This article is a brief overview of eight controversial encounters involving the American Fork Police Department. For readers who want the full case-by-case breakdown, sources, links, and more detailed explanations, the longer article is available here: American Fork Police Department: Is There an Emerging Pattern of Constitutional Rights Violations?

The American Fork Police Department recently received public attention because of the Bricks & Minifigs controversy involving Ben Schneider, also known as Reckless Ben on YouTube. After that case became public, other controversial encounters involving American Fork officers also began receiving more attention.

After reviewing body-camera footage, news articles, lawsuits, public records, and legal commentary related to these eight encounters, I believe they reveal a troubling pattern of questionable police conduct, apparent constitutional violations, and disregard for due process.

The encounters show evidence of questionable traffic stops, warrantless entries into homes, arrests based on disputed probable cause, aggressive escalation, suppressed evidence, dismissed charges, lawsuits, and unprofessional police conduct.

This article summarizes those eight encounters and explains why I believe they deserve more public scrutiny.

The Eight Encounters

Ben Schneider — a civil LEGO dispute that escalated into a stalking investigation, traffic stop, and Airbnb raid.

Sheldon Norcross — an evidence-tampering arrest after he locked his phone while attempting to hand it to officers during the Airbnb raid.

Cody Greenland — police detained Greenland after a 911 call about someone breaking into cars, even though he was not the suspect. Body-camera footage shows him complying before he was tackled, searched, and arrested; the evidence was later suppressed and the charges were dismissed.

Joseph Ferreri — an aiding-prostitution charge based on his connection to his wife’s alleged conduct, even though the underlying charges were later dropped.

Eric Roundy — officers continuing to knock and demand contact at a home after residents declined to open the door or answer questions.

Janene Thorpe — an officer placed his foot in the doorway and entered a home without a warrant to issue a citation.

Aaron Booker — a questionable HOV stop that the officer later admitted was wrong, followed by a threat to break the window.

Michael Anthony Roy — a federal lawsuit alleging officers violently arrested the wrong man and failed to stop after the mistake should have been clear.

Pattern of Constitutional Concerns

The reason these cases are so disturbing is that they appear to show a repeated pattern of American Fork officers pushing the limits of constitutional rights, due process, and basic police accountability. Some of these encounters also involved the same officers, which makes the pattern harder to dismiss as isolated mistakes.

Across these cases, the recurring concerns include:

• Warrantless entry into a home

• Search-warrant applications with omitted or limited context

• Arrests based on limited probable cause or lack of verification

• Escalation during encounters where citizens asserted their rights

• Questionable traffic stops

• Use of force against compliant or mistaken individuals

• Evidence later being suppressed

• Criminal charges later being dropped

• Lawsuits alleging civil-rights violations

• Public apologies only after outside scrutiny

Why These Encounters Matter

These cases show a concerning pattern of questionable police conduct and apparent constitutional violations by American Fork Police officers. When you look at all these encounters together, they raise serious questions about the American Fork Police Department’s culture, training, supervision, and respect for constitutional limits.

The public should not have to wait for viral videos, lawsuits, dismissed charges, or suppressed evidence before asking whether a police department is operating responsibly. If there is a pattern of questionable stops, weak probable cause, warrantless entries into homes, escalation, and civil-rights litigation, then the public has a right to demand answers.

That is why I believe these cases deserve more public attention, more records requests, and more scrutiny from city officials, journalists, and ordinary citizens. Police accountability requires public involvement, and transparency is the first step.

The American Fork Police Department recently drew public attention because of the Bricks and Minifigs controversy involving Ben Schneider, also known as Reckless Ben on YouTube. In unredacted bodycam footage, multiple officers engaged in numerous concerning investigative practices and behavior that have led to public outrage and increased scrutiny of the department.

Once the controversy involving Reckless Ben, Bricks and Minifigs, and the American Fork Police Department became public, people began scrutinizing past police encounters involving American Fork officers. I have also been watching bodycam footage, reading news articles, and reviewing legal documents related to several cases involving the department.

After reviewing bodycam footage, news reports, lawsuits, and public records, I believe these cases reveal a troubling pattern of unprofessional officer conduct, disregard for Fourth Amendment rights, and disregard for due process.

Including the Bricks and Minifigs controversy, I have counted at least eight controversial encounters involving the American Fork Police Department.

Below, I have included a section for each case, organized by the name of the citizen involved in the police interaction. Each section includes sources and a description of what happened.

This article is longer than usual because it summarizes multiple encounters involving the American Fork Police Department. Readers do not need to read every section in order. Each case stands on its own, but together they raise a broader concern about officer judgment, constitutional rights, due process, and accountability.

