A woke liberal reporter with the New York Times recently tried to confront independent journalist Nick Shirley, the man who exposed massive amounts of fraud involving fake daycare centers being run by Somalis in order to get payments from government programs funded by tax dollars, concerning a bill in California, known as the Stop Nick Shirley Act, saying the bill was never about him specifically.
Shirley battled with the reporter in a back-and-forth debate that was captured on film, completely embarrassing the woman right to her face. Shirley flipped the script on her and demanded she explain why the new privacy law won’t result in journalists exposing fraud being punished by the state government. She wasn’t able to convince him.
The exchange took place on a sidewalk with Laurel Rosenhall. The bill came about after Shirley started investigating taxpayer-funded immigrant-service providers. The legislation was signed into law by Newsom. “So I was just the people who are supporting this bill, like the they they say that has nothing to do with you,” Rosenhall said at the start of the exchange.
“That it they they introduced it long before you had come to California. That it’s really not about your work here. Why do you say that’s not true?” she asked. “Because I announced on January 31st, I was coming to California. I had already filmed the videos. The word had already gotten out that I filmed inside these immigration support service providers, and then they created the bill before I published the video,” Shirley replied.
“Well, they say that it has to do with like experiences that immigration service providers have been having for quite a long time, including last year. Like that, they were-they’re not-they were not aware of your work when they felt that there was a need for this bill,” the reporter responded. “It’s a lie, quite frankly. And there’s already laws out for people that are being doxxed and for people that are being threatened. There’s no need for this bill,” Shirley explained.
“They’re making a protected class by specifically saying immigration support service providers, and then they say included, but not limited to, and they list a whole bunch. But what does that exactly mean? It’s so broad that literally, quite literally, anything underneath them could be an immigration support service provider. There’s 10 million immigrants here inside the state of California,” the independent journalist said.
“So my understanding is that the bill actually like adds immigration services to existing categories of people who already had this same safe at home protection,” the reporter told Shirley. “Yeah, so they’re putting them inside of this new program, yet they don’t actually-they’re making a new protected class for people that work inside immigration support service programs. There’s already laws for people that are being doxxed and threatened,” he answered.
"*" indicates required fields
“That safe-at-home program is for people who’ve been who are trying to escape their predators that are attacking them,” Shirley added. The reporter then asked what he feels like he’s done that would be banned by the law. He asked her if she read the legislation. “Yeah, it does say that it only applies like someone has to apply for this protection. It’s not like they automatically get it. They have to show that they’re being threatened, that they have like a law enforcement in like approval,” she told him.
“Then, so imagine a fraudster who knows he’s committing fraud. He’s like, oh well, now underneath this bill, if I’m committing fraud, I’m just going to go and roll into this program. And therefore, when that when someone comes up to expose my fraud, I can just give them a written paper, a written demand, and they can’t publish the video according to the law,” Shirley explained.
“Okay and then what about the part of the bill that says like it’s only unlawful to post the information, if you’re doing so to incite violence or make a threat, like if you’re just posting it for information to inform the public, that’s not that wouldn’t be a violation, would it?” Rosenhall asked Shirley. “Who’s to say that if I expose it and then I expose it to somebody else and then a third party comes in and incites violence or harassment. What does that mean?” he replied.
“That means that they could literally hire somebody to go commit the the crime and say that third party was because of Nick Shirley. Then Nick Shirley is responsible of that crime, and then we’re going to give Nick Shirley a $4,000 fine. So you, as a journalist, if you go expose a Leering Center, do you know what Leering Center is?” He asked Rosenhall, who answered that she got the reference.
“So if you go expose a Leering Center where there’s no kids at the daycare, they receive 1.9 million dollars, and it just opens up a whole entire fraud ring, and then I expose it. A bunch of other people come in and say someone throws, I don’t know, say somebody paintballs the building, right? They they cause fear for that building, and then you’re responsible for the actions of a third party,” Shirley went on to say during the exchange.
“But that fraud was real. So like, how it it completely breaks the trust and the amendment of the freedom of press by putting other crimes upon another person for reporting the truth. People said the Minnesota fraud wasn’t true for a long time, and now we’re seeing that people are being arrested nearly each and every single week, and people are pleading guilty to that fraud,” he concluded.
Featured Image: screenshot from embedded video