The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report: Breaking News Edition. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. Now to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today, we will achieve that goal by reporting on a disturbing story that has been growing more and more alarming as it unfolds. I’m talking about the current ordeal of cop watcher Long Island Audit.

As you already know, Long Island Audit, also known as SeanPaul Reyes, has been covering police misconduct for roughly five years. His provocative videos and creative tactics have garnered him millions of subscribers and a huge audience, but it has also attracted the attention of law enforcement, according to SeanPaul. And some of that attention could have significant consequences for him and his family.

This comes on top of a broad demonetization of cop watching and auditing videos. So to unpack what’s happening and the consequences for SeanPaul, we will be speaking to him shortly.

But first, I want to turn to my reporting partner about the importance of the First Amendment and the pushback he encountered from law enforcement during his reporting. Stephen Janis, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Well, unfortunately, I dragged you inside to talk about something a little disturbing.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, very, very disturbing. And when I was reading what Sean had sent us about what’s happening to him, I was thinking about some of my own situations. Just recently we were reporting on the firing of the first Black police chief of Pokemoke City, which is a small town on the Eastern Shore. We were investigated as part of a grand jury investigation into an interview we tried to do with one of the witnesses in the case, and they made our lives miserable. But I think the point behind it was that they wanted to prevent us from reporting on this story. The witness had lied, the prosecutors were basically covering up and they didn’t want us to know about it. And the way they intimidated us was impaneling a grand jury and starting to investigate us and lawyers telling me they’re going to show up at your work, they might show up at your house, but they’re going to show up.

And fortunately, the judge in the case though it was absolutely invalid and it never went forward. But we were very much on the verge of it, very least being called in front of a grand jury, which has all sorts of fraud implications. So I really, really have problems with the idea of law enforcement criminalizing speech or dissent. And I think that’s why we need to unpack this in detail and understand what’s really going on here and the implications that go beyond just SeanPaul’s work and his career, but the implications for all people who use the First Amendment as a tool for their reporting or their dissent or anything.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. I think everyone out there needs to care about the First Amendment. You have to exercise your rights or you’re going to miss them when you lose them.

All right, so let’s bring in our guest, Long Island Audit. SeanPaul, thank you so much for joining us.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you so much for having me. It’s always a pleasure to be on with you guys.

Taya Graham:

So first I have to ask you, how are you doing?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I wouldn’t say I’m paranoid, but I’m definitely cautious. I’m definitely vigilant of my surroundings now. My life has definitely changed. My family’s life has definitely changed from this information that has been revealed and just being cautious and obeying the law like normal, just hoping that evil people don’t do evil things.

Taya Graham:

So SeanPaul, you’ve received some pretty disturbing messages. I’m going to put one on the screen and read a little, but I’m just going to say something first. While we can discuss the nature of the threats, we cannot name or disclose any information that would point to a particular person or even hint at a particular agency. And the reason for this is clear. At this point, we cannot confirm this information. And for all we know, it could simply be a way to scare or intimidate you, but we feel that it is noteworthy because of the far-reaching implications if it’s true. However, we also have to abide by our journalistic ethics and not disclose something about a specific person or entity that is so far unproven or that we have not ourselves confirmed. So we’re just going to keep that in mind as we discuss this.

So I’m going to put up the first threat and Cam, if you could put up Long Island Audit JPEG one and then two as I read.

I hope this email finds you well. If I didn’t write this email and something happened to you, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. At the same time, I’m not a supporter of yours or agree with the tactics you choose to expose police, politicians and the like. I also don’t like or agree with violence. With that said, let me get to the point of my email. SeanPaul, you are in grave danger. Your home is about to be raided sometime soon during the month of September. From what I understand, a search warrant will be approved to search for some investigative paperwork that you illegally got or received. The warrant will be also used to search for communications between you and other cop watchers.

I believe this warrant will be served by [redacted]. You are being investigated for being the leader of an anti-police government terrorist group. You’re probably wondering how I know this. OK, Sean, just even reading that just made my stomach knot up. How did you feel when you received this message? And since you’ve received it, have you learned anything else about what might happen?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, this was the second message in a line of messages that I received as far as warnings go. When I read this one, what stood out to me the most was the fact that they’re not even a supporter, allegedly. Again, I don’t know. I can’t confirm who these people are. I can’t confirm that they are who they say they are, rather. The people that they claim to be do exist, but I can’t confirm who they are. I’m working on that now. But these people are terrified and they don’t agree with what’s happening to me. They don’t agree with my tactics, as you heard, but they don’t agree with violence, and they believe that the government is going to be using violence in order to chill my free speech and intimidate me and stop me from asking questions. And that’s always concerning to me, especially because I live with my wife and my two young children who are three and four years old, and it’s definitely something that they didn’t sign up for and it’s not something that should be acceptable under our Constitution, under our First Amendment.

This should not be happening, this kind of threats.

Stephen Janis:

You know, Sean, journalists come into possession of all sorts of documents. What is the nexus of this warrant? What exactly could they be trying to do or trying to get from you or what could they use as fodder to get a judge to approve this? It sounds pretty farfetched to me, but I was just wondering if you had any idea of what they might be trying to do here.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, Stephen, it is farfetched, and I have no idea. I’ve racked my brain for hours trying to figure out what exactly is this evidence that I illegally obtained, allegedly. I have no idea. Everything that I’ve ever obtained has been legally and through the FOIA process, either through the federal FOIA process or New York State FOIA commissions. It’s always been legally obtained through open records requests. So I have no idea. Again, it’s just concerning to me that this would happen.

And the circumstantial evidence that comes along with it, these emails are that the Suffolk County District Attorney Ray’s Attorney’s office he did in fact subpoena 14 months of my financial records from various social media accounts that have been confirmed to me, Facebook, TikTok, Google. There could be others. They do not have to let you know. The reason why I know that they requested 14 months from those particular social media agencies companies is because the social media companies themselves advised me that they were going to be handing over this information, but there could be bank accounts. My lawyer tells me there could be a myriad of other options of them trying to get financial. And on a violation trespass, which doesn’t even amount to a crime, it’s a violation of law no different than a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, for them to request such substantial information, financial information from me leads me to believe that there’s more going on here than a trespass violation And it’s financial records, RICO, go hand in hand. So it’s definitely something that’s concerning to me and my attorneys and I are watching out for.

Stephen Janis:

Well, just to make a finer point here, I would come into possession of all sorts of documents as a reporter, like homicide records, stuff that wasn’t public, but it was never illegal. You can’t prosecute someone if someone… You could prosecute a person who leaked it possibly, but of course these are state records, so they’re not classified to begin with. But you can’t prosecute someone if someone came to your doorstep and dropped off a bunch of internal records from, say, any police department, that’s not illegal, right? I mean, that’s like First Amendment journalism. I mean, it sounds kind of sketchy.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, it definitely is sketchy. Again, I’ve only ever obtained documents legally. I haven’t even obtained anything sensitive or anything where the general public wouldn’t have access to them anyway. And like you said, Stephen, if somebody came and dropped something off at my house that was confidential information, not subject to FOIA, as long as it’s not top secret classified, we’re talking about state documents here, I don’t see where the crime would be. But again, that hasn’t even risen to that level. Everything I’ve ever received has been in the course of investigations through open records requests.

And at the end of the day, they know that. I mean, they have to know that. I don’t know what type of case they’re trying to build. I’m not a criminal. I do not engage in RICO, don’t have some criminal enterprise. I’m a law-abiding citizen with a company incorporated in New York state. I pay my taxes. Everything is legitimate about me. So I’m not really worried about the strength of a case that they can bring against me, but you can indict a ham sandwich is that old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich and on a RICO case, that would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. And as I always say on my channel, the process is the punishment. So I wouldn’t put it past them to just do it. We’ve seen it with this federal government already in different instances and the weaponization of the justice system. But to use it, that’s what makes it even more concerning for me is that we’ve seen it happen before. So now I’m not on the list of the friendly people to the administration for my views on ICE, for law enforcement with Lucivillo and my criticism of Suffolk County Police Union. So there’s a lot going on and I know that I’m innocent. I haven’t committed any crimes, but it’s definitely concerning, especially for my wife and my family, my mother, my children. It’s concerning information, especially the violence part of it.

Stephen Janis:

It’s totally understandable. And it’s very scary that they’re going after your financial records, which seem to me completely irrelevant to anything that they’re going to, whatever they’re pursuing. Go ahead, Taya, sorry.

Taya Graham:

No, I was just thinking if you’re guilty, you need one lawyer. If you’re innocent, you need two. Honestly, this is incredibly disturbing.

Now, you did mention that you might have some lawyers. It sounds to me like you might need a team of them. And if you don’t have lawyers, how are you prepared to defend yourself if worst comes to worst and you’re actually are raided?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, I do have a New York state attorney already. His name is Jacob Uriel. He is always on retainer for my company and for myself personally for any sort of criminal charges or civil things that are happening, but I would need more than just him. I would hire a team. There’s one thing that I would never do is be facing down the barrel of fraudulent, made-up RICO charges and take that lightly. So I would have to do what I have to do. Again, the process is the punishment. If I got to take out loans and I have to do what I need to do, a home equity line of credit to be able to pay for this legal defense, whatever needs to be done is going to get done. And that’s why I made the video that I did where I spoke about this because at the end of the day, if they have a valid search warrant, I’m not going to stop them.

I’m not violent. They can search my property. Whatever the warrant says they need to search, they can search. I have nothing to hide. I’ve not moved anything from my house since learning this. Nothing has changed about my routines because there’s nothing to change. But the only thing that concerned me was the allegations of using some sort of SWAT team in order to enter my house. And again, more process is the punishment to intimidate me, intimidate my family. And I think that’s a very dangerous, volatile escalation that doesn’t need to happen even if they are investigating some sort of RICO case. And I wanted to make that clear to the public that I’m not a threat to law enforcement. Law enforcement knows that. I’m not engaging in any criminal activity, but I will comply with any court order for a search warrant or anything like that and we can handle it in court.

But to terrify my family with flash bangs and entering in at 3:00 in the morning is just not necessary.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, I’ve watched a ton of your videos. I’ve never seen you engage in violence or even threats. Have you ever, as a cop watcher, threatened to do something violent or acted in any violent way during a cop watch? I mean, is there anything that you’ve ever done? And I’m just asking for the record here to make sure it’s on the record, depending on what happens. Have you ever?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. So in my entire career, I’ve never made any threats of violence or engaged in any acts of violence or even used profanity against law enforcement officers, which is my First Amendment right. I don’t believe that that serves the purpose of what I’m trying to accomplish. And I think the results of my activism and my journalism speak for themselves when police departments till this day continue to invite me to do trainings with them, ride alongs, district attorney’s offices, police departments, all facets of law enforcement want to come together with me and show that they are transparent, that they’re willing to learn, to hear a different perspective, not because I’m some sort of law or legal expert, but because I’m a real life person who has garnered a lot of supporters and I’ve dealt with a lot of police interactions from across the country, from New York to California and everywhere in between.

So I think they value that insight. Until this day, I receive requests to do trainings with law enforcement officers. So if law enforcement agencies though I was some sort of threat or had any sort of violent intent, they wouldn’t be wanting to work with me. So no, my videos speak for themselves, Stephen. I’ve never even cursed. I’ve never even raised my voice. I can defend myself and I can have my little quick witty remarks, I would call them witty remarks. But as far as violence, no, I’ve never engaged in violence and I abhor violence and I always want people to be peaceful because it distracts away from the message of accountability and transparency.

Stephen Janis:

And it’s funny, Sean, we know a lot of cop watchers who curse, but I noticed that you don’t even curse. You keep it pretty friendly. I mean, even in the —

Taya Graham:

Keep it professional.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

SeanPaul Reyes:

There was one time I was doing a cop watch in Connecticut and somebody, an officer, a state trooper had somebody pulled over on the side of the road. This was just recently, a couple weeks ago. And I told him, well, thanks for not spitting in my face. Because of course, Brian Fahey, the former sergeant spit in my face. And he looked confused and he said, well, why would I do that? You’re one of the most polite auditors I’ve ever seen in my life. He was like, you’re a very nice guy. And I’m like, well, there you go. There’s one of them. But again, and there’s a lot of law enforcement officers out there that support me behind the scenes. This is how I get a lot of this information. And again, because they know I’m not anti-law enforcement. I’m anti the apparatus of the police unions, the administration in protecting misconduct by officers, by not having accountability or transparency in these investigations.

Taya Graham:

I’m really glad we put that on the record, but let me just read the next communication you received, once again, with all the identifying information redacted. Quote, “They’ve been doing a lot of digging into your past and your family’s past. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but undercover officers are following you. But that’s not the most alarming thing that they’re doing. They’re currently in talks with the Department of Justice trying to figure out possible federal crimes they can prosecute you with. They’ve come up with a plan to arrest you and prosecute you on a RICO case. When I heard this, I couldn’t believe it. I even said, ‘Do you really believe you can indict him on RICO?’ They laughed and said, ‘Absolutely.’ The goal isn’t even to have you found guilty. They want to make you spend all your money defending yourself and at the same time, make you the national poster child for YouTube domestic terrorists. I know this email may shock you, but I’m telling you, they’re coming after you hard. You have no idea the reach these people have. I hope this email helps you protect yourself against these people.”

OK. Again, let me just get your reaction when you received it and did you think it was legitimate?

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I received that email first before the second one, but my reaction was the same. I receive a lot of shocking emails. I’ve received many death threats. I don’t speak about them all the time because it’s unfortunately a part of society. There are some sick individuals out there who will threaten your children, who will threaten your family members, your own life, and engage in some sort of hateful just vengeance against you. I don’t know what it is, but it’s sick. And I don’t talk about that all the time, but when I’m getting these sorts of emails and they all seem to have common threads: RICO cases, federal cases, poster boy for YouTube domestic terrorism, and they’re coming from separate people, separate email addresses, email addresses that have been created years and years ago. Again, I’ve looked into this a little bit, and we do not know for a fact if these are actually legit or they could be coming from the people just trying to scare me, but it’s definitely intimidating to me and concerning because my family’s at stake here, that I can defend myself and I can hire lawyers and the people have my back, but I would just hate it.

It would be something that I couldn’t even comprehend if my three and four-year-old boys, who actually look up to the police at this point and they see them as heroes, and I don’t want to disillusion them from that at three and four years old and traumatize them. Or even my wife who’s dealt with her own tyranny back in her home country that she fled to come here. She was a patriot in her country. She loved freedom and to see this. I’ve had mass law enforcement officers from Nassau County come to my house before and try and run me off the road. And these are things that have been happening to me, these intimidation tactics, trying to pick you up on a Friday night so you have to spend the weekend in jail, holding you for eight hours on a desk appearance ticket, which should only take like an hour.

These are the kinds of intimidation tactics, scare tactics that I’ve seen that law enforcement will unfortunately engage in to get you to stop talking about what they don’t want you to talk about. They hate the First Amendment. These individuals particularly hate the First Amendment. They don’t like what I do. They don’t like that I make money while doing it and they want to stop that at all costs. I’m going to keep fighting. I’m going to keep speaking truth to power because if I give up, all these people, millions of people have given me a voice, a strong voice, a platform, and if I give up, I feel like I would be letting them down. So I’m going to keep fighting, but I’m going to remain vigilant, and I’m going to continue speaking truth to power, but I have to be careful for my family because that’s where my loyalty lies first.

Stephen Janis:

I mean, this is a horrible thing to contemplate, but have you talked to your family? Have you prepared them at all? Have you told them about these messages, and have you told them what to prepare for? I mean, it’s a horrible question. I hate to ask it, but I know there are real consequences of just even these threats themselves are sort of you having to shoulder the burden. Have you talked to them about it?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. It’s unfortunate that I had to explain to my wife, my sister, my mother, my brother, all of these different things on secure lines, because I don’t know if they’re even listening to my phone at this point, but I had to let them know, and they’re obviously very concerned. And I think the saddest part and the most unfortunate that broke my heart is I had to prepare my children because I didn’t want them… My main job is to protect them from any sort of trauma or any set of issues. And I’m friends with law enforcement officers, so there’s been law enforcement officers that come over my house with their guns and their badges that my children have seen that they’re friendly with. And I told them, Daddy’s friends with the police. You know this, right? Yeah, you work with the police. Well, daddy’s friends with the police and if the police ever come here, it’s because they just want to work with daddy.

Don’t be scared of the police. They’re our friends. Don’t be scared. You’ll be fine. So in case some sort of raid happened or anything like that, I didn’t want my kids to… And that was a hard conversation. I got to tell you, Stephen, it was a hard conversation to have with a three- and four-year-old trying to get them to understand police are good, they’re our friends, and don’t be scared of them that maybe they want to talk to us or come visit how my lawyer visits. Because I have a bunch of friends that are lawyers, police officers, et cetera, and they come and visit and we have a good time and they play with the kids and they bring their kids over and some menace to society I am, apparently. It’s ridiculous what’s going on. Nobody should have to feel this way. And the difference is that when I believe that these law enforcement officers do receive death threats and things like that, because it’s just on both sides, the internet and people are just unhinged and they have a lot of anger, pent up anger built up on both sides.

And I call that out and I make sure in my videos, I say, please be peaceful. Do not engage in this kind of violent rhetoric and threatening rhetoric with law enforcement officers. It’s not productive and it’s going to get you in trouble. It’s going to hurt the movement. They’re going to label us domestic terrorists. They’re already doing that on the federal side. We’ve seen people film the police and DHS agents will say now, hey, congratulations, you’re now on a domestic terrorist list.

So me being the poster boy for domestic terrorism in the United States, according to the federal or state government or whoever, I feel like they could have found somebody better because I work with the police and that will come out once they try and label me that.

