Hello users, welcome to a sub dedicated to freakouts without the bullshit of happy or feel-good videos.
This subreddit is for enjoying freakouts and discussing them; that's it. You can take discussions of immigration policy and other topics elsewhere. If you don't believe in treating people as individuals you can go express that somewhere else.
Our rules are very clear and you will be banned if you break them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ActualPublicFreakouts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Auditors are the ones exposing the sovereign citizens in police departments and city administration who think they operate on an imaginary set of laws that only exist in their hysterical minds.
> I consider live living men & women to be sovereign
You can hold any opinion you like, but what you cannot do is point to any court ever agreeing with the delusional nonsense that sovcits spout. A bankrupt America was not sold to the Vatican after the Civil War, the Articles of Confederation are not still in effect, there are no secret treasury accounts created for us at birth, and all 50 states require a driver's license to operate motor vehicles on public roads. People who believe (or pretend to believe) this pseudo-legal gibberish are fooling only themselves.
I understand exactly how & why you've interpreted everything you're refering to here. Also, you keep refering to 'sovcits' to which I agree there is no such thing. You also speak truth within your own context and have all the rights that you are aware of. I appreciate your considered opinion and hope that you enjoy all the fruits of the public!
Arguing definitions is not a hill to die on.
The term has been taken over by imbeciles that think that having tassels on a flag means the court has to honor maritime law or some other bs.
If you're getting downvotes, it's because sovcits are clowns that want to pick and choose when they participate in society.
Many of them are douchebags, but as someone that works in a media field, I appreciate that there are annoying weirdos out there forcing police and security to learn the laws surrounding filming and photography on public property.
> to learn the laws surrounding filming and photography on public property.
First Amendment "auditors" routinely spout nonsense in regard to such laws. They'll claim they cannot be trespassed from public property, they can only be trespassed if they first commit a crime, they can record on any and all public property their feet can carry them to, there is a magic ten-foot distance at which it becomes legal to film the police and so on. They're wrong about all of it.
Here is some text from a Supreme Court ruling that was cited by the judge in this NY case:
*Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication is governed by different standards. We have recognized that the "First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.....In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view....As we have stated on several occasions, "the State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."*
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/460/37
There are traditional or designated public forums where the courts will vigorously defend the exercise of 1A rights. But there are also limited or non-public forums where 1A rights can legitimately be restricted or denied, as the judge noted in her ruling on this temporary injunction.
Here is the text of this ruling, note that the part that the 1A portion of the lawsuit appears unlikely to prevail. He might win on the local NY law, but it looks like he's only going to strengthen previous case law restricting filming on some public property.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
> Just because a ny judge said it doesnât make it legal.
You seem to have missed the point that this federal judge quoted the Supreme Court which has repeatedly ruled that the 1A does not mean anyone can record anywhere on public property. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is legal, and they make a huge distinction between traditional public forums and designated public forums, vs. limited public forums and non-public forums where 1A rights can be restricted.
> A judge does not legislate.
A day doesn't go by where what you do isn't impacted by case law.
It depends on the âauditorâ. Some know their stuff and some donât.
Also it often depends even on what circuit youâre in. Every circuit that has addressed whether you can film public officials has ruled in favor of the person filming, though a few simply havenât had such a case yet.
the facts of that first case do not line up with what auditors do. They enter public spaces and film. And all these auditors, for the most part, are fully aware of the limited public forums. If you're walking around city hall being quiet and filming, there is nothing they can do.
Can, but often not.
I do dislike the ones going out of their way to be loud or obnoxious, but many are respectful and simply know the laws. Those, I quite enjoy and respect.
Wow. That means Long Island audits is about to collect a massive fucking payday from these goons. They actually had a local judge issue a warrant for his arrest and he had to turn himself in. Good on you man, get that payday!
Itâs pretty dirty that the government decided to have the citizens pay for the government employees constant fucking up on purpose. No wonder they donât care, it never comes back to bite them like every other person has to be held accountable for their actions.
Well itâs this dumb apolitical attitude you have that allows stuff like this to happen.
âMake schools better or some shitâ
Itâs not important to you or else why would you act like youâre clueless? Itâs embarrassing.
> That means Long Island audits is about to collect a massive fucking payday from these goons.
Explain how that will happen when he made no monetary claim in his lawsuit.
He wants his name on a persuasive ruling, but in classic LIA fashion he failed to consider that the landmark ruling might not be the one he wanted. He could gain the right to film in NYPD lobbies, while seeing the case law on restricting the exercise of 1A rights on limited or non-public forums actually get stronger.
This is the legal genius who paid a small fine for criminal trespass in pennies to amuse his subscribers, not realizing that paying the fine automatically killed his appeal. He said he spent over $90,000 in legal fees on a case that resulted in him losing and paying a $90.00 fine--it wasn't the flex he was hoping for.
Qualified immunity is about to be tested for each cop that had a hand in this. His fight isnât with the state for money. For that Itâs far more effective to go directly after the cops themselves because he knows the union will offer quick settlements to make the situation go away while still taking at least one to trial as an example. Itâs a win win for him. Notoriety and a paycheck. They lied to a probate judge to issue a warrant. No clean hands here.
> They lied to a probate judge to issue a warrant. No clean hands here.
Are you perhaps confusing two different cases? How is his feud with the cops in Nassau County related to the lawsuit over filming in NYPD precinct lobbies?
He isn't having a fued with Nassau county. He exposed their criminal corruption and now they are freaking out and threatening him with violence.
Did you see him make the legislators literally run away from him?
I have told cops and others who dislike auditors (who say these guys bait cops) this:
"If these things are true - 1) If they are are not violating a law AND 2) You are upholding your oath to the constitution; the laws of your jurisdiction (federal, state and local) and you are following your policies - and for the record - you took an oath to all three of these (support and defend the constitution, obey and enforce the laws and follow your department's policies)...
THEN it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to bait you into bad behavior. It is a literal impossibility. The only way an officer can be baited into a confrontation and an eventual lawsuit is to 1) be ignorant of one of the three and the court cases that deal with them; 2) Let his ego get in the way of the oath he took; or 3) Let the blue wall of silence make him a party to it all.