Cases that Raise Concerns About American Fork Police

Ben Schneider

This is probably the most complicated case in the list, so I am not going to go into great detail about it, especially because this case has already been covered by many YouTubers and news agencies. I encourage everyone to look into the case for themselves.

Bricks & Minifigs and the Star Wars LEGO Collection Dispute

Basically, this case started because Brian Mansell’s father had a large LEGO collection with rare Star Wars LEGO sets. Brian’s father was dying from cancer and gave Brian ownership of the sets. Brian then made a consignment agreement with a Bricks & Minifigs franchise in Salem, Oregon, so the store could help sell the sets and give him a portion of the profits.

But then the franchise changed hands. Bricks & Minifigs corporate says it terminated the previous owner’s franchise agreement and transferred the location to new franchise owners. By that point, Brian had allegedly not been paid for many of the sets that had already been sold, and there were still questions about where many of the unsold sets were and how they would be returned. This resulted in a civil dispute over the ownership, sale, and return of the LEGO sets.

Brian then asked the YouTuber Reckless Ben to help him pressure the company and recover the collection.

Ben Schneider went to Utah to pressure Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff and Salem/Keizer franchise owner Joshua Johnson to resolve the dispute, including the unpaid sales and the return of unsold LEGO sets. The Utah connection mattered because Bricks & Minifigs corporate is based in Utah, and at least one of the franchise owners lived in American Fork.

The American Fork Police Department

While in Utah, Ben Schneider visited a Bricks & Minifigs location to confront CEO Ammon McNeff about the Mansell LEGO collection. He also went to Joshua Johnson’s home to question him about the unpaid sales and the return of the unsold LEGO sets. Ben was also assisted by several associates while he was in Utah.

After these confrontations, the American Fork Police Department began investigating Ben for alleged stalking. This is where the case becomes especially concerning, because what started as a civil dispute over a consignment agreement and missing or unpaid LEGO inventory quickly became a criminal investigation involving the American Fork Police.

There were multiple police encounters with Ben Schneider and his associates throughout the investigation. Many statements made by officers in bodycam and dashcam footage were extremely concerning and raise serious questions about Fourth Amendment rights, due process, and whether officers treated a civil dispute as if it were a clear criminal case.

One encounter involved officers following Ben’s car for several blocks before stopping him for allegedly rolling through a stop sign. But the dashcam footage appears to show the vehicle coming to a complete stop. During the stop, officers questioned Ben and his associates about their interactions with Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff and franchise owner Joshua Johnson. Officers also accused them of being intoxicated, which made the stop feel less like a normal traffic stop and more like an attempt to investigate the broader Bricks & Minifigs dispute.

Another major encounter was the raid on the Airbnb where Ben and his associates were staying. According to the warrant affidavit, officers were looking for “stolen LEGO” even though the allegations from Ammon McNeff and Joshua Johnson were about stalking and harassment, not claims that Ben had stolen LEGO sets. This is deeply concerning because the warrant appears to have shifted the focus from alleged stalking to supposedly stolen LEGO merchandise, even though the underlying dispute was about whether Bricks & Minifigs had failed to pay for or return Brian Mansell’s LEGO collection.

There was also a search of Schneider’s rental car for drugs, and according to the Wall Street Journal, no drugs were found. This search is concerning because it makes it appear that officers were looking for ways to escalate an investigation that began as a dispute over LEGO inventory.

Sources:

• KATU News reporting on the Salem/Keizer LEGO collection dispute

• Wall Street Journal: “How a Star Wars Lego Dispute Triggered an Armed Police Raid in Utah”

• LegalEagle: legal analysis of the Reckless Ben police encounters

• Clearly Established: legal analysis of the Reckless Ben detention by American Fork Police

Sheldon Norcross

Sheldon Norcross was among the group detained during the Airbnb raid with Reckless Ben, but he was not arrested for stalking.

Instead, he was arrested for evidence tampering. Officers told Sheldon they were obtaining a warrant to search his phone for messages related to Reckless Ben and intended to keep the phone while waiting for the warrant. Before handing it over, Sheldon pressed the power button to lock the phone, and officers arrested him for allegedly attempting to destroy evidence.

What is concerning is that pressing the power button does not delete data—it only locks the phone. During a later interrogation, an officer acknowledged that merely pressing the power button would not delete information. If so, it raises questions about whether there was probable cause to believe Sheldon had attempted to destroy evidence.

Sources:

• Officer Richardson bodycam Airbnb Raid

  • Relevant portion begins around 12:00

• Officer Adamson bodycam Airbnb Raid (alternate angle)

  • Relevant portion begins around 12:31

• Detective Nicosia bodycam/interrogation — Sheldon Norcross questioning

  • Relevant portion begins around 00:29

Cody Greenland

Police responded to a report that a man was attempting to break into vehicles in a Target parking lot. Officers detained Cody Greenland because they believed he might be the suspect. The initial detention appears understandable because Cody had been entering his own vehicle and his girlfriend’s vehicle.