But I think what really happens is what’s really going on here, Stephen and Taya, is that they understand that I’m more of a threat to their sort of system than somebody who’s filming outside of a restaurant or whatever the case may be because I’m looking into their finances, $15 million for the PBA. I’m asking the questions about these hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements. I’m speaking at the public meetings, and they see that as a threat. And it’s not a violent threat, it’s just me exercising my rights peacefully. That’s all I’m doing and they don’t like it.

Taya Graham:

I know Stephen has had direct experience with taking a look at the financials of police officers and having the hammer come down on him through his editor.

Stephen Janis:

We were the first publication that published the overtime earnings of the Baltimore City Police Department back in —

Taya Graham:

And they were not pleased.

Stephen Janis:

That was like 2007. We got death threats. They called our office and threatened us and it was scary.

Taya Graham:

Tried to get Stephen fired.

Stephen Janis:

And then the next day they arrested my editor on bogus charges and threw him in jail. So when you touch the money… I’m not saying touch the money.

Taya Graham:

That’s the third rail.

Stephen Janis:

But when you start to expose spending, how much police make and how well they do as per taxpayers, yeah, that’s when things get dicey. Yes.

Taya Graham:

Yes. Yeah. When you start showing the salaries, when you start showing the overtime —

Stephen Janis:

I totally forgot about that.

Taya Graham:

When you start showing take-home cars, that’s when things get really bad. And for the record, his editor was arrested for holding a gun inside of his own home. So that’s a whole other story [crosstalk], maybe sometime we’ll share.

Stephen Janis:

It’s a long story. The charges were eventually dropped. But the point wasn’t, as you point out, not to throw him in jail and convict him of a crime that was not a crime. The point was to scare him and to scare us.

SeanPaul Reyes:

That’s what they do. They’ve done it. They’ve used tactics similar when I rented… The reason why I owned a 14-foot LED billboard truck in the first place is because when I used to rent them for protests, the district attorney’s offices would send subpoenas for felonies for documentation to these billboard truck companies.

Taya Graham:

Oh, wow.

Stephen Janis:

Really?

Taya Graham:

It was done not because they were investigating some sort of felony, not because they cared about the contract or anything like that. It’s because it was used as a tool to intimidate these companies to say, hey, if you rent the billboard truck to Mr. Reyes, you’re going to keep getting subpoenas. We’re going to look into your financials. We’re going to make sure you’re on the up and up. And that’s the whole reason why I bought my own billboard truck so they couldn’t intimidate people. But now they’re just working to intimidate me. They hate the billboard truck, and I get it. Nobody wants a billboard truck in front of their residence, in front of their city hall, in front of their police department. But guess what? It’s my First Amendment right. It’s the only tool that I have for accountability, for transparency, and I’m going to use it to the fullest extent because it’s my right.

You know what? Let me take a look at the RICO statute. I’m going to have —

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, let’s take a look because this RICO thing is very strange.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. And to me, this is very scary. I know this has previously been weaponized against folks in Cop City in Georgia.

Stephen Janis:

Yes, that’s a good point.

Taya Graham:

I also saw it was possibly going to be weaponized against some cop watchers in Texas. I think HBO Matt was part of that crew. So I know the RICO statute can be kind of scary. So we’re going to have Cam put JPEG 4 on the screen. Now, this law is pretty complicated, but the gist of it is, and the most important aspect of it is, is that the idea of a predicate crime, and that’s basically sort of a core component of the law. So I’m just going to go through and read what it means.

So “predicate acts, unlawful predicate acts that can form the basis of a RICO charge include state felony crimes involving acts or threats of murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, obscenity, or dealing in a controlled substance. Predicate acts also include over 100 federal crimes, among them bribery, various forms of fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and trafficking in persons.”

OK, so there’s a lot to unpack here, but I don’t see “using a camera to film public officials” on this list. I mean, how can they turn what you do into any of these crimes?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, the way I see it is I’ve seen them turn a traffic sign into notice of a no trespassing sign. I’ve seen them do magic in the criminal justice system. I’ve seen them twist things and come to different conclusions that a rational, logical person wouldn’t do. So I don’t put it past them. I was talking to my lawyer the other day, and this is not… They’re the most evil people ever, these people that are trying to do this, so it’s not like I’m giving them any tips or anything, but they would say, well, he gave me an example. Well, you need a criminal enterprise. They’re going to say that it’s Long Island Audit Inc. that’s generating you this money and your actions, you, by exercising your First Amendment right, you are intimidating elected officials to stop them from carrying out their duties. And it could be as simple as that, money coming in for “intimidation,” what they’re alleging is some sort of intimidation, which is really just First Amendment protected speech, criticizing your government, protesting your government.

And they’ll try and twist that somehow and try and find a crime. And again, you can indict a ham sandwich. So they’re going to be able to do this if they really want to. The question is how long will it take me to get justice and to be able to fight back against this? And that’s their whole game, in my opinion, is the process is the punishment. They didn’t arrest your editor to try and get him to go to prison. They did it to scare him. They did it to make him hire an attorney, make him waste his money. These are why they do these things. And that’s why people that speak truth to power are so important. I’m so grateful and honored to have so many people who have come to my back to support me and help me because this is what they’ll try and do, but the people have my back and I’m going to keep moving forward.

Stephen Janis:

OK. I just want to put a finer point on this. Now, there was something I was thinking about with this whole thing and this whole idea that you’re terrorizing people. If the union president doesn’t come out of that office building, there’s no story. If Brian Fahey doesn’t come out of his house when you knock on the door, just ignores you, none of that ever happens. That’s two that I can think of where if they had just ignored you, it’s all over. There’s no video. There’s no nothing. They participated in this. You weren’t able to, let’s say, walk into someone’s home or office. You knocked on a door in both cases, said, I want to speak to someone, and then they decide to come out and confront you, but they could have just stayed inside their house. It wasn’t like you did anything other than knock.

I’ve watched these videos in great detail. You just knock and ask to speak to someone. That’s not intimidation. That’s not any form of trying to harass or impede or obstruct. It’s asking to speak to someone. That’s a basic First Amendment right. But if they don’t come out and confront you, then there’s nothing that happened. They could easily have neutralized you by simply ignoring you. What do you say to that?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I mean, that’s what happens time and time again. That’s the whole reason that this channel is what it is. The Long Island audit is what it is. It’s the overreaction and the lack of control of their emotions from people in power because they’ve been getting away with it for so long, and then they run into somebody like me with millions of people who support me and millions of people who are going to watch the videos and see it, and they’re going to look bad and their ego gets the best of them in the moment. Even Brian Fahey admitted to the law enforcement officer on the scene that he didn’t handle it right. He knew that after the fact, but at the end of the day, I am just knocking or I’m going somewhere and I’m asking questions and their ego, their lack of control to control their emotions, it just escalates this situation to something criminal.

And then they want to play the victim. And that’s the worst part is that they blame me for their own actions. If I knock on your door and you pull a gun, you spit in my face, somehow I’m the one that was convicted of a crime in that whole scenario. It doesn’t make any sense. The gaslighting is unreal because all I did was knock on the door and then halfway back, making my way back to the public street, a man comes out with a gun, spits in my face. He has no criminal record and I get convicted of a misdemeanor over a private road, dead end, no trespassing sign that apparently means — Dead end no turnaround sign, excuse me.

Stephen Janis:

Think about how those videos would be if they hadn’t come out. It would be just you knocking the door, I guess they’re not here, going out, getting back in your truck and driving off, or police union headquarters, getting back in your truck and driving away. So take those components as they are. There’s nothing illegal or terroristic or anything about knocking on a door and asking to speak to someone.

SeanPaul Reyes:

It’s also not trespassing to walk away from the police union headquarters, but I was charged with it anyway. They will do whatever. HBO Matt, Taya, you brought him up. He was charged with organized crime. These things are ridiculous, but law enforcement agencies, the system itself will try and protect it. And we’ve had law enforcement agents that I’ve spoken to that have told me IA and all these different accountability apparatuses, they’re not for accountability. They’re meant to protect the badge. They’re meant to protect the image of the police officers and let them get away with as much as they possibly can. And it’s unfortunate, and that’s what they do, though.

Taya Graham:

Something I was thinking of when Stephen said if the police officers were just able to deescalate, to handle their emotions, then there wouldn’t be any video. But unfortunately, there are a lot of officers that don’t seem to, let’s say, understand people’s First Amendment rights, which is why there’s so many cop watching and auditor channels. Have you heard anything more about the demonetization of cop watchers and auditors? Have you heard any more about how widespread it is, and have you been able to appeal, and just how are you adapting? Because I believe your channel was demonetized, is that correct?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. So my channel was demonetized on the same day as everyone else. And the police union president Lucavila was actively talking about getting YouTubers demonetized on radio programs. So as far as how widespread it is, it seems to be as widespread as it is because it’s a lot of people. I haven’t talked to every single one of them. I’m very busy. I’m very worried about my life and there’s a lot going on right now, but seems like it’s caught a lot of people in the First Amendment auditing community and including myself. And I have filed an appeal, and the person who responded to my appeal said something very interesting and I actually conferred with other auditors and other YouTube channels who have sent appeals that if they got something similar back, but they’re saying that they’re looking, in short, they’re saying he said that we’re going to look into this. We understand that you’re frustrated. I hope you and your family are safe, SeanPaul.

Stephen Janis:

What?

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I though that was a little strange.

Stephen Janis:

That’s what YouTube said to you?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. YouTube representative when they put in my appeal said, SeanPaul, I hope you and your family are safe.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

Woah.

Taya Graham:

That’s very odd.

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I though that was interesting. And no other YouTube channel received some sort of hope you and your family are safe kind of deal. The rest of it was pretty much generic we’re going to look into it, but it was definitely interesting.

Stephen Janis:

So wait, and you talked to other auditors and they didn’t receive that message?

Taya Graham:

They did not receive a similar message of, I hope you and your family are safe.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. Nobody got the hope you and your family are safe except for me out of the people I’ve talked to. So I thought that was definitely interesting given what’s going on. And again, I don’t want people to think people are like, oh, he’s connecting this with this, with this, with this and trying to sell us this. I’m not trying to sell you anything. This is my life. This is my theory based on all of the circumstantial evidence, based on these sources. I’m just trying to put two and two together the best I can. If I have a smoking gun, you guys will be the first to know, but it’s just definitely strange. And I’ve been navigating it. The people have been supporting me over on Patreon and it’s been very successful there. And I’ve been doing a lot of behind the scenes stuff. I’m uploading a video today.

And if I become funded by the people, directly by the people, I think I can accomplish a lot more. So I’m not deterred. I’m not distracted. I think if I’m completely people-funded by the people who want to see what I do, it takes away all of the fighting for the algorithm, trying to chase the algorithm, making sure a video is not too long, not too short, has the right moments, whatever. It just frees me up. So I’m excited for the new chapter of my life while I will be on probation during this new chapter. So that’s been a lot to get to, to get used to.

Stephen Janis:

On probation?

SeanPaul Reyes:

On probation for one year.

Stephen Janis:

Probation from what?

Taya Graham:

I think this is for the bench trial for allegedly trespassing on the [crosstalk] property.

Stephen Janis:

Why don’t you go to that question because he already answered my question. Yeah, go ahead.

Taya Graham:

I was going to do that.

Stephen Janis:

OK. No.

Taya Graham:

OK. Let me start over then. So actually I’m glad you mentioned the officer, you knocked on the door and the officer came out of the house, held a gun, spit in your face. That, I believe, was your interaction with Connecticut State Trooper Brian Fahey. Now, I believe you were convicted after that bench trial for trespassing, and I think you’ve hired an appellate lawyer. Can you tell me kind of what your next steps are to fight this case?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Sure. Yeah. So I hired one of the best appellate attorneys in the state of Connecticut, John Shorn, and he’s argued hundreds of times in the Connecticut Appellate Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court. He knows what he’s doing. I have full confidence in him. He believes this verdict to be, I guess, I don’t want to say what he actually said. He definitely disagrees with this verdict wholeheartedly, and he’s very opposed to the judge’s logic regarding the private road, dead end, no turnaround sign and how that under the law is somehow sufficient notice and not a vehicle sign. So he’s very passionate about it. I’m grateful to have him on my side. And we’re actually currently right now at this moment trying to get my probation stayed. I was sentenced to 90 days in jail, suspended with one year of probation. And that probation’s being carried out here in Suffolk County where Lou Savillo, the president of the police union, is very influential here in this county.

And I do not want to be on probation here in Suffolk County, but it is what it is. I am. And it’s already affected my life and it’s affecting my job and my journalism. I can’t travel when I want to. I have to ask permission, and I’ve already been told no for a preplanned trip that I had.

Stephen Janis:

Where were you going to go? What happened?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I was actually going to Washington, DC. I was going to go with my attorney and we were going to go over there and just document what’s happening in DC. Haven’t been in DC in a while. He wanted to go to a couple museums. It was more like a personal/business trip, and it was just too short notice for my probation officer and they told me no. So that was unfortunate.

Stephen Janis:

They said, no, you can’t go to Washington DC?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

Really?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. They said, no, you can’t go to Washington, DC.

Stephen Janis:

And what was their reasoning for that?

SeanPaul Reyes:

They said that it didn’t give them enough notice to make some sort of pass or something like that because obviously I didn’t know I was going to be on probation, so I planned this trip and I’ve planned other trips well in advance. And now that I’m on probation, I need some sort of permission from these individuals to be able to do anything about my job. So my attorney, John Shorhorn is actively right now, he filed the notice of appeal today and notice for a stay of probation because his argument is going to be, well, this is going to affect not only him, but his employees, his journalism, his company in a very significant way when we can just put a pause on it. And if we somehow lose, he can always serve the probation later. It doesn’t affect anything. He’s no public safety threat or anything like that.

So we’re trying to get it stayed for now so I can continue to work and do what I need to do.

Stephen Janis:

Well, what’s preventing them from saying no every time? I mean, is there any process for this or they just can just say no for whatever reason they want?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, they can say no for whatever reason they want, I guess. I spoke to my attorney. There is a process where I can go to the court and ask them, but that’s going to cost me money for have my attorney argue that and then time and then you get the judicial approval because the judge is the ultimate arbiter of what I can do on probation. But just on a day to day, it’s going to be the probation officer here in Suffolk County. So it’s definitely interesting. They can come into my home. They don’t even need a search warrant anymore. They can come into my home whenever they want with whoever they want. They can search your

Taya Graham:

Car anytime, right?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. They can search my car anytime they want. They don’t need any warrant or probable cause or anything right now. So I was told in those same emails that you read, I was told that the Lucivillo and these individuals were communicating with the state’s attorney. Again, I don’t know. I don’t have proof of that. I’ve put in FOIA requests. I’m waiting on everything, but I doubt even if I’ll even get anything, if there is anything. But I heard that they were communicating, which my lawyer says wouldn’t be that. If I’m facing a case here in New Suffolk County and I was facing a case, they would communicate and everything like that. Just the though of Brian Fahey and Lucavillo talking on the phone terrifies me. I mean, it is not a good lie. I don’t know what they would want to talk about, but it can’t be good.

I can’t imagine.

Stephen Janis:

What pretext do they need to search your car or go into your house? Is it none? There’s none. None?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, there’s nothing. Because I am on probation right now for a trespass crime, one of the lowest crimes in the state of Connecticut or anywhere really, nonviolent property crime that again, the circumstances I argue I didn’t commit it, but we’ll see what the appeal does. But even just for that, I have a year, a year. If I didn’t have a family or anything, I might have just chosen to do the 90 days and been done with it then because it’s kind of ridiculous that they’re going to have control over my entire freedom for one year. They can go in my car whenever they want. They can walk up to my door and come inside my house whenever they want. They don’t need warrants and no judicial checks and that’s for a whole year. So it’s going to really affect my work, but I guess I just have to work more from home and focus on the Suffolk County government.

I’m sure they’ll love that. What

Stephen Janis:

Does your appellate lawyer think about the implied consent and the Supreme Court precedent in terms of knock and talks and things like that? Does he think that applies in this case?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, that’s a great question, Steven. He thinks that it is ridiculous. Again, my lawyer is very grandiose and he speaks a little differently than I do, but he thinks it’s ridiculous that the judge would equate some sort of animosity as evidence of lacking a knowledge for license or privilege. Because the way my attorney sees it, and it’s the same way I see it, is animosity and unfriendliness is something separate from a license or privilege to do something. You could have animosity with anybody, a family member, you could have a bitter fight with a family member. The

Stephen Janis:

Family member comes to

SeanPaul Reyes:

Your door to apologize and they knock on your door to apologize and say, “Hey, I’m sorry, but you’ve never once told that family member they can’t come to your house. Are they trespassing because you had this sort of history of animosity?” To us, to me and my attorney, it doesn’t make really any sense, the license or privilege part, how they connect it with animosity part. And that’s to put to the side with a sign. But yeah, Florida v. Jardines doesn’t mention any animosity, just mentions a customary

Stephen Janis:

License. What you point out is a highly subjective judgment. And to me, that was a very weak piece of legal reasoning. And I’m not a lawyer, but I thought tying those two together in some sort of sequential if then was extremely weak and almost amateurish in the interpretation of the law because what he’s opened up is all sorts of traps within the law itself because it would be very easy to construe, let’s say, a hostile relationship with almost anybody. You could say, “I don’t like my postman. I don’t like Democrats or whatever. I don’t like Republicans, so they shouldn’t have known they shouldn’t come in my house because I had a Trump sign out there.” I mean, the implications of that ruling – That’s

SeanPaul Reyes:

A great point. According to this judge, if you had a Trump sign and you were a Democrat and you were a Democrat looking to knock on that person’s door, you would be committing the crime of criminal trespass. There’s no difference between my case and my case.

