Matthew Cox | Inside True Crime Podcast - Exposing Corrupt Fbi Cover Up

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

In 1999, the FBI wrongfully killed my dad (Paul LeVeille) and covered up the truth. Twenty-five years later, the FBI and multiple other three letter agencies continue to stonewall, retaliate against, or illegally ignore my Freedom Of Inform⁣ ⁣ David's channel https://youtube.com/@TruthIsTreason?si=72MWDu9pevcVtKys⁣ David's email [e-mail] ⁣ Get your Free Credit Letters⁣ https://www.mattcoxcourses.com/signup⁣ ⁣ Follow me on all socials!⁣ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/insidetruecrime/⁣ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@matthewcoxtruecrime⁣ ⁣ Do you want to be a guest? Fill out the form https://forms.gle/5H7FnhvMHKtUnq7k7⁣ ⁣ Send me an email here: [e-mail]⁣ ⁣ Do you want a custom "con man" painting to show up at your doorstep every month? Subscribe to my Patreon: https: //www.patreon.com/insidetruecrime⁣ ⁣ Do you want a custom painting done by me? Check out my Etsy Store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/coxpopart⁣ ⁣ Listen to my True Crime Podcasts anywhere: https://anchor.fm/mattcox ⁣ ⁣ Check out my true crime books! ⁣ Shark in the Housing Pool: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0851KBYCF⁣ Bent: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BV4GC7TM⁣ It's Insanity: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08KFYXKK8⁣ Devil Exposed: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08TH1WT5G⁣ Devil Exposed (The Abridgment): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1070682438⁣ The Program: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0858W4G3K⁣ Bailout: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bailout-matthew-cox/1142275402⁣ Dude, Where's My Hand-Grenade?: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BXNFHBDF/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1678623676&sr=1-1⁣ ⁣ Checkout my disturbingly twisted satiric novel!⁣ Stranger Danger: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BSWQP3WX⁣ ⁣ If you would like to support me directly, I accept donations here:⁣ Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/MattCox69⁣ Cashapp: $coxcon69 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You didn't start a business just to keep the lights on. You're here to sell more today than yesterday. You're here to win. Lucky for you, Shopify built the best converting checkout on the planet. Like the just one tapping, ridiculously fast acting, sky high sales stacking, championed at checkouts. That's the good stuff right there. So if your business is in it to win it, win with Shopify. Start your free trial today at Shopify.com slash win.

At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. A healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life.

Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. On game day, pain can hit hard and fast, like the headache you get when your favorite team and your fantasy team both lose. When pain comes to play, call an audible with Advil plus acetaminopin and get long-lasting dual-action pain relief for up to eight hours. Tackle your tough pain two ways with Advil plus acetaminopim. Advil, the official pain relief partner of the NFL. Ask your pharmacist at this product's rate for you. Always read and follow the label. Looking to grow your investing skills and make smarter decisions with your money in 2026, join Her Money's Investing Fix, the twice-monthly Women's Only Investment Club, where expert stock pickers pitch ideas and you help build the portfolio.

Since launching four years ago, our member-driven picks have outperformed the S&P thanks to smart, collaborative choices. We've got a strong track record and a community that's learning. and winning together. So go to investingfix.com. That's Fix with two X's and join us. Shortly after my dad's death, the director of flight training, he resigns.

I've never seen such corruption in my entire life. The attorney general was Janet Reno at that time. This wonderful woman gets in a plane with Secret Service and flies across the country to our house. I start getting these emails

from the FBI negotiation team. This is not a negotiation. Like, there's a law here, and you're required to follow it. Don't start negotiating with me. So there's six kids in my family. I've got two brothers and three sisters. The youngest was 11 months, I think, and the oldest was

13, I think, when he died. So, like, everybody was very young. You know, when this happened, it happened right before my eighth birthday. So, yeah, like, it affects a whole lot of people. There were seven of us. At the time, my dad was stationed in New Mexico, and he'd been down there for a while because he'd been in the Army Guard. One of his co-workers

said, hey, Paul, the FBI is hiring. Why don't you come with me? I'm going to apply. And at first, he wasn't interested. He was like, no, I'm a military guy. My family's military. That's what I want to do. but his friend talked him into it. And so they went, they both applied. And funny enough, you know, the other guy didn't end up getting hired, but my dad did. Right. And so, you know, he went through the whole hiring process, got in, and immediately, you know, he was a very goal-oriented individual. So as soon as he got in, he was like, okay, what's the hardest job here that I can do?

Like, what's the most competitive thing? and what he locked his sights on was HART, which is the hostage rescue team. And that's really in the civilian world, if you will, as far as non-military units go, HART is it. That's the equivalent of like a Delta Force or a SEAL Team 6. And they actually, their training was based off of Delta Force when they started it. And to this day, they still train regularly with both Delta and SEAL Team 6. So it's a very, very competitive type of unit to get into.

And one thing that they really look for in HRT is pilots that are both helicopter and airplane certified. And my dad was like, well, I've already got the helicopter certs. So all I need to do is get my fixed wing certs. So he went and on his own dime and on his own time got his fixed wing pilots license. And once he had that, he went to the FBI and said, said, hey, will you guys send me to some of your more advanced flight schools? And they were happy to do that. So he had started this process of going through all these different flight schools. He'd done their aerobatic school and a couple other schools before he got to their mountain

flying school. And the mountain flying school is where everything went south. You know, that's where, you know, he ultimately ended up dying during that school. But yeah, that's kind of... How long had he been with the FBI at that point? Three and a half years. Okay. So he goes to that school and, I mean, what, what, and you were what? You said you were eight?

Yeah, it was just before my eighth birthday, yeah. So what happens at that point? So he shows up at the school. And so what I've been able to piece together is the official report declares that it was an accident and that the crash was the result of his civilian instructor because the flight school was contracted out to a private contracting company. And so his instructor was a civilian. and both the FBI and the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, both of their investigations blame my dad's flight instructor for the crash. They say, well, he picked the wrong box canyon to go into,

because what they were doing is they were practicing a maneuver where you go into a box canyon and you execute a certain type of turn and come out on the other side of the box canyon. What is a Box Canyon? Is that like the valley between, is that like the valley between two mountains and there's a valley, a mountain kind of in between? So, yeah, it's like a valley, but where one end is blocked off. So it's like a U, it's a U-shaped thing. So you can come in one end, but you can only come in and out from one end. You can't go out the other side. So you have to make a turn. Right. So you have to loop around and continue on with the, through that kind of that, that valley between. the two mountains, right? Or just you know, whatever it is.

Yeah. That ditch or whatever. I'm probably saying all that wrong. No, no, you've got the gist of it. It's easier if you can see, like, the photograph of it. Like, once you see it photographs, like, oh, it instantly makes sense. It's the one that in every movie where they're going, whew, around the thing and woo, they're doing all that, right?

The loop around and back, where they make it seem like the whole thing's a big maze. Yeah. You know, kind of. I mean, you know, that's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking like, you know, even when the, in the F-15s or F-18s or whatever they are in the last top gun where they're kind of, you know, it's not like a straight shot. They're always looping around and looping that, you know, because it's no fun if they just go straight through the whole thing. Yeah. That's following the big S kind of thing.

Yeah. So, yeah. So, wait, no, no, no. You're in a fixed swing. Yeah, he was in airplanes. Yeah. And that's actually the reason I believe that he crashed is because he was in the wrong airplane. Both the FBI and the NTSB say, well, it was the instructor's fault.

He chose the wrong box canyon. The altitude was too high, which I do agree that the altitude was very high. But there were, so there were a number of factors. There was the altitude. There was a down draft coming in. You know, the winds can get very strong coming over the mountaintops. And when you're dealing with valleys and stuff, when it comes in over one side, it'll create a very powerful wave of wind rushing down one side. And they call that a down draft.

And some of these can get to like, from what I read in the FAA's literature, they can get to like a thousand feet per minute moving down. So it's very powerful waves of air in certain cases. They're going to basically push the aircraft down dramatically. Yes. And when there was a rescue helicopter that came in about 15 or 20 minutes after the crash, and that pilot said that he gives all the stats on what gears he was in and stuff. And I don't understand it because I'm not a helicopter pilot. But he said, even though I was in X, Y, and Z gears,

I was still losing 700 feet of altitude per minute. So he had to get out of there pretty quick because, the down draft was so powerful. But it's a, my understanding is it's a downdraft on one side, whichever side the wind is coming from. But then when the wind comes down and hits the bottom of the valley, it becomes an updraft on the other side. So it comes down, bounces off the bottom,

and goes up the other side of the valley. And so the FBI and the NTSB both say that the instructor came in on the wrong side of the valley based on where the wind was coming from. He should have come in on the other, on the opposite side of the valley. They also say that it was a blind box canyon because there's on on the side where they came in, there's this little outcropping that kind of blocks part of your view of the, the, the you part of the, um, of the, um, of the, um, of the, um, of the, um, of the, um, of the, um, of the, um, of the, of, um, the canyon. So the canyon is about a mile wide, but that outcropping comes out about a quarter of a

mile. So they claim that the canyon was three quarters of a mile wide because basically they're assuming that my dad and his instructor came in on the inside of that piece. And thus that makes the canyon blind to them looking from from the outside because they can't see in. But that's not that's not all there is to it. See, what would really determine whether or not it's blind is the altitude that you're at, because if you're at a higher altitude than that peak there, then you can see over it. It's only blind to you if you're lower than that peak, then you can't see past it. And my analysis leads me to believe that my dad and his instructor must have been at a higher altitude than that outcropping, because that outcropping is roughly even with the spot,

on the opposite side of the canyon where they ended up crashing at 11,700 feet. So with that downtraft and everything, they must have come in with a few hundred extra feet of altitude to lose before crashing

because they'd almost finished the maneuver. So that leads me to believe that it wasn't a blind canyon from their perspective because they should have been able to see all the way in. Okay.

