Andrew Meyer Introduces Himself to PINAC Readers. Ask Him Anything

What’s up PINAC brothers and sisters?

It’s 2014, and I think we’re all ready to see a different story from the police already. For the eighteenth time, officer, Photography Is Not a Crime. Neither is washing your own car in your driveway, taking your kid home from school or insulting a police officer. Yet all of those actions attracted police action last year, resulting in a warning, an arrest and a murder.

We need to make a change.

My name is Andrew Meyer, and I’m no stranger to police overreaction.

I questioned Senator John Kerry in 2007 because I was furious about the Democrats apparent collusion with the Republicans and the trillions they were wasting on war.dont-tase-me-bro

I was writing before, during, and after that incident about a number of problems plaguing the country, but that incident showed me how important it is that I know my rights, be able to enforce them, and help anyone else in a similar spot. As a PINAC writer, I will highlight the laws that you absolutely need to know.

After University of Florida police officers famously arrested me, an officer police wrote in his report that they chose to arrest me because of my “demeanor and actions.” The officers also claimed I was violent, with one writing that I “continued to…push, kick, and elbow the officers.” Exactly what happened after that incident is a story you’ll soon hear.

I will say now that if I had known it’s a crime in Florida to file a false police report, or that I could sue the officers for defamation or libel, my actions following that incident would have played out differently.  But I didn’t know the law.

Crying about spilled milk is not my agenda.  I know now that everything happens for a reason, and for me, the aftermath of that incident led me to learn what our rights are, how the police are overstepping their bounds, and what we can do to change things. For me, the first change I needed to make was internal.

After the media spotlight of the “Don’t Tase Me Bro!” incident, I stepped back to untangle the knots in my own life. Six years later, I have a law degree and a perspective on the police I never would have expected.

Andrew Meyer and Carlos MillerWhen it comes to the cops, or any other area of our lives, we are the ultimate issue and solution. The law enforcement we get is a direct result of our own actions and inactions, and we can work to change the situation.

I’ve met police officers like Ericson Harrell that you would be proud to shake hands with, and also witnessed the despicable stories of criminal thugs masquerading in police uniforms. I will do my best to bring attention to the stories of routine police brutality, police immunity to justice, school police abusing kids, S.WA.T. overkill for no reason, and police taking strange anti-citizen orders from the federal government, so that we can change the direction of law enforcement.

This year, I want to see more of the good officers on the force, but as a PINAC writer, I will expose the officers abusing their authority and the people they are sworn to serve. Together , we can get the service we want from our public servants.

This blog is building serious power, and that’s because of you. Recently, your desire for justice defeated the Boston police’s idiotic prosecution of Carlos Miller, and you have the power to do even more.

Who knows what actions your watchful eyes will spark this year, or how many people your vigilance will inspire? On my watch, I promise to bring you the most important stories – where your attention can really help – as well as ideas to help maximize your amazing passion for justice. Stay tuned for articles on freedom of speech and the ridiculousness of free speech zones, the need to classify tasers as deadly force and for officers to know when deadly force is appropriate, the story of my own personal transformation and how we can transform our anger into positive action, and much more.

I’m proud to be writing for you, and I know it’s going to be an amazing ride hearing back from you. Feel free to ask me anything. I will respond to each question.

All the best PINAC reader/activist,

Andrew Meyer

About Andrew Meyer

For news tips on aerial photography and drones, contact Andrew Meyer, PINAC’s staff writer covering UAV photography, the First Amendment, and more. You can also read his work on Tsu @AndrewMeyer, and at

Check Also

banned Youtube

YouTube Terminates PINAC Account for “Violent” Police Videos, the Latest Shutdown on Independent Media

On October 27, YouTube terminated the main channel of Photography is Not a Crime, claiming …

  • Burgers Allday

    Welcome, Andrew.

    Q: Did you sit for the bar in any state?

    Comment: because you have been to law school, you might enjoy my blog Police4aqi (read: Police Fourth Amendment Qualified Immunity). It is not just for lawyers (I try to make the cases understandable toa lay audience), but it is a blog that focuses exclusively on certain legal opinions that may be of interest to you. This blog is at:

    congrats on your gig at PINAC.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Great compilation at word press. First case “Retention of records” Piece of crap judge should have ordered on a motion to complell! Then had the cops arrested for non-compliance! Then under misprision of felony threat, fulfilled his duty and reported it to the feds for more enforcement, by the US Justice Department! More of the judicial rubberstamp process. A game played on their self regulated and absolutely (self ordained) immunized monopoly board by rules based on their whims! It’s disgusting! And I know of no other free world country that’s practice of law is this degragated! And I’ve lived in five different countries! That’s America Strong!

