1A Intelligence Desk

← Back to search results

Transcript Details

I Took The Stand & DESTROYED The Prosecution! Fahey Trial Finale

You are right now. >> YOU'RE SPITTING MY PROPERTY IN my gun on me. Not then, sir. He went back in the house before that his gun to shoot me. He said he was going to shoot me. I got a gun and I'm going to go shoot him right. >> You questioned me with a firearm and you covered for him. >> Done. >> Are you done defending criminals? My answer is >> yes, right? >> Yes. My answer. That's your answer. My answer is >> I'd ask our court to direct them to answer the question as asked. >> I'm answering the question. Can you let him with all the objection or you're going to be aggressive? You're better than this counselor. Come on. You are a state's attorney acting like a child. You're acting like a child. You're not You're not supposed to be speaking right now, are you? >> Thanks. >> You can keep mumbling under your breath as much as your lines are aggressive. Can you please be polite? Like you hate it when I when you get shown. You hate it. >> That's what that was about. The whole thing was about actually the law enforcement officer. >> Yeah. And the lack of accountability he gets when he engages in criminal conduct. Did you do any research into union contracts in the state of Connecticut as it relates to police officers and their departments on how they acrew over time? Yes or no? >> Not yet. >> No, not yet. >> Thanks for the tip. >> Oh, you're welcome. [clears throat] You think you're the most unbiased reporter to be working on. >> That's the word. >> You get paid by clicks just like journalists. >> Journalists on CBS are getting paid by clicks. >> Of course they are. Of course, counselor. But the reality, sir, is that um you can keep laughing. I know it's funny to you, but the reality is your videos. >> No idea what you're talking about. I just state the actions that he has engaged in multiple times unprovoked against me. Yes, those actions are reprehensible and he should be held accountable for them, but he's a cop, so he's not held accountable for them. And the world sees it. The world sees it. Judge State Attorney John Fehey, I don't even know if he has a relation to Mr. Fees. Who knows? I went on 23 DNA test. >> He started to site, I'm sure he'll site again, a Florida case which holds no uh has no power in the state of Connecticut. Um obviously he has no idea what he's talking about. He says that I cited a Florida case. Florida vardines is a Supreme Court case judge. It's not a Florida case. It is by you know court when the elements of a crime bail judge court of law has exactly one honest thing left to do. I have not he Thank you judge. Hey, what's up guys? Sean Paul Rays with Long Island Audit here. Back again with another video. In today's video, we're going to be taking a look at the conclusion of my trial here in the state of Corrupt ticket. Make sure you watch to the end. I'm sure you're going to love this one. Again, big shout out to TA and Steven from the Real News Network for getting permission to record this trial, promoting transparency throughout these proceedings. Make sure you hit the like button and share this video anywhere you can on social media so it can be seen by as many people as possible. We need to expose this injustice. Let's get into it. >> Superior Court of the Judicial District of Danielson is now open in session. The honorable judge Cody Guier presented [clears throat] with respect to matter of state Connecticut docket W1C 25383862- I see we have a state and Mr. Re is present. I understand that we're continuing with the state's final witness today. Is there anything to take up before we start? >> The the only um comment, judge, uh first of all, thank you for your indulgence in terms of accommodating the witness. Um secondly, um I it probably won't matter since the evidence will probably conclude today, but um [clears throat] it's it's troubling to the state that um Mr. Reyes and I agreed to, in fact, it happens in most every criminal trial, uh, agreed to a sequestration order. In fact, he he sought the sequestration order and then proceeded to live stream an entire commentary outside the courthouse yesterday, including what witnesses testified to. So, I would ask the court uh, should evidence continue beyond today that Mr. Reyes be instructed that he should comply with the order that he asked for. Anything else? >> No. Very good. State. >> Thank you. Attorney Eric Dable. You solemnly swear to affirm the case may be that the evidence you shall give regarding this case will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall be upon penalty of per. >> Please state your name, title, and place in the book. >> My name is Eric Dagel. B A I G L E. Uh, I'm an attorney and I work for David. >> Good afternoon, attorney. >> Good morning. Good afternoon. >> Um, by whom you employ? >> Uh, self-employed. >> And, um, could you tell the court um, sort of your career as it relates to law enforcement and what you're doing now? >> Uh, so I am currently a the principal and owner of Data Law Group. My career paths over the last 30 years. Um, started in military police. Uh I spent a decade with the Connecticut State Police and I spent the last 25 years I believe years as a practicing attorney in the state of Connecticut. I spent 8 years 8 years as a civil litigator and I spent the last 16 years uh as the owner uh of data law group which is a uh firm that focuses on management consultant for law enforcement operations across the country. As part of your um employment, were you employed by the Gratentown Police Department to um take a look and conduct an internal or I guess would be an external investigation into uh an incident between the defendant Sean Paul Reyes and uh former Sergeant Brian Behe that occurred on July 11th of 2025. >> Yes, they no longer was retained to do that investigation. >> Okay. As part of that investigation, did you uh and and investigators for your firm uh look into the history of any animosity or incidents between Sergeant Fehee and the defendant? >> Uh the evidence >> it goes to um one's knowledge when one is uh one of the elements as as Mr. has aptly pointed out is uh one's knowledge of whether they're licensed and privileged to be on the property that the state alleges he trespassed on. Any animosity that had occurred prior to that date is relevant to his state of mind as it relates to that knowledge. Judge my there quotable animosity but I don't think animosity would tell the court whether I knew where I was licensed or privileged to be on the property on that day especially incidents that happened years ago. >> Well, I I'll get into a little more of it, judge, but um as as I understand the nature of events, just to give your honor a taste for purposes of ruling, uh there were at least two run-ins with um Sergeant Fei at Middletown headquarters. uh that happened in 21 and 23. As a result of the first incident, Mr. Reyes filed a civil lawsuit which was pending against Brian Fehey, still pending against Brian Fee uh at the time of the alleged trespass and Brian Fehee was scheduled to be deposed a week after the alleged trespass. All that goes to the defendant's knowledge whether he was privileged or licensed to be on Brian Fehey's property on July 11th of 2025. Judge, >> Mr. Vy already testified to this court, but he never indicated to me that I was personally prior to July 11, 2025 that I was not licensed. That was not relevant on this property judge. >> But that doesn't go to his state of mind. That's what's relevant here. >> And the court will take into consideration uh its uh understanding Mr. Bon's testimony, but the court general rule the objection. >> Are you aware of any prior incidents between as part of your investigation? Did you become aware of prior incidents between the defendant Sean Paul Reyes and uh Sergeant Fee >> in the initial stages of the investigation? Um obviously it addresses uh the statements taken at the by the officers addresses prior contact with Mr. Reyes. Um uh in the course of obtaining documents in the initial phase uh we learned about the state police investigation. you learned about uh the interaction and uh just in the general aspect of of the the fact that there had been interactions between uh Mr. Reyes uh and uh Sergeant Fehee that stem back from 2021 and 2023 uh before this uh interaction uh on the on the day of the incident. >> Were they cordial interactions or otherwise? >> I've seen the video of the first one and it didn't look very cordial to me. So, uh, no. >> Thank you. Um, did you also did you come aware as part of your investigation that Mr. Reyes had driven uh a uh box truck that uh had video screens attached to it to Sergeant F's house that day? >> Uh, uh, the evidence from the scene, the bodywn cameras, and even Mr. Fe's uh, video, even Mr. Rez's videos showed the a box truck, the screen truck uh at the culdeac. >> What was the nature of the um video that was being shown on that if you recall? >> I don't know the full nature of the video. I just know that it was pictures at certain times of uh Sergeant Fee. Um but I don't know the details and a full loop of what was being shown. >> Okay. Did it, if you know, did it have anything to do with the prior interactions? >> Um I believe it did. uh just in uh the fact that the interactions were well documented. >> Were you made aware through your investigation as well the fact that uh Mr. Reyes had filed a civil federal lawsuit against Mr. Pay prior to July 11th of 2020? >> Uh I was aware of that. Yes. >> Now, as part of your investigation, did you also have occasion to interview uh Mr. Reyes for that investigation? >> Yes, I did. >> Did he agree? First of all, do you see Mr. Reyes in the courtroom? Would you point him out to the court and tell me what he expected? >> Yes. So gentlemen there >> any record of reflective identified. >> Now um did uh was Mr. Reyes under any obligation to speak to you? >> He was Did he agree to speak with you? >> He did. Yes. >> Prior to speaking with him, did you attempt as part of the fact that your investigation was still ongoing to set certain ground rules as it related to the interview? >> Yes. >> What was that? uh you know our first contact with Mr. Reyes is to reach out and obviously it's his option whether he wants to he he is not a member of the Grand Police Department so he is not forced to speak to us so it's his option um but I did knowing his history uh I clarified in email that uh I was not consenting to any form of verbal of audio or video recording mainly because uh it would be uh it would conflict with our investigation. Uh I explained to him that uh we do audio record all of the interviews and that once the investigation is over and the investigation's turned over to the to the uh party that hires us that all of that evidence would be available for him in the future. Um but I did not consent to I made it clear to him both in writing and before the interview that uh recording of the of the interview uh was not authorized. I was not consenting to that in any way. And what was his response to that to you? >> Admission of the party. >> Um, in both in writing and verbally he uh in writing he said he understood and in verbally he agreed. >> Okay. >> What happened anyways? >> It goes to Mr. Reyes truthfulness when it comes to um he will be testifying. I I can call attorney gel back for this purpose after he testifies, but it goes to his credibility. Uh, and he will be testifying before the court. So, he indicated. If he elects not to testify, then I'd ask your honor to disregard this, but I can hold attorney gle to testify again after um Shereas testifies if that's the way you want to go about this line of questioning. It's very brief. >> I'll draw my objection. What happened? Uh on Father's Day, um a YouTube video was released uh that identified uh something with a saying of what they didn't want you to see. Gone to any other law enforcement officer's house before this day. The Dangle Law Group has been retained to investigate a civilian complaint filed by you regarding uh your arrest following an incident at Brian Fehees residence. >> I don't care who you are right now. >> YOU SPIT IN MY FACE right now. >> You're going to jail now. Uh, and it was a recording of uh my interview with my investigator uh of Mr. Reyes or at least majority of the interview. There was some of it that was not there but the majority of it. >> Okay. >> And was that the video that was or did you create any video of that interview? >> I did not. >> That video was created by Mr. Reyes during your interview with him. >> I don't know who created it, but it turned up and it is from his perspective. So, I'm going to have to assume that you, you know, just based on the evidence that it was from his computer because that's what it appeared uh to be from. During the course of your interview with uh Mr. uh Reyes, did you talk about the uh incident in question? That is July 11th of 2025, among other things. >> Yes. >> All right, let's focus on July 11th of 2025. Did Mr. Reyes um talk in any way about how he got to the house or why he went to the house or anything along those lines? >> Uh yes, I asked him, you know, a whole set of questions as to uh his purpose and his desire and and what he did when he got there uh about uh in order to set the background uh to his visit to the residence. >> Okay. Um and you asked him that after you were aware of the prior animosity, correct? Uh yeah, I mean I knew the prior before the interview, so yes. >> Okay. >> Now, as it relates to any signage on uh Sergeant Fehee's property, did uh you inquire or did Mr. Reyes volunteer any information about signage that he saw before proceeding to Mr. Fehee's house that day? Uh there was a line of questioning asking him what he what he saw when he arrived in the area, whether he could see the house, whether he saw any signage and I walked him through um from arrival in the in the um uh end the dead end there in the culde-sac onto Mr. Fee's property for purposes of understanding um you know his viewpoint and his knowledge. >> Okay. And did he talk about any signage he saw? >> Yes. >> All right. What signage should he be indicating? >> Um he said that he saw a um a private property sign, a dead end uh and no out no outlet sign uh on the left side of the driveway. Okay. >> Did you ever go to the FA residence to to view those signs yourself or have you ever seen those signs? I >> I've seen them in camera. I did not go personally. >> Attorney Gel, show me what's previously marked. Station six. Do you recognize that? That appears to be the sign that um uh Mr. Reyes was talking about that was on the body warn camera from the scene. >> So from your interview, it became clear that he had seen that sign. >> Yes. >> That he ignored that sign and continued up the driveway. >> Uh he did continue up the driveway and uh after recognizing the sign. Yes. Did he in fact speak during the interview about putting a no trespassing sign on his own house so that people couldn't come knock on his door? If you recall, uh we had a lot of conversation about, you know, people uh entering property. uh he he referred to the the soul of people or people that come to knock on your door to try to sell you things and how uh clear indications uh and that he always makes a ch he he spent a lot of time discussing that he always goes um uh he he he was talking to his cameraman and and saying uh that we always make sure to look at the property because entering without with notice would be a violation and so he always checks the property for that and we had lengthy conversation about about property and uh and and clarification of of when you can enter and when you cannot >> and did um any conversation come up about a no trespassing sign that was found in some bushes um on the faking property as well. >> Um I asked u Mr. Re about when he learned about that sign. Um and clear that he uh from his responses that he wasn't aware of that sign that day. Uh that at some point later he became aware that there was a tres no trespass sign that was laying on the ground uh found by the officers. I don't have anything for you. Hi again. Mr. Bagel, so you said you were with the Connecticut State Police. How much How long were you connect state police again? >> For 10 years, 1992 to 2002. And you testified that the Dag Law Group does consulting for police departments. >> Yes, sir. What type of consulting work do you do? >> Uh we do a whole broad range. Obviously we do internal affairs investigations, organizational studies, staffing studies, uh a lot of afteraction reviews after deadly force incidents or uh tactical operations, crowd control. We write policies and procedures and we do a lot of uh you know required training that officers receive throughout the country. >> Any training on signage or trespassing signs? Uh I nothing of specific dealing with signage. Your welfare member represented police department in lawsuits against them. >> Uh well before this job that was my job. That's what I did in my prior law firm. I was I did civil defense uh on behalf of law on behalf of insurance companies which are hired by um we don't do we there may be early on we may have had one or two clients. So I don't want to say no. Um but we don't do uh litigation or civil defense as a normal course of business. >> But before you formed the law or you personally represented the law enforcement officers cases. >> Yes. I was a civil attorney assigned to a firm that did insurance defense. Yes. In >> your investigation on July 11th for the July 11th 2025 incident. Um, did you become aware of any uh evidence that would indicate to you that I was told I was not welcome at the FY residence? Uh, well, there is I I did not interview uh Mr. because it's not directly involved in this and so I have no direct information uh directing uh that you received indications of uh from the family not to be on the property you referring to the video from I believe July it was uh 2021 the one that you referenced at the Connecticut State Police Headquarters video correct >> yeah where yes sir I believe where you were you were met at the door by Sergeant Fay and and um and plain clothes. >> You're all set here. >> Excuse me. >> Are you all set here? >> Well, yeah. There's nothing else obviously you can help me out with at this point. >> So, you're all set. So, you can you're going to go to IIA right now, correct? >> Yeah, I'll be there. >> I'm going to be going. >> Okay. Mhm. >> All right. So, >> I'm going to be going. >> Okay. >> So, you're going to stand here with your cell phone up. >> I thought I thought you were busy. I thought you were a busy man. I am busy. So, you should you should get to work. >> I I should get to work. Is that what you're telling me? If you're busy between you and I have a problem on his body came on camera. >> He has his body. >> I don't care. I don't care. Right. This is private property. Okay. You're not going to vide me and have an attitude with me. But I'm going to tell you what right now. I'm not the one. Okay? I gave you the information you needed and I gave you your outlet. You were given your outlet. No, you wanted to stand there and hold your cell phone in my face of what you wanted to do. Yes, you take your cell phone and go and make your complaint. Okay. >> And I think that's your initial interaction coming from. Do you recall the color shirt he was wearing? >> Good question. I think it was pink. It was pink. Okay. >> Um, what did what did Fanny do during that incident? Uh, you would you were at the door. uh if I remember the video correctly, you were at the door that enters into the state police headquarters and that he met you at the door and then uh and walked you off the front area um at some point touching you uh and pushing you onto the green area um where he told you file a complaint if you weren't happy if I remember correctly. >> Did you see him grab my camera from my hand? I don't recall that. I don't know that it happened or not, but I don't recall. >> Did you see him poke his finger into my chest? >> I did. Yes. >> So, grab my shirt. >> Uh, he had he was moving you. So, he had he had his hand. >> Who would you classify as the aggressor in that? >> Irrelevant. >> He brought up the video. That's one. >> Video goes to a very specific purpose. judging was just his state of mind at the time on July 11th and why the animosity would lead one to believe that they should not be on that property. Um as to first of all calls for opinion testimony that is irrelevant here. There is a civil lawsuit pending on it. That's for that court. Um if he wants to call attorney gel uh at that trial then I guess you can. I'm not sure that evidence would be admissible. Um but uh it's irrelevant here to yes that that the sole purpose of the prior animosity on two occasions at the state police uh headquarters with Sergeant Fehee uh and the civil lawsuit. It goes to his state of mind as to why he should not have knowingly thought he was licensed or privileged to be on that property. Brings up animosity. I'm just trying to get clarification from the court on what that animosity was. And so I I understand the line of questions and that were not the subject of the objection where this witness described what he viewed in the video, but now you're asking him his beliefs about who was the aggressor. Um, and so I'm I'm inclined to agree. I don't see how that is relevant to the case. So sustain. >> Do you know how long our conversation was when I conducted the interview? When you conducted the interview with me, >> it was I'm only going off of recollection. I believe it was like an hour and 25 hour and 30 minutes long. >> And you reached out to me? >> I did. Yes, sir. >> And I willingly spoke to you, >> correct? Yes. >> Did I have an attorney present with me? >> Not that. As far as the recording, you told me that you weren't consenting for me to record, right? I did. Did I tell you that I would not record? Uh I'm I'm only trying to recall the conversation that you and I had right when we turned the video on. Uh that is not part of the record because it wasn't recorded. It was us having our morning greetings. Uh, and I I had uh I believe I had said at that point again, Mr. Reyes, this is not going to be recorded. Correct. And and you said I agreed and I took that as meaning that you uh that you agreed not to record it. That's that's my recollection. So, at no time, I told you I wasn't going to record it. Uh, in those exact words, no. Would it be fair to say that I said I understand that you do want to record it? >> Uh, in the email you you said in response to my asking you not to record it, you did respond with I understand. So I I would assume that to be you clarifying that you didn't want to record it, correct? It's there's a there's a broader scope with that. It's not about me wanting it recorded. This is an internal affairs investigation and every witness needs to be treated uh the same unbiased and clear and the collection of evidence needs to be uh maintained in an accurate format. And uh as I said to you in the beginning of the interview, we record them. When you're ready to get a copy of this, you will have everybody's recording in the same philosophy. But to um to undermine the investigation during the middle of the investigation is what I was trying to prevent, which is exactly what you did. How did I undermine it? because you brought um you know you brought uh by the way I think that YouTube video is your your most viewed video on YouTube and uh I believe that uh there is a ridiculous amount of comments underneath it and I received many emails and interaction with citizens who have viewed that video both probably and time and I have not formed my conclusions in the investigation. It's not over yet. Still being occurring. And uh you added outside pressure to an investigation which which uh which causes the investigators some difficulty. That's what we try to prevent in order to keep a fair, accurate, unbiased investigation. Did I call for anybody if you recall? Did I did I call for anyone to obstruct your investigation or contact you in any way? >> Uh I I guess you can say you didn't do it verbally, but you named the video. uh what they didn't want you to know. Meaning that you were trying to articulate that we were intentionally keeping information from people that should know about it. And when you're doing a fair unbiased investigation, information and relevancy is very important. >> So you said the video was titled they didn't want you to know this or see this. >> It it something like that effect. >> I mean you would know the you would know. >> I don't recall. >> Yeah. It says something about the fact of uh uh interview what they didn't want you to know. It was something similar to that. And there's two very mean looking investigators allegedly interrogating you. >> But you in fact didn't want anyone to know at that time because I think we're way far field of where the inquiry was other than the fact it was recorded when he was exposed to and there was a long line of question beyond that. of whether well I mean I think it's also been asked and answered you said you didn't want it shown until the investigation was complete pardon me judge so that title was accurate to what you wanted you didn't want anybody to see at that time correct >> no it's inaccurate you know internal a investigations are open to public record and everyone's going to see everything that's that's the purpose of a fair impartial unbiased investigation but you're not allowing the system to work you're trying to manipute really persistent. I mean, that's that's the challenge I have. >> Well, that's your that's your opinion, correct? >> It is. Cuz you don't know what I'm thinking or what I'm trying to do forever. >> That is accurate. Yes. And you're aware that you say that internal affairs uh interviews and documents are public record that will be released to the public. I just I did say did when you received the body camera footage from public records or however you received body camera footage, was it redacted in any way or did I burn up any withdrawal? Did I burn up any I did I speak to you about the open body camera footage regarding reductions? >> Coach, I'm going to object one on here grounds and two uh that um we are well far a field of what the director was. Sir, >> he brought up the investigation. I'm just trying to understand and witnesses testifying to that I structed the investigation that the investigation he's he's representing police officers before. He's worked as a police officer before judge and he understands how the information is released to the public and what I think there's partially disconnect. So, first you're asking him about things you said to him. So the question is why that's not here to say and then the second part is and I understand that there was a series of questions that were not the subject of the an objection is with respect to the internal affairs investigation and now we're getting further and further away from that into the details of the investigation. So are there reasons why first it's not hearsay and second uh it's relevant I would say the same reasons that he's getting him to say what I said partying into the case so there is no hearsay injection just by virtue of being part of the case party so on that basis it would support the sustainction we spoke about the no trust passing signs, the signage in general. >> Yes, sir. >> And you saw the the states exhibit 6 >> again. I'm sorry. >> You you saw the states exhibit 6 today? >> I did. Yes. >> And that [clears throat] sign said private road dead end, no turn around. Correct. That's what he said. Yes. >> Just a couple points of clarity. First of all, when you say you weren't aware whether or not Miss Shereas had an attorney present, um, as a point of clarity, was this a remote interview conducted over Zoom or Teams or some other type of platform like that? >> Yes, it was Teams. >> So, you don't know who was with Mr. Reyes at the time? So, that's why you say I don't know if you met a lawyer there. That's why you're not definitive in that. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And then, um, with respect to Mr. Reyes interaction with um Sergeant Fay at his door. Did Mr. Reyes make any comments to you during the interview about what he thought he was going to happen or the animosity between the two of them or anything along those lines if you recall? Um, I believe I I all I can recall without reading the record is that I'd asked him what what was his purpose and he he said that I you know I was going to ring the doorbell and he was going to kick me off and then I was going to leave and that and and um uh the other than that I don't I'm sure there was more detail cuz we we spent an hour and a half talking about that but I don't recall specifically. >> Did Mr. has indicated in any way that he and Sergeant Veggie were friends on that day or anything that he'd be welcomed at the door, anything along those lines? >> I I I I don't think so. >> Okay. Thank you. The court's going to find that you are knowingly, involuntarily, and intelligently making decision to testify. Welcome to the stand. Youly swearly sincerely affirms the case may be that the evidence you shall give regarding this case will be the truth of the truth of nothing but the truth will be gut upon penalty appropriate. >> Yes. Please state your name and town and state of residence. >> Sean Paul Reyes Delaware, New York. >> I own a company called Long Island Noric, Inc. Incorporated State for the last 5 and a half years. I primarily focus on government corruption, specifically law enforcement, politicians. Um, and I report on that m those matters of public interest and conduct investigations as any other big journalist would. The typical assignment is I find I get some allegations, I go investigate those allegations, judge, and I report on those allegations. And when I investigate, I collect evidence for that, video evidence, documents, and I report on that. I have conducted numerous investigations at the residents, residences of public officials, whether that be law enforcement officers, including police chiefs, uh, district attorneys, politicians, legislators specifically. And in every one of those instances, I make sure that I am on the lookout and aware of any no trespassing signs, any signs that would indicate to me that I am not welcome on the property. And that extends to when I go into public buildings. I frequently say on my on my videos to because part of my videos are educational for people. Um, there are people that have done this. I've followed in my footsteps and I want to be clear. Uh, I tell them I narrate and I say, "Be on the lookout for restricted area signs. Do not enter, no trespassing, anything that you do not go into any restricted area signs cuz that's how you would get arrested. I have attorneys that I hire from my law firm and from my from my company to advise me on the law and advise me on different investigations I'm conducting to make sure that I'm conducting them lawfully. I've always been told with respect to knocking on someone's door that the general public has a implied license or privilege to knock on someone's door and when told to briefly knock and when told to leave to leave there's been instances judge where I have arrived because sometimes judge the public officials law enforcement officers legislative district attorney They know I'm conducting the investigation and beforehand and they've seen that I've gone to Brian Fady's residence to ask him about the overtime scandal and they will preemptively put private property no trespassing signs. Do not enter. Um, but it always has verbiage that indicates to me that I would not be welcome on the property and that my implied license has been revoked. Um, any every single time a sign that indicated to me that I was not welcome on the property or the general public was not welcome on the property to conduct a knocking tour. I never passed a sign that indicated to me that I wasn't welcome on the property. I do bring my 14 ft LED billboard truck to these investigations. In addition to an investigative journalist, I am an activist first amendment. It's my specialty. And I love our Constitution. I love to peacefully exercise my First Amendment rights. I try to remain calm in every situation that I'm in and be respectful. I've done trainings at law enforcement agencies across the country in regards to First Amendment auditing. I've done trainings at district attorney's offices. I've been invited to do ride alongs. I've conducted ride alongs with law enforcement officers. I'm not anti police or anti law and order in any way. I love our constitution. I respect it and I exercise that right peacefully in everything that I do. Purpose on July 11th, 2025, the purpose of me going to Mr. Fatty's house was that I received a tip to look into Mr. Fatty's overtime because Mr. Fatty apparently works a whole lot of overtime in the last 3 years. And I was told that it was to boost his pension. That this is a problem. told this was a general problem in the state of Connecticut. There's been other reporting on this as well. So, I went to Mr. Fee's residence to ask him about that and to also see if he was home and I believe it was 3:30 3:00 when I arrived at the the scene that day and he was home and it was a weekday. So that was part of my that factored into part of my investigation on these on these overtime allegations and cooking the books is what I was told when I knocked on the door. When I got when I was when I arrived on the scene I saw probably could have saved this court a lot of time. We looked at the private road dead end no turnaround sign a lot the status brought a lot of evidence about that sign but it saved a lot of time. I saw the sign. I opened up my eyes. I saw the sign. >> I [music] saw the sign. >> I read the sign. I know exactly what the sign said. It said private road, dead end, no turnaround. I understood that sign and I still unders on that day, July 11, 2025. And until this day, I understand that sign to mean that the road is not a public road. It is maintained privately, that there is a dead end at the end of the road, and that there is no vehicle. There is not enough space on the road for a turnaround to turn around a vehicle. That sign to me is a vehicle sign that's meant for a vehicle. That's what it meant to me on July 11th, 2025. That's what I conveyed to my cameraman who I hired that day, Mr. Glover. I specifically told Mr. Glover, to look for signs that indicate no trespassing. Do not enter. And judgement, I was recording Mr. I hired Mr. Glover to record that day because I record all of my interactions, including with Mr. Dable. every interaction I have with the state actor and Mr. Del might not work for the government anymore even though he has for many years. I don't trust the government. I don't I want transparency. So I recorded the conversation with Mr. Gable in accordance with any laws of New York where I was. Objection relevant to July. >> I mean didn't you bring up the recording the recording of the interview Mr. D? >> Yes. No matter why he recorded it, doesn't matter. In fact, he indicated the whole purpose of bringing up judge is that he said he wouldn't record it and he lied. That's the point. That's the credibility. >> All right. >> So, states attorney F is just want to point out that he is indicating things that the witness did not testify to. The witness did not testify that I said I wouldn't record it. So, let me be clear and let me be clear