U.S. Const. Amend. I Freedom Of Speech, Assemble, And Law Enforcement

Posted in the Olney Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 402 Comments Last updated Aug 29, 2012
First Prev
of 21
Next Last
Smart Girl

Mount Carmel, IL

#1 Aug 7, 2012
This individual is standing on a public side walk and expressing his constitutional right of protection under the U.S. Const. Amend. I

Further claiming that law enforcement has no authority to prevent him from expressing his speech to others in public. That the government has no business altering is freedom to remain assemble on the public side walk. That in any event the law enforcement officers place him under arrest. It will be a false arrest, because they are a government entity agency that is prohibited from forceable moving any citizen who shall assemble in public.

The police officers had responded do to an individual contacting law enforcement about him harrassing them.

Note: Individual majority to almost every citizen and law enforcement does not know the actual legislative intention "harassing" means. Just like "Disorderly Conduct" several persons are falsely arrested. When he and she had never committed no criminal offense. Law enforcement officers do not realize that the defitition "harassment" and "disorderly conduct" can not be taken by the actual statutory wording.

Note: In order for "harassment and disorderly conduct" to actual have some meaning one must turn to case law. In order to determine what the high court decisions have rule in different type of matters. That's why "harassment and disorderly conduct" case that a state attorney has filed and prosecuted are dismissed.

Note: If you read the defitition of "disorderly conduct" you would notice the legislatures intention. The actual words can be determined to me "no person does not have no type of freedom of speech, assemble, petition, expression, and religious freedom."

Note: Because there are individuals and group of people that would say any thing too try and have a citizen arrested. When they want they realize that threatening or causing harm to a person or group of people will not force them to not enjoy his or her freedom of speech,assemble, petition, expression, and religious freedom."

Note: Then these type of citizens contact the police department and lie in order to get law enforcement officers to respond to the location where a individual or group are assembled and expessing their own freedom of speech. To get individual and group of citizens arrested in order to remove them from the public side walks, public forums, public parks, and government forum property,as well even when he or she is on their own private property.

Note: Then when the police, states attorney, and government do not do not in any way infringe, deprive, and deny individuals and group of people, because it's his and her constitutional protection rights of freedom of speech, assemble, petition, expression, and religious freedom." Then these people further continue to call police departments and complain that a individual or group is harrassing them. When by nature of law it's not harrassment by no means. These individuals and groups that complain that a person and or people are harrassing them have not.

Note: Once again the legislature intention wording results in persons having no constitutional protection rights of freedom of speech, assemble, petition, expression, and religious freedom." That's why court cases are referred to in order to understand the court's rulings. Any person that does not want a person to express his or her speech and assemble in public on a public side walk will the majority of the time call the police department and try and make a false arrest against another person to have police officers to abuse his or her duties by forceable removing citizens from public side walks and all public forums. That he or she has been enjoying them selves. While threatening other citizens to get off of public side walks or out of public parks. When they and no one has no business treating anyone indifferent:

&fe ature=related

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution
Brian James ONeill II

Mount Carmel, IL

#2 Aug 7, 2012
In the State Of Illinois Government Entity Statutory Legislature Intention requires that no person shall recorded a persons voice (audio), but are allowed to record (video)in public.

No person shall record a police officers voice (audio), but (video)trecording law enforcement officers in public is allowed.

Note: No person shall at no time come near to any police officer in the process of questioning and arresting individuals on location. With or without a recording device. The police have a duty to protect the safety of the public and it's citizens as the law provides.

Note: Any person who comes in a close distance of any police officer would more likely be arrested. Law enforcement officers will usually give individuals a warning to stay a way. You should listen to the law enforcement officer and do so.

Note: If you feel your cnstitutional rights are being violated by law enforcement officers. You can always seat down with an attorney. The attorney would more likely to provide you with the questions to ensure your constitutional rights are no longer infringed upon by police officers. If the attorney in question does not know how to answer you questions. The attorney would more lkely tell you. You should go to another attorney until your questions have been answered.

