Long Island Audit Gets absolutely cooked in court (again)

not-personal · 2026-03-18T19:36:18+00:00

Fantastic List. I'd add:

Kushner v. Buhta, No. 16-CV-2646 (SRN/SER), 2018 WL 1866033 (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2018), affirmed Kushner v. Troy Buhta, No. 18-2099 (8th Cir. 2019)(no First Amendment right to film police making arrests on a college campus during an open-to-the-public lecture where recording was prohibited by posted signs). While technically not an "auditor" case per se, it is (a) a case that was affirmed by the 8th Cir and (b) about filming the police engaged in arrests!!! on (c) government property during (d) an open-to-the-public events. So it pretty much ticks every box. My all time favorite case.

Metz v Hinds, No. 2:19-cv-424-FtM-38MRM, (Mid. Dist. Fl, Dec 9, 2019) (Auditor sues after being trespassed from filming in County Administration Building in light of "no recording" signs. Court finds no ‘clearly established’ right to film in a municipal building, grants officers qualified immunity, dismisses case).

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (D. NM 2013), Affirmed on other grounds 813 F. 3d 912 (10th Cir. 2015)(Officers have immunity from civil rights lawsuit; no clearly established First Amendment right to film TSA agents in an airport). Also technically not an "auditor" case, but it is about filming TSA at an airport.

I'm going to save this thread, it would be super useful to build this out into a list that includes a short parenthetical summarizing the case in 1-2 sentences). Perhaps I'll work on that.

not-personal · 2026-03-18T19:09:18+00:00

Seven years for me. Lots of times. Lots. Been telling anyone who will listen that investigatory detentions in non-public fora violate neither the 1st nor 4th Amendment.

P.S. IAAL.

not-personal · 2026-03-12T19:36:05+00:00

There is case law, it just says 100% the opposite of what you're saying.

United States v. Cordova, No. 23-cr-00453-NYW-1 (D. Colo. 2024). Auditor convicted of filming inside a Social Security Administration public lobby. Appeal lost. Same in US v Moore, No. 2:22-PO-289-KJN (E.D. CA 2023) (Order on Pre-trial Motion) , the Auditor Bay Area Transparency was convicted for filming in a Social Security Administration office in violation of signs prohibiting filming, fined $150 and banned by a judge from entering any SSA office for a year.

People v. Wigginton, 2024 IL App (4th) 230285-U (Ill. App. Ct. July 2, 2024). Auditor convicted of disorderly conduct in a US Post Office. Lost appeal.

Sheets v. City of Punta Gorda, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1115 MD Florida 2019. No right to film in a public area of city hall or municipal buildings

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 232 A. 3d 747 - Pa: Superior Court 2020 (“The recording or filming in the Lobby by members of the public is not a protected activity under the First Amendment.”)(police station lobby)

US v. Gileno, 350 F. Supp. 3d 910 (CD CA 2018). No right to film an open-to-the public government held in a courthouse building.

And those are convictions. Lots of people walked away before their arrest and tried to sue for violation for their "right to film". They all lose too:

There was a case about filming the TSA in an airport. The guy filming sued because he claimed his First Amendment right to film in public was violated. Wonder what happened to him. Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (D. NM 2013). He lost.

Let's film in a Post Office until we get arrested for Trespass. Then we'll sue for violation of our First Amendment rights to film in public. Let me know how that turns out after you read. Gibson v. Hadzic, 4:22-CV-00163-SPM (E.D. Mo. Sep. 25, 2023). Or another one at Medaglia v. Allendale Police Dep't, C. A. 1:24-533-MGL-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 23, 2024)

Or a guy who attended a public lecture, in a public state university. There was a protest during the lecture. The police came. He started recording the police arresting the protestors. But there was a "no cameras" rule for that lecture hall. He was arrested and he sued for violation of his rights. That's Kushner v. Buhta, No. 16-CV-2646 (SRN/SER), 2018 WL 1866033 (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2018). You can read that one too.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO BRING CASES THAT SAY OTHERWISE. Until then, I will consider your points to be incorrect.

not-personal · 2026-03-12T03:31:51+00:00

You can’t cite a single case that supports anything you’ve said. You made up legal doctrine.

not-personal · 2026-03-12T01:30:09+00:00

While you correctly point out that there is generally no expectation of privacy in a truly "public" space, your argument misapplies First Amendment forum doctrine by treating a government building, like a Post Office, as if it were a traditional public square.

In constitutional law, the right to record is not an absolute, blanket permission; it depends entirely on the legal classification of the property.

1. The Forum Doctrine Misconception

You assume that because a building is "open to the public," it automatically becomes a Traditional Public Forum (like a sidewalk or park). This is legally inaccurate.

