Tag Archives: censorship

The Sophie Case

Over the years, I have come across some horrific CPS cases. None can even compare to the case that I’m writing about within this article. When looking into this case, it’s clear that there is a serious problem within the family court system. Sadly, for this 9yo child, there doesn’t appear to be any form of help from the very agency that was charged with protecting her from the very situation she is currently enduring. Before we dive into this, please be aware that this article may have some material that is graphic. If you are a sexual abuse victim, and are easily triggered, it is strongly advised to skip reading any further. Our goal in sharing this information is to try and get this girl some assistance, before it’s to late.

The Accusation

As with any sexual abuse case, there is always the accuser, the one who brings the abuse to light. In this instance, Sophie, a 9yo child, is the accuser. According to the child, she is constantly subjected to domestic violence, sexual grooming, and most recently molestation and rape. According to her, these are crimes being committed by her mother’s boyfriend, Jacob. However, the plot twist to all of this comes the other portion of her accusation: not only is the mother aware of abuses, she partakes in it, and has even encouraged it. While the accusations are being contested, it is very unlikely that this child is simply fabricated this. The evidence comes in how her story has not only remained consistant, but video evidence that clearly demonstrate how the girl reacts to going back to her primary residence. Simply put, this is not natural.

The results

Due to the incompetence of the family court judge, the grandmother, and Sophie’s own mother, the father began a campaign in attempt to rescue his daughter. While a GoFundMe has been started, in attempt to raise money for legal fees, the family court judge is accused of abusing her powers. In a diabolical twist, she is allegedly trying to prevent the father from having access to any donated funds. If you aren’t aware, this could be classified as a constitutional violation as she is impeding his ability to gather funds for legal representation, something to which he is entitled to. As all of this is going on, the father had done a livestream. Forced by the judge, who cited “mental trauma” to the child, the father was forced to remove the videos. However, there is a mirrored version which can be watched here.

Currently, although the allegations arose from a 9yo child, it appears that she is being ignored. Upon learning of the public outcry, the judge, who has shown herself to be incompetent, placed a gag order. In a recorded video of the court session, she makes a threat of arressting anybody who continues to share the information. With that thought in mind, our platform clearly was going to challenge that. But this threat leaves the question as to rather or not the judge can do this. Simply put, no. While the judge can place a gag order on the family, this judge is trying to put an order against anybody who speaks of the situation. This brings up a lot of jurisdictional problems. Meanwhile, the court system, and CPS, accuse the girl of lying. Sadly, this is an all to common occurance.

With no CPS, court, or even police assistance, there is much concern for the safety and life of this young child. Though there has been a court, relating to this very subject, the judge still found it to be in the “best” interest of the child if she remained with her mother. This entire case has shown not only incompence of this judge, but also the incompetence of the police and CPS workers involved. What’s even more appauling is the one man who is trying to rescue this girl, is also the man the court is threatning with jail. Perhaps, in this case, it is the judge, caseworkers, mother, and boyfriend who should obtain such a delightful concrete room.

Chris Hansen sparks controversy

Famous journalist, Chris Hansen, has apparantly enraged many of the people who came to trust him. The famous journalist, known for targeting child predators, had allegedly sold the rights for his Onision investigation. While Hansen has claimed it to be a move to gain more attention, the online community is simply not buying it. In one instance, Hansen even blocked an individual who was critical of the act.

Being critical of Hansen, Youtuber “Deity” makes his feelings known. He would later be blocked for this tweet.
In a tweet, “Deity” shows that he had been blocked by the journalist.

Controversies

Although Hansen has had years of experience as a television journalist, he hasn’t been without financial problems. Rather it be millions worth of debt, an arrest, it seems that things haven’t been fairing well for the journalist. It is for this reason, many within the online community speculated that the Onision investigation was a money ploy.

Although Hansen brought a form of momentum to the Onision situation, he hadn’t actually stated any facts that weren’t already available. At one point, Hansen attempted to interview the infamous Youtuber only to be met with local police. Meanwhile, some within the online community speculated this to be a problicity stunt.

