Subscribe to get access
Read more of this content when you subscribe today.
Read more of this content when you subscribe today.
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.
Considering everything that we have already heard about the trucking industry, it should come as no surprise that we are targeting a specific trucking company. Because the individual who contacted us is currently employed, we have taken precautions to keep their identity anonymous. With that out of the way, let’s dive in.
John Christner Trucking, LLC. is a company based out of Sapulpa, Oklahoma. Although it is a fairly small company, they are no stranger to abusing their drivers, leaving them just enough money to buy food each week. Aside from extreme low pay the company provides, it has also seen its fair share of lawsuits. In the past three years alone, John Christner has seen nearly a dozen legal actions against it. Before we get into the most recent whistleblower, let’s review some of these lawsuits.
In February of last year, JCT found itself in the middle of a “misclassification” lawsuit. This case stemmed from more than 3k California based drivers who made multiple accusations against the company. Among the accusations: Working 70-100 hours a week while making less than $500, drivers owing the company money, and violating multiple state and federal labor laws by classifying drivers as “independent contractors” rather than employees. This wasn’t the only lawsuit JCT was faced with.
In what has to be the most controversial case, among it’s countless others, is this one. On 04-19-2019, Iranian American, Kazem Mousavi filed a discrimination suit against JCT. In the complaint, he alleged that the company had placed a “in-cab” camera system in his truck, without his consent. He noted that his vehicle was the only one to receive this system. While the company assured him that the camera would only be used in emergency situations, that apparently was not the case.
According to Mousavi, when arriving at the terminal, individuals working in the JCT office made comments regarding his conversations via the phone. In one instance, he was informed that they enjoyed hearing him speak Iranian. All of this, if accurate, would had been a violation of multiple privacy laws. In order to have these cameras inside a truck, the driver must sign a consent form to being recorded. If he had not signed any such form, JCT could had gotten more than a lawsuit. If you wish to read the case in its entirety, you may do so at this link.
The whistleblower that we have been talking to, has made multiple accusations against this company. According to him, they are using threat of income as a means of forcing him into a medical test, one that would violate his religious beliefs. Although he has made this very clear to the company on multiple occasions, they still bring it up. Utilizing his legal rights, he informs our platform that he went for a second opinion, which the company than proceeded to deny accepting the two year medical card. Their reason? They didn’t like the field of practice the doctor was trained in. As with so many other drivers, who have filed lawsuits against JCT, he stated that he drove 3k miles, only to receive a paycheck that wasn’t even $400. He than proceeded to show us his check stub, proving this claim.
We mentioned that he was being pressured into a medical test. Let’s dive a bit more into that. In the trucking industry, there are doctors who try to force drivers into a sleep study; this test is not a federally required test for drivers. Furthermore, it is a test that the driver has to pay out of pocket for. Due to religious beliefs, which prohibit our whistleblower from being connected to machines that may alter/change his life, he opted for a second opinion. During the entire process, he states the company did everything in its power to force the sleep study. When he got the second opinion, they simply refused to accept it, effectively shutting down his source of income until he complied. So, what is religious discrimination?
The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines religious discrimination as:
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.
Under this act, they require companies to make reasonable accommodations to their employees, if their religious beliefs prohibit certain things. In this instance, in our opinion, JCT not only failed to do so, they took the extra initiative in preventing the employee from obtaining an income, resulting in his soon to be resignation.
Behavior like this, regardless of the industry or company, is absolutely atrocious. To treat any person in the manner to which this company’s history implicates is enough that they should had been investigated ages ago. However, like most companies within the trucking industry, there is simply no accountability. Thankfully, our platform has branched out into the business review world. With that, we will happily bring accountability when and where it is owed.
When customers check into a hotel, they have the expectation that the rooms are going to be safe. For customers who dare to visit the ‘Executive Inn,’ located at 2323 Boren Blvd, Seminole, Ok, checking in is literally placing your life in immediate danger. The hotel, from our investigation, is infested with roaches. However, the roaches are the least of your concerns. Black Mold, which is known to be lethal, is rampant within the rooms. How can this situation become worst? The hotel knows about it but continues to check customers into these rooms.