But there's a number of factors. You know, the instructor was known to violate certain FAA guidelines on how instructors are supposed to teach. So they're supposed to demonstrate the maneuver before having the student perform the maneuver. But this particular instructor, the FBI report says that he was known to violate, and they list the specific regulation, FAA regulation, that tells instructors to perform the maneuver first. and he was known not to do that. He would have students perform the maneuver right out of the gate.

So the odds are that my dad was at the controls on the first attempt of this maneuver as the student, which is not appropriate. And that the FBI report acknowledges that any delay at all in immediately going into that hard banked turn could have made the difference between successfully completed. maneuver and failing. And if my dad was at the controls, it being his very first attempt ever, you know, it's very likely that he could have made a fraction of a second mistake that, you know, could have cost them their lives. So there's like a number of details like that. And that's all that the FBI and the NTSB focus on is what happened in the cockpit. And that's all that they're really

looking at in their final conclusions. Is that plane? Does it have two sets of controls? Like, wouldn't you know who was on the control? Okay, so. Yeah, so each pilot has a set of controls, so either one could be flying at any given moment. Right.

But the way it works from a legal perspective is whoever is the instructor is the pilot in command. Right. And so they're the ones responsible for the flight regardless. And so the flight instructor would have responsibility for what happens, regardless whether it was my dad or him at the controls. But what the FBI and NTSB don't really look at is the huge smoking gun that my dad was in an unauthorized aircraft. Okay. The private contractor did not have permission to be using.

It was a piper archer is what my dad was flying in. The FBI had authorized, Cessna 172s for the training and Cessna 182s because those were the two aircraft that the FBI used operationally so they wanted their pilots using what they used what they'll be flying exactly well why the Piper what who's Piper what like did he not have access to a Cessna they did have Cessna 182s with this just jumped in the piper well it doesn't sound like my dad had a choice in the matter it sounds like Colorado Skyways was the private contractor. They also had another contract with the Air Force Academy.

And that's where their other planes were at was at the Air Force Academy. But the NTSB report says that they were only providing introductory training to the Air Force. And that's important because mountain flying is innately just an ultra-hazardous activity. It is so incredibly dangerous. There's so many things that can go wrong. Introductory flight training, on the other hand, you're not dealing with high altitudes. You're not dealing with powerful winds and complicated maneuvers. So you don't need the extra power that a plane like the Cessna 182 brings to the table. The Cessna 172 and the Piper Archer both have 180 horsepower engines.

The 172 has a wing over the body. The Piper Archer, which my dad was in, has a wing. under the body. And the FBI found no evidence that my dad had ever flown a wing under the body plane, which is a huge deal because the FAA is very clear that if you're going to do mountain flying, you should be intimately familiar with the aircraft that you're using. And you should go and take copious notes on your exact rates of climb and how long it takes you to get off the runway, all these detailed pieces of information so that if you end up in a situation, you already know by heart, this is how my aircraft will perform in that situation, and you know how to respond with it.

Well, with my dad having had no previous experience in this type of aircraft, that's a huge issue because he's doing an ultra-hazardous activity in an aircraft he's not familiar with. Right. And that aircraft was grossly underpowered because as you go up in altitude, for every thousand feet up that you go, according to the FAA, you lose about 3% horsepower as you go up. And your wings produce less lift because the air is getting thinner and thinner the more you go up. And your propeller produces less lift as well. The engine is getting starved of oxygen, the higher you go. And so the Cessna 182, the specific provision that the director of flight training for the FBI made with the contractor was, he said, for larger pilots, they can go in the Cessna 182 because it's basically the 172 and the 182, they look almost identical.

It's just that one is larger and more powerful. It has, instead of 180 horsepower, the 182 has 235 horsepower. and it's turbocharged. So the difference in performance between that aircraft and the Piper Archer was phenomenal. Because the Piper Archer, even though it had the same engine as the 172, it has a much larger body. And with the wing under it, the design of the aircraft, you lose performance. You get more comfort because of how it's built, but you lose performance. and that was deadly with what they were doing.

And so at the altitude that they were flying at, they needed every bit of extra power that they could get. And you see the gross negligence of the FBI. When you look at the director of flight training, his statements on how he set up the course, he's acknowledging that he wanted the pilots to use the Cessna 172, because he wanted to challenge them more. And I'm like, wait a minute,

why are you trying to challenge them anymore when they're already doing an ultra-hazardous activity that is very deadly, you know? Right. People get killed all the time doing mountain flying. Why are you trying to make it harder than it needs to be? And he also did things like, it should have been a two-day...

I was just saying, I have a friend who's a pilot, and he's always like, whenever he was talking about the different runways that they come into, and he's like, yeah, well, this one, and it's short. You have to bank this. You have to do a hard, you know, bank hard to get in there. And it's this and this.

He goes, it's super challenging. I go, it sounds dangerous. He goes, we don't use dangerous. He said, we use challenging. It's a challenging, it's a challenging. It's a challenging. He's like, if you're flying in this, he goes, no, we never say dangerous. And I was so when you're saying it's challenging, you know, I'm thinking, that's like such a, you know, you know, it's a.

it's synonymous with dangerous. But they don't want to say dangerous because then it makes him sound like a jerk. No, no, we want to challenge him. You want to put him in danger. Yeah. So. Yeah, that's exactly it.

He was being negligent is what he was doing. He's the director of flight training. It's his job to make sure it's being performed safely and up to specs. And right from the beginning, here he's like, let's make this as dangerous as we possibly can. Right.

You know? And then once they get the training set up, the reason the cost, contractor got away with using the wrong plane is because for three years they'd been using this contractor. And not one single time did the FBI ever come in and actually do an on-site inspection. They did on-site inspections at their other flight schools. To what, they assume he's using the Cessna? And they just never checked. Apparently. They never checked. Yeah. They, they, they, they, they, so the director of flight training and

his boss, who was the aviation program manager, the two of them had conversations. They both acknowledge, yeah, we had conversations about whether or not we should go in and inspect it. We just decided, well, the director of flight training, he claims that his boss ordered him not to go and inspect the training. That's the claim that he makes. And his boss denies, no, no, no, I never said that. So that's something that should have been investigated. But what actually happens is the director of flight training shortly after my dad's death. He resigns from the FBI. He leaves.

He's gone. And then what happens? Well, it was just his statements initially in the investigative report. Well, months later, after he's gone, his boss and the aviation safety person, program manager, those guys get together and they decide, yeah, we don't really like what he was saying because it really sounds like the FBI is responsible here. They decided to reopen the investigation. It had already been closed at this point. It had been released internally within the FBI. And they didn't like the outcome. What was the outcome?

Well, the results were, so they concluded that the aircraft was unauthorized. and some of the notable ones, you know, the number one, they conclude, the flight was authorized and approved. That's finding number one. But then when you go to finding number 20, it says the vendor did not seek authorization from the Aviation Special Operations Unit to use this particular type of aircraft for this course of instruction. So how do you have an authorized and authorized? approved flight.

In an unauthorized vehicle. In an unauthorized aircraft. How does that work exactly? So they didn't like the fact that he had concluded that... There were mistakes made. Yeah, there were mistakes made. And so the aviation safety program manager, he's like, I decided that that was an uncorroborated claim.

So we needed to reopen the investigation. And so he shakes everything up. He gets rid of the two agents that had been conducting the interviews. he's like, oh no, they're not high-ranking enough. We need their GS-13s. We need GS-14s to be conducting these interviews because it would be inappropriate to have GS-13s interviewing senior management, which I think is ridiculous.

Like, you see all the time a regular street cop can pull over a sheriff and arrest him if he's drunk driving or something. There's no reason why there should be any issue with a lower-ranking individual interviewing a higher-ranking person. but it looks like he didn't he wasn't happy with the people who are doing the investigation and the results that they were coming to so he gets the whole thing reopened and he only adds two new interviews himself and the aviation program manager now there are a lot of other people if you're going to reopen it there's a lot of other people who should have been interviewed there was a total of 60 pilots FBI pilots who had gone through this

mountain flying program before my dad's class. Plus, the other two pilots who were in the class with my dad. So that's 62 pilots who could have been interviewed about their experiences with this course and given their feedback on what they thought of whether, you know, things were authorized or unauthorized or whether they were being conducted safely and all this. Whether they were being given, shown how to do the maneuver prior to, you know, what plane they were using, you know, how the instructor went about, you know, teaching that maneuver or in general what the conditions were in the, um, in the box canyon, like the whole thing, like there's a whole

bunch of little things that they could say, okay, this was never done correctly. Yeah. So, or maybe it was done correctly many, many times, maybe it would have exonerated, but at least you have to interview them to find out. Mm-hmm. Unless you just don't want to know the answer, unless you already probably assume the answer and don't want to know. If I don't, if you don't want to know, you don't ask the question. Yeah. Yeah, they were trying to control the outcome of the investigation. And he even says in there, I didn't want to exercise undue influence over how the investigation is being conducted.

But that's exactly what he was doing. That's exactly what he was doing. And so that really changes the end conclusion, you know, that they end up arriving at in the end. But even still, since he didn't get rid of the earlier findings, you can go through and see, and it's very, very damning stuff. You know, the fact that they note the fact that my dad had little and most likely no experience flying this type of aircraft.

That's like a huge detail. And they don't, you know, their official conclusion, their probable cause is the official cause, the flight instructor, Mr. Charles L. Burns, improperly selected a canyon, to practice a box canyon turn maneuver. The canyon was too small to perform this type of maneuver in this type of aircraft at this altitude and within the conditions that were present during the time of the accident.

So they say the canyon's too small, the aircraft is an issue, and the altitude's an issue in the conditions that were there at the time. But they don't, they don't acknowledge any guilt for the fact that it's their fault that the wrong aircraft was being used. And they definitely under-emphasize, if anything, the impact of having the wrong aircraft. So when I...

