reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

A presidential memorandum requires the immediate declassification of all FBI files related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which is considered an instance of weaponization of law enforcement. The aim is for the American people to have a full understanding of the files' contents. The declassification gives the media the right to examine the files. All FBI files will be declassified, except for a classified annex, and made public. The FBI and Department of Justice should be ashamed, as should Biden.

Speaker 0 outlines concerns about governance and patient safety, stating that “the governor” is ultimately over the issues, with nurses and the medical board implicated. He recalls that the medical board “came in and Please please do from letting insurance are being abused,” noting that complaints would take up to eight months to be contacted back or would “vanish into a black hole.” He emphasizes that staffing was blamed despite unspent staffing funds and asserts the governor is ultimately responsible. He mentions that his staff queried the possibility of being an Israeli spy and calls for immediate hearings, adding that discussions have been ongoing and something will be done. He references news that Josh Shapiro, a Kamala Harris vice-presidential contender, was queried by her staff about being an Israeli spy, and contrasts this with the lack of questioning about Walsh being a Chinese spy or having a predilection to fraud. He references antisemitic lines of credit and notes receiving massive inquiries, saying they will host a seminar on how to fight back, including defamation lawsuits as a recourse for public figures, though acknowledging the difficulty of such actions. Speaker 2 states she does not know the person but notes a predilection for people close to the others, insisting the person is “not part of the club.” Speaker 0 recalls a podcast with a Christian podcaster and expresses that to do this line of work, one must believe God drives it because they do not make money. He remarks on being disliked for not chasing popularity and invites others to examine their Twitter feeds. He describes the harassment they face, including lawfare, stalking, threats, and the desire to “kill me,” recounting examples like Carrie Donovan. Speaker 2 agrees on the intensity of threats and emphasizes the importance of truth and accountability in their reporting, not wanting to be deterred by intimidation. Speaker 0 adds that belief in a higher purpose is necessary to endure the profession, noting that after October 7 his faith was shaken but returning to the idea that God orders their steps. Speaker 2 adds that the local community deserves to know when someone is not who they claim to be or has a criminal record, and that elected officials deserve scrutiny. Speaker 1 introduces Adam with Accuracy in Media, saying he is dealing with three defamation suits from wealthy individuals’ families and has faced 13 swatts and daily death threats, sometimes requiring off-duty police at college campuses. He highlights the value of anti-SLAPP laws and tort reform, noting North Carolina lacks an anti-SLAPP law, which would help dismiss frivolous defamation suits protecting free speech, and criticizes legislators for lobbying for lawyers. Speaker 0 announces a good development: a story they broke on Thursday prompted Brendan Jones, head of the real bulldog in North Carolina’s oversight committee, to request appearances before his committee in Winston-Salem. They plan to discuss the Winston-Salem event, North Carolina A&T, and the Western North Carolina story, which Margo finds triggering. Speaker 3 from the city notes DEI support and discusses terminology changes since the FBI’s ban, and Speaker 1 comments on leadership differences between states, suggesting better governance in other legislatures and hoping for improved leadership locally. The exchange ends with remarks about leadership and governance comparisons.

A presidential memorandum requires immediate declassification of all FBI files related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which is considered an instance of weaponization of law enforcement. The aim is to give the American people a full understanding of the files. The declassification gives the media the right to examine the files. All will be declassified except for a classified annex. The speaker suggests the FBI and Department of Justice should be ashamed, as should Biden.

"I had the pleasure of talking with both Nick Sorter, the journalist who was attacked in Portland yesterday and then arrested there, oddly enough." "And also the attorney general, Pam Bondi, my boss, about what is happening in Portland and the urgent need for federal civil rights investigation over there." "we promptly moved to open up that federal civil rights investigation." "Portland is already under a federal consent decree for its failed police practices." "our very detailed demands for information are requiring body cam information and details about why, multiple journalists have been attacked there in Portland and the police seem to do nothing about it." "National Guard is being activated in Portland, thanks to our president's leadership." "So, follow along and we will keep everyone posted as we go forward in this situation."

