reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @autogampegg

autogampegg
Posted - September 4, 2024 at 1:07 AM
Saved - October 5, 2024 at 3:18 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Oh look, Jon, it’s Tricia, your ex-wife who unalived herself after 28 years of marriage. You’ve moved on with your high school sweetheart, pretending everything is fine. You seem to be presenting yourself as so moral and trustworthy—what you call “impression management.” Is this just more breadcrumbing? By the way, you didn’t technically get divorced since Tricia never signed the papers before her passing, and you married Susan the very next day.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

Oh look, @uhler_jon, it’s Tricia! The ex-wife you’ve been hiding! You know, the one you divorced* after 28 years and who unalived herself, while you got back together with your “high school sweetheart” and pretended that you’ve been happily married to her for decades? 1/ https://t.co/Yz04bn6A9h

@autogampegg - respectable egg

Look at you! So good, so moral, so normal, so trustworthy, so believable. Is this what you refer to as “impression management”, Jon? 2/ https://t.co/C1BRjIMq5V

@autogampegg - respectable egg

More breadcrumbing, Jon? 3/ https://t.co/7h34CqLOvh

@autogampegg - respectable egg

* Yes, technically, you didn’t get divorced, because Tricia unalived herself without ever signing any divorce papers. You got married to Susan the day after Tricia unalived herself, correct? 4/4

autogampegg
Posted - July 27, 2024 at 11:31 AM
Saved - September 16, 2024 at 11:04 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I've been sharing a series of resources regarding Jon K. Uhler, including articles, podcasts, and recordings that delve into ongoing investigations. Notable pieces include interviews with Nicole Uhler and insights from other individuals connected to Jon. I've highlighted concerning statements and behaviors attributed to him, as well as evidence related to his past forgery charges. Additionally, I've discussed Jon's family dynamics and the implications of his actions on his daughter. The information aims to shed light on the complexities surrounding his professional and personal life.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

Thread: Links to articles, podcasts, Twitter/X space recordings, etc., related to recent investigations into Jon K. Uhler. 1. Article: South Carolina Is Investigating Jon Uhler And So Are We, Part One in a series by @DistMag https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/south-carolina-is-investigating-jon?r=uglk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

South Carolina Is Investigating Jon Uhler And So Are We Part One in a series thedistancemag.com

@autogampegg - respectable egg

2. Podcast: The Red Flags Around Jon Uhler: Part 1. An extended interview with Nicole Uhler by @DistMag https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/the-red-flags-around-jon-uhler-part?r=uglk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The Red Flags Around Jon Uhler: Part 1 An extended interview with Nicole Uhler thedistancemag.com

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag 3. Twitter/X space recording: New Uhler Files dropping

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag 4. Podcast: The Red Flags Around Jon Uhler: Part 2. An extended interview with Nicole Uhler by @DistMag https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/the-red-flags-around-jon-uhler-part-cac?r=uglk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The Red Flags Around Jon Uhler: Part 2 An extended interview with Nicole Uhler thedistancemag.com

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag 5. Twitter/X space recording: Uhlergate: Nicole Uhler Speaks Out

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag 6. Statements by Nicole Uhler via @OsborneInk

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 7. Statements by Nicole Uhler via @OsborneInk

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 8. Statement by Nicole Uhler via @OsborneInk

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 9. Statement by Nicole Uhler via @OsborneInk

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 10. Article: How Jon Uhler Put His Family Behind Him, Part 2 of our investigation into the 'safeguarding expert' by @DistMag https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/how-jon-uhler-put-his-family-behind?r=uglk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

How Jon Uhler Put His Family Behind Him Part 2 of our investigation into the 'safeguarding expert' thedistancemag.com

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 11. Podcast: The Red Flags Around Jon Uhler: Part 3. An interview with his former business partner by @DistMag https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/the-red-flags-around-jon-uhler-part-2cd

The Red Flags Around Jon Uhler - Part 3 An interview with his former business partner thedistancemag.com

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 12. Twitter/X space recording: Jimmy Hinton speaks out on Jon Uhler

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 13. Complementary clip from an interview Jon Uhler did with @BenjaminABoyce back in December 2022.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 states that "mission accomplished" is achieved when they have full sway over someone. This is demonstrated when that person defends Speaker 0 to others, even when those others express concerns or skepticism. The speaker illustrates this with an example: if someone questions Speaker 0's trustworthiness, the person under their sway will defend them, saying "You can trust him."
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I know when it's mission accomplished when I have full sway over you. Yeah. When I hear you tell somebody else that same phrase about me because they're not under the sway of me. And so someone will come along that cares about you and say, Benjamin, you know that Euler guy. I don't know. He he just seems sketchy. Why are you going into business with him? I know I have you when you will come to my defense and say, well, I know what it looks like, but it's really not that. You can trust him.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 14. A thread containing the kind of “charts” Jon used in the “therapy” he provided to prison inmates. This stuff was not part of the prison curriculum he was meant to be following.

@DistMag - The Distance Mag

We received these from a new source last night. They are compelling evidence that what Nevin Hersch said about Jon "confusing" his counselees is true

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 15. This blog post from 2017 relates to the incident that prompted Jimmy Hinton to part ways with Jon and resign from Church Protect. https://ilovetogoagardening.com/2017/09/29/voices-of-the-victims/

Voices of the Victims I am such a horrible, terrible person! I am bowing my head in absolute shame. Yesterday afternoon I went out to the coop to gather eggs. The ducks met me, quacking loudly in complaint. That's when I noticed that I had forgotten to feed them that morning. Horrified, I filled their food dish and they… ilovetogoagardening.com

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 16. Clip: Jon offers “regular consulting” sessions where he “won’t be working with you using my therapy license” (i.e., off-the-books counseling that circumvents regulatory requirements). The article linked at the top of this thread makes reference to this same video footage.