According to the body-camera footage, Cody complied with officers’ commands by getting on his knees and raising his hands. As another officer arrived, Cody was tackled from behind, leaving him with a bloodied face. Officers then searched his pockets and discovered illegal drugs.

The evidence was later suppressed, and the criminal charges were dismissed. Greenland later filed a lawsuit against the officers and the City of American Fork, and the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Based on the circumstances shown on the body-camera footage, the case raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns regarding the use of force, the search, and whether officers had sufficient legal justification before arresting and searching Cody.

Sources:

• LackLuster YouTube Channel

• Ray Caldwell YouTube Channel

• Legal Logic YouTube Channel

• FOX 13 Salt Lake City

Joseph Ferreri

Joseph Ferreri was arrested for aiding prostitution after he drove his wife, Wang Juying, to and from the massage parlor where she worked. The case was connected to an investigation involving American Fork officer Shawn Lott.

Ferreri’s wife and several others were arrested for allegedly soliciting money for sexual acts, but the charges against all of the women, including Ferreri’s wife, were later dropped.

What is concerning is that the apparent evidence against Ferreri was that his wife was a suspect, he drove her to and from work, and he allegedly told officers that he suspected she “might be doing something sexual.” Even if Ferreri suspected illegal activity, suspicion alone does not establish that he knowingly participated in or facilitated prostitution.

The concern is that Ferreri appears to have been charged based largely on his proximity to his wife’s alleged conduct, even though the underlying charges against the women were later dropped.

Sources:

• Reason Magazine

• ABC4 Utah

• FOX Salt Lake City

• Joseph Ferreri Probable Cause Affidavit

• Wang Juying Probable Cause Affidavit

• Federal complaint against American Fork and Shawn Lott

• Ferreri v. City of American Fork CourtListener docket

Eric Roundy

A woman called police alleging harassment by Eric Roundy and his wife.

Regardless of what the allegations were, what concerns me is how American Fork officers Bronson Kitchen and Jensen handled the encounter with the couple.

The officers knocked on the door, but the couple stated through their Ring camera that they declined to open the door or answer questions. Instead of leaving, Kitchen and Jensen continued knocking and ringing the doorbell, telling the couple they needed to come out and talk.

After approximately 15 minutes, the officers left, but only after the couple asked dispatch for someone from the Utah County Sheriff’s Office to get the officers to leave.

The problem is that the officers did not seem to respect the couple’s right to refuse questions, even after being repeatedly told to leave the property. The officers had no warrant and no apparent exception to the warrant requirement. Even if this did not violate clearly established law, it still shows a concerning disregard for Fourth Amendment rights and the limits of police authority at someone’s home.

I later spoke with Adam Ellison, who I understood to be a supervisor connected to the case. He stated that, as far as he was aware, the officers did not violate any department policy.

Sources:

• LackLuster YouTube Channel

• American Fork Citizen Newspaper

Janene Thorpe

Janene Thorpe’s neighbor filed complaints with the American Fork Police Department alleging that Janene had thrown items, including rocks, into the neighbor’s yard.

Officers went to the home to issue a citation, and Janene’s husband voluntarily answered the door. Because the officers had no warrant, the encounter was consensual, and the husband was free to end the conversation. When he attempted to close the door, an officer placed his foot in the doorway and entered the home to finish issuing the citation.

Under the Fourth Amendment, the home receives the highest level of constitutional protection, and issuing a citation is generally not a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Because the body-camera footage shows no apparent warrant or exigent circumstances, the officer’s entry raises a significant constitutional concern.

The couple filed a lawsuit against the officer, the American Fork Police Department, and the city, and the litigation is ongoing.

Sources:

• LackLuster YouTube Channel

• Clearly Established YouTube Channel

• Thorpe et al. v. Cedar Hills City et al., federal civil-rights case docket

Aaron Booker

Aaron Booker was pulled over by American Fork Detective Bronson Kitchen while driving on I-15 near Centerville, Utah. Kitchen claimed Booker had illegally used an HOV lane, but dashcam footage later reviewed by LackLuster appeared to support Booker’s position that the HOV lane had already ended. According to the American Fork Citizen, Kitchen later admitted during a recorded apology call that he had been wrong about the lane and apologized for the stop.

The stop became more concerning because Booker only lowered his window partway, and Kitchen escalated the encounter by threatening to have another agency break the window. Kitchen later apologized for that too, saying he should not have made that threat or allowed himself to get “amped up.”

