FLORIDA,COP WATCH,James McDonough HAS WON U THE RIGHT IN FEDERAL COURT 2 RECORD PUBLIC OFFICIALS

Discussion in 'How to Film the Police?' started by CCCOPWATCH, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:21 PM.

  1. CCCOPWATCH

    CCCOPWATCH New Member

    THIS ARTICLE FROM MY COP WATCH FRIEND IN HOMESTEAD IS SUPERRRRRRRRRRRR IMPORTANT James Eric McDonough shared Charlie Grapski's post.
    6 hrs ·
    I'm blushing. One of my personal heros independently analyzing my case, and placing it as one of the most important precedents ever!

    Charlie Grapski
    20 hrs ·
    IF YOU READ ANYTHING I WRITE/POST - I URGE YOU TO READ THIS ONE

    THE MOST IMPORTANT FEDERAL RIGHTS PRECEDENT CASE

    The Federal Courts have now put in writing what I have been stating since Clovis Watson first arrested me ... and now it is firnly established in law ... you have a right to record public officials when acting as public officials ... because in that capacity and context they have neither a right nor an expectation to privacy.

    The case was brought pro se by James Eric McDonough here is the ruling.

    Why do I say this is the MOST IMPORTANT Rights cases ... because it doesn't directly establish the Right to Record a Public Official. Because what it does is far stronger than that. It implies that right - but never has to get to it. Because it establishes, thus far more significantly, that the public official in the context and capacity of being a public official has NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY that can be viewed as a countervailing right to the right to record.

    What you will find is the same pattern of abuses used against MsDonnough in Homestead in 2016 was that used against me in 2006 ... by the City, with its Police Department, and the assistance of the State Attorney ... as I experienced in Alachua.

    In the TEN YEARS between my case in Alachua and McDonough's in Homestead - we began to see what is on display in the extreme in these two cities, being normalized in practice across the nation, at the very same time that law enforcement is now normalized in its abuse of force to the extreme of being presumed to have not violated the law in the killings of persons for no reason than an officer claimed that they were "in fear for their lives" in doing their job. And note how directly both our cases - ten years apart - center on the same issues of corruption in local government - in local law enforcement - and in the judicial process itself.

    This is an important federal case. This is one of the most significant federal civil rights cases to date in terms of establishing the right of the public, even though this case never has to go that far - just as mine was ruled at the District level without having to argue our first amendment right. But this is actually even more significant in what it doesn't do - by what it entails in what is said. Because it is an even STRONGER ESTABLISHMENT of that CITIZENS'S RIGHT TO RECORD not just police officers but public officials QUA public officials. The Court has accepted the argument I made back in 2006 when I was similarly arrested, while exposing corruption in local government, for recording the evidence of the violation of public records laws - and charged under what most would refer to as the "wiretapping statute." The issue of OUR First Amendment RIGHT TO RECORD never came up ... because IN THE CAPACITY OF a public official IN THE CONTEXT OF carrying out the duties of that public office - the individual HAS NEITHER an EXPECTATION NOR a RIGHT to PRIVACY.

    That is FAR STRONGER of an established RIGHT to record public officials than even a case that directly established that as a positive right. That right is entailed, and thus implied throughout, in the facts of the case. But the absence of both the right and the expectation to privacy, when acting in the capacity of a public official, is far stronger of a PROTECTION of the PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW than even the positive establishment of the Right to Record the public acts of public officials.

    There is no countervailing right of privacy of the official that can be used to limit the public's right to know what is done BY an official AS an official.

    [Phone has a problem with copy/paste - here is another link to the case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1867669.html]
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page