Tag Archives: America

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.

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.

America’s war on itself

Recent events have done nothing more than demonstrate the problem that has been ignored for many years. While many of us have known that this day would arrive, the vast majority sat in the comfort of their own homes, completely ignorant of what was about to come. Today, we’re going to review the rapid progression on the “war” against the American people. This is a war brought fourth by corporations and our very own government.

Election fiasco

It should be obvious that the vast majority believe the election was rigged. While our platform has always been critical of Trump, we were even more critical of the idea of having “mail-in” votes. The concept of mailing in your vote simply left to many variables for things to go wrong. While I’m not willing to blatantly state that the election was rigged, I am willing to entertain the idea that it is very likely. Even with that aside, even with my criticism of Donald Trump, I believe, without doubt, that he is being completely railroaded by Nancy Pelosi and her “goons.”

In recent months, we saw the first impeachment process against Trump. Let’s face the reality about that process, it was a bogus situation with nothing less than ill intent. Of course, this wasn’t the last attempt to destroy the now former president. In recent weeks, in a highly controversial and potentially illegal move, we witnessed a second impeachment. This process was based on the grounds that Trump incited a riot at the capital. But did he? Well, the tweets that they are using say nothing about condoning a riot. In fact, the term didn’t even appear in the tweets; the fact is, we simply could not find any tweet to which President Trump encouraged a riot. But what about the riot itself?

Mainstream media has really bitten into this one. We know things were stolen from the capital. We know that people were killed during this riot. But what many people don’t know is how this group successfully bypassed heavily armed Security, law enforcement, and even Secret Service agents to get into this building. For that, you only have to search for videos, which are being spread all over the internet. What we see in these videos are the police opening barricades to allow the protestors in. Police are seen talking with the protestors, interacting with these “dangerous” thugs. What I’m saying here should be clear: they got in because the police literally opened the doors for them. Because of these videos, some people are lead to believe that this was actually a bait to justify impeachment.

The second impeachment is highly questionable, at best. While it would still have to go court, even with the votes already being cast, Trump will no longer be in office when this happens. This would make him the first President to ever be impeached after already being removed from his position. Of course, the second impeachment is also a first. Meanwhile, as a result of this, tensions are quickly reaching a boiling point. I no longer believe that the possibility of civil war, I now wonder when it will happen.

Further tension arose with the questionable removal of Trump from social media. While many people are surprised and shocked by this, they really shouldn’t be. For years, Facebook has taken a stance to shutdown independent media platforms, or anybody who spoke against their supported political figure; Twitter is known to do the same, though not as extreme as Facebook. The basic point is: they’ve been censoring people for years now, with no accountability, and it’s not going to stop just because of who the person is. For those who are absolutely outraged by this, questions regarding our constitutional rights arise. Can a company do this? Well, that’s tricky. Technically, they are private companies. However, as I’ve said many times before, a company who is on the stock market falls into the category of being “public domain.”

Rather or not they can do this doesn’t mean they won’t. As our own government continues to put the nails into the coffin of our democracy, at the expense of the American people, we can expect to see many more reactions. The capital riot is just the start of what could very well become an outright war. While the government has the ability to prevent this, I don’t believe they will. If anything, I believe this is exactly what they’ve been wanting to happen. After all, anybody who’s observant can see that this tension has been slowly boiling for many years now.

What comes next?

Since last October, our team has had many discussions about this very article. We all knew that it would happen, it was simply unavoidable. This article is not only exposing the legal violations, policy violations, and abuse from Facebook, this article is serving as a testament of the results from these abuses. While we have written articles previously discussing what was being done to our team, it was agreed that we needed to write the conclusion to those articles.

If you followed us on Facebook, you already know what the results were. If you’ve been following, in general, you already know what has been occurring. However, if you aren’t aware, let’s start by giving you a quick rundown to get you up to speed on things.

In September, Facebook had done an unknown action that prevented our bot from automatically posting our articles to our Facebook page, this began shortly before the other events, which will be discussed shortly, began. It took us a few weeks to even notice that this had happened. While our website showed that Facebook was connected, Twitter was connected, and so fourth, the posts simply were not going up on Facebook. After attempting to resolve this issue, with no success, we began manually posting the articles.