One individual, who wishes to be identified as J.S., recently visited the state for a wedding. After spending many hours aboard a train, he was looking forward to having an actual bed. However, this simple desire ended with him being rushed to the local emergency room. We met up with J.S. as he was getting his belongings and leaving the hotel. When entering his room, we were appalled, and sickened, by the site. Black Mold had covered multiple areas of the room, more than an inch of water had seeped through the carpet and surrounding floor. The most shocking of all was the mushrooms growing near the bed, located to where it would be located out of the sight of most customers.
We had also made contact with a woman, identified as R.D. She had informed us that she too had become very sick after staying at this hotel. Like the room of J.S., her room was infested with roaches and black mold. But it doesn’t end there. Google holds many reviews from customers warning of the conditions of this hotel. So, doing what we do best, being that we were on site, we went to the hotel staff to get answers.
The hotel staff not only made it obvious that they did not care, they went as far as to admit that they were fully aware of the black mold. They knew that these rooms were a death sentence waiting to happen and yet they did nothing to resolve the problem. Armed with photographs I did the only humane thing possible: I made a claim to the State health department (we will post updates to this article.)
Negligence of this kind is something I have never witnessed before. The fact that the hotel is not only fully aware of this problem, but choose to continue placing customers into a situation that may very well kill them, is absolutely inexcusable. Until the legal process is complete, hopefully with their closure, it is important that the word get out; people need to be aware of what danger they are in while staying at this location. We have included some of our photographs below.
We withheld writing this article, pending a response from the internet company, ViaSat. Well, after waiting, we did finally get that response. However, the response isn’t what you would expect from a company, who is being accused of deceptive business tactics. These tactics include “accidently” placing people into contracts without their knowledge, misrepresentation of their services, and overall misrepresentation of their return policy. This is isn’t close the complete list of problems with ViaSat. On the BBB, the internet provider has a rating of 1.04 out of 5, this is extremely low.
Since the time of our last article, we received documentation from one of their, now former, customers. This customer accuses the company of placing him into a contract that he knew nothing about. In fact, he stated to the WoC team, that he had made it clear that he did not wish to be under contract. To this, the company had him pay a fee. It was only when he attempted to terminate service that he learned of the contract. As a result, he was forced to deactivate his debit card. But this individual didn’t stop there. He went as far as to send us email discussions with the internet provider, along with their replies. With permission, we are quoting them below.
I’m not worried about “keeping the equipment.” What I’m concerned about is the fact that your company lied to me when I initially setup the account, about the contract. I specifically stated, prior to setting up, that I did not want to be under contract, something I was assured would not happen by paying that fee. For me to be placed into a contract, under a false pretense is not only illegal, but nullifies the contract, something to which I am willing to go into litigation about. This situation, I assure you, has lost my business, A complaint with the FCC due to the fact that deceptive tactics were used against me, and from what I’m finding, I’m not the first to go through this. This is where we stand, we either need to resolve this contract situation, I return the equipment, and we both move forward, or this can escalate and we end up in a courtroom. I’m not negotiating this, what was done to me was deceptive and unethical.
The above is the second email sent to the provider, who seemed to be under the impression that the individual wanted to keep the equipment. In the email, this was quickly cleared up. But this isn’t where the interesting part is. To find that, we have to look at their response. We have taken the courtesy of highlighting a very important part of their response, something they may not have realized at the time of sending.
Thanks for reaching out to us, I apologize for the delayed response.
The Lifetime Equipment Lease Fee does not purchase the Viasat equipment, and it does not void the 24 month agreement. All it does is prepay the lease fee for the first 24 months of service, and guarantee that the lease fee will not be charged for the life of the account. The equipment is still expected to be returned when the service is discontinued. As the equipment is designed to work with Viasat only, is attached to your account when activated and cannot be used on another account, there isn’t much reason to keep the equipment in any event.
If your intention was to have a service with no contract, that the lifetime lease fee was selected instead of the no contract option was likely a mistake at the time of sale. Unfortunately, as the company that sold and built the account are a licensed dealership, we don’t have access to any call recordings.
Thank you for choosing Viasat as your internet provider. We appreciate your business.
Social Media Specialist
As mentioned, they had accidently given this customer a bit more than they intended. In their email, they outright state, “If your intention was to have a service with no contract, that the lifetime lease fee was selected instead of the no contract option was likely a mistake at the time of sale.”
