Long Island Audit: Sean Paul Reyes and his endless Lawsuit Lotto

[S.SaulGood]

Reminds me of the Jerky Boys skit with the phone call to a lawyer from a guy that wants to sue anybody and everybody, including the lawyer he called for not giving him the answers he was expecting.

How many lawsuits now served and pending does he have concurrently in progress for "impeding a journalist's rights".

Here's a tip for auditors who consider themselves journalists. A journalist observes and reports a matter of interest or that may be of interest. An event. When the main focus, the main actor, the one creating that event or matter IS the journalist, and there would be nothing of interest to report OTHER than the actions of that "journalist", then they are NOT a journalist. They ARE the actors.

 

[S.SaulGood]

 

[S.SaulGood]

An open declaration of war, there's no mistaking that. Long Island Audits declares absolute WAR on police, and he's hunting scalps. "Peacefully", of course.


As this prolific lawsuit and complaint filing virtuoso always says..... "interesting". Be even more interesting to see how being at war with every law enforcement officer and agency in America, except for Internal Affairs, ***FOR PROFIT will fare for him:

According to:

Long Island Audit Net Worth in 2021 - Income and Wealth Growth

***Next month's income forecast
Net worth for October 2021 - $24,936

Now keep in mind that this figure represents YOUTUBE revenue, and doesn't include donations through web payment platforms, other payments, and funding from special interest.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Here's this phony's Go Fund Me info, "for help with his legal fees".

Help LIA with legal fees to fight illegal arrest!, organized by SEANPAUL REYES


Like a friggin' vampire, trying to suck as much money as possible from his followers who actually think he gives a flying rat's *advertiser censored* about them or the first amendment BEYOND HOW MUCH HE CAN PUT IN HIS POCKET BY MONETIZING IT.

They're paying his legal fees and he's writing the apology letters (washing balls and *advertiser censored*) to stay out of trouble.

See the post immediately above this one about how much this pontificating money grubber rakes in from you tube revenue alone. I wonder how many of those contributing to their "hero" realize that he can probably buy and sell them 100 times over but still begs for their money.

 

[mrobe123]

Reminds me of the Jerky Boys skit with the phone call to a lawyer from a guy that wants to sue anybody and everybody, including the lawyer he called for not giving him the answers he was expecting.

How many lawsuits now served and pending does he have concurrently in progress for "impeding a journalist's rights".

Here's a tip for auditors who consider themselves journalists. A journalist observes and reports a matter of interest or that may be of interest. An event. When the main focus, the main actor, the one creating that event or matter IS the journalist, and there would be nothing of interest to report OTHER than the actions of that "journalist", then they are NOT a journalist. They ARE the actors.

Please help me understand the point you are trying to make as I truly don't understand why someone would want to impede an audit like this. I personally couldn't care less if Long Island makes a profit of a billion dollars on exploiting this corruption as it is still corruption that needs to be exposed. It helps us all - at least those of use who value or freedoms - to have law enforcement held accountable. If it takes money to keep efforts like this going, so be it. The only reason I wouldn't want to do it is the risk of everything being twisted and doing actual time and losing those perceived freedoms.

I know those who bring up the money are either jealous (and you can do it yourself if you like) or just don't get the point. As a veteran, a patriot and someone who refuses to live in Nazi Germany conditions (show me your papers), I love the effort and will assist in any manner within my means.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Let's imagine a parallel universe where there are fifty 1st amendment auditors for every one who is not.

One of the latter has some errands to do, the first being a stop at their local post office, just a few blocks away, to mail some important papers as well as a parcel containing a birthday gift for their mom.

While still a few blocks away, they see throngs of people with cameras lining the sidewalk, on both sides of the street, and not a place to park anywhere in sight. There also appears to be a line of cameramen waiting to get into the post office that extends for as far as the eye can see.

