TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The documentary-style segment follows Nick Shirley and David as they investigate widespread fraud in Minnesota, centering on nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT), daycare operations, and the way state funds are billed for services that may not be delivered. They present a pattern where transportation companies appear to underpin multiple fraud schemes across childcare, adult daycare, autism services, and interpreter services, with transportation acting as the “belly of the beast” that ties these lines of fraud together. Key findings and claims include: - The investigation asserts that Minnesota’s NEMT sector is dominated by Somali-owned companies. David notes about 20 NEMT companies in Minnesota, with more than 90% Somali-owned, many hosted in addresses that appear noncommercial or vacant (an apartment, a house, a convenience store, or a vacant building) with little or no signage or staff. - The group argues the average national vehicle count per NEMT company is 20. They estimate Minnesota could have approximately 800 Somali-owned NEMT companies, each with about 20 vehicles, and claim payments from the state are based on electronic submissions of trips and miles, with trips typically paid at about $50 per trip (round trips $100). They contend many trips are never performed, yet payments are made once the electronic form is submitted, with no verification of actual service delivery. - The symposium of fraud is described as consisting of daycares, adult daycares, autism services, and other welfare providers that rely on the transportation brokers to create a paper-trail justifying payments to the providers, even when services aren’t delivered. This paper trail allegedly enables continued state funding for many supposedly operating centers. - Safari Transportation (607 Cedar Avenue South, Minneapolis) and Dreamline Transportation (617 Cedar Avenue South) are presented as examples of fraudulent listings: Safari Transportation is alleged not to exist at the listed address; Dreamline Transportation is said to be housed in a liquor store at 617 Cedar Avenue South, with multiple addresses showing confusing or false registration. On-site checks reveal no functioning transportation company or vans, and staff acknowledge the addresses are misleading. The reporting team notes that the listed addresses often correspond to other, non-transport businesses (e.g., money-wiring shops or liquor stores), with no observable fleet and no evidence of active transportation services. - They visit other addresses tied to transportation, such as Epimonia Transport (at 305/308 area) and Crescent Transportation in Saint Louis Park; Epimonia is described as lacking vehicles and consistency in address listings, while Crescent Transportation is found to be an apartment complex rather than a storefront, casting doubt on the legitimacy of these entities. - The Hopkins Child Care Center is highlighted as an example of large state funding for a facility licensed for 118 children, with reported funding of around $2.25 million for a given year and millions across multiple years, yet the center is observed as shuttered or lacking visible child activity, with many vehicles reportedly idle and windows blacked out. Similar patterns are noted at other daycare centers such as Quality Learning Center and Proud Child Care Center in Eden Prairie, which also show high funding receipts (e.g., $1.9 million for Quality Learning Center in a given year; Proud Child Care Center receiving about $1.25–$1.26 million in recent years), but with no apparent foot traffic or detectable enrollment. - The investigation connects the fraud to political actors and public officials, alleging cover-ups or complicity, and raises questions about accountability for figures like Tim Walz. They assert that investigations and governmental actions have been insufficient or misdirected to address the alleged fraud. - In a broader fraud narrative, they claim millions of dollars were being funneled through TSA at Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport, with whistleblowers recounting large sums (often in the millions) moved by Somali-descent individuals, sometimes via routes through Atlanta to Dubai before wiring money to Somalia. A former TSA narcotics investigator describes routine cash movements at checkpoints, suggesting that declarations of large sums did not trigger meaningful enforcement, and implying the funds were linked to the daycare and welfare networks described earlier. Throughout, the speakers attempt to confront individuals at various sites, record responses, and juxtapose the alleged abundance of funding with the lack of visible services or vehicles. They emphasize that even when fraud is spotlighted, participants often respond with hostility or denial, while security is required to manage confrontations. They conclude with a call for accountability and reforms, asserting that the fraud spans the entire state and that transportation companies are central to the ability to sustain fraudulent payments.

A woman recounts her daughter enrolling her 4-year-old grandson in preschool. At the meet and greet, the daughter was told she needed to hire a translator at her own expense because her grandson was the only student who didn't speak Spanish. The daughter subsequently pulled him out of the preschool. The speaker believes this illustrates that the migrant problem is not limited to blue states, as she lives in a red state that is also "overrun with them." She attributes the situation to the entire government. She expresses disbelief that her grandson can't attend preschool because he doesn't speak Spanish.

The speaker states that they are not saying the organization lost 85,000 children, but that contact was lost with them and their whereabouts are unknown. The speaker asks if that is a fair statement. The speaker asks if, after making three calls on average to check on 85,000 children placed by the organization, there was no response. The speaker then asks if it is fair to say that contact was lost with over 85,000 kids. The speaker asks for a yes or no answer. The speaker states that the organization does not know where 85,000 of the children are. The speaker then says they will move on after receiving no answer.

Abdi, running for Minnesota House District 14A, owns Blooming Kids Child Care. The speaker highlights a long list of alleged violations at Blooming Kids, including: - No first aid kits - Unsanitary conditions - Not complying with CPR regulations - No supervision for the kids - Not operating within the terms of their license - Never submitted their DHS background study when requested - Children subjected to prohibited disciplinary actions - No furnishings, no equipment, no materials, and no supplies - No documents to show that the teachers were qualified to do the job - Repeated violations: same violations happen over and over - No immunization records for any of the children - Not enough staff The speaker notes they cannot determine how much state or federal funding Blooming Kids receives because that information requires access they don’t have. Regarding campaign fundraising, the speaker checked Abdi’s campaign donations and states he is not getting any from any day care centers. The speaker concludes by asking someone to tag Nick Shirley, suggesting he should look into this issue as well.

A documentary-style investigation in Minnesota accuses widespread government-funded fraud across childcare, elder care, and health care services, alleging that hundreds of millions (potentially billions) of taxpayer dollars were funneled to fraudulent businesses, many run by Somali-owned entities, with insufficient or no evidence of actual children or patients being served. Key figures and setup - David: An investigator whose office is in Minneapolis, claiming firsthand exposure to fraud. He frames the problem as deeply entrenched, involving billions of dollars and potentially ties to terrorist groups abroad. - Nick Shirley: The presenter and filmmaker, documenting the investigation, confronting daycare centers, health care providers, and government officials. Main fraud allegations and examples - Childcare and early learning centers: - Multiple Minneapolis daycares listed at the same addresses, licensed for large capacities (e.g., 120 children) but with no children present in long-running site visits. - Examples include Mako Childcare and Mini Childcare Center: combined licensing for 120 children, but vans never moving and no children observed over repeated visits; fiscal year payments ranged from about 714,000 to over 1.6 million dollars for the two centers in various years. - ABC Learning Center and other nearby facilities: windows blocked out, doors locked, no children observed despite licensing for dozens or hundreds of children; payments in the hundreds of thousands to millions per year. - Sweet Angel Childcare and others: similar patterns—license capacity reported, payments received, but no children seen; in one case, ongoing operation with no obvious play area or evidence of childcare. - The video notes cases where two daycares share addresses or switch names (e.g., Creative Minds Daycare reopens as Super Kids Daycare Center) yet continue to receive state funding, suggesting “fraudulent” billing. - Some locations claimed to be open long hours and to serve many children, yet on-site visits found no children, locked doors, or hostile responses when questioned. In one instance, a staffer refused to discuss the operation or provide paperwork. - Specific sums cited include ownership of facilities with payments like 1.26 million, 987 thousand, 714 thousand, 1.6 million, 1.3 million, 1.0–1.6 million in various fiscal years, totaling near several millions per site and aggregating toward millions across multiple centers. - Home health care and other services: - A building housing 14 Somali-owned home health care companies under many different names, all operating from the same location, raising concerns about service provision and billing. - A broader claim that in Minnesota, 14–22 Somali health care businesses at the same address are part of the same ecosystem; government money (state and federal CCAP funding) is disbursed to these entities, with a perception that services may not be rendered as billed. - A separate building contains numerous health care providers; the interviewee asserts that 50–60 million dollars per year could be fraudulently routed through this single building. - Overall scale and claims: - David asserts the fraud is “far worse than anybody can imagine” with estimates initially as high as 7 to 10 billion, later revised publicly to around 8 billion; in total, a major portion of the state budget is implicated. - A central claim is that funds from CCAP (a blend of federal and state money, taxpayer money) are written as checks to providers who may not deliver corresponding services; the state’s checks are allegedly not effectively cross-checked for actual service provision. - Political and procedural dimensions: - The investigation contends that Minnesota governor Tim Walz is responsible for allowing or failing to curb fraud, describing the state as “ground zero” for the issue and criticizing political and procedural inaction. - The documentary frames fraud as nonpartisan, noting Medicaid fraud occurs across parties and administrations nationwide, but then presents a partisan friction as they confront lawmakers at a state Capitol hearing. - At the Capitol hearing, Republicans and Democrats discuss fraud, with some speakers asserting the problem is nonpartisan and rooted in systemic issues across administrations, while others push to hold specific leaders accountable and emphasize the need for transparency and enforcement. Confrontations and outcomes - The team encounters resistance and hostility at several sites, including doors locked, hostile staff, and in one instance, a confrontation resulting in police involvement at a building housing healthcare providers. - The investigators claim to have faced intimidation and even threats; they describe instances of violence toward them for asking questions about child and elder care fraud. - The film documents a tense, complex landscape of allegations, aiming to connect misallocated funds to non-delivered services, with ongoing investigations, raids, and political debate as the state capital becomes a focal point for accountability discussions.

