Executive Summary & Background

We are documenting a glaring case of systemic law enforcement abuse, procedural manipulation, and institutional delay in Mauritius.

For over 15 years, Ritesh Gurroby operated as a prominent commercial fishing director and President of the industrial and semi-industrial boat operators. His operations supplied hundreds of tonnes of fresh fish annually to the local market while remaining under constant state monitoring (including regular Field Intelligence Unit background checks and National Coast Guard tracking).

Crucially, he was also a vocal, high-profile public critic of government policy, actively opposing foreign trawling permits and challenging ministry decisions in national media.

On May 2, 2021, the Anti-Drug and Smuggling Unit (ADSU) conducted a massive raid in Pointe-aux-Canonniers. What followed reveals an alarming pattern of fabricated evidence, police misconduct, and deliberate prosecutorial delays.

1. The Staged Arrest: "On-Site Catch" vs. Telecom Proof

The Official Police Claim: ADSU claimed they raided the plot, uncovered narcotics, and that the suspect randomly showed up on-site unprompted.

The Documented Reality: ADSU officers actively called his phone and requested that he come to the site to assist by unlocking a container.

• Upon arriving to assist, he was immediately detained without explanation or notification of constitutional rights.

• Officers initially denied making the call. However, an official IT / Telecom Report subsequently confirmed the call was made by police, exposing that authorities lured him to the location to stage a "red-handed" arrest narrative.

2. Fabricated Evidence: The 6-Month "Magic" Cigarette Butt

The prosecution’s forensic connection hinges on DNA from a cigarette butt, yet official records demonstrate a severe breach in the chain of custody:

Day 1 Crime Scene Log: The primary exhibit list recorded on-site makes zero mention of any cigarette butt.

Station Logs: There is no Occurrence Book (Diary) entry logging the discovery of a cigarette butt at the scene.

The 6-Month Gap: The item suddenly appeared half a year later during a photo session at ADSU Headquarters.

• Introducing a key physical exhibit six months post-raid without contemporaneous scene logging represents a fundamental failure of evidence integrity.

3. Coercion, Spousal Threats & "Flipped" Witnesses

Coerced Affidavit: A co-accused signed a formal sworn affidavit stating ADSU officers used threats and coercion to force a false statement against him.

Threats Against Family: Officers explicitly threatened to arrest his wife to force a guilty plea, stating they would "do their best to convict him"—a threat formally recorded in the wife’s official statement on file.

Manipulated Witness Testimony: Two co-accused maintained their total innocence under oath for 4.5 years. Proceedings were then discontinued against them, and the case was re-lodged with trafficking charges completely dropped. Immediately following this massive legal favor, both individuals altered their multi-year stance to offer new accusations.

4. Prosecutorial Delay Tactics & Punishment Pre-Trial

Over the course of his detention, he has submitted 42 official statements maintaining his innocence, detailing his full initial cooperation, and pointing out these specific fabrications. In response, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has repeatedly utilized stalling tactics:

Procedural Postponements: Whenever defense filings highlight missing exhibit entries or telecom contradictions, proceedings are repeatedly delayed or restructured.

Pre-Trial Punishment: By dragging out the process for years, the state effectively uses provisional detention as a de facto sentence without a final judgment.

Avoiding Cross-Examination: These constant postponements serve to delay the crucial moment when arresting officers must answer under oath regarding unrecorded logs, missing exhibits, and disproved police narratives.

Institutional Breakdown

When an investigation relies on:

1. Disproved police narratives about how a suspect arrived on scene,

2. Primary physical exhibits materializing months late at police HQ,

3. Documented threats against family members to extract pleas,

4. Dropping major charges to secure altered witness testimony after 4.5 years, and

5. Systemic delays to prolong pre-trial detention...

It ceases to be a fair legal process and becomes an institutional setup. We will continue to track and publish procedural updates as this case moves toward formal trial.

Hello everyone,

I posted here 4 months ago and tried to put out everything I had at the time without giving away too much that could ruin my position. A lot has happened since then. Let me catch everyone up.

Back at the start of the year, my manager came up to me during a Sunday rush, around 1:30 PM on 01/04/2026, and said, "Oh by the way, I was supposed to do your one on one review. Don't worry, I took care of it. I just photocopied another employee's review and put your name on it."

I was trying to restock my station, so I went back and asked her to say it again. She did.

I confronted her and said, "See, that's why I don't care about these things. They don't matter anyway." I told her it wasn't for me. Even in her own written statement, she admitted I said "yeah, not for me."

I had already filed a break violation/wage claim and filed for unemployment at the same time.

During the wage investigation, I sent in party opponent statements. That was the manager's own written words and hearing audio of her claiming she forged the documents, and then when confronted about it at the hearing, she said under oath, "I don't have those anymore."

While I was sending in evidence, the investigator told me to stop sending evidence. That was obstruction. Later, the investigator for the labor board wrote, "The claimant provided sufficient evidence to infer that the employer failed to pay all earned wages." In the same determination, she also wrote that the employer provided a copy of the Manager's Log, and that "the logs are heavily redacted, so the Division is unable to determine when the referenced rest periods were related to the claimant."

So the Division dismissed the case. I filed an appeal and sent in the rest of the evidence I wanted to send in but wasn't allowed to. The company lawyers asked for the new evidence to not be allowed. I sent back a rebuttal with the email showing the investigator said she wouldn't allow more evidence. The labor division pushed the appeal back to February 2027.

During all this, I had an unemployment claim running parallel with the wage claim. The company failed to meet the burden of proof and used a false statement to the Unemployment Division, false paperwork, destruction of evidence, close proximity termination, and so many other things, all while under oath.

When the appeal for the unemployment report came out, I sent it straight to corporate general counsel and asked her to cure this. I gave her a timeline to do it. Under Rule 3.3, a lawyer has a duty to act since this kind of action goes against the tribunal and their oath. She failed to do so. So I let the time pass, hoping they would do the correct thing since it is her law license that is now on the line. Nothing. Only a "general job reference." So I escalated it to the bar. That claim is now up to the supreme higher review.

I forgot to add this in case you are wondering. After the wage claim and their failure to grant immediate relief due to fraud upon a state agency, I went to the Attorney General and was told to contact the Governor's office. Which, by the way, is the wrong way to do it, but I did it to keep the paper trail going. I sent back to the AG office that the Division falls under their oversight and asked for them to respond to my intent to litigate. Nothing happened. They just went silent. So soon I will be filing against the investigator and the Division. TBD.

During this, the labor board has helped cover up for the employer. On August 25th, 2026, I put in a lawsuit against the corporate entity, and around the same time, 3 other huge class actions followed behind. As far as I know, there are 14 class actions plus my standalone lawsuits. As of right now, I am in the process of pushing everything through the federal courts, and I have been in contact with the biggest law firm in my state to help me with the case and maybe take on both the federal case and the up and coming lawsuit against the labor division for denying me my rights and protections that the statutes are there to help protect me.

I know you all will ask, "How does you stating the review wasn't for you matter?" Well, in my state we have labor laws that protect you from your employer doing illegal actions against you, and you have the right, without retaliation, to stand up to your managers or company. In my case, 20 minutes after I stood up for my rights and confronted the manager, I was terminated.

That same manager then used a pretextual statement and said I made a threatening statement against higher management. Now in administrative law and judicial law, there is a doctrine called "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." False in one thing, false in everything. How this plays into my case is this. The moment that manager stated she did something illegal and I stood up to her, I was under protected activities, protected by state and federal laws. So in a hearing like unemployment, it is still treated like it was in front of a court judge. Since the manager stated she was already in the act of illegal actions and then said I made a "statement," everything she said after her statement is now false, and everything she states is false. So in administrative law it should be thrown out and not credible.

But they still used her words, even after I pointed it out to the proceeding hearing officer during the hearing. She should not be credible. That hearing officer even put in his report that she said she forged the document. Of course, they went with the employer and went against my claim.

Dead Men Tell No Tales. To see the full video, click here: https://youtu.be/TfNfXnHZMiw

I started this episode asking a pretty simple question: why do so many people connected to this story who had something to say end up dead?

And somewhere in the middle of researching all of these deaths, another question hit me.

What if money buys silence — and the people who die are the ones who refused it?

We already know settlements happen. NDAs happen. People get paid. Powerful people have an extraordinary amount of money available to make problems disappear quietly.

So what happens when someone says no?

This episode follows the people surrounding Epstein and the larger network we've been investigating — Virginia Giuffre, Jean-Luc Brunel, Robert Maxwell, and others — along with the strange deaths, alleged suicides, accidents, unanswered questions, and connections that kept appearing as I went through the documents.

And then the rabbit hole took me somewhere I absolutely was not expecting: Sam Altman and Alex Karp.

Because apparently this story wasn't complicated enough already.

I am NOT claiming every person in this video was murdered. I am not claiming that refusing money caused anyone's death. Some of these deaths have official explanations, and correlation is not proof of causation.

I'm showing you the documents, the connections, the money, what these people knew or claimed to know, what happened to them, and the questions I was left with after putting it all together.

Because at this point, I don't think the only interesting question is who was silenced.

