r/Frauditors

Just wondering: if it were 1776, would y’all be loyalists?

Or do you honestly think you’d have been patriots, defying authority, breaking laws you believed were unjust, and, gasp, maybe making money while doing it?

From the way so many of you react to people peacefully exercising rights today, it seems a lot more likely you’d have been telling the patriots to stop causing trouble, obey the law, and respect the King’s authority.

Yall red coats.

his pba planned protest was the size of about ten people not including his auditors such as lrt and that woman auditor who always wears pink he's friends with

the live stream itself only garnering about 59k views.. lrt mumbling shit in his fancy new goodwill find grey suit with his dollar store tie..

but all this said I figured something out. I think he should have focused on New York State from day one instead of cowboying around the country..

I think he's out of material.. his viewers are bored.. he's losing civil cases left and right.. his lawyers don't really come on his channel anymore including Jacob... obvious signs that lia is out of business from the perspective of attracting new interest in the masses and posting material that actually favors him

I also think right or wrong justice or not he stands some chance at losing this trespass case because at some point the system is going to work against him forcing an appeal and even if he wins that what did he really win

fapa has a better chance of succeeding because he kept his content simple and public sidewalk hosted

In YouTube comments recently, I've been pushing enforcement of Harassment laws as a tool to combat the Frauditor Crime Wave. Would like to get some thoughts on that approach. I don't think I've ever seen a Frauditor cited for Harassment. Harassment, I contend, is clearly what the thugs do, by definition.

Whatya think? Am I pissin' in the wind here? It wouldn't be the first time...

So so I watched Jason and Ben yesterday. They harassed this guy outside of Sweet Green in Denver Colorado. Normally the sycophant lens lickers would review bomb this business on Google.

I looked up their Google listing in Colorado, not a single one star review. This is not typical. I am wondering if Google has put a stop to these review bombs from fraduitor worshipers.

I once saw a clip of LPM and his crew got invited to try out a BJJ class and they folded. Would seriously love for these auditors to set foot in a proper competition

LI A was charged with third degree trespass [§ 140.10(a)] which reads:

{§ 140.10 Criminal trespass in the third degree.

A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property

(a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders; or}

The first part is the same as the base level charge of the trespass violation. The 3rd degree charge adds “which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders…”. (a) is what makes it a third degree charge…and New York courts have held that one of the two conditions is present as a necessary element of 3rd degree trespass.

The building wasn’t fenced and it wasn’t enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders. The woman who was also trying to get in got as far as he did when the gentlemen emerged from the building to trespass him.

Some cases:

From People v. Moore, 833 NE 2d 192 - NY: Court of Appeals 2005

The Penal Law provides that "[a] person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property (a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders" (Penal Law § 140.10 [a]). Although previous versions of the statute contained nearly identical language, the "fenced or otherwise enclosed" requirement was not contained in a separate subdivision until the statute was amended in 1987 (L 1987, ch 192). Prior to the amendment, the statute had apparently been interpreted so that knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in any building—fenced or unfenced—constituted criminal trespass in the third degree, as did knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully upon real property which was fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders. Under the prior statute, "the building was not required to be fenced or otherwise enclosed" (Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law art 140, at 13). The plain language of the statute as amended, however, clearly requires that both buildings and real property be fenced or otherwise enclosed in order to increase the level of culpability from trespass (see Penal Law § 140.05) to criminal trespass *727 in the third degree. The 1987 amendment thus narrowed the definition of criminal trespass in the third degree to require one of several enumerated conditions to be present.
This reading is consistent with the general scheme of article 140 of the Penal Law. Starting with the violation of trespass (see Penal Law § 140.05), the crimes become progressively more serious as they approach criminal trespass in the first degree (see Penal Law § 140.17). Since the violation of trespass requires only that a person "knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises" (Penal Law § 140.05), which includes buildings (see Penal Law § 140.00 [1]), section 140.10 (a) is properly interpreted as requiring the additional aggravating element that the building or area entered be fenced or otherwise enclosed in order to exclude intruders to elevate the crime from a violation to a class B misdemeanor.

In People v. Casatelli, 204 AD 3d 1092 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2022, Casatelli lost his appeals on his conviction for criminal trespass in the 3rd degree for following behind a student who had a swipe card without being invited to follow her in.

It’s possible that LIA could be convicted for leaving too slowly…but I’m not certain about that. What I am certain about is that he didn’t commit what he was charged for, trespass in the third degree.

Can the MODS please remove this pathetic "post flair" tags they assign the "boot kickers/lense lickers/fraudit lovers". It's pathetic and shows the same level of intelligence as a frauditor.

Try and be better than the frauditors, I am disappointed at the amount of hypocrisy amongst the so called "anti frauditor" group.

Many people in this group seem to think it's okay to hurt someone doing auditing, because they're "harassing people"

TMZ is the top tier of what I can picture as ACTUALLY harassing individuals with photos/videos.

Do you think people should go out and harm TMZ journalists? Think they're breaking the law?

Looks like LPM buddy Citizen Access Media - C.A.M. who got tackled in his video is up their in the age rank of LPM and others by looking at the top of his head. When LPM stepped on the frauditor scene he was ready to throw hands. Not so much now, maybe because of his recent arrests?

Lenslickers doing what they do best.

Would anyone doing it be immediately hated by your group, or does it really depend on how they act??

I personally love watching these "travel" videos, depending on my mood. I often watch ACTUAL travel videos, or things like "best ever food review show" where he travels and tries food. I also love watching auditing videos, especially when I see some liar or criminal get caught. Or the govt auditing videos where folks stand up for their rights against the government.

So are ALL public videos hated by this group? Or just particular ones? Would you be open to someone you think is "nice" or "good" doing the videos to see if things are different?

Is there any more of these? Let’s hear some water laws.

I certainly think the frauditors are completely ridiculous.

But I also feel there are a lot of grifters feeding off this. I'm also shocked at the age of the people from both sides. Some of these people are closer to elderly than teenage.

Does anyone else feel both YouTube sides are grifters?

This just seems a big game for money now

So as the title suggest I watch frauditor videos sometimes and I’ve notice a TON of them just yelling out all these case laws and I go look them up and they rarely Apple to the situation in the video!!!! Anyone else notice that? Example would be Bay Area transparency in his latest video kept saying “Branzburg v. Hayes was anywhere the public can go a journalist can go. Then I go look it up and it absolutely does not say that.it says the first amendment gives no absolute reporters privilege against grand jury testimony about confidential information! WILDLY different than what he tried to say.