TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Every time I do an investigative report, they call the police. It happened recently in Livingston, New Jersey and in Palisades, New York. They're calling the cops on me, even though I'm a journalist. I had a conversation with someone who didn't initially share their name, but I persisted and eventually got their business card. This experience taught me the importance of being relentless in seeking information. The public needs to be informed.

I received a call from a grandfather in Rotherham about his 13-year-old granddaughter. She went missing after going to school, and the police were notified. However, the police didn't seem too concerned. At 2:30 AM, a neighbor called 999 after hearing a young girl screaming. The police found the missing girl at the house, along with another young girl, seven adult Pakistani men, and she was almost naked and drunk. Instead of questioning the men, Southampton Police arrested the 13-year-old for being drunk and disorderly, put her in a cell, charged her, and she was convicted. The police didn't even question the men about why a 13-year-old, nearly naked girl was in their house in the early hours.

Speaker describes contacting a friend via the NCA, who said he was "heavily concerned with not putting this in through the front door because of the names on the list" and that "somebody's gonna come and see you" and they would require writing and signing. Nothing happened. A second source advised going directly to the police due to fears for the person's life because of the names on the list. He sent the information to Gloucestershire Police, which has an undercover trafficking team. Two weeks later, they called: "Are you Mandy Smith?" Yes, I am. "You've sent us this information. How did you get my details?" He questioned whether it was verified and how they acquired the list. The interviewer asked, "are you suffering from mental health issues?" He said, "No." "There's nothing on the record." He put the phone down.

Hello, I'm Sean, a senior nurse with the NHS. Can I have your name and number? PT Green, Echo Bravo 428. What’s this about? I have some concerns. It’s a bit smelly here. What’s the issue? I believe this is religious discrimination. You wouldn’t be here if I were Muslim. Why do you think we’re here? I know why. We’ve received concerns about your views. I’m an Orthodox Christian, and I’m filming this for my solicitor. What are your concerns? I don’t mean to be abrupt, but why are you here? We’re here to listen and help if you have any well-being concerns. I’m fine, thank you. You’re here because I questioned the church’s actions. No assumptions are being made. That’s fine.

There is a discussion about child trafficking and the speaker's personal experience with their children being targeted. They express frustration at not receiving support and mention being an open book to anyone who wants to help. The other speaker acknowledges the situation but states they are already doing what they can and cannot offer further assistance. They mention the possibility of Epstein being alive and share their own encounters with danger. The conversation ends with the second speaker promising that things will improve in the next three months. The first speaker asks if they can still send a petition, but the second speaker declines, stating they don't have time.

Speaker 1 recounts an incident where “eleven police officers” arrived at their house, which they describe as completely ridiculous. The speaker explains they had left the front door open and were waiting for their dad, actually being in the bath at the time the officers entered. They recall hearing their name called, noticing one female officer among the group of ten male officers. They initially thought the name might belong to their sister because they were upstairs in the bath. The officers then came up the stairs without giving them any privacy, and the speaker confirms they were naked. The speaker describes feeling disgusted and very upset, crying their eyes out. They asked that the female officer stay downstairs and that the male officers be the ones to handle the situation, expressing that they were upset about the lack of privacy and the presence of officers while exposed. Despite this, the males were sent downstairs, and the female officer sat with the speaker, who was crying and very distressed. When asked what the officers were there for, the speaker says they asked for clarification. The female officer explained that the police were there for “malicious communications. Hate crime and malicious communications.” The speaker pressed for more information about the reason behind the visit, and the officer indicated they would discuss the details “when we get to the police station” or “to the” authorities, but the exact phrasing in the transcript cuts off 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.”