      • Bob_Striffler

        Carlos I’ve sent you e-mails seeking answer. I seem to be able to reply to posts but am unable to post under the Join the discussion box at top of discussion? I’m curious and would like a definitive answer? This has been the case for about 5 days now. Maybe if Mr Meyers is online he could answer that for me?

        • Carlos_Miller

          Your other comment made it through. What browser are you using?

          • Bob_Striffler

            Internet explorer and it’s worked fine till 5 days ago? Now I’ll try to post this in discussion box

          • Bob_Striffler

            It works only on replies? I can’t figure it out?

          • Bob_Striffler

            I did have to redo my password the other day? Why I don’t know?

          • Carlos_Miller

            I don’t know. I’ll have to get our techmaster involved in this because I am clueless about these thing.

          • Bob_Striffler

            I entered it in discussion box and it showed then when I hit refresh or look at postings later in the day it never shows up? it doesn’t

          • Carlos_Miller

            You are aware of the dropdown function that brings up “newest,” “oldest” and “best” comments, right?

      • pinbalwyz

        In WA State, there are 2 independent methods of acquiring public records/documents: A PDA (public disclosure act) request and/or a demand for ‘discovery’. The latter is pursuant to some kind of litigation else the court has no authority until a complaint has been filed. In WA, there are statutory penalties for failing to fill a legitimate PDA request. What the laws in the relevant State are regarding such requests is unknown, at least to me.

        Traffic infractions in WA allow extremely limited discovery, but they do NOT preclude PDA requests. While I agree with the judge’s ruling it the cited case, there may be a law or rule against interfering with an investigation. Thus, in a traffic infraction I was litigating against, the police properly refused to cooperate with my discovery demands because in traffic infractions, there’s little/no underlying basis for them in WA. BUT, PDA requests are still available. In my case, the police lied and said there was NO police report when I asked for it. I brought on a motion to dismiss for police misconduct and interference with my investigation of the stop. Ultimately, the prosecutor threw up her hands and insisted on dismissing the case, whether I liked it or not. She may have felt I was having too much ‘fun’ at her expense…though when I first approached her to settle the matter, she was arrogantly dismissive. She was a contracted DA and may have felt the cake wasn’t worth the candle.

        • Bob_Striffler

          Yes there is a difference with traffic infractions as far as discovery. Most are pretty cut and dry. Florida (the hell many are stuck living in) is supposedly the most liberal in attaining public records by citizens. They’re called sunshine laws. However there are always dark clouds over the courts here and court records are changed all the time. The case above I hastily commented on before really reading thoroughly is here and is a Connecticut case of false arrest. The laws are contradictory and outright oppressive themselves. This C.G.S.A. § 54-142a, allows for the destruction of basically ???? the whole casefile? Which is absurd. One has to wonder which consortium of collective bargaining would lobby that into law! Then Section 54-142a(e)” intends for erased records to be physically destroyed such that they no longer exist, the statute also “designates the manner in which erased records shall be protected:” and goes on to say how they are kept for 3yrs????

          Here in Florida one goes to the Clerk of the Courts office and picks these up. All criminal charges and case files are open to any public as the Constitution reads, “Public hearings trials etc…”

          The point I see here in this case and far too often across the board is that shocking legislation gets passed that seemingly works hand in hand to deter rightful 1983 claims and to deter one seeking enforcement of title 18 s 241,242. In cursory reading of the case above, the laws cited in this case above were obviously confusing to even the plaintiff’s attorney. I would have very much liked to have studied up on the case law in Connecticut involved in the Memorandas filed etc… I think the person who was falsely arrested felt she was Constitutionally entitled to (she was) the charging documents aka police reports, arrest report, probable cause affidavit! I wholeheartedly believe she sought this as a smoking gun to omissions, manufactured facts and outright lies we’ve all seen far too many times! And reading this case further shows the process as a rubber stamp!

    • Andrew Meyer

      Thanks for sharing your blog, it’s a great resource. Yes, I sat for the bar in Florida.

