Danny Dehek — Lies, Harassment, and Money Schemes Fully Exposed

DOCUMENTED MISCONDUCT • TIMESTAMPED EVIDENCE

Danny De Hek False Legal Claims, Money Solicitations & Repeated Harassment Pattern

By Investigation Desk • Updated: 28 Oct 2025

Danny Dehek (De Hek) False Legal Claims, Money Solicitations & Repeated Harassment Pattern

All actions, words, and money requests are tied to timestamps and previous verified incidents.

Contents

• Vlog Statements (Time-Stamped)
• False Legal Claims
• Donation & Money Requests
• Repeated Harassment Pattern
• Evidence Table
• Key Questions
• Video & Proof

Vlog Statements (Time-Stamped)

• “Big court case” — going to “get papers signed.” (00:00:01–00:00:20)
• “Three court cases in Pakistan” merged into one. (00:00:15–00:00:22)
• Claims US company “Goliath Ventures Inc.” has “no clout” to serve in NZ. (~00:50–01:10)
• “We filed a discontinuance” — repeated with emphasis that it appears on court site. (00:01:13–00:01:31)
• Story about process server “Tony,” wrong ID, trespass claim, later delivery. (00:01:31–00:03:01)
• Mentions notary/JP witnessing, costs (~$125), and asks for donations. (~05:02–15:29)

False Legal Claims

• “Discontinuance” used incorrectly — it’s a plaintiff’s action, not a defense move.
• Cross-border service does exist; claim of “no clout” is false.
• Witnessing documents by a notary or JP does not decide a case.

Donation & Money Requests

• Claims payment of about $125 “to move the pen.” (~00:14:10–00:14:23)
• Immediately launches donation pitch for “Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger.” (~00:14:18–00:14:23)
• Pattern: dramatized legal story → “official step” → request for money.

Repeated Harassment Pattern

• Live call to private number broadcast publicly — 49:04.
• Dehumanizing insults: “filthy bottom feeders,” “trailer trash.” — 33:32.
• Calls for 1-star reviews, mockery of viewers — 06:48 • 1:18:05.
• Exposure of private meeting links, mocking a health condition — 05:07 • 04:31.

Evidence Table

Statement / Action	Reality / Proof	Timestamp
“We filed a discontinuance.”	Wrong term — used only by plaintiffs.	00:01:13–00:01:31
“US company has no clout to serve.”	False; legal channels exist.	00:50–01:10
Conflicting service story.	Contradictory narrative.	01:31–03:01
Witnessing presented as major win.	Only signature verification.	05:02–15:29
Donation appeal after legal talk.	Monetary motive tied to content.	14:10–14:23
Private call aired live.	Targeted harassment evidence.	49:04
Dehumanizing insults.	Verbal abuse proof.	33:32
1-star brigading prompts.	Organized harassment cues.	06:48 • 1:18:05
Private links & health mockery.	Privacy violation pattern.	05:07 • 04:31

Key Questions

• Is “Dehek” the same as “Danny De Hek”? → Yes.
• Does notarizing documents prove a case? → No.
• Can US entities serve someone in NZ? → Yes, through legal mechanisms.

• Clips proving repeated misconduct: 49:04 (harassment) • 33:32 (insults) • 06:48 / 1:18:05 (brigading) • 05:07 / 04:31 (privacy & mockery)

Report: Verified misconduct, false claims, and donation motive fully documented with timestamps.