Seeing this, they do a 180 and head for another post office, a little further out of the way. But as they approach that one, the same thing. It looks like New Year's Eve in NYC waiting for the ball to drop.

So they decide, "post office can wait, I'll go pay this ticket and do the post office later, something is obviously going on now".
They go to their city hall to pay their ticket and the line is around the building. They have to park 15 blocks away because the lot is jammed, they're even parked on the grass, on dirt, anywhere they can. During the walk to pay the ticket they pass a cameraman every step of the way, stationed on the sidewalk. Some say "hello". Some say, "What do you love about the first amendment", Some, sizing you up as a 1st amendment torment rube, go right for the throat, "Can you recite the first amendment, word for word?", and if you can't, they'll tell you "You HATE the 1st amendment. You're a traitor. You hate America. We're going to tar and feather you, Sir".

Some, like SGV News 1st and KC Camera Boy, wont's even dally about with any of that. They're just go for the kill for the reaction, because THAT'S what they're all about, and that has as little to do with rights as this bozo does, and more with being a pain in the *advertiser censored* for profit, and they'll just say, "*advertiser censored* you and your wife is a *advertiser censored*; we all *advertiser censored* her", as SGV does at Church on his Sunday Church parishioner crucifixion soirees.

So you survive the gauntlet of cameramen lining the sidewalk, without tripping over them or being pepper sprayed, and you're where you can SEE the front of the building. Not the doorway, because there's thousands milling around the building, and you decide to try another day.

What these people have done is DISRUPT the ability of that NON -auditor to use any of the facilities for their INTENDED PURPOSE. To provide service for patrons WITH BUSINESS, OTHER than needlessly creating a DISTURBANCE, which in this case is the disturbance and impeding of the facilities being used BY THE PUBLIC for their intended purpose.

 

[S.SaulGood]

You know what I'd like to see? Law and code enforcement take a month off. ALL of it. Cops, security guards, both public and private, sheriffs, deputies, even C.Os, hell, open the prisons too for a month, a one month furlough for everybody incarcerated.

This way, it wouldn't be ANYTHING like Nazi Germany. Anybody could do anything the *advertiser censored* they please. Go anywhere they please. Even break down the door to your home to do whatever they please, and they COULD do that, because there would still be laws, still be policies, but there'd be no enforcement. I have no doubt that would greatly please the type of people that argue, "This is Nazi-Germany" , when there are RULES and LAW that people must follow so things run smoothly.

Without any type of enforcement of these laws and rules, it wouldn't be "Nazi-Germany". It would be a type of post-apocalyptic tribal-based system like in Book of Eli or Mad Max. And even in those "anything" goes scenarios, there were RULES, those NAZIS!!!!!!

After that month, it would be interesting to see exactly HOW MANY of the surviving people that want the "Nazis", all law enforcement, abolished and the prisons shuttered would feel the same way.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Please help me understand the point you are trying to make as I truly don't understand why someone would want to impede an audit like this. I personally couldn't care less if Long Island makes a profit of a billion dollars on exploiting this corruption as it is still corruption that needs to be exposed. It helps us all - at least those of use who value or freedoms - to have law enforcement held accountable. If it takes money to keep efforts like this going, so be it. The only reason I wouldn't want to do it is the risk of everything being twisted and doing actual time and losing those perceived freedoms.

I know those who bring up the money are either jealous (and you can do it yourself if you like) or just don't get the point. As a veteran, a patriot and someone who refuses to live in Nazi Germany conditions (show me your papers), I love the effort and will assist in any manner within my means.

Here's an interesting video. It's a video within a video of Familia TV's critique of this audit. In it, LIA's audit is featured.

Please explain how LIA, taking video of private citizens on their private property defends the Constitution. w

 

[S.SaulGood]

Please help me understand the point you are trying to make as I truly don't understand why someone would want to impede an audit like this.

Just in case my point was lost in the text, while the public has a first amendment right to take pictures in public, and there is no expectation of privacy in public, at the same time, the public has every expectation to be able to access public services UNIMPEDED from those exercising their rights.