Stephen Janis:

And the whole point of the law is to think of consequences of making certain sort of assumptions and in a component of a law. And that what he did is a very, very weak because he didn’t think about these things. There’s so many ways that could be applied in a completely anti-First Amendment or I would say unconstitutional way. Yeah, I

SeanPaul Reyes:

Agree.

Stephen Janis:

I think your appeal is extremely important actually to precedent and

SeanPaul Reyes:

Case law. So does my attorney. He says that the law can’t be interpreted this way. That’s why he’s very passionate about it. He says, “This is not the way the law should have been interpreted and this sets a bad precedent, so we’re going to fix this.” And I have full confidence in him. He is one of the best. He knows what he’s doing. He knows what he’s talking about. And I’m confident that the conviction will be reversed and be issued a judgment of acquittal and that’ll be a great day for me because that would mean I’m no longer on probation.

Taya Graham:

Just to ask, you mentioned what a great lawyer you have. And as far as I know, really good lawyers are pretty expensive. So I’m just curious, you said the phrase, and I think this is so true, the process is the punishment. Well, my question is how expensive is this process and how many steps are there in the state appellate process? Because I’m not familiar with all the steps of it.

SeanPaul Reyes:

So to answer your second question first, you get an automatic appeal right to the appellate court, to a lower appellate court in Connecticut. And then you have the right to ask for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, but you don’t have a right. They can deny you. It would depend. But right now we’re working on the first appeal that I have a right to. He’s argued before them hundreds of times. He just got somebody new trial in August. Again, he came highly recommended. I looked into his cases and he is somebody that normally would get between 30 and $50,000 on this sort of appeal on a regular case, depending on how serious it is. He is actually offered, and I told him I was going to be transparent with him with this number and I’ve been transparent with my Patreons over there and he charged me 15,000 for the appeal.

So while that’s a lot of money – He cut

Taya Graham:

It in half.He cut it

SeanPaul Reyes:

In half for you though. A lot of money. Right. Because he finds this case very interesting and he wants to do it himself. So when one of the best wants to do something like this, and I would’ve figured out a way to pay him whatever he asked for that day, but he’s at 15,000 and I was very appreciative for that. And again, because you write the process, the process is the punishment. They don’t have to spend money on these appellate attorneys. They’re already getting paid by the taxpayers to do this. The amount of money this trial costs, everything altogether. Another thing that he said was ridiculous is the four protective orders for a hundred years, criminal protective orders against the entire Fahey family for a hundred years. It’s a property crime, a nonviolent property crime. I never even had any dealings with Sergeant Fahey’s daughter or his son.

They’re adults, but I’ve never met them. I didn’t even know they existed till recently. So for them to have a hundred year order of protection against me is ridiculous, as my lawyer would say. It’s ridiculous.

Taya Graham:

That’s amazing. I’ve never even heard of a 100 year protective order. I have seen body camera video of women literally getting knocked unconscious by men and they can barely get a restraining order. That’s the sad part. And yet you knock on a door and now there’s a hundred year protective order against people that you’ve never actually interacted with. That is just astonishing to me.

Stephen Janis:

Let’s hope there’ll be a headline. Protection order expires for oldest living cop watcher 100 years later.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, hopefully I can make it that long. You’ll be

Stephen Janis:

A 103-year-old man. I’m

SeanPaul Reyes:

Guessing around 30. It is sad. It is sad that there are people, victims of domestic violence, whether they’re male or female. Correct, male or female. And it’s impossible, almost impossible, very difficult for them to get a criminal protective order, a permanent one for longer than a year. But yet I got 104, 100-year ones. And even police officers, police officers get shot, beat up by individuals and they don’t get protective orders against the people they arrest. That just doesn’t happen that way. But yet I knocked on a door of a police officer and him and his entire family get a hundred-year protective order. We’re fighting against that too. Not that I care because I don’t plan on ever going back to knock on his door, but I know that I no longer have the license or privilege now, not then, but it’s just more abuse of the process.

It’s the system protecting itself, the judge protecting the cops, the state’s attorney protecting the cops. Anybody else would’ve been arrested for felony threatening felony crimes that day for what Brian Fahey did. And he was charged with a very light disorderly conduct charge that was erased from the system. So I’m just going to keep fighting for accountability. We’re going to have depositions are coming up next in the Fahey case for the civil lawsuit and just going to keep moving forward.

Stephen Janis:

So before we go, I have one more question. And I always want to ask you this question because whenever we post a video about you, the passion is unbelievable. You have passionate supporters and very passionate critics. And I just want to give you the opportunity to answer your critics who say, “Well, all he does is harass people for clicks and views and there’s no real substantive part of this work.” What do you say to them and why are they wrong?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, again, I would say to them first and foremost, because I know how passionate they can be.

Don’t be so passionate about me. I’m just some guy on the internet. I’m nobody to you, or at least I should be nobody to you. The people’s opinion, your opinion doesn’t really mean much because my opinion, I care about my friends and family’s opinion of me. And I do read the comments and most of them are supportive. But to answer their question about what I’ve accomplished, what have I accomplished? I’ve worked with the police departments. I’ve helped First Amendment auditor, whatever you want to call me. You call me whatever you want. You can’t say that I haven’t worked with the police on a serious level across our country, district attorney’s offices to help bridge that divide. I’ve exposed mayors for engaging in fraudulent misconduct where they’re voting on bills that they’re receiving the money to. I broke that story myself. The FBI is looking into it.

I’ve spoken to the FBI in Florida about that story. It’s a crazy story. I’ve had mayors rip down signs from city halls. There is so much that I… And the most important thing is when I’m out on the street, I never run into these other passionate people, thank God. But I do run into a lot of people as I travel the United States, whether it’s at an airport, a rest stop, wherever it may be. I always tell me, “Well, thank you. Thank you so much. I’ve learned so much from you. I’ve learned how to control my emotions. I’ve learned that I need to step out of a vehicle. I’ve learned that there’s certain things that I have to comply with, other things I don’t.” And that, to me, that has happened dozens of times at this point. And if that only happened once, it would’ve been worth it for me, my five-year career, because if I could teach somebody how to exercise their rights, there’s nothing more important in our country than our constitution and our rights.

So it’s something that, especially now, especially when it’s being tested by the federal state governments, it doesn’t matter. Again, I always tell people this, it’s not left or right, it’s up and down. And the quicker that we, the people, really understand that, the quicker we can come together and stop fighting each other and start really trying to demand accountability and transparency and that laws are passed to benefit the people, not the corporations, not the elites. We’re too busy fighting each other. So I would hope that they would hear me out, come on my side. I would love to debate them. If they want to debate, it would be my honor to do so. I want to bring people together. I don’t want to tear people apart. And if you think I just do it for clicks and views, I’m not even getting paid on YouTube anymore, so I can’t say that.

I mean, that’s a lot. I still post on there, so I’m not doing it for clicks and views on YouTube. But again, I think it’s such a red herring because every single news media outlet is looking for clicks and views because why wouldn’t you want somebody to hear your story?

Taya Graham:

Exactly.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. And you got to get paid for the work. And

SeanPaul Reyes:

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a utopia where everybody gets

Taya Graham:

It.

Stephen Janis:

I know. No.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I’m really going to hold onto what you said. It’s not left or right. It’s up and down. And the sooner that we figure this out, the better our country is going to be. We’re going to be able to work together. I really, I love that so much. That is just the perfect way to end this conversation.

Stephen Janis:

And true. And quite true.

Taya Graham:

It’s so true. That just rang so true with me. Thank you so much for sharing that with us, SeanPaul.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you for being here. No problem. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. It’s always a pleasure and I would love to come back on. Yeah,

Taya Graham:

Please. Oh, absolutely. We are going to continue to follow your story and of course request that you keep us informed and updated as much as you can.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Will do. Promise.

Stephen Janis:

Thanks, Sean.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you

Stephen Janis:

Guys.

Taya Graham:

Thank you so much. So Stephen, that was a fascinating – It was. But deeply troubling conversation. And something I just want to point out is how tricky probation can be. There are so many holds that can be put on you. Essentially, the civil rights that you’re used to living with every day are just suspended. Your car can be searched at any time. You can be pulled over for not putting on your turn signal. Next thing you know, your car is being tossed. They can come over to your house and search your house. Also on probation, it can mean urinalysis testing to see if you’ve been drinking alcohol or taking any kind of chemicals or drugs. So basically the civil rights that you’re used to having are just completely gone, let alone the fact that you have to ask permission before you travel and you can just be told no.

Stephen Janis:

They can basically lock Sean down for the duration at this point. I don’t see why they let him go anywhere at this point, given the animosity they have towards him in Suffolk County. So this is very, very concerning. And have

Taya Graham:

You ever heard of a 100-year protective order? No.

Stephen Janis:

Have you

Taya Graham:

Ever heard of

Stephen Janis:

That? No. And I’ve covered a lot of trials and a lot of different types of legal situations. And no, that has never come up in any court process that I have covered as a reporter over the past 23 years.

Taya Graham:

There are absolutely brutal cases

Stephen Janis:

Of

Taya Graham:

Domestic violence where I’ve never seen a protective order like that. And it could have saved the person’s life.

Stephen Janis:

Right. And I think that this shows that there’s a tremendous amount of concern about SeanPaul with the law enforcement that seems to be disproportionate. Although I wonder to a certain extent is the fact that he has some power himself because he has a very big audience and that audience reacts to what he does. And perhaps that’s why they’re fixated upon him, not for any specific reason of what he does, but the audience that he has, which is quite extensive. And I think that’s perhaps why they treat him that way.

Taya Graham:

And I also think when you start investigating money, when you start investigating someone’s pockets, what that overtime looks like, if they’re getting take home cars, if they’re getting any kind of perks, when you start looking at people’s money, that’s when you can get into real trouble with the government.

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely.

Taya Graham:

And just to your point about the role of people who are less than pleased with Sean, that’s actually pretty important. By reacting to him, they actually create the story. And the best way for there not to be a story about you, for there not to be a Long Island audit video about you is to just ignore him, which begs the question, why can’t they do that? Why can’t they just ignore him? I mean, I was just sort of imagining when you were talking about it earlier, what would’ve happened if Lucivillo just never exited the building and confronted SeanPaul? There would simply be nothing for him to post. I

Stephen Janis:

Mean,

Taya Graham:

Stephen, what do you think is going on here?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I was thinking about this a lot while we’re talking to Sean, because that’s really sort of the critical question. What is it about him that’s so threatening? And I think he’s exposing the sort of authoritarian impulses of law enforcement in this country and the power, the power that they actually wield. And they are used to being able to wield that power pretty much unfettered. If I get a $10 million judgment against me, I can still keep my job or I get convicted of a crime, I can still keep my job. The money and the power is extensive and it’s just unaccustomed to being challenged on that level. Most mainstream media organizations generally tend to work with police because they want the tip on the latest crime or the serial killer or something, and that’s very important. But Sean’s doing an aspect of journalism that doesn’t normally get done, which is a sort of accountability.

Even in our town, since I stopped reporting on overtime, there’s not a lot of reporting about police overtime or take home cars. People generally, mainstream media journalists don’t really pay much attention to that. And I think because Sean is challenging that underlying power structure, which starts with resources, government resources and taxpayer money, the pushback has been massive because that’s what really drives all this. I mean, the $1 billion budget or whatever he was talking about for Suffolk County police, or we talked about in the previous show, that’s a lot of power. That’s a lot of power to have that kind of influence. And the police union in Suffolk County, they all are paid by taxpayers not to be police, but to be union officials. That’s a lot of power. The overtime is a lot of power. The very generous pensions, it’s a big, big lucrative system.

And when you start looking under the hood, I think that’s when it gets dicey for reporters. I know it did for me. That’s very true. And I’m sure in some ways, I think that’s one of the reasons Sean is experienced. He is sort of getting underneath a massive source of power that really goes unexamined quite often.

Taya Graham:

And you know what? I think that’s what unfortunately can make cop watchers really annoying to police is when they start looking at budgets, when they start looking at the money, when you start looking into their pockets, that’s when things can get really dicey. And so SeanPaul is just part of our ongoing coverage of the copwatching movement across the country. And we have been reporting on this very colorful and obviously controversial group of YouTube activists for almost seven years. I mean, it’s been an interesting journey documenting this spectrum of disorganized, but potent dissent. It tests us. It provokes us. It measures the health of our First Amendment right. And what it shows is what’s possible when the average citizens pick up their phones and point them at people who are unaccustomed to being watched. Yes, it’s not always pretty. It’s not always comforting, but it is vital to our ongoing dialogue about how to hold power accountable.

And that’s really the point. We might not always like it or the form that it comes in, but that process, keeping power in check is vital. It is vital because we want a government that serves at the consent of the people, not the other way around. Now, if you are interested in Copwatchers or the idea of YouTube activism, you can watch our documentary, I Am But the Mirror, the story of American Copwatching. And we’ll also put a link in the comments where you can watch it for free. It’s free on Fossam. And also, please don’t forget to send your tips and your videos and your story ideas to par@therealnews.com. Of course, you can always reach out to me directly at TeusBaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. We want to thank you for joining us for this very special episode of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, this is Taya Graham and welcome to this breaking news edition of the Police Accountability Report. Now, as I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. But today, we will achieve that goal with a little bit of a twist and a surprise, an exclusive interview with a controversial cop watcher who was just released from a halfway house in Colorado after spending five years behind bars. His name is Eric Brandt. He’s a Denver activist and advocate for the homeless, also a prolific YouTuber who built a large following with his antics on the streets and his successes in the court. Now, Eric’s thought copwatching isn’t for everyone. His tactics were flamboyant, to say the least.

Some said they were simply over the top. Law enforcement often deemed them illegal. In 2021, Eric was sentenced to 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of telephonic harassment of Denver judges. The charges with results of serious threats that were made over the phone. However, the sentence was also considered extremely harsh at the time, and Eric apologized to those affected. And now, due to good behavior and perseverance, we have the breaking news. Eric was released today, and we’re going to be talking to him for his first interview since his exit from the aforementioned halfway house. But first, I want to check in with my reporting partner and co-host Stephen Janis. Now, Stephen, Eric is not just someone we covered, but he was also the subject of our most recent documentary, I Am But the Mirror of the Story of American Copwatching. Can you tell us a little bit about the documentary and Eric’s role in it?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, it basically was about Eric because when Eric received such a harsh sentence, we though we had to tell his story in depth. So I spent years becoming an Eric Brandt expert. I would say unequivocally, I am the foremost Eric Brandt expert in America at this point. So if anyone

Taya Graham:

Wants to talk – At least on the

Stephen Janis:

East Coast. Yes. But I mean, Eric’s story was a story of great achievement and great tragedy. And he was extremely creative, but also controversial. And I think as you said, he received this very harsh sentence. So it really gave us a prison to look at copwatching in general because copwatching is a very creative sort of organic movement. Eric was a part of it. And looking through the lens of Eric’s experiences, I think made the film really interesting. So I was appreciative of having that access to his life. And now, like I said, I’m ready for my interview on NBC, ABC, anyone wants to talk about Eric Brant, come to me. I’ll talk.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Now, before I get to Eric, I just want to say Eric was one of the most colorful cop watchers we have ever seen. He is a Navy veteran who served his country and he’s also a prolific filer of very successful lawsuits. But more important today, he was released from a halfway house. It marks the end of a five year ordeal for him. Eric, welcome back and thank you for joining us.

Eric Brandt:

Thank you, Taya.

Taya Graham:

Now first, Eric, I have to ask, how are you feeling and what was going through your mind when you finally walked out that door for the final time?

Eric Brandt:

Sorry.

Taya Graham:

I can understand it. I’m sorry, Eric. I know it can be tough to talk about. Just take a moment if you need it.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, take a moment, Eric.

Eric Brandt:

Sorry guys.

Stephen Janis:

No, no.

Taya Graham:

It’s okay. Take a moment.

Stephen Janis:

Of course. Of course.

Taya Graham:

We understand. Absolutely. At five years and finally having this moment, there are a lot of emotions that must be coming to the

Stephen Janis:

Forefront. Do you want us ask another question or?

Eric Brandt:

Well, I guess you saw it now that I just had the release. Yeah. Wow, that kind of hit me. Yeah, you asked me what I was feeling and I was like, oh, I guess I am having a feeling. Yeah. It’s

Taya Graham:

Understandable.

Eric Brandt:

It’s been the last two weeks have been surreal, right? Honestly, I’ve been like blah. I know that the date is there. I don’t have anything else to do. I just work. I know that I’m going to have a computer, so I don’t want to do any of my litigation work on the phone. It’s too hard. So I’ve just been blah, milling around for the last two weeks and that’s crazy. I know. And today I had administrative things that I had to do and I’m sorry that I lost it on your camera.

Taya Graham:

No, it’s okay. It’s completely understandable.

Stephen Janis:

I remember Eric when we were talking maybe a year ago, you thought the parole board was not going to grant you release. What do you think finally convinced them? I know you’ve been on great behavior and you hit every achievement you were supposed to inside the system. What do you think kind of finally pushed you out that door?

Eric Brandt:

I don’t know what eventually convinced them to release me. I’m a little surprised that I wasn’t released earlier. The risk instruments suggested that I should have been. So I really was pessimistic about it. And then when I got the halfway house, I was surprised the halfway house application went by very quickly. Once I was in the halfway house, parole was likely at that point. And I know that you and I talked about things. I didn’t really share a lot of that with the public at the time because there were certainly opportunities for people to try and sabotage that. But

Once I was at the halfway house, I had a pretty high degree of comfort that they would choose to release me. And then I had my hearing and it went status quo. It went what the instruments should have suggested, which is release upon completion of the halfway house program. I think that’s what the public expects, right? If they release you early before you finish the program, they’re like, “What’s the purpose of the halfway house program?” If they were to have delayed that further, then they would almost have to justify that publicly. So I think that that was really the only appropriate answer. And you and I knew about this, of course, some time ago, but again, we kind of kept it under wraps for a while.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Eric, I hate to take you back to the past, but it’s something that a lot of us have difficulty imagining. If you could just talk about what those past five years incarcerated were like, how did you survive them and what did you do to help work towards actually getting out?

