YouTube, Please REMOVE This Predator...

hello guys and gals me moodahar and today we're going to be looking into some rather unsavory characters on the internet ladies and gentlemen stories that are a bit too dark for regular browsing but ladies and gentlemen today's uh individual we're looking at is feature man 430 000 subscribers feature man is an 85 year old individual who might be one of the oldest active YouTubers and if you ever want to see a quick glimpse of what their content is like I'm just play a little bit for you to get you into the get you into the uh you know groove of things hello food fans got some good food for lunch today we're going to have hot dogs everybody likes hot dogs they're not the most healthy food in the world but they taste very good I'm going to have fried hot dogs the way I like them now you might be like whoa Moodle what is going on over here ladies and gentlemen he's just some old guy that's making cheap food uh and what what's there to talk about here now initially that's what I thought too the only reason I know about feature man as you know my wife pretty much showed me who this person was they were kind of like comfy uh viewing if you will you know what I mean just watch some old guy cook I usually had this person's videos play at some point when I was editing a video just in the back okay just as like background filler noise it's either this or Silent Hill 2 music unfortunately I think I need to listen to a bit more Silent Hill 2 music considering that this whole story this whole Channel went darker than it should now to give you a quick idea to sort of settle in what we're talking about one of my good friends my buddies my brother my drinking homie Nick Crowley made a video titled YouTube's hidden predator and uh I guess you could say thematically we've unfortunately matched the same sort of video here and uh yeah that's pretty dark but let's get into what the situation is now two days ago I was basically informed about this through my own comment section and initially I looked at it and I recognized the name and I said feature man and and these kind of unsavory allegations how could that be so of course I decided to do my own research and decided to look into it that was until I found out that featureman himself made a video responding to a lot of these allegations and a lot of these uh you know murmurs on the internet which was deleted within an hour the video here in question is titled my jailhouse Adventures recommended for adults only don't worry we're not gonna watch it in uh you know in a 2006 Vision I'm only showing you because this video existed at one point of feature man looking into the corner with the bag of chips in the background the Dell Inspiron staring us right in the face so of course one of the wildest Things From the situation was I wanted to again get a quick idea of what this video was entirely about now one of the description pieces for this video which again this is a screenshot captured by a community that is actively investigating the situation as well so again I didn't screenshot this so I'm not going to say that this is 100 what the description was again my rule is if I didn't capture it through my own screen recording software I can't 100 claim that I believe it now this is of course a description that says one error late in the video I use is the word prison when he meant jail this is the story about my attempts to change an archaic law in Nevada all of the actions in this video was something that happened more than 45 years ago and some of the stories go back over 50 years there are many people who have been incarcerated and each person is different a recent bit of misinformation has made its way to the comment section of YouTube and other places hopefully this will make things make the past a little less fuzzy if attorneys want to check the wording of Statute 201 190 be sure to get the 1976 or 77 versions as 201190 has changed so in here it makes it sound like Tom was basically falsely accused Tom was you know falsely treated by the Nevada government and uh it was through his trials and tribulations that he ended up getting an archaic law changed so again I wanted to play this video back and it's about 19 minutes long so again I've listened to the whole thing I'm gonna play back a few Snippets of the video and then we're gonna get into the apparent facts of the case before we get entirely into that video though we have to look at a few Unearthed newspaper clippings that basically add basically explain why people were looking into this in the first place so for instance one of the posts here from eight days ago by a user known as inquisitive ferret had wrote a jury found appellant Tom will Thomas Willett guilty of three counts of violation of NRS 201 190. now of course you can see over here guilty as charged they got a little bit of a photograph going on over there Thomas Willett is again if I can just open some of these as new images so we can zoom them up real quick here's an image of Tom Willett and guilty as charge Tom Willett is pictured during the last hours of Freedom Wednesday as he enters district court for the inclusion of his trial on three charges stemming from homosexual assaults on the residents of child Haven Willett was convicted his bond was revoked so again the district county of six men and Six Women deliberated less than hour Wednesday before finding former juvenile court volunteer worker guilty of three counts of Infamous crime against nature stemming from assault on 14 year old residents of childhaven yes 14 years of age yes miners very very goddamn minor not the crime the the victim unfortunately in this case so of course his victim a youth who is now 18 years old during the court trial remember they were 14 when this had actually happened according to the record and the reporting here so the youth who said the place in childhaven because of the parents neglect of him testified will it assaulted him once in his cabin once in the drive-in movie and once at their house so not just once multiple times and of course that wasn't the only news clipping over here too this is another one this is a third one where of course you know Tom is Seeking a review of the entire situation and here they actually mention uh the boy was 15 year old in fact they used the plural Boys in this case because it appears that there was of course more than one victim now again Tom let's watch his video and sort of like see a few Snippets that are interesting so with other adults and I will be talking about the my arrest record and that happened back in the 1970s what I'm going to be telling you about and it seems there's some people asking questions now on the internet about me so yeah there are some people asking questions so you mentioned a court case in the 70s let's go up a little further until he talks about the conviction uh future man is a