Jamie Johnson (documentary)

This video was not created by War on Corruption.

Advertisements

Super “Starr”

When we released the article on Francesca Amato, it was only logical that we would, in time, write this article. Looking into the self proclaimed “advocate,” Jamie “Starr” Johnson. While Jamie isn’t as popular as some of the others, she is equally, if not more, diabolical than the Fran club.

Jamie, while it isn’t confirmed to us, appears to have gotten her name known through a specific case. The mother, Nikki (lastname omitted) had a child who was hospitalized. We are going to spare the details as that isn’t prudent for this article. We may cover that at a later time, only with the mother’s consent. To make a long story short, while the child was dying in the hospital, Jamie made multiple videos to which she exploited the situation. Bear in mind, that nobody related to the child had knowledge of this until much later.

In time, the child did pass. Jamie retreated to the hospital grounds, just outside the hospital. Again, without the family’s knowledge or permission, a livestream was made. During the video, Jamie, without consent, had announced the untimely death. Naturally, this created a rather large rift between Nikki and herself. The exploitation didn’t end there, however. While the mother begged her former “advocate” friend to cease, Jamie continued to exploit the death, all while Nikki publically demanded that she stop. From this point forward, Jamie’s shattered legacy spirals downward.

Contraversy involving the self proclaimed advocate doesn’t end there, however. Recently, there have been several images discovered pertaining to the “super starr.” While taking seductive images is not a crime, it has many people asking, “should a family adcocate act in this manner?” The answer is simply, “NO.” When proclaiming to be a family/child advocate, there are certain expectations that one must uphold. For example, an off duty officer posts racially driven statements, they are suspended. While Jamie defends the images, it has risen much concern regarding her advocasy. However, we will let the evidence speak for itself. At the end of this article, we have attached some of the images.

Jamie has caught even more attention. In a recent livestream, in which Rudy Orr and Randy Davis seem to make amends, Jamie went on the offensive. Among words of encouragement, Jamie began a vicious attack against Mr. Davis. During this assault, one of our own began to challenge her. He asked, on several occasions, for evidence to support her claims. Among her claims were: stalking, harassment, and slander. As of the time we wrote this article, Jamie has still failed to provide any evidence.

Following the assault, Randy and Rudy conducted another livestream, openly inviting Jamie to partake. They are heard repeatedly questioning rather or not Jamie would appear to present her evidence. Jamie did not. In fact, while they were doing the livestream, she had apparantly been commenting in the initial post, containing her assault. As far as we can tell, she has no evidence to present and thus avoided any subject to which she is called out.

If this is what an advocate is, I truly feel for any family who are desperate. Before choosing an advocate, look into them. It is strongly suggested that you not only check into them criminally, but morally, afterall it’s your children who depend on you to make the correct choices. We are going to assist in the moral department. Here is your potential advocate.

The Kenworthy case

On August 17, 2016, Shayling Kenworthy, a young mother, lost her life. While it is unclear as to exactly what esculated that night, we have pieced as much of this puzzle together, as possible. Shayling was a young woman who tragucally died due to a combination of health related problems and the absolute arrogance of her very own husband, Lee Kenworthy. This is the story, as best we could understand.

Lee Kenworthy is a man who is not only known to the Facebook community, but apparently to local police. From his infamous stand-off with local police to a suicide attempt, Lee has a rather profound method for getting attention. Whe most people have a problem with the police, Lee has taken this to an entirely new level. Because of this, the very wife he advocates for, is deceased.

Shayling (Shay) Kenworthy, 38yo, passed away on August 17th, 2016. While the actual cause of death derived from complications resulting from asthma, it is noted that the situation was unusual; this is where most people claim that Lee had a hand in her demise and we will explain why.

As stated, Lee has a very profound hatred for the police, going as far as to accuse them for Shayling’s death. While the police were, in fact on scene that fateful night, from what we have learned, they were in no way responsible. In fact, it does appear that Lee’s very actions resulted in her death.

Shayling began having complications with her asthma. We know that at some point emergency services were called, in doing so, the police would also arrive. Unfortunantly for Shayling, the police arrived on scene prior to paramedics. At some point, and for unknown reasons, a confrontation arose between Lee and the police; this would directly result in Shayling’s death.

During the confrontation, the paramedics arrived. However, Lee was already barring the police from entering the home. While the situation esculated, paramedics had tried to gain access to the troubled Shayling, but failed in the end. At this time, Shayling would had taken her final breaths.

Lee accuses the police for the death of Shayling. However, the police were barred from helping, as a result paramedics were unable to reach her. The evidence shows that Shayling’s death was preventable, it was absolute neglect on Lee’s part, and he has somehow not been held accountable for his actions. If he had not esculated a war with them that night, allowed them to assist, Shayling would still be alive. Because of his actions, her life was cut short. For more information regarding this case, check out the linked article here.