Note: The attorney will tell you if it's against the law to recorded both video and audio or what is allowed and what is prohibited to do under the urrent statute within the state government juisdiction in qestion.

Note: Remember each state government has it's own legislature statutory laws concerning recording both video and audio in public. As well if your allowed or not to record video and audio from your priva residence and business, etc.

Note: I will in the near further provide actual case law concerning criminal cases within Illinois State Government Entity concrning individuals and or groups that ave recording police officers voices(audio)in public while making arrest, etc.

Note: I will also provide criminal cases within the circuit courts within Illinois State Government Entity which a judge or jury had dismiss the criminal charges of recording police officers voices(audio)in public while making arrest, etc.

Note:
&fe ature=related

This is not legal advice.

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution

“Yep...It's Me ”

Since: Mar 09

Olney, IL

#3 Aug 7, 2012
Wrong Brian, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled a person may legally video AND audio tape the police in the performance of their duties AS LONG AS you are not hiding the recording device.

You just don't seem to keep up on current law...
Brian James ONeill II

Mount Carmel, IL

#4 Aug 7, 2012
Michael Ratcliffe wrote:
Wrong Brian, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled a person may legally video AND audio tape the police in the performance of their duties AS LONG AS you are not hiding the recording device.
You just don't seem to keep up on current law...
Wrong Mike it was the Northern United States 7th District Court -- That is not a "State Court!" It's a federal court,

Note: ONCE AGAIN MR RATCLIFFE IS WRONG AND DOES NOT KNOW THE LAW:

NOTE: NOT UNTIL THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE AND SENATE HAVE RE-WRITTEN THE LAW AND IT PASSES BOTH HOUSE AND IS DELIVERED TO THE ILLINOIS STATE GOVERNOR PAT QUINN TO SIGN. HE, PAT QUINN SIGNS THE BILL. THE LAW CONTINUES TO PROHIBIT "RECORDING VOICES HERE IN THE STATE OF ILINOIS GOVERNMENT.

NOTE: BECAUSE THE "BILL" LOSED IN THE "ILLINOIS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE THREE READING OF THE "BILL." IT FAILED IN THE HOUSE. THE "ILLINOIS STATE SENATE NEVER RECEIVED THE "BILL" IN THE STATE SENATE AND NEVER VOTED ON THE "ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE BILL IN THE STATE SENATED.

NOTE: IN ORDER FOR THE ILLINOIS STATE STATUTE TO BE CHANCE A MEMBER OF THE "ILLINOIS STATE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MUST AS EAILY AS NEXT MAY. SUBMIT A NEW "BILL" AND BEGIN THE ENTIRE PROCESS OVER AGAIN.

__________

NOTE: bECAUSE THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM HAS SAID IT'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO TAPE POLICE OFFICERS IN PUBLIC. IT DOES NOT A THING TO CHANGE THE STATUTE. NEITHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ILL. STAT. CONST. ART. II (1970)---- THE POWERS OF THE STATE SECT. 1 AND 2 ARE ALLOWED TO IN NO WAY "EXERCISE POWERS BELONGING TO ANOTHER" BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

IF THEY DO IT WILL LEAD TO IMPEACHMENT --- LIKE THE FORMER GOVERNOR WHO NO IS IN PRISON FOR DOING JUST THAT.

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS NOT THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. THE COURTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM WRITTEN LEGISLATION THAT BELONG TO THE ILLINOIS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS.

NOTE: YOU MR RATCLIFFE ARE WRONG YOU WILL GET IN BIG TROUBLE. EVEN THE ACLU THAT WON IT'S CASE IN FEDERAL COURT BASED ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS THAT IT'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO RECORD A POLICE OFFICERS VOICE IN PUBLIC.[WHICH I AGREE!]