little bit long-winded so again we're just gonna you know get we're gonna we're gonna get to the point this whole video has pretty much been re-uploaded anyway so if you want to go watch it it's available on the internet so let's get in let's get into it now about 1977 I became involved with the court system once again I was arrested I was arrested I was tried I was convicted by a jury and I was sentenced and the sentence was life in prison so of course he talks about getting life in prison which again I have the entire like case over here will it versus state which happened in 1977-1978 and of course over here they said he was sentenced to life in prison with of course possibility of parole so again unless there's a totally different case with the near same amounts of coincidence is happening then I have to imagine this is the same case again I'm trying to be as charitable as I can not charitable to this individual but again I'm trying to be as you know honest as I can be I don't want to defame somebody because these are very very serious charges again I'm only dealing with the facts that are present at the time of me filming this video let's get further when he talks about this specific law that he broke charge you with describe against nature if you had any sort of sexual contact with anyone other than a man and a woman who are married to each other anything else was considered Infamous crime against nature and without getting into details I will say that there was a trial and the what do you mean without getting into details now this is what I like to say is very selective omission of the truth so when he's trying to make it sound like here is that this was mostly a law that was relegated around maybe persecuting individuals that were homosexual which wouldn't be surprising back in the 70s for you know the entire U.S I believe even at the time Nevada was like I think maybe a more it wasn't exactly as as welcoming to Gay Culture I would say as as you know something like California but it's a very very intentional misframing of the situation it's not that he forgot it because he was old it's because he's deliberately omitting that information you know yes like at the end of the day obviously this isn't an interaction between a man or a woman but it's also not an interaction between a legally aged man and another legally aged man again reading the court documents it involves a minor reading the news clippings it involves a minor well under the age of 18. why not include that into the situation again without getting into details I can see why he wouldn't get into details because there is no actual defense witness against me and he was over 18 years of age the witness against me I love how he's like the witness against me was 18. now according to the actual case that we'll be reading and I'm going to show you just a snippet of it you'll see that while the case happened in 78 yes the victim would be 18 the crime that the record is actually showing is that in November 1973 so let's do some basic math real quickly yeah if they're 18 at the time of 1978 they're pretty [ __ ] Minor by the time of 1973 if we just rewind a little bit so again while I thought the rest of this 20 minute video was him explaining the situation he never mentions the miners he never goes into the situation if anything he talks mostly about the fact that this entire case went from life imprisonment to almost nothing because what uh what what what appears future man took advantage of was getting off on a technicality so listen to this one place where I was with the trustees and I started reading the reviews I read I just used to have some good stories and one of the stories was about ex parte Milligan e x p-a-r-t-e-m-i-l-l-i-g-a-n-x-party million you can look it up it has to do with due process and I realized after reading it that the judge did not have the authority to place me in jail as a condition of Probation and the reason being it's not in the law of the law Nevada said when a person commits the infamous crime against nature they shall be sentenced to prison for life that's the only and there was no description of what a Infamous crime against nature was anyway anyway the uh result of my reading that I I wrote a writ or emotion and I asked me sent back down this is after he had ruled um on descents and place me in prison for life supposedly but with uh um the first year being on on probation so basically all the technicality on sentencing guidelines on one law uh basically uh feature man got out of it I guess the state of Nevada didn't want to pursue it or maybe it might have actually affected from what I understand other potential people that have actually been you know charged under the same crime as well uh because if he finds one loophole it could theoretically affect everyone else so basically he got out on a technicality he's not ever acknowledging what had actually happened in the case and what people are actually criticizing him for there is no remorse in this man he's literally just kind of bragging to the public that he got away on a technicality it's also it's so insane to completely witness and again you might be wondering just why he would be mentioning it well it's because there apparently is like a YouTube wannabe lawyer that was looking into it uh I never had any more problems with that uh now there's a YouTube attorney wannabe who thinks that uh something happened 45 years is there anyone else out there who's got 45 years with clean records and I haven't sneezed in public or anything I mean let's uh sneezed in public let's not compare what we're about to read in this case document to sneezing in public and you know who else has a clean 45 years my mom and dad so you're not the only one out there buddy sensible about this 201.190 was an unconstitutional law I helped yet it changed okay I'm done with this [ __ ] explanation nothing actually got addressed if anything this guy's just flexing that he got off on a technicality so now this is where we're going to get a little bit darker in the video let's read Willett versus State together so jury found that appellant Thomas Willett guilty of three counts of violation 2019 the infamous crime against nature he was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole on each count with the terms to run concurrently the sentences were suspended an appellant was placed on probation for a period not to exceed five years with the first year to be served in Clark County jail he seeks reversal of his Judgment of conviction in the principal ground that the court aired in admitting testimony concerning his illicit relationship with another person oh he didn't mention that in the [ __ ] video did he let's read this the record shows that a Pelon in November 73 was playing in a musical group volunteered to entertain the children a childhaven in Las Vegas there he met the victim of this crime a