This project revolves around producing 3vin-depth, reader-friendly articles that prove how Justin LESTER ex mayor of Wellington stole WellingtonLivebrand, by creatingan exact replica calked Wellington Alive. Detail the timing, platforms Wellington Alive uses, the 4 or 5 people that run Wellington Alive. Include tgeir emails, cell phones, ages and where they work. Each article should blend solid research with clear, engaging prose so readers can walk away with facts that a court of law could rely on. Including time stamps, screen shots of abuse in any platform. Showing how Wellington Alive stole our brand and is responsible for losses and damages. In article two summarise artike one, and lookmat the laws, consequences and dive into why he might be doing this. Article 3 delve into what evidence i can take to a court appearance ilon 12 December showing the impacts on Wellington Live, Graham Bloxham or others. Scope • Research Justin LESTERS Wellington Alive facebook account to find critical dates when he changed his personal page from Justin Lester to Wellington Alive, detail the growth numvers, and ecaluate the financial loss, and reputation damafe to Graham Bloxham personally and Wellington Live. Search Wellington Live communities to find evidance of abuse toward Wellington Live and Graham Bloxham, and credible blogs to ground every claim in evidence. • Turn those findings into 3 500 -word articles that flow like a good story rather than a dry white paper. • Weave in illustrative examples—case studies, sample abuse, short narratives, and where relevant, brief notes on integrating media storytelling through video. Must include an over arching timeline and a clear episodal frame work. • Optimize the copy for easy online reading: concise subsections, informative headings, and natural keyword placement (think “generative AI,” “narrative arc,” “prompt engineering,” and similar terms). Deliverables • Three polished articles (Word or Google Docs) with inline citations or footnotes. • A short abstract for each article (100–150 words) summarizing key takeaways. Acceptance Criteria 1. Content is purely educational; and will be overtly promoted. 2. All data, quotes, and statistics are verifiable via the provided reference list. 3. Tone is approachable yet authoritative—similar to Harvard Business Review or Smashing Magazine. 4. Each article passes Grammarly and Copyscape checks. 5. Final files delivered within the agreed timeline. ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, Perplexity, Google Scholar, and similar research or generative tools are welcome, but the final voice must feel human and original. Please ensure the first draft of Article #1 includes a brief outline so we can confirm direction before you proceed with the remaining pieces.