FURLOUGHED FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BOLDLY SUPPORTS SHUTDOWN & BORDER WALL:
HOW MANY MORE DO?
WHY IS CONGRESS ALLOWING SHUTDOWN TO DRAG ON?
IS THIS SHUTDOWN REALLY ABOUT THE WALL?
OR IS IT SECRETLY ABOUT “DRAINING THE SWAMP” & CONTROLLING WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE OF GOVT MONEY?
IS THIS SHUTDOWN SECRETLY BEING USED BY CONGRESS TO LEGALLY GET RID OF LONG TERM FEDERAL GOVT EMPLOYEES OVER THE AGE OF 60??
OR IS IT ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY?
INQUIRING MINDS OF AMERICAN VOTERS WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
Post Sources: Fox News, WJLA, YouTube
**** Furloughed federal employee says she supports Trump's push for a border wall
Several times during the partial government shutdown, President Donald Trump has claimed that federal workers are on his side.
Now, we’re hearing from one of those workers.
“I’m very strongly behind it, yes,” Amanda Schimone said. “I just believe in what we are doing. I believe in the President’s policies and Secretary Nielsen’s policies, and supporting the border patrol agents.”
Schimone spent 26 years in the U.S. Air Force before retiring in 2012. Now, she works at the Department of Homeland Security’s federal law enforcement training center in Cheltenham, Maryland.
“We train all the federal agents, through all the different agencies. Not just DHS, but FBI, the state department, that kind of thing,” she said.
Despite the fact that’s she been furloughed since the shutdown began, Schimone says she supports the border wall on behalf of her colleagues who patrol the border every single day.
“If you had a tool that would help you do your job better and to be able to have border security – they’re my coworkers – I don’t know them personally, but if they say that’s what they need to do their job, than I support them 100 percent,” she said.
Schimone’s husband also works for the federal government, but is not impacted by the partial government shutdown. She says they’re relying on his income plus a pension she gets from the U.S. Air Force to pay their bills while her DHS paychecks are on hold.
“We’ve put away money, we have a financial planner, we’ve been really cognizant of doing that,” she said. “My credit card bills, they’re just getting the minimum payment right now.”
Still, she knows there are a lot of federal employees who are struggling financially due as the shutdown drags on.
“I do have for empathy for them. I do understand that some people live paycheck to paycheck,” she said.
She also understands that a lot of people may not like her perspective on the government shutdown. And she says that’s okay.
“I don’t judge people,” she said. “They have a right to their opinion, and I have a right to mine.”
At the very least, she hopes people will listen to what she has to say.
“Do I like being furloughed? No. But I understand and I support them,” she said. “I realize America is where people really want to be, but I think there’s a right way to come into our country, and not illegally. And so that’s one of the reasons why I do support the border wall.”
She hopes the president and Congress can soon agree on funding for the wall, and get the government back open.
“Maybe negotiate the amount that President Trump wants or some type of other immigration policies, but it sure would be nice if they would try to work together,” she said. “No negotiations makes me feel like they don’t care about the Department of Homeland Security.”
THEY SERVED & SACRIFICED HONORABLY, SO WHY MUST THEY NOW BEG TO RECEIVE HELP?
WHY ARE SO MANY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AGENCIES & CHURCHES CLAIMING TO HELP VETS, ALLOWED BY CONGRESS TO DO VERY LITTLE FOR VETS TO MAINTAIN THEIR NON-PROFIT STATUS?
WHY DOESN’T CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO ANNUALLY AUDIT ALL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS & AGENCIES WHICH CLAIM TO HELP HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING DENIED VA LOANS BY FANNIE MAE AND MORTGAGE SERVICE COMPANIES?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING FORCED INTO FORECLOSURE BY LENDERS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS HOMELESS OR AT-RISK OF BEING HOMELESS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS HUNGRY OR BEING DENIED FOOD STAMPS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING BURDENED WITH STUDENT LOAN DEBT WITH NO RELIEF?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING DENIED SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE BLOCKING THEM FROM CREATING JOBS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS IN SOUTHERN STATES BEING PAID VERY LOW WAGES?
WHY???
Post Sources: CNN, FTC, Huffington Post, AP, Military Family Support Foundation, Youtube
******** Veterans Charity Fraud: Despite Widespread Outrage, Groups Continue To Abuse Public Trust
For hundreds of thousands of veterans returning home from the battlefronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it home alive is just the first challenge.
An estimated 25 percent of returning U.S. service members will experience combat-related problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), depression or anxiety disorders. More veterans are committing suicide than are dying in combat overseas — 1,000 former soldiers receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs attempt suicide every month. About 50,000 veterans are experiencing chronic homelessness, according to nonprofit housing group HELP USA.
And the unemployment rate for 18 to 24-year-old veterans is 21 percent, much higher than the 16.6 percent rate for non-veterans of the same age.
Though the VA has come a long way from the 1970s, when many Vietnam veterans failed to reintegrate into society and became homeless and addicted to drugs, the department still has problems. The VA bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to navigate, and veterans are left to figure out on their own what benefits they are eligible for. As a result, many fall through the cracks — more than 720,000 veterans do not take advantage of VA benefits for which they are eligible.
To fill in the gap, veterans charities are a crucial resource — providing financial assistance and job training, funding medical research and rehabilitative services, and helping veterans obtain government benefits. Every year, Americans give millions of dollars to such groups, expecting that the money will assist those who’ve served their country.