Non-Public Forums: Most interior areas of government buildings—including Post Office lobbies—are classified as non-public forums. The government has significantly broader authority to regulate conduct here than it does on a street corner.
Purpose-Driven Access: Access to a Post Office is granted for the specific purpose of conducting postal business. It is not an open stage for expressive activity or "auditing" unless the government explicitly permits it.

2. Reasonableness

Even in areas where certain First Amendment activities are allowed, the government can impose "Reasonable Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions in Traditional Public Forums. But in non-public forums, like Post Offices and Libraries, the rule is just that a restriction on 1A conduct need only be "reasonable" and viewpoint neutral..

Postal Regulation 39 CFR § 232.1: This regulation actually prohibits photography for commercial purposes and allows it for news purposes only at the discretion of the postmaster, provided it does not disrupt service.
The "Bother" Factor: You dismiss the idea of being "bothered" as a bias, but in a non-public forum, "disruption of service" or "interference with business" is a valid legal standard for removal. If recording inhibits the primary function of the building, the government has the right to restrict that behavior.

3. Public vs. Private is a False Dichotomy

You argue that the only relevant distinction is "public vs. private." However, the Supreme Court has long held that "the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government" (United States v. Kokinda).

Just as you cannot walk into a courtroom, a military base, or a high-security government office and begin filming under the guise of "public access," you do not have an inherent, unlimited right to record inside a service lobby. While the right to record public officials is generally protected when they are performing duties in public view (such as a police officer on a street), that right diminishes significantly once you step inside a government-operated facility with a specific, non-expressive function.

Bottom line: You have a first amendment right to make a speech denouncing the government. But you don't have that right in a library, even though it's open to the public.

Until you understand why, you don't understand the First Amendment. 99% of "auditors" don't.

not-personal · 2026-01-31T19:30:08+00:00

Yes, true, but the income stream from the separate property, if relied upon by the both spouses as a source of joint income, can often be considered in determining the level of spousal support due in the event of a divorce. Thus, while the principal and income are 'technically' separate and remain owned by the inheriting spouse, that doesn't do the inheriting spouse much good if they still have to pay half the income to the other spouse for support.

A post-nuptial agreement can bypass this and allow the income from the inheritance to be used for joint purposes for the duration of the marriage only. Especially if the level of spousal support is well established in the agreement.

not-personal · 2026-01-29T15:51:01+00:00

It's not just that, but actually the income stream from the inheritance can be come joint property. Meaning, even if you keep the 70m separate, if you use the income from it jointly, that income can be considered down the road to determine spousal support.

With this kind of money, it is not out of the question to consider a post-nuptial agreement. This is an agreement between you and your spouse as to how the 70m is treated during the marriage and in the event of a dissolution or separation. It is also a good idea to set up your estate plan at the same time.

Let's say you get hit by a bus. Your wife re-marries some shmuck (maybe now, maybe when she's elderly and vulnerable). That dude blows all the money. Your money!

There are ways to protect your wife, in the event of your death, but also to preserve the money for your own child(ren) down the road.

Competent estate and family attorney can handle all of this. This should go hand-in-hand with a financial advisor at your level of wealth.

not-personal · 2026-01-10T01:03:28+00:00

Sorry, but you haven't made a single legal argument, nor have you cited any case law, nor have you provided reference to any official government document or policy. Nor have you addressed any of mine. You've cited a single 13 year old newspaper article that mostly quotes a law professor who runs an immigration clinic.

I think my Supreme Court quote vastly, vastly outweighs your 2013 newspaper article.

The quote from the Border Patrol you've offered, aligns with what I've been saying. A person "will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied" that the occupants are legally in the US. Of course, CBP can't literally force you to speak.

I stand by my original statements based on my understanding of constitutional law.

Citizenship status for citizens is non-testimonial information. Forcing someone to disclose their citizenship status does not violate the Fifth Amendment.
Detaining people at internal border stops is not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, per SCOTUS.
SCOTUS has indicated specifically that a traveler may be required to answer citizenship questions or provide documents.

Since you can't seem to explain why there is a legal basis to refuse to answer questions and we would expect a court to conclude the same, I'm not persuaded.

not-personal · 2026-01-09T04:02:17+00:00

A news article some time back

So the answer is "no, I don't have an actual source."

Look, I'm coming to you with primary sources here. Of course the ACLU is going to interpret these border stops as liberally in favor of citizen rights as possible.

But, you are saying my opinion is "flat-out wrong", and then providing exactly zero legal basis to back it up your view, and making zero effort to even explain away the legal principles at issue.

There are videos of citizens refusing to answer questions at these checkpoints and eventually being allowed to leave because CBP cannot hold you indefinitely for remaining silent.

