Ringling Blvd, Post Office, First Amendment Audit

[@josephjones825]

"Investigative journalism" 😂 Did you make sure to buy ONE stamp, frauditor ???

[@OmenOfficial]

@@josephjones825 Thanks for the view, it’s much appreciated 🇺🇸

[@blacktipstudios4789]

How is he a Frauditor?

[@mainid2490]

*_Poster 7 explained_* - _see the problem people have in comprehending the text of the _*_"Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Postal Service Property",_*_ IE: USPS Poster 7 is... the subject areas and conditions._ *Note: the section in the **_"Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Postal Service Property"_** (Poster 7) concerning **_"Photography for News",_** it covers three "Subject Areas" **_(SA#)_** and two "Conditions" **_(C#);_* _(SA1) - Photographs for News,_ _(C1) - entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings_ _(C2) - Other photographs_ _(SA2) - Advertising,_ _(SA3) - or Commercial Purposes._ _Let's review the subject areas, and their conditions._ _USPS Poster 7 (Aug 2016) text:_ *_(SA1)_** Photographs for News, **_(SA2)_** Advertising, or **_(SA3)_** Commercial Purposes* *_(SA1)_* Photographs for news purposes may be taken in *_(C1)_* entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. *_(C2 & SA2, SA3)_* Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or installation head. _The last sentence deals _*_"Only"_*_ with_ *_"(C2) Other photographs"_* IE: *_"(SA2) Advertising, or (SA3) Commercial Purposes"_*_ as (SA1) and its condition (C1) was already covered._ _Where readers misinterpret the last part of the first sentence covering (SA1) & (C1) is when they encounter the word_ *_"except."_* (We will refer to that as the *_"exception.")_* The *_"exception",_* which is *_"Except Where Prohibited",_* indicates that it has to be _"already prohibited"_ or is _"being prohibited";_ again, *_where prohibited._* ▫️ _NOTE that:_ *(SA1)* "Photographs for news purposes may be taken in" _Clearly establishes _*_"that photographs may be taken."_* ▫️ _And note that:_ *_(C1)_* "entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings" _Clearly establishes where "photographs may be taken in."_ ● An *_"Authorized Personnel"_* or *_"Employees Only"_* sign or placard meets the *_"Except Where Prohibited"_* guidance. IE: [except where _{in any of those places it is}_ prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule.] Again, the key words are: *_"Except Where Prohibited"..._* ● by offical signs ▫️IE: an _"Authorized Personnel"_ or _"Employees Only"_ sign or placard. ○ Currently there is no Legal Signage prohibiting news photography in public areas. ● or Security Force personnel ○ Can only restrict photography or stop someone from doing it in an "authorized/restricted" area per the USPS "Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Postal Service Property". ● or other authorized personnel ○ Can only restrict photography or stop someone from doing it in an "authorized/restricted" area per the USPS "Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Postal Service Property". ● or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it. ○ Currently the Federal Courts and the CFR allows news photography in public areas. The CFR, the DHS Order of 2018, the USPS POM, and the USPS Poster 7 all allow news photography in public areas. Cause: the *_"right"_* to take pictures or video in public areas has already been clearly established by the courts and the government/courts can not confirm a *_"right"_* then place restrictions that take that *_"right"_* away in its entirety. Even 41 CFR § 102-74.420 (linked below) clearly verifies photography is allowed for news purposes in the public areas. And the CFR is the Controlling federal regulation for Poster 7. ■ 41 CFR § 102-74.420 [2008]: *_What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes?_* www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2008-title41-vol3/xml/CFR-2008-title41-vol3-sec102-74-420.xml ■ 39 CFR § 232.1(i) [2003]: *_Conduct on postal property._* www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2003-title39-vol1/xml/CFR-2003-title39-vol1-sec232-1.xml ■ USPS Poster 7 [2016]: *_Rules and Regulations Governing Conducton Postal Service Property_* about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf ■ DHS Operational Readiness Order of 2018 on Photography: www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Operational%20Readiness%20Order%20HQ-ORO-002-2018%20Photography%20and%20Videotaping%20....pdf □ DHS Order of 2018 covering photography *_(un edited)_* mega.nz/#!VxUmWKyA!QEJL99SkqXrlEAk9S3ZrN3tAk3PxNwiycBEGiZLQdzA ■ USPS Inspector acknowledgement: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoXThWqKbJx3ircm10s kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoXThWqKbJx3ircm00s kzbin.info/www/bejne/qousi5WinM2ooMkm00s kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXfMoGqZfsqFqckm ■ USPS Station Manager acknowledgement: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i16znJmBnL-fj6Mm20s ■ Settled Court Case (Aug 2020): Silverthorne pays $9,500 settlement to ‘First Amendment auditor’ following incident at post office. www.summitdaily.com/news/silverthorne-pays-9500-settlement-to-first-amendment-auditor-following-incident-at-post-office/ *_Hope it helps..._*

[@rubymontague2680]

And that is how it should be

[@deonjackson2224]

Great audit

[@OmenOfficial]

@@deonjackson2224 Thank You! I wish there was somebody I could Audit With!

[@debbiemcdermott3172]

​@@OmenOfficialy don't u get hold of some of the auditors near u and see if u can do one with them

[@OmenOfficial]

@@debbiemcdermott3172 I don’t know if there is any near me. I’m sure there is tho