RIGGED BY DESIGN: Epi. 26, Part 1 – Say No to Crip Crow

RIGGED BY DESIGN: Epi. 26, Part 1 – Say No to Crip Crow

About this show: Rigged by Design connects the dots across many sectors including behavior, biology, environment, policy, and election integrity. Our conversations move between the micro and macro to the layer above macro to the exosystem. Threads that may seem disconnected are part of the same system. You don’t have to see a system for it to affect you, the individual. This isn’t red vs blue. It’s money versus everyone. RIGGED BY DESIGN Episode 26, Part 1 of 2 – Show Notes Aired: June 25, 2026 Nieta Greene [https://substack.com/profile/117743522-nieta-greene], CEO and Founder of Disability Community for Democracy [https://open.substack.com/users/337673829-disability-community?utm_source=mentions], joined Rigged by Design to discuss the recent DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo released June 18, 2026 — four days before the 27th anniversary of the Olmstead decision. The memo argues that federal disability laws don’t require states to provide community-based services, effectively giving states legal cover to re-institutionalize people with disabilities. The conversation opened by examining the Olmstead decision itself — the 1999 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed unjustified segregation of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nieta shared her personal experience with institutionalization and explained why this memo is so deeply personal to the disability community. A significant portion of the episode focused on the history of institutions and why this history matters now. Willowbrook was discussed: the overcrowding, filth, abuse, forced sterilizations, and eugenic ideology that defined these institutions. The conversation emphasized that these institutions were phased out precisely because they were horrific and deadly, and that the memo is an attempt to bring that era back. Let me be clear: this memo gives states a green light to strip disabled people of their homes, their families, and their autonomy. During the episode, Nieta made referenced to “ugly laws,” local laws from the 1860s to 1974 that criminalized the existence of disabled people in public spaces. She described how these laws were used to hide disabled people away, and how the current memo echoes that same impulse to make disabled people invisible. And Stephen Miller — whose name appeared repeatedly throughout the livestream as the driving force behind the memo — reared his “ugly” head yet again. According to Bloomberg, Miller was the person behind the DOJ memo attacking Olmstead. As Nieta put it, the memo was written due to Miller’s influence, and his fingerprints are all over this attempt to roll back disability rights. The discussion also connected the memo to the housing crisis. Nieta emphasized that the housing bill which passed with bipartisan support is directly tied to this fight because disabled people need accessible, affordable housing to live in their communities. Without housing, community integration is impossible. The memo threatens to gut the very foundation that allows disabled people to live independently, and the housing bill (ROAD Act) being held hostage only makes that worse. A deliberate parallel to Jim Crow, the “Say No to Crip Crow” campaign frames the fight against segregation of disabled Americans as a civil rights struggle. The rallying cry of the disability rights movement — “nothing about us without us” — was central to the conversation. Nieta’s publication is also called Nothing About Us Without Us [https://disabilitycommunityfordemocracy.substack.com/s/nothing-about-us-without-us-articles/archive?sort=new]. Questions of race, ableism, and intersectionality surfaced throughout the discussion. The conversation addressed how eugenics is rooted in racism and ableism, how disability rights are civil rights, and why the disability community must be centered in conversations about liberation. Nick Paro [https://substack.com/profile/189675044-nick-paro] joined the conversation midway through to discuss the joint action between Disability Community for Democracy [https://open.substack.com/users/337673829-disability-community?utm_source=mentions] and Sick of This S**t Publications [https://substack.com/profile/426627083-sick-of-this-s**t-publications]. Nick and Nieta described their partnership and the scripts and templates they've created for viewers to contact their representatives, which can be found on Sick of this S**t Publication: A Call to Action - Say No to Crip Crow [https://open.substack.com/pub/sickofthis/p/a-call-to-action-say-no-to-crip-crow?r=34v1yl&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer] —by calling for the codification of the Olmstead decision into federal law. Jason joined us to finish the discussion, which I've cut for Part 2 to be released over the weekend. One request before you go Substack doesn’t currently preserve the live chat when viewers watch the replay. That means many of the questions, challenges, and observations shared during the livestream disappear once the broadcast ends. If something stood out to you, if you have a question, or if you want to continue the discussion, please leave a comment below. Think of the comment section as the after-show conversation where the ideas keep moving long after we hit the “End Broadcast” button. Thank you to everyone who tuned in to Rigged by Design. Special thanks to Nieta Greene [https://substack.com/profile/117743522-nieta-greene] from CEO and Founder of Disability Community for Democracy [https://open.substack.com/users/337673829-disability-community?utm_source=mentions], and Nick Paro [https://substack.com/profile/189675044-nick-paro] of Sick of this S**t Publications [https://substack.com/profile/426627083-sick-of-this-s**t-publications], who in a joint effort are putting out a call to action opposing the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo dated June 18, 2026. [https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1446701/dl] From the Disability Community [https://open.substack.com/users/337673829-disability-community?utm_source=mentions] for Democracy’s official statement on the Olmstead memo [https://disabilitycommunityfordemocracy.substack.com/p/official-statement-on-olmstead-doj]: “America has not fully fulfilled its commitment to guaranteeing equality for all since its founding nearly 250 years ago. It is broadly acknowledged that Supreme Court precedents concerning voting rights are susceptible to abrupt shifts, as illustrated by the Calais decision. Therefore, Disability Community for Democracy will urge Congress to enact legislation that codifies the Olmstead decision, ensuring that states cannot compel the re-institutionalization of individuals with disabilities, because we are Saying No to Crip Crow.” ~Nieta Greene [https://open.substack.com/users/117743522-nieta-greene?utm_source=mentions] Join us next week for Episode 27 as we continue examining the systems, institutions, and stories that often receive less attention on Thursday, July 2, 2026 at 10:05 am PST / 1:05 pm EST. Truth doesn’t come in neutral — Zorha. If this work matters to you, support it. Subscribe to Jason [https://substack.com/@jaystone4] and/or me as we continue documenting what others rush past or refuse to touch. This isn’t content for the sake of content. It’s ongoing, time-intensive work that requires digging, verifying, and staying on stories long after they fall out of the news cycle. If you’re able to support this work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If a subscription isn’t feasible, you can still help support independent reporting with a one-time Buy Me a Coffee contribution. SOURCES & FURTHER READING: * Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/581/] * DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo, June 18, 2026 [https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1446701/dl] * Sick of This S**t Publications — “A Call to Action: Say No to Crip Crow” [https://open.substack.com/pub/sickofthis/p/a-call-to-action-say-no-to-crip-crow?r=34v1yl&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer] * Disability Community for Democracy [http://disabilitycommunityfordemocracy.org] * Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 * FaxZero: faxzero.com [https://faxzero.com/] This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe [https://zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Rigged By Design: Episode 25 – Verification vs Trust

RIGGED BY DESIGN Episode 25 — Show Notes Aired: June 18, 2026 Episode 25 began with a question that emerged from a conversation between T and Zee last week: What if the tabulators aren’t where the manipulation occurs? That question became the foundation for the entire episode. Joined by T from This Will Hold [https://substack.com/profile/315023719-this-will-hold], the discussion explored a growing debate within election integrity circles about where investigators should focus their attention. While much public discussion centers on voting machines and tabulators, T argued that researchers may need to examine what happens after votes leave the precinct level and move through aggregation systems, election management software, reporting databases, and certification processes. The conversation opened by examining the difference between tabulation and aggregation. Rather than focusing exclusively on whether individual voting machines function correctly, attention shifted toward the broader chain of custody that election data follows on election night. Viewers were introduced to the concept of election reporting systems, election management systems, vendor databases, and the layers that exist between casting a ballot and final certification. One of the central themes of the episode was how research evolves when new information becomes available. T explained that her team originally believed irregularities could be explained through tabulation-level manipulation. Over time, however, their research led them toward what they describe as upstream systems. The discussion emphasized the importance of remaining willing to change conclusions when new evidence challenges previous assumptions. Rather than treating earlier findings as mistakes, the conversation framed them as part of an ongoing investigative process. A significant portion of the episode focused on the team’s analysis of what they describe as vote banks and recurring data patterns appearing across multiple states. Florida, Michigan, and Georgia were discussed as examples where researchers identified numerical patterns they believe deserve additional scrutiny. The conversation explored how researchers look for repeated variables, matching totals, and unusual relationships within election data when attempting to understand whether reported outcomes align with expected voting behavior. The discussion also highlighted the role of Election Truth Alliance (ETA) and other independent researchers. Rather than presenting competing explanations, the conversation emphasized that different groups may be examining different layers of the same election process. ETA’s statistical analyses of down-ballot anomalies and turnout patterns