LAWSUIT INCOMING! – All for filming…

40 Comments / By /



Jays Surreal Camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlTlQdtLb_c&feature=youtu.be
Video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ahXDUQPJU&feature=youtu.be
Jays PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/jaylulu1224

Submit your video for me to review: LackLusterGamingGG@gmail.com
Or through Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/LackLusterVideos
OR at https://lacklustervideo.com/videos

Help me fight my lawsuit vs. a Chicago Police Sergeant: https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-for-lackluster-youtube?utm_medium=more&utm_source=customer&utm_campaign=p_na+share-sheet&pc_code=null&rcid=7110ab2a23df4b0891bc79badf331fcd

—Gear Recomendations—
Body Cam: https://amzn.to/2W5cEBh
Gimbal: https://amzn.to/2KkCmiM
GoPro: https://amzn.to/2W7UC1b
DashCam (pricey): https://amzn.to/388fDyw
DashCam (mid range): https://amzn.to/3mueNBv
DashCam (cheap): https://amzn.to/37uQkaW

—Social Media—
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LackLusterVideos/
BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lackluster/
DISCORD: https://discord.gg/DCzTq4x
Twitter: https://twitter.com/DaleHillerYT
Instagram: lackluster_media
2nd Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtj-_HlsiOHIZpdjIWsFi_w
Live Streams: https://www.twitch.tv/lacklusterlive
IOS MEMBERSHIPS: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbEPXqDvej-3mciZxwYmdew/join

—Channel Members—
James Bartley
JILL REITER
Shane Bushta
Dennis Anderson
Tony Routledge
David Tufano
Bill B
Kieran Tibbitts
david cat & bus
charles clarke
witch hunt
Dwaine Miller
R and R
Ken Hogg

FAIR USE NOTICE This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.

Disclaimer: NONE of my videos should be considered a “call to action.” The content is created to be educational or is newsworthy and of interest to the public.
I am not an attorney. My videos should not be construed as legal advice. You should seek legal counsel if you believe that you are a victim of police misconduct. The facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion. Laws, case law, ordinances, policies, legal doctrine, and all other jurisprudence is subject to the interpretation of the court. The videos shown are designed to be educational, and informative. They should never serve as legal advice under any circumstances. The content provided is in no way intended to provoke, incite or shack the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens about constitutionally protected activities, law, and civilian rights, and to emphasize the importance of constitutional awareness. All claims made are alleged.

#1stAmendment #Audit #CopsOwned

source

40 thoughts on “LAWSUIT INCOMING! – All for filming…”

  2. @nooneheretoday2562

    HOW DARE THAT INNOCENT CITIZEN WHO DID NOT BREAK A LAW TO NOT GIVE THESE COPS HIS I.D. WHEN THEY WANTED IT. arrest him to teach the public that we are gods and kings and laws don't mean anything to police. cops know that nothing will happen to them even when cops commit murder .

    Reply
  3. @suzannenonya3077

    What's sad is they know they are acting outside of the law and deceitfully manipulate to violate this man's rights. How many other citizens have they violated? Its obviously the Chief accepts this behavior as so many higher ups, knowing they are on video feel just fine doing it.

    Reply
  6. @stevepeterson8694

    Okay you talk to me about how suspicions of whatever I'm doing is and I answered your question so suspicions should be resolved and now it's just someone filming the police department end of conversation suspicions over . My ID has nothing to do with what's going on now even if I had a past history of speeding tickets or whatever the f*** you want to run my ID for

    Reply
  8. @JAM661

    You would think by this time the cops would get this by now. I love how he aak for his press card and give him the copy of the Constitution that was epic. But there is no federal reconized press cards. Just cards showing you work for a company. So make up your own business card. But most new station get there news from Independent News gatherers. They usually have some one from the station narrating a video, but the actual news video that is shown on that TV is actually done by somebody else then the news station itself. Buy yea make your own fake business card. But this is so stupid because today they make camera the size of a button and if you really are going to do some harm you would be alot more stealth at it. You certainly would not be walking around with a camera for everyone to see. Meanwhile if they do not want people in the parking lot filming they need to fence it in and put up notices. But these cop following you like this when he is suppose to be free to go, is down right stalking and harassment and this whole stuff is just not needed. I just don't understand why they keep on doing this.