Anna Matson is addressing her cost appeal for two FOIA requests. She received estimates of 100,064 thousand for records related to the fire chief and the fire station operations. She begins with the first line of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act: FOIA says it is the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government so that the people may fully participate in the democratic process. That is the purpose of FOIA: transparency, accountability, and public participation. When a government body issues 6 figure fees to access public records, that is not being transparent, that is not being accountable. That is obstruction, it is intimidation, and it goes directly against the intent of the law. The highest FOIA fee this township has charged all year is $75. My request was suddenly estimated at more than 133000% higher. Last year, the township collected $981 total in FOIA revenue. I am being charged over 10000% more than the entire amount for the for a single request. That alone shows these estimates are not normal, not reasonable, and not made in good faith. The invoices also reveal that the township has already located the records and yet you still want to charge me for over forty business days of IT. Also, FOIA does not allow charging for legal review. The law requires using the lowest paid capable employee. But beyond the fees themselves, I want to address this board directly. You are the legislative branch of this township. You are the elected representatives. You are supposed to be the most accountable to the people. You are supposed to be the closest to the citizens to safeguard their rights and to oversee the actions of government. That means you should be setting the budget, asking the hard questions, conducting investigations, and even reorganizing staff when they do not serve the township's best interest. And let me be very clear, this information is absolutely in the public interest. The public deserves to know whether their government acted properly and lawfully when placing a fire chief on administrative leave. That is exactly why FOIA exists. It exists for moments like this. This board should have demanded these records yourselves. You should have been the first ones to look into this, not a taxpayer and not a journalist trying to pry information loose through FOIA. Thirty seconds. So I ask you to reflect on the original intent of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act and to reverse the denial on my first request and to waive the fees on these requests. Thank you.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of searches of Americans' private communications are conducted without a warrant. This violates citizens' constitutional rights. The FBI claims they will fix the problem internally, but the number of illegal searches keeps increasing. It seems like the FBI only wants to avoid getting caught.

I was part of the group arrested for the Whitmer kidnap plot, which was set up by the FBI. I was acquitted. I thought I was doing security work, but it turned out to be targeting Whitmer's cottage. I got charged for material support terrorism and felony firearm possession. The government lied about the situation. I urge people to take action to ensure real justice in the face of government overreach.

