Long Island Audit: Sean Paul Reyes and his endless Lawsuit Lotto

[S.SaulGood]

I'm a fan of FAMILIA TV. Steve is old school. What he may lack in sheer vocabulary, he more than makes up for in his old school sense of morals, decency, respect, and what's right and what's wrong. Do unto others. Be helpful. Be nice. Do the right thing. I can relate to Steve of Familia TV because we're cut from the same cloth and share the same code.

So often, when I put on a you tube 1a auditing video, if available, I'll watch it on Steve's channel because not only do I get to see the auditor's video, but Steve's take on it as well, which is of keen interest to me to hear his thoughts because so often they're closely in line with my observations and I like hearing how someone with character similar to mine thinks.


Steve, the word you're looking for is "condescending in a nauseatingly cordial manner". A phony. He talks to people as if he's magnanimous enough to descend from Mount Olympus to actually bother talking to all the little people. To grace everyone. Who are all just so far beneath him, so inferior in intellect and every other way, that they should be bow and scrape before him for his blessing them all with his Godly presence, Hallelujah Baby Huey! It's a drastically overblown sense of self-entitlement. A false, self-deluding narcissism. He's better than everybody else, he knows it, everyone knows it, and so much so that he's slightly amused and somewhat embarrassed for everyone about how superior he is (which is why he often chuckles after he "educates" someone with his sheer brilliance, may he one day swallow his tongue while he's chuckling). Passive aggressive narcissism I call it. The great educator. How lucky everyone is to be graced by his presence; please, please, no applause, just send money and click the like, share, subscribe!

When you say there's "something about him, his manner, that puts you off", THOSE are the words you're looking for, glad to help, my friend.

Of note: Look at the SHAPE of this soft dough boy at 7 minutes on, my effin' God! Look at his *advertiser censored*, gut, and the love handles. This is someone that should be wearing button down shirts and loose fitting jackets, NOT the type of tight fitting shirts he's wearing. This looks to me to be the body of the average 50 year old man that's been eating JUNK food for the last 30 years, no kidding.
I'm just pointing this out because he professes to be the world's toughest man with not a line of definition or striated muscle on him. IMO, he's built like Baby Huey:

 

[S.SaulGood]

It appears you think a story only exists upon the incident occurring, such as a refinery exploding. However, if workplace policies and practices that violate safety regulations led to the refinery exploding, it is in the public interest to identify these shortfalls before the explosion so that remedies may be applied as well as to prevent other refineries exploding in the future. A journalist who exposes these shortfalls reveals what were there lurking in the shadows. How might a journalist learn of these shortfalls? S/he could receive a tip-off from an insider. S/he may have learnt of an incident at another refinery and wonder whether it could happen again at a refinery closer to home. S/he might visit a site to observe and investigate. S/he might file FOIA requests to government agencies that conduct site inspections. And on it goes. It's a multi-faceted approach.

Exactly WHICH policies of any of these city halls are violating safety regulations?

1) Signing in at a front desk?
2) Turning off your cell phone and/or camera?
3) Subjecting to a temperature check?
4) Wearing a mask?
5) Staying out of restricted and authorized personnel areas only?
6) NOT being allowed full access to the building, only certain areas because OTHER areas are closed due to limited staffing or other Covid-related reason?

Please explain how ANY of these MAJOR bones of the majority of 1A auditors' contentions have ANYTHING at ALL to do with violating visitor safety?

Actually, any CLEAR thinking individual would think these are SAFEGUARDS for the public and the city hall personnel rather than major potential compromises to the safety of all in that building, personnel or guest. These policies ARE safeguards, to ensure the safety of the visitors, staff, and the building itself.

Or do you think that a visitor should be allowed to remain anonymous and have absolute unfettered free reign to do anything he pleases, go anywhere he pleases in a city ha no questions asked? Walk into anyone's office, private or not. Go through their desk perhaps? Take anything they please? For that matter, drop their pants and *advertiser censored* on the floor, pick it up and paint the walls with it? The building belongs to the auditor, right? WTF are these rules about? They certainly can't apply to the owner of the building, right? And that owner is the public. So by your and any 1A auditor's definitions of ownership, any one of them should have the right to walk right in with a sledgehammer, undeterred, and start knocking down walls, and it would be a "safety violation" to ask them to wear a mask? Why? Because the 1A auditor owns the building?

So let's take this idea of yours that all types of newsworthy action occurs when actually NOTHING is occurring until the auditor shows up, initiates it, escalates it, and perpetuates it.

Let's use the sidewalk as an example. Not any particular sidewalk, not even a stretch of it. Let's use one piece of it for an example. One slab square of it, say 4' X 4' X 4 inches thick.

So an auditor has an idea that this lone square of a sidewalk might be newsworthy. Not the adjoining squares, not the building the eyes can see while standing on it, not even the food or dog *advertiser censored* stains that may be discoloring it here and there. It's not defective, it's perfectly level, not cracked, and really nothing notable about it that may make it stand out from any other sidewalk square, unless you are such a devoted connoisseur of sidewalk squares and their subtle difference that the square might be one in a million and worthy of mention in next month's issue of "The Robb Report for Sidewalk Squares", a trade pub you write for.

However, my belief is that your average 1A auditor, who can't fathom the difference between they're, their, and there, and can't speak without using double negatives, "Don't ask me for nothing, because you ain't never going to get nothing from me", is going to be able to tell the subtle differences between the 1.5 billion plain sidewalk squares of the USA (or however many there are).