Though this was rather annoying, we did what had to be done. For a few weeks things were fine; this changed around October 20th. One by one, admins of the WoC page were being completely blocked out of their profiles. They were unable to comment, like, post, share, etc. However, they were able to send instant messages. In total, five of the seven admins were completely blocked from doing anything on their accounts. Facebook offered no explanation, no resolution, not even a policy that was violated. We began sending daily disputes, though Facebook blocked us from doing this as well. Finally, out of desperation, I personally began sending messages to them via the “feedback” feature. After doing this for about a week, that too was blocked.

These blocks lasted until December 19th. The entire time, we could do nothing aside watch as the platform suffered from our lack of activity. During this time, the admin who had not been affected, took control of the platform. Finally, when we were unblocked, it was decided that we would tread cautiously; this did not work.

On December 25th, I got online to four messages. Once again, the admin were blocked on Facebook. I immediately checked my profile to find that, like last time, it was also blocked. This block lasts for thirty days. As with the previous block, we have no ability to contest it. In fact, looking into the “violations” section, shows nothing. Essentially, as far as Facebook is concerned, we aren’t blocked. Though I have, once again, begun sending feedback to the site, that has now also been blocked. With this, our team had a difficult choice to make. Do we continue operating on what is clearly a site that willfully violates constitutional rights, or do we shutdown?

With much discussion, we removed the platform from the public eye, we unpublished the page. While this was a move that none of us had wanted, there simply was no alternative action. Facebook has made it abundantly clear that we are being targeted, a violation of their harassment policy, in fact. Extending beyond that, it contradicts the very words of Mark Zuckerberg, who had stated that Facebook would not censor free speech. With the removal of our Facebook page, we effectively lost more than 97% of our followers. If you aren’t aware of what this means, it means War on Corruption is on a path toward shutting its doors, or the difficult path of having to rebuild the entire platform; at this time, we are still discussing our future.

Meanwhile, Facebook is not held accountable. We aren’t the first platform to be censored out in this way. CopBlock, Freedom Thought Project, and many others have been targeted by the social media giant. Around 2018, we witnessed what many called the “Facebook purge.” During this time dozens of independent media platforms were simply shutdown by Facebook. No explanation, no reason, not even an email explaining why. Thankfully, many of these platforms recovered. Hopefully, with time, we shall too.

Are retailers violating the HIPAA ACT?

With the COVID situation running rampant, it shouldn’t be a surprise that your medical information is now being forced to be presented to employers. Failing to do so is met with consequences, loss of employment, or even suspension without pay. However, some employers, such as Dollar Tree, have taken this a step further. They not only ask for your medical information, they are accused of asking for information pertaining to related to the employee. With this accusation, a member of our team applied, got the job, and tested this theory out. This article is going to present information provided to us by a former employee and the results of what we learned first hand.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act was designed in 1996 with the purpose of protecting sensitive medical information. With this act, doctors are forbidden from divulging information of any patient without having prior written consent. However, the act expands beyond that aspect. With the HIPAA Act, patients have control of their medical information, they can choose who to provide this information to, and it limits what medical information an employer can obtain; this last portion is where our article is primarily focused.

While this act doesn’t necessarily pertain to employers, there are aspects of it that do. For instance, under the HIPPA Act, an employee is not required to divulge their medical files, or even diagnosis and treatment. While we are currently in a pandemic, this changes nothing as the HIPPA Act simply does not address situations such as this. An employer asking an employee the results of a Covid test could be taken as a violation as, once again, a patient is not required to give the employee their diagnosis or treatment information. This brings us to the retail industry, who seem to ask their employees for this very piece of vital information.

Retails intrusive questions

With the information we had obtained from a source, our platform decided to go “inside” and find out for ourselves. For this, a member of our team applied at a local “Dollar Tree.” This location was selected because it was the company that we had gotten the complaint about. Like magic, the application was approved and we had our feet in the door. At this point, the investigation commenced.

The first night was uneventful. No questions were asked, just the typical “pre-opening” work. Shelves were stocked, boxes were stored, that sort of thing. Our new insider had begun to question rather or not the accusations were, in fact, even true. After working for hours, we had initially thought the investigation was a fluke. This conclusion didn’t last long, however. Prior to the insider’s employment, we had already established that if they did ask any of the questions, they were to answer at least one of them with “yes.”

The reason behind this was simply to see what the store would do in this situation. We already had established that answering “no” gave you the “right” to work, we wanted the other end of the spectrum. On night two, our insider reports that they arrived at the store. Upon entering, they were immediately stopped and asked some questions. Because this was being recorded, we are providing the very questions that were asked. We are also providing the response given by our insider.

