Sovcit nutz

[Resume18]

You won't see a legitimate 1AA check out a women's shelter. That's not who's in that link I posted. You will see grifting rage-baiters do so, along with filming kids in post offices and other locations. Folks that captured the George Floyd murder are national heroes. Folks like the ones in the link or listed elsewhere in this thread are national embarrassments.

1AA do not go photographying specific people nor kids. Kids in public do not have any special protection, it's a proposed behaviour of parts of society that one keep them off social media.

When you couple the filming with at least one documented case of the filmer inprisoned for child sex abuse, and others possessing DVOs due to violence against women, I believe you're mistaken.

I agree, actual 1AAs don't misbehave in that fashion. The ones called out by various YouTubers aren't legitimate, they're grifting rage-baiters solely in it for generating cash from YouTube videos, YouTube and Facebook live streaming and separating suckers from their money via PayPal donations.

That little idiot didn't get given the name "PayPal Patty" by accident, they earned it via the grifting.

In addition:

You won't see KFARR, or Ragical, or Team Skeptic, or Tones Overthinks It, or in his day Schrodinger's Cat, call out legitimate 1AAs, they just don't. They do call out the frauditors, those grifting sleezeballs harassing and attacking decent people for views.

Yes, there's absolutely nothing gained by say, going to a library and videoing patrons just minding their own business, pretending to be "gathering content for a story." Library personnel have every right to ask these clowns to leave if they are causing a disturbance.

[John Thomas8]

People who try and purce there way into areas where signs clearly say no video taping, or who go into public areas and badger people with nonsense questions about the US constitution till they get thrown out, are in no was defending the First amendment.

Now do people who insist on harrassing Cops in the middle of a traffic stop or will not stand back to a designated distance away from an arrest or accident.

They claim they have a right to film all that becasue of a case that involved someone filming an arrest from across the street and who said nothing to the plice officers before the walked over and told him to stop filming.

I may not be viewing the same 1AA as you do I have never observed a 1AA poke a microphone in the face of a random person. What some 1AA do is walk thru government offices (publically accessible areas) and ask government workers what their business is and details of procedures of their specific work. General information that can be interesting for viewers, how your tax dollars are used. It's also a test to see how curteous staff interacts with the public.

As for filming police in their line of duty, there is not limit of how far away anyone must be or how near one can approach. The general rule of thumb seems to be 10 feet from a police officer. No police officer has the authority to order a photographer way from an incident scene as long as they do not interfer. "interfer" here has a legal definition, eg one may not physically hinder a police officer, not get into his way. If police think they need some protective space around an incident they need to put up a yellow crime scene tape. Photographing thru the windows of a police cruiser is fair game, if there is sensitive information on the laptop, it's the officers duty to close the cover.

Sigh.

This is a Frauditor, he loses:

[Resume18]

People who try and purce there way into areas where signs clearly say no video taping, or who go into public areas and badger people with nonsense questions about the US constitution till they get thrown out, are in no was defending the First amendment.

Now do people who insist on harrassing Cops in the middle of a traffic stop or will not stand back to a designated distance away from an arrest or accident.

They claim they have a right to film all that becasue of a case that involved someone filming an arrest from across the street and who said nothing to the plice officers before the walked over and told him to stop filming.

I may not be viewing the same 1AA as you do I have never observed a 1AA poke a microphone in the face of a random person. What some 1AA do is walk thru government offices (publically accessible areas) and ask government workers what their business is and details of procedures of their specific work. General information that can be interesting for viewers, how your tax dollars are used. It's also a test to see how curteous staff interacts with the public.

As for filming police in their line of duty, there is not limit of how far away anyone must be or how near one can approach. The general rule of thumb seems to be 10 feet from a police officer. No police officer has the authority to order a photographer way from an incident scene as long as they do not interfer. "interfer" here has a legal definition, eg one may not physically hinder a police officer, not get into his way. If police think they need some protective space around an incident they need to put up a yellow crime scene tape. Photographing thru the windows of a police cruiser is fair game, if there is sensitive information on the laptop, it's the officers duty to close the cover.