Eric Brandt:

Well, for one thing, I’m not criminally minded, right? So I’m in with a bunch of criminals. You get to know these people. A lot of the guys that are in there, they’re in there for a reason. And all of my instruments scored pretty low on things and my requirements and my needs were a lot lower than a lot of people. I have good education, so I wasn’t in a lot of the educational programs. So my situation was a little different. Behaving is actually easy to do. And I know that when people look at my work, what they see is misbehavior and they really have to delve deeper. And then I think that you guys did a pretty good job of that with the documentary, which I recently got to see finally. But there’s a lot that was going on there. So it wasn’t misbehavior because it was misbehavior.

It was misbehavior or civil disobedience, if you will, for a purpose. And so the classic things that I didn’t have the sexual misconduct issues that are prevalent in there. I didn’t have the theft. I didn’t have the violence, the frauds, drugs, all of these things that are really what the majority of the people I was around were involved in, that just wasn’t me. So behaving was always easy for me and my five-year track record shows that. So what did I do? I used my time to help develop programs. I helped develop a veterans program. We did a lot of service. We did a lot of community service, not just in service to the guys in the prison, but we actually extended that and did community service in the local community.

Taya Graham:

Didn’t you help pack up Thanksgiving dinners for families outside of the prison?

Eric Brandt:

Oh yeah, absolutely. We got feedback from that immediately too. We raised money internally from the inmates and we were able to raise enough money to put together. The first year we did it, we made 40 boxes and it was a complete Thanksgiving dinner box for a family. So everything that you would have at Thanksgiving was in this box. And we got immediate feedback. One guy, his wife had just passed and he didn’t know what he was going to do. And then we got a thank you card from a family whose house had just burned down. They were moved into a hotel room with their three kids. They had nothing except for the Thanksgiving dinner box.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Well, Eric, was there ever. I remember talking to you when they brought you down to Louisiana for that other case. Was there ever a time when you kind of gave up hope or you felt like we’re not. Because I remember being really worried about you in that particular part. And just so people know who are watching, we talked to Eric at every point that we could while we were working on the film and just trying to keep in touch with him. Was there ever a point where you’re like, “I’m never getting out of here,” or you ever felt like this wasn’t going to work out for you?

Eric Brandt:

Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. When I went in, 12 year sentence, I was pretty harsh and I always believed in the back of my mind that there would always be something else. They would drag something up from somewhere. And so then when they grabbed me for Louisiana, I was like, “Yep, this is what I expected.” So I already pretty much knew going into it that that was going to be the rest of my life.

Taya Graham:

Eric, I have a question. There were a lot of people who stood by you during this incarceration and they were ready to stand by you for the full 12 years. What do you want to say to those supporters who stuck by you during your incarceration? What would you want to say to them?

Eric Brandt:

What is wrong with you people?

Taya Graham:

That’s an Eric Brandt answer. Yes.

Eric Brandt:

I can’t even begin to quantify or even understand the tremendous amount of sacrifice that so many people have made. And we have as a group consciously. Again, you and I have had so much communication in the last five years that we haven’t shared with the public and for good reason, but I’m perpetually blown away at how much support there is. I couldn’t have done it without you guys and I couldn’t even begin to list all of the names. I’d almost feel embarrassed if I listed one because I wouldn’t be able to list all 5,000 of them. But I would get things out of the blue from people. Marita Gladson, I’ll tell you about Marita Gladson. She sent me cartoons and jokes on a nearly weekly basis for the entire time. Oh my

Taya Graham:

Gosh. That’s

Eric Brandt:

Amazing.

To the point there where we would come downstairs and check the list to see if we had mail for the day and the officers would be in there and they would see me in the hallway and they’d wave me over because they saw Marita’s envelope and they knew they were going to get their Marita jokes that day. They recognized the Marita envelopes. Lacey R. Abby Irizarry, Melody, Johnna, Aaron, Joe Cool. I mean, some of these people, do you have any idea how angry these people would get if I didn’t call them by a certain time of the day? And you know how I knew they were angry is because the captain would call me to the office and want to know why he was getting phone calls.

Taya Graham:

There you go.

Stephen Janis:

That’s cool.

Taya Graham:

It just shows how much concern these folks have for you.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

I was going to ask you, because I never really got a chance to ask you this, but when you were in that courtroom and they gave you 12 years, because I did a lot of research, I could not find a sentence for threatening speech without some act of violence, which you did not do anywhere across any case I could find. I couldn’t find a case even remotely close. I mean, people threatened congressional members of Congress and got in two or three years. What did you think when the judge handed down that sentence and why was it 12 years?

Eric Brandt:

I’m stunned. To this day, I find it stunning. I turned to my lawyer and I said, “Did he say consecutive?” And she’s like, “I think he did.” We didn’t even comprehend it at the time. And you have to maintain a certain kind of decorum in that circumstance, and it was really my intention to accept my consequences with dignity.

Taya Graham:

I just want to pivot here a little bit because we haven’t really had a chance to speak to you publicly about the film that featured your story. Now you’re not the only cop watcher in the story, but you are a central figure. Now, okay, I’m not saying you have to necessarily give the film a thumbs up, but how did you feel watching your life unfold on screen?

Eric Brandt:

Well, so full disclosure to everybody, when I was in Louisiana, you guys sent some draft work to my lawyer. It hadn’t been through any post-processing. It wasn’t complete, but you sent it to her in case there was anything in there that we could use for mitigation. I thank you. I appreciate that. So I had the opportunity to see it or to see parts of that. I got to see it once through just really briefly. The first thing that I noted to my lawyer was I said, “Thank goodness it’s not all about me.”

Taya Graham:

It was

Eric Brandt:

Such a great story and so much of that story was not me. And that’s the point, right? I’m only on this stage for a brief time and the world is run by those who show up, and it was nice to see that there was momentum and good happening in people’s lives. It was so nice to see so many different positive aspects of all these people that are in union with my circle, but they’re doing their own thing. I was just so thankful that it wasn’t about me. Thank you. I’m

Taya Graham:

So glad. It was such a pleasure to work with you and to, like you said, one of the things that we learned through doing the documentary is that there was this circle of people that you touched that sort of reached out kind of like a constellation all across the country. And it was kind of amazing to see the effect that the copwatching and the copwatching community was having in communities all across the nation. So it was really beautiful.

Stephen Janis:

One thing I was making, I was like, the whole idea of YouTube is the minute you go on YouTube, things just go downhill and you don’t connect. But you guys were the opposite of that. It was like you went from YouTube into real life connections where

Eric Brandt:

You

Stephen Janis:

Were – It’s amazing

Eric Brandt:

How many of those connections are still active.

Stephen Janis:

I know.

Eric Brandt:

It’s impossible for me to respond to everybody in a given day. It’s just so much going on and there’s so many people involved and these are real people with real lives and yet still somehow find time for each other. And that’s what I really got out of your program was that things are really kind of good out there. People are living lives and that’s all we can hope for is that people live a good life.

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, I didn’t want to just fall into the same narrative of the YouTube spiral, which is sort of the mainstream media take on it that, oh, these are people who were like-minded in their pushback against what they felt was a faulty government, and they were able to help connect with each other in ways that were not possible without YouTube. So that’s why I focused on that part of it. I didn’t just do you got sentence. That was the beginning, but really the end was about what came out of those relationships. It’s cool to hear you say that you still have them, right? I mean, you’re still connected to these people.

Eric Brandt:

And what I think is really great is that so many of these people, they’re able to live their lives and then we touch and our gears mesh for a little while and then we live our lives. So we’re not dependent on each other. If you go off and do your thing, you’re not going to ruin my life. You’re not going to ruin my life. You’re going to enrich my life while we’re connected, and I am happy that you’re enjoying your life when we’re not connected. And so a lot of folks, we touch and then we go and we touch and we go. And even a lot of people that maybe there wasn’t a great super mesh, it’s still there. I think that’s how human connections work.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I agree. One thing I wanted to ask you about, I’ve always wanted to ask you this, you have a lot of fans and a lot of critics and some people who say Eric Branch just went too far. I don’t care what he wanted or how he felt about the homeless or police. What do you say to them now? Given the perspective you have of more time, how do you feel about the people who are like, “I think Eric Branch is into the antics. He’s not really fighting for something specific, but just making a show.” How do you answer them now?

Eric Brandt:

Well, I suppose that’s a compound and complicated question.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, sorry.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. Well, first of all, I was never in it for the antics, right? The street theater was the vehicle. Sorry, our rooster is apparently objecting to the interview over here.

Stephen Janis:

He doesn’t like your answer?

Eric Brandt:

No, the rooster of. I have a critic right here. No, I mean, I don’t know how you address critics. I have. I’m sorry, guys.

Stephen Janis:

No, it’s okay.

Eric Brandt:

He’s got to get his girls under control here. I’ve actually spoken with a lot of my critics, and I have a lot of critics who have turned. I would say critics that have turned friend or at least friendly, and that’s important. So the reality is I’ve never been afraid to sit down and talk with somebody intellectually, but sometimes it’s really hard to open the door, and sometimes the contrast is important too. So for example, if you look at my five-year institutional record, they make notes, they put things in the notes, you can read that and you can see the character of the person. And what you see in there is a lot of interactions with would-be foes, right? These are cops. It’s the government, it’s the man. The reality is that you are the government.

I am the government. This is government by the people, and governed by the people only works when the people bother to show up and do it. So when we have put trust, and frankly, a lot of money in the hands of these strangers, then yeah, we need to have good relationships with them. And different kinds of message and different kinds of activism at different stages requires a different kind of hat to be worn, and I’m very good at wearing the hat that’s necessary or that the work tells me it needs to be worn at the time. So what would I say to my critics? I would say, “Come have a conversation with me.” I’m not going to put any of my critics on blast. They might not appreciate that, but those of you that are watching, you know who you are, and we’ve had some good conversations, and I would have those conversations again.

Taya Graham:

It’s interesting you were talking about wearing the different hats, because one of the difficult parts of the film was trying to show how many successes you had at filing lawsuits, and you had a really big win with Liberty Freak, making case law that I believe enshrines in the 10th circuit, the right to film police. I think this came out when you were incarcerated, that’s when that ruling came out. So what are your thoughts about this win, and do you have any other lawsuits that are still cooking?

Eric Brandt:

I don’t have any that are still cooking. We had some pretty good ones going and the defendants died, and that pretty much puts an end to the litigation because you can’t get damages out of a corpse. I think I’ve had now, in my entire career, I’ve had three or four defendants die before trial. That’s terrible for a lot of reasons, and your questions don’t get answered because the litigation becomes moot. When I came to the halfway house, for the last two years, I’ve had no litigation open. I do have an active litigation right now that I can’t really talk a whole lot about.

Taya Graham:

You

Eric Brandt:

Can read what’s been filed on Pacer, that’s as much as I can give you now, but that litigation is earned, and there are some questions that need to be answered there. I lost track of the question. What was the question? Litigation successes.

The point of the work is not to have a litigation success, right? There’s no such thing as a successful litigation. All litigation is injurious, and so I wouldn’t encourage people to do litigation or to go into it for the litigation. The risks are very high. Take the liberty freak when Irizarry versus Yahia, for example. I was the primary author of that initially because we were together, and you may recall that I actually was found guilty for that incident, and so therefore I lost my part of that lawsuit under collateral estoppel. It was barred because I had been found guilty, and I, in fact, got a six-month jail sentence out of that. So this guy tries to run me over, and I ended up with a six-month jail sentence out of that, but Abboty didn’t. Abody didn’t even get charged, so his continued to move forward.

When the judge granted the officer’s qualified immunity, that’s when things really sped up. We learned that a lot of people watch these cases. The attorneys that wanted to take up that appeal crawled out of the woodwork for him. So getting it to the 10th circuit, yeah, that was my work in collaboration and collateral with Abody. Is that a great success? Well, no, there’s no such thing as a litigation success. It would’ve been better if it had been legislated instead of litigated. So I don’t consider litigation to be a success. Good litigation is difficult, it’s expensive, it’s risky, and you really don’t know what the outcome is going to be. As strong as you. You’ve got a slam dunk case. Slam dunk in the real world is like 80%. You’re not going to get better than that. You could get a weird adverse ruling and lose a perfectly good case, or more importantly, you could have a really good question with the wrong judicial environment to bring it in, and you could end up with a bad ruling.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, we end up in the Fifth Circuit, which is also where good lawsuits go to die.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. I’m pretty sure that the Fifth Circuit placed a moratorium on brains. I read that somewhere.

Stephen Janis:

Which for people that don’t know, Fifth Circuit basically covers Texas.

Eric Brandt:

I know.

Stephen Janis:

I’m just letting people know who don’t know because we’re talking about 10th Circuit would be the Denver area.

Eric Brandt:

Let me tell you one of the great comedies in my life is the Ninth Circuit.

Stephen Janis:

Which is where? Which is, just so people know.

Eric Brandt:

Okay. This is where the comedy comes in. The Ninth Circuit includes Idaho and California.

Taya Graham:

That’s a little

Eric Brandt:

Schizophrenic.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Wow.

Eric Brandt:

And it’s dominated by the San Francisco side, so those poor libertarians up in Idaho have to endure this liberal shit. Can I say shit on TV? I’m sorry.

Stephen Janis:

No, no, no. Speak the truth. No, I

Eric Brandt:

Do find that to be judicially comedic.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Eric Brandt:

Litigation successes though. I mean, the litigation is necessary sometimes, unfortunately, and it’s part of how we push back. There’s virtually never any accountability at the street officer level, and that’s unfortunate. And how much better would the world. Do you have any idea how many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on attorney’s costs in Irizarry versus Yahia?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, you had the electronic frontier, you had the Cato Institute.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, you had amicus briefs that were supporting you from really great

Stephen Janis:

Institutions. From really high powered organizations that probably have very expensive lawyers, I would imagine.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. I hope that didn’t buzz through on you. I’m rejecting a call. I’m sorry. Yeah. Even in my case with the jury nullification, we had the ACLU come out from New York. Wow. They were given time to speak at the questioning of the Supreme Court here, Colorado Supreme Court. We had an amicus brief again from the Cato Institute, surprisingly. And if you took. Well, let’s take a look at the Westminster case. I was arrested for speaking about police brutality at the public microphone. It took six years to get to trial. Six years.

Taya Graham:

The

Eric Brandt:

Federal jury was impaneled. They found the city guilty or liable. In civil court, it’s liable. They found him liable of violating the First Amendment by dragging me out of the podium and arresting me for trying to talk about police brutality at my public microphone time. And I will tell you that I did tell the mayor it would be in his best interest if he let me finish my speech. That case cost the city of Westminster about $400,000 just in attorney’s fees alone.

Taya Graham:

Incredible.

Eric Brandt:

And the judgment was fairly small. It was $12,000. So you want to talk about litigation successes. There’s not a lot of money in civil rights, right? I wasn’t beaten. I was in jail overnight.What’s the real injury here? The real injury is to the community. It’s to the constitution. So while prosecutors like to say, “Oh, all these crimes, the victim is the community.” Well, that’s also true with civil rights violations, but they don’t pay out. So the fee shifting, the ability to recover attorney’s fees if you win is great. That can help convince cities to settle with you, but unfortunately, that’s money that does not go into officer training.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, good point.

Eric Brandt:

So we have a bunch of officers that we’re going to presumably say that at least a substantial fraction of them go into the business because they want to do something good for the community. And what they end up is they end up in this morass of, “I have to write my report a certain way so that I don’t lose my case.” That takes a few years for them to figure that out. So the reports go from being detailed and honest to being vague and boilerplate and embellished, and they’re not really remembering the incident. They know how to write the charges for the eight big charges that they file on a daily basis, and it’s really not refreshing their memory. It’s just one of the things. So they become jaded, and you have to remember that they’re being trained by a population that believes that they’ve been taxed enough already.

So we’re giving them the absolute most training that we can squeeze out of a population that is taxed enough already. Now, layer that onto the litigation costs. So Westminster, instead of being able to pay $400,000 for officer training, they instead paid lawyers to take that money out of their community. Those property owners were taxed for that.

That cost of litigation passes right onto the bill with no representation. Cost of litigation is the one thing that they tax you on that you don’t have a say because it has

Taya Graham:

To be

Eric Brandt:

Paid. So the community paid for that. Did they really get a half a million dollars worth of training out of that? And I seriously I don’t really question that. So what’s the word there? Again, there is no such thing as successful litigation. All litigation is an injury to the community and to everybody involved.

Stephen Janis:

Well, Eric, let me shift gears a little bit here. What do you think, you remember people called you a copwatcher. I think you were a copwatcher. I don’t know if

Taya Graham:

You’ve

Stephen Janis:

Been able to follow it from prison, but what do you think about the copwatcher movement at this point that you were a big part of? And in some cases it seems like it’s like James Freeman took down his YouTube channel. There’s been a lot of, I think, commotion in the community. Do you think it’s still as viable as it was five years ago or is it kind of waning or what do you think?

Eric Brandt:

Well, let me first be honest that I don’t have enough time to watch all of these channels. Right,

Stephen Janis:

Of course.

Eric Brandt:

So I guess I’ll give you some off the cuff observations that I’ve made in the last few months that I’ve been able to do that. First of all, when you put yourself out there and you put yourself in the public light, not only do you have supporters, but you also have critics.