Video Transcript AI Summary
To donate or schedule a session, click the picture, which leads to a quote and then to PayPal for video calls. The speaker's terms and conditions specify that they will not be working under their therapy license to avoid diagnosing clients. This allows them to work with people outside of Pennsylvania and South Carolina as a personal consultant. This means clients get the speaker's full range of skills without a treatment plan, diagnosis, or case notes. This arrangement also ensures that legal issues are avoided, as the relationship is not the same as a therapeutic one, and any notes taken would not be beneficial in court. The speaker relies on their memory.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If anybody wants to donate or, yeah, if you want to donate, or if you want to schedule a session, by the way, you click here on this picture. As a matter of fact, I'll show you what happens. Right? So this will bring you to that's an actual quote. And then that'll, say if you want to do a video call, and then what you'll do is you do PayPal. But by the way, I do have terms and conditions. What are those terms and conditions? Essentially this, I won't be working with you at using my therapy license. The reason why is I don't have to diagnose you. Okay. And that means I can work with people outside of Pennsylvania and South Carolina. So, when I work with folks, I work with them as a personal consultant. But what does that mean? It means you get all of me, all my skills and abilities, but I'm not having to do a treatment plan. I'm not having to diagnose you. I don't have to take case notes. And you don't have to worry about if anything were to ever go to court, right? Because it's not the same kind of relationship. And the notes they would get, they would never derive any benefit. And the majority of time, I have a very good memory. Okay? So if you ever want to, reach out to me and do a consult or regular consulting, that's how you do that, by the way.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 17a. Clip: Jon asserts that the reason gender-confused females want their breasts removed is that they have a male alter (see Multiple Personality Disorder) who doesn’t identify with these body parts. He also asserts that this male alter arises from sexual abuse, as a protector.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Self-injury involves cutting through previous scars, which stems from sexual abuse. It's a redirection where the greater pain wins. Serious self-cutters enter a dissociative state and don't feel the pain because an alter takes it. Within that person, male and female parts exist. For a female, male parts emerge as protective ones. A protective part might not identify with the body, questioning its female characteristics. This part might then seek medical consultation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And what my contention is this, that she's cut through previous scars from self injury. Well, what's that all about? Inevitably, it's it's, self injury comes from sexual abuse. It's rechanneling as if not channeling like new age. It's redirect the greater pain wins out. So if you've ever seen serious self injurious behavior, by the way, you know, where it takes stitches and that kind of stuff, when somebody does that, they don't feel it. That serious cutting. K? They're in a dissociative state. But how can they not feel it? Because an alter, another part of them is taking the pain. And within inevitably, within that degree of pain within that person, you're going to have parts that are both gender You'll have male and female parts. Why? Because the For a female, you'll have male parts. Why? Those are the protective ones. So can you imagine a protective part comes out, looks at the body, and says, What? What the heck are these? These don't belong here. I I don't identify with this. I'm not a girl. I'm a so I'm gonna go and I'm gonna talk to a doctor.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 17b. The article linked at the top of this thread makes reference to this same video footage.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 18. Article: Seven Red Flags That Detransitioners Cannot Unsee In Jon Uhler, by @DistMag https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/seven-red-flags-that-detransitioners?utm_campaign=post

Seven Red Flags That Detransitioners Cannot Unsee In Jon Uhler And everyone should examine for themselves thedistancemag.com

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 19. Clip: Jon promotes his “Survivor Support” website —the same website that he uses to procure bookings for the off-the-books counseling services he offers— as a resource for survivors who are “not quite sure whether or not they were abused”. https://t.co/ZbYiHpnY5Y

Video Transcript AI Summary
Individuals may seek information between therapy sessions or if unsure about past abuse. They might be trying to understand their experiences and recognize potential indicators.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Between their own sessions. Or if they're not quite sure whether or not they were abused, they're they're trying to figure out. They may see the indicators.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 20a. The video footage referenced at the start of the article “Seven Red Flags That Detransitioners Cannot Unsee In Jon Uhler” (Continued in 20b.) https://t.co/W6ljKvxG0s

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 20b. The video footage referenced at the start of the article “Seven Red Flags That Detransitioners Cannot Unsee In Jon Uhler” (Continued from 20a.) https://t.co/6mgQQFbjc4

Video Transcript AI Summary
Here's a summary of the provided transcript: The speaker emphasizes that one doesn't need to trust them to utilize the information provided about the signs of sexual abuse. The speaker asserts that knowing these indicators is crucial for helping troubled children, regardless of the source. The key is whether one can recognize the signs or if personal biases prevent them from seeing the truth, hindering a child's disclosure and perpetuating the abuse. The speaker encourages listeners to verify the information independently, even though the speaker has experience working with sexual abuse victims. The speaker presents the information as a means to save time while urging individuals to assess the indicators and determine their validity.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The good news is you don't have to trust or distrust me. The question is, what are you gonna do with this content? So if you care about troubled kids, you'd better know the warning signs. Well, but I don't trust you. I'm not asking you to trust me. I've been working with people and kids for 30 years. I'm just telling you, here are the signs of sexual abuse. So the good news is this, I don't necessarily need to trust or not trust the character of the person that's writing a fact based book. So what I'm letting people know is these are the indicators of sexual abuse. If you don't wanna trust me, then you figure out what the indicators are. And the question is, are you able to spot them? Or are you so agenda driven that it doesn't matter how many indicators are right in front of your face, and therefore, you'll never ask the right questions, and the kid will never disclose, and so the kid is gonna continue to be perked on. Which is more important to you? So that's my message that take what I have, and this should be true for Anyways. Take the information I'm presenting, assess it, and see if it is not so. Yeah. Look it up for yourself. Right? Right. You know? Own homework. Freaking you. I'm saving you a little bit of time. Yeah. But these are the indicators. Right? How can I say it? Because I've worked with sexual abuse victims for years. Okay. So hopefully that helps.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 21. Jon demonstrates what kind of a father he really is by likening his daughter —who HE has described as “emotionally troubled”— to Absalom. Reminder: Jon’s academic qualification is in FAMILY COUNSELING. https://t.co/MLTB5XqINA

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 22. Jon insinuates that the reason Christian Post journalist, Brandon Showalter, “slandered”* him is that Brandon is a furry**. * Factually correct statements aren’t slander, Jon, no matter how bad those statements make you look. ** There is no evidence that Brandon is a furry. https://t.co/9b8c9mrmMl

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 23. A thread containing a new piece of evidence that Jon has been lying about his forgery charges being dismissed.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

Thread: Evidence that Jon Uhler has been lying about his forgery charges. 1. According to the May 2016 Daily American news article: - Uhler was interviewed by the authorities on Feb. 17, and he admitted to forging signatures. - The preliminary hearing was scheduled for July 7. https://t.co/5XYLwAJ83p

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 24. Conclusive evidence that Jon Uhler’s forgery charges resulted in a conviction (probation only applies to charges that result in a conviction). https://t.co/4qC6eZF4yh

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 25a. Yet more conclusive evidence that Jon Uhler’s forgery charges resulted in a conviction and that he had the record of his conviction expunged. This email is basically Jon complaining about being asked to pay child support. Note all the emotional manipulation he employs. https://t.co/FeHzHGd2P9

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 25b. Side note: In post 24, I elected to redact most of the information because it was personal and irrelevant. I have elected not to redact the email in post 25a, because it demonstrates Jon’s emotional manipulation and it supports Nicole’s testimony (which is disputed by Jon).