minor boy and he went with this boy to a room to introduce him to the guitar a musical instrument but the session ended in the First Act of oral copulation so again it only says the first of several acts it wasn't just one it was multiple now you want to know the technicality that was actually argued here listen to this one it's even more insane during the same month appellant visited the Eddie Lee Home For Boys in Clark County there he met a minor boy another victim who testified that while the defendant a volunteer worker yes somebody that could be trusted again as a confidante was helping us to set up for Christmas the defendant performed an active again that same oral situation on that young man the testimony was admitted during the state's case in Chief and it is the admission of this testimony upon which the appellant seeks reversal of the Judgment of conviction so here they were arguing on a Case known as Nestor V state where they were basically looking at it is a rule that criminal evidence that on the trial of a person accused of crime proof of a distinct independent offense is inadmissible the exceptions to this general rule evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charge when it tends to establish motive intent the absence of mistaker accident a common schemer plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others the identity of the person charged with commission of the crime on trial so again they were actually arguing in reference to the fourth portion where it says a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes that would help establish one or the other now again while referencing all these cases one of the paragraphs was rather important so it says the importance of establishing this fact far outweighs the prejudicial possibility that the jury might convict for General rather than a specific criminality even granting the general rule of admissibility of evidence of independent crimes to prove the offense charge many courts recognize a limited exception in the area of crimes sex crimes to prove the nature of the accused specific emotional propensity so again we do not believe the district judge in the case before us abused his discretion in admitting the witnesses testimonies or testimony the court in a pre-trial hearing and in a hearing about the evidence or presence of the jury balance the preferred testimony against this probative value so so and then determine that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect we cannot rule based on the facts presented at the lower court abused its discretion so again this is all happening in an appellate court and this is something that you know feature man is failing to tell people that are watching this content so again I'm only going off by what I've seen in this case document okay this case docket and those newspaper clippings so I'm in the middle of like a drive here I went out because this is such a weird situation to watch and uh to be honest with you I had a little bit of an editor note too so obviously reading the definition of the Supreme Court and affirmations one thing that I wanted to really point out and really put emphasis on was a lot of these people that they were mentioning a lot of these individuals let me just turn off the climate a lot of the individuals the children in this case the victims right they weren't just like kids with families they were they were kids who were part of like homes they were you know they they were they were part of from what I understand like Foster situations right like not Foster situations but like they were part of like orphanages it seems like where they were this person came in to serve as sort of an instructor a music teacher somebody that had a position to power somebody that should have been trusted it makes from what I'm reading it makes you one of the worst [ __ ] people possible so when I see this person getting so excited about getting off on a technicality like what and then the people defending it which there are a couple people in the comments because you know law of averages there's going to be one [ __ ] freak out there in the world 10 freaks 100 freaks if you're defending this what is wrong with you how bad is your morality what what are you what does your ethics look like it was really wild that some people got some screenshots out of the video when it was up for a little bit where feature man made some rather interesting comments so apparently again I haven't seen these so uh you know I'm gonna have to hope that these are completely real again my rule is unless I refresh a page and see it for myself I can't just necessarily believe it but anyways one of the alleged comments here was I was rich with friends and they helped a lot okay so wait you had money and you had friends and they helped you get out of this pickle okay I mean that kind of lines up with when he was talking about like what the uh the governor of Nevada hitting up feature man responding to a user known as Cowboy says the D.A wanted me to plead guilty and accept a six-year sentence my attorney said it was a good deal I get a new attorney okay interesting and then of course feature man said thanks there was no video that prompted me to make this it was comments to other videos again I don't think Tom understands the [ __ ] Streisand effect uh maybe it was just because that Tom has a really high opinion of himself you know being the extra in so many movies yet not ever really being the starring role I mean you could literally see this guy flexing some of his movie and TV appearances like SpongeBob where like you see that like little shoulder that's me yeah I know it's real really a massive Flex over there but uh you're not as big as you think you are you're not as smart as you think you are in this situation because what Tom forgot is in the era of the internet anybody with a dirty past like this you know it's only a matter of time before it all starts surfacing up now there has been one piece of evidence and one side of the story that hasn't made its way yet and it was one that I was waiting for before filming the video now there is a channel known uh there is a YouTuber by the name of Taylor korzanowski Who's basically uploading uh content where feature man has quite a lot of features into it uh the channel is not necessarily the largest it's about 2.3 000 subscribers the guy actually does make pretty interesting content for the most part now he was actually supposed to release a video uh in the community tabs he said he spoke with feature man at like two in the morning uh yeah two in the morning a while back uh where uh he was supposed to release it like 18 hours ago uh he did fall asleep and at the time of recording this it hasn't released and again I'm not really you know waiting too much on it when it comes out I'll definitely look into it maybe I'll append some of it into this video