reSee.it - Related Video Feed

As stated, a girl with a mental disorder leads to suicidal ideas, and she has many doubts about euthanasia. It has publicly emerged a written and signed document by Noalia, in which she says she regrets euthanasia and that she wants six more months to think it over. This document is used by the public administration to push toward suicide, or rather toward execution of not carrying it out, and the administration says that this document proves nothing. It is a document where she expresses doubts, but the administration says that this document proves nothing. By contrast, the administration has no doubt about the document in which she requests the canon, which is contradictory. Already, the administration’s stance is that the Noalia document (where she expresses doubts and a desire to delay) does not demonstrate anything, while the document in which she asks for the canon is treated as having no ambiguity or doubt. This juxtaposition is highlighted to point out the inconsistency: the same authority treats one document as non-demonstrative of anything, and another document—where she seeks the canon—as fully conclusive or without doubt. The transcript emphasizes that the individual has a mental health condition and is experiencing significant uncertainty about euthanasia, yet the administrative response appears split: undermining the evidentiary weight of the doubts expressed in one document while accepting, without apparent doubt, the other document that shows her request for the canon. The speaker notes that the publicly available document signed by Noalia reveals doubts about euthanasia, but the administration reframes or downplays its significance. In contrast, when addressing the document in which she requests the canon, the administration asserts certainty, labeling it as clear without expressing doubt. This is presented as a contradiction within the administration’s handling of the two documents. In sum, the essential points are: a young woman with a mental health condition harbors doubts about euthanasia; a publicly signed document by Noalia indicates she regrets euthanasia and requests six more months to think; the administration claims this document proves nothing. Meanwhile, there is no doubt attributed to the document in which she asks for the canon, which the speaker frames as contradictory to the earlier stance.

The speaker states they are in litigation with 18 states across 19 different lawsuits over these states’ alleged refusal to comply. They say objections raised include privacy, noting they are requesting information such as the last four digits of individuals’ Social Security numbers and whether someone is in the country legally or a citizen, which they describe as a matter of federal records. The speaker asserts that the concept of this being a privacy issue is “total nonsense,” and argues that those states have no right to be on the voter rolls. They express an expectation to win these cases, even if it takes going to the Supreme Court. The speaker indicates they started this effort earlier in the year to give states a chance and mentions targeting jurisdictions like Fulton County, Georgia, which still has custody of some ballots from the 2020 election that they would like to examine, along with a couple of other jurisdictions. They say they reached a settlement with North Carolina, which is cleaning up its voter rolls with 100,000 records that were incorrect and needed updating. They mention they waited on behalf of Wyoming’s voter ID law and helped them win a case in court against liberal efforts to push it back. The speaker outlines an overall expectation for 2026: cleaner voter rolls, with many election officials, as noted by John, doing their job after receiving these letters. They anticipate hundreds of thousands of people in some states being removed from the voter rolls correctly. The speaker notes a past hesitation to act, suggesting it was because the DOJ and some left-wing organizations would sue when states attempted to do their job, framing it as “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” They conclude that for the remainder of this administration, they will be supporting states in cleaning their voter rolls as required by federal law and emphasize that they are just getting started.

Who determined the number 420,987,987 regarding failed signatures from the 2020 election? That figure comes from analyzing a quarter of the 1,900,000 mail-in ballots in Maricopa County. We had 150 trained workers review the envelopes based on the secretary of state's guidelines, examining each voter record individually. After analyzing 25% of the ballots, we extrapolated the data to arrive at the final number. It's important to note that this analysis only pertains to Maricopa County, which had over 2 million ballots in total, with around 1.9 million being mail-in votes. Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Proceed.

The speaker discusses the issue of inspecting ballots for signatures. They mention that the Voter Privacy Act prohibits inspectors from looking through a ballot to verify a signature. They also point out that many ballots have two different patterns of the letter "s" written for the signature, even though some of them don't even have an "s" in the voter's name. They state that out of the 104,820 ballots reviewed, 20,232 had mismatched signatures, which accounts for 20% of the total.

Speaker 0 questions why someone would change their signature after 30 years. They mention that the person has now changed their signature on a website, and wonders if it is strange.

Speaker 1 suggests searching University of Delaware records for Tara Reid's name, similar to the National Archives search. Speaker 0 explains that the University records contain confidential conversations and are not for public disclosure. Speaker 1 insists on a search for transparency, but Speaker 0 emphasizes Reid's employment records and report filing.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed a quarter of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election using 150 trained workers. They followed the guidelines in the secretary of state manual and analyzed each voter record individually. The statistics from the first 25% of the ballots were extrapolated to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 acknowledges that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, with about 1.9 million of them being mail-in ballots. Speaker 1 confirms this and the conversation continues.

During the Arizona audit, Maricopa County made it clear that signature verification was off-limits. However, it's easy to understand why they didn't want us to examine the signatures because, in reality, they don't match.

