December 23rd, 2013

Boston Police Threatening to Arrest Journalists for Making Phone Calls and Public Records Requests 239

By Carlos Miller


Boston police threatened to arrest a journalist for making phone calls to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, accusing him of being way too “aggressive” in his quest for public records, vowing to charge him with criminal harassment for the “scary” tactics he insists on using during his phone calls.

To put it in non-hyperbolic police talk, they are upset that he insists on recording all phone calls with them.

It’s a story we’re all too familiar with.

The reporter’s name is Andrew and he is part of the newly launched Bay City Examiner news site, which looks very promising.

His partner in the site, a woman named Maya who was the driver pulled over in the story from earlier today, then decided to go to the district attorney’s office in person to file her public records request.

But once again, they refused to talk to her because she insisted on video recording the exchange, and was ordered out of the building by two cops and a third man with a badge who claimed not to be a cop.

After taking the elevator downstairs, she came across another employee of the district attorney’s office and tried to hand him the public records request, but he told her she was breaking the law by video recording him without consent.

He took the request anyway after he was corrected on the law that only forbids citizens from secretly recording others, a fact that is known to everybody in the world except Massachusetts law enforcement officials.

There is clearly a systematic abuse of power in Massachusetts in regards to the right to record, but it looks as if Andrew and Maya are prepared to take them head on.

After all, the records they are requesting pertain to police shootings throughout the state, so they already going for the jugular.

The top video shows Maya getting kicked out of the D.A.s office, the bottom video is the conversation between Andrew and the detective threatening to arrest him.

The cop who kicked Maya out is Lieutenant Detective Bernard E. Greene, Jr., pictured below, along with his business card. His direct line is (617) 619-4014.

Greene

Lieutenant Detective Bernard E. Greene, Jr.

 

greene-business-card

 

 

 


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Jaybone

    These guys just refuse to learn. It’s the typical police attitude. It doesn’t matter what the law says, only what the police say.

    • ProudGrandPa

      You are right. These DEMOCRAT liberals don’t care what the law and Constitution say. They are following the example of the DEMOCRAT in chief currently in the White House.

      .

      Check this out for gov’t getting caught in illegal activity…

      .

      Larry Klayman, the former Reagan administration prosecutor who won a preliminary injunction Dec. 16 against the government’s collection of all American phone records, says the White House’s surveillance review panel should be ignored.

      The five-member panel released a 303-page report Dec. 18 containing 46 recommended changes to intelligence practices.

      “It’s a ruse,” Klayman tells U.S. News. “This is an age-old government practice: When caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they come up with a ‘solution.’” The practice is somewhat similar to advocating a law outlawing murder after killing someone, he says.
      .

      http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/23/nsa-lawsuit-attorney-ignore-white-house-panel

      One guess which political party is responsible. I don’t vote Democrat because I value liberty.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        Thank goodness Nixon never did anything wrong, ever

        • Amicus Curia

          Not even Nixon publicly endorsed/defended torture. In fact, during the presidential campaign Ron Paul participated in, a press interview with all the Republican candidates was broadcast. All but Ron publicly endorsed the practice of torture/water boarding. If one is fond of the U.S. Constitution and proper rule of law, the 8th Amendment should be kept firmly in mind. While convicted prisoners are stripped of many of their civil rights, the 8th Amendment isn’t one of them, so say the courts. Yet we have a President who professes to be a Constitutional scholar who ignores this fact. A President who is dismissive of the Constitution shouldn’t be holding the office.
          -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Torture started under Bush, not Obama. Patriot Act enacted under.. yep, Prez Bush. Reality has a well documented liberal bias.

            Obama is not really all that Progressive, despite claims by the Tparty to the contrary.

          • Herbert Napp

            Do you mean despite HIS claims to THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? Jesus.

          • ProudGrandPa

            Of course Nixon was a moderate, not a conservative or Libertarian.
            .
            I like Ronald Reagan, probably America’s greatest president ever next to Washington.

          • BusPass

            You know how you whine all the time about videos you don’t think fit the category of photography and crime? Well let me point out that all your constant babbling about political parties has even less to do with this topic, not to mention your position is wildly unsupportable and inaccurate. Even Carlos doesn’t go the political route like you do all the time.

            Why do you have to be such an irrelevant douchebag about this?

        • ProudGrandPa

          Of course Nixon was a moderate, not a conservative or Libertarian.

      • BusPass

        Which one of these cops was the “good cop?”

        How many times do I have to ask you?

      • Herbert Napp

        Dude what? It’s not just democrats and republicans. It is BOTH. Liberals however are admittedly paradoxically for and against a police state, agreed on that notion. For decades liberals have been screaming “FUCK THE POLICE!!!!!!!” and now from these same people I’ve known or even TV “personalities” I hear “only the police and military should have THESE kinds of guns!!”. It goes both ways, but because of the most deceptive president we’ve ever seen is in office and is a democrat, people tend to divide.

        • Fotaugrafee

          No, no, NO!!!!!!

          99.9% of them are GOOD COPS!!!
          99.9% of the problems are because of damn Democrats.

          Yeehawww, ‘Murica!!!

        • ProudGrandPa

          The Republicans are a mixture of good and bad, liberals and conservatives.
          .
          The Republican platform sounds good, but many RINOs sabotage it.
          .
          The Democrat party platform sounds bad and is bad. That is why morally good and partiotic Americans don’t support liberal, leftwing demcrats.
          .
          Liberals and democrats are the worst censors and most corrupt.

      • Amicus Curia

        Does that include the right not to be tortured. Torture became official state policy under President Bush (jr.) who not only embraced the practice, but publicly defended it!–thus, outdoing even Hitler who though responsible for countless atrocities, didn’t publicly cozy up to torture. While Obama doesn’t publicly endorse torture, he refuses to hold those responsible accountable. A pox on both their houses!
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

        • inquisitor

          There is a deeper reason as to why rendition, kidnapping and torture were made legal.

      • Fotaugrafee

        Hahahaha, yes, it’s all a huge party issue. Of course, NOW we have it. But once we elect a Republicunt to office, it will all go away. Hahahaha.

        Republican sure as fuck doesn’t mean “liberty” you tool.

      • kraz

        Yes, we know what your political stance is from your other posts. The fact is these problems come from both popular political parties. Claiming otherwise does nothing but divide people when we need to stick together.

        • ProudGrandPa

          Democrats support these corrupt policies. Republicans and Libertarians and Constittuionalists do not.
          .
          The two major parites are not MORALLY or POLITICALLY equal.

          • kraz

            Thanks for explaining that to me. As a Libertarian I had no idea that only Democrats supported corrupt policies and the Republican party is righteous and does no wrong.

          • Bob_Striffler

            Well that’s because I hear God’s a Republican and supremely patriotic…right?