Speaker 0: The Cathedral Of All Saints, Big Ben, the Field Museum, Philadelphia City Hall, the New York Public Library, and the Emmanuel Church in LaGrange, Illinois all share a massive issue: they do not have the original blueprints. Proving that they actually constructed these structures, when they say they did, and we have exposed this right here on this channel. We know that their narratives are all the same, which I believe are all generated by the AI. There’s never an author to any of these mainstream stories. It doesn’t matter which country the building is in. They’re all the same. They’re all constructed in a year. And then there’s a mysterious fire that burned down the original one, replaced by a guy with zero training, and then he never builds anything ever again in his entire life. And they don’t have the blueprints even though these buildings were publicly funded, paid for by the taxpayer, yet they say only the staff can see them. To this point, we have not received a single blueprint, and we have changed archivist minds as to how they should look at their job moving forward. This is no longer a theory. Within the last 10 episodes, we have taken this research to a whole new level of exposure. A full audit is taking place live. For everybody in the world to see, they’re caught off guard. They wanna know which institution we work for. They don’t like this because the story that they have worked so hard for years to believe is being dismantled in seconds by the people that want the truth, all of us. We want the blueprints. We want the ledgers. We wanna know how much water the donkeys were drinking while hauling thousands of pounds of stone to the site. We wanna know which stores they were buying all their chisels from. We want the records. We want the verification to their story, and the FOIA requests are a brand new weapon for us. We are forcing governments to respond legally, and to this point, they are failing horribly. The timeline that we all live in is completely fake, and we are just getting started. When we contacted the National Archives and Records Administration, nara.gov, we want the blueprints to the Federal Hall in New York City, so I formally requested the original construction documentation for the Federal Hall or the US Custom House that was supposedly completed in 1842 under the US Treasury Department. I want to know if the National Archives holds or has ever held any of the following materials related to its design or construction: the original blueprints or engineering drawings, specifications, ledgers, inspection reports, and the rest. I also put in there because we all know the rules now, and we’re cornering them very quickly. NARA replied back: we searched the cartographic branch’s architecture master list and, unfortunately, did not find any records that appear to be responsive to your request. A master list from the National Archives? They found three drawings from the US Custom House in New York City. However, these are dated nineteen o five, which is sixty-three years after the thing was done. So we all know that those don’t count at all. We did not locate any other reference to the US Custom House in New York City during our search and then gave us a massive finding aid for all of our reference. Do they know who they just gave the master list to? I have to say, I don’t think that that was a good idea for the mainstream narrative. The master list is the internal index of all architectural records held by the National Archives. If a federally funded building ever had blueprints, they would be cataloged in this master list. This is huge. The master list includes every federated architectural record created by, submitted to, transferred to, or preserved by any federal agency. If the federal government commissioned a building, paid for a building, inspected a building, or even maintained a building, then under federal law, the architectural records need to be preserved, and they would be within this master list. And they have admitted to us that the Federal Hall has zero documentation inside this master list, meaning that the federal government is implicitly admitting they have zero verifiable proof that they ever constructed the structure in 1842 or at any point for that matter. I want to take a look through this master list. Welcome to episode 159 of my lunch break. I hope you’re all having a great day. And if you’re new, welcome. Get 10% off all Dubby products right now by using code MLB. I’ll put the link in the description below. This is clean energy, no sugar, no artificial flavors, no jitters, no crash. There’s over 15 flavors to choose from, and every purchase helps this channel. Speaker 1: I thank all of our sponsors over on Patreon. Thank you to flatearthdave.com. You can check out his app, the flat earth sun, moon, and zodiac app. I’ll put the link right in the description, and you can use my referral code MLB. If you click the Tartaria button, you’ll see the my lunch break playlist right here. Speaker 0: I want to see this master list. We can see that it shows the date of construction, the city, and the building’s name. So we type in the US Custom House, and we can see that there’s 170 of them inside this master file. We scroll down to the one in New York City to confirm what this individual is telling us. And as you can see, we’ll be able to pin these institutions down, telling them that there are zero documents regarding their building inside the master list right out of the gate. Here it is: Confirmation, the US Custom House, New York City, the only documents they have, three of them from nineteen o five, exactly like they said, a consolidated file with no location. So do they even have these three pages from nineteen o five? And then I had a crazy idea, an idea that I should maybe type in the US Capitol Building. What files do the federal government have on this palace that was supposedly constructed without a power tool in just seven years from 1793 to 1800, the beginning of our timeline in my opinion. So why is it, when I type in The US Capitol Building into the master list, that the only construction documents that the federal government has on their own structure is from 1935, a hundred and thirty-five years after it was supposedly constructed? A consolidated file with 10 pages of documents. There are sketches. There are no records. A moment that everybody in the world right now watching is gonna see that the mainstream history is exposed. This is a horrible mistake, I’m gonna be honest with you, to give me this master list. I cannot believe we have this. We no longer need them to confirm anything. We have their log. We have their records, and we know what they don’t have. The nation’s capital. It’s blueprints from the seventeen ninety three to eighteen hundreds construction project. Those blueprints, the ledgers, they’re gone. I told you we were just getting started. New York Public Library update: they claimed only staff could see the blueprints, then said originals are only available to staff because they’re fragile, then said they’re not processed or conserved yet. They’re not available to the public. I replied that since originals aren’t available to researchers, I won’t share my report. If the originals ever show up, we can revisit this. The New York Public Library is clearly lying and contradicting themselves. Stop emailing me.

Speaker 0 asserts that the IRS has been using AI to access American citizens' bank accounts without a search warrant or a crime claim, discovered by an undercover journalist. They claim the IRS has access to every person’s bank account, and that the agency has been working with the Department of Justice and has no problem going after the “little guy” to ensure taxes are paid. This is described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Speaker 0 and Jim Jordan sent a letter to the IRS demanding information about how AI is used and how civil rights are protected. Speaker 1 asks what the end game is and how to protect constitutional rights given the inevitability of AI, seeking ways to safeguard Americans. Speaker 0 responds that a new administration is needed in November, accusing the current administration of being lawless in terms of surveillance of the public, members of Congress, local officials, protesters, and voters. They claim the administration has “weaponized the government against us,” and that protections of the Bill of Rights—First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments—have been ignored. Speaker 0 states that one of the goals is to address this perceived weaponization and surveillance.

