Townhall Tuesday attempt 2

The Spaces explored the day’s congressional developments around Epstein-related disclosures and child exploitation, alongside practical citizen action and legal strategy. Jill moderated a lineup including Dave, Sandy, Denise, CC, Noble Day, Terrence Tammy, and Jaron. Sandy and Denise highlighted House floor remarks (Thomas Massie’s “justice delayed is justice denied”), Marjorie Taylor Greene’s emphasis on “the people” and “demand,” and noted Clay Higgins as a lone dissenter in a 427–1 vote. The group debated the White House/Pam Bondi position on redactions—agreeing only victims’ identities should be protected—and anticipated Senate follow-up. A major thread focused on mobilizing notices via JotForm, sharing materials in “Purple Pill,” and the acceleration from Saturday’s webinar. Dave urged affidavits of dissatisfaction instead of inflammatory labels (treason/RICO), emphasized reading state constitutions on redistricting disputes (e.g., Texas), and explained how mass sworn testimony can compel performance. Jaron contributed on forcing courts to act judicially, not administratively. There was also community care—Dave’s eye injury and PPE—and a faith-forward call for unity and courage.

Twitter Spaces Recap: Epstein disclosures on the House floor, notice/affidavit strategy, and movement updates

Who spoke

• Dave (host; often addressed as David)
• Jill (co-host/moderator)
• Sandy
• Denise
• CC
• Noble Day
• Terrence (introduced as “Terrence Scott” and “Terrence Tammy” in different moments; spoke under the handle “Terrence Tammy”)
• Jaron

Meeting flow at a glance

• House floor developments regarding Epstein-related materials were the central news hook. Participants discussed the vote, messaging from key members (Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene), and concerns about potential redactions.
• The group emphasized its ongoing “notice” campaign (distributed via Jotform and shared in the “Purple Pill”) and the role of recent webinars in accelerating coordinated action.
• Dave provided detailed guidance on affidavits, framing, and constitutional pathways for redress, including cautions against sensational terms and the value of mass sworn evidence.
• Legal process questions surfaced (federal judges and state redistricting; evidentiary standards such as “two witnesses”), with Dave urging tight constitutional reading and evidence-led approaches.
• Jaron shared a practical judicial strategy: require tribunals to act “judicially” in line with the nature of their constitutional grant of power; he reports seeing procedural shifts consistent with that pressure.
• Community logistics (mic requests, sharing resources) and personal updates (Dave’s eye injury and PPE reminders) rounded out the session.

House floor developments on Epstein materials and child-protection oversight

• Reported vote dynamics
  • Sandy and Jill highlighted what they described as an overwhelmingly unified House vote to move forward on Epstein-related disclosures, with one “no” vote. Jill named Rep. Clay Higgins as the lone dissenter, characterizing it as “427 and one.” (Presented as participants’ recollection.)
  • Thomas Massie was repeatedly cited for emphasizing “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Sandy and Denise noted that line as historically resonant and said it appeared within the text of the measure itself (as they understood it).
• Marjorie Taylor Greene’s remarks
  • Sandy and Denise both observed that MTG stressed “the people” and used the word “demand,” language they associate with their notice movement. Denise felt MTG’s tone showed a “come to Jesus” moment and more moderation/temperance than usual.
• Redactions and victims
  • Denise referenced a Breaking911/White House post indicating (as she understood it) Pam Bondi could redact materials. Denise strongly objected, stating only victims’ identifying details should be protected and everything else exposed. Dave agreed controversy here is galvanizing public awareness.
• Senate timing
  • Sandy said she heard the Senate would “tackle” the Epstein question this week, possibly as soon as the next day (as relayed in her news scan).
• Framing by participants
  • Multiple speakers linked Epstein to broader issues of child trafficking and past failures of oversight, expressing hope that timing and outcomes reflect “God’s timing” and a move toward justice and accountability.

