TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 is upset because they are being denied entry. They threaten to call the police and challenge the other person's legal status. Speaker 0 mentions having a citywide water certificate, but it is not applicable to the current location. They suggest talking outside and mention having multiple certificates. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking the other person to read a line that states the certificate is valid everywhere.

At Future Leaders Early Learning Center, a parent repeatedly attempts to enroll their child, Joey, but is told nothing is working and cannot obtain paperwork or a business card. The parent asks if Joey can be checked into the daycare and whether there are children present to accompany him. The staff indicates there are no children today and implies that Joey would not be accepted into the daycare, leaving the parent frustrated as they explain they would like to put Joey in the center because they’ve heard great things. Speaker 1 notes that Joey is still homeless, and Speaker 0 reiterates that Joey is still looking for daycare. The scene shifts to an autism center as an alternative option, prompted by the perceived rise of autism in Minnesota and the claim that government funds are contributing to this rise. The parent explains that, since many daycare centers are closed, they are trying to check Joey into an autism center. The staff at the autism center avoids giving a precise number of children, suggesting there are more than five but cannot provide an exact count. Speaker 0 asks the autism center staff what they think about fraud that has been labeled on autism centers in the area and why these centers are popping up. The staff member responds that they cannot answer questions about fraud and asks if the interviewer is a news reporter, identifying themselves as Nick. They emphasize they are trying to determine legitimacy before bringing Joey there, to avoid a non-legitimate business. The interaction continues with a back-and-forth in which the autism center staff denies being a ghost operation and references another phone number, but the main exchange focuses on the difficulty of finding a place for Joey. The closing remark from Speaker 0 underscores that, once again, little Joey cannot get into daycare and cannot be accepted by the autism center either. In summary, the sequence documents a parent’s unsuccessful attempts to place Joey in a daycare (due to no availability and a lack of acceptance for the child on this visit) and then considers enrolling him in an autism center, amid questions about the legitimacy and prevalence of such centers and concerns about fraud, with limited information about the number of children served. The rift between wanting a reliable, enrolling option for Joey and the centers’ unclear capacity or legitimacy is repeatedly highlighted.

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

Can you please leave my property? No, I cannot. You need to leave. I’m calling the DSS worker. I haven’t done anything wrong. You’re bothering me on my porch at 10:38, scaring my children after we almost died in a landslide. We lost everything. Am I supposed to be happy about that? Is it illegal to be upset after digging my children out of rubble? You’re invading my sanctuary when I’ve lost everything. Please leave my property. I am safe and fine, and everyone needs to go now.

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

Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 0 about their doorbell camera, expressing concern over the recording of their comings and goings without permission. Speaker 0 insists it is just a doorbell and not recording them specifically. Speaker 1 argues that the camera invades their privacy, but Speaker 0 claims it is for safety. Speaker 1 questions how they know when the camera is recording, and Speaker 0 explains it is triggered by movement. Speaker 1 argues that it still invades their privacy and threatens to gather neighbors to petition for its removal. The conversation ends with Speaker 1's frustration over being recorded.

You need to leave my property now. No, I'm going to get the on-call DSS worker. I just spent three hours with a mother who dug her children out of a landslide, only to be assaulted by the police and have three kids taken by DCYF. I’ll be going with her to the DSS office tomorrow. What’s happening in Western North Carolina and Tennessee is unacceptable. That was my bedroom and living room, and my car was parked by the door. I haven't done anything wrong. You need to ensure everything's okay. I’m fine. Am I being detained? I’m upset after almost dying and losing everything in a landslide. You’re here bothering me at 10:38 PM, scaring my children. Is it illegal to be upset after losing everything?

Speaker 0 and the property manager engage over a search attempt. Speaker 0 asks who they are looking for and whether they have a judicial search warrant, noting they’re not going to get access and that “This is not private property.” The conversation repeats that this is not private property, and Speaker 0 asserts they won’t be able to open the door. The property manager confirms they are the manager but refuses to open the door and declines to disclose whether the person is present, saying, “I can’t tell you,” and “Don’t tell me that yet? Nope. I can’t.” Speaker 0 presses for information and whether the person is in the building, while the manager maintains they cannot reveal anything. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 saying, “Have a nice day,” and the property manager replying, “Have a great day,” and expressing a concern to “keep my residents safe.”