Signature verification has been a controversial topic in Maricopa County, often avoided in discussions. This was evident during the Arizona audit, where the county firmly opposed any scrutiny of signatures. The reluctance to examine these signatures suggests that there are discrepancies, as they do not match.

In this video, the speaker presents an example comparing two signatures. On the left is the signature on a valid envelope, while on the right is the signature on a voter registration card. The speaker points out that the signature on the envelope was accepted without being verified. Then, the speaker asks the audience to determine whether the signatures pass or fail.

Hello! Can I get the first three letters of your last name? H-E-N. And your first name? J-O-R. Can you confirm your year of birth? It might be 1985. I might cancel your book by Mel Bower in 1985. It might be, but I’m not sure. When is your birthday? It’s 1985, but it might not be. You can’t verify it, but I’m saying it is. I’ll sign the oath. A student asked if your birthday is 1985, and you said it is, but it might not be. What does that mean? I don’t know. Can you verify it? I’ll sign it. This is definitely me, but it might not be. Do you verify the signature? The county does. What if it doesn’t match? They check it with the DMV. Thank you!

Michigan voter data is described as a state secret that Jocelyn Benson is safeguarding from the federal government, with the speaker claiming she told authorities they can’t have it and contrasting this with the idea of not wanting the federal government to have your social security number. The speaker then alleges that Benson “gives our voter data away” to a nonprofit, and that she has done so since taking office in 2019. The nonprofit identified is the electronic registration information center, ERIC. The claim is not that Benson gives data away to ERIC per se, but that she spends taxpayer money to provide data to ERIC. The speaker contends that on television Benson presents herself as the guardian of voters’ data, while, in reality, she uses public funds to share it. After ERIC receives the voter data, the speaker says it is sent to another nonprofit, the Center for Election Innovation and Research, or CEIR. The common thread alleged between ERIC and CEIR is a liberal operative named David Becker, who is said to have founded both organizations. The speaker asserts that in 2020, Becker’s CEIR gave Benson’s nonprofit $12,000,000 on the eve of the election. The claim continues that Benson used part of this funding to purchase Jocelyn Benson campaign ads. The speaker notes that this year, Lansing Republicans attempted to pull Michigan out of ERIC, as eight other states had already left, but the Republicans could not secure the votes to do so. The transcript suggests that Republicans facing Benson in the governor’s race should make this a campaign issue. It is presented as an easy story on the campaign trail: Jocelyn Benson’s friends obtain Michigan voter data and are paid to manage it, while Michigan taxpayers fund both sides of the lawsuit between Benson and the U.S. Department of Justice. The speaker connects the financial support from CEIR to Benson’s nonprofit with the broader political dynamic involving Benson and the DOJ.

I believe it was Florence who said that none of us think our signatures are consistent enough over time, especially since getting our driver's licenses. While some senators have shown interest in the process, there seems to be a lack of media attention and interest from the minority party.

Maricopa County has been resistant to discussing signature verification during the Arizona audit because the signatures don't match.

The transcript describes a legal situation and personal grievances related to harassment and identity issues. The first speaker says that a judgment will be handed down tomorrow by the Paris correctional court regarding a rumor that you are a man. The second speaker confirms that tomorrow there will be a ruling on harassment, specifically cyber-harassment. They mention another case against two women who are claiming involvement with their genealogy, arguing there are two versions of their gender identity: either they were born a man, or they were Brigitte, died in 1960, and their brother became a woman. They state that touching or altering someone’s genealogy is impossible, emphasizing that a birth certificate is significant because a father or mother declares the child’s identity. They say, “We do not touch my genealogy,” and that the birth certificate is not a trivial matter. They reference that during this time in the United States they have also had individuals who accessed their tax site and altered their identity. The second speaker explains a broader struggle, expressing that they fight against harassment and want to help adolescents stand up against it, noting that if they do not set an example, it will be difficult. The dialogue centers on the tension between public allegations, identity claims, and the impact of online harassment, including alleged manipulation of personal and genealogical information. The speakers link legal action to personal advocacy, stressing the importance of safeguarding identity documents and resisting attempts to confuse or misrepresent one’s gender identity.

I objected to obtaining flight records as it invades privacy. I am not the one on trial; those trying to steal the 2020 election are. My question remains. Translation: I opposed accessing flight records as it invades privacy. I am not the one being tried; those attempting to steal the 2020 election are. My question still stands.

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.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed 25% of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election and analyzed each voter record individually. They extrapolated the statistics from the first 25% to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 points out that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, and their group analyzed 25% of the mail-in ballots to arrive at the 420,987 failed signature verification number. Speaker 1 confirms this.