NOTE: THE ACLU AND NO PERSON CAN NOT TAPE A POLICE OFFICERS VOICE IN ILLINOIS STATE GOVERNMENT UNTIL THE ILLINOIS STATE COMPILED STATUTE ALLOWS THAT A PERSON CAN RECORD A POLICE OFFICER IN PUBLIC.

NOTE: DO NOT TAPE NO POLICE OFFICE VOICE OR YOU WILL MORE LIKELY BE CRIMINAL CHARGE WITH RECORDING A POLICE OFFICERS VOICE. WHICH IS A FELONY AND IS A SENTENCE OF UP TO 15 YEARS IMPRISONMENT.

NOTE: I BRIAN JAMES O'NEILL II WILL LATER OBTAIN THE INFORMATION FOR YOU THAT PROVIDES THE FACT THAT YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM RECORDING ANY POLICE OFFICERS VOICE AND OTHERS IN PUBIC.

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#5 Aug 7, 2012
You Mr. Michael Ratcliffe do not know the law. The cour is not the legislative branch. it's unconstitutional for the court to write "bills" that belongs to the "Illinois State General Assembly Legislature."

Note: The court is the judicial branch that finds if some thing is unconstitutional or not.

Even through the "Illinois Supreme Court ruled a person may legally video AND audio tape the police in the performance of their duties AS LONG AS you are not hiding the recording device."

Once again unless the "Illinois State General Assembly Legislature." Submits a "bill" at the next "session in May of next year." This bill is passed in both houses and delivered to the governor and he Pat Quinn sign it. No person can not record a police officers voice. Unless they want to go to Jail and have a criminal case filed against them.

Mike every one know that you illegal tape peoples voice when they say you can not. In the State Of Illinois it's illegal to tape my voice unless I tell you that you can. You as the attorney said along with others have llegal taped my voice and place it on "Topix" and "Face Book", etc. No matter if a person is a police officer or not this state prohibits anyone from taping another persons voice with out his or her consent.

NOTE: THE ACLU AND YOUR LEGISLATURE WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT THE ILLINOIS STATE COMPILED STATUTE HAS NOT CHANGE. UNTIL THE ILLINOIS STATE STATUTE HAS BEEN RE-WRITTEN AND STATES: "a person may legally video AND audio tape the police in the performance of their duties AS LONG AS you are not hiding the recording device." it's not enforced law.

NOTE: NO PERSON SHOULD LISTEN TO Mr. Michael Ratcliffe UNLESS YOU WANT TO END UP BEING ARRESTED AND CHARGE FOR TAPING A POLICE OFFICERS VOICE.

Note: If the Illinois Compiled Statute allowed for the change in this law. I would be the first one out on the street recording police officers and individuals like Mike being placed under arrest.

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#6 Aug 7, 2012
ACLU WEB SITE: http://www.aclu-il.org Court issues order barring controversial enforcement of Illinois' eavesdropping law:

This order, issued by U.S. District Court (NOT THE ILLINOIS STATE SUPREME COURT) Judge Shararon Johnson Coleman, remains in place in this case. The judges's preliminary injunction was ordered by feeral appellate court ruling (NOT THE ILLINOIS STATE SUPREME COURT RULING)in May that held such prosecutions likely violated the First Amendment rights of the public to record the work of public officials, including on duty police officers.

In the last ight years, at least fourteen people have been prosecuted under this law for audio recording on-duty poice, and each has facd the threat of imprisonment for up to 15 years. Three of thse controversial prosecutions were brouht by Cook CountyState's Attorney....

Two state courts already have found the use of the state eavesdropping statute to prosecute individuals for recording police performing their public responsibilities in public place to be unconstitutional under Illinois' Constitution.

[NOTE: I, BRIAN JAMES O'NEILL II AGREE 100%, BECAUSE POLICE OFFICERS ARE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES OF THE FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, AND LOCAL JURISDICTION BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT OF THE PUBLIC. THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT THEN A PERSON THAT IS A PERSON THAT'S SEATED IN POLITICAL OFFICE SEAT. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS POLICE OFFICERS PUBLIC DUTIES ARE DIFFERENT THEN OTHER PUBLIC PERSONS THAT ARE ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT THT ALSO HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT DUTIES."