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 26a. Yet even more conclusive evidence that Jon Uhler’s forgery charges resulted in a conviction. Here, he even explicitly states that he’s unable to pass a background check until his probation is complete. https://t.co/Phn92ciJnR

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 26b. Here’s what Jon says about how his passing of background checks —something which is only possible because he had the record of his conviction expunged— is proof that there’s “no skeletons in his closet”. He even goes on to hinge his trustworthiness on this. https://t.co/H8Ts4JHHKp

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 27. A thread containing some brief info about how Jon has deceptively misled people to believe he’s been happily married to his “high school sweetheart”, Susan, for decades.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

Oh look, @uhler_jon, it’s Tricia! The ex-wife you’ve been hiding! You know, the one you divorced* after 28 years and who unalived herself, while you got back together with your “high school sweetheart” and pretended that you’ve been happily married to her for decades? 1/ https://t.co/Yz04bn6A9h

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 28a.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

Using one of his “charts”, Jon Uhler signals to his daughter, Nicole, that she’s targeted for destruction by God. Once again, Jon’s observable behavior confirms the accuracy of Nicole’s testimony. https://t.co/xlQ6mmEcRn

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 28b. Back in June, a few days after learning that Nicole had shared her testimony with @OsborneInk, Jon uploaded a video titled “Encouragement for Dads on Father's Day” to YouTube. In this video, Jon similarly signals to Nicole that she’s going to be punished by God. https://t.co/k1YAnjiN1h

Video Transcript AI Summary
God's wrath is mentioned, and the child should be turned over and not be in your life because they will do malicious things. They despise authority and are malevolent, twisted, wicked, and becoming vile. They are the deceiver and the slanderer, which is the point of no return. When a child slanders their dad, that is soul murder, and they are going after dad's reputation, which is harmful, like what happened with Absalom. Once a child targets you, you have to let them go.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look at the top words, His wrath has mentioned that's God. And at this point, we need to turn the child over. And do not allow, not have this child in your life. Why? Because they're going to do things that are malicious. Because straight down, despise authority, there they are, malevolent. They're not only twisted and they're wicked, but they're becoming vile. They're the deceiver and the slander, and that is the point of no return. Once a child begins to slander dad, that soul murder, he or she is is going after dad's reputation, and I call that the harmful. That is what happened with Absalom. And once a child gives evidence that they are targeting you, you have to let them go.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 28c. Despite Jon’s claim, he is NOT being slandered by Nicole. It’s not slander if it’s true. In this video, Nicole details the evidence.

@NikkiBaile238 - NikkiBailey

Thank you, Claire, for raising several, compelling questions which beg to be thoroughly addressed, re: Determining the difference between genuine safeguarders/abusers who pose as such; Is there a process by which we can determine victim vs. offender; & are there tell-tale signals which can shed light on forensic evidence?