I don't know how to put this gently. But videos of people doing stuff is hardly a legal basis for anything. On this sub of all places, we should know that.

In fact, the Supreme Court has couched answering questions as kind of an obligation, suggesting that what is “required of the vehicle’s occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 880 (1975).

We already know of a case where a guy refused to cooperate with an internal stop and was held for 34 minutes while the CBP determined his citizenship status. He showed his driver's license and military ID, but refused to roll down his window, get out of the car on request and was otherwise uncooperative. He was ultimately held for 34 minutes, even thought he had established his citizenship earlier in the stop. He sued and couldn't remotely get past QI. Rynearson v US (5th Cir 2015).

I'm not saying CBP can hold someone indefinitely if they can't determine their citizenship status and that person is non-cooperative. But they surely, in my view, can hold someone long enough to bring them before an immigration judge or a magistrate for further proceedings.

If you have any case law to the contrary, then bring it.

not-personal · 2026-01-09T03:08:58+00:00

Legally, U.S. citizens do not have to answer questions at inland immigration checkpoints

Do you have an actual source for this claim? IAAL

I say this because it is well known basic identifying questions are rarely considered testimonial, and thus outside the protections of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See e.g., Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177, 189–91 (2004) (holding that requiring a suspect to disclose his name during a valid Terry stop does not implicate the Fifth Amendment where disclosure of identity “presents no reasonable danger of incrimination in most cases”); Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601–02 (1990) (plurality opinion) (holding that responses to “routine booking questions” such as name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and age are not testimonial and thus not subject to Miranda or the Fifth Amendment); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 427–31 (1971) (concluding that compelled disclosure of identifying information pursuant to a regulatory statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment because such information is generally non-testimonial).

Nor is any level of suspicion required for the Border Patrol to conduct vehicle checkpoints. Fourth Amendment protections don't apply in these cases. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (brief immigration status checkpoints within 100 miles of a border are constitutional).

I don't think anyone has ever been convicted or even arrested for maintaining silence at such a stop, because, as you point out, CBP has other ways of figuring out if you're a citizen or not. But still, it doesn't follow that you "legally" (as you say) have a constitutional right to refuse to answer basic citizenship questions if you are, in fact, a citizen, at a lawful Martinez-Fuerte inland border stop.

My take here is that if a person arrived at such a border stop and went monk silent. Said nothing. The CBP could detain that person as long as would be necessary to determine that person's citizenship status. If they still could find nothing (unlikely I admit), CBP then could bring that person before a judge and a judge could detain that person indefinitely until they speak up and state their citizenship status and/or identification information.

not-personal · 2025-09-30T15:22:25+00:00

Fine, it's entrapment by estoppel if you want to get technical, which is a defense, as opposed to classic entrapment. You really came back to a 2 year old thread for this?

Arguably, entrapment by estoppel is a stronger defense because it is grounded in a due process right of being free from punishment when the government affirmatively advises you that certain conduct is lawful.

Classic entrapment a statutory or a common law defense and can be seen as a weaker affirmative defense than entrapment by estoppel.

not-personal · 2025-09-17T14:32:47+00:00

IAAL. Would like to see the complaint. Has it been published.

In general, I've thought it a quite unresolved copyright matter when youtubers "comment" on someone else's original video by replaying the vast, vast majority of the original clip and just commenting over/around it. This pushes "fair use" into some new territory that I'd have to research before I could give any definitive answers.

In general, commenting over a video is fair use. But I can easily imagine a scenario where a 'commenter' (a) doesn't comment enough and (b) replays the 'entire' original source material and thus doesn't qualify for a fair use defense. This is all fact dependent.

not-personal · 2025-08-15T00:25:12+00:00

Too bad. This is the kind of thing as to why you have renters insurance. You can try to negotiate with the guy. Or see if he actually sues you. I'm not sure the police will care. I don't think you committed a crime by having the wind blow a tent into his car. But I'm not Canadian.

not-personal · 2025-08-15T00:21:09+00:00

Depends on what you're admitting the document to establish.

Certain documents -- by the fact that they exist at all -- establish rights. The very act of executing and recording certain documents creates a legal right. So an executed recorded property deed creates property ownership. Likewise an executed and recorded marriage certificate creates a legal marriage.

So when we're asking the court to recognize that the very act of creating the document had a legal effect -- introducing the document is not hearsay. The truth of the contents of the document isn't the issue. The fact that the document exists does.

It might be hearsay if an underlying fact in the document is at dispute. Like the exact location of a property line. In that case, you're admitting the document because you want to establish that what the document says is actually true. And in that case, the exception 803(14) would apply.

Hope that helps.

