1A Intelligence Desk

← Back to search results

Transcript Details

FRAUDITOR GETS DESTROYED IN COURT BY JUDGE

First of all, is it illegal to take video or pictures? Now, is that an issue? Do not threaten, harass, annoy anyone at City Hall. You are following people very closely and holding a phone up to them. That would qualify as annoying someone. What's up everybody? I hope you guys are doing fantastic. In today's video, we have a frauditor getting completely owned in court. But first, I want to give you guys a little update on the situation with the lawsuit. Now, it's only been a little over 12 hours since we launched a GoFundMe and we have already received over $1,600. So, I want to say thank you so much to every single one of you. If you want to continue to contribute, the GoFundMe's link is in the pinned comment and in the description. And it looks like DMA is not happy about this. He had a live stream yesterday. He completely crashed out for 20 minutes. It was pretty sad to see, to be honest. So, the first thing he said is he doubled down on the picture of my wife he made is not altered. And he even swore to God. So, I'm assuming he's not very religious because how do you lie and swear to God at the same time? That's pretty crazy. So, he showed screenshots of our live streams, but what he refused to do is a side-by-side comparison like this, which would obviously prove that the video is modified by Photoshop or AI. I mean, anybody with half a brain can realize that. If you took a screenshot from my live stream and left it as is, it wouldn't look that clear. It wouldn't look airbrushed. Anyways, it's pretty pointless to talk about. It's just a man-child that's lashing out. But it's crazy that when he's caught up in a lie, he just refuses to admit that he's wrong and that yeah, he modified the image. Like to think that this is a still screenshot without modification is just baffling. He must really think his audience are that dumb. And sure enough, they are. But anyways, that's not what's important. What is important is his reaction to the bombshell I dropped about him giving me consent in 2022. And it went exactly how I thought it would because he cannot deny that he wasn't there. It wasn't him. So, he admitted that yes, the video is real and yes, it was him in 2022. But what he did is that he talked about his written consent to use one of his prank videos, but completely ignored the part where he came on the panel, said, "I'm not going to sue you. I don't have a problem with what you do. We have different audiences. You do what you do and I do what I do." So, he completely ignored that part. And I understand why he wants to ignore it. It's damning. So, what DMA is doing is once again cherry-picking. He's assuming that his audience isn't going to go and verify the source of the information. Much like when he's talking about our motion to dismiss, he's only saying that oh, we're calling him out because he's a frauditor and that's our entire argument. That's not true. We're giving the judge a little bit of background information. Much like he gave the judge a little bit of background information when he filed his motion. So, once again, it's basically cherry-picking and we know we're onto something because he absolutely refuses to address his statement where he gave me permission to use his videos. Besides that, his lawyer had the argument that I did not bring it up in 2023 or in 2025. Well, let me just explain to you, sir, that in 2023 I was dealing with YouTube and YouTube is a bot. YouTube is an absolute robot. It doesn't work to tell them you have permission. They're not going to click on the link and go watch something. So, all I had to do is talk about fair use cuz the videos are fair use after all. Even though I had permission, the videos are fair use. So, all I needed to do was to talk about fair use and it was more than enough to get the videos reinstated, which was the only goal at the time. Is the videos were taken down maliciously. I got them up reinstated by talking about fair use. Now, in 2025, I didn't mention about the permission because it's very simple. I didn't have the evidence. Why would I talk about something if I don't have the evidence to back it up? People would think I'm exaggerating or they would say it's irrelevant because you can't prove it. But I found the evidence. We're still at the very, very beginning of the lawsuit. We're just at the motion to dismiss part. And you can find evidence at any point of the lawsuit. But luckily, I found it at the very, very beginning and now it's in our motion to dismiss and we will argue that at trial or at summary judgment that we had permission. And I don't see how possibly the judge could look at that and think that I was in the wrong. But I guess time will tell. Besides that, he was really crashing out about the money being raised. To him, it's mind-blowing that we have already raised over $20,000. He's starting to realize that yeah, people hate him that much that they are willing to help us fight him because they know that the field is not even, that he doesn't have to pay for a lawyer and I do, and they are willing to back me up because they know I'm right and they know that he's just a vile piece of crap. So, yeah, DMA, people don't like you. They don't like you to that point, to that extent. And last thing I want to say before we move on to the main event is that there was a huge turnout for DMA's live stream. I mean, there were dozens of people watching. It was pretty incredible. Think about it for a second. In 13 hours, his video got 194 views. That's 