reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Alexander Suker, 42, was contracted with the city and county of Los Angeles to house and feed up to 600 homeless people, but was accused of misusing tens of millions of dollars to live a luxurious life. Exclusive Fox video shows the federal agents’ early-morning bust at the LA mansion. Suker was arrested, and his $125,000 Land Rover was seized by law enforcement. The feds say Suker defrauded the city and county of LA out of $23,000,000 for not only his mansion and car, but a second home in Greece, luxury vacations, designer clothes, and private schools. Speaker 1: He was living the high life while the people suffering, homeless on the streets with no shelter, no food. They're living out in the streets. People are literally dying, and this guy is out vacationing, buying homes, buying Range Rovers, and going shopping. Speaker 0: Prosecutors say Suker was supposed to provide three nutritional meals a day to the homeless, but during one inspection, Suker only had canned beans and ramen noodles on hand. The feds say Suker lied about various aspects of abundant blessings, including fake vendors, facilities and the homeless actually getting meals. The US Attorney's Office in LA says they are actively investigating at least 12 other similar fraud cases here in California. First Assistant US Attorney Bill Asele says there's a tremendous amount of fraud in this state and that today's bust of one man who misused $23,000,000 alone may show how little oversight there is. Speaker 1: California was pushing this money out quickly. A lot of money went out the door, with frankly very little vetting, very little checks and balances, and, he's one of the individuals that got it. Speaker 0: The suspect is scheduled to make his first appearance later today. He faces up to twenty years if convicted on a federal case. The local district attorney is also planning on prosecuting. Sean.

The speaker questions the audience about whether the answer to who killed Charlie Kirk and what happened on September 10 is “very clear.” Even among those who believe Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger, the speaker doubts the situation would be described as “very clear.” The speaker notes that Erica Kirk believes it to be clear, and suggests this represents the “final stop” of a PR campaign, with Erica being brought out to signal to the public that her judgment cannot be questioned. The speaker rejects what he calling emotional manipulation and wants to give people permission to avoid the trap of feeling obliged to share Erica Kirk’s conclusions simply because she is a widow and the public cannot cry or question her judgment. The speaker contends that the story presented thus far “makes little sense, if any sense,” and asserts that it “makes, I think, no sense.” To that end, he signals that later in the show they will discuss Tyler Robinson, who has now made his first in-person appearance in court. He frames this as “the good news” that Tyler Robinson exists, indicating a forthcoming discussion of his court appearance.

Speaker 0 instructs someone to stay close behind. Speaker 1 asks "Carmilla" if she has anything to say to the victim's family and questions why she was armed at school, asking her to explain her self-defense and how it applies. Speaker 0 interjects, saying "Excuse me" repeatedly. Speaker 2 asks someone if they want to play to the community.

In this video transcript, Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 engage in a conversation about their interactions with a person named Emily on Facebook. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 2 about explicit content and potential plans to meet up, while Speaker 2 denies any intention of engaging in sexual activities and claims their phone was hacked. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of honesty and offers assistance. The conversation continues with Speaker 2 expressing fear and Speaker 1 reassuring them. Speaker 2 reiterates their innocence, and Speaker 1 emphasizes their willingness to help. They discuss Speaker 2's past, including his daughter being in foster care, and Speaker 1 reassures Speaker 2 that they are there to help and not judge. They talk about the possibility of consensual actions between Speaker 2 and Emily, with Speaker 2 denying any intention of forcing himself on her. Speaker 1 stresses the need for honesty to provide necessary help. Speaker 2 acknowledges the need for help and expresses gratitude for support. They discuss Poncho's lies, potential sexual activities with a minor, and the need for help. Poncho admits to having a sex addiction and discusses interactions with underage girls and older men interested in young girls. The speaker suggests that Poncho may have received explicit pictures of minors from others online. Poncho expresses a desire for help and mentions seeing a psychiatrist. The conversation ends with a discussion about Poncho's sexual preferences and habits. The speakers also discuss instances where videos of underage girls engaging in sexual activities were sent to them, mentioning platforms like Facebook, Telegram, and Signal. They mention being added to groups where such videos were shared but leaving those groups. The conversation then shifts to the speaker's personal life, including a custody battle and accusations made by his daughter. They discuss the speaker's ban from Facebook and interactions with law enforcement, as well as the speaker's age and occupation. The video ends with a discussion about not inviting a 12-year-old named Emily over again, mentioning sending inappropriate pictures and potential legal action. The speaker hopes for prosecution and mentions police interest in pursuing the case, but no immediate arrest will occur. The video concludes with a request for likes and an invitation to join a group.

