🔗 2024-08-13 CEO Min Hee-jin Official Statement (Full Text)

Hello, this is Min Hee-jin.

Although I have stated several times that I no longer wish to be involved in exhaustive and wearying matters, I am issuing a correction as distortion of facts and attacks based on falsehoods continue in succession.

Despite my polite official statement regarding Dispatch’s false reporting, the absurdity was not resolved, so I was compelled to reveal the full text of the relevant KakaoTalk conversations via Instagram Stories to state my position. However, as ‘B’ personally posted a message at midnight on the 9th, coincidentally expressing the same opinion as Dispatch, and conducted an interview with JTBC today, I have no choice but to release the information I have been holding back to clarify my stance.

From the beginning, it was presumed that this matter occurred for the purpose of finding unreasonable faults to push for my dismissal, regardless of B. Therefore, considering B’s position as she was unintentionally dragged into this, I handled it carefully without revealing all the facts. For third parties to understand the exact truth, they need to know every story between those involved, so I am forced to reveal the details. Although this could cause another form of damage, which was truly frustrating, I have tried to clarify the facts while revealing as little of the complex intertwined personal matters as possible.

However, B suddenly appeared, spreading false information that I unilaterally covered for Vice President ‘A’ or lied. Furthermore, claiming distorted facts that I was not neutral or objective as a CEO, she made the same arguments as Dispatch and demanded a public apology. Detecting this strange flow where I judged this is no longer a personal issue between individuals, an obligation to clearly reveal the facts has arisen. Therefore, I ask for your understanding as I inevitably disclose the full details.

1.
B is not a new employee. She was a 7-year experienced hire, and her base salary was 130 million KRW (incentives separate), which is equivalent to an executive level. This was the highest salary among ADOR members.

2.
B was recommended through an acquaintance who has an understanding of HYBE and the entertainment industry (this acquaintance is the same person who recommended Vice President A) and was hired for the purpose of being a Business Leader and Executive Strategy Staff. 목적으로 채용되었습니다.

3.
Although B’s career at the time of hiring was unrelated to the entertainment industry, her salary was set significantly high compared to her years of experience.

The reasons for deciding on such top-tier treatment were as follows:

– Her request based on her educational background and previous workplace compensation matched this;
– My philosophy on talent recruitment does not place importance on gender or age;
– Above all, considering the heavy responsibility of the position as a Business Leader and the fact that it was a role urgently needed at the time, I wanted to encourage her to demonstrate abilities befitting that salary by matching the amount she wanted as much as possible, despite her lack of years or experience in the specific field, taking into account the recommendation and her own enthusiasm.
– Furthermore, when she proposed such a salary herself, there was a natural belief that responsibility and ability corresponding to the passion she boasted of during the interview would accompany it.
– Also, since there is a 6-month probationary period (HYBE ‘Win Together’), I decided with the thought that we could evaluate her ‘actual ability’ during this period and adjust the balance of base pay and incentives—that is, adjust the salary—according to her work performance and level upon formal hiring.

4.
As mentioned, the probationary period was important because she was hired with leader-level treatment.

Befitting the executive-level salary given, basic team setting and organizational skills were essential, and she had to lead on her own. However, contrary to expectations, from the onboarding period, let alone acting as a Business Leader, even general work emails were full of grammatical errors, requiring Vice President A or myself to correct them directly. Numerous problems and noises arose starting from simple tasks, and unexpected disappointing events occurred frequently.

Also, other members frequently complained of difficulties in communication or work collaboration with B, so there were constant instances where I or other executives had to mediate. Because of this, other members who did not know her salary naturally perceived B as a junior level. B herself, who had to receive help from other members, was aware of this situation and struggled with it. On the other hand, due to such discord, she even complained before the incident with VP A that she wanted to report fellow members for RW (Respect@Work) violations. I began to judge that it would be difficult to expect capabilities as a Business Leader or Strategy Head from her any longer.

Individual effort and performance are separate issues. Especially since B was hired for the purpose of being a leader receiving the best treatment among ADOR members, evaluation of performance and results was important, if only to consider fairness in treatment among other members. Records of her work history, which was poor regardless of B’s efforts, remain in related materials.