  • Dan-O

    Confiscating of cameras under the guise of exigent circumstances. Now
    I am NOT the quickest chip on the board, but how can someone claim exigent
    circumstances in the aftermath of the traffic accident. (the worst case I’ve seen)
    So my question is,
    are there any legal avenues to pursue if your property is confiscated when no
    exigent circumstances truly exist

    • Bob_Striffler

      Exigent circumstances have always existed! These are just new words being used as an excuse to violate your rights! If exigent or good faith circumstances can exist and be used to criminalize Constitutionally Protected Activities then your Constitution has been invalidated by the courts and none other. According to SCOTUS ruling of Kolender “A law needs to be written that the average citizen can read and understand what conduct is prohibited” Is a Constitutionally protected activity resisting or obstructing? Then it should say so in the law! Is it disorderly conduct? Then it should say so in the law! If a Constitutionally Protected Activity endangered anybody’s life then it wouldn’t be Constitutionally protected! This is all bullshit from a self-regulated, absolutely immune and non-publically scrutinized, out of control branch of government! There are laws written clearly to challenge this absurdity but have been made irrelevant by, not so much legislation (some) but by Court Decree! Which is legislating from the bench! Take a look at how many “officers of the court” sit as legislators also now! That’s not what our founding fathers had in mind! The judiciary is not only eroding the Bill of Rights, it’s eroding our separate branches of government and the checks and balances built in for that very reason! The judiciary has become by far the largest and most dangerous Branch just like Thomas Jefferson warned us about!

      • Bob_Striffler

        Oh and sure there are rulings that say you can get your camera back. The problem is prosecutors and police have unlimited state resources to A) keep arresting you on charges that have been ruled against and B) keep fighting you on giving your camera back! And C) have immunity (not really) for doing so

      • pinbalwyz

        “The monarchists will hide in the judiciary.” -B. Franklin(?)-

      • Lefim

        Research “Prior restraint” Also

        And, after some remembering and researching,

        for a model of a petition that Steveo provided awhile back

        Sorry, Bob, I was replying to Dan-O

        • Bob_Striffler

          Sorry I responded and I Like Carlos’s plan which worked. But for me start at “Intellectual Property rights” and that’s only one avenue! There is much controlling case law to be used for getting your property back…including state statute! (smile) Lot and lots of case law! I’ve done it differently! But the best way to get anything accomplished in the fake court system is to attack it from every possible legal argument you can make! Then by law they are supposed to read and rule on your challenges if so appropriately submitted! Yuk! Yuk! And rule on them! One after the other! Like I said check into “Intellectual property rights” and their accompanying case law!

          • Bob_Striffler

            There are certain things they need to prove before keeping it!

    • Andrew Meyer

      You can always file motions in a criminal case and/or sue civilly. The prevailing legal word of the day is “reasonable,” and judges have been granting the police a lot of leeway in deciding what’s reasonable. This topic could be a whole post by itself if anyone is interested.

  • ProudGrandPa

    Andrew Meyer: “This year, I want to see more of the good officers like Ericson Harrell on the force, but as a PINAC writer, I will expose the officers abusing their authority and the people they are sworn to serve. Together , we can get the service we want from our public servants.”

    Welcome to PINAC, Andrew. I am so glad you are here, and I truly appreciate your balanced acknowledgement that some police are good guys too. Keep posting the news about the good officers as a balance to those who should not be on the force.

    And congrats upon your law degree. Question: What are you doing for regular income? What area of practice will be the Andrew Meyer specialty?
    Thanks and welcome home!

    • Bob_Striffler

      The last good officer was Frank Serpico and look what happened to him! Maybe while we’re at it we should have the Brevard County Sheriffs Internal Affairs Officer write some articles too! Or maybe the prosecutor!

  • Charles Moore

    I would love to see more follow up on stories. Public records request results, any litigation, challenges to the qualified imunity etc.

    • Bob_Striffler

      I would like to see coverage of a cop getting the electric chair! Sorry Charles it’s not a response but I can’t post it at the top of the page for some reason and just felt like saying it! Again sorry!

      • pinbalwyz

        Is the Louisiana female LEO who murdered an entire southeast Asian family @ their restaurant (some years ago), later convicted and sentenced to death row, still alive? The only reason she was busted was one of the family girls successfully hid in a walk-in cooler, and called the police to report the crime. When the police arrived, the murderer was among the officers responding. The girl recognized her and immediately point out the perpetrator to the other officers present, who then arrested their colleague.

        • Bob_Striffler

          Never even heard of that one! Then again the News Media tends to isolate things! I never ever could understand why people would go to witness executions, besides maybe family members of victims! I might possibly make an exception for that one though and go myself! But overall I don’t believe in the death penalty for two reasons. 1) Far too many on death row have been proven innocent and 2)….personal faith reasons.
          If I witnessed this one I doubt I’d feel nothing but sick for going and participating! As far as killing I believe in two reasons 1) in defense and 2) in defense from an evil government attacking the Constitution which too many have died trying to keep it alive!

          • Amicus Curia

            Antoinette Frank (born April 30, 1971) is a former New Orleans police officer who was convicted of the robbery of a restaurant where a fellow officer (who was her police partner) was working as a security guard was murdered in addition to two of the restaurant owner’s children, witnessed on their knees praying to God that their lives be spared. Frank is one of only two women on Louisiana’s death row at the Louisiana Correctional Institute in St. Gabriel, Louisiana.