The latest information from CNN indicates that the person of interest in the shooting is identified as 24-year-old Benjamin Erickson of Wisconsin. The report notes that he is the individual authorities are focusing on as the suspect in connection with the incident, and that he is currently in custody with charges not yet disclosed as authorities continue to prepare them. According to the sources cited, Erickson grew up in the Milwaukee area and attended high school there. After high school, he went on to attend the University of Wisconsin. The timeline suggests that he left or altered his course of study sometime after completing high school, with indications that this transition occurred in the period following the end of the COVID-19 shutdowns. In addition to his time at the University of Wisconsin, Erickson served in the United States Army. The reporting specifies that his service took place at Fort Myer, which is located just outside Washington, D.C. The account characterizes his role as part of an elite ceremonial unit and an honor guard. It describes his duties as involving marching presentations and work with horses, rather than deployment to any combat or war zone, based on information checked with official contacts at the Department of Defense. The report also notes that there appeared to be no criminal background on Erickson. This aspect is highlighted by the sources as part of the summary of his record prior to the incident in question. There is some discussion in the reporting about Erickson’s academic status. According to his own posts, he switched from the University of Wisconsin to Brown University for the year 2025. This detail has become a point of contention because officials previously stated that he was not a student at Brown University. The reporting suggests there is a possibility that he was suspended or had been moved out and was not enrolled at the time of the shooting with which he is allegedly connected. Regarding the investigation status, authorities have not publicly disclosed the charges at this time. The report states that Erickson is in custody, and that authorities are in the process of drawing up or confirming charges, though the specific legal actions have not been made explicit in the information available to the public at this moment. In summary, the key facts presented are: Benjamin Erickson, 24, of Wisconsin, identified as the person of interest; Milwaukee-area high school background; studied at the University of Wisconsin and later associated with Brown University for 2025; Army service at Fort Myer as part of an elite ceremonial unit and honor guard with horse-mounted duties; no known criminal background; currently in custody with charges not yet disclosed as investigations proceed.

Investigators say a student, Casey Sloan, stabbed another student in a classroom at ASU's West Valley campus. The victim suffered deep cuts and required surgery. According to police, the victim asked who attacked her and why. Sloan is charged with attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and appearing with an educational institution. Prosecutors claim Sloan planned the attack, writing about it in a letter to her family, and that she struggled with self-worth issues. They say she considered attacking two people, choosing her victim because she was an easier target. Prosecutors call the attack unprovoked, stating Sloan likely suffers from mental health issues and is a danger to the community.

Jake Lang, associated with the group 1776, has been in the news for doing a lot of things. The transcript alleges that yesterday he was driving around the speaker’s city “for some reason humping a goat in the back of a van,” but it clarifies that “Jake's not interested in goats.” The report then claims that Lang is interested in young underage women. It mentions a friend of the speaker, Arlen, also known as the Zurg, who allegedly “does underage things.” The account alleges that Lang was foolish enough to give Arlen his number and was creepy enough to interact with him thinking he was a 15-year-old girl. According to the narrative, Lang and Arlen began working on this back in November by following Lang’s account. Lang purportedly reached out and asked, “you coming to my next protest in Texas?” Lang immediately goes for the phone number. The presenter emphasizes that the profiles involved are clearly high school-related, noting that they “always have some sort of high school and some throwback to being in high school.” The speaker also states that they cannot show the profiles publicly because that would reveal the operation, but reiterates the claim that the profiles are clearly linked to high school imagery. The situation allegedly worsens when Lang insisted on moving the interaction to a text message conversation, saying, “I have too many DMs. Text only, sweetie.” A decoy provides a phone number. Lang becomes chatty and asks, “How old are you, by the way?” The decoy responds that she is 30, and Lang asks questions like, “Why are you up so late, young lady? How old are you, baby? Unless you are under 18.” The decoy then claims, “I’m 15 and sends a selfie.” The speaker states that Lang sends “possibly the creepiest message a 30 year old grown fucking man could send to a 15 year old,” asking, “When do you turn 16?” The decoy replies that she will turn 16 in six months and adds, “I won’t get you in trouble. If that's what you're worried about, I can keep a secret.” Lang reacts by liking the message and pressing further, asking, “What state do you live in? I can’t see you till you’re 16.” The closing remark questions Lang directly: “Jake, you’re 30. Is this crazy right-wing influencer thing going so poorly for you that you have to try fucking children, or are you just a pedophile, bro?”