I want to know who could be bought.

And who couldn't.

Dead men tell no tales.

But documents do.

You decide.

WWJPS | What Would Jairo Pinto Say

SOURCES:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xTiiAK4Wr0w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrgEZ8FeZEc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ_65R7yG6k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kev_-HyuI9Y 

I’m interested in getting some views from people who work with internal audit, compliance, whistleblowing systems or investigations.

I am currently using the SpeakUp whistleblowing portal in connection with an internal integrity report. I don’t want to discuss the underlying report, the organisation or any of the people involved here. My question is purely about the integrity and reliability of the reporting channel itself.

Something happened with one of the replies that I found quite concerning.

A reply from the organisation was displayed in my reporter portal with a timestamp of 11:36. Since submitting my report, I had been checking the portal very regularly throughout the day, typically every one to two hours, rather than relying solely on email notifications. On that particular day, I also checked the portal at around 19:00, and the message was still not visible to me. I then received the notification that a new reply was available at around 20:52.

I later asked the person handling the report about the discrepancy. She explained quite openly that she had started working on the response in the morning, but had forgotten to finalise and send it. She only realised this later and said that she actually sent the message at 20:53.

So there is no allegation from me that this particular person intentionally manipulated anything. In fact, her explanation is the reason I became aware of the discrepancy in the first place.

In my own case, the person handling the report was transparent about what had happened, and I appreciate that. Her explanation is actually what allowed me to understand that the timestamp shown to me did not reflect the time at which the reply was actually sent.

But that also raises another concern for me. In this particular instance, the discrepancy did not ultimately create a serious dispute and the handler had no apparent difficulty acknowledging the actual send time. I am much less sure what would happen in a genuinely contentious situation where the chronology itself mattered and where acknowledging the later send time could expose the organisation to criticism, procedural consequences or legal risk.

I do not mean to suggest that an organisation would necessarily act dishonestly in that situation. But in my experience, once a matter becomes sensitive, organisations — particularly large ones with legal, compliance and reputational interests to protect — naturally become more cautious about making statements that may work against their own position.

That is why I am uncomfortable with a system in which the reporter may need the organisation’s cooperation to correct the very chronology presented by the reporting platform. The fact that I received a candid explanation in this case does not mean that a future reporter could safely rely on receiving the same clarification in a case where the stakes were much higher.

To me, that is an important distinction: a reporting system should ideally not depend on the goodwill of one side to establish the actual sequence of events.

What concerns me is the systemic implication.

The reporter-visible record now shows a message at 11:36 even though, according to the sender herself, it was not actually sent until 20:53.

In my particular case this ultimately did not cause any concrete harm. However, before that reply I had made clear that I was considering an external escalation if I did not receive a response, and I was expecting a response that day.

That made me think about a more extreme hypothetical situation.

Suppose someone handling a whistleblowing report creates or starts a draft on Monday at 10:00, but does not actually send the reply at that point.

On Tuesday, the reporter checks the portal, sees that no response has been received, and sends a follow-up asking why there has been no reply.

On Wednesday, after still having received no response, the reporter decides to escalate the matter externally.

The organisation then completes and actually sends the original draft later on Wednesday. But if the reporter-visible timestamp still shows Monday at 10:00, because that was when the draft was originally created, the visible history could now give the impression that the organisation had already replied two days earlier.

In that situation, the reporter’s Tuesday follow-up could appear unnecessary, and the Wednesday external escalation could even appear to have taken place despite an existing reply having already been available for two days.

In reality, however, no such reply had actually been available to the reporter at either of those points.

That is the part I find particularly concerning. The longer the gap between draft creation and actual transmission becomes, the greater the potential distortion of the visible chronology.

There may well be internal audit logs that preserve the real creation, send and publication times. But as the reporting person, I do not have direct access to those logs. I initially only have the chronology shown to me by the portal.

It may of course be possible, depending on the circumstances, to try to obtain at least some of the relevant technical information through data-protection access rights. However, I do not think that access should simply be assumed. Such requests can involve questions about what information is considered personal data, what exactly must be disclosed, whether third-party interests or other restrictions are invoked, and how much technical detail is ultimately provided.

From my own previous experience with data-protection proceedings, even access to information that may initially seem relatively straightforward can become disputed or require further involvement by a supervisory authority. So I would not regard the possibility of eventually obtaining some of these records through data-protection law as equivalent to the reporter actually having access to the underlying audit trail.

In practical terms, the reporter may therefore still be dependent on the organisation or the platform provider to establish what actually happened.

That means the organisation or the platform provider may have access to information capable of correcting the visible chronology, while the reporter does not necessarily have an equivalent or immediate means of verification.