The public has every expectation to NOT be harassed, ridiculed, badgered, or verbally assaulted; and that includes unsolicited, insulting lectures on the first amendment.

The public has every right to be able to use these facilities expeditiously, without the delays caused by auditors "testing" the 1st amendment causing them delays of service and inconvenience.

THIS is why there are policies. To prevent disruption of the normal flow of service.

 

[ga gamba]

'A journalist observes and reports a matter of interest or that may be of interest.' OK, that is one type of journalist. Often that type of journalist is called a news reporter. Have you heard of Hunter S. Thompson? He was an altogether different type of journalist; he wasn't a news reporter. Maybe you know of Tucker Carlson. He's not a news reporter. He gives his opinion on the news of this day. This is editorial / opinion journalism. Many newspapers and local TV news have consumer rights journalists. Project Veritas and 60 Minutes are investigative journalists. Suffice it to say, there are many types of journalists. In the US, no journalist is required to obtain a licence like a doctor or lawyer to practice his/her profession. The barriers to entry are low.

I've viewed many of Sean's videos. His journalism, which could be titled 'What treatment will a visitor to city hall / library / police department receive?' is a blend of news reporting and civil rights activism. In several of them nothing happens. He conducts his visit, he records, he isn't challenged, and he leaves. In these videos he is nothing more than a reporter. He documents his pleasant interactions with gov't officials in several publicly accessible offices and records interesting works of art, architecture, historical exhibits, etc. In other videos he is confronted and he responds.

'THIS is why there are policies. To prevent disruption of the normal flow of service.' Policies must conform to the law, of which the Constitution is the highest authority. It's very easy for a public official to institute policies that don't comply, often because the policy is crafted by employees for their own benefit/convenience and without scrutiny by citizens and city legislators. This policy may even streamline city services, but if it violates law, the policy is unlawful. Public officials choose to perform their publicly financed jobs. No one compelled a person to be the City Clerk. In applying for and accepting those jobs, they accepted they are subject to public scrutiny. Want privacy or policies that restrict public access rights? Work in the private sector.

'... the public has every expectation to be able to access public services UNIMPEDED from those exercising their rights.' I've never seen Sean impede a member of the public. I have seen some members of the public make statements to Sean that they have the right to privacy in the public domain. Clearly, they are wrong. Further, I've seen public officials close and lock their doors to publicly accessible areas of their offices in the attempt to prevent Sean from entering. What this has done in a knock-on effect is prevent other members of the public from entering as well. Who created this problem? Sean? Or the overreacting city official?

Just a city officials test building fire alarms, which may disrupt the public's expeditious use of the facility, to ensure systems are working and workers are able guide their colleagues and visitors to exit safely, and the military runs OPFOR red cells/teams to test its personnel, Sean is testing officials' compliance to the law. No one is perfect, and imperfect people craft imperfect policies. Good auditors may help the officials reveal their policies' shortcomings. Gaps and seams exist, often under the surface, so finding these and remedying them is in the public interest.

If public officials performed their jobs in compliance to the law, Sean would be out of a job.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Maybe you know of Tucker Carlson. He's not a news reporter. He gives his opinion on the news of this day. This is editorial / opinion journalism.

But Tucker Carlson's personal opinion-based journalism does not include him as an ACTOR.

Same as when Sean Hannity visited the Southern border a year or two ago. Although he was on horseback, and then on a boat, he was NOT part of the action he was reporting on. He was an observer, and not one of the actors. He wasn't on horseback, herding immigrants, hindering or assisting them in any way. He wasn't on the boat actively assisting the border agents. He wasn't quarterbacking either, directing the agents, "I'm your boss. I pay your salaries. And I demand you.......". Or jump into the water and carry immigrant babies while screaming "*advertiser censored* you, pig" to the agents carrying out their job.