I'm here because there are transcripts, about 70 or 80 pages, of your chat conversations with a minor. It includes a selfie you sent to a 15-year-old boy on Valentine's Day. We want to go over these conversations. This is for everyone's safety, and for documentation purposes. I'm trying to show you here, Kevin, that you, a sixth-grade teacher, were talking to a 15-year-old boy online and having phone sex with him. The boy's name is Josh. You guys met on Daddy Hunt, then moved over to text messaging. He told you he was 15, homeschooled, and looking for gay guys to talk to. You acknowledged his age multiple times. I want you to tell me the truth, because you are a dangerous man.

The video discusses Tyler Robinson’s gag order and the possibility of someone calling him, citing Elizabeth Lane, a journalist trying to help Robinson get a new attorney. Lane says a phone call to Robinson is absolutely not possible. The video references Project Constitution claiming exclusivity and presents sensational claims: “Tyler Robinson breaks silence then hangs up fast,” a blurry “handers threatening him to stay quiet,” a seven-minute connected video call where Robinson’s face is blurred and an audio clip where he identifies the commentator and then “stone walls,” with family and friends trying to rally him and describing a “gag order or handlers warning him to shut the fuck up or else.” The video content includes a “post Kennedy hit” analogy and questions about Robinson’s defense, suggesting he won’t get a courtroom appearance and that the situation resembles a conspiracy. The video also presents a claim that Tyler Robinson’s wife has no say in his defense. Parallel to these claims, the transcript introduces a news-style segment with several speakers (Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3) about Robinson’s latest court hearing. The hearing was brief; Robinson wasn’t present, listening from the Utah County Jail. Lawyers focused on evidence from the crime scene. There is a substantial amount of discovery. Robinson’s lawyers filed a formal appearance and did not waive the right to a preliminary hearing. Judge Tony Graff issued a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case from talking about it to avoid pretrial publicity, given the high-profile nature of the case in Utah. The judge aims to protect Robinson’s constitutional rights and the rights of the victim, and the court will rule on how to handle witnesses who have not yet been identified. The witnesses, potentially numbering in the thousands, include individuals who spoke to an audience of 2,000–3,000 students at Utah Valley University. As witnesses become known to each side, the information will be conveyed to comply with the gag order. Outside the courtroom, counsel declined to comment. A further hearing is scheduled in person for October 30. The initial speaker critiques the notion of a fair trial in Robinson’s case, asserting that Robinson was captured on numerous campus cameras during the incident, from entering the roof area to firing a shot and retreating, with a rapid sequence of movements and a subsequent drop-off of the weapon. The speaker argues that Robinson will not reach a courtroom and predicts he will be “Epstein’d” and removed, comparing the scenario to JFK and MLK assassinations and suggesting involvement by someone connected to Israel. The speaker claims that this is a “joke” and believes Tyler Robinson will die before trial, asserting that “nobody’s buying it.” The overall tone blends skepticism about a fair trial with conspiratorial accusations about the handling of Robinson’s case.

Carmela is asked if she has anything to say to the victims' families. She is then questioned about why she was armed at school and asked to explain how it was self-defense.

An individual is being confronted about a possible violation of student policy, which was caught on video. The individual confirms they are a full-time student returning in the summer. The other person says that after six months of good behavior and community service, the judge will drop the charges. The individual expresses concern that this will negatively impact their studies and future growth. They ask if there's room for second chances or redemption, but the other person states it's too late, as they had a chance not to do what they did. The other person calls the situation a teachable moment.

