Tag Archives: constitution

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

 

Journalism vs. Facebook

At this point, I’m not even going to pretend to be surprised that this article would eventually come. In fact, I doubt that anybody who reads it would be. Facebook is a company that has a notorious history of censoring people. Rather it be for political reasons, what they classify as “spam,” or simply cleaning house of freelance journalists, Facebook has long since established its guilt. However, for the company, this guilt has not come without a price. With multiple lawsuits, one would think the company would make a few policy changes.  This has not been the case. If anything, Facebook appears to be tightening the reigns on the very policies that have gotten them sued in the first place.

On my personal profile, I have multiple freelance journalists. You maybe wondering what we all have in common, why I would even mention them. The one common ground we all share is that all of our accounts have been, in some way, censored by Facebook. Furthermore, when conducting this censorship, we are given no explanation as to why.

Though Facebook has restricted my account, notice that they do not give an actual reason as to why.

On 10/20/2020,  the journalist/founder of the platform “Discuss Global,” received a message like the one photographed above. in less than twenty four hours, I also received a message indicating that my account had been “restricted.” According to Facebook’s message, I had violated a policy. However, as you can see above, there is no example of what policy was violated, nor is there a copy of the violating post/comment. For those who have been on the platform for awhile, may recall the “journalistic purge.” This purge was the mass removal of dozens of independent journalistic platforms. Among these, “Cop Block” “The Daily Haze,” and “The free thought project.” It is almost as though Facebook is attempting to take down any journalist who is critical of Trump, something that I have in common with the other targeted journalists on my “friends” list.

Though I am given the option to appeal, doing so only brings up this error. This same event occurred when other journalists attempted to appeal.

While Facebook has given us the ability to appeal this “violation,” you can see for yourself what that appeal process brings. While Facebook continues to violate the rights of independent journalists, who don’t share their political views, earlier this year, the social media giant lost a class action lawsuit. you can read here for more information into that.

It’s commonly stated that Facebook is the perfect example of how socialism works. If you speak out against anything they support, they silence you. Perhaps, with all the lawsuits, Facebook should consider looking into their own policies and how they’re enforced before violating the rights of anybody who speaks out against their political agendas. Although this can be prevented, it would require that people take a stance against the platform.

Shawnee apartment complex drive-by.

We would like to believe that the safest place to be is at our home. However, those living at an apartment complex in Shawnee, OK., learned just how quickly that safety can be violated.  While this is just a preliminary article, using statements from various witnesses, we are going to post what our platform currently knows. While we have reached out to the police department, they were quick to make it clear that they cannot give out any information. Although this is standard procedure, they did confirm that nobody was harmed in this event.

Preliminary report

October 9, 2020 was like any other day. One witness, and her friend, had their children outside playing.  Both parents were outdoors to monitor them. From what we know, two cars, one white, one having a greenish/tan color was observed speeding through the complex, going toward the apartments, which were located at the back of the property. When asked, the witness informed us that she was unsure as to which car actually had fired the weapon. According to our source, a friend yelled at the cars, telling them to slow down as children were outside. Upon yelling at the cars, the witness received the response saying, “fuck you, bitch.” Immediately after this, the shooting began. It is also important to make mention that the oldest child was only 14 years of age.

Allegedly, the intended target was a man named Mikey Byrd. While we have attempted to locate him as a means of establishing contact, we have yet to succeed. According to some witnesses, the police currently have two suspects in custody for questioning, though this remains unconfirmed. Further sources have indicated that the reason behind the shooting may have been from a previous drug deal gone wrong.

While much of this is currently circumstantial, we plan to stay on top of the situation, providing information as we are able. For now, all we can say is to stay tuned, we’ll keep you posted.

 

Injured employee mistreated?

Unless you’re completely out of your mind, the last thing in the world that you would want to do is injure yourself at work. With any sort of injury, there is a loss of income, dealing with legal things that you may not had expected, and the list goes on. This story is brought to us by an individual, who requested to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. Given what we’ve been informed, it seems he maybe a bit late on avoiding the said retaliation, however. Though this isn’t our typical style, we decided to cover this simply because as a platform, we will always stand against bullies, no matter the situation.