        • Bob_Striffler

          Amen to that! It’s the finger pointing people that are so easily programmed by one party or another along with wedge and single issue voters that are the problem and cause of this country’s demise thru division! They’re so gullible to fall for that Media orchestrated crap!

  • Film The Police Always

    Time to flood call the fat cop named BERNARD E GREENE and ask him why he’s threatening a United States Citizen with arrest because they are making an open records request. Let give them what they fear, THE PEOPLE!

    • Amicus Curia

      Why does a dog lick its penis?–because it can. It’s time for a bit of surgery for cops who insist on doing so. Sue the Bastards!
      -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

  • http://www.seimstudios.com/ Gavin Seim 2014

    I just called his direct number and reminded him who he works for and what his obligations are. Lets get these people in line.

  • Common Sense

    I really still don’t get it!!!! Its a SIMPLE public records request. What’s the big deal LT if they record you while making it? Although you tried to come across as “polite” you were out of line and an embarrassment to the uniform! Don’t really know what the Mass laws are on public records request, but in Florida, if I am not mistaking, to refuse to accept the public records request is a violation of the Sunshine Laws. SMH had the ignorant bullying tactics! Its IDIOTS like you who give those of us who try and show transparency to the job a bad name!

    • Guest

      Not an “embarrassment to the uniform.” A traitor! Let’s use the right words. “I will uphold and support the Constitution of the United States.”

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        And the whackjobs that don’t even know what treason is pipe in, yet again.

        Try reading the Constitution nimrod. It’ll tell you what treason consists of, and this ain’t it.

        • Guest

          We had this conversation before. I didn’t write “treason.” I wrote “traitor.”

          Traitor – a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.

          You admitted you were wrong then. That you thought I wrote treason. You keep seeing treason, when myself and others are writing “traitor.”

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Traitor: A person who commits treason against his or her country

            TRAITOR, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).

          • Guest

            That’s just one definition. And certainly not the best or most commonly meant.

          • harry balzanya

            Every reasonable person knows what was meant dont feed this troll

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Except for the fact that it is the first one listed, which, in lexicographic systems means that it is the most common use.

            The same goes for the Oxford, Collins, American Heritage, etc.

            And when you use it in reference to the Constitution, where treason is defined, it shows that you do not pay attention to what is in the Constitution, or don’t care.

          • Guest

            I do use it in reference to the Constitution. Specifically in reference to the oath sworn to “uphold and support” it. A traitor to one’s oath. The power and trust that society places in those that take this oath. A traitor to our trust. The duty that one has to not violate this oath. A traitor to one’s duty.

            If you refuse to understand why it’s so important to use the word “traitor” for police and other government officials who violate this oath then I don’t think it will dawn on you now. It is not the same thing as a security guard or a random employee performing his job badly or treating people badly. It is an important and different thing. And the words used to describe that thing, should reflect that.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            It’s the wrong language. Malfeasance, nonfeasance, official misconduct, etc., are all better ways to describe inappropriate conduct.

            Traitor has specific constitutional ramifications. Your language is not precise, apparently intentionally so.

          • Guest

            You have your opinion on what words are appropriate. I have mine. My language is precise, and intentional. I intentionally, and precisely, use the word “traitor.” Your language, however, is not precise. Going back and forth between traitor and treason. Using them interchangeably, as if there were no difference.

          • ExCop-DumbassMonkey

            ExCop-LawStudent is just another power hungry ex idiot pig, who think’s he knows everything. The saddest part of it’s life, yes it’s, is how being a douchebag cop wasn’t enough power for him, now he wants to be a D.A. to demand and control more. Hopefully it doesn’t wear it’s seatbeat, and hopefully texts while driving a lot. It’s parents must be really proud.

          • inquisitor

            Just admit you were wrong fucktard and move on with your studies.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            In this case, I have to agree with ECLS. Not in every case. but in this one, he’s (she?) is correct.

            That said, what say we get back on topic?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I’m male.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Cool. I meant nothing negative. I didn’t want to project a gender.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I did not take it as a negative. It’s all good.

          • ExCop-Dumbass

            Are you sure? Because it seems you are missing some balls, two to be exact. By the way, having a procedure done to your god given anatomy doesn’t make you male. Probably another liberal lesbo……. May God have mercy on your soul. Don’t bother replying to me, they won’t be read. I can get enough bullshit just watching the news. Have a great CHRISTMAS, whackjob. A more suiting handle for you would be Excop-Mentalcase.

          • ExCop-TopTroll

            It trolls many sites, not only this one, and has the arrogance to think it’s “blog” actually insights people. It boasts about 200 hits a day. Laughable. Typical nutjob troll, I can only imagine what it’s parents are like…

          • Amicus Curia

            It may be hyperbole, but I feel the same way. Punishment for those who violate their oath to uphold the law should be severe, not mundane.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • bacchys

            The Constitution defines treason. Violating one’s oath of office is not part of that definition.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Exactly.

          • Bob_Striffler

            This police and prosecutor abuse is widespread and undermining this country! Furthermore it spits on all those men in uniform who died defending the freedom this country is supposed to be! They put a blank check filled in with their lives for the oath they took to defending the Constitution! And this only to be undermined domestically by uniformed bullies and thugs here who also swore a fraudulent sellout oath to the same Constitution, not by foreigners from other countries! It would do this country a great service to have those same troops right back here to get a handle on these out of control public SERVANTS and arrogant unaccountable “officers of the court!” These domestic terrorists! Furthermore the Constitution was never meant to have members of one branch sitting in office controlling the other branches. Lawyers (officers of the court and Judiciary) have virtually taken over the other two legislative branches and executive branches thus they are seriously over represented in our government, which is stifling and apparently brutalizing the other voices. (We the People and “Our” Bill of Rights!”) And now they’re forcing their immunity on America thru their manipulated paper “Rule of Law!” They’ve become manipulative paper dictators! And they are now building up their army of militarized police thugs! Big freaking surprise! That’s treason pal! Camp FEMA coming soon to a neighborhood near you! Again Thomas Jefferson warned us of the Judiciary being the largest most dangerous and brutal branch o the government if left unchecked! What exactly is it you think you’re witnessing here in America?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            OK.

          • Rail Car Fan

            “Guest” said in part…

            “If you refuse to understand why it’s so important to use the word
            “traitor” for police and other government officials who violate this
            oath then I don’t think it will dawn on you now.”

            It’s not that he refuses to understand. All one needs to figure it out is to see the word “COP” in his signature. It says it all!

            As we know (when it comes to cops), they’re always right… while the rest of the world is wrong!

            Rail Car Fan

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Mmmm… I’m not a cop. Never have been a cop. Never wanted to be a cop. For the most part, I view the cops with great suspicion. I have seen cops blatantly lie & know that such lies & covering the lies of others are ingraining in cop culture.

            I think the actions by the LEOs in the video above are outrageous & unacceptable.

            And yet. Yet, I agree with ECLS, in this case (as to the use of the word “traitor”).