And the instructor, which you said has been, he's kind of been reprimanded, or at least he's known to improperly teach the maneuver. Yeah. Yeah, he would... But they don't even mention that. Well, so they do say finding number 17 says the teaching techniques that the flight instructor, Mr. Burns, was known to have utilized, were contrary to accepted practices which the FAA expects certified flight instructors to utilize. And then they list the, you know, the citation there for that. So if it's known, why are they letting him continue to do it? Exactly. Or even if he's, if he's unwilling to change his teaching tactics, then why is he,

still teaching FBI agents in a wrong plane. Yeah. And they clearly had right of control over the training because they'd already removed an instructor prior. And it doesn't say what that instructor was removed for. But, you know, our attorney should have investigated that detail because that's relevant. You know, if you had another instructor who was fired previously, we need to know why. Was it the same issue?

Was it a different issue? you know, what was the reason for that? And apparently he was fired based upon at the end of the class, they would take these little surveys, and the agents would fill out a survey on their experience with the class. And then they would turn that in, not to the FBI, but to the private contractor. And the private contractor would then relay that to the FBI.

So that's also an issue because you're not communicating directly to your bosses. You're communicating to, you know, the people that you just worked with. So there's a little bit of peer pressure there. You might not want to be as critical, you know, just for the sake of being polite. Well, the instructor might not even turn anything negative. He may just not turn it in. Yeah. That's possible.

Yeah. So there's a real issue with that. And there's the issue that all of these agents, they're students. They're not the director of flight training with, you know, lots of experience inspecting schools and knowing how things should or shouldn't be run. So they don't have the perspective that the director of flight training would have. So it's really critical that he come and personally inspect this training. And he had opportunities to do it over the course of three consecutive years.

He just never did. And those are huge issues. And that's ultimately how, the private contractor got away with using an aircraft that had hundreds of feet per minute less climb than the Cessna 182. The Cessna 182 would have had about a thousand feet per minute that it could climb in those conditions at that altitude, whereas the plane that my dad was in was probably able to climb less than 250 feet per minute would be my estimate at that altitude because I know at 8,000 feet.

So the Piper Archer's ideal climb rate in ideal conditions at the ideal altitude is 667 feet per minute. And that plummet to 280 feet per minute at 8,000 feet. But they crashed at 11,700 feet, which is 1,700 feet. even higher. So it would have been an even lower rate of climb by the time you get to that altitude. Then you've got that down draft to factor in. And, you know, everything factored in. This aircraft was just not able to perform in those conditions at that altitude. But if he had been in the Cessna 182, there would have been no issues at all. That aircraft could have handled the down draft, the altitude, and done it like a champ. It's the difference between,

like a, you know, a supercar and a little Honda that's 20 years old, you know, like there's just this vast gap between the performance in these two aircraft with the climb rate. And based on where the crash occurred, it looks to me like my dad and his instructor were about like literally 99% of the way through the canyon. They had gone in, they had turned, they were on the way out, and there's one last little high point right here, and they clipped the treetops right at the very peak of that high point. Just a little bit more rate of climb would have been enough for them to clear that high point, and then from there the terrain just drops. So if they had cleared that point, they would have been home free and they would be alive today. So there's no question.

If they had been in the authorized aircraft, both of them would still be alive. There is no question of that. But the FBI just glosses over that. And so does the NTSB. And so did our attorney, which is particularly shocking. Because he's supposed to be looking out for the interests of his clients. And the way I look at it is we're potentially looking at a case of involuntary manslaughter on the part of at least the director of flight training in the FBI,

because, yes, law enforcement do have qualified immunity, but their qualified immunity can be voided when they step outside of their job duties. Right. And so by refusing to do his job, which is to inspect the training, I don't believe that he would have, that qualified immunity would have covered him. Is this the guy that, that, that retire? He didn't retire. You said that he, that he resigned?

He resigned. Right. Okay. Yeah. And then went to work for another, another agency, which they don't name in the report. Yeah, they just shifted him around. Yeah. Yeah, I've seen that happen before.

There was a, it happened a few times, but one of the cases is, there was a case. there was a case a Golds, I think it was Goldsburg, or anyway, there was a U.S. attorney in Tampa that had lied to a grand jury

and lied to a judge blatantly lied. I mean like he had transcripts, they had placed a bug in their house, listened to their conversation. Then he hired someone that did it, made a transcript that said,

this is what the wire says. So they got an indictment. They went out and arrested these people. They put them in jail. They tried to hold them for as long as possible after like a month or so. They finally released them. And their argument to the judge was, we've read the transcripts. We didn't say any of this ever.

So these transcripts are absolutely inaccurate. And so finally, after like a year of fighting, they got the judge to listen to the transcripts, to listen to the actual tape, not read the transcripts, listen to the tapes. And the judge listened to him and came back and said that I've never seen such a such corruption in my entire life like this is over the top and just leaned in to the guy. The guy's name was Coons. Was it Coons? I think it was Coons.

Was the U.S. attorney Coons, I think. And so they fired him. But what they did was it went to him. They said, you can either go to the civil division or you can resign. So he resigned, went into private practice for a year, and a year later, they hired him at a different U.S. attorney's office as a supervisor. Wow. So you went from a U.S. attorney to a supervisor position in another, by taking the hit. Like, we blamed it all on you, and it was his fault.

And then they hired him, like, I've seen that happen where they'll fire somebody from, or they'll let him resign. and then a year later they hire them in another law enforcement agency in another position. You know, like you were in the middle of a scandal and you resigned because it was so bad. It was about to go bad for you. And you resigned, hung out for a year. And they were like, look, you hang out. You apply over here. We'll get your job over here.

But you got to take the blame for the, okay, cool. We'll cover you. You won't get criminal charges and you can get into the job here. But anyway, yeah. I got another case. There's another case. It's the same thing. These guys took a medical retirement.

Oh, wait. No, stress disability retirement. These two officers took stress disability retirement because if you take stress disability retirement, you get to one, keep your retirement. And two, you are exempt from having to testify at a trial because I'm under stress. It's a medical. So you can't put me on the stand and ask me questions. Wow.

So as a way to bury the case, the two people that know everything about it, we gave them stressed disability. There's no stress disability. What are you talking about? You work on a task force. Like, what stress? You weren't in a gun fight? Like, nothing happened. You've been doing this for 20 years.

They both took stress disability, full pensions, and that way they could never go to them and force them to testify. Wow. So, I mean, you know, they take care of their own. You know, they do. How many times a cop beat somebody up and then they don't charge them? just say, okay, well, you're going to have to retire. And then, of course, they retire. And then they give them a good recommendation and let them get hired by two sheriff's departments over. Yeah. So, you know, it's a, it's the, what is it? Is that part of the blue wall or something? Maybe. It's in

there. Whatever. It's, you know, they all, you know, it's a big club. Yeah. It's a big, it's so corrupt. It's the blue line gang. Yeah. You know, it's, you know, it's. It's, you know, it's a big gang, you know. Yeah. You know, and it's funny, too, because the FBI was originally created, so there were a couple primary... To fight corruption. Yes. To fight corruption. People don't realize that was like two things. One, the gangsters that were robbing the banks were a huge issue. And the other was local law enforcement corruption. And they needed like a task force that could go and deal, like that had more jurisdiction than them so that they could come in and take care of that corruption. And they were uncorruptible. They were paid well. That was the idea. Yeah, yeah.

It didn't happen. Here we are. It was like sewer service was originally designed to go after counterfeiters. And then they started, then it became the president. Then it became, like there's all these other duties as things change. But yeah. So, so what happens? So they're actively, you feel like they're actively covering it up.

looks like they're actively covering up this, you know, whatever, whether it's a, you know, an accident or however it end up, it seems like just negligence, you know, like a lot of negligence on the FBI's part. But they're trying to, yeah, gross negligence, but they're trying to put it off on this, on the, on the dead instructor. Yeah, yeah. He can't defend himself. He can't say anything.

So let's just blame him. Let's put it all on him. And there's nothing that he can say to defend himself. And so he made a great scapegoat. And, you know, there are some fair points made. Like, he definitely did make some wrong decisions. But to put it all on him is just completely unfair. I mean, if we were to assign percentages, I'd say you could put maybe 30% of the responsibility

on him. But the other 70% has to go on the FBI and the private contractor for the decisions that they made. Like, the errors that they made are way bigger. and they span a much larger time frame. His error, his mistakes, spanned a couple of minutes of one day of his life right before he died.

You know, he made a couple errors in a very short time frame, whereas their mistakes spanned three years. They had tons of time to course correct, and they had conversations about it, and they just decided again and again and again that they weren't going to do what they were supposed to do

according to their jobs, you know? Well, and every time you send a pilot, every time you send one of your FBI agent pilots to the school, you're putting his life in danger. Regardless of whether you want to make it challenging or not, it's, they're still in danger. Which potentially is another issue why they may have wanted to cover things up, because if it came to light that the FBI was grossly negligent in how they were running this school, then you potentially have a class action lawsuit that could be filed by 62 living agents.

So there's a law, very unjust law, the Federal Tort Claims Act. And basically it prohibits people like my family from being able to sue the federal government. So if the federal government kills your loved one and, well, if your loved one is a civilian and is killed by the federal government, you can sue the federal government. if your loved one is a federal employee, you can't sue the federal government. It's really screwed up. So like the people who are risking their lives in service to the country, if they die, no, you can't sue. But if, so like people who live, you know, whistleblowers, people who are discriminated against, harassed,

anything like that, as long as you live through whatever the government does to you, you can also bring suit. So, like, all of those people are allowed to bring suit, but not if you die. It's really screwed up. So anyway, those 62 other agents who either completed the course or participated in the course, could all potentially have a class action lawsuit against the FBI if the FBI were found guilty of gross negligence. So another incentive for the FBI to want to sweep this under the rug. To say it was the trainer's fault.