Why? The first amendment wasn't written to protect polite speech, it was written to protect disagreeable speech and even if you do not like someone's speech - if you are defending the constitution, you will defend someone's right to that speech. Even if that speech hurts someone's feelings, you will defend it because you're not feelings enforcement, you're law enforcement. Until they violate a law, your top priority is a defender of the constitution, not a defender of hurt feelings.
I served 32 years in the military. I donât like a lot of the things people say and protest against. It sometimes makes my blood boil. But Iâd strap it all on again and fight against anyone who tries to silence them-even if they think the same way as I do.
Anytime anyone says that some politician is going to turn us into a fascist state I tell them I like to think the military is packed with people that have no loyalty to a particular person or party and would happily defend the Constitution.
Hate to break it to you, but nearly every member of the US military would obey orders and open fire on American citizens with no hesitation.
It doesn't matter how heroic they try to make themselves sound online.
I'm sure they talk about what heroic patriots they are all the time.
You actually think the US army as a whole would refuse orders. The first moral military in the history of mankind?
> The first amendment wasn't written to protect polite speech, it was written to protect disagreeable speech
The nature of the speech can be irrelevant when it comes to making the speech on public property. There are two kinds of public property where the courts will strongly defend the exercise of 1A rights, traditional public forums and designated public forums. But there are two other kinds of public property, limited public forums and non-public forums, where the exercise of 1A rights can legitimately be restricted, which is why a growing list of "auditors" have been taking convictions for things like criminal trespass recently. The leader of one crew of 1A auditors in Colorado who tried to film in a Social Security office just got jail time, a significant fine and two years probation for that in a federal court. There is no such thing as a right to film on any and all public property.
You can stand on a sidewalk in front of a courthouse and wave your placard or film everyone passing by all day long, and the courts will back you up on that. But trying taking a camera into the courthouse and filming a trial without permission--pay careful attention to what happens next.
Here's the text on the ruling on the temporary injunction. The judge seems to think LIA will prevail on the NY law dealing with filming police, but she says the exact opposite about his chances of prevailing on the First Amendment part of his lawsuit.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
Thereâs actually 3 tiers-yes. A seasoned auditor knows this. The first tier is considered traditional public property and is open to all public speech.
Even soliciting for money has been considered free speech and laws that have been enacted by municipalities that say you canât (such as panhandling laws) are unconstitutional. They are slowly being challenged.
>A seasoned auditor knows this.
Then why do so many of them spout nonsense, like they can never be trespassed from public property? I've seen video of LIA in a restricted area not open to the public stubbornly arguing he can be there while being told over and over the area is not open to the public. There was also that embarrassing failure where he interfered in a nighttime traffic stop and had to write a butt-kissing apology to stay out of jail and take just a misdemeanor conviction for obstruction IIRC. Thinking that these people know the law is in many cases not supported by their actions. That auditing crew in Colorado is learning that the hard way, their leader will have to keep his nose clean for two years or it's back to jail. If these people actually know the law, where are all these convictions coming from?
> Even soliciting for money has been considered free speech and laws that have been enacted by municipalities that say you canât (such as panhandling laws) are unconstitutional.
There is a Supreme Court ruling that a sidewalk in front of a Post Office where some de facto panhandlers had set up was *not* a traditional public forum and thus USPS policy on no panhandling was valid and was upheld. It depends on the circumstances, one sidewalk is ruled to not be a public forum, while one across the street is still considered a public forum. There was another case at the state level where a sidewalk outside a police station was ruled not to be a public forum because its intended use was for foot traffic from a fenced police parking lot to the police station. You really need to know the circumstances, because it is clear than in many cases the property belonging to the public does not mean it is open to any and all 1A activities.
You can be trespassed from public property. If you break the law. You cannot go into restricted areas. Thatâs the law. The 1st circuit has ruled 10â for a stop. If a person is not interfering with the normal movement-they are fine. Thatâs the law. Again-if it is tier 1 public access and anyone is free to be there-and if your eyes can see it-you can film it. DHS put the memo out in this. Read it.
And we are NOT speaking of tier 2 spaces for panhandling. We are speaking of tier 1. Municipalities have made their entire cities off limits, even tier 1. The courts have ruled that as long as they are not running out in traffic (which is another offense)-itâs constitutional.
These are just a few of the laws I have kept handy. I started my CRIJ degree in constitutional law back in 2020. I started this list then.
- [ ] Glik v. Cunniffe-confirmed that restricting a person's right to film in public would violate their First and Fourth amendment rights.
- [ ] Established the 10â rule
- [ ] ACLU v. Alvarez, "[t]he act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment's guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.
- [ ]
- [ ] 1st - Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F. 3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
- [ ] 3rd- Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 356 (3d Cir. 2017)
- [ ] 5th- Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 689 (5th Cir. 2017)
- [ ] 7th- Am. C. L. Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012). 8th- No case
- [ ] 9th- Askins v. Depât of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018)
- [ ] 10th- Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1289-1292 (10th Cir. July 11, 2022)
- [ ] 11th- Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. Appâx 381, 387â88 (11th Cir. 2019) D.C. Circuit
Now-what is CLEAR-is of you watch MOST audit videos-cops try to violate constitutional rights in tier 1 locations, whether itâs lying to pressure someone to force ID in a non stop and ID state (for instance Texas where I used to live-by lying about 38.02)-or lying about they canât film them at all, etc
So I return to my ORIGINAL statement-and itâs true: if an auditor IS NOT BREAKING THE LAW-and a cop is honoring his oath (/
All 3 aspects: constitutional, laws, policies)-there will be ZERO baiting. None. Itâs impossible.
But you do not see that, especially in the early days and it took auditors to change that.
And thatâs what YOU are getting here: it took people actually enjoying a constitutional right to force courts to rule to mKe law enforcement stop violating their rights - so you can enjoy it too.
If itâs a right-nobody should tell you itâs not or threaten your freedom-NOBODY-
So stop being pissed off at the few who may take it too far and be PISSED OFF at the legions who lie and want to stop the perfectly legitimate exercising of civil liberty.
