Long Island Audit FIGHTS BACK in Court Against Melbourne Mayor Alfrey

The eyes of the auditing world focused on SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes this week when details emerged about a recent lawsuit defeat in Illinois and his filing his response to a motion to dismiss another lawsuit out of Florida.

Reyes is suing Mayor Paul Alfrey of Melbourne, Florida, over comments Alfrey made on his official mayoral Facebook page last year. Alfrey alluded to a famous YouTuber as being responsible for negative comments and death threats flooding the Melbourne government after Reyes made mention of his grievances with the mayor.

The subsequent defamation lawsuit has quietly made its way through the legal system over the fall and into the winter. Reyes, however, has been vocal about his grievances against the mayor and has made several well publicized trips to Florida to confront the mayor in person.

Alfrey recently filed his motion to dismiss, stating that Reyes essentially doesn’t have a case since Alfrey did not specifically name Reyes or his online persona, “Long Island Audits.” The motion claimed that Reyes did not have standing to file the case and is seeking dismissal or sanctions against Reyes.

In his response, Reyes complains that the defendant violates the rule that confines a motion to dismiss to facts pled in the complaint. He hit Alfrey for including things not in the complaint, though he doesn’t linger on the defense.

Reyes also explains that he is the person who was supposedly defamed by the mayor’s actions, and not his corporation and says that he has standing in the state of Florida. He also briefly stated that it doesn’t matter that he made money off of the incident and the subsequent livestreams, his reputation was hurt by Alfrey’s actions even if Alfrey did not directly name him or his corporation.

He goes on to argue that under Florida law Alfrey’s description of a “YouTuber from New York” who appeared at the Melbourne City Council meeting on September 24, 2025, satisfies the requirements of defamation.

An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Monday, March 24, 2026, which may determine if the case can move to trial.

Reyes’s other big news came with the decision in Reyes v. Blassi, a case he filed in 2025 which claimed his constitutional rights were violated in the lobby of the Lake County Adult Probation & Psychological Services Building.

According to the Memorandum Opinion and Order by United States District Court Judge John Robert Blakey, Reyes entered the building’s lobby on May 23, 2025, and began filming despite signs that banned recording “in courtrooms or their environs.”

Reyes objected to the signage and that his recording was a lawful exercise of his First Amendment freedoms.

He left the building on his own after being confronted by Lake County Deputy Sheriff Michael Bassi. Bassi and Bassi’s supervisor, Deputy Chief Christopher Covelli, gave Reyes the option to delete his footage or to go to jail and have his phone confiscated. Reyes deleted the footage.

He later sued for First Amendment retaliation, unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and deprivation of property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The lawsuit was fairly quiet and didn’t catch much attention from Reyes or the press. It lingered until a recent motion to dismiss by the defense asking for dismissal as the defendants were immune from suit and Reyes, who was representing himself, failed to state an actionable claim.

Judge Blakey ultimately concluded:

For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for any constitutional violation and that, in any event, Defendants remain immune from suit. The Court thus grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss [22] and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint. Additionally, because further amendment would be futile,4 the Court dismisses this case with prejudice. See Bower v. Jones, 978 F.2d 1004, 1008 (7th Cir. 1992) (“Although Rule 15 states that leave to amend shall be “freely given,” it may be denied where there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, a repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opponent, or where the amendment would be futile”; “an amendment may be futile when it fails to state a valid theory of liability, or could not withstand a motion to dismiss.”). Civil case terminated.

Reyes’s Help Me Fight These Unlawful Charges & Injustice crowd sourcing campaign won Friday’s title with $50.00 in new donations.

In a troubling pattern, Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault’s Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit lost another $1.00 in value due to CAD to USD conversion rate changes.

No other campaigns that we follow saw new donations for Friday.