reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

"What's taking property without right? What's taking property without right?" "Oh, that would be theft." "Why not call it theft? Why come up with this designation?" "this TPWR, taking property without right." "Taking property without right is what again?" "If you're speaking to the particular charges, I can't speak to that." "I can't speak to that particular case." "What does that mean?" "It means just what it said if that's what the crime is." "But why not call it? Mean, what would a normal person call taking property without right?" "Taking 3% property without right was the question. What does that mean?" "So if we look at collateral data such as ShotSpotter, we know that gunshots are down 29% from 20" "I've already answered you, sir." "And what did you say again?"

Did you see the man who committed the robbery? Yes, I did. Could you point him out? That's him in the green suit, Devo hat, and beard. That description fits many people here. I’m talking about him right there. There are still several who match that description. If the witness can’t identify him, I move for dismissal. Motion denied. Did you really think hiring lookalikes would work? No, this is my big move. Could you point out the robber again? It was your client, but the shuffling makes it unclear. I move for dismissal. Denied. We all know it’s your client. Can I speak with my client? They know it’s you, and you’re in trouble. Your client is not a buff man. Plans A and B failed. What’s your final remark? If you don’t dismiss this case, I’ll harm myself. You’re not going to do that. He knew I wouldn’t.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

Speaker 0, a slow talker from Texas, asks why Speaker 1 called them an ambulance chaser. Speaker 1 responds that it's because Speaker 0 is representing a frivolous case and is a disgusting lawyer. Speaker 1 expresses disbelief that anyone would take the case, calling it a disgrace to the country and to Speaker 0. Speaker 0 asks if there is anything else, to which Speaker 1 replies no, as they have already answered the question.

- The conversation centers on a neighbor dispute and enforcement of village ordinances. The speaker implies trouble arises when the neighbor complains about work being done that goes against the village rules, such as detailing or washing the car. - They question whether the activity is on private property, with references to work on the lawn and “on your own property,” but the other party counters that it is “still in public view.” - The speaker asserts that they are not making things up and mentions a plan to call a lieutenant to come over, citing water violations and other issues: “Water violations. Washington motor vehicles, rods, furniture, living in public place. This is a private area. This is a private private residential Yeah. This is a home.” - The other person pushes back, saying “That’s what you say. It’s still in public view,” and challenges whether the deed proves private property: “You wanna get the deed to the house that says it’s private? It’s a private area.” - The first speaker warns that if actions continue, they will be back “to give you tickets,” and adds: “The cancel is really quick.” - There is an advisory stance: “So I’m advising you. You guys wanna do something? If you wanna give us the ticket, you should give it to us now because we do do it. We Start doing some work, and then you’ll have your ticket.” - A disagreement over whether the location is a public place persists, with the claim: “But it said public place. This is not a public place.” - Details shift to a vehicle discussion: the car in question, with a name “Eric G,” described as the car “we got the guy we got from.” The conversation notes: “In Connecticut, by the way.” - They reference another car “here that was parked with those plates and this or mismatched on the car,” suggesting some verification or pattern they’ve observed: “We have that other car here that was parked with those plates and this or mismatched on the car. Yeah. We get away with it for a while.” - The car’s ownership details are discussed: “Was the car bought between me and my friend. He bought this car yesterday. What state? Connecticut.” - The name under the title is identified as “Eric Gere.” The dialogue confirms: “The names are the name under the title is Eric Gere.”

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: You can't stop me from talking. No. Speaker 1: I'm talking about something. His behavior is a liability. Speaker 2: You can't tell me that. Speaker 1: You're creating a huge issue for yourself. Arrest me. Speaker 0: Please come forward. You have 4 minutes. Speaker 1: I'm here to comment on the council receiving money. It should have been publicized earlier. Mayor Rep sits on the council board, which is inappropriate. City manager Freed fled his house out of fear. He was involved romantically with the victim. His behavior is a liability to the city. Speaker 0: You can't stop me from talking. Speaker 1: I get my 4 minutes. Speaker 0: How does this relate to James Freed's behavior? Speaker 1: His name was in the police report. His behavior is a liability. Speaker 2: You can't arrest me. Speaker 0: They can't actually leave. Speaker 1: I am a resident. They cannot stop me. Speaker 0: Why this?