Behind the scenes of the investigation, there was a boiling pot of controversy. While much of it was focused on his former employee, Vincent Nicotra, Chris wasn’t spared. Nicotra was infamously known for filing false DMCA claims, doxxing, hate speech, and so fourth. While all of this had been made public, it would take months for Hansen to act. Upon removing Nicotra, things cooled down a bit, but that wouldn’t last.

During the investigation, Hansen made claims that the FBI were investigating. However, when probed, he appeared to be evasive only stating that, “these things take time.” For a community who already felt betrayed, for many reasons, this wasn’t flying very well. The controversy didn’t end on that note, however.

Hansen selling the Onision story seems to have boiled the pot dry. Questions regarding the victims, who entrusted him with their stories, has become a common concern. It also raises questions into Hansen’s current investigation on “Dahvie Vanity.” In this aspect, people can’t help but wonder rather or not Chris will sell this story also.

While selling a story, even if it brings controversy, is common, blocking those who are critical is questionable at best. As a journalist, we are constantly under a microscope, people awaiting for us to slip just so they can berate us. However, doing a move that creates controversy and then blocking those who question it, leads me to question Hansen’s journalistic integrity.

Racism rises amongst COVID fears

Over the years, I have learned to never be surprised as to how low people will go. For this reason, I am not at all shocked by the fact the Native people are being slammed with an onslaught of racism. While this has been going on for sometime now, it is only now that I choose to address it.

Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, it has been no secret that the reservations have been slammed. While much of this can be attributed to the lack of available medical supplies, the bigger problem is in how the Native Americans are generally treated. This brings up the very reason to which I write this article.

In a recent Facebook post, a New Mexico native man makes a rather serious allegation against one of their local Home Depot stores. In his post, “graywolf” accuses a Home Depot assistant manager, Sandra Rodriguez, of posting a racially based statement. The statement, which is shown below, reads as follows:

Go back to your nasty Rez with your diseases.

Sandra Rodriguez
Assistant Manager
Home Depot, Gallup NM

In his post, “Graywolf” is calling for people to call the corporate office. As a matter of fact, we are too. Pandemic or not, there is absolutely no excuse for this sort of behavior, especially when it stems from those working to serve the public in any capacity. During the past few months we have seen the best of society. However, we have also seen the worst aspects of it. If you are against this sort of behavior, and would like to help with “graywolf’s” campaign of reporting this woman, the information is below.

The Home Depot
Contact information
Main:
(505)726-2362

Corporate number 1 (800) 466-3337
The Home Depot/Customer service

COVID-19: Reality Check

For months now, we have seen abuse from the government unlike anything before. While most Americans are perfectly fine with the loss of their first, fourth, and even sixth amendment rights, some are beginning to wake up. As a result of this, social disobedience is quickly becoming a common trend. With so much confusion, who is in the right?

The introduction of COVID-19 introduced more than a new potential threat, it brought out mass fear and even hysteria. As the government began learning about the virus, they implimented some rather debatable “safety procedures.” Social distancing, masks, that sort of thing has now become common practice. However, many debate as to rather or not they went to far.

First amendment

Under the first amendment, all Americans are granted the freedom to practice their religions. What this means is the government has no legal grounds to interfere with this, or other, rights. However, since the COVID-19 situation began, we have seen that very ordeal unfold. In several cases, those who have dared to break the “law” of not going to church, were met with arrest. How is this possible? A simple loophole is all it takes, more on that later.

On social medias, such as Facebook and Youtube, those who are speaking out against the governments’ actions, are finding themselves censored, ability to post/comment blocked, or outright banned. In a controversial move, Facebook has gone as far as to form its own “Supreme court.” The intent of this is to determine what is, or is not, allowed on their site. However, this has lead to many conspiracy theories.

Fourth Amendment

Under the fourth amendment, all citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, and property. At this point, we may as well just rule this one a dead right. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen what happens to those who dare to defy their government overlords. While initially, the “safety protocols” were mere suggestions, people have been brutally beaten and arrested by police. Their crime? Daring to run their businesses.