The questions

Q: Have you been around anybody who has tested positive for Covid?

A: If I had been, there is no way that I could possibly know, so I’m going to say no. It is important to note that the employer is marked with (Q) while our insider is marked with (A.)

Q: In the past 24 hours, have you been around anybody who has been tested for Covid?

A: Yes.

Q: Wait, you’ve been around somebody who got tested for Covid?

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you know the results of their tests? (Highlighted as this question potentially violates HIPPA.)

A: No, I don’t know their tests results. Why?

Q: Because that means you can’t come into work.

A: What do you mean I can’t come to work, why not?

Q: Because you’re putting the entire store at risk.

A: Uh, okay, that makes no sense but whatever.

It’s important to note a few things within these questions. The first is the redundancy of the first question. If this had not been our insider, but another employee, they would already be at a high risk of exposure, they’re working retail. The second thing to note is what HIPAA says about asking for test results: they aren’t permitted to know what a diagnosis or treatment is. If the test were to be a positive, the employer is not permitted to know this as the patient would be diagnosed with Covid. Branching beyond that, the employer is also not permitted to know what the treatment plan for the said diagnosis is. Essentially, asking this question is a legal situation in the making. With a good attorney, this company could face a rather hefty penalty.

While all of the questions are intrusive, the specific question asking for test results, especially regarding those not employed with the company, is the smoking gun for any “litigation-happy” disgruntled employee. Expanding beyond the questions, we are left with one unanswered question: why the inconsistency?  On the first night of employment, our insider received no questions prior to their shift. However, on the second night, they were questioned. If the employers policy regarding “safety” was so serious, wouldn’t they be asking these intrusive questions prior to every shift?

While this subject, especially now, remains highly controversial, it is one that should be discussed. The question asking, “how far is to far?” is simply not asked enough. In this year alone, we have seen some of the worst violations to our rights than at any point in America’s history. Our right to religious freedom being a primary example. During this time, we saw ministers being arrested simply for refusing to cease with the practice of their religious freedoms, in the way that their religions required. But the violations didn’t start, nor did they end, there. For now, we will simply ask this one question: Will Americans ever say “enough is enough?”

 

Editorial Statement

Due to the backlash on Twitter, we are clarifying that this article is purely opinion. We are asking a question, noted by the title, and are simply responding with our thoughts. While the companies may not be violating HIPAA, by requesting information of people, who are not employed with them, we can at least establish that the privacy of those individuals have been violated.

Shoot first, ask later: Linden Cameron shooting review

You have most likely heard of the Linden Cameron situation. Cameron is a 13-yo child, living in Salt Lake City, UT., who was, back in September, shot by “highly” trained officers. This is an article that we had been sitting on for sometime now. While we enjoy critiquing law enforcement, we had decided that it was better to wait for any new details to emerge. With that said, let’s begin.

September 4, 2020

On the night of September 4th, police had received an urgent call. Golda Barton, Linden’s mother, had stated that her son was having a psychiatric episode and could become violent. She also allegedly requested a crisis intervention officer. It is important to note that her son, Linden, suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism. While the condition is manageable, it does come with a variety of complications. Social skills, behavioral skills, etc. being among them.  On this night, it was reported that Barton’s son had made threats of breaking windows as well as threatening to shoot an employee. While this would put police on high alert, we have to remind you that they had a crisis intervention officer, the “specially” trained officer who deals with citizens suffering from mental disabilities.

While the SLC police have never verified the recovery of a weapon, they have released a statement. According to Sgt. Harrocks they were advised of a child who was having a “violent psych issue” and “making threats to some folks with a weapon.” However, the mother counters this claim. According to her, she informed police that night that he had no weapon, they shot him anyway. This brings us to ask the big question: were the police justified in shooting a 13yo child?

Shooting review

As you are probably aware, there is a specific criteria when it comes to the use of lethal force, especially when that force is lethal. For instance, the police have to articulate that there is a creditable threat to their lives, something I highly doubt would have been the case in this situation. While the child did have previous involvement with the police, this can’t be used to articulate that there is a threat to life. The bigger issue with this shooting is simply how it unfolded.