He observed and reported, lending his opinion, but the action and actors were for the most part unaffected by his presence.

If public officials performed their jobs in compliance to the law, Sean would be out of a job.

Except that without policies, my parallel universe example, post #6 in this thread, would be the rule rather than the exception

 

[S.SaulGood]

Another day, another lawsuit!


"He TOUCHED my camera, that's assault".

For that matter, one could argue that someone walking on the same floor that you are standing on "touched and assaulted you" because his feet were in contact with something your feet were touching.

At 19:32: "I'll be going to the state's attorney to do what I've got to do".

Yeah, what a friggin' surprise.

Why even bother turning the key in the ignition? Can't this be done from home? A map, a finger, close your eyes, point your finger, touch the map. THERE! Lawsuit! Save driving time.

Somebody should call ahead of him, possibly make all the state attorney's offices aware of what is transpiring in their neighboring states' attorneys offices with the endless, daily lawsuit lotto. I'd be VERY surprised if someone hasn't already been there done that. Maybe that's why some of them are starting to take his nonsense seriously.

Sometimes people's wishes are thwarted simply because someone is using their wish to wish that they shouldn't get their wish.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Please help me understand the point you are trying to make as I truly don't understand why someone would want to impede an audit like this. I personally couldn't care less if Long Island makes a profit of a billion dollars on exploiting this corruption as it is still corruption that needs to be exposed. It helps us all - at least those of use who value or freedoms - to have law enforcement held accountable. If it takes money to keep efforts like this going, so be it. The only reason I wouldn't want to do it is the risk of everything being twisted and doing actual time and losing those perceived freedoms.

I know those who bring up the money are either jealous (and you can do it yourself if you like) or just don't get the point. As a veteran, a patriot and someone who refuses to live in Nazi Germany conditions (show me your papers), I love the effort and will assist in any manner within my means.

Here's your boy, the way his "fellow journalists" at the NY Post view what he's doing;

'First Amendment auditors' aim to cancel cops via YouTube (nypost.com)

"Long Island provoker Sean-Paul Reyes, 30, said he raked in $8,000 in his first month as an “auditor,” a GIG HE PICKED UP after the pandemic cost him his warehouse manager job".

Those are HIS words. "A GIG". Right from the horse's mouth. To him, it's a GIG. NOW of course, now that his followers believe this is done as a crusade, he's gargling a different mouthwash.

That doesn't sound like the heroic activist you're making him out to be, otherswise, if he felt that strongly about the Consitution, WHY didn't he "defend" it with his 1st amendment activism BEFORE "the pandemic cost him his warehouse job"?

Was he working 168 hours per week? That he couldn't find the maybe an hour to pick up the camera and audit? Only AFTER he discovered HOW MUCH he could make provoking people did he decided to make being a first class first amendment pain in everybody's *advertiser censored* did he decide to make that his new JOB.

 

[ga gamba]

But Tucker Carlson's personal opinion-based journalism does not include him as an ACTOR.

I didn't claim Carlson was being an actor.

Let's refresh our understanding of your claim. 'A journalist observes and reports a matter of interest or that may be of interest.' Your claim is incomplete. It failed to address the many other types of journalists, several of which I mentioned in my reply to you. In some cases these types of journalist activities overlap - think of it as a Venn diagram. Given you admit Carlson is also a journalist, an 'opinion-based' one to quote you, you have conceded there are more kinds of journalists than those journalists who restrict their activities to observing and reporting. I'm glad to have aided you in furthering your understanding.

It appears Mr Reyes performs news journalism, investigative journalism, and participatory journalism - draw a Venn diagram if you need a visual aid to comprehend how these overlap.

Same as when Sean Hannity visited the Southern border a year or two ago. Although he was on horseback, and then on a boat, he was NOT part of the action he was reporting on. He was an observer, and not one of the actors.

Right. That's news journalism. He observed and he reported. He may have also included aspects of opinion journalism as well - I didn't see that report though I do occasionally view his show and frequently I see he states his opinions.