There are many articles discussing how the police have arrested business owners for literally committing no crime. By violating the “recomendations,” and being arrested for it, proves that these are not just suggestions. Furthermore, they demonstrate the more disturbing image at hand. It was Adolf Hitler who once said:

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” For many, this is what’s happening. Of course, when it’s a $1000+ fine for not wearing a suggestion on your face, it does seem plausible.

Sixth Amendment

The right to a speedy trial. Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you already know that this has been absent. Upon getting arrested, one could expect to sit in jail for an undetermined amount of time, with no courtdate. Why? Because the courts shutdown. While this is starting to change, it doesn’t change the fact that this right may had potentially been violated. Of course, this is just another cog in the political wheel.

What we have seen is nothing less than government operated terrorism on its people. Criminals are being released from jails/prisons over alleged COVID fears. However, people are being sent to jail simply for operating their own businesses. Places where facemasks are “mandatory,” don’t even care what you wear on your face. A person can walk aroumd with tissue paper on their face and have no problem.

From what I have seen, this os a game to strip citizens, using fear and false numbers, of their constitutional rights. The worst part of this, we are allowing it. When you really begin to dig into this, the contradictions become very apparant. This situation is no longer about protecting the people or preventing the spread of a virus, which has an approx 3% fatality rate globally. This is a war in which it is the government vs. the people.

Oklahoma sheriff’s department notoriously blocking citizens?

When it comes to the police departments being “above the law,” it should come to no surprise that constitutional laws would be included. For the sheriff’s department, of pottawatomie county, Oklahoma, it seems they have gone balistic with violating the rights of citizens.

Over the past several months, we had recieved multiple complaints regarding this department censoring out citizens who speak against them. Many of the contacts simply want to know if they can legally block them. Well, we did the research and concluded the answer to be no. Let’s dive right into it.

We found multiple articles on this very subject, all aiming at different angles. In July of 2019, the second circuit court had ruled that Donald Trump, being an elected official, could not block citizens on his twitter. Doesn’t apply, you say? Actually, it does. Though the situation is slightly different, the ruling is based on the concept that he is a public official. To extend on this, there is also a ruling by the fourth circuit court, stating public officials cannot block citizens on social media.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, the sheriff is an elected, public, official. That means that a sheriff falls into this category as well. Because they are the lead for their departments, their departments Social Media pages become a public forum. It also means that, like Donald Trump, blocking citizens is a violation to the first amendment.

When looking into the department itself, we found multiple reviews. The comments ranged from buying alcohol while in uniform, unprofessional behaviors, overly aggressive, and wreckless driving, nearly hitting a woman with child. For us, this only served to validate the fact that this department has some serious problems that are not being addressed.

Regardless of the federal and circuit rulings, this department has only shown a complete disregard for its citizens rights, as well as the federal rulings. Via Facebook and Twitter, we reached out to the department. The Facebook results was that of no comment and me being banned from their page. As of this time, we have gotten no response on Twitter.

With only the “share” button available, this demonstrates my ban. When other members of WoC went to this page, the comment section was still displayed.

Port of Seattle officer on leave following video

By now, most of you are probably familiar with the name, Greg Anderson. This, soon to be former officer, was made famous when he posted a video encouraging officers to NOT uphold illegal orders to stay at home. Though the video was met with much praise, including from his department, that has quickly changed.

Anderson, three days after making the viral video, the department he worked for, began demanding the video to be removed. Using various claims, including equipment being identifiable and policy, the intimidation failed. Anderson, who held his ground, was ultimately suspended pending termination due to policy violation.

War on Corruption reached out multiple times to the department, asking what policy was violated. Though the department has read our messages, they blatently refused to reply. With that, we found alternative methods of obtaining their social media policies.

It didn’t take long for us to understand why they refused to respond. Starting at policy 5: 125-POL 2, we found it to be extremely vague. A portion of the policy reads as follows:

Engaging in prohibited speech outlined in this policy may provide grounds for discipline and may be used to undermine or impeach an officer’s testimony in legal proceedings.