And also his widow and his daughter, they would not have been barred either from bringing suit against the FBI. So the FBI was potentially looking to save a number of careers and save the agency a lot of embarrassment and a lot of money from expensive lawsuits that would have come out of this if they had been found guilty. Did your family like, but they're, don't they have like a settlement procedure or something to say, this person died in, you know, during the duty of, or during the course of his work, don't they, isn't there like some kind of insurance policy or some kind of policy that pays your family, something? So there's another law called the Federal Employees Compensation Act, FICA. And that assigns a certain percentage of the, the, the,

dead federal employees wages to the survivors, but it's a limited thing. So like if you go and sue somebody for a wrongful death and you win, you know, whatever settlement you get, you get that. Like, you know, whatever amount that is, whether it's $1 or a billion, you get that money. And there's no like time, time span where you have to pay it back or where you stop getting it. But with FICA, there is. It's a little like monthly allotment that you get. And when, so each of us kids, like there was a certain amount that was allotted to each kid until like, I think it was the age of 20. And then that stops. Well, my dad didn't respawn and come back to life when I hit the age of 20, you know. But that's where, you know, the government stops paying damages for a very permanent loss, you know, that they caused.

And then our mom gets, you know, a certain allotment for her, but they place all these stipulations on it. You know, like she can't remarry. If she ever remarries, it ends and that's it. You know, she doesn't get anymore. So, you know, they place all these stipulations on it. It's like, well, if she remarries, it's not like her husband didn't die. Right. It's not like she didn't suffer that loss.

You know, like, so it's very, very unjust. It's very skewed. Like, yes, there is things that you can recover, but it's very minimal as far as the government is concerned. Now, we did file suit against the private contractor. And this is where our attorney really, um, he did a lot of really shady stuff. So I'm, I can't talk about the terms of the settlement that was reached

because even though I was like 10 years old when it got signed, I'm named on that document and I'm barred by a non-disclosure agreement, which is insane to me. So like for the rest of my life, an agreement that I was signed into as a kid, like I'm barred from ever talking about it for the rest of my life. And it's kind of insane. that our attorney agreed to that when, like, I can't say the amount, but, you know, I'll just say

that it's an amount that in my opinion is nowhere near reflective of fair market value for comparable cases, especially when you're looking at seven plaintiffs. It's grossly too, way too low. And there was no need for an NDA because typically you want, like the party who's paying out the damages, they'll want an NDA if it's like a record setting some because they don't want other people saying, oh, I can get that much, you know? And so then you'll have like an NDA to conceal, you know, how large it was. But when it's not like a record setting sum, there's really no reason why they would need an NDA to, you know, to hide those terms. Unless, of course, it were so small that they were, that they knew that it would look really bad. If the public

were to see that and go, whoa, they got screwed over. Right. And in my personal opinion, you know, I think that's more what we're looking at here. Where did you get that attorney? How'd your mom find that attorney? Okay, so this guy is a very, very shady individual. On paper, he's super reputable, okay? He'd previously worked for the DOJ as in house counts. So first, he was a Marine Corps pilot. He was a pilot, the Marine Corps flew F4 Phantoms.

Then he gets out, he becomes a trial attorney for the DOJ. He was a trial attorney. So for the Department of Justice? The Department of Justice. Who is the FBI under? The FBI is part of the DOJ. It's all in the same wheelhouse there. That doesn't seem like a conflict of interest?

That is definitely a conflict of interest. For him to have worked for the DOJ, there's a relationship there. He had a relationship with the DOJ. And the way the American Bar Association says this, this isn't technically law, but it's the ethical rules of the profession. If you have a conflict of interest, you must disclose that in writing to your client. And the client has to be informed of it and understand why it's a conflict of interest. And then they have to sign saying, you know, I am okay with you still representing me with this

conflict of interest or, okay, now that I know about this, I would rather seek other counsel. They need to have that opportunity. And also, the judge also has to have a look at it to double check and make sure that the conflict of interest is not too egregious. that never happened. And it wasn't just one conflict of interest. There was the conflict of interest that he worked for the DOJ, and the DOJ is clearly a potentially liable party in our case because the FBI was potentially responsible for what happened. And the American Bar Association says, even if it's a potential conflict of interest, you still have to disclose it. And if you don't, you can lose your license to practice law. So just over that one conflict of interest, he could have lost his

license to practice law. It's that egregious. And then he had also worked for the FAA as in-house counsel. So again, same thing. Another conflict of interest because the FAA also would have been involved in the investigation here. So those are both issues. Then you've got the really fishy one here. We have a letter from him stating that he was referred to us by friends of Paul. That's my dad. So friends of my dad in the FBI who did not give their names. Okay, so they're unnamed. So he contacted you. So a lawyer contacted a defendant or a client. So I think what happened is that the agents, the unnamed agents contacted my uncle. They didn't contact my mom.

They contacted my uncle and referred this attorney to my uncle. And then my uncle referred to the attorney to my mom. So it looks like what they're doing. Like, why wouldn't you just go straight to the widow? Like, why are you going to a close family member? It looks like what they're doing is trying. Right, trying to, well, because first of all, attorneys can't, are not. supposed to reach out to clients. Like you're not supposed to, you can advertise, but you're not allowed

to go into a hospital and walk into different patients rooms and say, hey, were you in a car accident? And you go, yeah, I was in a car accident. Hey, I'm an attorney. Here's my card. Let me, I can represent you because you know, you're not allowed to solicit in that manner. You're a lot of advertise, but not directly solicit. Yeah. So, so it's very, very fishy in that regard. By going through the uncle, they didn't directly. They're saying, we didn't directly. One, the lawyer saying, I didn't do it. Someone representative, somebody recommended me to a family member.

The family member brought me here. He could even say, like, I don't know what FBI agents they're even talking about. I just know I was contacted by the family. Yeah. And they're exploiting the close relationship. You know, there's a certain degree of trust that's there with a family member that's not there with a perfect stranger. in the FBI. So they're kind of exploiting that built-in trust factor as well in the recommendation, like,

oh, this must be a legit referral because it's coming from somebody I know. But you don't know who it is. But we don't know. You don't know who the agents are. So it could have been, for all we know, what if it was the director of flight training? Right. Referring his buddy over here to fix his problem to cover his butt. We don't know.

What if it was one of these high-level agents who was involved in structuring this whole investigation in a way to protect the FBI? What if they're meddling in here saying, here's our fixer, this is our guy, let's send him in and he can go make sure that we're getting protected so their case doesn't go anywhere. We don't want that going to trial. We don't want discovery happening. We don't want our agents being forced to testify. We don't want this stuff coming out publicly. so you go in there and fix it for us. For all we know, what if he's getting paid under the table by these agents?

We don't know that, you know? And my mom, she wasn't in a state of mind to be thinking about all this stuff. Like he hit her so hard and fast. My dad died September 1st. We have a letter dated September 17th. He's already saying, hey, you know, I already talked with your uncle and I want to I want to schedule a call, you know, so we can get this set up. Did you look at the contract? So he's already sent her a contract to look at. He's been talking, you know, with the uncle and stuff.

And it's the 17th. So we're talking like 16 days after my dad's death. My mom had grieving to do. She had, you know, flights to schedule because the funeral was out of state. You know, we lived in Texas. The funeral was in Maine. So she's got to get flights for her and six kids. She's got to deal with her grief, the grieving kids. There's a lot going on. This is like so fresh. And he's just like, hire me, hire me, hire me, just press in her, pressure her. He didn't tell her to go and get independent counsel like, hey, go and have another attorney, look at this and see if this is a fair contract, which my brother's a certified paralegal. And he and I have both looked at it and we've researched extensively. And it does not look like this was an ethically structured, um,

contract and we actually think that it's so poorly structured, we think that we can get it voided. We think that we can get it annulled because it was, there were so many mistakes, huge mistakes and inequalities set up in how the contract was structured and the fact that he violated the contract and didn't fulfill the terms of the contract. I mean, it's just a litany of issues with this thing. You know, but some of the, some of the big things that we have an issue with that he did is just the fact that, like,

it's been 25 years, and I still have no closure on like what actually happened to my dad. Nobody in my family does. Because when, so our attorney, I have the letter of him saying, here is the entire NTSB investigative package. When I get the FBI's investigative report, I'll send it to you.

So that's what he tells us. Then a few months later, he gets the FBI's investigative report. And he tells us, so the entire report is about two inches thick. I've sent you the narrative report and a couple of statements and the index. Well, I got out of tape measure and I measured the part, you know, my mom's still had that part. So I got out of tape measure and I measured what we have. It's about a half inch thick. So if the entire report is two inches thick, that means that we got about 25% of it. So what are we missing? Well, we're missing all the photographs. We're missing all those witness statements.

We're missing the contract, which is a hotly debated issue in so many letters from our attorney and with the FBI. This contract is a hotly debated issue over whether or not it was actually a contract or a purchase order. And they go back and forth saying it's a contract. Oh, wait, no, no, no, the FBI is the only one who changes their tune. The NTSB said it was a contract. Our attorney said it was a contract. The media reported that it was a contract like immediately after the crash. The FBI said it was a contract. And then later on, the FBI changes their tune. No, it wasn't actually a contract. It was just a purchase order. It's kind of an important piece of information. Very important. What is it for? What are you talking about?

setting up the training. Oh, okay. So their agreement with Colorado Skyways, they'd had Colorado Skyways providing the training for three years. Right. So did they have a contract over this whole time or were they just doing a purchase order every year? Right, which one makes them under the FBI's,

makes the FBI liable and one makes them, is that, what's the difference? So, well, a purchase order can constitute a contract, but what they're trying to say is, well, it didn't lay out how the training was supposed to be conducted and the specific aircraft that were supposed to be used and what the course material was supposed to say. And so because it didn't have all of those things, therefore it's not a contract. It was just a purchase order for them to provide the training. But we don't have a copy of it because that was in the 75% that our attorney withheld from us. Right. But we have yet another letter where he acknowledges sending the

entire investigative report to our opposition. So the private contractor, he sends them a copy of the complete investigative report. But his own clients, he's like, eh, you only need to see 25%, you don't need to see the rest. Now, he did say he covered his butt legally. He's like, if you, if you request from me the other 75%, then I'll send it to you. So legally, you know, I guess technically, he covered his butt there. But morally, absolutely not. Because my mom is a grieving widow with six young kids making a cross-country move because like we were in a really bad neighborhood.