about this. I never told Mr. Dagel that I would not record our conversation. I told Mr. Dagel, Mr. Dagel informed me as he testified that he did not give me permission to record our Zoom and I told him I understood his position. He didn't want it recorded. That's on him. But he was recording it himself. So, judge, I was I hired my cameraman to King Glover to testify to this court that he did not see any signs and no trespassing signs of that day. >> Objection, judge. This is argument, not testimony. He's testifying about what another would have said. if he wants to say that during the final arguments honor is one to reiterating what he claims another witness said uh is is simply argument not test >> and you're going to have an opportunity to present an closing argument as well you could turn back to your account >> sure Mr. Glover was recording that day. He took a recording from the moment I walked up the driveway to the moment I left and I was on the public street again. I would like to introduce uh an exhibit. We spoke about this exhibit um yesterday. It has no audio. It is just going to show my ascent. It is cut from the original video but other than that as the court has indicated to do that to show the relevant portion. Um it is continuous non-stop not altered in the manner that in in the way that the the the ascent up the driveway and the descent off of the driveway was um was captured and accurately depicted and it was uploaded to my YouTube channel. Um, and I would like to introduce that Stacy. >> Um, if it's one of the ones that he sent me, um, as [clears throat] part of discovery, that's fine. I I would indicate to the court I disagree. It's how it was uploaded to YouTube cuz the YouTube video was cut. But um it's if it's one of the raw videos he provided to me in discovery and and I'll [clears throat] accept his word on that then um I I will accept the edits he made and and if I object during it I'll object during it and I know your honor would be able to start that and um you have that on a disc >> USB and we have some method of displaying it. >> I should be able to play through here if you want. >> I can give you that would be great. All right. So, if you could just hand him that USB that's right there. >> There's only one video on it. There's a few here. >> There's one any one of them video. Judge, if I may just indicate that uh before this video before the um while this video was being taken, I instructed Mr. Glover to record in front of me so I could capture what I was seeing. And you will see that in the video. >> Yeah. Play. And just so it's clear, the video I received from MA was actually parts of the video before this. Correct. And then where you're doing some narrating for you? >> Yeah, that was edited off at the request of the court. But I'm just saying this is a cut of this. It's not the complete video. You >> This This is the cut of the third video I sent you that shows the entire interaction. There was other videos I sent you from before. Correct. just come up like to the side of me real quick. Just like get in front of me like record. No, like record in front of me like so that way the the camera could see exactly what I'm seeing. You know what I mean? So stay a little bit in front of me and just keep walking and then I'll talk if I need to just cuz I want to make sure that ladies and gentlemen, I just want to make sure that we're not crossing into any no trespassing signs. So as always, I want to be on the lookout for any no trespassing signs. Restricted area. I don't see why I would see restricted area. So, as always, you always want to be on the lookout for any no trespassing signs, restricted area signs. I don't see why there would be in this neighborhood here, but you know, we just want to ask some questions, see what's going on with this overtime allegation. Hopefully, he answers us. Let's keep it pointed over here the whole time. Okay. So apparently this is what $220,000 So apparently this is what $200,000 gets you. So apparently this is what $200,000 a year gets you. Says here the feees looks like we're in the right spot. Again there aren't any no trespassing signs. We're just coming in peace to ask some questions. judgement and just to indicate my understanding was um given what we talked about yesterday was going to be going past the sign and then back down the driveway but not all directions but to the center. >> I understand there's there's not going to be interaction, right? This is just going to be >> well you you're going to see Brian Fy act like an animal, but it's the entire it's the entire way back from it's it's only four minutes. Judge, I just didn't want to cut cut. I just wanted to see the entire >> You either want to cut the SP or the court. >> Oh, I'm currently being recorded. His uh ring camera said, >> "Can I help you?" >> Hey, Sergeant Fe. How are you? >> Get off my property. It's posted. No trespass. >> Nope. There is no posted sign. There's no problem. Do you have any Let's go. Do you have any uh comment on the allegations that you are I am moving. Do you have any comment on the allegations that you are receiving? [laughter] >> Couldn't even get the question out. Ladies and gentlemen, he was so angry. Couldn't even get the question out. He says that there's no trespassing signs. Let's see. Let's see if there's no trespassing signs. What a coward. He can assault me in broad daylight while receiving taxpayer money. But the minute an independent journalist comes to his home and he's probably going to try and get me unlawfully arrested. Now, as you could see, I moved back his camera that says you are currently being recorded. I >> film this guy. You're crazy. What do you think I'm doing? You psychoap. >> You have a weapon in your hand? What are you doing? What are you doing? I don't have any weapons. I'm a journalist. What do you think I'm doing, you psychopath? What do you think I'm doing? Get off my property right now. >> What do you think? >> Get off my property right now. >> I'm off your property. >> THIS IS MY PROPERTY. >> WELL, do you see me not to the culdeac? >> Calm down. >> GET OFF MY PROPERTY. GET THAT GUN out of your Get off my property. I'm a goddamn Connecticut state trooper. I don't care who you are. You are trespassing. I don't care who you are. who you are. Get off my property. You are RIGHT NOW. SPIT MY FACE OFF MY PROPERTY. >> THAT'S WHERE YOU SPIT IN MY FACE. OH, I'm going to object to immigration to to jail now. GET OFF MY PROPERTY. >> LOOK AT THIS. HE'S SPITTING MY FACE. GET OFF MY YOU MY FACE. I'M SPITTING AS I'M TALKING TO YOU. GET OFF MY PROPERTY. YOU SPIT RIGHT NOW. >> YOU SPIT IN MY FACE. >> GET OFF MY PROPERTY. I'M GOING TO JAIL RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING. >> GET OFF MY PROPERTY. I'VE BEEN GOING SINCE THE MOMENT YOU TOLD ME. >> GET OFF MY PROPERTY. Trespass now. Get off my property right now. Look at the gun IN HIS HAND. GODDAMN RIGHT. I'M A CONNECTICUT STATE WHO YOU ARE TRESPASSING ON MY PROPERTY. THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO KILL ME. YOU THREATEN TO KILL ME ONLINE. GET OFF MY PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. >> A liar >> right now. Chuck, it's all being recorded. >> I DON'T CARE. >> IT'S ALL BEING FACENCES. Get off my property consequences right now. This is the biggest mistake you ever made. >> No. No, it's not. This is the biggest mistake you have ever made. Get off my property right now. It's not the biggest mistake. >> Get off my property right now. >> It's not the biggest mistake. >> I spit ON MY FACE. I IN YOUR FACE. YOU THIS GUY WAS SPITTING ON YOU. WHY I'M YELLING AT YOU TO GET OFF MY PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. >> I'M OFF YOUR PROPERTY NOW. >> JUDGE, in that video there's nowhere that could be. There is no the white and black no trespassing sign is clearly not posted on the tree. It's clearly not visible. The camera was pointed in the direction on the way back in the same direction where the officers and uh Mrs. Fehee and Mr. Fehee testified that the sign was located on the left side of the driveway. Um, and it's clearly not visible. Um, it wasn't visible in video. It wasn't visible to me at that day. I only became aware that there was a no trespassing sign after I received the highly redacted body camera footage through a open records request. [snorts] And I just want to clarify for the court that if I would have seen a no trespassing sign or any sign that would indicate to me that my implied license and when my this my knowledge of an understanding of my implied license to do a knock and talk it comes from uh a case that I had read Florida varn >> again this is argument and not testimony. >> Well, I'm testifying as to what I knew and what I what I at the time. >> So, to the extent that you're going to make an argument about why the circumstances in this case do not fit the legal requirements for criminal trespass, you'll have an opportunity to make that argument. >> I think I'm just trying to testify to the fact of knowledge of my license or privilege to be on the property. I'm not make I'm not trying to make a a legal argument. I'm just I'm just trying to explain to the court what I understood it to be. I'm not an attorney. Um just what I understood at the moment in that time. And I understand from your testimony that you did not see the no trespassing sign you testified and that if you had seen the no trespassing sign or other sign that supported your belief or supported in your mind that you were not welcome on the property. You would have gone on the property. So, I understand that that's what you're arguing. Um, or excuse me, what what you're trying to do. So, perhaps we could save the legal citation for later. Judge, as you saw, you saw I saw in the video, as you saw in the video, the the driveway is very long. Um, it branches off into two different directions. I guess I'll just finish with this judge. On July 11th, 2025, in my capacity as an independent journalist who routinely knocks on public servants homes, public servants residences that I believe to have engaged in this conduct to get further comment. I was doing my job that day. I knocked on a door. I left when my when it became known to me that my license of privilege was revoked. I immediately left. I continuously left until I was off of Mr. Fe's property. That's all I have to >> Mr. Ray is on the stand and turn over to >> Thank you. Um Mr. Ray, let's start with the animosity between you and Sergeant Peggy. you back in approximately 2021 went to the safe police headquarters try to make a complaint about um something that maybe happened at the airport something along those lines. Is that correct? >> Yes. In 2021 I was unlawfully detained by >> I'm not asking you that sir. I'm asking you did you go and make a your opinion of what you were or weren't doesn't matter. What I'm asking you is did you go to state police headquarters yes or no to make a complaint about something that happened at the airport? >> My answer is that my answer that's your answer. answer. I'd ask the court to direct them to answer the question as asked. >> I'm answering the question. >> All right. And so I think that the disconnect is that if you're asked a question that requires a discreet answer, I'd ask that you answer it discreetly. You'll have an opportunity to the extent that it's not objectionable to offer further explanation in redirect. But to the extent that you can discreetly answer the question being asked of you, especially if it is a yes or no, I'd ask that you do that, sir. >> Well, I I don't think it's a yes or no, but I understand. Judge member from >> Yes or no? You want to say please head >> Mr. Ray, why don't you just answer my questions and stop engaging in commentary with me? >> But can you please be polite? >> I am polite, sir. Why don't you answer my question? I asked a very polite question. You