NOTE EVERYONE: Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan recently dismissed an Illinois Supreme Court appeal she had taken from one of the casess. An effort to charge the law stalled in the Illinois General Assembly this past spring.

NOTE EVERYONE: "An effort to charge the law stalled in the Illinois General Assembly this past spring."

I, BRIAN JAMES O'NEILL II WILL LATER POST THE FACT THAT THE "ILLINOIS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE BILL LOSED IN THE HOUSE ON THE THIRD READING!!!!!" ---- WHICH MEANS THE ILLNOIS STATUTE REMAINS: IT'S ILLEGAL TO RECORD A POLICE OFFICERS VOICE UNTIL A NEW "BILL IS SUMITTED IN THE HOUSE." NEXT MAY THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY WILL HAVE NOTHER CHANGE IF ANY MEMBER WAS TO AT IT'S NEXT SESSION SUBMIT A NEW BILL."

NOTE EVERYONE; THE "BILL" MUST PASS IN BOTH THE ILLINOIS STATE "HOUSE" AND "SENATE" BEFORE IT CAN BE DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNOR TO BE EITHER SIGNED OR VETO. IN THE EVENT THAT A "BILL" IS SUMITTED AT THE NEXT SESSION IN THE ILLINOIS STATE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE. IT PASSES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND IS DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS GOVERNMENT ENTITY. THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THE "BILL" IT THEN BECOMES LAW AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME.

NOTE: DO NOT RECORD NO POLICE OFFICERS VOICE. BECAUSE THE COURT DOES NOT MAKE LAW. THE POWER OF MAKING LAW REMAINS THE POWER OF THE ILLINOIS STATE LEGISLATURES. THE GOVERNOR IS THE EXECUTIVE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS GOVERNMENT ENTITY THAT SIGNS LEGISLATION IN TOLAW OR OTHERWISE VETO'S LEGISLATION. IN THE EVENT THE GOVERNOR VETO'S LEGISLATION IT'S RETURN TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ___
__________ PURSUANT TO THE ILLINOIS STATE CONSTITUTION.

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution

“Yep...It's Me ”

Since: Mar 09

Olney, IL

#7 Aug 7, 2012
Brian, yer a damn fool, the case has been heard in Illinois and the verdict handed down that it IS legal, as long as you are not recording surreptitiously...once again, you show how little you actually know...
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#8 Aug 7, 2012
Michael Ratcliffe wrote:
Brian, yer a damn fool, the case has been heard in Illinois and the verdict handed down that it IS legal, as long as you are not recording surreptitiously...once again, you show how little you actually know...
Mike you are giving a illegal advice. It would be best that you stop misleading others. Because the bill losed in the house and never went to the senate as well, the governor received no bill to sign. Because it losed in the house on the third reading. Mike

It would be very funny watching you getting arrested in public for telling individuals out side the fire side bar they can record athe police officers voice while placing others under arrest.

NOTE EVERYONE: DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A CRIMINAL CASE TWO COUNTIES OVER FROM RICHLAND COUNTY. THAT INVOLVES A PERSON ILLEGAL TAPING POLICE OFFICERS VOICE RIGHT NO? THERE IS!

SO DO NOT FALL DUMB HEAD MIKE ILLEGAL ADVICE, BECAUSE MIKE WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU COMMITTING THE ILLEGAL CRIME OF RECORDING A POLICE OFFICERS VOICE.
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#9 Aug 7, 2012
Michael Ratcliffe wrote:
Brian, yer a damn fool, the case has been heard in Illinois and the verdict handed down that it IS legal, as long as you are not recording surreptitiously...once again, you show how little you actually know...
This actual tells everyone that Mr. Michael Ratcliffe is giving illegal advice and does not know what he is posting on topixs:

He, Mike own words: "case has been heard." ----- NOTE EVERYONE IN NO STATE OR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES DOES THE LEGISLATURE SEAT IN A COURT. THE LEGISLATURES WRITE THE LAWS. THE COURT DO NOT WRITE THE LAWS. THE COURTS MUST FOLLOW THE LAWS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWERS ARE RESONSIBLE FOR AMENDING, STRICKEN, ADDING DIFFERENT WORDING TO STATUTES. THAT HAS NOT HAPPEN YET.

