Turning Point Sent Me A Legal Threat

[00:00] This week, I received a letter from

[00:02] Turning Point titled, "Demand to cease

[00:04] and desist defamatory comments." This is

[00:07] the first step when someone sues you for

[00:09] defamation.

[00:10] I know there are a lot of people out

[00:12] there making videos about Turning Point,

[00:14] so you should pay attention to this.

[00:16] They have started sending out cease and

[00:18] desist letters, and for some reason,

[00:21] they've decided to start with me.

[00:23] Apparently, they cannot handle the

[00:25] criticism from my teeny tiny YouTube

[00:28] channel.

[00:30] This letter is showing the world the

[00:32] type of organization Turning Point has

[00:34] become under Erica Kirk. They want to

[00:37] send legal letters to small YouTube

[00:39] creators.

[00:41] So, we're going to go through this

[00:42] letter. And by the way, if any of you

[00:45] know a good lawyer in Arizona that

[00:47] handles defamation cases, have them send

[00:49] me an email through my website because

[00:51] I'm looking for a lawyer.

[00:58] >> [music]

[01:10] >> Turning Point states in the letter,

[01:11] "Turning Point entities are not looking

[01:13] for litigation. Rather, their interest

[01:15] is in the truth and making sure the

[01:17] public record is accurate." So, they are

[01:19] claiming they do not want to sue me. But

[01:23] I view this letter as a threat to sue

[01:25] and I think any reasonable business

[01:27] person would do the same. A cease and

[01:29] desist letter is the first step towards

[01:31] a defamation lawsuit.

[01:34] I interpret this letter as turning point

[01:37] telling me to shut my mouth or they're

[01:39] going to sue me.

[01:41] I do not understand what Erica Kirk is

[01:43] doing. Out of the hundreds of people

[01:46] posting on social media about Turning

[01:48] Point, why are they targeting me? Why

[01:52] are they so worried about what I am

[01:54] saying that they're sending me legal

[01:56] letters? I am one of the smallest

[01:58] YouTube channels in my market segment.

[02:01] Who do they think I am? I'm a working

[02:04] accountant with a small YouTube channel.

[02:06] I have no money. I have no power. I have

[02:09] no influence. I don't know how much

[02:11] money they think they're going to get

[02:13] from suing me. All I have is the truth.

[02:18] And I'm not going to stop speaking the

[02:19] truth because Erica Kirk doesn't like

[02:21] it.

[02:23] The one good thing about a lawsuit is

[02:26] that everything will be out in the open

[02:28] and Turning Point will quickly find out

[02:31] that I have nothing to hide. The letter

[02:33] came from a lawyer named Paul Edgar

[02:36] Herald from Southbend, Indiana. It seems

[02:39] like this is Turning Point's lawyer. I

[02:41] looked him up and I cannot find that he

[02:43] has been admitted to the state bar of

[02:45] Arizona in order to practice law in

[02:46] Arizona. So, I'm not exactly sure how

[02:49] he's going to sue me in Arizona, but

[02:51] maybe he's working with other lawyers.

[02:53] In the letter, they order me to please

[02:56] confirm that you will publicly correct

[02:58] your false statements immediately.

[03:01] This is not what I was going to talk

[03:02] about this week, but Turning Point is

[03:05] demanding that I communicate their

[03:07] statements publicly. So, here we go.

[03:11] They include a whole list of statements

[03:13] they claim are false that I have made in

[03:16] my videos about TurningPoint.

[03:19] Now, I'm not interested in spreading

[03:21] false information. So, I'm glad that

[03:23] Turning Point reached out to me because

[03:24] if I said something wrong, I am happy to

[03:27] correct it. So, let us go through the

[03:30] statements where they have a problem.

[03:32] And you're going to want to hear this

[03:33] because some of these are wild. On

[03:36] November 16th, I posted a video called

[03:39] Bombshell. Did Turning Point USA commit

[03:41] fraud? They say these are false claims.

[03:45] Charlie Kirk ordered a Doge style audit

[03:47] that was never conducted. Here is my

[03:49] first problem with this letter. They do

[03:52] not include the actual quote that I said

[03:55] in the video. This is a paraphrase

[03:58] statement of what I said and they are

[04:00] saying that the paraphrase statement is

[04:03] a lie.

[04:05] you have to tell me exactly what I said

[04:07] that was supposedly a lie. And they do

[04:10] this through the whole letter. So, my

[04:13] request to this lawyer in future

[04:15] letters, because I'm assuming there's

[04:17] going to be more, please include the

[04:19] actual quote that I said so that I can

[04:22] respond to your accusation.