Like there was a prison like literally right next to our house. I mean, you could walk out in our backyard. You look over. There's a prison right there. Like you could walk to it. It was so close. And we were in a bad neighborhood. A lot of crime.

And so we needed to get out. And so, you know, she had to pack up and move her kids cross country, you know, to get out of this. And so, you know, she's doing all that. She's not eating. My mom didn't eat for months. She was living off of juice. Okay, we had friends that were worried she was going to die. She was in such a state of shock and grief.

She could not eat. And so she withered away. She was already a tiny woman. She lost 50 pounds. and she didn't have 50 pounds to lose. Right. She was skin and bones. And so he really exploited her in this state.

She is not in a good state of mind here at all. You think that she's going to request all that, the photos and evidence and stuff? Like, no, she's just, she's trusting him to deal with this because she's blocking it out. Right. Because she's just trying to survive, you know? And so he's exploiting that situation. by saying, well, if you ask me for it, then I'll send it to you. So naturally, all that gets put into our file.

And, you know, he's in California. And by this time, you know, we're in Florida by the time this is getting wrapped up. So she's only communicating with him by telephone. She actually never met him in person. And so she doesn't request those documents. And she forgets that, you know, in the original contract that's drafted, he says, after the case is concluded, if you want your case file, you can request it from me. If you don't, then we'll keep it on file for five years, which is what California requires,

and then it'll be destroyed. That's our policy. So that's exactly what he did, knowing that my mom is just shutting down, like she's just trying to survive. And so, of course, she didn't request that because she took all these documents, she filed them away, and she didn't look at them for decades. I didn't even know she had this stuff until two years ago, okay? I told her that I had filed my first four-er request with the FBI because I was fed up and I wanted answers and I was like,

you know what, I'm going to start filing four requests until I get the truth here. And at that point, she was like, well, I actually have some documents, let me go see what I've got. And that blew my mind because, like, growing up, I never knew she had anything. But she had just, like, shut it out, locked it away, didn't look at it. Right. You know, it was just, that was how she had to cope.

And so we didn't have the case file. We had some letters that she'd received. We had, you know, a little bit of the investigative report. And, you know, from those little nuggets of information that we've got, you know, I've been able to piece things together and doing my own research online, you know, trying to find out more information and just kind of, you know, piecing things together. I've been able to find out, you know, enough to kind of get a picture of what probably happened. But, you know, I'm being stonewalled by the FBI and multiple other federal agencies.

Where's that attorney now, though? Whatever happened with the attorney, you can't, you know. He dropped off the grid. He, you know, he took the investigative report. It's probably destroyed long ago. and, you know, he, he, six of his seven clients were minors at the time, and we lost our dad. So you would think that just on a human level, he'd think, I should just send them their file because they're going to want to know someday what happened to their dad when they get older.

But no, he didn't have that much humanity in him to do that. And since then, like my mom had tried contacting him years ago, and he never responded to her. And at this point, he's just dropped off the grid. His website no longer works. The link is dead. His office, the phone, you know, doesn't work. So, like, we have no functioning contact information for him. And, like, when we look him up online, he just seems to have dropped off the grid.

He's retirement age now. So he's probably retired. And he's just kind of disappeared. He's just kind of gone. So we haven't been able to contact him to see if he has more information for us. Did you ever get your FOIA, like when you file FOIA, like it sometimes depends on the agency. Some agencies, you'll get it back and could be 90 days. Some are years.

Have you received? What have you received from the FBI? Just a letter saying, we got your stuff. It's a complicated issue. So we don't have to respond within 30 days. We have an extended amount of time and you haven't gotten anything yet. So I have filed at this point probably about two dozen FOIA requests with the FBI. The NTSB, the FAA, the U.S. Forest Service, the Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Justice, the Air Force, the Army.

I mean, I filed a gazillion FOIA requests. And almost all of them have been ignored, which is illegal. You know, they have 20 business days to respond. Do they notify you that they receive them? In most cases, probably about 80% of the cases, they have not. A few have. So the FBI, my very first FOIA request, they did respond to. and they said that they found 1,300 pages that were potentially responsive to that request.

And it was going to be about four and a half years, I think originally is what they said before I got it, which I was like, that's insane. Like I should have had this stuff decades ago. Like, no, I'm not waiting four and a half years. So then I started pushing the issue. And so then I started getting these emails from the FBI negotiation. team. And I'm like, why is your negotiation team contact? This is not a negotiation. Like, there's a law here and you're required to follow it. Don't start negotiating with me. So they were

trying to talk me down three or four times into reducing the scope of my request. And I'm like, that's not your job. Your job is, I sent in a request, you fulfill it. That's how this works. It's not like you negotiate with me and try and talk me down. And they kept asking, they're like, Is there something specific that you're looking for? If you tell us what you're looking for, then maybe we could get that to you fast. I'm like, I am not telling you if there's something specific that I'm looking for. That's the last thing I'm going to tell you, because that's exactly what's not going to be in those documents when I get them. You know, you're going to withhold that stuff.

Well, and it's, first of all, it's all, it all should just be pretty accessible very quickly. The problem is that they'll want to read through it all. to try and redact certain things. Because I've gotten tons of stuff where it's just like almost everything in every single page is redacted. Yeah. I don't know why they would redact something

along those lines. The only time they read typically are redacting something is when it, it, they'll redact things that divulge um, tactics or, you know, like, um, investigative tactics,

which doesn't really apply, it doesn't apply here. Or to protect, protect cooperating witnesses, which doesn't apply, or to cooperate or to protect the names of vulnerable agents, like you're an undercover agent, or they don't want you knowing the name of your agent. But all of that is in criminal proceedings. So I don't understand why they would need to redact anything in a civil suit. Especially after 25 years, because any names or stuff. like that. After 25 years, it's basically irrelevant.

None of that is pertinent and up to date at this point. So it's very outdated. And I honestly just think they just want to know so that they know what they need to cover up. You know, Edward Snowden was talking about when, after his leaks, Congress required the, it was either the CIA or the NSA to release a specific report that was classified. And so they did. Or no, I think this was right before his leaks. It was a motivating factor in why he did his leaks. He said, so when they released this report to Congress and to the public, he said, it was not a redacted report. It wasn't like had a bunch of stuff censored. He said, it was a completely different

document. It was not what they were told to give. They just went and completely rewrote the entire thing, made a false version of it, and that's what they gave to the Congress of the United States. So, I mean, if that's the kind of stuff that these unaccountable three-letter agencies can do to Congress, then they're going to have no problem pulling a stunt like that on the family of a dead agent to cover their butts. You know, I could totally see them just. going and completely rewriting all those documents and giving us completely fake versions. They've done it before. Why wouldn't they do it again?

Well, I had a, one of the true crime stories that I wrote on this guy's case where he had continuously requested documents from the FBI. I want to say, it might have been, was it the IRS or the FBI? Because, you know, people don't realize the IRS basically is almost like the same. Secret Service of the FBI at this point. Like they have guns, they have agents, they have a whole thing. They investigate everything. I'm going to say FBI just for the sake of argument.

So there was a server in his case, right? So you've got a server that all your emails and everything's going through this server and it records it. And his whole argument in his case was there were documents that were created by his co-defendant to make it look like he was involved. in a Ponzi scheme. He's like, from the very beginning, he had been saying, I did not know until the very end when the whole thing collapsed. And I started investigating like, what's going on?

Where's the money? Because he had thought they had $10 or $20 million in the bank. Turns out it had always, when he was brought in on this company to raise money, they had almost no money. Wow. But they'd been showing him documents, this is the money. This is the trades. This is the truth is there were very little trades and there was very little money.

He was brought in to raise money because he had a lot of rich friends. He was a wealthy guy. So he raised like close to $20 million for them. Wow. And then of course when the whole thing collapsed, of course he thought they had like a hundred, hundred and something million. So then suddenly when it collapsed, he was like, I don't understand. We have this much money.

What's going on? So he starts investigating. When he realizes it's a Ponzi scheme, he goes straight to the U.S. attorney tells them this is what's going on. Well, they end up saying, well, we'll investigate whatever. They end up indicting him and a couple other guys. And he's, because all of the clients are like, well, his name's Donovan. Donovan's the one that came to me and told me to invest. Donovan's the one that said we were doing. And he's like, I said that based on these two guys. I didn't know they were running a Ponzi scheme. The point is that when they come in and they grab everything and they

investigate. He's saying the whole time, these guys then say, no, no, he was in on it from the beginning. He's saying they'd already been running it for six months when they brought me in. And then I went, we went for another couple of year, another year or two. And I didn't find out till the end. They're saying I knew from the beginning. He's like, that's a, that's a, that's not true. He goes, and I have emails to prove that. Well, when they, when the FBI came in and they grabbed all the stuff, they couldn't find the server. He's saying, no, they're on the server. And so his, one of the co-defendants comes up with the emails, has several emails, says, I have hard copies of the emails and provides them.

He's saying those are not the emails. In fact, one of, one or two of the emails actually, where there is a chain going back and forth, back and forth, the email address is wrong. You know, he just, it was a typo. The FBI completely, they disregard it. So he's making, he starts. After he goes to trial, he's found not, I mean, he's found guilty. He gets like 17 years.