The issue here is it leaves the department open to select what language is inapropriate speech. In fact, the closest we get is:

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that includes harassment, threats of violence, or similar conduct

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that ridicules, maligns, disparages, expresses bias, or disrespect toward any race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or any other protected class of individuals

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that suggests that Department personnel are engaged in behavior reasonably considered to be unlawful or reckless toward public safety

Even the above, in many aspects is vague, leaving it open for the department to utilize the policy as they see fit. Even so, the claims the department made for wanting the video removed seem invalid.

Through the department’s silence to clarify the policy violation, we are under the presumption that they are fully aware that no policy had been violated. In fact, you can read their social media policy Through the department’s silence to clarify the policy violation, we are under the presumption that they are fully aware that no policy had been violated. In fact, you can read their social media policy here.

Should the department decide to respond, we will place it within this article. Until then, it is to our opinion that what is being done is nothing short of an unethical removal of one of the few good officers this country has.

The DOC articles update

It’s been awhile since we’ve touched on this subject. Within those articles, we had withheld the identification of our source, and will continue to do so. However, we have been granted permission to release the name of the facility to which the articles discussed. If you need a “refresher,” the articles can be found here, here, and here.

As you may recall, we spoke of how the whistleblower had gone months without employment, a common trend among those who speak out against law enforcement. In recent times, even members of our platform have recieved messages from people alleging to be former employees, thoug some of their profiles state they are current officers.

The articles, to which we spoke of, derived from an correctional facility out of Oklahoma. Mabel Bassett Correctional center has a long history of alleged cover-up as well as corruption among the officers. Beyond this, there are many other accusations regarding the facility. In one review, the individual alleges,

It’s infested with mole,kitchen has roaches and medical is the worst. An inmate received notice from medical that she was exposed to HEPATITIS A and medical refused to give her the vaccine, so now how many inmates have been effected in this facility????

Other accusations, some to which had been confirmed, range from officers refusing to stop fights to a potential cover-up of a death (unconformed.)

While this article is a basic update, that isn’t what caught my attention. As stated, members of our team had gotten some messages from an alleged former officer. Recapping one of the messages, the individual wrote, “I got a random message not long ago asking about the place and I looked at the reviews and saw ur comment.” When asking about the comment, I was informed that he had no memory of writing anything regarding the facility, and so we looked.

Searching on Google reviews and Facebook, it would appear that the statement was, in fact partially true. There was a comment left on Facebook, an oversight perhaps. Upon showing the member the screenshot, he did recall it, stating it was to bring awareness for those negatively effected by this place. However, the messaging person wanted information about our whistleblower. Details we cannot, and will not provide.

WoC has had a long standing policy of not revealing sources. Should the individual contact me for this information, I will be obligated into citing our policy to them. This protects our sources and prevents potential retaliation. Over the years, we have learned many things. One of these things is nobody ever asks for sources without having a reason. While the reason may very well be for information, as a platform we have an obligation to protect them; we simply can’t maintain trust and credibility if we reveal those who trust us to withold their identities.

This article isn’t much, just an update with some other details. Unless we get something more critical, we are planning to end fiture updates regarding this facility here. While we still haven’t revealed some information, such as the name of the captain, it’s not due to the lack of knowledge. In fact, we using nothing more than a lastname, we were able to find the captain on Facebook. The rest of the information is being stored away for the “just in case” factor. While we hope to never need to, we will only do another article if the facility does any future retaliation against our sources.

Corey Feldman accused of filing copyright claim

Corey Feldman, child actor turned activist, had released a documentary, ‘My truth: the rape of two Corey’s.’ Among the diehard Feldman fans, the documentary was highly appraised, however, that’s where the applause ends. For others, it was viewed as a ‘circus act’ poorly constructed. For many, the documentary left more questions than answers, some even claimed that it hadn’t really proven the sexual abuse claims, and then there is the ‘money grab’ accusation, which we will get into a bit.