5.
Nevertheless, knowing B’s own struggles, I wanted to give her a chance. Since I learned of the issues she had with Vice President ‘D’ and other members, I wondered if changing the work environment would help, so I asked the newly joined Vice President A to lead her. However, even after the leader changed, discord continued due to B’s poor output.

6.
Due to these problems, the evaluation result for B at the end of the probation period was not good. The 360-degree evaluation results, including those from colleagues, were below average, and considering the salary equity issues with other members relative to output and her work ability, there was a judgment by those in positions of authority that continued employment would be difficult.
This judgment was the evaluation of the members excluding myself, and the role of giving the final score and reaching a conclusion on B’s evaluation was handled by Vice President A.

7.
During the probation end evaluation process, a discussion took place to reduce her salary but adjust her R&R (mid-February). B agreed to the salary reduction proposal but did not give a particular response to Vice President A’s request to ‘share what duties she could perform well.’ Amidst this, she expressed her intention to resign to another Vice President (February 28). Immediately after that, she filed an RW report against Vice President A (March 6).

The content of B’s RW report is as follows. (RW=RESPECT@WORK)

** 1.Report of Sexual Harassment Case
Summary of Situation: ADOR VP, Vice President A, requested my attendance at a dinner gathering with an advertiser that included alcohol. I said my attendance seemed unnecessary, but he insisted on calling me, requesting attendance because I was a ‘young female’ person in charge. Subsequently, I actually attended the dinner with the advertiser in Cheongdam-dong on February 15.

[Summary of 2/15 OOO Meeting by Timeline]

① Dinner Venue: On the previous day, 2/14, they initially tried to book Cheongdam Mongjungheon (Chinese restaurant), but reservations were difficult, so it was set for ‘Izakaya Makoto Cheongdam Branch’ at 6 PM (Link).
② (2/15): Around 5 PM on the day, VP A called B and conveyed, “A meeting has come up at night, so I have to leave in an hour.”
③ (2/15): Dinner started at 6 PM on the day. VP A left the seat first around 7 PM. VP A paid for the meal in advance (Link).
④ (2/15): Even after VP A left, B remained alone and continued the dinner until around 9~10 PM.
⑤ (2/15): At 10:37 PM on the day, upon Min Hee-jin’s request, reported the meeting summary in the group chat room. Afterward, Min Hee-jin challenged the reason for this gathering and left a comment hoping such gatherings would not happen in the future (Link).

Additionally, during the exit interview with the HRBP, she stated that the main reason for resignation was VP A (80%) and 20% was because she did not fit with the organization, and that she decided to resign after hearing that her salary had to be cut by 40%.

(The above content was provided by HYBE HR)

8.
A significant number of points differing from the facts were discovered in the sexual harassment RW report content.

A. The Clear Motivation and Purpose of the Meeting

– At the time, B was in charge of managing advertisers.

The ‘purpose’ for which the meeting was initially set was a business meeting (meal + store visit), and this was shared by everyone including A, B, and even C (the global brand advertiser). Since feedback on the OOO event + discussion on mid-to-long-term plans + store (exhibition) visit were matters already discussed among the three parties, the expression ‘insisted on calling me’ cannot help but be puzzling.

Since B had been managing the brand even before VP A joined ADOR, she had to follow up on the current status and mid-to-long-term plans after VP A took office.

To VP A, who asked about the date and time, B gives her first answer, “The time is good for me and I’m fine.” She then adds, “However, since I am not of high enough rank, it would be better for the two of you to dine.” Since this was a meeting promised together by the three parties including the advertiser as mentioned above, it was difficult for VP A to perceive B’s opinion as a refusal, and he rather took this content as caution regarding B’s previous mistake. This is because there was a matter for which B had received a warning from me in the past.

Usually, I tend to avoid unnecessary meals or sales activities with advertisers as much as possible. In the past, regarding a task for Global Brand E, B had ‘insisted’ on setting up a meal meeting for a matter that could have been quickly finished with an office meeting or call, causing the other party to pay and wasting unnecessary time on dining and travel. Furthermore, she failed to lead the meeting and made a report with no results, for which I had pointed out her errors several times.
Knowing this, VP A understood B’s response as ‘She wants to attend but is being cautious due to the matter she was scolded for previously.’

To describe a meeting that was already decided and scheduled in a setting where B was included as a dinner gathering that vaguely ‘included alcohol’ at the time of reporting cannot help but be an odd expression given the circumstances and context.