The video features a confrontation between a person (Speaker 0) and two individuals (Speaker 1 and Speaker 2) at a public place. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks the company they work for and questions their actions regarding the children present. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 refuse to answer and ask Speaker 0 to stop bothering them. The conversation becomes heated as Speaker 0 accuses them of hiding something and not ensuring the safety of the children. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 maintain their silence and ask Speaker 0 to give them space. The video ends with Speaker 0 still demanding to know which company they work for.

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

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

What's happening at this hotel? Reports indicate that individuals have been filming children at a nearby primary school. Don't touch me; I'm just trying to understand the situation. You're pushing me away, but I need answers. This is unacceptable. Illegals have been filming children here. Why are you preventing me from getting information? It's ironic that you're calling the police on me when there are serious allegations about people filming children just up the road. You have no evidence? There is evidence. Where is it? The community deserves answers about what's going on with the children.

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

An individual is confronted on a property and told to leave because it is military property. The individual claims to be a citizen journalist investigating who is staying on the property. They state that the gate is open to the public and that they drove in without issue. They also mention concern for women and children allegedly harmed by unvetted men. The other individual repeatedly demands they leave and threatens arrest, telling them to call the station for information but refusing to provide details themselves. They ask who the journalist represents and who they signed a non-disclosure agreement with.

Hey, how's it going? I'm just curious about the facilities back here. Are they being used? I noticed there aren't many workers coming in or out. We can't allow recording on-site, but we can answer questions. This area is for rapid response in emergencies, mainly for first responders. They stay here to rest between their duties. People think it's for housing illegals, but it's not. The workers are out doing their jobs during the day, which is why you might not see them. Thanks for the clarification. It's important to get accurate information instead of assumptions. Have a great day!

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

Two individuals are attempting to speak with someone named Destiny at a residence. The person answering the door claims not to be Destiny and refuses to confirm if Destiny is present. They express discomfort and ask if the individuals have a warrant. The individuals insist the person is Destiny and ask them to step outside to talk. They allow the person to retrieve their phone, provided the door remains open. The person mentions their mother is at work and can hear the conversation.

Speaker 0 describes a tense encounter, asserting safety concerns and clarifying they were visiting parents in Spencer and live there. They refuse to provide a requested detail: “What’s your dad’s name?” and answer “You don’t gotta get the information.” The other party orders, “Hands where I can see them. Don’t move around. Be nice,” followed by statements that they are not detained: “We’re not detained.” The speaker notes, “I have that too on recording already, and you are not allowed to do this,” and is told to “Turn the phone off.” There are repeated directives to relax and stop moving, with insistence that they are not in a traffic stop: “You’re not in the fucking traffic stop.” The confrontation escalates with commands to come up, culminating in “Come on up. Come up. Come on up. You got the right one.”

In the exchange, Speaker 1 indicates they are checking up on them and have received keys, while Speaker 0 asserts clear boundaries about entering the property. Speaker 0 repeatedly states: “You cannot come to my house,” and “This is my property.” They insist that Speaker 1 cannot walk onto the premises, cannot ring the doorbell, and cannot visit; they caution about needing to pass a background check to come to someone’s house, and insist Speaker 1 must leave immediately. Speaker 0 clarifies that they have kids and expresses concern about potential criminal activity, saying, “Call the police and say hi. I have kids. I don’t know. I’m not sure if you’re a criminal.” Speaker 1 agrees to leave after these warnings. The children’s safety is a recurring theme in Speaker 0’s statements, with multiple refusals for access and visits, including a claim that Speaker 1 cannot use childcare or be a friend to gain entry, underscoring the need to leave. During the confrontation, Speaker 0 also notes that they are recording because they do not want their face shown on social media, and claims to have Speaker 1’s information and “saw it already in the system.” Speaker 1 responds with a remark about privacy rights and asserts there is no right to privacy in that context, while continuing to attempt polite closure by saying “You guys have a good day.” Despite the tense exchange, Speaker 1 maintains a calm demeanor and explains they are simply visiting local daycares and that “everybody’s been very nice.” They insist this is not harassment, recounting that they knocked on doors to say hello. They offer New Year’s greetings at the end, repeatedly saying “Have a good day” and “Happy New Year,” and remark that the area feels “very friendly here.” Overall, the interaction centers on a strict boundary set by Speaker 0 regarding entry to the home, safety considerations for children, and the assertion of recording and monitoring, contrasted with Speaker 1’s attempts to explain their benign intentions and to end the encounter with courteous farewells.

