Firearms Vetting OSINT Report

Lee Williams (“Cross The Rubicon”)

Subject: Lee John Williams (online alias “Cross The Rubicon”)

Purpose: Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) assessment for firearms “fit and proper person” vetting

Prepared by: OSINT Analyst (hypothetical NZ Police firearms vetting role)

Timeframe covered: Approx. 2018 – early 2025

Jurisdictions: New Zealand (primary), United Kingdom (secondary – subject now largely based in UK)

Executive Summary

Overall assessment: On the basis of available open-source information, Lee Williams should be assessed as a high-risk individual in the context of firearms licensing. He would not meet the “fit and proper person” test for firearms possession.

Profile: Williams is a UK-born New Zealand resident (now apparently back in the UK for much of the time) who has built an online persona as a far-right political commentator under the brand “Cross The Rubicon”. He has operated a YouTube channel with a substantial following, a Telegram channel, and smaller presences on alternative video platforms. His core content focuses on New Zealand and global politics with a strong anti-government, anti-Māori, anti-immigrant, anti-Islam and anti-LGBTQ framing, mixed with conspiracy narratives about “globalists”, the UN and the World Economic Forum.

Key behavioural history: Williams’ content and actions have attracted sustained criticism and repercussions in New Zealand. He was investigated and then dismissed by his employer (Synlait) after colleagues and members of the public highlighted his racist online material targeting Māori politicians. He has been the subject of public petitions, calls by Māori leaders to have his residency cancelled, at least two police visits following Islamophobic posts around the time of the Christchurch mosque attacks, and at least one in-person arrest after a physical confrontation at a political event in 2023. His online content has triggered moderation actions including YouTube suspensions and video removals for hate-speech policy breaches.

Firearms-relevant concerns: While there is no direct evidence of Williams personally possessing or misusing firearms, his rhetoric and influence are of concern. He strongly opposes New Zealand firearms reforms after the Christchurch attacks and frames gun control as part of a broader move towards “tyranny” and civil conflict. An identified follower of his channel, who held a firearms licence, produced a video brandishing a firearm and calling for genocidal violence against Māori. That individual was arrested and charged with inciting racial disharmony; the video was classified as objectionable. The content was explicitly in defence of Williams and in response to pressure on his employment. Williams’ response, as reported, was to invite private contact rather than immediately reject or report the threat. This indicates his online activity can act as a catalyst for dangerous behaviour by armed supporters.

Ideology and rhetoric: Williams’ public output is consistently aligned with far-right extremist narratives. He regularly portrays Māori political participation and co-governance proposals as a “coup by stealth” and an existential threat to democracy, describes Māori activists in dehumanising terms (for example as a “cancer” or “tumour” in society), and talks about potential “civil war” along racial and cultural lines. He has also produced strongly Islamophobic content, framed immigrants and Muslims as inherently violent, and has more recently linked political opponents and LGBTQ-adjacent topics to unfounded allegations of paedophilia. He frequently alleges that Western governments are controlled by a hidden global elite and that elections are largely illegitimate.

Behavioural stability: Williams demonstrates a persistent pattern of grievance, volatility and confrontational behaviour. In person, he has verbally confronted a senior politician (David Seymour) at a public meeting, and been directly involved in a scuffle at a highly charged “Stop Co-Governance” event where police intervened and arrested him. Online, his tone is consistently angry and contemptuous, with dehumanising and insulting language aimed at named individuals and groups. He presents himself as persecuted and on the verge of being silenced or expelled, which feeds a martyr or persecution narrative.

Criminality and law-related behaviour: Open sources show at least one arrest relating to disorderly conduct at a political meeting. There is no clear evidence of conventional criminal offending such as drugs, fraud or gang involvement. However, Williams persistently pushes near the boundaries of hate-speech law, has required intervention or monitoring by police, and his content has resulted in a close associate committing an offence relating to incitement of racial violence.

Situational risk: Williams’ presence at political and community events tends to increase tensions. When he attends volatile gatherings (such as anti-co-governance meetings), there is already a history of confrontation and physical altercation. His rhetoric has the potential to encourage lone-actor or small-group violence, particularly by individuals who already hold firearms licences or have access to weapons. Even if he is physically overseas, his ongoing commentary about New Zealand can still influence domestic actors.

Recommendation (firearms vetting context): Taken together, Williams’ extremist ideology, demonstrated volatility, role in radicalising at least one armed supporter, and ongoing pattern of inciteful public communication mean that he should not be considered a fit and proper person to possess firearms in New Zealand. Any association between Williams and firearms – whether through personal application, co-residence with a licence holder, or close contact with an applicant – should be treated as a significant risk indicator and trigger thorough review. Continued OSINT monitoring of his public activity is advisable.

1. Scope and Methodology

Scope. This report assesses the open-source footprint of Lee Williams in relation to firearms licensing vetting. The focus is on behaviours, associations and rhetoric that are relevant to public safety, extremist ideology, and propensity for violence. The primary geographic scope is New Zealand, where Williams lived and worked for an extended period and where most consequences of his behaviour were felt. Secondary attention is given to the United Kingdom, where he now appears to live for much of the time but continues to comment on New Zealand affairs.

Timeframe. The assessment covers activity from approximately 2018 (around the creation of his YouTube channel) through to early 2025, based on the most recently available public posts and media coverage.

Sources. Only open-source information has been used. This includes:

Method. The investigation applied a standard OSINT workflow:

Limitations. Some original videos and posts are no longer directly available due to account suspensions, deletions or platform moderation. In those cases, the report relies on archived copies or on accurate descriptions from reputable news outlets or researchers. This assessment does not include any non-public police, immigration or intelligence files, nor medical information. As with all OSINT, new information could emerge that adds to or modifies the picture presented here.