were discussed as important pieces of a larger puzzle, while T described her team’s focus on reporting systems, aggregation layers, and election-night data movement. That distinction naturally led into a conversation about voter fraud versus election fraud. While voter fraud generally refers to actions taken by individual voters, the discussion focused on broader questions involving election administration, reporting systems, aggregation processes, and certification. Participants noted that public debate often collapses these concepts together, making it difficult to discuss systemic questions without immediately defaulting to discussions about individual voter behavior. Attention then turned to other prominent voices in election integrity and election administration discussions. Investigative journalist Greg Palast was referenced for his long-running reporting on voter rolls, voter purges, and election administration issues. Dr. Walter Mebane’s statistical election analyses were also discussed as examples of researchers examining election data through different methodologies. T emphasized that her team’s work does not exist in a vacuum and that a growing number of journalists, statisticians, data analysts, attorneys, and citizen researchers are examining election systems from multiple perspectives. The conversation touched on the importance of bringing these discussions to larger audiences and platforms, including mainstream media outlets and public forums where broader scrutiny can occur. To help viewers understand the complexity of modern election infrastructure, the livestream walked through a visual diagram showing how vote data travels on election night. The discussion moved step-by-step from ballots and precinct tabulators through county aggregation systems, election management software, vendor databases, reporting systems, state aggregation, and ultimately certification. Questions of transparency surfaced repeatedly throughout the discussion. Participants examined which parts of election systems receive routine scrutiny, which receive comparatively little attention, and what records would be necessary to independently evaluate concerns raised by researchers. Those questions naturally led into a discussion of Pennsylvania, which continues to occupy a central place in multiple election integrity investigations. The conversation touched on chain-of-custody concerns, equipment testing questions, and legal actions filed by various organizations. Participants discussed why Pennsylvania remains at the center of ongoing election integrity investigations and public scrutiny surrounding the 2024 election cycle. As the conversation moved toward solutions, attention shifted away from federal institutions and toward state-level action. Repeated emphasis was placed on contacting state attorneys general, secretaries of state, and state legislators. Participants argued that public pressure at the state level may be more effective than relying solely on federal investigations or national media coverage. As the discussion drew to a close, it returned to a broader reflection on transparency, accountability, and public participation. Whether discussing election systems, reporting databases, certification processes, or state investigations, the central concern remained the same: How can citizens independently verify the systems they are being asked to trust? What connected the entire discussion was the idea that modern elections involve far more than ballots and voting machines alone. Between the voter and certification sits a complex chain of software, databases, reporting systems, vendors, and administrative processes. Understanding those systems, questioning them, and demanding transparency within them became the recurring theme throughout Episode 25. Thank you to everyone who joined us live, participated in the chat, submitted questions, and helped keep the discussion moving despite technical difficulties throughout the broadcast. One request before you go Substack doesn’t currently preserve the live chat when viewers watch the replay. That means many of the questions, challenges, and observations shared during the livestream disappear once the broadcast ends. If something stood out to you, if you have a question, or if you want to continue the discussion, please leave a comment below. Think of the comment section as the after-show conversation where the ideas keep moving long after we hit the “End Broadcast” button. Special thanks to T from This Will Hold [https://substack.com/profile/315023719-this-will-hold] for joining us once again and sharing her team’s research and perspective. Join Jason and me next week for another episode of Rigged by Design as we continue examining the systems, institutions, and stories that often receive less attention. Truth doesn’t come in neutral — Zorha. If this work matters to you, support it. Subscribe to Jason [https://substack.com/@jaystone4] and/or me as we continue documenting what others rush past or refuse to touch. This isn’t content for the sake of content. It’s ongoing, time-intensive work that requires digging, verifying, and staying on stories long after they fall out of the news cycle. If you’re able to support this work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If a subscription isn’t feasible, you can still help support independent reporting with a one-time Buy Me a Coffee contribution. SOURCES & FURTHER READING: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe [https://zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

RIGGED BY DESIGN – The Quiet Shift: Iran, Social Security & Elections.

