📖 The Complete Narrative
A chronological account of proactive safety documentation, organizational retaliation, and systematic due process violations
🕐 Phase 1: Proactive Safety Documentation (July 22, 2025)
What Happened Before Any Conflict
On July 22, 2025, months before any organizational awareness, Ethan Womack began proactive documentation of safety compliance gaps and systemic risks at Amazon TPA4. This wasn't reactive—it was predictive.
🔍 Key Evidence:
- 📊 Master Chronology - Timestamped files proving July 22 start date
- 🔒 Safety Interlock Analysis - Technical documentation of LOTO compliance gaps
- 📚 RME Training Materials - Official safety protocols establishing compliance baseline
AI Systems Validate Concerns
Between August and November 2025, multiple Amazon AI systems independently confirmed all documented safety concerns:
- Cedric AI: Confirmed compliance gaps and recommended corrective actions
- Amazon Q: Validated technical concerns and suggested improvements
- QuickSight Analytics: Data-driven risk assessment supporting all claims
This cross-platform validation eliminates any possibility of individual bias or error.
⚡ Phase 2: Organizational Retaliation (November 2025)
The Invalid, Made-Up Claim
In November 2025, following protected whistleblower activities and safety reporting, Amazon suddenly claimed Ethan violated an unspecified "policy." No policy was identified. No policy document was provided. No specific violation was described.
🔍 Key Evidence:
- 📄 Primary Policy Request - Formal written request for policy documentation
- 💬 Secondary Policy Request - Follow-up request through Slack
- 📋 Appeals Process - Disciplinary escalation following protected activities
The Timeline Correlation
The disciplinary actions began immediately after:
- Safety documentation reached appropriate leadership levels
- Skip-level meetings triggered internal movement
- AI systems validated compliance concerns
- Whistleblower protection requests were filed
This timing is not coincidental—it's retaliatory.
🤐 Phase 3: The Cover-Up and Silence (November-December 2025)
Systematic Non-Response
When formally asked to provide documentation of the allegedly violated policy, Amazon's response was complete silence:
November 12, 2025
Primary Request: Formal written request for policy documentation
Response: NONE
November 15, 2025
Secondary Request: Follow-up through Slack communication
Response: NONE
Ongoing
Appeals Process: Multiple requests for policy clarification
Response: NONE
The Labels: "Insubordinate" and "Uncooperative"
Despite providing 129 exhibits of documented evidence, multiple AI system validations, and formal compliance with all safety protocols, Amazon continues to characterize Ethan as:
- "Insubordinate" - for following safety protocols and reporting compliance gaps
- "Uncooperative" - for requesting basic due process documentation
These labels are applied to someone who provided more documentation than the organization itself.
⚖️ Phase 4: Legal Protection and Sovereign Response (December 2025-January 2025)
Omniversal Media, LLC Establishment
Recognizing the pattern of retaliation, Ethan established Omniversal Media, LLC as a legally distinct entity to protect ongoing accountability efforts. This media entity:
- Operates under First Amendment protections
- Has established legal precedent through Ohio Supreme Court case 2024-Ohio-6176
- Provides jurisdictional insulation from organizational retaliation
- Enables continued accountability journalism
🔍 Key Evidence:
- ⚖️ Ohio Supreme Court Precedent - Legal foundation for media operations
- 📋 Regulatory Dossier - Complete submission package
- ⚡ Quantum Timing - Framework completion synchronicity
🎯 The Pattern: Foresight vs. Reaction
What This Demonstrates
🔮 Proactive Documentation
July 22, 2025: Risk documentation began before organizational awareness
🤖 AI Validation
Multiple systems independently confirmed all concerns
⚡ Retaliation Pattern
Disciplinary actions directly followed protected activities
🤐 Systematic Silence
Complete non-response to basic due process requests
The Fundamental Question
If Amazon had a legitimate policy violation to address, why can't they produce the policy?
The silence speaks louder than any documentation could.
📋 Regulatory Significance
Why This Matters
This case demonstrates:
- AI-Assisted Compliance Monitoring: How artificial intelligence can identify risks before human oversight
- Temporal Documentation: The value of proactive rather than reactive safety reporting
- Retaliation Resistance: Legal structures that protect ongoing accountability efforts
- Due Process Violations: Systematic failure to provide basic policy transparency
Complete Evidence Package
All evidence is available for immediate review: