If we don't help these two anti-DNC lawyers, they will be dead in a car accident before mid-September.

2007  2017-07-20 by blette

Jared and Elizabeth Beck are the married lawyers suing the DNC in a civil case to get back monetary donations that were used to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders.

Currenty, these two are uncovering how the evil doings of powerful people are likely linked to murders of people related to the case. It quite possibly involves illegal organ donations done through Mayo Clinic Hospitals. They are receiving threats on the phone, with one scary phone call that had a caller ID which was traced back to the offices of former DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

If no one helps them they will die together in a "tragic car accident" before mid-September, 2017. In this case, "the powers that be" won't be able to get away with an unlikely murder-suicide scenario so a car accident will have to do.

The other possibility is that the case is quietly settled out of court in August and we never hear from the couple again.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=WL&v=1bmMl2OGVQ0

Watching the interview clip, you may feel like you are watching a new type of found-footage horror movie, i.e. the interview scene where the victim realizes on camera that she is about to be murdered. It is sad and horrifying.

706 comments

1  RecoveringGrace 2017-07-20

TMoR alert.

1  Tropical-Rainforest 2017-07-20

You might want to work on your future vision.

1  blette 2017-07-20

Wrong smartass, I used a conditional, "IF we don't help them, they will be dead".

In fact, if you read all the way to the end of the comments on the original post, you can see groups of people volunteering go help them out in Florida.

Did that happen? I am not sure, I was not there. I will admit that what probably saved their lives was the fact they the judge quashed their case on technical grounds. The JUDGE made a legal JUDGEMENT against their case, so maybe the DNC decided that another two murders were unnecessary.

I am happy I was wrong and that they they are safe. Are you disappointed they we're not murdered, if so you need to reassess your character, i.e. you are an asshole.

1  Tropical-Rainforest 2017-07-20

I don't want anyone to be murdered (I'm opposed to war and the death penalty), I just wanted to make a Steven Universe reference.

1  blette 2017-07-20

Wrong smartass, I used a conditional, "IF we don't help them, they will be dead".

In fact, if you read all the way to the end of the comments on the original post, you can see groups of people volunteering go help them out in Florida.

Did that happen? I am not sure, I was not there. I will admit that what probably saved their lives was the fact they the judge quashed their case on technical grounds. The JUDGE made a legal JUDGEMENT against their case, so maybe the DNC decided that another two murders were unnecessary.

I am happy I was wrong and that they they are safe. Are you disappointed they we're not murdered, if so you need to reassess your character, i.e. you are an asshole.

1  HolyCinnamon 2017-07-20

Mid-October, not dead yet

1  blette 2017-07-20

Thank God. But they did get screwed on their legal case. Hence, no need to kill them anymore.

1  cypherreddit 2017-07-20

They are still alive

we did it reddit!

1  BernieFiveEver 2017-07-20

No, Gore is not as politically connected as the Clintons were at the time. Although the Clinton's now are not either.

Gore had been in the party since birth, and knew as many people, and knew where just as many bodies were buried.

I didn't say Clinton supporting bush made bush win. I said the Supreme Court did.

What does this sentence mean: "Part of the reason being is because the Clinton administration was actually supporting bush to get elected. "

Again please read my comment as it seems you don't understand what I am saying.

1  MWcrazyhorse 2017-07-20

free associates with the term "organ transplants."

It is a clinic performing organ transplants. Check your facts. There are people dying. Anyone investigating and many, many children. Those are facts. Who is killing them and who is doing the trafficking? Why is it all connected to the Clinton cabal? You sound like a coincidence theorist. Take out a calculator and do the math, because every time you say it is just another coincidence the odds of you being correct greatly reduces.

1  MWcrazyhorse 2017-07-20

Why would comcast censor the internet? Wouldn't they lose customers and money? "give up freedom and security in order to protect freedom and security." Understand the patriot act. Give up freedom for promised security. Give up freedom for promised fair and fast internet access. It's always about giving up freedoms and handing power to the government in order for them to do something, which they say is positive. I don't trust them any more. Sorry. If the government wants power the default answer is no. Additionaly the very fact this 'net neutrality' topic is so big on Reddit front page makes it extra fishy. The way they manipulate algorithms and votes, censor the populist voice and were pushing Hillary Clinton and every other establishment narrative of the corporate media. The corrupt establishment, our enemies, evidently want this law. Having lost control of the internet and the narrative. And now they want to help us out with a nice innocuos law that will provide better browsing experience? Do you really buy that? Reddit, heavily influenced by Share Blue shills and formerly CTR, has basicaly banished all conservative/ populist voices from reaching all. Anything that callenges the mainstream. But it wants 'net neutrality'? Because it feels like they want even more control.

1  EnterprisingAss 2017-07-20

Why would comcast censor the internet? Wouldn't they lose customers and money?

But here, you said:

Patreon is already banning some conservative/ populist establishment critics.

So you know full well that private companies are capable of shutting speech down. Why on Earth do you trust Comcast, one of the most rapacious and obnoxious internet-related companies in the whole world?

Additionaly the very fact this 'net neutrality' topic is so big on Reddit front page makes it extra fishy.

It is popular because no one wants to pay Comcast $10 a month to visit Reddit, or $15 a month to watch porn, or $20 a month to go to 4Chan. This is the world you're defending.

Do you actually want that? Do you want to pay who knows how much to browse /r/conspiracy because it isn't a part of your basic internet package? Please answer this question, because this is what you're saying you want.

When you say populist voices have been banished, how are you going to like it when /r/The_Donald is throttled to a few bits per second, unless you pay your ISP provider, who is likely a local monopolist, however much they want you to pay?

1  ShadowGovermentBTFO 2017-07-20

We call these 'happenings' it in this case it's a little different. Insurance like you said.

1  RightIsWrongNow 2017-07-20

Remindme! 1.5 months

1  godplaysdice_ 2017-07-20

Welp

1  DL757 2017-07-20

How’s it goin?

1  DonBB 2017-07-20

I haven't signed onto this account in a long time, just wanted to point out that in the time since making this comment the lawsuit was thrown out. So I feel pretty vindicated in my comment.

1  DarkwingDuck-- 2017-07-20

Well, well, well.... not dead...

1  blette 2017-07-20

Thank God. But they did get screwed on their legal case. Hence, no need to kill them anymore.

1  liquidocean 2017-07-20

so anyone check this out yet?