Speaker 0 discusses “Bill Gates on trial,” asserting disbelief at the reality of the situation unless present in the courtroom, and notes that two connected legal cases are taking place in the Netherlands involving Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Baller, former Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte, who is described as the current secretary general of NATO, and other senior government officials. Speaker 1 claims they can prove “without any doubt” that the official narrative of COVID-19 is fake, and notes the rapid developments in the case. They also reference the Epstein files, stating that there is a “very evil elite” led by bankers, described as harmful to the world and its people. Speaker 0 relays remarks from lawyer Peter Stassen in court, who purportedly said on the Global Elite Network that there exists a globally organized malicious elite at the top of which are some families who own central banks worldwide. He asserts Epstein “plays an important role in this network” and that Epstein is “the bankers’ agent.” According to these remarks, Epstein is shaping a transhuman agenda driven largely by the desire to eradicate much of the world’s population. Speaker 0 further describes a “satanic system,” in which bankers, secret services, media, Hollywood figures, government officials, universities, and many scientists are corruptly connected to this network and serve a transhuman, described as satanic, mind-bending system. On COVID and genocide, the statement is that “we are witnessing the largest genocide of the world’s population ever.” Speaker 1 adds emphasis with the word “This,” underscoring the claim that the narrative and events described are connected to the broader allegations. Speaker 0 concludes that the trial is “beyond the courtroom,” defining it as a test for the judiciary and posing the question of whether justice will reveal what it can still become.

The speaker questions the witness about mixing personal and professional emails, expressing confusion and concern. The witness explains his actions were to protect a friend under threat. The speaker challenges the witness on ethics and reporting to the ethics office. The witness struggles to provide clear answers, leading to frustration from the speaker. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt and yielding back their time.

Lieutenant expresses concern about reliability of method. Proponent insists on demonstrating reliability before using video exhibit. Proponent requests adjournment to prepare, but judge denies request. Proponent plans to use video exhibit during cross-examination. Judge suggests finding someone to testify quickly. Discussion about iPad operating system. Aim for 320. Translation: Lieutenant is worried about method reliability. Proponent wants to prove reliability before using video. Proponent asks for time to prepare, but judge refuses. Proponent plans to use video during questioning. Judge suggests finding quick testimony. Talk about iPad system. Aim for 320.

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 questions the credibility of the person testifying, mentioning past accusations of lying. The speaker also brings up payments made to the testifier's attorney by a political action committee. The speaker criticizes the testifier for calling various individuals, including the FBI and colleagues, liars. The speaker expresses skepticism towards the testifier's claims of truthfulness.

The judge limited testimony to avoid confusion, but the speaker finds it odd as expert battles are common. They mention a case with many expert witnesses. Another speaker agrees, noting they were not allowed to testify on certain matters. They criticize the judge for allowing one witness to make legal conclusions while restricting others.

The speaker questions the witness about using personal email for official business, citing emails indicating an intentional avoidance of FOIA. The witness denies intentional avoidance, claiming personal emails were not government business. The witness explains a technical issue causing confusion between personal and official emails. The speaker expresses disbelief and concludes. Translation: The speaker questions the witness about using personal email for official business, citing emails indicating an intentional avoidance of FOIA. The witness denies intentional avoidance, claiming personal emails were not government business. The witness explains a technical issue causing confusion between personal and official emails. The speaker expresses disbelief and concludes.

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.

Speaker 0 describes rapid FBI mobilization following the shooting, stating resources were surged and multiple air assets deployed. Agents, evidence response technicians, hostage rescue technicians, and special operators were cycled in and out of Utah, with evidence transported on FBI planes to prevent delay. By around 5 PM local time on September 11, he and the deputy on the ground walked the entire crime scene, including the suspect’s footprinted area and the area the suspect used. They found evidence such as DNA on items collected, including a screwdriver found on the rooftop, and they went to the wooded area where the firearm was discarded, noting that the firearm had a towel wrapped around it. He emphasizes the importance of his investigative experience and states that with the support of President Trump and the White House, the necessary resources were provided. He adds that the DNA hits from the towel wrapped around the firearm and the screwdriver were positively processed for the suspect in custody. Speaker 1 counterpoints by referencing the Tyler Robinson indictment, asserting that there is nothing about a screwdriver or DNA on a screwdriver. He directs attention to page three, where the indictment states that DNA consistent with Robinson was found on the rifle’s trigger. He notes that after the shooting, Robinson hid the gun, and the indictment indicates DNA consistent with Robinson on the trigger, along with the rifle, ammunition rounds, towel, fired cartridge casing, two of the three unfired cartridges, and the towel being sent for forensic testing. He reiterates that there is nothing about a screwdriver in the indictment and plans to prove this by searching, finding no results for “screwdriver” or “screwdriver” mentions. He states there is nothing about a screwdriver in the entire indictment and invites readers to read it themselves. Speaker 1 questions why Cash Patel would claim there was a screwdriver with DNA, asking if it’s being saved for the trial and why it appears in the indictment.