Except that without policies, my parallel universe example, post #6 in this thread, would be the rule rather than the exception.

OK, but you, I, and Messrs Reyes, Carlson, and Hannity don't live and work in your parallel universe. We all live and work in this one. In the US, the Constitution articulates many rights. Several of these are natural rights - some people prefer to call them God-given rights. The Constitution serves as the foundation on which laws and policies rest. The Constitution is not required to conform to policies. Policies are required to conform to the Constitution. If they do not, they are not on the Constitutional foundation but on quicksand. The appellate courts and Supreme Court exist to determine whether or not policies and laws are on the foundation or on quicksand. Further, in the US a journalist isn't required to be credentialed, licenced, or obtain any type of gov't issued authorisation. Some jurisdictions issue press passes to allow journalists into some restricted areas, but no jurisdiction licences journalists.

Of course, laws are made by man and may be modified by man. The Constitution is a living document after all. The First Amendment could be amended to permit only journalism of observation and reporting. It could even require journalists be licenced and form regulatory bodies to ensure journalists do nothing more than observe and report. Until that happens though, the many types of journalism I've presented to you, and those that may emerge in the future, are permitted.

Presently, all government policies must conform to law and all laws must conform to the Constitution. Do public officials meet the promise they made whilst stating their oaths of office? Some do. And others don't. Seems to me that exposing these shortfalls is in the public interest to reduce and hopefully prevent mistakes, malfeasance, abuse, crime, costly litigation, increased insurance rates cities and their taxpayers must pay, and many other consequences.

 

[ga gamba]

Keep in mind an observe-and-report journalist may be able to abuse the spirit of the law even if such regulation I mentioned in my previous comment were enacted. S/he may use emotionally loaded words, for example describing rioters as mostly peaceful demonstrators or looting as just redistribution or reparations. They may interview 'experts' and only publish the views of those who they favour. They may interview crackpots and present them as the opposing view. They may amplify some arguments and omit or downplay others. They may introduce new and novel definitions of words. I reckon there are many other ways to circumvent. Journalists who prefer to put the argument before the facts will not be stopped.

 

[S.SaulGood]

What was the "newsworthy story" at that city hall, before Long Island Agitator showed up to call the shots in "his" building and bypass the sign in desk (a policy that all visitors must comply with) and try to bull his way past Phil, who was hired for and charged with enforcing City Hall's visitor's policies.

Was there a story there before LIA showed up? Or was the story then LIA's refusal to comply with City Hall policy and create a disturbance. Or was the story the disturbance itself.

I already know what you are going to say. "The city Hall was the story, whether or not LIA was there or not". But let's remember, would Sean Hannity report on the border if absolutely nothing out of the ordinary was going on? Or a part of the border isolated from any activity?

In the LIA video, where LIA is standing near a woodpile on private property, taking video of a private residence, camera trained on the owner. What's the story there? A homeowner walking around in his driveway. Or was the story the homeowner approaching LIA and asking him WHY he is trespassing on his neighbor's property and filming HIS private property and him while trespassing on his neighbor's property?
Was there a story BEFORE LIA showed up? If so, what was the story? The residential street? The wood pile? Maybe a crow?

The story LIA is reporting on is the REACTION to his DISRUPTIONS. Until he shows up, no disruptions, so no story. Wherever he goes, HE is the story and if his victims ignoring him, he'll keep agitating on progressively higher levels to GET that reaction to his agitation that becomes the story.

When Hannity visited the border, he did so because there was ALREADY a story there. ALREADY action. He didn't CREATE that action nor join it. He remained distanced and reported on it. But that action would have existed whether he was there to report on it or not.

