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

[ga gamba]

Am I right? Or do you derive some deep, personal satisfaction and a feeling of unbridled patriotism, all warm and doughy inside from watching these 1st amendment heroes make the world a safer place for you to exist in?

I feel satisfied, even happy, when the journalist visits a public place and nothing happens. This informs me those particular public employees have a good understanding of the law and practice their authority in compliance. Did they gain this from their parents, their teachers, independent study, or training from the employer? I don't know. But it demonstrates that such a goal is attainable.

I'm saddened when public employees overstep their authority. At times I'm angered when it goes haywire and threats of arrest are made and even executed.

I'm pleased when an errant public employee is corrected by a supervisor before it goes loopy. I hope the correction is a permanent remedy.

"I have a 1A right to do this, the auditors made it possible"?

There are a variety of people who made this possible. I look back to Magna Carta, which established the foundation for the contemporary powers of the British Parliament and US Congress and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Athenian democracy too. Moving forward, the natural rights philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Rousseau. The colonial publisher John Zenger who won a freedom of the press court case against the colonial governor even before the US was founded. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Citizen militia and soldiers who have fought. People who have challenged the overreaching authority of the State. And on it goes. These journalists are amongst a long line of people whose exercise of their rights keep freedoms relevant, viable, strong, and secure. If you don't exercise them, they atrophy. Am I better off because of them (and those I haven't mentioned)? Indeed I am.

 

[ga gamba]

They couldn't because the had their firearms stripped away and were marched into camps. Some people don't forget history and take steps to make sure it doesn't repeat

Amen.

 

[S.SaulGood]

They couldn't because the had their firearms stripped away and were marched into camps. Some people don't forget history and take steps to make sure it doesn't repeat

I haven't seen 2A discussed here once. Not once in any of my posts anyway. Where do you get this stuff? How does that apply here? The theme of the forum is FAAN. FAA stands for first Amendment audit or auditor. And aside from a thread or two about Jason Gutterman's twin sidearms (too bad he doesn't have a third arm, right?) and SGV carrying a holstered taser that looks exactly like a holstered Glock, purposely, I'm sure, this is the first reference to firearms I've seen, because I can't recall any other and my memory is like a friggin' elephant's, as the saying goes.

Now since you DID bring it up, have you seen any videos of cops marching !AAers into death camps? Where doctors and scientists will conduct brutally horrific experiments on them? Like re-breaking their legs in 8 places every time they start to heal so they can note how many times a bone will heal? Or live vivisections? To see at what point shock kills a 1AA auditor and how it varies with adrenalin? You say it's "Nazi Germany" to have to sign in at a city hall so security can know who is in the building and where. Do you equate sign in policies with Nazi death camp experimentation or simple Zyklon B gassing? Curious.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Harassment, threats, and impeding are crimes. Plates and VINs are publicly viewable and can be covered if wanting to. Seems like you have a big problem with free speech and like to group it together threats. You're probably one of those "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" types

YES. I am definitely one of those "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" types. Though I'm not surprised that you would condone a practice that would needlessly cause such mayhem and might result in the injury to those trying to stampede their way out, hopefully, all stampeding over you, as would be fitting for any jackass that would willingly subject so many people to danger for their own warped sense of amusement. Do you also condone hurling bowling balls from overpasses into windshields?
How about actual arson? Condone that too? All in fun of course, for your amusement? You can set the fire and then watch property burn for afar, laughing like a hyena; all the better if someone goes up in flames with the building.

I'm done with you. Anyone who derives pleasure in the pain and potential injury of others is truly worthless, IMO. Truly without value.

 

[Swig]

I haven't seen 2A discussed here once. Not once in any of my posts anyway. Where do you get this stuff? How does that apply here? The theme of the forum is FAAN. FAA stands for first Amendment audit or auditor. And aside from a thread or two about Jason Gutterman's twin sidearms (too bad he doesn't have a third arm, right?) and SGV carrying a holstered taser that looks exactly like a holstered Glock, purposely, I'm sure, this is the first reference to firearms I've seen, because I can't recall any other and my memory is like a friggin' elephant's, as the saying goes.