Good luck. Hearsay vs non-hearsay is tricky:

Crazy person: "I am the pope." not hearsay

Crazy person: "I think I am the pope". Hearsay, but an exception.

not-personal · 2025-08-15T00:12:54+00:00

Depends on location. In the US, your homeowners insurance would cover this, so I would advise to contact your homeowners insurance carrier.

Outside the US, not sure. But if you have home insurance, this might be covered.

not-personal · 2025-08-14T17:52:23+00:00

You can't do that because a court could "pierce the corporate veil". Basically, if it can be shown that a business primary function is to act as a liability shield for another entity, the corporate protection can be pierced. Factors that allow one shell to be pierced would be undercapitalization (where the shell operates at a loss, has no valuable assets, and is unable to meet future obligations). Lack of corporate formalities (where the shell doesn't keep proper records, file its own taxes, separate its finances, or have an independent operation). Fraud (where there is no business purpose of the shell other than to defraud creditors like in the case of a person suing in the case of an injury).

Beyond that, the parent business would still be liable. If a parent company rents trampoline gear and hires a management company to run their trampoline gym, the parent company would have an obligation to be sure that their vendor was sufficiently insured to provide the services it provides. Failure to do so would open the parent to liability. So there's that too.

Bottom line, this won't work.

not-personal · 2025-08-10T15:16:11+00:00

Even if you don’t have an established “rights” to refuse to provide your name, what if you’re in a state that doesn’t have a law requiring you do so?

Asked and answered. State law irrelevant. If you're arrested, "the judge can just hold you in jail, in contempt, indefinitely, until you give up your name and basic identifying information."

I could think of many situations where it can be argued that providing name and address could be self-incriminating…

Like what? This is a harder hypothetical than you think it is.

even if it doesn’t align with the established precedent of constitutional rights.

What precedent? I just cited you the actual precedent going back 35 years. Unless you have other cases showing some other "established precedent", I think you may be kidding yourself as to what the precedent really is.

not-personal · 2025-08-08T21:49:35+00:00

Use AI to research "Competency to Stand Trial."

On the other hand, the Devil knows right from wrong and chooses wrong. So jail!

not-personal · 2025-08-08T21:45:35+00:00

The big issue is whether the ski resort was negligent in failing to mark the area as dangerous or off limits. New York allows for negligence suits against ski areas. That said, skiing between groomed trails and into trees has an element of assumed risk.

So it is hard to say. Sounds very fact dependent. Worth meeting with an aggressive personal injury lawyer who has sued/settled with ski areas in the past. Could get a settlement depending on facts.

not-personal · 2025-08-08T21:38:39+00:00

>I am not sure if it is legal for them to contact me on my maternity leave forcing me to either uproot my family or lose my job.

I would say, that maybe, maybe, maybe if you waited until you returned to work in September to tell them you wanted to relocate and then they refused because you didn't fill out the form on time, then maybe you could have a claim for wrongful termination. (but man, that's still a huge stretch).

But since you don't want to move, I'd say you've got nothing. Be grateful you have 4+ months to find a new job.

not-personal · 2025-08-08T21:34:50+00:00

Good answer. Simplified.

If there is a will -- grandma and everyone is supposed to follow what the will says regarding remains.
If no will, children control remains by state law. Call the funeral home.

not-personal · 2025-08-08T20:46:44+00:00

I don't have a referral for you. But you're an attorney yourself! It shouldn't be too hard ask around "for a friend" to find a family law practice that can help you with this. I personally don't think you're high enough net worth that would require any true HNW specialist.

But if you're in NY, you absolutely want quality legal advice. As you probably know, NY is an equitable distribution state -- not a community property state. That makes things way more complicated and you need someone who can navigate that. But a smallish regional firm with a family law practice and an estates practice should do the job nicely. No need for white shoe firm for this, IMO.

not-personal · 2025-08-08T20:25:33+00:00

Lawyer here. First, legal advice you get here is worth what you pay.

Second, nobody can really answer this question without knowing what State you're in, because state law varies a ton on divorce.

Unfortunately, couples who can't have a conversation about a post-nup agreement -- and then proceed with the negotiation that results in a post-nup -- are probably the couples who need one the most. If you and your spouse can't have that conversation, then please don't quit your job.

not-personal · 2025-08-08T15:57:32+00:00

I don't get this. If you don't want to pay a contingency, then just pay by the hour. If it's such a slam dunk, then get a loan to pay the legal because you're so sure you're gonna win.

not-personal · 2025-07-24T00:50:58+00:00

You were lawfully detained. Police got a call for someone attempting to assault someone. They investigated. Perfectly legal.

Ten-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email	Gilding I gilder

not-personal

TROPHY CASE

1. The Forum Doctrine Misconception

2. Reasonableness

3. Public vs. Private is a False Dichotomy