            1) What the cop did is not Treason, as described in the US Constitution.

            2) Calling someone a “traitor” is saying they committed treason. We know this is correct, given the correctly used citation from Black’s Law Dictionary.

            3) I don’t believe ECLS was saying what the officer did was ok. Only that however vexed people might be, it does not fit the legal definition of “treason”.

          • Amicus Curia

            I agree w/you in principle. I think splitting hairs is counter-productive. We need more people who understand the profound violation of public trust that occurs when those sworn to uphold the law, defile it.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Fotaugrafee

            He is unsympathetic to your use of the word because he’s another law-interpreting (former) cop. You know, kind of like the people who get defensive over being called something they think they’re not?

          • BusPass

            …rolling our eyes…

          • inquisitor

            Dude…everyone knows that he meant by the use of the word traitor.
            And he clarified with the definition he was using.
            Perhaps you should have been smart enough to inquire which definition he was using before you attempted to correct him.
            So shut your fucking pie hole for once.
            You argued your point, and you lost.

          • Rail Car Fan

            “Inquisitor” stated in part…

            “You argued your point, and you lost.”

            And THAT is most likely the same thing that’s going to happen when he goes into court on his case!

            Rail Car Fan

          • inquisitor

            But should I lose or win, I won’t resort to calling Rail Car Fan a whackjob.

          • inquisitor

            He did not use it in reference to the Constitution, he used it in reference to this officer’s oath to uphold the Constitution.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            An endorsement by a whackjob who has suggested killing police officers doesn’t help him much.

          • inquisitor

            I endorse self-defense against corrupt police officers in a way presently outside the bounds of present law. And would rely upon a jury to determine my innocence or guilt based upon all the factors to consider in such a case.

            But your behavior isn’t about me.
            So why deflect?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Somehow I doubt that a jury would consider luring a Pennsylvania officer out into a wooded area on a false call, and then ambushing and murdering him, to be a valid case of self-defense on your part.

            Since that is what you have suggested in the past.

          • inquisitor

            Can you prove that is exactly what I did in exactly the way you stated it?

            And what this has to do with your behavior is irrelevant.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent
          • inquisitor

            And I would direct you to the comments I made explaining the intent behind those comments and what they actually meant. And that was in answer to the same false conclusion and accusation you made back then.
            That explanation would defy what you have just recently claimed.
            Shall we move on?

            Because what this has to do with your behavior is irrelevant.

          • paschn

            There are numerous points of contention regarding whether or not Israeli trained cops are committing treason which would, (by default) make them traitors
            Do the filth swear an oath to defend and uphold the constitution?
            Yes
            Do they violate certain inclusions within the constitution?
            again, yes.
            So,…. they violate not only our constitutional rights, they shit upon their very own oath.
            therefore they are stinking 5th column traitors and will be treated accordingly when people wake up.
            Scrap the bullshit semantics “cop”.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I’m glad you’re here. All the whackjobs are over in that corner. I’m sure that you’ll feel right at home.

          • ThatGUY

            Traitor: ONE WHO, BEING TRUSTED, BETRAYS; one guilty of treason.

            ~Black’s Law, Sixth Edition (Centennial Edition)
            (Same as on their website, thelawdictionary.com)

            Your definition comes *second,* so kindly stfu.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Gee, I guess since you cited the Sixth Edition, 1990, and I cited a more recent version, the Ninth Edition, 2009, that would mean you were using a dated reference.

            Since there have been three editions since the one you cited, and the current versions shows my definition as “first,” does that mean you’re going to STFU? Or will you continue to attempt to play in the bigs, with AA-level talent?

            Thanks for playing.

          • ThisGUY

            So you’re saying your 2009 edition is less “dated” than thier web site? You’re also apparently claiming that the lack of the definition in a later edition somehow nullifies any application of a broader and more generalized common definition that was previously included in that same reference, and is in fact *currently* included in the online version of that same reference.

            I assume you can point to some relevant case law that supports your contentions regarding the wholesale nullification of the broader definition being applied by the posters above.

            I think it’s only ethical that you reveal your full name, so that any readers can dutifully avoid being represented by your “AA-talent” before a court in any matter of significant importance.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Wow! Genius-level thinking here. Yes, a 2009 edition is less “dated” than a 1990 edition. Duh.

            Second, the only edition that Black’s uses on “their” site is the 9th edition. The 6th edition is not on Black’s site (which, BTW, is the Westlaw site).

            As to your “ethical” request?

            ROTFLMAO.

            Ain’t happening.

          • ThatGUY

            >>Yes, a 2009 edition is less “dated” than a 1990 edition. Duh.

            I repeat:

            So you’re saying your 2009 edition is less “dated” than their WEB SITE?

            >>Second, the only edition that Black’s uses on “their” site is the 9th edition.

            Then that makes this all the more interesting:
            “What is TRAITOR?
            “One who, being trusted, betrays ; one guilty of treason.”
            http://thelawdictionary.org/traitor/

            BTW, just for clarity, the other three reference publishers you mentioned below:

            Definition of traitor in English
            traitor
            Syllabification: (trai·tor)
            Pronunciation: /ˈtrātər/
            noun
            a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
            http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/traitor

            traitor (ˈtreɪtəR)
            noun
            a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc
            http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/traitor

            trai·tor (trtr)
            NOUN:
            One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
            http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/traitor
            (powered by American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)

            Stop pretending that the only valid and proper application of the word “traitor” is in specific relation to the act of treason.

            As for my “ethical” request, I’m not too concerned… one would hope that the Bar is effective in weeding out incompetents like yourself.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            ROTFLMAO.

            You do realize that the website you are using, lawdictionary.org is not in anyway connected with Black’s Law Dictionary, I hope? That they use a 1910 edition of Black’s because the copyright has expired? That the 2d edition is over 100 years old?

          • ThisGUY

            So apparently now your argument is something along the lines that between 1910 and 1990, “One who, being trusted, betrays” was a valid definition of “traitor,” but somewhere between 1990 and 2009, this definition somehow became invalid. In that case, again I ask: can you point to some relevant case law that supports your contentions regarding the wholesale nullification of the broader definition?

            You sure are going to a lot of trouble to avoid simply admitting that the broader definition is perfectly valid, AS IS ILLUSTRATED in NUMEROUS editions of Blacks, AS WELL AS Oxford, Collins, and American Heritage dictionaries. For all I know, it’s even a valid definition in Black’s 9th edition, but being that I don’t have access to members-only Westlaw, and I don’t have a hard copy of the 9th edition, and you’ve quite dishonestly insisted on claiming that the broader definition is invalid despite clear evidence to the contrary, I’m not inclined to take your word for it. Take a screenshot of Westlaw or a photo of the hardcopy of Black’s 9th, and maybe you’ll have a tiny leg to stand on to save face. It will be only a narrow victory in regards to that very specific reference work, however, being that it’s clearly established that “one who betrays a friend, country, trust, cause, etc” is a perfectly valid definition of “traitor.”