Watching the bodycam video, an officer is seen running up to the child while yelling “hold your hands out.” within a fraction of  a second, multiple shots are heard. The second problem with this situation comes in the multiple options that the officers had. They could had tackled, used a taser, or simply spoke to the child. The last example brings us right into problem number three.

You may recall, early in the article, I mentioned two things: the child has Asperger’s and the mother called for a crisis intervention officer. Generally, a crisis intervention officer is trained to deal with people such as this, so why didn’t they do their job? When dealing with a child, unless there is a weapon clearly visible, there is absolutely no excuse for shooting a weapon. But, even with all of these issues, we still have that burning question to answer.

The simple reason for the shooting was simply because the child wouldn’t obey commands. This shooting shows the horrible lack of training, competency, and integrity of the American police force. Because this child did not obey command, the police felt that it was required to blast eleven shots at the boy, in a neighborhood setting, in the darkness of night. This goes into other problems, such as the safety of residents. The one thing we can all agree to is this, every bullet fired has to stop somewhere. With each bullet these officers had fired, they not only placed the life of mentally disabled child at risk, but the lives of all the residents living nearby.

Conclusion

What should had been a call for help ended up becoming a horrific situation. A child, who was in clear need of help, is forever traumatized, alongside his family. This child, who already did not trust the police, has now been validated as to why he shouldn’t. As a result of this shooting, it’s reported by family that he has lost feeling in his left hand. Because he was shot in both of his feet, he will never be able to do many of the things he once could.

We can conclude that if this is how SLCPD’s “crisis intervention” officer handles these situations, we can only hope that they are unemployed once the investigation concludes. Beyond that, this situation demonstrated the willingness of officers to shoot first rather than actually handling the situation. Ultimately, it also is a demonstration of just how little the police regard human life. While this isn’t true among all officers, it doesn’t change that this lack of compassion is a pandemic within law enforcement.

 

Man arrested for party: A review

If 2020 has shown us one thing, it’s shown us just how much freedom we truly do not have. Across the country, people are being fined, harassed, and even jailed over the controversial mask mandate. While some people hold to it as law, this is actually far from the reality. However, it is being enforced as though it were law nonetheless.  This brings us to Maryland, where a Hughesville resident was arrested for throwing a bonfire party.

As we all are clearly aware, the Governors of various states have enacted a questionable order that prevents gatherings of more than 10 people, for some residents, the government infringing into what they do in their private life, was a simple “no way.” On March 22nd, officers were called to the home of Shawn Marshall Myers. Myers was having a bonfire party with 60 people in attendance. While that violated what the governor stated, it is also a good time to note that this order is not law, nor does the government, under the constitution, have the ability to infringe into the lives of citizens in this manner; apparently, Myers wasn’t going to allow it.

Upon arriving, Myers began to argue with the police, which would be a logical course of action being that they were trespassing onto his land with no legal grounds. During this argument, Myers informed the police that they had every legal right to gather, which would be a correct and factual statement. However, the police didn’t agree. As a result of violating the “emergency” order, a judge sentenced Myers to a year in jail. While this is a very questionable reason to send a person to jail, this isn’t directly what we’re going to discuss.

According to the attorney, Myers was sent to jail for the “safety” of the community. The contradiction should be easily spotted, but if it’s not, let me point it out. Their idea of “safety” is to place a person in an enclosed area with more than 60 people, who may actually be carrying this virus. This arrest also brings concerns regarding our civil liberties as citizens and how the government has spent 2020 stampeding them into the ground. Of course, this is something we’ve previously covered.

One of the things that has become so controversial with this mandate is in how it’s enforced. While public areas are one thing, this party wasn’t in the public domain. This man was literally arrested, on his private property, an area that this mandate should have no merit of enforcement. It is due to the behaviors of both, law enforcement and government, that our platform is very skeptical of this mandate. Since the time of its initial announcement, we have seen other forms of constitutional violations. Religious centers, schools, and even privately owned businesses forced into shutting their doors all in the name of government compliance.

This specific arrest isn’t the first mandate related one and I doubt it will be the last. As people become exceedingly more fed up with the nonsense of our political figures, I can see more mandate resistance within our future. Arresting this man, and others of the past, isn’t about public safety. It is only serving to spread one message: “You will conform and obey, or you will be removed.” If this sounds a bit familiar, that is because this tactic has been utilized before. It was a similar tactic used by infamous leaders, Adolf Hitler and Stalin, who believed that the best way to gain power was by subduing the people. Up until their downfalls, it was a highly effective tactic as the people never saw what was happening until it was to late.

