reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 is upset because they are being denied entry. They threaten to call the police and challenge the other person's legal status. Speaker 0 mentions having a citywide water certificate, but it is not applicable to the current location. They suggest talking outside and mention having multiple certificates. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking the other person to read a line that states the certificate is valid everywhere.

- Speaker 0: "There you go. No. You're doing that. Can't talk. I'm not allowed." - Speaker 0: "Okay. Yeah. Thank you. We'll give it a try later." - Speaker 0: "I'll get on and take a phone call and see if she's going."

Two speakers discuss going into the capital tomorrow, insisting on a plan despite hesitation. They oscillate between urgency and caution: "Tomorrow, we need to go into the capital" and "I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested." They try to keep the rhetoric "Peaceful" and "Fed" in the mix, then confirm aloud: "We need we need to go I'll say it. Alright." A sharply cut interjection—"Shut the fuck up, Uber"—is followed by: "To the capital." They label it as "Based Fed posting? Yeah. Need to go into the capital." The exchange ends with a resigned acknowledgment: "I didn't see that coming in. Okay."

Speaker 0 describes having friends in the US embassy in Belize and knowing what was coming. He says he arranged with the head of security to enter the embassy, but the head of security told him, “we have it from the highest authority. We are not to allow you entry into the US embassy. Understand me.” He asserts, “Who was the highest authority in the state department? Hillary Clinton.” He emphasizes that he is an American citizen with “a fucking American passport,” stating, “I'm sorry. I'm not wanted in America. I've got no crimes in America. Is it not reason to say, I don't think I'm gonna vote for you?” Speaker 1 notes, “And yet you're here now.” Speaker 0 explains that for a month and a half he was on the run. He claims the government wanted to collect him because, after they raided his property in 2012 in the jungle, they shot his dog, abused him, and destroyed “a half million dollars worth of my property over a bogus charge.” He says he was pissed off and then “donated too many secretaries within the government laptop computers, really nice ones that were preloaded with viral spyware.” He contends that within a week, “the entire government computer system was in under my control. I was watching, monitoring, listening.” He continues that he was looking for information that they had set him up for that raid, and he didn’t find that. Instead, he discovered that “the minister of national defense was the largest drug trafficker in all of Central America, and the minister of immigration, the largest human trafficker.” Speaker 1 responds, “We don't wanna get killed by them either, so we're probably not—” and Speaker 0 agrees, “You're not gonna,” adding, “That's fine.”

Speaker 0 asks if they can go out and expresses concern about getting arrested or shot.

Is there any chance you'd like to do an interview for our documentary? Yeah, I ain't gonna lie. We need to get out of here. Alright, let's back up. Joe, record it when it comes back. We're in a bad area, and people are looking at us with the windows down. I’m getting in front of you all. Let’s go.

Speaker 0 asks whether you need to show ID, questions if that has a warrant, and asks if you don’t have an ID.

Speaker 0 is being arrested for holding a sign, but it is unclear why. The speaker asks Leslie why they are being arrested, but there is no response. The speaker mentions that they are still blocking something, but it is not specified what it is.

Speaker 0 asks if someone is at their door, while Speaker 1 suggests leaving and says it's not possible to do what Speaker 0 is asking. Speaker 0 repeats their question about someone being at their door.

Speaker 0 says, “They doing too much, man, and they keep pushing people. You know?” Speaker 1 erupts, “Oh, shit. What the fuck? They killed my did they fucking kill that guy? Are you fucking kidding me, dude? Not again. Are you fucking kidding me? That guy's dead. Yo. We need people on”

Speaker 0 notices the trailer lights are off and asks Speaker 1 to find them, emphasizing that driving in the dark is unsafe. Speaker 1 repeats that he doesn’t know where the lights are and has been trying to locate them. Speaker 0 questions how long Speaker 1 has had his CDL, and Speaker 1 responds two months. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief that someone with a two-month CDL doesn’t know where the lights are, noting that he has been driving in the dark and stressing that it’s not acceptable. Speaker 1 reiterates that he’s trying to find the lights but cannot. Speaker 0 scolds him for driving in the dark and asks if he truly has a CDL, stating that he doesn’t want to be rude but implies that Speaker 1 may be causing an accident. Speaker 1 acknowledges awareness of the potential danger but continues to say he’s trying to locate the light. Speaker 0 asks to see Speaker 1’s CDL and then abruptly dismisses the request, muttering that perhaps Speaker 1 doesn’t have it. He repeats the question about the CDL and asks where it is, suggesting that the two-month CDL might not be valid or real. Speaker 1 confirms again that he has had the CDL for two months. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is from here or from America, indicating a language or origin line of questioning, and then hands the CDL back to Speaker 1, telling him to take it back and that he’s good to go but reiterates that he doesn’t think Speaker 1 should be driving. In closing, Speaker 0 reiterates his concern and lets Speaker 1 leave, acknowledging that he is not going to stop him but making it clear that he does not believe Speaker 1 should be driving. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 warning again that driving in the present condition is unsafe and implying that Speaker 1 may be unfit to operate a vehicle.