just continue to ignore it. Yes or no? You went to say police headquarters to make a complaint about something that happened to you at Bradley. >> Yes. >> And um you attempted to try to film in the lobby. Correct. >> What lobby? >> Of the state police headquarters. >> While I was making the complaint. >> Yes. >> Yes. Because it would be normal to film in a restricted area while you're making a complaint about something that happened at a totally different location. Correct, sir. A public lobby is not a restricted area. >> Is it a locked door to get in? Sir, >> is there a metal detector to get in, sir? >> That doesn't make it restricted. >> Well, that's your opinion, sir. >> Any member of the public can walk into that lo >> and not videotape. Um, did you try to enter post at some time to videotape despite that being locked? >> Can you repeat the question? >> Did you try to enter post at some point in Meridian, which is a police training facility, to try to videotape? I was in I was led into that facility. Correct. >> Okay. But then you try to enter. In fact, on your video, you're you're rattling a locked door. Correct. And then ultimately, you're let >> correct. Correct. >> Let's go back to the interaction. So, when you go to the state police, uh the person who confronts you and has a physical altercation with you is Sergeant Fehee. Correct. >> What do you mean by physical altercation? Did you involve get involved in a shoving match of some sort or did he shove you or however you want to characterize it? Was there physical contact with you as you asked during your or talked about during your direct or during the day? >> Yes. Brian say he made violent >> My question is did you had contact with you? Correct. >> Yes, he made contact with me violently. >> And at some point you claim he broke your phone during the altercation too. >> Yes or no? And as a result of that altercation, at some point you filed a civil lawsuit. >> Yes. >> And um you went back to headquarters another time. Um and at that point during that video, you indicated and maybe we'll run into Sergeant Fehey again. Do you recall that? >> He does work there. So yes, >> I was there to file a foil request. Okay. But you made that comment on your video, correct? >> You did work there. >> I That's not my question. Again, please answer my question and I'll be polite. I >> did. Yes. >> Was the civil lawsuit pending before or after that second uh encounter? >> It was not pending at that time. >> Okay. You filed that afterwards? >> Yeah. I'm holding to hold him accountable. >> That's not my question, sir. Could you please answer my question? will get through this a lot quicker. Did you file it afterwards? >> Yes or no? >> Yes. >> You can keep mumbling under your breath as much as you want, sir. You are. >> Please answer my question as the judge instru. >> No, you're not. You're you're commenting afterwards. >> Feel free to do that during argument. So, at the time of J of July 11, 2025, you had a civil lawsuit pending against Brian Fehee and you had uh two physical or two encounters with him that you videotaped at State Police Headquarters. Correct. I had a pending civil rights lawsuit for violation of rights. That's correct. And I did not have a physical encounter with him. I >> Did you have an encounter with him that was argumentative the second time? >> I didn't argue with him. >> That's not my question. Was there words between you? What was the point in videotaping and hoping you saw Brian Fehey that day? Well, >> you're characterizing as hoping. Now, I didn't characterize it as hoping to see Brian Fe. That's your That's your testimony here today. On July 11th, 2025, had you had two encounters with Sergeant Fehey at state police headquarters and did you have a civil lawsuit pending against him? >> Yes. >> And you drove um as uh as you terminate a journalist, you drove an LED uh truck showing that encounter to Brian Batty's house on July 11th of 2025. Correct. >> That is correct. I would just like to clarify. I didn't drive questioning, sir. I didn't I want to clarify my previous answer. I didn't drive it >> up his driveway to his house. >> I didn't ask you that. I said to his house to the public street in front of his house, correct? >> Did you do some research on how to get to his house? >> What do you mean? >> Well, you had to figure out his address at some point, right? >> That's public record. >> Yeah. How'd you do that? >> I went to the town of Broden. You made a separate trip to the town of Brton to find out where he lived or did you do it that day? >> I don't recall. Okay. >> Well, do you recall driving to mystic once or twice? >> I didn't have the billboard truck with me, so I must have been a separate day. >> Do any Google uh searches of his property? >> Not that wrong. In fact, uh, about a week after the July 11th, 2025 incident, Brian Fehey was scheduled to be deposed by you in your civil lawsuit. Yes or no? >> I don't know the exact date of when he was supposed to be deposed. >> Was it short time after the July 11th date? >> It was after that date. I don't know when it was. >> Was it a year after that or was it within weeks after that? >> I don't know. Well, has it happened or was it scheduled to happen before now? >> Yes. >> So, we're about a year and a month out from that incident. Correct. >> Correct. >> It was much closer to the time of the time that he was scheduled to be deposed. Correct. >> I don't recall. Okay. >> But he was scheduled to be deposed before you went up on his property. Scheduled to be deposed >> possibly. Do you recall making comments to Sergeant D'Angelo that day that you didn't like Brian Fehee and he didn't like you? >> I don't recall. >> Sound like something you might have said. >> It's possible. I don't recall everything I said. >> Did you like Brian Fehee on July 11th of 2025? >> I don't like Brian. I didn't like on July 11th, 2025. I didn't like Brian Fagy's actions as a law enforcement officer. >> That's what that was about. The whole thing was about his actions as law enforcement officer. >> Yeah. And the lack of accountability he gets when he engages in criminal conduct. >> So you keep referring to criminal conduct. The reality is um with respect to the overtime. Did you do any research into union contracts in the state of Connecticut as it relates to police officers and their departments on how they acrew over time? Yes or no? I never received anything when I took my Yes. >> You looked into union contracts. >> I looked into the payroll. >> You sub you. No, that's not my question. You You specifically looked into union contracts as to how officers may acrue overtime as it relates to their pension. >> Not yet. >> No, not yet. >> Thanks for the tip. >> Oh, you're welcome. Because the reality is, sir, you're not really a journalist, right? Journalists bet things. You testifying as to what >> I'm asking leading questions. Journalists bet things, don't they? And I do. Okay. The allegations you hurl out in your videos, nice videos, like, you know, TSA is doing a really good job. That wouldn't get a lot of clicks cuz that's how you get paid, right? You get paid by clicks, among other things, >> just like journalists. >> Journalists on CPS are getting paid by clicks. >> Of course they are. Ad ad revenue, of course, counselor. >> Well, that'd be CBS. That's not the journalist. But the reality, sir, is that um you can keep laughing. I know it's funny to you, but the reality is your videos. >> I have no idea what you're talking about. >> You have you started GoFundMe pages before you had encounters with people to cover legal expenses. >> Before I count >> Yes. Before you've ever encountered >> Have you started GoFundMe pages afterwards? >> Yeah. Lawyers are expensive. >> You are represent yourself. You said that as much. You saw the >> I saw the sign. I clearly saw I opened up my eyes and I saw the sign. Yes, sir. Great. >> And so you um did no further looking as you talked about how important it is to look for trespassing signs. You did no other looking for any signs that was 5t in front of that sign, right? >> I'm not going to dig through the bushes. when you want to do a thorough investigation whether you should be on someone's property, right? Now, you say you're always respectful in your videos, right? >> I try to be always. >> So, last night's video when you said that the fees daughter, you heard it's really easy to get with her. That's being respectful or has anything to do with >> What does it have to do with anything? >> Did you say it? >> What objection? >> Did you say it? Hey, can you let him rule on the objection or you're going to be aggressive? >> You're better than this, counselor. Come on. >> And the objection is ruled and you can answer, sir. >> Did you say it? >> I was reading a comment. >> Did you say it? >> I was reading a comment from one of the viewers. >> Quite a journalist. Opinion journalist. How many lawsuits have you filed, sir? Out of these cases where you go in for all your videos, how many lawsuits have you filed? >> I couldn't tell you. >> Lots. Huh? >> Probably on one hand. I can count. >> Okay. And you threatened to file another one last night in that video when you were being respectful? >> No, I didn't threaten one. >> Yes, you did. >> No, I'm going to file one. Okay. And when you were found not guilty, you were going to file a lawsuit and you were going to own that house and you were going to go back to that circle the minute the protective order was over. Correct. >> To protest as is my first amendment. Correct. >> Not the property. >> You are a convicted felony. [clears throat] Conviction for attempted robbery of the first three out of the state of New York. >> Ghost of credibility. >> A 15year-old. >> You were released in 2016, sir. >> It's 15year-old. And I I took the I I was convicted more than 15 years ago when I made >> I wasn't convicted of any lies. I wasn't convicted of any fraud. >> Robbery is inherently goes to credibility in the state of New York 15 years ago. >> Were you convicted of attempted robbery in the state of New York? >> That's correct. >> And you've also been arrested for criminal trespass in the state of New York. when >> multiple times probably, but uh at least in 2023. >> Was I arrested or? >> Arrested. >> I was arrested. >> Yeah. >> Was not convicted. >> You were arrested though. Goes to knowledge. Uh were you convicted of simple trespass in Danberry within the last couple of years? Kennet >> violation. Were you convicted of simple trespass? >> Yes. Have you con been Have you been arrested for criminal trespass charges in addition to the two I I've noted or other simple trespass? >> Well, yeah. Law enforcement violence. >> That's not my question. Were you arrested for it? >> Yes. Violated my rights all the time. >> That's not my question, sir. Yes or no? Have you been arrested other? >> People like you hate it when when you get challenged. You hate it. Sir, were you arrested more times than that for simple trespass or criminal trespass? >> Yes. >> How many would you estimate? >> Maybe once. >> One more time. I'm not sure. >> What did you mouth Sergeant Fatty on the stand yesterday? >> I didn't mouth anything that I recall. >> Did you recall? I mean, it was yesterday. Did you or didn't you? Did you see me mouth him? >> I'm just asking the question, sir. >> I don't recall mouththing. >> Would it be fair to say you have absolute disdain for Sergeant Fei? >> No, I don't hate anyone. I hate the conduct of certain people. >> Have you launched allegations on your video after the encounters with Sergeant Fee? uh that you claim people have told you about but you haven't you don't know for sure like that he was with hookers or that he sold drugs when he was at New London Police Department out of the evidence room things along those lines. Have you said that? >> Yeah. People give me information and I