For background, I recently saw this short on youtube, Flock Cameras Short.

This video aggravated me intensely. The author takes great care in explaining the issue he's trying to show. There are a couple of facts I can draw from this video:

1. Flock cameras, a private company, has installed a camera on a public shoulder next to the roadway pictured.
2. A government entity, one that controls that specific roadway, approved the camera's installation on behalf of a private company with knowledge of the company's intent.
3. The camera in the video was installed in a way that creates a serious concern of a public saftey hazard. The public saftey hazard is already well known and regulated.

I have a couple problems with these facts.
- A private citizen, even one seeking to do business with the government would almost certainly never be given permission to install a device on a pole on the side of a public roadway, especially when they have no property interest in the area.
- Flock cameras, a private company, does buisiness almost exclusively with Federal, State, and local governments and authorities. This essentially makes them a government contractor or government entity, operating or attempting to operate as a private entity.
- When a citizen is negligent, there are powerful consequences. When the local government does this, there's only "Oops, my bad" and immunity. Extremely powerful examples of this would be Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005). If you're not familliar with these cases, please read about them.

Now adding another layer, this situation seems consistent with a larger theme in today's government. Plausible deniabillity as rule of law. Or more accurately, as an intentional way around it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about this for a second. You work hard at a job for more than the 90 day probationary period they told you about in your employee handbook. The same handbook that informs you that the company has a very strict anti-retaliation policy. Whatever demographic you are, you're the minority. One day you have to complain to your management team because the demographic with the majority is picking on you for something you cant control or something that has nothing to do with work. It's gotten so bad that you can't work a shift without feeling like people are out to get you. Your boss thanks you for your complaint and then terminates your employment about a week later for some other obscure reason, unrelated. You were easier to get rid of, rather than the larger employee relation issue at play. You complain to your district manager, who has worked closely with your boss for years. They do nothing. You complain to HR, and you recieve no response.

Our system is supposed to provide rights like equal protection and rule of law. The current path for this individual employee suggests otherwise. Before attempting a lawsuit, a lawyer will ask their client for a right-to-sue determination letter. This letter would typically come from the EEOC, but depending on the exact circumstances, might come from a different administrative agency. In order to actually get this letter, an individual can be forced to wait 180 days or more, while the agency investigates. By the end of the agency's investigation, an individual might have forgotten the whole basis for the case. This hurdle alone accounts for a large number of dropped cases. In theory, the courts would have us believe these agencies are the "police departments" of employment disputes, but in reality, these agencies are roadblocks and burdens on one side of the table. An individual citizen can't be authorized to investigate crimes or to manage traffic. An individual can, however, be authorized to argue and debate on thier own behalf in a civil court or mediation. By taking the opportunity away, a silent rule is established, don't complain. The result we see is borderline, if not, plausible deniabillity as equal protection and rule of law and frankly, a complete and utter embarrasment on the American people. And another thought too - the individual has no recourse against the (executive branch) agency that possibly mishandled the investigation. This means that the accuracy and legitimacy of the investigation the agency provides is voluntary. Keeping that in mind, consider cases lost or thrown out becasue of:

Impossible/Unreasonable procedural requirements (Procedure > Policy)

Unreasonable deadlines (Anything creating time constraints where they should not be)

Administrative exhaustion (Case thrown out before agency involved)

Denial of necessary hearings (win court = win administrative agency approval)

Arbitrary agency decisions (quality of investigation)

Inability to obtain necessary records (subpeona)

Government-created delays (scheduling with EEOC unavailable)

Denial of meaningful opportunity to present evidence (Administrative Agency does NOT perform complete investigation)

The agency handling the investigation of workplace retaliation, should not be retaliatory, and yet it can be. None of those automatically equal a constitutional violation. But collectively they raise a much bigger question: Does the legal system provide a genuinely meaningful opportunity to seek a remedy, or merely a theoretical one designed to appeal the legal system?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now adding flock cameras into the mix, I think about the facts I mentioned earlier. A private citizen can't do the same thing - equality. A government entity approved it without thinking about the repercussions - public-duty. There's little to no recourse for the camera's saftey violation and the government's negligence - due process. As far as flock is concerned, everything is completely legal until a court determines that it isn't. As far as the government and authorities are concerned, the data is actionable until flock stops delivering it. As far as the courts are concerned, rule of law is preserved until the law changes. And as far as the legislative department is concerned, well they're the ones that approved the whole thing. The entire company exsists on a loophole based on private and public entities.

As Americans, our legislators and executives failed us by enacting these fraudulent, harmful systems. Our Courts failed us in thier checks and balances. Flock cameras and thier executives failed us by taking special privliges. Right now, Justice is failing with little to no recourse. -- And these are just some of the most recent examples that I've thought about. What examples can you think of and how can you connect them to my theme of plausible deniabillity as rule of law?

- Did you have an expirience with an Administrative agency that cost you a case? Please, tell us about it.

- What are some reasons why flock cameras might operate a business, if not to serve the goverment or american people. In other words, why shouldn't flock cameras be a public entity?

- What plan would you have for repairing rule of law and equal protection in America and how would that plan account for individual freedom, while still holding people accountable?

- Are these really symptoms of a greater threat to American freedom or are these simply legislative and judicial mistakes that connect coincidentally? Why?

- If you disagree, why? Change my view.

Especially season 1 episode 12 “cloudy with a chance of murder.” I just rewatched it and the whole time was wondering how Devin’s never reacted to a Psych episode when a number of episodes address legal issues!

The Sidebar says this is the Official subreddit so hopeful that this reaches someone that can pass this along.

I would really love to hear your take on the Anti Circumvention clauses found in the DRCM. I recently was exposed to a speech done earlier this year and it highlighted some very concerning things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZxbaCNIwg8 is a link to the speech in question.

