reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: Talked about a bike accident and something about the chest. Speaker 1: Mentioned dust, smoke, and oil. Speaker 2: Discussed a woman named Elizabeth de Bruk who is involved in some kind of illegal activities related to organ extraction. She had connections in Ukraine and Georgia. Speaker 3: Talked about the woman's criminal activities and her association with a person named Mikhail. Mentioned scandals related to organ trafficking. Speaker 1: Described how the woman's style of work changed and she started performing organ extractions without consent. Speaker 3: Mentioned that the woman had a foundation and worked in Ukraine. Speaker 1: Talked about the woman's involvement in illegal organ trafficking and how she would perform surgeries on injured individuals. Speaker 0: Mentioned someone named Vladimir and talked about organ trafficking in Ukraine. Speaker 2: Discussed how some individuals were taken to America or Romania after being injured and their organs were harvested. Speaker 4: Described the conditions created by the Ukrainian regime for illegal organ trafficking and experimentation. Speaker 0: Mentioned a medical center where people witnessed individuals involved in organ trafficking leaving the area.

Speaker 0: I know a little about human trafficking. The human trafficking portfolio fell underneath me in the counterterrorism shop where I was ahead. I worked with Tim Ballard at the White House to stamp out human and child sex trafficking. He was doing incredible work back then. Speaker 1: I'm the bad guy in the story. Last week, I got a call from some of the accusers, and what they're accusing him of is really not just—they're just really bad stuff. Really, really bad things. At first, because I've been friends with Tim for so long, I thought, that's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Blew by them. Ridiculous. Until they persisted, and I started hearing more. I just heard somebody had filed in the HR complaints or something. Like, that's not possible. Well, the more the complaints come out, the worse it gets. These women called last week, and they wanted to do a show with me. That's not something I've even offered Tim. And I don't want to be the one making the calls on this. I'm not a journalist, and I'm also involved. Tim has been a friend of mine. OUR is a great organization, but I also stand up for victims. And I don't feel remaining silent on this or neutral if I know is acceptable. I don't know what they've done, but I've passed the women's number onto Leon Wolf, our news director, and said, put a journalist on this if you want. And I told him at the time, take it where it leads. I just want the truth. I just want the truth. So he put our best investigative reporter on it, and I heard last night that they are close to finishing the story. I was hoping that it was gonna be released today because this is yeah. If if if if it's true, I can't believe how many of us were duped. Speaker 2: Got pearlized. But it's still some guy who got fried and cried by the side. We gonna steal, slide, slide, slide until they all die. These niggas ain't seeing me because these niggas be small fry. I got big dude status, k l

The speaker shares personal experiences of feeling unsafe around Dan Schneider, the creator of childhood trauma, while working at Nickelodeon. They express concern about the inappropriate content in Schneider's TV shows and call for an external investigation into Schneider's Bakery. The speaker also mentions being approached by Schneider's lawyer to potentially sign an NDA. They then discuss four individuals who were convicted or accused of child abuse while working at Nickelodeon. The speaker highlights Alexa Nicholas, who named all the abusers in an interview and praises her efforts to stand up for victims. They express shock at how Nickelodeon allowed so many predators to work for them and mention an upcoming documentary on the topic.

Speaker 0 reveals disturbing experiences of child abuse and mentions plastic coils being inserted into boxes. Speaker 1 tries to identify who is responsible, but Speaker 0 only mentions various people, including friends, police, and teachers. Speaker 0 also mentions baby sacrifice and consuming the baby's flesh and blood. Speaker 1 questions the truth of these claims, but Speaker 0 confirms them. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 mentioning dancing with the stars and drinking blood.