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker addresses questions about their testimony regarding John, particularly concerning victimhood and police reports. They explain they testified only when asked by John's former associates. The speaker agrees their testimony alone isn't enough to convict John, but claims there's corroborating evidence from siblings, an ex-spouse, detransitioners, and online articles detailing past incidents. The speaker alleges John hasn't credibly refuted the evidence, instead resorting to personal attacks and generalizations. They claim many people, some anonymously due to fear, have similar experiences with John. The speaker highlights email evidence where John seemingly incriminates himself. They accuse John of lying about his credentials, including his work with sex offenders, and concealing his divorce and criminal charges. The speaker argues police reports aren't the sole determinant of a legitimate case, as abusers may file preemptive reports or victims may be unable or unwilling to file due to fear, lack of support, or the statute of limitations. They criticize John's behavior as mirroring abusive safeguarders seeking to exploit vulnerable individuals. The speaker believes John is being exposed because he preaches a false gospel and is spiritually abusive.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, Claire. I appreciate you posting. I'm gonna create a video response because I knew that people were going to want to hear my thoughts about some of these issues that you raised about whether my testimony and if there's victimhood, if it's legitimate or not. Before I came out, before I was asked by John's former business partner, Jimmy Hinton, and then Matt Osborne, if I was comfortable with giving my testimony, I didn't come forward and say that I wanted to go ahead and testify or off off of the official court record testimony. I went ahead and just responded when I was asked. And because I know that so many people will have those same questions, I thought it was worth giving a video response, which, of course, takes a bit of time. I wanted to gather my thoughts before I responded. But, you know, I think it's you've raised some really good questions that I'm comfortable with responding to, and I wanted to make sure that it doesn't seem like I'm hiding because I'm very comfortable and I appreciate, by the way, that you, mentioned your thoughts. I thought that, I appreciate your honesty and, I hear what you're saying at the end where you said, I'm looking at the screen, by the way. You said you wanna be more productive than shouting or going back and forth, and I really appreciate that. And I share the same sentiments. So what I'm gonna do is read through on my screen what you wrote. I may screenshot it and put it beside the video so people can read along if they want to, and then I wanna respond and then give my own thoughts. It's gonna be a bit lengthy because I've thought about my responses in case people ask questions for a while now. And so I have more thoughts that might not address exactly what you said, but it's gonna go off. And I think it's I hope it's gonna be very informative and helpful. I especially wanna address the misconception about what does legitimate how can we tell when someone's actually a victim? And are there signs that we can rely on that someone would be an abuser? Can we, within a certain margin, determine definitely, without doubt, that someone has been a victim or has been an abuser. So let's start with the first part of what you wrote. You said, I think if you're going to publicly accuse someone of abuse, you should be filing a police report. Have you or do you intend to? If not, why not? I don't mean to pry. I'm just trying to understand everything. By By the way, really appreciate that you're you have a sense of decency. So before I answer your question directly, I think I need to go back and explain about police reports. John, by the way, has mocked me and has come forward as one of his first responses and said, if this legitimate, where are the police reports? So let's talk about police reports, and let's talk about what would be some of those indicators that a story if we're going to focus on someone who is to my knowledge, my non expert, experience, there are several different kinds of people who deal with evidence to do with a crime, and so I'm going to use the word forensic. So in the field of criminology, to my knowledge, my non expert, experience, there's a threshold where there's not enough evidence to fully commit someone is guilty, and then there's a threshold that's crossed where there is enough evidence. So let's view this like a crime scene. My personal testimony shouldn't be enough without further evidence to convict John. And so I second your sentiments that what I've said isn't compelling enough, if that's what you're referring to, isn't compelling enough to convict John, and I never intended for what I am saying alone standing by itself, which again works against the police report issue. I never intended for my own words to convict John, and that's not how it would work in a court situation. So someone with forensic evidence has to have a multitude of evidence before a trial can happen, before the evidence is weighed. So we're just in the beginning stages, and so I second what you are saying which is there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence quite yet, and by the way, I will share with you some of the evidence that you may not be aware of that does incriminate John that's outside of what I'm saying. So we have in John's case we have not only my testimony, we have my 2 siblings who, 1, the younger one, has chosen to place them back and forth. Now it's really hard to read what that could mean. I know what that means, but we see the younger sibling not responding, the middle sibling, so my younger sibling right below me, he is actually being held hostage, quite literally, and so we are working on getting a response, actively working on that, And there's a little bit of behind the scenes work that has to be done, so that is yet to happen. Then as far as other testimony, we have, my ex spouse, my ex husband, who in his own right has come forward and spoken what he's comfortable saying. And again, if you go to my profile, you'll be able to see what, my ex spouse James has said regarding his experience and his thoughts with John. So that's the verbal testimony. We then have Matt Osborne, who has interviewed John's ex business partner. We then have other, detransitioners from the, trans community who have come forward and spoken about how they felt that John took advantage and also covertly abused them. And we have articles on line if you look up the best way to do your own research is to look up John's name, and you'll find online that John was embroiled several years back in a few different incidences. So I wanna pause right there and say, if we were trying this case as someone myself who has an interest in, legal proceedings and forensic evidence, it's significant to note that what you wanna see is the testimony of various people coming forward comes to an agreement or corroborates with very little issues. And while there may be some times where the evidence doesn't fully line up, whether it's a memory issue where a victim is remembering half of the story and then suddenly they remember some of the details later, or you have pieces of evidence that just don't surface until later. As far as this case is concerned, again, if it were on trial, with the evidence that I've presented so far and then the further evidence that I'll mention in a little bit, the overwhelming evidence and John's lack of defense. And if in case you haven't heard, John has been promising, and at some point may come out with, for the past, two and a half to three months, his own response video. Now my gut tells me that that's John's way to stall and sound official and say, well, don't worry. I have my own position coming out because he knows that what's happening is so fact based. If you look at the pushback from John, by the way, if we're looking at an abuser, I'm bouncing back and forth a lot. But I wanna say his reaction, if you go to John's page and you see what you mentioned, where he is posting private photos and videos of his children, he is, creating generalizations such as this is a slime campaign. The people involved are child anthropologists, child molesters. John has yet to provide direct evidence that would contradict the victims and the evidence that is coming forward that seems to be incriminating him. So we don't have a credible, and I'm saying this fact based, you can do your own research. We don't have a credible pushback against the evidence. And with not only so many people coming forward, which again, it could be a scandal where multiple people have been bribed to come forward, we can never look at how many people and say, the majority says this, so therefore this person is guilty. However, it is worth noting that enough people have come forward. I wanna say within 15 to 20 people, and by the way, there are more than that. They might not be aware. Some of his ex victims may not be aware that this issue has come out. There are people who have declined to speak because they are scared of John, showing up at their home quite literally and hurting them, and so they've chosen to speak under condition of remaining anonymous. There are people who just don't wanna bother with this entire thing because, quite frankly, they have better things to do with their time. So again, if we're looking at this in terms of a legal trial, we have verbal testimony not just from a key witness, but from multiple people. The testimony corroborates and agrees with virtually maybe a 1% margin of error. We have then secondly, we have email testimony, and the emails that John decided to share and send to many people, and including myself is enormously helpful because it's John's own words incriminating him. And if you look through if you just type in Euler, uhler, into x, you're going to see lots of screenshots pop up from several people that have been working on this issue. So in John's own words, he leaves hints, he leaves breadcrumbs in his emails, he pre I can't think of the word right now. He predictably programs what he's going to do in the future by making it look like an accident, by making you can tell he's hinting, and then his own actions fulfill what he said he might do. So we have email testimony from John himself that he is actually putting out that would incriminate what John has said. John has lied about his credentials, John has, and I know personally from witnessing firsthand, I would witness John lie, I also know, as many other people do, John ended up getting himself fired from the second prison that he worked at, SCI Somerset. He forged inmates' signatures on some of their treatment plans, as well as possibly some other issues. And after he was let go and his license process was stopped, John ended up pursuing a license and he was not able to, which of course he views as something that might make him look bad, it might be a black mark. In addition, because he is a marriage and family therapist in terms of his credentials, he is hiding his a divorce never happened. His first wife ended up taking her own life, but a divorce was underway. He's hidden that. He's hidden the charges that were brought him, the criminal charges that were brought against him by SCI Somerset. And John also, to further incriminate him, John wanted to get his name in lights and has always wanted to be famous. And so John's first position when he worked at SCI Crescent, about 30 minutes away from the 2nd president, SCI Somerset, he reported inmate abuse that had been going on for quite some time. And John, instead of having a good heart, you start to notice a pattern where John constantly inserts himself and looks for victims so he can play the role of rescuer and survivor and therapist so he can help individuals who are in a position of vulnerability and he can play that life saving role for them, which he then uses. And you'll see on his own he had an old account, by the way, before Elon Musk took over Twitter x. He had an old account where he would post screenshots not only from websites of with no blurs, nothing edited, of girls being abused, children being abused. He would post, private screenshots of one of his clients' journals. He claims that he got permission, but that's just not appropriate for a therapist to be posting someone's private journaling. He posts his experience with