The speaker expresses concern about the police lines and Antifa presence. They discuss breaking into a location and the potential consequences. They mention losing someone named Rico and speculate on his ability to walk. The speaker emphasizes respecting the police and mentions tear gas. They discuss which direction to go and express frustration. The conversation ends with a mention of letting everyone in and the possibility of being trapped.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to keep going for safety. Speaker 1 disagrees and is asked to leave. Speaker 1 mentions harm caused. Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 they don't have to stay for the recording.

Tomorrow, we're planning to peacefully go into the capital to address our problems. We don't want to be arrested or harmed, so we should be cautious. However, one person asks if we'll all get arrested, to which another person replies affirmatively.

Speaker 0: Fighting. No. The police have just crossed it. They back there, girl. Wait. I know. I know that you're ready.

Speaker 0 says they are hot and can't see the police lines. They tell others to keep their eyes open for Antifa, stating that Antifa is all over. Speaker 0 asks where Rico is and then says they see him. Speaker 0 asks if Trump is still walking here. Speaker 1 says "they're suiting up." Speaker 0 says that "they're gonna trap everyone in."

Tomorrow, we need to go to the capital, but we can't say it out loud because we might get arrested. We should go there to address our problems, but it's a risky move. We're unsure if we'll get arrested or shot. Can they arrest all of us?

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 about serving a restraining order against a newsroom, asking if they’ve ever done so against a journalist. Speaker 1 responds that he isn’t sure, and notes he may have served someone without knowing their occupation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the newsroom’s First Amendment rights, saying it prohibits restraining orders against reporting what people say, calling it a fundamental constitutional right. Speaker 1 explains the document is “a court order signed by a judge Mhmm. Out of Miami. All we're doing is serving to you.” Speaker 0 pushes back, implying the situation is serious and indicating they want to speak with the judge involved. Speaker 1 points to the restraining order and says, “It’s all yours,” and that Speaker 0 is responsible for everything in the restraining order. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for being there and mentions he will tell the courts about video of a man saying he wants to kill him. Speaker 1 says he has no idea about that claim. Speaker 0 reflects on the state of the country, stating, “One of the problems in this country is that we're in a constitutional crisis,” and shares personal views that they report people breaking the law, and that those people are never held accountable. He says he’s the one who’s brought to court, arrested, and sued, while “the American people are just pissed off.” He acknowledges Speaker 1’s role and expresses being upset and discouraged. Speaker 0 speaks about maintaining hope despite oppression, noting that people look up to him and that he’s the one who keeps getting held accountable. He asks Speaker 1 to understand what he’s saying. Speaker 0 asserts that something must change “not for my sake, but for our children's sake,” and reiterates the constitutional crisis claim. Speaker 0 recognizes that Speaker 1 is simply doing a job but shares his frustration and desperation, asking why he should continue if it only brings pain, punishment, and abuse. Speaker 0 concedes there’s nothing Speaker 1 can do and that they are in this country’s current situation, acknowledging the police presence bringing him to court and questioning why he should keep going.

The speaker is asked about their thoughts as the police advance. They state that they have a job to do and will stand their ground. They have no plans to leave and if forced to, they will see what happens. They mention that the police are not supposed to enter their vehicle as it is their home. They compare the situation to being in a movie and express that they are not optimistic, as they believe they have already won.

The speaker is having a conversation with someone named Dave. They are discussing whether or not they should go out somewhere and if they will get arrested or shot if they do. They mention that there are about a dozen people involved. They also ask if they can go up somewhere, but it is unclear if they are allowed. The speaker reiterates that they don't want to get arrested or shot.

Speaker 0: Make one. Make one. You're wrong. Get out. Your microphone. Hey. What what can we do to help you? Hey. You guys no. That ain't gonna happen. Hey. How can we get you out of here safely? Hello, everyone.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to turn off the car and get out, repeatedly saying "stop." Speaker 1 refuses and drives away, prompting Speaker 0 to report shots fired.

Tomorrow, we're planning to go to the capital, but we need to be careful not to say it out loud. We want to peacefully address our problems there. We didn't expect to actually enter the capital. We're concerned about getting arrested or shot. Can they arrest all of us?

An individual questions whether an action is due to security concerns or intimidation. The response indicates it is a security matter. Another person is told to stay away from someone. An individual asks why they aren't being arrested and demands to see video footage. Someone is told to calm down. An individual states "They will arrest me. I know nothing." Another person is asked if they would arrest someone else, claiming to have seen that person slap someone. It is asserted that no one said "stab him." Someone states they are on the side of another person.

Tomorrow, we need to go into the capital. I don't even want to say it out loud because I could get arrested. But we need to go. Shut up, Uber. No, bad idea. Okay, fine. Let's go. But wait, will we get arrested? Will we get shot? Do we all need to be arrested?