And worse than critics is you have the silent enemies. You have the people that are watching your channel just to find the grew up. No, I’m talking about when your life is completely on blast all day long, then you have placed a target on your back. The guy in Texas, the head of the police union, Grimaldi or whatever his name is, I remember him saying once, “We are sick and tired of having a target on our back every day.” And I’m thinking to myself, “Well, stop putting it there.” Well, that’s the same thing with a copwatcher. You’re sticking your neck out. You are exposing yourself to liability. You’re exposing yourself to them taking a tiny little jaywalking ticket and turning it into a prison sentence. You have to look at the great risks that are there. If you have a family, if you have kids to pick up from school and you get arrested doing activism, social services is happy to give those kids a ride and you’ll see them in six months maybe.

If you have a mortgage, you can’t. We’ve seen a lot of cop watchers. I’m using the term copwatcher very loosely. I’m not famous.

Stephen Janis:

I’m famously

Eric Brandt:

Despised labels, but I’ve known a lot of activists, we’ll call them activists, that have lost their employment over their activism. So cops do go to these employers and say things to them and try to do that. That’s another reason why I’ve not shared where I’m employed because I don’t want turmoil with my employer. Does that make sense? That totally makes

Stephen Janis:

Sense. Because

Eric Brandt:

There’s risks there. There are mala factors out there. If we say that 99% of the population is good and 1% is genuinely malevolent, then if you have a channel with a hundred thousand people, you still have a thousand malevolents out there working against you and you’re just one person. Yeah. I haven’t thought of that way. There’s a lot of risk there. And so it’s not at all a surprise to me that some of these activists are flash in the pan, if you will. They do their little activism, they get into a little bit of trouble, then they’re done. And that’s as much as we can expect out of a population, that’s a tax. People can only handle so much tax and so much pressure. It requires all kinds. I will say, I don’t think I’m a big fan of the standing on the side of the road with the Zoom lens in the dispensary.

I’m not sure that I’m really advancing the First Amendment. I may be creating animosity with the First Amendment if we’re basically going after private citizens. And I’m not a big fan of the watch these people freak out until the one asshole gets sauced. I’m not a fan of that. I don’t think that that’s advancing the First Amendment very well. I think that that’s trying to make money in clicks and views. I’m not finding a lot of value in that work, but that makes me the critic and they have to make their own decisions. So

They’re there and I think that we have to tolerate it and accept it whether we like it or not. And you may like it, I don’t know. And your viewers may like that stuff. It does seem to get noticed, but that’s not my fan. My attack is against the government. I want government actors to be made aware and I want the public to be aware of the government misconduct because they’re the ones that ultimately make the decisions. They make the pressure. If you’re out there on the street creating the scene, then there are people in the back that are talking about it. If you don’t mind, I’ll talk to you about the power of how these things make it to the dinner table conversation. I had jury selection going on in an incident in Westminster, this is now about a decade ago, and we’re questioning the jurors.

And one of the jurors says, “I don’t know if this is the same guy, but my kids came home from school a while back and they were talking about a guy with this big sign and with this uncomfortable message. And we had to explain to our kids that this was not the language that we espouse, this is not how we like to live in our lives, but they used it as the teachable moment to explain the function of the First Amendment and the Constitution. So who am I to say that a particular incident does not reach the dinner table in a certain way?” And ultimately those are the people that talk in the background and that’s where the real power comes from. So I think that copwatching is still active and alive. I still see it. I do like some of these channels like John Eagle’s channel and Audit the Audit channel where they kind of go in depth on the story and they seem to put a lot of work into that.

And I would certainly, what’s that channel? She’s got the hair. We were talking with her earlier today. Oh, the police accountability report, that one.

Taya Graham:

I’m glad I’m on your list. Of course

Eric Brandt:

You’re on my list. But these are also important, right? So you have this street antagonism and then we have Tea Graham coming into us with the intrepid reporter in the field, Stephen Janice, and they kind of break down an incident or they break down a story. There’s a lot of money that goes into that kind of journalism. And so it’s so complicated and there’s so many moving parts and it’s really important for people to appreciate all of them.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, we confronted that, but go ahead Tea, you had the next question.

Taya Graham:

I wanted to ask you something because we’re talking about criticism and I was just wondering, just looking back on your life, on your activism, do you have any self-reflection or criticism for yourself? Because I know, for example, I was there when you were in the courtroom in Colorado and I saw you make a statement apologizing to the folks who were affected by your speech. But looking back now, do you have any criticism for yourself or is there anything you would change?

Eric Brandt:

Oh, that’s a complicated question. Do I have criticism for myself? Absolutely. And a lot of criticisms are internal. Some of them we’ve talked about. Yeah. I mean, nobody gets it right all the time. And that’s kind of the problem when you’re out there with the spotlight on you 24 hours a day is that all of your flaws are out there. And I’ve owned my flaws. I tell people I’m bulletproof. Everybody knows I’m a schlub, right? I mean, pick the negative moniker and I’ve probably done it at least once. So that makes me essentially bulletproof. You can’t attack me. Go ahead. Try to insult me. And you have to, to a certain degree, have that kind of attitude if you’re going to go into this. You have to have a thick skin. You have to be able to handle it. I will confide in you now today that what really pushed me over the edge was them taking Otto’s kids.

Taya Graham:

That

Eric Brandt:

Was existential to me. That was so horrible. And that was too much vicarious trauma for me to endure that broke me.

Stephen Janis:

I’m sorry, Eric.

Taya Graham:

I understand that. A lot of people were very deeply affected by that.

Eric Brandt:

Oh, horribly affected. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And just because he was with us, all that, I’ve seen all of that case from both sides. I’ve seen all the body camera footage and none of it made it any easier to swallow. It made it harder. It was even harder if you knew the backside of it. So I’ll tell you that the biggest criticism is that I had too much going on at the same time. I mean, my strength was that they would kick me down and I would get right back up. And I had so many things that were being juggled and then the auto incident was just more than I could bear.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Just so people who are watching, just so they know, Otto, the watchdog, he took his kids camping and they separated him from his kids accusing him of –

Eric Brandt:

For three years.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, for three years. So it

Taya Graham:

Was an ordeal. And that’s for Otto’s First Amendment activism. Otto was primarily, essentially police would approach him for holding signs. He was not putting a camera – Still approach him. He still out there. He’s still out there holding those signs, but putting cameras in people’s faces. He wasn’t approaching police officers. He was merely standing on the side of the road holding signs. And that was the beginning of his persecution.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, Eric, so what’s next for you? I mean, we’re kind of wrapping up and listen, we appreciate your time.

Taya Graham:

Oh, absolutely. Oh,

Stephen Janis:

I appreciate your time. What’s next for you? What’s your future look like? I mean, people want to know, what are you going to do next?

Eric Brandt:

I had intended to get out and go to the ranch and build my ranch. And there’s a lot of work that needs to be done there and that’s my forever home. That’s what I want to build.

Stephen Janis:

With a septic tank, right?

Eric Brandt:

With the septic tank, right? My life’s ambition is a pile of shit and I’m excited about it. Well, I think it’s – Oh, you guys

Taya Graham:

Are

Eric Brandt:

Going to have to bleep out a lot on this video, aren’t you? Yes. I

Taya Graham:

Think it’s absolutely wonderful that you’re creating a life for yourself where you’re going to be able to live off the land and give back to the land, help cultivate your chickens, maybe grow some food. I’m really into pepper stuff myself, ready for the urban apocalypse. So I definitely appreciate being able to live off the grid. Well, if

Stephen Janis:

There is no population left

Taya Graham:

There.

Eric Brandt:

I want to essentially build a biodiverse zone.

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Eric Brandt:

My goal is 50 trees a year for 10 years.

Stephen Janis:

Oh,

Taya Graham:

That’s

Stephen Janis:

Great.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Very nice.

Eric Brandt:

I hate to say, I have a certain amount of experience and education and expertise, so you’re not going to see Eric Brandt running down the street with sparkly purple toenails and a giant fuck the cop sign. That’s just not in the cards. So

Stephen Janis:

Those days are over. Those days of crazy YouTube videos are over.

Taya Graham:

No more Pikachu outfits.

Eric Brandt:

Maybe Pikachu.

Taya Graham:

Don’t give

Eric Brandt:

Up Pikachu. My situation is now different, right? I can’t tolerate another prosecution. The most minor thing now, if I lose, would be a very major thing for me.

Stephen Janis:

Eric, well that- That’s great. I kind of had a feeling that you weren’t going to stop working on this type of reforming the criminal justice system. And I commend you and laud you for that. That something you’re doing when you just got out. But we really appreciate you joining us today. Absolutely. It’s been fascinating discussion. We have very much enjoyed covering your career and film. Yute, you want to

Taya Graham:

Take up? And also being one little part of that constellation, of that Eric Brandt constellation. We’re grateful for you helping us be a part of that community. So thank you, Eric.

Eric Brandt:

Thank you so much for being there.

Taya Graham:

We really appreciate you joining us and sharing your thoughts and your feelings during this critical moment in your life. And we really appreciate your candor about copwatching and the criminal justice system and your own personal reflections about what you’ve been through. Now, Steven, for me, there’s not going to be any rant today for me. I mean, I thought this was a really profound conversation. I feel like there’s nothing I have to say here. I mean, love them or hate him. Eric is always insightful and thoughtful and kind of a mad genius, but not just about his own work, but the broader issues that prompted his activism. But Steven, before I walk us out, do you have any thoughts about our discussion?

Stephen Janis:

Well, it’s just interesting that Eric has projects already kind of percolating to do reform. It’s interesting to see that the activists within him did not die in prison. It came out. And also, well, I think a lot of people don’t understand the trauma of being incarcerated.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

And to see Eric’s emotional reaction should be, I think everyone should see that because it’s not a big deal. It’s not a small deal to put someone in a cage and confine them. And Eric showed how that affected him. And I think we should all recognize that. Absolutely. We have to be careful about how we run our criminal justice system for a variety of reasons. But the emotional toll it took on him really moved me. And also the fact that he understood that we tried to connect the dots in his life and others and show it in a way that wasn’t just mercenary or that we use the conflict to create a story, that we showed a story of some positivity and some true emotional connections. So I was really glad that he saw that because I worked very hard to try to bring that out of the film.

So it wasn’t just about crazy cop watchers. As Eric points out, they’re people with lives.

Taya Graham:

Steve, that’s a really good point. I mean, we could have made that documentary incredibly sensationalistic, but instead what we wanted to show was the community that was there. And I’m really glad that Eric was so open with us. Okay. We’re going to keep you up to date on Eric and his work, putting his life back together, and also his upcoming litigation or legislation. We’ll see what happens. And we’re also working on new episodes of the police accountability report, which we hope to debut soon. So please stay tuned. And finally, our camera will be in the courtroom when a judge hands down his decision in the dramatic trespassing trial of Long Island Audit. This was after the popular cop watcher defended himself against charges that he broke the law when he knocked on the door of Connecticut State Trooper Brian Fahey. And as always, please be safe out there.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to this breaking news edition of our Police Accountability Report livestream. Now, we decide to do the show because there have been serious widespread disruptions across the 1A and Copwatcher YouTube community, namely a broad and still unexplained demonetization of an array of channels related to both copwatching and First Amendment auditing. Whether this is targeted, random, part of YouTube’s overhaul to its partnership system, what it means for some very popular activists is what we will unpack today. And to help us, we’ll be joined by two influential copwatchers, Long Island Audits, also known as Sean Paul Reyes and Wright’s Crispy or Finn Vargas. Both have been instrumental members of the Copwatcher movement and both have been affected by YouTube’s mysterious move to end their ability to monetize their content, at least on YouTube for now. But before I get to them, I want to check in with my reporting partner, Steven Janis, who has been researching and reporting on what’s happening.

So Stephen, thank you for joining me indoors. Tay,

Stephen Janis:

Thanks for having me. I’m glad to be indoors. I don’t plan to stay here, so let’s get this going.

Taya Graham:

All right, so let’s get right to it, Steven. What is the scope of this move by YouTube and perhaps its origins?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, we’ve been debating that and it seems like it kind of came out of nowhere. There was no warning to any of the channels and it’s really difficult to decipher because YouTube has not made any public comments on why this has happened, but it has caused a lot of distress in the Copwatcher community. We’ve been hearing from many channels about this. People that we know, people that we’ve been talking to for years have reached out to us and told us this is happening, but no one seems to know why we have a theory we’re going to talk about in a second, but it’s just kind of like out of nowhere.

Taya Graham:

Oh, and I also want everybody watching to know, as you can tell, this is very live and we’re going to do our best to put your chats on screen and to also read your comments whenever possible. But let me just get back up right into it. I just want to say hi to the mods out there, Lacey R and Noli D. Thank you guys so much for being here. Okay, let’s get back to it. Dave, if you don’t mind putting up on the screen the graphic that shows the copwatchers and auditors. So if you take a look, there are some familiar names here like ANCAP Copwatch. There’s also James Freeman, John Felax, NC Tyrant Hunter, and of course Long Island Audit and Writes Crispy. Now, these are some of the channels we have been able to confirm directly. There really is quite a bit of uncertainty.

And let me also say this, if you are one of the channels affected, please reach out to us and let us know so we can compile an accurate and definitive list as we want to cover this closely. And I also want to say a special thanks to Friends in Code for providing us with some very valuable information. Agreed. But of course it’s not just who was affected, that’s a big question, but why? Now the YouTubers who told us they have been affected said the email they received was nebulous to say the least. Dave, if you don’t mind putting JPEG2 on the screen.

So I’m going to read some of it and then we can discuss a theory Long Island audits discussed and that you’ve been doing some reporting on. Okay? Yep. So let me just read this first. It says in the email or rather on the screen, “Your channel isn’t earning right now. After reviewing your channel using a combination of automated systems and human reviewers, we found that does not follow YouTube channel’s monetization policies. Our review found that your channel contains the following, violations of creator responsibility policy. Your channel has violated our creator responsibility policy.” Stephen, what does that even mean? It

Stephen Janis:

Doesn’t mean anything really. It’s a very nebulous, like you said, sort of definition. I dug deeper into it and it was something about reputational harm, very, very things that would be part of the normal process of journalism or reporting. I mean, anyone could create reputational harm by just reporting something that someone disagrees with or having a conflict or having a conversation. So it’s really, really loose, vaguely worded, and I think that’s the point. I think it gives YouTube a maximum flexibility, just kick people off of monetization however and whenever they want. And I don’t think it has any guidelines that are useful to any channels in terms of how to follow these. I don’t think you can follow them. So it’s really, I think, purposely vague.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, how has the Copwatcher community and the First Amendment activists responded?

Stephen Janis:

Well, a lot of anger because I think there was no warning or no sort of like, you need to do this or you need to do that. I mean, and these channels have been up and I would note that all the channel, their videos are still out there. Now, sometimes YouTube, when it really is offended by a video, will take it down or force you to take it down or take down your channel for copyright strikes, all sorts of things. But this just kind of came out of nowhere. And I think that’s why that’s feeding, I wouldn’t call it conspiracy theories, but some thoughts about there’s something behind this more than just YouTube trying to enforce its creator responsibility. I think people feel there’s something deeper there going on and something more nefarious. And I think that’s why we’ve been looking into it.

Taya Graham:

Now, there’s a theory that has emerged thanks to Long Island audits that you have been reporting on, Steven, and that we, of course, will discuss with him shortly, but we want to try to lay it out for you first. Now, as we’ve reported before on the show, Sean Paul had a fraught encounter with a powerful police union official named Lou Savillo. Sean Paul had visited police headquarters to ask about lawsuit settlements for police brutality, but the visit turned chaotic fairly quickly. Now, Long Island Audit was arrested and the ensuing fallout actually caught the attention of the New York Post, which blared headlines claiming that the resulting YouTube posts had led to angry phone calls to the Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association members. Now, Reyes was eventually arrested, but Savillo is actually more powerful than just the head of a local police union. And it’s possible the dispute escalated.

Turns out he’s the president of an organization called UCOPS or the United Coalition of Public Safety. And in that capacity, he weighed into a national controversy that may have given him behind the scenes leverage. So Stephen, we’re going to watch the video where Savillo endorses Todd Blanche and discuss the theory about how his influence may have played a role in what we’re seeing on YouTube. Dave, if you don’t mind playing clip three, the Savillo clip. I’m

Speaker 3:

Lou Savillo and I’m the president of UCOPS. UCOPS is a coalition of law enforcement unions that represents over 100,000 active and retired law enforcement officers. Recently, I had the opportunity to have a conversation with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. We discussed how police officers are being threatened, doxed, and even targeted for violence in their own homes. The AG expressed strong support for our law enforcement officers and stated that prosecuting these crimes would be a top priority for his administration. Todd Blanche has a keen intellect. Moreover, he has a discerning nature. He also is even-handed with justice, making him the perfect candidate for our country’s top prosecutor. This is why UCOPS and the thousands of police officers we represent are urging the United States Senate to confirm Todd Blanche as Attorney General. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Okay, Steven, I know you’ve had some run-ins with police unions. I’m sure you have something to say here. Well,

Stephen Janis:

No, the important thing to remember here is Todd Blanche at that point was facing a lot of pushback. He was the acting Attorney General and was trying to get the Senate to approve him to become full confirmed Attorney General. And he was facing a lot of headwinds because he would not renounce Trump’s sort of $1.76 billion giveaway fund to people who had been supposedly wronged by government, the weaponization fund. So he was in really, really kind of rough waters and he was looking for help. And then this organization called UCOP steps in and says, “Hey, we should endorse this guy. He’s great. All 100,000 police officers are behind him.” And I think it was a very important moment for Todd Blanche’s confirmation.

