Tag Archives: censorship

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.

Facebook supports suicide?

For those of you who follow us on Facebook you may have noticed our lack of posting. The reasons for this are due to Facebook’s continuous banning of all WoC admin. The most recent banning ties directly into this article. Let’s go into this most recent thirty day ban.

Recently, a post was made to the social media platform. The individual was apparently having a mental health crisis and simply needed somebody to talk to, no harm in that, right? Wrong. Enter into the comments, a digital “Karen.” This individual proceeded to berate the man, going as far as to taking screen shots of the post. She made it known that she had intended to send this photo to the man’s employer, who he had listed on his profile.

It was, at this point, that I defended the man. I had expected to enrage her, I did not expect the entire WoC team to be blocked for it. My reply to her read as follows:

“You know, this os a man who is reaching out for help. There is absolutely no reason to be a b**** to him. Back off.”

No sooner did I hit the post button, I was blocked from posting, for the now 7th consecutive month. Shortly after, I began getting messages from several of my admins. Like me, they had been blocked. Unlike me, they had no reason as to why.

In this block, Facebook made a clear statement. You can bully a person who is in distress. However, if you take a stand with that person, you will be silenced. You will be shutdown. With this blatant disregard for mental health, “War on Corruption” is making a new stand. This stand is against Facebook’s tyrannical and vague policies. We will not be returning to the site.

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.

Another Facebook purge?

This article is very different from anything we’ve written in the past. While our normal policy is to not write anything to which we are directly related, we have been forced to make an exception. Over the past month, I have uploaded three YouTube videos. The videos not only explain the apparent attack on the “War on Corruption” platform, it goes to detail the progressive censorship of my own account. Though I had hoped for a resolution, Facebook has adamantly refused to address any message I’ve sent to them. In fact, they’ve only increased the various forms of censorship to my account and my platform.

Censorship: Phase I

In the beginning, what Facebook had done was nothing more than a slight annoyance. With no explanation, not even a noted policy violation, I had found that my account had been blocked from commenting or replying to political pages. This means that I could not interact with any political figure, this immediately caught my attention. At this point and time, I was still able to comment, reply, and even post to other pages, groups, etc. At this time, I was oblivious to just how far Facebook would take this censorship.

Censorship: Phase II

After about a week of dealing with the original block, Facebook apparently decided that it was time to do additional blocks. Upon trying to post a comment to a group, which I had been able to do the previous day, I found that I had been restricted from doing so. As with the original block, no reason was given explaining why my account had been restricted. The censorship wouldn’t end here. If it did, this article wouldn’t exist. Within twenty-four hours of this new restriction, I was restricted from commenting and replying to all pages and groups. However, at this point and time, I was still able to post on the “WoC” page, though commenting and replying had now been restricted.

Censorship: Phase III

For the next few weeks, I progressively became agitated over the restriction. On top of running this media platform, I compose and sell music online. At this point and time, this had remained untouched by the nefarious goons of Facebook. However, War on Corruption had now been completely restricted from me. I could no longer post, comment, reply, or even send private messages from the platform’s page. It was, at this point that we decided to begin the process of removing WoC from Facebook completely. During this period, Facebook added yet another new restriction. Not only was I unable to post, comment, reply, or send PM’s, I now could no longer join or leave groups. Worst yet, Facebook wasn’t even finished playing this illegal form of censorship.

Censorship: Phase IV

With this, we are now up to date with the current situation. At this point, Facebook has removed my ability to post, comment, and reply from my personal profile. Furthermore, the page I have, to which I promote my side gig of music, has also been slammed by the social media giant. This means that, on two different platforms, Facebook has not only censored me, but they’ve even cut a form of my income: music. But it doesn’t end there. Out of our team of seven, five of us have been targeted in this exact same manner, all without reason or explanation. Though all of us have tried to appeal it, the results are the same. The appeal process itself has been restricted from all of us.

This means that while we have the option to appeal, should we attempt to do so it will fail to go through; Facebook will never even know that we’ve tried to fight it. As of now, our platform is being operated by two individuals of our team, the only two who have not been targeted with this illegal act. Meanwhile, I continue my search for a civil rights attorney. Not only for our team, but for the various other platforms, and individuals, targeted by Facebook.