As stated, Feldman had released a documentary. His explanation behind it was to ‘expose the pedophile elites in Hollywood.’ However, the documentary, according to multiple sources, only names one; hence the start of the many questions. We were unable to see the documentary in full, but from what one of our team did see, Feldman spoke of a childhood masturbation session. It was, at this point, he stopped watching.

The fact the documentary fails to actually name anybody within this “elite group,” has lead many to believe that the documentary was a ploy for cash and not truth, as Feldman claimed. They back this claim with the fact that Feldman, if he were about truth, would had made the documentary open for all to see. However, what he did do is stamp a $20.00 per view to it. Now, we can continue diving into this documentary, but we have a DMCA to discuss.

Recently, journalist Meko Haze (Discuss Global,) did a multi-livestream. Within this livestream, he watched, and commentated on Feldman’s documentary. While this does fall under ‘fair use,’ since it was clearly done for commentary purposes, Feldman, and his publishing group, apparantly disagreed. So, let’s clear this up, was it copyright infringement?

When looking up the definition to ‘fair use commentary,’ we got this: “

fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright

This means, that because the journalist had clearly acted in this regard, it was not a copyright infringement, as Feldman claimed in his DMCA report. It also enforces the belief that the DMCA was only filed because the platform, “Discuss,” was critical of his work, as any journalist would be. While the video has been removed from Youtube, it can still be viewed here.

Notation: Should we obtain a copy of the DMCA claim, we will include it in this article.

Corrections (Insider report)

Disclaimer:

This article was composed based on information provided to us. We will not reveal the source nor will we reveal the State to which the source worked. We are doing this for the protection of the individual legally as well as from those within the department who may not agree with this article. War on Corruption takes no responsibility for the information provided, we are merely sharing what was provided to us.

Introduction

In many ways correctional institutions are contraversial. Rather it be in how offenders are treated, the quality of life, or the occasional violence, these locations have, upon many occasions, sparked outrage. We often hear about how life is for those imprisoned within these institutions, but we rarely hear about those who are (or were) employed. We recently got a bit of insight into how this agency works, the behind the scenes if you will, into the life of the employees. For protective reasons, we have omitted the specific agency’s location as well as the former employee, the reasons will become abundantly clear throughout the article.

Life away from work

When working, it is expected to uphold the policies and guidelines of your employer. Failing to do so is usually met with some form of consequence, even termination of employment. However, this field is slightly different. For those who are employed, the policies appear to apply 24/7. Rather you are at home, at work, even on vacation you find yourself constantly having to “look over your shoulder.” One example that we were given, in regards to this, is Facebook. While it isn’t new for companies to speak to employees regarding posts, for this agency, your posts could be met with harsh consequences including termination.

Speaking ill of the agency is also forbidden. For example, if our contact were actively working for the “Department of Corrections,” they could be met with termination simply for speaking to us, it is to our best guest that whistleblower laws are completely obsolete for these employees. The agency is very “image” focused. Every expectation, on or off duty, that is held toward their employees, is primarily to ensure that this agency maintains a good public image.

Pay

Admittedly, from what we have seen, the average correctional officer does make good pay. So why mention this? Well, this is also a punishment that can be utilized against them. As it was explained to us, it is not unheard of for the Department to withold paychecks, forcing employees to go without for “X” amount of time, or until the next pay period. The typical solution for the employees, to which suffer this virtually inhumane form of control, is to go into debt with loans. Because the department can opt out of paying their employees at any given cycle, this means that they are forced to find alternative ways to make ends meet; for some, this means sneaking contraband into the facility for the offenders. Common reasons for this is even more bothersome: you get sick and your supervisor doesn’t approve the time off, you simply miss to many days, and so fourth. Regardless of the reasons why, it does leave questions into the legality of this consequence.

Keeping with the trend of loss pay, we go into another questionable act: Removing your pay. According to our insider, another “dirty” move that is often enacted is the deduction of your payroll from your bank account. According to the individual, this comes in a bit of a process, we will simplify it:

  1. Payroll is issued and deposited into your checking account.
  2. Employee uses money to pay bills, etc.
  3. Up to a week later, the account can suddenly go into a negative standing with the bank due to your check being withdrawn by the department.