But as a group, veterans charities are prone to abuse, profiteering and outright fraud, say philanthropy watchdogs.
Almost half of the 39 veterans charities rated by the American Institute of Philanthropy in its April/May 2011 report received F grades, largely because they devoted only a small ratio of their expenses to charitable programs, in part due to excessive fundraising expenses. Some of these groups defend their spending by arguing that reliance on such ratios is misleading, claiming that new nonprofits may have to spend over 50 percent of their revenue on outreach, education and fundraising for a while. But charities that spend up to 90 percent of their donations on overhead have been widely condemned and were the subject of congressional hearings in 2007.
Despite bipartisan outrage at such practices, there was no real follow-up, either through enforcement efforts or new rules and regulations. And several of the charities publicly shamed at those hearings continue to receive poor grades. In the last few years, there have been several prominent cases of nonprofit groups that preyed on the public’s patriotism and generosity, promising assistance to veterans while lining their own pockets. They range from an impostor — currently one of the most-sought fugitives in the country — who claimed he was a Navy commander and ripped off at least $2 million, to a classic fraudster, who set up a table for non-existent veterans groups in front of the local post office and raked in money for years.
CRUCIAL LIFELINE TO THOUSANDS OF VETERANS
Their misdeeds cast a pall over the sector, making the public skeptical of veterans charities and threatening future donations to those groups that deserve praise.
“Veterans charities are extraordinarily important,” Oregon Attorney General John Kroger tells The Huffington Post. “There is a lot the VA doesn’t do, and charities help fill that gap. And the majority of them do an excellent job, but if you’re looking to line your own pocket, it’s an easy way to raise money. If you’re looking for a feel-good cause that can raise money on the phone, there is very little that has as much appeal as veterans’ issues.”
Darnell Epps, a 52-year-old veteran living in Virginia Beach, was homeless for years until he discovered Vetshouse, the only nonprofit in Virginia to help homeless veterans. Through the group, he was given a car to help him start his cleaning business and provided with transitional housing and food.
“If it wasn’t for them, I would probably still be out on the street,” he says. “They gave me my life back. The VA can’t do it all and these charities are key; they’ve helped many of us vets.”
Ed Edmundson credits veterans charities with easing the burden of his son, Eric, who incurred shrapnel wounds and a brain injury in a roadside bomb explosion in Iraq. The North Carolina native says he sold his business and cashed in his savings and retirement to pay for the cost of moving in with Eric and his family to provide round-the-clock care. Some of the family’s expenses, including the cost of flying Eric’s wife and daughter from Alaska to Walter Reed Medical Center, were covered by various charities, such as the Wounded Warrior Project and the Semper Fi Fund.
“Non-profit organizations became an answer to our prayers,” says Edmundson.
The Wounded Warrior Project and several other prominent veterans charities such as Fisher House Foundation, the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society and the National Military Family Association, have been praised for assisting thousands of veterans.
ABUSING THE TRUST OF DONORS: ‘THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM’
Attorney General Kroger says the issue is close to his heart since he himself is a veteran of the Marine Corps. But when his office recently surveyed the rising number of charities in Oregon and which ones spend the most on overhead as opposed to charity, “a number of veterans groups came up extraordinarily high on the list. One was outright fraud — a guy setting up a table at a shopping mall — and another problem was people who were raising money and not being honest about where the money was going. This is a huge problem.”
Since taking office in 2009, Kroger has been particularly aggressive in taking legal action against veterans charities that abuse the trust of donors. Among his cases is a lawsuit against Veterans of Oregon, charging that the charity claimed that donations were helping homeless and hospitalized veterans when in fact it was largely used to award medals to veterans. In addition, the group failed to disclose to donors that its fundraising partner kept 80 percent of the money it raised. The head of the charity, William “John” Neuman, is fighting the case, adamantly denying to the Chronicle of Philanthropy that he misled donors.
Kroger also sued the Oregon War Veterans Association and Military Family Support Foundation, claiming that founder Greg Warnock kept most of the money he raised and used donations to make contributions to powerful politicians in the state. The group has called the suit “baseless” and called for an investigation of Kroger.
After initially declining to comment, Warnock wrote HuffPost a lengthy statement. Among his claims, he states that “Kroger’s claims are purely political in nature and do not warrant the kind of destructive abuse we are enduring from him, especially considering all of the amazing accomplishments we have made on behalf of veterans in Oregon and beyond.” Warnock vehemently denies that he kept most of the money his group raised and claims that Kroger neglected to interview the group’s board members, donors or recipients. Warnock also says the campaign contributions were permitted political activity.
The attorney general says he can’t comment due to the pending litigation but emphasizes, “When you’re going after people and trying to hold them accountable, lots of them fire back.”
Such schemes that exploit patriotic sentiment for the plight of veterans have been around for many decades. In 1926, the New York Evening Post exposed a plot hatched in the wake of the armistice that ended World War One by the “battalions of bunk” to raise several million dollars “purporting to aid former soldiers but actually hiding the proceeds away in secret bank accounts.” Part of the scheme involved several cleaning women who borrowed neighbors’ children, dressed them in rags and pleaded for money from passersby. And in 1958, five Chicagoans were dragged before the House veterans affairs committee to defend themselves against charges that they bilked Disabled American Veterans of $2 million — three of them were later charged with mail fraud and conspiracy. That same year, Rep. Olin Teague “found so much abuse in fund raising [sic] for veterans” that he urged the House Government Operations Committee to open a wide-ranging probe into the entire field of tax-exempt charitable fundraising, reported the Gadsden Times.