194 people that chose to watch his live stream. I mean, we had 6,000, but I guess that doesn't matter. Now, he's going to say he put it on his Denver Metro Audits 2.0 channel. But the reason why he did that is because it was so humiliating when he would go live on his main channel with 200,000 subscribers and talk about this lawsuit and there's not even 40 people that show up. So, that's why he's doing on the second channel. It's to save face. I don't even know why he bothers to go live to 12 people. At this point, you might as well not go live at all. But anyways, let's get to the main meal. We do have a frauditor that gets completely demolished in court. Now, the reason why is because it looks like he was on monitoring. He had an ankle monitor and he decided to go do a fraudit at City Hall. And obviously, the ankle monitor detected that he was at City Hall. There was reports of him harassing people. So, it didn't go well with the judge. Oh, and by the way, huge shout-out to Tones Over Thinks It for sending me this video. He saw it and thought it would be a good fit for my channel. Thank you so much, buddy. I appreciate it. Go check out Tones's channel. The link is in the description. Now, without further ado, let's get started. >> So, what we were talking about was what was the status and what we needed to do today and what were the changes that need to be made. Can you lay those out for me? The only change as of right now, according to the order that needs to be made, is the device switch to the device we're using in our department. Okay. What device did he have previously? He has a device with Safe Monitoring Solutions. So, prior to us getting a contract for our own GPS devices all defendants were referred out >> [clears throat] >> to a third party for GPS installation. Very good. Okay. So, can you take care of that that for me? I talked to his office and they told me repeatedly that I could keep my current company that I've been using since last December. We're almost at trial and my billing is through a third party. And at the moment I can't pay it to switch devices. So, we're almost there. We're almost at trial. And suddenly, with what was it, a day's notice? Something like that. They requested me to change devices. How long ago was that? That was in July 4th. So, I think it was the 3rd, right before the holiday. And they told me I'm in full compliance. So, he's saying that he's requesting me switch to switch companies. But the office, he even told me last time I spoke to him, "I'm in full compliance. There's no need to switch. We're almost at trial. It's August 12th." There There is a need to switch that he's argued. Is there the possibility of doing the exclusion zone that you're requesting and him be on the system that he's on right now and you still be able to oversee his pre-trial? Not as immediate as we are now. Since it's through a third party, if a violation was to occur, the third party would receive that violation and then notify us via email. How long that takes? Maybe 30 minutes, 45 minutes versus the immediate violation coming to the officer text, email once it occurs. Okay. And is there a reason for concern that there are violations? The concern that was brought up was from San Marcos Police Department. And what's that? Uh being around San Marcos City Hall, taking pictures of vehicles. Which is untrue. Okay, what's that about? I wasn't at City Hall. I went to the area behind the Catholic church here in town. And I never went near I drove by City Hall. But then, I received That's his explanation. It's untrue. I never did that. And I have a GPS monitor on my ankle. He should know that, right? Well, I think that's the point is that he can't know it because it has to go through a third party. He said 45 minutes. That's How long ago was that? A month ago? Almost? It was this month, July. And so, do you have evidence that he was in the location that you're alleging? >> asked Safe Monitoring Solutions if he was around that location during that time period. So, to be honest, in this case, the cops were a little bit unprepared to prove their case to the judge. They're accusing him of being at City Hall, doing a fraudit and harassing people, but they don't have the data from the GPS monitor. So, they just have reports from people seeing him and they're saying that he was there, but they don't have actual evidence. So, So at first it looks like the frauditor was going to get his way because the cops were unprepared, but the judge had other plans for him. So with one day's notice or I believe maybe two, I didn't [snorts] even go to the location. They requested an exclusion zone, me to change companies, and Marcus PD would not provide an explanation. At least he would not give me their explanation. Do we have an officer from San Marcos Police Department available? Can you approach, sir? Yes, sir. We're going on the record in CR235467F, State of Texas versus Morgan Dickerson. Can counsel please make their announcements for the record? >> Allison Boost for the state. Mr. Dickerson, you're representing yourself in this case? Let's [clears throat] make sure that's a yes or no because she's taking down what we say. Okay. So the [clears throat] question here is about location of Mr. Dickerson. Do you have knowledge of that? Yes, sir, I do. Okay. Can you raise your right hand? I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. All right. You can put your hand down. What's your name? My name [clears throat] is Joseph Osborne. Okay. And how are you employed? I work as a police officer at San Marcos Police Department. Okay. And