For similar articles, be sure to check out the below links:

Disabled individuals targeted?

The mask mandate: does it violate the ADA?

Is BLM about equality?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, since its founding, has held firm to the claim that it fights for equality, against police brutality, and various other issues that effect the black community. While tensions between the police and general public have been at an all time high, it has only enhanced the problem created by this movement. While we don’t disagree with anybody’s right to protest, what the movement has done exceeds what is constitutionally protected. rioting, looting, systematic targeting of innocent pedestrians, just to name a few of the deeds conducted by this group.

Riots and destruction

In what should have been a peaceful protest, we have seen various crimes. Some of these, if done by any other group, would had been deemed terroristic. However, somehow or another, this group has somehow bypassed charges of this severity. This isn’t to say that arrests have not been made. In Portland, the nation watched as BLM protestors, alongside a terroristic group, ANTIFA, burned countless vehicles and businesses to the ground. In this regard, their protest consisted of destroying the lives of innocent people, potentially living from paycheck to paycheck, simply because they could. However, this is just the starting point for their nefarious crimes.

Harassment and violence

While the BLM movement continues to complain about how they’re being “treated,” we are going to look at the hypocrisy of their actions.  First, as BLM would say, let’s “say their names” as we review those victimized by the BLM movement.  Recently, we have the two Louisville officers who were gunned down during a BLM “protest.” Thankfully, these officers are expected to make a full recovery. However, the list doesn’t end there. Canon Hinnant, a 5(yo) child, was cruelly murdered in front of his siblings as he simply rode his bike. Of course, BLM defended this going as far as to say, “The neighbor was defending his life.” If that sounds insane, that’s because you are an individual capable of rational thought. But the list of deaths doesn’t end there. In Iowa City, 22 year old, Italia Marie Kelly, was randomly gunned down as she left a protest; she was one of two fatalities  During this specific protest. Five other white people were beaten by the BLM protestors simply for being white.

Moving away from murder victims, we look into random, unprovoked, harassment. In various videos, circulating the internet, we see BLM protestors harass various people as they eat. While there appears to be no provocation, it doesn’t stop these protestors from attempting to provoke an unnecessary fight. In other instances, we see these protestors, who claim to want to bring awareness to their cause, target journalists.

While bringing awareness to their cause would be a great idea, it is impossible when protestors target any journalist who isn’t black. In doing so, they have done a wonderful job of preventing this. When attempting to cover the protests, journalists are often aggressively confronted, berated, called racist (a go-to claim for the movement,) having umbrellas pushed into their face, and so fourth. For a group wanting to bring awareness, it appears that they are only bringing awareness to the fact that they are a hate group. To make matters worst, they are a hate group shrouding itself as a group fighting for equality.

Social viewpoints change/conclusion

Because of the actions of BLM, we have seen a shift in public opinion. As of recently, reports have begun to flood the internet discussing how the movement is losing popularity within the public eye. According to recent stats, BLM is most popular with the democratic party. Breaking things down, we find that they are most popular with the age group of 18-34. In the educational region, they are ironically most popular with post-grads. In the racial area, they are only popular within the black community, lacking any popularity in any other race. While there are many explanations for why the stats, which can be viewed here, it could be as simple as how they behave. Generally, burning down entire neighborhoods, targeting people of other races, and targeting journalists all while screaming the “victim card,” doesn’t fair well with most people.

The movement was one that held much potential. Rather than utilizing that potential, they have instead thrown away any accomplishments they could have achieved. Fighting hatred with hatred has shown, in history, to never be an effective measure. Rather than bringing the very thing they sought, unity, BLM has instead created more tension than what existed previously. Perhaps, they should evaluate how they conduct their protests, take measures in preventing these things, and actually fighting for what they claim to seek. Of course, as history has also shown, this is unlikely to happen.

Disabled individuals targeted?

It goes without say that we should all be entitled to medical care. For some people, this form of care means life or death. However, in all the splendor joys that 2020 has already provided us, we are finding that, for many people, medical care is outright being denied. In fact, for specific groups of people, they aren’t even being allowed in the door before being asked to leave the facility. Why? It all boils down to the mask mandate. I understand that many people will disagree with this article. I also understand that I will most likely catch a lot of grief for writing it, however, I simply refuse to sit back and watch as specific groups of disabled people continue to be targeted, denied their basic right to medical. After all, we have already seen other rights be stripped away, we’ll get into that also.

