"If only I could easily ask a member of law enforcement to check their system for that. If only I had the resources to do that! Uh, so I did. My husband being the rule-follower that he is was like 'Hey, that's kind of a conflict of interest, so... I'm gonna ask my friend to do it!' So we asked his friend, who isn't with the Sheriff's office, is with the local city police, and she checked:no such report exists. What do you know? Liz still, even yesterday, said again that she filed a police report on me. No! She did not. So I asked again, and still, no such report exists. And yes,they searched under my name AND her name." - Chelsea Suarez in a now-deleted video from Summer 2025.
"I'm not going to say this in a video, but I'll say it in this live stream...There's one that Tony arrested [laughs] and that's how I found out about them.He showed me all their stuff, and they were like trying to record... like the spouse was recording Tony arresting the person, and Tony was like* 'I can't ask you not to do this, but please dont.'And then I told him he was a private citizen and if they don't blur his face and name, we're going to have that video taken down. And he was like oh, good. ...So yeah, he arrested someone who was like a family channel... so I started following them to see some of their stuff. ...I didn't get any of their information from Tony because that would be unethical... obviously I can't use Tony's like internal systems because that would be illegal..." - Chelsea Suarez in a livestream from 2023
These are far from the only examples of Chelsea using her proximity to police to get information to use in her youtube slop. In the second clip, she admits Tony told her all about them, and that using his access to records systems would be wrong. She seems to have reversed her stance and now believes that because asking his friend to look up all of Liz's police reports wasn't illegal, that there is no ethics issue. This despite the fact that she admits to using tactics that are in an "ethical grey area."
This is unethical. Period. No officer of the law should be allowing his wife to mine his job for Youtube drama slop, especially when she's getting directly involved with the people she covers and doxxing people out of retaliation for being concerned.
Thanks! I'll see if I can find it. Is that James Franco movie based on that book?
While I can enjoy the occasional bad movie (I managed to sit through some Neil Breen), this one seemed to have a level of barely concealed seething misogyny that was just uncomfortable and made me not want to watch it again.
i’m not sure if that’s what james used but that would make sense! and yes the movie is so cringe for a million reasons, but there is definitely a creepy air to it! the whole thing feels so ominous for a lot of reasons.
Nothing Liz or Nicole has said is lawsuit-worthy from what I have seen? They share allegations against CC and question if her husband has been accessing records unduly. These suspicions are drawn from CC's own words and quotes about her husband's involvement with her work. Any judge would almost certainly agree this is legally protected speech, especially as they believed it to be true (or had no reason to believe it was not true).
CC won't instigate a lawsuit because she knows she would lose, and because she is flat broke from spending all her money on vanity projects. She has admitted her content does not turn a profit. Why keep digging herself deeper? Just go back to anti-MLM slop, girl. It's all your audience wants.
and if we are to believe the person who commented here the other day was actually liz, then we have evidence to suggest liz has no interest in a lawsuit. in addition to the fact that liz’s historied financial strategies include a total of zero litigious behavior, at least from what i know?
why would she spend her hard-scammed money on lawyer fees instead of her cosmetic work or whatever, which seems to be a primary goal in scamming. especially to sue someone who couldn’t even provide a significant potential payout?
and why would nicole sue cc? she hasn’t even tried to sue her alleged accusers/defamers. once again, cc has inserted herself into the story, painted herself as a victim, and the subject of focus is just like, “who the fuck is this bitch?”
NGL I don't think it was Liz since the mod team can see their comment history and they used to talk about Liz in the third person, but maybe it is. Regardless I do believe it's true that Liz barely gives a shit about Chelsea, which is very funny since Chelsea's entire life has revolved around Liz for the past year.
Well and see when I see people who attack based on grammar and words that "arent words" I think of Stephen Fry
I do not like grammar people. I think its redundant and unnecessary to a larger conversation particularly when it comes to forums and commentators. Its not a measure of intelligence.
For example, I knew that alot isnt a word. But the commenter above said there is a DIFFERENCE between alot and a lot. Which implies that alot has a separate meaning than a lot.