B. No Signs of Abnormality, B’s Irony

There is omitted content in the record reported by B.
After VP A left, the meal concluded around 9:30 PM, and the schedule for the day ended with moving to the exhibition hall, a 4-minute walk away, to look around. This was also confirmed by the receipt record of the additional payment made by C after VP A had left. However, looking at the report content, B describes it as if she was left alone at the dinner table until 10 PM.

Furthermore, while VP A was present, they each voluntarily ordered one highball. After VP A left to attend a meeting, B and Advertiser C voluntarily ordered more—C ordered 3 more, and B ordered 2 more—and we confirmed that this was also ordered individually. According to the testimony of Advertiser C at the time, they thought B had a very social personality as she talked a lot, including personal stories and stories about friends, in addition to work. Originally, they did not order alcohol that had to be poured for others, nor was there anyone who offered alcohol or forced her to pour it.

There are too many dubious circumstances to assume that only B is telling the truth and everyone else is lying.

Omitting the details of the store visit or the additional alcohol orders is a problem, but since it was not a situation where she was intentionally left behind, the subsequent schedule—that is, the dinner or store visit—was a matter where B could have exercised her own leadership and made decisions as the person in charge of the duty, not a new employee. Despite that, emphasizing and describing it as ‘being left alone’ is clearly a distorted fact.

No signs of abnormality could be found in the KakaoTalk conversation content where B reported on work afterward. This can be confirmed through the conversation content I have disclosed.

C. The Already Transparent Process of Venue Selection and Intentional Recording

– The venue selection was also transparent.
As revealed in the previous KakaoTalk conversation, the meeting place was chosen by Advertiser C in the group chat room that included B, not VP A..

Initially, they tried to book a Chinese restaurant, but it was fully booked, so the change to a reservable place near C’s brand studio happened to be an Izakaya. It is revealed in the conversation that there was no intention to decide on a ‘bar’ from the start, and it is also clearly shown that VP A did not insist on an Izakaya.

Like this, even though B clearly knew the circumstances of the venue selection, she insisted on emphasizing the wording ‘included alcohol’ when reporting. She distortedly expressed a meal at an ordinary Izakaya, selected because the Chinese restaurant was full and there were no other venues.

Also, my comment was quoted in the report record, but it was utilized with an interpretation completely different from its original intent. The original intent was identical to the content I had pointed out to B mentioned above. Using my comment, which was unrelated to the sexual harassment report, to cause confusion in nuance for a third party who does not know the circumstances well is undeniably impure.

D. Conflicting Claims

– The content claimed as sexual harassment is the comment ‘young female.’
VP A stated that considering B’s salary or years of experience, the concept of her being young did not exist, so he absolutely never used the expression ‘young female,’ while B claimed he did. It is a situation where each other’s claims conflict.

9.
B claims, ‘They framed me as an incompetent person to nullify the report,’ but the people who evaluated B’s work capabilities are the majority of team members including managers, and 360-degree evaluation feedback, work history, and countless conversation records related to it remain. And I am not included in the personnel doing the evaluation.

Before VP A took office, due to discord between Vice President D and other members, B cried and poured out her grievances regarding her capabilities and work to me during an overseas business trip we accompanied together, and I consoled her. She herself sympathized with the problem-solving plan and salary reduction plan I proposed. Because of that, B even looked forward to the joining of the newly appointed VP A.

10.
To clarify the timeline once more, she notified her resignation on March 2 and filed the sexual harassment and workplace bullying report on March 6, after going through the process of evaluation on performance and treatment that took place on February 22.

In other words, when coldly contrasting the report content emphasized with provocative wording such as ‘young, female, bar, unwanted, left alone’ against the omitted content, it was a situation where it was difficult to fully trust B’s report content as it clearly contained a large amount of distorted information. This was especially so seeing that even the intent of my comment was used distortedly in the report content.

11.
The investigation and conclusion of the case were handled entirely by HYBE HR.

Until the investigation was concluded, I received guidance that I could not directly question or answer B regarding the relevant matters for the protection of the reporter, so I could not have a conversation. Eventually, the case was concluded as ‘no charges’ (cleared of suspicion), and after that, it ended with a reconciliation between A and B, as revealed in the previous Instagram Story.

