reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"Ms. Stokes wasn't elected." "She was nominated by the clerk." "In Mecklenburg County, the sitting clerk is Alyssa Chin Gary." "On her LinkedIn page, she calls herself a clerk, a DEI consultant, and a racial equity organizer." "And her life mission? Reparations." "Ms. Stokes was nominated by Judge Carla Archie." "Judge Archie is friends with Eric Holder, Obama's wingman." "And Judge Archie isn't just any judge." "In 2019, she was the DEI Champion of the Year." "Did a woman die because of DEI?" "Just a couple months ago, a guy shot five people on New Year's, and Judge Archie sentenced him to a year and a half for shooting five people." "This is a DEI court, and they have blood on their hands." "These courts need to be systematically dismantled, and that needs to happen immediately."

"A ringleader, 28 year old illegal Brazilian national, Cesar Augusto Martin Riaz, admitted to conspiring to secure driver's license for over a thousand ineligible applicants." "More than 600 licenses were approved before the scam was unraveled." "Two ninety days time served." "Riaz charged $1,400 per head." "When Bedford police pulled Riaz's over and found 50 counterfeit driver's license in his car." "Time served, all thanks to this judge, Margaret R Guzman, and she was appointed by no other than Joe Biden." "Imagine living in a state where if you are an American citizen, nobody cares about you, but if you're an illegal alien, we have people like this in the office protecting every single one of them." "How many of those drivers license are still on the road? How many are operating in your state? How do we find that out?"

You think about Trump pardoning the January? Not so good. There were crimes that were committed. I did nine hundred days in solitary confinement, four years and six days without a trial in the DC Jail. I was never convicted. I was pardoned on 01/21/2025. I was arrested January 16. I never had a trial. Do you think that's wrong. No. That's wrong. So why was pardoning us wrong then? We had no chance in the DC Jail, in the DC court system. Is it a crime to stand up for your country against a stolen election? If you were an American, yes. Not would die. If the Democrats arrested you that you would get a fair jury trial in DC? I would certainly hope so. But but Republicans don't. Trump supporters don't. You're hoping it does not make it true. Bureaucrats, they couldn't care less about their constituency.

In three minutes, that man that assaulted that young woman yesterday will be released from custody. He'll be released from custody because he's not a citizen of Germany. He's not a citizen of the EU for that matter. He doesn't even belong in here. He's an immigrant, an illegal one, a drug dealer, and very popularly known here, especially by the police. This is not the first time this has happened. It's not the first time that man had beat up a woman. And it's not the first time that the other guy decided to take a swing at my face with a six inch blade. If they could do this to the people of Germany and then just get released twelve hours later, even less at this point, where is the law? Where is the structure? If the Germans are held to that law and that structure, but these people could just come in, swing knives, and hurt, abuse, terrorize, and oppress citizens of Germany then. What do we do?

According to the speaker, certain judges are a tool used by Democrats, the ACLU, Marxists, leftists, and the deep state to control America regardless of elections. These judges will allegedly obstruct the president through frivolous lawsuits and unjustified findings. Each judge supposedly claims nationwide power, usurping the power of the presidency. The speaker claims these judges are defending America's "bad guys," helping them steal, pillage, rape, and kill, and freeing those who loot the country, money, liberty, and elections. The speaker believes these judges see themselves as the new presidents, but they have zero power.

"So the judge would have sex with inmates from the jail?" "Yes." "I was part of it. I was one of them. Not just from being in jail, coming in off the street and seeing them. Yeah." "Wasn't a secret." "Because he's the one with the power. He holds my entire life in his hands. He's the one that makes the decisions over whether I get to keep my children or not. He's the one that makes the decisions on whether I go to jail." "Did anything ever happen to you in the jail?" "Yeah." "You come you come see me three times, and we'll take care of this if it's a ticket or something, you know, or you get some minor charge, some petty charge. Come visit me a few times. We'll we'll take care of it." "Mhmm. Absolutely." "Total over the years, hundreds." "And not just for the women who had charges. Like, if your man or somebody or your child is in there, then you could go see him for that too."

A judge in San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction regarding the defunding of sanctuary cities. The speaker believes it's unbelievable that judges in San Francisco or San Diego would rule this way, stating that the U.S. shouldn't have sanctuary cities. According to the speaker, sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals, protecting them, and should be closed down to ensure a safe country. The speaker says "we have to get rid of sanctuary cities."

"We need to talk about how the media is the mouthpiece of the US government." "This man was over six feet tall, and we're expected to believe that he himself from a bunk bunk that is five and a half feet tall." "However, it has to be with enough force to break his neck in multiple places in ways which are indicative of a person being violently strangled." "unbelievable coincidences of his cellmate being moved out of his cell just hours before his death." "The cameras are conveniently located so that nothing records anything in that area." "The guards that are supposed to be guarding him were told to go home because there's maintenance happening." "This is your fucking life and your kids and your families. Wake up."

It's preposterous in my view that these judges, the judicial branch, obviously plays an important role in our three, you know, coequal branches of government, but they should understand what their role is. And these activist judges who now somehow believe that they're in the position of making policy by undermining the president's legal authorities and orders, bestowed upon him by the American people. If these judges wanna run for office and be president, go ahead and do that. Go make your policies. But they are politicizing the bench and and, you know, showing how through their activism, they are undermining really, frankly, their own credibility in doing this. And, again, another thing that undermines the American people's faith and trust that these institutions, that the the the judicial branch in some of these cases is actually, doing their job.

According to Speaker 1, the indictment of two judges is just the beginning, with more to come. These judges were allegedly dismissing immigration cases, releasing over a million illegal aliens in one year, allowing them to potentially gain citizenship. Speaker 1 questions how many judges are tied to cartels or foreign entities and hopes Pam Bondi and Kash Patel are investigating these connections. Speaker 1 believes these judges think they will get away with their actions, but more indictments are expected.

- "Do you know who Ray Epps is, and where is he? And, is he sitting behind bars like some of these other, protesters who've been sitting there without bail for so long?" - "And what we need to know is whether or not that cooperation existed on January 5 and January 6 to get people to do things that they might otherwise not do, like enter the capital." - "We already know as a consequence of reporting in revolver.news and in re really, that was confirmed by the New York Times that there were people texting their handlers from the crowd in January 5 and January 6." - "Now we just need to know whether the folks being controlled by the federal government were, in fact, the very people that were doing the worst things on January 6."

A senator accuses Democrat colleagues of hypocrisy regarding the rule of law, citing their past support for a "lawless" and "politically weaponized" Department of Justice. They claim Democrats didn't care about violent protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes, alleging the Attorney General agreed with the protesters to intimidate judges. The senator questions a professor about the roles of voters, elected representatives, and judges in elections and policy decisions. The senator asserts that federal courts do not have the power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case and that "nationwide injunction" is not in the constitution. The senator states that there were zero nationwide injunctions in the first 150 years of the republic, 27 in the 20th century, and 32 between 2001 and 2024. They claim 37 nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone against President Trump. The senator accuses Democrats of "lawfare" by indicting Trump and now seeking out radical judges to shut down policies through forum shopping. They allege a judge ignored US immigration law to keep "murderers and rapists and gang members" in communities, and that nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power.

It's April 30, and I saw that yesterday the Department of Justice is suing New Jersey over the Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act, which restricts when law enforcement officers, including federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, can have masks on. This stood out to me because this is exactly what Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia said was going to happen. Remember this clip? “The love of God and all that is good. Can you differentiate between the fact that we don't make laws that control the federal government? My God, what are we doing here? I'm not a lawyer. I was an English teacher and I comprehend that. My fifth grade middle school English students would understand it. I am coming to you not from a point of ideology because I know in the minority party, we already lost that argument. You guys are way, way out in the ether with that. I'm not even hoping to win the ideology. I'm hoping to win the logical argument to say, why do we keep passing laws that are gonna end up in court, we lose, and the taxpayer gets shafted over and over and over? You cannot vote yes for a law that controls local, county, state. Oh, oops. And federal. No. Federal's gotta come off for this to count. The only reason why you're passing it is to affect federal agents. Hello? Lights on. No one's home. I'm not an attorney. I need a freaking honorary degree after going through this for four hours yesterday saying, what? Don't a roomful of lawyers understand? Ludicrous. Oh my goodness.” What does that mean for us as taxpayers? I did see in New Jersey Spotlight News they reported that New Jersey's attorney general's office had spent over $53,000,000 in one year on outside private lawyers alone, on top of their in-house staff costs. Now for my question that came next, maybe somebody else would have a better source for this, but I just asked Rock about how much something like this would cost as a lawsuit. The initial response in motion practice is somewhere between $50,000 and $150,000 because that's mostly in-house attorneys. The discovery and hearings is $100,000 to $300,000 if it gets contentious. It says the common range for litigation is another $250,000 to $800,000. And then appeals, if New Jersey loses appeals, could range anywhere from $150,000 to $400,000. So that brings us in a range from $300,000 to $1,200,000 over this case. No matter where we stand on the issue, we should know how much it's going to cost us.

There are no coincidences. Judge Mershan has handled many cases, including Donald Trump's and soon Steve Bannon's. It's suspicious that they keep getting the same judge in New York County. I don't believe in coincidences.

The Supreme Court ruled that the felony charges against many January 6 protesters were unjust and should not have happened. We have been unfairly persecuted, prosecuted, and imprisoned. It is time to release my people.

Judge, why did you want the job? I appoint federal judges, but thanks for serving. Can you make a speech? Hush up, boy.