This case is important because it shows an officer making a questionable stop outside American Fork, escalating when a citizen asserted his rights, and then later acknowledging that both the stop and the escalation were wrong. After the incident went viral, American Fork Police Chief Cameron Paul called Aaron Booker and told him that Officer Kitchen would be required to apologize. Booker later received that apology, but the fact that it came only after public scrutiny and intervention from the chief makes the case even more concerning.

The bigger question is how many citizens are subjected to unlawful or improper stops but never have dashcam footage, public attention, or a platform large enough to force accountability.

Sources:

• LackLuster YouTube Channel

• LAWSMITH YouTube Channel

• Personal dashcam footage uploaded by Aaron Booker

Michael Anthony Roy

Michael Anthony Roy sued American Fork City, Utah County, Spanish Fork City, and several officers after a Utah County Major Crimes Task Force operation allegedly targeted the wrong man. According to the lawsuit, officers were looking for a different person, Michael Schwabland, who was considered violent and had allegedly threatened to shoot officers. But when Detective Shawn Lott approached the vehicle, he allegedly realized immediately that the driver was Roy, not Schwabland, because he had dealt with Roy the day before. Despite that, the lawsuit claims Lott did not tell the other officers they had the wrong person.

Roy alleges he was pulled from the car, struck in the head with a rifle, punched, kicked, handcuffed, and tased, suffering injuries that required staples. The lawsuit also claims a task force official later offered him $2,000 and medical-bill payment after learning he had been mistaken for someone else. According to KSL’s reporting on the lawsuit, a use-of-force review found one officer was not in compliance with department policy and that other officers should have spoken up once they realized Roy was the wrong person.

This case brings up serious due process violations. If what Roy said was true, then they violently arrested the wrong person and failed to stop even after the mistake should have been clear.

Michael Anthony Roy filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit in 2022 against American Fork City, Utah County, Spanish Fork City, and several officers.

What makes this case especially concerning is that Shawn Lott was not only involved in the Michael Anthony Roy case, but was also the arresting officer in the Joseph Ferreri case. Standing alone, any one of these cases may be disputed or explained differently by the officers involved. But when the same officer appears in multiple controversial cases involving questionable arrests, disputed investigative decisions, or weak evidence, it raises a serious concern about whether there is a broader pattern of poor investigative practices and a disregard for due process.

Sources:

• KSL News

• Michael Anthony Roy federal lawsuit docket

American Fork Police: The Road to Accountability

Our justice system is not truly just without transparency. We cannot rely on our public institutions and police departments to regulate themselves. The public needs to know the details of police encounters, especially when there are allegations of civil rights violations.

Oftentimes, our system has failed to hold those in power accountable. But when citizens step in, investigate, and bring the truth to light, it helps us expose constitutional violations.

After watching the videos and reading the stories of these cases, I feel that there are systemic issues in the department.


For me, this is personal because I grew up in Cedar Hills, which is one of the cities that the American Fork Police operate in, and I live near American Fork and I still go there often.

GRAMA - Government Records Access and Management Act

One of the most powerful ways individuals can expose wrongdoing is by obtaining information through public records requests. Many people online have already started doing this by requesting records, reviewing body-camera footage, and sharing what they find. I plan to do the same as part of a broader effort to audit the American Fork Police Department.

I have already submitted three GRAMA requests to the American Fork Police Department. So far, I have requested:

• The current AFPD policy manual

• A roster of all AFPD law enforcement officers from 2020–2026

• An inventory of all training materials currently used by AFPD

I plan to use this information to better understand how AFPD officers are trained, what policies they are expected to follow, and who has worked for the department over the past six years. That information will also help guide future records requests.

I am also planning to create a public page tracking my records requests. On that page, I will share the records I receive, the status of each request, and any relevant information I find.

Anyone who wants to help with this effort can email me at politicalnonpartisan@gmail.com. I am willing to share records collected by others, either with attribution or anonymously.

Accountability requires public involvement. Our legal and political systems often fail when ordinary people stay silent or assume someone else will do the work. If we want law enforcement agencies to respect constitutional rights, transparency, and the limits of their authority, then more of us need to step up, ask questions, request records, and make the information public.

The people must remain ever vigilant against tyrants masquerading as public servants.

America is more than just a country. It is an ideal of freedom, equal rights, and due process for everyone. Even though the United States often falls short of that ideal, I am always proud to be an American because I believe in the vision of this country’s founders.

Our constitutional rights, which protect us from government overreach and intrusion, are among the most precious things we have as Americans. Many people have fought and died to protect those rights.

However, those precious rights are under attack. Across the country, people have their rights violated by police officers. Even though many officers do good work protecting their communities, police abuse of power is not an isolated occurrence.