            Mugshot of Antoinette Frank.BornApril 30, 1971 (age 42)
            Opelousas, LouisianaOccupationPolice officerCriminal chargeTriple murderCriminal penaltyDeathCriminal statusIncarcerated at Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, St. Gabriel

            New Orleans Police DepartmentService branchUnited StatesYears of service1993–1995RankSworn in as an officer (1993)Other workConvicted of three counts of first-degree murder

            Frank applied with the (NOPD) in 1993. Numerous red flags turned up during the hiring process. According to author Chuck Hustmyre, a former federal agent and author of a book about Frank, Killer with a Badge, she was caught lying on several sections of her application, and failed two standard psychiatric evaluations. Psychiatrist Philip Scurria examined her and advised in no uncertain terms that she should not be hired, saying she was “shallow and superficial”.

            Despite this, the NOPD was chronically short-handed and desperate to get more people on the force. There were also affirmative action laws – quotas – that if the force failed to comply with, they would find themselves facing legal action. Frank was hired on February 7, 1993. She graduated from the Police Academy on February 28.

            On November 25, 1994 Frank handled a shooting incident in which Rogers Lacaze, a known drug dealer, was one of the suspects. The DOC Department of Public Safety and Corrections investigator believes this was the first contact between the two, although in her statement, she claims that they met some eight months before the murder. The association between them became close and constant. Other police officers witnessed Lacaze driving her car and even observed him moving her police unit at the scene of an accident she was investigating. Victims would later testify that the both of them would pull cars over while in a police car, then rob them. On one occasion, Lacaze accompanied her on a complaint call and she introduced him as a “trainee.” There were other times when Lacaze was introduced as her nephew. Frank refused to discuss her relationship with Lacaze during the DOC investigation, except to say that she was trying to help him. It was later revealed that the two had a sexual relationship. When asked why she would continue the relationship knowing that Lacaze had been involved in dealing drugs and in a shooting, she claimed that she would not disassociate herself from him just because of his past. The investigator also questioned Frank about trying to buy 9mm ammunition for Lacaze at Wal-Mart on the day before the Kim Anh murders. She stated that she was a police officer and that there was nothing wrong with her buying ammunition. According to her statement, she claimed that she and Lacaze were not dating and had never been intimate. Frank refused to discuss anything regarding Officer Williams, the Vus or the murders. Every time the investigator asked her a question, she told him to “look it up in the record,” or asserted her innocence. However, during her interview with the DOC investigator, Frank did claim to have had a male suitor, but refused to go into specifics because he worked for the police department.[1]

            John Stevens and Anthony Wallace testified in court that they met Lacaze at a party on February 4, 1995. As the two were leaving the party, a verbal altercation between Stevens and Lacaze ensued. Wallace suggested that they leave and the two men got in a car and drove several blocks. At that time, a police vehicle pulled the car over. Frank, in police uniform, exited the squad car and told both Wallace and Stevens to get out and go to the back of the car. At that point Wallace saw Lacaze and noticed that he was holding a weapon. According to Stevens, Wallace then rushed Lacaze and the two men began fighting. At that point, both Stevens and Frank also jumped in the fray and the gun discharged. Stevens began running and then another man appeared and grabbed both Lacaze and Wallace. Frank then told the bystander that, “Lacaze was the good guy,” that Wallace was the one causing the problems. Wallace was restrained until a back-up unit arrived on the scene. He was subsequently arrested and charged with attempted murder and armed robbery.[1]

            Irvin Bryant, a civil sheriff in 1995, testified that on the evening of February 4, he observed a stopped police vehicle with the lights flashing. He thought that the officer was making a traffic stop, but as he got closer he saw the officer and two black men fighting on the side of the road. At that time Wallace broke away, ran and picked a Tech 9 semi-automatic weapon off the grass. Bryant ordered Wallace to drop the gun, which he did immediately. He then restrained Wallace and Lacaze lunged towards him. He immediately grabbed Lacaze, but Frank informed him that Lacaze was with her and ordered him released. Furthermore, Bryant was never questioned by police and he never gave a formal statement.

            The Murders:

            On March 4, 1995, Frank and Lacaze visited Kim Anh, a Vietnamese restaurant in New Orleans East. After midnight, as the employees cleaned the closed restaurant, Chau Vu, sister of two of the victims, went into the kitchen to count money. She entered the dining room of the restaurant to pay officer Ronald A. Williams II, who had been working night-detail, when she noticed Frank approaching the restaurant.

            Frank and Lacaze had been at the restaurant twice earlier in the night to get leftover food to eat. When Chau had let her out on the last visit, she could not find the front door key. With Frank returning again for a third time, Chau sensed something was very wrong, so she ran to the kitchen to hide the money in the microwave.

            Frank entered the front door using the key that she had taken from the restaurant earlier, and walked quickly past Officer Williams, pushing Chau, another of Chau’s brothers, Quoc, and a restaurant employee into the doorway of the restaurant’s kitchen. Williams started to follow asking them what was the problem when shots rang out.

            As Frank turned back to the dining room of the restaurant, Chau grabbed Quoc to hide somewhere. Lacaze had been behind Officer Williams and shot him in the back of the neck, severing his spinal cord, instantly paralyzing him. The officer was shot again in the head and in the middle of his back, as he lay on the floor.

            Chau, Quoc, and the employee hid in the rear of a large walk-in cooler in the kitchen, turning out its light as they entered. They did not know the whereabouts of Chau’s and Quoc’s other sister and brother, Ha and Cuong, who had been sweeping the dining room floors when Frank entered the restaurant. From inside the cooler, Chau and Quoc could partially see the kitchen and the front of the restaurant. Chau initially could see Frank looking for something in the kitchen. As Frank moved out of Chau’s line of vision, additional gunshots were fired. Quoc next observed Frank searching where the Vus usually kept their money. Quoc saw Frank walk to the part of the kitchen where the bodies of his brother and sister were later found.

            Frank and Lacaze were shouting and demanding the money. Ha and Cuong did not know where Chau had hidden the money. Twenty-one-year-old Ha was shot three times as she knelt pleading for her life and seventeen-year-old Cuong was shot six times and pistol whipped. After Frank and Lacaze left the premises, Quoc emerged from the cooler and ran out the back door of the restaurant to a nearby friend’s home to call 911 to report the murders. Chau tried frantically to call 911 on her cell phone, but, being inside the cooler, she could not receive a signal.

            Frank dropped off Lacaze at a nearby apartment complex, both knowing that there were witnesses left behind. Frank heard the 911 call on her portable police radio saying that an officer was down at the Kim Anh restaurant. She returned to the scene, parked in the rear, and entered through the back door of the restaurant. She made her way through the kitchen to the dining room where Chau waited for help at the front door. As Chau bolted through the restaurant’s front door to the safety of arriving officers, Frank immediately identified herself as a police officer. Chau told Frank that she knew what she had done and cried to the officers that Frank had committed the crimes.

            Chau and Frank were questioned in detail while seated at different tables in the restaurant. Frank was taken to police headquarters for additional questioning, where she later confessed to the crimes along with LaCaze. Frank and Lacaze were arrested and charged with first degree murder.

            Trial and Conviction:

            Frank and Lacaze were indicted by an Orleans Parish Grand Jury on April 28, 1995. Their trials were severed, and Lacaze was tried first on July 17–21, 1995, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to death. Frank’s trial began on September 5, 1995. The evidence against her was so overwhelming that Frank’s attorneys did not mount a defense (despite subpoenaing 40 witnesses). On September 12, 1995, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts and recommended the death penalty. She was formally sentenced to death on October 20, 1995 and sent to Death Row at the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, in St. Gabriel, Louisiana, very near Baton Rouge.

            Aftermath and current developments:

            In 1993, a year and a half before the murders at the Kim Anh, Frank’s father had stayed at her home for a time and then she reported him missing. In November 1995, a month after she received her first death sentence, a dog led police to find a human skull with a bullet hole buried under Frank’s house. In a 2005 retrospective, Chuck Hustmyre said, “As for those human bones unearthed beneath Frank’s house, so far, authorities have made no serious effort to identify them. The 10-year-old case, they say, remains under investigation.”[3]

            On October 18, 2006 Frank’s attorneys argued before the Louisiana Supreme Court that her death sentence should be overturned because she was denied state-funded experts to help prepare for the sentencing phase of the trial. On May 22, 2007 the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled 5–2 that the death penalty should be upheld.

            On April 22, 2008 State Judge Frank Marullo signed the death warrant for Antoinette Frank. According to the warrant, Frank was scheduled for execution by lethal injection on July 15, 2008. In May, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a 90-day stay of execution effective June 10 pending ongoing appeals.[4]

            On September 11, 2008 the day that the state supreme court stay was to end, a new death warrant was signed by the same judge. According to this second warrant, Frank was scheduled for execution by lethal injection on December 8, 2008.[5] In a new round of appeals, defense attorneys argued they had had too little time to review the voluminous record before the deadline for filing appeals. The Louisiana State Supreme Court ruled on the case again. Their decision, made public November 25, 2008 effectively canceled the death warrant signed by Judge Marullo in September.[6]

