The Democrat's answer to fraud: Make discovering it illegal!

[Crepitus]

Yep, that's what Democrats in California want to do, leading the charge against investigative journalists like Nick Shirley. Pass laws that make what he does illegal...

California addresses fraud with the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

California lawmakers are advancing the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," following increased scrutiny about rampant fraud in the state

www.deseret.com

Newsom-Backed Bill Sparks Alarm Over Potential Crackdown on Fraud Investigations

Critics warn California proposal could criminalize investigative reporting Elon Musk and watchdogs raise free speech concerns as debate intensifies.

bigleaguepolitics.substack.com

California tries to criminalize journalism — to protect fraud

A bill moving through the California Legislature would give taxpayer-funded organizations the power to demand the removal of videos recorded in public spaces.

nypost.com

California Democrats Advance "Stop Nick Shirley Act" to Shield Immigrant Fraudsters from Public Scrutiny

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - In a brazen 11-2 vote on April 13, 2026, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced AB 2624, a bill that critics are rightly calling the "Stop Nick Shirley Act." Authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, this legislation masquerades as "privacy protections" for...

www.smobserved.com

That's the ticket for Democrats! Make free speech illegal, jail the reporters, and ignore the fraud because for them fraud of the sort being uncovered is good and results in lots and lots of campaign donations. Can't have that money pipeline cut off by responsible use of tax dollars and rooting out fraud!

Fake news. That's not what it's for.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Fake news. That's not what it's for.

PRS posted the actual language in the bill and I then demonstrated how it does exactly what I claim.

 

[Crepitus]

Okay...

That doesn't mean they're actively trying to keep it going. This California bill does exactly that. It would criminalize the public uncovering ongoing fraud against the government.

Have you impeached tRump yet?

No?

Then you are actively keeping it going.

 

[Crepitus]

Okay...

That doesn't mean they're actively trying to keep it going. This California bill does exactly that. It would criminalize the public uncovering ongoing fraud against the government.

No Son. It could be reported to the authorities, they just couldn't make fraudulent tiktok videos doxxing the people/businesses.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Have you impeached tRump yet?

No?

Then you are actively keeping it going.

What are you babbling about now?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No Son. It could be reported to the authorities, they just couldn't make fraudulent tiktok videos doxxing the people/businesses.

It would allow someone who is an "immigrant" to go to the state if Nick Shirley did what he's been doing. He goes to a publicly registered business address and asks persons at that address about their business. That's not doxxing anyone. It's someone asking persons at a business location that is public information about that business.

This bill would potentially make that illegal.

 

[Crepitus]

What are you babbling about now?

Are you sure you wanna pretend that post was too complex for you? It's a pretty simple and short one.

 

[Crepitus]

It would allow someone who is an "immigrant" to go to the state if Nick Shirley did what he's been doing. He goes to a publicly registered business address and asks persons at that address about their business. That's not doxxing anyone. It's someone asking persons at a business location that is public information about that business.

This bill would potentially make that illegal.

It's doxxing them when he puts it on the internet.

If it's not, give me your name and address so I can post it for everyone to see.

 

[Nordberg]

There's no such thing as a "real" journalist. All any journalist is is someone who goes out, finds something of interest, then writes about it in an informative, factual, manner.

So, yes, Nick Shirley is a journalist. You don't need a degree in journalism to be a journalist any more than you need a degree in education to be a teacher. Unions might argue differently but only because they want to keep the supply scarce to raise wages for their members.

Shirley is a wing-wing YouTuber whose Somali fraud video allegations were unsubstantiated. I know for you the point is right winger. Your skepticism dissolves when they help your slanted views.

 

[AProudLefty]

It would allow someone who is an "immigrant" to go to the state if Nick Shirley did what he's been doing. He goes to a publicly registered business address and asks persons at that address about their business. That's not doxxing anyone. It's someone asking persons at a business location that is public information about that business.

This bill would potentially make that illegal.

Do not add to the bill that isn't there.

Journalists are free to report their investigations. Just don't provide private information. No different from blurring faces.

