Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Federal agents and body cameras don't mix !

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Federal agents and body cameras don't mix !

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...agencies.shtml

    DOJ Says Body Camera-Wearing Cops Aren't Allowed To Partner Up With Federal Agencies


    That should raise eyebrows ....

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dandridge, TN
    Posts
    377
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" riiight??? At least that's what they say to us mere serfs. Oh, wait, its for officer safety. That's it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken56 View Post
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" riiight??? At least that's what they say to us mere serfs. Oh, wait, its for officer safety. That's it.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tumblr_ne9lsx5f331sqhqoio1_500.jpg 
Views:	131 
Size:	67.4 KB 
ID:	12857

    There's Officer Safety ! ^^^ Ain't he cute?

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...agencies.shtml

    DOJ Says Body Camera-Wearing Cops Aren't Allowed To Partner Up With Federal Agencies


    That should raise eyebrows ....
    A few years ago, I read an interesting article. Can't remember the source or website, but I think it was a lawyer.

    The FBI has a firm policy against agents allowing their conversations with citizens to be recorded. The context of the article was about a technique of the FBI. The technique was to interview someone, while the FBI convinced the interviewee that the FBI would keep notes and send him a copy of the write-up later.

    Well, it turns out the write-up somehow always managed to subtlely shift what was said and agreed--to the citizen's disadvantage, of course.

    I do not recall the article claiming the regulation against agents allowing themselves to be recorded was put in place to facilitate this little game. But, it certainly helped the game along.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Video cameras worn by ATF gun runners would compromise the story.

    But, I thing those secret service agents should be required to ware those cameras when they are off duty.....

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    A few years ago, I read an interesting article. Can't remember the source or website, but I think it was a lawyer.The FBI has a firm policy against agents allowing their conversations with citizens to be recorded. The context of the article was about a technique of the FBI. The technique was to interview someone, while the FBI convinced the interviewee that the FBI would keep notes and send him a copy of the write-up later.Well, it turns out the write-up somehow always managed to subtlely shift what was said and agreed--to the citizen's disadvantage, of course. I do not recall the article claiming the regulation against agents allowing themselves to be recorded was put in place to facilitate this little game. But, it certainly helped the game along.
    Which is interesting from what I remember the Federal state is a one party consent.I tried to point this out to an IRS agent who had a no recording sign on his desk during an audit.He also lied and cost me several thousand dollars because of his lies and out right threats. I should have recorded.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Which is interesting from what I remember the Federal state is a one party consent.I tried to point this out to an IRS agent who had a no recording sign on his desk during an audit.He also lied and cost me several thousand dollars because of his lies and out right threats. I should have recorded.
    I record even when told its illegal to - as it is not illegal to.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    I have always been suspicious of the Feds no record policy.

    They must have things to hide.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Which is interesting from what I remember the Federal state is a one party consent.I tried to point this out to an IRS agent who had a no recording sign on his desk during an audit.He also lied and cost me several thousand dollars because of his lies and out right threats. I should have recorded.
    IRS regs require 10 day notice.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    IRS regs require 10 day notice.
    Then they make it retroactive?

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    IRS regs require 10 day notice.
    For recording?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    For recording?
    Yes. But, they will fight tooth and nail to say you can't record.

    4.10.3.2.6 (03-01-2003)
    Requests to Tape Record Interviews

    Internal Revenue Code Section 7521(a) addresses audio recording of interviews.

    Taxpayers — Taxpayers may request to tape record an interview proceeding as long as 10 calendar days advance notice of intent to record is provided to the Service. In addition, the taxpayer must supply his recording equipment. The Service has the right to simultaneously produce its own recording and has the right to reschedule the interview if the Service does not or will not have equipment in place.

    IRS — The Service can initiate an audio recording provided it notifies the taxpayer 10 calendar days in advance of the interview using Pattern Letter 2156 on Area Director letterhead. The Field Territory Manager must approve all Service initiated recordings. See Exhibit 4.10.3–1 for copy of pattern letter.
    https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-003.html
    Last edited by color of law; 11-24-2015 at 04:05 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Which is interesting from what I remember the Federal state is a one party consent.I tried to point this out to an IRS agent who had a no recording sign on his desk during an audit.He also lied and cost me several thousand dollars because of his lies and out right threats. I should have recorded.
    26 U.S. Code § 7521 - Procedures involving taxpayer interviews: (a) Recording of interviews; (1) Recording by taxpayer: Any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service in connection with any in-person interview with any taxpayer relating to the determination or collection of any tax shall, upon advance request of such taxpayer, allow the taxpayer to make an audio recording of such interview at the taxpayer’s own expense and with the taxpayer’s own equipment.
    No recording, no whining.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No recording, no whining.
    I think that the 1st amendment covers this already ... to be able to seek out gov't corruption to file a grievance.

    Just MO. The US code cannot infringe upon your 1st amendment rights nor your natural rights to keep tabs on the gov't.

    And the "advanced request" part of the code ? Seems irrelevant as the taxpayer must be allowed to record anyways.

  15. #15
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think that the 1st amendment covers this already ... to be able to seek out gov't corruption to file a grievance.

    Just MO. The US code cannot infringe upon your 1st amendment rights nor your natural rights to keep tabs on the gov't.

    And the "advanced request" part of the code ? Seems irrelevant as the taxpayer must be allowed to record anyways.
    (*chuckle*) You still think that the Constitution is worth the hemp it was written upon?
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    (*chuckle*) You still think that the Constitution is worth the hemp it was written upon?
    Its has as much force as our bullets.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”-Lysander Spooner

    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •