Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Tyrant judge thinks he can decide what rights people have in a public building just because he says so. We are in Clay County, Indiana. A journalist entered the public spaces of the building to document public servants doing the people's business. But instead of transparency, he was met... with immediate resistance. The judge stepped in, attempting to deny the journalist's constitutional rights and shut down the camera under the guise of local courthouse policies. But here is the reality: local rules and administrative policies do not override the United States Constitution. The journalist holds their ground, calmly refusing to back down while facing immense pressure from the judge and deputies. You can see the exact moment the gears turn and the narrative shifts. As the journalist stands firm, the judge realizes that enforcing an unconstitutional order on camera is a direct path to a federal civil rights lawsuit. Knowing they were in blatant violation of the journalist's rights, the judge did the one thing authority figures hate doing: they backed down. No arrest, no trespass, just a quiet retreat. This is a prime example of why independent journalism and auditing exist. Public officials answer to the taxpayers—not the other way around. Know your rights folks and do not bend a knee to comply when tyrants try to steal your rights from you.show more

Giggling Ganon

267,548 subscribers

127,074 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Police and sheriff department violate rights of journalist end up costing the city $9500 dollars in a settlement. A journalist entered the Silverthorne Post Office to peacefully film public-access areas like the lobby and bulletin boards. Objecting to the camera, postal employees called local law enforcement to remove him. When officers from the Silverthorne Police Department and a Summit County Sheriff’s deputy arrived, they attempted to trespass the journalist at the request of the local postmaster. The fundamental breakdown in this interaction stems from a misunderstanding of public property rules. Under federal regulation 39 CFR § 232.1 (colloquially known as USPS Poster 7), citizens have an explicit right to take photographs and record video for news purposes in public spaces—such as lobbies, foyers, and corridors—provided they do not disrupt postal operations. While the journalist correctly argued his rights on federal property, local officers mistakenly attempted to treat the federal building like private property, enforcing a trespass order based on the staff’s "feelings" rather than an actual violation of law. The journalist didn't let the violation of his civil liberties slide. Following the encounter, he pursued legal action against the municipality for violating his First Amendment rights. Rather than dragging the case through a lengthy, expensive federal civil rights lawsuit, the Town of Silverthorne ultimately agreed to a $9,500 economic settlement with the journalist. While the town did not formally admit liability, Silverthorne's Police Chief later acknowledged that his officers would handle the situation completely differently given a second chance. I can't stress enough how important it is to understand your rights and how vital that it is that we stand up for those rights when confronted by tyrants like these officers try to step on those rights.

Police and sheriff department violate rights of journalist end up costing the city $9500 dollars in a settlement. A journalist entered the Silverthorne Post Office to peacefully film public-access areas like the lobby and bulletin boards. Objecting to the camera, postal employees called local law enforcement to remove him. When officers from the Silverthorne Police Department and a Summit County Sheriff’s deputy arrived, they attempted to trespass the journalist at the request of the local postmaster. The fundamental breakdown in this interaction stems from a misunderstanding of public property rules. Under federal regulation 39 CFR § 232.1 (colloquially known as USPS Poster 7), citizens have an explicit right to take photographs and record video for news purposes in public spaces—such as lobbies, foyers, and corridors—provided they do not disrupt postal operations. While the journalist correctly argued his rights on federal property, local officers mistakenly attempted to treat the federal building like private property, enforcing a trespass order based on the staff’s "feelings" rather than an actual violation of law. The journalist didn't let the violation of his civil liberties slide. Following the encounter, he pursued legal action against the municipality for violating his First Amendment rights. Rather than dragging the case through a lengthy, expensive federal civil rights lawsuit, the Town of Silverthorne ultimately agreed to a $9,500 economic settlement with the journalist. While the town did not formally admit liability, Silverthorne's Police Chief later acknowledged that his officers would handle the situation completely differently given a second chance. I can't stress enough how important it is to understand your rights and how vital that it is that we stand up for those rights when confronted by tyrants like these officers try to step on those rights.

Giggling Ganon

13,349 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

City attorney feels as though he gets to decide which of your rights are valid and when. When a town attorney—the very person hired to advise a municipality on the law—completely disregards the United States Constitution, it raises massive red flags. Meet Richard Harris the city attorney for Port Jefferson, NY. Here is the breakdown of what happened in Port Jefferson, New York, when a journalist walked into a public building recording to request a FOIA form. The Official: Richard Harris, the town attorney. As a legal professional representing a municipality, Harris is expected to have a flawless, comprehensive understanding of constitutional law and public access rights. Instead of upholding the law, Harris is seen explicitly attempting to override it. He orders the journalist to stop recording and leave the public premises, acting as though he possesses the personal authority to determine when and where a citizen's rights are valid. Harris threatens to call law enforcement and physically steps in to block the journalist from moving down public hallways toward the clerk’s office. Local constables and code enforcement personnel are brought into the mix to enforce Harris’s unconstitutional demands, escalating a simple paperwork request into a full-blown confrontation. When police supervisors arrive on the scene, he does hit them with the dose of reality as he educats the building on the rights of journalist. When public officials freak out over a camera in a public lobby, it begs the ultimate question: What exactly are they trying to hide?

City attorney feels as though he gets to decide which of your rights are valid and when. When a town attorney—the very person hired to advise a municipality on the law—completely disregards the United States Constitution, it raises massive red flags. Meet Richard Harris the city attorney for Port Jefferson, NY. Here is the breakdown of what happened in Port Jefferson, New York, when a journalist walked into a public building recording to request a FOIA form. The Official: Richard Harris, the town attorney. As a legal professional representing a municipality, Harris is expected to have a flawless, comprehensive understanding of constitutional law and public access rights. Instead of upholding the law, Harris is seen explicitly attempting to override it. He orders the journalist to stop recording and leave the public premises, acting as though he possesses the personal authority to determine when and where a citizen's rights are valid. Harris threatens to call law enforcement and physically steps in to block the journalist from moving down public hallways toward the clerk’s office. Local constables and code enforcement personnel are brought into the mix to enforce Harris’s unconstitutional demands, escalating a simple paperwork request into a full-blown confrontation. When police supervisors arrive on the scene, he does hit them with the dose of reality as he educats the building on the rights of journalist. When public officials freak out over a camera in a public lobby, it begs the ultimate question: What exactly are they trying to hide?

Giggling Ganon

66,313 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

A Federal Judge has ruled that ICE agents violated the Constitutional rights of employees when they entered a women’s bathroom! This woman had her pants down and was doing her business when they broke down the door to get in to the bathroom & stall! The woman was terrified! 🤬

A Federal Judge has ruled that ICE agents violated the Constitutional rights of employees when they entered a women’s bathroom! This woman had her pants down and was doing her business when they broke down the door to get in to the bathroom & stall! The woman was terrified! 🤬

Suzie rizzio

260,396 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Regional Manager for DMV needs to stay in her lane as she loses it over being on camera. When public servants are confronted with the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold, the response shouldn't be ignorance and evasion. Yet, that is exactly what unfolded at the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles regional office in Charles Town, located in Jefferson County. An independent journalist exercising their protected First Amendment right to film in a public government facility is immediately met with hostility, unlawful demands, and a complete lack of basic legal comprehension by the staff on duty. The incident quickly escalated when the facility's Regional Manager, identified as Lorraine Thompson Vangosen, and the on-duty security guard approached the journalist. Rather than conducting themselves with the professionalism expected of public employees, both individuals displayed a stunning lack of understanding regarding constitutional law and citizen rights: Lorraine and the security guard aggressively asserted that filming inside the DMV was strictly prohibited, demanding that the journalist delete the recorded footage. Staff attempted to claim that because other citizens' faces were on camera, it created an expectation of privacy that violated public service policies. In a public government building, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open, publicly accessible common areas. When the journalist attempted to calmly de-escalate the situation and explain the legal precedent protecting the filming of public officials in public spaces, both Lorraine and the guard refused to listen, doubling down on their unconstitutional directives. The true nature of their "authority" was exposed the moment law enforcement arrived. After a responding deputy informed both Lorraine and the security guard that the journalist was entirely within their legal rights to record in the public areas of the building, the dynamic completely changed. Rather than issuing an apology or acknowledging their error, both the manager and the guard chose to retreat. For the remainder of the encounter, both individuals stayed completely out of sight, hiding in the back offices until the journalist finally left the premises. This encounter isn't an isolated misunderstanding—it highlights a systemic issue with how government employees interact with the public. When public officials choose to hide instead of acknowledging the law, it proves that accountability is sorely needed.

Regional Manager for DMV needs to stay in her lane as she loses it over being on camera. When public servants are confronted with the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold, the response shouldn't be ignorance and evasion. Yet, that is exactly what unfolded at the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles regional office in Charles Town, located in Jefferson County. An independent journalist exercising their protected First Amendment right to film in a public government facility is immediately met with hostility, unlawful demands, and a complete lack of basic legal comprehension by the staff on duty. The incident quickly escalated when the facility's Regional Manager, identified as Lorraine Thompson Vangosen, and the on-duty security guard approached the journalist. Rather than conducting themselves with the professionalism expected of public employees, both individuals displayed a stunning lack of understanding regarding constitutional law and citizen rights: Lorraine and the security guard aggressively asserted that filming inside the DMV was strictly prohibited, demanding that the journalist delete the recorded footage. Staff attempted to claim that because other citizens' faces were on camera, it created an expectation of privacy that violated public service policies. In a public government building, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open, publicly accessible common areas. When the journalist attempted to calmly de-escalate the situation and explain the legal precedent protecting the filming of public officials in public spaces, both Lorraine and the guard refused to listen, doubling down on their unconstitutional directives. The true nature of their "authority" was exposed the moment law enforcement arrived. After a responding deputy informed both Lorraine and the security guard that the journalist was entirely within their legal rights to record in the public areas of the building, the dynamic completely changed. Rather than issuing an apology or acknowledging their error, both the manager and the guard chose to retreat. For the remainder of the encounter, both individuals stayed completely out of sight, hiding in the back offices until the journalist finally left the premises. This encounter isn't an isolated misunderstanding—it highlights a systemic issue with how government employees interact with the public. When public officials choose to hide instead of acknowledging the law, it proves that accountability is sorely needed.

Giggling Ganon

20,964 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Dude gets bent out of shape because he does not want to be on camera. Assaults camera man goes to jail. We are in Mauldin south Carolina where you see a cameraman just exercising his rights to film in public, but then this guy in the white truck decides he gets call the shots on what people's rights are. He threatened to come back and that is what he did. He tried to run the camera man over then got out of his truck chases the camera man down and swings at him. Police arrived and after the video was shown the man in the truck found himself in it back of a squad car. This is a great lesson in keeping one's hands to themselves as well as don't try to infringe on the rights of others.

Dude gets bent out of shape because he does not want to be on camera. Assaults camera man goes to jail. We are in Mauldin south Carolina where you see a cameraman just exercising his rights to film in public, but then this guy in the white truck decides he gets call the shots on what people's rights are. He threatened to come back and that is what he did. He tried to run the camera man over then got out of his truck chases the camera man down and swings at him. Police arrived and after the video was shown the man in the truck found himself in it back of a squad car. This is a great lesson in keeping one's hands to themselves as well as don't try to infringe on the rights of others.

Giggling Ganon

45,755 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Administrative assistant for the city believe her feelings trump the rights of the citizens. In this tense encounter, an independent journalist enters city offices to exercise a basic legal right: inspecting the public records index. Under Washington state law (RCW 42.56.070), this document is required to be available for public inspection. It’s not a favor; it’s the law. Enter Sabrina Costik, an administrative assistant who claims to be "brand new" but is already attempting to rewrite the Constitution based on her personal feelings. The exchange highlights a growing and dangerous trend in public service—the idea that personal "traumas and triggers" override the civil rights of the public. Throughout the video, Sabrina argues that: Her "comfort level" should dictate where a citizen stands. Her "liberties" are being violated by a camera in a government building. Recording her is "incredibly rude," effectively prioritizing social etiquette over the First Amendment. The situation required the intervention of Deputy Chief Matt McKnight of the Chehalis Police Department. In a masterclass of de-escalation and legal clarity, McKnight had to explain the hard truth to his own staff: when you are a public servant in a public building, you do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" while performing your duties. McKnight—who is currently campaigning for Lewis County Sheriff—remained professional, but the core issue remains: Why are public employees being put behind counters without a fundamental understanding of the Bill of Rights? As far as McKnight, he is running for sheriff in 2026 and his understanding and respect for the rights of the citizens is everything you would want in county sheriff. That said, as far as Sabrina, when "I’m uncomfortable" becomes a tool to suppress transparency, the public loses.

Giggling Gannon

954,037 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Two tyrants get schooled on citizen rights. Mind blowing what the do not know. Outside a Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office facility in North Carolina, an independent journalist began filming from a publicly accessible county parking lot. Two deputies, one of which named including Sergeant McNigley quickly approached him. The officers demanded to see his ID, claiming he was acting suspiciously by filming patrol vehicles and insisting the area was "private county property." Class is in session from that point on. The journalist stood his ground on Identification: He calmly educates the officers on the law, reminding them that North Carolina is not a "stop and identify" state. Without reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime, law enforcement cannot compel a citizen to present identification. Refuting the "Private Property" Myth: When the deputies claim the parking lot is private county property, the journalist correctly counters that public facilities funded by taxpayers are subject to public access and First Amendment protection when visible from public space. De-escalating the Pressure: Despite repeated attempts at intimidation and circular arguments about authority, the journalist remains composed, eventually forcing the officers to admit he is not being detained. In the end, the officers are forced to let him walk away—proving once again why understanding your constitutional rights is your greatest defense. The journalist did an incredible job refusing to bow to unlawful demands and standing tall for civil liberties. This is how it's done.

Two tyrants get schooled on citizen rights. Mind blowing what the do not know. Outside a Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office facility in North Carolina, an independent journalist began filming from a publicly accessible county parking lot. Two deputies, one of which named including Sergeant McNigley quickly approached him. The officers demanded to see his ID, claiming he was acting suspiciously by filming patrol vehicles and insisting the area was "private county property." Class is in session from that point on. The journalist stood his ground on Identification: He calmly educates the officers on the law, reminding them that North Carolina is not a "stop and identify" state. Without reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime, law enforcement cannot compel a citizen to present identification. Refuting the "Private Property" Myth: When the deputies claim the parking lot is private county property, the journalist correctly counters that public facilities funded by taxpayers are subject to public access and First Amendment protection when visible from public space. De-escalating the Pressure: Despite repeated attempts at intimidation and circular arguments about authority, the journalist remains composed, eventually forcing the officers to admit he is not being detained. In the end, the officers are forced to let him walk away—proving once again why understanding your constitutional rights is your greatest defense. The journalist did an incredible job refusing to bow to unlawful demands and standing tall for civil liberties. This is how it's done.

Giggling Ganon

28,175 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨🚨🚨"Democracy" is a Psyop!!! "You ask a hundred people on the street, what kind of government is America supposed to be? 99% of them will tell you, a democracy. America is supposed to be a democracy. But THAT'S A LIE. That's an illusion. The word democracy is not written into the Constitution at one time. It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers hated the idea of a democracy. They thought it was the worst form of government there is. And I agree with them, because in a democracy, 51% of the people control 49% of the people. If you're part of the 49%, you're not free. America was founded as a constitutional republic, and in that constitutional republic that we have, 99% of the people can't take away the rights of 1%. You have your rights because you were born with them. You have God given human rights that nobody can take away from you—the government, the majority, no matter who they are. I can't take away your rights. And that's what our founding fathers gave us. But the psychological operations that they do to us, they make us believe that we're a democracy and that majority rules, you see? And they want you to believe that."

🚨🚨🚨"Democracy" is a Psyop!!! "You ask a hundred people on the street, what kind of government is America supposed to be? 99% of them will tell you, a democracy. America is supposed to be a democracy. But THAT'S A LIE. That's an illusion. The word democracy is not written into the Constitution at one time. It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers hated the idea of a democracy. They thought it was the worst form of government there is. And I agree with them, because in a democracy, 51% of the people control 49% of the people. If you're part of the 49%, you're not free. America was founded as a constitutional republic, and in that constitutional republic that we have, 99% of the people can't take away the rights of 1%. You have your rights because you were born with them. You have God given human rights that nobody can take away from you—the government, the majority, no matter who they are. I can't take away your rights. And that's what our founding fathers gave us. But the psychological operations that they do to us, they make us believe that we're a democracy and that majority rules, you see? And they want you to believe that."

