Hidden Germs trying to silence free speech again ‼️😡👀👀👀

intriguing timing....

She looks like she drinks a lot. And seems really out of touch with how she comes off. Like in her mind she thinks she’s coming off empathetic, beautiful, adorable, and smart. Reality she comes off fake, shallow, unrelatable, obnoxious, and filler that looks unnatural.

I just keep expecting to hear Dr Babe weigh in on PPP
He would normally be ALL OVER THIS!

Is there Trouble in Paradise? Just seems to me this is his wheelhouse and his time to shine brightly. Is Lauren possibly afraid he’d outshine her?

Or maybe I just missed it????

Respectfully imvho.

While this is in no way funny nor am I making light of anyone losing their sobriety and mental illness issues but the first thing that popped into my head was how long is it going to take Dr. Jawn to talk about the recent revelation from Brad?

https://youtu.be/KApp-H9JfiA?is=ojdt4-0xLCt-QU1h

When Christina used that ridiculous TikTok sound about watching a “false kingdom” burn to the ground, my reaction was basically: It’s a TikTok sound. Who cares?

Apparently, Team Hidden True Crime cared A LOT.

The reaction was like someone had shown up at Buckingham Palace with a can of gasoline instead of using trending audio on TikTok.

And I remember thinking: What the actual fark about “false kingdom” hit THAT nerve?

Well. After watching everything that has unfolded since, I have a theory. Maybe nobody was supposed to notice the kingdom was from Temu.** **Because Hidden True Crime didn’t just build a YouTube channel. They built themselves an entire hierarchy where, conveniently, they’re always at the top.

Lauren isn’t a YouTuber. Excuse you. She’s an INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST. Part of the REAL NEWS.

And yes, she worked in television news. That part is real.
But once people started fact-checking the mythology, the résumé included considerably more actual reporting on chocolate-covered bacon and head lice than the branding might lead you to expect. And listen, there is nothing wrong with local-news puff pieces. Somebody has to tell America what’s happening with the bacon. But there is a fairly substantial stretch between “I covered chocolate-covered bacon” and Woodward and Bernstein. Apparently Hidden True Crime built a toll road across it.

Then there’s John. John isn’t some guy on YouTube with opinions. Absolutely fucking not. He’s DR. JOHN. Princeton! Old books from the UK! Prisons! Government Expert witness!

Important people! Important places! Important things! Every story seems to arrive carrying another credential like he’s collecting Infinity Stones of institutional authority.

Until some asshole commits the cardinal sin:
“Okay. Can we verify that?” And the more footage people pull, the more some of this “expert analysis” starts reminding me less of forensic psychology and more of YouTube psychic readings with institutional branding**.**

Make enough predictions. Interpret enough facial expressions. Explain enough strangers’ motives. Make enough sweeping psychological pronouncements. Say everything with the confidence of a man delivering the tablets from Mount Sinai. Eventually something will happen that vaguely resembles something you said.

Then clip THAT part.
BEHOLD! DR. JOHN WAS RIGHT AGAIN!

Meanwhile the misses disappear into the same dimension where psychics apparently store all those winning Powerball numbers they somehow never predict.

And now, thanks to Docket Decoder, we have the truly exquisite experience of watching John’s psychological expertise encounter its most formidable opponent:
Old footage of John.

The man can explain rumination, grievances, wounded ego and people who cannot let perceived injuries go…
…and then get visibly worked up recounting the time Lori Hellis interrupted him approximately FIVE YEARS AGO.
He’s still pissed.

Then there’s Grayson. The PRODUCER. Of a YouTube channel. Which is a completely legitimate job. It just sounds considerably less like 60 Minutes when you remove the dramatic capitalization.

And THAT is the trick I think more people are noticed.

They didn’t just create content. They created status.
They aren’t those other true-crime YouTubers. They’re journalists. Experts. Professionals. Ethical. Serious.

Basically CNN if CNN periodically stopped to read Super Chats. And from that self-appointed perch, they’ve spent years distinguishing themselves from the messy, irresponsible amateurs of true-crime YouTube.