The group visits several local daycares and notes security and accessibility observations. At First Choice Child Care LLC, they spot a Kasim Brothers semi truck in the parking lot, which they suggest is notable when dropping a child off for childcare. They observe that doors appear to be locked, and they see security cameras: “Camera up there. Camera over there.” They ring the doorbell but don’t hear anyone, and they note there are no cars in the parking lot at that moment. They mention the facility is open seven days a week, but there is “no signage to say” if it is closed, creating ambiguity about hours. They compare this to the nearby neighborhood and point out a second daycare, Bright Futures, next door. Bright Futures also has cameras, and the overall impression is that “Tons of daycares” either have or lack visibility in different ways, with some locations showing a nice lobby entry and others offering limited visibility into the interior. During their visit, they attempt to engage staff. Mehak asks, “Hi. I was wondering, are you open today? Do you have any paperwork? I just wanted to look up your enrollment for a three year old. My name is Mehak.” The staff response is reported as, “I’m sorry? Am I what? You’re going to send somebody? No. Okay.” The interaction is interrupted by a request to stop recording, and the staff confirm, “Okay. They want us to stop recording for for okay. That’s fine.” The group continues to seek pricing information, repeatedly asking, “how much does it cost?” and “how much does it cost to go to daycare here.” They express confusion about the cost and the application process, with a brief exchange: “Price after we fill the application? So how much does it cost?” and “Is it? Come here. You know, how much does it cost? Woah.” Overall, the footage emphasizes security features (locked doors, cameras), ambiguous operating hours (open seven days a week with no clear closure signage), and direct inquiries about enrollment and pricing, including interactions with staff and a request to cease recording.

Speaker 0 discusses trying to find local daycares while recording at a home. The other party says, "This is a licensed property. If you have a complaint, go to the state," and clarifies that if it is a daycare, there’s no need to go door to door. They explain, "You can go door to door," and suggest calling the childcare check for information. The question about whether the property is a daycare is answered: "So you guys aren't a daycare then?" and "Don't report our property either." The speaker notes that the door-to-door visit was unnecessary if it is not a public daycare, and mentions that the person directing them to contact the state was interesting. The encounter is described as very hostile, with the speaker having knocked on the door to verify if the site is a local daycare listed on websites.