Red Pill USA

760,219 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Officer has zero regards for rights of the journalist, Sgt arrives says hold my beer and takes dumb to the next level. This is a longer one, but well worth it to experience this Sgt. This journalist is out exercising his first amendment rights on a public sidewalk. Chase bank decided to call the police to have the journalist removed. An officer arrives first and tries to tell the journalist that he cannot record on a public sidewalk he then calls out his supervisor. The moment Sgt. Kurgxbon arrives and claims that a public municipal sidewalk is part of the bank’s "curtilage" and that a journalist can be trespassed from standing there, she instantly loses all legal credibility as well. The Definition of Curtilage: By definition, curtilage applies to the immediate, private area surrounding a home or dwelling where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You cannot claim "curtilage" on a public, concrete sidewalk in the middle of downtown Baltimore just because it sits in front of a Chase Bank. Traditional Public Forums: The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear for decades: public sidewalks are the quintessential "traditional public forum." Journalists and citizens alike have an absolute, protected First Amendment right to stand on them, gather news, film what is in plain view, and exist without having to justify their presence to law enforcement. The "Pass-Through" Myth: Telling a journalist they have the right to "walk through" but not stand still on a public sidewalk to gather footage is a completely fabricated rule. If you are legally allowed to be in a space, you are legally allowed to stand there. What’s most alarming here isn't just that the officers don't know the law—it's their absolute willingness to enforce a violation of rights anyway. Instead of educating the bank employee on public property laws, Officer Allender and the Sergeant choose to escalate, threaten a trespass warning, and attempt to intimidate a journalist who is doing absolutely nothing illegal. When law enforcement prioritizes a business's comfort over constitutional rights and press freedom, they transition from peace officers to corporate security guards funded by taxpayers. This is why these types of activities need to be done. It's mind blowing just how ignorant these officers are. It's scary and comical at the same time.

Officer has zero regards for rights of the journalist, Sgt arrives says hold my beer and takes dumb to the next level. This is a longer one, but well worth it to experience this Sgt. This journalist is out exercising his first amendment rights on a public sidewalk. Chase bank decided to call the police to have the journalist removed. An officer arrives first and tries to tell the journalist that he cannot record on a public sidewalk he then calls out his supervisor. The moment Sgt. Kurgxbon arrives and claims that a public municipal sidewalk is part of the bank’s "curtilage" and that a journalist can be trespassed from standing there, she instantly loses all legal credibility as well. The Definition of Curtilage: By definition, curtilage applies to the immediate, private area surrounding a home or dwelling where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You cannot claim "curtilage" on a public, concrete sidewalk in the middle of downtown Baltimore just because it sits in front of a Chase Bank. Traditional Public Forums: The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear for decades: public sidewalks are the quintessential "traditional public forum." Journalists and citizens alike have an absolute, protected First Amendment right to stand on them, gather news, film what is in plain view, and exist without having to justify their presence to law enforcement. The "Pass-Through" Myth: Telling a journalist they have the right to "walk through" but not stand still on a public sidewalk to gather footage is a completely fabricated rule. If you are legally allowed to be in a space, you are legally allowed to stand there. What’s most alarming here isn't just that the officers don't know the law—it's their absolute willingness to enforce a violation of rights anyway. Instead of educating the bank employee on public property laws, Officer Allender and the Sergeant choose to escalate, threaten a trespass warning, and attempt to intimidate a journalist who is doing absolutely nothing illegal. When law enforcement prioritizes a business's comfort over constitutional rights and press freedom, they transition from peace officers to corporate security guards funded by taxpayers. This is why these types of activities need to be done. It's mind blowing just how ignorant these officers are. It's scary and comical at the same time.

Giggling Ganon

61,732 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🇮🇷|Araghchi’s two statements serve as an autopsy of "international law" and "human rights." Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi made two statements. He named no specific countries. He cited no specific events. He listed no casualty figures. "If international law is disregarded whenever the interests of major powers demand it, then one can no longer speak of the rule of law." "If human rights are an inherent right for some nations but a conditional privilege for others, then they can no longer be called universal." The power of these two statements lies not in what they say, but in what they leave unsaid. Araghchi did not say "the United States." He did not say "Israel." He did not say "Gaza." He did not say "Yemen." He did not say "Minab." He did not say "Algeria." He did not say "Sardasht." He allowed the terms "international law" and "human rights" to deliver the indictment themselves. When a foreign minister stops saying "You have violated international law" and instead says "If international law is treated this way, it ceases to exist," he is telling his audience: the problem is not a specific violation; the problem is that the rules themselves have been redefined. The premise of the rule of law is that rules apply to everyone. The definition of human rights is that they belong to everyone. If rules apply only when major powers do not require an exemption, and if human rights exist only when the West chooses to invoke them, then "international law" and "human rights" are no longer rules or rights. They are tools. And tools can be picked up or put down. They can be used to strike others or to grant oneself an exemption. Araghchi did not say, "You are using them as tools." He described the consequences of their use: the disappearance of the rule of law and the loss of universality. That is why he named no names. Naming names implies the problem lies with a specific individual. Not naming names implies the problem is structural. And structural problems do not vanish simply by changing a president, a foreign minister, or a prime minister.

🇮🇷|Araghchi’s two statements serve as an autopsy of "international law" and "human rights." Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi made two statements. He named no specific countries. He cited no specific events. He listed no casualty figures. "If international law is disregarded whenever the interests of major powers demand it, then one can no longer speak of the rule of law." "If human rights are an inherent right for some nations but a conditional privilege for others, then they can no longer be called universal." The power of these two statements lies not in what they say, but in what they leave unsaid. Araghchi did not say "the United States." He did not say "Israel." He did not say "Gaza." He did not say "Yemen." He did not say "Minab." He did not say "Algeria." He did not say "Sardasht." He allowed the terms "international law" and "human rights" to deliver the indictment themselves. When a foreign minister stops saying "You have violated international law" and instead says "If international law is treated this way, it ceases to exist," he is telling his audience: the problem is not a specific violation; the problem is that the rules themselves have been redefined. The premise of the rule of law is that rules apply to everyone. The definition of human rights is that they belong to everyone. If rules apply only when major powers do not require an exemption, and if human rights exist only when the West chooses to invoke them, then "international law" and "human rights" are no longer rules or rights. They are tools. And tools can be picked up or put down. They can be used to strike others or to grant oneself an exemption. Araghchi did not say, "You are using them as tools." He described the consequences of their use: the disappearance of the rule of law and the loss of universality. That is why he named no names. Naming names implies the problem lies with a specific individual. Not naming names implies the problem is structural. And structural problems do not vanish simply by changing a president, a foreign minister, or a prime minister.

Aprajita Nafs Nefes 🦋 Ancient Believer

25,598 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.