shared that information with the journalist >> and you vetted it before him. >> That's why I said they're allegations sir. >> I didn't say I I specifically say that. I didn't confirm them to be true. They're allegations. Everyone's innocent to prove the guilty court of law. Well, it's not bad. I mean, there's there's You haven't come up with one shred of proof beyond what you say on those videos, correct? Did you go research any of that? >> Research which one? >> Any of them. >> So, the the only proof I need is the proof that Sonic Face spit in my face. >> You covered for him. >> You covered for him. He menaced me with a firearm and you covered for him. >> We're going to have the next question. >> You done now? Are you done defending criminals? >> I represent the state of Connecticut, sir. >> Well, there you go. >> That's my job. >> You have overwhelming animosity for Mr. Pigy and what you claim his actions are. >> No, in for his actions. I I I don't have animosity for his actions. I don't think you can have animosity for actions. I I disain the actions that he has engaged in multiple times unprovoked against me. Yes, those actions are reprehensible and he should be held accountable for them, but he's a cop, so he's not held accountable for them. And the world sees it. The world sees it. >> I have no further question. >> Judge, I would like to address the felony conviction that state attorney Vy brought up. When I was 20 years old, I made a bad decision. And the difference between me and Brian Fehee and every other cop that engaged in misconduct. >> I'm a I made a bad decision. I took accountability for it. I paid my debt to society. And since that day 15 years ago, I have not been convicted of any crimes. I have built a business. I have a wife. I have two children. I've been invited to speak as a convicted felon. to at police departments line judge. It's it's simply a character. Um >> and I'm I'm rebutting my character so he can so you can understand >> who I am. >> Court will allow what you said already. Um the court's not going to permit us to go too far. >> Understood. Judge being a convicted felon. I have a family who loves me. I have friends who love me who trust me. haven't been convicted of any crimes since and I've since worked with police departments across this country. I invite police departments onto my channel to speak and bridge the gap between law enforcement and the public. I don't just put out negative content. It's just unfortunate that when I do put out negative content, it's because of the actions of the other officers involved on the scene. I have no animosity for Mr. Fatty. I can never spit in his face. I never pulled a gun on him. He's not allowed to convict. Oh, >> so funny. You are a state attorney acting like a child. >> It's not. >> You're acting like a child. You're not test. You're not supposed to be speaking right now, are you? Thanks. Appreciate it. >> Judge the state attorney John Fehee. I don't even know if he has a relation to Mr. Fe. Who knows? We don't have 23 DNA test, but He's trying to disparage my character for some argument if he wishes to say that. >> I agree. This is our >> I never hoped for Brian Batty to come out and see him that day. >> Yeah, I just got to do some foyer requests and things. A foyer request for your body camera footage and Sergeant uh Brian Fehees disciplinary records. >> You have to send it in in writing. >> Yeah. >> Who's the guy behind you? I have to conduct I have to conduct uh business here. Sergeant. >> Sir, what can we do for you? >> Come on in. >> Oh, you're the sergeant of pistol pistol permits, aren't you? >> Come on in. >> Go ahead. Come on in, sir. >> Sir, >> excuse me, sir. You have to wait. >> Sir, I know I know your inclination is wanting to assault me, Sergeant. Stop pushing me. I'm trying to get in. I'm trying to get in the building. >> In the building, you have no business here. >> I do have business here. Stop acting like a like a like a savage. What are you doing before? I want to hold every action I took was to bring awareness including my beautiful 14oot LED billboard truck showing what Brian Fatty's misconduct was to bring awareness to the residents to the public at large. He's not special. He's not the only person I've ever protested peacefully with a billboard truck. I've never engaged in violence against a public official. I have never even that I can recall cursed at a public official. I I don't I try and remain peaceful during his interaction and the fact that Brian Fehee couldn't control himself should not be a a negative um should not paint a negative light on me. I did go to the police headquarters two times for legitimate business. One, as states attorney Fade said, to file a complaint. Two, to do an open records request, which I never got. Yes, I went to film inside of the precinct. He's talking about me filming inside of inside of the police lobby. You asked me about that. I'm explaining. >> Yes, I attempted to film inside of the Connecticut police station lobby. And when I was told that I couldn't and I couldn't enter while recording, I said, "Fine, let's do the complaint outside." And that's when unfortunately I first became aware of Sergeant, former Sergeant Brian Fate. We did the complaint outside. I was very cordial to him during our conversation. He was the aggressor. And when I went back the second time was not looking for Sergeant I was speaking to another officer, another state trooper. Sergeant Fee appeared and waved at me. He waved at me knowing we had that other interaction. He came out and waved at me. Judge waved. And I was allowed to I was permitted to record in the lobby that day. >> You can come in. >> Thank you. Anything in your pockets? Go ahead and take out. So he's wallet. Put right over here. >> Is Sergeant Brian FY one of those important people that were that's in this building? Ma'am, the one that you just saw assault me and didn't do anything about it as a law enforcement officer in broad daylight. >> The cell phone down. You have to go through the metal detector in >> broad daylight. Ma'am. So there he is. He's so so mad. Why are you so mad, Sergeant? >> I'm not mad. I hope you have a great day. >> Oh, yeah. After you assaulted me, right? >> Yes, you did. You did it last time. You did it again. Because you're scared. You wouldn't do it without a uniform. >> Because I'm what? >> You You're scared. You wouldn't do it without that gun on your hip and that badge. >> You wouldn't do it without >> You wouldn't do it. >> And Mr. Fay stood there in the lobby. He didn't go to his office. He didn't go to the pistol permit section. He stood there in the lobby cuz Sergeant Fa not scared of me. I've said that many times. Regardless of a felony conviction 15 years ago, I went to the house to the residence conducted what I believed to be a knock and talk. I did not see a sign that said no trespassing or anything to me that would indicate I could not enter the property. I fully believed on that day as I fully believe on today today that I had implied license or privilege to knock and talk. And I want to clarify something for the record. Yesterday I said I wasn't on trial and obviously I am but that's because I shouldn't be on trial. Brian Fehee should be on trial but he's not because he's above the law. I'm innocent. I hope this court finds me innocent. I have nothing further to say. >> I have a couple more questions. So, the fact that he waved at you in state police headquarters set you up and I mean, you were mad about that. You just said that, right? You were upset that he was standing there staring at you and waved at you. >> I had great emotional control. I wasn't upset. I was I was indic I was indicating to the court that you are indicating that I went there searching for him but yet he came out and found >> I wasn't saying that. Um but you did say before you went in maybe we'll run into Sergeant Fay. Correct. >> He works there. >> I know. But that you said it before you ever encountered him. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. And so you just made a big point of the fact that him waving at you and he stood there while you were conducting legitimate business. And I'm not questioning your legitimate business at all. I'm saying that uh was upsetting to you somehow that you still remember that he waved at you and stood in his doorway. >> No, that's not my testimony. That's what my testimony is is that he waved at me. Obviously, if you don't want to be around somebody, you don't come out and wave at them. You you you stay away from >> And so you went to his house thinking you were somehow invited there or welcomed there by Brian Fee or had some license or privilege to be there? >> I think I have a license or privilege knock on anyone. >> I understand what you think. That may or may not be the law. That'll be up to the court. But I'm saying you knew this was going on between you and Brian Fagy and you thought it would be a good idea to go to his house in the middle of a civil lawsuit and approach his door. Is that what you're saying? >> I exercise my rights peacefully. >> Okay. Well, if if if you're have a right to. Um the other thing is too, you indicated you never expected him to even come to the door and encounter you. Yet you went up his driveway. You indicated in in your own direct testimony that you somehow knew he was home. I don't know if you waited there or whatever. >> You said you knew he was home in the middle of the afternoon. >> I knew he was home when he came out. I didn't know he was home. How could I see? You can't I couldn't see if he How would I know if he's home or not? I I did not testify to that. No. >> Did you not say on the video that you knew he was home? Um because it was the middle of the afternoon and now you're checking cuz it's 3:45 and how could you be making all this overtime being home? >> Sir, you're misunderstanding me. I said that once I went there to determine whether he's going to be working at 3:30 in the afternoon on a work day. I didn't determine that until Brian Fahhey answered the door. >> Okay. But you didn't say to him then, uh what what are you doing home at 3:30? Right. You didn't even you just said on me. Not then, sir. Not then. >> I can't even get the question out. He told me to leave. >> He went back in the house before that whole >> get his gun to shoot me. He said he was going to shoot me. >> You're still here and he didn't shoot you, right, sir? >> Thank God. Thank God for my camera. >> I agree with that. >> Thank God. >> I agree with that. But he never even raised that gun at you, right? >> He said 911. He was going to shoot me. >> But but he didn't. Right. >> Thank God. >> I agree. My point is, you said you didn't even think you were going to encounter him that day or you didn't think he was going to come out or anything. >> I had no idea if he was home. Mrs. Fay could have answered the door. I had no idea if he was home or not. I was knocking on the door to see if he was home and to ask him questions about a story I was working on. >> After you filed a civil lawsuit and had those two previous things, you think you're the most unbiased reporter to be working on. >> That's the word. >> That's good. No further questions. >> Anything for you, sir? >> Again, judge. Just going to clarify. I went there as a journalist. Regardless of what state uh state attorney's bay's opinion is, he obviously doesn't know the definition of journalist. Um, so he doesn't know what he's talking about. But I am a journalist. whether you like the kind of journalism I do, whether you like the kind of opinions I give in my journalism. I went there to determine whether he was working or not, and to ask him a question, knock on the door, which is what I did. I didn't knock on the door and stay on the porch, judge, and try and get and try and intimidate him. I knocked on the door and immediately backed off of the porch into the grassy area. That's what I did. I looked for signs. I read signs. That's not what somebody who wants to commit criminal trespassing does. That's all I >> That's your judgment. >> Witnesses from the defense. >> No, judge. The defense rests. Proceed with closing. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, judge. judge. Um the in looking to the um connected jury instructions, uh your honor has to find that um in order to find the defendant guilty that he entered or remained in premises that are posted in a manner prescribed by law are reasonably likely to come to the attention of the intruders. The reality is judge that sign that was posted uh forget about the no trespassing sign. There's been a lot of talk about the no trespassing sign. Now, it is curious that the defendant would not have done further research uh including looking uh anywhere else on the property given how uh narrow that driveway was after seeing that sign. But that sign is enough. Quite frankly, judge, I don't think the sign is necessary. And the reason I say that is because just simply based on the animosity we've talked out talked about that had previous existed before between Sergeant Fee and uh Mr. Reyes. No reasonable person in that situation would think that they were licensed or privileged to go there. When Mr. Reyes talks about an implied license judge, um one he started to site and I'm sure he'll site again a Florida case which holds no uh has no power in the state of Connecticut. Um but the reality of the situation is uh because every state's laws are different. The reality of the situation is the animosity alone uh should have told him that he had no license or privilege to go that he would as as the jury instructions talk about. Um to be licensed or privileged must either have consent from the person in possession of the premises or have some other right to be on the land. Uh simply calling yourself a journalist and and going to the door when there is a no trespassing sign and there is animosity such as this. uh one uh would does not knowingly have any right to be on that property. When one talks about implied consent uh in the state's opinion, what that would suggest is you can't order something from Amazon when the Amazon driver comes up have them arrested. You can't uh take uh public utility services such as water or gas or electric and when the meter reader comes up to your house claim they're trespassing. There's an implied consent with uh items such as that. There clearly is no implied consent. Uh I'm unaware of any uh implied consent uh cases in Connecticut that would suggest uh journalists have a uh an absolute right, especially when property is posted to be able to enter that property despite the signage. That sign is very clear that it was a private road. Uh it is a driveway. It's flanked by two mailboxes and Mr. Reyes chose to walk down past that sign. admitted that he saw the sign and effectively ignored that sign. He had no license and privilege, especially uh and and he has knowledge of that based on the animosity and the ongoing civil lawsuit that was pending with a deposition pending. To to suggest that he went there simply to ask about some other story is ludicrous. And I would ask your honor to find him guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree. Judge, it's curious to me that state attorney fee now says I should have known because of animosity. You didn't hear any testimony that there was animosity. You heard testimony that I didn't approve of his actions on those days. I don't have animosity towards anyone. States Attorney Fees says to tell you that the implied license and obviously he has no idea what he's talking about. He applied license for Amazon driver delivery driver utility worker and he says that I cited a Florida case. Florida be Jardines is a Supreme Court case judge. It's not a Florida case. It is binding on this court. It is a Supreme Court case that acknowledges that the police and the public in general, me being a independent journalist or whatever states attorney fa thinks I am, that doesn't give me some special privilege. The general public has a has a privilege just like Girl Scouts, solar panel salesmen, uh Jehovah's Witnesses, the general public has a license or privilege to do a knocking talk. And in some circuits, the 10th circuit, I'm going to hand you a memorandum of law um when I finish. They have said that for signs don't negate And I understand persuasion for not binding on this court, but they have said that um signs don't negate your implied license or privilege to knock on to conduct a knock and talk. States Attorney Fe, he wants to make this case now about this animosity. That is a pure fiction in his own mind. He's provided no evidence of animosity. He didn't question Mr. Fe about any animosity. There's there's nothing in the record that indicates that I had any animosity towards Sergeant Fate, but I would argue even if I did, it wouldn't revoke my implied license or privilege to knock on the door to conduct a knocktor. That's what he's saying. His case is so weak. Put the no trespassing sign. Put it to the side, judge. Put the other side to the side because the animosity. Well, the statute requires a sign be posted. uh reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder. I wasn't an intruder. I was a visitor. I was conducting a knocking talk. Judge, this court has narrowed this case in two questions. Whether the premises were posted in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders and whether I knew I was not licensed or privileged to be there. The state must prove both beyond a reasonable doubt. On this record, it has pro proven neither. Officer Romani is the man who testified that he found the sign, the no trespassing sign. He told this court it was in the brush approximately 10 feet off the edge of the driveway. Now, state attorneys say he would have I'm sure he would love for me to have gone 10 ft into the bushes and rumage around in the trees to try and find something. And that didn't happen because no reasonable person would do that. They would look, you saw the video admitted to evidence, the video, the cameraman was in front of me. You seen me motion him to come in front of me specifically, judge, so that way the camera can see. Unfortunately, yes, I've been arrested many times. I believe 13 times in the last 5 years, judge. Not one criminal conviction. That speaks volumes to the government. Governments that have done it, not me. Officer Mansky told you he walked down the driveway at least two times up and down the driveway before he found the sign and he only located it after Mrs. Fage told him where it was, where to look. Consider what that means. A trained officer standing on that property looking for signs walked past it twice and he needed the homeowner's wife to point him to it. Brian F. testified. He couldn't recall when's the last time he saw the sign posted. Mrs. Fainy said she didn't know either. She testified to that. But yet, he's 90% positive. That doesn't add up. It just doesn't add up. Can't be 90% positive. Then you have no idea when it was last posted. He obviously was trying. His purpose in sitting in that chair was to try and and and defend me and and and discredit me into this court. Not the truth. Officer McKenzie testified. She walked the same driveway. She testified she never saw the sign. Sergeant Bard was the leading investigative supervisor. He says he saw the sign but never told anybody about it. Brian Fy's testimony that he was 90% positive, but he doesn't know when's the last time he saw the sign. Those two answers cannot live in the same testimony. Judge, he's 90% certain of the fact. He can't place the time. 90% sure of something. He 100% doesn't know. That is not recollection. That is a man telling the court what he needs to hear. Mr. Glover, my cameraman, walked the driveway beside me. He testified he never saw private property no trespassing sign. Judge, I testified I never saw the sign. Not because I wasn't looking, because it wasn't able to be seen. Judge, one more thing on this element, judge, and it is the one thing I would ask this court to weigh most heavily. The state has not shown this court a single photograph, not one photograph of where the no trespassing sign actually laid that day. Not one. The only photograph in this case was taken after officer Robotsky pulled that sign out of the brush and moved it to the side of the driveway, which he says he don't know. He doesn't know why he did. That's what he testified to this court. The state's evidence of posting posting is a photograph of the sign in a place it was not. So now the state has moved. It is no longer really arguing the trespassing sign because it cannot. It's now asking us for it to convict me on the strength of yellow vehicle signs along the driveway that said private road, dead end, no turnaround. It didn't say do not enter. Didn't say not welcome here. And in fact, I would submit to this court, the fact that there's an existence of a no trespassing sign and this sign would indicate that it was needed to have a no trespassing sign in addition to this sign to make it clear to anyone who was going to knock on the property, knock on the door, and conduct a knocking talk that they weren't welcome. I testified to what I understood those words to mean on July 11, 2025. And I understand them the same way I'm standing here today. Private road, meaning the roadway is privately owned and maintained rather than a public street. Dead end, meaning the road does not go through. No turnound, meaning the road is not wide enough to turn a vehicle around. So, do not try. Didn't bring my vehicle down there that day, judge, because that's what I understood the sign to mean. There are traffic signs. Every word of them is addressed to a vehicle and how that road is used. Not one of it, not one word of it says that visitors are welcome. Not one word of it says don't knock. Not one word provokes any permission to walk up to the front door. Judge, here is how we know that they themselves never believe those signs did work because they had the addition of the no trespassing sign. The private road signs, they're on the left side of the driveway, judge. The second sign Brian Fay testified to was on the property of his neighbor. Those signs could have been for his neighbor. I had no idea in the moment he purchased his neighbor purchased the signs. His neighbor installed the signs. One of the two signs is on the neighbor's property. It's not clear to anybody walking up that single driveway who those signs would apply to. It's not clear. You don't have to take my word that it wasn't visible on approach, judge, because you watched it. You saw defendances today. You saw my [clears throat] approach to the front door. The private property, no trespassing sign does not appear anywhere in that footage. The state, as I said before, did not provide any photograph of that sign whatsoever. Before I get into the knowledge element, judge, this whole prosecution was a farce. States attorney fee charged me with criminal trespassing. I was originally charged by the GR Police Department with the same docket for felony voyerism. >> Objection relevant. >> It's what I was really charged with. This whole investigation was biased from the start. Judge, it's so clear. It was so biased. They were protecting police officers. Judge, >> the fact that I reduced charges to what I thought was the appropriate charge and what we're here for is all that matters. Judge the other charges have been dismissed. And so, um, it's your right. It matters why they charged me with it in the first place, judge. It shows the animosity by the police officers, not me. Show the bias to their investigation. Courts, records, and substitute information. Thank you. The second question is whether I knew I was licensed or privileged to be there. I testified about my work. I'm a journalist. I investigate and I protest allegations of government misconduct. But that is why I was on that road on July 11th. I testify about the research I conducted to do that work, about my practice, which has not changed from one residence to the next. Every time I look for signage that would tell me my permission to approach has been revoked, if I see a no trespassing sign, I don't pass it, judge. In the last 15 years, I have not committed another crime. I've not committed any crimes. I I love my family. I do not want to go to jail. I want to expose bad cops. That is the mission. That's why I went there that day to try and expose and get information about a bad cop and he spit in my face. The state says the fact that I was looking for one proves I might be trespassing somehow. Judge proves the precise opposite. A man who attempts to trespass does not stop and read signage. He does not spend his walking his walk scanning the tree line. He looks because he intends to obey. And there was nothing there to obey David Coach. I walked to the front door, I knocked. That is a knocking talk. That is an implied license that every single person in this country holds. It is not a novel idea. And it is not my invention. It belongs to the mail carrier, the delivery driver, the Girl Scout, the neighbor, the police officer who may wake up, walk up and not precisely because that is no more than any private citizen may do. When Mr. Fagy opened the door and told me to leave, I left. That the actions of a trespasser. If somebody wants to trespass on property, judge, somebody who immediately complies. You saw the video. I did what the license permits that I do, nothing more. And judge, I did not learn that no trespassing signing existed as I testified to on anyone on that property till after my arrest. When I reviewed the body warn camera footage produced to me in discovery. I could not have known July 11th what a trained officer had to be shown where to find it. A word about Mr. Fing B F B F B F B F B F B F B F B F B F B F B F's testimony both I guess um they're both testifying today. Judge because this court has to decide what way to care is he did not come to this courtroom to help it to find facts. He came with something else in mind. He showed you what it was without being asked in answers that were non-responsive to the questions put to him. He told this court more than once, "I have a felony conviction." He didn't say it was 15 years ago. That conviction 15 years ago predates my marriage, my children, my business, and has nothing whatever whatsoever to do with whether a sign was attached to a tree in 2025. He knew and he knew it when he said he volunteered anyway more than once. that tells this court nothing about the sign and tells you everything about why that man was on the standard and why why he said what he said on the stand. This is a man who spit in the face of a journalist, pulled a gun, said he was going to shoot me as I was retreating from his property. He wasn't scared. His own wife begged him not to go. I as the court asked the court to disregard his testimony. He thought 90% about any picture about him, about a sign about anything. Judge, I want to talk to you about the two men who were on that lawn on July 11, 2025 and about what happened to each of them. One man walked up to a front door, knocked on it, and asked the question about $75,000 in overtime. The other man went to his house, went into his house, retrieved a load of firearm, and came back out, walked down his driveway, and after a mantle was already retreating towards the road. Objection relevant as to criminal trespass 3. >> Spit in his face. That is not dispute. Never has been. He admitted it. Judge, you heard in this courtroom carefully the law was pared that day on his behalf. Nobody performed the analysis for me. Nobody on the property. Nobody on the property that afternoon opened up 53A 109 and asked whether a sign laying in a brush 10 ft off the driveway iso is a posted sign. They found a reason not to charge a market charge. and they filed three charges for me. I've spent my career documenting injustice in this country, judge. Standing in courouses, holding a camera, recording what happens to people who do not who have no one to speak for them. I have never expected to be standing inside one of those injustices myself when I started my activism 5 years ago answering for a sign that three officers couldn't even find judge and another sign that doesn't indicate anything about revoking license or privilege. They they can't prove I knew because I didn't they offered no testimony no evidence as to I should have known other than their own madeup animosity that I don't even have. Judge, that's that's what the state is resting their head on. Animosity that they can't prove. Testimony from the state's attorney. Animosity. That's what they told you when they're closing. He should have known because of animosity that doesn't exist. Judge, this prosecution is another spit in my face, judge. Difference is last time nobody was standing between your dream faith. Today there is. That's what this court is for. [clears throat] That is the only reason any of us are in this room. If you want to disregard everything I said because I admitted I made a bad decision 15 years ago, judge, that's your courage. But just remember, I testified since then. I have worked closely with police departments across our country. I've done ride alongs, command staff meetings. District attorneys have offered have have invited me and I've done trainings with district attorneys offices. Like I said, judge, you don't take my word for it. I believe this is a country of redemption. I believe I I believe myself. I've paid my head in society. But take their word for it. Take Mr. Fay, upstanding state attorney's word for it. Take the state's word for it. Take the law enforcement officer's word for it. Take the officer, your officer found the sign in the brush after walking past it twice. Only after being told where to look, that's when he found it. Another officer never saw it. Another sergeant said it wasn't clearly posted. Their complaint can't even tell the court when's the last time they laid eyes on the sign. The state has not proven that these premises were posted in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of anyone walking up that driveway. It has not proven that I knew I wasn't licensed or privileged to knock on the door. Obviously, the state is not familiar with the Supreme Court case. I will hand you uh I'll I'll educate you. Those are the elements of this offense. Both of them fail. When the elements of a crime fail, judge court of law has exactly one honest thing left to do. Find me not guilt. Thank you, judge. >> Judge, um, just a couple of points. Um, I have been very clear from the very beginning with council that represented Mr. Reyes beforehand and and I've been very clear in this courtroom. It's that first sign that is all that is necessary under our statute for the notice requirement to reasonably come to the attention. In fact, Mr. Ray has himself testified he saw it. He ignored it. He walked by it because he believed it to be something else. But it said, and let's be clear, he keeps referring to a road. It was a driveway, not a road. It was private property he was on, not a road. Not even a private road. It was private property, a driveway that was posted private. They didn't manufacture the sign. That's how the sign came. But it was very clear uh from uh Miss Fe and Mr. Mr. Fagy that the the whole point was to avoid trespassers in any way, shape, or form coming up their driveway and that's why that was posted. There's been a lot of talk about the no trespassing sign. I've never, including with his council before, indicated that's what I was relying on as being posted. It's just curious to me that Sergeant Madard was able to see that from the driveway walking up the first time um before it got moved by uh Officer Mansky and he could photograph it in place, but that he was able to see it from the driveway, but somehow Mr. Reyes and Mr. Glover weren't able to. Um however, that first sign alone is sufficient for notice under our statute. the animosity, the civil lawsuit, all the other uh that plays into the fact that he knows he was not welcome on that property. Should not have been on that property. He doesn't have a right to be on that p property if it's posted and and there's no he knows there's no legitimate he wasn't invited by Mr. Behe to speak about anything. He went there of his own accord and in doing so he violated the law in the state of Connecticut. I remind the court that Mr. baby that he now tells you to completely disregard was not even called by the state. It was called by Mr. Ray House. Um for what purpose? I don't know. A confrontation again in court, which it resulted in ultimately um further bolstering the state's claim about animosity between the two individuals dating back to that first incident. I can assure the court of one thing. I think if Mr. say he was not the person who walked out of that door in 2021. There would never be a claim of uh a claim of uh overtime abuse by uh Sergeant Fehey because I can uh and and Mr. Reyes does a does an internet search. He too could find uh dozens of troopers that probably made more than Mr. Behe. That's neither here nor there. What matters is on July 11th, did he pass a sign? Did he know the sign was there? Was it reasonably posted? It was it was on the fee property. It was on next to their driveway that they owned all the way up to the split in the road and uh Kimberly Fe actually believes a sign second sign to be on their property. But that's neither here nor there. That first sign is sufficient. He indicated he saw it. He walked by it and he had no license or privilege to be there and he knew that. I would ask your honor to find him immediately. >> Judge, uh he has no right to respond. I have to prove judge. No, >> I'm not trying. I understand. I please try to offer memorandum. >> Oh, that's fine. I move >> judge. I just wanted to offer this memorandum of law. >> All right. Take your matter. Take the memorandum of law. Thank you. Absolute objection. >> Um I assume it's not in any way, shape, or form as required by the rules of law now in our state. Uh there's no AI generation at all this. >> Oh, no. >> Okay, fine. Thank you. All right. And with that, the court is going to close the evidence in this matter. We'll take the matter under consideration and evaluate that the evidence and argument of the parties wants to consider the um both the testimony as well as the exhibits that were offered. Further court's intention is to have the matter documented in a short period of time and at that time the court will uh once it has had an opportunity to review everything and reflect on it uh we'll issue a decision and adjustment case will be red matter between two to four weeks all rise. All right, fellow patriots. So, I hope you enjoyed the trial as much as I did. It was a lot of fun. It's easy to go to trial when you're innocent, and the video evidence shows you're innocent. Obviously, as you could see from the day one trial and today's video, I'm not an attorney, but I am innocent. Unfortunately, the judge has reserved his decision in this case, and he will be deliberating in the coming weeks, and we will have to come back to court to get the verdict, but I'm confident that the verdict will be not guilty because I am. So, make sure you're subscribed to the channel, have notifications turned on so you do not miss the upcoming video where I will be releasing the verdict of this trial. I appreciate all your love and support. It means the absolute world to me. As always, stay safe. God bless. I'll see you in the next one. Long Island Audit. Peace. [clears throat] [music] >> [music]