Express Personnel is a nationwide employment agency. While they typically assist the unemployed in getting “temp” jobs,  They don’t hide the fact that their employees are nothing more than “cash cows” for the agency, especially if you have gotten a workplace injury. This brings us to the ‘Express Personnel’ services of Seminole, Oklahoma. In specific, we are going to be discussing the manager of this branch and her apparent lack of professionalism. As of this time, we have reached out to this specific agency, inviting them to issue a comment. However, as the past has shown, we don’t really have high expectations of receiving one.

The employee, who made us aware of this situation, had just started working at a local production plant, producing food products. According to the individual, things were going great, until he had gotten injured halfway through his shift. The injury apparently occurred when the employee lifted a box, potentially turning wrong, leading to a muscle and tendon being strained in his lower back. Even with the said injury, he stated that he remained at his work station for an additional hour. However, the pain increasingly became unbearable, forcing him to leave.

The next day, the employee reported the injury to his employer, ‘Express Personnel.’ At this point, he mentioned that he was almost unable to walk. For this reason, he had utilized a cane. Calling the employer, they demanded that he drive to their office, he informed them of the severity of the pain. However, this is when he claims the first round of hostility began. From one of the audio files sent to us, they are heard saying, “well, you need to get up here as soon as possible, TODAY,” before abruptly ending the call. As demanded, the employee drove to the location. According to him, upon entering the building, he was immediately with unnecessary statements regarding his cane.

While at the location, the branch manager had him sign various papers. One containing a rather questionable question: “What could you have done differently to prevent this injury?” The problem with this question is that it’s what they define as a “loaded question.” Essentially, there is no means of answering this question without placing the complete blame onto the employee. Basically, this is a legal trick to removing any accountability from Express. Initially, the employee refused to answer the question, only to be met with more hostility. According to him, he even tried to advise them that he wasn’t certain as to how to answer the question. He informs us that the fact he knew what they were trying to do, was partly to blame for this. The branch manager, at this point allegedly replied with, “Well, you better figure it out because they’re going to ask you the same thing,” though she never specified as to who “they” are. After answering the question, under duress, he informs us that he went to their doctor.

Upon completing the doctor visit, the employee began his 20 mile trip back to Express. He informs us that he was required to return so that he can give them a copy of the paperwork, provided by the doctor. When arriving, he decided to begin recording. He says this was because of the previous hostility, he simply wanted evidence of it. Currently, our platform has this audio recording.  Upon listening to it, it’s not only apparent that this manager lacks any form of professionalism, she is outright bullying this employee. If you haven’t guessed, while he may not of had any form of legal action previously, he most certainly could have one on these grounds.

The one thing that really stood out, in this recording, was a statement made by the manager. “I’m going to be honest with you, I don’t care if you come to work or not, it’s less money that we have to spend.” I must ask the question: Is this Express Personnel’s policy regarding treatment of their employees? Is this their policy on how to treat an individual simply for having an accident at work? It would seem so. I turned to Google and began conducting some research. I wanted to confirm if this man could potentially have a case, not on his injury, but rather on how he has been treated as a result.

According to “injurycoach.com,” he very well may. The site reads as follows:

Most employers are immune to employee lawsuits due to a complicated web of workers’ compensation statutes protecting them. … If youve been injuredmistreated, or wrongfully fired from your jobyou may be well within your rights under state or federal laws to file a lawsuit against your employer.

Essentially, due to how the workers compensation laws are designed, the company can’t really be held financially liable for any injury, though he has already informed us that he was never intending for any of the post report events to occur. However, because they did mistreat him upon reporting the injury, he very well may have a case, depending on what the laws within his state say.

Nobody ever expects to be injured at their work. When these injuries do occur, the employee shouldn’t be treated as though they committed a crime, especially by their employer. Though this individual is still employed with them, he has made it abundantly clear that he has every intention of terminating that, once he is cleared for work. To that, we can only wish him good health and better employment.

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.

The Sophie case: discussing a few people

As the hashtag “StandWithSophie” continues to go viral, it appears that it won’t be slowing down anytime soon. Though Sophie had been returned to her father, this was apparently only for a short duration of time. Sophie is reportedly being returned, yet again, to the very location to which she claims to have been abused. With this, I think it’s time to do a quick scoop on some of the involved, and a bonus tidbit, on those involved, or  simply married to somebody who is.

Judge Cynthia/Ray Whelis

As you may already know, Judge Cynthia Whelis is the presiding judge for the 417th District court, located in Collins county, Texas. The infamous judge, at this current time, works within the family court system, to which she hears juvenile and child welfare cases. Shecurrently holds memberships within the State Bar of Texas, the Collin County Bar Association and a sustaining member of the Junior League of Plano, TX. Given how she has handled the entire Sophie case, it is disturbing to know that she is board certified in juvenile law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Judge Whelis, recently attempted to perform a complete blackout on the Sophie case. Threatening the father with jail, it is alleged that she had hoped to prevent the case from going viral. It was around this time that she allegedly stated that 9yo, Sophie, had made false allegations regarding sexual abuse from her mother’s boyfriend, Jacob. We’ll get into Jacob shortly.

Judge Whelis, upon disregarding the allegations being made, had returned Sophie to the very location to which she was being abused. It is, at this point, there was a national outcry against the judge. At one point, there was a petition, which was on Change.org, to have her removed from her positon. However, this petition has since been removed. Though she continues to get unwanted attention, she still remains on the Sophie case, a choice that may result in further harm to the child.

 Ray Whelis, until recently, was also a judge. Though he once served in the Collins county courthouse, he would ultimately become a judge out of Dallas. The interesting thing that we discovered about him, was his involvement with a case, commonly associated with the hashtag “SaveJames.” According to a public records search, in 2007 this judged failed the certification exam in criminal trial law. in a 2009 application for a job as a state criminal-court district judge, heclaimed that he only failed because he was in the process of selling his home in previous months  and “took passing the exam for granted.” Regardless of this fact, he would be allowed to remain on the bench, although he still remains uncertified in criminal law.

Blake P. Mitchell (PhD)

Dr. Mitchell is responsible for conducting evaluations for the court. It is also worth noting that the Dr. is not only a psychologist, but also an attorney. Currently, he is operating his own practice, “Blake P. Mitchell & Associates.” As with most doctors, he has multiple reviews online. With an average rating of around 3/5, one such review reads as follows:

He is biased and I can not recommend him, as it could cause a harmful outcome to a patients overall mental health.

 Beyond conducting the evaluations on involved parties, it is currently unknown to what further extent he is involved with this case. We will try to update this if we are able to obtain such information.

The accused parties

There are two parties of primary concern within this case. Kelly, the mother, and Jacob, the boyfriend. According to Sophie’s allegations, Jacob is the man who has repeated abused her. The allegations continue with accusations that the mother not only encourages the abuse, but watches it. Since our last article, we have found that there are other things to be concerned about, in regards to Kelly.

In September, 2019, Kelly had made a frantic 9-1-1 call. During this call, she makes allegations of abuse from her boyfriend, Jacob. Bear in mind, this is before the sexual assault allegation was brought to light. Kelly had reportedly locked her children into a room, out of fear that Jacob would harm them. The only child who was not in this room, was an infant. Kelly mentions to the emergency operator that Jacob carrys a weapon on him. While this is generally not something we would mention, it is worth mentioning that Jacob is a convicted felon. This means, in order to have obtained said weapon, it is most likely that Kelly had bought it for him. Bear in mind, she would had known of his conviction. Within a few months of this event taking place, Sophie would make her allegations of sexual abuse. Given that the mother had made this frantic call, months prior but still remained with this man, she willfully placed her children in immediate danger. However, for the “great” and “honorable” judge, this held no merit in her choice to return these children to this home.

The nation continues to closely monitor this circus of a case. With the complete incompetence from the judge, to the lack of protection from the mother who should had done so, we can only hope that these children are finally united with the one man who has risked it all for them, their father. Though I am excited about writing the article, announcing their safe return, we are currently left with many unexpeted twists. It is abundantly clear that the father is fighting a bias judge, who’s actions clearly favor the mother. But it was these actions that has given him an entire virtual army, fighting a corrupt war for the safety and welfare of a child.