DocumentingLibs

69,376 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee

Patrick McGreal

11,855 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

A Constitutional Attorney SPEAKS OUT Against What The United States Government Has Become, TYRANNICAL. Calls Out Big Pharma MUST LISTEN: “We Have The Right To Resist — When in the world do we start testing things on children?” “We The People is how the Constitution starts. A magistrate is a person that operates under authority and they are lesser magistrates. The founding fathers of this country understood that there is going to come a point in time where the federal government will need to be checked. If not, they will become tyrants. ‌ And that is what's happening now. So, the Declaration of Independence says that everyone, by virtue of being a human being, has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The federal government too, the federal government purpose is to protect the rights of those citizens, the rights of us to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The third point of that document is if they fail to protect its citizens and enforce those rights, the citizens have a right to revolt. Do you understand? We have a right to resist and we have an obligation and a duty to do so. ‌ Do you understand? ‌ Yeah! ‌ THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR CHILDREN, We cannot sit down! Nope. ‌ Everybody knows even the bad ones know that if you want to affect a country, you go for its children. ‌ When in the world do we start using children as bulletproof vests for us? ‌ When in the world do we start testing things on children? Legal shield. ‌ You have started a war! ‌ Each one reach one and teach one. Do you understand? As a magistrate in this country, the United States government, our government, our local leaders have to answer to us. The ninth amendment says that any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the people. I don't want to hear that mandates are not enumerated in the Constitution because for the stuff that is not enumerated means to equal protection is the right to protect my body. When you want to, when you want to push something into my body against my consent, without my consent, it is rape. And this is medical rape. No!”

A Constitutional Attorney SPEAKS OUT Against What The United States Government Has Become, TYRANNICAL. Calls Out Big Pharma MUST LISTEN: “We Have The Right To Resist — When in the world do we start testing things on children?” “We The People is how the Constitution starts. A magistrate is a person that operates under authority and they are lesser magistrates. The founding fathers of this country understood that there is going to come a point in time where the federal government will need to be checked. If not, they will become tyrants. ‌ And that is what's happening now. So, the Declaration of Independence says that everyone, by virtue of being a human being, has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The federal government too, the federal government purpose is to protect the rights of those citizens, the rights of us to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The third point of that document is if they fail to protect its citizens and enforce those rights, the citizens have a right to revolt. Do you understand? We have a right to resist and we have an obligation and a duty to do so. ‌ Do you understand? ‌ Yeah! ‌ THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR CHILDREN, We cannot sit down! Nope. ‌ Everybody knows even the bad ones know that if you want to affect a country, you go for its children. ‌ When in the world do we start using children as bulletproof vests for us? ‌ When in the world do we start testing things on children? Legal shield. ‌ You have started a war! ‌ Each one reach one and teach one. Do you understand? As a magistrate in this country, the United States government, our government, our local leaders have to answer to us. The ninth amendment says that any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the people. I don't want to hear that mandates are not enumerated in the Constitution because for the stuff that is not enumerated means to equal protection is the right to protect my body. When you want to, when you want to push something into my body against my consent, without my consent, it is rape. And this is medical rape. No!”

Wall Street Apes

228,883 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

Sergeant has zero understanding of the law, gets schooled as he becomes unglued. Westmont Police Sergeant Confronted by Independent Journalist over First Amendment Rights. A Westmont Police Department Sergeant, tasked with supervising officers and upholding the law, recently demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic constitutional protections during an encounter with an independent journalist. When the Sergeant attempted to claim that filming from a public space violated LEADS regulations due to visible information on an unshielded laptop screen, the journalist stood his ground. He clearly articulated established court precedents—including ACLU v. Alvarez, Glick v. Cunniffe, and Terry v. Ohio—reminding the officer that citizens have a protected right to record public officials performing their duties in public spaces. Furthermore, the journalist pointed out that officers bear the responsibility of securing their own confidential screens, rather than infringing on a citizen's constitutional rights. Faced with unwavering legal knowledge and no valid legal grounds for detention, the Sergeant was forced to disengage and leave the scene doing that walk of shame as he realized in the back of his head that he is about to become a social media star in a bad way. Know your rights and do not be afraid to stand up and exercise them. Together we will continue to make those that swore to protect the constitution but fail to do so famous. Meet officer Sergeant Rolando Padilla of the Westmont IL PD.

Sergeant has zero understanding of the law, gets schooled as he becomes unglued. Westmont Police Sergeant Confronted by Independent Journalist over First Amendment Rights. A Westmont Police Department Sergeant, tasked with supervising officers and upholding the law, recently demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic constitutional protections during an encounter with an independent journalist. When the Sergeant attempted to claim that filming from a public space violated LEADS regulations due to visible information on an unshielded laptop screen, the journalist stood his ground. He clearly articulated established court precedents—including ACLU v. Alvarez, Glick v. Cunniffe, and Terry v. Ohio—reminding the officer that citizens have a protected right to record public officials performing their duties in public spaces. Furthermore, the journalist pointed out that officers bear the responsibility of securing their own confidential screens, rather than infringing on a citizen's constitutional rights. Faced with unwavering legal knowledge and no valid legal grounds for detention, the Sergeant was forced to disengage and leave the scene doing that walk of shame as he realized in the back of his head that he is about to become a social media star in a bad way. Know your rights and do not be afraid to stand up and exercise them. Together we will continue to make those that swore to protect the constitution but fail to do so famous. Meet officer Sergeant Rolando Padilla of the Westmont IL PD.

Giggling Gannon

103,088 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

This is mind numbing and very scary when you realize this is a DA office and they are this ignorant on the laws and upholding the rights of the citizens. This is the kind of situation that should keep every citizen up at night. We are looking at the District Attorney’s Office in Colusa, California.—the literal epicenter of law enforcement and legal prosecution—and yet, the people working inside seem to have a collective amnesia regarding the U.S. Constitution. It is absolutely mind-boggling to watch public servants, including sworn investigators like Ryan Hudson and Chris Liston, stand there and attempt to steamroll a citizen's rights based on "office policy." Let’s be very clear: A policy is not a law. You cannot "policy" away the First Amendment just because a camera makes you feel "uncomfortable" or "negative." It starts with staff members physically trying to block the lens. In a public lobby where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, this isn't just rude—it’s an attempt to suppress a protected activity. They constantly cite "privacy" as a reason to stop the recording. However, when you are a public official conducting public business in a government building, the courts have been extremely clear: the public has a right to document you. Notice the shift in tone when they can’t find a legal reason to stop the film. They pivot to calling the auditor "uncooperative" or "difficult." Since when did exercising a constitutional right become "uncooperative"? If the people working for the DA don’t understand the basic legal framework of our country, how can we trust them to prosecute cases fairly? If they are this willing to ignore your rights when a camera is pointed at them, imagine what they’re doing when no one is watching. This isn't just about a guy with a camera; it’s about whether our public officials answer to the law or to their own egos.

This is mind numbing and very scary when you realize this is a DA office and they are this ignorant on the laws and upholding the rights of the citizens. This is the kind of situation that should keep every citizen up at night. We are looking at the District Attorney’s Office in Colusa, California.—the literal epicenter of law enforcement and legal prosecution—and yet, the people working inside seem to have a collective amnesia regarding the U.S. Constitution. It is absolutely mind-boggling to watch public servants, including sworn investigators like Ryan Hudson and Chris Liston, stand there and attempt to steamroll a citizen's rights based on "office policy." Let’s be very clear: A policy is not a law. You cannot "policy" away the First Amendment just because a camera makes you feel "uncomfortable" or "negative." It starts with staff members physically trying to block the lens. In a public lobby where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, this isn't just rude—it’s an attempt to suppress a protected activity. They constantly cite "privacy" as a reason to stop the recording. However, when you are a public official conducting public business in a government building, the courts have been extremely clear: the public has a right to document you. Notice the shift in tone when they can’t find a legal reason to stop the film. They pivot to calling the auditor "uncooperative" or "difficult." Since when did exercising a constitutional right become "uncooperative"? If the people working for the DA don’t understand the basic legal framework of our country, how can we trust them to prosecute cases fairly? If they are this willing to ignore your rights when a camera is pointed at them, imagine what they’re doing when no one is watching. This isn't just about a guy with a camera; it’s about whether our public officials answer to the law or to their own egos.

Giggling Ganon

36,085 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Male karen loses his mind because he does not want to be on camera. A peaceful filming session in a public space quickly escalated into a physical altercation, a threat of pepper spray, and a lesson in First Amendment rights outside a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse in Anaheim Hills, California. The incident began while a journalist was recording video outside the restaurant's outdoor patio area. A customer dining on the patio took issue with being filmed. Instead of ignoring the camera or asking the creator to move along, the customer escalated the situation by stepping around the patio partition to directly confront the cameraman. The interaction instantly turned physical as the customer attempted to grab the recording equipment. Seeing the journalists being targeted, on of his partners jumped in to intervene, physically pushing the customer back. To prevent further advancement from the customer or surrounding patrons, the partner brandished pepper spray, loudly warning the crowd to back up or face being sprayed. Restaurant employees and nearby diners stepped in to separate everyone before the violence could escalate further. When the Anaheim Police Department arrived on the scene, they were met with two very different approaches from officers. The first officer wanted to treat the journalist like they were the problem and not the victim as he demanded ID out of the gate without even seeing the evidence. When he sergeant arrived things moved in the right direction as he respected the rights of the journalists as the complaint was taken. After talking to the sergeant the journalist decided to shift gears. Expressing that his primary goal was to educate the public on constitutional rights rather than see someone hauled off to jail, the journalist offered a compromise. He stated he would forgo pressing charges if the customer agreed to a formal, face-to-face apology. The police sergeant stepped in to facilitate, and the customer ultimately apologized to the journalist directly on camera. With the apology accepted, the journalist declined to pursue the matter further, and officers concluded the investigation with zero arrests.

Male karen loses his mind because he does not want to be on camera. A peaceful filming session in a public space quickly escalated into a physical altercation, a threat of pepper spray, and a lesson in First Amendment rights outside a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse in Anaheim Hills, California. The incident began while a journalist was recording video outside the restaurant's outdoor patio area. A customer dining on the patio took issue with being filmed. Instead of ignoring the camera or asking the creator to move along, the customer escalated the situation by stepping around the patio partition to directly confront the cameraman. The interaction instantly turned physical as the customer attempted to grab the recording equipment. Seeing the journalists being targeted, on of his partners jumped in to intervene, physically pushing the customer back. To prevent further advancement from the customer or surrounding patrons, the partner brandished pepper spray, loudly warning the crowd to back up or face being sprayed. Restaurant employees and nearby diners stepped in to separate everyone before the violence could escalate further. When the Anaheim Police Department arrived on the scene, they were met with two very different approaches from officers. The first officer wanted to treat the journalist like they were the problem and not the victim as he demanded ID out of the gate without even seeing the evidence. When he sergeant arrived things moved in the right direction as he respected the rights of the journalists as the complaint was taken. After talking to the sergeant the journalist decided to shift gears. Expressing that his primary goal was to educate the public on constitutional rights rather than see someone hauled off to jail, the journalist offered a compromise. He stated he would forgo pressing charges if the customer agreed to a formal, face-to-face apology. The police sergeant stepped in to facilitate, and the customer ultimately apologized to the journalist directly on camera. With the apology accepted, the journalist declined to pursue the matter further, and officers concluded the investigation with zero arrests.

