Tag Archives: State government

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.

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.

Sinclair hires sex offender, denies alleged comments made by him

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.

A clip, showing Michael Vaughn Hilborn’s registry.

Our former journalist: Official statement

As most of you maybe aware, for a short stint we had another journalist, Sarah. Her articles covered the BLM movement and ended with the Shane Dawson controversy. Because of a series of events, some being from her, we have been placed into a situation to which we must reply. This article is our official statement regarding her time with us, and afterwards.

War on Corruption, from the day we announced her being brought aboard the team, was met with mix reviews, primarily negative. Members of our team, myself included, began recieving various warnings regarding Sarah’s presence. These warnings ranged from her being a compulsive liar to her past with backstabbing her friends. I ignored these warnings, giving her a fair chance, although they did not stop coming.

Recently, she had undergone, what appeared to me as a smear campaign. Against the advise of our other members, I took the initiative to confront this problem. Placing the reputation of myself, and the platform, at risk. This choice came from what I had been informed, a specific man had spent months harassing her. Upon speaking to the former journalist via the phone, it was clear that she was on the verge of mentally breaking. Something I wanted to avoid if possible.

In a tweet, our former journalist was being harassed regarding her editing skills. A reply to this post mocked her for how she speaks, comparing it to “nails on a chalkboard.”

Before acting, I spoke to her, informed her of my plan, and she was content with that. At no point did she speak up about being against any action that was performed. Without her objection, I showed public information, the Facebook profile belonging to the man. It was, at this time, the false allegations of doxing began. At this point, I could only hope that the man, and his friends, were leaving our journalist, and friend, alone. However, things did not work out as planned.

Sarah abruptly left the team, telling nobody within the platform. Upon questioning her, she informed me that she had left due to mental health reasons, never indicating that there was a problem or concern (image below.) During this discussion, she requests the removal of a video, however it has never been specified as to what video she was speaking of.

In our final discussion, Sarah states her reasons for leaving, this reason was proven to be a lie. While she states that she mentioned this within a group, it is unclear as to what group she is speaking.

What I didn’t know, at this time, was while she had given me this reason, she had also gave a public statement, conflicting what was said to me. Within her statement, she calls the platform out for “doxing,” a false allegation as we had only shown what was publically visible. Upon calling her out, within a reply, the tweet was abruptly deleted, though she may had deleted due to a later action. However, we have a copy of this tweet.

In a now deleted tweet, she makes a point to slander the platform, part of why we had to make a public statement of our own.

While she claimed we had “doxed” a man who was harassing her, she later proceeded to do, by her own definition and not the legal one, the samething. This action raised many questions for me, including the tweet she had deleted. While I understand that many people have an issue with the individualwbo she exposed, those issues are best left for a future article. What does matter here is the fact that she slandered our platform, simply because we were trying to help her, and later proceeded to perform the very act to which she slammed us for.

Further investigation showed a plausible motive. It appeared that some of the people, a few had pre-warned our platform, and her had a falling out at some point. Her agenda was to make amends with these people, we have no problem with that. Our issue stems from the fact that she chose to throw not just me, but my platform, under the bus in doing so. This speaks many words for her ethics and morales, worst yet, it had proven all the warnings to be factual while disproving my beliefs of giving fair chances and innocent until proven otherwise.

Predator Wars (gallery)

Following up on our previous gallery, we have found some more lovely scumbags of society. My messages are in the blue box. In these chats, I try to react in the way that a real 14yo girl would, given the situation. You will see the different methods used, some intended to make the predator uncomfortable.

Fami1_Nancy

The chat ended here

Tedd12

Chat abruptly ended

Speedracer

MarinOCV

Predator trying to gain control of an already failed chat.
Without breaking character, I used a tactic to terminate the conversation. This predator deleted his account, at this point.

The full list

This is a screenshot of every chat I had engaged in. Every one of these people, are using this chat site to prey on children.

Charges Filed Against Officer Rolfe Following Death of Rayshard Brooks. Police Protests Ensue.

Recently, Rayshard Brooks was killed by Officer Rolfe. Since that time, charges have been filed against the him. As a result, two different distracts in Atlanta have had their officers walk. Several other police stations will most likely have to cover these districts which will be nearly impossible for them to do.

When you watch the video in its entirety, you’ll see that Officer Rolfe had arrived at the scene following a report that Rayshard was asleep at the wheel of his car in a Wendy’s parking lot. When he arrived, the car was parked. Rayshard was asked several questions, given a sobriety test, and was found to be under the influence. Several times he asked the Officer to drive him to his sisters house. Without reading him his Miranda Rights, Officer Rolfe started to handcuff Rayshard and said that he was being “taken in,” due to the fact he was intoxicated. Rayshard and Rolfe got into a scuffle and Rayshard took Rolfe’s taser, ran off, and then pointed it at him. Rolfe shot him.

According to the police, Officer Rolfe was following protocol because a weapon was involved and was aimed at him. Now, as to why he didn’t give Rayshard a ride to his sister’s house remains unanswered. A lot of questions are left unanswered. Which has led us to where we are now.

The Districts in Atlanta that no longer have Police Stations are going through what the police call “the Blue Flu.” This means that there’s a massive strike the police are showing in protest due to the fact that charges have been filed against Officer Rolfe.

Police have always operated under what’s known as “Blue Brotherhood.” There are other terms used such as “Blue Wall of Silence”, “Blue Code’, and “Blue Shield.” This all boils down to there a rule that police officers are to never report each other. This includes misconducts and any type of crime, including police brutality. So, when charges were officially filed against Officer Rolfe, the two districts in Atlanta where the police stations have been shut down in protest are following the Blue Brotherhood.