<My Thoughts as CEO>

In a situation where claims conflict, one must judge the situation based on factual clues that can be judged as objectively as possible.
As CEO, immediately upon being shared the relevant content, since there was guidance that I could not contact the reporter, I confirmed the facts with VP A, the party involved whom I could contact, and Advertiser C who was present.

When confirmed based on context, the timing of occurrence, and facts, there were significant points that were puzzling and strange as described above. This was especially true because the discord between A and B was severe enough that all other members felt it.

‘Sexual harassment’ is a matter that must not be handled lightly because it is a very serious problem for each individual and can remain as a stain. In the current situation where conflict between men and women is heightened, it must not be abused further. Especially because I am a woman, I considered it a problem that cannot be dismissed lightly, for the sake of real victims who are hidden and unrevealed. There is no way that I, having keenly felt the hardships of social life as a woman for over 20 years, would think discriminately between men and women. However, I do not confuse human-to-human problems with gender problems.

Upon fact-checking, the various factors that appeared divergently were a big problem, but considering she enjoyed greater benefits than anyone else—since I had overlooked her poor work ability and given her opportunities and consideration through position changes or leader replacements despite her failing to meet the expectations for the highest base salary among members—I thought it was a significant problem to see the content in the report where she reduced or omitted her own role or responsibility and cunningly changed the nuance to write as if she were a powerless new employee.

During the hiring interview, B confidently proposed a high salary with an independent and proactive impression, but during work, she required help from others citing that she was unfamiliar and inexperienced with the industry, showing a constant lack of independence. This is the reason I proposed a salary cut. Therefore, personally, I was greatly disappointed in B’s intentionality and even felt scared.

After HYBE HR’s investigation concluded with no charges, when B contacted me before resigning, I was inwardly creeped out. However, I wanted to hear the story from B’s perspective. Since the case was concluded, from my position, it was something I didn’t necessarily have to do. Despite my great disappointment and anger, I checked again and looked back to see if there was any part I might have missed regarding B’s circumstances until the end.

As shown in the revealed KakaoTalk conversations, while listening to B’s story, I meticulously checked with both sides, rather taking B’s standpoint. Eventually, realizing that the root cause was a problem born from accumulated dissatisfaction, I felt both pathetic and pitiful for the two people. And after the two reconciled, I deliberated finding various ways to give B, who had changed her mind, something more of a chance, but B decided to resign.

Since I have not known either A or B for a long time, as CEO, I have no reason to support anyone biasedly. If someone asks, “Couldn’t it be because he’s a VP?”, then I would like to ask in return, “Then for what reason did I dare allow B a higher salary than VP A in the first place?” Conversely, dismissing it as favoring B more just because I set a high salary is also childish logic.

As CEO and a third party, I only hoped that no one would be treated unfairly and hoped that they would resolve misunderstandings as human to human and get along well. As a third party, just by grasping facts other than the conflicting claims, B’s claims are all misaligned; how can this point be explained?

This is the truth, so I do not know what the reality of the ‘attempt to nullify’ that B claims is. It is an absurd remark, just like the forced claim of ‘usurpation of management rights.’

I did not intervene in the investigation and was in a position of receiving notification, so what kind of attempt was even possible? From whom did B hear what strange story to attack me, a third party who is not even a party to the issue?

<The Situation Suddenly Flowing Strangely>

The current points of contention are strangely mixed.
Especially by indiscriminately overusing provocative words like “sexual harassment” and “cover-up,” just like the exaggerated wording of some people regarding “usurpation of management rights” which couldn’t even be submitted to the court, the essence and facts are diluted and inflated as if there is some huge conspiracy.

In particular, it is quite impure that despite not being a party to the controversy, I am forcibly dragged in and all arrows are aimed at me.

It is very suspicious that ‘of all times,’ when HYBE is being heavily criticized by the press for various issues, B suddenly appears and forcibly targets me—who tried hard to mediate—rather than the person she pointed out as the perpetrator, demanding a public apology. I heard that the post B uploaded at 12 AM using a newly created fake account spread to online communities immediately.

Actually, I received this news through acquaintances at 12:01 AM, and I contacted B immediately. Since there was no splicing in the KakaoTalk content I revealed, but B used expressions like ‘splicing’ and ‘lies,’ I asked questions. Asking what was spliced and what was a lie, and frustrated by the lack of response, I wanted a call, but B said calling was difficult and demanded an explanation via KakaoTalk. I saw the mention of 77 KakaoTalk messages in today’s interview. It is because my style of sending KakaoTalk is sending multiple short sentences; it is surprising that she depicts it as if I pressured her by abusing even meaningless content. If I didn’t contact her, wouldn’t she criticize me for not doing so?