Taya Graham:

And you know what? We also got a copy of a July 9th letter sent to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, that offers a full throated endorsement of Blanche. Now, Stephen, why is this important? What was going on with Blanche who at the time was acting attorney general? He

Stephen Janis:

Was just really searching for a life raft because a lot of Republican senators were like, “We’re not going to approve you.” Tom Tillis from North Carolina was like, “We are not going to approve you if you don’t renounce Trump’s weaponization fund.” And of course he wouldn’t do it. He parsed on it, he kind of danced around. But then these guys come in and say, “Hey, this guy’s great. All the cops, 100,000 cops,” which I’m going to get to about that being sort of a very flimsy claim, “are going to support you.” And I think so they were trying to bail out Todd Blanche, who’s a very powerful man.

Taya Graham:

I want to discuss a bit what he said in the video that police officers are being doxed and harassed. And I think that’s curious that he brought this up specifically, and you’ve also been doing a little digging on UCOPS organization highlighted in the letter that Lou Cevello just said he’s the head of. So what have you found?

Stephen Janis:

Well, so UCOPS is supposed to be this big organization that represents 100,000 police officers, but only was started in 2025. It has about $60,000 in revenue. It has about four or five people who don’t work for a full-time or volunteer. So it’s, I would say sort of an AstroTurf, which is claiming to represent tons of people, but being a little bit of an artifice because they don’t have any money, they don’t have any staff, and there’s no information on their 990s, which is their tax form, about how many members they have. So UCOPS kind of came out of nowhere, and I think that makes it a little bit of a strange thing to say, “Well, I represent UCOPS, which represents 100,000 police.” There’s really very little evidence of that.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So I think we’ve established a connection between a powerful police union president and the most powerful law enforcement officer in the country, namely the Attorney General of the United States of America. But to connect the dots further, we’re going to bring one of the guests, the man at the center of the controversy, and one of the most popular copwatchers out there, Long Island Audits, also known as Sean Paul Reyes. Sean Paul, thank you. Thank you so much for joining us.

Long Island Audit:

Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So first, I’m just going to say a quick acknowledgement to Chuck Bronson, Noli D. I think I see Johnny Bravo out there. People are showing up and I’m hoping they’re showing their support as well. So let me ask you just to start out, how are you doing and how did you find out about your channel being demonetized and how is it hitting you? I mean, how are you dealing with it personally?

Long Island Audit:

Well, as you know, I’m usually on the road as I am right now, and my brother-in-law actually called me multiple times and I called him right back. I was in the middle of something and I was like, “Are you all right?” And he’s like, “Hey, every First Amendment auditor is getting their channel demonetized. Is your channel demonetized?” And I was like, “No, I don’t believe so.” So I opened up my YouTube studio and my phone app and it said you were removed from the partner program. So that’s how I found out. It was definitely shocking news for sure. I’ve been doing this for five years now, built a platform of over a million subscribers and just never had a violation. Till this day, my YouTube studio says no violations whatsoever. So I’ve never had a copyright strike, never had a violation.

Taya Graham:

Incredible.

Long Island Audit:

And they demonetized me.

Taya Graham:

Oh, wow. That’s incredible. I’ll just say I know some channels that have gotten strikes from personal experience. There is some other news related to your work that occurred yesterday. So you really had quite a day yesterday. You were found guilty of trespassing. Can you talk a little bit about what happened?

Long Island Audit:

Yeah. So Judge Guinari in the Danielson Superior Court found me guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree in the state of Connecticut. He found that as a matter of law, the private road dead end to no turnaround sign was not a vehicle sign. He said in his decision that he rejected my argument that that was a sign meant for vehicles. I think it’s pretty clear from the verbiage on the sign that it is really pretty clearly meant for vehicles. So I’m hopeful on appeal, but this is part of the process. The process is the punishment. They brought this judge in out of nowhere. I’ve been switching through judges so quickly, different judges, different jurisdictions. The process is the punishment and I’m going to continue to, hopefully in the process of an appeal, we can get a win here, but I don’t think anybody really believes that that sign was meant for a pedestrian.

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, Sean, this is hard to believe because there’s sort of a presumption that you can go up and knock on someone’s door. If they tell you to leave, you leave, you’re fine, which is what you did. I mean, there’s Supreme Court precedent here. Why did the judge ignore the law in this case? I mean, did he ignore the law?

Long Island Audit:

Yeah. I mean, his interpretation of the law, because in this case, his interpretation’s the only one that matters as of right now. His interpretation of the law is that unless if there is some sort of animosity between you and the person beforehand, then therefore you lose that privilege to conduct a knock and talk because you should know that you’re not welcome because of the alleged animosity and prior problems. But to me, if I’m a tenacious reporter, which I think I am, and I follow up on these stories, there’s a lot of public officials that one could argue in a court of law that have animosity with me and therefore I lose all my privileges.

Stephen Janis:

I was just thinking that because if we’re reporting on someone, they don’t like what we’re reporting, they’re aware of that, they’re angry. And I have shown up at people’s houses and places of work and stuff when I’ve been writing stories that have been critical of someone who could easily make the case that there was so-called animosity. I mean, has that ever been explored as far as you know? Because that strikes me as a really fine line and really gets into First Amendment monitoring and deciding what is conflict and what isn’t. I mean, is that something that’s been explored?

Long Island Audit:

I believe, Steven, that this is a case of first impression. That’s what it’s called in the legal world. And I think that this is something that the judge is just ruling on his own. I couldn’t find any case law where it takes away your privilege of a knock and talk animosity. And he did find that there was animosity he did find. And again, on his part, there’s a lot of animosity. I just talk about him on my channel and talk about what he’s done and what I’ve found out through investigations. And at the end of the day, I love my family and I don’t think about him after work. I’m just putting him up on there. He’s a bad man, but there’s been many, many, many bad men in law enforcement that I’ve come across over the last five years. Patrick Psycho, Ryder, Danbury where he said he would kill me 20 years ago.

There are so many examples and I would knock on any of theirs door. It wasn’t personal. I’ve knocked on dozens of government officials doors at this point.

Taya Graham:

Right. You know what? Before I ask you this question, I just wanted to make a note that one of the people that was trying to confirm the real press, NH NOW, yes, they were also demonetized. So it is hitting people out there. Wow. Sean Paul, I was wondering what are some possible consequences for you? I hate to ask, but are you going to be sentenced and could you face jail time?

Long Island Audit:

So I was already sentenced after I was found guilty by Judge Guinari. The state’s attorney did not ask for any jail time when they were making their case. Brian Fahey’s adult daughter and his wife spoke at the sentencing and the judge sentenced me, ultimately decided to sentence me to 90 days of incarceration, but suspended and one year probation. They actually have a little funny insight is that they were like, “Okay, well you’re going to transfer your probation to Suffolk County obviously, right?” And I was like, “No way. I will traverse all the way to Connecticut before I put my probation in Suffolk County with Lucivilo.”

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Well, let’s get back to YouTube and I’m very sorry that happened to you. We’ll be waiting to see what happens next. But do you think it’s a coincidence you had this encounter with Lucivillo and then suddenly Todd Blanche. I mean, he endorses Todd Blanche and then suddenly YouTube, which has been known to do carry the water for the Trump administration, decides to start demonetizing copwatchers and otters. Do you think that is a coincidence?

Long Island Audit:

I personally don’t think it’s a coincidence. It’s my theory. Could it be any other reason? Sure, it’s a theory. I’ll say that, but there’s a lot more things that go into it. Lucivillo and the union that he leads has been talking nonstop in the last weeks on radio programs that they own about directly targeting the monetization of these YouTubers. And they specifically mentioned YouTube, they specifically mentioned monetization, and this was just as late as two weeks ago. They were talking about these things and then this happens. I think it’s clear that the administration under Todd Blanche, the Department of Justice rather, I don’t think they would have an issue with sending a letter or an email to Google. And also the district attorney in my county actually subpoenaed Google for the last 14 months on a violation trespass case for the last 14 months of my earnings, and Google handed over everything immediately.

Really? And

Stephen Janis:

Google didn’t push back on that at all? At

Long Island Audit:

All. Motion to quash. Before I could even submit a motion to quash, which was only a couple days later, the district attorney had a disc full of all of my subscriber information. Your

Stephen Janis:

Subscriber information? What?

Long Island Audit:

No way. I don’t know about individual subscribers, but I don’t know if they mean, because it says subscribers with an S, but in parentheses. So I don’t know if it’s every single person or just me or maybe just my members on the channel. I don’t know exactly what it entails. I haven’t gone through the disc. My lawyer currently has it, so I have to go through it and that’s one of the many things on my plate rightnow.

Stephen Janis:

That is extremely invasive. I mean, that is extremely scary and not good.

Long Island Audit:

A non-trespass case, I obviously was leaving, the video shows that, but a trespass case to get 14 months of financial information from Google. Again, the common denominator with the police union president, the district attorney here is all that they’re focusing on monetization, financial aspect of YouTube.

Stephen Janis:

Now those charges were dropped or the ones from the encounter at the PBA, at the Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association headquarters, those charges were dropped, right?

Long Island Audit:

The criminal charge was dropped, but what they do is they’ll drop it to a violation of the law, which is not a crime, and they’re prosecuting me on that right now. So basically on a non-crime, they got the subpoena as well.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. It sounds to me like just a fishing exhibition that was facilitated by a bogus charge. But sorry, Tay, go ahead.

Taya Graham:

No, it’s okay. I just wanted to let you know, if you guys see me looking down, it’s because this chat is amazing and I’m learning a lot of information here. I just found out that I for an eye free press is on the list. NC Tyrant Hunter, who I’m glad to see. Good to see you, NC Tyrant Hunter, says he can’t even get into his Google account. So this is hitting people. This is really scary. This is really scary. I even saw that the Batoosize channel had been demonetized, but it has just been restored. So perhaps that’s a sign of hope. Sean Paul, I want to ask you, what’s your thoughts on the reasons provided for the demonetization by YouTube, like violation of creative responsibility policy? I mean, why is this happening now? Because copwatchers and First Amendment auditors have been on YouTube for at least a decade.

Why is it happening now and what do you think that policy means?

Long Island Audit:

As you stated earlier, it’s very vague. I read the policy obviously, and there’s nothing really that stands out, just basically reputational harm on or off the platform. It speaks about actions being taken off the platform as well as on the platform. It’s extremely vague. I’ve never had any violations or copyright strikes on my channel in the last five years since the channel was started. So I have no idea. I have no idea what else it could be, what type of reason Google has behind doing this massive demonetization of channels like First Amendment auditor channels. I have no idea.

Stephen Janis:

Have you appealed to YouTube and communicated with them or heard anything back from them? Have they given you a message or have you at least appealed or what’s going on in terms of YouTube and your communication with them? So

Long Island Audit:

I still have time to file an appeal. I wanted to wait and see what would be the result of some of my peers that already had submitted appeals were going to be. So now that some appeal decisions are coming back, I plan on filing an appeal in the coming days. And contrary to popular belief, just because I have a million subscribers doesn’t mean I have any sort of special connections with YouTube. Right,

Stephen Janis:

Right. And what have your peers said? Have people won their appeals? I mean, I know Batusai, I think won his appeal. Has anyone reported to you what has happened to them in the appeal process? So

Long Island Audit:

The only person I’ve spoken to about the appeal process was Philip Turner, and he had told me what he appealed and how he got his monetization back. I know there’s Rogue Nation had done an appeal. I don’t know what’s the status of that, but there are a couple people out there that did appeals and I don’t know the status of them though.

Taya Graham:

Okay. I just want to shout out Chuck Bronson out there and I see the Humboldt Squid. Good to see you. Humble Squid. You know who you are. I know who you are. Good to see you. But Sean Paul, back to you. I know I keep on going back and forth between the chat, but I just want to make sure everyone knows out there how much I appreciate them being part of this live chat. So I would just want to do something to kind of strengthen the idea of ties between Google and the current presidential administration. So for example, Google Maps did change the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America, which I think suggests they’re willing to comply with any requests from the current administration because for example, MapQuest didn’t do this. So what do you think is the potential role of those folks in the administration?

Long Island Audit:

I think it’s definitely possible that I wouldn’t put it past Attorney General Todd Blanch for sending at least a letter to Google saying that maybe we classifying these people as domestic terrorists. They use that term a lot for a lot of different people that they do not like or who do have different points of views for them. They automatically label them domestic terrorists. So I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an incoming memo or there is one already that in existence that First Amendment auditors are domestic terrorists now. But at the end of the day, we really don’t know. It’s all speculation, but there are some sort of connections between the police union president and Todd Blanche. And I think it’s quite hypocritical because he talks about these violence docs, specifically violence against law enforcement officers, but he supports an attorney general who would give money and who has participated in the pardons of individuals who have used violence against law enforcement officers.

So I think it’s very hypocritical on his part. I think he says that just to serve his own ends and he doesn’t really care about law enforcement officers.

Stephen Janis:

Just a note, I have watched hundreds of thousands of hours of copwatcher videos, never seen anyone come close to what happened on January 6th in terms of what the people that they pardoned, that they cleared, that they wanted to compensate with taxpayer dollars who were beating cops. And so I’ve never seen anything, anything remotely. In fact, I’ve never seen a cop watcher strike or in any way threaten a police officer in that way. So the hypocrisy, Sean, is insane, right? I mean, that’s insane.

Long Island Audit:

Yeah. They try to gaslight the country. They’re trying to gaslight Americans and they want to be the heroes and the victims at the same time.

Stephen Janis:

Now we reached out to UCOP, this supposed organization with all volunteer, five volunteers and no money. And we asked them – The

Long Island Audit:

Police union has a lot of money though. They have 15 –

Stephen Janis:

Well,

Long Island Audit:

Yeah, we’ll get to that.

Stephen Janis:

But the UCOP thing is really weird. Do you think that’s some sort of ASO turf or what do you think that is? Because it just doesn’t seem like it’s a real org.

Long Island Audit:

I haven’t looked into it as deeply as you have focusing on the police union, but I mean, if it doesn’t have any members listed, again, I’ve looked into Lucivillo, the president of that organization apparently, and the players of the PBA. And there’s internal affairs reports where he’s alleged to have told officers to lie, picked officers up from DUI arrests. There’s so many different things I wouldn’t put past him for any sort of nonsense. And

Stephen Janis:

I want to make a point here that I hadn’t made before because I went through all the Suffolk County finances. Suffolk County and New York State have some of the highest property taxes in the country. And one of the reasons for that is policing. The Suffolk County budget said that $1,400 per household is what that police department cost. So your work to expose this is so important because people, I mean, I think they’re getting fleeced. Why do they have the highest property taxes in the country? Because they have state troopers retiring for $100,000 a year salary. I mean, isn’t policing tied to the fact that you guys are suffering with some of the highest tax rates anywhere? Yeah,

Long Island Audit:

For sure. I mean, it’s crazy that they talk about so hypocritically, they talk about the monetization side of First Amendment orders while having $15 million in assets. The police union in Suffolk County is quite hypocritical. $15 million in assets and I believe only $2 million in liabilities they claimed on their forms. So $13 million and they bring in $5 million every year in revenue. But then the police department, that’s just the union. The police department has a whole hundreds of millions of dollars. And if you’re counting – It’s a billion dollar a

Stephen Janis:

Year. Suffolk

Long Island Audit:

County. If you’re counting all law enforcement in Suffolk County, yeah, it’s over a billion dollars a year. Crime infested

Stephen Janis:

Long Island.

Long Island Audit:

Right, exactly. And again, what they do, Steven, is they like to gaslight and push their police propaganda. This is why they have podcasts. They’re reaching out into social media. It’s because they want to push this propaganda that, oh, Suffolk County’s one of the safest counties in the country. But at the same time, the Suffolk County, I’ve been lifelong resident of Suffolk County. Suffolk County’s one of the safest counties in the country because of the people of Suffolk County, not because of the law enforcement officers.

Stephen Janis:

Exactly. And if you want to equate public safety with the number of police, it doesn’t add up. So I think that’s why, as you pointed out, they have this propaganda arm. I’m sorry, Tay, I didn’t – No,

Taya Graham:

That’s okay. All right. I’m going to ask a question that might sort of put you on the spot, Sean Paul, so forgive me for doing this, but let me ask you, if they respond, would you be willing to debate Lou Savillo on the Real News if we could hook it up? Oh,

Long Island Audit:

He would never do that, but yes. Well, listen – It’s worth asking. I have video of him saying that he would come on the channel, so maybe you could play that for him when you asked him. You come on your channel, but I would love to debate.

Taya Graham:

Brian would be neutral third party?

Long Island Audit:

I’ve seen his debating skills and it’s just propaganda mush, so I would love to.

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Well, that’s a date.

Taya Graham:

We can set that

Stephen Janis:

Up. If we can do

Taya Graham:

It, we will. I promise. So I know you had another question for Sean.

Stephen Janis:

No, I think we’re done.

Taya Graham:

Are you good? I mean, I just want to make sure because – Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

I mean, I don’t want to keep him for too long.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

And so when do you file your appeal on your trespassing case? What is the next step for you? Yeah.

Long Island Audit:

So the next step is I’ve been talking to multiple attorneys. I’ve had multiple attorneys with me this entire way. So these attorneys are, now that their retainer is over, we’re speaking about getting a new retainer for them to file the appeal. And I’m excited. I think it would be a bad precedent in Connecticut to allow any sort of vague signage to be used as some sort of notice under that statute. So I’m hopeful and I plan on fighting it the whole way. This is part of the journey. You win some, you lose some, 14 arrests and one criminal conviction for now. I think that’s a pretty good record to have.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. And Sean, before we let you go, Sean Ray, sorry, what do you see the future of copwatching? We were talking before the show and you and Chris, we were talking about we’re going to keep going, which is going to eliminate one of the greatest sort of arguments the frauditer, anti-copwatcher community makes that you guys are just about clicks and views. Are you getting any feeling among copwatchers that people and auditors are going to keep going regardless and not just give up because of this? I

Long Island Audit:

Hope so. And at the end of the day, I think it’s such a disingenuous argument to make it about monetization when the fraudater, the trolls out there talk about monetization when all of these people, how am I supposed to conduct a proper investigation and travel and do all these things when I’m facing an organization that has not only the power of the law on their side, but $15 million in assets to use against me to do what they need to do? That’s why I purchased the billboard truck. I’ve invested into my company. And at the end of the day, it is a company, but it’s a mission as well. And I’m happy to continue the mission and it’s definitely going to change a little bit depending on whether I get my monetization back. But I think even now, it’s just going to change because I’m going to do more long form content now.