Speaker 0: There is no law. And to date, nobody has been able to show that there is a law for the average American citizen working day in and day out to pay an income tax. Speaker 1: But We, The People Foundation for Constitutional Education put a full page ad in The USA Today on 07/07/2000. And within the body of that ad was a $50,000 challenge for anyone that could show the law. And to me, $50,000 is a lot of money. So I went after that and did the research based on the fact that I thought, let's put this baby to bed. I'm hearing all these rumors. You know, I'm gonna kill two birds with one stone. I'll answer these people's questions they're asking me, and then I win this $50,000. And, you know, based on the research that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I'm still doing, I have not found that law. I've asked congress. We've asked a lot of people in the IRS, IRS commissioners, helpers. They can't answer because if they answer, the American people are gonna know that this whole thing is a fraud. Speaker 2: There is no law. There is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and compensation for services. There is no law. Speaker 3: I really expected that, of course, there's a law that you can point to in the law book, the code, that requires you to file a tax return. Of course, there is. I mean, I don't know what it is right then as we as he was speaking to me, but sure. So, naively, I agreed to go off and research it and get back to him. Three and a half months later, I was at that point where I couldn't find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me and, most people I know. And I had no no choice in my mind except to to resign. Speaker 4: I had to leave the IRS because I presented, evidence that I had accumulated indicating that the agency was violating the law and violating people's rights. And I asked the agency for a response to my sincere concerns, and the answer I got was that they would not respond to my concerns and that they would, provide me with the paperwork necessary to tender my resignation. Speaker 5: You can look through the statutes and look for the law that requires you to pay. And when you do that, you can't identify a law that requires the average person in America who earns a wage and works in private business to pay an income tax. Speaker 2: American citizens, along with the foundation, have been asking the IRS to specifically provide them with the the underlying legal foundation upon which they administer and enforce the personal income tax laws in our country. Speaker 3: At the national level, when people would attempt to contact somebody of a much higher authority, say the cons the commissioner, same kind of thing. They wouldn't get they would get answers that were in effect non answers. Speaker 6: You have to understand that an agency which will unlawfully impose a tax that doesn't exist it's not gonna care. If we, the people, don't know what our rights are, they're not gonna tell us. Speaker 4: If Americans just learned that the IRS was actually knowingly deceiving them, that that enough that would be enough for them to rise up and put a stop to it. Speaker 7: 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government. People have been told, you know, that you need this income tax system to fund government, is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, my question is, well, if that's true, how did we fund government from 1776 to 1913? Speaker 8: The main purpose of the income tax is not to raise revenue, but to redistribute wealth and to control society. And a lot Speaker 9: of people might say, well, gee, if there wasn't an income tax, what would happen to education? They don't understand that education is paid for, for the most part, out of state and local taxes, your property tax. People might say, well, how are we going to build and maintain our highways if there's no money coming into the government? We need our highways. There is a tax on every gallon of gasoline that people buy. Proceeds from the income tax do not pay for highway construction. Speaker 10: I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes

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.

Speaker 1 asserts that there is a two-tier justice system weaponized to persecute people based on political beliefs, and that Director Wray has personally helped weaponize the FBI against conservatives. He references the Twitter files, Missouri v. Biden disclosures, the Durham investigation and report, and the exposure and collapse of the Russian collusion hoax. He asks Director Wray what he is prepared to do to reform federal law enforcement to earn back the trust of the American people, noting that he asked Mister Durham about this, and Durham said he did not think things can go too much further given that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. Speaker 0 responds by disagreeing with the other speaker’s characterization, saying the description of his bias against conservatives seems insane given his personal background. He explains that the approach to protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution starts with emphasizing to his staff to do the right thing in the right way, which means following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it. He outlines several actions: enhanced procedures, safeguards, approvals, double checks and triple checks, record-keeping requirements, accountability policies, and funding for new functions like an Office of Internal Audit that didn’t exist before. He notes the installation of an entirely new leadership team from his predecessor and asserts that where he can take action, he will to hold people accountable by removing them from the chain of command. The exchange ends with an invitation to speak further, though the remark is truncated: “Gentlemen, ladies, time to speak to the….”

- it's illegal. The FBI will raid me. They've done it twice. - No. It's not secret. No. It's not on OAN and Newsmax. - Why isn't the FBI looking for two metaphysically attacked? Exclusive inside FBI fomenting insurrection. No? - Well, see, I was at the East Entrance on January 6. - I recorded two federal agents attacking the capital. - Well, federal agents came to my home and took my phones. They still have that. So, hopefully, someone will stand out. - I've given them twenty nine minutes of high definition footage of these two turds. - And to date, neither one of them has been arrested and none of their images have appeared on the internet. - They refuse to accept my offer to come in and give them a statement. - I've got them by the Cajones. - Avoid the FBI if you can.