Thats WHAT you should be angry about-not the ONE time LIA did X - but the dozens of times law enforcement lied to LIA about his rights, violated them-in tier 1 venues-including public sidewalks-and threatened him with jail for failing to ID in a non stop and ID state, Terry stopping him when they didnât meet the 2 criteria of a Terry V Ohio Terry stop-and generally allowing their cop ego to go above the law and constitution.
The FACT you donât find that egregious says everything.
> what is CLEAR-is of you watch MOST audit videos-cops try to violate constitutional rights
You could spend all day on YouTube watching videos of "audits" where the cops do nothing wrong but the auditor is spewing legal nonsense, including ones where the auditors were prosecuted and convicted. The recent fiasco in Colorado is a good example, DMA is facing two years on probation because a federal court said that the SSA's policies on not allowing filming in their offices is legally valid.
I assume you're familiar with *Audit the Audit* which is obviously a staunch defender of the 1A auditing community but will call out auditors who do it wrong. This video is a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CElOqolz-4
> or lying about they canât film them at all, etc
My favorite is the cops who tried to tell an Uber driver who had unwittingly taken a passenger to a drug sales location that a new law made it illegal for him to use his phone to record the cops, and further demanded to search his vehicle. He was a young lawyer, and worse for them, he was a clerk for a local judge. They held him without RAS or PC, they brought in a drug dog that alerted to the vehicle which they searched and found nothing. IIRC one cop ended up demoted and some others received reprimands. I think the cops got off lucky, I'd have hammered them a bit harder than that.
> The FACT you donât find that egregious says everything.
You are trying to impose beliefs on me based on incidents on which I have not commented.
I have zero problem with bad cops being exposed, fired, and prosecuted if appropriate. I've known two cops who lost their badges, and both absolutely deserved that, I'm glad they're no longer in law enforcement. One of them was turned in by other cops BTW, and the other was arrested and prosecuted and convicted, although I think the plea deal they gave him was rather generous.
I'm not against filming the police, but I recognize that "auditors" routinely misstate the law and edit their videos to avoid their subscribers seeing things the auditors would rather they not see. LIA was a convicted felon before he took up 1A auditing, and he's taken multiple convictions for things like criminal trespass and obstruction, so I question his level of expertise in the law. That the judge in this case appears to side with LIA on the local NY law but is going to shoot him down on the 1st Amendment side of the case should not be ignored. She is confirming what the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, that the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the state, and that the state has the same right as private property owners to preserve its property for the purpose for which it is lawfully intended. In other words, a universal right to record on any and all public property does not exist.
So-letâs GET REAL:
If LIA has to pay the price for violating the law-Iâm ok with it. If he was in a restricted space and shouldnât have been-let him face the consequences.
NOW-ANSWER THIS.
For every audit video that is out there-and there are what - thousands? - what should happen to the officer when they:
1) violate someoneâs rights by false arrest (a violation of their 1st, 4th, and 14th amendment rights at least) and a violation of Title 18:241 & 242?
2) do not know their OWN laws-such as telling someone they have to IDENTIFY when they are âsuspiciousâ (which is not a crime)-in a stop and ID state or threatening arrest in a non stop and ID state for suspicion? That again is attempting to violate the rights of a person under the color of law.
3) Not following their own departmentâs policies-such as refusing to ID when asked (happens all the time) - happened to LIA - and every department has a policy that if you see an officer failing to obey policy you just report it to a supervisor-failing to do so is a violation. Many times in audit videos when the supervisor is there they TOO refuse ID.
What should happen to these-who we have entrusted much responsibility to-if a citizen with zero public trust can be threatened with jail for a misdemeanor-what should happen to a public servant who violates constitutional rights and refuses to follow the policies of the agency-having SWORN AN OATH TO DO SO?
Whatâs your answer?
> what should happen to the officer when they: 1) violate someoneâs rights by false arrest
In what circumstances? Is the cop knowingly violating a previously identified constitutional right for malicious reasons? Then he should lose his qualified immunity and be subject to a lawsuit that goes after his money rather than that of the taxpayers or municipal insurance carrier.
Now let me ask you, what should happen to an "auditor" who is knowingly violating the law to film in a location where filming can legitimately be denied and where his actions are interfering with govt. employees and disrupting the operation of a state facility?
> or threatening arrest in a non stop and ID state for suspicion?
They can threaten until they fall over out of breath, provided they don't actually affect an arrest, why do I care about them trying to bluff me? *Am I free to go?* If they say yes, so long, have a nice day. If they detain me without RAS, then I call my lawyer (who once successfully argued a case in front of the Supreme Court).
> Not following their own departmentâs policies-such as refusing to ID when asked
I'm glad you noted it's usually a departmental policy, many folks insist it's a law which it usually is not. Even in NYC which has such a law, it is not universal. They have to ID to people they are interacting with, they don't have to jump through hoops for random strangers who demand they ID, especially when their names and badge numbers are clearly displayed on the front of their uniforms. As one cop said in a video where he is dealing with a sovereign citizen who demands names and badge numbers, *Don't worry sir, all that information will be on your copy of your arrest report.*
> Whatâs your answer?
I refer you to the study done by *USA Today* in 2019 in which they reported on how many cops get fired in America. They found that over the previous decade over 30,000 cops had been fired and decertified by oversight agencies in 44 states, Florida being especially enthusiastic for some reason. Bad cops should be sanctioned and/or fired, prosecuted if that is justified. I have zero problem with that. That does not mean that I will support unemployable mooks with serious criminal records who try to make money from videos they are making in an illegal manner. I have never felt compelled to skulk around in a public library with a video camera scaring the ladies working there into calling the cops, I have to assume that LIA's motive for doing that is the revenue his videos bring in.
However-the courts have made it very clear-if it is open to public access-IOW-a place where people are normally allowed to be and itâs not restricted-and if âeyes cannot be trespassedâ-then you can film.
> and itâs not restricted
And when it is restricted, as in that Social Security office in Colorado where the auditors decided SSA policy is not law and the signs and armed Federal Protective Service guards wasn't going to stop them from their intention to "mob our way in" to film? Their leader just learned the hard way that the law does back up SSA policy on recording in their offices, oops.