Now since you DID bring it up, have you seen any videos of cops marching !AAers into death camps? Where doctors and scientists will conduct brutally horrific experiments on them? Like re-breaking their legs in 8 places every time they start to heal so they can note how many times a bone will heal? Or live vivisections? To see at what point shock kills a 1AA auditor and how it varies with adrenalin? You say it's "Nazi Germany" to have to sign in at a city hall so security can know who is in the building and where. Do you equate sign in policies with Nazi death camp experimentation or simple Zyklon B gassing? Curious.

Funny how the only form of argument you have is senseless dribble stacked paragraphs high and absurd hypotheticals. I don't condone yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's not speech, its a call to action. I just threw that out there to prove you are what you are. That was pretty easy. To many logical fallacies to pick apart here.
"You say it's "Nazi Germany" to have to sign in at a city hall so security can know who is in the building and where"
Did I? Did I say that? Who ties your shoes?
Also people did stand up to the Gestapo at times. They we defenseless and they were shot. Why are there no video?!?! I dunno champ maybe because it was 1938?

 

[Swig]

YES. I am definitely one of those "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" types. Though I'm not surprised that you would condone a practice that would needlessly cause such mayhem and might result in the injury to those trying to stampede their way out, hopefully, all stampeding over you, as would be fitting for any jackass that would willingly subject so many people to danger for their own warped sense of amusement. Do you also condone hurling bowling balls from overpasses into windshields?
How about actual arson? Condone that too? All in fun of course, for your amusement? You can set the fire and then watch property burn for afar, laughing like a hyena; all the better if someone goes up in flames with the building.

I'm done with you. Anyone who derives pleasure in the pain and potential injury of others is truly worthless, IMO. Truly without value.

You just invented an entire baseless scenario about me as a copout because I'm making you look like the braindead drooling moron that you are. Bringing up of the old red herring "yelling fire in a crowded theater" during a 1A speech is an easy way to expose how truly inept someone is at debate. But go on and write up more idiotic posts about 100s of auditors rushing a building. Hopefully you don't run out of crayons

 

[Swig]

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]

Funny how the only form of argument you have is senseless dribble stacked paragraphs high and absurd hypotheticals. I don't condone yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's not speech, its a call to action. I just threw that out there to prove you are what you are. That was pretty easy. To many logical fallacies to pick apart here.
"You say it's "Nazi Germany" to have to sign in at a city hall so security can know who is in the building and where"
Did I? Did I say that? Who ties your shoes?
Also people did stand up to the Gestapo at times. They we defenseless and they were shot. Why are there no video?!?! I dunno champ maybe because it was 1938?

Senseless "dribble"? Do you mean "drivel", genius?

No video from 1938? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Dribble' on, clown.

You do realize that the MORE posts, the MORE words in this thread, the HIGHER the placement of results on internet search engines, yes? This thread is already on page 1 of most internet searches for LIA. You're aware of little else it would seem at face value, maybe you might possess a rudimentary inkling of HOW internet search engines work, although with some of the things you come out with, I would doubt you have much awareness of anything aside from your hatred of rules and policies to maintain order in society and grease it's wheels?

 

[S.SaulGood]

You just invented an entire baseless scenario about me as a copout because I'm making you look like the braindead drooling moron that you are. Bringing up of the old red herring "yelling fire in a crowded theater" during a 1A speech is an easy way to expose how truly inept someone is at debate. But go on and write up more idiotic posts about 100s of auditors rushing a building. Hopefully you don't run out of crayons

Listen, seriously, I have a stressful job, a thing I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to have the necessities nor experience to imagine.

I've been thinking about hiring a personal clown. A court jester, if you will. Someone to amuse me. I was wondering if you'd like the job because based on what you've come out with here, you don't even have to audition, the job is yours if you want to work, maybe to help subsidize your drugs, or whatever.

You don't even have to do much, because you're perfect for the job just as you are, Pagliacci. You don't have to juggle, or make stupid faces, or wear those big Bozo shoes and a red ping pong ball on your schnozz. None of that. All you have to do is TALK. State something and then later in the same sentence contradict yourself! Dangle participles, split infinitives, come out with gems like "There is no video from 1938"; things like that!!
Just verbalize the same kind of utter *advertiser censored* you've slung since you started posting in this thread. The total nonsense. That, in and of itself, is funny enough and will keep me amused. If I find it so funny just reading it, I can just imagine how hilarious it will be having you here coming out with this blather in person!!! You're a comical genius. That's all you'd have to do and I'll hire you. Just be you and share your thought. Maybe an occasional pie in the face when you come out with a real gem, it'll be lots of fun.
What do you say, Punchinello?

