Screen Shot 2025 01 28 at 1.15.19 PM

YouTube’s Complicity in Attacks on American Rights: Van Ballion and Law Talks with Mike’s Campaign of Defamation and Misinformation

In an era where digital platforms shape public discourse, YouTube has become a hub for legal commentary and information on constitutional rights. While these discussions often foster awareness and education, certain creators allegedly cross ethical and legal boundaries by spreading misinformation and engaging in propaganda campaigns that harm the American public.

Two YouTube channels, Van Ballion (Nigel Turner from Leeds, West Yorkshire United Kingdom) and Law Talks with Mike (Michael J. Gravlin from Chicago Illinois), have been identified by Americans as actively undermining the Constitutional rights of Americans and actively and aggressively waging war against the Constitution and the people of America. Their content is created and used to constantly misrepresent legal concepts and launch malicious smear campaigns against U.S. citizens, national, state Citizen, and Americans who assert their unalienable inherent lawful rights.

Screen Shot 2025 01 28 at 12.59.49 PM

Screen Shot 2025 01 28 at 5.41.49 AM

Weaponizing YouTube Against the American People

Both Van Ballion and Michael J. Gravlin have affirmatively weaponized YouTube and media content to target and defame Americans standing up for their constitutional rights. By producing maliciously misleading, dispraging, and defamatory legal commentary, their platforms act as propaganda machines that attempt to discredit individuals seeking lawful redress. Critics assert that their tactics have shifted from legal analysis to outright smear campaigns designed to suppress dissent and lawful advocacy.

Through defamatory labels such as “Sov Cits” these criminals and domestic terrorists discourage civic engagement by misrepresenting legitimate legal arguments and vilifying those who assert their rights. By doing so, they are accused of stifling meaningful public discourse and fueling negative narratives that harm the American public’s understanding of their lawful protections.

The complicit role of YouTube in promoting this harmful content has only exacerbated the problem. By monetizing and amplifying the reach of these creators, YouTube is accused of contributing to the erosion of public trust and supporting narratives that undermine constitutional rights.

 

Criminal Foreign Interference in American Legal Discourse and Active Domestic Terrorism

Van Ballion, believed to be a UK-based content creator (Nigel Turner), has drawn sharp criticism for commenting extensively on American legal matters without any direct connection to the U.S. legal system. Critics argue that his foreign perspective not only lacks legal legitimacy but also amounts to blatant interference in the education and information available to the American public.

The dissemination of legal propaganda by a non-American figure is seen as harmful to the United States because it can distort public understanding of legal principles and discourage individuals from standing up for their constitutional rights. This interference poses a threat to the public’s ability to make informed decisions about legal and civic matters.

The Complicity of YouTube

Americans, state Citizens, nationals, and other assert that YouTube has and continues facilitated this damaging, injurious, and harmful content by enabling and promoting treasonous creators like Van Ballion and Michael Gravlin (Law Talks with Mike) while simultaneously censoring voices that advocate for constitutional rights and lawful governance. By monetizing content like Van Ballion or Law Talks with Mike that spreads misinformation and propaganda, YouTube faces an oncoming lawsuit filled with allegations of eroding public trust, treason, war against the people of America and the Constitution, and amplifying harmful narratives.

The platform’s promotion of foreign commentators on American legal matters has sparked concerns about its role in undermining national discourse. By giving a global platform to people like Van Ballion and Michael Gravlin, who may not fully understand U.S. legal systems, YouTube is actively contributing to the erosion of public trust in lawful advocacy.

Attorney at Law/Lawyer/Officer of Court Michael J. Gravlin’s Role and Malicious, Defamatory, and Disparaging Content

Michael J. Gravlin, an “attorney at law” and officer of the court, has also come under scrutiny for his role in disseminating what critics describe as terroristic materials that wage ware against the people of America and the Constitution. Through his channel Law Talks with Mike, Gravlin is accused of labeling American citizens as “deplorables” in a disparaging and defamatory manner. As an officer of the court, his alleged involvement in spreading misinformation and defamatory content raises concerns about ethical violations and the abuse of his professional position.

Furthermore, Michael J Gravlin maliciously disparages Americans and labels them “Sov Cits” in a condescending and insulting manner. This term is used by people like Michael Gravlin and Van Ballion (Nigel Turner) to insult, disparage, and deprive Americans under the color of law.

 

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE intend to Pursue Legal Action

In response to these ongoing issues, the KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is preparing to sue YouTube, Van Ballion (Nigel Turner), and Michael J. Gravlin for their confirmed roles in spreading propaganda, harmful content, and misinformation. The lawsuit is expected to focus on claims of defamation, libel, slander, the dissemination of terroristic material, Van Ballion (Nigel Turner), and Michael J. Gravlin’s active war against the Constitution and American people, and their active conspiracy to undermine lawful discourse in the United States.

Critics assert that these actions constitute an attack on American sovereignty and violate the fundamental rights of citizens who seek to uphold the Constitution and defend their legal freedoms. The KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’s legal action is seen as a necessary step to protect the integrity of public discourse and hold content creators accountable for their harmful narratives.

 

Join the Fight for Your Rights

Any Americans looking to fight for their rights, privacy, and freedom are encouraged to contact the KEVIN WALKER ESTATE and join the movement. If you have been defamed on either Van Ballion’s or Law Talks with Mike’s shows, the KEVIN WALKER ESTATE can assist you in submitting an affidavit and pursuing legal action. Protecting your reputation and standing up for your rights is essential in the face of misinformation and propaganda.

Active Propaganda and Misinformation

Michael Gravlin and Van Ballion’s commentary, described by critics as an active campaign of misinformation, works to delegitimize lawful arguments and cast Americans standing up for their rights in a harmful and negative light. Gravlin’s involvement as an “attorney at law” and “oficer of the court” amplifies these concerns, as it lends an air of credibility to content that critics believe is defamatory and harmful.

 

Protecting the American Public from Harmful Narratives

Given the serious implications of these assertions, advocates are calling for federal authorities like Pam Bondi and/or the acting Attorney General to investigate the influence of foreign commentators like Van Ballion and Michael Gravlin and the role of “licensed” professionals like Michael Gravlin in spreading propaganda and misinformation harmful to the American people.

 

The Need for Accountability and Vigilance

It is imperative for American citizens to be critical when consuming legal commentary online. Viewers should seek out verified legal experts, cross-check information with credible sources, and challenge narratives that lack factual grounding. The harm caused by foreign commentators and misinformation campaigns can have lasting consequences on public trust and understanding of constitutional principles.

As digital platforms continue to shape public discourse, content creators must be held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their discussions. Upholding truth and protecting American discourse from foreign interference are essential to maintaining a strong, informed, and lawful society.

Leave your vote

362801 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative Judges

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative “Judges”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that restrictions on the removal of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris notified Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley that the DOJ will no longer defend these protections in court. DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle emphasized that unelected ALJs have wielded excessive authority without accountability for too long and must be answerable to the President and the American people.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!