Conclusion

With much discussion, we do have a lead into what instigated the censorship: I was critical of a specific political figure, one that Facebook supports. With their censorship, they’ve not only shown how far they will go to stop anybody who opposes their political views, they have demonstrated how far they will go to silence any journalist who speaks against those to which they support.

We aren’t writing this article to bring awareness to what is happening to our platform, we are writing this to warn other journalists, and truth seekers, of what Facebook is willing to do to silence them. We have full expectation that Facebook will shut us down. Since the time of the initial restriction, we have watched as our platform stats spiraled into oblivion. With this, we have absolutely no doubt that, much like our team, our platform is being shadow banned by the site.

During what many call the “purge,” Facebook wiped out over a dozen media platforms from their site. Among them: “Freedom Though Project,” who had well over a million followers. The habitual pattern of Facebook is to target independent media, why not? They can’t buy us off unlike the corporate giants of the media world. While Facebook continues to hold its position of being a “private” company, this is factually untrue. Facebook had ceased being a private company when they entered the public domain, the Stock Market. While this has many financial benefits for the site, it has a lot of legal disadvantages. Among them, violating constitutional rights.

Though we have no expectation of the platform surviving this, on Facebook at least, we have begun moving to other sites. Below, are links to our new locations. We hope to see you there just as we hope that Facebook will cease this unjust activity.

MeWe

Rumble

Flote

Minds

Parler

 

Police department exposed

update

The Chief of police reached out to us, though she didn’t exactly answer our question. Below is that correspondence.

Chief: What are your questions about our policies?

WoC: Our platform was recently informed that your department rejected a potential application, partly on the grounds of an accusation to which an individual was found innocent. We know this because we were able to pull up this disposition. Though the individual involved has declined to comment on this, I thought I would touch base with you guys and find out how that was able to be used against this person, regardless of this disposition?

Chief: The individual you are talking about KNOWS why he was turned down. You have to tell the truth. I will be glad to talk to you I person. I will be in the office Monday.

At this point, the conversation was abruptly ended, she has not responded since this message.

—————————————

It was inevitable that this article would be written. In our current trend of exposing the “justice” system for all the glamorous corruption, it shouldn’t be to hard to conceive that we would begin targeting specific law enforcement agencies. Today, we are going after a small Oklahoma town, Earlsboro Police Department. This department was brought to our attention by a former applicant, denied a job on the basis of a charge, to which they were determined innocent. Upon conducting my own research into this department, it’s not all that surprising that they would had denied the individual’s application upon those grounds. After all, in 2018, the department was so corrupt it had gained state wide attention. Let’s review the Earlsboro Police Department.

History of abuse and corruption

As we have stated, this small town department is riddled with a past of corruption. In 2015, officer Michael Young, who is believed to still be with the department, targeted a freelance journalist. The journalist, associated with the organization “Cop Block,” had been filming the officer’s interaction with another citizen. To see that video, just click this link.  The situation, based upon the video, is rather disturbing.

It shows officer Young parked in front of a residence, lights enabled. Upon leaving, he does a U-turn. When getting to the corner, where the journalist is located, he stops at the stop sign. However, he doesn’t simply drive away. Instead, Young sits at this sign, blocking potential traffic. This goes on for several minutes.  Finally, after blocking the road for several minutes, officer Young decides to engage the journalist. The fact that the officer chose to even engage somebody, filming on a public road, is already questionable. But as we’ve said, this department doesn’t exactly operate with the legal scope.

More controversy hit the department in 2018. The former chief of police, Troy Magers found himself the centerfold of this event. Though this controversy was aimed at the private life of Magers, it spoke loudly for his character. So, we are going to give a quick rundown of the situation.

The former chief had rented a house. Upon leaving the residence, the home owner found it to be a complete wreck. Trash, feces, urine, roaches littered the home, it looked as if a hoarder had been living there. Though there is much debate as to why he was removed, one allegation is it was over sexual harassment claims and abuse of power. Though we haven’t been able to confirm the reasons leading up to his removal, we did find that he has an extensive history of misdemeanors and civil litigations dating back to the 1990’s. This leads us to our current question: If the EPD allowed this man to apart of the department, why did their current Chief of Police, Candie, deny a man who was found to be innocent of his charge?

