Posting Criminal Histories? What's the Point?

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
To the Curators,

What's the point of posting so many auditor criminal histories? Do you somehow believe that people with criminal histories, no matter how minor or not, have forfeited all of their First Amendment rights? It would be better journalism, at least, to get some background info on the charges before insinuating anything. We know people can be convicted or forced to plead on some very questionable charges.

First post your own criminal histories, explain the situation, and then we can talk.
 

FattMatt

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
38
It's down to the public perceiving the auditor community as a bunch of hypocrites, and will they back them in what they are attempting to achieve.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
It's down to the public perceiving the auditor community as a bunch of hypocrites, and will they back them in what they are attempting to achieve.
That seems to be the cry from this crowd. To me, I don't care what the public thinks. We should not give up our rights because "the public" feels uncomfortable with what we are doing. That's why we have a Constitution, to prevent the government and the public from doing anything they want.
 

FattMatt

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
38
That seems to be the cry from this crowd. To me, I don't care what the public thinks. We should not give up our rights because "the public" feels uncomfortable with what we are doing. That's why we have a Constitution, to prevent the government and the public from doing anything they want.
Nothing to do with being uncomfortable, more to do with expecting public support when they are trying to get laws upheld, yet that auditor has a history of stepping outside the law themself.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
Nothing to do with being uncomfortable, more to do with expecting public support when they are trying to get laws upheld, yet that auditor has a history of stepping outside the law themself.
I reckon a lot of the curators here have stepped outside the law, too, but you don't see them posting their own criminal backgrounds. What does a person's criminal background have to do with filming in public, anyway? If auditors are expecting public support, they can hold their breaths until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. We have the Constitution. Part of the beauty of the First Amendment is that it is not susceptible to the whims of the authorities or the public. And it is the most difficult to uphold when it is something we disagree with, but that is exactly the time it is most important that it is upheld.
 

OG2.0

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
29
If people like ian generate enough public outcry by being aggressive and abrasive the public will demand change to limit his ability to do so. We've seen it happen already. Same with Mexican Padilla in Leon Valley. Same with Chauncey hollingberry (law offices of daddy and master).
Their antics are getting limits placed on the first amendment rights of others.
 

observer

Staff member
Curator
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
134
Rogue Rivered- IMO the posting of criminal records serves more than one purpose or objective. First is that it prevents someone from hiding behind false narratives and creating misleading "facts" and explanations to things in one's past. We all have things in our pasts and are entitled our privacy within the limitations of the law. However, if you misrepresent or lie about it then you should be prepared to defend it.

The criminal histories and court records that are posted in Discord and on FAANClub.net are in part a response to your comment of "It would be better journalism, at least, to get some background info on the charges before insinuating anything. We know people can be convicted or forced to plead on some very questionable charges." Many members of the "community" were told different stories to a variety of situations and when they came together and discussed them there were major discrepancies found and the research begun to uncover the back story or facts.

OG2.0's comment of "If people like ian generate enough public outcry by being aggressive and abrasive the public will demand change to limit his ability to do so" while accurate IMO does not address your concern about criminal histories being posted. While both Ian, Mexican Padilla, and Chauncey Hollingberry have criminal charges, their history has played out "live" in the videos they post. To my knowledge there is little been said beyond their current situations though I would speculate there may be more.

The larger benefit of posting court records is the demonstration to the larger community of the availability and relative ease of obtaining public records. Initially it appears that the only records being posted are criminal histories, but there are also links to other court filings (law suits and pleadings in criminal cases) that should help others better understand what is happening, how hard it is to proceed, and to some extent the difficulties involved.

I would like to address another comment of yours "If auditors are expecting public support, they can hold their breaths until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. We have the Constitution." I totally disagree with you on this and argue that it does matter. Without the support of the public, laws will be passed at all levels from local ordinances, to state laws, and even federal laws that will limit and restrict our rights. Not only our rights to free speech and record public officials, but in many other areas of our lives. One needs to only look at the massive number of new laws passed each legislative session to understand the magnitude of new restrictions and limitations being placed upon our lives. Additionally, the courts at all levels are defining and redefining those laws with many adverse repercussions on our lives. In closing, ask yourself, as a nation do you see ourselves freer today to 200 years ago?
 