So the auditor shows up, takes video of the sidewalk square for 15 minutes and starts to think, "This is boring, who in the hell is going to like this", unless someone is entertained by random dog *advertiser censored*, food, and vomit stains if present. So now he gets the idea, "Maybe if I video the people walking by, tripping over me, that will make it interesting". But people walking by are igniring him and simply, carefully side-stepping his stupidity instead of contributing to it.

Maybe a police care drives by, slowing down, and either proceeds or possibly even stops to ask, "What's up, Buddy". NOW, an idea flashed into the auditor's mind, "I know how to make something newsworthy happen", and he screams at the officer who addressed him, "*advertiser censored* YOU, PIG". The cop then asks him if he's "OK or needs help" (which he probably really does), and the auditor retorts, "*advertiser censored* YOUR MOTHER. I'm peacefully filming the sidewalk square, it's my RIGHT under the 1st amendment to film whatever I can see". "OK, have at it", and the cruiser drives off.

Thinking he may need a bit more than that alone to generate the views he intended, he opens his zipper, whips out his dick, and starts jerking off.

So my question for you, IS THIS A JOURNALIST, or an actor?

Is the newsworthy story the unremarkable sidewalk square, one indistinguishable from a billion others, or what the 1A auditor did, his actions while standing on it that caused all other reactions to his actions?

 

[ga gamba]

If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

Of course it does. Sound is a type of energy made by vibrations. This vibrating air molecule causes other air molecules to also vibrate. This is a chain-reaction movement - called sound waves - keeps going until the molecules run out of energy, i.e. dissipation. (This is elementary-school level science.) That this is unheard by you and me does not negate the existence of the sound waves.

And if a husband speaks in the forest, and his wife isn't there to hear him, is he still automatically wrong?

Wrong of what? Speaking? I wasn't aware that's a crime. You'll have to expand on this because presently it's a cockamamie construct.

A person's rights are only violated IF they feel they are being violated.

Untrue. Firstly, a person person who feels their rights are being violated and claims so may be wrong. A claim must be substantiated. A person in public who claims 'you don't have the right to film me. I don't give you my consent,' is wrong. The claim is not substantiated by the law. A newspaper that photos the pavement and pedestrians (recognisable face) on it and publishes it has violated no rights. If the newspaper were to use the same photo in an advert (commercial purposes) 'Join our happy subscribers' it may have violated the person's right of publicity, i.e. the individual's right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name/image/identity. The Court has ruled news media may use photos and recordings shot in public for news purposes (even when the publisher sells copies of the newspaper) because it's in the public interest. Using the same image or footage for the newspaper's subscription campaign is not in the public interest.

There are three types of crimes. Crime against the person. Crime against property. Crime against society.

If I poison your food, you don't recognise you're being poisoned, and you die, have I committed a crime? Of course. It'll take an autopsy to detect this.

If I steal some item from your home or car, and you don't recognise its loss, have I committed a crime? Yes, I have. However, if you don't recognise this and thus don't file a claim seeking a remedy, the enforcement of law is unlikely to occur.

As for civil rights, for it to be violated it must occur as a result or threat of force against a victim by the offender on the basis of being a member of a protected category. A sign that says 'no recording' may breach the law, but it the enforcement of it that is the violation. The posting of the errant sign established a condition wherein a civil rights violation occurred.

ANY REASONABLE POLICIES THAT ANY SANE AND CLEAR THINKING ADULT KNOWS TO BE IN EFFECT TO PROMOTE SMOOTH AND SECURE OPERATION OF THAT FACILITY.

I'm pleased to see you recognise the significance of reasonableness. Plenty of areas in a public facility are off-limits to the public. Some areas that are open to the public still restrict certain actions, such as recording in a courtroom. Other areas that are fully open to the public (with time restrictions), such as lobbies, are permitted much less latitude to impose restrictions. I'm allowed to film but I can't start screaming.

And I would not feel that my rights were being violated if I was not free to do whatever the *advertiser censored* I please while a GUEST at that facility being allowed to tend to my business.

You are not a guest of a public facility. You are an owner, but not the exclusive owner, of the public facility. Your elected representatives have created a system to manage the facility on your behalf.

I also wouldn't feel my rights were being violated if I was not allowed to walk in and take over a building as these auditors attempt to do.

Great. You are allowed to feel what you choose to feel. That said, the auditors are not taking over a public building. No one else is barred by the auditors from using it. The auditors are not forcing people to leave. They are not locking doors.

That's called a CHOP zone. We saw that all last summer, right? Areas of cities that you can do anything the *advertiser censored* you please and no rules apply, except that eventually rules DID apply, made up and enforced by the warlord and his crew that took over the area.

I think you've lost the plot now. Your description of CHOP is accurate. However, you stating this is the same as what the auditors do is false equivalence. If anything, it's the employees of the public facility and police who, by contravening the law, are more similar (but not the same) to the thugs running the CHOP. They state their feelings (often expressed as discomfort and fear) and inaccurate understanding of the law (right to privacy in a public place) and expect these to trump the law. They don't.

EVERYTHING is a matter of perception.

Everything? Is Earth's gravity a matter of perception? We experience gravity (and in certain places specifically built and operated by man we may experience the absence of it), but it exists irrespective of our perception. Same too with my physical being.