THE COURT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FINDING FACTS IF ANY LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TO WHAT EXTENT. THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO DISMISS CASES THAT THEY FIND UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER STATUTE LAWS. FINE A PERSON NOT GUILTY OR GUILTY AND SENTENCE PERSONS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

THE COURT IS BY ALL MEANS UNDER BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTE FROM ABUSING IT'S POWER TO WRITE LAW THAT BELONGS TO THE LEGISLATURES NO THE JUDGES. IN ANY EVENT A JUDGE WAS TO WRITE LEGISLATION THAT BELONG WITH THE LEGISLATURE HE AND OR SHE WOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM THE COURT AND LOSE HIS OR HER BAR LIENSE AND SO MUCH MORE AS WELL FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL AND ALL 50 STATE CONSTITUTIONS PROHIBIT THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LOOK WHERE OUR FORMER GOVERNOR IS . THAT'S RIGHT IN PRISON FOR ALSO ABUSING HIS POWER THAT BELONG TO ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#10 Aug 7, 2012
Note: The Illnois State General Assembly -- State House Of Repestaves (Is responsible for making law and changing the statutory laws.) NOT THE COURTS!

Note: Because the courts have ruled a law unconstitutional or determined in it's ruling something. It not law by no nature, until the Illinois State House Of Representatives and State Senate have passed the "Bill" in both house. Before the "bill" is delivered to the Ilinois Governor. Then and only when the Illinois Governor has signed a "bill" dose it become law.

Note: Then the new laws or laws that were ameded, stricken, or had wording change will be released as current law.

Note: ACLU WEB SITE: http://www.aclu-il.org Court issues order barring controversial enforcement of Illinois' eavesdropping law:

EVEN THE ACLU HAS POSTED ON IT'S WEB SITE THAT THE "BILL" WITHIN THE ILLINOIS STATE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAD FAILED:

Note: ACLU WEB SITE: http://www.aclu-il.org : NOTE EVERYONE: "An effort to charge the law stalled in the Illinois General Assembly this past spring."

Note: Which means that until a member of the Illinois State General Assembly House Government Entity Legislative Body resummits at the next session in May of 2013. The Illinois State Compiled Statory Sections will remain as is.

Note: Under the Illinois State Constitution no judge is allowed to abuse his or her power to write law that belongs to the power of the Illinois General Assembly Government Entity:

Note: Ill. Stat. Const.(1970) Art. II, Section 1. provides for SEPERATION OF POWERS: The legislative, executive and judicial branches are seperate. No branch shall exercise powers belonging to another."

Note: Ill. Stat. Const.(1970) Art. II, Section 2. provides for POWERS OF GOVERNMENT: The enumeration in this Constitution of specified powers and functions shall not be construed as a limitation of powers of state government.

__________

Note: Ill. Stat. Const.(1970)Art. IV, Sect. 14 IMPEACHMENT:

The House of Representatives has the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of the memberselected, to impeach "Executive and Judicial officers." Impeachments shall be tried y the Senate. When sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor is tried, the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgement shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold public office of this State. An impeached officer, whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.

Note: Ill. Stat. Const.(1970)Art. IV, Sect. 14 IMPEACHMENT: Provides for both "Executive and Judicial officers" shall be impreched by the legislative branch of government. Not just the "Executive Officers."