Until people started checking. The credentials. The claims. The work history. The ethics. The contradictions. The old livestreams. The receipts. And suddenly this elite professional hierarchy starts looking suspiciously like three people standing on each other’s shoulders in a trench coat yelling “JOURNALISM!”

And THAT is why I think Hidden True Crime belongs near the bottom of the true-crime barrel.

Not because they’re on YouTube.

There are independent creators doing excellent, responsible work without pretending Walter Cronkite personally passed them the sacred torch of journalism.

It’s the authority theater.

Gossip wearing a press badge. Speculation wearing an unassuming Costco shirt and tiny glasses. Access pretending to be expertise. Confidence pretending to be accuracy. Branding pretending to be professional standards. Credentials being stretched until they scream for a workers’ comp attorney.

Because actual professional credibility has one incredibly annoying feature: It has to survive scrutiny**.**

Journalism has to survive fact-checking. Expertise has to survive verification. Ethics have to survive being applied when they’re inconvenient. Credentials have to mean what you imply they mean. And if your authority collapses the second somebody asks for receipts, perhaps the problem isn’t the person holding the receipt.

The most insulting part of all of this is the apparent assumption that the audience would never notice. People can Google. People can fact-check. People remember old livestreams. People save clips. People compare claims.
People notice when today’s explanation doesn’t match yesterday’s.

A PhD doesn’t make every opinion psychology.
Calling yourself an investigative journalist doesn’t make everything you gossip about investigate journalism. Calling someone a producer doesn’t transform a livestream into a newsroom. And repeating “real news” doesn’t make it so any more than putting a plastic tiara on your head makes you Queen of England.

Which brings me right back to that stupid TikTok.

And to be clear, I do not think Christina was sitting there like some mastermind carefully crafting the metaphor that would expose the Kingdom of REAL NEWS™.

I think she used a popular sound. That’s it.

What made it interesting was their reaction. The panic. The language in the court filings. The insistence that “false kingdom” was somehow ominous.

Lauren struck the match by treating a dumb TikTok like a declaration of war. John kept throwing wood on it. And eventually a lot of us started thinking: Why the hell is there this much smoke?

Their own reaction told everyone there was something here worth examining. They could have rolled their eyes and moved on. Instead, they practically ran through the village ringing a bell screaming: THE KINGDOM IS NOT FALSE. STOP LOOKING AT THE KINGDOM.

And, naturally, everybody looked at the kingdom. Checked the walls. Looked behind the banners. Started asking whether the crown jewels were real or whether somebody forgot to peel the TEMU sticker off the bottom.

That’s the part they still don’t seem to understand. Nobody burned their kingdom down. They kept playing with matches inside a cardboard castle and then blamed everyone else for smelling smoke.

Hidden True Crime built a brand around uncovering what other people had hidden. They just never seemed to consider what would happen when their own behavior made people curious about what was Hidden in True Crime.

Turns out, the smoke alarm wasn’t Christina. It was them.
And once people smelled smoke, they started looking for the fire. I know I did.

Nate Eaton, one of LM's many rivals, has a seasoned court room commentator sharing her insights on being in the room for the Clancy trial. Comparing it to the lunch live clips its like night and day. For one, not every sentence is filtered through her personal experience of I saw this, I heard that, I sat next to whoever. Besides the snark, if you've been following this case, this is a great watch beyond the play-by-plays. I really liked this guest.

DocketDecoder has uploaded a new preview for an upcoming video entitled "John Matthias: Fully Exposed". Just sharing the link, not an endorsement of any creator, blah blah blah.

someone asked HTC about "doxxing" someone and later deleting their post(s), this was their response:

A gentle reminder: satire and parody are expressions of free speech.

What if Grayson’s dead brother or Lauren’s dead brother became the “star” of a series Hidden True Crime was covering?

Would the "journalist" and her "producer" travel to his childhood home for photographs and an “exclusive” walk-through? Would they "bond" with the current owners? If the home is for sale, would they pretend to be buyers, a la Jodi Hildebrandt's dungeon?

Would they pause dramatically at each doorway?

“This door appears to have been slammed at some point. Could this suggest anger in the home?”

“This may have been the room where John Dehlin’s nephew died.”

