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

[S.SaulGood]

Well, that didn't tell us much, did it? Disappointment. Like watching Barney Pfife brace to fire a .500 S&W Magnum aimed at a watermelon, the audience anticipating the splatter, "Oh Boy... THIS is going to be GREAT" (like Flounder said in Animal House), but the rounds all turn out to be duds. Click, click, click.

 

[Juan Paul]

C'Mon now. That's it? You shot your load and THAT was IT? You've got to be kidding me. As much of a Chatty Cathy as you are in your 1A torment videos, as someone here noted, constantly mumbling plaintively into your recorder, complaining to yourself in the second party about people around you DOING THEIR JOBS, THIS was it? A comment about ME? About MY money?

Let's talk about YOU YOU YOU. The STAR of the LIA Side Show. Let's talk about Side Show Sean. Can you quickly say that 5 times in a row? Side Show Sean, Side Show Sean, yatta yatta? I'll bet you can't.

You being the star of the sideshow and wanting to talk about MY MONEY is like the dancing bear wanting to talk about what the guy in the front row at ringside under Barnum and Bailey's big top had for breakfast. NO. WE want to know about the dancing bear.

So get the dancing bear back in here and tell him to answer some of the questions posed above. They're pretty simple ones. I haven't even gotten to any of the tougher questions like 34 shared registered occupants in one modestly sized home and scads of sequentially numbered post office boxes. We can cover some of those and MORE later on, Sideshow, it'll be fun, I can assure you; very entertaining for at least one of us anyway, I would predict.

And what the hell is wrong with that, right? Technically, you are in the entertainment business, right, Sideshow Sean? Say that 5 times quickly. Makes a daunting tongue twister, but not nearly as twisted into a knot as your tongue appears to be at this point.

First off I’m not Sean you piece of *advertiser censored* . Let’s get that straight. Like I said seems like you have issues with the fact another mans making money !

 

[S.SaulGood]

First off I’m not Sean you piece of *advertiser censored* . Let’s get that straight. Like I said seems like you have issues with the fact another mans making money !

Let me take a whack at this and see if I can unscramble your brain for you. Do you mean:

"First off, I’m not Sean, you piece of *advertiser censored*. Let’s get that fact straight. Like I said, it seems like you have issues with the fact that another man is making money!"

Now if you had something that resembles a proper education, and thus, not complete *advertiser censored* for brains, you would have written it something like that, you semi-literate oaf. But with the re-write, you're off and running to a good start, but stopped abruptly, obviously running out of ideas, which I'd wager is not accidental given the infantile nature of your wording and thoughts, TWICE now relegated solely to accusations of my "being jealous of Baby Huey". "Jealous", he says!!



I thought I already gave you the gift of punctuation? You should still have some left. And it doesn't matter if you're Sean or not. I'm doing what the auditors do. I'm speaking to Sean in the second party. Through you. You're perfect for that. As a medium with a blank mind, because your brain is liquid *advertiser censored*. You've proven that twice now, clown. Three tries for a quarter, you poor *advertiser censored*? PLEASE tell me that English ISN'T your primary language.

 

[Juan Paul]

Let me take a whack at this and see if I can unscramble your brain for you. Do you mean:

"First off, I’m not Sean, you piece of *advertiser censored*. Let’s get that fact straight. Like I said, it seems like you have issues with the fact that another man is making money!"

Now if you had something that resembles a proper education, and thus, not complete *advertiser censored* for brains, you would have written it something like that, you semi-literate oaf. But with the re-write, you're off and running to a good start, but stopped abruptly, obviously running out of ideas, which I'd wager is not accidental given the infantile nature of your wording and thoughts, TWICE now relegated solely to accusations of my "being jealous of Baby Huey". "Jealous", he says!!

View attachment 813

I thought I already gave you the gift of punctuation? You should still have some left. And it doesn't matter if you're Sean or not. I'm doing what the auditors do. I'm speaking to Sean in the second party. Through you. You're perfect for that. As a medium with a blank mind, because your brain is liquid *advertiser censored*. You've proven that twice now, clown. Three tries for a quarter, you poor *advertiser censored*? PLEASE tell me that English ISN'T your primary language.

