We've all seen the claims on Facebook. The claims of wrongfully taken children who are placed into foster care, and how the system violated the rights of the parents. This isn't one of those articles. This article is from the perspective of one of those children, now grown. In this article, we are giving the raw details, the only omission will be to their name, as per request. The reasons behind this will be clarified by the end. We also want to state, that the actual story being told is word-for-word what they sent us. Though we've separated the story into categories, this is 100% their experience within the system.
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.
December 19th, marks the day that five of the seven members of the “War on Corruption” team got unbanned. For two months, we had fought a losing battle just to obtain information as to why we had gotten banned in the first place. While, to this day, nobody associated with the platform knows why we had gotten banned, it does seem that this is a calculated and deliberate attack against the platform.
Yesterday, December 25th, like so many around the world, I had a day that was filled to the brim in events. Between exchanging gifts, family time, etc. Facebook wasn’t even on the forefront of my mind. Later in the evening, when I had finally gotten some time, I check my messages. As it would turn out, I had four new messages from the same individuals who had recently gotten unblocked from Facebook. Every one of these messages were informing me that their accounts, once again, had been blocked. You can imagine my dismay to this.
At this point, I decide to take a quick glance at my profile. Although I had not been online for the entire day, it too was blocked. The vague reason being that I had violated their community standards. However, it didn’t inform me as to how I violated these vague standards nor did it show me anything that I had posted that could had been a violation. At this point, I had my confirmation: Facebook is maliciously, willfully, and with full intent, targeting my platform and harassing those associated with it. Now this is something important and I am about to explain why.
You may, or may not, be aware of this: In 2012 Facebook placed itself into the stock market. This was good financially, but very bad for how Facebook is currently operating. Because they are in the stock market, they are no longer a private company. That’s also important to note. Being that they are no longer a private company, it is no longer a question as to rather or not they can simply run the show however they see fit. For example, in a private setting, your constitutional rights don’t mean a thing. For Facebook, who is now in the public setting, the coin flips. They can’t simply censor out your rights.
Unlike the first go around, those of us who have been shadow banned from the site, have opted to simply delete our profiles. In doing so, we have effectively destroyed our own platform, by force courtesy of Facebook and it’s tyrannical approach to freelance journalism. In the meantime, we continue to seek out others who have been targeted in this way, we continue our search for a civil rights attorney, with the hope of putting an end to the illegal activities being conducted by Facebook. Until that time, we still debate the final fate for the platform on Facebook. However, one thing is cemented: It will be removed at some point.
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.
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.
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...
In a perfect world, the justice system would always triumph, taking the most dangerous and unstable people off the streets. However, because we do not live in a perfect world, victims are often left without any form of justice from their attackers. Our platform has been sitting on this case since 2019, waiting for the for the “okay” to finally write this article. Upon speaking to this victim, whom we will identify as “Jane Doe” for safety reasons, that “okay” finally arrived. To understand the case we are going to be covering, we first must paint the picture of who her attacker is.
Extensive criminal background
Cade Taylor, an Oklahoma resident, is by no means unknown to the court system. With minor charges, such as speeding tickets, seven protective orders filed, stalking, and assault, Cade has had a rather colorful criminal past. To better understand how this man thinks, we’re going to breakdown some of the cases. In this, we are including public information. This include the case number, dates, and the charge. However, we are withholding the names of his victims. This is due to Cade’s obvious mental instability and willingness to be violent, especially toward women. It is also important to note that while three protection orders were dismissed, five were not. While we won’t be covering every case, we are going to cover enough to give you an idea of how potentially dangerous this man is.
This case, in contrast to the rest, is a very simple one. It’s a speeding ticket to which he pled guilty and was fined $188.90. However, this isn’t about speeding tickets. Let’s move onto the next case.
This is one of many protective orders filed against Cade. This case, was eventually merged with case: PO 2000-47, which is not shown on the court records site.
As before, we have yet another Protection order, as identified with the case number starting with “PO.” This order was filed by one of his alleged victims, a woman who was granted the protection. In this instance, the case cost Cade $169.30. However, as we’re going to learn, he did not learn his lesson.
Filed by a different woman, she too had filed an EPO against Cade Taylor. However, for reasons unknown, this order was denied. Case closed.
Though there are still other Protection order filings against Cade, these aren’t the only charges he’s had. A couple of his other charges include domestic abuse-assault and battery and a charge for malicious injury to property-over $1000. However, these aren’t the cases we’re going to be diving into. Now, we dive into the felony.
This case is one that is truly beyond mind blowing. What started out as a bad night of drinking, for Cade, ended with him abducting a young woman, holding her at knife point, and even going as far as to admitting to police his intention of murdering her. The victim was only able to escape after locking herself into the restroom and dialing 9-1-1. With his confession and abduction, began a process that would exceed a year. However, the court was anything but impartial in this. According to those who know Taylor’s family, the presiding judge, Michelle Roper, is actually friends with his parents.
Upon confessing that he intended to murder the young woman, the police decided to arrest Taylor. With this confession, the local DA’s office began the process of pursuing charges. During the process of the trial, Cade made a point to harass his victim and her family, multiple times. In one confirmed instance, he drove more than 120 miles across the state just to stalk her. Upon learning of this, the police arrested Taylor, but this wouldn’t be the last arrest for behaviors of this nature. With every arrest, came a bond amount, something that his mother was more than happy to pay. Once released, Cade would once again seek out his victim, going as far as to locating her on a popular livestream app and leaving a comment. Our platform has obtained a screenshot of this event, it is posted below.
By the time the above photograph occurred, for whatever reason the court dropped the Felony down to a misdemeanor. The man, who abducted his stalking victim, made bold statements of his intentions to murder her, just got away with it. Meanwhile, in another questionable move, the court forced the victim to attend counseling. This ruling was made as a result of the victim having a mental breakdown in court. As a result of this breakdown, Judge Roper questioned the victim’s mental stability. Of course, I can’t help but question Judge Roper’s capability to perform her duties.
On the advice of Cade’s mother, the ultimate conclusion to this case was it being dropped. According to the mother, who has a confirmed history of bailing her son out of legal situations, Cade was simply to unstable to be held accountable. However, his mental capacity remains unconfirmed. In most instances, it is nearly impossible to get escape justice using the “insanity” plea. However, in some twist of magic, Cade has somehow managed to pull that very stunt off only to get “house arrest.” Meanwhile, the victim involved is left looking over her shoulder, not knowing when or where this deranged man may show up. If this case has demonstrated anything, it has only shown that having the right contacts is all it takes to evade the prison system.
Since the time this article was initially released, it has been brought to our attention that the culprit, Cade Taylor, near the end of the trial, had made threats of not only murdering his initial victim, but her children as well. We stand by our belief that Judge Roper, knowing the culprit’s family, should be placed under investigation. Her inability to remain impartial, even with the evidence staring her in the face, only displays that the victim’s constitutional rights had to an unbias and impartial trial, may had been violated.
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...
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.
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:
- 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.
- Wear a mask. This is something we are going to really get into shortly.
- 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.
- pre-existing respiratory conditions.
- 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 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 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 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.
When taking your children to any store, you expect that location to be a safe place. The concept that a registered sex offender would have such easy access to your children is incomprehensable. For one family, this scenerio became a reality in a very disturbing form. Here’s what we’ve learned thus far.
An Oklahoma family was recently taking an outing to a local lake. On the way, they stopped at a Sinclair convience store, located at: 12606 S McLoud Rd, McLoud, OK 74851. With a parent present, two children, ages 12 and 13 went inside to get drinks and snacks. As per most customer service businesses, the cashier, identified as Michael Vaughn Hilborn, greeted the three individuals. From this point forward, things took a progressively disturbing turn.
For unknown reasons, Michael proceeded to state, “you look like you’re about to go dancing.” If it isn’t obvious, this is a joke that relates to exotic dancing. While the statement put the parent on alert, they initially brushed this off. After all, perhaps Michael just has a poor sense of humor. However, the situation doesn’t end with that “joke.” At this point, the three customers rushed to get their items, the two children had also gotten a pickle, a common food item found in these stores. The situation abruptly turns from creepy to outright disturbing.
As they proceed to purchase the items, Michael picks up the pickles and bags of hot cheetos and proceeds to ask, “who they were for.” Not seeing the unfolding situation, one of the girls replied by telling him, “ours.” It is, at this point, Michael takes the already disturbing situation to the next level. Michael proceeds to ask the girls, “can you get pregnant?” Before moving his hips in a very sexual manner. As he does this, he allegedly begins to say, “whoop, whoop.” The three ultimately left the store and contacted Mcloud police. So, who is Michael?
In the state of Oklahoma, Michael is a lifetime, tier 3, sex offender. Although we found no record of him within the DOC system, we were able to find his registry, which is photographed below. Initially, the police were hesitant about arresting him, as what he stated was in poor taste, but also faced the possibility of no charges as he had not blatently stated anything that was sexual. However, upon discovering his registry, the police did, in fact, take him into custody.
Meanwhile, Sinclair denies the entire event occurred. For those who know the inner operations of this company, this should not come as a surprise. Currently, Sinclair has been uncooperative with the current investigation. However, based on various comments, it appears that the company is protecting him. Multiple comments have mentioned that Michael was working at another Sinclair station, which was located next to a school. If you don’t know, registered sex offenders can’t live near a school, muchless work next door to one.
Only after community pressured Sinclair, was he relocated to the store where this latest event took place. Currently, he is being held at the Pottawatomie County jail, awaiting potential charges. Although Sinclair still adamently denies that event taking place, given their lack of cooperation with the police, it leads me to ask, “if it didn’t happen, why not cooperate?” From what we’ve learn, no safety measures are taken to prevent offenders from being employed. This is highly worrysome as children do frequent these stores. Perhaps, the company should start taking real measures in protecting their customers, especially minors. This sotuation, had a parent not been present, could had taken a much darker route.