The city of Atlanta is under fire more than ever. The police versus the public is at an all time high, and there won’t be any winners by the end. Either Officer Rolfe is found innocent and then faces a very public backlash, or he’s found guilty which could lead to more Blue Flu’s in Atlanta.

What would have happened if Officer Rolfe had driven Rayshard to his sister’s house? What would have happened if Rayshard hadn’t taken Rolfe’s taser and pointed it at him? These are just two of many questions that will sadly, remain unanswered.

You can watch the video of the arrest linked below. Please know that the video is graphic. Credit to the YouTube Channel: 11Alive

Video

Editorial commentary

Law enforcement has one fundamental job: uphold the law. While many questions have been raised regarding the officer not simply taking the man out, it does in fact, have a rather simplistic answer. Rashard was found in a parking lot, intoxicated, and passed out. Because he was behind the wheel, any officer would know that this man had clearly driven there drunk, placing himself, and the general public, in potential danger.

Once Rashard removed the officer’s weapon, he created an entirely new situation. While a taser is classified as “less than lethal,” for the officer it could mean death. If he had been shot with the weapon, it would had completely immobilized this cop. It would had given Rashard enough time to grab his service weapon, potentially murdering the cop. The debate regarding rather or not the officer was justified, comes down to this: yes. The officer followed protocol, protecting his life.

Rossford, OH officer sexually harasses woman

Officers are expected to uphold a high ethical code. However, time and time again, we are seeing the exact opposite occur. For a young woman, an officer illegally obtaining her private information could had potentially turned terrifying. In this article, we are going to provide what information is currently available. As more information is released, we will provide the appropriate updates.

The young woman, who we will keep anonymous at this time, found herself being followed by a black F-150 yesterday. Rather or not she was speeding remains unknown, though jokes were made to that nature. What is known is this: the occupant of this pickup was off duty officer, Glenn Goss Jr. of the Rossford police department, located in Ohio. As he followed the woman, he wrote down her license plate number, conducted an illegal search to obtain her personal information, and then proceeded to flirt, or more accurately, sexually harass her on Facebook.

As a result of this misconduct, the woman filed a complaint with the department. Although they claim an internal investigation will begin today, there has been nothing to confirm this. While most may think this to be a small ordeal, in reality it’s far from it. By tracing her license plate number, there is an abundance of personal information this officer could get.

Through that simple trace, he would be able to get her full name, previous convictions, her address, and possibly other personal details. Being that the officer was off duty, had no probable cause, or a warrant to conduct a search of this nature, a new situation arises for the department. This new situation could mean a lot of court, time, and money being spent, as well as awarded.

Under the law, we are granted the right to privacy. The moment this officer illegally ran her plate, he violated this fundamental civil right. Furthermore, he very well could have just gotten both, the department and himself sued in the near future. While, in most cases, departments will deny that the officer did anything wrong, this department won’t have such luxuries. During his unwanted communication with the young woman, he blatently explains how he was able to find her on Facebook. Because this is an open investigation, we currently don’t have much information on this case. We will, however, try to update this article when possible. Until then, we are including his discussion with the young woman below.

Chris Hansen sparks controversy

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

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

Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milwaukee medical professional mows down protestors

With national protests occuring on a daily basis, it’s not to farfetched that some rather interesting stories would arise. Today, in Milwaukee, we stumbled upon one of these stories. A cardiovascular physician assistant, identified as Emily Novicki, was accused of runing over several “peaceful protestors.” In her tweet, a woman going by “Alexis.” Says:

Today in Milwaukee! This woman hit 2 peaceful protestors, injuring them and came within 2 feet of hitting a child. This was as they peacefully marched. She drove into the crowd. Police were shown multiple videos & she was still let go. TWITTER LETS MAKE SURE SHE LOSES HER JOB. 🥳

However, the events, as explained by the BLM protestor, is not what actually took place. As I began searching through evidence, I found a slightly different story. I attempted to reach out to Emily only to find her Facebook had been deleted, more on that shortly. Based upon the evidence, which included a video, the alleged peaceful protestors had surrounded the young woman’s car. At this point they jad begun chanting, even tapping her car with a sign. It is alleged that this is when Emily ran through them. But was she in the right for doing so?

We have already seen, in recent weeks, what happens when protestors encircle a vehicle. Recently, a Fed-Ex driver was forced to flee in his semi as they attempted to vandalize his equipment; this is just one example, of course. It isn’t to hard to believe that this woman would had been in fear for, not only her safety, but her life.

Following this event, Emily had apparantly deleted her Facebook. From what I was able to obtain, one of the protestors began sharing her workplace information, and her social media account, on Twitter. In doing this, she opened the young medical professional to harassment, threats, and so fourth. It is presumed that this is what lead to her deleting the account.

A peaceful protest is exactly as it claims to be: peaceful. Blocking somebody from leaving the area is not a peaceful demonstration, that is an act of aggression. While I would never condone using a car for a weapon, I can understand how terrorizing a situation like this must be.

While a false narrative spreads around on Twitter, I choose to present my findings, without bias. The situation comes down to this: had the protestors not surrounded her car, hit it with a sign, in what can be viewed as a clear act of intimidation, nobody would had been injured. The false narrative, placing complete blame on the woman, who appears to had been a victim, is absolutely ridiculous.

Protest safetly, protest smartfully.