In this article, I am not going to discuss specific cases in detail. Instead, I will teach you about your rights when you encounter police officers so you can recognize when those rights may be violated. I will also share YouTube channels that review police encounters and discuss the relevant case law and statutes involved in those cases.

The Rights People Have During Police Encounters

Most people in the United States are aware of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

First Amendment - freedom of religion, press, assembly, and protest
Fourth Amendment - protection from unlawful searches and seizures
Fifth Amendment - the right to remain silent

These are fundamental American rights, but many people do not fully understand their rights when encountering police.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have issued rulings clarifying our rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments and placing important limits on police power.

The First Amendment

Under the First Amendment, people are given freedom of expression. In the United States, barring exceptions such as threats of illegal action or defamation, people have the right to free speech, even if that speech is offensive.

The Supreme Court has ruled that swearing, using vulgar language, and even showing officers the middle finger are constitutionally protected forms of speech. Officers cannot detain a person simply for using language that is considered offensive or vulgar.

The Supreme Court has also determined that recording in public, including recording a police officer, is a First Amendment right. This is because recording is instrumental in reporting on and speaking out against government overreach. People are generally allowed to record in public, including recording police officers and other people who are visible from public places.

Officers are not allowed to prevent you from recording or attempt to delete recordings from your phone.

Recording an officer during a traffic stop is constitutionally protected.

The Fourth Amendment

There are three main types of encounters with police:

• Consensual Encounter

• Investigative Stop (Terry Stop)

• Arrest

The type of encounter is important because it determines what your rights are and what legal standard police must meet in order to perform certain actions.

Consensual Encounter

In a consensual encounter, officers are allowed to approach you, but you can consent to the interaction or decline to talk with them.

In this type of interaction:

• You cannot be detained or forced to stay where you are.

• Officers may still follow you or try to talk with you.

• You do not have to answer questions.

• There is no legal requirement police must meet in order to approach and speak with you.

Investigative Stop

Then there is a Terry Stop.

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court stated that officers can lawfully detain you and require you to stay where you are as part of an investigation as long as they have reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts.

Reasonable suspicion means that officers have facts indicating that you might be committing, have committed, or are about to commit a crime. The Supreme Court and other federal courts have issued rulings about what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

Articulable facts are specific facts that an officer can point to in order to explain why they believe criminal activity may be occurring. Courts generally require more than a mere hunch. Factors such as being out late at night, being in a high-crime area, or simply being near the location of a reported crime are often not enough by themselves to justify a detention.

The exact laws and details vary by state, but in many states, when you are detained under reasonable suspicion or during a valid traffic stop, you are required to present identification or provide your name and birthdate so officers can identify you.

Under a lawful Terry stop, if you refuse to identify yourself, you may be arrested for failure to identify or obstruction.

What lawful orders a police officer can give during a traffic stop varies slightly depending on the state, but in most states, officers can require you to provide:

• Your driver’s license

• Your registration

• Proof of insurance

Police Encounters at the Home

Your home receives special constitutional protections.

When police knock on your door in order to investigate or ask questions, it is often called a “knock and talk.”

During such encounters, you are generally not required to open the door or answer questions.

In general, police need:

• A search warrant to search a home.

• An arrest warrant to enter a home to arrest a person.

Note: If officers believe a suspect is inside someone else's home, they generally also need a search warrant for that residence unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies.

However, there are narrow exceptions known as exigent circumstances.

1. Emergency Aid or an Immediate Threat to Life or Safety

Officers may enter a home without a warrant when they reasonably believe someone inside needs immediate assistance or is in danger of serious harm.

2. Hot Pursuit of a Fleeing Suspect

Officers who are actively pursuing a fleeing suspect may, in certain circumstances, continue that pursuit into a residence without first obtaining a warrant.

3. Imminent Destruction of Evidence

Officers may enter a home without a warrant when they reasonably believe evidence will be destroyed before a warrant can be obtained.

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment allows you to remain silent so that you do not incriminate yourself. One common misconception is that you have to answer questions from police officers. In many cases, you actually do not have to tell them much of anything. Except for information required by state or federal law to identify yourself during a lawful traffic stop or detention, you can decline to answer other questions. This includes when officers knock on the door of your home.

Many people voluntarily answer police questions, which leads others to assume they are required to do so. However, even during lawful detentions where state law requires you to provide identification or your name and birthdate, you are generally not required to answer other investigative questions.

If police come to your home, knock on your door, and say, “We need you to come out and answer some questions,” you are generally not required to answer questions, and those interactions are often voluntary.

Some police officers may say you are “being difficult” for not answering questions, but your constitutional rights do not exist to make their investigation easier. They exist to protect you from government and police overreach.

How My Views Changed

I used to believe that police misconduct was a rare occurrence. I was the person who would answer every question from an officer during a traffic stop, and I would not assert my right to refuse to answer questions.