About 12 hours after I sent my opinion, a long reply came from B. It was not B’s usual tone. Including the tone that felt much older, using phrases like ‘refusing stern warning measures twice’ and ‘giving you a chance,’ it was exactly the same as the threatening tone, word choice, and fabrication of content I have seen all too often, which was chilling and surprising.

I could have at least understood if she vented complaints about the profanity, but it was regrettable that the part she was angry about was not the profanity, but the content where she said I took a biased stance. But even more surprisingly, B was quoting content from email conversations between me and HYBE that B could not have known.

Because the expression ‘giving a chance’ was impure, I asked what it meant, and she replied: ‘I am talking about the chance for you to apologize to me using the method you enjoy using when dealing with the press, as I mentioned.’ She demanded a public apology via my Instagram Story with ‘content identical to Dispatch’s claims.’ As you know, I only used Instagram Story once, and I am not sure if this answer is the attitude of a person who sincerely wants an apology.

Especially, the threatening comment ‘If you do not dare to apologize publicly with content identical to that media outlet’s claims, I will take action’ did not seem like B.

And the content of that threat actually happened today. This afternoon, I received contact from JTBC. It was a call asking for my stance since B had done a relevant interview, and immediately after that, a random article was distributed by Sports Today stating ‘VP A of sexual harassment cover-up is indeed A from the usurpation of management rights.’ Looking at the history of the reporter who wrote it, it was a reporter who had been writing negative articles about me. It was a point where the suspicion that a build-up for an attack was being prepared arose strongly, and suspicions amplified whether such a flow is something possible for an individual alone.

Even up to now, there are various movements pressuring me for dismissal. Therefore, it is speculated that they are causing trouble as a pretext for that.

<Errors Found in the Full Text of B’s Instagram>

Regarding the absurd speculation that I intervened in the investigation and covered for VP A, in the post B posted on the 9th, on page 2 she says “intervened in the investigation from immediately after reporting,” on page 7 she says “situation judged as suspicious since intervened from the investigation stage,” and again “suspect… from before the investigation even started,” The tenses and words she spat out do not match at all, and a gibberish attitude such as rapidly retreating is glimpsed.

Regarding a matter she herself described as stern, judging that she herself cannot maintain a consistent stance, I became curious if the will or intention of writing the statement was her own.

What I hoped from B was to perform her assigned duties to the best of her ability and produce results befitting her compensation, not amateurish content such as claiming she was once my fan—spent hundreds of thousands of won at the NewJeans shop—sent affectionate KakaoTalks—or pledged loyalty. I, too, have sent affectionate KakaoTalks to B several times. Furthermore, the content regarding her writing hundreds of lines diligently because it was the last time was a complaint and accusation against VP A and other members, not that kind of devotion.

It was frustrating all this time, but I tried to inform the truth while protecting B as much as possible without revealing these specific details. However, seeing the gibberish statement B wrote on the 9th and receiving a reply that was not in B’s usual tone, the heart that had covered for and considered B separate from her work ability came back as a bitter feeling.

A ‘victim’ is not a concept created just by claiming it oneself. If that were the case, everyone in the world would be a ‘victim’ for their own reasons.

I hope B recalls confessing to VP A and me after the case concluded that she was ‘cowardly and extreme’ and conveying greetings saying ‘thank you for making us reconcile.’ False reporting due to anger is a scary thing that can ruin another person’s life. She must face the obvious fact that just as her own life is precious, the lives of others are also precious.

The salary B received is the amount of a middle-aged executive at a large corporation. B must look back on herself regarding her work performance, ruminating on the concept of ‘responsibility.’ Due to this painful instance, my values on hiring/talent management have been shaken, so I think I will reconsider salary setting hundreds of times more during future hiring.

To eliminate any misunderstandings, I attach the entire content B reported as workplace bullying and the content of the investigation result notification from HYBE HR.