Sigh.

This is a Frauditor, he loses:

I like Dummy-Kruger's analysis of these frauditors; I think he mostly does a fair job, but then, I'm biased against the freedom fighters who think their right to film is absolute.

ETA: "FORCED TO GET A JOB" . . . The horror . . . The horror.

[RTH10260]

Yes, there's absolutely nothing gained by say, going to a library and videoing patrons just minding their own business, pretending to be "gathering content for a story." Library personnel have every right to ask these clowns to leave if they are causing a disturbance.

Wrong, libraries are generally public institutions finded by taxes. It makes them legally a "public space" where photography is permitted. It's part of the 1AA activity to teach people, both patrons as the staff of a library that that is permitted and cannot be restricted. The 1AA purpose is to implicitely challenge staff to see if staff is educated on the legal matters of running their place. Filming alone is jot considered a disturbance.. Even when many patrons do not like the activity, that is not a disturbane. A "disturbance" is legally caused when a person disrupts by something loud and violent against another person.

[John Thomas8]

Yes, there's absolutely nothing gained by say, going to a library and videoing patrons just minding their own business, pretending to be "gathering content for a story." Library personnel have every right to ask these clowns to leave if they are causing a disturbance.

Wrong, libraries are generally public institutions finded by taxes. It makes them legally a "public space" where photography is permitted. It's part of the 1AA activity to teach people, both patrons as the staff of a library that that is permitted and cannot be restricted. The 1AA purpose is to implicitely challenge staff to see if staff is educated on the legal matters of running their place. Filming alone is jot considered a disturbance.. Even when many patrons do not like the activity, that is not a disturbane. A "disturbance" is legally caused when a person disrupts by something loud and violent against another person.

No, it doesn't matter if it's paid for with tax money, that's not the defining criteria and fucktards filming for rage-bait clicks are morally reprehensible. It's disgusting.

[pipistrelle]

People who try and purce there way into areas where signs clearly say no video taping, or who go into public areas and badger people with nonsense questions about the US constitution till they get thrown out, are in no was defending the First amendment.

Now do people who insist on harrassing Cops in the middle of a traffic stop or will not stand back to a designated distance away from an arrest or accident.

They claim they have a right to film all that becasue of a case that involved someone filming an arrest from across the street and who said nothing to the plice officers before the walked over and told him to stop filming.

I may not be viewing the same 1AA as you do I have never observed a 1AA poke a microphone in the face of a random person. What some 1AA do is walk thru government offices (publically accessible areas) and ask government workers what their business is and details of procedures of their specific work. General information that can be interesting for viewers, how your tax dollars are used. It's also a test to see how curteous staff interacts with the public.

So if 50 people a day do this as their "right" (think Ammon Bundy's followers), they're hindering work.

[Resume18]

Yes, there's absolutely nothing gained by say, going to a library and videoing patrons just minding their own business, pretending to be "gathering content for a story." Library personnel have every right to ask these clowns to leave if they are causing a disturbance.

Wrong . . . <frauditor apologeticsnip>

Nope, they aren't freedom-fighting, they're just assholes. And, they get trespassed from these places all the time.

[Resume18]

Yes, there's absolutely nothing gained by say, going to a library and videoing patrons just minding their own business, pretending to be "gathering content for a story." Library personnel have every right to ask these clowns to leave if they are causing a disturbance.

Wrong, libraries are generally public institutions finded by taxes. It makes them legally a "public space" where photography is permitted. It's part of the 1AA activity to teach people, both patrons as the staff of a library that that is permitted and cannot be restricted. The 1AA purpose is to implicitely challenge staff to see if staff is educated on the legal matters of running their place. Filming alone is jot considered a disturbance.. Even when many patrons do not like the activity, that is not a disturbane. A "disturbance" is legally caused when a person disrupts by something loud and violent against another person.

No, it doesn't matter if it's paid for with tax money, that's not the defining criteria and fucktards filming for rage-bait clicks are morally reprehensible. It's disgusting.

It's like when they get trespassed from post offices because they either don't read the entirety of Poster 7 or they don't understand it. My favorite is when these idiots discover that in some states, driver's license facilities are operated by private entities.

[John Thomas8]

Exactly, the failure to read and comprehend all of Poster 7 is a consistent failure of these mutts.

[pipistrelle]

That lead me to this.

STOP 1st AMENDMENT AUDITORS FROM VIOLATING OUR RIGHTS AT POST OFFICES!

[Suranis]

Well this is a guy who stands arounf actung annoying and LYING to the postal workers about what their "Poster 7" says. The "poster 7" says that you can film in a post office with the permission of the Supervisor, but they just forget to mention the "with the permission of the Supervisor part"

Then after a cut it goes to someone telling him not to film him, and when he refuses The man gets angry and tries to get the camera off him. he then runs to a corner and says "I've been backed into a corner, I've been backed into a corner" and keeps trying to antagonize the man. The Police shows up and he continues to antagonise the man and trying to get charges put on him for assault.

Then he successfully antagonists someone else by refusing to turn the camera off when asked. People dont attack someone at a post office for no reason

Meaning he is deliberately trying to antagonize people



Another guy misquoting Poster 7 and annoying people just doing their job.



This Auditor was banned from every single school in the district, because he is a good guy doing it FOR YOUUUUU!!



IN this one they try and badger the security guards at a Gatehouse for clicks, but the Security guards Lock things down and don't give them any content.



People getting arrested for Trespassing get pissed off at the Frauditor and tell him to stop filming and go away. The Cops wind up protecting him from the people getting arrested. "I'm I'm protecting you from the cops!" does not work



Another guy harassing people at a post office FOR FWEEDUM. And then he goes harassing a cop. FWEEDUM!



"YOUR ASSAULTING HIM! YOUR ASSAULTING HIM!" to a man who was trying to prevent your loudmouth idiots from entering the office that they had been refused access. Then another video where he gets nudged and starts howling.



The common denominator is that they are lying about the law and policies, antagonizing people and not respecting anyone. And when things go south its because they antagonized the situation and refused to take the obvious steps to defuse it.

[Sam the Centipede]

Anybody aiming to provoke violence, y' know, asking for a punch in the face, should not be able to complain when they recover that punch in the face. Literalist interpretation of laws might not be nuanced enough to differentiate it, but it's clear to most people when assholes are being assholes purely for the joy they get from being assholes.

Why does the US have so many people who take delight in trying to annoy strangers? Do others countries have similar infestations of these idiots?

[RTH10260]

Yes, there's absolutely nothing gained by say, going to a library and videoing patrons just minding their own business, pretending to be "gathering content for a story." Library personnel have every right to ask these clowns to leave if they are causing a disturbance.

Wrong, libraries are generally public institutions finded by taxes. It makes them legally a "public space" where photography is permitted. It's part of the 1AA activity to teach people, both patrons as the staff of a library that that is permitted and cannot be restricted. The 1AA purpose is to implicitely challenge staff to see if staff is educated on the legal matters of running their place. Filming alone is jot considered a disturbance.. Even when many patrons do not like the activity, that is not a disturbane. A "disturbance" is legally caused when a person disrupts by something loud and violent against another person.

No, it doesn't matter if it's paid for with tax money, that's not the defining criteria and fucktards filming for rage-bait clicks are morally reprehensible. It's disgusting.

The issue here is not morality but legality, so the definition of "public" is essentially about who funds an entity.

[John Thomas8]

Anybody aiming to provoke violence, y' know, asking for a punch in the face, should not be able to complain when they recover that punch in the face. Literalist interpretation of laws might not be nuanced enough to differentiate it, but it's clear to most people when assholes are being assholes purely for the joy they get from being assholes.

Why does the US have so many people who take delight in trying to annoy strangers? Do others countries have similar infestations of these idiots?