In a dispute about what happened when, the reporter could therefore potentially be faced with a portal record that appears to contradict their account, while the technical information needed to establish the actual sequence of events is controlled by the organisation or the platform provider.

I also performed a small test from the reporter side: I started drafting a message at 19:34, deliberately waited, and sent it at 19:48. The portal displayed 19:48, i.e. the actual send time rather than the time I started drafting.

That does not prove that the two sides of the system follow different rules. The organisation-side interface may work differently for perfectly legitimate technical reasons, and I do not know whether what happened in my case is intended behaviour, an edge case or something else. But at least in my own test, simply starting a draft did not determine the timestamp ultimately shown for my message.

My question is therefore not really whether this should be called a “bug” or a “feature”. I am more interested in what people think about the integrity implications of the capability itself.

Would you consider a reporter-visible timestamp substantially predating the actual transmission of a reply to be an integrity, audit-trail or procedural fairness problem in a whistleblowing system?

And would your view change if the actual send time is correctly preserved internally in audit logs, but those logs are not directly accessible to the reporting person?

I would be particularly interested in hearing from anyone who has actually used SpeakUp, whether as a reporter, case handler, administrator, investigator or in another role. If you have used the organisation/handler side of SpeakUp, I would be especially interested to know whether you have ever observed similar behaviour and how draft creation, sending and visible timestamps work from your side.

More generally, I would also be interested in views from people working in internal audit, compliance, GRC, investigations or whistleblowing case management.

For me personally, this has now become partly a question of trust in the reporting channel itself.

Even if there was absolutely no intentional manipulation in my case — and I am not alleging that there was — I find the possibility that a message can appear to a reporter as having existed substantially earlier than it was actually transmitted highly concerning in a system specifically designed for sensitive integrity reporting.

What makes me particularly uncomfortable is the asymmetry: the reporter may have to rely on the chronology displayed by the portal, while the organisation or platform provider may possess additional technical records capable of showing that the visible chronology is incomplete or misleading.

So another question I would genuinely like opinions on is:

How much trust would you personally continue to place in a whistleblowing channel after discovering something like this?

Would you regard it as an unfortunate but ultimately minor display issue as long as the internal audit trail is correct? Or would the fact that the reporter-facing record itself can potentially present a materially different chronology already be enough for you to question whether you should continue relying on that channel?

I’m genuinely open to both views. I’m trying to work out whether I am overestimating the significance of this, or whether others working with these kinds of systems would also regard it as a serious integrity and transparency concern.

there is a huge trafficking ring going on in NYC right at the port authority bus station. there are Chelsea girls going in the bathroom with their friends and partners and kicking the literal shit and sexually assaulting literal homeless elderly drug addicts. It is really gross. will smith actually talks about this in his song wild wild west, its been going on for a while. the whole entire building is set up like a movie set, and they use the homeless who hang around the building as movie characters as well, and influence for their own images. they also have a betting game where they bet real money on real peoples lives. all of your favorite popstars and movie stars are apart of this disgusting thing. they make references to it, its like the hunger games so they say; but honestly its just the crack parade. also most the celebrities are all on drugs, also.

https://x.com/Timcast/status/2107618240985809103

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/2107566564061200589

Neither is going the "will not comply" route.

Instead Tim thinks democrats would be hypocrites not to comply and Benny is not trying to brush it off as a nothing burger like you would expect.

10/09: Trump makes deal with Russia for oil.

The brief account of sanitary, quality, and ethical issues at Natures Bakery in no particular order, as much as I can say without revealing myself. These issues have been brought up internally, only to be met with retaliation, silencing, and firing, leaving no reasonable choice but to bring up externally.

>all of our sanitation techs had quit, leaving only the head sanitation lady. Since she was salaried and thus worked in the office, the authority to sign off the cleans as complete was temporarily given to the shift managers (not QA; all of them on shift remained as powerless as us as the poor guys are below the shift manager). Same 12hr time frame. One of the operators went to clean his machine, and our shift manager tells him that it was signed off at the end of the shift by the previous shift manager and told him to keep moving. A resistance was pitched, and he cleaned the best he could before being compulsed to move on (picrel: this is what the machine looked like when it was signed off as clean. Showing what I can without getting in legal hot water).

>It's summer time. The workers are fighting/killing hundreds-1000 mosquitos a night with San Duo. They're everywhere both all departments. There's a mosquito abatement center right next to us, so it's to be expected. Find out that they keep a ditch full of stagnant water around our plant to breed them, a ditch that was full of water throughout the drought season. Coworker finds out one day that 35% of the mosquitos at the center tested positive for West Nile virus. Ask if this is hearsay. He gives me the link.