Speaker 0 recalls being 15 and waking up to Brian sexually assaulting him, frozen and unable to react. He had no car and no way to escape, and he kept the abuse secret to avoid questions about returning to Brian’s house for auditions or work. The abuse was extensive and brutal, not a one-time incident, and it grew worse over time as Brian manipulated others and used his connections to keep Drake in the cycle. Speaker 1 provides space for flare of what Drake felt and how the abuse continued, acknowledging the difficulty of describing the worst acts but noting it was calculated and persistent. Drake began spending time at his girlfriend’s house for safety, where her mother quickly noticed something was wrong. She confronted Drake and spoke to his mother, leading to therapy. Drake says he lied in therapy, saying everything was normal while realizing the manipulation and fear that kept him silent. Drake explains that Brian’s circle and influence in productions made it feel unsafe to speak out. He was pressured to stay silent to preserve his career, and he worried about losing future work if he disclosed the abuse. He also recounts a specific incident when Brian tried to take him to Disneyland despite Drake wanting to distance himself, ultimately prompting the girlfriend’s mother to intervene and arrange therapy. The narrative then shifts to the police involvement. Drake’s mother called the police after Drake exploded in a phone call, confessing what had happened. Detectives pressed for excruciating detail and required Drake to make a phone call to Brian to obtain a confession on a recording. Brian confessed, and Drake faced mixed emotions of relief and fear as the case progressed. Brian was arrested for horrific acts, and Drake’s phone messages indicate concern about public knowledge of the case. Following the arrest, Dan Schneider supported Drake; others advised him not to talk about it. Drake’s father expressed relief that Brian couldn’t harm him, reinforcing the sense of closure. Drake recalls when the public learned of the arrest and his own sensational experience; the emotional toll was severe, including hair loss and high stress. On sentencing day, Brian Peck was convicted and sentenced to sixteen months in jail and required to register as a sex offender after pleading no contest to two charges of child sexual abuse. The transcript notes attempts to unseal letters of support written for Brian, including by James Marsden, Terum Killam, and others. These letters, kept sealed for two decades, showed industry support for Brian, with some letters blaming the victim or suggesting temptations influenced his actions, including letters from Joanna Kearns and Kimmy Robertson. Notably, Nickelodeon executives did not write letters, but Hollywood insiders did; some letters imply Brian’s culpability was mitigated by external pressures. Speaker 0 reflects on the aftermath: a slow decline in mental health and sobriety, with DUIs and self-destructive behaviors. The show Drake & Josh continued production, and Drake used work as a coping mechanism. After the arrest, Drake questioned whether Nickelodeon or executives reached out, noting a lack of therapy and being left to cope alone. The story touches on Brian’s later actions, court outcomes, and Drake’s ongoing struggle with the trauma, though a period of sentencing and public reaction follow. Drake ultimately sought treatment, trauma therapy, grief therapy, and a supportive environment to begin healing, acknowledging the long road ahead and the difficulty of revisiting memories.

The transcript presents a sensational claim that Ellen DeGeneres is the link between Jeffrey Epstein’s island network and Hollywood’s occult elite, describing her as orchestrating cannibalistic rituals and blood-drinking ceremonies tied to the elite’s rituals and child trafficking. It asserts that Ellen not only visited Epstein’s circle but dragged them into the alleged “abyss,” including ritual consumption of human flesh, and that she specifically consumed her former partner Anne Heche over years after Heche’s suspicious car crash death. Investigators are said to have identified Ellen as the bridge between Epstein’s network and Los Angeles trafficking rings, with “blood drinking ceremonies” and cannibal feasts cited as part of the elite’s rituals. The narrative claims Anne Heche had sought to expose these links and confronted Ellen, after which Heche died in a car crash that is characterized as not random. It is further claimed that Ellen pulled strings to obtain Heche’s body, stored it in a mansion freezer, and consumed parts of Heche in occult ceremonies, presenting this as part of a broader “menu” of rituals used to maintain the Hollywood power structure. The account frames this as a primordial evil masked by red-carpet philanthropy and public friendliness. The piece also references Hollywood insiders and alleged whistleblowers who had knowledge of cannibalism, blood rituals, and child trafficking within the industry. It mentions a former Hollywood child star who purportedly witnessed parties, after-hours deals, and rituals attended by Oscar winners and other elites, and who provided deposition material about the darker side of the industry. Elijah Wood is mentioned as having publicly spoken about pedophilia in Hollywood, describing a “cabal of power brokers” who use fame and children as currency and discussing victims who are unable to speak loudly against those in power. The transcript indicates that Heche had support from insiders and fellow whistleblowers who continued to pursue the truth through a documentary titled Children of the Machine, aimed at exposing child trafficking, ritual abuses, and elite corruption in Hollywood. A former collaborator of Heche—described as a former child star who had insider access—claims to have witnessed the full horror of Ellen’s alleged behavior and to be prepared to reveal names and evidence. This witness describes a progression from intimate “blood rituals” and lip biting to blood drinking and cutting, including the removal of body parts and consumption in hidden venues frequented by elite circles, claiming that Heche tried to push back but was overwhelmed. The narrative promises ongoing revelations through the upcoming documentary, asserting that the underground team is finishing it and that high-profile names and evidence will be exposed. It frames Ellen’s alleged actions as embedded in a wider system of child trafficking and ritual abuse concealed by Hollywood’s public image. Towards the end, the speaker urges viewers to follow ongoing updates and hints at threats to data and safety faced by those pursuing the story, while promoting the documentary project as the means to “rip it open.”