inmates and private stories that they shared that he, and I remember this, he did promise not to share. He also and this is something else John has been pushing back against. John has pretended to have worked with 4,000 plus sex offenders while he worked the two prisons for approximately 11 years. And what actually happened, and Matt Osborne has done the math, in his very first exposing John Euler article that he wrote, which you can find either under my profile or you can go to distance mag or the distance magazine and you can read that. So John would, on company time, use his time to read inmate files to familiarize himself in preparation for creating the business that he has right now, which is called, is it survivorshipport.netandchurchprotect? And Unmasking the Trans Movement is his YouTube podcast that he's been working on. So in preparation, what John did was he read inmate files, not worked with inmates that were sex offenders to the degree that he has. I'm going to estimate since John would come home almost every single night and tell us what what he did for the day, on average, the amount of sex offenders he worked with would be between a 150 to 350. Definitely no more than that. Now, no one is saying John hasn't worked with sex offenders, but John's allegations that he transferred from one prison to the next prison after shutting down the first prison because he wanted to get his name in life, didn't actually care, and this is hard to, produce evidence, but this is my allegation that John didn't actually care about the inmates given John's past history with only getting involved in handling abuse cases when it looks good for him. So John certainly can say, I stepped in, I intervened, and that's his perspective. My perspective and others' perspectives after seeing his pattern is he claims to be stepping in for people. But if you look at people who claim to be Safeguarders, who are oftentimes purposely going to put themselves because it makes them look really good. If you don't know the pattern of abusive safeguarders, you need to become aware if that's what space you're in just because they're in a space and they're saying they're there to help. What better way for wolves to get access to sheep than to be in the pen? So there isn't evidence to back up, I'm in a victim's space because I want to help them. In fact, if I or anyone else say that, please question us. Please do not just accept us wholeheartedly. The risk of overlooking red flags and just hearing what someone says. By the way, let me remind you, you don't know me, you're hearing my words, you're as you should be, looking at how I'm conducting myself, you're picking up on anything that could be a red flag, and the problem is though, I am here behind a screen making a video. I can be portraying myself any way that I want to. And it's up to you to decide based on a mere video what do what are your thoughts about me? Same thing with John. You never met John. Most people don't know him personally, and yet they see the profile and the way that he puts himself and portrays himself online as every abuser wants to, and they're concluding something from what they see behind the screen. Now I will say, if you follow John enough, you will notice enough red flags, as many people have, that would lead you to conclude, even if you didn't know what was going on, that he's not a safe person. So we don't listen to the words, including my words. We look at the evidence. And a police report is not necessarily a way to determine if a case is legitimate. So I am on the very first part of what you wrote and this has to do with a very huge issue that is often raised. Again, John has mocked me coming out as I expected him to saying where are the police reports? Well, there's several reasons why, but let me before I explain my position, let's talk about why police reports being a part and factoring in may or may not be a legitimate reason to believe a victim or an abuser. Number 1, did you know that in an effort to sidestep justice, abusers often go to law enforcement and file a police report to circumvent future reports. That way when a victim comes, you can imagine the police are going to having hardly any time on their hands. The police only want to investigate cases which they believe are worth their time. And a police report is only going to be made if there's good cause. So the problem is an abuser will often make a police report with good cause, with lots of evidence, and then when the victim comes forward months or years later, what happens? The police go back through, find the name of the victim, read the report that the abuser submitted, and then the victim has been preemptively stopped in their process of filing anything because the police are going to say, well, looks like you're the problem here. You know, actually, we have a report on you, and then everything falls apart. So number 1, abusers often will go to the police and file a report. So let's say that John has done that. John can make up whatever he wants. And often victims or abusers will make up claims that sound terrible so that the police will be so overwhelmed with allegations, police don't even wanna get involved. Because again, they have to spend their time wisely. I'm not faulting police. I'm saying there are also, individuals in law enforcement that like being in power, which also creates the issue of abusers being in positions of power. So there are plenty of instances, even if police do want to help, where a victim is turned away because the individual is also an abuser who's working in law enforcement. That happens so many more times than I would like to believe. So having a police report may, again, may or may not be an indication of a real situation. Now let's say a victim does go and file a police report. Let's say that let's use myself now. If I had someone who was on my side and in the law, they were giving me the benefit of the doubt, what would happen is they need to have good cause to not only file a report, but to press any kind of charges because the law actually has to work with the victims. Some people believe that you file a report and then the case in law proceeds, but that's not exactly how it works. So if a police report were filed, and by the way, a case can be brought against an individual whether or not a police report is filed. So, there is also what what is called the statute of limitations where time runs out in certain states at a different amount of time, a different rate depending on the state. So someone may be able to bring a report, someone may not be able to bring a report. And then it comes to the issue of, let's say a victim is brainwashed and is raised in a cult and is also told and their life is threatened, it's going to be unrealistic to expect a victim who oftentimes does not have a support system. It's unrealistic to expect them to feel the need to file a report when they are actually putting themselves in jeopardy. Not only that, abuse victims just want to start a new life. They want to move on. And so filing a report, going through the process of the legal the legal process, the court process that's expensive, and even if they file pro se themselves, it takes so much emotional energy and time. Not only that, they need to get a trauma informed therapist, and they're working through their emotions. And on average, it takes at least 2 to 3 years to realize if you're actively working on your trauma, to realize what's happened. And then it takes on average another 2 to 3 years to get to place, so about 6 years, to get to the place where you feel that you could file a report. So going back to the statute of limitations, the law has enacted a statute of limitations, which by the way, comes from people in power not wanting to be exposed because they know, by the way, that it is a fact that victims oftentimes do not come forward. And so they put a statute of limitations, which by the way, were exactly put in place by people in power. It shouldn't be a thing. The fact that there are people decades later who are getting in touch with what happened, they are able to, for the first time, explain the abuse, identify that something was abused. Because if you are made to feel like you're the golden child and the term golden child means that you're being rewarded, you are not experiencing as much abuse as the other people in your family. They don't really have a reason to look at the person who was abusing them and see it as abuse. If someone is a black sheep and is the person that's receiving on the receiving end of the most abuse, well, they would often times be too scared to come forward. So in my case, I was both the golden child and the black sheep. So that puts me in a bit of a unique position. So when we look at statutes of limitations, why they prevent victims and then keep victims. It's like a nondisclosure agreement and NDA. Statutes of limitations work the same way. Once time has run out, it is very difficult, and some states are working to get statutes of limitations taken away. But right now, that's a major issue. So when we look at the process of healing, of getting to the place where you are brave enough, ready enough, you have a support system, that's the most difficult thing. An abuser will talk to your friends and family and prevent you, as did John, from me having a support system. So people will say, well, where are the other people? And in this case, by the way, there are enough people, if we're looking at forensic evidence, that John would have enough individuals coming to speak out with enough stories that corroborate that it wouldn't be hard to find John guilty under just verbal testimony. So when we go back and we look at a situation like mine, I don't have anyone that was permitted by John to be in my life. Gee, I wonder why. Given the fact that they don't want anyone coming forward. I have exactly one person that I was allowed to see and interact with, in my entire childhood and young adulthood. And so I have since learned the value of not allowing an abuser to strip away your friendships and communication, but that that happens especially when you're raised by an abuser. And so you have to remember, if someone is raised by an abuser, they're going to have to come out of a life that they've always known, which is about 20 years for people that have not been kicked out or been in foster care from the time they were a young child. So if you have 20 years that you're not even sure what's going on, it's going to take probably that same amount of time so the average person who's actually going to be, if they're working on their trauma, in a position to speak out, in a position to be healthy. I just turned 30 this year, and I have worked on my trauma more than most people that I know. So the average person would probably be in their forties to mid forties. And that's what I tend to see a lot, is people who have already been married, possibly once or twice, they have children, and now they're in a position where if they had a childhood of abuse, I'm only referring to that situation, they have a family and now they're afraid that they're traumatizing their family because they're experiencing all these emotions, they're in therapy, they're getting in touch with what happened to them, which again, statute of limitations probably has run out by that time. Now let's take a situation where you get to know an abuser in a situation such as marriage or friendship or business partnership. If you have prior childhood trauma, you will possibly not see red flags and could very likely get involved in another abusive situation. Now thankfully there are people who are able to heal in time and wake up and that doesn't happen to them, but when you have a situation that's different and it's more voluntary in a sense that you're getting to know someone as an adult that is abusive. It's there's not as much pressure as there would be on a child who's a child of an abuser. There are more avenues for help. There's a greater knowledge base. Right? You would hear from places online, from maybe other resources, that there is help. There's therapy. There's many different ways that you can work on yourself. So an adult is always going to be more well equipped. So I wanna say, when people say why didn't a child of abuse, why didn't a young victim file a police report? I think that should answer its own question. We can't come to any victim and tell them how they should be responding. We cannot come to a victim who's an adult and say, you made the wrong choice because I guarantee you that piles on to the guilt and