Certainly many things are a matter of perception. This tension between two or more perceptions may cause conflict. Police officers and government officials who know the applicable laws may diffuse the conflict prior to it escalating to acts that breach law. That said, many often choose to exacerbate the situation. Of course, auditors have a responsibility to know and comply with the law as well. And where they don't, they too must must be corrected.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Of course it does. Sound is a type of energy made by vibrations. This vibrating air molecule causes other air molecules to also vibrate. This is a chain-reaction movement - called sound waves - keeps going until the molecules run out of energy, i.e. dissipation. (This is elementary-school level science.) That this is unheard by you and me does not negate the existence of the sound waves.

Yes, I'm well aware of acoustics, sound waves, how they propagate through different elements; elementary school and beyond. The "tree in the forest" example is an old adage. I'm quite surprised that you're unaware of it. Never heard that before? YIKES!!!

Wrong of what? Speaking? I wasn't aware that's a crime. You'll have to expand on this because presently it's a cockamamie construct.

A joke. Never heard that one before either? YIKES!!! again

Untrue. Firstly, a person person who feels their rights are being violated and claims so may be wrong. A claim must be substantiated. A person in public who claims 'you don't have the right to film me. I don't give you my consent,' is wrong. The claim is not substantiated by the law. A newspaper that photos the pavement and pedestrians (recognisable face) on it and publishes it has violated no rights. If the newspaper were to use the same photo in an advert (commercial purposes) 'Join our happy subscribers' it may have violated the person's right of publicity, i.e. the individual's right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name/image/identity. The Court has ruled news media may use photos and recordings shot in public for news purposes (even when the publisher sells copies of the newspaper) because it's in the public interest. Using the same image or footage for the newspaper's subscription campaign is not in the public interest.

There are three types of crimes. Crime against the person. Crime against property. Crime against society.

If I poison your food, you don't recognise you're being poisoned, and you die, have I committed a crime? Of course. It'll take an autopsy to detect this.

If I steal some item from your home or car, and you don't recognise its loss, have I committed a crime? Yes, I have. However, if you don't recognise this and thus don't file a claim seeking a remedy, the enforcement of law is unlikely to occur.

As for civil rights, for it to be violated it must occur as a result or threat of force against a victim by the offender on the basis of being a member of a protected category. A sign that says 'no recording' may breach the law, but it the enforcement of it that is the violation. The posting of the errant sign established a condition wherein a civil rights violation occurred.



I'm pleased to see you recognise the significance of reasonableness. Plenty of areas in a public facility are off-limits to the public. Some areas that are open to the public still restrict certain actions, such as recording in a courtroom. Other areas that are fully open to the public (with time restrictions), such as lobbies, are permitted much less latitude to impose restrictions. I'm allowed to film but I can't start screaming.

I wonder if you would feel the same way and stand up for an auditor's 1A rights if they were to stick their camera 1 inch from your eyeballs and make sure it stays there, no matter what, no escape for you, no quarter given by them, no time limit, all the while screaming that your wife is a *advertiser censored*, your daughter is a *advertiser censored*, and that they've *advertiser censored* them both and they begged them for more. Matter of fact, followed you home, camped out on the sidewalk outside your home waiting for you to once again leave your home and then rinse and repeat. But you've probably never had someone do that to you. Likely because you never came face to face with a 1A auditor hell bent on deliberately crucifying you for click$$$, reminding you that he can do and say anything the *advertiser censored* he wants to you, "First Amendment, man", then cackle like LIA does. You would call the police. YOU. A cop hater, anyone who doesn't hate cops a "bootlicker", right? If a 1AA decided to make you their blue plate special of the day, or week, or month, or year, or just set up a tent on the sidewalk in front of your house. YOU would expect the police to remove what you now consider a threat. And that's where "perception" comes into play.

People are ALLOWED to act if they perceive a threat to their person. These 1AAs have a bad habit of reaching into their pockets when confronting someone. Or brandishing mace or a stun gun. Some, like Furry, carry a shiv, that they ditch before police show up when called, which is why he always goes off by himself removed from the scene, you see he bent down, and then he returns after stashing the weapon ("I hope he comes over here. Let's see if he's puncture proof"). There's a reason why he said that in more than one video to whomever is with him when he's crucifying a business owner and that person starts to advance towards him.

You are not a guest of a public facility. You are an owner, but not the exclusive owner, of the public facility. Your elected representatives have created a system to manage the facility on your behalf.

How do you think this theory of ownership would work if one of these auditors were to audit at the Pentagon, walked in and started dictating orders, telling everyone to leave because they own the building and they want everybody out, "MOVE.. NOW, I own this *advertiser censored* and everything and everyone in it, you all work for me, GTFO!!!!"? Have you seen anything like that before? Where someone enters a gov. "public" facility and simply takes over the entire operation? They own it, right? Doesn't that mean that anyone from the public can take over any government building on a whim? And if that's true, why are there Capital insurrectionists sitting in jail in DC without bond? Why don't 1AA's try doing their audits at the Capital or White House? Walk in and tell the guards to have the White House vacated, President Biden will simply have to find new digs. THAT would be ownership. Not this Mickey Mouse *advertiser censored* you see in 1A audits. REAL ownership is drastically different. If you own something, then it is yours to do whatever you please. Nobody should be able to tell you, "What are you doing with that steamroller". "Where are you taking that Resolute desk? Why are you going through all the file cabinets? And the rugs? And the drapes?" OWNERSHIP is ownership, and if the public TRULY owns EVERYTHING other than private property, you should see a lot more of people ordering police out of their cars and demanding the keys for the ignition. But we DON'T see that. So maybe YOUR "perception" of ownership, via the 1A is skewed?