Mask Mandate

First, and foremost, it is important to understand that the mask mandate is that: a mandate. Although many people will try to claim this to be law, it’s not. The difference in a mandate and law comes down to a variety of factors, how it came to be is among them. While state and federal laws get run through every government house known to man, the mandate had never undergone such a process. Basically, this makes it unenforceable by law enforcement, though they are attempting to enforce it anyway. The issue in them enforcing it can be chalked down into what the very definition of their occupation: to uphold and enforce the law.

Initially, the mask mandate was a suggestion. Never intended to be required, the government composed a list of “safety” procedures for people to follow, if they so wished. However, what we ended up seeing completely opposed this initial stance. In a progressively slow measure, this request grew into the mandate. Some of the “safety” guidelines are as follow:

  1. Stay at least six feet apart from one another. Apparently, we are facing the only known virus in history that has a travel distance of six feet.
  2. Wear a mask. This is something we are going to really get into shortly.
  3. Avoid large crowds. Goes back to the whole six feet portion.

Enforcement vs. your rights

In enforcing this potential violation to the constitution, as well as civil liberties, we have seen the outright measures our very own government are willing to take. In the past several months, we have seen churches forced into closing their doors and their ministers arrested upon refusing to do so. If you aren’t well versed in the Constitution yet, let’s just recap, shall we?

Under the first amendment, you have the right to free speech, the press, religion, and so on. In regards to religion, the amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hence where their idea of enforcement now becomes a problem.

By forcing religious institutions into closing their doors, they directly violated the first amendment. Regardless of the reason as to why this was done, it changes nothing in regards to the result. To take it further, those who refused to cease practicing within their religious institutions, were simply arrested. Never, in the history of the United States, has a minister been arrested for refusing to terminate their religious practices; of course, this is no longer a truthful statement.

Within the mask mandate, there are exemptions that must be noted. It is these exemptions that have lead to this article. The exemptions within themselves aren’t the problem, it’s how businesses treat individuals who are exempted that has become the problem.

  1. pre-existing respiratory conditions.
  2. seizures
  3. sensory disorders, such as those associated with autism.

The above are only a few examples of things that are exempted. Regardless of this, corporations, and even medical facilities, are making blanket policies that force everybody, exempted or not, to wear these masks. Furthermore, for those who are exempted, there doesn’t appear to be any form of help with fighting these illegal policies. So, let’s go ahead and arm our disabled friends with a few pieces of legal information that may be of assistance.

The ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is quickly becoming a critical law to know. Within this law, there are protections that could translate into the enforcement of these corporate policies, as well as the mandate itself though the mandate has exemptions for this very reason. The two titles that we are going to specifically focus on are II and III of the ADA.

Title II

“Title II applies to State and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities. Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance.”

Title III

Title III focuses on private businesses (also known as public accommodations). All new construction and modifications must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. For existing facilities, barriers to services must be removed if it is readily achievable. Public accommodations include facilities such hotels, restaurants, bars, theaters, grocery stores, hardware stores, dry-cleaners, banks, professional offices of health care providers, lawyers, and accountants, hospitals, private bus or train stations, museums, libraries, zoos, amusement parks, places of education, day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, and golf courses to name a few.

To read this in its entirety, please visit this link.

Essentially, these titles prevent corporations, etc. from denying disabled individuals services solely on the grounds of their disabilities. For those who are being denied, as we’ve recently seen, this act will quickly become your best friend in fighting these unjust policies.

The mandate has been met with such controversy that lawsuits are currently ongoing. States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, and Texas are just a few states to mention. Rather or not you are for, or against the mandate, one thing must be clear: For the disabled individuals who cannot wear such devices, life has become a much more difficult challenge than what was ever needed. Rather it requires a revocation, overhaul, or even clarification of the mandate, to resolve the issues that are apparently present, it is, without a doubt, that action must be taken.

Police seek suspect for brutal beating

Across the nation, we have beared witness to the good and the bad associated with the Black Lives Matter movement. Among some of the good, we have seen a collection of individuals unite to fight against an injustice that still plaques are nation as a whole. However, with that, we have seen many harmful events unfold. Recently, we have all been made aware of the situation erupting in Portland, OR. as “peaceful” protests have quickly erupted into an avalanche of assaults, riots, and so on. In a recent attack, Adam Haner had become an unwilling victim of a brutal assault.