the shame, the false guilt and shame, and the dreams, the nightmares, the literal dreams and nightmares of how could I have done that over again? I wish I could redo that. There's such regret and such loss. And so to say to a victim, you could have done it differently when there are so many factors of why they didn't that we need to believe they didn't do it for a very good reason. So when we're talking to a victim who is a child, there's no place to say, where is the police report? How could there be? That that wouldn't even make a difference because let's say the child came forward, would they be believed? Would the adults in their life call them a liar? How would they be able to stand up against highly, in John's case, a highly emotionally manipulative parent who knows how to say all the right things, who puts on a face and then knows how to take it off. Would a child, if there was a police report, and the answer is no. What is the likelihood that a child would be able to look that person in the eye without fear and be able to carry through? It doesn't mean that the child didn't want to file a report. I can't tell you how many years my brother and I wanted to file a report. And yet because abusers oftentimes intentionally put themselves in positions such as law enforcement, positions such as attorneys, doctors, pastors, and positions where there is trust and victims involved. The victim knows they have no power. And to go to law enforcement would exploit them further. I wanna say that again. You or anyone else who says, where are the reports are assuming that a victim should be exploited further if they didn't feel safe. It's important to recognize that. John, again, many abusers mock their victims saying, where are the police reports? The police reports are what they want. Let me also spin it a different direction. Imagine if a police report gave you a record, right, in the law system that you as an abuser have already spoken and given your side. That's a permanent record. How is a victim going to counter when, again, your point, Claire, is I don't see enough evidence. Well, that's exactly what law enforcement and the court is going to say. They're going to pull up the records and say, do we have any records in the past? And if they do, it could be so long ago that now the victim is also trying to play double duty saying, how do I answer the current allegations and the past? So my decision is I'm not going to focus and I don't believe many of us should focus as the sole focus on police reports because it is evidence that can be muddied. Anyone who deals with forensics knows you want to be very careful, and you want to kind of consider as a third option any evidence that's muddied. They will put that on the back burner because we wanna deal with the current evidence. So let me keep reading what you have. 2nd paragraph, I myself am a victim of several types of abuses. I'm going to keep it private by the way in case you don't want people knowing, but I don't name the people publicly because I cannot prove it. I am always a bit hesitant to take a side in a public he said, she said, because I have known as many vindictive, lying, evil women as I have men. To your point in my story, Trisha Euler, who was my mom, John's first wife, was the main abuser and aggressor. And I have seen also, to your point, many women who masquerade as safe women. And in fact, the number of abusive women has risen recently. So I fully see your point on that. I wanna pause really quickly and dig in to where you said, I don't name people publicly because I cannot prove it. I'm a bit hesitant to take a place in a side in a back and forth. You know, that is an assumption, and you're entitled to believe that, by the way. It's an assumption that we can't prove something, so it's not worth coming forward. You know, what abusers don't want, and I hope to validate you in this, what abusers don't want is someone speaking out. So what they'll do is they'll minimize saying, where are the police reports? Where is the evidence? It's not big enough. You haven't done well enough. Did you know that after I posted, after I gave my testimony, John said, I don't know you. I don't know who this person is. You don't have enough testimony. Good try. Nice try. That wasn't enough. You just you just hit the tip of the iceberg. There's more. Good luck next time. John is mocking me because he wants there to be such distress on my part and such trauma. He's trying to re traumatize me. So I just wanna say, why wouldn't you wanna come out? Why wouldn't you? I'm not saying you specifically. Why isn't it worth it? And for some people it is not and it's not the right time and so this is not me blaming anyone. I'm saying for myself, I have made the decision that even if nothing happens in terms of justice, I want the process of my healing to include speaking my truth, which is very validating, by the way. If you've never done that, I think you should give yourself the benefit of the doubt. Speak even to yourself. Journal, record your voice, tell your story. It doesn't need to be public. I was comfortable doing that, and I am no better than anyone else. I just was given this opportunity, and I felt ready. But I will tell you, there would have definitely been a time that I would not have been ready. So there's no shame that we should not be telling anyone how they should process, how they should speak out. That is inappropriate. That is not our place to say that. Everyone else has a very private story. We need to honor that. Just for me, this is what I felt comfortable with doing. Now I will tell you as someone who was unsure how this would affect me, it's been so positive. Not only have I had the support of people coming forward, and by the way, I did not speak out because I wanted support. I am so used to not having support and being torn down, by people that knew John, that John had spoken ill of about me, that I've gone through most of my life with no support. So this wasn't to get support. This was because I knew it's better to speak out for me than to hold it all in because why suffer in silence? You know? And even though I'd moved to a place of peace and I'd moved a place of having a life, it felt so freeing to not be carrying these secrets inside. So I wanna encourage anyone that's curious, speak it out loud to yourself. Have some personal time. Talk about it. Maybe that will help. It's helped me tremendously. Going to the next part, you said, I've seen the photos your dad shared, and you all look very happy. I know this isn't evidence and pictures can lie, but I think abused children often have a look about the eyes and a look about them, and you can't mistake it when you see the when you were also an abused child. You seemed like normal people. The body language was close in the photos, etcetera, with genuine smiles, but then what do I know? So I appreciate, by the way, that you are giving the benefit of the doubt. The photos. So one thing that I find interesting about photos of children who have been abused is there are times where you can tell. I agree. Eyes have been statistically shown for abusers, by the way, I would say, look at John's eyes. John's eyes are actually a giveaway of an abuser. The eyes of me and my brothers, if I'm talking just about us. So my brother and I have autism, so we always have a photo face. It's our it's our canned face. And I remember in some of the photos, we were told to smile. In other ones, we were told to or we had just had a rare wonderful moment, so it may have been a genuine smile. And with children, yes, you can and you can't tell. It depends on the age. Right? Young children, you can tell, almost always. And I've done enough research on the eyes of victims and the eyes of abusers, and I know exactly what you're saying. What I would say is, first of all, look at John's eyes. There are some photos where he's getting what he wants, so he's genuinely happy. You will see he's genuinely happy in those photos. But when it comes to, happy in those photos. But when it comes to body language, there are so many factors that we can and can't take into account. So when it comes to photos, I think, if you're looking at our photos, you wouldn't know if we were told to stand close. You think if you're looking at our photos, you wouldn't know if we were told to stand close. You wouldn't know when we were told what to do. And so that's not a good metric or indicator if something would be true or not. The next part. I did listen to your recordings discussing it, and I didn't find your testimony compelling if I am honest. I know that isn't nice to hear. Your tone was pretty flat throughout the entire thing. There was little emotion, and that can indicate that someone is lying or has a personality disorder. So I get where you're coming from. I'm also very attuned, to people's tone and people's body language. You know, a misconception about autism is that we are not aware, but actually we're hyper aware. It's a safety, reflex. So first of all, super aware that my voice is flat. When Matt interviewed me, it was just a voice interview. I was nervous, and so I didn't wanna appear overly emotional. I kind of have highs and lows where sometimes I'm emotional and sometimes I'm not. So in an effort to sound believable, I didn't wanna sound overly emotional. So I did purposely make my voice flatter. So that's true. It is flat. By the way, I haven't listened to my voice voice testimony from what Matt recorded because the details are so horrific and awful for me to relive that I actually have not listened to any of my voice testimony. My my ex husband, James, did, but I haven't. So I haven't even listened to myself. I just wanted to add that and say, I totally know what you're saying. My voice is flat, especially when I'm nervous. And so I was wanting to convey that I wasn't being overly emotional because you know what people say about women. They say they're emotional, they can't be believed. And I was actually nervous that someone would say, if she's too emotional or aggressive, she's faking it. She's putting on the emotion. So I'd kinda rather be flat, but I understand what you're saying. Now the personality disorder, that's actually not an indication, necessarily. I think that's pulling a little bit too much out. If you look at vocal tone and you look at if you watch some YouTube videos on forensic, body language psychoanalysts, I think, they they do measure vocal tone. But what I've seen is ah, there it is. They're going to measure the overall consistency. So if you watch 10 videos, and you see or you watch a part of a video, or you listen and you grab a part that sounds normal and then a part that might be unusual, you wanna measure the unusual part against the part that is the majority. So what you said actually would disagree with the facts in your tone was pretty flat throughout the entire thing. Therefore, if it's flat the entire way, yes, you don't have a way of knowing if that's how I talk or not, but also if there isn't anything unusual, no unusual spikes changes, then that could indicate someone is actually telling the truth. So I just wanted to add that. But again, I'm very hyper aware of people's voice. I do like to analyze them, so I'm totally right there with you. Now next part. Now I'm not saying you are lying or mental, appreciate that, but it does mean I would require more evidence to believe a man who dedicates his career to exposing abusers that he is actually one given all of the above that I mentioned. I hope you and your father can reconcile in some way if he is innocent. If he isn't, I hope they lock him up and throw away the key. God bless. Thanks for reading my long comment. I think it's more productive than shouting or going back and forth. Okay. Appreciate the last part, by the way. So the assumption, again, is a bit of a dangerous one to assume that a man who has dedicated his career. On the surface, yes, and I see where you're coming from. John had me fooled somewhat, thinking that he was an abuse advocate. And you'll have to stay tuned if you wanna know more throughout the videos that I post. Again, this video that I've made is directed to answer, specific questions I knew people would have. So I will say I wish that my father really did, dedicate his career to exposing abusers, but that's not what I see. When you look at John's obsessive interest in abuse psychology, victim psychology. When you look at what safeguarding abusers, and I mean safeguarding in quotations, what safeguarding abusers will say will do, John's actions and words match up. When you look