Looking outside mainstream media proved lucrative in finding additional information, plenty of information, casting more than a shadow of a doubt about the government’s activities. And when it comes to big tech companies, who is running what? Are the tech companies running themselves or was the government calling the shots? Or was it somewhere in between with big tech companies calling the shots but handing information, what should be protected information without the appropriate probable cause, over to the government–a violation of First Amendment rights? This leaves to question who is controlling mainstream media, and why wouldn’t mainstream media want Americans to know what is truly going on in our courts, our government systems, and with our social media platforms?
Congressional Testimony. In September, Peiter Zatko, a Twitter whistleblower, gave testimony before Congress regarding Twitter’s security being a decade behind and the vulnerabilities users of the platform faced as a result. Mr. Zatko was on Twitter’s Executive team from 2020 through January 2022 and was responsible for information security, privacy engineering, physical security, and information technology. In his position, he was able to observe Twitter misleading the public, lawmakers, regulators, and its own Board of Directors.
This congressional hearing revealed foreign assets worked for Twitter, and engineers at Twitter were able to geo locate users and spy on Americans. In fact, this was nothing new as two Twitter employees were indicted in 2019 for accessing user’s private data and giving it to Saudi Arabia. We should not find it surprising to hear Mr. Zatko testify to the fact that around 4,000 engineers at Twitter were able to access user’s data and post, tweet, or inject information into user’s accounts as if it were the user. This is known as doxing, the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
Missouri & Louisiana v. the Biden Administration. The lawsuit was filed on May 5, 2022, and on June 17, 2022 MO/LA filed a Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction-Related Discovery. That motion was grated on July 12, 2022, clearing the way for MO & LA to gather discovery (evidence) and documents from the Biden Administration officials and social media companies. On October 10, 2022, a request for expedited depositions was filed and was granted on October 21, 2022, allowing MO & LA to depose (interview) top-ranking officials in the federal government under oath.
What does all of that mean in layman’s terms? Missouri and Louisiana had set forth a court case to prove collusion between the government and social media, to expose how the government had been working with social media platforms–including Meta–to suppress information reaching Americans, and to bring to light how top-ranking Biden Administration officials had allegedly colluded to suppress freedom of speech.
This case granted depositions to be obtained from Dr. Anthony Fauci, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Director of the White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, CISA Director Jen Easterly, and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan. When the motion was granted to depose these individuals Judge Doughty documented the government conspiring with social media companies to censor their speech had been proven. The declaration of information being “proven” while a case is still being decided is not the only unusually intriguing factor in this case. An expedited discovery process and the deposition of government officials who would not normally make a deposition list also ups the anty on this case, so to speak.
I strongly encourage giving this very thorough article by Tracy Beanz a read. Not only does she explain the involvement of each person in the case, she shows the court order as well so you can see precisely what Judge Doughty’s ruling states with your own two eyes. There is nothing more incredible than transparent reporting.
This case is instrumental in proving and understanding why Travis’s personal IG posts had been censored and flagged as violent, when in fact they were far from violent. The court order identifies topics being censored on social media at the direction of government officials included the origin of COVID, election integrity and the security of voting by mail, Hunter Biden’s laptop story prior to the 2020 election, the efficiency of masks and lockdowns in response to COVID-19, and more. Many of the very same topics Travis would share information about on his personal IG account. And just a reminder, this personal IG account was never in question as part of his criminal case but was closed by IG at the end of 2021.
Twitter Files. Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter was finalized at the end of October. It was unsettling to many people who made their opinions aggressively and threateningly known online; yet none of these individuals have been prosecuted for their threats. After the acquisition, Mr. Musk began to drop “Twitter files” which included email correspondence and other documentation of how the previous Twitter execs and government officials, including Elvis Chan, were running Twitter.
It reinforces what the MO & LA vs Biden Administration court case is revealing. Mr. Chan and other FBI officials played a prominent role in controlling what was being released and what was being censored on Twitter’s platform. The Twitter files also exposed there are 115 ex-intelligence government employees, verified through LinkedIn, who left the CIA, FBI, and DHS, and now work for Meta. The FBI also met with Twitter executives directing these Twitter execs to increase the FBI’s EDRs. EDRs are an emergency disclosure request or in simpler terms, a warrantless search.
More reason to doubt the evidence in Travis’s case–which he can never have access to– might have been obtained without a search warrant and the forensic analysis of his phone had been obtained in a illegal manner.
Coincidentally, when Elon Musk began digging into Twitter, the Biden Administration deemed Mr. Musk to be a national security threat. A risk to national security for presenting the truth to America? That’s a pretty wild definition of a national security threat based upon how I’d been trained to safeguard the country. Interestingly enough, Mark Zuckerberg openly shared on the Joe Rogan Experience the government had instructed Meta to censor the story about the Biden laptop, which MO & LA vs. the Biden Administration acknowledges has been proven, and we see in Travis’s case Mr. Zuckerberg is protected by the government. Probably for his complicit actions. Or did he buy his protection with the $420 million donation he made to the Democratic party during the 2020 election?
Here’s what we’re seeing: run a social media platform with transparency and truth and be labeled a National Security threat. Run a social media platform suppressing what Americans can say, access, and express on the platform and be lauded as a successful businessman.
Pfizer. In mid-December (2022), the FDA finally admitted the Pfizer vaccine does cause blood clots. This is a key piece of information to come to the surface for Travis’s case. His statement to the court which had been filed sealed allowing no one outside the court to access it, the document containing his mitigating factors including the phobia of the COVID vaccine, the judge had denounced as “non-sense”.
To tie it all together… whistleblowers have admitted social media engineers could post as if they were the account holders. We never saw the forensic analysis of Travis’s phone proving he had made the threatening posts or that the one photo claimed to be taken from his device was actually on his device. The FBI was treating social media platforms as a subsidiary and dictating what was being censored on the social media platforms. The lead FBI agent during Travis’s investigation had made casual reference to evidence being obtained illegally, the prosecutor was completely caught off guard when I shared I had reviewed the evidence, and Travis was required to sign away his right to ever access the evidence used against him in his case.
The censorship on social media platforms was a means of mental and emotional manipulation being dictated by the FBI because it was influencing how social media platforms were ran. Through the manipulation they would incite outrage and resistance to the specific narrative being pushed, and then they would turn around and prosecute the very behavior they were manipulating and influencing in the first place. Isn’t this entrapment?
If only we knew what legal recourse could be taken for Travis based upon the developments which continue to present themselves…
Lessons learned: Find incredible citizen journalists if you want to know the reality of what’s happening in the world around you. If you thought your information posted on social media platforms had any level of protection with that cute little password you get to use, think again. There’s a bigger threat posed by those running social media platforms than what exists from outside hackers.
Sign up below to access all the blogs of this story as they are posted so you don’t miss a thing. Read the entire series in the story beginning with this blogpost.
Follow my journey, hear more about this story, and consider all things seen and unseen on my internet radio show, ‘Eyes Wide Open’ airing every Wednesday evening at 6 pm EST/5 pm CST/3 pm PST. Listen to the replays toward the bottom of this webpage.
Thank you for praying for us, supporting us, sharing our story: givesendgo.com/travisford
GiveSendGo.com is a free Christian Crowdfunding site. They are built on the fact as Christians they know money, as helpful as it is, is only part of the equation. Their platform is designed not only to encourage Christians to raise money to make a difference in the world, but to also remind that sharing hope (through prayer submission) is even more important, as it is a lasting solution.
Peace & Love,
Janessa