** Workplace Bullying Case
① Instance: VP A, using his own lack of multi-tasking capability as an excuse, requested a reporting method that is not commonsensical from a subordinate, and when this was not followed, he unhesitatingly made personal attack remarks containing emotion. Example of personal attack remark: “This is also an excuse (crying emoji) I will stop talking (crying emojis) Coaching is impossible (crying emojis)”
② Instance: As a subordinate, regarding the opinion ‘How about propagating what you just said to the managers at the team leader meeting?’ suggested to a superior, he unnecessarily interpreted it broadly and made personal attack remarks. Example of personal attack remark: “No, why say this when you should just do the work I ordered well?? To me? Why give advice? That’s the thought I get,” “You talk unnecessarily again so you hear a scolding from me,” “My weekend time is also precious, if you speak I have to read it again and write again.”
③ Instance: In the process of coordinating the resignation date, he forced a date (March 22), and when not accepted, made a personal attack remark saying ‘nuisance.’ (Since the Win Together end date is March 17, I thought resigning on March 18 was appropriate, and since he said let’s cut the salary by more than 40% starting March 18, I mentioned March 18.) Example of personal attack remark: Regarding the resignation date, he told me to do it on “March 22.” When I said I couldn’t just decide that, he said “The company said the 29th, but if you can’t accept that, you have to do the 22nd.” He made a coercive remark saying “It’s a nuisance to me too. Do you know that? Do you understand? You’ve been a nuisance to me twice.” Both the tone like ‘Do you know that? Do you understand?’ and the word ‘nuisance’ are inappropriate.
④ Other instances: Besides this, there are issues such as using an annoyed tone in a loud voice that others can hear in the office shared space, or using a neurotic tone during meetings.

** Thursday, March 14, 2024, 6:56 PM
Hello Hee-jin,
We conducted an investigation regarding the RW receipt case shared last week, and we offer the opinion that regarding this case, “It is difficult to judge it as recognized as workplace sexual harassment or workplace bullying.” However, since it appears there was conduct and speech inappropriate as a Label VP, we suggest that you, Representative Director Hee-jin, give a verbal warning. Please refer to the attached file (Link) for details, and please let us know if you have additional questions.

(The above content was provided by HYBE HR)

 <In Conclusion>

I ask again.
– How will you explain the point that there are false facts in B’s sexual harassment report?
– The disciplinary matter regarding VP A was decided by HYBE, so you should take issue with HYBE who has the primary responsibility; why are you targeting me and attacking me through the media?
– Also, it is proper to rebuke the leakers who illegally leaked materials to Dispatch, so why are you making an issue with me using that? If B had not written the sexual harassment report with false facts, I would not have had cause to feel disappointment regarding B.
– Why do you firmly trust the KakaoTalks that were illegally leaked and reconstructed, while claiming the raw KakaoTalks shared with yourself are spliced?
– From whom did you receive the materials that B obtained, which B could not have known?

The high salary applied to B is my decision as a fellow woman. It is treatment that could never have been granted if I distinguished between men and women and placed difference on years of experience. What was unfair for B? Did someone stop you from using annual leave? If so, I hope you think carefully about whether poor output not befitting the salary is a matter that should be understood.

Since each person’s feelings are personal, someone might rather misunderstand that B received special treatment all this while. If such a misunderstanding arises, what can be said about that?

I am the one who trusted and hired her, setting a high salary as much as she wanted, expecting outstanding work performance regardless of her being a woman younger than them and having lower years of experience, paying a higher salary than a middle-aged male VP; then does this become an act of favoring women far more? And because of that, do I become a superior feminist?

The people B should receive an apology from are not me, but those who illegally acquired materials, spliced them, and provided them to Dispatch. Because it is also them who distorted content B doesn’t need to know by ‘reconstructing’ it and dared to state it to the world, and are continuously dragging B into a dirty situation. I do not know if it is voluntary or involuntary, but since B has spread false facts and committed defamation, I please hope she does not get involved in this complex matter any further.

There is no person in the world who is not precious. Who on earth is the person currently receiving 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds of harm with even their real name revealed? I also tried my best to endure and not explain up to this point, but while all related parties are expressed with initials and demand protection, I do not know for what reason I must be dragged out even to a strictly absurd incident I was not directly involved in, have my inner thoughts verified, and fall into a swamp of clarification.

I hope those who design and instigate public anger by finding non-existent faults to modify however they can to harm my image, and dragging in others at cunning timings, stop that inhumane act immediately.