Topic: Illinois Just Made it a Felony for Its Citizens to Record the Police - page 2. (Read 7326 times)

First, change your Illinois and U.S. citizenship and residency to domicile. Do it by Notice recorded with your county recorder, and by 3 weeks ad in your local newspaper. Attach notes of the change to all your paperwork that has you listed as citizen or resident.

Get a buddy of yours to do the same. Should be a different State.

Then, write up an agreement or contract between you and your buddy that you require each other to photograph local governmental officials every time you have the opportunity.

If you are called to account by local authorities, use Karl Lentz's methods to sue them (their bond) for wrongful activity on your property (your camera and your body are your property) while carrying out duties outlined in a contract. Start studying so that you know how to sue http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.

Consider the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1:Translation for our purposes:
Karl thinks his methods are a fun way to make money off government.

If you are really into the idea of straightening government and the banks out, check this: http://www.abodia.com/ucc/ . Karl doesn't waste his time on this, but it might be worthwhile for you until a time comes that you have the guts and know how to stand up and be a tough guy/gal, man/woman in court the way Karl does.

The judges (technically, magistrates) and U.S. marshals love him.

Yes they could. Obviously you should release said video anonymously.

I was asking the question because if this was in Illinois, he could be charged with a felony?  The police could then go to his home and take him into custody.  What happens after that, who could say?

Yep, inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't admissible in the court of public opinion. Live casting services are your best protection against abusive thieving cops trying to destroy your property to hide their crimes.

Is it a good thing this didn't happen in Illinois?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-man-7-month-pregnant-wife-deleted-video-survived-cloud/

icloud apparently saved the video before the officer deleted it from the device so the "shooter" managed to retrieve it.

I understand there's still a chance the governor vetos the bill. He's a lame duck, so he doesn't have anything to lose by vetoing it on principle. The problem is the law was passed as part of another law, so it's not being passed on its merits, and it won't be vetoed without consequence to the bill it was attached to.

Actually, best case scenario would be a line item veto, which would force the legislators to go on the record as to why they're such police-state apologists when they try to defend it or override the veto, and give the public a chance to flood their offices with angry calls.

It seems to be Sequentially temporary...  so maybe Illinois just gets used to it?

The silver lining is that unlike many other felonies, police are not yet allowed to use deadly force against a cameraperson just because they notice they are on camera. 
http://www.sa-macon-il.us/illinois-law-on-the-use-of-deadly-force-.html

Instead filming law enforcement there can legally merely ruin your life instead of end it. 

If it is unconstitutional then the law will eventually get overturned and unconstitutional laws are not very effective of achieving this goal as their effect is very temporary. Also excluding evidence that is obtained illegally is probably also unconstitutional and is another reason why the law will probably be overturned

Yeah, I agree with both of you. My original reply was just nit-picky in that I was distinguishing that the new law wasn't written in violation of the IL Supreme Court's earlier ruling. The legislator's actually think they wrote a constitutional law. I disagree, and I hope the court will too when this inevitably gets challenged when the police do what police do: violate rights.

I actually agree with that.  Regardless of the constitutionality of the law, the headline is what many people will see and will be intimidated by.  In practice, the police will be able to harass those who are recording and even if the law at some point determines they were wrong to do so, the video still gets messed with, the stigma is still applied and the discouragement factor is still there.

The law takes years to get sorted out even in cases where there are clear violations...if anything, this is just buying time and a little bit of credibility for those who don't deserve it.

Like I said, it may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter. It is still practiced as law in Illinois, and it is still an effective way to harass people trying to document police misconduct, and an easy way to get inconvenient evidence thrown out of court.

Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are.

When I saw this picture, my first thought was "Is he a thug wanna-be, or poorly trained?"

What cop holds a gun like that?

Agreed. I watched NORFED grow and get prosecuted and raided as it happened. NORFED did NOT violate similitude laws, and furthermore there is no law against using the $ symbol, it is not exclusive to the US or a US invention by any means. BVNH was RAILROADED, and the $7 million dollars in precious metals he had backing up their warehouse receipts was stolen by the government, not NORFED. From what I understand the metals have to now be released back to the customers. I wonder what this means for all certificate holders and individuals that had their orders seized...

what those monkeys don't know is that they already are, it's just last phases of the corrupts that have to be pathed. Have you ever played an AI in a real VG?

It is unenforceable in any case. 
Every time they walk into a 7-11 for free coffee or go get some donuts, they will be on surveillance camera.

without the cme^tm, Illinois would be in worst shape than Detroit at its worst. What saddening is that for what ever hubris the dear leaders are following there, they are ready to ditch the American dream... so sad. A2 is a premise of A1. Why can't I record the police? Isn't it the interest of all among the more perfect union to have the more perfect police that can justify it's action on tape, and be proud of themselves, and not hiding failures ala greenpeace? Anyway in the Iron Ring of Manhattan such deviant behaviors are always recorded... who is afraid of whom? you wanna play, welcome to the XXI century, bitches:).

Neither of the issues you raised were of any significance in the trial, just in the press release issued afterward by the FBI to rewrite the history.  They would have been easily refuted in the court.  The press is more fickle.

For your edification:
There was never a "$" on any US coin before BvN (though on many Mexican Peso coins).  The word "Dollar" is also not unique to US coins and is on very many (Including Disney Dollars), coupons, coins, "Dollar Stores".  These words and symbols are not the purview of congress, and to think that they ought control such minutia would be pretty insane anyway.

The Sacagawea dollar was the first with a "$" and this was well after the BvN trial.  It also was disingenuously called the Sacagawea golden dollar, though not having ANY gold in it and made smaller to give the impression that it had more valuable metals.
So who are the counterfeiters really?  Such brazen disregard for the people of the USA by the US Mint was answered by this coin becoming the ridicule of the numismatic community and practically driven from circulation.

The US Mint copies BvN designs more than once, and then he has to change or be charged with counterfeiting.  The minting community is not that large, and most in it knows the story pretty well.  Where BvN lead, the US Mint followed.