The investigation highlights potential fraud or serious irregularities in Somali daycare operations, based on observed signs such as windows not covered with vinyl and a lack of signage or children visible at purported day care locations. The team questions the existence of many day cares, noting that some places listed as licensed have no identifiable activity or occupants when visited. Speaker 2 argues that even if a daycare were legitimate and serving only two children, there is “no world” where the government should be giving almost a million dollars or three-quarters of a million dollars in subsidies to such a place. The discussion underscores how fraudulent claims can be made easily and points to a lack of visible accountability in the system. The agency responsible for overseeing and funding daycares is identified as the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, with Secretary Tana Sen named as the head of the agency being discussed. To contact leadership, the team attempts to reach the communications department led by Nancy Gutierrez, noting repeated efforts to obtain comment about suspicious Somali daycares. They report multiple attempts to call and email, with messages indicating that some numbers are unavailable and voicemails are full. Speaker 0 notes the difficulty in getting a response from DCYF’s top communications official, emphasizing that their mailbox is full and no responses have been received. This lack of contact is framed as convenient for avoiding questions about the alleged issues. Speaker 6 states that if fraud is confirmed, a forensic audit should be conducted to trace how much money was actually spent and to recover any funds. Speaker 7 suggests that, even in the best-case scenario, the situation is inefficient and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Speaker 8 adds that there is a prevailing attitude in Olympia that does not recognize the problem.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 are discussing discharge rights at a hospital. The core issue is that there is no doctor’s order allowing the baby to go home, while the mother believes she can leave without such an order. Key points: - The mother argues “the mommy can go without doctor’s order, but not the baby,” and asks why the baby cannot accompany the mom. - Speaker 1 insists “there’s nothing wrong with the baby” and asks to “get the doctor up here so we can be discharged.” - Speaker 0 repeats: “There is no order for the baby to go home.” Speaker 1 counters, “There doesn’t have to be one.” - They have been "going through this for, like, the last hour," and they want to leave. Speaker 1 asks, “How long is it gonna be before the doctor gets up here?” and they say “We are calling the doctor right now. It depends on how when you get a callback.” - A hospital staff member (Speaker 2) asks to speak outside with Speaker 1, saying, “Sir, can I talk to you outside real quick?” and then notes a need for discretion regarding victims. - The routine difficulty is clarified: “There is no doctor's order for the baby to go home.” Yet Speaker 1 states, “There’s not,” and they reiterate their desire to leave: “We wanna leave.” - They discuss the process: Speaker 0 says, “Yes. We are [calling],” and Speaker 1 says, “Get the order… so we can leave.” Speaker 1 adds, “And so we can leave.” - Regarding consequences or external involvement, Speaker 1 asks about CPS: “CPS? No. They didn't? No. Nothing about CPS. Nothing.” - The dialogue emphasizes that the mother believes she should be allowed to discharge, and the baby’s discharge requires a doctor’s order, which they are not obtaining at the moment. Overall, the conversation centers on the discrepancy between the mother’s belief that she can discharge without a doctor’s order and the hospital’s apparent requirement for a formal order for the baby to be discharged. They are actively attempting to contact the doctor to issue the necessary order, while expressing frustration at the delay. CPS is mentioned but not involved, with reassurance that there has been no CPS involvement. The mother asserts that the mother can leave, but the baby cannot without the doctor’s order, and Speaker 1 keeps pressing to obtain that order so they can discharge.

They're taking kids from shelters if they don't have a safe place to go afterward. We confirmed this with a child protective services representative. The shelters are closing soon, and if families can't find safe accommodations, the children will be taken. Some shelters are still open, but many are shutting down by Friday. We visited one shelter today, which provides cots, meals, and laundry services, but families need to leave by noon on Friday. It's a serious situation, and it's hard to believe this is happening. The impact on families is devastating, and there’s a lot of concern for the children involved.

The video documents a visit to what is alleged to be Halauli Childcare Center in Kent, Washington. Speaker 0 asks, “Hi. Is this is this Halauli childcare?,” and is told, “No. No? There’s no childcare here?” They respond, “No childcare. Okay. God. Thank you so much. Have a good one.” The clip repeats, “There’s no childcare,” and notes that they were at Halauli, described as “what’s allegedly Halauli Childcare Center in Kent, Washington,” which is “right behind me right here.” The speaker says they went to the door and mentions that the exact address listed on the state website shows the center receiving over $800,000 in 2023. The closing remark reiterates, “They claim there’s no child care here.”