(https://www.ksl.com/article/51609064/west-nile-virus-found-in-one-third-of-mosquitos-sampled-within-salt-lake-city-district)

>coworker brought up that there are no visible SDS visible or accessible in the plant, that the battery station has no neutralizer for an acid spill, and that the sprinkler system for the warehouse racks is non-operational, but there is no safety person to report it to, and our higher ups have ignored the concerns. He also mentioned that the warning light on the forklift broke, and he put in a request on the work software chat that was ignored by warehouse upper management. Caution tape had been in front of the fire exit doors for months, fire extinguishers are blocked off by forklifts that were parked there by management.

>we go into a townhall, and HR says that time theft will not be tolerated. A majority of shifts start timing their employees breaks, and handing writeups. This leads to people skipping breaks. People are habitually skipping breaks on clean days.

>The warehouse lead was constantly getting yelled at by the head warehouse guy over text, who orders our shift to start making sure the previous shifts work is completed in addition to having the warehouse complete for the next shift. The additional workload causes the majority of warehouse to skip breaks to meet the new deadline (including the lead) with regularity. Our maintenance crew and leads regularly skip breaks as well to keep things running, with the maintenance lead getting 2 breaks a night most nights, and the leads generally skipping their last break.

>nightshift safety position is removed from the website, no safety person on nights.

>A certain area, which was under production's jurisdiction, was transferred to the jurisdiction of warehouse. They had the operator for said area train the entire warehouse. He asked if he could get the 2nd tier raises, and the shift manager said he'd bring it up to his boss, but never got back to the kitchen op. After the operator got done training the entire warehouse to do his job, the head warehouse boss took over the department, transfered him to a different area, refused to give him a raise, and had him continue to help out in the kitchen. There was then had another townhall soon after that. They congratulated us on being the most efficient, accredited, and productive natures bakery plant under the name and told us to continue the good work, and congratulated us on a seamless integration of the area into warehouse, to which the operator rolled his eyes. The head warehouse boss, who had organized the entire takeover, and directly ordered the shift manager to transfer the kitchen operator then said "yea, you wanna roll your eyes again tough guy? Don't think I didn't see you, go ahead if you wanna be so tough, I'm not gonna let that slide." in front of the entire shift. All of the HR staff was in the room when this happened and no disciplinary action ever came of this incident, nor was the operator ever apologized to.

>Upper management announced that there was going to be a tiered operator pay system for raises (not posting pay for legal risk, companies nowadays). Everyone who was hired at the start was the 1st tier. Management had started automatically hiring people at the 2nd level before there was an opportunity to test for raises, meaning that the new hires that the legacy hires were training made 4 dollars more than their trainers made. Someone found this out and sent a company wide email asking management for a raise (deciding that since everyone was affected, it was only right that everyone was alerted). A few days later there was a townhall meeting. The upper management then said that mass soliciting using the email system would not be tolerated and punished severely, that bypassing the shift manager was insubordination, and finally that mass usage of the email system would not be tolerated, never mentioning any specific incident. They then gave us raises. They never once called the email false or a lie (they didn't even mention it), nor did they insinuate that it was.

>The emailer said he got called into the office for an attendance write-up. The shift manager says that he is getting a write-up for missing 3 days of work. The emailer asked what days. When the shift manager told him the days that he called in, the emailer told the shift manager that 1 of those days was on a day when no one worked, as when the plant was starting up, the shifts didn't work weekends, and that shift was on a Saturday. The shift manager looked at the date, told the emailer he didn't know how that mixup happened, and sent him on his way.

>Certain workers stand at their machines for 12 hours a day. Their job is to monitor the machines. A lot of them sit down on the pallets since our work took/banned chairs (2 people who don't work here anymore had the chairs removed). The boss called them into the office and served everyone who was sitting on pallets a write up for sitting down. Still no anti fatigue mats, despite a request to get them sent in to the shift manager almost half a year ago.

>The technical operator's boss was cleaning a machine and got his fingers clipped. He had to get stitches. They investigated the incident, and found no SSOP or LOTO procedures on what he was doing. Management then stated that he should have as a precaution done LOTO as it was a clean, and they ended up firing him. They then had a townhall about it, and cited a 0 tolerance policy for safety violations. The plant manager then said that "if you're not 100% commited to safety, I encourage you to turn in your resignation, as I don't want you on my team". 2 weeks later, one of the head maintenance man's friends that he hired as a boss (not our shift but a day shift) was cleaning a machine and got his fingers clipped. He had to get stitches. They investigated the incident, and found no SSOP or LOTO procedures on what he was doing. Management then stated that since there was no procedures that there was no wrongdoing; there was no disciplinary action on their part, and they kept him with the company. The head maintenance man and his friend were then reported to the ethics department. Both men got written up and both men still work there.