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution

“Yep...It's Me ”

Since: Mar 09

Olney, IL

#12 Aug 7, 2012
Brian James ONeill II wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike you are giving a illegal advice. It would be best that you stop misleading others. Because the bill losed in the house and never went to the senate as well, the governor received no bill to sign. Because it losed in the house on the third reading. Mike
It would be very funny watching you getting arrested in public for telling individuals out side the fire side bar they can record athe police officers voice while placing others under arrest.
NOTE EVERYONE: DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A CRIMINAL CASE TWO COUNTIES OVER FROM RICHLAND COUNTY. THAT INVOLVES A PERSON ILLEGAL TAPING POLICE OFFICERS VOICE RIGHT NO? THERE IS!
SO DO NOT FALL DUMB HEAD MIKE ILLEGAL ADVICE, BECAUSE MIKE WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU COMMITTING THE ILLEGAL CRIME OF RECORDING A POLICE OFFICERS VOICE.
Several cases have already been ruled on setting precedent that taping, both audio and video, of public officials performing their duties is perfectly legal AS LONG AS (this is the part you don't seem to understand) it is not being done surreptitiously...

So don't fall for the small talk of the nut case Brian James O'Neill II, who does not understand what "surreptitiously" means.

“Yep...It's Me ”

Since: Mar 09

Olney, IL

#13 Aug 7, 2012
Brian James ONeill II wrote:
Note: The Illnois State General Assembly -- State House Of Repestaves (Is responsible for making law and changing the statutory laws.) NOT THE COURTS!
The Illinois Supreme Court may strike down a law as being unconstitutional.

Everyone knows that but you.
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#14 Aug 7, 2012
Note: My position has all along been that a person has a contitutinal protection rights to freedom of speech to record police officers. Being a police officer is of a government agency that is responsible for enforcig the protection with in public.

That the Illinois Compiled Staute is unconstittional. In addition to the Illinois State General Assemble House Legislatures failed to pass the "Bill" on he third reading of the members. The "Bill Losed"

Which means no "Bill" will be at least resummitted before next year 2013 session of the Illnois State House Of Representatives In Springfeild, Illinois.

Note: I know what occurred within the federal and Illinois State Courts conerning the above matter. Being that I he had all the information for several months. In addtion to speaking with law enforcement offiers and the asst. states attorney as well, member of the Illinois State Senate as well, the ACLU. Other then discussing what the courts, legisatures, ACLU and criminal charges that are still with in the court against citizens with in the State Of Illnois State Government Enity.

Signed: Brian James ONeil II -- Mr. Constitution
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#15 Aug 7, 2012
Michael Ratcliffe wrote:
<quoted text>
Several cases have already been ruled on setting precedent that taping, both audio and video, of public officials performing their duties is perfectly legal AS LONG AS (this is the part you don't seem to understand) it is not being done surreptitiously...
So don't fall for the small talk of the nut case Brian James O'Neill II, who does not understand what "surreptitiously" means.
Dumb head Mr. Ratcliffe your the one that can not read and understand not a thing.

Note: I am talking about something different then you.

You, Mike refuse to notice that the Illinois State Statute has not change. That's what I have been saying all along. You know I am right.

Because the "Bill" would had passed the "house which it did not!" Other then that the ACLU on it's web site states the same thing I, Brian James O'Neill II be saying all along!

Note The ACLU support what I have been saying all along 100% on it's web site that the "Bill" failed in the house. That the Illinois State Compiled Statutes remain the same to this date.

Note: No pig will allow you Mr. Michael Ratcliffe to record their voice in public. The Olney Police Officers them selves had already ordered you Mr. Michael Ratcliffe to shut off your camera and stop taping as well move back one night. You, Mr. Michael Ratcliffe did just that. You turned off your camera and moved back like a chicken that did not know his constitutional rights to record a police officer making an arrest. You fear going to prison for 15 years.