[04:25] But I'm going to at least try to

[04:26] interpret what they are saying. I spoke

[04:29] in my video about a memo that Charlie

[04:31] Kirk wrote eight days before he was

[04:33] murdered. In the cease and desist

[04:35] letter, they say indeed, Turning Point

[04:38] USA's COO announcement concerning the

[04:41] Doge effort never used the word audit.

[04:44] So, this is breaking news. Turning

[04:47] Point's attorney has now confirmed that

[04:49] the Charlie Kirk memo is authentic. We

[04:53] now have legal confirmation this did

[04:55] happen. It seems like their problem with

[04:57] my video is that I called it a Doge

[05:00] audit when in the memo it is written as

[05:03] Doge effort. So they want everyone to

[05:06] use the word effort and not use the word

[05:09] audit.

[05:11] This letter is seriously hurting my

[05:13] head. Whatever word you use, the memo is

[05:17] clearly talking about an evaluation of

[05:20] Turning Point. But we cannot use the

[05:22] word audit. We have to call it an effort

[05:25] or they are going to sue you. The letter

[05:28] goes on to say, "The announcement makes

[05:30] clear that Turning Point USA was doing

[05:32] what it has always pledged to donors,

[05:34] ensuring it was being efficient with its

[05:36] funds and time and making changes to

[05:38] foster greater efficiencies. Moreover,

[05:40] Turning Point USA hires a third party

[05:42] audit firm to conduct an audit every

[05:44] year." This is all just their opinion.

[05:47] This is how they are interpreting

[05:49] Charlie Kirk's memo.

[05:51] They think that Charlie Kirk wrote this

[05:53] memo and they think it means that they

[05:55] do not have to do anything.

[05:59] How convenient.

[06:01] They think that Charlie Kirk wrote a

[06:03] memo just to tell people to keep doing

[06:05] business as usual. Well, my opinion and

[06:08] the opinion of many other people was

[06:10] that Charlie Kirk's memo meant something

[06:13] different. This is not a statement of

[06:15] fact. It is an opinion. This is another

[06:18] problem I have with this letter. Most of

[06:20] the statements they mention are opinions

[06:23] just like this one. If you are going to

[06:26] accuse me of defamatory statements, they

[06:28] need to be facts, not opinions.

[06:31] If I have a fact wrong, let me know and

[06:34] I will happily correct it. But I will

[06:37] not change my opinion of this memo to

[06:39] whatever you want. But since it is so

[06:42] important for TurningPoint, I have no

[06:44] problem with specifying that Charlie

[06:46] Kirk's memo used the words Doge effort,

[06:48] not Doge audit. The next statement is

[06:52] someone at TurningPoint decided not to

[06:53] file 990 forms. At the time I made that

[06:56] video, those forms were not publicly

[06:59] posted. Those forms were posted after I

[07:01] made that video, and I have already made

[07:03] a correction about that. The next

[07:05] statement is in 2023 $650,000

[07:09] may have been funneled from TurningPoint

[07:10] USA through Turning Point Action to

[07:13] Turning Point Pack to evade campaign

[07:15] finance restrictions. They are

[07:17] referencing this chart from my video.

[07:20] They claim money actually went from

[07:22] Turning Point Action to Turning Point

[07:24] USA as a reimbursement for event

[07:26] expense. There was nothing nefarious

[07:28] about that transfer. I'm not sure they

[07:31] are contradicting what I am saying.

[07:33] According to their own statement,

[07:35] TurningPoint USA used their own donor

[07:38] funds to pay for an event on behalf of

[07:41] Turning Point Action, freeing up Turning

[07:43] Point Action funds, which they then

[07:45] transferred to Turning Point Pack. They

[07:48] are saying that later Turning Point

[07:50] Action reimbured Turning Point USA for

[07:52] that event. But that doesn't change what

[07:55] I was saying. Additionally, in my video,

[07:58] I specifically said, again, this is not

[08:01] necessarily illegal if they structure

[08:03] their transactions correctly and utilize

[08:05] campaign finance loopholes, but it

[08:08] certainly looks unethical. That is my

[08:10] opinion. This money did move between the

[08:14] organizations. I'm allowed to have my

[08:16] opinion. On November 30th, I posted a

[08:19] video called Explosive: More Fraud at

[08:21] Turning Point USA. They say these are

[08:24] false claims. there was more fraud at

[08:27] TurningPoint USA. I assume they are

[08:30] referring to the title of the video

[08:32] here. They of course are saying that

[08:34] there is no fraud at Turning Point USA.