What makes this so interesting? To put this into simple terms: the company acknowledges that a mistake was very plausible. But does this obligate the customer to the contract? No. In fact, it would void out the contract, therefore whatever ETF charge they applied to this specific individual, should had been equally nullified. But it wasn’t. Instead, they attempted to enforce this illegal contract and then abruptly terminated contact with the customer. Meanwhile, on various review sites, ViaSat’s image continues to plummet toward the ground.
So what about that response? We’ve shared one customer’s experience with ViaSat but we haven’t discussed the response. We went to ViaSat’s Facebook page, where we brought the various accusations to their attention, expecting to get a response. Today, they did give us a response. I was abruptly blocked from their page. Being that many of the accusations are criminal, I won’t lie and say that I’m surprised by this. The best hope the company has is to block anybody who brings this to their attention. This move doesn’t come without risk. In blocking, some may take this as an admission of guilt. Some may think that the company is trying to cover up their fraudulent acts, but I believe they are trying to deny responsibility to the many people they have defrauded.
Though ViaSat may try to hide this from the Facebook, and other social media communities, they cannot hide their “F” rating with the “BBB.” Furthermore, they can’t stop the complaints, which are rolling in by the day. Them blocking me for asking simple questions only showed me that I, and my platform, are a threat to them. Given the large quantities of fraud, misrepresentation, lack of service complaints, and poor customer service, I think I live with being a thorn in their corporate side.
Editorial Note: This article is not intended to act as legal advice. It is purely based on the research of “War on Corruption, LLC,” to bring awareness to a situation that seems to be rampant within the ViaSat corporation.
The internet age has allowed us to communicate on a global scale. Through the internet, we are able to call, video chat, and even conduct business that would otherwise be impossible. But, as with all things, it has a dark side to it. Just as honest people have found an avenue for discussion, socializing, and so fourth, this remains true for those who are not so honest. But what happens when the dishonesty comes from the very company who has provided you this global access? That’s the question that has lead to this article.
Viasat is a global internet company. Through the use of satellite technology, they provide the same service as any other ISP. However, unlike what you find with most ISP’s, the amount of complaints against this one is alarming. From misrepresentation, shady business tactics, and a lot of the in-between, Worst yet, every business review site, including the BBB, reflect this.
Though its rating varies from site to site, we’re going to look at the BBB. According to the site, Viasat has a rating 1.04 out of 5. For a company that prides itself on providing internet service, this score is extremely low. Upon looking into the reviews, however, it quickly become apparent as to why.
The main nature of my complaint is the willful misrepresentation on the part of their sales personnel at the time we were investigating switching to a satellite provider. As with so many, we live in a rural area and had endured unusable DSL for years from ******** **************. We needed something better. We knew that ViaSat was not going to be perfect, but we were discussing going from a monthly fee of $78/mo for intensely unreliable service to $179/mo for service described as ‘variable once our data cap had been reached’. We GRILLED the salesperson as to what that meant, because what we had been enduring were speeds between 0.1 and 1.0 mbps. Anything under 0.8 and our internet becomes unusable and believe me I have learned a lot of tricks; everything from extensions that play videos only once they are fully buffered to tab suspenders to features on my gaming computer that allow the entire resources of my computer to be used only for one browser tab. We were ASSURED up, down and sideways that it would never, ever be worse than 5mbps at the very, very worst. With this fear assuaged, we signed up. So once again last night our data cap ran out (we pay for the highest tier; we cannot purchase more data and we have tried) and at 7pm I was confronted with a Zoom meeting and a 0.2 mbps connection. When I contacted customer service the next day to tell them that this was unacceptable and that they needed to do something, she figuratively threw up her hands and could only say ‘this is how ViaSat works.’ I told her that this apparently translated to their sales personnel lying as much as necessary to sign people up and then abdicating all responsibility once their customers were stuck in contracts. I gained the sense this was hardly the first time she had heard this. I would not mind being slowed down. I mind having totally unusable Internet as I am sure almost everyone here does. I mind even more that I was bait and switched; I don’t like liars. What this company does would be illegal in Washington state. I wish I lived there and I hope the day comes when their ‘business plan’ dries up because **** **** and ******** put them out of business. When that service comes online, I will be out the door faster than you can say ‘speed test.’
The above comment is one of the most common ones that we’ve found, in regards to the shady business tactics. The fact that their sales representatives knowingly and willfully provide false information to potential customers, falls into the category of “misrepresentation.” Misrepresentation, in the legal sense, is defined as: Getting into a contract with a person or a company on false grounds by making statements that are not in accordance with the facts.