The speaker says they have contacted record-keeping institutions tied to historic “old world” structures and that the responses will “shock the world,” beginning with the Cathedral of All Saints in Albany, New York, and then the Great Clock of Westminster (Big Ben/Elizabeth Clock Tower) in London. They describe emailing the Albany Institute of History and Art to confirm whether its collection includes the original architectural blueprints and structural drawings for the Cathedral of All Saints in Albany. The speaker frames the cathedral as supposedly built from 1884 to 1888 without power tools and argues that blueprints should exist for a structure of that scale. The Albany Institute of History and Art replies that, after looking through folders, it does not see blueprints and “doesn’t have the receipts to the building.” The institution also says it does not see material related to mechanicals and that none of the records from the building have been digitized. The speaker highlights additional claims that the records are too oversized to access, that there is no librarian on staff, and that no one can provide digital images because they cannot digitize the records. The speaker states that where other drawings exist (described as tissue tracings folded into drawers), they are not final blueprints and do not provide load-bearing calculations or construction measurements, and insists that no actual construction or engineering plans were found. The speaker then pivots to Big Ben and the Elizabeth Clock Tower. They describe being in contact with the parliamentary archives about claims that Big Ben was commissioned, funded, and built as part of the Palace of Westminster reconstruction after a supposed 1834 fire. They say they emailed to ask whether the Parliamentary Archives or any associated archive holds original materials related to the Great Clock of Westminster, including original blueprints, engineering drawings, ledgers, engineering calculations, specifications, records of communications between architect and builder, photographs of construction, and inspection certificates. The Parliamentary Archives reply, according to the speaker, that they have “surprisingly few architectural drawings” and that they do not have construction records requested, which the speaker says would prove Big Ben and the Elizabeth Clock Tower were built in the 1800s. The speaker presses further, asking whether the Parliamentary Archives has ever held a complete set of original drawings and what happened to them. The speaker says the archives respond that the architectural drawings and the requested blueprints were never part of the Parliamentary Archives collections, stating that they were not produced by Parliament. The speaker links this to the Public Records Act of 1838, claiming that records created by government departments must be preserved as public property and that construction began after the law took effect. They argue that if the project was government funded and approved, the records should have existed and been preserved, presenting the archives’ position as a contradiction with the stated government-history narrative. The speaker then says they contacted the National Archives at Kew after being told that government records, including those about construction of Big Ben, would be held there. They describe the National Archives replying that they cannot confirm the existence of records related to the construction of Big Ben and advising the speaker to look through records themselves. Immediately afterward, the speaker says the National Archives states that those collections are currently being transferred and will not be open to the public until 2026, which the speaker interprets as inaccessible records while urging public searching. Overall, the speaker asserts that multiple institutions failed to provide requested original blueprints, mechanical/engineering documentation, or digitized records, and they frame this as evidence that the documentation supporting mainstream construction timelines is missing or unavailable, culminating in a “legal paper trail” involving the Public Records Act of 1838 and the institutions’ inability to confirm the requested construction records.

I was surprised to learn that there was no signature verification done for the ballots. I questioned how ballots without signatures were handled, and the response was they were just sent back out. This made me uncomfortable certifying the results.

There has been scholarly criticism of the right to privacy, and it's conceivable that this criticism will be reflected in a brief before the Supreme Court. Whether the right to privacy exists or not, do Americans believe they have an inherent right to privacy, be it from the Constitution, natural law, or religious texts? No, I'll give you that. Do you have any doubt that the people believe they have retained the right to privacy? No, there's no doubt in my mind about that. Okay, in some form or another, a constitutionally protected right to privacy exists. What that means remains to be seen.

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 speakers discuss the request for a copy of every ballot in Fulton county, expressing concerns about privacy and the impact on the election certification. Speaker 1 clarifies that the experts reviewing the ballots are only interested in the results, not individual voters. They argue that some requested records may not exist, which is why they are hesitant to turn them over. Speaker 1 mentions a pending case to unseal records, both in this jurisdiction and another civil case. The conversation briefly touches on the docket and the involvement of Judge McBurnie, as well as the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

The speaker discusses the discrepancies in the date stamps and other elements of Barack Obama's birth certificate. They explain that the stamps on the document do not match exactly, indicating that it may be a forgery. They conducted extensive investigations and consulted forensic experts who concluded that the birth certificate is fraudulent. The speaker also mentions their attempts to validate the document with the state of Hawaii and Kapiolani Medical Center, but they were met with resistance. They emphasize the need for thorough vetting of documents presented by public officials and call for standardization of security paper for birth certificates.

Speaker 1, an expert in handwriting and signatures, believes that it is impossible to compare signatures for consistency in less than 3 seconds. They have extensive experience in this field and consider themselves to be at the top of their profession. Speaker 1 also explains that comparing signatures means carefully examining the similarities and differences between two items, in this case, signatures. They mention that Arizona statute 16,550 states that signatures should be compared for consistencies or inconsistencies. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the word "compare" is commonly used in their industry and has a clear meaning.