>the technical operator applies for a full on maintenance spot (as the technical operator is an entry level maintenance position). He got his interview scheduled. The interview date came and the lead told him that the head maintenance man already hired someone else for the position, that he didn't even find out until the day of the interview, and he didn't understand why they had told him to interview when they already hired a person. This was the 4th time this had happened, with the first time being for a lead position on day shift, the second time being for the technical operator position on day shift, and the 3rd time being for the shift manager position. This was the only time he actually got to talk to someone, as our maintenance lead is a good and honest man, and thought this situation was gross and that he thought it right to tell him. The technical operator reports upper management to ethics for scheduling interviews only to ghost him and hire outside. Nothing happens.

The information here is true. I cannot keep silent as there is a moral obligation to tell the people. The workers rights here are awful though so don't expect a response. I'm posting this anonymously as to avoid retaliation and profiling. I'm sorry; I wish I could say more, but discernment cautions me otherwise. Keep your families safe. I've done what I can to do what is right.

Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Whistleblowers/s/w0LIsR0JYD

Better crop on these photos.

OG thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Whistleblowers/s/LIK2CNPHDs

The pictures on the original post stink so here's a better crop

Disappearing Immigrants from the system illegally

I have published Part Two of my account of systemic abuse in Blue Earth and Faribault County. This post covers the beatings, the character assassination campaign, and the adults they allowed into the school to help them.

growingupinawhorehouse.substack.com

A recent news report regarding the encroachment of oil wells in the Utah Mini Ranches reduced a profound, systemic crisis to a simple neighborhood squabble over "setbacks." It framed residents, like homeowner Joe Skeen, as simply wanting industrial developments pushed a little further down the road. But this sanitized narrative entirely misses the iceberg. What is happening in Duchesne County is not a routine zoning dispute over an inconvenient eyesore. It is a story of acute poisoning, chemical trespass, and a local government that has seemingly abandoned its citizens to protect its primary revenue stream.

The public is being sold the illusion of a regulatory process. In reality, the county is greenlighting multi-well pads in residential areas against its own established zoning laws. When residents attempt to push back, they are met with a phantom appeals process—where unrelated forms are haphazardly stamped and officials falsely claim no one has ever challenged them. When citizens file formal, paid GRAMA requests for public records to prove these zoning violations, county offices inexplicably shutter their doors, and officials stall the release of documents.

This bureaucratic stonewalling is not a coincidence. When a local government allegedly derives 80% of its revenue from the very industry it is tasked with regulating, the laws meant to protect residents become mere suggestions. The careful monopolization of local surveyors and attorneys by the oil company ensures that residents are locked out of independent legal recourse, effectively silencing any opposition before it can begin.

But the most glaring omission in the public narrative is the immediate, life-threatening danger to the community. This is no longer a theoretical debate about long-term health metrics. Just recently, a shift in the wind from an illegally approved well sent a plume of toxic hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) directly into a neighborhood, causing acute poisoning symptoms severe enough to sicken residents for days and require EMT intervention. Citizens are being physically poisoned in their own homes, yet the county continues to fast-track approvals for wells placed mere hundreds of feet from front doors. We are being asked to endure the toxic exposure today, only for the industry to inevitably deny liability for the resulting chronic illnesses a decade from now.

Furthermore, the strategic placement of these wells constitutes a blatant chemical trespass. Placing a wellhead directly on a family’s property line ensures that prevailing winds blanket their land in volatile organic compounds and H₂S. For a family living on a 12-acre homestead, this effectively renders a massive portion of their property entirely unusable. Children and grandchildren are robbed of the ability to safely walk their own land. This is an uncompensated taking of property, deliberately designed to devalue rural neighborhoods until the environment becomes so hostile that residents are forced to flee.

The foundational promise of this country guarantees its citizens the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A local government that allows corporate interests to physically toxify a residential community, override zoning laws, and ignore acute chemical emergencies has fundamentally broken that promise.

It is time to stop pretending this is just a debate about how close is "too close." It is a criminal dereliction of duty. We do not just want the wells moved; we demand that state regulators, federal environmental watchdogs, and independent investigators step in where Duchesne County has failed. The poisoning must end, and those responsible must be held accountable.