    Reply
  11. @CentPacRR

    IN THE UNITED STATES AND UNDER THE FREE PRESS CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT NO “CREDENTIALS” ARE EVER REQUIRED TO PRACTICE JOURNALISM.

    THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S FREE PRESS AND FREE SPEECH CLAUSES PROTECT THE RIGHT OF EVERY PERSON TO GATHER NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC IN ANY FORM, INCLUDING BY PHOTOGRAPHY AND AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDING, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY GOVERNMENT. CITIZEN JOURNALISTS HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AS "COMMERCIAL" JOURNALISTS AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE "GOVERNMENT PERMISSION" OR "CREDENTIALS" OF ANY FORM TO BE FULLY PROTECTED TO ENGAGE IN ANY MANNER OF JOURNALISTIC ACTIVITIES UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. [THE LAST TIME JOURNALISTS WERE “LICENSED” BY THE STATE IN THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD WAS 1662 IN ENGLAND.]

    United State Supreme Court
    Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)

    "Liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods. Cf. In re Grand Jury Witnesses, 322 F.Supp. 573, 574 (ND Cal.1970). FREEDOM OF THE PRESS is a "fundamental PERSONAL RIGHT" which "is NOT CONFINED to newspapers and periodicals. . . . The PRESS in its historic connotation comprehends EVERY SORT OF PUBLICATION which affords a VEHICLE OF INFORMATION and OPINION." Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 303 U. S. 450, 303 U. S. 452 (138). See also Mills vs Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 319 U. S. 111 (1943).

    "The First Amendment ordinarily prohibits courts from inquiring into the content of expression, except in cases of obscenity or libel, and protects speech and publication regardless of their motivation, orthodoxy, truthfulness, timeliness, or taste. New York Times Co. vs Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 269-270; Kingsley Pictures Corp. vs Regents, 360 U. S. 684, 360 U. S. 689 (1959); Winters vs New York, 333 U. S. 507, 333 U. S. 510 (1948); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. at 323 U. S. 537. By affording a privilege to some organs of communication but not to others, court would inevitably be discriminating on the basis of content."

    In "Mills v. Alabama" 384 U.S. 214 (1966) the Supreme Court held that "The First Amendment, which applies to the States through the Fourteenth, prohibits laws 'abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press' " and thus that a major purpose of that Amendment was "to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs" which "includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes. The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books, and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, see Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs.

    "Thus, the press serves and was designed to serve as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials, and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to serve. Suppression of the right of the press to praise or criticize governmental agents and to clamor and contend for or against change muzzles one of the very agencies the Framers of our Constitution thoughtfully and deliberately selected to improve our society and keep it free."

    LEOs are public employees who are responsible to and compensated by the taxpayers who hire them and authorize them to enforce the laws on our behalf that we elect our government representatives to enact. That being the case they are 100% accountable to the public, and under the Free Press, Free Speech, and Redress Clauses of the First Amendment it is the civic duty and right of the public to audit LEOs and hold them accountable to their Article VI oaths without interference, hindering or obstruction.

    Reply
  12. @CentPacRR

    What to print out to provide in writing to police about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that apply to EVERYBODY in the United States whenever they try to violate yours:

    MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

    All SWORN law enforcement officers (“LEOs”) are by definition bound by the provisions of Article VI, Par 3, Cl 1 of the 1789 Constitution of the United States to support and protect the Constitutional rights of every person in the United States, CITIZEN OR NOT, and to know that those rights — ALL OF THEM — are in effect everywhere for everybody 24/7/365, and not “just in court.” LEOs have no excuse to not know this very well — especially when it comes to the right of everyone to NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS any LEO may pose, or for anyone to NOT RESPOND to anything an LEO may say, as the first seven words of the Supreme Court specified “Miranda Warnings” that each one is required to know and be able to recite verbatim are: “You have the right to remain silent.”