            In September 2009, Frank moved to have Judge Marullo removed from her ongoing post-conviction appeals on grounds of blaming him for bias, given that he had already signed two death warrants for her. Louisiana state Judge Laurie White heard the motion in September 2009 and on January 3, 2010 ruled that Marullo should not be taken off the case. Her attorney stated she would appeal the ruling to the state supreme court (effectively blaming Judge Marullo as well as her father for her murders – because they were men), which had already overruled both of Marullo’s death warrants.[7] However, yet another lower court state judge, ruled in October 2010 that Marullo had to be recused from the Frank and Lacaze cases because it was unclear if he had been open with the defense teams about his own surprising connection to the gun used in the restaurant murders.[8][9] If Frank were to be executed, she would be the first female to be put to death in the state since 1942.[10]

            Initially, the Vu family’s restaurant in New Orleans East remained open at the site of the tragedy. Hurricane Katrina damaged the restaurant in 2005 and post-storm looters stole jewelry which Ha and Cuong had been wearing when they were killed. After that, Cuoc Vu and his mother Nguyet sold the old location and re-opened in Harahan, Louisiana, moving their residence to Metairie, where they said they felt more safe.


          • Bob_Striffler

            Affirmative action had nothing to do with her getting hired, “shallow and superficial” had everything to do with her getting hired! Just have a conversation with 90% of these cops and you’ll see what I’m talking about! Thanx for the sharing!

  • Tijuana Joe

    “ORLANDO, Florida — A
    University of Florida student who was filmed being shocked by police
    with a Taser stun gun after persistently questioning Sen. John Kerry
    will not face criminal charges and has apologized for his actions, his
    attorney said Tuesday.”

    Andrew–what were the actual charges? A jury would probably have acquitted you,
    since cops resorted to high voltage and all you did was talk too long.

    • Paschn

      Although it would be great if we could count on “dismissals” by cognizant denizens of this dying republic, it could get “sticky” to over-estimate their ability for objective/critical thought and acting upon it. Jury nullification was highly regarded by more than a few of our founding “fathers” but the 5th column lawyers/judges within a corrupted judicial system “buffalo” juries, (again, because of rampant ignorance), into surrendering their ability to neuter unjust laws and the foul judiciary protecting cops because cops protect them. Can you imagine what educated juries would do to unconstitutional wage tax trials by the illegal IRS for the illegal/private Central Bank? Or judges that “instruct” juries that they cannot judge the legality of a law, only if the DEFENDANT violated that law? Also, there is more than one reason to doubt the veracity of the “passing” of the 16th amendment by a 2/3 majority or the “corporate citizenship” slipped in, (to us?), under the radar.

      • Tijuana Joe

        Have you ever been to Gainesville? It’s full of doctors and lawyers
        and scientists, and intelligentsia, compared to Gawd-fearin Ocala to the South or Lake City to the North. Also the attorneys fight hard.
        90% chance he would have been acquitted, I bet. The cops’ overreaction was
        too flagrant and of course caught on tape.

      • pinbalwyz

        Citizens/juries have a duty to judge whether the law in being applied unjustly and if the law, itself, is unjust…not merely ‘legal’. The Nuremberg laws were unjust. Citizens/juries have as much of a duty to disobey such laws as they have to obey just ones.

        • Paschn

          You have no idea how good it makes me feel to see others posting as you have done. there were at last 2 American Judges who saw through the façade of “justice” called Nuremburg. One rightly stated that it was a show to make Germany appear the “bad guy” and allow the real culprits terrorizing Eastern Europe to “buy” their way out and take possession of the “gift” given them by “Great” Britain via the Balfour Agreement. Which, by the way was also payment for suckering the U.S. into WW2. If we can get more people to realize the potential power they have through Jury Nullification, we could be on our way to make things “right” with virtually no blood shed.

          • Amicus Curia

            I was referring to the laws (Nuremberg laws) enacted by the Nazis to oppress Jews and other unpopular minorities such as denying them the right to marry, own businesses, practice certain professions, etc. during the 1930’s in Germany. The Nuremberg TRIALS (after WWII) tried (and justly executed) many Nazis whose defense was they were complying with the ‘law’ or even subject to execution if they did not follow the orders they were given. This was true, but in the words of the American prosecutor at those trials, they were bound by a higher law. Today, people like Snowden and Mannings are persecuted for doing what we executed Nazis for NOT doing! Moreover, juries are bound by the same tenets and, if a just regime ever came into existence, should be held to the same standards as the Nazis during their trials. Having established the moral high ground (ignoring, for the moment, whether it was self serving), we cannot ignore the wide wake it created in its aftermath. After all, what was the point in beating the Nazis only to become just like them?

