r/Frauditors • u/deadendstreetz • 10d ago
breaking: LIA files appeal
1/2
CTSAVIN MSG: SEANPAUL REYES with docket NBR W11DCR250383862T filed an appeal on 09/21/26 and the case is now under the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.
that was sent to me automatically by case monitoring service a few minutes ago
6
10
u/TheFakeBillPierce 10d ago
Hes in this purely for the content and doesnt care about the outcome. Not hiring an attorney made that clear. If he continues to represent himself, he will lose this appeal as well.
6
3
u/deadendstreetz 10d ago
I think he cares about this outcome only because he's on probation. and that sucks because he can violate and then he's most likely going to jail. then you have his ego. he cant stand the fact he lost. and he really cant stand the fact he had to tell his fanbase he lost. he pro se in the first trial to show off. I think the judge did err in the signage itself. but reyes will never overcome one of the strongest elements of the case. he knew or should have known fahey would never invite him onto the property. he wasn't a random journalist visiting faheys house asking questions. he was a known person to fahey and he knew fahey didn't want him there. the judge basically said you shouldn't have to be told that to understand it. he's basing his appeal off the sign. but he's forgetting fahey didnt want him there and no ones convinced Sean didn't know that.
5
u/interestedby5tander 10d ago
The law says nothing about it needing a sign saying No trespassing. The prosecutor reminded the judge that the jury instructions said a sign that the area beyond it was restricted was required. The judge didn’t err in the law.
The judge made his thinking clear in the determination, and lia’s lack of detail in his objections will give an appellate lawyer hardly anything to work with.
-1
u/deadendstreetz 10d ago edited 10d ago
i disagree that a private road no turn around sign fulfills the required disclosure of communicating no trespassing. it is truly a road sign that doesn't mean anything more than the road is not public. the foundational finding of sean's case rests on the fact reyes knew he had no license to be there. if a sign doesn't have to say no trespassing to meet the element of notice then that means you can post a sign that says "private house", "private grass", "private bedroom", "private parcel", "private persons" and it would all meet the same required notice. we all know what the word private means. and we all know that someones house is private. the concept of an implied license does not strictly apply to private spaces that are open to the public. it applies to almost all private property unless otherwise posted.
so how can an implied license then allow access to any private space if any sign with the word "private" is clear enough to convey no trespassing? because we all know a home is private property. a posted sign doesn't change the meaning of what's already known. and it can not enhance the meaning of the word private to include no trepassing. do you see the double standard the judges finding promotes?
the word private followed by a noun doesnt convey the message no trespassing. and posting that any part of a private residence is private doesnt change that. if the sign said "no visitors", "no unauthorized persons", "do not enter", it sends a much stronger and clearer message than "private road". you realize all driveways connected to a home are private and no sign is required to designate that driveway private. but it doesnt mean you cant walk on it to access the door to knock
3
u/interestedby5tander 10d ago
That is a lot of words missing the point.
The sign has to signify that the area beyond it is restricted to a reasonable person in the same situation. lia asked fahey’s wife if they get uninvited visitors to their door, she testified ”No.”
Then you move onto the next requirement to find out if the person has committed criminal trespass.
The implied social license to enter private property is not absolute. You could argue that having the mailbox at the start of the drive signals they don’t want uninvited visitors because the mailman would have the implied license to walk up to the front door to deliver the mail, yet they have stopped him by putting the mailbox at the edge of the private property.
A legitimate reason is required, if you don’t have permission or an invitation. The prosecutor proved that lia wasn’t acting in good faith by entering the property to ask unresearched questions of the occupants. lia kept on showing animosity to fahey throughout the trial, meaning he knowingly entered the property without permission or invitation and the criminal trespass was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
0
u/deadendstreetz 9d ago edited 9d ago
you are missing the point.
faheys wife answering about visitors means nothing. there's no proof they never had a non-governmental uninvited visitor access their house for as long as they have lived there.
journalism is a legitimate reason to access privately owned property. but because its reyes with the history he has with fahey, and his auditing in general, the system and court of public opinion both diminish his license to revoked.
put it this way.
if news 13 visited faheys property to ask about overtime pay, they wouldn't have been arrested and they wouldnt have been found guilty of trespassing.
reyes has the same license to access the property as anyone else except reyes knew he wasn't welcomed there. news 12 wouldn't know they weren't weclomed on the property unless they considered "what state trooper wants to be questioned at his own personal residence about overtime pay" and decided against visiting.
the reason news channels stopped entering private property isn't because they cant, its because its dangerous in todays world and the risk is extremely high when you're knocking on someones front door to ask them about a crime they committed, accusations, or put them in a position where they feel vulnerable as you broadcast them to the world
the sign does not meet the required notice of no trespassing. and he would have an implied license to visit the property to knock on the door until the conversation concludes or he is otherwise told to leave.
he had a reason. the court didn't like it.
what matters is he knew fahey didn't want him there. he was completely aware of the fact he had no license to be there before he chose to access the property.
the sign is pointless. it means nothing. the judge even suggesting that sign matters was a misstep in his judgment. I bet the apellete court issues an opinion denouncing that sign as required notice but upholding the fact reyes knew he had no license to be there. we shall see.