I don't think so, although you'll occasionally run across somebody in Canada, or the UK or Australia trying to invoke the 1st (or other) Amendment during a traffic stop. It fails in entertaining fashion consistently.

[RTH10260]

People who try and purce there way into areas where signs clearly say no video taping, or who go into public areas and badger people with nonsense questions about the US constitution till they get thrown out, are in no was defending the First amendment.

Now do people who insist on harrassing Cops in the middle of a traffic stop or will not stand back to a designated distance away from an arrest or accident.

They claim they have a right to film all that becasue of a case that involved someone filming an arrest from across the street and who said nothing to the police officers before the walked over and told him to stop filming.

I may not be viewing the same 1AA as you do I have never observed a 1AA poke a microphone in the face of a random person. What some 1AA do is walk thru government offices (publically accessible areas) and ask government workers what their business is and details of procedures of their specific work. General information that can be interesting for viewers, how your tax dollars are used. It's also a test to see how curteous staff interacts with the public.

So if 50 people a day do this as their "right" (think Ammon Bundy's followers), they're hindering work.

Hindering whose work? Hindering police has a very specific meaning when it comes to police activity, eg it means physically getting in the way, just observing closeup is not "hindering". As speaking of a library, noone is hindering the patrons or staff doing their business. Staff can continue to serve their patrons, patrons can continue to check out their books and read.

[RTH10260]

Yes, there's absolutely nothing gained by say, going to a library and videoing patrons just minding their own business, pretending to be "gathering content for a story." Library personnel have every right to ask these clowns to leave if they are causing a disturbance.

Wrong . . . <frauditor apologeticsnip>

Nope, they aren't freedom-fighting, they're just assholes. And, they get trespassed from these places all the time.

Well, I can't speak for those videos I did not see, but library staff cannot legally get anyone trespassed from the facility just for filming. In the cases of I view from my choice of 1AA, mostly police will not execute a requested trespass. In the minority of cases where police officers overstep their boundaries cause they remain ignorant of the legalities and force a trespass under threat of arrest (and in a very minor nnumber actually make an arrest), the police officer gets in trouble and has a formal complaint registered against them. In the case of a formal arrest they need to create the paperwork to be forwarded to the DA who will immediatly discard the case. I have never seen a case go to prosecution. Manytimes when a fromal arrest was made, the 1AA follows up with a federal law suit for false arrest and settles. Settlements observed are around $15'000 for simple removal under threat of arrest, like $25'000 for false arrest and taken to the station, and reaching $150'000+ if kept in jail until released on bond. Always in the followup the trespass gets lifted.

[pipistrelle]

I may not be viewing the same 1AA as you do I have never observed a 1AA poke a microphone in the face of a random person. What some 1AA do is walk thru government offices (publically accessible areas) and ask government workers what their business is and details of procedures of their specific work. General information that can be interesting for viewers, how your tax dollars are used. It's also a test to see how curteous staff interacts with the public.

So if 50 people a day do this as their "right" (think Ammon Bundy's followers), they're hindering work.

Hindering whose work? Hindering police has a very specific meaning when it comes to police activity, eg it means physically getting in the way, just observing closeup is not "hindering". As speaking of a library, noone is hindering the patrons or staff doing their business. Staff can continue to serve their patrons, patrons can continue to check out their books and read.

[Suranis]

Well, I can't speak for those videos I did not see, but library staff cannot legally get anyone trespassed from the facility just for filming. In the cases of I view from my choice of 1AA, mostly police will not execute a requested trespass. In the minority of cases where police officers overstep their boundaries cause they remain ignorant of the legalities and force a trespass under threat of arrest (and in a very minor nnumber actually make an arrest), the police officer gets in trouble and has a formal complaint registered against them. In the case of a formal arrest they need to create the paperwork to be forwarded to the DA who will immediatly discard the case. I have never seen a case go to prosecution. Manytimes when a fromal arrest was made, the 1AA follows up with a federal law suit for false arrest and settles. Settlements observed are around $15'000 for simple removal under threat of arrest, like $25'000 for false arrest and taken to the station, and reaching $150'000+ if kept in jail until released on bond. Always in the followup the trespass gets lifted.

Honestly, I think this is a load of BS. I file it with the "I'm charging you $100,000 for every question" stuff from sov cits. And the "They arrested me illegally so I demanded $100,000/put a lien on their property/I neat the case off camera and they apologized.

Or that guy who claimed that when the Irish police gave him his car back that meant that he was in the right due to the right to travel in the constitution, when in fact he paid the fine and there is no right to travel in the Irish Constitution.

And John Vidurek always claimed he beat cases by remanding them to Federal Court. Total BS.

Anyway it's not hard to find examples of frauditors getting Trespassed, so if it is illegal then it seems to happen a lot.

► Show Spoiler

By contrast, here is an actual Journalist who was arrested suing for a first amendment violation.

[Suranis]

This is Legal Eagle talking about Auditors

[RTH10260]

It's like when they get trespassed from post offices because they either don't read the entirety of Poster 7 or they don't understand it. My favorite is when these idiots discover that in some states, driver's license facilities are operated by private entities.

The USPS is a bit a special case, you mention correctly the Poster 7 as relevant rule, it's the postal special version of the general DHS (Department of Homland Security (DHS) rule for behaviour on federal properties (which is relevant eg for federal court buildings). The Postmaster General has sent in August 2022 a special memo to all postmasters that ought to have been read to the local employees. Seems many postmasters have not done their duty and left staff ignorant. The memo explicitly makes staff aware of the 1AA activists < and their rights of recording, and orders staff to ignore them, especially not to call police. The case of USPS has a special case, as that in older facilities jurisdiction is exclusively with the Postal Security, not local police forces. The problem is that many times postmasters are themselves ignorant and call the local police. At the same time local police is also ignorant that their jurisdiction does not cover federal facilities and they have no jurisdiction, eg cannot trespass or arrest there. For the older USPS facilities, it is possible that the Postal Security contracted with the local police on a case by case, a 1AA who does his footwork will check on this detail.

One does not read the entirety of Poster 7, there is one relevant paragraph that regulates public photography. The beginner and amateur 1AA aspirants will likely miss the detail that the permission is granted for the case of publication, for reporters of the free press (no press credentials required). Amateurs may stumble over the fact that they need to assert that they are there to record for later disseminaton on social media.

As the case of public agencies operated by private entities: when contracting with a public agency they become a arm of said agency, they are contractually obligated to follow the same rules. That implies the same rules apply to the regarding public photography. Their offices are open to inspection in the same extent, public areas are free to access for filming. The contract rules reach even further, the landowner where such a private entity is located agrees to the same access rules during business hours of said agency as if it were a public owned estate.

[John Thomas8]

If I see somebody filming in public I automatically assume they're stalking or recording individuals to harass at a later time. Especially in places were kids are located. Exceptions being things like parades, air shows, events with "filmable" activities happening.

I see these mutts claiming to be "free lance journalists" but when you look the only thing they've "published" is their YouTube clickbaity crap. They film solely to enrage people and grift off their following. Some have actively doxxed office clerical workers, an extremely obnoxious behaviour.

I blame YouTube in part because they're not kicking this sleeze off of the platform and even continue to pay them after the convictions.

[Resume18]

If I see somebody filming in public I automatically assume they're stalking or recording individuals to harass at a later time. Especially in places were kids are located. Exceptions being things like parades, air shows, events with "filmable" activities happening.

I see these mutts claiming to be "free lance journalists" but when you look the only thing they've "published" is their YouTube clickbaity crap. They film solely to enrage people and grift off their following. Some have actively doxxed office clerical workers, an extremely obnoxious behaviour.

I blame YouTube in part because they're not kicking this sleeze off of the platform and even continue to pay them after the convictions.

These mutts are also doing a disservice to the 1st amendment by triggering more draconian laws; they don't care of course because it's all about clicks and views and $$$$.