Upon asking for the reasons why, we were informed that it is usually classified as an “overpayment.” With this, the insider informed us that they are actually salary based with the addition to getting overtime. This has left many questions regarding this action.

Staffing and Retaliation

The agency is always in a status of “hiring.” Given what we have composed thus far, I can’t fathom why. Nationally, the Department is critically understaffed, often only having one officer for each unit. Each unit could have 300+ offenders versing this one officer. “So why are they always hiring,” a question we had to ask.

“There are many reasons as to why the department is constantly hiring. If an officer angers the wrong person, usually a higher ranking individual, retaliation for this is not uncommon practice. But, aside from that, the field really isn’t for everybody, it really does require a specific personality type in order to truly thrive in such a negative environment,” was the response we got.

We inquired into the retaliation claim. The response, in essence, spoke of payroll (covered above,) frivilous write-ups, being treated in such a way that one is forced to resign, and so fourth. We inquired as to how common this occurs. According to our insider, this was very common practice. The department had a sort of shield in that the policies practically forbade employees from being able to publically speak out against the department, thus leaving them at their mercy.

Offender Treatment

Another concern that was brought up was regarding how “inmates” are treated. While some officers make a valiant effort, most treat them as though they were the “scum of the earth.” It was upon this note that the insider stated, “we have all made mistakes, we have all done s**t that wasn’t exactly legal. These people simply got caught. It is, to my core belief, that I treated all of them with respect so long as they returned that respect. When they failed to do so, I would attempt to calm the situation which usually meant actually speaking to the offender.”

Conclusion

There is much more we could go into. To do that, however, would require a novelette. While we have much more information, we will leave it to this for this article. For now, we can make a rather damning conclusion as to how these individuals are treated. Furthermore, we can even conclude that the State demands control of the personal lives of its employees, a disturbing concept at best. If requested, we may compose a secondary article into this subject. For now, we will simply leave it with this.

Facebook: war on innocence

If you have been on Facebook for any length of time, chances are you already know that they optionally enforce their policies. And why not? They are the biggest social media platform on Earth. Not a big deal, right? Wrong!

Because of the random enforcement of their policies, numerous crimes are conducted via their platform daily. While some of these crimes are minor, some are very serious crimes. Just to name a few: drug trade, human trafficking, child pornography, bullying, and various forms of terrorism.

While drug trading is a crime, it isn’t one worth discussing in this article. However, we are going to discuss human trafficking and child pornography together. The reason we are combining them is purely due to how they relate.

If you search around on Facebook long enough, eventually you may come across some “kiddie” groups or profiles. Often times these groups are closed, some are secret, but once in awhile you find an open group. 

Over the years I have come across hundreds of these groups. I did what any rational person should do, I reported it to Facebook. So, I did a great deed, I helped some family whos’  children were being preyed on. But, Facebook actually allowed the group to remain.

And so, because Facebook is so poorly operated, this message is what you will get. However, this doesn’t happen to just groups, this also applies to other victims.

Another area to which we see the piss poor operations of Facebook, is in the harassment/bullying arena. In many cases, you get the standard “we aren’t doing anything about it” message. In other cases, we have seen the bully report the victims’ profile successfully; this sends a huge message. This message is simply: 

If you break the law while using Facebook, don’t worry, we are on your side. However, if you are a victim, you are not subject to be protected while on our site.

Regardless of the proven, and yet dangerous effects this has, Facebook remains selective on how its policies are enforced.

The reason is simple, however. Facebook makes X amount of dollars per profile/page. So, the more they have, the more money they make. In theory, the more money you make Facebook via posts, pics, etc., the less likely they are to enforce policy on you. Simply put, they want you to make revenue for them.

With the rising of social medias such as “MeWe” and “empowr,” it is very plausible that Facebook will soon have a run for its money. That, however, does not phase them. For right now, the mega giant continues its poor enforcement and management of its policies.