He's in prison with me. I'm writing his story because I found it very, it's a super cool story. It was called The Gap. It's actually on my website if he wants to read it. Anyway, so because what I found interesting about it real quick was that there was a con man that ran a Ponzi scheme, got caught by the federal government, then agreed to pay the money back if they didn't charge him. It's called pretrial intervention. So they said, okay, you pay the money back to your. victims and we won't charge you. He then pays the money back to his victims by starting another

Ponzi scheme and uses the proceeds, which is my buddy's Ponzi scheme, uses his money that he invest and he gets to his people to invest to pay those people back. Then when that one collapses, he's already actively involved in another Ponzi scheme. So there's three Ponzi scheme. It's like one of those Russian dolls that's inside of another. Anyway, so I found him. It's not even the guy that with the story about. It's the main con man that I found fascinating. Like, wow, like the, the, the balls of this guy. The point is, is when they get all this stuff, they can't find the server. So I'm like, I don't understand. He's like, yeah, he's like, at trial, they were blaming me. They were saying that I stole the server. He's like, I didn't steal the server. First of all,

the server, you know, it ends up being like a little box, right? He's like, I didn't steal the server. He's like, I don't know anything about servers. I just know that we were emailing and I said, well, those emails should be on the server. He said, and then they couldn't find it. They said, well, your whole thing is it's on the server, and now we can't find the server. You have the server. And he's like, I don't.

So as we're, so while I'm trying to get documents in his case, part of the documents I was trying to get was the third Ponzi scheme, because I found that fascinating, right? Because it was even a larger Ponzi scheme. So I was like, this is super cool. Let's do a Freedom of Information Act. So he says, well, my, the investigative investigative, body was the FBI. Like I said, it might have been the IRS. But I was like, look, let's just hit them all.

Like typically when I do it, you know, it doesn't take anything to print out one more piece of paper and send it to a Secret Service. So we got the FBI, IRS, Secret Service, any way that may have been involved. And the Secret Service was involved in the third Ponzi scheme. So I send a Freedom of Information Act to Secret Service, which responds pretty quick. Well, I think at that time they were maybe six months out. Anyway, when they come back, they list that they had been involved in the first or in the main, in the second Ponzi scheme, which is my buddy Donovan's. You know, probably have this right. In the list of the things that they had on file was a server. So we then do another request. We then talk to his attorney.

his attorney finds out, his attorney ends up saying, so then almost immediately they contact his wife and say, that's what, they contact his wife and say, hey, we have us, we have the server. Do you want us to get rid of it? And he's still like, no, no, no, we want the server. She goes, I'm coming down with our investigator. So they schedule a time to come down. The reason they come down with their investigator is that in front of the, in front of the, in front of the. Freedom of Information Officer for the Secret Service. They're like, we want to take the server, make a hard, make a copy, a direct copy in front of them. So they can't say you altered anything. No, no, we want a direct copy. So, you know, for evidence. And so they're like, okay.

And then I think they leave one with them or something along those lines or they have them send it somewhere. So like this is a direct, we have a direct copy or whatever. So they go down. The guys there, he's like, okay, they have them come. in here, okay, we're going to make a copy and everything. And while they're copying, they're like, okay, so you're going to make a copy? He's like, well, why are you going to make a copy? And I thought you were taking it.

Like, well, we're going to leave one with you. Whatever, they go through the procedure. And he's like, well, you're not going to get anything from it. I mean, we erased it. And they go, why'd you erase it? And they were like, I mean, we notified the U.S. attorney that we were giving it to you. And the U.S. attorney came back and said, you can give it to them. Just make sure you erase it first.

and they were like, really? So they still made the copy. And it was erased. They were hoping they were going to be able to retrieve something, but it had been completely wiped and then rewritten. They do have a thing where they rewrite the whole thing. Well, then we ordered a Freedom of Information Act again. And we get the email from the U.S. attorney saying erase it.

Give it to them, but erase it. So, you know, when you tell a story like that, like most people, I only say that for this reason, is that most people, people watch something like this prior to going to prison, prior to having dealing with, you know, like you said, these three-letter agencies and the U.S. Attorney's Office and everything. You know, I grew up on Law & Order. I don't know if you, you probably know Law & Order at SVU and that, you're way younger. Law & Order was a show when it first came out.

And basically it held the New York District Attorney's Office up as being like that shining light on a hill. Like they were they were dedicated to doing the right thing, you know? Let's say they got to a door and the detective was like, hey, man, I can just jimmy the door. And they would go, no, no, no. And they were like, well, probably we'll just go in. If we say we heard someone inside, we can, you know, someone creep screen for help. They're like, no, no, no, we'll wait.

We're going to go to a judge. We're going to get the proper this. We're going to, you know, or if the guy's name was Jim McCoy was a district attorney. So the district attorney would hear, would suddenly after a trial find out that he'd convict the wrong person. And that guy's in jail. He would immediately like, call the judge, wake him up. We're going to his house. We've got to get him out tonight.

Get a hold of the warden. We have to. In reality, what the Jim McCoy's out there do is they say, well, then that just means that he had an accomplice. And they bury it. Yeah. And they don't do anything. and they let you do that life sentence. And they say nothing.

And they convince himself. They justify why, well, a jury found him guilty. He must be guilty. But you know you twisted the evidence. And you know the jury didn't see all the evidence. And you know this other guy is now taking responsibility. And you know it's his DNA. Yeah.

Like they do that. So, you know, after being through that whole process and seeing these types of things and the underhanded things that they do. And I'm sure there's great FBI agents and there's great people in those departments. But the idea that that happened when I was growing up, I would have said none of that happens. These people, they're looking out for us. They're doing the right thing. But the truth is, when you start going through the process and you see the underhanded

corruption that corrupt dealings and corrupt things that they do to protect themselves. Like, we finally track down the server, you agree to give it back, and you erase it. And it was literally days before, a couple days before they erase it. There's no justification for you to erase this server. But because the U.S. attorney has qualified immunity, he can just say, oh, well, I didn't realize that it might have evidence on it. I didn't know. Oh, no, I just was saying, you know, I don't even know why I said that. Made a mistake.

Yeah. Well, we think you did it to, we think it's corruption. We think that we're going to charge you. we could charge it with this. Well, you know, I've got qualified immunity. You actually can't do it. In the course of my duty, I made a mistake. That's reasonable.

But the truth is, my, my, my, uh, the guy I wrote the story, my subject from the very beginning said, on that server are the documents that can exonerate me. They can prove that I didn't know any of this was happening until the very end. He's been saying it from the very beginning. The U.S. attorney knew he'd been saying it, blamed him for stealing the, the, the stealing those those that server when they knew they had it right right which he didn't steal knowing he can't find it because he's been he's but they've been going after the FBI and the secret service actually has them because they were using them in this other case I

believe that's why they had them because they were the main investigative body in this other Ponzi scheme and so they ended up getting a hold of them it's like oh we need that so when they went to look for it they said we don't have it We think it's gone. And the only person we can think that would want it is you. Because you're saying it exonerates you. How convenient. So anyway, the point is, is that, yeah, it's sleazy.

And they do these little subtle, scummy little things. And if they happen to have to crush you along the way, well, then that's what they do. That's fine. It's fine. It's for the greater good. So, and I'm sure that's how they sleep like a baby at night thinking, well, you know, it's not our fault. Or they justify it in some way. No different than how a criminal justifiable.

robbing a bank or committing fraud or, you know, doing a home invasion or selling drugs, you know, you, you justify it to yourself by saying, oh, well, if they didn't buy the drugs from me, they'd buy them from somebody. I actually gave him a good deal. What are you saying? You're a drug dealer. There's no good deal. So, yeah, so, I mean, I, like, I completely see them manipulating the, and it's pretty obvious. Like, you have one report that says, this is what happened. And the guy says, it kind of looks like it puts it on the FBI. Let's redo it. Let's go in and say, that one's not good enough. Let's redo the whole thing. And let's make sure we give them an attorney that will represent our interests. So I can kind of see that. Yeah. And to what you were saying, you know, about the attorney general and being, you know, how you went in and FOIA requested those emails and stuff. Well, there was something. Interesting. So the attorney general, I mean, you know, you know this, but you know, some of your listeners may not. The attorney general is the head of, like, that is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. You know, the only person above that person is the president of the United States. You know, so like you're talking about the top dog when it comes to law enforcement in the United States with the attorney general. So the attorney general is over the entire Department of Justice. That would include the FBI. after my dad died, the attorney general was Janet Reno at that time. And if you know anything

about Janet Reno. She made a bunch of really good, solid good decisions, didn't she? Wonderful lady. There was no, there were no, yeah, there was no debacles under her watch. Nothing, nothing at all. So this wonderful woman gets in a plane with Secret Service and flies across the country to our house. And they shut down our whole. whole street with Secret Service. And she comes in and has a sit down with my mom after my dad's death. And like, that's, that's something that strikes us as rather odd and interesting that the attorney general of the United States felt the need not to make a phone call, but to get in a plane and come all the way over there. Like, it was like people were freaked out at a very high level

and they were like, okay, we need to cover some things at a very high level here. And so I've FOIA requested specifically all communications from or to Janet Reno dealing with anything to do with my dad or my dad's death or the conversation that she had with my mom, any kind of emails, anything that could have been recorded. and what I heard back from the Attorney General's office is, oh, we don't have those records. Those have been sent to the National Archives. So you'll have to go to them, we can't fulfill this FOIA request. I was like, okay. So I go and take the exact same FOIA request and I file it with the National Archives. The National Archives then gets back to me and they say, well, we can't exactly just,

give you um like like what they said something to the fact of we we don't have those documents is there like can you list a specific conversation or like a specific date or like something specific that was said um if you could list some stuff like that then we could fulfill it narrow the scope and i'm like you know again this is like a repeat of what the fbi was trying to do with you know trying to find out well what are you looking for but they just like straight up denied it and said that they're not going to fulfill it.

And so how would I know what she did or didn't say or what days it was said on? You know, like that's what I'm sending you the request for. So like this has to be blatantly illegal. They're just like they're just, they think that they're unaccountable and they can do whatever they want. And they're just like, yeah, yeah, we don't want to give you that information. probably because whatever is there is going to be really bad. It's going to be really damning for them.