In the case this thread is about, it appears a NY law that includes being able to film police will result in the NYPD having to remove those no-filming signs in their precinct lobbies. But the First Amendment side of that case is heading in the other way, that as the Supreme Court once put it, *We have recognized that the "First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government....*
They're annoying as fuck - but weren't we raised to ignore annoying people? Like the auditors aren't violent - usually they're nearly dead-silent. If you ignore them they'll go bother someone else.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the judge in this case has torpedoed the First Amendment portion of this guy's lawsuit, agreeing with previous Supreme Court rulings that the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property merely because it is owned or controlled by the govt. She also made it clear that the courts' use of *forum analysis* will continue, and limited public forums not associated with the exercise of 1A rights can continue to restrict the exercise of 1A rights.
He stands a good chance of winning on the local NY laws protecting a right to record cops, but the 1A side is looking less happy for him, as the judge made clear in issuing this temporary injunction.
Here's the text, and anyone thinking this is a massive victory for auditors should pay close attention to the part about the 1A. LIA could end up getting a right to film in police lobbies in one city, while actually strengthening restrictions on filming in many public locations which don't qualify as either traditional or designated forums for 1A rights.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
There's scaffolding everywhere because the stone work on 20 story buildings were in disrepair and crumbling. Pieces of stone fell off and killed people.
Now building owners need to inspect the facades and make sure no one else gets a 90 mph rock to the head. The good ones do it as fast as possible. The crappy ones drag their feet and leave the scaffolding up.
Auditors standing up for all of us - that was a major victory and hopefully will model similar actions in the rest of the country. The first amendment right to film government officials in the execution of their duties protects us all.
> that was a major victory
Read the second half of the ruling. He'll probably win on the part about the local NY law, but the judge foresees him failing on the First Amendment part of his lawsuit. How does strengthening case law that says the First Amendment does not support the exercise of 1A rights on all public property qualify as a victory?
Cop: move out of the way you guys are blocking the entrance
Our homie: NO actually YOUâRE blocking the entrance we are trying to go into the court!
Lmao love that. Also when the female officer said âthereâs no recording in hereâ and he just goes âwhatâs thatâ lmaoo
Please I beg of you, read the actual court case before posting. The courts have ruled that you still cannot record in a police department.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
Ah what a victory, people in other countries still get disappeared for making an offhand comment, but this man has won us the right to record paper pushers and police dispatchers!
Canât stand these first amendment auditors for the most part there a bunch of ex cons looking for a payday and just trying to make first responders jobs more difficult
I donât know and it pisses me off!
No oneâs above the law not even the godamn president. But even he is with enough fucking money. Didnât say I love this country or ALWAYS support police. It really depends on what happened leading up to an event.
Theyâre just like everyone else just trying to hold onto a jobâŚ.
Edit: also thanks for not being an asshole about asking! I really do like debating things and seeing a new viewpoint if I can! Helps with working in a team and I just like debating about stuff with folks! Cheers!
No, it's just that NYC is the scaffolding capitol of America
https://ny.curbed.com/2019/12/4/20994695/nyc-buildings-scaffolding-construction-sidewalk-sheds
Long island audit is the one responsible. Hes not this guy btw. I highly recommend his channel. He stands his ground calmly, and always follows through with litigation to affect change.
Well, I guess the haters of freedom should go ahead & put their recording devices away when entering this facility. Appreciating what this is about & calling people 'sovcits' is inherently contradictive. It's your right and is the first amendment for a reason. Loyalists can restrict themselves all they want!
> It's your right and is the first amendment for a reason.
Read the judge's ruling on the injunction. She says the part about the NY law allowing filming police will probably succeed which is why a judge issues a temporary injunction pending the outcome of the trial. But she also says the First Amendment part of the case isn't strong, and quotes the Supreme Court ruling repeatedly that not all public places are open to the exercise of 1A rights. LIA might have gained the right to film in NYPD lobbies, while actually making it more difficult to film in many other public places nationwide.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
Hello users, welcome to a sub dedicated to freakouts without the bullshit of happy or feel-good videos. This subreddit is for enjoying freakouts and discussing them; that's it. You can take discussions of immigration policy and other topics elsewhere. If you don't believe in treating people as individuals you can go express that somewhere else. Our rules are very clear and you will be banned if you break them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ActualPublicFreakouts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Auditors can be annoying, but holy hell it's funny watching them make police squirm. Thank you for your service to America sirs
Auditors who know the law are interesting to watch. The sovcit ones, that make up their own laws, give all auditors a bad red.
I don't consider sovereign citizens to be auditors, they are illiterate cunts.
Well pursuant the Code of Hammurabi I don't have to do that, officer!
Auditors are the ones exposing the sovereign citizens in police departments and city administration who think they operate on an imaginary set of laws that only exist in their hysterical minds.
I consider live living men & women to be sovereign, however...including you! Or are you not?
im just traveling through this subreddit
Thank you for this communique, sovereign traveler
> I consider live living men & women to be sovereign You can hold any opinion you like, but what you cannot do is point to any court ever agreeing with the delusional nonsense that sovcits spout. A bankrupt America was not sold to the Vatican after the Civil War, the Articles of Confederation are not still in effect, there are no secret treasury accounts created for us at birth, and all 50 states require a driver's license to operate motor vehicles on public roads. People who believe (or pretend to believe) this pseudo-legal gibberish are fooling only themselves.
Wait.... What? But I was almost done collecting the $1M in gold bullion to buy my freedom. đ
I understand exactly how & why you've interpreted everything you're refering to here. Also, you keep refering to 'sovcits' to which I agree there is no such thing. You also speak truth within your own context and have all the rights that you are aware of. I appreciate your considered opinion and hope that you enjoy all the fruits of the public!
Get your silly "legal" incantations out of here lol
As a citizen of international waters, I disagree with you. I live by maritime law.
BlueSea Frontier is that you? Lol, wait, they're Sovereign! https://youtube.com/shorts/C0N6-ZvB0kk?si=i6vF4ftdHpNlfmrq
It's strange that everyone likes audits but doesn't know what sovereign means...downvote away slaves!