Speaker 0 notes that the people are not accusing him of rape or selling anyone; they are facing charges including human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit. Speaker 1 describes OnlyFans as “the best hustle in the world.” He explains the alleged methods: using the “lover boy method,” coercing by being nice, and not mentioning webcam until after sex. He says mentioning webcam on dates “just doesn’t work” and claims he would never do that, arguing the technique is to proceed normally and introduce webcam later. Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 discuss a program called PhD on corporatetake.com: “PhD is a pimp and hose degree.” He claims it teaches how he met girls, how he got girls to like him, how he got girls to fall in love with him to work on webcam, and how to have them spend more time with him. He describes inviting a prospective recruit to a meeting and bringing a girl who works for “Your bottom bitch” to explain the selling. The process emphasizes a “first girl” as pivotal, with girls on camera together the first day so the new girl can observe and imitate. Speaker 4 recounts specific experiences: being bought wine and becoming nervous about webcam work; the narrator describes wealth from webcam operations and retaining girls; he mentions four locations and 75 girls, with roughly half of the money going to the workers, claiming a 50% split and suggesting taxes explain the disparity. Another worker, paid a flat £15 per hour, notes large sums from clients who believed they would meet the girl. Speaker 1 describes a pattern where men fell in love with his models and sent large amounts of money, including people selling houses and life savings. He states: “I used sex as a tool to make women love me so they'd obey me and live in my house to make me money. That’s what I wanted. So I was a pimp in that sense.” He discusses the emotional manipulation that led clients to believe they would meet the girl. Speaker 5 remains skeptical, labeling the operation “pimpy.” Speaker 1 argues about the Me Too era, saying he is not a rapist in a way that would be labeled, yet he admits he likes the freedom to do what he wants. Speaker 6 challenges Speaker 1 by quoting his own statements: that his job was to meet a girl, sleep with her, get her to fall in love, and then get her on webcam to become rich together. Speaker 1 denies that exact quote, but Speaker 6 insists it matches what was said on the website. Speaker 0 reiterates that the belief is he was charged with human trafficking, and Speaker 1 clarifies that “human trafficking” is framed as forcing a girl to work for financial gain, noting TikTok accounts from some girls as part of the justification. He reiterates the PhD as a pimp and hose degree he claims to be pleasant about.

The speaker instructs someone to go straight to the car and follow behind them closely. The speaker then asks Carmela if she has anything to say to the victim's family. The speaker questions Carmela about why she was armed at school, asking her to explain how it was self-defense. Another speaker asks if there is anything to say or if they want to play to the community that donated.

Carmela is asked if she has anything to say to the victim's family. She is questioned about why she was armed and present at the school. She is asked to explain her self-defense and how her actions constitute self-defense.

A man contracted by the city and county of Los Angeles to house and feed up to 600 homeless people was arrested for allegedly misusing tens of millions of dollars to live a luxurious life. 42-year-old Alexander Suker was taken into custody as exclusive Fox video shows the early-morning federal bust at the LA mansion. Suker’s $125,000 Land Rover was seized, and authorities say he defrauded the city and county of Los Angeles out of $23,000,000, covering a mansion and car, a second home in Greece, luxury vacations, designer clothes, and private schools. Prosecutors say Suker was supposed to provide three nutritional meals a day to the homeless, but during one inspection he only had canned beans and ramen noodles on hand. The FBI says Suker lied about various aspects of his supposed “abundant blessings,” including fake vendors, facilities, and the homeless actually receiving meals. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles notes they are actively investigating at least 12 other similar fraud cases in California. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Asele says there’s a tremendous amount of fraud in this state and that today’s bust of one man who misused $23,000,000 alone may show how little oversight there is. California was pushing this money out quickly, with a lot of money going out the door, Asele adds, with frankly very little vetting and very few checks and balances, and Suker is one of the individuals who benefited. The suspect is scheduled to make his first appearance later today. He faces up to twenty years if convicted on the federal case. The local district attorney is also planning on prosecuting.

I have an update on the recent bomb threat made to me and my university. The threat claimed that bombs were in my dorm room and buildings around campus, but we knew it was fake from the beginning. No one was injured and everything is fine. I confirmed that a school report and a police report were filed. I tried to get the school report but can only do so via subpoena. I went to the police station to file my own report, but they said it wasn't necessary since the university already filed one. I have to request a copy of the report online, which may take some time. I want to be transparent with you all and share everything I know. We hope to have the report in a few days.