“The most popular causes — veterans, firefighters, police — tend to be the least efficient because they attract money-hungry types,” says Daniel Borochoff, the president of the American Institute of Philanthropy. “There is very little oversight so it keeps happening again and again.” He notes that most enforcement happens on the state level, which often just prompts fraudulent groups to cross state lines “and come out under a different name.”
BIPARTISAN OUTRAGE AT ‘INTOLERABLE FRAUD’
The prevalence of fraud and misrepresentation in the sector has prompted Congressional scrutiny and bipartisan outrage but very few repercussions. In 2004, the Senate Finance Committee called for a panel to examine nonprofit governance, transparency and ethical standards. Though it concluded that government oversight and regulation was necessary to deter abuse, misrepresentation and fraud, it also maintained that charities are granted wide latitude in their activities due to First Amendment protections and did not recommend any new legislation.
In December 2007 and January 2008, the House Oversight Committee held hearings to spotlight abuses in the system, highlighting several egregious examples. Then-chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) noted that the American Institute of Philanthropy had given failing grades to 70 percent of the veterans charities it examined for several reasons: managing their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct mail campaigns and excessive salaries. Citing the example of the American Veterans Relief Foundation, which raised $3.6 million and spent only $21,000 on veterans’ grants and assistance, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) thundered:
They fall into the category of what I would call “profiteering,” profiteering by those who use the name of a soldier or a cause in order to justify fundraising that ultimately leads to profit for individuals who may or may not be veterans, may or may not have any need, may simply be good at fundraising.
That particular charity is now defunct, but two other prominent charities whose leaders were subpoenaed to appear before the committee still operate and continue their questionable practices.
One of the hearing’s most dramatic confrontations was with Roger Chapin, a self-described “nonprofit entrepreneur” and former
real-estate developer who has launched more than 20 charities. One of those charities, Help Hospitalized Veterans, has been praised for distributing millions of therapeutic arts and crafts gifts to patients at VA medical centers, state nursing homes and military hospitals. The group, which also provides a variety of services to homebound veterans and cash support to many VA special events, has been praised by presidents and Congressional leaders since its founding in 1971.
But a Forbes magazine articles questioned whether Chapin and his wife were using their charities to fund their high salaries and illegitimate expenses such as vehicles, real estate investments and a $17,000 annual country club membership. In addition, the magazine reported that out of every dollar donated to HHV, only 9 cents went to the kits, 5 cents went to administrative expenses and for counselors visiting hospitals and 47 cents went to direct-mail expenses.
One of the charities’ critics was Edmundson, who said he didn’t feel it was “appropriate” to give a small percentage of donations to charity. He added, “I am concerned, the negative effect that the few self-serving non-profits will have on the ability of the legitimate non-profits to obtain funding from the general public. It would be an unfortunate turn of events if the service they provide is not available. As I have shared, the service they provide is immediate and personalized to the needs of the soldiers and their families.”
Chapin didn’t win any friends by reportedly going into hiding after refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before the committee. When he did finally appear a month later, he explained that fundraising for many charities across the country depends on direct-mail expenses and that it was unfair to pick on his charity. Chapin claimed that HHV was awarded two stars by Charity Navigator, a leading watchdog group. Coming to his defense was Richard Viguerie, prominent conservative fundraiser, who lashed out at the committee, claiming that Waxman’s agenda was “unconstitutional” and “mean” and stating that advertising mail can be valuable just by generating sympathy for returning veterans.
Chapin retired from Help Hospitalized Veterans in 2009 with a $2.2 million payment package. He still serves as the president of another of his charities, the Salute to America’s Heroes Foundation. Both charities were given zero stars in Charity Navigator’s most recent evaluation, though they have increased the percentage of funds they spent on charitable programs.
Reached at home, Chapin said both charities had not made any changes in response to the criticism of their fundraising expenses, defiantly stating, “Hell, we just keep doing what we’ve been doing.” He called the hearing a “charade” and a “witch hunt,” explaining that SAHF has helped almost 20,000 veterans. He continued to defend the heavy reliance and spending on direct mail practitioners, even in the age of Facebook and Twitter and online charitable tools. “It’s an expensive way to raise money but we’re all challenged and it’s tough as hell to get donations. But something is a hell of a lot better than nothing.”
The other target in the sights of lawmakers at the 2007 hearing was Pamela Seman, the executive director of the Disabled Veterans Association, a charity which kept only $500,000 out of $4.5 million in donations raised — about 10 percent — through a professional fundraising group.
“It makes all of us angry that the veterans, people who have served our country are used to raise money to give [to] some professional organization in the business,” said Waxman. “It’s absolutely inexcusable.”
Seman, who still leads the organization, did not return calls for comment. DVA received zero stars in its latest evaluation from Charity Navigator and an F rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy. Its fundraising ratio has grown even higher, with only 5 percent going to charitable programs.
WASHINGTON DITHERS WHILE FRAUD CONTINUES
In Washington, there has not been much action. On the first day of the 2007 hearings, former Rep. Sarbanes, the author of the post-Enron accounting rules that bear his name, stated that there may be a need for stricter regulation of charities, emphasizing that “charities that serve our veterans have an extra obligation because there is a deeper trust placed in them, a broader trust than with respect to just about any other charitable endeavor.”