However, in recent years, I have become disillusioned with our political system and started questioning some of my previous beliefs. I have also learned more about policing and our rights during police encounters.

I now realize that although there are many police officers who protect the community, there are also officers who abuse their authority and get upset when people try to assert their constitutional rights.

There are several constitutional and civil-rights-oriented channels that I have been watching recently that focus on constitutional violations and police accountability.

I am not going to discuss specific cases in detail in this article. However, the channels listed below have analyzed numerous incidents involving police misconduct, many of which resulted in successful civil-rights lawsuits, settlements, disciplinary actions, or court findings that constitutional rights were violated. I encourage readers to review those cases and reach their own conclusions.

This article is intended to provide a general overview of constitutional rights during police encounters. In future posts, I hope to discuss specific cases and examples that illustrate many of the constitutional issues discussed in this article.

Recommended YouTube Channels

• The Civil Rights Lawyer

• Audit the Audit

• LackLuster

• We The People University

• Hampton Law

As I have watched body-cam videos of law enforcement interactions, I have come to realize that constitutional violations and abuses of police authority are far more common than many Americans realize.

There are hundreds of documented cases in recent years involving violations of people’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. Many of these individuals spend months or even years navigating the legal system before the charges against them are finally dropped.

The system that is supposed to protect our rights often places a heavy financial burden on people who are forced to defend those rights.

Why Accountability Matters

Constitutional protections exist to protect everyone from government overreach.

Police are the arm of government responsible for enforcing laws. They have the power to stop, detain, search, arrest, and recommend criminal charges.

Even though many officers act lawfully, officers are given significant discretion in their interactions with civilians. Police culture, training, incentives, and policies can cause officers to push the boundaries of what is constitutional.

When rights are violated, the burden of challenging those violations often falls on the individual citizen. Even when charges are later dismissed or a court ultimately rules in the citizen’s favor, the process can involve legal expenses, lost time, stress, reputational harm, and months or years of uncertainty.

We need individuals who are willing to submit public records requests to obtain body-camera footage and other documentation of police encounters. Without public pressure and visibility, the institution of policing will not change. Without accountability, people whose rights are violated and who are wrongfully charged may never receive justice.

Our constitutional rights are among the most precious things we have as Americans. In the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price, a merchant sold everything he had in order to obtain a pearl of immense value. As Americans, our constitutional rights are that pearl.

The government and its agents often fail to regulate themselves, so it is our responsibility to push for accountability. We cannot stand idly by as our constitutional rights are violated or eroded over time.

We must assert our rights and remain actively engaged in police reform within our communities.

Media consolidation and ownership in America have created the illusion of choice. Just 7 corporations control 90% of the content we see, read, and hear.

I didn’t always realize this. I used to think the U.S. media reflected a diverse range of opinions and ideologies. After all, there are so many newspapers, news channels, movie studios, TV networks, and magazines to choose from.

But after doing some research, I realized that I was wrong. Most of the movies, shows, and news that we consume are owned by seven powerful corporations.

In reality, a small number of companies own most of the media and entertainment organizations in the US. The media only gives us the illusion of choice.

Why Mass Media Ownership Matters?

Instead of hearing a variety of opinions, we are getting the opinions of a small group of powerful people. These corporations shape how we see the world—influencing political beliefs, cultural norms, and public opinion. They create the echo chamber that many Americans live in, which divides and distracts us from the roots of our problems.

Let’s see who really owns the media we consume every day.

Warner Bros. Discovery

• Warner Bros. Entertainment

  • Warner Bros. Pictures

  • DC Studios

  • New Line Cinema

  • Castle Rock Entertainment

• Warner Bros. Discovery U.S. Networks

  • TVS

  • TNT

  • TruTV

  • Turner Classic Movies

  • Adult Swim

  • CNN

  • Discovery Channel

  • TLC

  • Animal Planet

  • OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network)

  • Food Network

  • HGTV

  • Magnolia Network

• HBO

  • HBO Max

  • Cinemax

• Bleacher Report

The Walt Disney Company

• ABC

• ESPN

• ESPN+

• FX Networks

• Freeform

• National Geographic

• Marvel Entertainment

  • Marvel Comics

  • Marvel Studios

• A&E Global Media

  • A&E

  • History Channel

  • Lifetime

• Lucasfilm

• Pixar

• 20th Century Studios

• Searchlight Pictures

• Hulu

• Disney+

• Hollywood Records

Comcast

• Xfinity

• NBCUniversal

  • Universal Pictures

  • Focus Features

  • DreamWorks Animation

    • Big Idea Entertainment

  • Illumination

  • Working Title Films

  • NBC

    • NBC News

    • NBC Sports

  • Cozi TV

  • Telemundo

  • Bravo

  • Peacock

  • These properties are scheduled to spin off into a new company called *Versant* (late 2025):

    • MSNBC

    • CMBC

    • E!