Predator targets 10 yo child (image gallery)

These are being posted here for two reasons:

1. It ensures that Facebook cannot remove them.

2. It’s so we can reach out to our non-Facebook demographic in hopes of having this man convicted.

Below are a few images, it is unknown if others exist. We are sharing what we currently have on. We will try to update this, should we find other photos/victims.

Facebook Wars: The attack on Freedom

Sometime ago, we wrote another article pertaining to Facebook and it’s apparent war on media. To some regard, this is a bit of a follow-up article to that. Since the time of our previous article, Facebook has not only continued it’s unjust attack against independent media platforms, it appears to have increased the attack. The most common reason given for any platform being removed, “X post has violated our Community Standards.” So, seeing that posted by so many, we decided to take a look at their community standards. What we ultimately found, was a policy purposefully written to be extremely vague. Even with the vague writings, it remained obvious that Facebook, was in fact, in violation of their own policy. This article is going to break the policies, to which we believe are being implicated, down for everybody.

Community Standards: Section III Part 11: Hate Speech.

Below are a couple of paragraphs from the “Hate Speech” section of their Community Standards. For those of us, who have been on Facebook for awhile now, we have seen this policy broken by the Social Media giant countless times. How? Let’s review it:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. In some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.”

In the past, we have seen cases to which Facebook removed hate speech. However, we have also seen them outright ignore it. The first paragraph is very important in that it informs you as to what they define as hate speech. The contradiction, however, comes within the second paragraph; specifically, these sentences:

People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it.”

Now, if you’re like me, chances are you have shared something along these lines; you shared something to bring awareness to the initial form of hate speech. In the case of me doing it, for example, Facebook banned my account for 30 days while leaving the post I was exposing up. In fact, according to Facebook, the original post was not in violation.

But the bulls-eye on the independent journalist doesn’t end there. Another area, to which Facebook has targeted journalists is:

Part IV: Integrity and Authenticity: Section 16: Spam

We work hard to limit the spread of commercial spam to prevent false advertising, fraud, and security breaches, all of which detract from people’s ability to share and connect. We do not allow people to use misleading or inaccurate information to collect likes, followers, or shares.”

This policy, as a whole, is highly questionable. Not only is it extremely vague, it leaves to many doors open, one door is a rather new policy of theirs, however we will get into that later. This policy has literally made it so that it’s up for interpretation as to what “spam” is. You get a media platform, for example, that posts often on a specific arena, Facebook could potentially remove that platform utilizing the claim that they are “spamming” the site. In fact, they could go as far as to state they are spamming the site with “hate speech.” this one paragraph has, in the past, raised questions. And seeing that this is all Facebook has written within this section, it’s obvious as to why.

While section 17 is also one for concern, let’s skip to the section that is really important within Part IV.

Section 18: Fake News

Reducing the spread of false news on Facebook is a responsibility that we take seriously. We also recognize that this is a challenging and sensitive issue. We want to help people stay informed without stifling productive public discourse. There is also a fine line between false news and satire or opinion. For these reasons, we don’t remove false news from Facebook but instead, significantly reduce its distribution by showing it lower in the News Feed.”

Now this policy has, to some regard, affected War on Corruption. The problem here lies beyond what Facebook is claiming, this one goes into “Freedom of Speech” and “censorship.” the problem with this policy, like so many, is it’s extremely vague. Furthermore, this policy raises many questions regarding Facebook’s stance on constitutional rights and liberties. According to Facebook, they wish to maintain a “safe environment.” However, it seems they also wish to silence any platform that attempts to conduct legitimate journalism. Because of how this policy is written, it can essentially be translated to say, “We, at Facebook, intend to impede any media platform that politically opposes our ideology.” At least this wording is more accurate.

Facebook literally has a novel sized section of policies. Like the above mentioned, most of their policies are extremely vague and left for individual interpretation. One thing that is not vague, however, is how Facebook utilizes the vagueness of these policies. Due to the way they are written, it has given Facebook a back-door into enforcing them when, and how, they see fit. Because of this, multiple platforms within the past year have suffered; the most recent platform within the long list, “The Daily Haze” (TDH.) It is apparent that Facebook conducts a malicious form of censorship, silencing anybody who opposes them. The solution? The only solution is to simply find another Social media site.

(Discreditation) Victim or guilty?

About a month or so ago, I recieved a screenshot. In the photo, it had a phone number of a woman who wanted to get into contact. Today, without reason, she attacked the guy who was looking into her case. Her friends have now come to our Facebook page to continue the assault. This is our response to her friends, who insist on bringing their fight to WoC.