I really don’t give a *advertiser censored* about you, or what you have to say behind your *advertiser censored* keyboard. Your a piece of *advertiser censored* like I already said. Your a *advertiser censored* behind a *advertiser censored* keyboard or phone .

 

[Ivo]

It's very clear what he's doing. He's recording and 'muttering' into his phone/camera. It's so obvious that it doesn't need to be asked. The better question is: 'Why are you recording?' As good a question that it is, some public servants think they are entitled to an answer and detailed explanation. They aren't. Often, but not always, Sean (and others) reply with something like 'I'm doing this for a project' and 'I'm gathering material for a story.' Having been given an answer, the public servant continues to press. This usually gets the reply of, 'At this time I'm not going to disclose the details of my story/where it will be published,' or similar.

Certainly the public official may ask questions. And also certainly the journalist may choose what info, if any, to disclose. Asking the same question again and again is certainly pestering. Demanding a journalist cease doing a lawful and protected activity is a breach of their authority and public trust. What happens next is the public servant, having been declined something s/he wasn't entitled, decides to escalate by calling security and/or police.

Entering a public facility and limiting oneself to the areas open to the public such as lobbies, foyers, waiting areas, art and historical exhibits, and unrestricted hallways is not provocative. Recording is not provocative. Public facilities are chock full of cameras - there are 15.28 CCTV cameras (both public and private) for every 100 individuals in the US - 2019 data. Many police wear body cameras. Many vehicles have front and rear mounted 'black box' video recording devices. Further, the Court has ruled repeatedly there is no expectation of privacy in the public domain. Yet, the dim persist.

Now, who's being provocative? The journalist doing lawful things? Or the uninformed public servant who persists at asking the same questions, who states incorrectly 'You're not allowed to record here', who calls police for no reason, and the police officer(s) who threatens arrest over a policy that violates the law?

We always have to consider the 'just because you can' - and please - Sean et al ARE NOT journalists!
They are provocatuers and chancers who are making money and begging for money exploiting a portion of law that is too lose and is designed that way to give sensible mature people freedoms and rights. I am reminded of my baby brother standing a milimter from nose saying Im not touching you' when Mum had told him not to.

 

[Ivo]

It's very clear what he's doing. He's recording and 'muttering' into his phone/camera. It's so obvious that it doesn't need to be asked. The better question is: 'Why are you recording?' As good a question that it is, some public servants think they are entitled to an answer and detailed explanation. They aren't. Often, but not always, Sean (and others) reply with something like 'I'm doing this for a project' and 'I'm gathering material for a story.' Having been given an answer, the public servant continues to press. This usually gets the reply of, 'At this time I'm not going to disclose the details of my story/where it will be published,' or similar.

Certainly the public official may ask questions. And also certainly the journalist may choose what info, if any, to disclose. Asking the same question again and again is certainly pestering. Demanding a journalist cease doing a lawful and protected activity is a breach of their authority and public trust. What happens next is the public servant, having been declined something s/he wasn't entitled, decides to escalate by calling security and/or police.

Entering a public facility and limiting oneself to the areas open to the public such as lobbies, foyers, waiting areas, art and historical exhibits, and unrestricted hallways is not provocative. Recording is not provocative. Public facilities are chock full of cameras - there are 15.28 CCTV cameras (both public and private) for every 100 individuals in the US - 2019 data. Many police wear body cameras. Many vehicles have front and rear mounted 'black box' video recording devices. Further, the Court has ruled repeatedly there is no expectation of privacy in the public domain. Yet, the dim persist.

Now, who's being provocative? The journalist doing lawful things? Or the uninformed public servant who persists at asking the same questions, who states incorrectly 'You're not allowed to record here', who calls police for no reason, and the police officer(s) who threatens arrest over a policy that violates the law?

the arguement about 'other' cameras - CCTV etc is BS - that footage is not made available to any one who has a wifi connection - there are strict rules about the data collected - we know that this footage is for security reasons - eg crime - and is not in the public domain and carefully controled/protected to preserve the subjects privacy - expected or not.
Again - it is not about the camera - if your boy stuck to filming it would not be a problem - but none of these dip sticks do - no one watches the videos for the hallways and historical content - Sean et al would not make any money filming walls and statues .... its the 'contact' and arguemnts that sell his content, like all of his type, thats why they do this.... and of course for the money they can get via Ads and ebegging

 

[S.SaulGood]

I really don’t give a *advertiser censored* about you, or what you have to say behind your *advertiser censored* keyboard. Your a piece of *advertiser censored* like I already said. Your a *advertiser censored* behind a *advertiser censored* keyboard or phone .

You're like the last angry turd that just won't flush, stubbornly circling the feces-friendly water of a toilet bowl!

If this is how you think, how you argue points, someone that even when INSTRUCTED on the marked difference between You and You're and after not one, not two, but three times can't seem to grasp ONE simple concept of basic English, then this is going to be an increasingly disappointing life for you; with even more, continued failure and disappointment than you've already gotten used to experiencing.

Are you unable to do anything other than name calling on a message board? You know, this isn't a battle arena. It's not like you can call me a cad to my face and slap me in the face with your lacy, velvet glove, and then we duel.

We're ALL behind our keyboards here. Me, you, everyone here. It's the reality of message boards, welcome to the internet, Princess.

We use WORDS and Images here to communicate because quite frankly, that's ALL we have. We don't have the option to use strikes and submission holds here. Sadly, you're unarmed and ill-prepared when it comes to words, so you resort to name calling and infer I'm a coward because I'm posting from "behind a keyboard"?

We ALL are behind a keyboard or phone, you consummate jackass, or there'd be nothing but blank text boxes until somebody gets to behind their keyboard. I actually have to explain this to you, Princess?

 

[ga gamba]

the arguement about 'other' cameras - CCTV etc is BS - that footage is not made available to any one who has a wifi connection - there are strict rules about the data collected - we know that this footage is for security reasons - eg crime - and is not in the public domain and carefully controled/protected to preserve the subjects privacy - expected or not.

Untrue. FOIA requests may be filed for the release of CCTV footage. Further, why it is you put so much trust in government and so little trust in other citizens? Seems to me this is indicative of the break down of community. Not only do corruption and misdeeds exist in both public officials and private citizens, the former has the power and resources of the state to cause you much more trouble. The deck in clearly stacked in the state's favour - quite a power asymmetry. If not for the Constitution and people willing to exercise their rights and defend them when infringed, watch your rights wither.

Again - it is not about the camera - if your boy stuck to filming it would not be a problem ...

Clearly your eyeballs are broken. Or you're a liar. At this time I'll be charitable and surmise you have broken eyeballs.

In every interaction I've viewed where an incident occurs the journalist is merely recording and, often but not always, quietly providing a narration. S/he is approached by security officers, public employees, police, and members of the public who initiate interpersonal communication with questions or commands. Once these questions and statements are made, the journalist responds verbally. 'I'm working on a story.' 'I'm allowed to record in public.' 'There no expectation of privacy in the public domain.' 'The policy does not comply with the law.' And so on. Some people find the answer sufficient and carry on with their activities. Other people decide they are entitled to more. Sometimes things escalate to include more demands and threats of arrest.

- but none of these dip sticks do - no one watches the videos for the hallways and historical content

This may be true. It may not be. I don't know. Appears you possess the same powers of mind reading that S.Saulgood has. Are you both graduates of the Carnac the Magnificent's School of Clairvoyance? Perhaps you're both Miss Cleo's psychic friends? Tell me, what am I thinking about you?

One overarching theme I see in journalism of all kinds is documenting a problem. Rarely do I read or see a news story of someone buying bread at a bakery... end of story. News journalism may report on a robbery at the bakery. A type of journalism provides a review of the bread baked at the bakery. Perhaps a story on entrepreneurship. Investigative journalism may reveal rat faeces in the bakery's flour and other health code violations. Sometimes there will be follow up reports documenting how things were resolved, if at all.

- Sean et al would not make any money filming walls and statues .... its the 'contact' and arguemnts that sell his content, like all of his type, thats why they do this.... and of course for the money they can get via Ads and ebegging

Perhaps. I think that if security, police, and other public officials complied with the law and not arbitrary policies they would provide very few of the acts you think interest viewers. If viewership waned, there goes the money. If your claim is accurate , then the best way to defeat them would be for public servants to craft policies that comply with the law and to allow people to exercise their rights without impediment in public areas where this is permitted.

Personally, I think this is an issue public servants could resolve easily and at no cost. Perhaps that no cost aspect has thrown them for a loop. 'How can we fix a problem of our making without more money needed to fix what we've broken?' Such a conundrum then causes minds to freeze.

 

[ga gamba]

We always have to consider the 'just because you can'

If lawful, 'just because you may' is perfectly acceptable. When a lawful activity is deemed unacceptable by a public servant it has no basis in law and is arbitrary. This is an abuse of power. A good way to have people understand and respect law is for it to be clear, enforced evenhandedly, and eliminate arbitrariness.

- and please - Sean et al ARE NOT journalists!

Sadly for you, the law disagrees. That said, you may use your rights to petition legislators to establish a credentialing agency and to revise the First Amendment.

They are provocatuers and chancers who are making money and begging for money exploiting a portion of law that is too lose and is designed that way to give sensible mature people freedoms and rights.

Again, you're introducing arbitrariness into the equation. Rights exists for all, whether you or I deem these people mature and/or sensible. The people who have had some rights stripped, but not all rights, tend to be convicted felons and those declared mentally unfit by the court.

If you think the law is too loose, lobby your legislators to tighten them. BTW, when you say the law is too loose, you acknowledge the law exists and the acts don't breach it, ergo the acts you dislike are lawful.

I am reminded of my baby brother standing a milimter from nose saying Im not touching you' when Mum had told him not to.

Deliberately intruding on a person's physical space with threatening intent may be the crimes of harassment and assault in many jurisdictions. In jurisdictions where stand your ground laws exist, a person so threatened may defend him/herself as well. Personal space is subjective and depends on context. You may allow a friend or family member to come closer than a stranger.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Deliberately intruding on a person's physical space with threatening intent may be the crimes of harassment and assault in many jurisdictions.

Maybe in theory, but in practice? I've yet to see ANY 1AAer, no matter how aggressively they pursue and torture a victim, almost exclusively the elderly, women & children, cops (all soft target who will almost never fight back); their prime picks to stalk, be detained for "harassment".

In fact, ALL 1AAers appear to me to get VIP passes by police in most cases, even if the victim is the cop himself. I've seen 1AAers block the door to police cruisers and refuse to move, the cop eventually having to get in from the passenger side. Or stand in front of a cruiser, refuse to move, ordering the cop to back up, "You back up, pig. You're MY *advertiser censored*. I do with you AND MY CAR anything I want and you'll either love it OR ELSE. And that's MY gun, you're wearing. I paid for that. Give me that NOW or I'll take my gun from you". And you know what? They eventually back up and go around the 1AAer.

And the 1AAer will get a pass. Try that one day while crossing the street. Suddenly stop crossing in front of a police cruiser stopped at the light. Film the cops through their windshield, flipping them the bird and screaming, "I'll kill both of you fuckers unless you back up and go around me because I'm not moving, pigs", then rear back and hock a spitter at their windshield. Better yet, pull a Floyd Wallace (News Now Omaha). While blocking their path, film with one hand, and reach to the small of your back with the other, keeping it there, as if you've got your hand on a firearm tucked there. If by some remote, exponentially improbable chance the police DO detain you, just tell them your "back was itchy", and see if you get the same VIP pass and apology that Floyd always seems to get.

Do you think you'd experience is the same free pass that almost all 1AAers get? I don't think I'd have to be Carnak to predict the outcome, would I?