 

[ga gamba]

Bringing up of the old red herring "yelling fire in a crowded theater" during a 1A speech is an easy way to expose how truly inept someone is at debate.

Is this a red herring? No, at least it's not obvious to me why it might be. It's an old chestnut - tedious because of its age and constant repetition. Tedious, but it isn't inaccurate. I suppose the contemporary version would be a person shouting 'Bomb!' in a crowded airport. If you want a messier situation to consider, how ought a person shouting 'Allahu akbar' (religious speech that is often shouted at the start of a violent act, but is not exclusively a call to violence) in an airport be handled?

Anyway, as it is, I haven't seen these journalists speak or act in ways that could be construed as shouts of fire, bomb, and allahu akbar. Nothing done to instill panic and causing life endangering flight and trampling.

And to digress, it's interesting the Court, when crafting the example to illustrate where speech limits in the public domain are acceptable, used the theatre, typically a privately owned space. To me, the Court recognised some privately owned spaces function as quasi-public. An example of this is when the Court ruled in Marsh v Alabama that a privately owned company town could not impose speech restrictions and trespass people exercising their speech rights because 1) it functioned as a public space like towns that are not privately owned and 2) the privately owned space was freely accessible to non-resident employees - it wasn't walled or gated and no don't not trespass signs were posted.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Is this a red herring? No, at least it's not obvious to me why it might be. It's an old chestnut - tedious because of its age and constant repetition. Tedious, but it isn't inaccurate. I suppose the contemporary version would be a person shouting 'Bomb!' in a crowded airport. If you want a messier situation to consider, how ought a person shouting 'Allahu akbar' (religious speech that is often shouted at the start of a violent act, but is not exclusively a call to violence) in an airport be handled?

Anyway, as it is, I haven't seen these journalists speak or act in ways that could be construed as shouts of fire, bomb, and allahu akbar. Nothing done to instill panic and causing life endangering flight and trampling.

And to digress, it's interesting the Court, when crafting the example to illustrate where speech limits in the public domain are acceptable, used the theatre, typically a privately owned space. To me, the Court recognised some privately owned spaces function as quasi-public. An example of this is when the Court ruled in Marsh v Alabama that a privately owned company town could not impose speech restrictions and trespass people exercising their speech rights because 1) it functioned as a public space like towns that are not privately owned and 2) the privately owned space was freely accessible to non-resident employees - it wasn't walled or gated and no don't not trespass signs were posted.

Well, I just hope he considers my offer to hire him as a clown because I could use his comic relief to mitigate daily stress. He could even bring with him whatever herrings he pleases, red, green, blue, silver, doesn't matter to me. He could bring them in hand, rat-holed up his *advertiser censored*, even juggle them for all I care. I think he's a comic genius, whether he intends to be or not, it just comes natural to him, some are gifted like that.

"No videos from 1938" and then to add, "You're an idiot for thinking there are", I paraphrase; well... I just love those zany double strokes of raw, abject stupidity. Funny as hell.



Sadly, I think he's busy working on his next series of lawsuits. Too busy for us right now! Drat.

 

[Ivo]

'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.

This Scumbag wanders around buildings muttering to his phone until someone asks him what hes doing - then - being a pasive agresive - he baits and agitates workers and officials to get his video footage - he cries crime at any opportunity and if he cant get that he drops to complaints and FOIAs - anything to aggrevate and agitate - classicaly he throws shouts his slogan about all this for a camera - its NEVER about the camera - its the dick head holding it and shoveing it inot people and places

 

[S.SaulGood]

This Scumbag wanders around buildings muttering to his phone until someone asks him what hes doing - then - being a pasive agresive - he baits and agitates workers and officials to get his video footage - he cries crime at any opportunity and if he cant get that he drops to complaints and FOIAs - anything to aggrevate and agitate - classicaly he throws shouts his slogan about all this for a camera - its NEVER about the camera - its the dick head holding it and shoveing it inot people and places

Ironically, though a main component of 1AA auditors appears to be doxing their victims for the edification of their followers, another thing 1AA tormentors all have in common is protecting their own identities. Some go to great lengths to attempt to shield their identities, BUT ONCE THEY ARE ARRESTED, is open for scrutiny by the public, which can easily be expanded on by using databases on the web, and if not there, on the deep and/or dark web. These people are no where near as smart as they think they are.