So I was just going to say in this guy's case, the guy I told you that the Donovan Davis, and I want to say I've got this correct. I'm sure I'm off a little bit. Initially when we filed it, can you mind the invest. Let's say the investigative body is the FBI. Initially when we filed it, they said they had 16 pages. of documents on him. They're the investigative body

on a massive Ponzi scheme that had over a hundred and some odd victims on a three-year and that... And this is after the investigation. This isn't... This is after you have 16 documents. Come on. So then he came back

and we wrote another letter saying, you were the investigative body. And they were like, well, these are, this is all that we're finding. So then he filed a lawsuit against them. And suddenly they had like 13,000 pages of documents. And so, I mean, sometimes, and I've had guys file, you know, very brief. Because nobody files.

They just go, okay, we're not going to get it. Well, you know, so if you actually file something where the lawyers get involved, right? And now suddenly, even, and his was pro se. He didn't have a lawyer. I think he just filed it pro se. Oh. So I think the only problem with that. is because it was a federal lawsuit, is that they charge you either $300 or $500 to file.

It was just super fucking unfair, by the way. States don't charge you. And this is what bothers me to. You cannot, supposedly, you cannot limit a defendant's, you can't limit a defendant's access to the courts, which they've interpreted most states as being you can't charge them. Like you can't say, because think about if you charge me $500, well, then if I'm poor, I can't file it, which means I can't that a poor person doesn't get to file a lawsuit. So you're not supposed to be able to do that. But the federal court, for some reason, when you file a civil suit, they can charge you $500, which doesn't make sense to me.

But either way, it doesn't matter. He has, his family has money. He has money. So it's like, oh, 500, there's your 500 bucks. Oh, I'm going to file another one. There's your $500. Like, he doesn't give a shit. And he's doing it pro se.

Like, he's super smart and he's in prison. He's got a lot of time on his hands. And he does have a lawyer. He's like, he's just not going to file. I'm just not going to pay my lawyer since he's doing all this other stuff. Like, I can file this for free. I'll just do it myself. Like, it's pretty simple.

It's not even lengthy. It's like five or six documents. It's just saying, this is what I know. This is it. You have the documents. You've lied in this document. I know for a fact you were the investigative body to provide the documents. And they came back immediately.

Oh, we've got them. My apologies. And then they tried to delay it by saying, Well, we're going to, you know, drop the lawsuit, but it's going to take it some time to, it's going to take you some time. Well, you're saying it's going to take you years. But guess what? If you have to provide it for the lawsuit, you'll have to come up with it within about 30 days. So he said, no, no. And listen, within boxes are showing up. Within like two or three weeks, boxes. Like, you weren't able to do this for years. But now suddenly, because there's a lawsuit, you can immediately do it within three weeks. Yeah. So, you know, that's a thought that you might want to think about because it's a, look, the courts, you can basically write a motion in green crayon. I so on, you know, I'm saying. It doesn't have to be eloquent.

You don't have to know legalese. You could probably even find, go on PACER and find lawsuits in the federal court requesting FOIA request that. have been delayed or whatever. See, they just say, oh, it's going to take us the, it's going to be years. And most people go, well, it's going to be years. That's what they said. You file a lawsuit. You'd be shocked how quickly they fast track that document. Oh, yeah. I'm, I'm sure because I mentioned earlier, you know, they said four, four and a half years initially for the FBI one. Well, after I contested it and went to my worthless representatives, both of my senators and my congressman, which, by the way, I'm going to give them a shout out because they're all crap.

Senator Tim Scott, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Congressman Jeff Duncan, you are all crap. None of them have done... Graham's been around, man. He's been out forever. He's still alive. He's rotten to the core. He's like 75 years old or 80 years old. I can't stand that guy.

Is he old? Oh, yeah. He is. He's the swamp, you know. He's the swamp right there. But they all claim to care about veterans. None of them have done anything. Well, after I contacted them, the FBI takes it from four and a half years.

and they're like, oh yeah, so now your expected delivery day is not four and a half years. It's now five and a half years. What is that? They're retaliating against me. It's retaliation because I pushed back and tried to get this expedited. And I'm not going to be intimidated. You know, they're not going to, you know, intimidate me into backing down. Like, that's just not going to happen.

So, yeah, like, we may have to look into doing that because, like, we definitely, do want to go to court, but it was like, okay, lawyers are expensive, you know, but if we, if we can just do it ourselves, then that may be the way to move forward. Because I know, there's no reason it should take so long. It took them, you know, like 14 months to release their FBI report, but that's like because they did it twice, you know, like it was already done within like, I don't know, five months or So the basic footwork was done. If you can conduct an entire investigation in that amount of time, you know, and all the footwork that's involved with that,

well, you told me within a couple weeks that you'd already found the 1,300 potentially responsive pages. So what's left to do? Click, attach, send. That's it. That's all that's left to do here. So why is that going to take five and a half years to do? There's no reason why. It's simply that they're just stonewalling because they know they can get away with it.

There's no penalties for them. You know, even with a FOIA request, all you can sue for is what you originally requested. And any expenses that you might have expended doing it, sometimes the court will reimburse you for some of that. That's it. There's no damages that they can be sued for in a FOIA case, which is insane. So there's just no. incentive for them to do anything. They're really incentivized to stonewall as much as possible because they know the system is biased in their favor. So if they just stonewall everybody,

most of these requests will just go away. They can just get people to go away and wait, you know, however many years. So they don't have to do their jobs. What the taxpayers are paying them to do, they don't have to do it. It's insane. So I actually have a buddy who does, who was in prison, who did legal work when he was in prison because a lot of these guys go to prison and they'll spend 10 years in prison and they'll just do legal work. So by the time they get out,

they have more experience doing legal work than lawyers that are out there doing legal work. And so I have a buddy if you want, I can afterwards, I can give you his name. I appreciate that. He does it like, he actually does stuff too cheap. Like I'm constantly when he tells me what he charges.

I'm like, bro, what are you doing? Like an attorney would charge you 15 grand for that. You know, you're charging $500. Ah, you know, the guy's locked up. He didn't have any money. And I'm like, tough. You know, make some payments. Get on a payment plan, you know.

But yeah, he actually works super cheap and he'll do it. And he has access to Pacer and everything else. So he can do the research. And it's almost like a hobby to him, really. I think that's what it more or less is. He doesn't charge anything because he likes doing it. He's got a grudge. That's what you need, a guy with a grudge.

Yeah. Of course, he's also been at prison multiple times, and it's always been his fault. And I don't care what his grudge is. You're a criminal. You committed a crime. Yeah, but they, it's always, you know, they went. See, when this happened, I'm like, yeah, I understand you could have gotten away with it.

And they didn't let you because they didn't play fair. But you weren't playing fair when you did this, you know. So he didn't take that in account. So, but yeah, definitely he's got a grudge and he does stuff pretty inexpensively. Certainly at a tenth of whatever a lawyer is going to charge you. And honestly, it's not a super difficult. that's not a super super difficult thing to file. Like, no matter what, they realize,

even if you're not perfectly eloquent in your presentation of the lawsuit, they understand, I want this, you're stone walling me. It doesn't take this long. Give me the documents. You know what I'm saying? Like, otherwise, I'm going to file a lawsuit because I believe that you're doing this, and I believe there's retaliation, and I believe. And then they're going to be like,

they're going to get it to some U.S. attorney's going to be in their, Civil Department's going to get a hold of it and go, man, just what are you doing? Like, just give, should I have to write up for the next six months? Should I have, six months to a year? Should I have to file this when in the end you're going to give them the stuff? It's just going to cause me more problems, you more problems. Just fast track this.

Put a guy on it. Yeah. Move it to the front of the pile. So that's what it will probably boil down to. It certainly did in Donovan's case. A matter of fact, you could probably, my buddy could probably just look up Donovan's lawsuit and just copy that lawsuit. You know, technically you're not supposed to. Yeah.

You know, you have to do it from scratch. But anyway, yeah. So, definitely. Okay. So do you feel, how do you feel like, is there anything else you want to go over? Well, I mean, there's more details and stuff. But I feel like we've kind of covered, you know, the bigger points of what's going on, you know, and got people up to speed on, you know, where we're at now.

It's just like we're at these roadblocks with the foias and all that kind of stuff. You know, like we know the basics of everything, but we're trying to move it forward. So at this point, I guess I just want to let people know, you know, if they want more information, I'm starting a YouTube channel and I'll be putting out more information. And, you know, if people have channels and they want to interview me, you know, I'm definitely available for interviews. This is actually the first time I've ever spoken publicly about this. So, you know, this is a brand new story, at least as far as the public's concerned. You know, I'd appreciate any and all help trying to get this story out there to try and make

things start happening. And the name of the channel is? It's at Truth is Treason on YouTube. Wouldn't it just be treason? Or you're saying that's called. So if you type in treason, does it come up? Um, so, um, I'm, I'm, I'm just about to post my, my first few videos. So I'm not, I'm not ranking yet. Right. But so, so that's why like, if people go to that, the ad, they can just go straight to it. Is this just a t-shirt or is this your logo? This is, this is my logo for the brand. Oh, okay. I don't maybe just happen to find a t-shirt. No, no, I made this logo, um, because it's the, the full, the full thing is, it's a quote by by Ron Paul. Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Right. And it's kind of inspired by George, Orwell's 1984, where they, they redefine everything. The Ministry of Truth.

Yes. The Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Plenty. Yes. And they say war is peace, you know. God, what a, you know. What a great book, right? Oh, yeah.

I read that book. Well, I read the book in high school, right? And I read it twice in prison. And let me tell you, in prison, it's because, you know, the doors are locked. You're just, everybody's wearing the same clothes. So it's definitely. appropriate to read because you're in an orwellian environment. Everything is concrete and and and steel and it is the you know they it is the ministry of the ministry of truth.

You know yeah the ministry of plenty. Yeah they're like they're feeding us but the foods you know you can barely eat it like you got lots of it like if you want beans. You know it's like so and the ministry of truth they were constantly just lying to it. It was like somebody would die and they would always say like he died on the way to the hospital. No, he didn't. He woke up. He was stiff as a board. He died last night because you guys didn't give him his insulin.