 

[ga gamba]

Maybe in theory, but in practice? I've yet to see ANY 1AAer, no matter how aggressively they pursue and torture a victim, almost exclusively the elderly, women & children, cops (all soft target who will almost never fight back); their prime picks to stalk, be detained for "harassment".

I haven't seen Sean get into the face (millimetres away was how Ivo described it and what I based my reply to him) of people. That said, I think you may have watched many, many more hours of these videos by many others, so was transpired between each and every person involved I can't say. I have seen others step into Sean's face, though more like centimetres away and not millimetres. The only non-law enforcement person come very close and perhaps touch Sean is the former lumberjack and now door watcher in Danbury, CT. But since he (in his own words) stated he doesn't care about the Constitution and the law, no surprise he gets into the rough stuff.

Have I seen both parties approximately 1 metre and greater away from each other exchanging words? Indeed I have. Have I seen both parties approach each other in the course of their verbal interaction? Yes. Have they generally kept 1 metre of so between themselves? Yes. Does this constitute intruding on someone's personal space with possible assault or harassment? No. I also haven't seen torture. I won't rule out you have a cockamamie definition of torture, but since you haven't provided it, my default is the standard one: the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. With the absence of physical acts, fighting words, and threats of imminent harm, a person choosing to become upset, offended, anxious, worried and the like does not meet the definition.

 

[S.SaulGood]

The only non-law enforcement person come very close and perhaps touch Sean is the former lumberjack and now door watcher in Danbury, CT. But since he (in his own words) stated he doesn't care about the Constitution and the law, no surprise he gets into the rough stuff.

Maybe Phil does care about the Constitution, but AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, with Sideshow Sean bumping into him repeatedly, cared more about performing his job.

Was that Sideshow Sean bumping into him, trying to bullrush his way through Phil? Or was it the Constitution running into Phil's chest over and over again?

IMO, Phil showed remarkable restraint. IMO, Sideshow Sean may not be Irish, but on that day, getting away with repeatedly running into Phil, as Phil did nothing more than stand his ground and push him back once, Sideshow Sean truly had the "luck o' the Irish" that he walked out of that hallway as fully functional as before he started PICKING A FIGHT with Phil. Yes. PICKING A FIGHT. Sideshow Sean WAS THE AGGRESSOR. He was also the INITIATOR AND INSTIGATOR. And why? Because he refused to comply with ANY of the building's policy, POLICIES that they are entitled to have in place.

Phil would have been within his rights to perceive ANY of those bumps to his chest as an attack, especially that LIA was the larger man, and act to neutralize his escalating his attack. He didn't. Kudos to Phil, a very patient man.

I wonder just how many hate and threatening emails, calls, visits to his home, etc., Phil has now gotten from LIA's followers, for nothing more than doing his job and exercising restraint in doing so?

 

[ga gamba]

Maybe Phil does care about the Constitution, but AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, with Sideshow Sean bumping into him repeatedly, cared more about performing his job.

Performing one's job still requires the person to do so whilst complying with the law. (This also applies to private citizens too. For example, the right to self defence does not allow the attacked to pursue his attacker to continue on with the violence in the form of retribution. Our acts often face some lawful constraints.) I understand this places a burden on law enforcement and security personnel. Yet it is one they willingly chose to accept when applying for the job and accepting the job offer. Further, they have received training, sometimes several iterations of it.

Was that Sideshow Sean bumping into him, trying to bullrush his way through Phil? Or was it the Constitution running into Phil's chest over and over again?

I didn't see any bullrushing. I saw Sean step to the side to bypass his blocked path and then Phil re-block his path. And I saw Phil step into Sean.

Because he refused to comply with ANY of the building's policy, POLICIES that they are entitled to have in place.