What this means is that if the company misrepresents itself, its provided services, or information pertaining to the contract, that contract can be classified as void. All the consumer would have to do is prove it. Sadly for Viasat, there are hundreds of reviews that establish the claim of deceit against potential customers. But Viasat is accused of doing more than misrepresenting their service and plans. In at least one instance, they tricked a potential customer into signing a contract. A contract that they were completely unaware of until they attempted to cancel the service.
In response to a callout that we did, via Twitter and Facebook, one of their current customers sent us the following statement:
I have been with Viasat for a little over a year. During this time, I have never once gotten decent service. In fact, even when my service renewed, it still registered that I had used more data than what I was allotted. After months of dealing with this, I decided today was enough; I attempted to terminate my service. Now, before I continue, I need to backtrack. When I first signed up, I paid, as shown in the image provided, the entire equipment lease charge. I did this under the impression that by doing so, I would not be under a contract and that I would own the equipment. So, back to my termination attempt.
They tell me that I am under contract and that I do not own the equipment. I explain what I was told on the phone, only to get into an escalated conversation with the representative. I end up putting my service on a hibernation, which means they’re still going to take money out of my account. The company lied to me about being in a contract, they lied to me about the service quality, and now they’re trying to dupe me out of more money. This can’t be legal, is it?
Well, let’s go ahead and answer this one. No, it is not legal. In fact, with a good attorney, you might be able to make a fraud claim. Fraud is defined as: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. Clearly, by informing you that you were not in a contract, when you were, they defrauded you. They defrauded you because they knew that if you attempted to cancel the service, you would be liable to pay an ETF for the remaining contractual months; this is where the personal gain comes in.
We’re still deep diving into this company. Because of the large number of complaints, we simply cannot cover it all in one article, there will be a PT: 2 in the near future. This company demonstrates the “why” people need to conduct a through investigation into any company to which they intend to conduct business. It’s unfortunate that so many people have learned this, after the fact. However, we’re going to do our part in preventing this from happening to other consumers.
It goes to say that there are many predatorial media platforms. Distorting or outright fabricating truths is not an uncommon element. However, you would never expect one of these platforms to target an aspiring musician, simply trying to share their musical compositions. However, that is exactly what Manorama News TV, a platform based in India, did.
To preserve the reputation of the artist, he requested that we only refer to him as “Dark,” which we are more than happy to comply with. In 2017, “Dark” released one of his musical pieces, a song called “Raven.” The piece, as he tells us, was composed solely by him. He informed us that the YouTube release had “Royalty free” videos with it. Royalty free means that the video is accessible to the general public, free of charge, to use in a variety of ways.
For years, the young musician had no problems. That changed recently when he saw a copyright claim on the music. He sent our platform the original music file, confirming that it was in fact his piece. The questionable aspect of the claim comes in what they did within the claim. They didn’t request the music to be removed. Instead, they claimed to have it monetized, to which they would be paid for the views. If this sounds like a money scheme to you, we are inclined to agree.
When reaching out to the platform, we were surprised to see that they have over three million followers. So why would they waste their time on a small-time musician? We asked the platform this very question. Rather than replying, they blocked any member of our team who tried to make contact. With that, we contacted them under the “War on Corruption” page. Though we haven’t been blocked as of yet, there is no expectation that they will respond in any form aside blocking the platform.
Shady journalism is something our platform has always strongly disagreed with. For a platform like “Manorama News TV” to falsely claim ownership of material they clearly do not own, is simply appalling. I can imagine that it’s not an easy feat being a musician. I also can imagine that it’s infuriating for something you’ve spent a lot of time on to be stolen in this fashion. This situation not only reveals Manorama News as a crooked platform, it also demonstrates the flaws within YouTube’s copyright system. It seems that anybody can file a claim on any video they so desire. Following the claim, they can simply profit from the work of others. These parasites aren’t required to prove the claim, only file it.
When you hire somebody to do a job, it goes to say that you hold the expectation that it will be done correctly. But, when that job ends up being a complete flop, they should expect a bad review online. For mechanic, Jonathan Barden, of “JR automotive,” that was exactly what happened.
The post that initiated the threat reads as follows:
Warning!! DO NOT use this mechanic if you want to keep your car running!! Jonathan Barden.
Apologize it’s so long.