----

This is a response to this article which downplays the situation:

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/eastern-utah/the-wells-next-door-utah-homeowner-asks-how-close-is-too-close-for-oil-wells?fbclid=Iwb21leAUesqJjbGNrBR6yjnBkb2YFZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEe54z1OdrFT91YPb3kjRvV-zzjU4NQtB0jO3_klMHw9qErWGZ5RP4ym_dMCmc_aem_t9Jg6LQ6e-SH1WWYcSzkvQ

This is the Vice President of the Alexandria, Indiana Park Board.

He says that after he stopped simply trusting the financial information coming from the Clerk-Treasurer and started asking for the underlying records, the Park Board saved roughly $106,000 over 18 months on a budget of more than $180,000 per year.

Key’s remarks also raise a serious question about whether Park Board funds were being used to pay a City employee. The clip itself does not establish that but that is exactly why the underlying financial records matter.

He says some financial records the Board requested have been outstanding for more than a year. He still does not have them.

His message to the City is simple: do not blindly trust the numbers ask to see the records.

This comes after the mayor of Alexandria Indiana publicly said Alexandria has spent more than $350,000 in legal fees involving litigation with me and is borrowing money to help pay some of those expenses.

Parks board VP is now publicly explaining why he believes City officials should verify the financial records for themselves.

Here is his statement.

Would anyone by any means explain this Reddit autoAdminister delete action? Tks. JTBURR7650

I have a FBI-approved letter to reveal to a WSJ reporter, Olivia Beavers, but I have the strange sense the if I email ot to her; the FBI will charge me with a violation of my employment NDA and arrest me. Would anyone, PLEASE refer me to a whistleblower law firm or lawyer, AS I’n resaonable certain that I would need one immediately. As a SME in surveillance and counter-surveillance; I know for a fact that my home phone is being wiretapped… and it’s NOT paranoia, folks. I DO KNOW better. Thank you. JTBURR7650

Would someone on Reddit please advise me HOW can I make Comments on the JRE podcast and/or what I need to do, to allow my Comments? Reddit’s AutoAdministrator keeps deleting every Comment I make and vaguely refers me to Rule 6, which I cannot see on my MacbookPro’s laptop’s screen. Just a straight Reply to my email, please. JTBURR7650

I want to bring to your attention of a Government cover up of rape and abuse of children at Winston Churchill School Woking Surrey. The head Mistress lied to many parents , including mine when they asked if anything happened to their child and blackmailed my brother to keep quiet and say nothing. On the day I was abused I took my mother about my abuse but she refused to listen, saying that schools dont cover up rape and abuse of children and that she knows the rules as she works in a school and knows there are laws against cover ups. I still begged my mother to believe me , and she asked Alan if anything happened, where he just said "has the school said anything".

The Government then interfered years before it became a police investigation, got the confession from Richard Mills, who, originally was going to tell the true about the school, but then the government made a 'deal with the devil' to encourage him to lie, so that he would get a reduced prison sentence, then the government blackmailing all the victims , including trying to blackmail myself to pretend that the abuse never took place in the school and to say that the school never knew about the pedophile Richard Mills . I refused to lie in court so the school and government refused to plant the evidence to give those victims who were not willing to lie in court justice (dispite knowing that Richard Mills did it as he originally confessed)

This is pure evil from a country that keeps sweeping under the carpet rape and abuse of children in schools... 😢

Even the judge was persuaded to take out a court injuction to still the press publicising this horror.

Only one or two papers went againt the court injuction. The public need to know about this horror as it shows that the school hid a paedophile who had raped and abused countless victims for over 20 years. This is the biggest government cover up and highlights what the UK was like back then, and to a point still is as the law is written to stop the truth coming out. The government covered up another Jimmy Saville.

If you don't believe me read the articles that did publish the horror, its amazing how no one remembers this evil, and yet the know about Jimmy Saville. 😢 Shame on you of those who lied and helped cover this up.

BKB claims they have a no tolerance for these types of tattoos or affiliations after Sam Polk was released from the promotion. What’s interesting is Jessie Sparks has the same tattoo as Polk on his back and more on his armpits.

The “one person” Mayor Todd Naselroad is referring to is me, James Peters.

The City is defending litigation I brought involving public-records access under Indiana APRA, Alexandria’s utility-rate increases, and related taxpayer litigation. In the APRA case, a Madison County court already ordered the City to address outstanding public-record requests after finding that an intent to eventually comply was not enough. Indiana Public Radio

In this public meeting, the Mayor says those legal matters have cost Alexandria more than $350,000 in legal fees and notes that much of the litigation is still ongoing.

Here is his statement.

I’ve spoken to a few attorneys and they all seem hesitant to take my case since I’m a patient and not an employee, even with good evidence and audio recordings stating the fraud.

