FrauditorAuditor
Registered User
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2023
- Messages
- 3
Attached is the judge's ruling.
The facts established Mr. Cordova knew the SSA and its law enforcement officials interpreted the law as prohibiting filming inside the second set of interior doors where the SSA was conducting business with its customers. He had fair notice of the language of the regulation, and that his conduct would be punishable under the Government’s interpretation of it. Granted, he has a philosophical disagreement with that interpretation, for which he was prepared to, and in fact expected to, be arrested. Although I respect his right to challenge the law and test his constitutional rights to their outer limit, he is wrong in this instance.
May there be many more to come.
The facts established Mr. Cordova knew the SSA and its law enforcement officials interpreted the law as prohibiting filming inside the second set of interior doors where the SSA was conducting business with its customers. He had fair notice of the language of the regulation, and that his conduct would be punishable under the Government’s interpretation of it. Granted, he has a philosophical disagreement with that interpretation, for which he was prepared to, and in fact expected to, be arrested. Although I respect his right to challenge the law and test his constitutional rights to their outer limit, he is wrong in this instance.
May there be many more to come.