speaking of a pending I'm actually so glad I waited it's currently four in the morning I really hope my camera is focused if not I apologize let me just fix it real quick yeah so Taylor's video that just spoke with feature man about why he deleted the video so again outgoing call one hour and 41 minutes okay so this is in relation to him calling him at around two in the morning and uh ladies and gentlemen this is a 32 minute video meaning that it is severely cut down from its initial call over 50 percent it seems and uh it's not a good look when you're cutting down a serious topic like this I'd rather have the full feature length call out there and if you have to beep out personal stuff do it but this might be one of the most unhinged outlandish black mirrorary type videos that I've seen there is no remorse it almost feels like Taylor here with 2 000 subscribers and if I just look at how much these collaborations have actually done for his channel real quick it was popular it really seems like with 21k views like unless you're getting like 20 bucks 30 40 bucks worth of uh AdSense it really isn't worth defending this anyways I'm getting too ahead of myself we're gonna play two points in this that really burned me okay so let's listen to them together yeah I think the leading the video is a really bad idea because now people are just gonna think that they got under your skin uh so I think the best case scenario maybe re just reshoot the video and just say it and just just save the video again in a in a in another way more you know calm like the same way um but but with at the end the internet is going to be ruthless and you knew that you know this and you have a different ending because people are going to want a place to go and put their [ __ ] um like it wasn't it wasn't deleted by YouTube it would have said this video was removed buying Etc you know um it would have been a reason but the fact that it says it can't be found by the user I was like I got a call so I so Taylor is trying to give this guy some advice on how to reshoot the video basically PR control for free and uh I think the best way to reshoot the videos to explain what happened versus explain how you got away on a technicality but this is where things get super unhinged yeah so if you change the ending Mr Beast gave away millions of dollars to people and saved people's eyesight and people still got mad about it he tried to save people and still got in trouble for it right so and if if you deleted that video because everyone are we really comparing this serious situation to Mr BEAST's Twitter drama yeah let's compare a situation where a bunch of loser nobodies on Twitter complained for 24 [ __ ] hours about Mr Beast comparing him to like the Antichrist it was a joke everyone knew it was a joke this is not a joke This Is Us unearthing serious criminal situations that shouldn't be taken lightly okay yes people are not going to like future feature man okay you want to know why they don't like feature man it's not because of meaning [ __ ] drama that I'll laugh at Charlie will laugh at pyrocynical will lapad Markiplier will laugh at everyone will laugh at this is not a laughing matter okay the actual anger and outrage here is pretty [ __ ] Justified but if you thought it wasn't going to get dumber than this listen to what this [ __ ] idiot goes on about 18 when the court case happened because you know it doesn't matter that he was 18 during the court case it like the places for minors techniques for face for people under 18 so he wouldn't have been there because he was 15. so it's important to get the facts in a manner where it you know you don't want to sound like you're trying to trick people you're like hey he was 15 when I started he was 18 when he decided to change his mind it was illegal to be gay it's not illegal anymore but what why are we conflating this to oh man you just got busted because you were gay when it wasn't really cool to be gay back then this was not about a man being persecuted for homosexuality you [ __ ] [ __ ] okay I'm sorry it is what it is this is about a person you literally in your [ __ ] dumb cuts when you this is not about he was 18 during the court trial but he was 15 back then that's what we're getting at okay ignore the homosexuality for a second that's not the outrage Taylor the outrage is the kid who was 15 14. that's the outrage what it this is a kid trying to protect us this is a third this is the man older than me Taylor's like 31 years old I'm 28. this is him trying to protect his [ __ ] meal ticket oh man this old guy is really going to take me to fame and stardom should I might get a reality TV show off this holy [ __ ] Amazon Prime video and Netflix might take me are you are you unhinged is it is this really the hail worth dying on I think what's so wild is even the comments some of the comments not all listen there's always going to be one unhinged idiot on the internet one ten or a hundred this is the one comment that just drives me insane again I'm done with Taylor's BS video it is disgusting Taylor you are a horribly disgusting individual for even [ __ ] whatever I have to watch right there you don't need to punish an elderly man for something a court of law has already taken care of whatever his issues are there's no need to bring an elderly man down this late in life is there a statute of limitations to abuse like this do you understand why this is considered a cyclical affair right when you harm a kid like this it carries with them to their grave okay that's the problem that's the issue right there this person is on YouTube Future man with a child fan base that probably comes out and watches him like he's grandpa or something should that be okay you know YouTube took down EDP 445 and he wasn't even officially convicted by law enforcement there's an act there is a court case a court proceeding that we just read that puts feature man in the worst possible [ __ ] light imaginable if anything it is of my opinion that YouTube delete his channel and completely ban him because this is a dangerous bad individual all right and and I mean that 100 future man future man jeez just just it's been a while since I've actually been this angry at something like it's been a while since my blood has boiled to to the point where I I'm not even able to see straight anymore I really am not this is a bad person okay this is this is some of the most depressing [ __ ] that I have had to read through and the fact that this person has no sorrow No Remorse and has flexed the fact that he has gotten away on a technicality just shows me that there are some people that have no [ __ ] soul and Taylor has proven to me that just for a little drop of clout just a crop a crop a little meal ticket if you will that they will not stand up for what is right I'm out ladies and gentlemen I don't even know what more to say I'm Blown Away good night