This was his 2nd job hired to do for me, and only hired a 2nd time because it should of been an easy fix, all I needed was a Cam Shaft Sensor, he was hired Monday, pulled 2 codes for a cam shaft sensor and that was my only issue, my car was turning over but not starting and had absolutely no leaks. He gets the sensor new from AutoZone that night, he yanks my old sensor out so hard the small silver cap on the end stayed inside, he took my passenger side engine apart to get to it, including my timing chain cover, he then dropped the cap in my oil pan, dropped my oil pan to get the cap and drained my oil. Had me buy 6 qts of oil, even though the cap would of never been stuck if he had removed the correct parts to have enough room instead of removing my timing chain cover to expose my oil pan in the 1st place. Took my engine apart until 3:30 in the morning, left everything torn apart and trashed and didn’t show back up until Wednesday evening at 6 p.m.. There were bolts in every single wrong spot and some not even put in. He got frustrated after not being able to put the serpentine belt back on Wednesday night and quit. He claims he pointed out to my husband that the timing cover had a “hole” when he took it apart, no he didn’t. And its not a hole its a huge crack and if the crack was present prior to his work then oil leak would have been my problem, my oil and engine were great I only needed a dang cam shaft sensor and now my car isn’t drivable until I get a new timing cover because I can’t hold oil. He put the 5 qts in and left 1 sitting outside and never told me the 5 qts leaked out, the oil spills out immediately when you pour it in, he finished putting the 5 qts in around 9 but was here until 2 a.m. on Wednesday! He spent 5 hours trying to hide the crack and seal it. He was very hostile and irate, he screamed and cussed for hours, “fk this job, I’m about to walk off this fking job, Don’t ever fking call me again, and much more. These are words for words. At this point we just wanted him and his wife to leave and not touch our car anymore. It didn’t help that he would talk to his wife the same way when he couldn’t get something to fit or he dropped a wrench he’d scream and cuss at her also. We paid $45 for the diagnostic, $111 for our part new from AutoZone (never given a receipt.), $5 gas to get the part, $41 for oil and $5 gas to get the oil, and $200 for the work. He quoted $250 but since he refused to finish the belt and mounts that night and we didn’t want them back at our home we paid $200 minus the unfinished work, if we known the damage caused and oil wasted we wouldn’t of paid a dime! Next morning me and my husband get the belt on and get less than half a mile down the road to discover we have not a drop of oil and when we put 1 qt in it immediately flowed out, hired next mechanic and he immediately found the crack in the timing cover. Never had a oil leak before now, I just want some ownership of responsibility and atleast partial refund. He supposedly warranties his work with new parts but didn’t even want to finish the job. I’m out $286 to have my car worse than it was to start. Down to using his customers phone to call his wife about taking to long at McDonalds and calling her a “dumb fking whe fk you” and a few more things of that nature. He’ll destroy your car and trash your property (I had to clean up after him and his wife way more than tolerable.) In the text he only keeps saying “I told you it had a hole”, “I pointed this out” . No he didn’t, not once, but the fact remains if the crack existed prior to him we would have already had a oil leak, but now there’s a crack large enough to hold no oil and somehow that was suppose to already be there? Just accept facts and own up to your work and make this right!!! (Last screenshots, apparently its not his 1st time to leave a car torn apart and doesn’t finish.)
While most businesses, or self employed individuals, take it with grace, Jonathan decided to go a different route with it. Threatening the reviewer, he demands the Facebook post to be taken down, while threatening to have somebody show up at the poster’s home. While the business owner doesn’t specify bodily harm, given the nature of the overall message, it is strongly implied.
Upon sharing the threat, many people commented, encouraging the poster to take it to the police; it is unknown if this has happened. However, the poster had made it clear, in a response to the threat, that she intended to seek litigations against the man.
Famous journalist, Chris Hansen, has apparantly enraged many of the people who came to trust him. The famous journalist, known for targeting child predators, had allegedly sold the rights for his Onision investigation. While Hansen has claimed it to be a move to gain more attention, the online community is simply not buying it. In one instance, Hansen even blocked an individual who was critical of the act.
Although Hansen has had years of experience as a television journalist, he hasn’t been without financial problems. Rather it be millions worth of debt, an arrest, it seems that things haven’t been fairing well for the journalist. It is for this reason, many within the online community speculated that the Onision investigation was a money ploy.