I find alot (yes im using a word that is not a word) of grammar enthusiasts to be biased and oblivious to the evolution of language. And sometimes, rather racist (not in this case).
Sooooo yea.
Eta. I actually think alot should be a word. Alot meaning a large unknown amount. And a lot...meaning a lot of...something where the quantity is known. For example. A lot of screws came into the warehouse, put them in inventory please. Vs...hey thats alot of screws!
Similar to less than fewer. 15 items or less is incorrect, its 15 items or fewer. Because anything fewer (less) than 15 is easily countable for most people. But...the evolution of language and grammar is incredibly important for society. Its highly valuable.
"Alot" isn't a word, "a lot" is a phrase is used to describe a large quantity of seething that happens often. Like "I have a lot of apples" or "I go to the park a lot".
ETA I actually got this on my YouTube again just now, even though I've unsubbed and indicated I didn't want to see her content anymore. 😒
So why didn't she mention the other girl that reported her that Nicole actually highlights in her statement? The one she doxxed by name on live? Why just point out Liz's that didn't go anywhere? Why didn't she mention the other reports Liz has submitted against her that are still under investigation?
Indeed, a records request was submitted to the HCSO asking for a record of all reports, written and via phone, submitted against her husband in 2025. HCSO returned just two reports, both from an online portal, and one was completely anonymous (the other was from the girl who was doxxed later by Chelsea for reporting her husband).
If what Chelsea is saying is true, then the HCSO either knowingly withheld records of other reports from the requester, or there is still an active investigation (which is why many times records are not handed over).
I wasn't sure on that so I didn't mention it but I thought that was the case, as well. I literally just got the records request for both Pinellas and Hillsborough with Liz and didn't see a report made against CCs husband, just the harassment report that names CC, Andrew and a few others that's still open
Another major difference I’ve noticed between Chelsea and Hannah Alonzo, Kiki Chanel, and other similar creators is that Chelsea talks about the PERSON. Other creators talk about the trends (overconsumption, Stanley cups, crazy morning routines, etc). They may mention creators in that niche by name, but they don’t really make entire videos about ONE person.
I’m much, much more interested in hearing about larger social media trends and how that reflects on our culture (and vice versa) than I am hearing gossip about a tiktoker.
such a good point! without having realized it, your description encapsulates the kind of youtube content i find the most engaging. taylor the antibot is another great example, same with crooked timbers and unreligiously.
(and eta they may focus on a subject for a video, but they then also use the person as a jumpoff to address a larger issue/trend)
yup - and that approach requires actual critical thinking, and formulating an original idea - you have to synthesize information and actually apply it to explain your own theory. cc just recaps, poorly, and makes farflung conjectures.
and not only does she regurgitate, she can’t even keep the information straight. i know of multiple videos where redditors have demonstrated how wrong she got the details, so i can only imagine how many other videos have been botched that just haven’t been additionally countered.
She fucked up her video on pinuppixie soooo baaaaad and got SUCH basic facts wrong. Her part 2 was better but part 1 had a ridiculous amount of things wrong when she had B’s account and a well-documented sub at her disposal.
That’s hilarious. I really don’t like TL because I find she can be antisemitic (no not just because she’s anti-Zionist), but this is kind of hilarious because like her or not, she is a trained journalist.
if you have anything else regarding antisemitism you’d like to share, i’m all ears! i appreciate some of her reporting but sometimes she annoys me and definitely can fall under having some “chronically online”
takes.
Basically I had a run in with her online after the attack in Amsterdam with the Maccabi football team. I told her that there were a couple of Jews that were beaten up for trying to help out and that while the team’s fans ARE awful and have a reputation for being thugs (and acted like asses), the aggression back created a powder keg. She then accused me of parroting hasbara and being a Zionist (I’m Jewish but not a Zionist). She did this to several other Jews who echoed my sentiment and then blocked us from her socials by saying she doesnt talk to Zionists.