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

The transcript is a tense telephone exchange between two people discussing a suspected incident at an asylum intake center. - Speaker 1 identifies themselves as the wijkagent (district police officer) of the aanmeldcentrum in Ter Apel and says they are calling to address an incident. They express that how Speaker 0 is speaking to them is “a bit disrespectful.” - The core dispute revolves around whether Speaker 0 tried to enter the premises of the aanmeldcentrum. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 came onto the terrein (the site) of the aanmeldcentrum, and also mentions the Drapenerveene as belonging to the aanmeldcentrum and not being public. - Speaker 0 counters that they did not enter the site, only walked around on the public road. They emphasize that they were not inside and argue that they did not commit any rule violation, asserting that they “have not done any violation” and that Speaker 1 is recording or documenting the event. - Speaker 1 insists that Speaker 0 was on the Drapenerveene, which, according to Speaker 1, is part of the aanmeldcentrum and therefore not public. They claim that there were signs missing and question what Speaker 0 was seeking there. - The dialogue touches on what is permissible around the area: Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 was on or around a restricted area (Drapenerveene) linked to the intake center, while Speaker 0 maintains they merely walked on the public road around the premises. - The conversation also covers the manner of the communication itself: Speaker 0 asks for a proper introduction and the reason for the call; Speaker 1 responds with the need to clearly state who they are and what is happening, stating they intend to proceed with documenting the situation. - By the end, Speaker 0 asks for Speaker 1’s name, indicating a desire to establish identity and purpose for the call. Key points emphasized by Speaker 1: - The call is about an alleged entry attempt or presence on the premises. - The Drapenerveene is described as part of the aanmeldcentrum and not public. - There is a focus on signs and access control, with a claim that this is not public space. Key points from Speaker 0: - They assert they never entered the site, only walked around on the public road. - They challenge the behavior and tone of the caller, seeking a straightforward explanation of who is calling and why. No judgments are offered in the transcript; the speakers are focused on identifying who is on the premises, what areas were accessed, and the appropriate grounds for the call.

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

Two speakers engage in a tense confrontation on private property, captured on video. Speaker 1 says, "There's no problem with that," while Speaker 0 accuses, "Not showing respect to the rules of" and, "Because of the just after you are not serving me. Really? Please leave, sir. Please leave. Because I'll make sure you go out of business." Speaker 1 replies, "Don't worry. I'm sorry. I got to call the police as best as you want. But I'm sure you're gonna go out of business." They add, "We will wait for them outside." "You can get out of my property. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. We will leave." The exchange ends with, "Good luck. Idiot." and, "Definitely, he's going out of business, this guy."

Speaker 0 explains that they have to stay overnight at the property and Speaker 1 reassures them that they only have to stay until Tuesday. Speaker 0 mentions that Tuesday is also the moving day for someone else. Speaker 2 and Speaker 1 express surprise. Speaker 0 emphasizes that breaking the window is the only way for someone to enter the building they lease. They discuss the limitations on inspections during weekends and holidays. Speaker 0 expresses concern about losing their business license. Speaker 1 mentions that they are unsure if breaking the window is allowed since the situation seems chaotic. Speaker 2 points out that someone claiming to be a bylaw officer is not actually one. They also mention that the police had their tags covered during a recent incident.

I was taking pictures of the building from the sidewalk when someone approached me, asking why I was taking pictures. He told me it was private property, government-owned by the CFPB, and that I wasn't allowed to take pictures inside the property. I pointed out that I was outside, on the sidewalk. He said I couldn't take pictures from the sidewalk into the building because he didn't want to be in my footage. I asserted my right to record from a public sidewalk and asked if he was going to call the police. He didn't answer, but said I wasn't allowed to record the building. I asked who told him that, and he claimed it was government rules. I questioned whether he was sure about that, and also asked if they took down the CFPB signs, since the building is all glass.