[08:37] The content of the video is me going

[08:39] over the evidence of fraud and sharing

[08:41] my opinion. Now, technically a true

[08:43] statement would be that no one has been

[08:45] convicted of fraud at Turning Point USA.

[08:48] But whether fraud is going on right now

[08:50] is an opinion. This is what happens in

[08:53] every criminal court case. Both sides

[08:56] look at the facts. One side gives their

[08:58] opinion that they are innocent. The

[09:00] other side gives their opinion that they

[09:01] are guilty. Turning Point is looking at

[09:04] the financials and claiming that they

[09:05] are innocent. I understand that. I'm

[09:08] looking at the same financials and

[09:10] thinking they look suspicious. I did not

[09:13] even say in my video that they committed

[09:15] fraud. I think I'm very fair and

[09:18] balanced when I say, "Now, for legal

[09:20] reasons, I have to say that I do not

[09:22] have any evidence of a crime. We would

[09:24] need an investigation of the books at

[09:25] Turning Point to know for sure. What I

[09:28] am saying is that there are red flags in

[09:30] the financials at Turning Point and a

[09:32] lot of questions that need to be

[09:34] answered. That sounds to me to be pretty

[09:37] fair and balanced and the complete

[09:39] opposite of what they are accusing me of

[09:41] saying. They cannot take my statements

[09:43] out of context and accuse me of

[09:45] defamation.

[09:47] I have the right as a journalist to

[09:49] report on Turning Point's Financials.

[09:52] Their opinion that they have not

[09:54] committed fraud is just an opinion. My

[09:57] opinion is that it looks suspicious.

[10:00] Now, it is nice that we have this letter

[10:02] with their official statements. But the

[10:04] letter does nothing to change my

[10:06] suspicions. It does not address most of

[10:10] my questions. Instead of answering my

[10:12] questions, it is the precursor to a

[10:14] lawsuit unless I change my statements.

[10:18] That does nothing to reduce my

[10:20] suspicions. For the sake of avoiding

[10:22] miscommunication, I can change the title

[10:25] of the video if that makes them more

[10:26] happy. I already changed it from more

[10:29] fraud at TurningPoint USA to more fraud

[10:32] at Turning Point USA. Allegedly, the

[10:35] next statement is that America's Turning

[10:37] Point had ghost employees. The letter

[10:39] explains America's Turning Point had 80

[10:42] employees in FY23 and 108 in FY24.

[10:46] There was however an inadvertent error

[10:48] in America's Turning Point filing which

[10:51] failed to note these employees and

[10:53] America's Turning Point is in the

[10:54] process of rectifying that inadvertent

[10:56] error. So I was right. There was

[11:00] something wrong. They did put incorrect

[11:03] information on the 990 form. There were

[11:06] missing employees they were not

[11:08] reporting. They have confirmed it. And

[11:12] just to be clear, this was not some

[11:14] minor mistake. This was around 80

[11:17] employees that were somehow missing.

[11:19] Their complaint is that it's not correct

[11:21] to use the term ghost employees.

[11:25] I don't know if I necessarily agree with

[11:27] that opinion, but that is their

[11:28] position.

[11:30] I find this incredible.

[11:33] How are they going to sue me for this?

[11:35] They admit that I am right that the

[11:38] employees were not reported correctly.

[11:40] They don't like the wording I used. How

[11:43] is that defamatory?

[11:45] The next statement is that donations to

[11:47] Turning Point Action increased from

[11:49] $10.7 million in FY23 to $27.2 million

[11:53] in FY24 and suggested that Tyler Boyer

[11:57] may have been recruiting these donors

[11:58] away from Turning Point USA to undermine

[12:01] MAGA and benefit himself. Again, this is

[12:05] not exactly what I said, and I find

[12:07] their paraphrasing of my statements a

[12:10] little silly. They are claiming that

[12:13] Tyler Ber never tried to undermine

[12:15] Charlie Kirk in any of his decisions.

[12:18] Tyler Ber never tried to benefit himself

[12:21] in his role at Turning Point. I find

[12:23] those claims a little excessive. What I

[12:27] actually say in my video was sharing my

[12:29] opinion on the financials, which I'm

[12:31] allowed to do. When you see Tyler

[12:33] Boyer's organization growing so much

[12:35] faster than Charlie Kirk's organization,

[12:38] that looks to me like a corporate

[12:40] takeover from the inside. That is my

[12:42] opinion which I'm allowed to have. Now,

[12:45] of course, I cannot know what is going

[12:47] on inside Tyler Boyer's mind, but that's

[12:50] not what I said in my video. I was not

[12:52] speaking about his state of mind or his

[12:54] motivation. I do not know that. The

[12:57] letter goes on to explain that donors

[12:59] naturally direct more money towards

[13:01] election activities in election years,

[13:02] especially to organizations like Turning

[13:04] Point Action that can engage in lobbying

[13:06] and political activity during election

[13:08] years. Accordingly, you are wrong to

[13:10] assert that the increased donations to

[13:12] Turning Point Action any sort of

[13:14] wrongdoing on Mr. Ber's part. So, their

[13:17] explanation is that all the changes in

[13:19] the financials can be explained by the

[13:21] election. That is their official

[13:23] explanation.

[13:25] I do not believe it and that is my

[13:27] opinion. On December 7th, I posted a

[13:30] video called Top 10 Clowns of the Year.

[13:33] In this video, I called Turning Point my

[13:35] number one clown of the year. I talked

[13:38] about the now infamous interview with

[13:39] Turning Point's chief security person

[13:41] talking about the day that Charlie Kirk

[13:43] was murdered. I point out the massive

[13:45] contradiction where he says they were

[13:48] not allowed to fly drones. Then I show

[13:50] the interview with Frank Turk where he

[13:52] says he was watching drone footage with

[13:54] Charlie Kirk. This part is breaking news

[13:57] because I'm not aware this has ever been

[13:59] discussed. The lawyer in this letter

[14:02] says the following. There was no

[14:04] discrepancy.

[14:05] UVU prohibited Turning Point USA from

[14:08] flying drones for security purposes

[14:10] during the event, but did allow a

[14:12] Turning Point USA media production drone

[14:15] to briefly fly over the location before

[14:18] the event to collect limited B-roll

[14:20] footage? First of all, how could this be

[14:23] defamatory if I had no idea about any of

[14:26] this? Second, I find this explanation

[14:30] absurd.

[14:32] You are telling me that the security

[14:34] team was not allowed drones, but the

[14:37] media team was.

[14:39] That is the official explanation from

[14:41] Turning Point's lawyer. My honest

[14:44] opinion is I do not believe that. But if

[14:48] that did happen, that is really silly

[14:51] and it may have cost Charlie Kirk his

[14:53] life. On December 14th, I posted a video

[14:56] called Tim Pool Rants about Turning

[14:59] Point. They say these are false claims

[15:03] asking whether money sent to 110 LLC was

[15:06] to bribe Jay Kaufman. Again, that's not

[15:09] exactly what I said. They are

[15:11] complaining that I'm not allowed to ask

[15:14] questions. I cannot ask questions about

[15:17] 110 LLC. I cannot ask questions about

[15:20] Jake Hoffman.

[15:22] I think those are fair questions to ask

[15:25] given that Turning Point sends them

[15:26] millions of dollars as one of their

[15:28] largest independent contractors.

[15:31] This is America. I'm allowed to ask

[15:34] questions.

[15:36] But I think it is fair for Turning Point

[15:38] to also state their official position.

[15:40] They claim TurningPoint contracts with

[15:43] 110 LLC for legitimate services. The

[15:46] money you ask about is spent on

[15:47] marketing and advertising services. and

[15:50] he claimed that it is a bribe is false.

[15:52] The second statement is asking why

[15:55] America's Turning Point lists COO Tyler

[15:58] Ber as an independent contractor. Again,

[16:01] they are saying I'm not allowed to ask

[16:03] questions.

[16:05] Does Turning Point see the irony in

[16:07] this?

[16:09] Charlie Kirk died under a tent with the

[16:12] slogan, prove me wrong. His whole

[16:16] college campus tour was about asking

[16:18] questions. And now Turning Point is

[16:21] sending out legal letters to small

[16:23] YouTube channels accusing them of

[16:25] defamation for asking questions.

[16:29] I was asking the question why their COO

[16:32] was an independent contractor. I think

[16:34] that is unusual. That is my opinion.

[16:38] Turning Point is now stating their

[16:39] official position. America's Turning

[16:41] Point lists its COO as an independent

[16:44] contractor because his substantive role

[16:46] for America's Turning Point is more in

[16:48] line with the contractor classification.

[16:50] So this is new information. Now we know

[16:53] TurningPoint is intentionally doing

[16:55] this. This is not a mistake. They are

[16:58] intentionally classifying their COO as

[17:01] an independent contractor, which means

[17:04] they are not withdrawing payroll taxes

[17:06] to send to the IRS.

[17:08] Now, if I were their CFO, I would not do

[17:11] this. But for some reason, their CFO,

[17:14] the politician Justin Olsen, has

[17:16] determined with all of his accounting

[17:18] expertise that this is the best way to

[17:21] classify their employees.

[17:24] Whatever the reason, this is

[17:25] TurningPoint's opinion about an IRS

[17:27] classification. It is not a statement of

[17:30] fact, and I'm allowed my own opinion.

[17:32] The letter also states, "More generally,

[17:35] you have accused the Turning Point

[17:36] entities of being shell companies. This

[17:39] too is false. They are arguing about

[17:41] what can be defined as a shell company.

[17:44] They don't want anyone to call Turning

[17:46] Point's multiple organizations shell

[17:48] companies.

[17:50] Personally, I do not agree that it is an

[17:52] incorrect use of the definition. Turning

[17:55] point is moving money between

[17:57] organizations like some kind of shell

[17:59] game. A shell game is a classic street

[18:02] hustle and magic trick. So, in my

[18:05] opinion, I think it would be appropriate

[18:07] to call them shell companies. But if

[18:10] Turning Point is so upset about the word

[18:12] Shell Company, I have no problem calling

[18:15] them something else from now on. On

[18:18] December 28th, I posted a video called

[18:20] Shocking Turning Point Fraud Gets Worse.

[18:23] They claim you recklessly repeated many

[18:26] of the previously described falsehoods

[18:28] and again directed viewers to the home

[18:29] address of Mr. Ber which has resulted in

[18:32] threats to Mr. Boyer's safety. Let me

[18:35] explicitly state that I condemn any

[18:38] violence, any threat, any harassment

[18:40] being sent to any employee at Turning

[18:42] Point. Do not even harass them on X.com.

[18:46] Do not retweet at them. Do not send them

[18:48] angry messages. Keep your comments in my

[18:51] comment section.

[18:53] Just for the record, I will repeat what

[18:55] I have previously said. And I have to

[18:58] tell people, please do not go to Tyler

[19:01] Ber's house. That is not appropriate. I

[19:04] was in no way calling for violence

[19:06] against Tyler Boyer, and you are

[19:08] absolutely false in claiming that I was.

[19:12] In the video, I blacked out Tyler

[19:14] Boyer's address, which I did not have to

[19:16] do. He put the address himself on a

[19:19] public document. That's not my fault.

[19:21] That's his fault. Don't blame me when I

[19:24] have tried to protect his privacy. So,

[19:27] that is the letter. There are more

[19:29] paragraphs of legal language that I

[19:31] skipped, but that is pretty much the

[19:33] letter. I have to say that in general,

[19:36] most of the things they brought up were

[19:38] nitpicky little things like they don't

[19:40] want me to use the word audit or the

[19:41] words shell company. Those are not even

[19:44] facts. But I am going out of my way to

[19:47] adjust for some of their requests. And I

[19:50] want to mention something else.

[19:53] Take a moment and think of all the

[19:55] statements they listed in this letter as

[19:57] problematic. I think it's around 11

[19:59] statements they are claiming are false.

[20:02] Now, think about all the things I've

[20:04] talked about in my videos on turning

[20:06] point. There are a lot of other things

[20:09] that I have said in my videos that were

[20:12] never mentioned in this letter. They did

[20:15] not say I got those statements wrong. I

[20:17] think that is very telling. Again, I

[20:21] have no desire to spread false

[20:23] information. Some of their statements in

[20:25] this letter were actually very helpful

[20:26] in answering some of our questions. So,

[20:28] I hope that this video cleared up any

[20:30] confusion. I will be honest with you

[20:33] guys. Getting a legal letter like this

[20:35] is scary.

[20:37] I don't know why Turning Point is

[20:39] attacking me like this. I don't have a

[20:42] lot of money. Lawyers are expensive and

[20:45] I'm going to need a good one.

[20:47] So, I'm going to ask for help. If you

[20:50] like my videos, consider signing up for

[20:52] a membership. That is money that I would

[20:55] use if this turns into a lawsuit. If you

[20:58] want to provide additional support, you

[20:59] can also donate directly from the

[21:01] homepage of my website on wolves and

[21:03] finance.com.

[21:05] I really appreciate all my members and

[21:07] I'm so thankful for your support,

[21:09] especially in times like these. I'm Zach

[21:12] from Wolves and Finance. Thank you for

[21:14] watching.

[21:17] >> [music]

[21:24] [music]

[21:34] >> Heat.