Jacob Blake: shooting review

Update

It’s been discovered that Jacob Blake had a warrant. It’s possible this may have played into his encounter with police. Photos sent to us by an anonymous source

This article is my review of the shooting. In it, we have the video, as well as screenshots from that video. You may, or may not agree with my statements. Ultimately, it is up to you to make your own conclusion.

The video of the shooting.

From the video, we can see the events as they unfold. There are several problems that I have observed within the video, let’s just dive right into this situation.

Image one, showing the two involved officers.

From the very start of the video, two officers are seen holding weapons. While it is unclear if both are lethal force, we know that at least one officer has a pistol. At this point, Jacob is observed going to the driver side of his vehicle, where his children are currently located. Though one officer (left of the one pointing a weapon) maybe holding a taser, based on how he’s holding the weapon. I am left to question why the other officer has a pistol. At this point, Jacob shows no signs of aggression, though I cannot speak for events that may had arisen prior to the video.

Jacob makes a disasterous choice.

Upon arriving to his door, Jacob makes a choice that may prove fatal. For unknown reasons, he is seen bending to a 90° angle. While this may not seem like much, it was more than enough for officers to believe a threat was present. This is where things become very questionable. The officers are seen standing behind Jacob, placing them into a position of power. This means that, even in a hand-to-hand situation, the officers have the advantage as it is difficult to fight when your opponent is behind you. With this, I question the fact that this officer chose to open fire when he clearly could had taken Jacob down with no problem. After all, they are trained to do tactics such as this.

Even if Jacob had been reaching for a weapon, the officers would had been able to react faster than him. By the time Jacob could had grabbed the alleged weapon, turned around, and fired, he would had already been taken to the ground. This, if anything, demonstrates not only the flaw within their department’s training, but also a severe lack of competency from its officers.

Jacob attempts to get into his vehicle as the officer fires.

Seven shots were fired into Jacob’s back. In training, we are told to “fire to stop the action or threat.” After one, maybe even two, shots, any potential threat Jacob had posed, would had been eliminated. So why did this officer shoot seven rounds? Again, this is a reflection of incompetent training and officers. At this point, as he’s being fired upon, Jacob attempts to get into the vehicle. For this, I have three theories:

1. Jacob was trying to create a barrier between him and the officer’s hailstorm of bullets. The front seat, being the barrier, could had potentially stopped further bullets.

2. Jacob may had been trying to flee the scene. Bear in mind, he had children in that vehicle. These children already witnessed their father being shot, it is possible that he was trying to flee in hopes of getting them out of the situation.

3. Jacob was shot in the back, this os critical to understand. Vital organs, such as kidneys, liver, etc. could had been damaged. This means that, as he bled out, his vision, ability to walk, stand, or even speak could had been impaired. Sitting would had been his safest choice. If he was able to apply enough pressure to his back, he very well could had slowed the bleeding until actual help arrived.

Officers showing how little control they have.

As the gun toting officer fired, a woman is observed walking to the scene. At this point, the other officer has seemingly walked away. It is clear to me that these officers have very little self control, they can’t even control the location. In no respectful police agency would this woman be able to walk up onto a shooting scene like this. Where did the officer go? That’s a very good question.

The other officer returns.

Although the other officer did return to the scene, I am stunned to see that nothing is done about the woman. They just shot a man, her presence there paces her in immediate danger. The officers involved clearly lack the cobtrol to use their training, aside lethal force. They further demonstrate their incompetence by failing to secure the scene, something that is more apparant in this photo.

It is, with my own training and evaluation, that I believe these officers used excessive deadly force. Their position from Jacob gave them more than enough alternatives that a shooting could had easily been avoided. While an investigation will ensue, as per department protocol, I do hold my reservations as to rather or not justice will come. The key evidence to this will really boil down to one question: did Jacob have a lethal weapon to which he was attempting to retrieve? Based on the current evidence, within this video, I don’t believe that is the case. The fact that his children were literally next to him, in the very vehicle to which he was shot, only furthers my belief toward this.