Try it. Get a camera. Take a little road trip to the Pentagon. Tell them you own the place and you're the boss. See how that goes for you and good luck with that!

 

[S.SaulGood]

By itself, so this KEY POINT does not get lost in the sauce:

I wonder if you would feel the same way and stand up for an auditor's 1A rights if they were to stick their camera 1 inch from your eyeballs and make sure it stays there, no matter what, no escape for you, no quarter given by them, no time limit, all the while screaming that your wife is a *advertiser censored*, your daughter is a *advertiser censored*, and that they've *advertiser censored* them both and they begged them for more. Sort of like what SGV and his motley crew of reprobates and misfits do. Matter of fact, followed you home, camped out on the sidewalk outside your home waiting for you to once again leave your home and then rinse and repeat. But you've probably never had someone do that to you. Likely because you never came face to face with a 1A auditor hell bent on deliberately crucifying you for click$$$, reminding you that he can say anything the *advertiser censored* he wants to you and film your torment for no reason other than his amusement and $$$, "First Amendment, man", then cackle like LIA does. You would call the police. YOU. A cop hater, anyone who doesn't hate cops a "bootlicker", right? If a 1AA decided to make you their blue plate special of the day, or week, or month, or year, or just set up a tent on the sidewalk in front of your house. YOU would expect the police to remove what you now consider a threat. And that's where "perception" comes into play.

Maybe from your standpoint, this man or group of cameramen who constantly assail you may start to become quite an annoyance. I would think that trying to drive, trying to walk, trying to live OUTSIDE your property, with a camera stuck 1 inch in front of your eyeballs may prove daunting after a while, even though you profess your love and admiration of them, methinks because it's happening "to the other guy".. But when they start doing the same to your wife or daughters when they leave the home, even though you don't perceive them a threat, your family might; hence "perception".

Your neighbor has no problem with it. He shouts over, "!A audit, huh, G.? Lucky you, you are blessed!", so HIS perception may differ from yours of your eventual annoyance or your family's perception of FEAR of bodily harm. See, it's all about perception.

And then your neighbor's perception of your 1AA tormentors being a blessing might be subject to change if suddenly, 2 of the 4 harassing you and your family mercilessly, relentlessly, break off and stalk him with their camera 1 inch from his eyeballs. What he PERCEIVED as a blessing for you, he might have second thoughts about and PERCEIVE as a curse for him. So this is most definitely about perception as the most important element of 1A tormenting. HOW a 1AA victim perceives their tormentors and the level of torment.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Untrue. Firstly, a person person who feels their rights are being violated and claims so may be wrong. A claim must be substantiated. A person in public who claims 'you don't have the right to film me. I don't give you my consent,' is wrong. The claim is not substantiated by the law. A newspaper that photos the pavement and pedestrians (recognisable face) on it and publishes it has violated no rights. If the newspaper were to use the same photo in an advert (commercial purposes) 'Join our happy subscribers' it may have violated the person's right of publicity, i.e. the individual's right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name/image/identity. The Court has ruled news media may use photos and recordings shot in public for news purposes (even when the publisher sells copies of the newspaper) because it's in the public interest. Using the same image or footage for the newspaper's subscription campaign is not in the public interest.

So by your account, even if I AGREE with policies put in place to enhance a customer's experience, rather than detract from it, and contribute to the safety and smooth operation of the agency offering services I must partake of, like:

1) I agree that wearing a mask is prudent and comply with that policy
2) I agree that signing in WITH MY FACTUAL NAME at a reception area is a good ides so security knows who is in in the building and where (might be especially a good idea if there's a fire) and someone is trapped in an elevator or basement)
3) I agree that it's probably best to restrict certain areas that are not necessary for the scope of my business.
4) Don't film certain areas and/or turn off my phone and I comply as requested

etc., etc.

You contend that I should raise a stink about my rights being violated EVEN IF I AGREE WITH THE POLICIES because I am a reasonable man and aren't shoveling *advertiser censored* against the tide for no reason other than creating a disturbance for clicks?

 

[ga gamba]

I wonder if you would feel the same way and stand up for an auditor's 1A rights if they were to stick their camera 1 inch from your eyeballs and make sure it stays there, no matter what, no escape for you, no quarter given by them, no time limit, all the while screaming...

I note that you concoct a cockamamie construct that bears little similarity to the situation at hand - you made a strawman. If I were so confined with no ability to move, it's apparent a crime was committed. False imprisonment involves intentionally restricting another person's freedom of movement. False imprisonment can be both a crime and a civil cause of action, i.e. a tort. Further, if the person uses physical force to prevent my movement, or uses threats of violence to thwart my attempts to extricate myself from the confines, I may have the right to self-defence as well.

Matter of fact, followed you home, camped out on the sidewalk outside your home waiting for you to once again leave your home and then rinse and repeat.

This hypothetical situation also bears little resemblance to the journalists' situation.

Fortunately, the Court has addressed this issue. In Frisby v. Schultz (1988), the Supreme Court upheld a residential picketing ban. Finding a substantial governmental interest in protecting residential privacy, the Court explained: 'One important aspect of residential privacy is protection of the unwilling listener. Although in many locations, we expect individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the home is different.'

The Court interpreted the ban to apply not to general marching through a neighborhood, which is lawful, but to targeted picketing at a particular residence. 'Only focused picketing taking place solely in front of a particular residence is prohibited,' the Court explained.

People are ALLOWED to act if they perceive a threat to their person.

It's not as cut and dried as you write. Firstly, one's perception must be reasonable. If I perceive all men to be a threat to my person, may I attack them and claim self defence? No.

Self-defence is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence - both physical acts - through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. Many jurisdictions allow self-defence for imminent threats, where imminent is defined as likely to occur in a few moments. This is where perception plays its part and reasonable person doctrine applies.

Depending on the jurisdiction, my lawful response may be the right to stand my ground (which I support) or the obligation to move away (which I don't support).

These 1AAs have a bad habit of reaching into their pockets when confronting someone. Or brandishing mace or a stun gun.

If those acts or possession of those items are crimes, then they ought to be arrested and charged.

How do you think this theory of ownership would work if one of these auditors were to audit at the Pentagon, walked in and started dictating orders, telling everyone to leave because they own the building and they want everybody out, "MOVE.. NOW, I own this *advertiser censored* and everything and everyone in it, you all work for me, GTFO!!!!"?

Again, this bears little resemblance to the acts and words of these journalists. They are not demanding people leave the public space. They are not demanding exclusive use.

Have you seen anything like that before? Where someone enters a gov. "public" facility and simply takes over the entire operation? They own it, right? Doesn't that mean that anyone from the public can take over any government building on a whim?

I have seen this on uni campuses where student protestors occupy a building in whole or in part (for example, a president's office) or prevent others from entering the building. Usually what happens is the admin caves, declines to claim trespass, and fails to ask police to evict. This capitulation only emboldens further acts. Personally, I think many of these admin support these acts because these further agendas that admin support and wrest concessions the admin want to grant, but they need the cover of duress or 'listening to the people', i.e. obedience, to do so. Again, I see no resemblance of this occupy action on uni campuses to the journalists' actions.

And if that's true, why are there Capital insurrectionists sitting in jail in DC without bond?

How many people have been charged with the crime of insurrection? Last I knew (and it's been a while since I checked) almost all have been charged with trespass, disorder, and/or destruction of public property offences. I think a few have been charged for violent acts.

Again, this has little resemblance with the acts of these journalists. That said, there are many of them, so do one, two, some violate laws? I reckon it happens. And when it does, they ought to be charged.

Why don't 1AA's try doing their audits at the Capital or White House? Walk in and tell the guards to have the White House vacated, President Biden will simply have to find new digs.

As much as evicting Biden would amuse and gladden me, this cannot be done lawfully as you describe.

Again - and I mentioned this in my previous post - public facilities have a variety of access restrictions. Some parts of the White House and Capitol are open to the public (during certain hours) and permit photography and recording. Other areas are less accessible or forbid acts allowed in the most accessible areas. Some areas forbid access to the public. The Court has ruled time and space restrictions are reasonable, but within limits. This is no different from other public buildings, such as those visited by the journalists. What I've seen of these journalists is they abide by the law. They don't cross counters (barriers between the public area of the office and the area restricted to employees), they don't walk into rooms that have 'authorised employees only' signs, etc. Those who do violate these restrictions ought to be trespassed and/or charged.

THAT would be ownership. Not this Mickey Mouse *advertiser censored* you see in 1A audits. REAL ownership is drastically different. If you own something, then it is yours to do whatever you please. Nobody should be able to tell you, "What are you doing with that steamroller". "Where are you taking that Resolute desk? Why are you going through all the file cabinets? And the rugs? And the drapes?" OWNERSHIP is ownership, and if the public TRULY owns EVERYTHING other than private property, you should see a lot more of people ordering police out of their cars and demanding the keys for the ignition.

Appears to me you have conflated public ownership and private. In doing so, you are very wide of the mark. City Hall is publicly owned. You, a member of the public who pays taxes, are an owner. But, it is not exclusively yours - I know I wrote this previously. You may not remove a piece of art hanging on City Hall's wall by claiming it's yours solely. It's yours communally. You are a co-owner. You, a member of the public, may view this art that's hung publicly so that all the other public owners may view it as well. Your home is exclusively yours. Now, you may live in a multi resident building or residential community that has some amenities for use by all co-owners, for example a fitness centre, a golf course, a swimming pool, etc. Is a resident, i.e. a co-owner, allowed to remove the communally owned exercise equipment from the communally owned gym and take it his/her privately owned home? No. Why not? It's communal ownership. We see that communal ownership exists in both the public and private domains. Your removal of the exercise bike prevents other co-owners use. Further, you did not obtain permission from the other communal owners. Can you grasp the distinction? Is this Mickey Mouse? Absolutely not.

So maybe YOUR "perception" of ownership, via the 1A is skewed?

No. My thoughts align with what the Court has ruled and the laws on the books. Further, I often see the lower-level public employees challenging journalists' access to public areas are corrected later by a supervisor and they cease their commands.

It appears to me that your ability to recognise and understand nuance evades you.

 

[ga gamba]

You contend that I should raise a stink about my rights being violated EVEN IF I AGREE WITH THE POLICIES because I am a reasonable man and aren't shoveling *advertiser censored* against the tide for no reason other than creating a disturbance for clicks?

That's not my contention at all. You are free to relinquish your rights. You are free to vote (if eligible). You are also free not to vote (unless you're Australian). You are free to worship. You are free not to worship. You are free to own a firearm. You are free not own one. You are free to not give evidence against yourself and to have legal representation. And you are free to speak to police to give evidence against yourself without benefit of legal advice.