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#16 Aug 7, 2012
Michael Ratcliffe wrote:
<quoted text>
The Illinois Supreme Court may strike down a law as being unconstitutional.
Everyone knows that but you.
Still the Illinois General Assembly has the responsiblity to rewrite the legislation to stricken any thing that is unconstitutional with in a statute. As well, add additional wording that provides what the courts ruled in some matter. To prevent others who tape police officers voices as well attorneys and the judges of our courts shall rely on the legislative intention. That had failed to pass within the house on the third reading.

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution

“Yep...It's Me ”

Since: Mar 09

Olney, IL

#17 Aug 7, 2012
And I discovered the next day that the Officer had NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to ask me to shut it off.

You are such an idiot >.<
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#18 Aug 7, 2012
Michael Ratcliffe wrote:
<quoted text>
The Illinois Supreme Court may strike down a law as being unconstitutional.
Everyone knows that but you.
I never said not a thing about the court not finding anything unconstitutional could not in it's ruling provide no conclusion of why a law should or shouldn't be stricken.

What you can not realize Mr. Michael Ratcliffe I am speaking in general about what has and has not the Illinois State General Assembly done in order to change the statutory law. So that it is made constitutional. Because the courts rely on statutes. The states attorneys when filing information must rely on the statute he or she claims in it's clause of action against defendants.

Then the judge reads the Illinois Compiled Statute Sections in order to see if the states attorney has state a statutory section which he or she claims the defendant violated the laws.

That is why the legislature has a responsiblity to stricken and amend to add additional wording to the statute. This has not been done yet!

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution
Brian James ONeill II

Albion, IL

#19 Aug 7, 2012
Michael Ratcliffe wrote:
And I discovered the next day that the Officer had NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to ask me to shut it off.
You are such an idiot >.<
LMAO HE MICHAEL RATCLIFFE ADMITED HE DID NOT KNOW THE LAW EVERY OWN ON www.topix.com and www.facebook.com as well the entire whole WORLD WIDE WEB.

I already knew that the could do what you, Mr. Ratcliffe now in your own words have step up and admitted you are dumb and do not know the law in your own words: "I discovered the next day that the Officer had NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to ask me to shut it off."

Note: Which means he Mr. Ratcliffe does not know his first amendment protection rights of freedom of speech pursuant to the U.S. Const. Amend. I

Note: Also now that Mr. Ratcliffe knows is constitutional protection right of freedom of speech was violated. He, Mr. Ratcliffe does not know the U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, Sect. 1:

Note: Because if Mr. Ratcliffe knew the law. Which Mr. Ratcliffe dose not. He would realize that there is a "statutory limitation of two years to file a law suit against the Olney Police Officer, Olney Police Department, and the Olney City Hall Government Entities for violating his U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, Sect. 1 and U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, Sect. 1 ."

Note: Remember Mr. Ratcliffe I was standing near you at the time the Olney Police Officer made you shut off your Camera. I am a withness to that.

Note: I remember the location that it all took place: On East Chestnut on the "North Side" on the public side walk and parking area across from the Olney City Hall.

Signed: Brian James O'Neill II -- Mr. Constitution

“Yep...It's Me ”

Since: Mar 09

Olney, IL

#20 Aug 8, 2012
You are really a nut case aren't you? One minute you are arguing it is illegal to do it, next minute you are saying you knew all along it was legal.

Dumb...seriously dumb.
Yaweh

Bridgeport, IL

#21 Aug 8, 2012
Wrongo,rat'sass, video yes,audio no, ask your assholebuddies at disclosure..........

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 21
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Olney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Angie the queen of mean and anti-vaccine! 2 hr Smoke Fan 11
IL Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr mahz 49,473
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 9 hr newpoly 1,903
Terrible Tony finally went too far Wed Low Life 17
Anti-vaccine hypochondriac Angie Howser's mispl... Aug 26 Vaccinateme 2
Dumbest Police Chief in America Aug 25 Karma is a beotch 8
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) Aug 24 Mr Ridgway 3,922
•••
•••
•••

Olney Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Olney People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Olney News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Olney
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••