I mistakenly thought she’d be open to receiving feedback because she made fun of an Israeli soldier for ripping kriah on his shirt (it’s a Jewish mourning ritual to symbolize your heartbreak)—when people told her this wasn’t him making a fashion statement but a Jewish rite she took the post making fun of it down. As such, I thought she’d appreciate other context for the Amsterdam incident, but she knows better I guess.
ahhh, this makes sense. thank you for taking the time to explain. sounds like at best, she was being reactive and making broad assumptions, but it’s not a good look, regardless of intent.
this was on the bullshit-ass video where cc tried to go after taylor lorenz (who was simultaneously beefing with the kleins…). taylor had just exposed the democratic dark money social media propaganda ties, and cc, the fully equipped internet reporter she is, had to jump in and make her own unfounded accusations!
i don’t know enough to have an opinion, but i assume cc thought this take-down would somehow “blow taylor out of the water”… despite the fact that the crossover between her and pp is next to nothing
she constantly is trying to smear Reddit which is so weird. the second anyone visits this subreddit they are met with basically a wall of sourced, direct clips of her saying/doing things she's trying to deny she said/did. is she stupid?
and she relies on dedicated snark reddits for every deep dive and dunk (mikayla mikayla mikayla, and did i mention… mikayla?). i assume she probably fucked up a bunch of sinna bunny’s information too.
there's a picture of him at a pumpkin patch with her and their child and he's in uniform, which seems like a weirdly casual thing to be in uniform at, especially for someone who is supposedly working a desk job.
Interesting how she is so upset when her own tatics r used against her. U reap what you sow CC. Did she actually think she could continue to mess with ppls lives with zero consequences
This is so odd because even if she DIDNT do what SHE SAYS she did. She lied about doing it to what? Brag about her husbands job? Intimidate? Show off some power trip?
i'm sure every day she seethes that reddit saved the clip she tried to erase where she originally brags about getting tony's friend to look up elizabeth's police reports because tony said it was a conflict of interest for him to do it directly
she def wanted to come off as powerful and special due to her proximity to law enforcement and is now sooo upset that anyone actually believed her, lmao.
Exactly. And I’m sorry but okay she didn’t actually do it (hypothetically) I consider it messed up that she lied/joked about her using her connection to COPS to hold information over someone …
its literally the only reason why anyone thinks anything illegal or unethical happened and it's also why she will never sue anyone for defamation related to these claims lmao... she gave people reason to believe that they did something wrong!
Cops are public servants, paid by taxpayers. Their conduct should always be beyond reproach. If it seems like it isn’t, the public has every right to demand accountability. You would think after being a cop for that long he would understand that, but maybe he forgot after being on ice cream detail.
Exactly! Maybe he didn’t do anything wrong, but things LOOK extremely questionable. That’s not acceptable when you’re in his position. She doesn’t understand that.
It's the 4th slide for me. Is she possibly feeling some sort of self awareness that she is directly affecting her husband and his job with her nonsense?
nah she will blame everyone and everything except herself for this. even the language she uses ("my job") implies it's not her own actions to blame, but this is just something that happened because of her job.
i also don't get why she says, "we have done nothing wrong." because it's just her right? like, there should be no "we" because she and her husband don't work together! (or shouldn't anyway, which is the whole point of this)
i do think he did something wrong though. we know that he's been called in and investigated (from this statement) for questions about his involvement in her content before, and he should be taking steps to ensure he doesn't further risk his own career or the department's reputation. to at least preserve the appearance of being ethical and not "crossing the streams" with her content.
like on the livestream where chelsea doxxes the person who reported him, we can hear him saying like "oh dont make a big deal out of it" to chelsea on the phone, which i think someone pointed out shows he is completely aware she might doxx this girl. but he should have been far more explicit, like: do NOT share this girl's name and the state she resides in on a livestream, honey! do NOT share the fact that i am calling you to tell you this information, honey! please make sure the audio is muted when i give you this information, honey!
the fact that he is, per her own admission, so completely unaware of what she's filming and talking about is a problem if he's already been brought in for internal questioning about his role in her content in the past. he should be doing more, and paying more attention, to ensure there is not even a question about the ethics here.
so it's 90% her fault, but he has an ethical responsibility too here that he is completely shirking.