Where you and I differ is that you want others to give up their rights as well. I have no problem with you giving up your own rights. Have at it. I have a huge disagreement and will raise an enormous stink if you want me to follow along with your (misguided) ideas and acts. You and others running off the cliff may call me crazy for running in the opposite direction, but I have no obligation to follow you and you have no right to demand I do so.

Policies must align with the law and the Constitution. Often, for many reasons to include laziness, incompetence, ignorance, misunderstanding, cherry picking, malice, authoritarianism, and/or the desire to simplify one's duties, public sector employee(s) imposes policies that contravene the law. I find it peculiar you support this illegality. Do you advocate committing other crimes as well?

At times public sector employees even post public notices that contradict each other. One posted sign says masks are recommended, and another sign posted on the same door says masks are required. Recommended and required are not synonyms. So, which sign applies? The one that conforms to the law. If the laws says they are required, then you must wear one. (Often requirements include a variety of exemptions.) If it is recommended, then the public official may not demand you put one on. S/he may ask a person to observe the recommendation, but the person has no obligation to do so. You don't get to call police because someone refused your recommendation. Same holds true for invisible signs. If an area is restricted access, and no sign is posted, is it the public's obligation to be clairvoyant? Hell no.

 

[ga gamba]

'I have no obligation to follow you and you have no right to demand I do so.' The sentence above was awkwardly written by me. My apologies for the lack of precision. If you're not a public employee (authority figure), you may demand I do so and I may refuse, but you may not require/compel/coerce I do so.

 

[S.SaulGood]

That's not my contention at all. You are free to relinquish your rights. You are free to vote (if eligible). You are also free not to vote (unless you're Australian). You are free to worship. You are free not to worship. You are free to own a firearm. You are free not own one. You are free to not give evidence against yourself and to have legal representation. And you are free to speak to police to give evidence against yourself without benefit of legal advice.

Where you and I differ is that you want others to give up their rights as well. I have no problem with you giving up your own rights. Have at it. I have a huge disagreement and will raise an enormous stink if you want me to follow along with your (misguided) ideas and acts. You and others running off the cliff may call me crazy for running in the opposite direction, but I have no obligation to follow you and you have no right to demand I do so.

Policies must align with the law and the Constitution. Often, for many reasons to include laziness, incompetence, ignorance, misunderstanding, cherry picking, malice, authoritarianism, and/or the desire to simplify one's duties, public sector employee(s) imposes policies that contravene the law. I find it peculiar you support this illegality. Do you advocate committing other crimes as well?

At times public sector employees even post public notices that contradict each other. One posted sign says masks are recommended, and another sign posted on the same door says masks are required. Recommended and required are not synonyms. So, which sign applies? The one that conforms to the law. If the laws says they are required, then you must wear one. (Often requirements include a variety of exemptions.) If it is recommended, then the public official may not demand you put one on. S/he may ask a person to observe the recommendation, but the person has no obligation to do so. You don't get to call police because someone refused your recommendation. Same holds true for invisible signs. If an area is restricted access, and no sign is posted, is it the public's obligation to be clairvoyant? Hell no.

So what if you refuse to relinquish your rights? Say you're going to board a plane and head out God knows where, but SENSIBLY, since authorities want to make that you're not wearing a shoe bomb, or carrying a weapon, or for that matter 10 kilos of cocaine taped around your body, and your carry-on luggage must be screened.

But you refuse, and defiantly declare "This is a violation of my 4th amendment right; you are NOT going to violate my rights. Now, I am going to walk around your security and board my plane because you have no probable cause and cannot articulate a crime that I am committing that could cause me to give up my rights".

You start walking right through and security personnel block your way not allowing you through. You will not back off and do the same thing LIAssHat does when blocked by security; you keep bumping into them. You also inform them that they're "assaulting you", they're "not so tough", and they wouldn't dare touch you, they just wouldn't dare, because physically they are no match for you,"Just look at you; you're sweating, you say".

Police are called. They arrive and you want to lodge complaints because it's "a waste of public resources". You pull the same LIAssHat routine with them, and tell the police "You're nothing. I make more money than you do, I'm a youtube star, and you don't look so tough to me. Without the badge and gun, you are *advertiser censored*. None of you have any authority over me. I'm getting on that plane and I am not giving up my 4th amendment right. You cannot search me or my belongings" (although like most auditors you do not go hands on with anyone so we have no way of knowing if you can back up the same claim as every other auditor's, of being born on the planet Krypton, Superman, right? Yeah. Until BATTLE-TESTED).

You start to bump into the police, same as you did with security, and you did not luck out like most auditors do with wimpy cops who didn't come prepared with wash cloths and a bucket of soapy warm water to wash your balls for you, because if cops do otherwise, they are "tyrants". THESE cops are short on palaver and long on actions, and with the first bump, they cuff and search you. In other words, You didn't luck out and get a testicle and anus cleaning service. You got REAL cops. Their job to restore ORDER.

They cuff you and once they discover a loaded "ghost gun", made of non-metallic material in your waistband, they look further and see the lumps under your sweater, and down your pants legs of your cargo pants. They bring you to a room and look further. 10 kilos of cocaine in packages is taped to your body, and you're still yammering about how your 4th amendment rights are violated and "I'm getting on that plane. You had no right to detain me for a Constitutionally protected activity. You had no right to initially detain me which led to an illegal search and seizure and my being KIDNAPPED" (*advertiser censored*, right?).