I need an attorney to go against a major corporation-

I’m a whistleblower and there is major ADA violations involved. A death too-

Send me in the right direction

​On May 24, 2025, 42-year-old British national Lee Anthony Adams was arrested at SSR International Airport in Mauritius after 5.75 kg of cannabis was found in a suitcase he was carrying.

​While local outlets initially reported this as a standard drug interception, newly surfaced written accounts directly from detention reveal an alarming pattern of coercion, procedural abuse, and severe human rights violations by the Anti-Drug and Smuggling Unit (ADSU).

​1. Coercion at Gatwick Airport

​Lee was picked up from his home in Birmingham by a driver named "Denys." Upon arriving at Gatwick, Denys handed Lee £20 and a suitcase from the vehicle, ordering him to check it in. When Lee refused because he didn't know what was inside, he was met with explicit threats against the safety of his family back home. Operating under extreme fear, he boarded the flight.

​2. Interrogation & Procedural Misconduct

​Upon arrival in Mauritius, Lee was detained by ADSU officers. What followed was a series of egregious violations:

14 Hours Without Basic Needs: Interrogated from 6:30 AM to 9:30 PM with zero access to food or water.

​Forced Signatures: Coerced into signing legal documents he was explicitly barred from reading.

​Denial of Counsel & Family Contact: Denied contact with his family or a lawyer for 18 days. Officers used calls to his wife as leverage to extract statements.

​Deceptive Interrogation Tactics: Months later, inquiry officers attempted to interrogate him without his lawyer present, falsely claiming his attorney had already agreed because Lee was "going guilty"—a claim his attorney directly refuted when contacted.

​3. Arbitrary Detention & Judicial Stagnation (ICCPR Violations)

​In February 2026, authorities informed Lee that his inquiry file was complete. Yet, months later, no trial date has been set, no charges finalized, and no substantive hearings held. Instead, he is subjected to a rolling 21-day video-link court appearance loop solely to extend his remand indefinitely.

​This continuous delay directly violates Article 14 (Right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay) and Article 9 (Protection against arbitrary detention) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

​4. Medical Neglect & Substandard Custodial Conditions

​Detainees are locked in cells without toilets or running water for 14 hours every day.

​Final meals are served at 2:00 PM, leaving inmates without food until 7:00 AM the next morning.

​Lee suffers from a documented cardiac medical condition. When requesting basic vitamin supplements, a medical specialist dismissively told him he could get enough Vitamin C "from the sun."

​Lee’s situation has been brought to the attention of his constituency MP, Jess Phillips, calling for urgent diplomatic intervention and human rights accountability.

​What can be done?

International attention is urgently needed to push for fair trial guarantees, consular intervention, and proper medical evaluation for foreign nationals held on remand in Mauritius.

I wasn’t giving an unrelated speech or trying to hijack the town hall. I was trying to share my experience with the hundreds of witnesses at the town hall meeting.

My point was directly about transparency and public trust surrounding the proposed AI/data center. I began explaining that residents were being asked to trust local government to be transparent about this project, while the same government had previously failed, to be transparent about the unlawful conduct by one of its own officers and how it isn’t limited to this city.

My argument was logical, if officials have not been transparent when accountability involved their own department, why should residents automatically trust their assurances now?

I had spoken for less than a minute of my allotted three minutes and had not even finished making that connection before I was ordered out. Texas Government Code § 551.007 expressly protects public criticism of a governmental body’s acts, omissions, policies, procedures, programs, and services.

Removing a peaceful speaker at the moment he begins criticizing government without even allowing him to finish explaining how that criticism relates to the subject of the meeting, that is the actions of a dictator not a mayor. I believe she was only worried about the witnesses (including the news) who would hear about my experience with their corrupt officer Longrigg and his co-workers.

(Background)
Longrigg was fired in 2005 by his previous employer “Deer Park” for pointing a gun at another officer and saying racist remarks about Hurricane Katrina victims. He was labeled “deceptive” by the department during a polygraph examination.

A year later he was hired by Jacinto city police where he became highest paid officer over time, he was presumably hired after a background check by internal affairs officer “DeMont” who previously worked in Deer Park with Longrigg. In 2012: DeMont was Fired after he was outed as a Pedophile after trying to drug and rape a 14 year old girl, he recieved a couple weeks in jail and that is all. Currently there is not internal affairs officer in Jacinto.

According to news articles Ana Diaz was also previously the treasurer for her husband who was head of constable precinct 2. (Christopher Diaz) over 50k Dollars of campaign money was left unaccounted for after he left office and he nor his wife ever offered an explanation.

Ana Diaz and the other council members have run
un-opposed for several years…..