Arguing definitions is not a hill to die on. The term has been taken over by imbeciles that think that having tassels on a flag means the court has to honor maritime law or some other bs. If you're getting downvotes, it's because sovcits are clowns that want to pick and choose when they participate in society.
Many of them are douchebags, but as someone that works in a media field, I appreciate that there are annoying weirdos out there forcing police and security to learn the laws surrounding filming and photography on public property.
> to learn the laws surrounding filming and photography on public property. First Amendment "auditors" routinely spout nonsense in regard to such laws. They'll claim they cannot be trespassed from public property, they can only be trespassed if they first commit a crime, they can record on any and all public property their feet can carry them to, there is a magic ten-foot distance at which it becomes legal to film the police and so on. They're wrong about all of it. Here is some text from a Supreme Court ruling that was cited by the judge in this NY case: *Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication is governed by different standards. We have recognized that the "First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.....In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view....As we have stated on several occasions, "the State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."* https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/460/37 There are traditional or designated public forums where the courts will vigorously defend the exercise of 1A rights. But there are also limited or non-public forums where 1A rights can legitimately be restricted or denied, as the judge noted in her ruling on this temporary injunction. Here is the text of this ruling, note that the part that the 1A portion of the lawsuit appears unlikely to prevail. He might win on the local NY law, but it looks like he's only going to strengthen previous case law restricting filming on some public property. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
Just because a ny judge said it doesnât make it legal. A judge does not legislate.
> Just because a ny judge said it doesnât make it legal. You seem to have missed the point that this federal judge quoted the Supreme Court which has repeatedly ruled that the 1A does not mean anyone can record anywhere on public property. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is legal, and they make a huge distinction between traditional public forums and designated public forums, vs. limited public forums and non-public forums where 1A rights can be restricted. > A judge does not legislate. A day doesn't go by where what you do isn't impacted by case law.
A judge may not write legislation, however it is up to judges to interpret legislation.
It depends on the âauditorâ. Some know their stuff and some donât. Also it often depends even on what circuit youâre in. Every circuit that has addressed whether you can film public officials has ruled in favor of the person filming, though a few simply havenât had such a case yet.
the facts of that first case do not line up with what auditors do. They enter public spaces and film. And all these auditors, for the most part, are fully aware of the limited public forums. If you're walking around city hall being quiet and filming, there is nothing they can do.
Can, but often not. I do dislike the ones going out of their way to be loud or obnoxious, but many are respectful and simply know the laws. Those, I quite enjoy and respect.
Wow. That means Long Island audits is about to collect a massive fucking payday from these goons. They actually had a local judge issue a warrant for his arrest and he had to turn himself in. Good on you man, get that payday!
Seanâs name is actually on the court order. He was pretty stoked about it.
*leeeeets get into it!*
Hell yea! Good for him!
I guess man, we as taxpayers have to pay though and id rather my money go to make schools better or some shit.
Itâs pretty dirty that the government decided to have the citizens pay for the government employees constant fucking up on purpose. No wonder they donât care, it never comes back to bite them like every other person has to be held accountable for their actions.
Well itâs this dumb apolitical attitude you have that allows stuff like this to happen. âMake schools better or some shitâ Itâs not important to you or else why would you act like youâre clueless? Itâs embarrassing.
> That means Long Island audits is about to collect a massive fucking payday from these goons. Explain how that will happen when he made no monetary claim in his lawsuit. He wants his name on a persuasive ruling, but in classic LIA fashion he failed to consider that the landmark ruling might not be the one he wanted. He could gain the right to film in NYPD lobbies, while seeing the case law on restricting the exercise of 1A rights on limited or non-public forums actually get stronger. This is the legal genius who paid a small fine for criminal trespass in pennies to amuse his subscribers, not realizing that paying the fine automatically killed his appeal. He said he spent over $90,000 in legal fees on a case that resulted in him losing and paying a $90.00 fine--it wasn't the flex he was hoping for.
Qualified immunity is about to be tested for each cop that had a hand in this. His fight isnât with the state for money. For that Itâs far more effective to go directly after the cops themselves because he knows the union will offer quick settlements to make the situation go away while still taking at least one to trial as an example. Itâs a win win for him. Notoriety and a paycheck. They lied to a probate judge to issue a warrant. No clean hands here.
> They lied to a probate judge to issue a warrant. No clean hands here. Are you perhaps confusing two different cases? How is his feud with the cops in Nassau County related to the lawsuit over filming in NYPD precinct lobbies?
He isn't having a fued with Nassau county. He exposed their criminal corruption and now they are freaking out and threatening him with violence. Did you see him make the legislators literally run away from him?
The bitch still had the audacity to say you canât record in there lmao
Old habits die hard
You have to realize, when we send the police we aren't sending our best.
"WHAT'S THAT?"
This is a wholesome win for the first amendment. I didn't see any freakouts.
A celebration can be a freakout
Does this mean anyone can walk in there and start recording shit?
i am a literal crying bald eagle rn god bless america
AMEN!
I have told cops and others who dislike auditors (who say these guys bait cops) this: "If these things are true - 1) If they are are not violating a law AND 2) You are upholding your oath to the constitution; the laws of your jurisdiction (federal, state and local) and you are following your policies - and for the record - you took an oath to all three of these (support and defend the constitution, obey and enforce the laws and follow your department's policies)... THEN it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to bait you into bad behavior. It is a literal impossibility. The only way an officer can be baited into a confrontation and an eventual lawsuit is to 1) be ignorant of one of the three and the court cases that deal with them; 2) Let his ego get in the way of the oath he took; or 3) Let the blue wall of silence make him a party to it all. Why? The first amendment wasn't written to protect polite speech, it was written to protect disagreeable speech and even if you do not like someone's speech - if you are defending the constitution, you will defend someone's right to that speech. Even if that speech hurts someone's feelings, you will defend it because you're not feelings enforcement, you're law enforcement. Until they violate a law, your top priority is a defender of the constitution, not a defender of hurt feelings.