          • Paschn

            Taking into account the many criminal acts we’ve been lied into supporting, take a moment to avail yourself of the OTHER side of the story.


    • Andrew Meyer

      The charges were Resisting Arrest (which was flipped a couple times between With Violence and Without Violence) and Disturbing a University Function (initially called “Inciting a Riot”).

  • Bob_Striffler

    Just checking to see if I can post new yet? Been having problems?

  • Tom G

    Welcome to the truth machine Andrew! I look forward to your posts!

    • Andrew Meyer

      Thanks Tom.

  • Pat Lane

    Hello. I hope you do good things. If you were working on a story for PINAC and a similar situation with the police arose, would your actions be the same as they were back then? Or would you make different choices.

    • Andrew Meyer

      Heck no! I would fight the charges, sue the blazes out of the police and go on every talk show that would have me.

      • Pat Lane

        I appreciate the response, but that’s not really what I meant. You can always fight charges and the rest. I’m talking about during the encounter with police/security

  • Bob_Striffler

    Internet explorer. Now I’ll post this in discussion box

  • ericbrady

    Hi Andrew! Welcome to Photography is Not a Crime! Looking forward to your future stories! I’m slightly curious about your fifteen minutes of fame. Such as has a random person ever said to you “Don’t tase me bro!” and it started a conversation and you’re like, “I am that dude”? Or do you get tired of talking about it? etc.

    • Andrew Meyer

      I was working at a job a while back when a guy said “Don’t Tase Me Bro” to me. He had no idea that the quote came from me. His face when I told him was priceless.

      Happy to answer questions from an appreciative audience Eric.

  • pinbalwyz

    Andrew, it’s great to see you on board–welcome to PINAC!

    My question relates to the Kaaba looking building which houses the NSA. So far as I know, the grounds on which it is located are not on a military base.

    So, would you (and PINAC) consider pushing the issue of photography outside that building contrary to the warning shown on the following sign there?:

    As I understand it, even mainstream news outlets are intimidated by this.

    In a small park next to the National Security Agency in Fort Meade, Md., signs explain rules about photographs one can take — and illustrate the kind of photo one isn’t allowed to take. (WNV/Ingrid Burrington)

    • inquisitor

      The guy in the upper left cubicle in the front glass building is looking at you right now through your webcam.
      Say, “Hello”,

      • Haeshu

        Law enforcement has this capability, which means hackers do too.

        I put a sticky post it note over mine so even if it is activated, nothing can be seen.

        • Bob_Striffler

          I’ve got nothing to hide as I would tell them straight up what they are and what I think of them and do as often as possible. When they come for me I hope I’ll be ready! Or armed rather!

          • Haeshu

            You are not allowed to own the same firepower as they have. You do not have access to the tanks that local departments around the country are buying from surplus military. You probably don’t have a helicopter either. And even if you did somehow manage to acquire all of these things, they have them in far greater numbers as they can summon other cities, counties, states and even the feds to eliminate you..

          • Bob_Striffler

            I’ll start with last thing first. If they come and eliminate me. I don’t care! I really, really don’t anymore. Now as far as fire power goes…did you notice how the Russians had far superior fire power tanks etc…, the 12 years they tried to conquer the Afghan people and couldn’t. We’ve been there what 10, 11yrs. and we still haven’t won! That’s 23 yrs. and 2 superpowers and these people, most of them, started out as farmers riding camels and had very little firepower! But they were United as we’re deliberately being divided! Were you paying attention during Egypt’s Arab Spring? Those people rose up with no guns, chased the police out of town, burned every police station to the ground and let all the poor people out of the jails. Unlike America’s troops the Egyptian Army would not fire on their citizens! Then they ousted the well hunkered in, for thirty plus years, President with the help of the military! You want to talk about firepower? American citizens have way, way, way more guns then any nation or army on earth! It’s why, as documented, Japan wouldn’t attempt an invasion in WWII. They knew this! They knew they couldn’t win! Urban war-fare here will be un-like and harder to beat then anything our troops have ever faced before. Further do you have any idea at how many of our troops will join the fight? Do you have any idea how many countries will see an opportunity and supply weaponry to American Insurgents/freedom fighters! The only reason it hasn’t happened yet is because America truly is the master of media propaganda and programming. However the people are catching on to that.

          • Haeshu

            Good points. I suppose oppressors have been around since the dawn of time and will be in the future until the second to last man on earth dies. If it comes down to what you describe, I hope you are right!

    • Andrew Meyer

      I’m in Miami, but I would be happy to write about the story if anyone out there is brave enough to get video.

      If the building were in Miami, I would call and ask their Public Information Officer/Liaison for a statement before going down there, and only go with a BIG crew of people.