            And what a sad commentary that a claimed “ex-cop” and “law student” is so fond of teeny-bopper catchphrases like “ROTFLMAO” etc. I wonder if your condescending and self-righteous attitude in the face of overwhelming evidence against your position has anything to do with the negative sentiments so many on this block harbor toward law enforcement. Perhaps you have such an intense desire to disprove the applicability of the broader definition of “traitor” because to accept it would be to place yourself under that same definition.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Whatever.

            I don’t worry too much whether you believe me or not. I’m not interested in arguing with those who cannot distinguish a free online dictionary site with Black’s.

            Plus, if you really want to know, you can register for Westlaw by credit card and pay per document.

            I’m not about to take a screenshot where it shows my real name as the account holder and then publish it here.

            Thanks for playing.

          • ThatGUY

            >>I’m not about to take a screenshot where it shows my real name as the account holder and then publish it here.

            I’m sorry that you’re so technically incompetent that you are incapable of popping a screenshot into PhotoShop or MS Paint for fifteen seconds to black out your name.

            Either that, or it’s just another pathetic excuse.

            Either way, it really doesn’t matter… I’ve definitively illustrated that your position, the claim that the word “traitor” can only be properly used in relation to an act of treason, is entirely without merit.

            Yeah… “thanks for playing,” but you lose… miserably.

          • ThisGUY

            And why I would pay one thin dime to check your reference when your case has been destroyed multiple times over (what was that about “Oxford, Collins, and American Heritage?”), I have no idea.

          • ThatGUY

            By the way… is your real name published on each page of your hard copy of Black’s 9th? Is that why you can’t take a picture of that too? Your arguments are as fallacious as they are laughable. God help any future client you may have.

          • ThisGUY

            And just a final note, so you don’t get too self-congratulatory if you do decide to post a reference pic: whether or not the 9th Edition definition is as limited as you claim is completely and utterly IRRELEVANT, as the question is whether or not the definition of “traitor” is EXCLUSIVE to the commission of treason, which has already been definitively proven to not be the case. But hey… please feel free to post a pic regardless… at this point I still find it to be a minor curiosity, but nothing more.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Nope.

            Pay for it yourself.

          • ThatGUY

            No thanks… I’ve already proven you wrong for free.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Not hardly.

          • ThatGUY

            Christ, you’re so dense I don’t even think you even understand what the debate is about any more (if you ever did).

            You’d better start writing letters to Oxford, Collins, and American Heritage, asking why they publish “incorrect” definitions, because they agree with my position as well, as illustrated above.

            Or perhaps you’re just scared to admit to the broader definition of “traitor” because if it’s not restricted specifically to acts of treason, it possibly applies to yourself as well.

          • Amicus Curia

            I prefer the 4th ed. but regardless, it’s a great reference book.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I mostly use the Westlaw access to the 9th, but also have a copy of the Fourth Pocket Edition that I use as needed.

          • Robert

            Wait till Ex-Cop/ Jackass( I hate ALL cops), gets his law degree,find out where he practices, then Bar Grieve the crap out of him. You don’t have to have a valid reason. His malpractice insurance will go up to the point where he can’t afford it and work anymore. Lawyers think they are real smart. An educated citizen is smarter.

        • Film The Police Always

          You call everybody a whackjob that calls these thug cops out for being corrupt. You support thug cops.

          You have no idea what a whackjob is. A whackjob is a nut that would want to get to know this thug and his family.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            No, I call out those that don’t think or write clearly.

            You’ll notice I very rarely say anything about what Carlos writes. That’s because he communicates clearly and thinks logically.

            You, on the other hand, just made an unwarranted assumption that I agree with what Lt. Greene did–I do not. For example, I took the time to look up the Mass. open records law, which is really crappy. There is a general offense for not complying, but no appellate law on it, which tends to indicate they don’t enforce it.

            I would prefer a Texas model open records law, where Greene could not pull that crap.

          • Guest

            “No, I call out those that don’t think or write clearly.”

            You responded to my “traitor” comment with a rant on “treason.” Were you not thinking or writing clearly… again? Or were you deliberately being disingenuous in creating a straw-man argument?

          • bacchys

            How does one become a traitor without committing- or at least plotting- treason?

          • ProudGrandPa

            You are feeding cop-hater trolls. The cop haters make PINAC look bad and destroy our credibility.

          • CEDUPZ

            No hate, extreme DISTRUST and weary of the tactics and abuse of the rules…WAKE UP!

          • frank-kintz

            From my research I think Florida’s records laws are as easy as any I have found. They do not require any form of ID. Texas law stipulates they may ask. Believe me they do every time. The law is rather vague on if they can inquire as to you purpose of the request. They will always ask. Other than these two stipulations, yes Texas is a good model. Mississippi law is determined by whom ever is in the office that day and if you can prove you are a relative of the Chief of Police. That is not how the law is written but that is how it’s enforced state wide.

        • harry balzanya

          I belive Whenever cops are caught really breaking the law ex cop shows uo to misdirect and hijack the topic

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            That’s because you don’t read.

            I have a long history of supporting photographer rights, both here and on my blog.

          • BusPass

            Oddly when it comes to looking for comments that I think show support for photography rights and criticism of police misbehavior, your moniker never comes to mind.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Gee, oddly enough, when it comes to looking for well thought out comments and reasoned dialogue, your name is not on the list.

          • BusPass

            When you see me on here trying to paint a picture of my “long history” and trying to convince other people what I support, then you will know that I give a crap what you think.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            LOL, so that’s the reason you always respond?

            Yeah, OK.

          • BusPass

            Always? Hyperbole much?

          • inquisitor

            You are an embarrassment.

          • Rail Car Fan

            I bet you really had to think had to come up with that one didn’t you..!!..?

            Rail Car Fan

          • ExCop-TopTroll

            It seems your only logical thoughts have once again succumbed to throwing rhetorical attempts of childish insults. Yes, I insult you because I know how much you love it. I bet growing up this troll was the kid who threw a temper tantrum when he didn’t get it’s way. Please post most links to your self-imperious failure of a blog.

          • ExCop-TopTroll

            Correction, when IT didn’t get it’s way.
            Please post more links……. But it’s such a genius, I bet it know what everyone thinks, and implies, before they even have the thought.

          • ExCop-TopTroll

            knows*, why do I even care…… This vile excuse for a human, is truly one of the worst. Trolls like it, is what’s destroying America.

          • inquisitor

            Ah…leading to your blog, again. Now it makes sense.

          • Rail Car Fan

            Sorry. Not interested in wasting my time reading any dribble you have on you blog (emoticon of shaking head while rolling eyes upward), let alone having to put up with you here (Ex-Cop)!

            “Thanks for Playing!”

            Rail Car Fan

          • ExCop-TopTroll

            Again, pushing and plugging a blog that has little to zero merit or effect on anything. Not only does this troll think he knows everything, now he’s trying to pass the bar for every single state , and their laws. It just goes to show you how power hungry this whackjob is.

        • inquisitor

          So someone who makes an error in the usage of a term equates them to being a “whackjob” or just simply being…mistaken?

          Because it would seem the term “whackjob” may not be the appropriate term for someone who is simply in error.

        • Rail Car Fan

          You must have been up late last night either drinking with your cop buddies or studying for a re-exam of the last test you failed.

          You forgot to add your usual snarky ending that you’ve used in the past.

          “Thanks for Playing”

          Rail Car Fan.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Sometimes single malts make me mellow.

        • RaymondbyEllis

          ECLS,

          Had he not refered to “I will uphold…”, I would have sided against you. But then you wouldn’t have commented as you did without the reference. It created ambiguity; I certainly thought he meant traitor to the Constitution by it.

          As for all the cop-hate directed at ECLS, read his blog for the sake of Christ. He holds to principles of behavior he is perfectly willing to apply to any cop or entire jurisdictions.

          OT this thread, kind of, but I thought local law enforcement owe fidelity to their state’s constitution. They enforce the laws of that state, drawn from that constitution.
          (RbE aka Ariel)

      • theaton

        Yes, Let’s use the right words. “I will do whatever the hell I want because I have nothing to fear from the wussified people.”

      • Fotaugrafee

        Meh, it’s just words. Kind of like “stop resisting”. They mean what the pigs want them to mean.

    • inquisitor

      He is afraid, clearly.

  • BusPass

    …well officer, if you have nothing to hide…

    • CEDUPZ

      They (gov’t) certainly use that line on enemy citizen all the time, but enforcers never want it back at them, hmmm, possibly they know they are up to no good.

  • BusPass

    Hey old man, I constantly hear you talk about all these allegedly good cops.

    Which one in this video was the good one?

    • inquisitor

      A few minutes after he takes his medication there are hundreds of good cops sitting right in front of him in his living room.

  • CEDUPZ

    COPs use the intimidation and just act stupid, and want to create an issue so they can they claim some kind of shit, cops are really low IQ thugs, and as long as they get away with stuff, they will continue! that’s some GOLD badge, on the card, he must be really SPECIAL! They are the same nudnicks who will tell enemy citizen not knowing the law is no excuse, but they cannot use that excuse, they make up their own rules, how low are the standrds in this country to be a cop? It’s scaaarey in here. I bet that building is covered with cameras inside and around the perimeter, THAT is OK…holy shit we are being Bamboozled every day…and they tax us, to get money to fund their shit!

    • bacchys

      The “act stupid” part is because the courts have consistently given law enforcement a free pass to violate the law if they don’t know the law.

    • Rail Car Fan

      “Nudnick”…

      a word which translates into.the Yiddish saying:

      “A person who brings much happiness to those places he doesn’t go!”

      Rail Car Fan.

      .

  • Rusty Carr

    Typical Boston thuggary, they’ll have to be slapped REALLY HARD someday to effect any change in their behavior.

    • Dave

      As we saw after the marathon bombing the people of Boston are sheep that are more than happy to give up all their rights whenever the police want them to. There is no way the people there will ever stand up for themselves.

      • Ed Steel

        And what would you have done, been out in the street with your rifle fighting the police? Plenty of people objected to what was done and did so through constructive channels. Come to Boston and call people sheep, you wouldn’t last 30 seconds in any working man’s bar.

  • CEDUPZ

    Seeking information is now a criminal offense, aggressive, vague BS, cops are the aggressive douchebags….

  • CEDUPZ

    Public “servants” sure make up lots of restrictive RULES…serving the public s not one of their functions, wheni t doesn’t make them look good. what a bunch of dickwads. When confronted with the RULES, they enforce, they ignore said rules, but of course they will use them against anyone they deem , what a corrupt system of dickwads.

  • CEDUPZ

    OBEY cus I said so!! Their cameras are OK, but not yours!

  • CEDUPZ

    Overweight ftso, with a gun in an office building! Intimidation factor….

  • CEDUPZ

    Look out for the big NEGRO!!! Intimidation, team effort!

    • Anon

      Please troll elsewhere.

      • inquisitor

        Actually the man was a Negro of large physical stature and he was not a part of the department, yet still took it upon himself to get involved in the situation, failed to identify, and was standing with his look of cop intimidation.

        Which part of that is trolling?

        • Anon

          His race and the way you referred to it had nothing to do with the story.

          • inquisitor

            Well, if the large, negro officer was in the process of assisting to violate someone’s rights and to compel to them to be ejected from the building then that could be the basis for a criminal complaint by the journalist.

            To identify the officers and others who may have been involved it is not out of the ordinary, for the sake of identification, on the police report to mention their race…as would a cop also do.

            And seeing how the large, negro officer refused to identify himself with a name and badge number, then that information is made even more relevant.

          • Anon

            Dimwit.

          • inquisitor

            Well Anon, if you can provide me the officer’s name that failed to identify himself through your gift of mental osmosis, then I would be more than happy not to use his physical characteristics and appearance to do so.

            Police can do this to identify an unidentified person but others cannot?

          • Anon

            You are still a dimwit.

          • inquisitor

            …didn’t think so.
            You are free to go.

          • Anon

            You are trash…

          • CEDUPZ

            Calling a NEGRO a NEGRO is now Wrong, holy shit Batman, how DUMB is the citizen of America? We truly are Fd’ up, into SUBMISSION! The guy certainly was not Vietnamese!!!

          • Anon

            Trash.

          • CEDUPZ

            You probably think cops are there to HELP you!!! How much fluoridated toothpaste have you swallowed, along with the water supply?

          • Anon

            Your mother is a hamster.

          • CEDUPZ

            Oh yeah…well, your first cousin is actually YOUR mother! So there!

          • CEDUPZ

            Exactly!! Why do POLICE REPORTS include RACE, color and other IDENTIFYING quality? NEGRO is an identifiable TRAIT, characteristic. DUH, Only cops can define what color, for enemy citizen, REMAIN SILENT, WOW, is this country being dumbed down into SUBMISSION!

          • frank-kintz

            How would you describe him? His is big ( well actually fat), he is a negro, one must assume he is a officer of some type (large badge hanging to his expansive belly) and since he refuses to indicate his name or association ( gross violation of policy) one is left with only one conclusion that he is a large negro with a badge. Maybe to be PC we should conclude that he is a not to big but not to little, non Caucasian, non hispanic, non oriental male with bling around his neck and is possibly a deft mute that just hangs around the DAs office. I guess you are right, that sounds better.
            Thank PC POLICE.

          • Anon

            I would describe him as a better human being than your sorry #$$.