Like I've said before, "Dumb as an ox" isn't fair to the ox. I prefer to say they're all about as "smart as one".

 

[ga gamba]

someone asks him what hes doing

It's very clear what he's doing. He's recording and 'muttering' into his phone/camera. It's so obvious that it doesn't need to be asked. The better question is: 'Why are you recording?' As good a question that it is, some public servants think they are entitled to an answer and detailed explanation. They aren't. Often, but not always, Sean (and others) reply with something like 'I'm doing this for a project' and 'I'm gathering material for a story.' Having been given an answer, the public servant continues to press. This usually gets the reply of, 'At this time I'm not going to disclose the details of my story/where it will be published,' or similar.

Certainly the public official may ask questions. And also certainly the journalist may choose what info, if any, to disclose. Asking the same question again and again is certainly pestering. Demanding a journalist cease doing a lawful and protected activity is a breach of their authority and public trust. What happens next is the public servant, having been declined something s/he wasn't entitled, decides to escalate by calling security and/or police.

Entering a public facility and limiting oneself to the areas open to the public such as lobbies, foyers, waiting areas, art and historical exhibits, and unrestricted hallways is not provocative. Recording is not provocative. Public facilities are chock full of cameras - there are 15.28 CCTV cameras (both public and private) for every 100 individuals in the US - 2019 data. Many police wear body cameras. Many vehicles have front and rear mounted 'black box' video recording devices. Further, the Court has ruled repeatedly there is no expectation of privacy in the public domain. Yet, the dim persist.

Now, who's being provocative? The journalist doing lawful things? Or the uninformed public servant who persists at asking the same questions, who states incorrectly 'You're not allowed to record here', who calls police for no reason, and the police officer(s) who threatens arrest over a policy that violates the law?

 

[ga gamba]

protecting their own identities. Some go to great lengths to attempt to shield their identities,

Is refusing to answer a question 'going to great lengths'? I suppose you and I have different definitions of this measure. The Court has ruled police may ask a person to dentity him/herself voluntarily. The Court has also ruled people may decline. You've certainly seen the journalists ask this question: 'Am I being threatened with arrest if I refuse to give you my ID?' and 'If I'm being threatened with arrest, I will give you ID.' That's a terrific question and statement. It establishes the officer is no longer requesting but demanding. You'll see often the officer evades answering the question - they understand the distinction between voluntary and mandatory. All people ought to ask this question. It would help clear up the ambiguity of the interaction.

BUT ONCE THEY ARE ARRESTED, is open for scrutiny by the public, which can easily be expanded on by using databases on the web, and if not there, on the deep and/or dark web. These people are no where near as smart as they think they are.

This is absolutely true. An arrest is a public record. I suppose these journalists understand that this is a risk of their activities. Those who don't understand this have failed to perform their due diligence. But I lack your powers of clairvoyance, so what's going on in their noggins re this specific issue I may only guess.

 

[Juan Paul]

You know what the MAIN issue here really is? What supersedes ANY discourse on the law vs. policies? WHY the !AAs are REALLY there. WHY they push everyone's buttons.

Here it is. Plain and simple. Right from two auditors who were foolishly candid enough to admit it:

Sean-Paul Reyes:

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"

Those are HIS words. Not mine. It's not a crusade. It wasn't started as a crusade. Matter of fact, PRIOR to losing his job or quitting, there's no mention or record of his ever doing an audit. HE calls it, "a gig".

Anselmo Enrique (Auditing America) Morales-Torres:

Anselmo: This is my job
Cop: You get paid for doing this?
Anselmo: You think I'd be here (at the post office needlessly pestering people and impeding the flow of business) on a Tuesday? You think I'd be talking to people for FREE? (Chuckle/cackle).

Do you honestly think that !AAs would give a flying rat's *advertiser censored* about who's a tyrant and who's not? About which policies are trumped by law, if youtube monetization wasn't the main component to it?

Sounds like your mad bro ! Mad about another man making money are you . If your not comfortable with what your making in your profession that’s no one else’s problem!

 

[S.SaulGood]

Sounds like your mad bro ! Mad about another man making money are you . If your not comfortable with what your making in your profession that’s no one else’s problem!

