1A Intelligence Desk

← Back to search results

Transcript Details

FRAUDITOR AMAGANSETT PRESS GETS LAWSUIT DISMISSED!!!

Welcome back, everybody. In today's video, I have some pretty incredible news because the Froauditor Amagansett Press filed a lawsuit in 2025 that relates to his arrest from 4 years ago. He didn't tell anyone about it, and it has just been dismissed. So, we are going to analyze his complaint as well as the judge's ruling. But first, I just want to refresh your memory as to what happened that day. Basically, he was recording a UPS facility that was within 500 ft of a school, and I can confirm that on his footage, he has captured children walking to and from school. Now, I'm not saying that that was his intent. I cannot say that for a fact because I'm not in his mind, but I can say that it did happen. Now, this is the arrest in question. There's no such thing as I can print one up on my computer and show it to There's no such thing as a press pass. Okay. I've explained You know what I'm doing. I told you what I'm doing. It's just a matter of you going down, sir. What do you mean "sit the mountain I'm going to die"? I'm going to put you in jail. You're in violation of the law. >> So, what would you like me to So, under threat of arrest, I'll give you my ID. I I want you to leave. That's all I'm asking you to do is leave the premises of the school. So, you're going to phone me? I'm not on the school premises. I'm across the street. >> 500 ft as I've already explained to you. You're supposed I'm with legitimate business here. Sir, I'll give you my I I hold on. I told you >> Get your hand out of your pocket. Sir, I told you I >> Get your hand out of your pocket. Put him in handcuffs, too. >> you want with my ID? Sir. Sir. Nobody asked I'm on a public sidewalk taking video, sir. And I just told you I'd give you my ID. You're making a big mistake. Sir, excuse me. I also have a very serious shoulder injury from 25 years ago, and I have a firearm and a concealed weapons permit on me. Of course, there was a mandatory 25-year-old shoulder injury. I think it's actually a requirement to be a Froauditor. You need to have some type of physical ailment. Now, what happened next is one of the most pathetic examples of begging I have ever seen on the internet. And I just want to warn you guys ahead of time, this may cause some second-hand embarrassment. I'm not going to show you too much of it because today's news is the lawsuit, it's not the video, but I just want you guys to have the full context of how pathetic this was. Yeah, but sir, please don't lock me in the jail cell. Please. I'm begging you. Oh my god, come on. Please. I'm begging you, don't do it. I will get out of here. You'll never see me. Sir. Please, sir. Please, I'm begging you. I swear to you, I have anxiety and and and panic attacks, but I'm just finally getting a handle on it. Please, sir. Please, don't arrest him. I don't need to sleep in the jail cell, man. I please, sir, I'm begging you. I'll give you whatever you I'll pass that up. Oh, but please, sir. Please, don't make me sleep in the jail cell. I'm begging you. We're not criminals. They're going to make me sleep in jail. Why? >> Sir, please. What are you doing? Please, sir. Please. Oh my god, don't do that to him. You guys don't know what you're doing to me, man. Why? Sir, please. Is there anything I can do, sir? Please. Don't do this to my wife, man. You don't know what you're doing to my family, man. Please, I'm begging you. I'm literally beg- Where am I going to put my feet? All right, so that was an iconic video, and now we finally have the end of the saga. So, he sued a [ __ ] ton of people. This was in 2025, and he sued the city of Lynn Haven. He sued John Summerhall, Josh Newsom, Tommy Ford in his official capacity as sheriff, Michael Ruthven, Austin Crosby, Derek Swan, Ralph Granger, and an unknown captain. So, let's take a look at his allegations. Here we have the parties and all that stuff, but let's take a look at the allegations. So, on or about November 9th, 2021, Jason Gutermann and Benjamin Gutermann were standing on a public sidewalk recording a UPS facility located in Panama City, Florida as part of their work as photojournalists. Plaintiffs are photojournalists who maintain popular YouTube channels with hundreds of thousands of subscribers and were standing on the sidewalk with large professional camera equipment. Plaintiffs were standing on the sidewalk in front of the UPS store located at UPS Customer Center on 3205 Minnesota Avenue. Deputy Derek Swan approached plaintiffs and inquired as to what they were doing. Plaintiffs were under no obligation to engage with Swan in this encounter. Nevertheless, Swan activated his emergency lights and immediately called for backup. Plaintiffs inquired if there was a problem taking photos on the sidewalk and received no response from Swan. Soon thereafter, Deputy Sergeant Ralph Granger responded on the scene as backup for Swan. Jason Gutterman told Granger that he was working on a video of UPS for his work as a photojournalist. Granger responded saying, "That's all you had to tell them, man." referring to Swan. And Jason Gutterman and Benjamin Gutterman were never filming at or around A. Crawford Mosley High School in Lynn Haven, which was further down the street from the UPS store location in Panama City where plaintiffs were filming and they informed Granger of this fact. Well, I disagree with that because they did record kids that were walking to and from school. They were within 500 ft, so strong disagree there. Granger also asked Jason Gutterman to provide identification. Jason Gutterman asked if he was detained and Granger stated that Jason Gutterman was not detained. At this time, City of Lynn Haven police officer Josh Newsome arrived on scene out of earshot of plaintiffs but captured on body camera footage. Granger told Newsome that he was going to arrest both plaintiffs, but plaintiffs were not informed of that yet. Granger then asked Swan whether plaintiffs were filming over at the school, a Crawford Mosley High School, and Swan told Granger that plaintiffs had not been filming over at the school, but were filming at a UPS facility. Then Granger then asked Jason Gutterman for his press credentials. Jason Gutterman told Granger that since he was not being detained and was not violating any laws, he was under no obligation to provide identification. Granger still not informed Jason Gutterman that he was being detained. Jason Gutterman informed Granger that he did not have press credentials to show him because government issued press credentials did not exist. Granger then asked Jason Gutterman if this was the mountain he wanted to die on, and Jason Gutterman told Granger that under the threat of arrest he would provide identification. Granger then arrested plaintiff Jason Gutterman for an alleged violation of Florida statute 810.09752B absent a Florida statute prohibits trespass within a school safety zone during the period from 1 hour prior to the start of a school session until 1 hour after the conclusion of a school session absent a legitimate business purpose or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone. And I do want to clarify that this was during school hours because there were kids that were walking to and from school. Under the above statute, a school safety zone is defined as being within 500 ft of any real property owned by or leased to a public school. At the time of their arrest, the plaintiffs were in front of the UPS facility located at UPS Customer Center on 3205 Minnesota Avenue. In 2008, a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida declared subsection 2A and 2B of that statute as unconstitutionally vague and permanently enjoined. And then nevertheless Granger arrested plaintiff Jason Gutterman for an alleged violation of that statute, one of the same subsection that was declared unconstitutionally vague in Gray. Newsome assisted in the unlawful arrest. Granger did not give Jason Gutterman a chance to provide identification. Benjamin Gutterman, a minor, was also arrested and placed into handcuffs by deputies without the existence of probable cause that any crime has committed. Benjamin Gutterman was searched and his properties was seized all without probable cause for his arrest. Jason Gutterman was placed in Newsome's patrol car. It was apparent that Newsome was taking the lead on the arrest process and proceeded with the unlawful arrest. At this time city of Lynn Haven Police Sergeant John Summerall arrived on scene. Summerall was present when Jason Gutterman again identified himself as a photojournalist and recounted his legitimate purpose for being outside the UPS facility. Summerall then turned off his body camera before engaging in a private conversation with Newsome. After the private conversation, the Bay County Sheriff's Office resumed lead on the arrest. At this point Summerall, Granger, and other unknown deputy had a conversation where Summerall expressed concern about the legitimacy of the arrest, but Summerall told Granger that if he had an order from his captain to arrest him, then to proceed with the arrest. Granger acknowledged that he had an order from his captain to arrest plaintiffs. Summerall admitted that he would not arrest plaintiffs without evidence that they were doing anything nefarious, which there was none because they were simply filming at the UPS facility. However, Summerall stated that he was not going to have that conversation with Granger's superior, his captain. Then, however, despite recognizing the illegality of his conduct that there was no probable cause to arrest Granger, arrested Jason Gutterman. So, that's a lot of conclusions. Basically, they're just making their own conclusions here. It's just a pile of [ __ ] but let's keep reading this steaming pile of nonsense. After Jason Gutterman posted bond, he was forced to retain counsel on the erroneous criminal charge. On November 21st, 2021, the office of the state attorney entered a no information against Jason Gutterman dropping all charges. The assistant state attorney assigned to the case cited, in fact, that a statute that was used to arrest Gutterman was found unconstitutional based on a federal judge. And additionally, there was no probable cause, and defendants Michael Ruthvin and Austin Crosby assisted in the detention and all prosecution against Jason Gutterman and Benjamin Gutterman has ended without any convictions. So, he sued them for I think there's four counts. So, count one is civil rights violation, first amendment. Let's take a look at count two. Civil rights violation, first amendment retaliation. And then, count three, civil rights violation, fourth amendment, false arrest. So, not everybody is under the same count. There are certain counts that are for certain police officers and others that are for other police officers. So, count four is civil rights violation, fourth amendment, failure to intervene. And count five, civil rights violation, first and fourth amendment against other people. Count six, civil rights violation, fourth amendment, and that's against other people. So, it's basically just a duplication of the charges, but against different people. So, this is what happened. That's the complaint. Now, there was a lot of movement in this file. So, this lawsuit was actually filed just not too long ago, literally a few months ago in September 1st, 2025. That was the complaint, and it it has failed pretty bad very quickly. I mean, here we are just a few months later, and this thing is already cooked. So, there was a lot of movement as you can see, there's a motion for extension, then all the several defendants reply, and they all did their appearance, and they answered. Now, there's so far there was two motion to dismiss that were granted because keep in mind, it's one lawsuit, but there are several accusations against several individuals. So, we'll take a look at the first order granting the motion to dismiss. Let's take a look at this. It says, "Order granting motion to dismiss. The court previously dismissed plaintiff's claim against the city of Lynn Haven, ECF 29. So, I guess we'll have to take a look at that. It looks like there has been three motion to dismiss granted. This thing is a total lawsuit. This order addresses defendant John Sumeral's motion to dismiss the three claims against him, ECF 30. Those claims are a 1983 labeled First Amendment count one, First Amendment retaliation count two, and false arrest failure to intervene. For starters, the First Amendment counts lack sufficient specificity. For example, they are against several defendants, but do not explain who did what. It is difficult to decipher which allegedly unconstitutional action any defendant allegedly took against each plaintiff. But, putting all of that aside, the claims fail as to Sumeral because the complaint alleges no retaliatory motive on his part. Plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the government's defendant retaliatory animus and the plaintiff's subsequent injury. It must be a but-for cause, meaning that the adverse action against the plaintiff would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive. Yet, the complaint not only fails to allege that Summerall acted because he wanted to punish plaintiffs for protected speech, but also fails to causally connect any action Summerall took to plaintiff's alleged injury. Count one and two will be dismissed as to Summerall. As for the false arrest failure to intervene claim count four, the complaint contains insufficient facts about Summerall participation in the arrest. The complaint alleges Benjamin Gutterman was also arrested, but was released to his mother on scene. It says nothing about Summerall's involvement in either that arrest or the release, or even whether he was there yet. As to Jason Gutterman, the complaint alleges he was already in defendant Newman's patrol, sorry, in defendant Newsome's patrol when Summerall arrived. It further alleges Summerall had a brief conversation with the Bay County officer taking the lead and another deputy. Ultimately, Bay County officers resumed lead on the arrest. In other words, the complaint does not even allege Summerall was present for the initial detention or that he participated in the arrest once he arrived. See, you're they're just suing anybody for for anything. It's completely ridiculous. Where an officer was present during an arrest and knew that the arresting officer had no reasonable basis for arguable probable cause, the non-arresting officer could be liable under 1983. What is made explicit in Jones is that a participant in an arrest, even if not the arresting officer, may be liable if he knew the arrest lacked any constitutional basis and yet participated in some way. No qualified immunity for failure to intervene when complaint sufficiently alleged that the officer knew there was no constitutional basis for the arrest and participated in it anyway. Now, Summerall's mere presence is insufficient to state a claim for false arrest and failure to intervene. Moreover, even if Summerall were involved in the arrest, the complaint still lack non-conclusory allegations plausibly showing he either knew either arrest was unlawful, some allegations are entirely conclusory. He knew that there was no probable cause for these arrests. That's what I was saying. They're just putting words in people's mouths. They're just putting thoughts in people's minds. It's complete nonsense. Others are more detailed but still insufficient to show knowledge. Having concerns about the arrest or explaining that he personally would not arrest in that scenario is not tantamount to accepting that the arrest was unlawful. This is another reason why dismissal is appropriate. In sum, plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support their claims against defendant Summerall. The motion to dismiss is granted and count one, two, and four are dismissed. So, that was for that one defendant. Now, there were a lot more motions to dismiss that were granted, but we'll take a look at the most recent one. And this one was from just a few days ago. All right, so let's take a look at the third motion to dismiss that was granted. This one is for Josh Newsom. For both the false arrest and first amendment retaliation claim, plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating the absence of probable cause. And it says that at this stage plaintiffs needed to plead sufficient non-conclusory facts to support an inference that probable cause was lacking. Further, because Newsom raised qualified immunity, I must assess whether the complaint contains sufficient allegations that Newsom lacked arguable probable cause. Whether an officer processes probable cause or arguable probable cause depends on the elements of the alleged crime and the operative fact pattern. The parties agreed that Florida statutes is the only law relevant to the probable cause assessment officers made at the scene and that it defines a school safety zone as the area in or within 500 ft of any real property owned or leased by any public or private elementary, middle, or high school. It further provides that from 1 hour before school starts until 1 hour after it ends, it is unlawful for any person to enter the premises or trespass in the area when that person does not have legitimate business there or permission to be there. Plaintiffs first argued that because a district court found subsection 2A and 2B unconstitutionally vague and entered an order precluding the state of Florida and its officers from enforcing them, no reasonable officer could have found probable cause for any violation, but that argument cannot overcome officers Newsom qualified immunity defense. For one thing, only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes. Federal district court decisions are non-binding on non-parties. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that there's a difference between a non-binding precedent and an actual injunction and that the injunction in Gray prohibited the enforcement of the statute, but plaintiffs have not shown that Gray's injunction applied to Newsom. Neither Newsom nor the city of Lynn Haven were named in the parties in the Gray case. That's interesting. So, in the end, the complaint has not alleged facts showing Newsom lacked at least arguable probable cause. The motion to dismiss is granted. Counts 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed as to defendant Newsom based on qualified immunity And it is so ordered on February 3rd, 2026. So, as you guys can see, this lawsuit is falling apart. It's basically a lawsuit. So, you already have three defendants that got all their charges dismissed, and I'm assuming that the other defendants are going to win as well if there even are any left. And I don't know if he's paying money for this, but if he is, he's wasting his time. Because he does have a lawyer. His lawyer is Kevin Robert Alvarez, and um yeah, let me just say that it is not looking good. And Jason Guterman has not gotten better over the years. If anything, he's gotten a lot worse. Yesterday, he posted a video, and just by the title, you can see that he has ill will, very very bad intentions. Take a look at the title. "Missy Manager Makes Career Killer Mistake." Now, what do you think was her career killer mistake? Was it that she attacked him? Did she pepper spray him? Did she hit him with a broom? None of those things. She disagreed with him. She came up to him and had a respectful conversation where she disagreed with him. And he realizes that he has the power to ruin people's businesses. He has never said in a single video, "Do not harass the people featured in our videos." He has never said, "Do not leave negative reviews if you've never went to that business just based on my video." Matter of fact, silence is encouragement in this scenario because he is aware his subscribers have made the news. So, he cannot claim that he doesn't know what goes on when he makes these videos. And a title like this just encourages the gang of lunatics to go leave negative reviews. The only thing she did wrong in his mind is disagreeing with him. It was very respectful. The tone was not aggressive. You can watch the video for yourself if you don't believe me, and he decided that he would sandbag this woman. In my opinion, this piece of crap has been terrorizing hardworking Americans, small business owners, for years, and has gone little to no consequences. At least he's posting less often, which means he's victimizing less people. But yeah, in my opinion, this guy is a real real piece of [ __ ] doesn't bring anything positive to society. Like he didn't have to do this. He didn't have to sandbag her like this. He could say, "You know what? I had a polite conversation and a disagreement with a business owner." Why do her dirty like that? Anyways, I hope you guys appreciate the information about his lawsuit, because one thing's for sure, he's not going to talk about it on his channel. You're going to have to get the news somewhere else, because he absolutely hates transparency and accountability. Thank you so much for watching. Don't forget to subscribe, and I'll see you guys on the next one.