Public buildings are permitted to have policies that comply with the law and there may not be excessive policies, for example no unauthorised admittance, where there is no justification for it. No unauthorised admittance is appropriate for an interrogation room but excessive for a lobby. Given this is going to court, we'll see how it rules.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Performing one's job still requires the person to do so whilst complying with the law. (This also applies to private citizens too. For example, the right to self defence does not allow the attacked to pursue his attacker to continue on with the violence in the form of retribution. Our acts often face some lawful constraints.) I understand this places a burden on law enforcement and security personnel. Yet it is one they willingly chose to accept when applying for the job and accepting the job offer. Further, they have received training, sometimes several iterations of it.



I didn't see any bullrushing. I saw Sean step to the side to bypass his blocked path and then Phil re-block his path. And I saw Phil step into Sean.



Public buildings are permitted to have policies that comply with the law and there may not be excessive policies, for example no unauthorised admittance, where there is no justification for it. No unauthorised admittance is appropriate for an interrogation room but excessive for a lobby. Given this is going to court, we'll see how it rules.

But WHILE what is perceived as a repeated attack is in progress, AND ongoing, the person being assailed has every right to DEFEND himself. That's not retribution. That's self-defense.

What should Phil have done? "Well, he's only bumping me, I'll just grin and bear it", and if Sideshow Sean, the new Lord of Lawsuits isn't satisfied with chest bumps, and he starts throwing punches and kicks, what should Phil do? "Well, it could be worse. He's only battering me. I'm lucky he's not stabbing me, I'll just grin and bear it and cover up as best as I can". And if seeing he's unimpeded, Sideshow Sean, the new Lord of Lawsuits decides to produce a shiv like many of the California 1AAers carry and starts stabbing Phil, what should he do? Cover up? "This hurts, but at least it's not a firearm, I'll just hope he doesn't hit a vital area with his blade before someone shows up to intercede"? And frankly, WHO would have the right to intercede, if Sideshow Sean decided that he wanted to batter and stab Phil til' he's a bloody pulp? This is his right. If Phil isn;t allowed to defend himself, who would be allowed to defend Phil? Another security guard? No. Their job is to observe and report, and nothing else, right?

The whole idea that security and police must remain motionless, willing targets, when being attacked physically is insane, although that is the order from higher up. But then I don't see that in the Constitution anywhere. And I've looked for that right of attack. Maybe I just keep missing it.

 

[Ivo]

Cant be bothered with the silly arguements ga gamba - cleary you have a crush on Fat Hairy Kermit aka Sideshow Sean.
If you think he is an innocent who id fighting for yuour rights then you need to fit a small dark spot and wait for a very long time - he has court dates due - has chosen a Jury trial for the Danbury Debarcle - will be a good laugh.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Cant be bothered with the silly arguements ga gamba - cleary you have a crush on Fat Hairy Kermit aka Sideshow Sean.
If you think he is an innocent who id fighting for yuour rights then you need to fit a small dark spot and wait for a very long time - he has court dates due - has chosen a Jury trial for the Danbury Debarcle - will be a good laugh.

I think it's a good thing that you and ga gamba are here sharing your thoughts. I enjoy reading both of your posts, look forward to them, responding, and appreciate them.

I don't think Ga Gamba has a crush on Lawsuit Sean, IMO Ga is a strict Constitutionalist. "No policies transcend LAW, as laid out in the Constitution, no matter what". Or as Jen Psaki says, "he's all constitutionery and everything".

While you and I may be of the belief that it's WISE and logical for airports to screen passengers for weapons, and really wouldn't want to even entertain flying unless they did screen passengers for weapons, some see this as infringing on their 4th amendment rights, which I think is an insane view given just how MANY weapons are found by airport security each year during routine screening, not to mention illegal narcotic smuggling.

While some place as much faith in honor systems as they do in the Constitution, I don't. I've seen too much. Trained too many people who worked in security of one sort or another; and came to me for instruction because they had made tactical errors resulting in their injury by not being prepared or possessing the know how to neutralize an unexpectedly armed attacker while remaining unscathed.

Nobody should have any qualms about being screened at an airport as part of the boarding process, unless they don't care if the friendly skies can suddenly turn unfriendly for them in a big hurry if armed passengers board the plane with ill intent, honor system in place or not.