RIGGED BY DESIGN Episode 24 — Show Notes Aired: June 11, 2026 Episode 24 began with a question that emerged from a conversation earlier in the week: If voting alone is not enough to guarantee democracy, how can ordinary citizens challenge those in power? That question became the foundation for the entire episode. The introduction opened with the ongoing conflict involving Iran and the growing uncertainty surrounding military actions, funding, and official narratives. While headlines have largely moved on, questions remain about who is making decisions, where the money is coming from, and how much oversight the public actually has over actions taken in its name. Next, attention shifted to Social Security and the accelerating timeline for trust fund depletion. We discussed projections that now place insolvency at the end of 2032, the potential impact on retirees and disabled Americans, and the long history of borrowing from the trust fund through government-issued IOUs. Along the way, we examined payroll tax caps, demographic explanations for shortfalls, gig work, and the growing concern that Americans have little meaningful influence over a system they have spent decades funding. At its core, the question remained simple: who controls the system when citizens cannot effectively challenge decisions affecting their own retirement? Concerns about accountability then carried into a discussion about SpaceX’s planned IPO and the growing concentration of private economic power. We explored questions surrounding valuation, market influence, retirement investments, and whether ordinary Americans have any real ability to challenge decisions made by billionaires whose companies increasingly shape communications, technology, government contracts, and financial markets. What began as a conversation about SpaceX evolved into a broader examination of whether corporate power has become as difficult to challenge as government power. Attention later turned toward representation, race, and political power. Questions about challenging elected officials evolved into a broader conversation about lived experience, privilege, systemic discrimination, and the different barriers people face when trying to make their voices heard. Stories involving interracial families, racism, and unequal treatment illustrated that many communities have spent generations fighting for recognition, rights, and accountability from institutions that were never designed to serve everyone equally. These examples reinforced the episode’s central theme: the struggle to challenge power is not new, but some Americans have always faced steeper obstacles than others. Later in the episode, election transparency became the focus through the Election Truth Alliance analysis of the Kentucky Republican primary involving Thomas Massie. We discussed turnout patterns, enthusiasm gaps, district-level statistical analysis, and the importance of verification rather than simply accepting assurances that election systems functioned properly. Particular attention was given to questions surrounding unusually high turnout, mirrored voting patterns, and the distinction between trust and verification. Throughout that discussion, the underlying issue remained the same: how can ordinary citizens independently verify election outcomes? Broader concerns about election administration, voter rolls, hand counts, and public confidence in election systems followed. We examined President Trump’s suggestion that USPS ballot delivery could be tied to states turning over voter rolls and discussed what it means when access to election infrastructure becomes concentrated in fewer hands. At that point, the issue was not simply ballots or voter rolls, but power itself and who controls it. Closing segments of the episode focused on AI centralization and the possibility of increasingly interconnected government databases. We explored reports that benefit systems, identity systems, and administrative databases may be moving toward greater integration. While often presented as efficiency, much of the conversation centered on accountability. If centralized systems deny benefits, flag records, or make decisions affecting people’s lives, what mechanisms remain for citizens to challenge those decisions? Despite covering Social Security, SpaceX, race, election transparency, voter rolls, and AI centralization, the episode ultimately returned to the same question posed at the beginning. How do ordinary citizens challenge institutions once those institutions become powerful enough to stop listening? What connected each topic throughout the episode was not politics, technology, elections, or even Social Security itself, but the growing concentration of decision-making power inside systems that are increasingly difficult for ordinary citizens to challenge. Whether the discussion centered on Social Security, election administration, billionaire-owned infrastructure, or interconnected databases, the same concern emerged repeatedly: accountability becomes harder to achieve when the institutions making decisions are larger, more centralized, and more insulated from public pressure. Thank you Angel [https://substack.com/profile/2882096-angel], mary kostanski [https://substack.com/profile/13859411-mary-kostanski], Shannon