The speaker asserts that “we own everything”—our jails, our courts, and our public servants who operate in our buildings and seats, paid with our money. No new structures are needed; instead, a core group in each state should be well versed in state and federal constitutions to exercise inherent rights and hold public servants accountable. The speaker references the grand jury concept and claims state constitutions authorize citizens to hold officials accountable, alter or reform government, abolish it, restore republics, and institute new governments that benefit the people, who are entitled to protect their rights and happiness. The call is for “We The People” to act against treasonous public servants, with the expectation that once some people take a stand, others will follow. The speaker contends that many public servants don’t understand their true job or the constitutional framework, and that overthrowing corruption will cause others to “fall in line.” They acknowledge many people want to do what’s right but fear standing up or being labeled; thus, proactive citizens must act to restore the republic. Citing the Epstein files as a wake-up point, the speaker argues that politics is a rigged, two-party system where Republicans and Democrats are one party, each pandering to different sides, and that voting is an illusion of choice and freedom. They criticize the notion that people vote for bills they don’t understand because they lack constitutional knowledge, trust in people in suits and degrees, and do not recognize the system’s designed nature. The talk expands to a broad indictment of the system, from clerks to top officials with guns and badges, claiming most are in it for power or the illusion of power, though some entered to do good but have also been brainwashed into accepting the system as reality. The speaker argues for a systematic shift from passive participation to action by “We the People,” citing psychological and medical warfare as historical design. They stress that voting has long been rigged and that public attention is diverted by entertainment, such as sports and the NFL, which they describe as rigged for show. The speaker asks listeners to imagine all the people in one stadium uniting to use the law to hold public servants accountable, indicating that many would rather be slaves than join the effort, but others will stand up. Plans include starting to assemble a grand jury and building a network to act quickly to “fix things,” with urgency to remove nonperforming officials from their positions. They exhort readers to remember these are our jails, our buildings, our public servants, and to begin throwing them out if they refuse to do their jobs. The speaker invokes the founders’ spirit, alleging widespread redaction of Epstein-related information and accusing those involved of complicity. The guidance is to stop merely talking, exercise constitutionally protected rights, and rely on “We the People” to restore the republic, arguing that true governance comes from the people.

"We got them. We finally got them. We caught the IRS red handed." "They're frauds, fabricated, phantom tax returns the IRS claims that you filed but can't produce because they never existed." "Here's the crime. An IRS agent falsified the records." "A supervisor covered it up." "The DOJ marched into court and used those fake records against Americans and then admitted under oath they have no signed returns to back it up." "That's not sloppy paperwork. That's a RICO fraud, a criminal enterprise operating under color of law." "And it doesn't stop there. Judges look the other way." "Multilayered fraud, IRS, DOJ, and the judicial system." "It's time to shut down this rogue agency once and for all." "Chew on this, America."

DNI Gabbard released 100 documents proving Hillary Clinton created a dossier. Obama's team was informed and then created a diversion to make it about Trump. The bureaucracy and the swamp must be drained. FBI and DOJ career employees who participated should be fired and prosecuted. The federal government was weaponized against a citizen and political opponent because the American people were not doing what they wanted. There was anecdotal evidence this was happening, and now the receipts have been shown. Prosecutions should begin.

An individual confronts two individuals identifying themselves as FBI agents, demanding their full names and identification. The agents decline to provide full names on camera. The individual states they will post the recording online. The agents say they want to talk about a post that was made. The individual accuses the agents of wasting taxpayer money investigating something that is not against the law. Another individual asks why they came. One of the agents says they wanted to make sure that weren't any. The individual accuses them of being part of a regime and not believing in the Constitution. The individual calls the agents "fuckheads" and "cowards" and says they should be embarrassed and think about what they did. The agents then leave.