      • E! News

    • Fandango Media

      • Fandango At Home

      • Rotten Tomatoes

    • Oxygen True Crime

    • Golf Channel

    • USA Network

    • Syfy

• Sky Group Limited

  • Sky News

  • Sky Sports

  • Sky Cinema

Paramount Global

• Paramount Pictures

• CBS

  • CBS Sports

  • CBS News

  • Pop TV

• Pluto TV

• Showtime

• BET

• Comedy Central

• CMT

• MTV Entertainment Studios

  • MTV

  • TV Land

• Nickelodeon

• Nick Jr.

• VH1

• Paramount+

Sony

• Sony Pictures Entertainment

  • Columbia Pictures

  • TriStar Pictures

  • Sony Pictures Classics

  • Sony Pictures Animation

  • Screen Gems

  • Crunchyroll

  • Madison Gate Records

• Sony Music Entertainment

  • Columbia Records

  • Epic Records

  • RCA Records

  • Alamo Records

  • Legacy Recordings

  • Arista Records

• Sony Interactive Entertainment

  • PlayStation Studios

  • PlayStation Productions

Fox Corporation

• Fox Broadcasting Company

• Fox News

• Fox Sports

• Fox Deportes

• Fox Business Network

• Fox Weather

• Fox Nation

• Fox TV Stations

• Tubi

News Corp

• Dow Jones & Company

  • The Wall Street Journal

  • Barron’s

  • MarketWatch

• New York Post

• HarperCollins

• Harper Collins Publishing

• News UK

  • The Times

  • The Sunday Times

  • The Sun

• News Corp Australia

  • Sky News Australia

  • news.com.au

  • The Australian

  • Herald Sun

  • The Daily Telegraph (Australia)

  • The Courier Mail

  • The Advertiser

  • The Mercury

  • NT News

• REA Group

Corporate Consolidation in Every Industry

The media isn’t the only industry where power is concentrated. Corporate consolidation has reshaped nearly every major sector over the past few decades—often leading to higher prices, fewer choices, and lower quality for consumers. Here are just a few of the industries affected:

• Telecommunications

• Media & Entertainment

• Shipping & Delivery

• Airlines

• Healthcare

• Grocery Retail

Excessive corporate power in both the economy and politics is one of the core problems in our political system. I explore this further in an article on how crony capitalism forms one of the three pillars of corruption in American politics. You can read the full piece here:

The Three Pillars of Our Corrupt Political System

Spin-Offs and Divestitures Often Lead to Future Acquisitions

Several of the major media corporations have spun off parts of their business into separate companies. At first glance, these moves might seem like a step toward decentralization. But in most cases, these moves are made to placate regulators or cut operational costs—not to reduce corporate control.

Many of these spin-offs shut down divisions to cut costs, and then are acquired by large corporations in the same industry or by private equity firms, which already own large portions of the economy.

Even much of the remaining 10 percent of the media industry that appears independent is owned by smaller media groups or private equity firms. Truly independent media is increasingly rare.

How You Can Fight Back

Just like everything I write about, my purpose is not only to inform, but also to empower people to take action

Here’s how you can fight back against excessive corporate influence in the economy:

• Support antitrust reform – Vote for politicians who advocate for stronger antitrust laws and enforcement.

• Watch for mergers – Stay informed about upcoming mergers and acquisitions.

• Write to lawmakers – Let them know you support media diversity and market competition.

• Report Concerns to Regulatory Agencies:

  • Contact the FTC (Federal Trade Commission):

    • Call 1-877-FTC-HELP

    • Submit public comments or complaints at: https://reportfraud.ftc.gov

  • Contact the DOJ’s Antitrust Division

    • antitrust.complaints@usdoj.gov

• Spread awareness – Talk to others about how media consolidation impacts what we watch, read, and believe.

Image: Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa), via Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

Uncritical U.S. support for Israel—militarily and politically—has shaped American policy in the Middle East for decades.
We’re often told these actions are justified because Israel is our closest democratic ally, and that questioning their actions emboldens terrorists.

But the reality is far more complex.
While groups like Hamas threaten civilians, Israel’s own actions have fueled instability, terrorist recruitment, and deep anti-American resentment.

I encourage you to examine the history for yourself—and to question all sides of the narrative.

Clarifying My Position on U.S. Support for Israel

Here are a few clarifications I want to make so my position on U.S. support for Israel—and this post—isn’t misunderstood:

• I believe that Israel has the right to defend itself.

• I condemn the October 7th attacks by Hamas against Israeli civilians.