Edrie [https://substack.com/profile/3964635-shannon-edrie], Kirby …heard what? [https://substack.com/profile/8705869-kirby-heard-what], Dina b Porter [https://substack.com/profile/43596409-dina-b-porter], and and everyone else for tuning into Rigged by Design with Jason [https://open.substack.com/users/14756640-jason?utm_source=mentions] and me. Join us for our next live video with our special guest T from This Will Hold [https://substack.com/profile/315023719-this-will-hold] on Thursday, June 18, 2026 at 10:05 am PST / 1:05 pm EST. [https://open.substack.com/live-stream/241669?utm_source=live-stream-scheduled-upsell] If this work matters to you, support it. Subscribe to Jason [https://substack.com/@jaystone4] and/or me as we continue documenting what others rush past or refuse to touch. This isn’t content for the sake of content. It’s ongoing, time-intensive work that requires digging, verifying, and staying on stories long after they fall out of the news cycle. If you’re able to support this work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If a subscription isn’t feasible, you can still help support independent reporting with a one-time Buy Me a Coffee contribution. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe [https://zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Rigged by Design, Episode 23 — Permanent Emergency

RIGGED BY DESIGN Episode 23 — Show Notes Aired: June 4, 2026 Episode 23 opened with a discussion about instability, both personal and political. After sharing the challenges of dealing with a family medical emergency involving cluster seizures, we shifted into the episode’s central theme: how instability that once would have dominated public attention now disappears almost immediately. The conversation began with the recent shooting near the White House during Memorial Day weekend and the broader question of why repeated incidents of political violence seem to vanish from public discussion within days. We explored how constant crisis cycles, media fragmentation, and public exhaustion create an environment where extraordinary events increasingly feel routine. From there, we moved into Congress’s attempt to reassert its constitutional authority over war powers. The House passed a War Powers Resolution regarding Iran by a vote of 215-208, following a similar effort in the Senate. Rather than focusing solely on the conflict itself, the discussion centered on what happens when Congress formally votes to limit military action while questions remain about whether those limits will ultimately be respected. We connected this to what has become a recurring theme on Rigged by Design: the “two-week cycle” of escalating rhetoric, delayed decisions, shifting timelines, and permanent uncertainty. Iran, Cuba speculation, military posturing, and repeated emergency narratives all pointed toward a larger concern that crisis itself is becoming a governing strategy rather than a temporary condition. The conversation then expanded into questions of wealth, power, and accountability. We discussed the growing divide between the wealthy and everyone else, the influence of billionaires over political systems, and the ways economic inequality increasingly shapes public policy. The discussion touched on healthcare, housing, homelessness, technological innovation, and how financial incentives often determine political priorities more than public need. Several examples were raised to illustrate how government spending decisions frequently reveal priorities that differ sharply from the daily concerns of ordinary Americans. We also examined recent reporting that National Park Service revenues are being redirected toward projects and events in Washington, D.C., including July Fourth celebrations, while maintenance backlogs continue to grow. The broader point was not the individual expenditure itself but what spending choices reveal about institutional priorities. Throughout the episode, we returned repeatedly to the idea that following the money often provides a clearer picture of power than following political rhetoric. The final portion of the episode focused on elections, voter confidence, and local civic engagement. Drawing from firsthand experience serving as a poll worker during San Francisco’s primary election, observations included strong voter interest in national politics, confusion about voting requirements, widespread use of ballot drop boxes rather than the postal system, and turnout levels that exceeded expectations for a local primary. The discussion also highlighted the availability of education ballots for eligible non-citizen parents in local school board races and the reality that no such voters appeared at the polling location observed. More broadly, we discussed public trust in elections, transparency, hand-counted paper ballots, precinct-level accountability, and the importance of state and local engagement in preserving democratic systems. Episode 23 ultimately returned to a simple question: what happens when crisis becomes permanent? White House violence, war powers disputes, economic inequality, election concerns, infrastructure spending, and international tensions may appear disconnected on the surface. Yet viewed together, they reveal a