Though there was some discussion of legislative remedies in the wake of the hearings, especially in regard to requiring more disclosure of charity spending in direct mail pitches, nothing happened. Though some watchdog groups have pressed for more hearings to re-examine the issue, none are planned. A spokesman for Rep. Issa, who now chairs the Oversight Committee, did not return emails requesting comment.
“It got a lot of press attention during the hearings but after that died down, there wasn’t any significant demand for more disclosure or information,” says Bennett Weiner, the COO of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance and an advocate of voluntary standards rather than government regulation. He says that veterans charities have slightly improved their performance, noting that the number which failed to meet one or more of their standards dropped from 62 to 54 percent. But he notes: “No question about it, veterans and police and firefighter groups have been well-known to be subject to questionable practices by those who got involved in the field and realize that there is public sympathy and the chance to raise money.”
Meanwhile, the alleged scams continue. Last month, prosecutors in Ohio pursued Vietnam veteran Michael Muhammad, claiming that he raised money for himself through his charities, Help Homeless Veterans and Veterans Hope Community House. They also claim that he was charging veterans to stay at a shelter that offered horrible living conditions. His lawyer denies the charges, saying that the money raised went to aid veterans.
And last week, an associate of one of the most brazen fundraising fraudsters in recent history pled guilty to corruption, theft and money laundering at a county court in Ohio. Bianca Contreras was the treasurer of the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, a group founded by a man known as Bobby Thompson, who is accused of using a false identity to raise millions of dollars.
Though the money was ostensibly intended for Navy veterans and Thompson attracted praise from Congressional leaders for his purported efforts, the money went into his own pocket, say attorneys general in several states. Thompson is currently a fugitive, and officials remain tight-lipped about any progress in finding him. But Contreras is expected to cooperate with prosecutors, which may reveal some clues to his identity. The 39-year-old Tampa woman faces up to 25 years in prison when she comes up for sentencing in August.
Donors who’ve been misled can be hard to identify, since most are not aware that they’ve been ripped off, says Weiner. “The number one recommendation for people wanting to contribute to a good cause is to check out the charity — the vast majority of people don’t do that. Get a financial report from the group’s website, verify that they are properly registered in your state, check with a third-party group that checks these groups out.”
This story has been updated to include comment from Greg Warnock, founder of Military Family Support Foundation.
A young production assistant thought she had landed the job of her dreams when, in the summer of 2015, she started work on "Going In Style," a bank heist comedy starring Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Alan Arkin.
But the job quickly devolved into several months of harassment, she told CNN. She alleges that Freeman subjected her to unwanted touching and comments about her figure and clothing on a near-daily basis. Freeman would rest his hand on her lower back or rub her lower back, she said.
In one incident, she said, Freeman "kept trying to lift up my skirt and asking if I was wearing underwear." He never successfully lifted her skirt, she said -- he would touch it and try to lift it, she would move away, and then he'd try again.
Eventually, she said, "Alan [Arkin] made a comment telling him to stop. Morgan got freaked out and didn't know what to say."
Freeman's alleged inappropriate behavior was not limited to that one movie set, according to other sources who spoke to CNN. A woman who was a senior member of the production staff of the movie "Now You See Me" in 2012 told CNN that Freeman sexually harassed her and her female assistant on numerous occasions by making comments about their bodies.
"He did comment on our bodies... We knew that if he was coming by ... not to wear any top that would show our breasts, not to wear anything that would show our bottoms, meaning not wearing clothes that [were] fitted," she said.
At 80 years old, Freeman is one of Hollywood's biggest stars, with a movie career that spans nearly five decades. His starring roles in movies like "Driving Miss Daisy" and "Shawshank Redemption" in the late 1980s and early 1990s made him a household name.
He won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for 2004's "Million Dollar Baby," and has earned four other Oscar nominations. His voiceover work has also become iconic, including his narration for the Academy Award-winning documentaries "The Long Way Home" and "March of the Penguins."
In all, 16 people spoke to CNN about Freeman as part of this investigation, eight of whom said they were victims of what some called harassment and others called inappropriate behavior by Freeman. Eight said they witnessed Freeman's alleged conduct.
These 16 people together described a pattern of inappropriate behavior by Freeman on set, while promoting his movies and at his production company Revelations Entertainment.
Of those 16, seven people described an environment at Revelations Entertainment that included allegations of harassment or inappropriate behavior by Freeman there, with one incident allegedly witnessed by Lori McCreary, Freeman's co-founder in the enterprise, and another in which she was the target of demeaning comments by Freeman in a public setting.
One of those seven people alleged that McCreary made a discriminatory remark regarding a female candidate for a job at the Producers Guild of America, where McCreary is co-president.
Four people who worked in production capacities on movie sets with Freeman over the last ten years described him as repeatedly behaving in ways that made women feel uncomfortable at work. Two, including the production assistant on "Going in Style" whose skirt he allegedly attempted to lift, said Freeman subjected them to unwanted touching.
Three said he made public comments about women's clothing or bodies. But each of them said they didn't report Freeman's behavior, with most saying it was because they feared for their jobs. Instead, some of the women -- both on movie sets and at Revelations -- said, they came up with ways to combat the alleged harassment on their own, such as by changing the way they dressed when they knew he would be around.
CNN reached out to dozens more people who worked for or with Freeman. Some praised Freeman, saying they never witnessed any questionable behavior or that he was a consummate professional on set and in the office.
Several other times during this investigation, when a CNN reporter contacted a person who had worked with Freeman to try to ask them if they had seen or been subjected to inappropriate behavior by an actor they had worked with -- not initially even naming the actor they were asking about -- the person would immediately tell them they knew exactly who the reporter had in mind: Morgan Freeman.
Some of those people were sources for this investigation while others declined to comment further or did not want what they said used in this story.
The pattern of behavior described by those who spoke with CNN shows another example of the systematic problems that exist in the entertainment industry. The allegations against Freeman are not about things that happened in private; they are about things that allegedly happened in public, in front of witnesses -- even in front of cameras.
Before #MeToo, many men in the industry could behave without fear of consequences, because many times when a powerful man did so, it was the victim who suffered repercussions.
CNN reached out to Freeman's spokesperson for comment and then, at his request, emailed him a detailed list of the accusations against Freeman. The spokesperson did not respond to multiple follow-ups by email seeking comment on the accusations.
After this article was published, Freeman released a statement in which he said, "Anyone who knows me or has worked with me knows I am not someone who would intentionally offend or knowingly make anyone feel uneasy. I apologize to anyone who felt uncomfortable or disrespected — that was never my intent."
CNN also reached out to a spokesperson for McCreary, and then provided her with a detailed list of accusations regarding Freeman's alleged behavior at Revelations and details of the accusation against her as well as a number of questions for her regarding Freeman's alleged behavior at Revelations and the environment there.
The spokesperson did not respond to multiple follow-ups by email seeking comment.
The allegations of inappropriate behavior by Freeman are not limited to the confines of his company or to movie sets. Three entertainment reporters who spoke to CNN said Freeman made inappropriate remarks to them during press junkets, which are publicity events for journalists who cover new films, typically attended by the movie's biggest stars.
One of the three, CNN entertainment reporter Chloe Melas, the co-author of this article, says she was subjected to inappropriate behavior by Freeman more than a year ago, when she interviewed him at a press junket for "Going in Style."
According to Melas, who was six months pregnant at the time, Freeman, in a room full of people, including his co-stars Arkin and Caine, shook Melas' hand, not letting go while repeatedly looking her up and down and saying more than once a variation of, "I wish I was there." She says he also said to her, "You are ripe." Cameras were on and recording during one of Freeman's remarks to Melas -- "Boy, do I wish I was there" -- but not for the rest. As is common practice with such junkets, Melas was the only CNN employee there at the time.
Afterward, Melas reported what had happened to her supervisor, who instructed her to inform CNN human resources. According to Melas, she was told that CNN HR contacted their counterparts at human resources for Warner Bros., which produced and distributed the movie, and which like CNN is owned by Time Warner. Melas said she was also told that Warner Bros.
HR could not corroborate the account because only one of Freeman's remarks was on video and the Warner Bros. employees present did not notice anything.
Melas and her supervisor agreed that she would not cover the movie.
Asked for comment, a spokesperson for Warner Bros. confirmed that what Melas was told was accurate, but declined to comment further. A representative for Caine declined to comment. A representative for Arkin said he was not available for comment.
After the encounter with Freeman, Melas started making calls to see if other women had experienced anything similar, or whether this was an isolated incident. She soon learned that other women had similar stories -- and so she, and later her co-author, began this months-long reporting process.
Freeman and Lori McCreary founded Revelations Entertainment in 1996. Variety reported last year that Freeman started the company with McCreary because he was frustrated by the lack of choice roles for black actors and because he wanted to reveal the truth about serious issues -- a mission that inspired the name "Revelations."
The company's credits include a list of ambitious films about religion, apartheid, astronomy and stem cell research. Revelations also produced the film "Along Came a Spider" and the hit CBS show "Madam Secretary," both of which feature strong female leads.
But former staffers who spoke with CNN say that behind the façade of a progressive and artistic agenda the company's two founders created what one called a "toxic" work environment.
Six former staffers said they witnessed Freeman's questionable behavior around women, which they said included sexual comments and one said included an incident of unsolicited touching. One female former staffer said she was the target of sexual comments by Freeman.
The female former employee at Revelations told CNN that Freeman was flanked by a group of men on the set of "Through the Wormhole" when she met the actor for the first time. He "looked me up and down," she said, and then asked her, "How do you feel about sexual harassment?"
"I was stunned," she told CNN. "This is the person that I worked for, this is his company, I didn't expect it at all ... I said timidly, 'I love it' in a sarcastic way hoping to make light of the situation because I was so confused and then he turned to the guys on the crew ... and said, 'See guys, this is how you do it.'"
One woman who was a manager at Revelations told CNN that sometimes Freeman would "come over to my desk to say hi and he'd just stand there and stare at me. He would stare at my breasts."
"If I ever passed him he would stare at me in an awkward way, would look me up and down sometimes stopping and just staring," she said. "One time he stopped, looked me up and down as I walked into a room of people, and everyone burst out laughing. And I literally froze feeling very uncomfortable and one of the people in the office said, 'Don't worry, that's just Morgan.'"
"That sort of interaction was when I stopped wearing a skirt around the office when he was there," said the former manager. "I can't say it was an accident that I'd be wearing a potato sack and a ponytail on certain days when he was there and do my best to avoid him when he was in the office."