Nick Shirley initiates the exchange by stating his name and pressing for permission to record, noting that the other person “doesn’t have any permission to record me, period.” He proposes, “Can we talk outside? Permission to record.” The other person counters that there is no permission from either party, saying, “She doesn’t either have she doesn’t have permission or … for me. You cannot stop people on the street and question them.” Nick states, “We can ask them,” and the other person repeats, “Have any permission.” The dialogue shifts to a concern about the whereabouts of children. Nick asks, “Where are the children?” The other person responds, “I will sue you. You don't have any permission. We have nothing to do with this. Okay, sir? And are there … So leave.” Nick persists, asking again, “Are there children here?” The other person repeats, “Please leave.” Nick inquires, “Where are the children?” and the other person insists, “Leave. Leave.” Nick questions, “We’re wondering what's happening. Tell us what's happening here then.” The other person commands, “I said leave.” Nick clarifies, “We're wondering what's happening.” The other person states, “We are not a childcare. We have nothing to do with it. We're the common people walking. Yes. We're not … we're not accusing you. We're asking where the children are at.” The other person repeats, “Don't ask me anything.” Nick emphasizes his intent: “We're not accusing you. We're asking the daycare centers.” The other person refuses to answer, “I am not gonna answer. You have.” Nick presses, “Where are the children … who do you work for? My name is Nick Shirley.” The other person asks, “Who do you work for?” Nick responds, “I work for myself. Nick Shirley.” The other person inquires, “Okay what are you recording?” Nick answers, “We're wondering where are the children $2,660,000 for the Minnesota child care center. You're not talking to the right person. Are there children that come here?” The other person demands, “Answer the question. Are there children?” Nick states, “There's no children inside the building.”

Speaker 0: Massive fraud is going on here in the state of Minnesota, especially in Minneapolis. Explain to me what's going on with the day cares. Speaker 1: One of the things I've noticed is there’s an exceptional number of childcare centers set up mostly in Minneapolis, but also in Saint Paul. I wondered how many kids are there in the Twin Cities. I visited facilities near my office and saw there aren’t any kids there. I’d go to another one and there aren’t any kids there either. I spoke with someone outside who said, “We’re all full,” yet when I looked inside the door was open and there was a couch and a table with a couple chairs and no kids. I asked if the kids were outside playing or what kind of place this was, and the staffer said, “You go,” and followed me down the street to my car. That made me think something was going on, and this was maybe five years ago. Speaker 1: This fraud is so massive. When the dust settles on this, it’s going to be found to be the largest fraud in the history of the country and probably the world. The ones I’ve gotten data on average about $2,500,000 a year, and a lot of them will say they have anywhere from 80 to 120 children. Speaker 1: I’ve been to literally 40 or 50 of these childcare centers, and there never has been a single child at any one of them ever. Morning, afternoon, evening. Some say they’re open till 10:00 at night. I go there in the morning, I go there in the afternoon, I go there at 9:00 at night. Nobody. There are no kids there ever.

The speaker describes a pattern they have observed with USAID and other organizations, where claims are made that a program will help children or contribute to disease eradication, yet the speaker encounters a persistent disconnect between those bold claims and on-the-ground reality. According to the speaker, whenever they request a direct connection to the children who are supposedly intended to benefit, they are met with silence or inaction. They ask for contact with a group of children so they can speak with them and understand more about the children’s issues, but they repeatedly receive nothing in response. The speaker emphasizes that there is even a reluctance to assemble a small, identifiable group of orphans or children in need to observe the situation firsthand. They question, essentially, why they cannot at least see a few kids or be allowed to meet the children who are presumed to be in trouble, along with their caregivers, to gain a clearer understanding of the situation. In expressing this frustration, the speaker articulates a broader concern about the process of aid delivery. They note a pattern whereby, despite assurances that aid is directed toward helping children, there is a systemic failure to provide access to the beneficiaries themselves. The speaker then characterizes this failure as part of a larger problem, describing “an enormous amount of fraud and graft.” They claim that a substantial portion of aid funds and efforts do not reach the children at all, or at the very least not in a meaningful or transparent way. The speaker asserts that, in their view, very little of the aid actually reaches the children, if anything at all, suggesting a misalignment between stated objectives and actual outcomes. Overall, the speaker conveys a strong perception of disengagement from the intended beneficiaries—the children and their caregivers—and ties this disengagement to allegations of misuse of resources. The core message centers on the request for direct access to the children and their caregivers to verify needs and outcomes, juxtaposed with a perception of widespread fraud and graft that prevents aid from reaching those it is intended to help.