Neymar: Yeah. Fortunately, it was very much because of Elon’s response to what was going on in Europe too that I realized that it was extremely dangerous when I did announce it to him before I even applied, just to see his reaction, whether he would agree, because sometimes I like to gas up myself and think, maybe it’s not that crazy. And he, yeah, basically gave me his approval instantly, thinking that it’s a good idea. I’m very, very grateful, not only for the exposure that he has given me and the AFD and my country as a whole, Patriots in my country, but also just for the yeah. Kind of, like, the encouragement to fight because that’s what he does. No matter what, like, he he gets so many death threats. He gets so many threats from all sides, but he still continues, and that has inspired me a lot. And then it was only after my application that Ana Polina Luna reached out to me. So, like I said, I didn’t ask anyone for a favor. I want to do this the legitimate way, and now exciting things are coming for sure. I I definitely want to take this further. This is only step one because I’m applying for asylum, not because I want to be in The United States so desperately. I mean, I love The United States. So, yeah, don’t get me wrong. 100%. But I could just apply for, I don’t know, journalism visa, for example, and I could stay here that way. I’m doing this to seek protection from the US government because I genuinely fear for my life over there in Germany. I fear that if I come back, I will be arrested. Fun fact, I just actually saw my sister sent me a letter that I got from the police that I’m now officially being charged with a hate crime, is it it’s what it’s called, for one of my tweets. I don’t know which one are currently requesting that from the police, so, yeah, we’ll see. Speaker 0: Funny funny thing you’re over. Anyone that’s saying that you’re maybe overreacting by doing all this, you’ve just received a letter from the police charging you with hate crime. Speaker 1: Yeah. That’s just a small detail of my entire history. I have the evidence from the German intelligence community. It was also funny. I was interviewed by The Telegraph, and they apparently reached out to German intelligence to get a comment, and they refused to comment.

CSIS came to my home while I was cooking for my child and approached me in an uncomfortable manner. Since then, I have faced harassment and stalking from them. Despite telling them I didn’t want to talk, they repeatedly called and even found my gym. They implied that if I didn’t become an informant, my safety and ability to care for my child could be at risk. I’m not impressed with law enforcement in this country. I have not been asked to reimburse any money, but CSIS has applied significant psychological pressure on me to cooperate. I declined their offer, as I refuse to be an asset for any government, and I want to know how much this has cost Canadians.

The speaker tries to contact the state and local police departments but struggles to get assistance. They mention filing complaints in the past and receiving threats due to their involvement in politics. They express frustration with not receiving police reports and describe a recent threat from a woman named Linda Waterman. The speaker wants the police to take their threats seriously but refuses to provide their address. The conversation becomes heated, with the speaker insisting on knowing the names of the officers they would meet. The call ends abruptly without a resolution.

I went on TV to talk about grooming gangs in Telford, and police suddenly showed up at my door, claiming it was their duty to follow up. They had done nothing about the abuse for decades but decided to intimidate me after my interview. They said they were trying to make a difference, but it seemed like they were targeting a victim instead of the perpetrators. It's pathetic that criticizing them on TV drove them into action. I have no idea who ordered this "raid."

An active and ongoing investigation disrupted a threat, ensuring no one was hurt. Authorities proactively engaged with potential targets of violence, allocating a liaison officer to each potential victim for support throughout the investigation. Potential victims were given safety and security advice, including advice on how to evade surveillance, such as alternating walking pace and avoiding frequenting the same locations. One party expressed concern that private citizens are being trained in intelligence trade craft to protect themselves, rather than authorities arresting or dealing with those responsible for intimidation. They stated that no Australian citizen should have to be an expert in debating surveillance.

Speaker 0 is contacted by the FBI but refuses to turn off the camera. They are asked about someone they met online but refuse to speak on camera. Speaker 0 declines an interview and ends the conversation.

The speaker mentions having spoken with whistleblowers and an informant who provided valuable information. However, they express difficulty in locating the informant and hope that they are still available. The whistleblower is described as credible. When questioned about the informant's whereabouts, the speaker clarifies that they are hopeful of finding them. They explain that informants in the spy business tend to avoid being seen frequently or being in the public eye.

Speaker 0 states that there is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information we have, again, is limited. So the answer is no one? For the information that we have. In the files? In the case file. Okay.

I'm declining to be named in your story. I haven't given any quotes. My name is James O'Keefe. We have you on hidden camera talking about Elon Musk, Doge, and unlawful activities at Treasury. I encourage you to speak on the record. We have you on video saying government colleagues don't do much, and Doge targets us because it's easy. I'm a reporter. People deserve to know what you've said. Why did you share this with a stranger but not me? You specialize in foreign policy at the Treasury. What are you afraid of? It'll look bad when you won't speak to me, but you told a stranger everything. This is a major public policy issue. I'm running this story with or without you. I think the people need to know what's happening inside the government, including risks to national security.

I received a persistent message on Instagram from a burner account urging me to check my DMs. The sender claimed to have information that could "change the course of humanity." After some back and forth, he sent a detailed manifesto about alleged military operations and war crimes, insisting I connect him with media outlets like Fox News. He claimed to be an active duty Special Forces member with knowledge of advanced drone technology and a history of war crimes cover-ups. Despite checking his LinkedIn and finding credible credentials, I couldn't verify his claims. He requested anonymity and warned of a potential attack, but I felt unable to share this without evidence. Ultimately, I informed the FBI about the situation, recognizing its seriousness.