          • frank-kintz

            How could you possibly come to such an assumption? You can not possibly know anything about me and unless you are the “large negro officer” in the video or you are associated with the “large negro officer” in the video , you have no possible way to ascertain weather or not the ” large negro officer” in the video is a better human being or not. For all you know I may well be a large negro officer my self.
            I really don’t think that my ass has any thing to do with the afore mentioned video unless you have some information you would like to add, like what kind of ass the ‘large negro officer) has. If you would like, please post you e-mail info and I will send you a picture of my ass and you can compare and then draw a fair conclusion.
            If in fact you are the “large negro officer” or you personally know the “large negro officer” I would welcome you to provide some information about the character of the person in question. If you will do that I will provide you my information and together we can then have a competent discussion about the character of the two entities.
            I await you response.

          • Anon

            You are pathetic.

          • frank-kintz

            I rest my case. Goodby large negro Officer Anon.

          • Anon

            It must be sad being you.

          • Ed Steel

            We don’t need to know you to spot that you are a racist asshole…

          • Dan-O

            You could describe him as a girth endowed law enforcement representative

          • frank-kintz

            That will work.LOL
            But in order to get more information, that would be impossible because that description would cover about 65% of law enforcement officers. Then there are about 20% of the roid boys. We still need his ethnicity to factor into the investigation. It may take some time but we will find out who he is. An when we do “book him Dan-O.”

          • CEDUPZ

            Exactly! If you where asked to describe the person that just assaulted you, I guess it would be wrong to call him a large fat NEGRO! How stupid is this country. go watch some duck crap…

          • Ed Steel

            Another Klan member here…

          • CEDUPZ

            Yes it DOES, why else would they send in the BIG GUY!? INTIMIDATION EFFECT. Done all the time, BIG NEGROES intimidate, more than a fat pasty white guy.

          • Anon

            You have a small brain. It must be genetic.

          • CEDUPZ

            Thanks DAD!!! Small brains can do big things! It can recognize NEGROES and idiots, in the same time frame…..the mind is a terrible thing, when not used. Try using yours!

          • Anon

            Your father smells of elderberries.

          • CEDUPZ

            Hang on, gotta look that up, not sure what they are…

          • CEDUPZ
    • Voice-Of-Concern

      What is the significance of the fact that one of the folks with a badge is a “NEGRO”?
      Do you feel there is something extra “intimidating” about an African american man?
      I am puzzled why there was an “ALL CAPS” need to describe race on one individual, instead of his size or the number officers involved in the matter.

      You see, I’m not a racist bigot, so racist bullshit doesn’t make sense to me.

      • CEDUPZ

        Send out the big BLACK dude to REALLY instill fear, and more fear, look at the hate and anger in that guys eyes, , he must love his job….and YES super intimidation, absolutly….the bigger and the blacker, look out…the entire cop operation is fear and intimidation, officer friendly never had eyes filled with such hate….this country is doomed! The over weight white guy couldn’t instill FEAR, like an oversized, obese black dude, you know it’s true.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          I don’t understand. You sound really silly.

          There is nothing inherently scarier or more intimidating about any particular race.

          • Ed Steel

            To him there is, that’s why he has white sheets to hide behind!

          • CEDUPZ

            YOU don’t really think that way do you? why do you think they siced him on the people? INTIMIDATION, send in the big black dude, it always scares people. now go walk down the streets of Camden….it’s NOT filled with small Asians, and how come a gang of 5 Asians can walk at ya, ya ignore em, 5 big NEGROES, and your heart will start racing,if you don’t think not so, you are full of crap! If you saw a Chinaware and a NEGRO carrying a gun, which one will freak you out first, be honesty, you know it’s the NEGRO!

          • Ed Steel

            There is when you need to hide behind white sheets like Inquisitor and CEDZUP. These two are crackers from jump!

        • inquisitor

          Using a negro for intimidating purposes works well because so many a negro make a good criminal…just look at the stats.

    • Ed Steel

      Fuck off you racist asshole!

      • CEDUPZ

        do YOU even know what the word means? the ignorance of most people is mind numbing! I say look out for the large NEGRO, and that entails I am a racist, no wonder this country is doomed, it really is filled with MORONS! did you graduate from Al Sharpton School of Idiocy?

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        no, no.
        Let the crypto-racists reveal themselves.
        It’s not like this is a really a surprise.

  • paschn

    Whom do you blame for this type of terrorism? Cops trained by a foreign entity, or the results of the patriot Act? Possibly the reassertion of the NDAA?

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/us-citizen-raped-by-border-guards-coming-back-into-her-own-country_122013

    • theaton

      Paschn, I blame you, myself an the rest like us that do nothing in the face continued Tyranny. If we didn’t like what they are doing, we would be doing something to stop it!

      • inquisitor

        A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
        state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
        infringed.

      • paschn

        Agree. But don’t be too hard on us. With the tiny few who are aware, the media would call us “radicals” or “survivalists” or the swine would come up with another denigrating moniker. In the end, it’d be nothing more than suicide. Like tyrannical groups, (governments?), will do, they’ll become worse, take more from us, hurt more people. Slowly, more will wake up and want justice or plain old “payback” for killed, imprisoned friends/relatives. As with any revolution it’ll be what Kissinger and other tribals call “useless eaters” against the lackeys, (cops, obviously, federal agents, [CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA, all the "alphabet" agencies who have become so politicized and filled with 5th column traitors] who’s “careers” and paycheck mean more than our constitution/civil rights and just plain human decency).
        At that time, do we clean house haphazardly and allow those in charge to escape or live, (Irish revolt), or go after them, when their toadies have been “dealt with” and remove them all from the gene pool, (French Revolution).
        Unfortunately, both failed to one degree or another or we wouldn’t be discussing this right now.

  • anon

    Maya and your assoc…Your social interaction skills need a lot of work. I think you’re going to need to make some adjustments that don’t continue to showcase your weakest areas.

    • Frank Talk

      They have a contact page over at BayStateExaminer.com. Maya and Andrew could use some seasoning, but that comes with time and experience. They should be commended for defending our rights in the face of abuse and harassment from public officials who’d rather not bother.

      • ProudGrandPa

        Why need to defend rights in a DEMOCRAT state?
        .
        Isn’t Massachusetts supposed to be a left-wing, liberal DEMOCRAT state? Isn’t Massachusetts supposed to be the home of John Kerry and former DNC chair Hunt? The worst censors are leftwing, socialist liberal DEMOCRATS.
        .
        If you value open government, never vote for Democrats.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          Massachusetts is a purple state.. like much of the US. Perhaps you have heard of it’s former Governor.. a Republican by the name of Romney?

          If you value blind bigotry, always read PGP’s comments.

          • ProudGrandPa

            Backing down, eh? Afraid to admi the truth about Democrats.
            .
            The liberals in Massachusetts are responsible for the censorship. Our readers will remember this and stay away from liberal/progressives. You cannot censor the internet, libs!

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            “Backing down”???

            Dude, stop Listening to the voices in yer head.