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Speaker 0 admits to engaging in sexual activities with children who willingly came to his bed. Speaker 1 expresses concern about the harm caused by adults forcing sexuality on children. Speaker 2 shares their experience of being groomed by an adult and manipulated into liking the abuse. Speaker 3 questions how someone as intelligent as Speaker 0 could justify their actions. Speaker 0 defends their behavior, claiming not to know why they engaged in pedophilia. The video ends with Speaker 0 expressing disgust at the idea of acting in their own biography and advocating for intergenerational sex for stronger family bonds.

Speaker 0 claims to have recordings and documents exposing malfeasance within a nonprofit, alleging board members took money from donors and used children to further an agenda. Speaker 1 denies knowledge and deflects, objecting to questions about investments in companies, some potentially in the medical field and possibly sold to big pharma like Pfizer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of conflicts of interest. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being a cheat and a liar. Speaker 0 vows to get justice, not revenge. The timing of events is deemed suspicious, and a board statement is considered a critical turning point.

Speaker 1 announces formal charges against Andrew Tate, including rape, human trafficking, the trafficking of minors, and sexual intercourse with a minor. One survivor states she was raped and trafficked regularly at ages 14 and 15 during that period. Speaker 2 describes asking other friends and classmates, ages 15 and 16 at the time, who also received messages, noting it was a well-known fact that Tate had a network of young girls. Speaker 3 explains a six-year relationship with Vivian, who is now 21; they met when Vivian was 15. He describes a pattern similar to those seen in other cases, where abusers use a boyfriend model of exploitation to lure victims, a form of human trafficking also known as the lover method. He is accused of using this method, stating: “My MO was find girls, make them love me and make them work for me. And that's how I got rich.” Speaker 1 recounts that while her abusers threatened, raped, and violated her, they were also kind. Speaker 3 discusses the mechanics of exploitation, asserting that you cannot run this business through fear. He explains that manipulating fear is ineffective because if you could scare a girl and put her on the street, she would leave and never return. He emphasizes that a pimp’s power comes from the girl’s respect and love, not fear: “They have to respect you and love you.” Speaker 0 offers a summation of the day’s session: the judge stated that it is likely these girls will never recover from the abuse they suffered, and remarked that the way the perpetrator treated them defies understanding. Speaker 3 adds a chilling statement reflecting the dynamics of the abuse: “The more you didn't like it, the more I enjoyed it. I loved how much you hated it. Turn me on.”

Speaker 0 instructs someone to undress and points out the difference between Brian and the listener. Speaker 1 acknowledges being flat-chested. Speaker 2 shares that they were forced to undress and have photos taken when their parents weren't around. They suspect that these incidents may be documented in files held by doctor Money. Speaker 1 suggests that if these incidents occurred, they may be in files that doctor Money refuses to release. Speaker 2 confirms having personal files buried, including photos taken while nude. Speaker 1 mentions that the family was unaware of doctor Money's behavior, and the twins only disclosed their experiences as adults. Speaker 0 expresses horror upon learning about doctor Money's actions.

Speaker 0, Jeffrey Edward Epstein and my residence address is 6100 Red Hook Boulevard in Virgin Islands. Speaker 1: Is it true that you forced Virginia Roberts to have sex with numerous friends of yours? Speaker 0: Wouldn't love my fifth amendment right. Speaker 2: You had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, who, when you met him ten years ago, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors. Speaker 3: And, you know, I've said I regretted having those dinners regretted having those dinners. We did what we did because we wanted to see Epstein go to jail. He needed to go to jail. Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages, when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. Speaker 1: Sent him three 12 year old girls from France who spoke no English for defendant to sexually exploit and abuse. After doing so, they were sent back to France the next day. Speaker 0: Please, they never saw a young underage woman. Speaker 3: You know, those meetings were were a mistake. They didn't result in what he purported, and I cut them off. You know, that goes back a long time ago now. There's you know, so there's nothing new on that. Speaker 2: We now know that he was and had been procuring young girls for sex trafficking. Speaker 0: We now know that. At the time, there was no indication to me or anybody else. I kept my underwear on during the massage. I don't like massages particularly. Speaker 3: If we had had more transparency, perhaps this case would have gone differently. Speaker 2: It was reported that you continued to meet with him over several years. Speaker 3: You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that. Speaker 0: You have what's been described as an egg shaped penis. Speaker 3: Well, he's dead. So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.