I appeared on a show discussing the abuse of girls in Telford, which sparked significant public support. The next day, police officers knocked on my door, claiming they needed to follow up on my interview about grooming gangs. They had tracked me down, visiting my previous addresses, and their approach felt intimidating, almost like they were treating me as a suspect. I pointed out that while they had done nothing to pursue my abusers, they were suddenly active after my TV appearance. I was surprised by the presence of 22 officers from the Child Sexual Exploitation team, who claimed they wanted to make a difference, yet they were targeting a victim instead of the perpetrators who have been abusing girls for decades.

David from the Sacramento FBI is approached for an interview about someone he met online. He refuses to speak on camera and declines to answer questions about his activities.

The National Human Trafficking Hotline may not be as advertised, according to a report by the Counter Trafficking Alliance. Attorneys general from 36 states have raised concerns about the hotline not sharing crime tips with law enforcement. Mississippi attorney general Lynn Fitch blew the whistle on this issue after meeting with Polaris CEO Catherine Chen. It was discovered that the hotline is transitioning from a tip line to a resource line, despite already having long wait times. The report can be found on countertraffickingalliance.com, urging action on various concerns regarding the hotline.

From a firsthand account about the whistleblower within ODNI who worked for then, Obama's DNI, James Clapper, about how he refused to go along with this. "As a result, he was sidelined and cut out of this." "He was the cyber guy in the director, in the director of national intelligence, James Clapper's, team." "He was sidelined because he wouldn't play along with the lie that they were creating, and he did blow the whistle." "He raised this through the ICIG." "He raised this, tried to raise this with multiple members of congress, including senator Warner." "He never got calls back." "They were not interested in what he had to say and what he had experienced." "He even tried then to go and report this to the Department of Justice, under, president Biden and was refused." "No action." "They were not interested in taking action in this."

I want to show you something. I was going to let this go, but I can't. Hello. I don't know how to do this, but I want to tell you all that I have been pressured by government officials to do and say things to harm others. They even hacked my phone and I received a tracking notification. This happened after meeting with government officials who, besides that, offered me everything and a large sum of money. They also tried to persuade me to lie and arrange a meeting with the president if I caused harm.

The speaker recounts a long-standing pattern of interactions with federal agents, noting that jokes about agents reading their chats stopped being funny for a period. They describe being pressured to work for these agencies for months, a pressure that left no paper trail and was deliberately concealed. Each time agents visited their home, they were asked to shut off their phone and told not to tell anyone about what was happening. The speaker explains that the only reason they can discuss the situation now is that they made a deliberate, fear-driven decision to do so. They recall sweating and nearly vomiting, and they went so far as to clip a DJI microphone to their bra before every visit, anxious that the device would beep or reveal what was being discussed. This precaution reflects the level of fear and the stakes involved in the interactions. They claim to have later confronted Parliament about the surveillance and pressure campaigns they faced, actions taken after they recorded evidence of these activities. The speaker asserts a broader possibility: there exists a very real world in which they did none of that—where they would still be online today as an independent influencer while privately secretly acting on behalf of Canadian intelligence agencies—because they were made to believe they would go to jail. They emphasize that they are not the only person affected by this dynamic, suggesting a wider pattern or network behind these experiences.

The speaker mentions having spoken with whistleblowers and an informant who provided valuable information. However, they express difficulty in locating the informant at present. The whistleblower is considered credible and has knowledge of the informant. It is hoped that the informant can be found, but it is noted that informants in the spy business tend to avoid being seen or attracting attention.

I exposed the names and companies involved in trafficking children into the UK for pedophilia to the police, MI5, the National Crime Agency, and the government. Instead of investigating, Leicestershire Police accused me of pedophilia and investigated me for four months, alleging I was a Freemason involved in ritualized child abuse, which was false. This was my punishment for raising the issue. The evidence came from two Ukrainian secret service agents who provided the same information about 9,000 missing children from Donbas. After passing this information to the National Crime Agency, someone at a company we implicated checked out my associate's LinkedIn profile. Car bombs were planted under the cars of both Ukrainian agents; one died, and the other is in hiding. We will have to go public with the evidence. Next week, I should be able to make a very important announcement about holding those responsible for crimes against the people to account legally.