at how he has treated abuse victims in the past, there was an incident where and I can share some screenshots with you, where John was making fun of a woman who came out years ago. John's favorite pastor is named John MacArthur. In fact, many of the men that John follow have been exposed for severe and serious abuse. John MacArthur has also been very abusive, and he has a university that's called the Masters University. A woman came forward as, Jane Doe as her name being undisclosed. There were police reports. So I just wanna show you how John has switched from saying where are the police reports? This woman came forward. John has a man crush on John MacArthur and he was angry. John was angry that John MacArthur was being outed as an abuser. So instead of hearing what the woman said, he said, this woman is not legitimate because she hasn't revealed her name. She hasn't called out the abusers, which, of course, was John's attempt to get the woman to come forward so he could abuse her, so he could dox her, so he could find out her friends, her family, and do what he always does, which is, turn things into a cult, turn people against the victim. Well, now that his John's own daughter has come for me, instead of him admitting, wow, she's not hiding, as he loves to say to people online. If you look at some of the quotes that he said, it's you're hiding. That means you're a perp. That means you don't wanna be known. So here I come boldly with videos, with evidence, with more evidence still to come. And instead of him saying, that's that's exactly what I would need to know I was an abuser. Why would he call himself out as an abuser? Now the story is where are the police reports? So instead of believing Jane Doe's police reports, it was you're hiding behind your name, behind your anonymous, source of a name. And now that his daughter has come forward, it's where are the police reports. And if there were police reports, and if I came forward, it would be, wow, she really loves to make up lies, which by the way he said that about me, that I'm unstable, that I am emotionally manipulative, that I lie, that I, am siding with abusers. However, he won't prove where I'm lying, and he just blocked me the other day because he doesn't which is not smart for him because now he doesn't know what I'm posting about him. But he doesn't have anything to say against the evidence. So I wish that he were a safe guarder. I wish that he cared about victims, but that's just not what we see. So he was making fun and, being very vindictive and posting resources for women that were defending Jane that were quote unquote attacking John MacArthur, and these resources were from other abusers. John has stated that he loves to play games with people. He loves to breadcrumb. He loves to really play the part of a safe guarder. And you don't have to take my word for that. When you watch John's behavior, he has the duper's delight smile, which is a smile that abusers have, where they love the fact that they are receiving or playing a role that's genuine. And so you'll see John do that in many of his videos and photos. He also will lie boldly, and you see documents that are coming forward now. He's lied saying he wasn't married before he was married to a second wife. He was never, indicted and had criminal charges from the 2nd prison he worked at. He has had experience with 4,000 plus, which he then changed the number years ago, 4,000 plus sex offenders. He lied about that. On average, it's 150 350. He lied about his passion about protecting victims. I will say John was never passionate about protecting sex abuse victims or being in the space of trans until it was popular. He was never into that. He lies and says that he knew about furries, but yet we don't see or hear him speaking about furries until 2020 when he says that he knew and, was going to speak out about it a lot sooner. He lies and says that he has worked with abuse victims for years, when really he didn't start out with abuse victims. He even in one of his unmasking the trans podcast that he did in 2 weeks prior, I think, he said, I'm not a trauma informed therapist, then he referred to the woman he was with on the podcast and said, I know you are a trauma informed therapist. Then 2 to 3 weeks later, he said he was a trauma informed therapist. Basically, John says things he doesn't live up to them. There's evidence in plenty of emails, plenty of photos online that would go to the contrary. So we just wanna look at the evidence. We don't wanna take Nicole my testimony. We don't wanna just take things and view them as just one incident. We wanna look at the overall flow, what do we see, and what we see makes someone look pretty guilty. Now I wanna say this is the last point. Safeguarders need to have a motive that comes from a place of genuine care and desire. If you look at people like John, they have figured out the age old tactic of appearing to be a sheep and knowing how to speak the language, literally spending research hours figuring out how to look like a sheep. And the red flags that appear is John is more interested in his reputation. And while he does, no one is disputing. You can prove, if you would like to, that anyone is disputing that everything John says is false. That would make him way too obvious. He says intentionally things that he knows makes him look good that are mostly true, and then he gives his own spin, or he misleads people, or he omits facts. John is the classic. He gives 10% truth and 90% lie. He predictably programs and says, if I were to, and then he does exactly that. So when you're looking at a liar posing as a safeguarded, we should expect things to not line up. We should expect that there is a mask. Once the mask begins to slip, we need to pay attention to those red flags. Now, I wanna clarify last and first and foremost, the people speaking out against John, who are coming as part of this movement right now, the majority of them are not coming against John because of what he's saying about trans, because what he's saying about furries. And some people are saying, John's receiving a lot of hate, but, you know, abusers oftentimes get protected because they're saying, look how much people hate them. That must be on that must mean that they're onto something good. That must mean that they are being attacked because they're in the right. You'll see that a lot as part of a campaign to protect the abuser. Now, granted that people who come across John, like yourself, are not familiar, and I'm not saying that you're purposely protecting John. What I'm saying is, we need to understand that John's position is that he is an expert in whatever he decides he's going to be an expert in. So in this case, John has decided that he's going to be an expert in trans and in furries because it makes him popular. It gets him money. It gets him views. He wants to be John has always done this. John's pattern is to find, just like he reported this first prison that he worked out without supposed pure motives, he wanted to get his name in headlights. And he uses, I reported the prison, to appear famous. And then when he got fired, he then retaliated by getting his prior boss fired. But he did not report his boss in the 4 to 5 years between the prison being shut down and John being fired. So you look and you see there are just things that do not add up. So to end, what qualifies someone to be a safeguarded? That's a broad question. I think the motive is going to be difficult to tell on the surface. Someone who has a camera is an actor for all we know. You don't know me, and you should question what I'm saying. And when we find evidence to the contrary, we need to start stacking it up. We need to start believing what we're seeing. When we see pushback, either against the abuser or against people that are quote, unquote the victims, we need to understand that there could be ulterior motives and handle it with a grain of salt. So as far as I'm concerned, I will continue to speak out. You are free to hear what I say or not to. Either way, I will continue to speak out. And I am confident as someone that believes that is a holy spirit filled believer, as a born again believer, that God brings truth and God brings all things to light. John's biggest reason why he's being exposed is because he preaches a false Jesus. He preaches a false gospel, and God is not pleased with him. I can tell you that for sure. John has boldly gone into a space in which he knows very little about and has also abused people spiritually. And as I believe there is a real God, that real God is coming back against John telling him, you better watch what you're saying because he's listening. And so I know for a fact that the real God is giving John justice. John is maligning who God is. John is treading in very dangerous territory. He has posed himself as an abuse advocate. He also, in case you didn't know, he is very spiritually abusive. And I believe as a holy spirit filled born again believer, God is very angry with him. And God is finally answering not only my prayers, but the prayers of many abuse victims. And in case you haven't noticed, there are many pastors around the US that are finally being exposed for their dark crimes. That, I believe, is God directly stepping in and finally exposing what's happening. And so I just wanna say, John has unfortunately entered into dangerous territory where he's using the name of God. He's twisting what who God is. He's twisting God's justice. He's literally John told me, I condemn you and damn you to hell and the lake of fire because I represent God. John has stepped into shoes that are too big for him to fill. He has played a double life. And so really at the end of this is John's spiritual abuse catching up with him. And so he can no longer play God. That's why he's so angry. And anyone that pretends to be a follower of Jesus and takes the position that John has, Jesus had very very strong words. God had very words when he was here on this earth and condemned anyone that uses a position of God and a position of truth, and then takes someone and abuses them further. In fact, did you know God in the flesh, Jesus, said, it would be better in the long run for someone who is an abuser, who is taking someone and discouraging a victim, and abusing them for a millstone to be put you think a millstone was a very large stone, very heavy, placed around the neck of an abuser, and then to be dropped into an abyss of the ocean, than for them to face God not only in the next life in the prison of hell, which is located under the earth, and for them to be thrown into the lake of fire after the great white throne judgment, it would be better for them to self destruct and to take themselves out than to face what's coming. That is what's happening to John. My prayers to God are being answered directly. And so there is nowhere John can run and can hide. And I just wanna say on behalf of everyone that has been spiritually abused, that is hearing what I'm saying, God sees you, God hears you, ask him for justice, he's going to give that to you. And God does not tolerate liars. So no matter what John says or what John does, I'm not here to defend or protect or speak out against or take any position other than that which is true. And I hope that you would do the same. So true is going to win out, and thank the Lord that we do still have truth. And so I believe that God is leading, people to see the truth about John, and John and his blindness and his pride is now going too far in what he's saying in terms of trying to shut down this investigation, in terms of him not having answers to what has been brought against him, in terms of him playing the role of God, telling people who do love the real God, that they are going to hell, that they are, damned, and what a convenient way, right, to hold all the power, and be willing to believe that you are someone special and chosen as John does. So be careful with how much you get involved with John. I would encourage anyone who's questioning what's being said, as they should be to look at some of the backlog of photo, text, email evidence, and really just consider the weight of that. Thank you for listening. I hope that what I've shared even though it's long is an end up look at why John is just another spiritual abuser posing as a safeguarded who is unqualified and is going to be dethroned from his position. So thank you, and I hope to have further conversations that are helpful and see if we can make progress in coming against abusive people.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

