Photographs for news purposes may be taken ...except where prohibited by … Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel. What part of this do you not understand?
Katz vs. US Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? What does any of that have to do with bothering people at the Post Office?
@@LiveBD.50 The Post office is not a public place. Read the DHS memo that auditors love to mention. It allows for photography of the exterior of Federal buildings, but tenants of those buildings, including USPS may set rules regarding photography inside.
@@pacificcoast101 You are absolutely wrong. The DHS memo HQ-ORO-002-2018 protects the public’s right to photograph publicly accessible federal facility building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors and auditoriums; and directs FPS law enforcement personnel and PSOs to maintain security without adversely impacting the public’s rights relating to photography and videotaping.
@@LiveBD.50 From the DHS memo that auditors love to mention: "Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply. PHOTOGRAPHING THE INTERIOR OF FEDERAL FACILITIES (U) Title 41, Section 102-74.420 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides federal "policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes." It states, "Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of: a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned; b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes." (U//FOUO//LES) In applying this regulation to FPS protected federal facilities, FPS law enforcement personnel and PSOs should consider the following information when contemplating enforcement of the regulation. REGULATION APPLICATION "Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of…” Photography and videotaping the interior of federal facilities is allowed under the conditions set forth in (a) - (c) of the regulation unless there are regulations, rules, orders, directives or a court order that prohibit it. (b) (2), (b) (7)(E) (b) (2), (b) (7)(E) (b) (2), (b) (7)(E) (b) (2), (b) (7)(E) UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FPS INTERNAL USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FPS INTERNAL USE ONLY Page 3 For example, SSA has rules that prohibit photography and videotaping in its spaces. Similarly many courts issue no photography or videotaping in courtrooms and surrounding areas. The prohibition must be clearly posted or actual (in-person) notice must be given in order to be enforced. "a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned” Non-commercial photography and videotaping in space occupied by a federal tenant requires the verbal permission of the federal tenant. For example, a visitor to an Army Corps of Engineers office has verbal permission from the office manager to photograph the private promotion ceremony of a friend. A student is given verbal permission from the office manager to take photographs of the office for a school project. “b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned” Commercial photography and videotaping in space occupied by a federal tenant requires the written permission of the agency official authorized to approve commercial photography and videotaping. Journalists, news media, or other individuals photographing or videotaping for news purposes is not considered a commercial purpose. For example, a professional photographer has obtained written permission from the designated official at a building housing only Department of Interior offices to photograph architectural design work performed by one of the photographer’s clients. A movie company is given written permission from the designated official to videotape a federal facility. “c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes." recognizing this fact, the public is allowed to photograph interior building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors and auditoriums from publicly accessible areas. For example, someone can photograph in the common space and publicly accessible lobby of a federal facility. (U//FOUO//LES) If an individual is authorized to photograph or videotape the interior of a federal facility as discussed above, (b) (2), (b) (7)(E) (b) (2), (b) (7)(E) (b) (2), (b) (7)(E) UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FPS INTERNAL USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FPS INTERNAL USE ONLY Page 4 (U//FOUO//LES) This right, however, does not authorize a photographer to intrude on restricted space surrounding a security post, create loud or unusual noises or cause a nuisance, obstruct the usual use of entrances, lobbies and other commonly accessible space, impede or disrupt the performance of official duties by government employees or federal contractors, including the PSOs, nor prevent the public from obtaining government services provided in the facility in a timely manner.
@@LiveBD.50 You should read _Katz v. United States,_ 389 US 347 (1967). The question raised is, *“Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?”* There is no logical way to extend this to photography in a post office. To suggest so is complete nonsense.
@@LiveBD.50 Helps if you also follow these other 2 paragraphs from USPS Poster 7 (39 CFR 232.1 Conduct on Postal Property) Disturbances Disorderly conduct, or conduct that creates loud and unusual noise, or which impedes entrance to or departure from Post Offices™ or otherwise obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, and parking lots, or which otherwise tends to impede or disturb the public or employees in the performance of their duties, or which otherwise impedes or disturbs the general public in transacting business or obtaining the services provided on Postal Service property, is prohibited. Enforcement Security Force personnel will exercise the powers under 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and are responsible for enforcing the regulations in this notice in a manner that will protect U.S. Postal Service property. Postmasters or installation heads may, with the approval of the Chief Postal Inspector or designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement agencies to insure enforcement of the regulations in a manner that will protect U.S. Postal Service property. Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Special Agents, and anyone designated by the Chief Postal Inspector may also enforce these regulations. Poster 7, August 2016 PSN 7690-03-000-9181 Just to confirm the above is from 39 CFR 232.1 39 CFR 232.1 clause (e) Disturbances. Disorderly conduct, or conduct which creates loud and unusual noise, or which impedes ingress to or egress from post offices, or otherwise obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, and parking lots, or which otherwise tends to impede or disturb the public employees in the performance of their duties, or which otherwise impedes or disturbs the general public in transacting business or obtaining the services provided on property, is prohibited. 39 CFR 232.1 (q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon. (2) Local postmasters and installation heads may, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(d)(3) and with the approval of the chief postal inspector or his designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement agencies to insure that these rules and regulations are enforced in a manner that will protect Postal Service property. (3) Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Criminal Investigators, and other persons designated by the Chief Postal Inspector may likewise enforce regulations in this section. [37 FR 24346, Nov. 16, 1972]
@@bluecard009 just because that federal agent was ignorant does mean you're right. The post office doesn't want you filming there but they cannot legally stop you. If the auditor had stayed and challenged he would've proven them wrong
@@LiveBD.50 let me give you some info if you get arrested and charged with federal crimes such as trespassing, refusing to comply with a federal officer the fines arent small in fact the minimum is $250,000 to a maximum of $500,000 and/or jail time and that is a very long time... so i suggest you rethink what you are doing and go research federal poster 7 and the regulations on video and photography and the penalties of federal crimes....
- Looking for someone that will take the bait. - To make lousy content (or very good content, depending on your perspective - reaction channels be swimming in views right now!) for a lousy TH-cam channel. - Cognitive dissonance. - None whatsoever.
1.To document my purchase of a stamp 2.Postal employees should not feel provoked by a camera when they're at work, in public, within the time place and manner restrictions. 3.1st Amendment, Homeland Security Memo, and Poster7 4.To bring awareness of our rights as a free people, to show postal employees their rules, and to show the blatant ignorance of people that don't understand freedom in America.
@@LiveBD.50 But you stayed and filmed 5 long minutes after you bought your stamp. That is creepy and cringe. The only point you made is the fact that you are not allowed to film behind the counter.
They have security cameras inside the post office they just didnt like his camera because it wasn't something they can control and edit . It even films the counter and the video is public record
There is a post office here is Philly you need to audit. It’s in the Roosevelt Mall area code 19149. Guaranteed one of the postal workers will yell at you. She’s had numerous complaints.
Conduct that disturbs employees or customers is a crime on postal property. I'd like to see her call the cops and have him arrested for trespassing, if he doesn't immediately stop what he's doing and leave. Then the feds have up to 5 years in which to file federal charges for each act in violation of 39 CFR 232.1, which are federal misdemeanors each worth up to $5,000 and 30 days in prison.
He is not acting as an attorney in his job as a federal agent. So again your 1st amendment rights does not include harassments of the employees while they are in their place of work, and yes you can be trespassed from a public building. so again the rules of the post office have been reviewed by lawyers to make sure they fall in line with the constitution. So your have been incorrect from the beginning. You do not understand poster 7 and you have made the perfectly clear. Also you can look past the counter with your eyes however you cant record what is going on behind that counter. Your actions are not lawful Here, I did the research for you to help educate yourself Public buildings aren’t always open to the public. For example, you can’t walk into a public kindergarten class in the middle of the day just to assess the quality of instruction. You can’t amble up to the Governor’s Mansion at 2:00 a.m. on a Tuesday and let yourself in. And you can’t conduct your own inspection of the state’s correctional facilities whenever you choose. You’re not “authoriz[ed]” to do those things, because “[i]t is not the case that all property owned by the government is ‘open to the public.’ Certain areas of publicly-owned buildings may be restricted from public use by a locked door or a front desk, much like the common areas of privately-owned buildings.” People v. Barnes, 41 N.E.3d 336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015) (affirming a trespass conviction based on a defendant’s presence in the lobby of a public housing building). See also Wilson v. State, 504 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. Ct. App. 2016) (observing that “governmental entities have the same rights as private property owners to control their properties, so long as the entity’s policies are not employed as a subterfuge for illegal discrimination”). Heres the link as well: nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/trespass-and-public-buildings/
SC has already ruled on this in State v. Hanapole Trespassing has no application to public property absent a crime. Time place and manner are the only restrictions that can be enforced.
@@wazhazhe5831 Not even clear how a state ruling on the misuse of an old trespassing statute has any bearing on what's happening in the US Post Office. It would be interesting to see if (a) there is a different statute for trespassing in SC now, and (b) if any SC court has clarified the laws for entry and remaining upon PUBLIC property and the legality of being arrested when you refuse to follow their rules. Edit: Upon further research, it seems that South Carolina does have some odd "trespassing" statutes defining specific types of "public property" where "criminal trespass after notice" can be enforced.
What is wrong with this guy? You can't record/take photos of private information of other American citizens. Otherwise people would go in there, set up HD cameras and get addresses and other personal information from everyone conducting business there. They should of arrested you and took your camera.
Jeff, This was a 1st A Audit, not hidden camera surveillance. In the U.S. we have rights amended to the Constitution and case law that recognize what I was doing was not only legal but protected.
@@LiveBD.50 No. Not even remotely true. For example, people are conducting private business at a window with their personal information. It is illegal for some guy with a high-def camera filming them and capturing their audio and personal information. Hence, you were breaking the law. Also, that is not a public space like a sidewalk. That is a private federal building that has public access for people to conduct their private business. Their are rules and regulations. You do not have a right to be in there doing whatever you want like filming private information. Last, filming employees behind the counter is not about filming the person, it's about all the letters and private information you could gather. Imagine people like you thinking they can do this and the information they could gather about private American citizens. The fact that you don't understand this is remarkable. Leave your audits to legal things, not trying to gather private information from other Americans.
@@jeffdecola I have no interest in capturing private information, and if I did I would edit it out. My story is on untrained, and ill informed postal employees. I even showed respect to the customers in line by aiming my camera away from them. There's plenty of scams out there for you to investigate, this is not one of them. My work is done lawfully.
@@LiveBD.50 "if I did I would edit it out." Wow, what a complete lack of understanding. 'Hey lady, I captured your private information by accident, but don't worry I'm a good guy and not a scammer. When I get home I'll edit it out. So you can trust me with your private information, I got a youtube channel'. Just an absolute stunning lack of understanding.
@@LiveBD.50 please do.. The guy you called was a complete dbag and doesn't give a crap about your rights... His job and paycheck don't allow for that kind of bs
@@LiveBD.50 "Only if it's constitutional"? Like any other federal laws (and regulations like those on Poster 7, 39 CFR s. 232.1), they are PRESUMED to be constitutional until you can prove in federal court that they are not. Keep us posted on your progress.
@@UpnorthHere This was already decided. Quote from the US supreme court: Not only is the right to photograph and videotape law enforcement activities and personnel in public places an established First Amendment right (regardless of whether the activity may be deemed “expressive”), but the right is essential to protect the citizen-press, which plays an ever increasingly important role in the dissemination of information.
You have poster 7 info in your description and can't even follow it. It clearly says you are only allowed to film in those areas if a person of authority of the place allows it - or you have to sop filming as soon as a person of authority of that place tells you to stop filing. But, I know it's hard to understand simple words. And here is another copy telling the same stuff: § 102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes? Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of - (a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned; (b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and (c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes. Also: Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corri-dors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. _____ Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or installation head. ____
People in government are not the most informed, and routinely overstep their bounds of authority. Our rights afforded to us in the constitution can not be revoked, even by people in authority who refuse to read their rules, or feel uncomfortable. I'm not shooting a movie, a commercial, or entering in to any tenant agencies, so I don't need permission. The Post Office doesn't allow me to photograph for news purposes, the right to free press does.
