Over the years, we have gotten many stories. Everything from CPS to police brutality. It is easy to say that exposing people has become something we are known for. Out of all the stories we have gotten, this one has got to be one of the most disturbing ones we have gotten to date.
We are unable to show the blacked out images above. The images contain decapitation, necrophilia, and various other gore. These are images that an, unknown at this time, anon wanted to send a child. When reading through the conversation, we found that her motive was purely because she “believed” the child to have FBI parents. But the conversation doesn’t stop there.
She goes onto berate our source, who obviously has a problem with her plan. Mentally and verbally abusing them, blocking, unblocking to repeat her attack. Now, we don’t need to explain how and why this is absolutely wrong or how this woman is obviously sick, that should be obvious.
Throughout the discussion, she constantly refers to the child as an “it.” We now see that she sees this child as less than human. Though it isn’t clear what she means by, “I’d rather leave,” it is clear that she is upset at the opposition toward her grusome images.
We have seen a lot of questionable things within the “anon” community over the years. Generally, they just want to do what’s right. But where you have good samaratins, there will always be those who seek to overshadow them.
You see it all the time in the world of Facebook. Some idiot decides to make an accusation, such as my situation, and runs their own “investigation.” What you don’t see, or may not know, are the legalities of these actions. So, it is to say, I am going to give you the tools you need to wipe the floor with such brainless adolecents.
First off, there are actual laws regarding the method to which an investigation is conducting, even within a workplace. While a company can conduct an internal investigation, this only applies to its current employees or those employed at the time the investigation began; this applies to 501c3, and other organizations as well.
Now, in this situation, if a company, or 501c3 is conducting an investigation on you, and you were never employed by them, they are breaking the law. It goes back to that magic word: internal investigation. Furthermore, if the investigation is being conducted in a harassing or malicious manner, that is also illegal.
No company, or 501c3 can conduct an external investigation unless licensed to do so. If they are not licensed to conduct one, that gives the investigative target legal grounds. Furthermore, if the findings are being shared via social media, it is now libel slander unless you can establish loss.
A loss can include friends, employment, etc. If any of these things have happened as a result of the fraudulant investigation, you can now sue for Defamation of character. For a 501c3, this is especially hurtful as you can actually sue for the revocation of its non profit status, removal of its president, or for ownership of the organization itself. To put this kindly, you can destroy an entire organization if they have committed this crime.
Who can conduct an investigation?
Alright, so there are a variety of agencies and people who can actually conduct an investigation.
Local and state police, FBI, etc. If we branch out to the civilian world, private investigators. What do all of these people have in common? All of them have obtained a license to do so. Law enforcement are granted this right via the state. Private investigators are given a license to conduct such investigation. If the person conducting one is not licensed to do so, any and all findings ars null and void, their evidence is useless in court. Firthermore, if they are blasting it on social media, the courts could rule that null as well, not to mention the ratifications of conducting the illegal investigation.
If the investigation is on your past, for example, a closed case, you could call double jepordy, especially if the “evidence” is being used against you. You can claim they are enacting as an unlawful court and are, essentially, placing you on trial once again; this is where social media can turn dark for offending parties.
To conduct this style of investigation, is very much illegal. Here, I will give you the breached law categories:
3. (Cyber) bullying.
4. Libel slander.
5. Defamation of character.
6. Conducting an unlawful investigation.
This, my friends, is your ammunition to fight back. If you are a victim of this, do not wait for it to just vanish, it rarely does. Take action, begin legal proceedings, and pdf anything posted to any social media platform that contains slander; this is how you end such slander. Do it right, keep it legal.
As if his terror toward people was not enough, he recruited a team to further harass, torment, and mentally drive people to their breaking point. One individual has clinical depression, Phil has targeted, and had his friends, target them the most.
According to Matt, Phil yelled at him outside the courthouse…where several witnesses heard, including an attorney who was crossing the street at the time.att is currently in discussions of filing lawsuits against, both, Mr. Worland and his organization. Below, we are submitting information regarding Missouri harassment laws in hopes that he grow up, move forward, and cease further acts of harassment.
he day prior to the attacks on M.A.F.A, its founder, and our lead journalist, it was made abundantly clear that he intended to target various people.
One such individual, Luis Ewing, was accused of being oyr lead, Matt. We can only speculate that the last name is the reason.
Following that, are the results from the national sex offenders database. Although a judge has already confirmed Mr. Ewing to not be a pedophile, Mr. Worland continues to make the claim.
The national database confirming that our lead is NOT on the registry. Below that, Phil himself confirms this. He would later retract this statement. However, this statement has unknowingly tied the noose in his rope should Matt file suit.
The following picture, he confesses that he forced one victim into doing what she wanted. He, again smears Matt. However, at no point has Matt ever claimed to be an advocate. It is, at this point, Mr. Worland’s intention becomes clear; it is purely a personal vendetta against Mr. Ewing for standing up to him.The following picture confirms our claim: Mr. Worland’s malicious slander is driven off the fact that our lead journalist protected a close friend. Following that, Mr. Worland attacks and degrades Ms. Dalton.A discussion from one of Mr. Worland’s friends. Following this discussion, she was banned.