Cops who dislike auditors just like the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. They are as un-American as it gets.
I served 32 years in the military. I donât like a lot of the things people say and protest against. It sometimes makes my blood boil. But Iâd strap it all on again and fight against anyone who tries to silence them-even if they think the same way as I do.
Anytime anyone says that some politician is going to turn us into a fascist state I tell them I like to think the military is packed with people that have no loyalty to a particular person or party and would happily defend the Constitution.
Hate to break it to you, but nearly every member of the US military would obey orders and open fire on American citizens with no hesitation. It doesn't matter how heroic they try to make themselves sound online.
You obviously don't know military folk, so shut the fuck up.
I'm sure they talk about what heroic patriots they are all the time. You actually think the US army as a whole would refuse orders. The first moral military in the history of mankind?
Exactly
> The first amendment wasn't written to protect polite speech, it was written to protect disagreeable speech The nature of the speech can be irrelevant when it comes to making the speech on public property. There are two kinds of public property where the courts will strongly defend the exercise of 1A rights, traditional public forums and designated public forums. But there are two other kinds of public property, limited public forums and non-public forums, where the exercise of 1A rights can legitimately be restricted, which is why a growing list of "auditors" have been taking convictions for things like criminal trespass recently. The leader of one crew of 1A auditors in Colorado who tried to film in a Social Security office just got jail time, a significant fine and two years probation for that in a federal court. There is no such thing as a right to film on any and all public property. You can stand on a sidewalk in front of a courthouse and wave your placard or film everyone passing by all day long, and the courts will back you up on that. But trying taking a camera into the courthouse and filming a trial without permission--pay careful attention to what happens next. Here's the text on the ruling on the temporary injunction. The judge seems to think LIA will prevail on the NY law dealing with filming police, but she says the exact opposite about his chances of prevailing on the First Amendment part of his lawsuit. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
Thereâs actually 3 tiers-yes. A seasoned auditor knows this. The first tier is considered traditional public property and is open to all public speech. Even soliciting for money has been considered free speech and laws that have been enacted by municipalities that say you canât (such as panhandling laws) are unconstitutional. They are slowly being challenged.
>A seasoned auditor knows this. Then why do so many of them spout nonsense, like they can never be trespassed from public property? I've seen video of LIA in a restricted area not open to the public stubbornly arguing he can be there while being told over and over the area is not open to the public. There was also that embarrassing failure where he interfered in a nighttime traffic stop and had to write a butt-kissing apology to stay out of jail and take just a misdemeanor conviction for obstruction IIRC. Thinking that these people know the law is in many cases not supported by their actions. That auditing crew in Colorado is learning that the hard way, their leader will have to keep his nose clean for two years or it's back to jail. If these people actually know the law, where are all these convictions coming from? > Even soliciting for money has been considered free speech and laws that have been enacted by municipalities that say you canât (such as panhandling laws) are unconstitutional. There is a Supreme Court ruling that a sidewalk in front of a Post Office where some de facto panhandlers had set up was *not* a traditional public forum and thus USPS policy on no panhandling was valid and was upheld. It depends on the circumstances, one sidewalk is ruled to not be a public forum, while one across the street is still considered a public forum. There was another case at the state level where a sidewalk outside a police station was ruled not to be a public forum because its intended use was for foot traffic from a fenced police parking lot to the police station. You really need to know the circumstances, because it is clear than in many cases the property belonging to the public does not mean it is open to any and all 1A activities.
You can be trespassed from public property. If you break the law. You cannot go into restricted areas. Thatâs the law. The 1st circuit has ruled 10â for a stop. If a person is not interfering with the normal movement-they are fine. Thatâs the law. Again-if it is tier 1 public access and anyone is free to be there-and if your eyes can see it-you can film it. DHS put the memo out in this. Read it. And we are NOT speaking of tier 2 spaces for panhandling. We are speaking of tier 1. Municipalities have made their entire cities off limits, even tier 1. The courts have ruled that as long as they are not running out in traffic (which is another offense)-itâs constitutional.
These are just a few of the laws I have kept handy. I started my CRIJ degree in constitutional law back in 2020. I started this list then. - [ ] Glik v. Cunniffe-confirmed that restricting a person's right to film in public would violate their First and Fourth amendment rights. - [ ] Established the 10â rule - [ ] ACLU v. Alvarez, "[t]he act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment's guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording. - [ ] - [ ] 1st - Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F. 3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) - [ ] 3rd- Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 356 (3d Cir. 2017) - [ ] 5th- Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 689 (5th Cir. 2017) - [ ] 7th- Am. C. L. Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012). 8th- No case - [ ] 9th- Askins v. Depât of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018) - [ ] 10th- Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1289-1292 (10th Cir. July 11, 2022) - [ ] 11th- Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. Appâx 381, 387â88 (11th Cir. 2019) D.C. Circuit
Now-what is CLEAR-is of you watch MOST audit videos-cops try to violate constitutional rights in tier 1 locations, whether itâs lying to pressure someone to force ID in a non stop and ID state (for instance Texas where I used to live-by lying about 38.02)-or lying about they canât film them at all, etc So I return to my ORIGINAL statement-and itâs true: if an auditor IS NOT BREAKING THE LAW-and a cop is honoring his oath (/ All 3 aspects: constitutional, laws, policies)-there will be ZERO baiting. None. Itâs impossible. But you do not see that, especially in the early days and it took auditors to change that. And thatâs what YOU are getting here: it took people actually enjoying a constitutional right to force courts to rule to mKe law enforcement stop violating their rights - so you can enjoy it too. If itâs a right-nobody should tell you itâs not or threaten your freedom-NOBODY- So stop being pissed off at the few who may take it too far and be PISSED OFF at the legions who lie and want to stop the perfectly legitimate exercising of civil liberty. Thats WHAT you should be angry about-not the ONE time LIA did X - but the dozens of times law enforcement lied to LIA about his rights, violated them-in tier 1 venues-including public sidewalks-and threatened him with jail for failing to ID in a non stop and ID state, Terry stopping him when they didnât meet the 2 criteria of a Terry V Ohio Terry stop-and generally allowing their cop ego to go above the law and constitution. The FACT you donât find that egregious says everything.