Without LIA entering a scene things are operating normally, under the control of POLICIES that facilitate that. One LIA shows up with his monkey wrench and DELIBERATELY hurls it into the gears of an ordinarily smoothly functioning machine, driven by POLICIES that promote smooth operation, then THAT'S the story. LIA is NOT a journalist. He likes to pretend that he's this great crusader for 1st amendment rights, and has his followers fooled into thinking this, but as stated before, "Why wasn't he a !A activist BEFORE he lost his warehouse job"?

Did the activism lightning bolt strike him from out of the blue? Suddenly? And he instantly transformed from Molly Coddle to Molly Hatchet? Or did he become a 1A activist, just like he said in an interview,"WHen he realized he could make $8000 per month doing this he made it his new gig" (or something like that). Now, he's making $25,000 per month according to a YOUTUBE ad revenue analytics site. And based on what you tube video purveyors that I know of actually make and what the site shows they make, the site tends to factor UNDER the actual revenue.

Add the T-shirt sales, the contributions, from followers who haven't a clue that he's raking it in on likely an over a million dollar per year pace, many times what his followers are contributing.

If he's not in it for the money, why is he taking contributions from his subscribers? Why is he monetized? True Activist sand crusaders do what they do for the principle. Their zeal isn't dictated by it "being their new gig once they realize how much money is in it", right?

Sure, journalists get paid. It's a job. But like journalists, who are journalists as a profession, Baby Huey here shares their prime agenda. A payday. And this boy has ALL avenues covered. He's like the Disney of 1A auditing. 66 different T-shirts? Press conferences? Camera giveaways? I wouldn't be surprised if he starts offering his followers a "ride along with LIA Junior auditor" for a huge price of course. Watch. The merchandising has just begun. This is the Walt Disney of 1A auditing which for him is "a gig" as he once honestly called it.

 

[S.SaulGood]

I didn't claim Carlson was being an actor.

Let's refresh our understanding of your claim. 'A journalist observes and reports a matter of interest or that may be of interest.' Your claim is incomplete.

Let's see what google has to say about the role of a journalist:

"What is the role of journalist?


The key objective of a journalist is to gather information, write news pieces, and present the news in an honest and balanced manner. ... In addition to investigating and reporting on current events, they also work on articles and features that update and influence public opinion. "

The definition of every google hit using "what is a journalist" as a search produced a very similar yield. ALL of them shared one common element. Not a single definition mentioned "starting *advertiser censored*, sustaining it, and then reporting on it". Nothing about the journalist actions BEING the initiator of the news.

 

[ga gamba]

Was there a story there before LIA showed up?

Indeed there was. Policies and practices that breach the Constitution and court rulings, for starters.

It appears you think a story only exists upon the incident occurring, such as a refinery exploding. However, if workplace policies and practices that violate safety regulations led to the refinery exploding, it is in the public interest to identify these shortfalls before the explosion so that remedies may be applied as well as to prevent other refineries exploding in the future. A journalist who exposes these shortfalls reveals what were there lurking in the shadows. How might a journalist learn of these shortfalls? S/he could receive a tip-off from an insider. S/he may have learnt of an incident at another refinery and wonder whether it could happen again at a refinery closer to home. S/he might visit a site to observe and investigate. S/he might file FOIA requests to government agencies that conduct site inspections. And on it goes. It's a multi-faceted approach.

Your argument hinges on initiation. Who initiated? The public entity that crafted policies that violate the law? Officials who take oaths of office and then violate those oaths? Government employees who state they 'don't care about the Constitution'? Government offices that fail to place notices of restricted access such as 'no trespassing' or that conduct business involving the customer's personal information in plain sight of other people, with and without cameras? The panicking clerk who calls police about a 'man with a camera'? The wrong-headed person who thinks s/he has the 'right to privacy' in the public domain?

The key objective of a journalist is to gather information,

I'm glad you said so.