so tell us tell me what's going on that we need a change for um the defendant's conditions. So on July 1st, I was made aware of a call for service at City Hall um where Mr. Dickerson went up there and was taking videos and pictures of buildings in the and the in that area, which is right next to St. John's Church. Um and then an employee who was about to walk into the building suddenly turned around and noticed that Mr. Dickerson was right behind him recording with his cell phone. And then when he questioned him about it, Mr. Dickerson told him that it was kind of just a case of mistaken identity. And then from my understanding that was also confirmed by that third-party GPS monitoring system that he was at City Hall on that date. Anything else you want to tell the court? No, sir. Um state, any questions? No, your honor. Defense, any questions? Well, yes. The first most important thing is was I at City Hall, yes or no? Was I outside City Hall? Yes. Do you have evidence of that? There's cameras on City Hall, yes. >> Okay. Do you have pictures, any evidence here? Have you sent it to the court? No, this is not that type of a hearing. >> [snorts] >> Isn't it? It's about an exclusion zone, correct? And you came here just to verify the reason for an exclusion zone. Yeah, that's what I just said. Exactly what I told you. I parked on the edge of the parking. I drove past City Hall. There's a parking lot adjacent to the Catholic Church. I got out, went behind the Catholic Church. My phone was out. I had headphones in. I don't know how he would think First of all, is it illegal to take video or pictures? No, is that an issue? There's no reason that would be a problem. >> there with him being at City Hall. I can speak to that as well, judge. For me it's just concern and on behalf of the police department it's concern that sometimes we've seen in the past that that's a probing type behavior when someone's planning targeted violence. They'll go to a location such as the City Hall, examine what kind of security measures are in place, and kind of controlled access. So basically he's stalking City Hall, and that's pretty much what we've been saying all along when frauditors go to banks and they try to like creep out people, they're basically staking out the place. I guess because this guy's already an unhinged maniac with an ankle monitor, they don't want to take the chance that he's about to do something because remember, frauditors are especially unhinged. Most of the time they're mentally deranged, so they're just making sure that he doesn't go there again and that's why they have this hearing. Should they have been a little bit more prepared? Yes, but the outcome will still be positive. Which was an additional concern for me when the employee that was attempting to get into the building noticed how close he was being followed behind. Is there anything Have there been any charges for any threats? No, there have not. Again, that was just concern. It wasn't a criminal charge or criminal offense. Okay. Do you need to go to the City Hall? Perhaps. It's My father owns a real estate investment company and if I accompany him, I might need to go to City Hall. And depending on the distance from the location, that's right in central San Marcos. And so on a daily basis I might need to go by there. It doesn't make sense. Why would I need an additional exclusion zone for City Hall? I've done nothing. They don't even know if I was taking pictures or video. It's just ridiculous. I think anyone could see that. It's just It doesn't make sense. And we're almost at trial. And like I said, his office said that I was in full compliance, I could keep my current company. There's no evidence of any wrongdoing for an additional exclusion zone. They told me I could keep the same company, yet here I'm being requested to change it when I had the arrangements already made through trial for payment. It just doesn't make any sense. Okay. Uh state, would you like to add anything? You're on the record. Your honor, obviously there's pretty serious charges that the defendant is facing. We are set for jury trial um based on my review of the evidence and I'm sure the court has access to the probable cause affidavit. I think the court can also understand the safety concerns of the San Marcos Police Department. I don't think the defendant has articulated any particular reason um other than financial hardship, in which case we can look into alternatives in terms of the court covering those costs of switching to the GPS um provider that pre-trial services needs to be able to actually continuously monitor him. I don't think it's an unreasonable burden and given the safety issues in this particular case, I think it's warranted. Okay. May I say something? Make I think that the requirement to have a GPS might itself be removed. Look what I'm dealing with. For this is since December, right? So that's 8 months I've been wearing this. No issues. And when they do come up with something it's I went to the church. I had my phone out, which Okay, how many people are doing that? This dumbass really thinks that he's going to be able to get his ankle monitor removed a few months before trial. No, dude, that is not going to work like that. And you didn't just go to the church, you went to City Hall to do a fraudit. Even though you are on ankle monitoring, you just couldn't help yourself. You had that itch to do a fraudit. It's really an addiction when you think about it. These guys are scumbags and they must get off when they do a fraudit and then they're completely addicted to it that even if