Chaya from Lives at TikTok explains she investigated an unmarked building in Burnsville, Minnesota, where nine health care companies are operating out of a single location, all with Somali names. She notes there are likely more than the nine discovered. One of the entities is Grace Care Center, run by Saeed Ahmad, which the site claims has a facility for kids with autism. She reports numerous red flags on that site, including slogans like “We cure your chill,” and suggests it is aimed at offering care for children. When contacting the listed numbers for these businesses, many do not work: some ring endlessly, others are disconnected. Most of the companies do not have websites, reviews, or additional information available. One company at the location does have a website, but it contains many spelling errors. The site’s gallery uses stock images that do not lead anywhere. Other links on the site do not function, redirecting back to the homepage. The “About Us” section states it was founded by Omar, accompanied by a stock image of a white woman, even though Saeed Ahmad is the founder. The contact information is described as fake, including a fake address, phone number, and email address. Chaya emphasizes that the situation appears highly suspicious.

The speakers in the video are questioning the individuals who are moving children. They ask where the kids are being taken and if there is paperwork for them. The individuals refuse to answer and tell the speakers not to worry about it. The speakers express concern about the children going missing, and one of them mentions an article from the New York Times stating that one-third of these kids are dropped off at a pond. The speakers question the age of the children and ask if the individuals work for Compass Connections. The individuals remain secretive and refuse to answer. The speakers express curiosity and frustration about the secrecy and ask why the individuals are hiding their faces. They also question if the kids are being told not to talk. The speakers continue to film and express their disapproval of the situation.

In Columbus, Ohio, in front of the Great Minds Learning Academy, one of several day care centers associated with the Somali community, speakers discuss a report by Nick Shirley about fraudulent daycare facilities in Minneapolis. They note this is the second-largest Somali community in the United States and intend to investigate further. The team attempts to visit the first center, knocking and ringing the doorbell, but no one answers and the door is locked. They speak with a local man who says the daycare is owned by Somalians and mentions that he has never seen children there, noting that the center “use[s] the back door,” so they don’t see anyone coming in or out. He lives in the same building and confirms that he has not seen kids at the location. Another speaker reiterates, “I’ve just seen it the building itself. I’ve never seen nobody come out the building or go into the building.” The group proceeds to the back of the building, as suggested, but finds nothing there. They decide to move on, noting there are many more centers to visit, and plan to go around the city to speak with people at additional locations. They sign off with a plan to continue the investigation and stay tuned.

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

PPL has an office on the building's second floor, but it is not yet open. While appointments are supposedly possible, the speaker has been unable to contact anyone by phone. The speaker's wife will lose her home care in two weeks if they are not registered. The speaker was barred from entering the building and the police were called. Access to the second floor is restricted by a swipe-access door. The speaker claims he only wants to register but was told he is not allowed on the property because PPL is not yet operational there, and the building's current operating company prohibits his presence. The speaker believes the Department of Health hiring PPL to transition people over was a failure due to non-operational offices, unanswered phones, and a malfunctioning online system.

Imagine your autistic teenage son enduring daily abuse from a caregiver. Anil learned of the abuse at Anderson when a whistleblower sent a video showing 50-year-old Garnett Collins allegedly squeezing his son’s genitals. Anil immediately removed his son from the facility and reported the incident to the police. Collins was arrested but released without bail, facing minimal potential jail time. Anil's son, who is largely nonverbal, has struggled since returning home, often yelling and expressing pain. This isn't the first incident; a caregiver previously hit him with a broom handle, and he lost significant weight while at Anderson. The family seeks accountability from Anderson, believing there is systemic neglect at the institution. They aim for change to protect vulnerable children in care.

