Category Archives: scam

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
Free Article, Media, Opinions, predatory, scam, terrorism

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?

@brandoncrawford88

#johnsonandjohnson #covidvaccine #FWB

♬ original sound – Brandon Crawford
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?”

Consumer reports, Free Article, Media, Opinions, predatory, scam

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.

 

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

Company with notorious past targets employee

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.

Feb 2020

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.

Mousavi v. John Christner Trucking

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.

Business relations, Consumer Reports, Free Article, Law Enforcement, Media, Opinions, predatory, scam, Uncategorized

Hotel willfully endangers customer lives

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.

 

Water rises from the floor, simply from stepping down.

 

Potential black mold, located in the restroom.

The stem of one of several mushrooms we located within the room.

Business relations, Consumer Reports, Free Article, Media, Opinions, scam

ViaSat: An image of deception (Pt: 2)

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.

Sincerely,

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.

Business relations, Consumer Reports, Consumer reports, Free Article, internet safety, Media, Opinions, predatory, scam

ISP, ViaSat, accused of shady business practices (PT:1)

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.

Business relations, children, cold case, CPS, Cyber, Gold Membership, hacking/doxxing, internet safety, Law Enforcement, Media, Opinions, Police, police relations, predatory, scam, shooting, terrorism, Uncategorized

India based Media platform files false copyright claim

It goes to say that there are many predatorial media platforms. Distorting or outright fabricating truths is not an uncommon element. However, you would never expect one of these platforms to target an aspiring musician, simply trying to share their musical compositions. However, that is exactly what Manorama News TV, a platform based in India, did.

The copyright claim filed by the media giant. In the claim, they are simply attempting to get monetization for music that they do not own.

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.