Tag Archives: Illegal

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.

Always guilty

“The system is broken.” At some point you have probably heard this expression. What if I were to tell you that this statement is wrong? The very system that you believe to be broken, in fact, was maliciously designed so that no matter what, you pay for the crime. If it sounds completely insane, it’s not. For many people, wrongfully strung into the court system, this is the reality that they face, regardless of disposition.

For those who haven’t been through this auction for your freedom, the idea you have is probably along these lines: you are charged, you go to court. If you are found guilty, you do your time, and you’re free. Alternatively, you are found innocent and that’s simply the end of it. Well, that’s not entirely true, just ask any innocent person who has been charged with a crime. Regardless of the fact that they were found “innocent” of the charge, the reality for them is this: they still pay for that crime.

What many of these people harshly learn is that companies, government agencies, and so fourth, still hold that charge against them. Is this legal? Not really, but they still do it.  For these individuals, the concept of “innocent” simply does not exist. The embarrassment of being dragged into a courtroom, the loss of income, and people knowing what you were accused of but not accepting the disposition makes the words, “innocent until proven guilty” a lost luxury.

However, there is a way to obtain that luxury again, at least that’s the glimmer of light. The downside to it is in that it is going to cost you hundreds of dollars to do so. So, let’s break this court system down. For this breakdown, I’m going to presume innocence. You are charged with a crime. You are dragged to a courtroom for months, or even years on end. Finally, you get the verdict “innocent.” You think the humiliation is over, it’s not. Now, you have this charge on your background, still very publicly visible to those who look.

While it should be the responsibility of the court to remove this, when you were found innocent, they won’t. You have to spend money to bribe these political parasites into doing that. Without the bribe, your life spins into chaos. Every job you apply for, sees this charge. Although they see the disposition of that charge, it generally doesn’t matter. You’re denied jobs regardless. Meanwhile, these law enforcement agencies, judges, and various other parasitic leeches are banking off of this flawed system, all of it at your expense.

Once you pay the bribe, you get the expungement. However, that could take months to go through; it could also mean more court dates. The worst aspect to all of this is in the fact that the damage has already been done. While you’re left to deal with the broken pieces of your life, the cash cow within the (in)justice system continues it’s illusion that it is “for the people” rather than against them.

 

 

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...

This content is for Gold Status and Basic members only.
Login Join Now

serial criminal’s victim gets no justice

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.

Case: TR-2005-00216

Date:  02/07/2005

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.

Case: PO-2000-00046

Date: 05/05/2000

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.

Case: PO-2008-00039

Date: 04/03/2008

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.

Case: PO-2009-00183

Date: 12/08/2009

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.

The criminal charges Cade has faced in the past.

Case: CF-2019-00079

Date: 02/11/2019

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.

This comment was confirmed to be from Cade Taylor, a man with a notorious past of abuse, stalking, and so fourth.

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.

Editorial update:

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.

 

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 content is for Gold Status members only.
Login Join Now

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

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

The Accusation

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

The results

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

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

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

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.