A person confronts someone, asking if they referred to child abuse imagery as child porn and questioning if the victims in those images were porn stars. The person accuses the individual of mitigating damage to the BBC and enhancing their own career, calling them a "pedophile lover." They claim to have protested outside the BBC for 7 and a half months and that the BBC made up lies to remove their protest before news about Stuart Jew Edwards broke. They question why it took BBC Corporate Security less than 24 hours to inform Tim Davy about their tent protest, but six weeks to inform him about serious allegations against Hugh Edwards. The person suggests the BBC's lack of comment indicates guilt.

- Thijs van den Brink introduces himself and is asked to confirm a past interview. He says he has interviewed many people and cannot recall details about a specific interview with Yvonne Köls regarding a child-abuse suspect vice president of the Hague court, mentioning the name Theo Huub. He offers to have the episode sent to him for refreshing his memory. The other speaker notes the exchange as unusual, suggesting it occurred under the CDA cabinets during Lubbers and was swept under the rug. - A separate speaker announces that the radio interview of Thijs van den Brink with Yvonne Köls from 2015 is on their YouTube channel, dated 19 August 2025, and invites listeners to check the text and listen. - The conversation shifts to Yvonne Köls’s 30-year-old novel about a pedosexual child judge. It is noted that it provoked strong backlash against her rather than the judge, including criticism, public opposition, and even physical intimidation. Despite this, the book is being republished. Köls explains that the case still disturbs her because the judge was never prosecuted, and the press largely gave attention to the opposing party rather than Köls or the victims. - Köls is a guest on a program. She explains the reason for reissuing the book: a new generation is interested and can engage with the topic. She mentions that the Catholic Church has taken steps internally and disrupted the system, and that investigations extended beyond the church to include child care institutions and care facilities. She states she had substantial knowledge from that period. - She reflects that at the time she could have spoken more about what she knew, but she was not heard. She notes that the children assigned to her pupils, who were also abused, were excluded from coverage by others at the time. She adds that the men involved are now 45 or 46 years old, and that the abuse occurred when the victims were between 10 and 15 years old. - The program concludes with acknowledgment that the victims have spoken.

In 2011, I discovered Karen Ward's account, which was a significant breakthrough for me. I found it while searching for information about Duncroft. Her story was compelling and included a character named Jayce who had taken her for a ride in his car. He made inappropriate promises to her in exchange for sexual favors. I believe 99% of her account to be true.

Speaker 0 admits being paid to say things in front of cameras, regrets supporting abortion, and reveals it was all an act. Speaker 1 acknowledges unethical behavior towards Speaker 0 and questions if Speaker 0 was playing them. The truth is revealed.

Speaker 0 confesses in a video that they were paid to pretend to protest at the Capitol building. They mention having difficulty pulling off the act and getting a bruise on their leg. Although they don't reveal who paid them, they mention it was part of an organized effort.

Disney employees are facing jail time after being caught in an undercover sex sting. Eleven Bay Area men, including Disney workers, were arrested and accused of possessing child pornography. A 73-year-old former Disney vice president was sentenced to 7 years, prompting questions about his actions during his time at Disney. The speaker claims this story is not covered by mainstream media. Brian Peck, who was convicted of raping a child on set, was later hired by Disney to work on "The Suite Life of Zack and Cody." In 2012, he was hired by Charlie Sheen to work on "Anger Management." The speaker claims it was common knowledge that producers would sleep with actresses or that certain people "like little boys."

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about planning to meet a 14-year-old boy for sex, revealing he has all the information and can report it. Speaker 1 admits wrongdoing and expresses feeling horrible. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's motivations, especially considering his position as a professor. Speaker 1 admits to bringing lube and a douche. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and seeks understanding. Speaker 1 acknowledges he "fucked up" and may need help. Speaker 0 emphasizes the seriousness of the situation. Later, law enforcement arrives. Speaker 2 explains they cannot make an arrest because Speaker 0 isn't law enforcement. The phone will be taken as evidence, and the case will be referred to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Speaker 0 questions why the same evidence leads to arrests in Orange County but not San Diego County. Speaker 2 refuses to debate the issue. Speaker 0 suggests this will look bad.

The speaker recounts a chilling account of abuse, trafficking, and organized networks centered around a group of powerful men, primarily in Chicago, associated with Leslie Wexner and Alan Kramer, and connected to other figures like John DuPont. The narrative covers multiple years, locations, and alleged activities, emphasizing control, money, and illegal sex crimes. Key points and events: - Parties described as mafia or “mafia parties” featured underage boys, often age 14–15, with some boys aged out at 15 and then moved to other associates. Blood was reportedly present at parties, with one person assigned to clean it up; bodies were sometimes removed, with jokes about dumpsters. The speaker mentions various boys being “numb,” held by older participants, and mentions suicides, balcony jumps, and overdoses at such events. - Locations included Chicago estates with extensive underground playrooms designed by Richard Himmel, basements with safes resembling jail cells, and rooms with baths, enema setups, and widespread drug use. The parties included both younger boys and older men, with attempts to separate groups by age and preference. - The group allegedly controlled the entire gay scene in Chicago, funding the creation of gay establishments and clubs through a central figure, Chuck Renslow, while using money to influence the scene. Doctors and other professionals were described as participating in sexual activities, with some doctors supposedly connected to or friends with the group. - The speaker claims intimate familiarity with Huntington-like cycles of power, noting that Allen Kramer and Leslie Wexner would use money to recruit and reward participants, including leaving some people bequests or placements, such as apartments. - There were claims of a broader ideological fixation, including obsession with circumcision and propaganda about medical necessity. The group reportedly pushed to influence hospitals and the medical association to promote circumcision as a health measure, with insinuations about maintaining ethnic visibility to mask Jewish identity. - The speaker describes moving through networks, meeting John DuPont in Philadelphia, and being involved in DuPont Model Management; DuPont allegedly supported the speaker financially and through travel. The speaker mentions blackmail and coercion, including threats, as the group pressed to silence or control him after he attempted to expose them. - A key turning point involved reporting Leslie Wexner’s Chicago activities to authorities via Lance Durfee, including alleged cross-border trafficking from Mexico to the United States. The speaker asserts that these reports led to harassment by federal prosecutors and postal inspectors and to attempts to smear him as anti-Semitic. - The speaker asserts involvement in documenting activities and references to federal case files. They describe witnesses and evidence compiled in two large binders submitted to the court, with allegations of mail fraud related to a misleading newsletter and a postcard sent via mail as part of a broader scheme. - The narrative includes associations with notable figures and institutions, such as Roxanne Hemmell’s acknowledgment of the truth about the Chicago activities and the involvement of Wexner’s circle in Las Vegas and Ohio State-related networks. The speaker connects these to a broader pattern of coercion, intimidation, and attempts to discredit victims. - In later recollections, the speaker notes overlapping motifs with other well-known figures and cases, including connections to Epstein-related discussions and overlapping memories regarding the use of drugs, surveillance, and black binder records of victims. They claim that many within the circle remained unpunished, and that internal investigations or prosecutions did not address the core abuses. - The speaker concludes by noting continued calls for transparency from government agencies, including CIA and State Department files, arguing that uncovering broader truth is essential and that social media today enables exposed voices to reach wider audiences. The discussion ends with an emphasis on ongoing investigations and the need for justice and disclosure of related documents. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes: a tightly controlled, money- and sex-driven network; systemic manipulation of institutions; serious abuse of underage boys; efforts to silence whistleblowers; and the belief that broader revelations (including CIA and State Department records) are necessary to fully understand and address the scope of the alleged crimes.

The speaker discusses their familiarity with Gary Shaba, who was known for his work on BBC shows. They mention that Shaba had a reputation for being unapproachable and possibly engaging in inappropriate behavior with young people. The speaker expresses disbelief that there was any mystery surrounding these allegations and criticizes the former head of BBC for claiming ignorance. They question why it took so long for the truth to come out and speculate about the existence of a censorship committee that suppresses such information. The speaker also mentions that Shaba was a friend of Prince Charles and suggests that this may have influenced the decision to keep the allegations quiet.