Freeman was not in the office on a daily basis, the former employees said.
But when he did show up, he behaved like a "creepy uncle," in the words of a male former employee. "One time I witnessed Morgan walk up to an intern and start massaging her" shoulder, he said. "The intern got visibly red and wiggled out of his grasp, it was awkward." The incident stood out to him because Freeman was using only one hand to touch the intern, as his other was injured in a 2008 car accident that was widely covered by the press.
Another former employee told CNN she was present when the male former employee told several people about this incident shortly after it occurred.
CNN spoke to two male witnesses who each saw a separate occasion in which Freeman asked women to twirl. One instance occurred at the office, while another happened at an off-site company event.
Another incident stood out to people who spoke with CNN who witnessed it. Two former staffers who were there, and a writer for the show "Madam Secretary" who also attended, each described the scene to CNN.
For his 79th birthday, Revelations threw Freeman a party in the office. According to the sources, roughly 30 people attended the party, some of whom were new to the company and had never met the actor. McCreary was among those in attendance, the sources said.
People at the party had to stand in a circle, a former executive at the company who attended the party told CNN, and tell Freeman who they were and what they did.
Then, the former executive said, Freeman went up to women in the circle and would "stand maybe within an inch of their face and just look them up and down and not say anything, and then would move on to the next woman and he'd stand like within an inch of their face and look them up and down and not say anything, and it was really, really strange." The former executive added, "It was really weird and he did it to every woman but of course he didn't do it to any of the men. He didn't speak to any of the men."
The writer for "Madam Secretary" who was at the party said, "We saw Morgan go around to the girls in the circle and get really close to their faces, he didn't do it to the men. I don't know what he said but we all thought it was strange and couldn't wait to get the hell out of there. Absolutely there were sexual undertones to it."
After the #MeToo movement began, the same writer said, writers on the show joked -- with that incident in mind -- "that Morgan would be the next person to be called out."
McCreary herself has also been the subject of demeaning comments by Freeman. In front of what was reportedly an audience of 400 people at 2016's Produced By conference, Freeman described what she was wearing during their first meeting, saying, "She had on a dress cut to here."
"She wants to be thought of as serious," said Freeman of McCreary, who was on the same panel. "But you can't get away from the short dresses."
Freeman stood by his comments when he appeared a few days later on the "Today" show and host Savannah Guthrie said some people were "surprised" by the remarks he made on the panel.
"It was just something I said in jest about when I first met her, it was more than 20 years ago," he said to Guthrie. "How is that news?"
The Hollywood Reporter reported at the time that McCreary "did not visibly react to the comment." One of the former Revelations executives told CNN that McCreary was visibly upset when she returned to the office.
"I tried to console her and she was clearly upset and I think she was surprised and found it hurtful and embarrassing," said the former executive. "She was devastated."
Five sources told CNN that there was no formal human resources department at Revelations at the time. There was a rotation of executives who served as the point of contact for HR issues, but former staffers said they did not feel comfortable talking to senior personnel about their workplace grievances.
This prompted some staffers to form a "survivors club" where they gathered to vent about their experiences at Revelations, according to five sources who have been to the gatherings, which take place outside of the office.
Publicly, McCreary champions the #MeToo and Time's Up movements.
Two days before January's Screen Actors Guild awards, at which Freeman accepted a Lifetime Achievement Award, McCreary released a statement on behalf of the Producers Guild of America (PGA), to say that its board ratified new anti-sexual harassment guidelines for its members.
"The PGA is indebted to Time's Up as a resource in creating our protocols," she said in a press release issued with her co-president Gary Lucchesi, referring to the initiative aimed at fighting harassment and discrimination against women.
Yet the former Revelations employee who said Freeman asked her how she felt about sexual harassment also alleged that on a phone call with a member of PGA, McCreary said of a candidate vying for a position at PGA East, "she'll never be able to do a good job, she has a family."
Two former senior level Revelations employees said McCreary would openly mock women who had to leave work early for family commitments and school functions. McCreary also allegedly said that some employees couldn't handle big workloads because they had to "run home" to their families and therefore couldn't stay late at work, according to one of the sources. She openly advocated for work-life balance, that source said, but she would make "snide" remarks to those who left work early.
A spokesperson for the PGA said in a statement, "The Producers Guild of America is an Equal Opportunity Employer that does not question or consider marital or parental status in its hiring practices. As soon as CNN notified us about the allegation, we investigated the matter and have found that it has no merit. Lori McCreary is an outstanding PGA President. In all of her work with the Guild, she has been a consistent, vocal, and proactive advocate for women and all who are underrepresented in our community."
A spokesperson for McCreary did not respond to repeated follow-up requests for comment regarding the allegations against McCreary.
One of the former male Revelations employees recounted to CNN what he called the "shocking" remarks that Freeman made while he was on set for a number of Freeman's movies.
What he says he witnessed follows the pattern described by the women who said they were harassed by Freeman.
"[He'd say] things like 'I'd like to have an hour with her' or make vulgar and sexual comments about women," the former employee said. "He would be verbally inappropriate and it was just shocking.
You're more shocked than anything because it's hard to have the wherewithal to say to him 'That's inappropriate.' You're just like 'whoa.' It's hard because on any set he is the most powerful person on it. It's weird because you just don't expect it from Morgan Freeman, someone who you respect."