they know they'll get in huge trouble, they still do it. That's something I never thought about before. Is frauditing an addiction much like kleptomania? Is it an addiction to committing a certain crime? It doesn't make sense that they Are you saying you weren't on City Hall grounds? No, I wasn't. Well, I wasn't at City Hall, the building itself. But their parking lot is adjacent to I don't know how the buildings are the ownership there, but I wasn't at City Hall. I know where City Hall is. I passed it. Do you deny that you were um taking videos of videos of someone going into City Hall? Yes, I deny it. It's untrue. And so what I'm saying is that the GPS right now is an expense and it's not providing any benefit to the state or to myself. Because they should have See, it should work both ways, right? I'm wearing a GPS, they should know I wasn't I wasn't at City Hall. Yet they're claiming they have this evidence that I was. I just think that the GPS itself is just at this redundant at this point. >> Okay. His point is well made. Is there any evidence from the third party that you have requested afterwards to show that he was at City Hall? Due to Mr. Dickerson not being assigned to me, I have to get my laptop to see check officer notes. Okay. Well, let's check it. I mean, let what's going on if we're going to accuse him of something. Anything else you want to add? Uh no, sir. The police department I believe does have that information that you're requesting about the GPS verification. I don't have it personally on me, but Okay. Can I say >> Well, if you want to step back and get it, you may. Sure. All right. Can I make one more point? I live adjacent to the exclusion zone, the property that's the exclusion zone, next door neighbors. And so I have an exclusion zone set up to the property I live adjacent to. It's Where do you live? Do you need the address or Yeah, I mean it's the probation I mean uh pre-trial knows where you live. Yeah, and it's if you look at it, it's an apartment complex I live right adjacent to it, like a joint property. So to me it it didn't make sense that I even needed a GPS. Well, everyone's looks for further evidence. Uh we'll go off the record. Everyone can step back. Okay. And we'll look at what's going on. All right. Look, I your your point I'm taking and I'm considering it and I understand. Um decision that you're making. All right. Okay. So we'll just stay cool. >> [snorts] >> And can I sit down again? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm going to step outside. I'll be right Okay. Do you'll be back? So the judge deliberated and tried to figure out what was fair for this suspect, but eventually he brought him back in and it just didn't go the way he wanted to. And the thing with this guy is that he is a typical frauditor who thinks that he knows everything. And the one thing you should not do is argue with a judge, but unfortunately that's exactly what's about to happen. You do. I don't want you to use an inaccurate GPS apparatus. You will change it to the new apparatus that's being requested, and I'm also giving you the order and this will be added to your conditions. Do not threaten, harass, annoy anyone at City Hall. Now, that may not be a criminal uh offense to annoy someone, but as part of your conditions, you may not threaten, harass, or annoy anyone at City Hall. To the extent that you want to go and see what is happening or see your government at work, I want you to have that opportunity. But, if you are, for instance, following people, as alleged, I'm not upset about that right now, but if you are following people very closely and holding a phone up to them, uh that would qualify as annoying someone. >> So, basically, he said you cannot fraudit anymore because that's exactly what frauditing is. You take your phone, you get it as close as possible to someone, you record transactions, you creepily record women, and that's what frauditing is. It's always meant to be annoying. So, basically, this guy cannot fraudit until the end of his trial. Well done, Judge, because, honestly, it's time someone puts an end to it, and you might not be able to put an end to it with every frauditer, but this guy already has conditions, so this was a perfect condition to add on top. Anyone would not like that, and I'm telling you, while you are on bond, do not do that. Please get that changed. It's an order of the court, and please do not threaten, harass, or annoy anyone at City Hall. Let me say this. >> understand? I understand what you're saying, but there are two things I'd like to argue, if I can, and it's that one, the GPS wasn't inaccurate. Well, it was just inaccurate a minute ago. If that GPS is causing a problem, [laughter] then we're going to get it changed. So, please get it changed. >> It corroborated my story, though. Okay. Well, and that's why I am not saying that you violated any conditions, but what I want us to do is be very clear that if you have a GPS unit on, it is the one where it will be registered immediately and is completely accurate. There was a yes and a no, a yes that it wasn't inaccurate. We're going to have a new system, so please have that changed. That is part of the orders of your condition of bond. Do you understand? So, this is plain English. Do you understand it or do you not understand it? He's not asking you to argue about it for 45 minutes. It's just about if you're able to understand it. Now, this frauditer, very pigheaded, refuses to understand that the judge has the final word here. He thinks that he's going to be able to have the judge change his mind on this. Good