Giggling Gannon

31,891 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Itchy trigger finger cops get schooled. All 8 of them had to do that walk of shame. A tense standoff highlights a critical dynamic in law enforcement: the power of a knowledgeable supervisor to prevent a massive civil rights lawsuit. While the interaction started with intimidation and legal misinformation, it ended up being a masterclass in how police supervisors should handle citizens who know their rights. A journalist—lawfully filming in public while open-carrying a holstered handgun outside the Henderson County Sheriff's Office get surrounded by 8 deputies all worried about a guy with a camera. One of the deputies seems to have an itchy trigger finger by the name of Detective Williams gets challenged by the journalist on his defensive posture. Williams is standing with his hand resting on his firearm, his security hood completely deactivated. When questioned, Williams claims he's doing it for his safety and "because I can." The journalist stands his ground, pointing out that preparing a weapon's unholstering mechanics without an active threat serves as an implicit, lethal threat to a peaceful citizen. As backup arrives, the situation deteriorates into a classic display of "authority by default." Multiple deputies try to bully the journalist into compliance by confidently claiming that the parking lot is restricted because it is "county property." The journalist doesn't flinch. He holds his ground and educates the deputies on a vital legal distinction: while the lot is county-owned, it is a taxpayer-funded, public-use space. He openly acknowledges that carrying a weapon inside the government building is illegal, but correctly notes that the exterior parking lot remains public domain. The deputies look visibly uncomfortable, caught off guard by a citizen who refuses to be intimidated. The entire trajectory of the encounter shifts the moment unit supervisor Corey Payne enters the frame. Instead of backing up his deputies' bad legal takes, Payne takes a rare, commendable approach: Admitting the Law: Supervisor Payne explicitly concedes that the parking lot is public property and that open carry is 100% legal under state law. The Voice of Reason: While Payne defends his team's response—explaining that walking a government lot with a firearm and a camera is highly "abnormal" behavior that naturally prompts a public safety check—he completely validates the journalist's right to be there. When Payne asks for the journalist's name to document the contact, the journalist politely declines, asserting he has broken no laws and identifying only as a "good citizen." Because Supervisor Payne actually knows the law, he recognizes a legal stalemate when he sees one. He understands that the journalist is fully within his rights to open carry, film, and refuse identification without reasonable suspicion of a crime. Rather than letting his deputies violate a citizen's rights, Payne shuts down the interaction, commands his team to leave, and walks away. This supervisor likely saved his county thousands of dollars in legal fees just by respecting the Constitution. The walk of shame is in effect at the end as it should be.

Itchy trigger finger cops get schooled. All 8 of them had to do that walk of shame. A tense standoff highlights a critical dynamic in law enforcement: the power of a knowledgeable supervisor to prevent a massive civil rights lawsuit. While the interaction started with intimidation and legal misinformation, it ended up being a masterclass in how police supervisors should handle citizens who know their rights. A journalist—lawfully filming in public while open-carrying a holstered handgun outside the Henderson County Sheriff's Office get surrounded by 8 deputies all worried about a guy with a camera. One of the deputies seems to have an itchy trigger finger by the name of Detective Williams gets challenged by the journalist on his defensive posture. Williams is standing with his hand resting on his firearm, his security hood completely deactivated. When questioned, Williams claims he's doing it for his safety and "because I can." The journalist stands his ground, pointing out that preparing a weapon's unholstering mechanics without an active threat serves as an implicit, lethal threat to a peaceful citizen. As backup arrives, the situation deteriorates into a classic display of "authority by default." Multiple deputies try to bully the journalist into compliance by confidently claiming that the parking lot is restricted because it is "county property." The journalist doesn't flinch. He holds his ground and educates the deputies on a vital legal distinction: while the lot is county-owned, it is a taxpayer-funded, public-use space. He openly acknowledges that carrying a weapon inside the government building is illegal, but correctly notes that the exterior parking lot remains public domain. The deputies look visibly uncomfortable, caught off guard by a citizen who refuses to be intimidated. The entire trajectory of the encounter shifts the moment unit supervisor Corey Payne enters the frame. Instead of backing up his deputies' bad legal takes, Payne takes a rare, commendable approach: Admitting the Law: Supervisor Payne explicitly concedes that the parking lot is public property and that open carry is 100% legal under state law. The Voice of Reason: While Payne defends his team's response—explaining that walking a government lot with a firearm and a camera is highly "abnormal" behavior that naturally prompts a public safety check—he completely validates the journalist's right to be there. When Payne asks for the journalist's name to document the contact, the journalist politely declines, asserting he has broken no laws and identifying only as a "good citizen." Because Supervisor Payne actually knows the law, he recognizes a legal stalemate when he sees one. He understands that the journalist is fully within his rights to open carry, film, and refuse identification without reasonable suspicion of a crime. Rather than letting his deputies violate a citizen's rights, Payne shuts down the interaction, commands his team to leave, and walks away. This supervisor likely saved his county thousands of dollars in legal fees just by respecting the Constitution. The walk of shame is in effect at the end as it should be.

Giggling Gannon

133,331 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Judge Juan Merchan has ordered Donald Trump to be sentenced for 34 counts on January 10th ahead of inauguration Judge Merchan was never supposed to oversee Donald Trump’s case, he was specifically assigned the case to weaponize our legal system against Trump, here’s the proof “Understand there's absolutely no reason that Judge Merchan should have even had a chance to be assigned to this case? Now, I'm sure the left is just gonna call this a conspiracy theory. ‌ So I'll issue a challenge to them, and maybe they can tell me how he managed to be the judge. Because for these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. ‌ That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. So even though they're trying to claim that they didn't pick the judge, that it was randomly assigned, that's not possible because judge Merchan isn't in the pool to be randomly assigned. So the only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. ‌ And the wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. ‌ So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats. ‌ But, yeah, I'm sure this was just a coincidence. It was a coincidence that one of the most high profile cases ever, we didn't assign a judge, we assigned an acting judge. ‌ And that that judge somehow got selected even though he wasn't in the pool of judges available to be selected, and that that same judge that was selected also caught 2 other Trump related cases in the same year, and then that judge's daughter makes tens of millions of dollars a year promoting Democrats. Yeah. I'm sure that's all a coincidence.”