@DistMag @OsborneInk 29. A thread containing some info related to Jon’s abruptly-ended video of his interview with former colleague, Ken Herdman.

@autogampegg - respectable egg

It’s been TWO WHOLE YEARS and @uhler_jon still hasn’t posted part 3 of his interview with former prison psych staff colleague, Ken Herdman. Why not? 1/ https://t.co/FXF7CTYpkX

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions the safety of transferring inmates, particularly those identifying as women, into women's institutions. He claims that while about 50% may be labeled sex offenders, the remaining half may still pose a danger due to plea bargaining practices. This can result in individuals who committed sex-related crimes not being officially classified as sex offenders in their records. Speaker 1 echoes this concern, suggesting that regardless of sex offender status, placing any long-term male inmate in a women's prison is inherently risky. The interview with Ken Herdman is then cut short due to time.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And the question is, are we putting dangerous inmates and is it ever safe to send any mail in there? My contention and then I'll ask you the question. My contention is, you can have a lot of different guys apply for, so suddenly identify with a woman, they'll say, well, about 50% are sex offenders. That on paper looks like, well, the other half wouldn't be dangerous. That's because people don't understand about the plea bargaining situation. Can somebody commit a sex related crime, get charges but not be convicted so on paper in their file, it appears like they are not a sex offender. Speaker 1: I'm trying to collect my thoughts. Sex offender or not, you take a guy who's going to be locked up for a number of years, sex offender or not, transfer him into a women's institution, and what the hell do you think is going to happen? Speaker 0: Well, we'll have to interrupt the interview with Ken Herdman at this point due to time constraints, but be sure to join us for the 3rd and final part of this important interview.
View Full Interactive Feed