Notices, Jotform distribution, and webinar acceleration

• Notice campaign
  • Sandy: a notice circulated Sunday evening addressing Epstein and other issues “not being handled by Congress/president.” She felt Monday’s developments suggested the message “must have got to them.”
  • Jill: the latest notice is posted in “The Purple Pill” for sharing across social media; encouraged broad distribution.
  • Submissions volume: Jill relayed that their “Jotform king” reported “several hundreds” of submissions already.
• Webinar(s)
  • CC: urged all to access last Saturday’s (Nov 15) webinar; stressed it “accelerates” momentum and helps everyone row in the same direction (avoiding fragmentation). She’s printing and sending the Jotform immediately.
  • Jill: will also post the Interest Group/PMAs link in the Purple Pill; replay is available and contains core questions and “reprogramming” guidance to align individual action.

Strategy and law: affidavits, evidence, and framing (Dave’s guidance)

• Two witnesses and sworn testimony
  • Terrence asked where “two witnesses” are required to prove treason and how to proceed. Dave: state constitutions commonly recognize two witnesses or open confession in court; however, use caution—avoid labeling conduct “treason” without meeting strict elements. Sworn affidavits are essential to create prima facie evidence of harm; unsworn grievances are easy to ignore.
• Language discipline and scope
  • Dave cautioned against triggering terms like “treason” or “RICO,” which can be sensational and counter-productive. Instead, be precise and general in the right way: demand the legal basis/authority, e.g., “Where did you get the authority to fund/enable an invasion or insurrection?” (without prematurely accusing an individual of fraud or treason). Build the record with well-posed questions and sworn facts.
• Mass affidavits and historical leverage
  • Two affidavits can be legally sufficient; hundreds to thousands demonstrate broad, undeniable public will. Dave cited the group’s prior CPS push (he says 2,000 affidavits were turned in) to illustrate scale and the resistance/counter-pressure they encountered.
  • He emphasized persistence despite bar/judicial complaints often being dismissed when handled internally by those same bodies.
• Movement risk management
  • Dave argued hostile or opportunistic actors infiltrate movements to derail them (he mentioned named personalities and episodes; these were cited as participants’ allegations and cautionary examples). He advised not to telegraph steps in advance, as opposition rapidly fields lookalike efforts to misdirect energy.
• Comparative examples and constitutional grounds
  • Dave pointed to recent overseas movements (he named Mexico and Nepal) to show governments can be replaced quickly when people organize—even online. He argues U.S. state constitutions expressly reserve to the people the power to reform or abolish government at will “as they deem proper.”
  • He attributed current American hesitation to “programmed” disbelief in public power and to social-media throttling of real-law content; he urged courage and steady action.

Redistricting and the role of federal courts (Q&A)

• Terrence’s questions
  • How can a federal judge block Texas’s newly drawn maps (reportedly intended to net ~five more House seats) from being used in 2026? Which constitution governs two-witness standards for treason-like allegations? How can people proceed against officials enabling sanctuary city policies and benefits for non-citizens?
• Dave’s replies
  • Redistricting: determine who filed suit and check the state constitution’s “frame of government.” Both parties have historically tried to weaponize lines for advantage; suits often follow. Remedy paths flow through the constitutional structure and case-specific facts—without those, any generalized answer would be speculative.
  • Treason/witnesses: two witnesses or open confession are common standards, but be meticulous—mislabeling conduct can backfire. Focus on authority questions (e.g., where did the power to fund or enable an “invasion” come from?) and document harms with affidavits.
  • Economic harm example: while individual loss-of-income theories (e.g., downward pricing pressure in trades due to immigration) may be harder to prove, the more effective line is constitutional authority—demanding the legal basis for programs or expenditures that produce systemic effects.

Policy grievances raised by participants

• Immigration and public benefits
  • Terrence and Dave contrasted perceived benefits for recent arrivals (e.g., prepaid cards, food, housing) with modest COVID-era relief for citizens and extensive overseas aid (Ukraine, Israel). Participants framed this as fiscal priority misalignment and potential constitutional overreach.
• Economic pressure and cost of living
  • Terrence criticized high-mortgage-cost structures (e.g., 50-year mortgages turning a $300k home into >$1M in repayments) as predatory.
• Political accountability
  • Denise and Sandy urged transparency in Epstein-related materials with only victim identities protected; Terrence predicted fallout for figures associated with or appointed by Trump if disclosures proceed. Dave said national stability concerns shouldn’t block truth from coming out.