But let's go one step further. Joe Schmuck, second and fourth amendment enthusiast, and career felon, coincidentally, is taking the same flight He walked into the airport with his carry on bag over his shoulder and a fully loaded Franchi-Spas 12 gauge magnum street sweeper with a 25 shot drum attached shells loaded with arsenic soaked double 0.

As soon as they spot him, security stops him and immediately alerts the police, who arrive with automatic weapons brandished. He contends that the airport is violating his 2nd amendment rights, and his Constitutional rights trump ALL, including unconstitutional airport policies against boarding planes with weapons.

So my question to you is, Do your and Joe Schmuck's 2nd and 4th amendment rights give you the right to do whatever the *advertiser censored* you please? Or do common sense policies, put in place for safety and security trump your and Joe Schmuck's Constitutional rights to carry weapons, illegal narcotics, and possibly the occasional shoe-bomb on flights?

And what exactly do the 2nd and 4th amendments say about airline safety? Anything there about security checkpoints designed to prevent another 9/11?

 

[S.SaulGood]

'I have no obligation to follow you and you have no right to demand I do so.' The sentence above was awkwardly written by me. My apologies for the lack of precision. If you're not a public employee (authority figure), you may demand I do so and I may refuse, but you may not require/compel/coerce I do so.

I don't care about awkwardly written. We're not proof readers for a major publisher here. I knew exactly what you meant, and although I may appear to be argumentative, all of our dialog and your perspective are much appreciated, intelligent, and though provoking.

 

[S.SaulGood]

I note that you concoct a cockamamie construct that bears little similarity to the situation at hand - you made a strawman.

Not at all a straw man. Remember, what ONE auditor shows up to do, Two, or three, or five, or 10, or 50, or 100, or 1000 may show up at the same time to do. Far fetched? Look at the Jan 6th Insurrection (and let's not get into politics because that is not within the scope of this forum, I would prefer to think).

A whole heck of a lot of people showed up at the Capital to exercise their Constitutional rights AT THE SAME TIME. And I won't get into the nuts, bolts and theories behind that incident, conspiracy or otherwise, but instead, THINK of the aftermath of that incident. Didn't work out too well, right? Not for the Constitutional enthusiasts seeking to redress their government and not for the FAR REACHING EFFECTS on the entire nation that it caused.

So my "cockamamie constructs" CAN and on occasion HAVE manifested in REALITY and not straw.

 

[toomanyretardsontheright]

S.SaulGood, you may want to tone it down, your KKK is starting to show.

 

[S.SaulGood]

S.SaulGood, you may want to tone it down, your KKK is starting to show.

Hey Sean. About time! Couldn't handle the truth any longer? Talk about a cockamamie comment that not even remotely has anything to do with ANYTHING I've posted!!

"KKK" is showing???

The *advertiser censored* did you come up with that one ? You seriously can't think of anything better than playing the race card when race has NEVER been a component of ANY of my posts and you have no idea exactly WHAT my race and/or ethnicity is?

 

[S.SaulGood]

S.SaulGood, you may want to tone it down, your KKK is starting to show.

You've BEEN reading the thread, including my response, for 30 minutes, Sean.
What utter GEM are you going to pull out of your keister next?
Let's keep track; shall we?

Insult list:

1) "KKK"
2) "???"

I'm going to go WAY out on a limb and predict, "racist" is next. Not because it has any bearing on ANYTHING I've written, but simply because that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO you!!!

Go ahead. Surprise me, if you are capable of that, which after studying your entire NARROW repertoire and predictable schtick I'd be hard pressed to believe.

Going on 4 days now since you posted a new 1st amendment public nuisance video. Don't you think getting back to work should be your prime consideration? More lawsuits = more $$$$, right? And you can't win Lawsuit Lotto if you don't play! What's the Lawsuit Lotto crackpot jackpot up to now?

 

[toomanyretardsontheright]

I'm not sure who Sean is, but I think you've got them confused with me. My name is Mike. Regardless, it seems my previous comment struck a nerve with you, since such over-the-top defensive responses usually indicates guilt. But what do I know, I'm just a psychologist. Also, nothing in my comment said you were racist - you brought that fact out yourself, thanks. I was simply mentioning how your party affiliation could not be more transparent.

In fact, re-reading this entire post, it seems almost certain that you are a cop with his panties in a wad about this guy LIA. I mean, have you even read what you wrote? You're going on diatribes about alternate universes where 1a auditors outnumber non-auditors 50 to 1?? LMAO, are you serious?

We see you, porker. ACAB and you're not hiding well.

 

[S.SaulGood]

I'm not sure who Sean is, but I think you've got them confused with me. My name is Mike. Regardless, it seems my previous comment struck a nerve with you, since such over-the-top defensive responses usually indicates guilt. But what do I know, I'm just a psychologist. Also, nothing in my comment said you were racist - you brought that fact out yourself, thanks. I was simply mentioning how your party affiliation could not be more transparent.

In fact, re-reading this entire post, it seems almost certain that you are a cop with his panties in a wad about this guy LIA. I mean, have you even read what you wrote? You're going on diatribes about alternate universes where 1a auditors outnumber non-auditors 50 to 1?? LMAO, are you serious?

We see you, porker. ACAB and you're not hiding well.

And the way you refer to cops as "porkers", when you accuse me of being one. VERY telling.

