@Crensch: Then present your case in /v/pizzagatemods, ping kevdude, me, @VSD, @vindicator, and @heygeorge.

Here is Millennial_Falcon deleting one user, who has not contributed a post, indicating that he had IP access to the user, to associate it with another username and delete without the user having contributed any other identifiable material.

https://imgoat.com/uploads/8dd2c7955c/76794.png

This suggests at best, a bias for the username and deletion because of suspected association with another account, or at worse - a doxing operation run by Millennial_Falcon and executed by the likes of @srayzie who is known to openly post the real names of female users on a forum dealing with potentially dangerous criminals. This is highly irresponsible and yet is allowed to continue under the current degenerate subversive regime. @Srayzie is known to send people songs regarding fellatio, something which is highly unlikely for a woman to do. Meaning, a man posing as a woman, is attempting to put women at risk on this forum.

Does Millennial Falcon have an agenda regarding protecting certain Jewish members of the Media and Political Establishment?

It would certainly seem so.

Posts mentioning Lord Janner of the UK political elite and their connection to Pizzagate by way of self-admitted Mossad and CIA agent Uri Geller have been suspiciously deleted from the forum.

Examples include:

Self Proclaimed Mossad/CIA agent Uri Geller and friend of convicted pedophile Lord Janner, Michael Jackson (urigeller.com) submitted 1 month ago by [deleted]

This of course brings us close to Tavistock by way of not only The Hampstead Case but also the nefarious happenings of Dolphin Square and the political elite’s absolutely disregard for the value of human life.

Below is an example of a well researched piece which was deleted by Millennial_Falcon citing Rule 2 - However, I have made it quite clear to Millennial_Falcon I was in direct communication with the parents and thus I myself was a PRIMARY SOURCE for the story and did not require LINKS since I was citing DIRECTLY FROM EXPERIENCE WITHIN THE CASE. Having written to MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS and UK JOURNALISTS, HAVING ATTEMPTED TO RAISE A JUDICIAL REVIEW INTO THE CASE WITH PARLIAMENT. HAVING SPOKEN TO THE OFFICES DEALING WITH JUDICIAL CONDUCT… It stands to reason the post is PRIMARY INSIGHT into the situation and satisfied rule 2 because of this.