Their subscribers ands apologists pretend they are expanding and supporting 1st amendment rights but it's actually the opposite.

[RTH10260]

These mutts are also doing a disservice to the 1st amendment by triggering more draconian laws; they don't care of course because it's all about clicks and views and $$$$.

Their subscribers ands apologists pretend they are expanding and supporting 1st amendment rights but it's actually the opposite.

What may those laws be, draconian or others? SCOTUS has declared the recording in public a 1st Amendment protected activity. No state law, county or local rules can override it. Some entities have tried to ignore precedents and had to submit to $$$ settlements and remove the stuff from their books.

A recent AZ law that intended to give police officers "safe space" from recording by legislating a minimal distance to a police officer was struck down as unconstituional (among the bad wording of the law, it would have allowed a police officier to walk up to a person recording and claim that they are now within his safe space, below the required distance, and arrest him for violating the law).

PS. there are still many cities attempting to enforce local panhandling rules. Panhandling is considered a 1st Amendment protected activity and these rules are unconstitutional.

[Suranis]

These mutts are also doing a disservice to the 1st amendment by triggering more draconian laws; they don't care of course because it's all about clicks and views and $$$$.

Their subscribers ands apologists pretend they are expanding and supporting 1st amendment rights but it's actually the opposite.

What may those laws be, draconian or others? SCOTUS has declared the recording in public a 1st Amendment protected activity. No state law, county or local rules can override it. Some entities have tried to ignore precedents and had to submit to $$$ settlements and remove the stuff from their books.

A recent AZ law that intended to give police officers "safe space" from recording by legislating a minimal distance to a police officer was struck down as unconstituional (among the bad wording of the law, it would have allowed a police officier to walk up to a person recording and claim that they are now within his safe space, below the required distance, and arrest him for violating the law).

PS. there are still many cities attempting to enforce local panhandling rules. Panhandling is considered a 1st Amendment protected activity and these rules are unconstitutional.

That's all very vague and, frankly, I don't believe a word of it. No citations and States mentioned so I guess You are repeating what peiople have said in teh Videos you are watching.

Especially since Legal Eagle, in the Video I posted above and which I am actually watching now, states at 7:32 that SCOTUS has NOT ruled on the right to film Police Officers. He does say that Appellate courts in SOME districts HAVE affirmed the right to film public officials in the course of their Duties, but SCOTUS? Nope.

On another issue, You said you have never seen them actually "shove a mike into someones face" but others have. One of the comments on the Legal Eagles video states.

I often watch these videos vicariously. Mostly I'm on their side, but there's definitely some cognitive dissonance about what a lot of them are doing. Recently I saw Accountability For All, who was featured here for his positive encounter, enter a library with a fellow auditor. At some point, instead of peacefully gathering content like they usually do, they actually initiated encounters with people in the library in a "just a prank, bro" manner, ending with one Asian foreigner actually assaulting one of them (obviously I don't support assaulting people, to be clear). AFA's obnoxious/jovial (it's a mix) nature isn't anything new, but usually it's in response to someone interacting with him.

Some are more obnoxious than others, and you could argue that maybe some people deserve that attitude due to how they approach someone filming, but their "I give what I get" principle, which many have, is somewhat childish and unproductive in my opinion. As is some of their ostensibly flawless logic to catch-22 situations where people ask not to be filmed and are hit with the classic response "then why did you come up to the camera?" Entertaining if nothing else. I consider watching 1AAs a guilty pleasure to a degree.

So yes, they DO shove microphones into peoples faces.

Anyway on with the video...

[John Thomas8]

That's all very vague and, frankly, I don't believe a word of it. No citations and States mentioned so I guess You are repeating what peiople have said in teh Videos you are watching.

Unfortunately there was an idiotic Arizona 'publican that wrote a law, that the majority of Arizona state lawmakers passed, and it rightly got clobbered in federal court.

That's 1 intensely, badly written law that got tossed.

The number of lawsuit wins/settlements for "false arrest" or "rights violations" is a far more dubious claim.