Allegations against the former Chief of police didn’t just stop at how he destroyed a rental home. We were able to make contact with a man who had lived in the town during this time. According to this contact, the former chief had made a point of targeting a young woman and her children. In fact, the harassment had become so severe that she had allegedly bought a gun to protect her family from the police. Ultimately, after the officer attempted to remove her children, she and her family, was forced to move from their home.

We reached out to the department, in attempt to get answers. However, what we found was that any comment we left was  hastily removed. To ensure our question was seen, and hopefully answered, we left it for them on a Google review (pictured below.) One thing we noticed when looking at their reviews, was their rating. 2.6 out of 5. While it’s not uncommon to see lower scores with any law enforcement agency, this is still remarkably low. Reviews accuse officers of theft  to inaction in a potential life threatening situation.

Because they continue to delete any questions asked by the WoC team, we made our questions in a very public way. Doing it like this also ensures that the department cannot delete it.

The record showing the background of the EPD former police Chief, Troy Magers.

We find it interesting that a man with such a record of misdemeanors and civil suits was qualified to be a chief, but a man who was innocent wasn’t qualified to join the department.  While the department has allegedly pulled the “legalities” card, when we review the history of their previous chief, that is something we find to be rather suspicious. While the department has now become more active within its local community, it doesn’t necessarily excuse it from its past. When policies are being created on the spot, when officers, who still remain with the department, hold a history of abuse and intimidation,  we have more than enough reason to believe that nothing has truly changed.

It is unfathomable to believe that such a small department could be more corrupt than those in bigger cities. While we don’t believe the corruption has stopped, simply changed hands, it does appear that the department has made some drastic changes. While we still can’t confirm officer Young’s employment with this specific agency, we are told by a source that he maybe working for another department.  Allegedly the entire department was wiped clean, alongside Chief Magers. According to sources, this was brought about from accusations of “sexual misconduct.” However, neither the city of Earlsboro, nor it’s police department, will confirm this. One thing that is clear is they are still enforcing a non-existent law. There is no law barring a person employment purely based upon an accusation. After all, accusations happen all the time, it’s the establishment of guilt that matters. Because our journalist does live within the same state as this department, they can rest assure that we are going to be watching them very closely in the days to come.

India based Media platform files false copyright claim

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

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

To preserve the reputation of the artist, he requested that we only refer to him as “Dark,” which we are more than happy to comply with. In 2017, “Dark” released one of his musical pieces, a song called “Raven.” The piece, as he tells us, was composed solely by him. He informed us that the YouTube release had “Royalty free” videos with it. Royalty free means that the video is accessible to the general public, free of charge, to use in a variety of ways.

For years, the young musician had no problems. That changed recently when he saw a copyright claim on the music. He sent our platform the original music file, confirming that it was in fact his piece. The questionable aspect of the claim comes in what they did within the claim. They didn’t request the music to be removed. Instead, they claimed to have it monetized, to which they would be paid for the views. If this sounds like a money scheme to you, we are inclined to agree.

When reaching out to the platform, we were surprised to see that they have over three million followers. So why would they waste their time on a small-time musician? We asked the platform this very question. Rather than replying, they blocked any member of our team who tried to make contact.  With that, we contacted them under the “War on Corruption” page. Though we haven’t been blocked as of yet, there is no expectation that they will respond in any form aside blocking the platform.

Shady journalism is something our platform has always strongly disagreed with. For a platform like “Manorama News TV” to falsely claim ownership of material they clearly do not own, is simply appalling. I can imagine that it’s not an easy feat being a musician. I also can imagine that it’s infuriating for something you’ve spent a lot of time on to be stolen in this fashion. This situation not only reveals Manorama News as a crooked platform, it also demonstrates the flaws within YouTube’s copyright system. It seems that anybody can file a claim on any video they so desire. Following  the claim, they can simply profit from the work of others. These parasites aren’t required to prove the claim, only file it.

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.