    • inquisitor

      Could you provide specifics as to what skills are deficient and why?

  • ray brown

    I’ve always wondered why public offices don’t post notice of prohibition of non consensual audio/ video recording as are weapons, drugs etc. Perhaps because it isn’t illegal. Notwithstanding security some accommodation of a citizen’s documentation of affairs should be made. It would protect all parties. Public officials acting in their government role do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does Mass really want to push the limits of Glik? Your First Amendment rights don’t stop at the sidewalk.

    • ProudGrandPa

      This is a liberal, leftwing, pro-socialist state. That is why they are the worst censors.
      Massachusetts is supposedly left-wing, liberal DEMOCRAT state, right? Isn’t Massachusetts supposed to be the home of John Kerry and former DNC chair Hunt? The worst censors are leftwing, socialist liberal DEMOCRATS.
      .
      If you value open government, vote for anybody else but Democrats.

      • http://www.telescreen.org Vidiot

        Why don’t you make an actual argument once in a while, with facts and such, troll?

  • inquisitor

    This officer Greene has the typical mafia cop authority asshole complex going on.
    He obviously has no respect for the public for whom he is supposed to serve or the law all and acts under the ruse and guise of “security reasons”.
    Meanwhile their security cameras role without your consent.

    @3:16 The officer, after a short introduction, instantly demands the camera be shut off in a most unprofessional and bullying manner.
    His manner is unprofessional ,argumentative and bullying because he does not have the law backing him up, so he needs to compensate for that with sheer aggression over the citizen to help gain compliance to his unlawful directives.
    He states it is a violation of policy to do business like this.
    The journalist is then informed that she cannot even submit her public records request while recording and that right is denied her for the mere act of exercising her right to record.
    The final coercive threat and action is to have her thrown out of the building.

    Again, the public officials are misconstruing the wiretapping law, either purposefully or through ignorance, in attempt to stop citizens from recording business between members of the public.

    The reason why these alleged public “servants” to do not want to be recorded is because they have a habit of deliberately misquoting policy and law while making shit up on-the-fly to deny you all that you are entitled to or to limit you rights to access in some way. They do not want a record of their abuses and their lies so there is no undeniable evidence to hold against them when it comes to liability. That is actually the “security” they speak of. They wish to be secure in their ability to abuse their authority over you with no evidence to hold them accountable.

    • ProudGrandPa

      Some of what you wrote about these DEMOCRAT, liberal, leftwing socialists BIG UNION LEOs is true.

      .

      Isn’t Massachusetts supposed to be a left-wing, liberal DEMOCRAT state? Isn’t Massachusetts supposed to be the home of John Kerry and former DNC chair Hunt? The worst censors are leftwing, socialist liberal DEMOCRATS.
      .
      If you value open government, never vote for Democrats.

      • inquisitor

        I am not here to use PINAC for a political soapbox or for political witch hunts.
        Debating politics is the realm of the impotent, non-thinking troglodyte.
        Bigger issues at hand here.

        • ProudGrandPa

          I’ll cooperate in joint ventures with fellow constitutionalists of any stripe including Republicans, old-fashioned Demcorats, Libertarians ala Rand Paul, or independents.
          .
          If you don’t hold the guilty politicians responsible, the uninformed masses will just vote them back in. Don’t add to the liberal progressive messes by advocating censorship.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Excellent analysis!

  • James Morgan

    These guys refuse to acknowledge the facts.. Carlos.. you know a kick-ass lawyer on Beacon Hill who has already spanked them once.. give these people his name.

  • ProudGrandPa

    What is the legal line one can cross between a lawful FOI request and an unlawful repeated series of harrassing phone calls?
    .
    This sounds like the so-called reporter is just trying to harrass the police. The FOI request was already granted, Are the police required by statute to grant followup interviews? If so, I know FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and a few million Tea Party conservatives and Libertarians who’d love to haul Obama and Clinton and Kerry in for questioning… as well as a few others.
    .
    Say, Isn’t Massachusetts supposed to be a left-wing, liberal DEMOCRAT state? Isn’t Massachusetts supposed to be the home of John Kerry and former DNC chair Hunt? The worst censors are leftwing, socialist liberal DEMOCRATS.
    .
    If you value open government, never vote for Democrats.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      If you value your rights, never vote for born-again christian oppressors.

      If you want to know how those governments act, just look at what the Founding Fathers thought about them.

      “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” James Madison, 1785.

      “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams, 1756.

      “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” Thomas Jefferson, 1814.

      • Film The Police Always

        WOW, I think I’m finally in agreement with you on this one.

      • ProudGrandPa

        Irrelevant. Unworthy of a reply…

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Actually, it is relevant.

          The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the bible thumpers as far away from government as possible.

          [N]o one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, 1789.

          “The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.” John Adams, 1815.

          “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” James Madison, 1803.

          Clearly the founders of this great nation did not want religious nuts to run (or ruin) it.

    • Ed Steel

      You truly are a worthless old reactionary fuckwad Gramps. Your lunacy becomes more apparent with each post. I am not sure why Carlos hasn’t banned your decrepit butt yet you pathetic teabagger.

  • io-io

    Going to go out on a limb here a bit and making some assumptions. The
    Bay City Examiner news site is the new kid on the block, pops up with a
    FOIA request or two, makes some phone calls inquiring about things. The
    items of interest in their FOIA request are things that the DA’s office
    would rather not address. The Bay City Examiner show up with cameras -
    video and audio recording, and the office does what they know best.
    They are lawyers, the DA, with police protection and their own group of
    investigators. They want to deal with requests in writing. In this
    way, it can be reviewed, worked and reworded to the extent that they are
    saying nothing, but still answering the request (in such a narrow way
    that the information provided might not be useable). Visits – take them
    by surprise – first thing that comes to mind –

    1) the Trespassing law – trespass them, so that they can never come
    back. Never mind that they are trying to conduct official business.
    How can one trespass in a public space while attempting to conduct official business? That is secondary. The primary intent is to get them out of the
    building. Where the redress of grievances comes in as a Constitutional
    Right – is never thought of. The DA represents the “people”, and thus
    are always right.

    2) the Wiretapping law – You are recording, never mind that its a public
    area (safety and security issue) and it does not apply, twist and convoluted the law to your position, call your police force, and get them
    out of the building – again. The primary focus is to not deal with the
    newbies. The DA’s office does not apparently care about the
    Constitutional issue of readdressing grievances. There is no expectation of privacy in a public space, and everyone who is complaining is a public servant – paid with tax dollar$. Justice delayed is
    justice denied.

    3) Harassment – Apparently just a couple of phone calls – even a phone
    call returning their phone call is enough to bruise their thin skin and
    bring out a criminal complaint of harassment. This brings us back full
    circle to redress of grievances – how does one deal with a governmental
    office who hides behind a lot of procedural interference items – so
    that they do not have to deal with the primary issue. The officers said
    the stuff is in the mail – be gone and never call again. They do not want to deal with you.