Good morning. I'm at the Pinellas Justice Center after leaving the seventh pretrial conference for my prosecutor, who's accused of stabbing a motorist. A hearing is now set for May 2nd for a stand your ground motion to dismiss the case. The argument is that the repeatedly stabbed motorist left his vehicle to break my client's window and subdue him because he was drunk, even though there was no blood alcohol content tested at the scene or hospital. The claim is, "I saw it, therefore I had every right to stab him." It's shocking this has gone on this long. I'll be here in May to see what happens. Wish me luck, have a blessed day, and try not to get stabbed by a federal employee.

The speaker provides an update on a bomb threat made towards them and their university. They address claims that the university is not complying with the Clery Act, which requires colleges to issue emergency notifications and timely warnings. The speaker mentions recent reports made under the Clery Act, such as a stolen scooter and incidents of harassment. However, there is no mention of the supposed bomb threat in any of these reports. The speaker argues that if minor incidents are reported, a bomb threat should also be reported. They suggest that either the bomb threat didn't happen or the university is willing to face fines and potential loss of federal funding. Another TikTok creator contacted the university's student life department, who claimed to have no knowledge of the situation.

A Florida-based discussion centers on Barry University allegedly suspending a student amid a campus controversy connected to Project Veritas. The public-facing details describe the suspension as the student not being allowed on campus or in class. An apparent suspension letter states the university’s reason: the student “created a hostile environment here” on campus. Project Veritas has posted an undercover video on its site that it says sparked a firestorm of negative publicity for Barry University. The organization, led by president James O’Keefe, asserts the school is sympathetic to the extremist group ISIS, and argues that a secretly recorded video taken by a student proves this. Senior Laura Loomer partnered with Project Veritas in this case, and Project Veritas claims it aims to expose corruption by attempting to reveal information about nonprofits and corporations; in this instance, Barry University. In the video, which NBC Six notes it is choosing not to air, Loomer pretends to want to start a club that supports and aids ISIS. The individual who signed the documentation to start the ISIS-themed club—the adviser—allegedly indicated in general terms that the university doesn’t try to limit clubs. Project Veritas uses this to attack the university, accusing it of being terrorist-sympathetic. Campus officials respond by stating it is reprehensible to think any organization would acquire video and edit it in such a way as to denigrate the reputation of Barry University or its staff. They say the interpretation of the video is not representative of the school. Project Veritas is asserting that the suspension is a personal attack on an honor student because the university could not defend its staff members. Administrators, however, say the allegations of anti-ISIS sentiment are absurd. The university notes it cannot confirm the suspension at this time because doing so would violate student privacy laws. For Life Night in Miami Shores, Jamie Garola (or Grilla) of NBC6, Florida, reports on the developing situation.

The speaker reported to the guidance counselor on Wednesday morning that she was second on a hit list, along with two others who also filled out reports detailing what was going to happen. She was warned in Chorus to watch her back because "he" was going to come for her and another girl at lunch. During lunch, the speaker told Miss Fattore about the threat, but was told not to worry because it wasn't going to happen. The speaker then heard screaming and saw Mel chasing someone. The girl who was attacked didn't see it coming. Mel grabbed her hair and repeatedly hit her head against the table with a Stanley. The speaker says it lasted 28 minutes, not 8, and they had to watch them clean up the blood. The speaker says she doesn't understand how it wasn't stopped, since they had five hours between the report and the attack, and Miss Vittore had said they had her under control.

Carmela is asked to explain why she was armed at school and how it constitutes self-defense.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about planning to meet a 14-year-old for sex, revealing they have all the information. Speaker 1 admits fault, acknowledging they "fucked up" and expresses feeling horrible. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's intentions, highlighting the presence of lube and a douche in their bag. Speaker 0 struggles to understand why someone like Speaker 1, a professor, would engage in such behavior. Speaker 1 says they need help. Speaker 0 informs law enforcement about the situation. Law enforcement explains that because Speaker 0 isn't law enforcement, they can't use the evidence for probable cause for an arrest. Speaker 1's phone will be taken as evidence, and the case will be referred to the Internet crimes against children task force. Speaker 0 questions why the law enforcement cannot find probable cause when they can in Orange County. Law enforcement refuses to debate the issue.

Carmela is asked if she has anything to say to the victims' families. She is then questioned about why she was armed at school and asked to explain how it was self-defense.