We have triplets, two boys and a girl, Richie, Robbie, and Claire. Every day in our life was a party. Every single day, they were smiling and laughing and looking at each other, engaging in each other. On 06/25/2007, we brought him in for the pneumococcal shot. My daughter still has the mark on her leg from the shot. She was the first one to get it, and she screamed and never really stopped screaming after that. But we continue we didn't know. We did the boys as well. By noon, Claire shut completely off. It was as if she was blind and deaf, and all she did at that moment was stare at the ceiling fan. So that was at noon. We had the shot at 10AM. By 02:00, we watched Richie shut off. They lost all their reflexes. I'm an educational audiologist. I actually did the test for the stapedial reflex, which is a little muscle in the middle ear just to see if a muscle they can't control was still working, and it it didn't. The stapedial reflex dampens sound so your ears don't hurt from a really loud sound, and both of them had no stapedial reflex. They stopped blinking, stopped yawning, stopped coughing, stopped sneezing. The worst is when we saw the final one shut down. We were told it was genetic, and then we were told by geneticists that there's no possible way three children would shut off on the same day. So we had severe autism spectrum disorder for all three kids entering kindergarten. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to recover them. The only person that we got back is Rich Robbie, the one that was last to shut off. Richie can only say single, maybe two words together. Claire is still completely nonverbal, not potty trained, and Robbie is approaching grade level but severe OCD. Let me tell you what a day in our life isn't. So you got, say, a six or seven or eight year old child who's not potty trained, and at two or three or 04:00 in the morning, they fill their diaper. I want you to assume that's pretty uncomfortable, so they take it off. Pretty soon pretty soon it's all over them. It's all over the bed. In short order, it's all over me. It's all over her. Mhmm. I'm snapping at her. She's snapping at me. We're both snapping at the kid who is the only innocent party in the whole scenario. And the one thing that's conspicuously absent from that scenario is is anybody who told you that shot was safe. They're all asleep in their bed. They haven't got a problem in the world. There were lines down the block everywhere we went. Look at this crowd behind me. Look at this line. It goes on and on and on. In fact, the very first day we screened at Angelica Film Center in New York, I wanted to know why there's this giant line down the block. What are these people here for? Can every parent or someone, you know, if you have a family member with autism, would you please stand up right now? Like, see. Three quarters of the room stood up. I remember feeling like the air just got sucked out of the room. I had no idea that there was this many people suffering from this issue. I ended up asking that question three screenings a day, five days a week, for an entire year. And every single time, three quarters of the room stood up. I realized I had stumbled on something absolutely massive.

Speaker 0 describes being advised to start attending planning meetings with a task force. Over the next several weeks and months, he attended upwards of three planning meetings with a task force of about 20 personnel from various law enforcement agencies, health and human services, the BCA, Saint Paul PD, Minneapolis PD, all revolving around fraudulent daycares. They were setting up sham daycares, with fake bills, fake students, or enrollments of students who never came—essentially, fake daycares. Over the next several months, they executed several search warrants throughout South Minneapolis, Lake Street, and different areas at these daycares. Not one of the daycares he served warrants on had anyone present; they were never occupied. They were completely empty from his experience, with stacks of invoices and student records of people who surveillance showed never went there. He notes that nobody ever came in and out of these daycares. The operation “worked out” for three to four months. He was assigned as a support person to assist with anything needing financial experience, working with HSI and immigration authorities to pull records and related tasks. Ultimately, he says the task force just kinda went away, and he is not sure whatever happened to it. He mentions the meetings of “you know, I…” but the transcription ends there.

They're taking kids from shelters if they don't have a safe place to go afterward. We confirmed this with a child protective services representative. The shelters are closing by Friday, and if families can't find safe accommodations, the children will be taken. Some shelters are still open, but many are not. We visited a shelter today that provides meals and laundry, but they must leave by noon on Friday. It's a serious situation, and it's hard to believe it's real. Families are in distress, and the implications for the children are concerning.

The speakers are questioning where a group of kids is being moved to, but the person in charge refuses to provide any information. The first speaker expresses concern about the kids going missing, and the third speaker confirms that it happens frequently. Another speaker mentions that the kids are being taken to the airport. The first speaker criticizes the secrecy and tries to film the situation. They ask why the group is hiding their faces and instructing the kids not to talk. The conversation continues with the speakers discussing the questionable nature of the situation.

Speaker 0 tells a child that their mom is unable to pick them up, so they offer to take them to the park and get ice cream. The child declines and questions if Speaker 0 knows them. Speaker 0 insists they are a friend of the child's mom and tries to convince the child to come with them. The child continues to refuse and asks Speaker 0 to step away. The child threatens to call the police, and Speaker 0 backs off. The conversation abruptly ends.