@@JDM12983 sometimes these clowns think that people that don't agree with them are uneducated. Like that guy namee blue. He thinks that poster 7 gives them permission as well.
I used to love watching my 600 pound life if I ever needed a little pick me up but these videos of muppet auditors are 10 times better. If you’re eve struggling with life all you gotta do is watch some of this trash and you’ll realize there are actually people out there this sad, lonely, unemployed, and illiterate and that no matter what you’re going through, at least you will never be this guy :)
I remember watching this video on another channel that completely embarrassed you! It was HILARIOUS! The best part was when both the postal inspector AND his supervisor completely owned you, and educated you on the law, and all you could do was stumble and babble a few words to try to make yourself not look like such a fool 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Live bd was correct on anything and everything he was trying to talk to both these men. Both Men were Educated by Washington after they were contacted. They found out Live bd was correct all along.
@@BestPMintown22 Proof, direct quote from the US supreme court. Not only is the right to photograph and videotape law enforcement activities and personnel in public places an established First Amendment right (regardless of whether the activity may be deemed “expressive”), but the right is essential to protect the citizen-press, which plays an ever increasingly important role in the dissemination of information.
@@star2gmail really, have you seen some of the "disimination" being put out there. You are dilusional. They are Criminal pieces of shit, all of them!!! Not there to do any good at all!!!
@15:40 you even show the rule from poster 7 where it clearly states unless prohibited by authorized personnel or security force... a postal inspector is both of those you fool lol
@@LiveBD.50 yes they can, did you pove you were a member of the press and show ID? no? then they dont have to believe you are press... and can kick you out... also if you dont have official business again they can kick you out, if you claim to be buying a stamp they can still tell you to leave... you really havent got a clue about poster 7...
Postal inspector is old and grey, and don't know what is going on around him. He is a disgrace for the Postal service and his family. I sincerely hope he has more knowledge of raising children and how to treat his wife.
I know! I thought Postal Inspectors were the most knowledgeable employees at the Post Office on the Rules and Regulations. But as I experienced they are the most ignorant.
26:00 he's laughing in your face, cause this entire conversation with you got so ridiculous. i, too, was laughing when he finally ended the call professionally (after displaying extreme patience), and hung up while you were still babbling about the 1st amendment.
So you left even though you "think" your correct? Why not 1) Require the postal inspector to show ID and 2) Man up let the cops come and show them the post 7 and then you can file a complaint against both agencies.
@@LiveBD.50 Yeah you failed Big Time and did not stand up to these government officials like UGF West Coast and Ike Van rosendaal did in their 1st Audit videos...Oh wait...they DON'T have any videos... yet they are quick to pass judgment on how you do yours when you are the one putting your butt on the line. I personally think you could have handled it differently too, but thanks for getting out there and trying. You don't have to get arrested to effect change, and I think the phone call was and is going to be helpful..Please consider sharing this with Rogue Nation, Jeff Gray, Battousai, and the other veteran auditors that may be able to help you out getting your work seen. GOOD LUCK with the return visit and BE SAFE!
funny how most of the people commenting are telling you how foolish and unducated you are on poster 7, so are you saying we are all wrong about poster 7 even the postal staff?
Most people just do as their told and don't question authority. These keyboard warriors would never have the courage to go out in public and exercise their constitutional rights.
@@LiveBD.50 why dont you make a video showing poster 7 and the photography regulation and rules and tell us exactly what and why you think they give you permission to do something... then go and watch the 40 or 50 videos on both my channels that tell you and show you what the USPS regulations are... and mean...
@@LiveBD.50 also i go out filming police and other public employees many times but i dont get arrested, i dont cause a problem, i even get into court rooms you clowns dont... i even get into public meetings you dont... why do you think that is? because i get invited to attend them, i ask permission, i get a permit, and i NEVER have been arrested or trespassed from ANY public building... which mans you are like the others doing these videos to get clicks and views and a possible lawsuit which you wont win because you dont know how the others do it...
Frauditor walks in with smug attitude, quoting Poster 7. Postal Inspector turns up with said Poster 7. If you're told to shut down recording, you shut down recording. Frauditor does the walk of shame, smugness obliterated.
i write this from europe i'm sick of seeing these oath breakers i've tried several times post writing (email) making complaints to the post office general manager but they only accept complaints by internal mail US if it was possible from you i would like to continue this complaint and take it to the top possible I saw that only the agent and that he has an email what will be the other way to contact the other instances by email?
This main branch does not answer the phone, and the Postmaster does not return phone calls. The toll free number had a long hold time and then the call would disconnect. Jeff never did identify, I got his info off his business card when he opened his notebook.
@@LiveBD.50 .this site is the only one I can find and it has a form. but can only be used in the US is from the Washington DC Inspector General's website www.uspsoig.gov/form/file-online-complaint
lol They aren't breaking any oaths. Give me a break. Our freedoms are limited and this has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment, which is limited like the rest.
This is the important part about poster 7 It's on poster 7, look for the section that's titled (penalties and other law) The keyword is (ABROGATE) ab•ro•gate repel or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement) Understand this and you will understand why it's legal to video in the Post Office or any other public building... As long as you are in a public accessible area and not breaking the law...
Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other federal laws or regulations or any state or local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
Is you two morons were correct! Every time one these frauditors gets arrested, the courts wouldn’t find them guilty of trespassing! Spoiler alert! They are ALWAYS Found guilty! 😂
@@Atlas6355_ Remember, you cannot walk on a public sidewalk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12 o'clock noon without your government's permission... 😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 😋 👢
Wait a minute,,,,,,,,, if you don’t count what is after the OR to what is before the OR then….. What about the last sentence which you specifically left out. This applies to Everything in the first sentence, or the second part of the first section.
Poster 7 was written by lawyers to give postal security force personnel guide lines to control federal property while still being compliant with the 1st amendment. If photography was prohibited it would say so, but it doesn't because it's not. The right to free press overrides any and all rules or regulations. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land.
@@LiveBD.50 the words “except where prohibited”, fills in for prohibiting photos. Also the last sentence goes a step further allowing other photos to be taken only with the permission of the postmaster or instillation head. There is all so a Very big difference between freedom of the press and infringing on other peoples privacy. As you state the right to free press overrides any and all rules or regulations. The key phrase in your comments is free press, freedom of the press. No one here showed credentials that they were press. If you go to a concert and an area has a sign saying press only, do you think you have the right to go back stage to the press only area.
@@bruceyale9302 There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, there are no government issue credentials that allows you to be the press, and concerts that are privately operated can set their own rules. The USPS have their rules and regulations written and posted so that no employee can just make one up. If photography was prohibited, then the rules wouldn't say photographs for news purposes may be taken.
@@LiveBD.50 yea but you don’t have a right to go on someone’s property and film in my state. They got a peeping Tom law for that. Means you step on my property and film it. You can be charged. Also you might find yourself staring down the barrel of a gun
@@LiveBD.50 "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public." How is that tidbit relevant, much less applicable in the private business area of a post office? The people there DO have an expectation that only authorized photographers will be allowed in there for specifically authorized purposes. That's even BEFORE you create a disturbance or interfere with customers or employees in any way, which is a separate federal crime. "Please don't film me" means you're disturbing people. "Come look at the regulations", means you're disturbing additional people, for additional criminal charges.
@@LiveBD.50 you know what after rewatching to pull the segments i actually think you just didn't notice when the second employee entered she told you you would have to stop recording or leave the building and that the inspector was asking you to identify yourself when he asked if you were media so im going to edit my comment you didn't lie but you did misunderstand just as i misunderstood my apologies, you are still incorrect on the policies at hand non the less.
They aren't filming for any reason at all they just want a reaction from the people who are inside that building. They just want to make a fuss over nothing. They are doing this for attention from the people inside federal buildings and state buildings. They want to see how far they can go until they are told to stop filming so they can upload it and say that their rights are being taken from them. This is all they do.
A postal inspector or post master can ask you to stop recording only if you have committed a crime or creating ruckus in that public space. Having granted a permission, you cannot revoke that permission just because you are exercising the granted permission.
There is no such rule anywhere. You can't just make things up to suit your narrative. That's like saying they similarly can't prevent you from carrying in a firearm unless you start threatening people with it. No, that's not how it works.
@@UpnorthHere what are you trying to say? Me no understando😄. If you are given permission to carry a firearm, they cannot restrict you or revoke that permission just because you are recording as well. Or because you are wearing a yellow shirt. It is another story if they ban firearms altogether. Another way out is to say we will only allow people to exercise a certain permission based on our whims. Of course you cannot frame such a regulation in a public setting.
@@vajrapaniom7410 Yes, clearly you do not understand. Okay let me try it this way: You seem to say they can't exercise control over people who stupidly believe they have the right to film in the post office. I say that they can. Poster 7 even says they can. Federal laws and regulations say they can. The US Supreme Court has even ruled in this area, stating that "reasonable restrictions" on First Amendment rights is applicable to the lobby of the US post office. If you do not comply with instructions of the authorized individuals there, they can fine you $5,000 and put you in prison for 30 days. Whether you have "permission" to film is left for you to prove in federal court.
@@UpnorthHere and how many have been fined? How many of them have challenged? How many won/ lost? Anyone can make up rules like you need to lick boots whenever you see a postal employee. It will remain there until challenged.
@@vajrapaniom7410 Your silly strawman bootlicker rule is juvenile and unpersuasive. Look up some of the court opinions in actual federal cases regarding First Amendment conduct on postal property and routinely upholding the restrictions. According to your logic, failure to fine and lock up every offender must mean it's legal to ignore all regulations you don't like. Many sovereign citizens feel the same way and watching them get arrested on their own YT videos, if not also their subsequent courtroom fails, is entertaining.
The asshole can’t just buy his stamp and leave. He has to hang around being an ass until he gets someone to respond to him. After the purchase he’s intent on causing a disturbance - and he should be removed and/or arrested.
@@blueforest4589 You really should post this a few times, so people don't miss it. Oh, wait, you have done. Lots of times. Aren't you bored doing that, because everyone else is.
A lot of nonsense has been posted in the comments for this video. Much of it has centered around Poster 7. The most ridiculous of these has been about the punctuation used. Based on this, and using some of the most convoluted logic I’ve ever seen, came up with an absolutely ludicrous interpretation of the meaning. The problem here is *Poster 7 is not the Federal Statute.* The actual statute is included below. *Code of Federal Regulations* (Last Updated: March 29, 2021) Title 39 - Postal Service CHAPTER I - UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE SUBCHAPTER D - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION Part 232 - CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY *(i) Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes. Except as prohibited by official signs or the directions of security force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or rule, photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head.* Parse that any way you like. Security force personnel, in this case a postal inspector, has the authority to regulate photography in a post office. He has the authority to require you leave the property, and even detain you until the police arrive and arrest you for trespass. There were no rights violated. There is no legal recourse here. Grow up.
Technically, that's a regulation, authorized by statute. The regulation clearly says photography EVEN FOR NEWS PURPOSES can be prohibited "by rule". There are thousands of pages of federal rules. Some of those rules routinely restrict news agencies that want to photograph in the post office for any purpose. What, where, when, how, who and why. § 232.1(d) also requires everyone to comply with instructions of "authorized individuals" in the post office. No ifs, ands or buts.
@@UpnorthHere The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it's over the post office, that's why photographs may be taken. If they could prohibit it they would but they can't says the 1st Amendment.
Other photographs require permission. Photographs for news purposes can only be restricted by time place and manner. Also according to the Supreme Court of SC, trespassing only applies to private property.
@@wazhazhe5831 State v. Hanapole The SC Trespassing statute is "clearly for the purpose of protecting the rights of the owners or those in control of private property".
How old is the post office? 1966 Steve is lying about the agreement between the Post Office and the local police department. If he knows agreement exists he would know what it is called. Did you FOIA the local police for the Memo of understanding between the police department and the Post Office.
Every federal employee involved in this interaction did the same thing: Made errors and omissions to the extent of being fraudulent. I think their actions are significant enough to warrant both criminal and civil action. I would make a transcript of everything and ask a few law firms to press it before considering giving the evidence to the local federal attorney general. How will you proceed from here?
lol, "warrant both criminal and civil action". Dude, they trespassed him, plain and simple, there's nothing to sue about. That's fucking retarded. Although I *would* love to see him break his bank on an attorney just so he can go down in flames when he loses. That's if he could actually find a lawyer that would be willing to take the case and I'd put up my life savings betting that he never could.
You do a perfect job of explaining the laws. In watching other audit videos, to the viewer, it can be sometimes blurry as to what can be done when filming in the lobby of a post office. When the postmaster says "you cannot photograph the area where they are making transactions", the "Katz vs US" case explains this perfectly. The postmasters statement is false. The eyes cannot be guilty of trespass. So just the same, your camera (the eyes) cannot be guilty of trespass. When reading laws, I have found that you have to really know the logic as well as the English language. I have visited a law library in my city. There is a whole volume of books that only contain the meanings of English statements. You do a great job of explaining the wording in Poster 7. The "or" statement is another term in the sequence of statements divided by the comma. So therefore what is written after the statement ", or auditoriums" only applies to auditoriums. A person that is not well versed in English could decipher this statement incorrectly. Before you explained it, I also mis-interpreted this statement. But now I understand it perfectly.
You should read _Katz v. United States,_ 389 US 347 (1967). The question raised is, *“Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?”* There is no logical way to extend this to photography in a post office. To suggest so is complete nonsense. Furthermore, there is no legal basis for your “opinion” on the serial comma. Please cite a US Supreme Court decision that rules so. You can’t because there is not one.
The US Postal Service has the legal right to restrict First Amendment activities on properties under its supervision (e.g., owned or leased as post offices), just as they may restrict Second Amendment rights (no firearms on the property) and Fourth Amendment rights (they may search your purse, briefcase or other containers brought upon the premises), all as shown on Poster 7 (taken from 39 CFR 232.1). Just because it's "open to the public", doesn't give anyone the legal right to violate the rules. The fact that they can't be bothered to school you with fines and prison doesn't make the rules unenforceable. They have five years in which to file federal charges.
@The Alan Green Project: You say, "The eyes cannot be guilty of trespass. " There is no such law. The typical case falsely citing that dictum as legal basis for that assertion is related to "trespassing" by cops entering a place after SEEING a violation (peeking over the transom from the hallway) and then failing to get the required warrant. Since they arguably had the right to be where they were (having broken into the landlady's apartment, who let them into the hallway), their reliance upon the "plain view doctrine" was only justified to the point at which the suspects were not attempting to flee or to destroy the evidence, making it the perfect interval in which to seek a judicial warrant. In the present case, it's not the "seeing" that is the issue; it is the continuation of the unlawful photography for alleged "news purposes" after being officially ordered to stop. The "eyes" were not "trespassing"; the clown pointing the camera was trespassing, i.e., refusing to leave after being instructed to stop his criminal activity. McDONALD et al. v. UNITED STATES. U.S. Supreme Court, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948). "Looking over the transom was not a search, for the eye cannot commit the trespass condemned by the Fourth Amendment."
If he's a postal inspector he has arrest power and does not need local PD to affect an arrest. This is the dumbest, most unprofessional Postal Inspector on You Tube so far.
Yeah, we're not dealing with the sharpest tool in the shed here... His reading comprehension is less than stellar, as also displayed in other comments on here.
@@alexandersinclair I am a mail carrier and every office was notified by postal service not to engage these people and they have every right to do this and to engage you would be disciplined or fired! Poster 7 is correct !
@@bobspenner4450 Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or installation head.
@@drakea.5816 Technically, "put a stamp on an email" could be implemented any number of ways in email servers. We used to do that with email and other messaging before the internet. For instance, sending MCI Mail was metered, as was Western Union's EasyLink in 1982.
If cameras annoy people they should stay home LOL! Seriously there are multiple cameras in the post office, on the street corners, and everywhere else.
@@LiveBD.50 and cameras are around my house to make sure clowns like you stay off my property because you don’t have any respect for anyone or anything
@@blueforest4589 you really havent got a clue have you... you are another rogue nation sock account lol one, if you claim to be press they can ask for ID fail to provide it, then they dont have to believe what you claim, also just because you are press doesnt mean you can just walk in AND FILM, you also fail to understand the part that says UNLESS PROHIBITED... you also fail to understand the other sections within poster 7, one of which clearly states video can not be taken of employees, customers or postal address or mail... you really are an idiot! oh and dont spout off DHS memo that doesnt apply to postal property as the USUPS has its OWN federal rules and regs... which you obviously failed to read...
@@LiveBD.50 You mean: "Looking over the transom was not a search, for the eye cannot commit the trespass condemned by the Fourth Amendment." McDonald et al. v. United States, 335 U.S. 45, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948), holding that a search warrant for the room should have been obtained after they visually observed the crime. Please explain how this particular ruling is even remotely related to the premise, "What ever you can see in public you can film."
I believe everybody's call that postal inspector and have the same conversation I will do that to day myself. If the supervisor of the postal inspectors don't know their own rules and regulations why has he got a job why are we paying him $90000 a year this that is a guess to be an ignorant person
Doesn't understand Poster 7, doesn't understand 39 CFR 232.1, doesn't understand 39 USC 401 or the Title 18 criminal code referenced on Poster 7, doesn't understand federal court opinions, doesn't understand "the Constitution"... Also, doesn't understand the additional THOUSANDS of pages of postal regulations incorporated by 39 CFR § 211.2, including administration and operations manuals, postal publications, etc. Any of those could include a "rule" that restricts photography for "news purpose" on postal property.
Lol good luck with your goofy attempt to waste federal agents times and your inability to understand what has been plainly laid out to you. This guy tells you flat out you're not allowed to film customers interactions with and at the post office.
Postal inspectors have been known to come "visit" 1A fraudtiors at home to have a chat about "right and wrong", before serving them with a criminal summons for federal crimes.
@@UpnorthHere People forget that while the post office isnt technically a federal org its a private org with a federal mandate and the postal inspectors are federal agents and postal property is considered federal property. Cant say im surprised by people getting visits when they go out of their way to be troublemakers. Same way im not surprised the secret service visits people who make repeated, or detailed enough, threats on the president ect.
excellent, a postal inspector who understands poster 7. Of course if this frauditor actually believed his own BS he would have taken the detainment and arrest and took it to court.
First, you were NOT taking that video for news purposes, as you are NOT a member of the press. Second, at 20:53 is your other problem, you clearly do not understand English.
@@LiveBD.50 Get a job as a journalist/reporter at a newspaper, television network, or reputable internet news agency/website. Then you can claim to be a member of the press. Good luck with that, though. They will require more than a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension.
@@kennethcook9406 No thanks, that's just your opinion. Independent Journalists are the press, and equally protected under the First Amendment. Branzburg v. Hayes U.S. Supreme Court.
@@LiveBD.50 Independent journalism hasn't existed for over twenty years, and even if it did still exist that doesn't make every yahoo with a youtube channel a journalist. Especially when said yahoos can't understand simple english on a poster. For example, the word "or" does NOT mean that what follows only applies to that part of the statement. It's not a new sentence, therefore the part at the end still applies to the ENTIRE sentence. Any middle or high school english teacher can tell you that.
Has anyone really read the Poster 7? Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or installation head. 1) when used for public meetings. 2) except where prohibited by official signs. 3) except where prohibited by Security Force personnel. 4) except where prohibited by other authorized personnel. 5) except where prohibited by a federal court order or rule. 6) Photos taken only with approval of local Postmaster or instillation head. I, my self, do not understand why this is so hard to understand. Where did auditors get the impression that they can freely go into a postal facility and freely film and then refuse to leave or cease activities when asked to do so. It clearly states these particular requirements. In this case, I think the auditors need the education. Also, many municipalities, nation wide, strike an agreement with local, county, or state law enforcement for service to the postal facility. Whether voluntary or paid. Most likely, there is an agreement. Maybe I am wrong. However, still film the police. It is for our protection.
This frauditor wants attention and public money. He will earn money by disrupting public service. If he was really serious about law and all, he would have went in lawful ways. Not illegally shooting videos under name of News Channel. TH-cam channel is not News Channel.
Did you read poster 7? Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums Before the except this is permission, after except is prohibited.
1 you are not news media 2 poster 7 does clearly state they can tell you no 3 Katz vs US is about a wiretapping of a payphone booth 4 the court ruled he did have a level of privacy. You need to learn to read better. You also need to listen better as well. He told you that you film in the lobby. Not in the transaction area. You fail big-time as an auditor.
1.I'm an Independent Journalist, Branzburg v. Hayes 2.They can't tell the Press no, 1st A 3.Reasonable expectation of privacy originated from Katz v. U.S. 4.Privacy has to be created
@@LiveBD.50 do you have a NPPA card? Katz's was bases on a telephone booth wiretapping. It had nothing to do with expectation of privacy in public. Did you not read the case or did you cherry pick it? Cherry picking doesn't count, it the final decision that does. The court sad he did have a right to privacy in the booth. The wiretapping was illegal.
@@thunderbird0024 More to the point, the rules allow photography for "news purposes" until restricted by someone in authority. First, how is standing in the lobby looking at people doing ordinary business "news purposes"? Second, even if it were B-roll for some other actual news, you legally have to stop, under the clearly posted rules, when officially told to stop. Then you either leave or get arrested.
@@UpnorthHere No, that's not how the law works. If it were then photography would be prohibited. My story is not on the people in line, it's on the employees that don't know there rules, and on the post offices that can't seem to make a profit like UPS and Fedex.
At this filming and Audit....Steve Stebbins had no clear clue what the Poster 7 actually meant until someone contacted Washington and he changed his tune on what is actually allowed. This Auditor was correct All Around.
You can claim that the "moon is made of green cheese", because someone contacted Washington. The Postal Inspector was correct that you have to leave the post office when instructed by "security forces or authorized individuals". They can still mail the Auditor a summons for multiple federal crimes, if they have nothing better to do with their limited budget and resources.
Just getting stonewalled on the phone, seeing as you found the relevant laws and put em up on the screen, just go back and force the issue. Then they will have to deal with it.
You're the one that failed. You gave up too damn easily. Part of the 1st Amendment, is to be able to redress and challenge our government. It doesn't matter if he's a Postal Inspector. The postmaster is actually over him.
Thank you for your feedback, I went in at a quarter to five to do a quick walk through and show what a great Post Office we had in Columbia. I had no idea the employees there at the main branch were so uninformed on their rules and regulations. I will Definitely be back!
@@W.Stryker It shouldn't take a "law degree" to know that when you're intentionally annoying people who are going about their business in the US Post Office, that there are "rules" that apply, even if the people there to enforce them at that moment don't do anything.
hiw did you get such a large audience of karens? HOw can people watch this video and think you were wrong? AMag press, long island and all these people everyday are protected by the 1st amendement
The "first amendment", as you know, is not without limitations as to time and place of "free expression". Inside the US Post Office is one of those limitations as ruled in numerous federal court cases.
@@UpnorthHere amagansetts press was tresspassed from a usps. He sued them and they settled. So no, post office is not one of the limitations. If you want i have a playlist of videos where people have proven what you believe is false. Just provide me a busines email or something(obviously don't give me anything personal.)
@@justjunk3268 A court settlement doesn't prove he was right. Playlists are generally not federal court opinions. Show me even ONE of of those. l'll get you started: Moore v. United States Postal Service, United States District Court, N.D. New York, Jan 13, 2005 (post offic eis not a public forum and reasonable restrictions on speech may be imposed) U.S. v Kokinda, 497 U.S. at 732, 110 S.Ct. at 3122-23 (There is little question that the Postal Service is essentially a commercial enterprise. " Even if more narrowly tailored regulations could be promulgated, the Service is only required to promulgate reasonable regulations [limiting free speech on its premises] , not the most reasonable or the only reasonable regulation possible.")
@@LiveBD.50 the postal inspector can also prohibit you from filming. The post office is not a public forum, it’s been litigated in the us Supreme Court, snd you do not have unfettered first amendment rights.
@@LiveBD.50 Just because there is a comma before the word "or" doesn't mean it invalidates the rest of the sentence. Grammar doesn't work that way. I suggest two things. Go take first, a reading comprehension class and then a grammar one, because you really need it. Or stop doing this because it makes you look like an idiot!
the "or" does not start a new sentence you absolute fool. That makes no sense whatsoever. The auditorium is simply the last place on a list of places. How can people be this fucking stupid?!?!?
It’s interesting on how when they quote policies and procedures they change the narrative to suit their needs. Even the man on the phone wants to twist the narrative to meet what he wants as a rule policy or procedure so much for the law.
@@LiveBD.50 ~ Because now you know that you have been ignoring a major portion of the poster seven paragraph that most frauditors ignore, where it starts with the word EXCEPT! Why bother people in the Post Office? It’s not even a Government owned business.
@@angelforanimals7809 The employees are bothering me! I go in minding my own business, in a public space, and inevitably get confronted with someone who thinks they have more authority than they actually do. Fedex and UPS are not government owned business.
@@LiveBD.50 ~ You do NOT going in minding your own business. You go in there hoping for confrontation, why deny it? If you go on and they get a pass, your “hungry for drama” viewers, stop watching. When you are asked to stop filming in the post office, you are supposed to stop filming in the post office. That has been pointed out to you, however, you’ve made it clear you have no intention of doing that. What’s your next goal? Getting arrested for more views and hopefully a few dollars? These people have to work there and when you make them uncomfortable and stress them out, that’s not fair to them.✌️
Poster #7 are rules and Regulations of Postal Employees are based on the Constittution of the United States and the BIll of Rights. He has a right to film public in a Public Building which all Post Offices are.
Incorrect. The regulations are for "conduct on postal property" he has the right to film in the post office where and when they say he can film in the post office. Similarly, it says you must comply with instructions of authorized individuals, i.e, when they tell you to stop, and to refrain from "impeding or disturbing" customers or employees". Rudely insisting they drop their other duties and "come read their regulations" is a federal crime. Up to $5,000 fine and 30 days in prison. 39 CFR § 232. Regulation of Conduct on postal property, 1, 18 USC § 3601: Criminal code.
@@donnacicero9476 That's what you WANT it to say. That is obviously wrong. The post office regulates your First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights, like any other private business.
@@UpnorthHere The Post Offices are Public Buildings. The U.S. Post Office does NOT regulate The U.S. Constitution not it’s amendments in The Bill of Rights.
@@donnacicero9476 Uhm,hello? Each federal agency has the right to regulate conduct on its property, within the bounds of the Constitution. The USPS does that with REGULATIONS like 39 CFR § 232.1, and the Administrative Support Manual, among others. The US Supreme Court has upheld that right. You simply ignoring the law doesn't make it go away.
Hint: You don't decide what restrictions the Constitution allows. The federal courts do. You can test it as either a plaintiff in a civil suit or as a defendant in a criminal case.
@@donnacicero9476 This is the US supreme court's take on that Not only is the right to photograph and videotape law enforcement activities and personnel in public places an established First Amendment right (regardless of whether the activity may be deemed “expressive”), but the right is essential to protect the citizen-press, which plays an ever increasingly important role in the dissemination of information.
@@LiveBD.50 he never truly identified himself with name which he must. Barely saw the badge. Also the call with his boss you needed to bring up the DHS memo and explain to him that one. That complaint will go no where, sorry to say
@@RichardMillerMMVVIDEO You're probably right, I will need to return to the scene of the crime and show the postal employees that what I was doing was lawful.
Cherrypicking and lying to a Supervisory Federal Agent. You better be glad he just got annoyed and rushed you off the phone instead of CHARGING you for filing a False Report to a FEDERAL AGENT.
also a post office service area or lobby is NOT a public space, a park is a public space, a post office is a limited public forum you need to learn the difference lol
18:30 So you can film in the lobby but can't point the camera across the counter. ?!?! Does he not understand how stupid that is because it's absolutely impossible for staff to know where exactly a camera is pointing at all times.
@@LiveBD.50 Yes and the request to not record transactions is also unenforceable. They need to create privacy protection at the counter. What if I can see someone's personal information or bank card code or whatever? I'm supposed to close my eyes and erase my memory?
The whole point of filming is to hold public officials and federal employees accountable. They are paid with OUR tax dollars. We have every right to film them. Behind the counter or anywhere else period.
The DHS memo was to the Federal Protective Service, not USPS. The applicable law is below. *Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39 - Postal Service.* *§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.* (i) _Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes._ Except as prohibited by official signs or the directions of security force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or rule, photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head. Note: *“Except as prohibited by official signs or the directions of security force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or rule”* This mean the post office can ban filming.
@@1SAM007 Please cite proof. This is a memo, not a statute. It was addressed solely to the Federal Protective Service. If it applied to all government agencies why was it sent to none of them? When did a memo become a statute?
@@1SAM007 _all ferderal agencies were required to adhere_ Yes, that’s why this sentence is included at the top of the memo. _Warning: This document shall not be distributed or released outside the Federal Protective Service and its Protective Security Officer (PSO) vendors without express approval from Headquarters_
@@wazhazhe5831 did not say it was…….just gave Agent Steve a way to check his ignorance at the door, nothing private about a post office in public areas of that federal building
Photographs for news purposes may be taken ...except where prohibited by … Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel.
What part of this do you not understand?
@@LiveBD.50 I think you'll find that they ignored you because you're too insignificant to spend time bothering with!
The part where it has to be cleared by the postmaster.
@@W.Stryker I get the distinct impression that you think I'm in favour of these frauditors! If you do, reread my comments!
@@steveray2529 oh my bad.
@@W.Stryker No problem, mate! I think you and I are fighting on the same team!
you're handler shouldn't let you out alone.
I suspect the vast majority of the
Who else is here from Degeneration Nation? XD
@dbnydnvn HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
🙋🏻♀️🙋🏻♀️🙋🏻♀️
I am! These pathetic anti-frauditor videos are always more enjoyable to watch on decent channels! Why give the dickheads the views?!
Me ✋
Me
Got owned big time. Never stops whining.
@@blueforest4589 Which tyrant?
@@blueforest4589 If by corruption you mean "removing a troublemaker from a place of private business" then I'm all for that.
Katz vs. US Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?
What does any of that have to do with bothering people at the Post Office?
Katz v. U.S. introduced the test to determine a reasonable expectation of privacy.
@@LiveBD.50 The Post office is not a public place. Read the DHS memo that auditors love to mention. It allows for photography of the exterior of Federal buildings, but tenants of those buildings, including USPS may set rules regarding photography inside.
@@pacificcoast101 You are absolutely wrong. The DHS memo HQ-ORO-002-2018 protects the public’s right to photograph publicly accessible
federal facility building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors and auditoriums; and directs FPS law enforcement personnel and PSOs to maintain security without adversely impacting the public’s rights relating to photography and videotaping.
@@LiveBD.50 From the DHS memo that auditors love to mention: "Except where security regulations, rules,
orders, or directives apply.
PHOTOGRAPHING THE INTERIOR OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
(U) Title 41, Section 102-74.420 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides federal "policy concerning
photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes." It states, "Except where security regulations, rules,
orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property
may take photographs of:
a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the
occupying agency concerned;
b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an
authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
(U//FOUO//LES) In applying this regulation to FPS protected federal facilities, FPS law enforcement personnel
and PSOs should consider the following information when contemplating enforcement of the regulation.
REGULATION APPLICATION
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or
directives apply or a Federal court order or rule
prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property
may take photographs of…”
Photography and videotaping the interior of federal
facilities is allowed under the conditions set forth in
(a) - (c) of the regulation unless there are regulations,
rules, orders, directives or a court order that prohibit it.
(b) (2), (b) (7)(E) (b) (2), (b) (7)(E)
(b) (2), (b) (7)(E)
(b) (2), (b) (7)(E)
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
FPS INTERNAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
FPS INTERNAL USE ONLY
Page 3
For example, SSA has rules that prohibit photography
and videotaping in its spaces. Similarly many courts
issue no photography or videotaping in courtrooms
and surrounding areas. The prohibition must be
clearly posted or actual (in-person) notice must be
given in order to be enforced.
"a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the
occupying agency concerned”
Non-commercial photography and videotaping in
space occupied by a federal tenant requires the verbal
permission of the federal tenant. For example, a visitor
to an Army Corps of Engineers office has verbal
permission from the office manager to photograph the
private promotion ceremony of a friend. A student is
given verbal permission from the office manager to
take photographs of the office for a school project.
“b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial
purposes only with written permission of an
authorized official of the occupying agency
concerned”
Commercial photography and videotaping in space
occupied by a federal tenant requires the written
permission of the agency official authorized to
approve commercial photography and videotaping.
Journalists, news media, or other individuals
photographing or videotaping for news purposes is not
considered a commercial purpose. For example, a
professional photographer has obtained written
permission from the designated official at a building
housing only Department of Interior offices to
photograph architectural design work performed by
one of the photographer’s clients. A movie company
is given written permission from the designated
official to videotape a federal facility.
“c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or
auditoriums for news purposes."
recognizing this fact, the public is allowed
to photograph interior building entrances, lobbies,
foyers, corridors and auditoriums from publicly
accessible areas. For example, someone can
photograph in the common space and publicly
accessible lobby of a federal facility.
(U//FOUO//LES) If an individual is authorized to photograph or videotape the interior of a federal facility as
discussed above,
(b) (2), (b) (7)(E)
(b) (2), (b) (7)(E)
(b) (2), (b) (7)(E)
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
FPS INTERNAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
FPS INTERNAL USE ONLY
Page 4
(U//FOUO//LES) This right, however, does not authorize a photographer to intrude on restricted space
surrounding a security post, create loud or unusual noises or cause a nuisance, obstruct the usual use of
entrances, lobbies and other commonly accessible space, impede or disrupt the performance of official duties by
government employees or federal contractors, including the PSOs, nor prevent the public from obtaining
government services provided in the facility in a timely manner.
@@LiveBD.50 You should read _Katz v. United States,_ 389 US 347 (1967).
The question raised is, *“Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?”*
There is no logical way to extend this to photography in a post office. To suggest so is complete nonsense.
Did you sent a link of this video to Mr Stebbins?
You were told not to film behind the counter and still upload this video? Genius move there.
Postal employees will lie to you as you can see here
@@LiveBD.50 Helps if you also follow these other 2 paragraphs from USPS Poster 7 (39 CFR 232.1 Conduct on Postal Property)
Disturbances
Disorderly conduct, or conduct that creates loud and unusual noise, or which impedes entrance to or departure from Post Offices™ or otherwise obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, and parking lots, or which otherwise tends to impede or disturb the public or employees in the performance of their duties, or which otherwise impedes or disturbs the general public in transacting business or obtaining the services provided on Postal Service property, is prohibited.
Enforcement
Security Force personnel will exercise the powers under 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and are responsible for enforcing the regulations in this notice in a manner that will protect U.S. Postal Service property. Postmasters or installation heads may, with the approval of the Chief Postal Inspector or designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement agencies to insure enforcement of the regulations in a manner that will protect U.S. Postal Service property. Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Special Agents, and anyone designated by the Chief Postal Inspector may also enforce these regulations.
Poster 7, August 2016
PSN 7690-03-000-9181
Just to confirm the above is from 39 CFR 232.1
39 CFR 232.1 clause (e) Disturbances. Disorderly conduct, or conduct which creates loud and unusual noise, or which impedes ingress to or egress from post offices, or otherwise obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, and parking lots, or which otherwise tends to impede or disturb the public employees in the performance of their duties, or which otherwise impedes or disturbs the general public in transacting business or obtaining the services provided on property, is prohibited.
39 CFR 232.1 (q) Enforcement.
(1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon.
(2) Local postmasters and installation heads may, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(d)(3) and with the approval of the chief postal inspector or his designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement agencies to insure that these rules and regulations are enforced in a manner that will protect Postal Service property.
(3) Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Criminal Investigators, and other persons designated by the Chief Postal Inspector may likewise enforce regulations in this section.
[37 FR 24346, Nov. 16, 1972]
@@bluecard009 doesnt apply, employees engaging and talking between the 2 is not disorderly
@@bluecard009 just because that federal agent was ignorant does mean you're right. The post office doesn't want you filming there but they cannot legally stop you.
If the auditor had stayed and challenged he would've proven them wrong
@@bluecard009 it's the city that makes the settlement to avoid making new case law. It's costs thousands of dollars after all
Why would you post this when u r 100% wrong. Learn the law, not odditor propoganda. There is a reason they no longer go to post offices
Please explain why you think I'm wrong
@@LiveBD.50 u figure it out
@@chrislowden1690 I already have
@@LiveBD.50 so you went out and got a job?
@@LiveBD.50 let me give you some info if you get arrested and charged with federal crimes such as trespassing, refusing to comply with a federal officer the fines arent small in fact the minimum is $250,000 to a maximum of $500,000 and/or jail time and that is a very long time... so i suggest you rethink what you are doing and go research federal poster 7 and the regulations on video and photography and the penalties of federal crimes....
Why are you filming?
Why are you provoking?
Why do you think you're right while you're not?
What is your point?
- Looking for someone that will take the bait.
- To make lousy content (or very good content, depending on your perspective - reaction channels be swimming in views right now!) for a lousy TH-cam channel.
- Cognitive dissonance.
- None whatsoever.
1.To document my purchase of a stamp 2.Postal employees should not feel provoked by a camera when they're at work, in public, within the time place and manner restrictions. 3.1st Amendment, Homeland Security Memo, and Poster7 4.To bring awareness of our rights as a free people, to show postal employees their rules, and to show the blatant ignorance of people that don't understand freedom in America.
@@LiveBD.50 Congrats, you failed at all points! /clapclap
@@LiveBD.50 But you stayed and filmed 5 long minutes after you bought your stamp.
That is creepy and cringe.
The only point you made is the fact that you are not allowed to film behind the counter.
They have security cameras inside the post office they just didnt like his camera because it wasn't something they can control and edit . It even films the counter and the video is public record
There is a post office here is Philly you need to audit. It’s in the Roosevelt Mall area code 19149. Guaranteed one of the postal workers will yell at you. She’s had numerous complaints.
Conduct that disturbs employees or customers is a crime on postal property. I'd like to see her call the cops and have him arrested for trespassing, if he doesn't immediately stop what he's doing and leave. Then the feds have up to 5 years in which to file federal charges for each act in violation of 39 CFR 232.1, which are federal misdemeanors each worth up to $5,000 and 30 days in prison.
He is not acting as an attorney in his job as a federal agent. So again your 1st amendment rights does not include harassments of the employees while they are in their place of work, and yes you can be trespassed from a public building. so again the rules of the post office have been reviewed by lawyers to make sure they fall in line with the constitution. So your have been incorrect from the beginning. You do not understand poster 7 and you have made the perfectly clear.
Also you can look past the counter with your eyes however you cant record what is going on behind that counter. Your actions are not lawful
Here, I did the research for you to help educate yourself
Public buildings aren’t always open to the public. For example, you can’t walk into a public kindergarten class in the middle of the day just to assess the quality of instruction. You can’t amble up to the Governor’s Mansion at 2:00 a.m. on a Tuesday and let yourself in. And you can’t conduct your own inspection of the state’s correctional facilities whenever you choose. You’re not “authoriz[ed]” to do those things, because “[i]t is not the case that all property owned by the government is ‘open to the public.’ Certain areas of publicly-owned buildings may be restricted from public use by a locked door or a front desk, much like the common areas of privately-owned buildings.” People v. Barnes, 41 N.E.3d 336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015) (affirming a trespass conviction based on a defendant’s presence in the lobby of a public housing building). See also Wilson v. State, 504 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. Ct. App. 2016) (observing that “governmental entities have the same rights as private property owners to control their properties, so long as the entity’s policies are not employed as a subterfuge for illegal discrimination”).
Heres the link as well: nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/trespass-and-public-buildings/
SC has already ruled on this in State v. Hanapole Trespassing has no application to public property absent a crime. Time place and manner are the only restrictions that can be enforced.
@@LiveBD.50 Post Office is not public property.
@@pacificcoast101 neither are military installations
@@LiveBD.50 Wrong. That's not at all what this opinion says. I suggest actually reading the opinion instead of reading someone's analysis of it.
@@wazhazhe5831 Not even clear how a state ruling on the misuse of an old trespassing statute has any bearing on what's happening in the US Post Office. It would be interesting to see if (a) there is a different statute for trespassing in SC now, and (b) if any SC court has clarified the laws for entry and remaining upon PUBLIC property and the legality of being arrested when you refuse to follow their rules.
Edit: Upon further research, it seems that South Carolina does have some odd "trespassing" statutes defining specific types of "public property" where "criminal trespass after notice" can be enforced.
If the Head of the postal inspectors doesn't know the law and is giving false and misleading information ,..... then what hope is there?
You were owned.
A threat to MY freedom, is in itself a threat.
What is wrong with this guy? You can't record/take photos of private information of other American citizens. Otherwise people would go in there, set up HD cameras and get addresses and other personal information from everyone conducting business there. They should of arrested you and took your camera.
Jeff, This was a 1st A Audit, not hidden camera surveillance. In the U.S. we have rights amended to the Constitution and case law that recognize what I was doing was not only legal but protected.
@@LiveBD.50 No. Not even remotely true. For example, people are conducting private business at a window with their personal information. It is illegal for some guy with a high-def camera filming them and capturing their audio and personal information. Hence, you were breaking the law. Also, that is not a public space like a sidewalk. That is a private federal building that has public access for people to conduct their private business. Their are rules and regulations. You do not have a right to be in there doing whatever you want like filming private information. Last, filming employees behind the counter is not about filming the person, it's about all the letters and private information you could gather. Imagine people like you thinking they can do this and the information they could gather about private American citizens. The fact that you don't understand this is remarkable. Leave your audits to legal things, not trying to gather private information from other Americans.
@@jeffdecola I have no interest in capturing private information, and if I did I would edit it out. My story is on untrained, and ill informed postal employees. I even showed respect to the customers in line by aiming my camera away from them. There's plenty of scams out there for you to investigate, this is not one of them. My work is done lawfully.
@@LiveBD.50 "if I did I would edit it out." Wow, what a complete lack of understanding. 'Hey lady, I captured your private information by accident, but don't worry I'm a good guy and not a scammer. When I get home I'll edit it out. So you can trust me with your private information, I got a youtube channel'. Just an absolute stunning lack of understanding.
@@LiveBD.50 - does the “A” in 1st A Audit stand for asshole? Because that’s how you come across.
I appreciate the follow up but that federal agent still thinks that what you did was wrong.
I will be following up with another audit
@@LiveBD.50 please do.. The guy you called was a complete dbag and doesn't give a crap about your rights... His job and paycheck don't allow for that kind of bs
@@LiveBD.50 because it was wrong
It is wrong
@@eggsack There you go again, using that word "job"! You do realise that Mr. Brainless has no idea what it means, don't you!?
You got OWNED!
You and other "auditors" read what you want to read in poster 7.
Typical govt employee saying they are just doing their job but obviously not.
Only thing happening here is the potential for stricter rules and regulations to be put in place which takes away from our rights
Only if it's constitutional
@@LiveBD.50 which you’ve never fought for
@@LiveBD.50 The Constitution gives states power to modify it, don't leave that part out.
@@LiveBD.50 "Only if it's constitutional"? Like any other federal laws (and regulations like those on Poster 7, 39 CFR s. 232.1), they are PRESUMED to be constitutional until you can prove in federal court that they are not. Keep us posted on your progress.
@@UpnorthHere
This was already decided.
Quote from the US supreme court:
Not only is the right to photograph and videotape law enforcement activities and personnel in public places an established First Amendment right (regardless of whether the activity may be deemed “expressive”), but the right is essential to protect the citizen-press, which plays an ever increasingly important role in the dissemination of information.
I have forwarded this video to the USPS Office of Inspector General.
An auditor without trolls is not doing their job correctly.
You have poster 7 info in your description and can't even follow it.
It clearly says you are only allowed to film in those areas if a person of authority of the place allows it - or you have to sop filming as soon as a person of authority of that place tells you to stop filing.
But, I know it's hard to understand simple words.
And here is another copy telling the same stuff:
§ 102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes?
Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of -
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.
Also:
Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes
Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corri-dors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. _____ Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or installation head. ____
People in government are not the most informed, and routinely overstep their bounds of authority. Our rights afforded to us in the constitution can not be revoked, even by people in authority who refuse to read their rules, or feel uncomfortable. I'm not shooting a movie, a commercial, or entering in to any tenant agencies, so I don't need permission. The Post Office doesn't allow me to photograph for news purposes, the right to free press does.
Lol, stop digging a deeper hole. Just learn to grow up and stop harassing people.
I just thought about this; did you pin this thinking I was on YOUR side about this???? lol
@@blueforest4589 stop, you don't understand it either.
You failed.
@@JDM12983 sometimes these clowns think that people that don't agree with them are uneducated.
Like that guy namee blue.
He thinks that poster 7 gives them permission as well.
I used to love watching my 600 pound life if I ever needed a little pick me up but these videos of muppet auditors are 10 times better. If you’re eve struggling with life all you gotta do is watch some of this trash and you’ll realize there are actually people out there this sad, lonely, unemployed, and illiterate and that no matter what you’re going through, at least you will never be this guy :)
I remember watching this video on another channel that completely embarrassed you! It was HILARIOUS! The best part was when both the postal inspector AND his supervisor completely owned you, and educated you on the law, and all you could do was stumble and babble a few words to try to make yourself not look like such a fool 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
There are literally thousands of videos of Post office videos.
Live bd was correct on anything and everything he was trying to talk to both these men.
Both Men were Educated by Washington after they were contacted. They found out Live bd was correct all along.
@@gretafortenberry5285show us the PROOF!!!
@@BestPMintown22
Proof, direct quote from the US supreme court.
Not only is the right to photograph and videotape law enforcement activities and personnel in public places an established First Amendment right (regardless of whether the activity may be deemed “expressive”), but the right is essential to protect the citizen-press, which plays an ever increasingly important role in the dissemination of information.
@@star2gmail really, have you seen some of the "disimination" being put out there. You are dilusional. They are Criminal pieces of shit, all of them!!! Not there to do any good at all!!!
You got punked!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Frauditard.
How can I dislike this nonsense more than once
How can I dislike your troll ignorant comment more than once?
@15:40 you even show the rule from poster 7 where it clearly states unless prohibited by authorized personnel or security force... a postal inspector is both of those you fool lol
Yes, Postal Inspectors are security force personnel, but Lowery had no reason to tell me to leave, that's exactly why I put a complaint in on him.
@@LiveBD.50 yes they can, did you pove you were a member of the press and show ID? no? then they dont have to believe you are press... and can kick you out... also if you dont have official business again they can kick you out, if you claim to be buying a stamp they can still tell you to leave... you really havent got a clue about poster 7...
@@LiveBD.50 that fell flat on its ass.
@@blueforest4589 and you left out the part where unless you have permission from the postmaster then you can’t film. Ditch you’re TH-cam law degree
@@blueforest4589 ....and here it is again, folks, in case you missed it the first dozen times it was posted!
Postal inspector is old and grey, and don't know what is going on around him. He is a disgrace for the Postal service and his family. I sincerely hope he has more knowledge of raising children and how to treat his wife.
I know! I thought Postal Inspectors were the most knowledgeable employees at the Post Office on the Rules and Regulations. But as I experienced they are the most ignorant.
@Carol Christiansen ???? I don't understand your comment
The only disgrace is the frauditor because he’s a bottom feeder with no job or a life
26:00 he's laughing in your face, cause this entire conversation with you got so ridiculous. i, too, was laughing when he finally ended the call professionally (after displaying extreme patience), and hung up while you were still babbling about the 1st amendment.
And by the way, it says photography is allowed. Im pretty sure that isn't the definition of video.
So you left even though you "think" your correct? Why not 1) Require the postal inspector to show ID and 2) Man up let the cops come and show them the post 7 and then you can file a complaint against both agencies.
I'm going back to stand my ground
Yea this guy failed hard.
@@ikevanrosendaal7560 Be sure and watch the next one
@@LiveBD.50 Yeah you failed Big Time and did not stand up to these government officials like UGF West Coast and Ike Van rosendaal did in their 1st Audit videos...Oh wait...they DON'T have any videos... yet they are quick to pass judgment on how you do yours when you are the one putting your butt on the line. I personally think you could have handled it differently too, but thanks for getting out there and trying. You don't have to get arrested to effect change, and I think the phone call was and is going to be helpful..Please consider sharing this with Rogue Nation, Jeff Gray, Battousai, and the other veteran auditors that may be able to help you out getting your work seen. GOOD LUCK with the return visit and BE SAFE!
@@smolderingsheep and where is ur useless video that makes 0 change... keyboard hero
I don't think his supervisor understands the rules either.
i agree with you
once he gets the lawsuit he' ll understand fast
@@staintedcards bahahaha
Its u that doesnt get it
@@staintedcards lawsuit??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 sure, ok. He is BLATANTLY incorrect in his interpretation of the rule and any attorney will laugh in his face.
funny how most of the people commenting are telling you how foolish and unducated you are on poster 7, so are you saying we are all wrong about poster 7 even the postal staff?
Most people just do as their told and don't question authority. These keyboard warriors would never have the courage to go out in public and exercise their constitutional rights.
You and all the other keyboard warriors would run and hide just like these uneducated postal employees
@@LiveBD.50 why dont you make a video showing poster 7 and the photography regulation and rules and tell us exactly what and why you think they give you permission to do something... then go and watch the 40 or 50 videos on both my channels that tell you and show you what the USPS regulations are... and mean...
@@LiveBD.50 also i go out filming police and other public employees many times but i dont get arrested, i dont cause a problem, i even get into court rooms you clowns dont... i even get into public meetings you dont... why do you think that is? because i get invited to attend them, i ask permission, i get a permit, and i NEVER have been arrested or trespassed from ANY public building... which mans you are like the others doing these videos to get clicks and views and a possible lawsuit which you wont win because you dont know how the others do it...
@@cheekymonkey666 Are you a journalist?
*Reading Poster 7 should be part of the employee APPLICATION PROCESS.*
Don't think just reading is enough lol maybe a class?
Frauditor walks in with smug attitude, quoting Poster 7.
Postal Inspector turns up with said Poster 7. If you're told to shut down recording, you shut down recording.
Frauditor does the walk of shame, smugness obliterated.
i write this from europe i'm sick of seeing these oath breakers i've tried several times post writing (email) making complaints to the post office general manager but they only accept complaints by internal mail US if it was possible from you i would like to continue this complaint and take it to the top possible I saw that only the agent and that he has an email what will be the other way to contact the other instances by email?
Online complaint form . usps.force.com/emailus/s/
This main branch does not answer the phone, and the Postmaster does not return phone calls. The toll free number had a long hold time and then the call would disconnect. Jeff never did identify, I got his info off his business card when he opened his notebook.
@@finbarmartin9761 thanks
@@LiveBD.50 .this site is the only one I can find and it has a form. but can only be used in the US is from the Washington DC Inspector General's website www.uspsoig.gov/form/file-online-complaint
lol They aren't breaking any oaths. Give me a break. Our freedoms are limited and this has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment, which is limited like the rest.
This is the important part about poster 7
It's on poster 7, look for the section that's titled (penalties and other law)
The keyword is (ABROGATE)
ab•ro•gate
repel or do away with
(a law, right, or formal agreement)
Understand this and you will understand why it's legal to video in the Post Office or any other public building... As long as you are in a public accessible area and not breaking the law...
Very good point thanks
Nothing
contained in these rules and regulations
shall be construed to abrogate any other
federal laws or regulations or any state or
local laws and regulations applicable to
any area in which the property is situated.
Is you two morons were correct! Every time one these frauditors gets arrested, the courts wouldn’t find them guilty of trespassing! Spoiler alert! They are ALWAYS Found guilty! 😂
They have lost this in court everytime
@@Atlas6355_
Remember, you cannot walk on a public sidewalk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12 o'clock noon without your government's permission...
😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 😋 👢
Wait a minute,,,,,,,,, if you don’t count what is after the OR to what is before the OR then…..
What about the last sentence which you specifically left out. This applies to Everything in the first sentence, or the second part of the first section.
Poster 7 was written by lawyers to give postal security force personnel guide lines to control federal property while still being compliant with the 1st amendment. If photography was prohibited it would say so, but it doesn't because it's not. The right to free press overrides any and all rules or regulations. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land.
@@LiveBD.50 the words “except where prohibited”, fills in for prohibiting photos. Also the last sentence goes a step further allowing other photos to be taken only with the permission of the postmaster or instillation head.
There is all so a Very big difference between freedom of the press and infringing on other peoples privacy. As you state the right to free press overrides any and all rules or regulations.
The key phrase in your comments is free press, freedom of the press. No one here showed credentials that they were press. If you go to a concert and an area has a sign saying press only, do you think you have the right to go back stage to the press only area.
@@bruceyale9302 There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, there are no government issue credentials that allows you to be the press, and concerts that are privately operated can set their own rules. The USPS have their rules and regulations written and posted so that no employee can just make one up. If photography was prohibited, then the rules wouldn't say photographs for news purposes may be taken.
@@LiveBD.50 yea but you don’t have a right to go on someone’s property and film in my state. They got a peeping Tom law for that. Means you step on my property and film it. You can be charged. Also you might find yourself staring down the barrel of a gun
@@LiveBD.50 "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public." How is that tidbit relevant, much less applicable in the private business area of a post office? The people there DO have an expectation that only authorized photographers will be allowed in there for specifically authorized purposes. That's even BEFORE you create a disturbance or interfere with customers or employees in any way, which is a separate federal crime. "Please don't film me" means you're disturbing people. "Come look at the regulations", means you're disturbing additional people, for additional criminal charges.
I show my kids these frauditor videos so they can see the effects of unemployment and drug use
Please also show them the Constitution
@@LiveBD.50 I did
@@NewsNowIsNeverNowNews Thank you
Smart dad!!
@@LiveBD.50 you mean document you have not fought for?
Edited: originally accused him of lying but after rewatching it seems he just didn't notice certain things such as being told to leave.
What Lie?
@@LiveBD.50 you know what after rewatching to pull the segments i actually think you just didn't notice when the second employee entered she told you you would have to stop recording or leave the building and that the inspector was asking you to identify yourself when he asked if you were media so im going to edit my comment you didn't lie but you did misunderstand just as i misunderstood my apologies, you are still incorrect on the policies at hand non the less.
@@blueforest4589 When he didn't leave after the first time he was asked to and preferred to stay that is the crime, it's called trespassing.
@@blueforest4589 You still here?!
@@steveray2529 All @blue forest comments here were deleted "for some reason".
That guy on the phone was so patronising it was embarrassing. He mentioned your “free time” about five times in a condescending manner
I don't think Stebbins was aware of First Amendment Audits
As he should. Clearly this man with the camera is a slow learner or under developed
Let's face it, being jobless means that he's got all the free time in the world!
They aren't filming for any reason at all they just want a reaction from the people who are inside that building. They just want to make a fuss over nothing. They are doing this for attention from the people inside federal buildings and state buildings. They want to see how far they can go until they are told to stop filming so they can upload it and say that their rights are being taken from them. This is all they do.
Well, I never. There is stupid and there’s this Guy. What’s this , and this . Learn the difference
Someone just posted a link to this video on my video. Glad they did! New sub! Great channel and keep up the awesome work! 🇺🇸❤️🇺🇸
A postal inspector or post master can ask you to stop recording only if you have committed a crime or creating ruckus in that public space. Having granted a permission, you cannot revoke that permission just because you are exercising the granted permission.
There is no such rule anywhere. You can't just make things up to suit your narrative. That's like saying they similarly can't prevent you from carrying in a firearm unless you start threatening people with it. No, that's not how it works.
@@UpnorthHere what are you trying to say? Me no understando😄. If you are given permission to carry a firearm, they cannot restrict you or revoke that permission just because you are recording as well. Or because you are wearing a yellow shirt. It is another story if they ban firearms altogether. Another way out is to say we will only allow people to exercise a certain permission based on our whims. Of course you cannot frame such a regulation in a public setting.
@@vajrapaniom7410 Yes, clearly you do not understand. Okay let me try it this way: You seem to say they can't exercise control over people who stupidly believe they have the right to film in the post office. I say that they can. Poster 7 even says they can. Federal laws and regulations say they can. The US Supreme Court has even ruled in this area, stating that "reasonable restrictions" on First Amendment rights is applicable to the lobby of the US post office. If you do not comply with instructions of the authorized individuals there, they can fine you $5,000 and put you in prison for 30 days. Whether you have "permission" to film is left for you to prove in federal court.
@@UpnorthHere and how many have been fined? How many of them have challenged? How many won/ lost? Anyone can make up rules like you need to lick boots whenever you see a postal employee. It will remain there until challenged.
@@vajrapaniom7410 Your silly strawman bootlicker rule is juvenile and unpersuasive. Look up some of the court opinions in actual federal cases regarding First Amendment conduct on postal property and routinely upholding the restrictions. According to your logic, failure to fine and lock up every offender must mean it's legal to ignore all regulations you don't like. Many sovereign citizens feel the same way and watching them get arrested on their own YT videos, if not also their subsequent courtroom fails, is entertaining.
The asshole can’t just buy his stamp and leave. He has to hang around being an ass until he gets someone to respond to him. After the purchase he’s intent on causing a disturbance - and he should be removed and/or arrested.
😂😂😂Got kicked out by the POSTAL INSPECTOR!! 👏🏿👏🏿 I love it!!
@@blueforest4589 You really should post this a few times, so people don't miss it. Oh, wait, you have done. Lots of times. Aren't you bored doing that, because everyone else is.
@@blueforest4589 the postal inspector didn’t do a walk of shame like the harassing frauditor
When I returned for the revisit, the postal inspectors hid in the back.
THE MOST...ANNOYING PHONE CONVERSATION...OF THIS ERA!!!! LMAO!! come on man.
Started to sound like shtick from an old Columbo movie: "There's just one more thing..."
A lot of nonsense has been posted in the comments for this video. Much of it has centered around Poster 7. The most ridiculous of these has been about the punctuation used. Based on this, and using some of the most convoluted logic I’ve ever seen, came up with an absolutely ludicrous interpretation of the meaning. The problem here is *Poster 7 is not the Federal Statute.* The actual statute is included below.
*Code of Federal Regulations* (Last Updated: March 29, 2021)
Title 39 - Postal Service
CHAPTER I - UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
SUBCHAPTER D - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Part 232 - CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY
*(i) Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes. Except as prohibited by official signs or the directions of security force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or rule, photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head.*
Parse that any way you like. Security force personnel, in this case a postal inspector, has the authority to regulate photography in a post office. He has the authority to require you leave the property, and even detain you until the police arrive and arrest you for trespass.
There were no rights violated. There is no legal recourse here. Grow up.
Technically, that's a regulation, authorized by statute. The regulation clearly says photography EVEN FOR NEWS PURPOSES can be prohibited "by rule". There are thousands of pages of federal rules. Some of those rules routinely restrict news agencies that want to photograph in the post office for any purpose. What, where, when, how, who and why. § 232.1(d) also requires everyone to comply with instructions of "authorized individuals" in the post office. No ifs, ands or buts.
@@UpnorthHere The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it's over the post office, that's why photographs may be taken. If they could prohibit it they would but they can't says the 1st Amendment.
Other photographs require permission. Photographs for news purposes can only be restricted by time place and manner. Also according to the Supreme Court of SC, trespassing only applies to private property.
@@LiveBD.50 _Also according to the Supreme Court of SC, trespassing only applies to private property_
Please cite the case.
@@wazhazhe5831 State v. Hanapole
The SC Trespassing statute is "clearly for the purpose of protecting the rights of the owners or those in control of private property".
How old is the post office? 1966
Steve is lying about the agreement between the Post Office and the local police department. If he knows agreement exists he would know what it is called.
Did you FOIA the local police for the Memo of understanding between the police department and the Post Office.
Every federal employee involved in this interaction did the same thing: Made errors and omissions to the extent of being fraudulent. I think their actions are significant enough to warrant both criminal and civil action.
I would make a transcript of everything and ask a few law firms to press it before considering giving the evidence to the local federal attorney general.
How will you proceed from here?
I will be returning to make my stand, and show them that my actions were lawful.
Bahahaha
No law firm is gonna touch this after reading the rules
@@LiveBD.50 I'm looking forward to seeing the video of that! We all need a good giggle....if you've got the balls to post it!
lol, "warrant both criminal and civil action". Dude, they trespassed him, plain and simple, there's nothing to sue about. That's fucking retarded. Although I *would* love to see him break his bank on an attorney just so he can go down in flames when he loses. That's if he could actually find a lawyer that would be willing to take the case and I'd put up my life savings betting that he never could.
There are two sets of rules in post offices:
A. Rules for postal employees.
B. Rules for members of the public in public areas of the post office.
Yes, and Poster 7 clearly says that a member of the public who is recording must cease when ordered by an employee with authority. Game over.
You do a perfect job of explaining the laws. In watching other audit videos, to the viewer, it can be sometimes blurry as to what can be done when filming in the lobby of a post office.
When the postmaster says "you cannot photograph the area where they are making transactions", the "Katz vs US" case explains this perfectly. The postmasters statement is false. The eyes cannot be guilty of trespass. So just the same, your camera (the eyes) cannot be guilty of trespass.
When reading laws, I have found that you have to really know the logic as well as the English language. I have visited a law library in my city. There is a whole volume of books that only contain the meanings of English statements.
You do a great job of explaining the wording in Poster 7. The "or" statement is another term in the sequence of statements divided by the comma. So therefore what is written after the statement ", or auditoriums" only applies to auditoriums. A person that is not well versed in English could decipher this statement incorrectly. Before you explained it, I also mis-interpreted this statement. But now I understand it perfectly.
You should read _Katz v. United States,_ 389 US 347 (1967).
The question raised is, *“Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?”*
There is no logical way to extend this to photography in a post office. To suggest so is complete nonsense.
Furthermore, there is no legal basis for your “opinion” on the serial comma. Please cite a US Supreme Court decision that rules so. You can’t because there is not one.
The US Postal Service has the legal right to restrict First Amendment activities on properties under its supervision (e.g., owned or leased as post offices), just as they may restrict Second Amendment rights (no firearms on the property) and Fourth Amendment rights (they may search your purse, briefcase or other containers brought upon the premises), all as shown on Poster 7 (taken from 39 CFR 232.1). Just because it's "open to the public", doesn't give anyone the legal right to violate the rules. The fact that they can't be bothered to school you with fines and prison doesn't make the rules unenforceable. They have five years in which to file federal charges.
@@UpnorthHere Good points on the Second and Fourth Amendments.
@The Alan Green Project: You say, "The eyes cannot be guilty of trespass. " There is no such law. The typical case falsely citing that dictum as legal basis for that assertion is related to "trespassing" by cops entering a place after SEEING a violation (peeking over the transom from the hallway) and then failing to get the required warrant. Since they arguably had the right to be where they were (having broken into the landlady's apartment, who let them into the hallway), their reliance upon the "plain view doctrine" was only justified to the point at which the suspects were not attempting to flee or to destroy the evidence, making it the perfect interval in which to seek a judicial warrant.
In the present case, it's not the "seeing" that is the issue; it is the continuation of the unlawful photography for alleged "news purposes" after being officially ordered to stop. The "eyes" were not "trespassing"; the clown pointing the camera was trespassing, i.e., refusing to leave after being instructed to stop his criminal activity.
McDONALD et al. v. UNITED STATES. U.S. Supreme Court, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948). "Looking over the transom was not a search, for the eye cannot commit the trespass condemned by the Fourth Amendment."
If he's a postal inspector he has arrest power and does not need local PD to affect an arrest. This is the dumbest, most unprofessional Postal Inspector on You Tube so far.
Postal inspectors have no powers of arrest or detention, leftist clown. Try again.
Frankly, I'd rather see him spending his time catching dangerous felons rather than babysitting ignorant whiners with video cameras in the lobby.
"you obviously have a lot of free time on your hand..." Lol, you were owned and insulted, and you probably don't even know it.
Very unprofessional behavior from a civil servant. It is none of Steve's business what the auditor does with his time.
@@chrisbudesa What frauditors do in post offices IS the business of postal inspectors.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 he said nothing matters before the ‘or’ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
Yeah, we're not dealing with the sharpest tool in the shed here... His reading comprehension is less than stellar, as also displayed in other comments on here.
@@blueforest4589 ...and here it is yet again!
He can be fired for doing this, even mail carriers know this is allowed!
Bahahaha, that is the stupidest statement so far
Nope.
@@alexandersinclair I am a mail carrier and every office was notified by postal service not to engage these people and they have every right to do this and to engage you would be disciplined or fired! Poster 7 is correct !
@@bobspenner4450 Which part of unless prohibited by authorised personel do you not understand?
@@bobspenner4450 Photographs for News, Advertising,
or Commercial Purposes
Photographs for news purposes may be
taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public
meetings except where prohibited by
official signs or Security Force personnel
or other authorized personnel or a federal
court order or rule. Other photographs may
be taken only with the permission of the
local Postmaster or installation head.
Steve Stebbins is condescending.
It is none of his business what the auditor is doing and why he does it.
That whole phone call was a joke. BOTH parties are completely clueless.
There is a bill in the US Senate that will require stamps for all emails starting in 2021...
That sounds like a lie.
@@robertstogsdill1024 it's a joke. Bob. How are you going to put a stamp on an email for crying out loud?
@@drakea.5816 Technically, "put a stamp on an email" could be implemented any number of ways in email servers. We used to do that with email and other messaging before the internet. For instance, sending MCI Mail was metered, as was Western Union's EasyLink in 1982.
USPS criminals from the top down!
just stop annoying ppl lol
If cameras annoy people they should stay home LOL! Seriously there are multiple cameras in the post office, on the street corners, and everywhere else.
@@LiveBD.50 and cameras are around my house to make sure clowns like you stay off my property because you don’t have any respect for anyone or anything
Dr. Phil's illegitimate son speaks.
Ha you got served!
Dude watch my return visit, I served it all back up to them!
@@LiveBD.50 and you’ll be arrested sooner or later
@18:00 the eye is not a camera again you need to learn the difference between the two ad what you can and can not class as being seen by the eye...
What ever you can see in public you can film. The eye cannot commit Trespass. McDONALD et al. v. UNITED STATES
@@blueforest4589 you really havent got a clue have you... you are another rogue nation sock account lol
one, if you claim to be press they can ask for ID fail to provide it, then they dont have to believe what you claim, also just because you are press doesnt mean you can just walk in AND FILM, you also fail to understand the part that says UNLESS PROHIBITED... you also fail to understand the other sections within poster 7, one of which clearly states video can not be taken of employees, customers or postal address or mail... you really are an idiot! oh and dont spout off DHS memo that doesnt apply to postal property as the USUPS has its OWN federal rules and regs... which you obviously failed to read...
@@LiveBD.50 You mean: "Looking over the transom was not a search, for the eye cannot commit the trespass condemned by the Fourth Amendment." McDonald et al. v. United States, 335 U.S. 45, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948), holding that a search warrant for the room should have been obtained after they visually observed the crime.
Please explain how this particular ruling is even remotely related to the premise, "What ever you can see in public you can film."
I believe everybody's call that postal inspector and have the same conversation I will do that to day myself. If the supervisor of the postal inspectors don't know their own rules and regulations why has he got a job why are we paying him $90000 a year this that is a guess to be an ignorant person
He knows his job very well
Which par of his job does he not know?
👍
You are the one that doesn't understand poster 7.
Doesn't understand Poster 7, doesn't understand 39 CFR 232.1, doesn't understand 39 USC 401 or the Title 18 criminal code referenced on Poster 7, doesn't understand federal court opinions, doesn't understand "the Constitution"...
Also, doesn't understand the additional THOUSANDS of pages of postal regulations incorporated by 39 CFR § 211.2, including administration and operations manuals, postal publications, etc. Any of those could include a "rule" that restricts photography for "news purpose" on postal property.
Lol good luck with your goofy attempt to waste federal agents times and your inability to understand what has been plainly laid out to you. This guy tells you flat out you're not allowed to film customers interactions with and at the post office.
Postal inspectors have been known to come "visit" 1A fraudtiors at home to have a chat about "right and wrong", before serving them with a criminal summons for federal crimes.
@@UpnorthHere People forget that while the post office isnt technically a federal org its a private org with a federal mandate and the postal inspectors are federal agents and postal property is considered federal property. Cant say im surprised by people getting visits when they go out of their way to be troublemakers. Same way im not surprised the secret service visits people who make repeated, or detailed enough, threats on the president ect.
excellent, a postal inspector who understands poster 7. Of course if this frauditor actually believed his own BS he would have taken the detainment and arrest and took it to court.
First, you were NOT taking that video for news purposes, as you are NOT a member of the press.
Second, at 20:53 is your other problem, you clearly do not understand English.
Where do I go to become a press member?
Please break it down for me clearly
@@LiveBD.50 Get a job as a journalist/reporter at a newspaper, television network, or reputable internet news agency/website.
Then you can claim to be a member of the press.
Good luck with that, though. They will require more than a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension.
@@kennethcook9406 No thanks, that's just your opinion. Independent Journalists are the press, and equally protected under the First Amendment. Branzburg v. Hayes U.S. Supreme Court.
@@LiveBD.50 Independent journalism hasn't existed for over twenty years, and even if it did still exist that doesn't make every yahoo with a youtube channel a journalist.
Especially when said yahoos can't understand simple english on a poster.
For example, the word "or" does NOT mean that what follows only applies to that part of the statement. It's not a new sentence, therefore the part at the end still applies to the ENTIRE sentence. Any middle or high school english teacher can tell you that.
Has anyone really read the Poster 7? Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or installation head. 1) when used for public meetings. 2) except where prohibited by official signs. 3) except where prohibited by Security Force personnel. 4) except where prohibited by other authorized personnel. 5) except where prohibited by a federal court order or rule. 6) Photos taken only with approval of local Postmaster or instillation head. I, my self, do not understand why this is so hard to understand. Where did auditors get the impression that they can freely go into a postal facility and freely film and then refuse to leave or cease activities when asked to do so. It clearly states these particular requirements. In this case, I think the auditors need the education. Also, many municipalities, nation wide, strike an agreement with local, county, or state law enforcement for service to the postal facility. Whether voluntary or paid. Most likely, there is an agreement. Maybe I am wrong. However, still film the police. It is for our protection.
@@blueforest4589 as an attorney, I can absolutely confirm that you have no idea what you’re even talking about
@@TequilaMockingBird91 you’re a licensed attorney?
@@W.Stryker
Guarantee you not...
This frauditor wants attention and public money. He will earn money by disrupting public service. If he was really serious about law and all, he would have went in lawful ways. Not illegally shooting videos under name of News Channel. TH-cam channel is not News Channel.
Did you read poster 7?
Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums
Before the except this is permission, after except is prohibited.
I had to stop watching when he started walking out
That’s not standing up for your rights. That’s allowing him to violate your rights
His rights were not violated.
@@RustySshackleford the only thing I didn't like he wasn't leaving in handcuffs then he would have the right to remain silent
Failed auditor failed video.
Thanks for the comment, I'm new at this, so this is just the beginning
I show my kids these frauditor videos so they can see the effects of unemployment and drug use
@@LiveBD.50 You mean your future "audits" are going to be even funnier?!
@@progrockrules Well said!
@@steveray2529 wanna be funnier. Go to the clubhouse belonging to the Hells Angels motorcycle club. And let the fun begin
1 you are not news media
2 poster 7 does clearly state they can tell you no
3 Katz vs US is about a wiretapping of a payphone booth
4 the court ruled he did have a level of privacy.
You need to learn to read better.
You also need to listen better as well.
He told you that you film in the lobby.
Not in the transaction area.
You fail big-time as an auditor.
1.I'm an Independent Journalist, Branzburg v. Hayes 2.They can't tell the Press no, 1st A 3.Reasonable expectation of privacy originated from Katz v. U.S. 4.Privacy has to be created
@@LiveBD.50 do you have a NPPA card?
Katz's was bases on a telephone booth wiretapping. It had nothing to do with expectation of privacy in public.
Did you not read the case or did you cherry pick it?
Cherry picking doesn't count, it the final decision that does.
The court sad he did have a right to privacy in the booth.
The wiretapping was illegal.
@@thunderbird0024 More to the point, the rules allow photography for "news purposes" until restricted by someone in authority. First, how is standing in the lobby looking at people doing ordinary business "news purposes"? Second, even if it were B-roll for some other actual news, you legally have to stop, under the clearly posted rules, when officially told to stop. Then you either leave or get arrested.
@@thunderbird0024 There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, that's why the wire tapping law is unenforceable in public.
@@UpnorthHere No, that's not how the law works. If it were then photography would be prohibited. My story is not on the people in line, it's on the employees that don't know there rules, and on the post offices that can't seem to make a profit like UPS and Fedex.
He should have a lot more dislikes
At this filming and Audit....Steve Stebbins had no clear clue what the Poster 7 actually meant until someone contacted Washington and he changed his tune on what is actually allowed.
This Auditor was correct All Around.
You can claim that the "moon is made of green cheese", because someone contacted Washington. The Postal Inspector was correct that you have to leave the post office when instructed by "security forces or authorized individuals". They can still mail the Auditor a summons for multiple federal crimes, if they have nothing better to do with their limited budget and resources.
Just getting stonewalled on the phone, seeing as you found the relevant laws and put em up on the screen, just go back and force the issue. Then they will have to deal with it.
Yep, I plan on it, thanks for the comment
Those laws do not apply once inside a private business, which he was
@@LiveBD.50 You mean like cherry picking the bible. Which part of unless prohibited by authorised personel do you not understand?
He found the relevant law but cherry picked it. Has he posted the law in its full context, he’s see that postal inspector is right.
@@LiveBD.50 you evidently do not speak english as a first language, or you have the comprehension skills of a four year old, pick one.
Right next to Finley Park, I miss my days in Columbia.
He is doing a great service,he's making sure my rights are not violated by the people we employ as civil servants.
@@bruceperron3796 OK. Who let you out of the basement?
You're the one that failed. You gave up too damn easily. Part of the 1st Amendment, is to be able to redress and challenge our government. It doesn't matter if he's a Postal Inspector. The postmaster is actually over him.
Thank you for your feedback, I went in at a quarter to five to do a quick walk through and show what a great Post Office we had in Columbia. I had no idea the employees there at the main branch were so uninformed on their rules and regulations. I will Definitely be back!
Stop encouraging idiots to do stupid things.
And where did you get your law degree?, TH-cam school of law?
@@W.Stryker It shouldn't take a "law degree" to know that when you're intentionally annoying people who are going about their business in the US Post Office, that there are "rules" that apply, even if the people there to enforce them at that moment don't do anything.
2016 is the latest version of Poster 7.
hiw did you get such a large audience of karens? HOw can people watch this video and think you were wrong? AMag press, long island and all these people everyday are protected by the 1st amendement
I don't know, but I'm glad to have them
The "first amendment", as you know, is not without limitations as to time and place of "free expression". Inside the US Post Office is one of those limitations as ruled in numerous federal court cases.
@@UpnorthHere amagansetts press was tresspassed from a usps. He sued them and they settled. So no, post office is not one of the limitations. If you want i have a playlist of videos where people have proven what you believe is false.
Just provide me a busines email or something(obviously don't give me anything personal.)
@@justjunk3268 A court settlement doesn't prove he was right. Playlists are generally not federal court opinions. Show me even ONE of of those. l'll get you started:
Moore v. United States Postal Service, United States District Court, N.D. New York, Jan 13, 2005 (post offic eis not a public forum and reasonable restrictions on speech may be imposed)
U.S. v Kokinda, 497 U.S. at 732, 110 S.Ct. at 3122-23 (There is little question that the Postal Service is essentially a commercial enterprise. " Even if more narrowly tailored regulations could be promulgated, the Service is only required to promulgate reasonable regulations [limiting free speech on its premises] , not the most reasonable or the only reasonable regulation possible.")
“...“..or auditoriums when used for public meetings”
Yes, that's when and where security force personnel can prohibit photography.
@@LiveBD.50 the postal inspector can also prohibit you from filming. The post office is not a public forum, it’s been litigated in the us Supreme Court, snd you do not have unfettered first amendment rights.
@@LiveBD.50 Just because there is a comma before the word "or" doesn't mean it invalidates the rest of the sentence. Grammar doesn't work that way. I suggest two things. Go take first, a reading comprehension class and then a grammar one, because you really need it. Or stop doing this because it makes you look like an idiot!
@@Tammohawk1 your statement is wrong, his actions validate him as an idiot. He has the reading comprehension of a four year old.
the "or" does not start a new sentence you absolute fool. That makes no sense whatsoever. The auditorium is simply the last place on a list of places. How can people be this fucking stupid?!?!?
So you said a postal inspector who doesn't know the rules & regulations yet you did the walk of shame as soon as he asked you to leave.
Yep, so I could put a complaint on him
@@LiveBD.50 and that fell flat on its ass
You got served
Been to that same one never had that problem
All it takes is one employee to start it
@@LiveBD.50 or some knucklehead with a camera
It’s interesting on how when they quote policies and procedures they change the narrative to suit their needs.
Even the man on the phone wants to twist the narrative to meet what he wants as a rule policy or procedure so much for the law.
No, they just dont cherry pick it and read it in its entirity
@@blueforest4589 It's spelled "they're", not "their". Some people!
So, now you’re 100% clear, STAY OUT OF THE POST OFFICE WITH YOUR CAMERA, right?
Why would I do that?
@@LiveBD.50 ~ Because now you know that you have been ignoring a major portion of the poster seven paragraph that most frauditors ignore, where it starts with the word EXCEPT! Why bother people in the Post Office? It’s not even a Government owned business.
@@angelforanimals7809 The employees are bothering me! I go in minding my own business, in a public space, and inevitably get confronted with someone who thinks they have more authority than they actually do. Fedex and UPS are not government owned business.
@@LiveBD.50 ~ You do NOT going in minding your own business. You go in there hoping for confrontation, why deny it? If you go on and they get a pass, your “hungry for drama” viewers, stop watching. When you are asked to stop filming in the post office, you are supposed to stop filming in the post office. That has been pointed out to you, however, you’ve made it clear you have no intention of doing that. What’s your next goal? Getting arrested for more views and hopefully a few dollars? These people have to work there and when you make them uncomfortable and stress them out, that’s not fair to them.✌️
@UCAeShC9CEmz-Ee7clP1WzMA it’s not a public space. Neither are military installations. Grow a brain frauditor
Poster #7 are rules and Regulations of Postal Employees are based on the Constittution of the United States and the BIll of Rights. He has a right to film public in a Public Building which all Post Offices are.
Incorrect. The regulations are for "conduct on postal property" he has the right to film in the post office where and when they say he can film in the post office. Similarly, it says you must comply with instructions of authorized individuals, i.e, when they tell you to stop, and to refrain from "impeding or disturbing" customers or employees". Rudely insisting they drop their other duties and "come read their regulations" is a federal crime. Up to $5,000 fine and 30 days in prison. 39 CFR § 232. Regulation of Conduct on postal property, 1, 18 USC § 3601: Criminal code.
@@UpnorthHere “in the Post Office. Period!
@@donnacicero9476 That's what you WANT it to say. That is obviously wrong. The post office regulates your First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights, like any other private business.
@@UpnorthHere The Post Offices are Public Buildings. The U.S. Post Office does NOT regulate The U.S. Constitution not it’s amendments in The Bill of Rights.
@@donnacicero9476 Uhm,hello? Each federal agency has the right to regulate conduct on its property, within the bounds of the Constitution. The USPS does that with REGULATIONS like 39 CFR § 232.1, and the Administrative Support Manual, among others. The US Supreme Court has upheld that right. You simply ignoring the law doesn't make it go away.
You are an Auditor for our Constitution of the United States. According to The Bill of Rights/Amendments to the Constitutiion.
Hint: You don't decide what restrictions the Constitution allows. The federal courts do. You can test it as either a plaintiff in a civil suit or as a defendant in a criminal case.
No. Constitution says a citizen may film in a public building. PERIOD.
@@donnacicero9476 It says no such thing. You're delusional.
It says photos may be taken for News or Meetings…
@@donnacicero9476
This is the US supreme court's take on that
Not only is the right to photograph and videotape law enforcement activities and personnel in public places an established First Amendment right (regardless of whether the activity may be deemed “expressive”), but the right is essential to protect the citizen-press, which plays an ever increasingly important role in the dissemination of information.
why did you leave thats a fail on your part.. he didnt identify he must identify as a public servant..
I left because he was a Postal Inspector, and I wanted to put a complaint on him.
@@LiveBD.50 he never truly identified himself with name which he must. Barely saw the badge. Also the call with his boss you needed to bring up the DHS memo and explain to him that one. That complaint will go no where, sorry to say
@@RichardMillerMMVVIDEO You're probably right, I will need to return to the scene of the crime and show the postal employees that what I was doing was lawful.
Because he would have went to jail
@@RichardMillerMMVVIDEO not required to identify and the dhs memo doesnt apply
Cherrypicking and lying to a Supervisory Federal Agent. You better be glad he just got annoyed and rushed you off the phone instead of CHARGING you for filing a False Report to a FEDERAL AGENT.
also a post office service area or lobby is NOT a public space, a park is a public space, a post office is a limited public forum you need to learn the difference lol
Yes, the lobby is limited to time place and manner restrictions.
Too funny
CYA ..... CYA .... CYA
👀👀👍
18:30 So you can film in the lobby but can't point the camera across the counter. ?!?! Does he not understand how stupid that is because it's absolutely impossible for staff to know where exactly a camera is pointing at all times.
I know! I couldn't believe that a licensed attorney with a law degree doesn't know the case law behind trespassing the eyes. Thanks for the comment
@@LiveBD.50 Yes and the request to not record transactions is also unenforceable. They need to create privacy protection at the counter. What if I can see someone's personal information or bank card code or whatever? I'm supposed to close my eyes and erase my memory?
Collin W Or no expectation of privacy in public.
The whole point of filming is to hold public officials and federal employees accountable. They are paid with OUR tax dollars. We have every right to film them. Behind the counter or anywhere else period.
U cant film without permission. U simple?
We will share and support your work
Thanks
Please do!!! Because If you share this it shows you’re profoundly ignorant just like the guy with the camera.
Supporting a loser with no job. Yea smart idea
DHS memo2010 2018 is your hint, please inform yourself Agent Steve S
The DHS memo was to the Federal Protective Service, not USPS. The applicable law is below.
*Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39 - Postal Service.*
*§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.*
(i) _Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes._ Except as prohibited by official signs or the directions of security force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or rule, photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head.
Note: *“Except as prohibited by official signs or the directions of security force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or rule”* This mean the post office can ban filming.
@@wazhazhe5831 all ferderal agencies were required to adhere
@@1SAM007 Please cite proof.
This is a memo, not a statute. It was addressed solely to the Federal Protective Service. If it applied to all government agencies why was it sent to none of them? When did a memo become a statute?
@@1SAM007 _all ferderal agencies were required to adhere_
Yes, that’s why this sentence is included at the top of the memo.
_Warning: This document shall not be distributed or released outside the Federal Protective Service and its Protective Security Officer (PSO) vendors without express approval from Headquarters_
@@wazhazhe5831 did not say it was…….just gave Agent Steve a way to check his ignorance at the door, nothing private about a post office in public areas of that federal building
No woman is coming out to the Lobby to be close to a weirdo with a camera.