 

[AProudLefty]

It's doxxing them when he puts it on the internet.

If it's not, give me your name and address so I can post it for everyone to see.

Exactly.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It's doxxing them when he puts it on the internet.

No, it isn't because it's PUBLIC INFORMATION!

If it's not, give me your name and address so I can post it for everyone to see.

False equivalence. My name and address aren't a public business. Running a daycare center or hospice is a business, even if you run it out of your house. You are licensed by the state and would normally expect and want people to know the address and contact information to generate more business.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Exactly.

Wrong! At a public place of business you have no particular expectation of privacy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Exactly who or what is an "Immigration services provider? Since this section includes, any "volunteer, client, or other individuals residing at the same address, all someone at an address need be is an "immigrant." I would suppose by California standards the legality of that "immigrant" makes no difference.

What does the law allow? You don't have a clue, do you?


The only persons protected by this law are ones that register with the state to prevent their information from becoming public. The law also requires them to supply information showing they are in a position covered by the law. Your sentence is ridiculous and out of touch with what the law actually says. A person living with an immigrant is not working or volunteering at a service provider. You don't seem to understand the part of the law you are referencing is to protect others that live at the same address as the protected person. For instance if the wife works at a provider then the husband is also covered by the law to prevent someone from not naming the person that works there but naming someone else at their address. Go read the definition of a “Designated immigration support services facility” in the law if you have a sixth grade reading ability.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2624/id/3371241

That means if someone reports that legal or illegal immigrants at some address are reported on the internet / social media about potentially anything those legal or illegal immigrants can go to the state and claim they are threatened, true or not. The state would then be required to criminally investigate the person posting that material with the threat of massive fines and jail time.

More idiotic claims from you that have no basis in reality. Once again, you didn't bother to actually read the law. The law says nothing about immigrants being able to go to the state and claim they are threatened. Only those that have applied and been granted confidentiality are covered. The only people that can even apply have to provide evidence of their place of employment facing some threat in the last 12 months.

If that isn't a chilling effect on investigating and reporting factual, actual, likely, fraud as Shirley is doing, I don't know what is. It in effect crushes speech by threat of retaliation by the state on the flimsiest of claims.

The only thing you are proving is you are in a cult. The law is nothing like what you are claiming. It seems you are making the argument that Shirley is intending people to violently attack those he is "reporting" on. I guess that is one way to make your argument valid but it completely undermines the argument that investigative journalism is being attacked.

This law in no way prevents investigative journalism since it is easy to write about fraud without revealing where the fraudster lives or provide a picture of that fraudster. Let me give you an example that would not come close to violating the law even if the person mentioned had applied and been granted confidentiality. -

Donald J Trump has committed fraud in New York City on multiple occasions. The fraud was so easy to see that a jury of his peers found him guilty of 34 counts of fraud.

I didn't need to post his address or his picture to provide the factual statement that he committed fraud.

 

[AProudLefty]

Wrong! At a public place of business you have no particular expectation of privacy.

Then it shouldn't be any problem.

 

[Noking]

Yep, that's what Democrats in California want to do, leading the charge against investigative journalists like Nick Shirley. Pass laws that make what he does illegal...

California addresses fraud with the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

California lawmakers are advancing the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," following increased scrutiny about rampant fraud in the state

www.deseret.com

Newsom-Backed Bill Sparks Alarm Over Potential Crackdown on Fraud Investigations

Critics warn California proposal could criminalize investigative reporting Elon Musk and watchdogs raise free speech concerns as debate intensifies.

bigleaguepolitics.substack.com

California tries to criminalize journalism — to protect fraud

A bill moving through the California Legislature would give taxpayer-funded organizations the power to demand the removal of videos recorded in public spaces.

nypost.com

California Democrats Advance "Stop Nick Shirley Act" to Shield Immigrant Fraudsters from Public Scrutiny

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - In a brazen 11-2 vote on April 13, 2026, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced AB 2624, a bill that critics are rightly calling the "Stop Nick Shirley Act." Authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, this legislation masquerades as "privacy protections" for...

www.smobserved.com

That's the ticket for Democrats! Make free speech illegal, jail the reporters, and ignore the fraud because for them fraud of the sort being uncovered is good and results in lots and lots of campaign donations. Can't have that money pipeline cut off by responsible use of tax dollars and rooting out fraud!