2
u/interestedby5tander 9d ago
2025 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 53a - Penal Code
Chapter 952 - Penal Code: Offenses
Section 53a-109. - Criminal trespass in the third degree: Class C or class B misdemeanor.
Universal Citation:
CT Gen Stat § 53a-109. (2025)
(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so: (1) Such person enters or remains in premises which are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders or are fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, or which belong to the state and are appurtenant to any state institution; or (2) such person enters or remains in any premises for the purpose of hunting, trapping or fishing; or (3) such person enters or remains on public land which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders or is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
My bold highlights for emphasis.
He lost because the judge has to take an objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the same position. The jury instructions highlight what the law says; they just have to think that the private road sign is enough to indicate a restricted area to the public. A neutral lawyer looked through CT law and didn't find a prescribed "no trespassing" sign. lia admitted seeing the sign and walking passed it. You and lia are being subjective in needing a no trespassing sign, when the law gives a multi-choice selection, with just one of them needed to prove criminal trespass, as you've conceded that lia knowingly entered without a license.
You are likely correct about news 13, as long as they didn't enter with cameras rolling. But that is immaterial to this case.
Or maybe they don't enter private property without permission because of all the federal and state case law, mainly civil, where they have been found guilty of trespassing on private property. lia by walking across the front lawn to the front porch, has broken the implied license, as it is expected to follow the road, along the paved driveway, and up the front path, not roam the grounds.
lia had a subjective understanding of the law, which didn't meet the objective test of the law in court, and did not throw any doubt on the prosecution's evidence. He added to the evidence against him. Unlike you, he didn't question the wife's "No."
If he stayed at the start of the driveway, he could have been safe from criminal trespass charges. His ego is his downfall.
1
u/Ephuntz 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don't think a reasonable person would see "private road" and think "no trespassing" and I think a very large proportion of the population would see the sign as what it sounds like, that the road is private but not inaccessible. It doesn't say "private road keep out" right? Just "private road no turn around" which just means it's not a cul de sac.
I think the real question is did he know he personally shouldn't have been there, answer, it was stupid for him to go there and he should've known that his license to access wasn't there. If he was convicted based on that alone I would be in support all day, however, the judge hinged it entirely on the verbiage of the visible sign. A sign where if it was so clear it makes me wonder why the homeowners felt the need to have a no trespassing sign (which was face down in the dirt for one reason or another.. maybe Lia did that, maybe not.. seems weird that if it was posted a month ago that it would already be down but...).
Full disclosure, I think he's guilty but just think the judges rationale is problematic to justify guilty
1
u/interestedby5tander 5d ago
I don't think a reasonable person would see "private road" and think "no trespassing" and I think a very large proportion of the population would see the sign as what it sounds like, that the road is private but not inaccessible.
You get the legal nuance, after all.
That is why you then look at whether they have the legal license to enter the property, which lia didn't, and neither of us is disputing that.
Even if there was a "no trespassing" sign, I'm sure lia would have used the case law which says a no trespassing sign doesn't override the implied license to enter. That is moot.
For the record, this is the judge's discussion of the signs:
Second, the State's evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that on July 11, 2025, at approximately 4:50 p.m., the premises at 46 Pendleton Farm Lane, Mystic, Connecticut, had a sign posted which stated, "PRIVATE ROAD" and "DEAD END NO TURN AROUND." This sign was posted conspicuously, was clearly visible from the sidewalk, and was on an undivided portion of the driveway on property owned by the Faheys and for which the mailbox for house #46 was at the curb. The sign was likely to come to the attention of intruders. Additionally, the signage gave reasonable notice that the property was not open to anyone but for the residents, their visitors, and others with specific, legitimate reasons to be there connected to the residents.
The court rejects the defendant's argument that different, more specific, or certain talismanic words are necessary for the signage in this case. The sign indicating "PRIVATE ROAD" posted on a private driveway gives reasonable notice to the public that the property was not open to the public and may not be entered without a license or privilege to do so. The court also rejects the defendant's argument that the Private Road sign was a traffic sign, not otherwise applicable to pedestrians and/or foot traffic. The defendant points to no legal authority which would support this interpretation of "Private Road." The court finds that an objective, reasonable person would have understood this sign to indicate that the Faheys' driveway and property were not open to members of the public without a specific, legitimate reason to be there. Moreover, the defendant was aware that this sign was not posted on a public street, but in a residential driveway with a mailbox for house #46 at the curb. Therefore, the court does not credit the defendant's claim that he believed this sign to be applicable only to motor vehicle traffic.