Wall Street Apes

514,459 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Country security guard thinks his rules supersede the law. This bodycam footage from Montgomery County, Tennessee, captures one of the most stunning, blatant misunderstandings of basic law you will ever see from a county security officer. What starts as a standard First Amendment audit at a county government building quickly devolves into an extreme case of ego-driven overreach, leaving a county sheriff's deputy stuck playing law professor to an incredibly hostile and incompetent guard. The situation is simple: A citizen journalist is on public property, outside a government facility, filming. She is exercising her constitutional rights. With absolute, unearned confidence, this guard approaches the auditor and demands she stop filming, declaring that government property is "not public property." Let that sink in for a moment. Someone hired to protect a public county facility genuinely believes that the public has no right to be there, and that a citizen requires permission from a facilities manager just to stand on the sidewalk with a camera. When a Montgomery County sheriff’s deputy arrives, things take a truly bizarre turn. Instead of backing down when actual law enforcement arrives, the guard doubles down. The deputy, after confirming the law with his superiors, calmly explains to the guard that the auditor is entirely within her legal rights. The ground is public. No laws are being broken. But ego is a powerful thing. Instead of accepting the correction, the guard snaps. He begins yelling at the deputy, arguing that his internal company policy somehow supersedes constitutional law. He literally tries to pull rank on a sworn law enforcement officer, claiming the rules are his to enforce and threatening to call higher-ups to get his way. It gets worse. When the auditor attempts to walk into the building to file a legitimate public records request—a fundamental right of every American citizen—the guard says he will physically remove her. "You're not going in that building," he barks, threatening removal if she tries to step past him. Watching this level of aggression and ignorance play out is infuriating, but it also forces you to ask a much darker question: How many citizens has this man violated the rights of during his career? How many everyday people, intimidated by the uniform and the aggressive posture, simply complied and walked away? How many people were denied access to public records, forced off public sidewalks, or unlawfully detained because this man weaponized his ignorance? First Amendment auditors often take a lot of heat, but this video is the exact reason why accountability filming is so vital. Without a camera rolling, this guard's word would have been taken over an ordinary citizen's every single time. Fortunately, accountability caught up with him. Once this bodycam footage made its way to the public and county officials saw the liability walking around their complex, action was taken. The guard was officially removed from his position at the facility. It is a stark reminder that a uniform is a responsibility, not a license to bully. If you are tasked with protecting a public space, you better understand the rights of the public you are serving.

Country security guard thinks his rules supersede the law. This bodycam footage from Montgomery County, Tennessee, captures one of the most stunning, blatant misunderstandings of basic law you will ever see from a county security officer. What starts as a standard First Amendment audit at a county government building quickly devolves into an extreme case of ego-driven overreach, leaving a county sheriff's deputy stuck playing law professor to an incredibly hostile and incompetent guard. The situation is simple: A citizen journalist is on public property, outside a government facility, filming. She is exercising her constitutional rights. With absolute, unearned confidence, this guard approaches the auditor and demands she stop filming, declaring that government property is "not public property." Let that sink in for a moment. Someone hired to protect a public county facility genuinely believes that the public has no right to be there, and that a citizen requires permission from a facilities manager just to stand on the sidewalk with a camera. When a Montgomery County sheriff’s deputy arrives, things take a truly bizarre turn. Instead of backing down when actual law enforcement arrives, the guard doubles down. The deputy, after confirming the law with his superiors, calmly explains to the guard that the auditor is entirely within her legal rights. The ground is public. No laws are being broken. But ego is a powerful thing. Instead of accepting the correction, the guard snaps. He begins yelling at the deputy, arguing that his internal company policy somehow supersedes constitutional law. He literally tries to pull rank on a sworn law enforcement officer, claiming the rules are his to enforce and threatening to call higher-ups to get his way. It gets worse. When the auditor attempts to walk into the building to file a legitimate public records request—a fundamental right of every American citizen—the guard says he will physically remove her. "You're not going in that building," he barks, threatening removal if she tries to step past him. Watching this level of aggression and ignorance play out is infuriating, but it also forces you to ask a much darker question: How many citizens has this man violated the rights of during his career? How many everyday people, intimidated by the uniform and the aggressive posture, simply complied and walked away? How many people were denied access to public records, forced off public sidewalks, or unlawfully detained because this man weaponized his ignorance? First Amendment auditors often take a lot of heat, but this video is the exact reason why accountability filming is so vital. Without a camera rolling, this guard's word would have been taken over an ordinary citizen's every single time. Fortunately, accountability caught up with him. Once this bodycam footage made its way to the public and county officials saw the liability walking around their complex, action was taken. The guard was officially removed from his position at the facility. It is a stark reminder that a uniform is a responsibility, not a license to bully. If you are tasked with protecting a public space, you better understand the rights of the public you are serving.

Giggling Gannon

39,827 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

David Friedberg cites John Quincy Adams on property rights as the foundation of liberty "The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." "Fundamental to the foundation of the USA was this idea of private property rights, because if you think about where everybody was coming from, they were these tyrannical governments, monarchies, where some overlord or some cabal could decide at any point to take what you have. You had no property rights as an individual." "That stasis drove so many to come to the USA and say, we want a place where individuals can say, I own something and no one can take it from me." "Private property rights are the foundation of liberty." david friedberg The All-In Podcast

David Friedberg cites John Quincy Adams on property rights as the foundation of liberty "The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." "Fundamental to the foundation of the USA was this idea of private property rights, because if you think about where everybody was coming from, they were these tyrannical governments, monarchies, where some overlord or some cabal could decide at any point to take what you have. You had no property rights as an individual." "That stasis drove so many to come to the USA and say, we want a place where individuals can say, I own something and no one can take it from me." "Private property rights are the foundation of liberty." david friedberg The All-In Podcast

KanekoaTheGreat

55,323 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce