Federal agents and body cameras don't mix !

davidmcbeth · Nov 21, 2015

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...wed-to-partner-up-with-federal-agencies.shtml

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

That should raise eyebrows ....

Ken56 · Nov 21, 2015

"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.

davidmcbeth · Nov 21, 2015

Ken56 said:
"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.

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

Citizen · Nov 21, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...wed-to-partner-up-with-federal-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.

color of law · Nov 21, 2015

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.....

sudden valley gunner · Nov 22, 2015

Citizen said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Nov 22, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Nov 23, 2015

I have always been suspicious of the Feds no record policy.

They must have things to hide.

color of law · Nov 23, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Nov 23, 2015

color of law said:
IRS regs require 10 day notice.

Then they make it retroactive?

sudden valley gunner · Nov 24, 2015

color of law said:
IRS regs require 10 day notice.

For recording?

color of law · Nov 24, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
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

OC for ME · Nov 30, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Nov 30, 2015

OC for ME said:
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.

carolina guy · Dec 2, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
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? :lol:

davidmcbeth · Dec 5, 2015

carolina guy said:
(*chuckle*) You still think that the Constitution is worth the hemp it was written upon? :lol:

Its has as much force as our bullets.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 5, 2015

[h=1]“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[/h]

Federal agents and body cameras don't mix !

davidmcbeth

Banned

Ken56

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

davidmcbeth

Banned

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

OC for ME

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

carolina guy

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member