 

[S.SaulGood]

And ironically, the ones doing all the complaining, like Anselmo Ant, about airport screening aren't the ones that are boarding!

They're standing there complaining about "everyone's 4th amendment rights are being violate. These security people HATE the Constitution; they HATE America" ROFL.

Be interesting to see if they're equally anti-screening, because it violates everyone's 4A rights, if it's their flight and not somebody else's!

 

[ga gamba]

Nobody should have any qualms about being screened at an airport as part of the boarding process,...

I'm pretty sure I already covered this in an earlier comment. Lemme check... yep on page 2. '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.'

In case that wasn't clear, I'll say so again to make it extra special clear. It is reasonable to screen passengers for weapons to enter a secured area. Just as some areas of city hall and police station are restricted, so too may be areas of a public airport.

I don't know Anselmo Ant and his objection. I did view Sean's video at an airport, and since I know that event the following words are of that incident.

Apparently some people in the publicly accessible area outside the TSA screening area were concerned by Sean's filming also outside the outside the TSA screening area. They voiced these concerns to a state trooper who decided to 'investigate'. Some members of the public possess incomplete and inaccurate knowledge of the law - they are not subject matter experts. Police officers (hopefully) have better knowledge. They may not be as well as informed as a judge or lawyer, but to perform their duties they should posses much greater knowledge than the general public and also be willing and able to check out the law when encountering uncertainty.

A police officer assigned to patrol the airport ought to know what rules specific to that area apply. 'Officer, I saw someone filming the TSA area.' Some random person has made an allegation. Is it valid? The presumption of innocence applies.

The police officer has a few options here. He can further question the suspicious person to determine whether Sean why trying to bypass security controls, trying to impede TSA officials from performing their duties, etc. If it's nothing other than filming, then the trooper may inform the person that filming is permissible. He may walk over to ask the TSA agents something like, 'Is that fella there with the camera interfering with your operations?' and 'Is he violating TSA regulations?' The trooper may even decide to observe Sean, which I think is the most prudent action. Turn on the body camera as well to capture evidence of wrongdoing, if it happens.

Though an uninformed person may decide to over react and deem an activity suspicious, it may not be. Filming the TSA is not a crime. Because it's not a crime the trooper needs to proceed cautiously. 'Hey you! Doing something lawful. You are suspicious. I will now question you and demand answers. If you refuse to comply, you will be detained.' It doesn't work this way.

Police need to use their expertise and powers to discern lawful activity from unlawful activity. 'Show me your ID' as the first act is lazy. Not only is it lazy, it doesn't determine whether or not a person committed the unlawful act some random person alleges. It's a fishing expedition.

Rather than use his authority prudently, the trooper decided to escalate to a confrontational approach.

Further, prudence enhances security. If I were a genuine wrongdoer, I'd have someone in my cohort go walk around with a camera. Suddenly several police officers (often 4 and up to 8) have rushed off to confront him, which establishes gaps and seams in security elsewhere - resources are finite, after all. Perhaps those manning the CCTV ops centre are moving cameras to better record what's going on too - their attention has been drawn to the event, which is natural. I have created a distraction away from my target. Police have fallen victim to a feint. Will I succeed? Who knows? But 4 to 8 cops feasting on the big nothin' burger I served them elsewhere works to my advantage and aids my malevolent acts.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Sideshow Sean pleads the fifth, but must have meant the fifth dimension instead of the 5th amendment, because AFTER he pleaded the 5th he didn't STFU even for a second!

It seems that he perceives everyone who detains or confronts him is "shaking in their boots". Why? He's inferring that they FEAR him? Could he be that delusional? Ironically, the only one I've seen shaking is LIA.

And WTF is going on with the man *advertiser censored* Sideshow Sean is rocking? He's starting to look like "Robert Paulson" in Fight Club.

 

[S.SaulGood]

I don't know Anselmo Ant and his objection

Auditing America. Stands at airport screening areas loudly orating that nobody should be subjected to a search because it violates their 4A rights.