luck with that, Okay, so let me if I can just clarify all of this. >> So, the current company was fine, they said. The officers are using >> though, they must not think it is okay I know. I just at this point, right? They must not think it's okay if they're asking that you change it. Are you asking that it be changed just to pester uh Mr. Dickerson, or is it because there is a difference in what the service provided on the other GPS system? The latter half, Your Honor. Not to annoy or pester Mr. Dickerson, it's to accurately monitor >> And I think that's necessary because if you're in those locations, it may they need immediate access if you are going and attempting to um threaten people at City Hall. And I'm not saying that you have, I'm saying that there is evidence that makes me want to ensure that does not happen. >> Okay, I'm just just I'm just trying to clarify because there I'm going through this whole issue here because of the GPS. For reasons unknown, additional exclusion zones, That is an exclusion zone now. >> That's not an exclusion zone at City Hall. I didn't order that. >> Okay. Okay? What I said is >> current one is Hold on. Hold on. I just want to make sure you understand. What I am saying is that you may not go there and threaten, harass, or annoy anyone. So, if there is evidence of that, if someone at City Hall sees that and they have valid evidence, they can present that evidence, and that would be a violation of your bond. >> So, I'm just stating that they said there's no issue with the current company. I have billing arrangements made through a third third party. So, I'm covered through trial. If I change now, I'm not going to be able to pay it, and it's going to be a moot point. It's going to be an issue. I'm paid, I'm current. It's August 12th, it's trial day. We're almost there. And like I said, with the current situation, the GPS wasn't the problem. It's how they're interpreting the data. Because why am I sitting in Why am I going in front of the court just because I drove in front of City Hall? It makes no sense. Well, you know, that's not That's not the allegation. It's how the data is interpreted, so the GPS isn't the problem. They've even stated this, and like I said, I spoke to his office. Did your office not say that I was in full compliance with my current company? >> We're not going to do that. >> I can't switch at the moment, and that's the issue. Okay. You can, and you will, or you will not be in compliance with the condition, which is that you will use a specific GPS that is requested by Mr. Facundo. Now, I know that what you are claiming is that all you did was drive by. What I have heard from them is is not That's not what they're suggesting. They're suggesting that you did even more. We have evidence from someone. Now, I'm not going to, for that reason, I'm not saying that's enough to exclude you, but I am telling you What if I told you that I don't want you to do in and around City Hall? Annoy people. Well, don't you threaten or harass. Okay. >> Okay? Very good. All right. So, you understand what is required by you, and we will see you back here for your next session. >> switch companies at the moment. It's not feasible, like I like I said. [clears throat] So, you would think it's over, right? The judge made his ruling, it has been clearly explained to the defendant. There's not really anything else to talk about. So, why is this idiot going to open his mouth yet again and argue with the judge? I have no clue. But, at one point, I think he's going to face some consequences. If he continues to mouth off like that, eventually, he'll be held in contempt. I wonder if he'll take it that far. >> for your next session. >> I can't switch companies at the moment. It's not feasible, like I like I said. Okay. We'll work with Pre-Trial Services to see what you need to do to make it feasible. All right? They think it is feasible. That is why they are requesting it. They're not doing it as a punishment to you. But, what we want to do is make sure that the community is safe. That is what this is based on. All conditions of bond are based on community safety. >> It's no issue. It's like I said, we're almost at trial, and now I'm going through all of this issue when I'm paid in full with the current device, and they told me you said talk to him to work it out. Well, I spoke to them. They said I'm in full compliance, full compliance with the current device. And if I haven't done anything to anyone, I wasn't annoying, harassing, or doing anything to anyone at City Hall, right? I wasn't, so there's no issue here. Can I just get a point of clarification? Mr. Dickerson, is it your testimony under oath to this court that you never got out that you never set foot outside of your vehicle at City Hall? >> Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that on the record. I drove by City Hall. And you know, this just doesn't make sense, like I said. Okay. Full compliance, you said speak to him, he said full compliance. >> is evidence enough to do an exclusion zone, I have not done that. Okay. Okay? All right. All right. If you'd step back, we've got to move to our next case. So, there you have it. He's just going to have to suck it up and accept his new conditions that, yes, he will change the ankle monitor, and there's nothing that he can do about it. So, that's it for the video. I hope you guys enjoyed it. If you guys want to support our fight against DMA and this malicious lawsuit, I'll leave the GoFundMe in the description and in the pinned comment. Thank you very much, and I'll see you guys on the next