I feel that your platform is both informative and has reach that can pierce through some of the fog of social media. I would also say that the nature of the law, who passed it and it's current implications make this a non partisan issue.

I found this case in r/degoogle and was wondering what you guys thought of it.

Like most, I've known about Google's abhorent practices, but I've never thought to sue them in small claims court over it. I don't expect it to go far, but I'll be watching it, and I'm curious to see what happens.

Edit: Spelling and added context

I absolutely an utterly despise AI i don't want it in my lifeI i don't trust it , and I'm so stick and tired of AI generated garbage appearing on my YouTube feed it's not only unfair for human content creators who have to compete against the odds..

Something needs to be done someone needs to stand up and drag whoevers in charge of youtube , kicking and screaming to court to put an end to AI slop content for good..

Now we are going to have a drawing to determine a winner. What are we 5th grade?

I was watching the video of the guy wiping his phone at the airport and I watched the ad segment sponsored by Delta Capital Group.

Delta Capital Group is a type of financial provider that offers short term "unsecured" funding. There was a moreperfectunion video on the very industry. Some are especially aggressive in their pursuit of repayment, leading one of the people interviewed in the video who took one of those loans to seriously consider self harm.

idk, just felt weird for them to be effectively promoting it. I get it, people gotta get paid but it's almost like those super predatory "paycheck advance" Earned wage access apps.

Legal eagle should make a video about alexey situation, if legal eagle see this please make it.

Idk if you guys actually look at the comments and stuff.

But

And in your videos I can’t tell if you like the more big line stuff or the little stuff or all the stuff. I think it’s a combination of all + whimsy

But like

Can we get some kinda tracker???????

The reflecting pool case and the grand jury bs. It makes you go crazy keeping track

Or like

I don’t know I’m not a lawyer but I kind of do trust you guys when you say this shit’s unprecedented

Like I need an unprecedented tracker break it down

DOJ deal with this kind

DOJ reprimand

Scathing judge reviews, and comments

I think we need some like lore building here.

I also kind of miss learning about you guys and your specific areas of law a little bit

Also hearing your feelings, your legal theory type of stuff

I can see why maybe you wouldn’t wanna talk about that though if you’re actually you know in business

So I completely understand

Also, last thing you guys should do like an AMA an old school one inside your sub even if it’s like a long format one.

I know a lot of content creators go the Patreon route. I kind of hate that, but I also understand it. I feel like you guys are in a unique place where you don’t get demonetized very often or as often as some of the other content creators, I watch.

So something also to think about if there’s any bit of all truistic value in this for you

Developing story in north Texas.

A newly built middle school has had 2 instances of finding bullets striking the facilities. Just over a mile away, and pointing directly at the school property is a gun range that has been operating for over 45 years.

The school is less than a week from opening for its first year of school, and out of extreme caution has been granted a temporary injunction against the gun range to prevent them from allowing the use of firearms that have the potential to reach distances that would leave the property.

The public is decided, some feel the gun range has no responsibility to do anything since it has been there for over 45 years and the school should not have been built there because it should be obvious this is a possibility. Plus at this point there is no concrete evidence that the bullets absolutely came from the range, and could have come from someone hunting on the land between the range and the school. (I have seen it claimed, but not confirmed that the family that owns the range owns the land between the range and the school as well.)

Others say it doesn't matter how long the range has been there, it is the responsibility of the range to take appropriate actions to ensure that rounds are not able to exit the property. The school is not requesting the range close, just that it makes the necessary upgrades to the facilities to prevent rounds from exiting the range property. Whether it is a school, houses, or commercial property is irrelevant as whomever owns the land has a right to not have to worry about stray bullets from a neighboring property.

The fact that it is a school and children's safety is in question is probably what will get this resolved in an expedited fashion instead of there being a prolonged legal back and forth.

In a somewhat related incident, in 2008 an individual was target shooting a .50 Cal rifle in the area around this range (not at the range) and a stray round traveled about 5 miles and went through the roof of an RV and struck a woman in the arm inside. The RV was parked at the camping grounds outside of Texas Motor Speedway for a NASCAR race. So although it was not actually at the range this area has experienced a stray bullet striking someone in the past.

It would be interesting to get the LegalEagle's take on this.

This was a really good one, I really think it fits in nicely with a lot of other content that’s been coming out like Bricks and Mini, and Madison square garden. Theres a serious theme of corporate behavior being above the law.

It really seems like we have a 2 tier justice system and if you don’t have the money for your freedom then you don’t really have freedom from corporate.

Liz even touches on this when she talks about the under skilled laborers who caught felonies following orders. Yes their actions are problems, but the bigger picture is in-fact the equity. These young girls will never have the same earning potential because they did what corporate demanded them to do. They came onto EBay for growth and opportunity and left significantly WORSE.

To the outside observer yes they seem almost victims in their own right.

Like I know this sounds stupid but just yesterday I decided to buy a bandana to cover my hair while I do some yard work this weekend. Where does one even go to get one????? Literally couldn’t find one…

But here’s the thing….. i genuinely worry about being tracked… the government hates me, I’m trans, basically a terrorist to them…. Like I don’t want to end up in a court room defending myself against the might of the US legal system. That’s seems crazy but is it? I don’t know, what if I go to a protest that gets violent and I have nothing to do with it…

And it’s not getting any better…. Like this

Combating Organized Retail Crime

Like WTF… NO…. I want to buy a bandana without ending up in a camera system connected to LE in a system where the DoJ DOES routinely fuck with grand juries to get indictments.

Anyway. The irony in her debrief and her joy in having a story “not about politics” really isn’t true, it’s still politics, it always is

Legal Eagle, our community could really use your help!