A federal judge ordered the release of a heavily redacted affidavit regarding the raid on my newsroom. The probable cause section is entirely redacted, only noting that cell phones can send emails. The document mentions charges like conspiracy and possession of stolen goods, but redacts details about the investigation, including the names of President Biden and Project Veritas. Even my birth year is redacted. The redactions conceal information about confidential FBI sources and possibly individuals who lied to the FBI. This excessive redaction is highly unusual and raises concerns about the justification for the raid's force. The FBI even referred to us as "news media" internally. This is a national disgrace, and we're suing.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 about serving a restraining order against a newsroom, asking if they’ve ever done so against a journalist. Speaker 1 responds that he isn’t sure, and notes he may have served someone without knowing their occupation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the newsroom’s First Amendment rights, saying it prohibits restraining orders against reporting what people say, calling it a fundamental constitutional right. Speaker 1 explains the document is “a court order signed by a judge Mhmm. Out of Miami. All we're doing is serving to you.” Speaker 0 pushes back, implying the situation is serious and indicating they want to speak with the judge involved. Speaker 1 points to the restraining order and says, “It’s all yours,” and that Speaker 0 is responsible for everything in the restraining order. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for being there and mentions he will tell the courts about video of a man saying he wants to kill him. Speaker 1 says he has no idea about that claim. Speaker 0 reflects on the state of the country, stating, “One of the problems in this country is that we're in a constitutional crisis,” and shares personal views that they report people breaking the law, and that those people are never held accountable. He says he’s the one who’s brought to court, arrested, and sued, while “the American people are just pissed off.” He acknowledges Speaker 1’s role and expresses being upset and discouraged. Speaker 0 speaks about maintaining hope despite oppression, noting that people look up to him and that he’s the one who keeps getting held accountable. He asks Speaker 1 to understand what he’s saying. Speaker 0 asserts that something must change “not for my sake, but for our children's sake,” and reiterates the constitutional crisis claim. Speaker 0 recognizes that Speaker 1 is simply doing a job but shares his frustration and desperation, asking why he should continue if it only brings pain, punishment, and abuse. Speaker 0 concedes there’s nothing Speaker 1 can do and that they are in this country’s current situation, acknowledging the police presence bringing him to court and questioning why he should keep going.

Who are you, people of policing? Are you enforcing tyranny? No, you're not. You've broken into this property and are making an arrest without a warrant. Where is the warrant? It doesn’t exist. What are the charges? Why are you taking money? I just want to know your name.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0 claims to have video footage from January 6th of two federal agents attacking the Capitol. Speaker 0 states they have been trying to get the FBI to investigate for over a year, providing them with twenty-nine minutes of high-definition footage. Speaker 0 says the FBI has not arrested the agents, nor have their images appeared online. Speaker 0 claims the FBI refuses to accept a statement or view video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. Speaker 1 says the FBI raided them twice, came to their home, and took their phones. Speaker 1 advises Speaker 0 to avoid the FBI if possible.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

Speaker 0 argues that the Cathedral of All Saints, Big Ben, the Field Museum, Philadelphia City Hall, the New York Public Library, and Emmanuel Church in LaGrange, Illinois all lack their original blueprints, making it impossible to verify that these structures were constructed as claimed. He asserts that their narratives are uniform across countries and time, claiming they were built in a short period, followed by a mysterious fire, and replaced by untrained individuals who never build again. He says these buildings, though publicly funded, have blueprints that “staff can see,” and that no blueprints have ever been provided to him or his team despite repeated requests. He states that in the last 10 episodes they have escalated the research to a live audit, exposing the narratives and pressuring institutions to reveal blueprints and ledgers. Speaker 0 describes using FOIA requests as a new weapon, pressuring governments to respond legally, and notes that responses so far have been poor. He references a formal request to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for the blueprints and supporting documents for Federal Hall in New York City (the US Custom House), built under the US Treasury Department and completed in 1842. He quotes NARA’s reply: a search of the cartographic branch’s architecture master list found no responsive records, with three drawings from 1905 for the US Custom House in New York City, dated 63 years after the building’s completion, and no other references to the US Custom House in NYC. He emphasizes that those 1905 drawings are not construction records and questions their relevance. Speaker 0 expands his critique to the US Capitol Building, noting that the master list shows only 1935 documents (10 pages of sketches) for a project begun in the 1790s, which he says are nontechnical and not construction records. He claims these sketches demonstrate that “the master list” is an internal receipt, effectively empty of authentic construction documentation for the Capitol. He concludes that the federal architectural records for the Capitol are absent for the original construction period and suggests that similar gaps likely exist for other capitol buildings in the U.S. He asserts seven verified instances where credible records are missing and that this undermines mainstream history, calling for eight if the Capitol is confirmed. Speaker 0 then recaps findings regarding the New York Public Library, stating that the library claimed only staff could view blueprints and that originals were fragile, later claiming they are not available to the public because they are not processed or conserved yet. He describes this as contradictory and accuses the library of lying about access and availability. He notes that the New York Public Library has not provided the researcher with any documentation and suggests other institutions are cooperating, while the New York Public Library is not. Throughout, Speaker 0 reiterates the intent to reveal the truth, asking for viewers’ reactions and inviting further discussion, while signaling plans to continue pursuing master list verification and FOIA responses. He also mentions that this is episode 159 of “my lunch break.”