You know what I'm saying? Like whatever. No, no, he was okay. When he left, he was okay. He died in the ambulance. Like, my God. Wow. But even especially now with just the government in general, if you read 1984, you're just like, wow.

We're being gaslit right and left. It's insane. Yeah. You haven't been changing the words. Like it's not. what is it it's not they're not illegal aliens they're undocumented oh yeah Biden was just apologizing for using the word illegal I'm like what are we doing here and then the other one the abortion thing they've got a new name for like abortions um there's just all these different

things like you're just twisting everything like uh but it's yeah if you actually there's a movie too I made my wife watch the movie 1984 which was pretty good oh there's two of them actually Oh, is there? Yeah, one was made in the 50s and one was actually made in the year 1984. No, that's the one. Okay. And, but you can't, listen, you can't. It's great.

It's a great movie. But it's in no way, I mean, it's, it's, you can't get the, the, the manipulation and disparity that you can get in the book in the movie. I mean, it's great, but it's, oh, my God, it's so dark and it's so frightening. And it's so, the manipulation by the government is so overwhelming that you feel in the book. But it's still, it's still a good movie. It's definitely worth watching. Yeah, yeah, for sure. But I like, I like that you threw it 1984 in there.

And I like the quote, too. That's a good quote. But, yeah, definitely. And I told you, like, if you want any, like, you could even interview guys. There's all kinds of people you could just interview. You could do the whole thing from Streamyard. What is Streamyard? It's like Zoom.

Oh, okay. We just, you know, and you if you look at my channel, like I think a couple of videos every week are just streamyards. Oh, okay. Talking to some guy in California, and we just sit there and talk. But, I mean, you could start the whole channel just off of that. You don't have to buy any equipment or anything. But then again, you said your brother is like a videographer, right? So is he going to help you?

Well, so he's a combat cameraman in the Air Force. And he's actually, the last two years, he's actually been nominated their number one combat cameraman for 2022 and 2023. So, like, he's very good at what he does. So he's been able to help me out with making a couple videos. Like, I was just up in Washington, D.C., and we filmed a couple of shorts from my channel right in front of the Jay Edgar Hoover building. And the FBI, they thought they were slick. You know, they sent some agents out to go and check on us, see what we were doing.

And we just, like, we started out across the street, you know, and then we just got closer and closer until we're, like, right in front of their door, you know, the cameras are right there, you know, like looking right down on us. You know, we were like, man, we should ask them for their footage too, you know, include some of that, you know. But they, yeah, they sent some agents out, you know, undercover. They were in plain clothes, you know, and they came out and they were like scoping us out, you know, like, what are you guys doing here, you know? Like, I'm sure they knew who we were, but, you know, they wanted to come out and,

let us know they were watching, but we already knew, you know. So what was that for an actual video? Was that like the intro? Were you doing like an intro? It was a few videos where I'm talking about a few different topics in this whole scenario of what's going on with the FBI. So we made a couple just like short videos for that. And so I'm going to start making more content for my channel. But those first few videos, you know, I went up to visit him.

And since, you know, he's got the good camera skills and all that, you know, he knows how to do it. And it worked out, like, the quality of those videos is, like, much better than what I'm going to be able to do. You know, like, the rest of the videos, I'll probably just be filming myself, you know, with a phone, you know, just me talking to the camera. But for the first few, I wanted them to, you know, be high quality. And he knows how to get the lighting just right and everything. The sound was good, you know, so his skill set really helped with that. Well, you could definitely, if you start interviewing people, you could definitely do Streamyard. I mean, I can, you know, when we get off here, I'll show you my streamyard setup.

You'll be like, are you serious? That's it. It's like, literally, I sit right here. I put my, my, my MacBook on a little box and go to Streamyard and hit the button and calls you. And I hit the thing. And it's, you know, I just do an interview. And I've got a little, you know, it's got a little, all you see is this stuff in the back. And you see me talking. I use a different mic, so it's not my face. And I do the whole thing. and then you throw a thumbnail on it, but you get content. You know, so it's a lot of content.

And you talked up other people that have had issues. Like if you're saying, hey, I'm just going to do stuff that is going to be involved in, you know, with the FBI or cover-ups or conspiracies or not conspiracies in the way that it's not true and people think it's true, but just in a way that it's a conspiracy to cover something up or it's something along those lines. And you want to have a discussion with somebody like that. For instance, I've done a couple of. on JFK. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Like, I don't know.

I mean, I know I have a cursory understanding of the case, right? But these guys, like, know every single person involved and everything that Oswald did, and everywhere he was and everywhere. So I don't know anything about, like, the details that they know. And all I really do is sit there and go, right, right, uh-huh, uh-huh. But it ends up being a two-hour video and it's super interesting. And it gets 25 or 30 or 40,000 views. And it's a stream yard.

And it took virtually nothing on my, on my, on my, part other than to listen to this guy tell a great story yeah so there's got to be tons of conspiracy type books or books that you could interview the authors and just post those videos oh yeah and that's great content like if you want if you're thinking you want to do this for so that the channel's successful and actually can help because let's face it you want it to be successful because the moment it becomes successful and you start making enough money that it becomes your full-time gig then you can double down like now like you thought i was making stuff before i was making one video a week before, like now I'm going to start pumping out four because I don't have to do anything but

this. Yeah. You can get serious about it. And some of those, like I said, we were talking earlier, some of those, I call them conspiracy channels, but some of those things just make tons of money, tons of it. I mean, I understand that's not your goal, but your goal probably is it would be great if this did pay my bill so I could put more effort into it. Yeah.

And it would be great because, like, I mean, there's, you know, like investigating and lawsuits and all that stuff is expensive. So I mean, it would be really nice if, you know, I could generate income from it because it would then give me the resources to be able to keep on pushing this. Like, I want to keep pushing this forward, you know. Well, even if you get the, even if your, your situation has resolved at some point, it would be, it's, it's a great feeling to be someone else's advocate, you know, like somebody else who you've been through his shoes and you realize,

This guy's screwed because he works at Walmart. He doesn't make enough money to pay. He barely makes enough money to pay his bills. He has an issue. He can't handle it on his own. Luckily, my channel generates enough money that I can be his advocate. Like how great. Because that guy's screwed.

You know, he can't, he's, he's in a rut and he's never going to be able to take this on on his own. But you could be that guy. Yeah. And that would be, that would be to me like a life with purpose. Does that make sense? Oh, yeah. You know.

That's something that I've wanted to do for a long time as well. Like, this is, you know, a passion project for me. You're like, I didn't just start this because of my dad. It's like this was something that I had envisioned years ago. And I feel like there's a real need for it. You know, there's definitely a real need for people who are just pursuing just the truth without the partisanship. And, you know. It's like coffeezilla.

Yeah. Right. Yeah. You know, I mean, let's face it, there. there's coffee zilla is only able to do the things that he does because of his youtube channel prior to that he was he was struggling he had no money it wasn't making money and when he first started it was you know it was tough but now his channel's taken off he's making money at it so it just allows him to do better and better work because there are no more investigative

journalists they just don't exist and then even if there are then you end up you know they're so so the newspapers out there are so polarized so great i'm an investigative journalist for the post. Okay, well, then you definitely are one-sided. Or no, no, I'm an investigative journalist for CNN. Okay, well, I'm not sure I can believe everything you say. Or Fox. You guys are slanted. Even the more independent ones. Like, you know, I watched Project Veritas for years, you know, and I'm a fan of some of the work that James O'Keefe does, but at the same time, James O'Keefe is incredibly Republican. Truth is not Republican and it's not Democrat, okay? Truth is truth and you align with it or you don't, okay? I like that James O'Keefe does investigative journalism,

but James O'Keepe specifically appeals only to like Maga Republicans. He's like, okay, what are the issues that they're interested in? Okay, COVID, so we'll go investigate all the vaccine stuff. What else? You know, the border stuff. And so he only targets companies and issues that go after Democrats. But is it not happening? Like our Republicans, Republicans not corrupt as well? Are they not doing any of this? Well, James O'Keefe never goes after them. Yes, they are corrupt. Yes, they are doing the same stuff that the Democrats are doing. But James O'Keefe won't go after them because he knows who butters his bread. And it's Maga Republicans. And I'm not, I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat Democrat. I am like, actually an independent. There's like over half of Americans now of voters are saying that they're independent. But I'm like, you don't, half of you are not voting independent of the Republican Democrat duopoly. So in reality, no, you're not independent. You're independent when you start acting independent of the duopoly. When you start voting for candidates who are not in the duopoly system, then you can call

yourself an independent. And that's what I do. I vote for candidates who aren't in the duopoly. So I'm truly independent. And it's the same way with truth. Truth is not Republican. It's not Democrat. Okay.

The truth is the truth. And sometimes the Republicans are telling some truth. And sometimes the Democrats are telling some truth. And sometimes the Democrats are telling some truth. but then they're also perverting it with a whole bunch of partisan BS. And it's true even of investigative journalists like James O'Keefe, who I think does a lot of good work. But he's very biased in a partisan way.

Right. When are you going to start the channel? You say you got to charge it. When are you putting up your video? Well, I've already got the channel up. We've got the first few videos filmed. We just got to edit them, you know, clean up some spots, fix the sound in a couple places and then they should be up within a couple days.

So probably by the time this video is up, I should have my first couple of videos. Yeah, this won't be up for a few days. Okay, yeah. Hey, I appreciate you guys watching. Do me a favor. If you like the video, hit the subscribe button. Share the video with their friends and family. Also, hit the bell so you get notified of videos like this.

Also, leave a comment in the comment section. And if you check in the description box, we are going to leave the treason YouTube channel so that you can just click on it and go straight there and subscribe or check out. the videos that should be there by the time this comes out. Any other social media links that David has, we're going to put also in the description box. And we're going to leave his email in case you want to contact him. So once again, thank you very much for watching this video. I really appreciate it. And please consider joining my Patreon because it really helps me make videos like this. Thank you very much. See you.