      • pinbalwyz

        Me 2–I’m in Washington State. I understand–totally. Perhaps a crowd (ALL with cameras at the ready) of several hundred might do to make the point. Sometimes the hippo simply isn’t listening. The first order of business is to determine precisely where public property begins, then to determine what portions the public has access to…especially outside. A legal analyst should find out if this would be construed to be within the scope/parameters of the stipulated consent decree/agreement entered into by the ACLU and the FPS/DHS with respect to photographing federal buildings.

        It’s a much bigger nut to crack, making it all the more inviting as an object lesson.
        If PINAC is ever up to it, please advise.
        It would make one great story.

  • Haeshu

    Nice to meet you Andrew. While I am skeptical that we can do much about the police state closing in on all of us, I look forward to reading your journalism pieces and helping where I can.

    • Andrew Meyer

      “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead

  • curious

    Hi Andrew,

    Its pretty much well known at this point that you intended to get tazed and set that whole situation up as a campus publicity stunt. In fact you have a long history of publicity stunts for the benefit of your own media career.

    So the question is, is this a real job? Are you going to act professional, or is this just another avenue for yourself to engage in publicity stunts to a wider audience?

    Just wondering…

    • Amicus Curia

      The same argument could be (and was) leveled at Hunter S. Thompson, the father of Gonzo journalism. In Thompson’s words, he intended to be more interesting to his subjects than they were to him. So what? Who wants to read nothing but articles from an army of cookie cutter journalists.

      My advice to Andrew is to not only acknowledge a reporter has no friends, but to embrace it. The good ones do. The barbs posted here are nothing but thinly veiled gambits to affect/gain editorial control. ‘Friends’ interfere with journalistic excellence. Andrew, report without fear nor favor!

    • Andrew Meyer

      Yes, no, and thank you for trolling.

  • Anon

    Hi Andrew,

    What was the terms of your agreement with your university to avoid being expelled?

    • Andrew Meyer

      Your question assumes a lot. Would you re-phrase it and try again?

      • Anon

        After the incident, your university punished you. That is what the media reported anyway. In what way did they punish you if at all? I just assumed you had to do community service or something to avoid being expelled.

  • SamSpade

    Welcome aboard, Andrew!

  • Haeshu

    I have a question for Andrew (or any other PINAC reader). I understand that police have to have a warrant to enter my home, but what about being on my property? I have a fence around my property and a gate at the front of my property that I keep closed and locked. Is it legal for a police officer to hop the fence, break the lock or gain entry some other way without a warrant to ‘talk to me’ if they are not actually entering my home?

    There is no doorbell by the gate or any other method of them letting me know they are out there.

  • JJ_Swiontek

    Welcome Andrew. I look forward to your reports sir.
    Are you familiar with the Fully Informed Jury Association ( and are they still active in Florida?

  • Elliott Whitlow
    • Haeshu

      Awesome publicity for Andrew and PINAC!

    • Bob_Striffler

      Ha! HA! Ha! Way to go Andrew, Carlos and Jeff! I’m so freaking happy! Way to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everybody go watch this link that millions and millions and millions watched!!!!!!!!! They watched it on the mainstream! Now guess what happens? A Shitload more will now be watching!!!!!!!!! Thank you Carlos! Jeff! and Andrew! Kudos my brothers…that means something! The barrier is starting to be broken! Everybody needs to be vigilant and work that much harder now! Oh and EX-Cop Law Student…piss-off! As always!

      Thanx for providing that link Elliot Whitlow!

  • Bob_Striffler

    Hey guys I’m dumbass EX-Cop Law Student and I spew my troll shit because I’m able to hide behind my former uniform and have free speech to talk shit! But, when it comes to challenging bob_striffler, it became a string that was a top conversation here. He em-bare- ass- ed me because of the law I told everybody I knew! I was totally spanked…publically! And it’s clear for everyone to see how dumb and em-bare-assed I should have been! But I have no shame….I was taught right by my brothers in Law Enforcement! Don’t forget we’re your frontline defenders, heroes and first responders! Never forget that! It carries us thru all our abusive conduct…even here!

    As I’ve told your punk ass before Ex-Cop Law Student GROW UP BOY! WAH! I’ll provide a link to your last legal challenges to me? You need to study harder! Because last time I looked in this country, you’re innocent until proven guilty! After 41 (obviously frivolous) charges practically in a row I beat, I think I know something about that! Apparently even you and your cop friends don’t like that! So stick it up your ass punk! Same goes for your punk friends! Un-like you… is there something I said here that was un-true? It’s why I take and pass lie detectors (documented and on transcript bro) and you cops won’t take them at all! Will you?