Last edited:

Holy War

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
7
Simple answer. Establishing credibility.
If "auditors" claim to be upholding transparency and accountability of others why is their own "irrelevant"?
 

FattMatt

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
38
I reckon a lot of the curators here have stepped outside the law, too, but you don't see them posting their own criminal backgrounds. What does a person's criminal background have to do with filming in public, anyway? If auditors are expecting public support, they can hold their breaths until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. We have the Constitution. Part of the beauty of the First Amendment is that it is not susceptible to the whims of the authorities or the public. And it is the most difficult to uphold when it is something we disagree with, but that is exactly the time it is most important that it is upheld.
A example of how's someones history will effect their achievement is about to happen in the next eighteen months when people running for President drop out, when skeletons from their last are uncovered, down to lack of support by the public.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
I would like to address another comment of yours "If auditors are expecting public support, they can hold their breaths until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. We have the Constitution." I totally disagree with you on this and argue that it does matter. Without the support of the public, laws will be passed at all levels from local ordinances, to state laws, and even federal laws that will limit and restrict our rights. Not only our rights to free speech and record public officials, but in many other areas of our lives. One needs to only look at the massive number of new laws passed each legislative session to understand the magnitude of new restrictions and limitations being placed upon our lives. Additionally, the courts at all levels are defining and redefining those laws with many adverse repercussions on our lives. In closing, ask yourself, as a nation do you see ourselves freer today to 200 years ago?
You guys have a far different attitude about the Constitution than I do. You think the public can vote away our rights. But all the examples above were from sensitive government workers trying to get local statutes changed because they are afraid of cameras. I understand not everyone can fight arbitrary government actions, but if they could, I'm confident the Constitution would be upheld.
 

observer

Staff member
Curator
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
134
You guys have a far different attitude about the Constitution than I do. You think the public can vote away our rights.
Having different views and attitudes are part of what the Constitution is designed to protect so I agree with your comment. However, the Constitution also provides for the public to "vote" away rights or add additional rights, which is also fine.

Many interpret/consider the Constitution to be a living/breathing document subject to change while others view it as more absolute and not changing to meet the needs of the times. Both views I find acceptable and can find validity in them if I keep on open mind to the differing views and objectives.
 

worldtour

Registered User
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
19
To the Curators,

What's the point of posting so many auditor criminal histories? Do you somehow believe that people with criminal histories, no matter how minor or not, have forfeited all of their First Amendment rights? It would be better journalism, at least, to get some background info on the charges before insinuating anything. We know people can be convicted or forced to plead on some very questionable charges.

First post your own criminal histories, explain the situation, and then we can talk.
That's like saying if you got a dishonorable discharge from the military & you came to me for a job ( I shouldn't take into account your past) LOL, if someone has been arrested 44 times ( news now ohio) I can tell you what kind of person he is, if you CAN'T that's your fault not mine!!!
 

Papa Bear

Registered User
Joined
Feb 4, 2022
Messages
12
A good many of these fraditor have been liars and grifters all of their lives. Auditing has given them an avenue to grift money from YouTube and their followers. Some blame the police for their criminal situations. What better way to get back for those perceived wrongs and make lots of money/fame at the same time.
If their true pursuits were educating the public on the Constitution why monitize their channel's. True believers would be willing to forego personal hardship for the cause.
As for being members of the Press, what a joke. Real journalists do not insert themselves into their story. What news worthy story are at a Religious place of worship or a simple work place. No not every Jack wagons with a cell phone or camera is a true member of the press.
 

FearMyFez

Registered User
Joined
Jan 22, 2022
Messages
527
You guys have a far different attitude about the Constitution than I do. You think the public can vote away our rights. But all the examples above were from sensitive government workers trying to get local statutes changed because they are afraid of cameras. I understand not everyone can fight arbitrary government actions, but if they could, I'm confident the Constitution would be upheld.
Here is my list of misdemeanors and felonies...
not wearing a seatbelt

I guess you win, I truly need to be educated on my rights by chomos, rapists, women beaters etc...
 

American Amy

Registered User
Joined
Mar 4, 2022
Messages
51
It's down to the public perceiving the auditor community as a bunch of hypocrites, and will they back them in what they are attempting to achieve.
Not all of them but trust me there’s a lot of they have disappointed me greatly.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,505
Messages
6,974
Members
549
Latest member
AlinalCrura

New Threads

Top