reads “held for court.” At this point, you want to observe the disposition date. This tells you when that decision was made, this is critical information if you’re wanting to follow a case and know what’s going on at that time.

Processing Status

This status is important as well. Unlike the disposition, this one can be a bit tricky to understand. To simplify this, we’ll just explain it. In a court proceeding, evidence, statements, etc. are submitted. Once this everything has been turned into the court, you may see something like “completed,” as is the case of the docket below. Without understanding this, it looks like the case is completed. The easiest way to comprehend this is through the term, ‘processing.’ The term process simply means, ‘to present.’ If you’re done presenting information, then it’s marked as completed.

Case status

In this docket, case status is not talking about the court proceedings, but rather the investigation. Once the investigation is complete, it’s marked as closed. At this point, all of the evidence would have been submitted and, from there, the courts will decide rather or not they can proceed with litigation. To figure out if the court has decided to move forward, you have to look at the ‘Disposition’ status. In the docket, the status reads, ‘Held for court,’ with the date 9/27/2022. This means that following that specific court date, Nahtain Hisey was incarcerated until further litigation; the case is not closed but appears to be going into the criminal court system.

In our title, we asked a simple question: Did an accused child predator walk free? The answer seems to be no. This conclusion, regardless of the closed case status, is made by the fact that the disposition of both charges read, ‘held for court.’ This is a strong indicator that there is enough evidence that the court has decided to proceed with further litigation. To help you better understand, we have included that docket as well.

document

MdjCourtSummary

Consumer Reports, Consumer reports, Free Article, Media, predatory, scam, Uncategorized

Did a New York company violate tenant rights?

The Tropicana Mobile Home Community, located in Moscow Mills Missouri, primarily consists of residents who are either retired or on a fixed income. Recently, and abruptly, the trailer park sold the Southern portion of its park. Under Missouri SB 753, the seller was required to give all tenants notice prior to the sell, they failed to do so. The resulting aftermath of this sell has created an uproar within the affected community.

Upon completion of the purchase, residents were met with notes, which were hung from their doors in plastic bags. The notes simply informed the tenants of the sell. Though the first letter was questionable, it wouldn’t be the only letter delivered in such format. A second letter informed the residents of rent increases, upwards of 36%. The letter continued to inform the residents that they were required to sign a new lease, one which has many residents questioning the legalities. Finally, the letter informs the residents that they are to provide a copy of their home deeds to the new owners, Jones Estates.

Upon lease signing, many residents have noted that the lease was backdated. Any resident who wished to review the lease was immediately threatened with eviction. In one instance, a resident was threatened for refusing to sign her husband’s name to the lease, who is currently overseas on deployment. When refusing, she too, was threatened with eviction. With threat, and under duress, many of the residents have signed the questionable leases.

According to another article, written by ‘Lincoln News Now,’ which will be linked below, one individual with cancer faces the possibility of losing her Emotional support dog. Although the dog has been signed for by her doctor, Jones Estates will only recognize a letter that is signed by a psychologist, potentially violating the ADA. If the previous act isn’t a violation, the fact that the company asked for medical documentation, without a doubt, is.

The company, as of this time, has remained silent. As a platform, we attempted to join the Facebook group, intended for residents. While we got no verbal response, we were denied and banned from the group by its admin, who currently manages the park. While there is speculation behind this, allegedly the employees having signed NDA’s, preventing them from speaking, it still leads us to question why we would be denied speaking to the park’s other tenants.

While there is much more to this story, much of it currently unfolding, it is clear this company is possibly after one thing: their homes. From everything we have seen thus far, there are violations within sections 441, 700 and senate bill 753 of Missouri’s revised statutes. As of this time, it is unknown what the final outcome will be. We will continue to update this story as it unfolds.

Links:

Lincoln News Now Article
Senate bill 753
children, Free Article, Law Enforcement, Media, Police, police relations, predatory, Uncategorized

Berwick PA man accused of sexually assaulting a minor

Recently, a disturbing case was brought to us by an anonymous contact. Because of the nature of the accusation, we have decided to push this article forward. 23-year-old, Nathain Ryan Hisey, of Berwick PA, is accused of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old child. According to the child, whose name has been withheld due to her age, the incident occurred at Hisey’s home. So, what exactly happened on that day? That’s exactly what we’re about to dive into.

On December 7,2021 the child had gone over to Hisey’s home for a play date. According to the child, she had gone into the restroom to wash her hands when Hisey, a father of two, soon to be three, followed her and asked if she needed help. It was, at this point, the predator made his move. According to the victim, she was instructed to close her eyes and open her mouth. Upon doing so, she states that he placed something into it.

On the drive home, Hisey made yet another attempt to assault the young child. Unlike the first time, the girl refused to comply. She was then instructed to tell nobody about the assault. Upon arriving home, the mother noted that the girl was in a clear state of distraught, reportedly crying. The girl proceeded to inform the mother of what had happened while at the Hisey residence. The girl explained that she could hear him unzip his pants. The “object” he inserted was described as “soft and round, like a hotdog. She further elaborated by describing the object as “hairy but not cold.”

We asked an individual, who was before the accusation, friends with Hisey, if he was at all surprised by the accusation. In his response, he stated, “I am, but only to an extent. Nate is a well-known dishonest person – it’s practically in his DNA. He’s done a lot of dishonest things that put the average person to task. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have thought he’d touch a child.”

We then proceeded to ask the individual about how his other friends have taken the accusation, presuming he knew. He replied saying, “Well, so far I think it’s a mix. They’re looking at it with an “innocent until proven guilty” perspective, which I understand. Meanwhile, there’s one other aside from me who believe he’s guilty.”

Finally, we asked if the fact that the accusation is coming from the child have any effect on his perception of this situation. To that question, he stated, “Well, from what I’ve seen, the victim’s story hasn’t changed an inch. The story we were given by the perpetrator was somewhat altered – which makes me look at both him and his spouse in a bad light. So, it’s worse in my eyes than others. I also come from a biased source, being an abuse survivor myself. I try not to let that factor into things, but there’s too many holes in the story I was given before I saw the article.”

Currently, Hisey is facing two charges: rape of a child and Invol. Deviate Sexual Intercourse W/Child. Both of these are Class 1 (or class A for some other states,) felonies. If convicted, he could face the potential of being imprisoned for approximately sixty years. This is, of course, presuming that no other additional charges are added onto the current ones.

Hisey denies that the event occurred. In his account, he admits to instructing the victim to close her eyes and open her mouth. However, he states that what he gave her was nothing more than a “Nutrigrain bar. Currently, Hisey is not incarcerated, being permitted to walk the streets. Though his current location is unknown, we can’t rule out the possibility that he has returned to his home, which have children present. Below is the current docket.

MdjDocketSheet

Business relations, Consumer Reports, Free Article, Law Enforcement, Media, Opinions, Police, police relations, Politics, 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.

Business relations, children, Consumer Reports, Consumer reports, Cyber, Free Article, internet safety, Law Enforcement, Media, Opinions, predatory

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.

Business relations, Consumer Reports, Consumer reports, Cyber, Free Article, Media, Opinions, predatory, Uncategorized

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.

Business relations, Consumer Reports, Consumer reports, Free Article, Media, Opinions, predatory, Uncategorized

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.