The trial finished today, Tommy. "Turn the camera off for second." In a post-trial exchange, the speaker questions the claim that the case is contempt of court, insisting "There's no jury. That's only for juries. That's not contempt. That's a lie." They accuse the press of failing to report police unlawful conduct and say "Not one of them has reported any of the unlawful stuff the police done." They claim someone else "went to the judge to make sure Ezra will stop reporting" and that "He was the grass," acting as a journalist to silence reporting so "the only narrative you get is from them." They reference "fast car, cash in the cash in his car" and explain "I can't bank in The UK" after a demonstration. They remark that "They make you do vague answers" and note "He asked me one question. Where are you going? Benedum."

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware. The speaker then asks if the person instructed their absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person responds that they went over the manual but did not specifically mention the signature requirement. The speaker shows an example of an envelope without a signature and asks if it should have been counted. The person objects, but the speaker clarifies that they were in charge of counting the ballots. The person admits they did not discuss the signature requirement with the moderator. The speaker asks if the person's office ever checked for the clerk's signature on the envelopes, to which the person says it never came up in their training.

Speaker 0 describes a judge threatening a witness with prosecution for testifying to their best knowledge and skills, saying that would make the witness criminally liable; asserts that such a threat by a judge constitutes a felony. Speaker 1 adds that many countries (27) have strict limits on defenses, often labeling real defenses as holocaust denial, preventing witnesses that counter official narratives and effectively blocking a proper defense; calls the situation insane. Speaker 0 reflects on lessons as an expert witness: he was never allowed to take a stand and was always moved off the stand. He states that German judges are obligated by case law to systematically deny any motion to introduce that kind of evidence, and that threats accompany this denial. Speaker 1 responds, though the exact wording is unclear. Speaker 0 recounts events from the early 1990s, noting that repeated appearances as a witness prompted panic and the introduction of new case law. He describes an incident where, in 1996, a defense lawyer wanted him to testify again, and the defense lawyer was prosecuted for merely filing a motion to introduce the evidence. He explains that in Germany, the defense cannot introduce evidence; only the prosecution and the judges can introduce evidence. The defense is defenseless because a defendant must file a motion for the judge to introduce evidence, and the judge not only systematically denies it but the prosecution prosecutes the defense lawyer for filing the motion. This pattern is described as serious and as something upheld by the German Supreme Court. Since then, filing motions to defend oneself in historical matters is described as a crime, with the act of defending oneself seemingly criminalized.

Speaker 1 questions why ballot boxes are sitting on the street and being transported in a taxi, alleging that anyone can put anything they want in the boxes. Speaker 1 asks if this is a normal election and claims it is a complete fraud. Speakers 0 and 2 tell Speaker 1 that they are working and that Speaker 1 is not allowed to film. Speaker 1 asserts the right to film on public property. Speaker 2 calls Speaker 1 a pig.

The speaker expresses their belief that the case went well and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court was fraudulent and made references to valuable assets without knowledge of the numbers involved. The speaker criticizes the length of the proceedings and highlights the outside world's problems. They assert that the case is a scam and should never have been brought. The speaker mentions a star witness who admitted to lying and lacks credibility. They believe everything they did was right and express frustration at being sued while other issues persist. The speaker concludes by stating that the case is a disgrace and should never have been brought.

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware of this. The speaker then questions if the person instructed the absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person says they did not. The speaker shows examples of envelopes with and without the clerk's signature, and asks if the one without should have been counted. The person agrees that it should not have been counted. The speaker asks if the person ever checked for the clerk's signature on envelopes, and the person says it never came up in their training.

The speaker states a mistrial is appropriate due to the prosecutor's actions. They express confusion, questioning if the prosecutor is being disingenuous or purposefully hiding information. The speaker avoids directly accusing the prosecutor but suggests their experience should prevent repeated instances of withholding information. They find it hard to believe the behavior isn't intentional, unless the prosecutor is disorganized and assembling the case haphazardly during the trial. The speaker apologizes but says the case presentation is making things difficult. A recess is called, and a ruling will be given upon return.

The speaker believes the case is a scam and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court is the fraudster and made references to undervalued assets. They express frustration with the lengthy process and criticize the outside world for not taking action. The speaker highlights the lack of credibility of the star witness, who admitted to lying. They defend their actions and argue that the lawsuit is a waste of time and money, considering the pressing issues the country faces. The speaker concludes by stating that the public is fed up with the situation, making it a sad day for America.