Although Hansen brought a form of momentum to the Onision situation, he hadn’t actually stated any facts that weren’t already available. At one point, Hansen attempted to interview the infamous Youtuber only to be met with local police. Meanwhile, some within the online community speculated this to be a problicity stunt.
Behind the scenes of the investigation, there was a boiling pot of controversy. While much of it was focused on his former employee, Vincent Nicotra, Chris wasn’t spared. Nicotra was infamously known for filing false DMCA claims, doxxing, hate speech, and so fourth. While all of this had been made public, it would take months for Hansen to act. Upon removing Nicotra, things cooled down a bit, but that wouldn’t last.
During the investigation, Hansen made claims that the FBI were investigating. However, when probed, he appeared to be evasive only stating that, “these things take time.” For a community who already felt betrayed, for many reasons, this wasn’t flying very well. The controversy didn’t end on that note, however.
Hansen selling the Onision story seems to have boiled the pot dry. Questions regarding the victims, who entrusted him with their stories, has become a common concern. It also raises questions into Hansen’s current investigation on “Dahvie Vanity.” In this aspect, people can’t help but wonder rather or not Chris will sell this story also.
While selling a story, even if it brings controversy, is common, blocking those who are critical is questionable at best. As a journalist, we are constantly under a microscope, people awaiting for us to slip just so they can berate us. However, doing a move that creates controversy and then blocking those who question it, leads me to question Hansen’s journalistic integrity.
For months now, we have seen abuse from the government unlike anything before. While most Americans are perfectly fine with the loss of their first, fourth, and even sixth amendment rights, some are beginning to wake up. As a result of this, social disobedience is quickly becoming a common trend. With so much confusion, who is in the right?
The introduction of COVID-19 introduced more than a new potential threat, it brought out mass fear and even hysteria. As the government began learning about the virus, they implimented some rather debatable “safety procedures.” Social distancing, masks, that sort of thing has now become common practice. However, many debate as to rather or not they went to far.
Under the first amendment, all Americans are granted the freedom to practice their religions. What this means is the government has no legal grounds to interfere with this, or other, rights. However, since the COVID-19 situation began, we have seen that very ordeal unfold. In several cases, those who have dared to break the “law” of not going to church, were met with arrest. How is this possible? A simple loophole is all it takes, more on that later.
On social medias, such as Facebook and Youtube, those who are speaking out against the governments’ actions, are finding themselves censored, ability to post/comment blocked, or outright banned. In a controversial move, Facebook has gone as far as to form its own “Supreme court.” The intent of this is to determine what is, or is not, allowed on their site. However, this has lead to many conspiracy theories.
Under the fourth amendment, all citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, and property. At this point, we may as well just rule this one a dead right. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen what happens to those who dare to defy their government overlords. While initially, the “safety protocols” were mere suggestions, people have been brutally beaten and arrested by police. Their crime? Daring to run their businesses.
There are many articles discussing how the police have arrested business owners for literally committing no crime. By violating the “recomendations,” and being arrested for it, proves that these are not just suggestions. Furthermore, they demonstrate the more disturbing image at hand. It was Adolf Hitler who once said:
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” For many, this is what’s happening. Of course, when it’s a $1000+ fine for not wearing a suggestion on your face, it does seem plausible.
The right to a speedy trial. Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you already know that this has been absent. Upon getting arrested, one could expect to sit in jail for an undetermined amount of time, with no courtdate. Why? Because the courts shutdown. While this is starting to change, it doesn’t change the fact that this right may had potentially been violated. Of course, this is just another cog in the political wheel.
What we have seen is nothing less than government operated terrorism on its people. Criminals are being released from jails/prisons over alleged COVID fears. However, people are being sent to jail simply for operating their own businesses. Places where facemasks are “mandatory,” don’t even care what you wear on your face. A person can walk aroumd with tissue paper on their face and have no problem.
From what I have seen, this os a game to strip citizens, using fear and false numbers, of their constitutional rights. The worst part of this, we are allowing it. When you really begin to dig into this, the contradictions become very apparant. This situation is no longer about protecting the people or preventing the spread of a virus, which has an approx 3% fatality rate globally. This is a war in which it is the government vs. the people.
Your location data will be used to help identify you and allow us to offer you great products and services. Your consent is important for us to do this and you are not obliged in any way to share this information with us. Thank you