Former Labour adviser Scarlett Maguire and political commentator Amon Bogle discuss front-page claims about the grooming inquiry, framing it as sabotage by Labour and a government-controlled process. - Speaker 1 (Amon Bogle) says the Telegraph front page alleges the grooming inquiry was sabotaged by Labour, and argues the inquiry from the outset was a follow-up of a cover-up spanning three decades, noting Labour initially refused a national inquiry. He asserts the government is manipulating the inquiry by refusing victims and survivors the chance to name perpetrators as Pakistanis, and by preventing examination of religious aspects of the abuse. - Speaker 2 (Scarlett Maguire) contends the issue is not an “Asian grooming gangs” problem but a Pakistani problem in the UK, with the vast majority of perpetrators from Mirpur in Pakistan. She says two women removed themselves from the inquiry because they were being silenced by the government from looking into race. - Speaker 0 (host) remarks on the broader fear of addressing the issue, recounting community knowledge of grooming in shops, gyms, and corner shops, and says he knows the abuse continues and no one is doing anything about it. - Speaker 2 adds that the country has been too scared to discuss the perpetrators, noting that police, social workers, and care workers were afraid of being labeled racist if they spoke out. - Speaker 3 (another participant) notes that there were conflated timelines and that early on, victims faced police or social workers who could be perceived as perpetrators in some cases. He mentions Kirsty Dahmer as the person who first brought grooming cases to court and reopened cases that had been closed, stressing the difficulty of running any inquiry that listens to all parties. - Speaker 3 emphasizes the challenge of conducting an inquiry where social workers and police are involved, and argues that victims and vulnerable young women in care were abused by social workers, the men who did it, and later by the police. He underlines the horrific nature of these events and notes that what happened is still happening today. - The discussion notes the ongoing impact on young women in care, with a final, emotive remark that reading a certain girl’s book would break one’s heart, signaling the lasting harm and urgency of the issue.

The speaker discovered disturbing information about a website and immediately reported it to the Exploited Children tip line and various news stations. However, the news stations were not allowed to report on the illegally obtained material. The speaker tried to raise awareness about the website without revealing any illegal content, but their efforts were disregarded. Law enforcement also did not take action. The owner of the website, a Democratic politician named Nathan Larson, was eventually arrested for kidnapping a 12-year-old girl. The speaker believes that there are more individuals involved in such activities and intends to expose them. Nathan Larson later died in prison, allegedly due to starvation.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about planning to meet a 14-year-old for sex, revealing they have all the information. Speaker 1 admits fault, acknowledging they "fucked up" and expresses feeling horrible. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's intentions, highlighting the presence of lube and a douche in their bag. Speaker 0 struggles to understand why someone like Speaker 1, a professor, would engage in such behavior. Speaker 1 says they need help. Speaker 0 informs law enforcement about the situation. Law enforcement explains that because Speaker 0 isn't law enforcement, they can't use the evidence for probable cause for an arrest. Speaker 1's phone will be taken as evidence, and the case will be referred to the Internet crimes against children task force. Speaker 0 questions why the law enforcement cannot find probable cause when they can in Orange County. Law enforcement refuses to debate the issue.

In this video, Speaker 1 confronts Dennis Gilliam about his alleged involvement in certain Signal and Telegram groups. Dennis claims to have no knowledge of these groups and suggests that he may have been added without his consent. Speaker 1 believes Dennis is not the creator of these groups and wants to collaborate in identifying the real culprits. They discuss the possibility of Dennis being transferred to these groups through links posted on Facebook. Speaker 1 emphasizes that their main focus is finding the individuals responsible for creating and participating in these groups, rather than accusing Dennis. Additionally, the video discusses how the speaker was led to various groups on Signal through provocative photos on Facebook. They mention that both boys and girls are being posted in these groups, with mainly women being posted in the videos. The age range of individuals in the groups is mostly teens and twenties. The speaker admits to clicking on links and seeing pictures and videos but claims to have quickly exited when uncomfortable. They mention that the groups are primarily in Spanish and that they have seen links with pictures and videos being posted. However, the frequency of inappropriate content being posted in the groups remains uncertain. The video also features a conversation between Speaker 1, Speaker 2, and Speaker 3. Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 2 about his alleged involvement in groups that post explicit content involving minors. Speaker 2 denies any knowledge or intent to view such content, but Speaker 1 presses for more information. Speaker 3, who is also present, shares that he has grandchildren and works in mental health. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of clicking on videos featuring young children. Speaker 2 admits to accidentally clicking on such videos multiple times. The conversation continues with Speaker 1 explaining their organization's work and Speaker 2's involvement. The video ends with Speaker 2 deleting evidence from his phone.