From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.


https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vid/avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vid/avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4

Hey! Masks are a Sarbanes-Oxley violation! You are obligated to create
evidence against interest! The feds have prosecuted people for this,
Fifth Amendment be damned.

As to your basic point, if wearing a mask is speech, I don't see how
denying this right preserves democracy.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Jan 10, 2026 at 6:18:12 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vid/avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4

Hey! Masks are a Sarbanes-Oxley violation! You are obligated to create evidence against interest! The feds have prosecuted people for this,
Fifth Amendment be damned.

As to your basic point, if wearing a mask is speech, I don't see how
denying this right preserves democracy.

While that might be an alternative argument, my basic point is that the Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate the behavior, equipment, and attire of federal agents. The state of Pennsylvania doesn't get to impose a dress code on federal law enforcement officers. The chief of police doesn't get a vote on what they can and can't wear while enforcing federal law.

How would this even work as a practical matter? Let's say ICE is out on the street conducting a lawful, constitutional immigration enforcement operation and the Philly PD rolls up, sees some of them are wearing masks... and then what?

Are they going to pull their guns on the federal agents and order them to get down on the ground and put their hands behind their backs? Because if they did that, they'd find themselves under arrest themselves for obstruction and interference with a federal operation/investigation. That's a felony with a maximum sentence of 10 years in a federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison. And it'll be a special treat for them to arrive there as former cops.

What cop is going to risk all that to act as a pawn in the mayor or chief's political games with Trump?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Jan 10, 2026 at 6:18:12 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vid/avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4

Hey! Masks are a Sarbanes-Oxley violation! You are obligated to create
evidence against interest! The feds have prosecuted people for this,
Fifth Amendment be damned.

As to your basic point, if wearing a mask is speech, I don't see how
denying this right preserves democracy.

While that might be an alternative argument, my basic point is that the >Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate the >behavior, equipment, and attire of federal agents. The state of Pennsylvania >doesn't get to impose a dress code on federal law enforcement officers. The >chief of police doesn't get a vote on what they can and can't wear while >enforcing federal law.

How would this even work as a practical matter? Let's say ICE is out on the >street conducting a lawful, constitutional immigration enforcement operation >and the Philly PD rolls up, sees some of them are wearing masks... and then >what?

Are they going to pull their guns on the federal agents and order them to get >down on the ground and put their hands behind their backs? Because if they did >that, they'd find themselves under arrest themselves for obstruction and >interference with a federal operation/investigation. That's a felony with a >maximum sentence of 10 years in a federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison. And >it'll be a special treat for them to arrive there as former cops.

What cop is going to risk all that to act as a pawn in the mayor or chief's >political games with Trump?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-01-10 9:09 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vid/avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4

Does this meet the statutory definition of insurrection yet? We've got a police chief insisting she will arrest ICE agents for doing their jobs, contrary to the laws of the nation, based on her own sense of morality.
She's also declaring that Renee Goode was killed without justification
which must surely be concerning to the ICE agent's lawyer. She's a long
way outside of her responsibilities as a police chief at the very least weighing in on a case from another jurisdiction.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 02:09:53 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vid/avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4

I guess the police chief will be seeing the FBI with an arrest warrant
for the chief. You can't make an illegal order.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

More dashboard pounding outrage! Where are my blood pressure meds?


ICE agents have the authority to arrest and detain anyone they please and American terrorists who object deserve to be shot dead in the streets. Besides they'll never vote for Trump anyway.

When are they coming to Texas? The illegals are all over the farms here. They'd better bring lots of busses.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2026-01-10 9:09 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vid/avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4

Does this meet the statutory definition of insurrection yet? We've got a >police chief insisting she will arrest ICE agents for doing their jobs, >contrary to the laws of the nation, based on her own sense of morality. >She's also declaring that Renee Goode was killed without justification
which must surely be concerning to the ICE agent's lawyer. She's a long
way outside of her responsibilities as a police chief at the very least >weighing in on a case from another jurisdiction.

I agree with very little of this.

Her reaction is over-the-top as this is the current strategy of reacting
to Trump's antics in kind. There is no useful political rhetoric. As a
police chief, if she's reacting to politics with her own political and unconstitutional nonsense, she's unprofessional.

Using police to carry out a political strategy, which is what Trump has
been doing with ICE and CPB agents doing show of force and creating
videos, is outrageous. The response to unconstitutional federal policing
cannot be unconstitutional local policing.

But yes, one may have to adjust local policing based on foreign events.

There has been an attempt to certify a legal class of plaintiffs who
have been victims of unconstitutional policing from Trump's tactics of
frequent tear gassing and similar aggressive tactics intended to rile up
the confrontations, and not using basic crowd control methods. The suit
is on trial in eastern subdistrict of northern Illinois district,
Chicago. Well, trial judges keep issuing orders in equity, various kinds
of injunctions, that 7th circuit, also Chicago, routinely overturn as
the Roberts court has not been allowing the use of equity to avoid
trials on the merits plus making it more difficult for interested
parties to sue by narrowing standing.

The parties who tried to get the class certified were aware that they
were going to get reversed at circuit and filed a motion to withdraw to
avoid setting precedent. Well, in the light of Goode's murder, the
trial court judge would not allow the motion be withdrawn. She
wants to force a trial upon the merits but I have no idea if a federal
trial court judge can force the adversaries into a trial that neither
side wishes to pursue.

You've got to love the irony of the judge calling the bluff of forcing a full-blown trial to create a record that will then force appellate
courts to consider and set precedent without being dismissed out of
hand.

Let me explain this better. In trying to get a class certified, the
class action attorney's clients are people to whom facts and
circumstances apply but have not retained the attorney. The judge can
now point to a high profile case, Goode's murder. These are your
clients! Now, represent them in court.

Class actions are expensive and time consuming to prepare, several million dollars minimum. Your basic civil rights attorney is practicing poverty
law. These guys were never planning to go to trial, utterly lacking the resources to do so.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2