The female production assistant (PA) mentioned at the beginning of this story who worked on "Going In Style" said she was in her early 20s when Freeman, then 78 years old, harassed her. She said the experience led to her decision to leave the movie industry.
"It was constant comments about the way I looked," she said, adding that Freeman often made the comments within earshot of others on the production staff. She said she frequently came home from work in tears.
The woman recalled a time when she went to the set wearing a dress with a t-shirt over it to cover her exposed back, but "Morgan said to me that I shouldn't be wearing the shirt over my dress."
Another female production assistant who witnessed this particular alleged incident told CNN that Freeman's behavior towards the younger female production staff was an unchecked and persistent issue during filming.
Both women said the t-shirt incident took place in front of a group of people and that they heard at least one other woman publicly chastise Freeman for that particular comment. The behavior was discussed among the women he targeted, the female production assistant said.
A third woman who worked on a recent movie of Freeman's recalled an incident at the film's wrap party. "He was looking at my breasts, and I told him, 'My eyes are up here.' Then we went to take a group photo and he pressed himself up against me. It was inappropriate."
CNN spoke to one of the woman's colleagues on the film, who said that as soon as the photo was taken, the woman walked over and told a group of people what Freeman had done to her.
Another production assistant, who worked with Freeman on "The Dark Knight," told CNN that although she was never personally targeted by Freeman, she witnessed some inappropriate comments Freeman made to female members of the crew. She also said that female members of the crew would at times discuss how Freeman had made them feel uncomfortable.
"Morgan did things in a way that an older more established person can get away with because they have that power," she told CNN. "They can't be replaced, but you can be replaced very easily, that's just kind of the dynamic on set. PA's can be replaced, grips can be replaced, electricians can be replaced, but the actors -- once they're in, they're in.
Had it been somebody else on the crew... I would feel comfortable reporting them because I wouldn't feel like my job would be in danger by reporting them, but if you report somebody like Morgan Freeman that the movie would lose a lot of money by replacing them or getting them in trouble, then you're the trouble maker and you'll get fired because you're just a PA."
Freeman's alleged fixation on how women dressed was apparent when he hit the road to promote his films, as was his alleged pattern of looking women up and down while making sexually suggestive comments to them.
As the entertainment producer at Chicago's WGN-TV, Tyra Martin spent hours interviewing Freeman at various press junkets. Over the course of a decade, she said, she sat down with him at least nine times and grew accustomed to his comments about her appearance. But Martin made it clear in an interview with CNN that she was always "in on the joke." WGN produced videos featuring some of Freeman's remarks to Martin, describing it as him flirting with her. But Martin felt that one incident crossed a line.
"When I stood up, I pulled my skirt part of my dress down and he did say, 'Oh, don't pull it down now.'" Martin said. "That gave me pause but I never felt uncomfortable."
It is unclear whether video of that incident exists.
An entertainment reporter who is a member of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association said Freeman made comments about her skirt and her legs during two different junkets. Much like many of the women in this report and those who declined to go on the record, the reporter said Freeman's fame and power kept her from speaking out.
"I was just trying to do my job and I brushed it off," said the reporter, who did not want to be identified for this story because she's fearful of losing out on interviews with other celebrities.
"You don't want to put him on the spot because one, he's famous and two, it's on camera and three, you just want to do your job."
MARYLAND'S REAL ID ACT ABUSE, BARRIER TO EMPLOYMENT (MVA):
HOW THE US DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ALLOWS MARYLAND TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BLACKS & LATINOS.
If you (BLACK or LATINO citizen) have been adversely impacted via the State of MARYLAND'S Motor Vehicle Dept (MVA) inaccurately and Illegally interpreting a Federal law called the REAL ID ACT, which was enacted by Congress in 2005, to instruct States on proper procedures to authenticate documents used for identification purposes and that adverse action by the State of MARYLAND'S Dept of Motor Vehicle (MVA) has prevented you from being EMPLOYED, then please watch this video.
Illegally denying you (BLACK or LATINO citizen) a Drivers License or ID Card so you can be gainfully EMPLOYED, is indeed a Barrier to EMPLOYMENT which causes Unreasonable Hardship.
So if you have VALID identification documents which you previously used in other states to obtain Federal Employment, US Military Enlistment and Drivers Licenses or ID Cards, yet in MARYLAND you are being denied by the MVA, then please do watch this video.
The REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109–13, 119 Stat. 302, enacted May 11, 2005, was an Act of Congress that modified U.S. federal law pertaining to security, authentication, and issuance procedures standards for the state driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards, as well as various immigration issues pertaining to terrorism.
The REAL ID Act of 2005, is enforced by the US Dept of Homeland Security.
Sources: NBC News, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, YouTube
**** D.C., Maryland and Virginia drivers find different licensing rules despite federal ID law
Protecting the nation from international terrorists is primarily a federal job. Testing and credentialing people to drive is a local task. During the past several weeks, D.C. residents have been learning that, under federal law, the two overlap.
That’s the reason they now need to collect a bunch of identity documents and bring them to the Department of Motor Vehicleswhenever their driver’s licenses expire. In many ways, the applicants are going back to square one to prove who they are, where they are and that it’s legal for them to be here.
This is not so much about making sure the right people are driving cars. It has much more to do with who is boarding airplanes. What D.C. drivers will go through when they renew licenses stems from the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, passed with the knowledge that many of the terrorists who brought down planes on Sept. 11, 2001, had been issued state driver’s licenses.