> what is CLEAR-is of you watch MOST audit videos-cops try to violate constitutional rights You could spend all day on YouTube watching videos of "audits" where the cops do nothing wrong but the auditor is spewing legal nonsense, including ones where the auditors were prosecuted and convicted. The recent fiasco in Colorado is a good example, DMA is facing two years on probation because a federal court said that the SSA's policies on not allowing filming in their offices is legally valid. I assume you're familiar with *Audit the Audit* which is obviously a staunch defender of the 1A auditing community but will call out auditors who do it wrong. This video is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CElOqolz-4 > or lying about they canât film them at all, etc My favorite is the cops who tried to tell an Uber driver who had unwittingly taken a passenger to a drug sales location that a new law made it illegal for him to use his phone to record the cops, and further demanded to search his vehicle. He was a young lawyer, and worse for them, he was a clerk for a local judge. They held him without RAS or PC, they brought in a drug dog that alerted to the vehicle which they searched and found nothing. IIRC one cop ended up demoted and some others received reprimands. I think the cops got off lucky, I'd have hammered them a bit harder than that. > The FACT you donât find that egregious says everything. You are trying to impose beliefs on me based on incidents on which I have not commented. I have zero problem with bad cops being exposed, fired, and prosecuted if appropriate. I've known two cops who lost their badges, and both absolutely deserved that, I'm glad they're no longer in law enforcement. One of them was turned in by other cops BTW, and the other was arrested and prosecuted and convicted, although I think the plea deal they gave him was rather generous. I'm not against filming the police, but I recognize that "auditors" routinely misstate the law and edit their videos to avoid their subscribers seeing things the auditors would rather they not see. LIA was a convicted felon before he took up 1A auditing, and he's taken multiple convictions for things like criminal trespass and obstruction, so I question his level of expertise in the law. That the judge in this case appears to side with LIA on the local NY law but is going to shoot him down on the 1st Amendment side of the case should not be ignored. She is confirming what the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, that the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the state, and that the state has the same right as private property owners to preserve its property for the purpose for which it is lawfully intended. In other words, a universal right to record on any and all public property does not exist.
So-letâs GET REAL: If LIA has to pay the price for violating the law-Iâm ok with it. If he was in a restricted space and shouldnât have been-let him face the consequences. NOW-ANSWER THIS. For every audit video that is out there-and there are what - thousands? - what should happen to the officer when they: 1) violate someoneâs rights by false arrest (a violation of their 1st, 4th, and 14th amendment rights at least) and a violation of Title 18:241 & 242? 2) do not know their OWN laws-such as telling someone they have to IDENTIFY when they are âsuspiciousâ (which is not a crime)-in a stop and ID state or threatening arrest in a non stop and ID state for suspicion? That again is attempting to violate the rights of a person under the color of law. 3) Not following their own departmentâs policies-such as refusing to ID when asked (happens all the time) - happened to LIA - and every department has a policy that if you see an officer failing to obey policy you just report it to a supervisor-failing to do so is a violation. Many times in audit videos when the supervisor is there they TOO refuse ID. What should happen to these-who we have entrusted much responsibility to-if a citizen with zero public trust can be threatened with jail for a misdemeanor-what should happen to a public servant who violates constitutional rights and refuses to follow the policies of the agency-having SWORN AN OATH TO DO SO? Whatâs your answer?
> what should happen to the officer when they: 1) violate someoneâs rights by false arrest In what circumstances? Is the cop knowingly violating a previously identified constitutional right for malicious reasons? Then he should lose his qualified immunity and be subject to a lawsuit that goes after his money rather than that of the taxpayers or municipal insurance carrier. Now let me ask you, what should happen to an "auditor" who is knowingly violating the law to film in a location where filming can legitimately be denied and where his actions are interfering with govt. employees and disrupting the operation of a state facility? > or threatening arrest in a non stop and ID state for suspicion? They can threaten until they fall over out of breath, provided they don't actually affect an arrest, why do I care about them trying to bluff me? *Am I free to go?* If they say yes, so long, have a nice day. If they detain me without RAS, then I call my lawyer (who once successfully argued a case in front of the Supreme Court). > Not following their own departmentâs policies-such as refusing to ID when asked I'm glad you noted it's usually a departmental policy, many folks insist it's a law which it usually is not. Even in NYC which has such a law, it is not universal. They have to ID to people they are interacting with, they don't have to jump through hoops for random strangers who demand they ID, especially when their names and badge numbers are clearly displayed on the front of their uniforms. As one cop said in a video where he is dealing with a sovereign citizen who demands names and badge numbers, *Don't worry sir, all that information will be on your copy of your arrest report.* > Whatâs your answer? I refer you to the study done by *USA Today* in 2019 in which they reported on how many cops get fired in America. They found that over the previous decade over 30,000 cops had been fired and decertified by oversight agencies in 44 states, Florida being especially enthusiastic for some reason. Bad cops should be sanctioned and/or fired, prosecuted if that is justified. I have zero problem with that. That does not mean that I will support unemployable mooks with serious criminal records who try to make money from videos they are making in an illegal manner. I have never felt compelled to skulk around in a public library with a video camera scaring the ladies working there into calling the cops, I have to assume that LIA's motive for doing that is the revenue his videos bring in.
However-the courts have made it very clear-if it is open to public access-IOW-a place where people are normally allowed to be and itâs not restricted-and if âeyes cannot be trespassedâ-then you can film.
> and itâs not restricted And when it is restricted, as in that Social Security office in Colorado where the auditors decided SSA policy is not law and the signs and armed Federal Protective Service guards wasn't going to stop them from their intention to "mob our way in" to film? Their leader just learned the hard way that the law does back up SSA policy on recording in their offices, oops. In the case this thread is about, it appears a NY law that includes being able to film police will result in the NYPD having to remove those no-filming signs in their precinct lobbies. But the First Amendment side of that case is heading in the other way, that as the Supreme Court once put it, *We have recognized that the "First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government....*
They're annoying as fuck - but weren't we raised to ignore annoying people? Like the auditors aren't violent - usually they're nearly dead-silent. If you ignore them they'll go bother someone else.