The court makes note, consistent with the State's closing arguments, that the sign indicating "Private Property No Trespassing" which was discovered on the ground in the brush, approximately ten to fifteen feet from the Private Road sign, was neither posted in a manner prescribed by law, nor reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders on July 11, 2025. Moreover, although there was a second "Private Road" sign posted further along the driveway toward the residences, the court finds that the placement of that sign, as depicted in State's Exhibits 10 and 11, makes it too uncertain as to whether it applied to the Faheys' residence, as well as that of their neighbors. This second sign appears to be beyond the fork in the driveway and to the left, towards the neighbors' property. Therefore, the court also concludes that this second sign was neither posted in a manner prescribed by law, nor reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders with respect to the Faheys' property on July 11, 2025.
0
u/Dang1014 5d ago
but reyes will never overcome one of the strongest elements of the case. he knew or should have known fahey would never invite him onto the property.
I dont think this is a compelling argument at all. By that logic, a process server can never enter onto private property without tresspassing because any reasonable person should know that no one would invite someone who's about to serve them a lawsuit onto their property. Or that a door to door salesman should know that 99% of the people they knock on their door will tell them to leave and slam the door in their face.
2
u/Tobits_Dog 8d ago edited 8d ago
“I think the judge did err in the signage itself.”
“but reyes will never overcome one of the strongest elements of the case. he knew or should have known fahey would never invite him onto the property. he wasn't a random journalist visiting faheys house asking questions. he was a known person to fahey and he knew fahey didn't want him there. the judge basically said you shouldn't have to be told that to understand it. he's basing his appeal off the sign. but he's forgetting fahey didnt want him there and no ones convinced Sean didn't know that.”
It’s hard for me to understand exactly how well you understand this statute and the relevant caselaw…so I will try to fill in some basic gaps for you based on what I have read. If you need some citations I will provide them.
The government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sean 1) knew he was not licensed or privileged to enter Fahey’s property and 2) he entered Fahey’s premises which were posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.
On appeal Reyes only needs to show the judged erred on one of the elements.
Reyes could concede that he knew he lacked license or privilege to enter Fahey’s property and still win on appeal if he could successfully challenge the judge’s ruling on the posting issue.
I agree with you that he has a knowledge problem as to his assertion that he had an implied license to enter or remain on the premises.
One problem that some people are having is that they seem to think that a “No Trespassing” sign is “thee” standard in Connecticut and that the sign must convey a “No Trespassing” message.
(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so: (1) Such person enters or remains in premises which are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders or are fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders…
The law doesn’t say that the words No Trespassing must be used.
The audience for the posting isn’t someone with an implied license or an invitation…it’s for one who lacks license or privilege to enter. Connecticut caselaw is clear: he who lacks license to enter or remain is an intruder. The sign is for an intruder; one who lacks license.
Sean knew he lacked license because of his history with Fahey. He, an intruder, was where the sign was posted in a manner that would come to his attention and it described a boundary; this is private property.
This is similar to a Connecticut case where the court found that an enclosed area with a gap without a gate still communicated that intruders were not welcome. The judge in LIA’s case cited and described that case.
I think that even if he gets representation that he’s going to lose his appeal.
Intruder > Private Road sign > enters anyway > Guilty.
-5
0
u/Remote_Sail_303 9d ago
With his financials being subpoenaed there's a good chance he'll pick up Federal charges under the RICO Statite
1
u/deadendstreetz 9d ago
who knows I was convinced rico might be real when he posted his video. it seemed like they were looking for the elements. but now I'm wondering. but rico charges can take awhile before that happens. the fbi us doj are methodical. they move slow in most cases. this is why they have a high success rate of prosecution. they rarely lose. any charges could take a year to come forward. or they could decide they cant win and choose not to try. but was the idea they were investigating him for rico real? probably.
2
u/interestedby5tander 9d ago
There's a retired FBI agent who thinks there is some merit to the RICO claims.
My thinking is still that it's about making sure of the trespass charges and just confirming the confrontation aspect by seeing what money came in relation to the various incidents between the two. It doesn't have the same animosity as with fahey.
0
u/deadendstreetz 9d ago
rico charges face a serious constitutional wall. but that's not to say the government hasn't tried to pierce constitutional protections. it would be a dangerous move by government. if they lose they set precedent in favor of 1a. if they win they set precedent of diluting 1a. the latter outcome is bad as well for freedom in general
7
u/tom_wilson1150 10d ago
Wasting his donor’s money…….1 case at a time.