I’m going to do more more over the legal things, show you the videos that necessarily wouldn’t be good for the algorithm, but I know a lot of people appreciate. So it’s going to expand the investigation. I think that’s

Stephen Janis:

Great. I

Taya Graham:

Love it. Yeah. And

Stephen Janis:

Also, it might be interesting to FOIA Groton or whatever part of Connecticut it is, see how much money they spent prosecuting on trespassing charges. That’d be interesting. Yeah, we’ll probably do that. We’ll probably do that.

Taya Graham:

Sean Paul, I can’t wait to see that because just like you said, there are things that when you have to bow to the algorithm that you can’t put up because you know they won’t get views or investigations that you want to do that are going to take a lot of time. And so you might put it on the back burner. I’ve had that experience and it’s painful to do that. And so this might really set you free. And I think we had Lacey R. Put your Patreon in the live below. So if people want to support these coughwatchers who are losing their channels, now’s your time. Full

Stephen Janis:

Disclosure, I’m a Patreon member of Line Isles. Just so everyone knows,

Taya Graham:

I’m

Stephen Janis:

Biased, but-That’s

Taya Graham:

Journalistic ethics to say the truth there. Journalistic ethics. I’m

Stephen Janis:

A $25 a month Patreon member.

Taya Graham:

I

Stephen Janis:

Thought you said 10. No, it was 25. I went all in. I appreciate it. No pizza this week.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So we want to thank you again. I mean, you literally had to stop on the road to speak to us, so we really want to thank you for your time and we absolutely wish you the best of luck. And thank you for taking the time with us, especially because you’re kind of going through it right now. So we really appreciate you coming on. Guess

Long Island Audit:

What? I still got the smile on my face. I’m still healthy, still got my family, still have my good friends and good people in the space that are working really hard like you guys and Rites Crispy that you guys are going to talk to.You guys are doing great work and I’m happy. The trolls needed one little happiness in their life. I’m happy for them. When you live with your life with such misery and pain, I mean, it’s just every day you need a win once in a while, so enjoy it.

Taya Graham:

I think they will savor it while they can. Thanks again, Jean-Paul. We really appreciate you. Come back.

Stephen Janis:

Come back soon. I will.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So Stephen, we’re going to continue our discussion with Copwatchers who are caught up in YouTube’s questionable shift in policy. And we are so happy to be joined by Finton Vargas, otherwise known as the creative force behind the popular channel. Writes Crispy. Hey, Writes Crispy. Thank you so much for joining us.

Rights Crispy:

Hey, thank you, Taya. Thank you, Steven. Thanks for having me and thanks to everybody in the chat, everybody who’s watching now and in the future. I appreciate you.

Stephen Janis:

We appreciate you. We appreciate you coming on.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. And

Stephen Janis:

Being patient.

Taya Graham:

Yes. And so first-follow.

Stephen Janis:

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, absolutely.

Taya Graham:

So first, let me just do a wellness check with you. How are you doing and how are you dealing with the decision of YouTube’s to demonetize your channel?

Rights Crispy:

Thank you for your concern and thanks for asking. But as I’ve always told everybody, I do well by doing good in my profession. This is just a bonus hobby for me. I don’t do this for money. It’s a nice bonus to have, but as we were saying before, now the trolls don’t have a reason to say that we’re doing this for the money. And if we are, what’s the difference between major news networks that get a lot of ad revenue for their sponsors and everything? I think trying to find a villain in somebody who gets paid in America, it’s what country do you think this is? We make money doing things. But I’m doing all right, thank God. And I know that Rogue Nation did get a response back from YouTube saying that they’re going to escalate it. So it wasn’t a decision, but it was a response.

So that’s good.

Stephen Janis:

What does that mean, escalate? Does that mean they’re going to continue considering it or what does that mean?

Rights Crispy:

I guess the person who received his appeal said that they were going to send it to a higher up.

Stephen Janis:

I see. Okay. Well, that’s better than having the door shut right

Taya Graham:

Away. Right, exactly. It’s a step in the right direction. That’s good to hear. But

Stephen Janis:

I mean, to your point, when you think about if you took the collective monetization of every YouTube auditor out there, it wouldn’t amount to the budget of one metropolitan police department.That’s

Taya Graham:

The truth. Or

Stephen Janis:

Let me tell you this much. When I was a reporter dealing with police departments, they had multiple staff members, like seven or eight, nine, 10 people whose only job was to deal with the media or the press and to get their point of view out there. They had massive multimillion dollar budgets to hire people who were only job was to harass us or tell us we were wrong or yell at us or call us up in the middle of the night. So what YouTubers bring in is pennies on the dollar of what the police unions and the police departments have to spend. So why are people always giving you a hard time about making $20 from a YouTube video? Yeah, it’s

Rights Crispy:

Not just the police, but I’m working on a few stories. Like I told you guys before we started, I’m not going to stop doing this. I have some really important stories that I have to get out. And I stopped feeding the algorithm on YouTube years ago. I think my last paycheck last month was a couple hundred bucks and before that, I don’t remember when I got paid before that. So it’s not something that I’m getting paid off, but I am doing a lot of good work and I’m getting it out there. And like I told you guys also, the only thing I want people to pay is attention. We have a lot of big stories coming out on the Wrights Crispy channel.

It’s not just police. Like I was saying, there are government agencies that have do nothing jobs and we discover that we find their credit cards being used for wasteful purposes and we point that out. I have an attorney here, our city attorney, he also is an attorney for eight municipalities. He gets paid about $20,000 a month. That’s $160,000 a month if that’s what all the municipalities are getting. And he’s not advising the cities correctly. They want to put in data centers, they want to keep flock cameras up even though our Department of Transportation has stopped it. But I don’t want to get off on a tangent. I want to –

Stephen Janis:

No, no, it’s interesting.

Rights Crispy:

It’s

Stephen Janis:

Interesting.That’s great accountability work, man. It needs to be done.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

And it’s not getting done in many communities because of YouTube and the algorithm and the way our ecosystem is kind of constructed around conflict

Taya Graham:

And

Stephen Janis:

Not like

Taya Graham:

This all reported. The way the attention economy

Stephen Janis:

Works. So let me get you, I just was curious what you thought about some of the ideas that Todd Blanche might be doing this at the behest of police unions or that police unions have been advocating for this and that they gave Google like, “Hey, you got to kick some of these people off monetization.” Do you give any credence to that or what do you think of that theory?

Rights Crispy:

I wouldn’t put it past them. Again, I thank you both for the work that you’ve done since I’ve known you, but especially last September you were in DC and you were interviewing the victims of the Epstein files. Oh yes. That’s one of the main reasons why I got into this. I know that none of those trafficking rings operate without some corruption in our government involved. And for Todd Blanche to say that it’s not a crime to party with Epstein when there are young kids in that room, yes, it is. That’s who we’re dealing with. And if we want to think about how he goes and meets with somebody from Google, I don’t put it past him. Like I said, the narrow-mindedness of these tech companies, look at what happened, the old Twitter, which is now X, remember they banned somebody in Canada for using the wrong pronouns.

However, they allowed the Taliban to continue their channel or their. So the narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy is ridiculous, especially in our modern cruelty. America has become a cruel and vicious place.

Taya Graham:

We

Rights Crispy:

Reward the shallowest, the loudest, the meanest. And for them to think that we are the ones who are being offensive by knocking on a door. I’m flabbergasted at what happened yesterday in Sean’s trial. I mean, that’s clearly established. You can go and drop off a UPS package. You can go and knock on a door and ask for answers.

Stephen Janis:

Politics, when people go and knock on doors and say, “I’m here.”

Taya Graham:

Or if you have a Bible in your hand and you want to talk to people, you’re allowed to knock on doors. It’s an American

Stephen Janis:

Tradition,

Taya Graham:

Even

Stephen Janis:

In a. A door to door salesman. Yeah.

Taya Graham:

I just want to ask you, have you heard from any other channels about this? Because you might have noticed, I’ve been looking down into the live chat. Some people have been demonetized. Other people have luckily missed the swinging sword over their head, the sword of Damocles there. Have you heard from any other channels? What are some of the things you’ve heard from your fellow cop watchers?

Rights Crispy:

Yes, I’m in a group chat. I was actually speaking with Nasty Nathaniel. Shout out to Nasty Nathaniel. When I got a call from Rogue Nation who asked me if I had gotten demonetized, we all checked at the same time. Then we went to the group chat. We were all like, “Hey, you guys checked and everybody’s…” Except for I think a few, Chuck Bronson, I don’t think was affected. Rogue Nation’s other channel was not affected. Major Lee Awesome. He has a lot of new, good content on there. But going back to when I started this, I saw Aurora, Colorado. There was a doctor that was trying to move some Boy Scout equipment in his own office building, and there was a police officer parked in his parking garage. Do you guys remember that?

Stephen Janis:

I’m sorry, I don’t, but –

Rights Crispy:

Well, he was confronted at gunpoint and he gave this speech after everything blew over. He said, “Use your white skin, use your straight teeth, use your education, give your money until it hurts. Give your freedom until you lose it.” And I took that to heart and I’ve done all that. I’ve given more money into this than I’ve gotten out of it. So it’s really not about the money. And the J-Town Press, Lana, just last year alone or the year before I think, she paid, I think $75,000 in records requests and other such fees for getting the story out there. That’s two Florida school teachers’ yearly salaries.

Stephen Janis:

That’s amazing.

Rights Crispy:

And that’s one DMV supervisor’s yearly salary.

Stephen Janis:

One thing you brought up about Todd Blanche and the Epstein victims, Tea’s reporting in Washington DC, the way she made sure that we were there and the way she talked to almost every single victim, I just wanted to acknowledge was an amazing thing to witness. Thank you. And she was there for every moment. I mean, I was right behind her, but – With the camera right there. She was leading the way and I’m glad you saw that because Tea was just amazing about really getting the stories and getting to know the people.

Taya Graham:

And for the record, TikTok was not always fond of my clips.

Stephen Janis:

But to your

Taya Graham:

Point – That’s

Stephen Janis:

Another story. Todd Blanche pretty much dissed the victims. He would only meet with them for an hour or something and it was very, very. That’s another knock against this whole administration, the way they treated, the way Pam Bonnie wouldn’t look at the women. I don’t know if you have anything to say about it.

Taya Graham:

No, it was incredible to see all of those women who, in doing this, I don’t think people realize when those Epstein victims came forward, or survivors perhaps is a better word, when those Epstein survivors came forward, these women have to relive some of the most traumatizing experiences of their lives publicly. They have to talk about something that’s probably one of the worst things that’s ever happened to them. And then they have to deal with the scrutiny of the public with people think, oh, they just want to do a lawsuit for money or oh, they’re just doing this because of a political reason. And these women have been suffering for years. These women have been reaching out to the FBI and the DOJ for years. So it was just heart-rending to see people literally turn their back on these women.

Stephen Janis:

And to your point –

Rights Crispy:

People are talking about these women and trying to question their integrity and why are they. Think of them 20 years younger. That’s who they were when this was happening to them. And I read this story in December 2018 from the Miami Herald and it put a knot in my stomach and I haven’t been able to untie that knot. And now that everybody knows what I’ve known for the last eight years, it’s sickening to see that we are in the age of apathy. People are just looking past it. Keep telling that story, Taya. I will. Thank you. Steven, please keep it up.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thank

Stephen Janis:

You. And it points to why you have to hold law enforcement accountable. They’re not always heroes, right? Because as you point out – Sometimes you got to motivate them a little bit. As the stories were told to Taya, people reached out to law enforcement. Law enforcement ignored them. Yes, they did. And in 2008, they gave Epstein that sweetheart deal of 18 months of being overnight in prison, but he was still abusing women. He was actually

Taya Graham:

Still abusing women at the office he was allowed to go to during the day when he was supposed to be in prison.

Stephen Janis:

To say we don’t need cop watchers is absurd.

Taya Graham:

I completely agree. Alex

Stephen Janis:

Acosta

Rights Crispy:

Is the DA for the SAO who gave him the sweetheart deal, right?

Taya Graham:

Alex

Rights Crispy:

Acosta then became the labor secretary under term one of Trump.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. And

Rights Crispy:

Now guess where he is? He’s on the board of directors of Newsmax. So if that’s where you guys are getting your news, shut it off.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Wow. Thank you so much for sharing that. I actually didn’t know he was on the board of Newsmax. Thank you for that. Good fact. Not that I was watching, but.

Rights Crispy:

Back to the YouTube money thing, you were talking about what are they doing about this? Can somebody sue or anything? I know that the Federal Trade Commission is doing an investigation on the bait and switch aspect of it where they’re telling people, and Steven was mentioning how vague it is, these rules that we have to follow. There’s so many things that we can or can’t do. And it’s weird because we’ll watch a channel and there’s somebody spraying somebody with a garden hose in the garden section of Home Depot, and they’re fine. They don’t have a troll channel to bother them at all, and they get away with all that. We are holding our government officials accountable and people start looking at us. We’re not taking a penny of their tax dollars. The person who is taking their tax dollars is not doing their job right.

We’re showing them that, but they’re focused on us.

Stephen Janis:

That’s such a good point.

Taya Graham:

That’s an excellent point. I just want to ask you if you had any thoughts on the violation of the Creator Responsibility Clause. I mean, what do you think that even means and how do you think it applies or doesn’t apply to your channel or to Copwatchers? I mean, this clause is really odd.

Rights Crispy:

Yeah, I was taken aback. Again, when I started, I tried to model myself after more moderate channels like Jeff Gray, Honor Your Oath, Civil Rights Investigation, and Rogue Nation. I really liked their approach, and I saw people doing what I thought was just getting a chip off their shoulder. I tell cops, “Hey, we need those guys too to test your bearing.” But I just decided on my first audit, I said it, “I’m not going to be that way. I’m going to be professional, courteous, respectful, and I’ll give what I get. I’m not just going to be a sucker. I’m going to go up there and I’m going to hold their feet to the fire if I have to, but I’m going to do it in the most respectful manner that I think is possible.” We’ve seen a lot of people take that approach after I started doing that, and I’m glad to have inspired a lot of people to do it that way because that way we can actually make a positive change, I don’t think in our government, but in our country with people so they can see us doing what they should be doing and get them to hold their local municipalities accountable.

But we also have seen people chasing and feeding the algorithm, and they couldn’t pander any harder with their trying to provoke people. I mean, I get that a lot of people who I work with have taken that approach. They’ve gone to dispensaries and stuff. I say heroes work there, leave them alone.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, no, I’ve seen some of those videos and I can’t really figure out what the hell that’s all about. But to the Copwatcher community and the people who are doing the work like you’re doing, the government accountability specifically, do you think this lack of stability in the monetization ecosystem and YouTube in general is going to. What is it going to do to the future of this community that has been very important to keeping police in check? What do you think bodes for the future for people who do this?

Rights Crispy:

Well, it will get rid of a lot of people who do depend on this. They are working with YouTube. That’s their livelihood. And I’m not saying that they’re just making clicks and views. They do good work. It’s just they need to pay their bills.

One of the OGs, the guy, I think his first audit or Copwatch was in 2009, Tommy from Mass Accountability, that guy has really put in a lot of good work and he exposed the “shit list” in Salem, Massachusetts, and he’s out there right now and he’s trying to make money off of YouTube. I don’t know if he was hit. I haven’t talked to him, but he would struggle if he didn’t have that YouTube income. I know he’s doing good work, so it sucks to lose somebody like that. If somebody realizes, “Oh, I can’t make a quick buck off of this,” and I’ll start doing something else that is just questionable or that some people don’t like, they’ll find something else to do. They won’t do it in the YouTube genre. Tuapri was a prankster and did pranks and stuff, and then he jumped into the auditing community.

So they’ll move around, they’ll find something else, they’ll find another way to get paid, but we are going to lose good citizen journalists.

Taya Graham:

Wow. I think you make such a good point because it’s kind of funny. There are people who say, “Oh, well, this is just for money or just for clicks or views.” And it’s like, “Well, I thought this was a capitalist country, and if you did work, it was okay to be paid for said work.” But the thing is that I don’t think a lot of people realize so many folks who run these channels barely make enough money to cover their camera equipment or to even bond out of jail if they get thrown into jail. People really are not making tons of money out there. People are doing this because they really care. And so it hurts to think that this well of activism that was so grassroots, so natural, just really just came from the ground up, could be shut off at the source because these places like YouTube, they essentially are digital commons.

This is where we can go now. And if they turn off the spigot, they basically control what narrative the rest of the country sees. It’s just really disturbing. But I just wanted to get back to Long Island Audits for a second, just to get your thoughts on the verdict of Long Island Audits trespassing case. Do you have any concerns about how his case was treated? Because essentially was just going up to the door and knocking, and now he could potentially be facing time behind bars.

Rights Crispy:

Yeah, it’s repugnant on its face for that judge to have done that, but I’m shocked. We have a broken system. Oh, no.

Taya Graham:

News flash for me, right? Big newsflash for me.

Rights Crispy:

Right. No, that’s what I tell people in every situation when we’re dealing with the government is don’t pin your hopes on an illusion that you’re going to make a change and they’re going to be like, “Oh, you know right, you’re right. McDonald v. Rundle, take those cuffs off of him. You can go home.” No, you can go there with all the facts and all the law in the world. If the guy in the row behind the bench is feeling some kind of way about you, you’re not going to see justice that day, and you’ll have to take it to appeal where it’s, I think, a little bit more scrutinized. But look at how did we get qualified immunity in the first place? It had to be fought all the way up to the Supreme Court that a Black man could eat in a restaurant. They could segregate.