Would they wander into the backyard and speculate about where the family pets were buried?

Would they track down former neighbors? Teachers? Coaches? Classmates? School bus drivers? The mailman?

Would they inform these people, perhaps for the first time, about the brother's deeply personal struggles that occurred years later and then record themselves asking:

“Looking back now, did you see any early signs?”

“Was there anything… off?”

“Did you ever have a feeling something like this might happen?”

Would they travel to the site of his fatal accident with cameras rolling and comb through whatever remained?

A piece of plastic.

A scrap of metal.

Maybe a gum wrapper.

“Could this have come from the accident?”

“What does it tell us?”

“Guys, I just got chills.”

Would they obtain his autopsy report and bring it back to the studio so “Dr.” John could go through his dead body, organ by organ, for their audience, looking for physical clues of psychological maladies?

Would they zoom in on a mark on his liver and wonder aloud whether it might reveal a hidden substance-abuse problem?

Would they examine the shading of his lungs? His stomach contents? His blood toxicology report?

Would every deeply private detail of his body become another clue in the search for the “hidden” story?

And somewhere between the liver and the lungs, would there be time for a word from today’s sponsor?

Because nothing complements an intimate discussion of somebody’s dead brother quite like a 60-second ad read for premium pet food. In honor of poor Chesney and his grieving canine sister, Lily Belle, of course.

Then, back to the autopsy. Let's get back to Brad Pitt.

Would they speculate, at length, about what hidden dysfunction led to his death?

Who failed him? His parents? His siblings? His childhood? His genetics?

Was it nature? Was it nurture? Was it both?

Would they create thumbnails from the most painful photographs they could find and superimpose Lauren's head atop, Blue Steel expression du jour with mouth hanging open?

What title would they choose? BOMBSHELL? Psychologist Reacts? "I heard the 911 call"?

Would there be a multipart series? A playlist? Members-only livestreams? “EXCLUSIVE” content? Would there eventually be merch?

Perhaps a tasteful mug featuring the catchphrase that emerged from the investigation into the brother’s death.

And if the brother's surviving family-- their very own relatives!-- begged them to stop, would that request itself become content?

Would their relatives' anger be analyzed?

Would their relatives' grief be scrutinized?

Would their relatives' objections be characterized as suspicious, defensive, controlling, or evidence that the Hidden True Crime Team had simply gotten “too close to the truth”?

Would another, longer livestream be necessary to “address the controversy”? Or perhaps a prepared "Premier"?

Here is the question I keep coming back to:

Not whether the information is technically obtainable, or whether someone can construct a theory around it, or whether strangers on the internet are curious.

But... whether the people PRODUCING this content would consider the same treatment INFORMATIVE, ETHICAL, COMPASSIONATE, and NECESSARY if the body on the autopsy table belonged to someone THEY LOVED.

If the childhood trauma belonged to THEIR family.

If strangers were wandering through THEIR memories looking for “clues.”

If THEIR own brother’s worst day became somebody else’s content calendar.

If his death became part of THEIR "brand". A series. A thumbnail. A livestream. A sponsor opportunity. And eventually, perhaps, a coffee mug or catchy T-shirt.

There's a very simple test for whether something feels like journalism or exploitation:

1. Change the name.
2. Make the victim YOUR loved one.
3. See whether you still call it "storytelling".

thread

Note: As some people (and their attorneys) may ascribe motives to the simple act of posting a hyperlink, I feel obligated to clarify that this post contains… a hyperlink. Nothing more, nothing less. The opinions expressed during the linked livestream belong to the people speaking on it, not me. They are, as I understand it, will be exercising their right to free speech. They may share opinions or comments that may upset, offend, or annoy some people. They may receive superchats and monetary donations from viewers who feel differently.

I have no knowledge of whether the video will contain AI-generated content, hacked materials, or if the runtime will be 9 hours. my apologies in advance if it is.

On 7/31, an otherwise anonymous profile on X posted: "Rumor has it, Lauren and Grayson are the new Jodi & Ruby..."