About a month or so, as stated, either this individual, or our team, made contact. Her friend, who attempted to start a fight on our Facebook, claims she did not want our “opinion” regarding her case.

As you can clearly see, that is not the case. Not only did she give a contact number (omitted for privacy,) she even encouraged contact. We had intended to do this. However, we were still digging around into her case. We wanted to at least have some information prior to contact.

In one image, she claims to have no idea who our guy is, muchless how he got onto her friends list. We have already proven this to be a lie. Her behavior, being unprovoked however, has me questioning her CPS case. I have seen many “innocent” people, later proven guilty, act just like this. While being under stress is common with a CPS case, it also has an odd way of showing a persons’ true colors.

Diegal case: new information

As are most people, we have been following the Melissa Diegel case. Melissa Diegel, for the past five years, was known for uploading livestream videos regarding her CPS case, a case she apparantly lost years ago. Recently, Diegel was charged with six accounts of felony child abuse and two accounts of felony domestic violence. As expected, it has created a rift in the already broken CPS movement.

In a recent livestream, Melissa is seen being arrested by the US Marshals. While it isn’t unheard of for a CPS “victim” to be arrested, it is almost never seen for the arresting agency be the US Marshals.

Since the time of her arrest, a lot of information has come to light, including a rather disturbing audio recording. The recording can be heard here. The video, taken only two months after brain surgery, is of Melissa’s child screaming in pain. The video in itself had us wondering why she chose to record this rather than go to the hospital? A grim answer we may never truly know, but speculate.

There are some very concerning red flags within this case. Red flags that other people had tried to question Diegel on in the past, their reply came in the form of a block. Currently, Melissa is in a Florida jail, awaiting to be moved to Arizona. A woman who played on the vulnerabilities of fellow victim advocates now sits as a testament on why personal emotions should always be seperated.

Many of the advocates within the CPS arena are victims themselves. The concept that anybody could be such a monster, is simply unfathomable. Sadly people, here is your monster. While many advocates, we hear, are smacking themselves over this, they shouldn’t. Take it as a lesson to improving your style and advocacy. Remember, not e erybody you meet is innocent.

Cyber terrorist smear campaign

We recently did a brief review of a man named John Anderson. John Anderson is a self proclaimed “pedo hunter,” a man claiming to expose pedophiles. However, it appears he does a bit more than that. When not getting his way, he begins to slander the reputations of his targets. Sound a bit familiar? It should as I myself had a similar situation in 2017.

Currently, Anderson is facing charges for making threats against multiple people online, namely death threats. In a video, posted in 2018, Anderson lists off people that he intended to kill for various reasons. Though he claims the arrest was a way to expose pedophiles, it sheds light onto his mental instability.

As I said, this is a very familiar smear campaign. We looked into the accusations made. The only portion that could be confirmed, is in regards to John Aster. Upon research, we found that there is, in fact, a John Aster on the Australian registry. However, how Meko would be “endorsing” Aster has yet to be seen; it seems to be nothing more tha a slander claim.

We made a post regarding Anderson on the WoC page. It didn’t take long for us to figure out how these people operate. Essentially, if you say anything against him, you are supporting, or endorsing, a pedophile. Below is a photo demonstrating this.

As with Meko of “The Daily Haze,” we are also accused of promoting John Aster. Keep in mind that we had no knowledge of who John Aster was, muchless ever speak to him. Because we had no clue as to who Aster was, we challenged the claim…no response was ever given.

As I said, Anderson is facing charges for making countless threats to people online… A lot of people, might I add. Anderson, is clearly unstable, as shown in a suicide video.

In this video, Anderson had apparantly called the police due to him wanting to commit suicide. When they show up, however, rather than talking to them, he goes on the offensive and begans to attack the police. At this point, we essentially ruled the video as attention whoring. It was very obvious that he had no intention of actually performing the act, he just wanted the police to show up.

So why are they attacking a journalist? From what we can tell, Anderson’s wife attempted to make contact with Meko some months back, Meko never responded. Our guess is this agitated them until they finally decided to go on the attack, of course this is a guess.

The pedophile claim requires no evidence and yet is still lethal. Once such a claim is made, it generally destroys a person’s reputation, even if it’s false. However, Anderson has more than enough dirt to discredit him, especially the video to which he threatens the lives of multiple people. While he tries to smear a creditable journalist, I fully believe it will be him who will lose.

While I write this, there are sites that appear to be gathering evidence against Anderson. It seems their intent is to pursue criminal charges for his various cyber terroristic threats. Given what we have seen thus far, we wish these sites the best of luck.

Advertisements