Channel: SomeOrdinaryGamers

Views: 744,439

Keywords:

Id: lwxDrAhGvtE

Length: 29min 19sec (1759 seconds)

Published: Thu Apr 27 2023

Reddit Comments

[u/No_Caterpillar9737]

Very happy a large YouTuber picked this up. He really gave it to that TK loser as well which was great. Hopefully Tom's days on YouTube are numbered.

[u/MrMagaHat]

Oof. Mutahar covered this, means shits going mainstream.

FeatureMan can delete as many comments as he likes, this is spreading across the wider internet now.

[u/Agency_Island]

the thing that grinds my gears the most, is he basically implies he's some sort of hero for " getting an unconstitutional law changed" .

[u/Didact67]

The thing Muta gets wrong is that the charges probably did have more to do with homosexuality than the fact that the victims were minors, which probably has a lot to do with him beating the charges. I don’t want to minimize his crimes by saying those were different times, but attitudes about that sort of thing were definitely more permissive in the 70s. That’s why so many rock stars got away with banging underage fans and are only more recently facing some accountability.

[u/Ishnolead]

Really good video (not the subject matter, the presentation). Large audience and a thorough review of all the evidence. Hopefully more channels pick it up.

[u/[deleted]]

We need to bring light to this sick individual and hopefully get him removed from YouTube

[u/reversalmushroom]

Okay, so what was the technicality that got him off?