• Israel has the right to fight Hamas.

• My criticism is focused on how Israel has conducted that fight—and on its long-standing Gaza policies before October 7th.

Israel’s Economic Blockade and Travel Restrictions on Gaza

Even though Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and Hamas took over, Israel has maintained a strict economic and travel blockade.
Imports and exports are heavily restricted—especially materials deemed "dual-use," which could be used for both infrastructure and weaponry.

This blockade has devastated Gaza’s economy and infrastructure.
Air, land, and sea travel in and out of Gaza is also tightly restricted—mostly by Israel, but also by Egypt at the Rafah border—effectively trapping Gazans inside.

While Israel enacts this blockade to stop Hamas from gaining weapons and resources, this action is disproportionate because it punishes Gazan civilians and denies them necessary resources that every territory needs to prosper.

How Israeli Airstrikes Fuel Terrorist Recruitment

Hamas is a terrorist organization responsible for horrific violence.
Israel has the right to stop it.

But in doing so, it has often gone far beyond military targets.

Thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, and civilian infrastructure destroyed—including hospitals, schools, and neighborhoods.

These deaths are not just tragic—they’re strategic mistakes.
Israel has used sanctions, blockades, and strikes as pressure tools, but these methods often backfire by pushing more people into Hamas’s arms.

While Hamas’s founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel, many recruits are motivated less by ideology and more by personal trauma—having seen friends or family killed or their homes reduced to rubble.

These experiences don’t just breed hatred for Israel.
They foster deep resentment toward the U.S., which supplies weapons and shields Israel diplomatically.

We've seen this pattern before in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.
We will see it again in Gaza if the U.S. continues its unconditional support of Israel’s actions.

Today’s survivors of civilian casualties are tomorrow’s terrorists.

A Better Strategy for Fighting Terrorism

Terrorism grows in the hearts and minds of the people who feel powerless and oppressed.

While not all terrorism in the Middle east stems from Western aggression, our disregard for civilian lives often fuel it.

If the U.S. and Israel want to defeat terrorism long-term, they must reduce civilian casualties and avoid disproportionate responses—even when fighting terrible enemies.

Since Israel is our greatest ally in the middle east and receives billions of dollars in military and financial aid every year from the United States, it is our responsibility to hold Israel accountable for its actions in the middle east.

Imagine if your entire family and your friends were killed by a drone strike.
Imagine living with chronic pain and permanent scars.
Imagine your pain being dismissed by others.
How would you feel about the government that launched the attack—or the country that funded it?

That’s the reality for many Palestinians.

Lasting peace requires accountability and restraint.
Slowing down to minimize civilian casualties may take more time and result in more military casualties, but it is the best way to truly defeat terrorism.

This newsletter is for people who feel politically homeless.
I seek to offer a nonpartisan viewpoint on U.S. politics, media framing, and the complexity behind political beliefs.

In 2016, I left the Republican Party because of its support for Donald Trump. I began to notice how biased both political parties were, and I felt politically homeless.

After the 2020 election, I became fed up with the political climate. It frustrated me how so many people across the political spectrum refused to criticize their own party or question the narratives their political leaders were pushing. I went on a personal journey to question my own political beliefs.

This is how Political Nonpartisan was born.

My First Attempt at Content Creation

In 2021–2022, I created a WordPress blog where I published 3 articles, and a YouTube channel where I uploaded 5 videos and a few shorts.

In 2022, I became burned out, so I stopped creating content — but now, in 2025, I’m back.

Why I’m Creating Political Nonpartisan

1. Teach people to question their party’s narrative

2. Help readers study different political ideologies

3. Encourage understanding of opposing perspectives

4. Promote media literacy, including:

   1. Reading sources from different viewpoints

   2. Questioning the framing of a story

   3. Recognizing personal bias while reading

How Perfectionism Burned Me Out

I stopped writing because I burned out trying to perfect every article and video. My ADHD combined with perfectionism made it really hard to produce content regularly. It took so much mental effort that I lost all motivation. It no longer felt worth it.

I experienced analysis paralysis. The harder I tried, the more I stalled.

I realized it’s better to release short, imperfect content than to release nothing at all. For this to work long-term, I need a different approach.

My New Strategy for Sustainable Writing

• I’m going to write shorter posts, with less pressure to research every topic in depth.

• I’ll share general insights from reading the news and listening to podcasts.

• If I get something factually wrong, I welcome feedback and correction.

• This is a hobby so I’m setting a goal of publishing at least every two weeks.

These posts will be rough and unpolished — but that’s okay.

We will go through this journey together.

I'll still share my political stances on various issues, but more importantly, I’ll focus on understanding and empathy — why people vote the way they do, and what their perspectives are.