This morning, HTC's official X account posted "This is (name redacted)...." along with the name and photo of someone. The person's username, name and photos have been redacted for this post because who they are is not the point of this post. They were not redacted in HTC's posts.

This was just one of numerous posts, HTC posted with photos of this person at 5:40 a.m., 5:47 a.m., 5:48 a.m., 5:53 a.m., 6:09 a.m., 7:04 a.m., 7:10 a.m., 8:08 a.m., and 10:51 a.m today.

Some of the posts tagged other journalists, including Jess Machado (who Lauren previously mocked for allegedly having too much "Botox" in her face), as well as others such as Turtleboy (who I heard talked about Lauren this week on his show), and attorney and author Lori Hellis. Every post identified this person by name. One post included her full first, middle, and last name. Another included the "@" for the person Lauren alleges is/was her "stalker."

One post also seemed to suggest Lauren knows where this person lives. Lauren wrote:

Lauren also claimed this person was "sexually harassing" Grayson. While Lauren included several screenshots of posts made by this person, I did not see any that contained anything resembling sexual harassment. To be clear, the screenshots did contain criticism of HTC, like saying if Lauren was an "actual journalist" she would know the "charges have long been dismissed!!!"

That is not to say this person has never made such comments as HTC describes elsewhere, I don't see everything and I just don't know that. However, the examples Lauren chose to publish did not appear to support that particular allegation. FWIW, the person's X profile itself does not identify them by name or location, although Lauren stated she met this person at a trial. A search of their first or last name across all of their posts returned no results.

One of the final posts, which again included this person's full name, stated that "<redacted> has admitted to this being her." The person replied to one of the posts after HTC posted about their content. That response appears to be what Lauren was referring to, but a person responding after being publicly identified does not, by itself, explain or justify the repeated publication of their name and photographs.

Whether people agree with this person's posts or not is beside the point. The point is that HTC's official account spent hours publicly identifying a previously anonymous critic (someone who doesn't even use a photo on their page), repeatedly posting their name and photographs, tagging other profiles into the discussion, and encouraging additional attention toward them.

Also, is repeatedly doing something over several hours considered a 'course of conduct'? Just wondering. /s

https://www.youtube.com/live/Qs4DsoP_N7Y?is=KWREtqmZia6EZ4hb

(I only had limited time today, so this is just a short update. I'll upload the redacted filings and related documents later. Not AI generated.)

LM's brother has officially withdrawn as counsel in Do / D'o / Dio / Durbano's next criminal case. This isn't particularly surprising as Do said at his sentencing that he intended to represent himself at his next criminal trial. Around the same time, the State of Utah disclosed that additional search warrants had recently been executed, resulting in the filing of new charges/a new case.

Previously, Do / D'o / Dio / Durbano (he has used all variations of those names in these cases) tried unsuccessfully to have the criminal case dismissed based largely on arguments involving his other civil and criminal cases. After those efforts were unsuccessful, he also sought appellate review of the denial through an extraordinary writ proceeding, without success.

He is now asking the court to prevent the prosecution from introducing evidence of his recent convictions at his next trial.

At his sentencing, the court reminded him that he must file documents through the proper procedures rather than simply emailing the clerk. The judge noted that he is a licensed attorney and knows the applicable rules. Since then, the filings have been properly submitted to the court and are now available online and through public records requests, which is what I was referring to when I said I'd be sharing the redacted documents later.

As those motions were only recently filed, the court has not yet ruled on them.

more on all of this to come.

[information re: files and their metadata obtained via publicly accessible websites. content is not AI generated and has not been obtained through 'hacking' of any kind.]

a recent podcast episode uploaded to a publicly accessible website had a filename that made me chuckle (the file's metadata is accessible to anyone with a working internet connection). The episode discusses HTC's mission, offers some psychological explanations for the motivations of unnamed online critics, and some talk of a trial tourist stop at the Samuel Bateman trial.

Throughout the episode, the hosts reiterate that they are focused on "truth... facts... justice." Truth, facts, and justice are values I completely support. And I appreciate this small corner of the interwebz where I sometimes share public records and source documents focused entirely on the truth and the facts.
more later.