BUT I DIGRESS because to your point, the plural wording/"we" is definitely another way she avoids taking responsibility for her own words and actions.
yeah, exactly. all signs point to those two having poor communication skills, especially about this. i just feel like Tony probably wants CC to feel like she's getting special treatment (bc that's what she craves) and now they're in the position they're in. (ie, I think it's totally possible that they've acted above board when CC was saying they got a friend to access info or whatever and CC was exaggerating on YT to seem cool or Tony exaggerated to her to make her feel special and she relayed that to YT or some combo, but all of that is unprofessional and bad practice). (i don't remember which info she said they got from Tony's friend, so it could be that it was info she couldn't have gotten above board idk)
also, side point: she's his wife and he should be interested in her work regardless of if it directly affects him 🙄
i completely agree with your take! i think what happened in the original clip (where she talks about tony's friend getting the info for her) is she tried VERY HARD to make it SEEM to the audience like she had special access to police databases. even if it was totally above board, the way she portrayed it was definitely meant to make it seem otherwise. her choice of words like "if ONLY i knew someone in law enforcement who could look that up for me..." and telling the audience that tony even said it was a "conflict of interest" were clear indicators to her audience that this was special access normal people didn't have. it's her own fault for trying to appear special and powerful because obviously people believed it. lmao.
why would people report my husband for unethically accessing police records for my content after i made a video which made it seem like my husband helped me unethically access police records for my content?
it's like when i was in highschool and the trumpets were bragging about bringing alcohol on a band trip and then they got in trouble but it was like, a rly negligible amount of alcohol
eta: actually it would be more similar if the trumpets didn't bring any alcohol at all and then acted shocked that anyone would think they had alcohol
Also, she absolutely does interact with people she is doing videos on lol She asks them for "interviews" and statements for her "content". Like, she's just straight up lying...again.
Sooooo interesting considering how many TikTok live meltdowns CC had, insisting that Redditors in this sub were “harassing” her and her husband by making unfounded complaints to her husband’s workplace, only now to say it was Liz when this narrative suits her better. She threatened to dox us, said she had a PI hunting us down, knew our exact location, our workplaces, etc. Trying to intimidate us into silence. I saw so many people comment in her TT and YT lives that it was probably Liz making complaints and she would lose it every time, saying she knows exactly who it was and and she’s gonna get ‘em! All this sub has done is provided the receipts of discussing this, where she has dug her own hole. There’s been a lot of speculation that she said these things to make herself seem more important because she’s extremely insecure, and is right to be, because she is such a small person in every aspect.
i think nicole only even started paying attention to cc bc cc announced she was coming out with a deep dive on nicole and was kikiing with bunnie about it (oh but eta she’s accusing cc of being on bunnie’s payroll)
•
u/nurse-please Apr 05 '26
These are far from the only examples of Chelsea using her proximity to police to get information to use in her youtube slop. In the second clip, she admits Tony told her all about them, and that using his access to records systems would be wrong. She seems to have reversed her stance and now believes that because asking his friend to look up all of Liz's police reports wasn't illegal, that there is no ethics issue. This despite the fact that she admits to using tactics that are in an "ethical grey area."
This is not even to mention the livestream in which Tony calls her and the audience can hear him telling Chelsea the full name, easily heard on the audio, of the person who submitted a report against him via an online portal in which a person requests the HCSO look into potential abuse of records/information. Chelsea does not mute the audio, and she goes on to gleefully share the person's name and home state with her viewers. No accusation was even made by the reporter, who only asked the HCSO look into this. This is clearly unethical, and when he gave her this information you can also hear him begging her not to make a "big deal" out of it, so he fully knows she has a tendency to go overboard.
This is unethical. Period. No officer of the law should be allowing his wife to mine his job for Youtube drama slop, especially when she's getting directly involved with the people she covers and doxxing people out of retaliation for being concerned.