In the nine years since the act was passed, the effort to impose uniform security standards on the various approaches to issuing driver’s licenses has raised concerns among civil libertarians, privacy advocates and immigrant groups. But the ID law also has run into something at least as powerful: state bureaucracies that had their own histories of providing motor vehicle services.
Some states have refused to conform to the law. Many have been deemed in compliance. Some are still figuring out their own ways of conforming in consultation with the federal Department of Homeland Security.
The D.C. region illustrates the diverse responses to a law requiring uniformity.
The District Department of Motor Vehicles is now on track to revalidate their drivers as they come in with expiring licenses. The drivers must appear in person at a DMV office to supply proof of identity, address and Social Security number.
After this one-time-only appearance, they will be mailed a new style of driver’s license marked with a star in the upper right corner. The star indicates compliance with the REAL ID Act. This year and early next, the federal government is phasing in a requirement that only this compliant type of driver’s license can be accepted when a driver’s license is presented for identification at a secure federal facility or a nuclear power plant.
It may eventually be the only type of driver’s license accepted for boarding a commercial airliner, but that won’t apply before 2016.
Drivers who live in Maryland or Virginiawho are aware of the new procedure for D.C. licenses may be wondering if they’ll get the same treatment as their licenses expire.
The answer is no. If I took my Maryland driver’s license in for renewal this week, I’d be subject to the usual vision screening, but I wouldn’t need to rummage for my birth certificate, or passport or proof of residence. And I’d walk out of with a license similar to the one I went in with — except for my somewhat older looking mug.
No star in the upper right.
And yet the Department of Homeland Security deemed Maryland compliant with the REAL ID Act back in 2012. For many years now, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration has been electronically verifying its drivers’ identifies, said spokesman Buel Young. The MVA worked through the long list of long list of security issues identified under the federal rules and the Homeland Security department accepted the state as compliant with the law, Young said.
Virginia is different. In fact, the General Assembly reacted to the REAL ID Act by passing its own bill in 2009 that prohibits the commonwealth from implementing any part of the REAL ID Act or other federal law that would compromise the economic privacy or biological data of any Virginian.
The Senate version of the bill was sponsored by then-state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R) and signed into law by then-Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).
As of this spring, Virginia’s Department of Motor Vehicles is not compliant with the federal law. And the DMV has scheduled no changes in its licensing process.
But, said DMV spokeswoman Sunni Blevins Brown, “The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged Virginia DMV’s significant progress enhancing the security and issuance process for credentials, and as a result, Virginia has been granted an extension until at least October.
“Virginians will not experience any difficulty in obtaining federal services or access to federal facilities with their Virginia credentials.”
It’s some of that e pluribus unum we’re famous for. The goal is the same, but for drivers, the procedures are looking a bit different.
“Virginia has one of the most secure licenses in the country,” Brown said of her non-compliant state.
What’s a driver to do? Follow the mailed instructions from your motor vehicle agency when renewal time approaches.
Almost a year ago, I was in the throes of a heart-wrenching breakup. It broke me. I had anchored my happiness and future into this one man, but, as British-Somali poet Warsan Shire says, you can’t make homes out of human beings.
The linear, quick grieving process I had hoped for was nowhere in sight; It was long and excruciating. To make matters worse, I was suffering in silence because of prying eyes from our mutual industry peers.
Finally, 10 months post-heartbreak, the words just poured out of me. I exhaled. Some months later, a woman (one of many he had had in and out of his bed) texted me. She had read my piece and tried to shame me—using my own words with her own dig: “Today is the day. Let go.” That’s the thing about getting emotional and showing your vulnerability—speaking your feelings is no guarantee of empathy. Even from other women.
women often aren’t allowed to be weak. Breaking is not an option, so we walk around Gucci down to the socks to cover the emotions we're told not to feel. Being given lemons and making lemonade is not only what we’ve always done—it’s what’s expected.
We aren’t allowed to be angry or loud—even the First Lady got the Angry Black Woman label for expressing herself eloquently. We aren't allowed to be weak. We aren’t allowed to feel depleted. It defies the superhuman strength gene we are believed to carry—there’s a reason medical professionals think we feel less pain. Forget about being bitter. We are meant to be sturdy mules, carrying the weight of the world on our backs. But in private—and with our black girlfriends—we are free.
Lemonade channels that feeling of freedom, giving black women the space to have intense emotions—to be angry and devastated by hurt—and then to heal. It rips off the mask and affirms that our feelings are valid, that we are powerful.
This ode to black women—because, truly, that’s what Lemonade is—reflects our own power back to us. That power does not only exist in being strong and confident and composed. That power is deeply connected to our raw emotions and our vulnerability.
What’s way more important than the speculation is that she used her platform to bring us back to ourselves when we needed a reminder.
When we need a reminder that our natural curvy hips don’t make us “manly,” she showed us Serena twerking in a bodysuit.
When we need a reminder that our culture is valuable long before it’s Columbused, she gave us images of black women in cornrows (re: not boxer braids). She reminded us that a black president and his black wife made it into the White House in racist America.
She reminded us through a country song that there is no box they can place on our talents. She reminded us that we are not just our suffering—joy is always near. She reminded us that we must tell our own stories.
We must uplift other black women. She reminded us that no matter what they say the work is what will last. She reminded us that sharing our stories—even at their most vulnerable—helps us shed the weight of carrying it all alone.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