I mean, not segregate, they could integrate, and the cops didn’t want to do that, so they arrested him and they took it to court and they were like, “Nope, I know what the feds said, but here in our beautiful state, we want to keep it that way.” And then they took it all the way up to the Supreme Court, and even in the Supreme Court back then, they said, “Fine,” begrudgingly gave him his right to eat wherever he wanted, but from now on, cops have qualified immunity, and that’s how they got it, is from that Jim Crow law that was being enforced. I’m

Taya Graham:

So glad to explain that. It was basically

Stephen Janis:

Like the Ku Klux Klan law, 1983 federal law that was supposed to allow people to sue public officials to enforce their constitutional rights. The ironic fact is that qualified immunity, which has been a barrier in many circuits to. Yeah, that is ironic. So what’s the future? What’s the future for copwatching and what’s the future for you? Just kind of closing out the last question.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, I was going to ask

Stephen Janis:

The question. I’m sorry, Steve.

Taya Graham:

No, it’s the same question. We’re just seeing in sync.

Stephen Janis:

How do you see the future unfolding and

Taya Graham:

What’s

Stephen Janis:

Going to happen because of this, what we’re calling the great demonetization of YouTube? Well,

Rights Crispy:

I think a lot of people will get re-monetized, and hopefully I will too. It’s a nice bonus, like I said. If not, we can’t be stopped. We’re going to keep on going. I have stick it to the maniosis. It’s fatal.

Taya Graham:

Oh, I love that. I’ve never heard that before. I really like that.

Rights Crispy:

You watch School of Rock.

Stephen Janis:

What makes you think that you guys are going to win the appeals? What do you think is on your side?

Rights Crispy:

Well, for instance, I think it’s a machine algorithm that made all these decisions. I don’t think it was one person going around and watching every one of our videos. I think if anybody had gotten a yellow flag or something before on their channel, that might have affected us. Because again, why would they only do some copwatchers and not all of us? I think maybe some music or something might be affecting. I think it’s something technical, but again, I wouldn’t put it past all those clowns that we mentioned before and the police unions because they really love to hate us. And the other quote that I was saying, I have it here, it’s to be hated for loving freedom has been the weirdest experience of my life.

Stephen Janis:

That’s so interesting.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, I think I understand as a journalist, you write what you think is the truth, and then people hate you for it, and you have to reconcile that. You have to learn to work through that, that, well, I’m giving my best representation of the truth, which I would hope would be beneficial to the community, and there are people that just have vested interests in a power structure, and they hate you. And what’s weird about it is that institutions like policing have people who will go out and attack you who seem to have no reason to do so or no vested interest in the institution, just seem to be blinded by the propaganda, right? I mean, it’s like –

Rights Crispy:

I have two theories of one of two or both, either they don’t have the guts to stick it to the man like we do or stand for their rights, and they hate seeing somebody else showing them that they can and they don’t. Wow. Or they want to kill the messenger because we’re showing them that their heroes are actually cowards or jerks and they don’t like it, or both. And I think –

Taya Graham:

That makes a lot of sense.

Rights Crispy:

To inspire people. I’m here to let people who are like-minded know that they’re not alone. I also love to turn people around. People ask me all the time, “Oh, why’d you do this?” And when I explain it to them, I’m like, “Oh, wait a minute. Hold on.” And they get educated. My wife and I sing the Bonnie Taylor, “Turn them around,” because we turned them around, and that’s one of my favorite things. Shout out to Wolfie Gladly, who taught me how to be positive with the trolls and just have fun with them and let them know to search inward for the source of your misplaced anger. Wow.

Stephen Janis:

That is a good

Rights Crispy:

Way to approach it. Be aware of your own anger. Why are you mad at me? You don’t know me. I didn’t do anything to you. That

Taya Graham:

Is a very evolved way of handling it. Yeah, that’s very evolved and very healthy way. To be able to deal with the

Stephen Janis:

Negative comments.

Taya Graham:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, we appreciate you taking the time.

Taya Graham:

We appreciate you so much. We’re so glad you joined us. We’re so glad you were willing to be flexible with us. We appreciate your work, and I hope you keep us updated, and that if you hear from anyone else in the Copwatcher community, let us know how it’s going. Are people still continuing to get demonetized? Because as we showed earlier, there’s a chance that even though you said it might have been just an algorithmic thing all at once, there could be someone who’s putting their thumb on the scale. Well, the

Rights Crispy:

2A community was also hit. I’m sorry to interrupt. No, the 2A. Oh, the

Taya Graham:

2A? Interesting. Oh, really? Because I reached out to HBO Matt to see if he came. Well, HBO Matt

Stephen Janis:

Did get demonetized,

Taya Graham:

Right? No, no, no, he wasn’t. I spoke to him. I messaged him as of two days ago. He was not. He wasn’t demonetized. I don’t know if that’s changed, but I did know the 2A community got hit too. So 1A and 2A.

Stephen Janis:

Anyone here from Corners News?

Taya Graham:

I asked him about Corners, but actually I’ll reach out to him later. Yeah. And just please keep us updated because if we can, we’d like to be a resource for everybody. And also, we want to see how far this goes. Is it hitting 1A? Is it hitting 2A? Do we need to worry about any of the other As in our constitution? Do we need to worry about them? Yeah.

Rights Crispy:

It was HBO Matt who told me the gun channels got hit too.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Okay. All right. Well, I’ll check in with him again. Finn, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate you so much. Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

And keep doing the great work you’re doing.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Absolutely. Citizen journalists

Stephen Janis:

Are the best.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. I appreciate you. We have utmost respect for it.

Rights Crispy:

Dittos. I mean, you guys are inspirational. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Aw, thank you. Thanks to everybody. That’s really kind. That’s really kind. Thank you. Oh, wow. That was right to Krispy. That was so great. Well, I guess I shouldn’t comment on our own interview. I though his interview was really wonderful. Well, it’s interesting

Stephen Janis:

To hear people. What inspires me is people do this under the most difficult circumstances, take on power with just their own sort of wits and the limited resources. Very limited resources. They’re undaunted. I know. And that, to me, is inspiring because journalism is a weird thing. It’s not like being a lawyer or something. You’re not accredited or something.

Taya Graham:

You’re in a gray zone. Yeah,

Stephen Janis:

You’re in a gray zone and it’s not something that makes you rich,

Taya Graham:

Famous

Stephen Janis:

Or anything. It’s just you get the –

Taya Graham:

Unless you’re

Stephen Janis:

On

Taya Graham:

Cable news.

Stephen Janis:

Right. But it’s something that gives you satisfaction from doing the work on

Taya Graham:

Behalf

Stephen Janis:

Of people.

Taya Graham:

You’ve got to care about it.

Stephen Janis:

And that ethos is pervasive throughout copwatching and other forms of YouTube accountability. And it’s kind of cool and really heartening to see that. Some people just get it, this bug, and they want to let the community know what’s going on, and they want to hold people accountable. And it’s just great to see it, that it’s still a spirit in this country, sort of a civic tradition, I think. We’re fierce accountability people, and to see other people just do it, and no matter what, they’re going to keep going, is pretty awesome.That’s

Taya Graham:

A really great way to describe it. That’s a civic tradition, that it’s kind of in the blood of Americans, that we care about. The First Amendment, all the amendments, our Constitution, the Bill of Rights. It matters to us. Those of them who go out to protect it in their own way, I think that’s really

Stephen Janis:

Normal. None of

Taya Graham:

Them went to journalism

Stephen Janis:

School, right? They’re not people who had

Taya Graham:

The

Stephen Janis:

Traditional training, but they figured it out.

Taya Graham:

They sure did.

Stephen Janis:

And then once they figured it out, they became very passionate about it. Just like we did.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, exactly. As journalists, that’s why we’re passionate as journalists. And so it’s great to see other people develop that same passion. And

Stephen Janis:

I was an English major, so whatever.

Taya Graham:

Well, Steven, I think that was a really intense discussion about an important topic. Absolutely. And I think all of us, meaning journalists and cop watchers, all of us understand how fragile and tenuous the right to push back against power is, which is why at least in the past, the courts have given great leeway to people over what they post and how. Do you have any final thoughts you want to share before I do my warning rant alert?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, thank you for the warning. It’s interesting because this debate is over the economics of an information ecosystem, and the control that YouTube has is kind of difficult to parallel with anything I can think about. When you start a newspaper 50 years ago, you could put it in boxes out in the sidewalk, you could mail it to someone, you could have subscribers through the post office, but now YouTube has become the only place to monetize this kind of content besides Facebook and TikTok, but the kind of serious long form content. And so I think that’s kind of scary, right? That’s kind of Philip K. Dick kind of dystopian that this one particular attention machine can sort of cast people off and that creates a very unstable kind of economic system and ecosystem for people to create information and to report back to us. So this is in many ways very, very disturbing.

And then Long Island, I was talking about the subpoena of people’s subscribers and getting into that. I don’t know. I don’t think YouTube is going to represent, given the way they have responded to the Trump administration and changed Lake Ontario to Lake America and how quickly they have caved, I don’t think they’re the right people to be defending en masse a ecosystem of First Amendment information. I think they are a bad actor in this in some ways. They have created a devastating attention machine, but I don’t think they have the same ethos of protecting the ability of people to express their use. And all these channels have never been taken down or anything. They’ve been there and then all of a sudden. So it just shows you how precarious this is. It seems great on one level that everyone have their own YouTube channel, but now it’s very precarious and it’s a little scary to say the least.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Steven, I think you made a really great point about how there is a concentration of power. And I really think that it’s important to point this out Because a world where the control of the distribution of information is bound to just a few private companies, that’s a dangerous world because that means, like I mentioned earlier, they can control the narrative. They control what we see, what we watch, what we learn, what information we take in. And that is a type of power I don’t think that’s ever been seen before in history.

Stephen Janis:

Maybe back in the day.

Taya Graham:

Right. Back where there were medieval peasants and only upper class people were literate or something. Okay. Maybe back then that was controlling the narrative. Ever

Stephen Janis:

Since the

Taya Graham:

Printing

Stephen Janis:

Press, it’s been more

Taya Graham:

Diffused.

Stephen Janis:

And now it’s oddly gone in the other direction in many ways, just evidenced

Taya Graham:

By

Stephen Janis:

What’s happened.

Taya Graham:

That’s a really great point. And I guess what I’m going to do is just start my little rant. Is that okay?

Stephen Janis:

I’m okay. I’m here.

Taya Graham:

I’m here. I’ll get

Stephen Janis:

The popcorn.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, buckle up. So what I wanted to share with everyone is that I think the idea that keeps occurring to me as we discuss what YouTube has done to copwatchers and First Amendment auditors and apparently Second Amendment auditors is fairly simple but has some complex implications. And that is, it’s hypocrisy, just the blatant and contradictory use of the notion of creator responsibility as a justification for taking away the ability of YouTube activists to monetize their work. I mean, the idea in principle sounds reasonable enough. When you read the words and discern the logic behind them, they don’t seem irrational, but then you start thinking. And then the question becomes unavoidable. Like really Google, the company that gave us Alex Jones and the flat earth conspiracies, the company that has been monetizing conflict for decades and profiting off lies and embellishment and fabrication since it was birthed and now out of nowhere, they’re suddenly concerned about this sort of nebulous sense of decency without any warning or outward provocation.

The oligarchs who run this obscenely rich company seem to become uncomfortable with content that holds power accountable in ways that are not always pretty or easy to watch. Well, I mean, Google, where was that moral qualm when child victims of the Newtown Massacre were being accused of being crisis actors when their parents were being doxed and hounded by Jones and his legions? It took Google quite a while to deal with that mess if they actually did it all. But all this debate over content, creator responsibility and the nuances of Google standards misses another really important point. Something that the powers that be would like to ignore, but we’re not going to let them. Who actually made copwatching possible and even necessary? Well, it wasn’t Wright’s Crispy or Joe Cool or Long Island Audits or Out of the Watchdog or Friends in Code or Eric Brant or Noli D or Lacey Art.

They didn’t create the environment of the law enforcement industrial complex that made policing one of the most powerful institutions in America. No, they didn’t. Power, inequality, and the police themselves invented copwatching. It was their overreach and abuse of the law that demanded a response from the people subject to it. It was their power drunk officers and biased judges and poorly constructed laws that sewed the general discontent that made any of this, basically all of this possible. I mean, let’s remember, copwatchers and 1A auditors wouldn’t garner millions of views if people didn’t tell Google through their watch habits that auditing content was relevant to their lives. YouTube’s merciless algorithm doesn’t dole out watch time to videos that no one is interested in. The platform is not a charitable foundation constructed for the public good. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It is the most efficient, reactive, adoptive, and yes, destructive attention machine ever constructed by human beings.

It’s the most elaborate ruthless flame for a moth of human cognition that has ever been devised. People watch the aforementioned YouTubers because the algorithm has determined they want to. Copwatcher videos get traction because of YouTube’s own technology and it’s crafted an audience that wants to see cops held accountable. And if you think police power is not a problem that requires people with cell phone cameras to address it, just consider something. The most recent police shooting in Pennsylvania and the role video is playing in its adjudication. 22 year old Glenwood Earl Seicher was walking to a friend’s house after a pub crawl when he stopped at the wrong address. After he knocked on the door, homeowners called the police fearing that someone was breaking into their house. Turns out that wasn’t true because Pyscher was actually sitting quietly on their back patio when police arrived. Enter Sean Farrell of the upper Potsgrove police.

He arrived on the scene, told the young man to show his hands, which he did peacefully and then inexplicably shot him twice in the chest killing him. Farrell has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, but here’s the most important point. When backup arrived on the scene, Farrell told the fellow cops that that young man had been shouting and gesticulating wildly, that he was screaming and threatening and all of it was not true. It was an absolute lie. But imagine if Officer Ferrell didn’t have body-worn camera, imagine if there was no video, what would’ve happened then? Well, I can tell you because I witnessed it here in Baltimore before cell phone cameras became ubiquitous. Nothing. Nothing at all would happen. No changes, no questions, no justice. Sure the family would’ve protested. His friends would’ve sworn up and down that he was a good kid incapable of scaring a cop, but it wouldn’t have mattered.

The officer would’ve been believed and an innocent man’s murder would’ve gone unavenged. So when YouTube or Google decides to shut down the ability of cop watchers to monetize their videos, it’s not just an inconvenience. It’s shutting down the people’s flock camera, so to speak, the cameras that are documenting power and the abuse of it. The one instance where the camera is turned on them, not us. And that is why this great demonetization should concern all of us. It’s not just about cop watchers. It’s not just about auditors or crazy YouTubers. It’s not just about who gets to shout the loudest or act the craziest. It’s about who has the right to tell our stories, who has the means to represent us. It’s about our voice and who hears it and who doesn’t. And that’s why here at the Real News and the Police Accountability Report, we will continue to report for you.

I want to thank – Wow. Was that all right?

Stephen Janis:

That was quite the Rantea.

Taya Graham:

I was moved. I couldn’t help it. After seeing this happen all week, we’ve been talking about it. We’ve been seeing people’s channels struck down and I was a little fired up. But

Stephen Janis:

You make a really good point because I covered a lot of police brutality and a guy would get shot in the back and police would come of sort of furative movements or whatever. It didn’t matter what anyone in the community, even people who witnessed it didn’t matter what they said.

Taya Graham:

10 witnesses and it wouldn’t matter.

Stephen Janis:

Until there was video. And that changed everything just like in our city, of course, with Freddie Gray, when people had the video of him being dragged into that van, Freddie Gray who died in police custody and the subsequent uprising. Without video, it just didn’t matter. The police always had the benefit of the doubt and a lot of, I think, bad shootings or criminal shootings went unprosecuted because of that. Absolutely. So your point about the camera and whether or not we need cop watchers, I think answered that question, I think for anyone.

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Just wanted to say that.

Taya Graham:

I really appreciate that, Steven. Thank you.You’re welcome.

Stephen Janis:

You’re

Taya Graham:

Welcome. Well, I have to thank Long Island Audit and Rice Krispies for joining on Rice Krispies. I called them Rice Krispies. Rice Krispy, sorry. Rice Krispy for joining us. And to anyone out there who might be experiencing demonetization on YouTube, please reach out to us. Even if you’re not a Copwatcher or First Amendment activist so we can try to understand the scope of this problem, you can reach out to me directly at par@therealnews.com or leave a comment here in the comment section. I’m going to be going through the comment section later. I’m going to be giving out hearts. I’m going to be looking for a comment of the week, but I also really want to see if there are people who’ve lost their channels. I want to be able to reach out to you or at least make a note that this has happened to you because I really want to keep track of this.

I have a running list and I want to confirm as many demonetizations as possible so we can really get a handle on what’s happening here. Agreed. I want to thank our moderators, Noli D and Lacey R. For their help. Thank you, Noli D.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Taya Graham:

And of course our friends in the studio, Dave, Max, James, Jocelyn and Ryan. And of course, I have to thank my amazing co-host, Steven Janis, who knows better than anyone the power of pointing a camera at a powerful person. So thank you, Steven.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. And thank you to the studio. Thank

Taya Graham:

You David and Max

Stephen Janis:

And everyone for helping out.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, they do. They were heroic. Oh my gosh, Cameron. Sorry Cameron. Thank Cameron.

Stephen Janis:

Don’t forget Cameron. Cameron was very helpful.

Taya Graham:

We appreciate you all. And so I want to thank everyone watching who took the time to stay with us to the end. Like I said, I promise to go into the comments later and respond to comments. And I’m going to try to do a comment of the week. I’ll probably have it out midweek. So take a look. It might be yours. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.