And BTW, I don't have a party affiliation. I believe in politics about as much as I believe in the veracity of the WWE being sports rather than sports entertainment. I'm neither right nor left. I'm not even in the middle. And if you read any type of slant into my Insurrection at the Capital incident (what it's commonly referred to all the time), you're interpretation of my using that as an example is delusional and self-serving.

Just how ridiculous are you, "Doc". You mentioned that I'm KKK and now you write that you never mentioned my being a racist?
And I "brought that out myself"? YOU are the one that inferred I'm a KKK member, is your memory that short, "Doc".

KKK = the epitome of racism.

You're neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. Although you may be under the CARE of one of them. That's about as close as you'll get to being either. Get up a little earlier in the AM, "Doctor Mike". Is Quackenbush the last name? ROFL

It's good you're here. I welcome the discourse and it's good for the forum, but PLEASE try to not be a hypocrite. Discuss things without INSULTS and wild, accusatory insinuations that are so far off base that they only DISTRACT from the content, unless of course that is your goal. You say you're a psychologist. Try to at least POST like one. Like the professional that you profess to be.
I'm sure that a psychologist could do this, or am I wrong?

 

[S.SaulGood]

You're going on diatribes about alternate universes where 1a auditors outnumber non-auditors 50 to 1?? LMAO, are you serious?

Sure. Odds like that COULD and DID happen. Again, I cite the Jan 6th Capital Insurrection (the generally accepted term for it) as a prime example.

Did "auditors" outnumber the Capital Police charged with the security and smooth operation of the building by at least 20 to 1? To me, it appeared that the people hell bent on gaining access within, outnumbered the security forces by at least 50 to 1, and maybe even more. So let's shelf any talk about alternate existence and multiple universes as far as scenarios that CAN occur where odds outnumber forces charged with protecting a building.

 

[S.SaulGood]

I'm not sure who Sean is. My name is Mike.

I played along; liberally applying "plausible deniability" to do so.

 

[ga gamba]

So what if you refuse to relinquish your rights? Say you're going to board a plane ....

I'm positive I addressed access rights to gov't facilities in my earlier comments. Some areas are open to the general public. (The journalists we had been discussing until now only seek access to the most publicly open areas, so I'm uncertain why you are wandering off over here, but I have my suspicions.) Other areas are less open, and may impose methods of scrutiny for the person to be admitted. And some areas are restricted entirely.

The Court has ruled there has to be legitimate reasons to implement such controls and they need to be reasonable. Employee convenience, personal dislike of being recorded, etc are not sufficient enough reasons. (BTW, I'm fine with many of these controls.) Further, airlines are privately owned, which adds a wrinkle to the mix. What we see is public-private coordination. Technically, TSA employees screen a person and their carry-on luggage for the traveller to gain access to the secured area of the airport terminal. This area is quarantined. Only those with boarding passes and who have passed some security checks are admitted. There are no other ways of uncontrolled entrance/exit (of course emergency exits exist). The knock-on effect of controlled access to the publicly owned boarding terminal is that access to privately owned aeroplanes is also controlled.

The Fourth Amendment is specifically designed to ensure that searches and seizures of property are not conducted arbitrarily. (Reflecting on Sean's interactions with public employees, we often see that restrictions are declared and imposed arbitrarily.) In Fernandez v California (2014) the Supreme Court determined that 'the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.'

The Supreme Court uses several tests to evaluate what is reasonable. Initially, the Court will look 'to the statutes and common law of the founding era to determine the norms that the Fourth Amendment was meant to preserve' when assessing whether current practices provide those historic protections. If this historical analysis does not give the Court 'a conclusive answer' concerning what is reasonable, however, the Court then analyzes the government’s action 'in light of traditional standards of reasonableness "by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it [the action] intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is
needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests."’ That inquiry 'requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake,' and the Court conducts that analysis based on 'the totality of the circumstances.'

So my question to you is, Do your and Joe Schmuck's 2nd and 4th amendment rights give you the right to do whatever the *advertiser censored* you please?

Absolutely not. But those same rights also prevent public employees doing whatever the *advertiser censored* they please too. The law and the Court seek to find balance between the tension of these two demands. Often bills are crafted to comply with the Constitution as well as not to contradict other existing laws and ratified treaties. As bills are drafted and revised they receive a lot of scrutiny by many individuals and groups, some of whom support the bill and others who oppose it. 'Hey, this section violates the Constitution and needs to be revised.' 'No, it doesn't.' And off to the races they go.

Policies have a more ad hoc slapdash nature in their creation. When being composed by the employee they tend not to be given the same scrutiny by city/state legal authorities and knowledgeable outsiders and are not offered to the wider public (laypeople) for review and comment prior to implementation. The result is policies that breach the law and Constitutional violations when being enforced. Enforcement also tends to be inconsistent. Some police know the law. Other police wing it. (If you reflect on Sean's videos, you may remember the employee is declaring a policy, then police arrive and they say: 'It's their policy.' Policies do not nullify Constitutional protections.) Prior planning prevents piss poor performance. Public employees need to keep themselves in check. When crafting a policy, make sure it does complies with the law. When police show up to call about policy violations, then need to verify the policy complies with law. Sean is correct when he states police are law enforcement and not policy enforcement. If the policy complies with the law, then police enforcement is justified.

Now, we've meandered far away from what Sean has been doing and are in the realm of all kinds of hypothetical situations. If I recall correctly, this thread began with your complaint about Sean's journalism. From this point forward I'll attempt to limit my replies to the real acts of these journalists and not deal with the hypotheticals you've offered recently.