According to several witnesses, Haner had allegedly been intoxicated, brandishing a weapon, when he proceeded to drive into the crowd of protestors. However, as of the time of this article, no video evidence has surfaced confirming this specific claim. Video of the assault, however, has taken social media by storm. Witnesses have also made allegations that Haner made several racially charged comments, though this isn’t seen in the video either. With so many unproven claims, what exactly do we know from the night that Adam Haner was brutally assaulted?

Within the video , we see a white pickup as it speeds down a road. He is then surrounded by several BLM protestors. From what we can see within the video, Haner remains calm, remaining respectful. Though for those within the BLM movement, we can’t say the same. The movement members are seen jerking Haner from his vehicle, illegally detaining and insulting him. At this point, the first assault begins. Haner is punched several times by one of the protestors, now identified as Marquise Lee Love (25), before being pulled away. This removal does not prevent the brutal assault that would soon unfold.

As Haner sat in the road, already bleeding from his head, Love returns to kick Haner in the head, knocking him out cold. All the while, another protestor is heard encouraging the assault, referring to the victim as a racist. Within moments, other protestors are seen removing Haner from the road, while others begin to loot his pickup. Thankfully, at this point, one protestor makes a stand against the looting attempt. Because of this event, the PPB issued the following statement:

Yesterday, the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) began investigation of an assault that occurred in the downtown area where an adult male associated to a white pick-up truck was violently assaulted. Investigators positively identified the suspect as 25 year-old Marquise Love. Investigators made attempts to contact Love but could not locate him.

Investigators have left messages for Love to turn himself in but will continue to look for him as there is probable cause for his arrest.

PPB Investigators have been made aware of attempts by members of the public to contact Love after possible personal information was posted online. Investigators urge the public to not do this as it can be dangerous. Also, the information circulating on social media is not always accurate.

Other reports around social media claim that the victim in this case is not recovering or has succumbed to the injuries. These reports are false. The victim has been released from the hospital and is recovering.

Investigators are still trying to locate a transgender female who had some of her things stolen in the area of Southwest Taylor and 4th Ave, the location where this incident began. That person has not been contacted and their identity is unknown. Investigators would like to speak to this person.

Anyone with information about this incident is asked to call Detective Brent Christensen at 503-823-2087 or at Brent.Christensen@portlandoregon.gov.

Allegedly, Marquise Love had, at one point, worked security for the Portland International Airport, though we have yet to confirm this claim, made by Love himself. This situation unfolded when the suspect, and his protest group, robbed another white man, before targeting a transgendered person who tried to intervene. What is also confirmed is that Haner was parked nearby and proceeded to defend the transgendered individual, which lead to Haner’s flee attempt, previously mentioned above. Rumors circulating have indicated that Haner passed away, resulting from his injuries. We are able to confirm that Haner is very much alive, though still suffering the effects of the assault.  Because of the violent nature of the attack, we have added information about Love. Our hope is that he will be brought to justice for what was clearly a racially charged crime.

  1. He was born on September 8, 1994.

  2. He stands 5’9″.

  3. He weighs 160lbs.

  4. His nickname is Keese.

  5. He has a son with his former girlfriend Jovana “Jojo” Gonzales, an alumna of Westview High School in Portland.

  6. Charged with fourth-degree assault and harassment in a domestic violence case, he was arrested on February 11, 2017 and jailed at the Washington County Community Corrections Center in Hillsboro, Oregon. He was inmate 19556801.

  7. He pretends to be a security guard from Star Protection Agency although he no longer works for the agency.

  8. He used to work as a security guard at the Portland International Airport.

  9. He lives in Portland but he is originally from Miami, Florida, USA.

  10. He also lived in other parts of Oregon namely Hillsboro and Beaverton.

  11. He is an organizer of Wall of Moms, a group primarily of women who have demonstrated in George Floyd protests.

  12. He wants to become a disc jockey for Portland night clubs.

screenshot08182020
(Left) In a post, Love states that he “might go to jail for murder.” He proceeds to call Haner, who only got their attention after defending a transgendered person, a racist. (Right) Messages sent to Love by an unknown individual.

 

adamhaner-768x511
Adam Haner as he recovers from the brutal assault.