
When I first heard about the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” my initial reaction was to ignore it. Then a data point emerged that connected what is happening in Missoula to the California legislation trying to do this:
Starting next year, Californians who provide legal aid, counseling or other types of assistance to immigrants will be eligible for a privacy program that keeps their addresses confidential and out of public records.
Gov. Gavin Newsom approved this latest expansion of California’s Safe at Home program amid concern among Democratic legislators of a rise in reported harassment and threats against immigrants and immigration advocates.
Ok, so the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” is about creating a new “privacy program” to shield anyone who helps immigrants in California from scrutiny. Would this program also ensure privacy for immigrant helpers who live in California but help immigrants in other places, like Missoula?
Here’s the data point that suddenly had me thinking differently about this stupid California legislative move:


Yes, the funding of Soft Landing in Missoula by Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Foundation is something I would definitely be interested in researching more. If I had the money (like Nick Shirley obviously does) I would even consider taking a trip to California to try and talk to someone about it. But that might become illegal if the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” is passed.

One of the claims about Archewell that critics say lacks merit is the claim that Harry and Meghan were using Archewell to get USAID money. Here’s an article pushing back on that claim:
Picture this: you’re scrolling X, and a post screams that Prince Harry swiped $13 million from American taxpayers via USAID. It’s juicy, it’s outrageous, and it’s got just enough edge to make you pause. But here’s the kicker — it’s not true. Or at least, not in the way the outrage merchants want you to think. Over the past year, this claim has popped up like a bad penny, fueled by a mix of royal resentment and misinformation. So, let’s cut through the noise and figure out what’s really going on.
The story starts with Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Foundation, their post-royal venture to do good in the world. Archewell’s been busy — teaming up with groups like World Central Kitchen to feed disaster-struck communities and pushing mental health initiatives. Noble stuff, right? But somewhere along the line, critics started whispering that Archewell was a front for funneling taxpayer cash into the Sussexes’ pockets. The number $13 million got slapped on, tied to USAID, the U.S. agency that funds global aid projects. Suddenly, it’s a full-blown scandal — at least in certain corners of the internet.
Here’s the reality check: USAID doesn’t write checks to Archewell. It funds organizations tackling poverty, health crises, and disasters worldwide — think NGOs in Haiti or Ethiopia, not Montecito mansions. No credible outlet, from Reuters to The Washington Post, has found evidence of $13 million flowing to Harry or Meghan. The claim seems to have sprouted from a misreading of Archewell’s partnerships with charities that might, in some cases, receive USAID grants. But that’s like saying your local food bank is “fleecing” taxpayers because it gets government support. It’s a leap.
Parsing out the money trail for a Royal couple who recently fled the states with their figurative (or maybe reptilian) tails between their legs doesn’t interest me. Instead I’m wondering…why Missoula? Is there some kind of social connection to our humble little mountain town?
Perhaps the social connections of Shuana Nep, who tops the list on the 990 forms, could be of interest.

Besides Archewell, Nep is also involved in a handful of other high-profile ventures, including one with Taylor Swift’s arch nemesis Scooter Braun. She is the vice-president of philanthropy at Braun’s SB Projects, described as the “diversified entertainment and media company behind pop culture icons such as Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, J Balvin and Ashley Graham”.
Her LinkedIn bio notes that she “works closely with each client to develop social impact initiatives tailored to reflect the passions, causes and communities most important to them”.
This wasn’t enough to satisfy my hunch, so I went back to the 990s, clicking the most recent filing for the Archewell Foundation. The first thing that got my attention was a financial recipient located in the Kansas City suburbs where I went to high school. The second thing I found was an Epstein-connected woman working for an organization just few lines down.

Hopelab Foundation? What’s that, I wondered.
It didn’t take me long to find out.


For those unfamiliar with the highlighted surname, think PayPal mafia, and as you’re thinking PayPal mafia you can add that seemingly important Paws Up Founders Fund gathering which happened last June, north of Missoula.
When I put the name “Pam Omidyar” in the Epstein DOJ search engine, the following email most certainly got my attention, as it should anyone living in a billionaire’s vast Big Sky playground.



Seeing Elon Musk’s name and knowing he was at the Paws Up Founders Fund event last June, and seeing Nick Pritzker’s name and knowing he has that Buddhist family member living in the same region of Montana as Paws Up Ranch, is enough connective tissue for me to understand why Soft Landing would get a chance to suckle some charity from Harry and Meghan as they attempted, and failed, to get a foothold in this blown charity racket.
Maybe now Harry and Meghan they can pivot to working with former English immigrants returning home from abroad after they’re no longer welcome to grift inside MAGA-ville.

Returning to the poorly labeled “Stop Nick Shirley Act”, there absolutely IS, in my opinion, something worrisome about selectively qualifying a group of people for enhanced privacy. Also, the word “program” leads me to believe public resources are going to be used in some way in order to do said qualifying, which in California is never a good idea if you’re a regular tax payer.
The Epstein class, however, are NOT regular tax payers, so to conclude today’s post I’d like to link to a well-researched article by Johnny Vedmore, a truly independent researcher who has done some of the best work on John Brockman’s “Edge Foundation”. Here’s an excerpt:
The Edge Foundation was not simply a forum for elite scientists to discuss what interested them most; a clear agenda was at play. The Masterclasses and Seminars tackled three main subjects: how to alter or affect human cells and genes; how to predict the future social order; and how to change people’s decision-making and behaviour. If you were to question any of the Large Language Models about Edge’s major events, they’ll currently tell you that everything was innocent and professional. They are also very quick to belittle and dismiss the uncomfortable fact that much of Edge’s activities were funded by Jeffrey Epstein.
For those still stuck in the two-party political con, where Elon Musk saved Twitter and Trump is still fighting the deep state by playing 5-D chess, Vedmore’s connection of Musk to Edge, and therefore to Jeffrey Epstein, has ensured his relative obscurity and increased personal risk because that’s what happens when you seek the actual truth about who runs the world and what they’re planning for the useless eaters threatening their Transhumanist future by merely existing.
If you appreciate this unique and surprising connection of stupid California legislation reaching all the way into the complicit parts of Big Sky country with the Epstein class, please consider donating to my new GoFundMe page. Any little bit helps.
And for more on my Epstein/Big Sky coverage, this post has been updated with ALL the relevant links to my Epstein research. Dig in!
And, as always, thanks for reading.


