Practical courtroom approach: insist on “judicial” use of judicial power (Jaron’s notes)

• The principle
  • Jaron emphasized telling judges/tribunals: the constitution grants “judicial” power, and it must be used in accord with the nature of that grant. Judicial power cannot be exercised administratively/arbitrarily; it must declare/apply the law properly and protect rights.
• Observed procedural impact
  • He and his private assembly report that, over the past 1–2 months, higher-level venues have shifted labels and process back toward classical writ practice (e.g., “writ in error” language replacing modernized/administrative labeling), suggesting those tribunals recognize the demand to actually act judicially.
• Method takeaway
  • For those engaging courts: frame the issue as one of constitutional duty—compel judicial actors to act judicially and hold them to the law’s nature and limits.

Community logistics, tone, and safety

• Mic order and participation
  • Jill organized a speaking queue (Sandy → Denise → CC → Noble Day → Terrence → Amigo [not mic’d] → Jaron). She encouraged early mic requests to avoid last-minute bottlenecks.
• Newcomers and morale
  • Noble Day introduced himself, celebrated “acceleration in the singularity with the people,” and endorsed affidavits as a non-belligerent, non-extremist avenue to register public will.
• Faith framing
  • Multiple speakers emphasized “God’s timing,” justice for children, and a view that persistent, righteous action draws favor and results.
• PPE and personal updates
  • Dave shared that metal fragments were removed from his eye after a shop incident, despite wearing safety glasses; he now adds goggles/face shields and other PPE (gloves, overalls) to reduce risk. Jaron recounted how eye protection saved him from a severe chainsaw injury, reinforcing the safety message.

Key takeaways and action items

• Share and submit notices
  • Retrieve the latest notice from the “Purple Pill,” share across platforms, and submit via Jotform (as CC did). Print/send if needed to create a paper trail. Jill will also post the associated Interest Group link for the webinar replay.
• Attend/review webinars
  • Catch the November 15 webinar replay for aligned questions, mindset “reprogramming,” and practical steps; expect acceleration when acting together.
• Draft precise affidavits
  • Avoid sensational labels (e.g., “treason,” “RICO”) unless elements are clearly met. Ask authority-based questions and swear to facts. Build numbers (hundreds/thousands) to demonstrate public will.
• Research the right law
  • For redistricting or similar disputes, read the state constitution; identify who filed suit and on what grounds. Tailor actions to the constitutional frame and facts.
• Demand judicial conduct
  • In court, require judges to exercise judicial power judicially, consistent with its constitutional grant. This framing can change how filings are treated and how tribunals proceed.
• Protect victims
  • If Epstein-related materials are released, participants insisted only victim identities be redacted; transparency otherwise.
• Team coordination and discipline
  • Stick to unified direction to avoid fragmentation. Be wary of infiltrations or parallel efforts that dilute or misdirect energy.
• Safety first
  • Use proper PPE in all hands-on work (eye/face protection, gloves, overalls) to avoid injuries that sideline key contributors.

Notable quotes (as remembered by participants)

• “Justice delayed is justice denied.” (Highlighted by Sandy and Denise as Thomas Massie’s emphasis and reflected in the bill language, per their understanding.)
• “Where did you get the authority to [fund/enable] an invasion into America?” (Dave’s model question for notices/affidavits.)
• “The government was instituted by the people.” (Noble Day underscoring foundational constitutional structure and the people’s delegated authority.)

Closing sentiment

• The group expressed that the events of the day affirmed momentum—public servants are feeling the “shield of the people,” and law used correctly is producing incremental shifts. They see the path forward as disciplined, sworn, large-scale public action; demanding lawful, judicial conduct; and continuing to align as a team around precise, lawful remedies while protecting the vulnerable.