    Wonderful – triple play already! Trespass, Wiretap and Harassment
    warnings in such a short period of time. A nerve must have been
    struck. Two forms of communications have been removed – visiting the
    office on official business and calling the office on official
    business. That leaves mailing in a written FOIA request. That is just
    how the DA’s office wants to deal with this type of transaction.

    All of this leads up to, not wanting to deal with the Bay City Examiner
    news site. Real news sites have lawyers and have budget$. They have
    capital behind them. So, the answer is – let them $ue. Taking the DA’s
    office to court will take time and money. The DA’s office has plenty
    of time and tax money to defend themselves along with all the lawyers
    that they need. If they run out of time, money and lawyers – they just
    go get some more – and charge the taxpayer. In this way the DA’s office can bleed the Bay City
    Examiner news site dry to the point that they dry up and blow away.
    Problem solved. If they are able to stick around – the DA can string
    out the Court action for several years, before they will need to deal
    with it – that is what lawyers do best. By that time, hopefully Bay
    City Examiner news site’s capital will have been depleted – and they go
    away. Problem solved again.

    So even if Bay City Examiner gets a lawyer, it comes down to who? Some
    shlock with a shingle – not proven, no record, – no problem. It strikes
    me that Carlos (either by planning or by luck) found a known quantity,
    at a known law firm just down the street from the DA’s office, that knew
    the ropes, and that the DA was going to have to actually deal with.
    The DA fixed the problem, made it go away – dismissed the case. Problem
    solved. Why was the problem solved – access to capital.

    I am now down a number of paragraphs – and have not even addressed the
    contents of Bay City Examiner’s FOIA request. That is exactly what the
    DA wants to happen. Toss up every other procedural barrier that they
    have access to and make them just go away. That is what lawyers do best
    – work the system, its a game, delay, prolong and write motions. The
    DA’s office has much more important business to conduct. They do not
    need to be bothered with this stuff.

    What Bay City wants to do, probably on a shoe string budget can be done,
    it will just take a lot of time and persistence, effort and waiting. A
    lot of very carefully written FOIA requests, waiting the clock out,
    going through the written results (they will not come in soft copy so
    that they can be searched effectively). Re requesting via a new FOIA
    restating the original request (more carefully) – thus restarting the
    clock all over again. A single visit or phone call could effectively
    clear up quite a few misunderstandings, but that is not what the DA
    wants here.

    The next thing is that the DA will claim that they have received 10 FOIA
    requests in the last month and that they are being harassed in this way
    – that they can not effectively do their job of putting criminals
    behind bars – due to all of this trivial stuff. They have the more
    important work of the Court and of the People to do. That will ensure
    that Bay City Examiner can not submit a written (snail mail or email),
    or phone request, nor visit the office – on official business and hand
    deliver one. Presto! To the Penalty Box you go – Problem Solved!!!

    I wonder if the DA’s office might possibly be at odds with 18 U.S. Code §
    242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law. But what do I know – I
    am not an attorney and certainly do not practice. Just trying to apply
    some logic from afar – very afar.

  • making lists

    these guys should invest in a lawyer and put these security goon-fucks in short pants

  • ray brown

    I would advise officer Greene to consult the US Attorney’s office before threatening someone with arrest for making a one party consent audio video recording of a public servant. Notwithstanding security and reasonable time, place, and manner of recording a citizen’s First Amendment right to make such recordings must be accommodated to no small extent. If he doesn’t like being recorded stay home. You know you’re being BS’ed because if it was really policy not to audio/video record you can bet it would be posted.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      The US Attorney won’t tell him anything. It is a state law offense.

  • ray brown

    Who needs Candid Camera when overt filming makes police look like buffoons?

  • ray brown

    Since Glik and ACLU v Alvarez police have had to get more creative about hindering one party consent audio/video recording They now charge you with harassment, security violations, blocking the sidewalk, jaywalking, contempt of cop. As long as they stick to verbal harassment they’ll stay out of trouble. Hopefully the majority have common sense. Fear of You Tube isn’t reasonable cause. Lt Greene couldn’t make up his mind whether to use the security scenario or “official policy” routine. He doesn’t realize no one needs his consent to record. He’s lucky he was given the courtesy of knowledge of the recording. True to form, however, he fixated on the camera. It’s never a pretty “picture”.

  • Herbert Napp

    Hey Boston, you’re fucking hilarious and inept.

  • Paul

    At some point, it is going to have to be “I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU” with some willing soon-to-be-arrestee making the dare. Taking it to court and winning big might be the only deterrence.

  • Amicus Curia

    I run into this routinely in Washington State. Many LEO’s need better training. Perhaps contrary to Massachusetts law, it is NOT illegal to record LEO’s surreptitiously in Washington. Nor should it be. It is a matter of public safety as well as a bulwark against abuse of power. The courts (at least here) have recognized this and ruled accordingly. This is such a given that I fully support the practice of LEO’s following suit while on the streets. They have a dangerous and necessary job. While I don’t want to be hurt or see my neighbors hurt by them, I don’t want them hurt either. That includes dissembling, an unfortunate practice exercised by LEO’s and truculent citizens alike. Recordings help to hold those responsible accountable as well as serve notice they will be. Having the recording devices hidden multiplies their effectiveness since those in an altercation can never know if one is present. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but in today’s world of NSA surveillance, do any of us have a reasonable expectation of privacy any longer?

    The 1st instance of this kind of abuse is to treat a public forum/venue as though it were their own by the badge monsters. But, the rules are profoundly different for what may lawfully serve as cause to be evicted (e.g. a bar) from private property and a public space where any citizen has a right to be at the time in question. In order to ‘trespass’ a person from a public library, courthouse, park, etc. (especially if told never to return), something more than personal whim must be brought to bear. There must be just cause, notification (in writing), and written information on the process (which must exist) of how to appeal the trespass. The federal courts have ruled written notice is mandatory. When a LEO violates your fundamental liberty interests (such as inappropriately trespassing you from a public facility/space), they forfeit their qualified immunity against personal liability in a civil lawsuit. i.e. Sue the bastards! All the rhetoric/whining and 10 cents won’t get you a cup of coffee.

    It is vital that we reclaim our common spaces from these ill informed boneheads before the practice becomes so entrenched as to become virtual law. Remember: It isn’t THEIR space, it’s OURS! If you are rightfully there, lawfully, and are not breaking the law, being disruptive, harassing or interfering with the purpose of the facility (e.g. You can’t be shouting in a library or hospital) then anyone who attempts to ‘trespass’ you runs a serious risk of being found liable of violating your civil rights/liberty interests. The best way to go about this without being arrested is to have witnesses, multiple video/audio recordings, and LEAVE. Then, SUE the Bastards! Don’t just whine–DO something about it. That’s how change is brought about.