Both the Big League Politics and Santa Monica Observer are well known for fake news, and the NY Post is a questionable source, and the Deseret News is a credible source. So what you posted is rather questionable.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, it isn't because it's PUBLIC INFORMATION!

OMFG. You are a complete idiot. The purpose of this law is to make that information no longer public. The persons apply and get a way to keep the actual information from being public while they are given some way to still be contacted through the Sec of State's office.

False equivalence. My name and address aren't a public business. Running a daycare center or hospice is a business, even if you run it out of your house. You are licensed by the state and would normally expect and want people to know the address and contact information to generate more business.

OMFG. Once again, you are a complete idiot. The address of the business is not kept private. It is the private address of the employees.

 

[QP!]

There's no such thing as a "real" journalist. All any journalist is is someone who goes out, finds something of interest, then writes about it in an informative, factual, manner.

So, yes, Nick Shirley is a journalist. You don't need a degree in journalism to be a journalist any more than you need a degree in education to be a teacher. Unions might argue differently but only because they want to keep the supply scarce to raise wages for their members.

Ya but he was exposed as a fraud in a live interview outside the daycare aired by Fox and others.

They showed the sign beside the door showing hours of operation showing it would be closed at the time he was there the day prior pulling on the doors and acting as if it being closed was his Evidence Point 1.

He then proclaimed that the doors should not be locked and he should be able to access a reception as his Evidence Point 2. Instantly three different female reporters in the scrum corrected him saying you never find unlocked doors at a daycare nor an open to the public reception since the age of mass shooting began.

Nothing Nick claimed as his investigative evidence held up. NOTHING.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Both the Big League Politics and Santa Monica Observer are well known for fake news, and the NY Post is a questionable source, and the Deseret News is a credible source. So what you posted is rather questionable.

TA is completely wrong on what the law actually does. It's like he has no working brain at this point.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2624/id/3371241

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What does the law allow? You don't have a clue, do you?


The only persons protected by this law are ones that register with the state to prevent their information from becoming public. The law also requires them to supply information showing they are in a position covered by the law. Your sentence is ridiculous and out of touch with what the law actually says. A person living with an immigrant is not working or volunteering at a service provider. You don't seem to understand the part of the law you are referencing is to protect others that live at the same address as the protected person. For instance if the wife works at a provider then the husband is also covered by the law to prevent someone from not naming the person that works there but naming someone else at their address. Go read the definition of a “Designated immigration support services facility” in the law if you have a sixth grade reading ability.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2624/id/3371241

More idiotic claims from you that have no basis in reality. Once again, you didn't bother to actually read the law. The law says nothing about immigrants being able to go to the state and claim they are threatened. Only those that have applied and been granted confidentiality are covered. The only people that can even apply have to provide evidence of their place of employment facing some threat in the last 12 months.

The only thing you are proving is you are in a cult. The law is nothing like what you are claiming. It seems you are making the argument that Shirley is intending people to violently attack those he is "reporting" on. I guess that is one way to make your argument valid but it completely undermines the argument that investigative journalism is being attacked.

This law in no way prevents investigative journalism since it is easy to write about fraud without revealing where the fraudster lives or provide a picture of that fraudster. Let me give you an example that would not come close to violating the law even if the person mentioned had applied and been granted confidentiality. -

Donald J Trump has committed fraud in New York City on multiple occasions. The fraud was so easy to see that a jury of his peers found him guilty of 34 counts of fraud.

I didn't need to post his address or his picture to provide the factual statement that he committed fraud.

So, now you're claiming if someone running a fraudulent business registers with the state to keep their information private, journalists and others with an interest in making that fraud public would be barred from doing so under penalty of law.