2. Subject Identifiers

Full name: Lee John Williams.

Common name: Lee Williams.

Nationality: British (UK-born). Long-term resident of New Zealand for part of the period under review.

Last known locations: Canterbury region (New Zealand) while employed at Synlait. Subsequently reported in Christchurch and elsewhere in NZ for events and protests. In the last few years he has spent extended time in the United Kingdom and operates some of his channels from there.

Employment and background:

Primary online identities:

Associated figures and organisations (non-exhaustive):

3. Master Timeline (NZT)

The following timeline summarises significant events relevant to risk assessment. Dates are indicative and based on the public record.

2018–early 2019: Channel creation and early content

Late 2019–2020: Suspensions and alternative platforms

2021: Petition, investigation, firing and political confrontation

2022: Relocation to the UK and continued online activity

2023: Anti–co-governance activism and arrest

Late 2023–early 2024: Telegram manifestos and post-election rhetoric

2025: Continued online incitement from abroad

4. Platform-by-Platform Findings

4.1 YouTube

Williams’ primary platform is YouTube, where his “Cross The Rubicon” channel has at times attracted tens of thousands of subscribers and more than a million total views. The channel description emphasises exposing a global conspiracy, and his videos often feature direct-to-camera monologues on current affairs.

Content themes on YouTube include:

His YouTube presence is notable not only for reach but also for repeated friction with platform rules. Reports and archived records indicate:

4.2 Telegram

Telegram appears to have served as Williams’ “backup” platform, where he could publish content with fewer moderation concerns. His channel there has carried:

The tone on Telegram is generally more unrestrained than on YouTube. Insults and dehumanising language are common, as are metaphors of warfare and sickness. One significant post following the 2023 election praises the incoming government for halting the supposed Māori takeover but warns that the situation remains grave and requires people, especially men, to stand up without fear of being labelled racist.

4.3 Alternative platforms and interviews

When facing YouTube restrictions, Williams has used Rumble and similar platforms to host videos, some of which reiterate New Zealand-focused content from the UK. These channels are smaller but indicate his intent to remain active even when de-platformed from major sites.

He has appeared on overseas podcasts and streaming shows that focus on “free speech” and opposition to so-called cancel culture. In these settings he tends to emphasise his firing from Synlait, criticisms of New Zealand’s hate-speech environment, and his view that Western societies are in decline due to multiculturalism and globalisation.

4.4 Media, petitions and community responses

New Zealand media outlets have produced multiple news stories and opinion pieces about Williams. These typically cover:

Community responses have included organised petitions calling for his deportation or revocation of residency, public condemnations by Māori leaders and anti-racism groups, and counter-narratives from some conservative or “free speech” groups who argue that his dismissal was unjust. This polarisation underlines that Williams is a known and divisive public figure in New Zealand.

5. Risk Indicator Analysis

5.1 Firearms Red Flags

Assessment: Even in the absence of direct personal firearms misuse, the subject’s rhetoric and documented influence on at least one armed supporter constitute strong firearms-related risk indicators. He should not be granted access to firearms, and his association with applicants or licence holders should be treated as highly concerning.

5.2 Extremism / Ideology

Assessment: Williams’ worldview and communication style are consistent with far-right extremist ideology. While he has not been publicly linked to a formal extremist organisation, his rhetoric and narratives align closely with those used to justify hate-motivated violence elsewhere.

5.3 Behavioural Instability

Assessment: The subject shows signs of volatility, difficulty accepting accountability, and a tendency to escalate conflict. This behavioural profile is not compatible with the responsibilities associated with safe firearms ownership.

5.4 Criminality Indicators

Assessment: Williams’ open criminal history appears limited, but the pattern of behaviour is one of testing boundaries and disregarding the spirit of laws intended to protect communities from hatred and incitement.

5.5 Situational Risks

Assessment: Williams acts as an amplifier of tension in already sensitive contexts and contributes to an environment in which extremist violence is more likely. This situational risk is relevant both inside New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, in the UK context where he now spends time.

6. Evidence Overview

This report is grounded in a combination of:

These independent sources are broadly consistent with each other regarding key facts about Williams’ behaviour, ideology and the consequences that followed.

7. Open Items

Several aspects remain uncertain from open sources and may warrant further internal inquiry if relevant to specific decisions:

8. Legal and Preservation Notes

Use of this report. This document is prepared for internal risk assessment purposes. It relies on publicly accessible information and does not assert the truth of any allegation beyond what is reasonably supported by multiple independent sources. Quotations or paraphrases of Williams’ own words and of third-party commentary are included solely to illustrate behaviour relevant to firearms vetting.

Defamation and harmful content. Some of the statements described are themselves defamatory, hateful or otherwise harmful. Care should be taken not to republish these outside appropriate legal and operational contexts. Where possible, references to such statements should be summarised rather than quoted at length in external communications.

Evidence capture. If any part of this material is required for legal proceedings or formal licensing decisions, original posts and articles should be preserved using approved digital-evidence procedures (for example, screenshots with timestamps, hash values, or platform export tools). Archived copies may be needed if content is later deleted or altered.

Inter-jurisdictional considerations. As Williams appears to spend time in the United Kingdom, liaison with UK counterparts may be appropriate if his activities there raise public-safety concerns or involve New Zealand communities or interests. Any sharing of material should comply with relevant privacy and information-sharing frameworks.

Firearms licensing implication. Under New Zealand’s “fit and proper person” test, behaviour demonstrating extremist ideology, strong grievance, volatility, and the ability to influence others towards violence can all be considered. On that basis, the overall recommendation of this report is that Lee Williams should be treated as a high-risk individual in relation to firearms and that any direct or indirect link between him and firearms possession be regarded as a serious concern.


Classification: Internal OSINT assessment for firearms vetting – not for public release.