The speaker questions why the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, is not taking action against a person who defended themselves. They express frustration at the possibility of the person only receiving a short prison sentence. Another speaker responds, stating that Alvin Bragg is known for being a justice warrior who prioritizes criminals over victims. They mention other DAs like Boudin in San Francisco, Gascon in LA, and Kramer in Philadelphia, who allegedly follow a similar approach. The speaker suggests that these DAs prioritize protecting criminals rather than victims.

Speaker 0 describes a courtroom incident where the judge read a letter and later accused him of violence in the courtroom. He says he asked the judge who wrote the letter and claimed he cannot represent his father because he is not a licensed attorney. He counters that he has never heard of an attorney’s license and even contacted the licensing commissioner, who offers driver’s licenses, mortgage licenses, and real estate licenses but no license to practice law; when asked to produce a license to practice law, the judge grew angry and said nothing. He asks if the court is a court of record for the third time and the judge goes quiet; other attorneys stand nearby as if unsure what’s going on. He tells the judge he doesn’t want to talk to the attorneys because the judge is the one keeping his dad in jail, not the lawyers. He insists on a record of whether this is a court of record, and when he does so, the panic button is pressed and bailiffs drag him out of the courthouse. His father is brought in and told, “Russ, we’ll let you go if you promise not to do it again.” His father hadn’t seen him since age 10 and didn’t know he was present. After his father is released, he resolves to dedicate his life to combining that experience with his spiritual knowledge. Speaker 0 then asserts that the system is purely financial: they treat your body as a warehouse, file liens, and monetize it using the General Services Administration (GSA). He claims they file a bid bond, a performance bond, and a payment bond with standard forms 93, 94, and 95, and then make you pay commissary. He describes receiving a CID number, being placed in a trustee program, and doing work, with everything financed through what he calls their private system, the Court Registry Investment System. He states you pay for everything, including attorney’s fees and court costs. Regarding exits from court cases, he claims you can stop a case by sending an affidavit of questionnaire to the judge and attorneys and asking under penalty of perjury whether they have a financial interest in the case. If they answer yes, they must recuse themselves; if they answer no, you have perjured yourself, and the IRS will imprison you. This, he says, is how to stop court cases. Speaker 1 responds with astonishment and disbelief, noting that people are being “traded like cattle” in jail and humorously remarks about future nicknames, calling the speaker “my cousin Vinny.”

There’s no reason Judge Marshawn should have been assigned to this case. He’s not part of the panel of 24 judges that handle these cases, as he is an acting judge. The claim that he was randomly assigned is impossible since he isn’t in the selection pool. Interestingly, he was also assigned to the Trump organization and Steve Bannon cases, despite not being a regular judge. Moreover, Judge Marshawn has ties to organizations opposing Trump, and his daughter earns millions promoting Democrats. The circumstances surrounding his assignment raise questions about the randomness of these selections.

A left-wing New York judge is preventing the 45th president of the United States from speaking in court. The president's attorney, Alina Haba, explains that the judge interrupts him when he tries to explain the complexities of real estate. The judge's actions are seen as biased and unfair, hindering the president's ability to defend himself. Haba believes there should be consequences for violating judicial ethics and calls for a mistrial. The situation is damaging the reputation of the New York legal system and is seen as a clown show. The president's knowledge of real estate could have provided valuable insights if the judge had allowed him to speak.

The speaker discusses a left-wing judge in New York who is not allowing the 45th president of the United States to speak in court. The speaker believes that the judge has an agenda and is biased against Donald Trump. They argue that Trump is knowledgeable about real estate and is trying to explain the science and economics of it in court. The judge is accused of cutting him off and not allowing him to finish his paragraphs. The speaker criticizes the judge's behavior and calls for someone to speak out against it. They also mention a law clerk with left-wing affiliations and express the need for an impartial judicial system. The speaker believes there should be a mistrial and accountability for violating judicial ethics. They conclude by stating that the New York legal system looks like a clown show and that Trump has had a significant impact on real estate in New York.

Nobody is above the law, and elected office does not grant immunity from prosecution. Defending a judge or prosecutor politically is inappropriate because the legal system should be nonpolitical. The speaker expresses dismay that someone had a judge arrested.

I can't explain because the judge is corrupt. His ruling is a disgrace. Everyone saw what happened. I'm innocent, but held by a corrupt judge who's conflicted. It's a disgrace to New York and the country. I need to get back to the campaign trail. Thank you.

I speak for the entire country when I say if you're not going to start arresting these treasonous people for their crimes, stop making it headline news. You're just angering Americans who work hard every day only to be taken advantage of by the government. I'm tired of this. Treason should not be punished lightly. But nothing's happening. Nobody's being arrested. If you or I were doing the same money laundering, screwing over the American people and the country, we'd be severely punished. We're not part of the elite, and we're held to a different standard.

The speaker believes that judges are committing treason because they were not elected and are obstructing the will of the American people. The speaker states that the American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump, who campaigned on border security for years. Therefore, the speaker concludes that the judges should get out of the way because they are the problem.