What's "your mad bro". I don't own a "mad bro". So I have no idea just WTF you're trying to spew.

Now, if you mean "you're mad, bro", you're being the contraction for "you are", THEN I understand the statement and can respond to it.

So let's clarify that before I respond to your typical *advertiser censored*. Is that what you meant to ask? Were you asking if I was mad? Which should be written, "Sounds like YOU'RE mad, (comma) Bro?".
Now, see the difference, you semi-literate air-head?

Which is it, "Sounds like your mad bro" or "Sounds like you're mad, Bro"?

And before proceeding with your typical nonsense, here's a gift for you. The gift of punctuation:

, , , , , , , , , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

By learning to use these correctly, you can communicate more effectively and actually fool some far more literate and intelligent people than you into believing you may be their equal. SOME, but by no means all.

Use them, and when you run out, don't worry, I have lots more. They are the gift that just keeps giving, you're welcome, you poor, ignorant *advertiser censored*.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Sounds like your mad bro ! Mad about another man making money are you . If your not comfortable with what your making in your profession that’s no one else’s problem!

I still can't understand. And I'm usually good at interpreting the gibberish of low-grade morons, but this *advertiser censored* here takes the grammatical cake, you are the champ. Little wonder that you're a troublemaker and beggar by profession.

I'm going to attempt unscrambling your garbage. Is this what you tried to wrestle with your petrified brain over?

"It sounds as if you're mad, Bro! Mad about another man making money, are you?
If you're uncomfortable with the amount of money you make, that's no one else's problem other than your own."

Is that it? In a nutshell about the size of your calcified brain?

Please explain how you equate anything I've written here ABOUT YOU with MY personal finances. Just HOW you made that incredibly asinine leap, Baby Huey. Try to surprise me. I've already drafted my response to EXACTLY what you're going to spew, BH.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Sounds like your mad bro ! Mad about another man making money are you . If your not comfortable with what your making in your profession that’s no one else’s problem!

As long as I drew you out, like a Hun finally coming out of the cave; took 4 pages and 70+ posts because you're so friggin' dense.

So let me ask while you're here:

1) re: Your enthusiastic Constitutional activism. Did it begin BEFORE you lost your job, moving *advertiser censored* around in a warehouse? Or did it begin, as YOU said, "Once I realized I made $8000 the first month"?

2) The endless Go Fund Me (begging with the tin cup with 2 loaves of bread under your arm ($600K+ yearly FROM YOUTUBE ALONE). Will it continue if you hit 1,000,000 subscribers, your stated goal? You're STILL going to pull out the tin cup and cry "poverty" to your followers, even with 1 Mil. subscribers? I already know the answer, "well have to see", with "well" written instead of we'll. ROFL

 

[S.SaulGood]

Sounds like your mad bro ! Mad about another man making money are you . If your not comfortable with what your making in your profession that’s no one else’s problem!

C'Mon now. That's it? You shot your load and THAT was IT? You've got to be kidding me. As much of a Chatty Cathy as you are in your 1A torment videos, as someone here noted, constantly mumbling plaintively into your recorder, complaining to yourself in the second party about people around you DOING THEIR JOBS, THIS was it? A comment about ME? About MY money?

Let's talk about YOU YOU YOU. The STAR of the LIA Side Show. Let's talk about Side Show Sean. Can you quickly say that 5 times in a row? Side Show Sean, Side Show Sean, yatta yatta? I'll bet you can't.

You being the star of the sideshow and wanting to talk about MY MONEY is like the dancing bear wanting to talk about what the guy in the front row at ringside under Barnum and Bailey's big top had for breakfast. NO. WE want to know about the dancing bear.

So get the dancing bear back in here and tell him to answer some of the questions posed above. They're pretty simple ones. I haven't even gotten to any of the tougher questions like 34 shared registered occupants in one modestly sized home and scads of sequentially numbered post office boxes. We can cover some of those and MORE later on, Sideshow, it'll be fun, I can assure you; very entertaining for at least one of us anyway, I would predict.

And what the hell is wrong with that, right? Technically, you are in the entertainment business, right, Sideshow Sean? Say that 5 times quickly. Makes a daunting tongue twister, but not nearly as twisted into a knot as your tongue appears to be at this point.