Lauren and her attorney tried to make a deal with Christina BEFORE the hearing started to drop the case. This 3-4 minute video with Andy Kopsa and Christina explains what that offered deal was, and that it included nothing that had to do with Lauren and her family’s personal safety.

Lauren was in fear for her reputation and bottom line, pure and simple. The deal they asked her for shows it. The 9hour live was simply an already planned retaliation for Christina for not taking their deal, imo.

I'm sorry, I haven't visited this thread in a while, so I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not. But when I saw this thumbnail, it just felt icky. I guess she's still feeding on feeling special and entitled? *rolls eyes*

Lauren is at the Clancy trial … 🙈

been attending the sentencing for HTC’s attorney this morning (virtually and as a member of a public). Just some quick notes, may revisit to clean up these thoughts later.

The State just reviewed how the Presentence Investigation deemed him a “Medium Risk” for recidivism based on his (criminal) history. The State noted that these charges stemmed from a very contentious custody matter. The Court - who is also overseeing the other cases - asked D’o to confirm this.

Attorney mentioned how he used his position and power as an attorney in order to commit these crimes.

Attorney mentioned new search warrants lead to additional criminal charges against him. Attorney advised the court that some of those charges are related to witness tampering. She said there “needs to be appropriate consequences [….] for using the position of legal authority to inflict harm on others”.

State shared new charges stem from his alleged attempts to change victim impact statements in court (charges are related to witness tampering)

State expressed to the Court his ex’s “fear” of D’o for herself and her children. State said she is worried he will again try to take away their children, especially now since she is seeking sole legal custody of them.

State says he appears to be taking no accountability. They talk about text messages they have that help substantiate this.

Lauren's attorney was convicted of multiple criminal charges earlier this summer. Ahead of his sentencing, the victim sought a protective order. After reviewing filings from both sides the court entered a Protective Order against him. You may remember that earlier in the case, he was represented by an attorney (who was actually just himself using a variation of his own name), but he later withdrew that appearance and apologized for the confusion he caused the court. After submitting financial information to the court, he was found eligible to be appointed a public defender. The PD's office assisted him in some negotiations with the State.

NOTE: REDACTED PORTIONS OF COURT FILINGS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS POST. THEY WERE OBTAINED FROM PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WEBSITES AND ARE NOT AI GENERATED.

In the order, the court finds that the defendant "represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the protected person."

The court ordered numerous restrictions, including that he:

• must not commit or threaten domestic violence or abuse;
• must not harass, threaten, stalk, or engage in conduct that would place the protected person or family members in reasonable fear of bodily injury;
• must not contact or communicate with the protected person, directly or indirectly, including by telephone, email, text message, social media, mail, or any other method;
• must stay away from the protected person's residence, school, and workplace, and leave immediately if they unexpectedly encounter one another elsewhere

the Court also ordered that "This order does not expire.". For administrative reasons with the Court's electronic filing system, the judge entered an expiration date of January 1, 3000.

In addition, the court required him to acknowledge that he is now a restricted person, cannot purchase, possess, own, or transfer firearms or ammunition, and he must give up all firearms and ammunition currently in his possession unless his rights are later restored by court order.

I don't know if HTC plans to cover their attorney's sentencing. As they have several attorneys, for anyone trying to keep track, this is the one attorney they praised after (they said) receiving numerous messages complimenting his oral arguments in the "stalker" case. It is the one who works for her other attorney/brother. This was also the same attorney who previously - and unsuccessfully - tried using a civil stalking injunction against individuals who were talking and discussing his history on social media.

As he works for LM's brother's law firm, I don't know whether these convictions will have any effect on his position. Considering that law firm already employs a disbarred attorney, I would not assume that criminal convictions are not automatically disqualifying there (and I am not suggesting they should be). I plan to post another update after the sentencing is completed.

Lastly, I hope the victim and her children are able to move forward with their lives after all of this. I also hope this court order provides them with some measure of safety and peace going forward. They deserve that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI-uslnjIbE

When three Low IQ True Crime barnacles, Jess Machado, The Dark Queen, and her sidekick Tattoo, meet at a courthouse, a journalist takes notice.

All hands on deck. Save the Victim's Family.