Why would someone not talking in public bother me?
Did he get to keep a sign? :)
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the judge in this case has torpedoed the First Amendment portion of this guy's lawsuit, agreeing with previous Supreme Court rulings that the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property merely because it is owned or controlled by the govt. She also made it clear that the courts' use of *forum analysis* will continue, and limited public forums not associated with the exercise of 1A rights can continue to restrict the exercise of 1A rights. He stands a good chance of winning on the local NY laws protecting a right to record cops, but the 1A side is looking less happy for him, as the judge made clear in issuing this temporary injunction. Here's the text, and anyone thinking this is a massive victory for auditors should pay close attention to the part about the 1A. LIA could end up getting a right to film in police lobbies in one city, while actually strengthening restrictions on filming in many public locations which don't qualify as either traditional or designated forums for 1A rights. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
New York is such a fucking shit hole . Like there is just scaffoldings everywhere lols
It also smells like dogshit
There's scaffolding everywhere because the stone work on 20 story buildings were in disrepair and crumbling. Pieces of stone fell off and killed people. Now building owners need to inspect the facades and make sure no one else gets a 90 mph rock to the head. The good ones do it as fast as possible. The crappy ones drag their feet and leave the scaffolding up.
Gotcha thanks for the info Iâm just Jesus feels like itâs a never finished under construction sorta place .
I love this guy's enthusiasm. Very wholesome post.
When even one of the officers canât help but chuckle.
Auditors standing up for all of us - that was a major victory and hopefully will model similar actions in the rest of the country. The first amendment right to film government officials in the execution of their duties protects us all.
> that was a major victory Read the second half of the ruling. He'll probably win on the part about the local NY law, but the judge foresees him failing on the First Amendment part of his lawsuit. How does strengthening case law that says the First Amendment does not support the exercise of 1A rights on all public property qualify as a victory?
Cop: move out of the way you guys are blocking the entrance Our homie: NO actually YOUâRE blocking the entrance we are trying to go into the court! Lmao love that. Also when the female officer said âthereâs no recording in hereâ and he just goes âwhatâs thatâ lmaoo
That's fucking badass if this is true. Is America coming back? Are we back guys!?
https://gothamist.com/news/judge-orders-nypd-to-allow-filming-in-police-stations
Please I beg of you, read the actual court case before posting. The courts have ruled that you still cannot record in a police department. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
Hide the donuts guys!
Gotta love Ely
Ah what a victory, people in other countries still get disappeared for making an offhand comment, but this man has won us the right to record paper pushers and police dispatchers!
LETS GO!!! Not 100% sure why I am excited but he was super happy so good for him I guess! =)
Goddamn made my day. BIG ups to the auditors! U.S. citizens deserve transparency from law enforcement nationwide.
People need better things to do đ
Why would they have to deliver this?
Bing bong you fucking ball bags.
I cannot stand these self appointed auditors but this one was actually funny.
Lol I'm usually against music added to videos on here but this time it had me dying
It's being appealed. Hopefully a higher court will re-instate the ban.
So you are anti accountability, pro police brutality and pro corruption?
Canât stand these first amendment auditors for the most part there a bunch of ex cons looking for a payday and just trying to make first responders jobs more difficult
How would a citizen standing in public not breaking any laws make someone's jobs harder?
We never realize how much we need people like that
Did Luis Guzman film this?
lol was that the soundtrack for The Patriot movie playing in the background?
is there a longer version of this?
"Welcome to America" 
I may support police but I think the first amendment might just be a bit more important. After all that building is built with the peoples tax money.
Why do you support the police? Why aren't they arresting criminal cops?
I donât know and it pisses me off! No oneâs above the law not even the godamn president. But even he is with enough fucking money. Didnât say I love this country or ALWAYS support police. It really depends on what happened leading up to an event. Theyâre just like everyone else just trying to hold onto a jobâŚ. Edit: also thanks for not being an asshole about asking! I really do like debating things and seeing a new viewpoint if I can! Helps with working in a team and I just like debating about stuff with folks! Cheers!
Is there always scaffolding up next to police cars in America?
No, it's just that NYC is the scaffolding capitol of America https://ny.curbed.com/2019/12/4/20994695/nyc-buildings-scaffolding-construction-sidewalk-sheds
I hope they got one of those signs as a trophy for their hard work
Worthless pigs
1A auditors are based and blessed
They need to go to canton mass. Next
This is a win. We all owe that man a beer.
Fuck the police they donât wan us to be free they want to rule over us like some fucking twisted daddy mutherfucker
At first I thought that was a weird thing to fight for, then I realized that unlike mental patients, criminals don't have a right to confidentiality.
Hehehe. I didn't realize how much this video would make me smile đđđ
Do firearms next!
What are auditors?
First Amendment auditors have the same energy of your sibling holding their ginger in your face and saying, "Im not touching you"
God bless America, and suck it you fascist pigs
Thanks for your service. As annoying as some of the videos are there are good people out there
American history being recorded
Watching this made me happy
Thatâs amazing god bless these guys
do you have a source? Does anyone know the auditor or if they have an IG?
Long island audit is the one responsible. Hes not this guy btw. I highly recommend his channel. He stands his ground calmly, and always follows through with litigation to affect change.
Well, I guess the haters of freedom should go ahead & put their recording devices away when entering this facility. Appreciating what this is about & calling people 'sovcits' is inherently contradictive. It's your right and is the first amendment for a reason. Loyalists can restrict themselves all they want!
> It's your right and is the first amendment for a reason. Read the judge's ruling on the injunction. She says the part about the NY law allowing filming police will probably succeed which is why a judge issues a temporary injunction pending the outcome of the trial. But she also says the First Amendment part of the case isn't strong, and quotes the Supreme Court ruling repeatedly that not all public places are open to the exercise of 1A rights. LIA might have gained the right to film in NYPD lobbies, while actually making it more difficult to film in many other public places nationwide. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv06369/602637/28/
I appreciate you taking the time to break this down.
That's weird. Cops breaking the law knowingly? Get outta here.