common pattern. Instability no longer feels like an interruption to normal life. Increasingly, it feels like the environment itself. Thank you Margaret Williams, MS, ACC [https://substack.com/profile/12044824-margaret-williams-ms-acc], Lizzy B [https://substack.com/profile/350838263-lizzy-b], KarenC-Book Collector📚⚖️🗽🗳️🧿♒️ [https://substack.com/profile/861075-karenc-book-collector], Dina b Porter [https://substack.com/profile/43596409-dina-b-porter], and everyone else who joined us despite our technical difficulties and second livestream launch. Join us next Thursday for another episode of Rigged by Design as we continue examining the stories, patterns, and systems operating beneath the headlines. Truth doesn’t come in neutral — Zorha. If this work matters to you, support it. Subscribe to Jason [https://substack.com/@jaystone4] and/or me as we continue documenting what others rush past or refuse to touch. This isn’t content for the sake of content. It’s ongoing, time-intensive work that requires digging, verifying, and staying on stories long after they fall out of the news cycle. If you’re able to support this work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If a subscription isn’t feasible, you can still help support independent reporting with a one-time Buy Me a Coffee contribution. This episode along with others can be found on Apple Podcast. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe [https://zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

RIGGED BY DESIGN – Who Controls the Code Controls the Midterms

RIGGED BY DESIGN Episode 22 — Show Notes Aired: May 21, 2026 Episode 22 opened with the idea that power has shifted underneath government into infrastructure: AI systems, data systems, communications platforms, predictive analytics, surveillance, and privately controlled technology. We began with the Ashley St. Clair TikTok video and the broader conversation surrounding Musk, AmericaPAC, satellites, and “real-time election data.” While the claims remain allegations rather than forensic proof, we discussed why references to stored evidence, predictive systems, and election-related technology deserve scrutiny instead of immediate dismissal. The conversation centered on the distinction between “voter fraud” and potential election/data/system fraud, which often gets blurred or intentionally collapsed in mainstream discussion. From there, we moved into the Kentucky Massie/Gallrein primary as a live example of why opaque election infrastructure continues triggering distrust. We discussed the unusual turnout surge in a midterm primary, the timing of absentee/mail-in ballots, Trump’s still-underwater approval rating even in Kentucky, the low visible enthusiasm for the Trump-backed challenger, and the role predictive systems and betting markets like Polymarket may play in shaping public perception before results are finalized. The larger point was not that this proves fraud, but that anomalies tied to privately controlled systems deserve verification, especially when billionaire-backed political infrastructure, AI systems, proprietary tabulators, and behavioral analytics increasingly overlap inside modern elections. The episode closed by returning to privatization and normalization. We connected AI-generated propaganda, algorithmic rage-bait, proprietary voting systems, private election vendors, media amplification pipelines, and surveillance-style infrastructure to a broader question: how can public trust survive when the systems shaping, transmitting, counting, and narrating elections are increasingly hidden from view? The focus remained on local and state-level action: pressuring attorneys general and election officials, demanding paper ballots, hand counts, transparency, open-source systems, and real public verification. Because once the infrastructure itself becomes opaque, every anomaly becomes magnified. Humans built systems too complicated for the public to meaningfully audit, then act shocked when trust collapses. Thank you MisterFuzzyGuy [https://substack.com/profile/318685228-misterfuzzyguy], Jeannie Flavin [https://substack.com/profile/141504447-jeannie-flavin], Dina b Porter [https://substack.com/profile/43596409-dina-b-porter], and many others for tuning into Rigged by Design with Jason [https://open.substack.com/users/14756640-jason?utm_source=mentions] and me. Join us for our next live video in the app on Thursday, May 28, 2026 at 10:05 a.m. PST / 1:05 p.m. EST. [https://open.substack.com/live-stream/215758?r=34v1yl&utm_medium=ios] Truth doesn’t come in neutral — Zorha. If this work matters to you, support it. Subscribe to Jason [https://substack.com/@jaystone4] and/or me as we continue documenting what others rush past or refuse to touch. This isn’t content for the sake of content. It’s ongoing, time-intensive work that requires digging, verifying, and staying on stories long after they fall out of the news cycle. If you’re able to support this work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If a subscription isn’t feasible, you can still help support independent reporting with a one-time Buy Me a Coffee contribution. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe [https://zorhasbsfreezone.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]