How does a journalist gather information? Does s/he wait around passively for it to arrive in his/her hands? The journalist is flypaper. Does s/he gaze into a crystal ball? Does s/he allow his/her imagination to run wild (as if she/he is employed by CNN and MSNBC) and fabricate a story? The process of gathering involves taking action. Mr Reyes visits public facilities such as libraries and post offices. He restricts his gathering to those areas open to the public. In a few videos of his the officials don't react. They go on performing their duties. Reyes walks in lobbies, hallways, and other areas open to the public. Then he leaves and commends the employees of the facility. In most of his videos I've seen the gov't employee initiate verbal communication with Reyes. Most often it's a command such as 'You're not allowed to record' and 'Don't record me!' In some cases it's a question such as 'Do you have an appointment?' and 'Where are you going?' And off to the races we go. Reyes is a journalist. He's also a citizen. Being a journalist does not require him to relinquish his rights. Now, a journalist may be better informed about his/her rights than the average person, and some people don't care to defend their rights vigorously, but one person (or many people) voluntarily giving up their rights does not behoove anyone else to do so.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Indeed there was. Policies and practices that breach the Constitution and court rulings, for starters.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

And if a husband speaks in the forest, and his wife isn't there to hear him, is he still automatically wrong?

A person's rights are only violated IF they feel they are being violated. If I were to show up at a city hall to pay a ticket, I would have no qualms at all about turning off my cellphone or putting away my camera if I was filming, or wearing a mask if requested, or stopping at the security desk to check in and state my destination within the building, or have a temperature check, or remove my hat if in a courtroom, or in essence, comply with ANY REASONABLE POLICIES THAT ANY SANE AND CLEAR THINKING ADULT KNOWS TO BE IN EFFECT TO PROMOTE SMOOTH AND SECURE OPERATION OF THAT FACILITY.

And I would not feel that my rights were being violated if I was not free to do whatever the *advertiser censored* I please while a GUEST at that facility being allowed to tend to my business.

I also wouldn't feel my rights were being violated if I was not allowed to walk in and take over a building as these auditors attempt to do. That's called a CHOP zone. We saw that all last summer, right? Areas of cities that you can do anything the *advertiser censored* you please and no rules apply, except that eventually rules DID apply, made up and enforced by the warlord and his crew that took over the area.

EVERYTHING is a matter of perception.

LIA is even softer than he looks if he considers Phil's attempts to merely BLOCK his UNAUTHORIZED entry an assault. Ironically, the only contact Phil made with this pudgy dough-boy was the result of LIA bum rushing him and making contact with PHIL, who simply stood his ground and repelled LIA's advances. IMO, Phil showed incredible restraint in having someone repeated bump into him in an effort to force their way through him and not retaliate. Wouldn't have been me.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Another day of disrespect with monetizing misery his admitted gig. the public nuisance, Baby Huey, showed up to play Lawsuit Lotto at Port Jefferson Village Hall. You can't win Lawsuit Lotto if you don't play, right?

At 18:10, to the man standing near the door:

"Is that stare supposed to be intimidating? You're staring at me like you're "tough", but you're shaking".

Did he look to be afraid of Baby Huey to anyone? I didn't see him shaking in fear and I can see fear from a lot further away than that man was from the Dough Boy's camera. On the contrary, he looked locked and loaded to me, ready, willing, and able to go hands on with the Delusional Dough boy Sean if need be.

So once again, still ANOTHER auditor that is the self-professed "toughest man on earth", the list of the phony tough grows every day.

What should happen is that ALL of the Town Halls, their judges and officials for the New England area confer and coordinate their efforts on a plan of action to deter Baby Huey and others like him whose entire purpose is to disrupt the smooth operation and security of their operations for view$$$. The judges all need to be made aware that not just their facility is being adversely affected, but many other similar services as well and on a daily basis. Maybe a little bird will start the egg rolling in the right direction. Couldn't hurt to call their attention to all the videos and online relative material germane to LIA. Once they realize that LIA is a systemic, habitual nuisance, they may want to coordinate necessary steps to legally counter their collective daily inconvenience due to continued public mischief.