    Through your formal training to become a LEO you have already been made fully aware of these rights all of which by this writing I hereby INVOKE on my behalf, and especially (but not limited to) those specified in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. That being the case, you are hereby put on notice that you will not be able to use “qualified immunity” as a defense for any attempt to violate ANY of my Constitutional rights in your contact with me, and if you do you may be subject to both Federal criminal and civil process for “deprivation of rights under color of law” under 18USC§241-242 (criminal) and 42USC§1983 (civil).

    Under Art. VI, Par 2 of the Constitution (the “Supremacy Clause”) and the holding of the U.S Supreme Court in “Marbury v. Madison”, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the provisions of the 1789 Constitution, the 1791 Bill of Rights, and the other 17 Amendments subsequently ratified by the several states, all Federal criminal and civil laws, regulations, rules, etc. not reserved for the states are SUPERIOR to any and all state, county, municipal and other local laws, ordinances, regulations, policies, etc that conflict therewith in any way. THEREFORE:

    I) As I did not call you nor did I request or now need your help, do NOT ask me any questions as I am not obligated to and thus will not answer them. That includes making any request or demand for my “ID” or any other personal information as that violates my 4th Amendment rights “to be secure in my person, houses, papers, and effects”. Also don’t ask me to do anything “real quick”, “as a favor”, because you are “just curious”, or are “just trying to figure out what’s going on”. None of that is any of your business.

    II) As the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees every person the absolute right to remain silent, it therefore also permanently exempts everyone from ever being legally required to actively or passively participate in or “assist” law enforcement in any “investigation” or other police activity. Therefore my declining to speak, assist, or participate in any manner in any “investigation” and/or your performance of any of your other “official duties” (i.e. “just doing your job”) can never constitute (or ever be legal grounds for making a charge of) “interference”, “hindering”, or “obstruction” in any form.

    III) Do not presume that I necessarily accept or believe that anything you may say and/or claim is “true”. My silence in response to anything you say, imply, or have inferred (including “OK?” or “does that make sense?” after a statement you may make as a means of seeking my implied agreement and/or affirmation) or to any question you ask never means that I accept, concur or express by implication any acquiescence, rejection, particular position and/or subjective or objective view one way or another. It just doesn’t. This is especially the case if you claim that “you have to understand” (and thus imply that I must agree to) what you say, that I “match the description” of some unspecified suspect, use the excuse that “in this day and age”, or because you “have to write a report” as legitimate reasons to justify your actions and/or any attempts to violate my rights. I am well aware that those are all just false pretextual canards that constitute bogus “copsplaining”.

    IV) There is no “here’s the deal”, only actual encoded law. A police department’s “policy” is not “law” and therefore does not apply to anyone who is NOT a member or employee of such an organization. There is no such thing as a “policy”, “normality”, or “feelings enforcement officer”, only a “LAW enforcement officer”.

    V) I am fully aware that any demand that you may make to “take your hands out of your pockets”, to “sit down on the ground”, or to follow any other similar “directive” allegedly based on “officer safety” is bogus and a lie. The real reason that LEOs try this is as a means to establish a position of “superiority” in an attempt to falsely achieve “compliance by psychological intimidation”. My response to any such request or demand will always be: “You are the one who is armed, not me, and you have approached me unsolicited and of your own volition. If your having done so allegedly makes you feel ’fearful for your safety’ you are free to leave. I am not detaining you.”

    Reply
  25. @waywardsonsgamerclan

    They read him his right so he understands them when they clearly don't understand them lol fist thing he says is you don't have to talk to me if you don't want to and they keep harassing him fucking morons 🤦

    Reply
  27. @user-rn9ge8pk5y

    Miami is the most corrupt force in the USA hands down. They are the mafia in blue ripping off the taxpayer for millions. Most work second job while on duty. This was a terroristic attack on a citizen.

    Reply
  35. @user-zf6vr6gi4d

    For anyone that is unfamiliar… what tthe Officer in the red shirt is doing is called "Copsplaining". Its a form of "explaining" where they create multiple hypothetical situations and/or scenarios (what ifs, what coulds, what might happen, lets just say, ) to justify their incompetence and misconduct. A tactic that all cops are well versed in despite what you might think.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top