'The Five': Secret Service admits to stunning failures

[Gunny]

Abt 10 min. No patience?:) The opening and Judge Jeanine are the best part, and they are first :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc2HziG8Mzw

[revelarts]

What the heck is going on with the Secret service & FBI?
Sheesh!

The U.S. Secret Service is apologizing to a Massachusetts salon owner after an agent covered her security camera with duct tape and broke into her salon by picking the lock so that its bathroom could be used by various people for a two-hour period.

After the two-hour period, Secret Service agents left her salon unlocked and left the tape covering the camera.

The woman was told by others that the lead Secret Service agent was directing people to use her salon’s bathroom without authorization.

The agents were in the neighborhood to secure the area ahead of a Kamala Harris fundraiser. The woman understood she needed to close her salon but didn’t expect the rest of what happened.



https://i.insider.com/66b3c187955b01c3294cb0c1?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp

https://www.businessinsider.com/secret-service-busted-salon-use-bathroom-owner-2024-8

[Gunny]

What the heck is going on with the Secret service & FBI?
Sheesh!

The U.S. Secret Service is apologizing to a Massachusetts salon owner after an agent covered her security camera with duct tape and broke into her salon by picking the lock so that its bathroom could be used by various people for a two-hour period.

After the two-hour period, Secret Service agents left her salon unlocked and left the tape covering the camera.

The woman was told by others that the lead Secret Service agent was directing people to use her salon’s bathroom without authorization.

The agents were in the neighborhood to secure the area ahead of a Kamala Harris fundraiser. The woman understood she needed to close her salon but didn’t expect the rest of what happened.



https://i.insider.com/66b3c187955b01c3294cb0c1?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp

https://www.businessinsider.com/secret-service-busted-salon-use-bathroom-owner-2024-8I'm sure they have a rule somewhere that legally allows them to break and enter and use people's property without permission. After all, it's in the National interest of the US:rolleyes:

The salon owner should rightly feel violated and look into suing. I say "look into" because of my comment in previous paragraph. One of the government's biggest weapons against the people is it can afford to drag it out in court until you are broke. Meanwhile, your life is upside down and moving on the court's slow track.

Best you can hope for, IMO, is the government throwing a quick settlement your way to shut you up. Do you want to be right regardless the cost? Or take the money?

[revelarts]

Not wanting to be the 1st to cry "unconstitutional".
But, ok, I will.
It's unconstitutional.

It's "Breaking & Entering" on a basic local level.
If a neighbor or "some thug" did it, there'd be no question.
Constitutionally speaking seems that it might fall under two amendments the 4th, "secure in their persons, houses...", and the ONLY amendment I know of NOT broken in the pass 25 yrs, the 3rd.
Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Unless there's a "we can pick your locks, break-in, use your toilets, take a break and leave your home or biz doors wide open for a few hours" law somewhere.
I think they might be in violation.

(& If someone wants to be a stickler for the word "soldiers" Ok, sure... not all Gov't officials with guns are soldiers in a strict sense, I'll give you that. as long you want to apply that kind of strict reading to the other amendments then were cool.
:cool: )

[Gunny]

Not wanting to be the 1st to cry "unconstitutional".
But, ok, I will.
It's unconstitutional.

It's "Breaking & Entering" on a basic local level.
If a neighbor or "some thug" did it, there'd be no question.
Constitutionally speaking seems that it might fall under two amendments the 4th, "secure in their persons, houses...", and the ONLY amendment I know of NOT broken in the pass 25 yrs, the 3rd.
Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Unless there's a "we can pick your locks, break-in, use your toilets, take a break and leave your home or biz doors wide open for a few hours" law somewhere.
I think they might be in violation.

(& If someone wants to be a stickler for the word "soldiers" Ok, sure... not all Gov't officials with guns are soldiers in a strict sense, I'll give you that. as long you want to apply that kind of strict reading to the other amendments then were cool.
:cool: )You're turning a molehill into a mountain.

Breaking and entering, trespassing and unlawful use are against the law in most states I am aware of. I say most because it appears to be questionable in CA, WA, OR, MI and IL:rolleyes:

Makes one wonder what would happen if someone did that at the US Capitol:rolleyes:

Again, I am sure they have a "clause" somewhere that says they can. If not, brazen and stupid.

[revelarts]

You're turning a molehill into a mountain.

Breaking and entering, trespassing and unlawful use are against the law in most states I am aware of. I say most because it appears to be questionable in CA, WA, OR, MI and IL:rolleyes:

Makes one wonder what would happen if someone did that at the US Capitol:rolleyes:

Again, I am sure they have a "clause" somewhere that says they can. If not, brazen and stupid.
I'd really love to see the "we can Bust into your house to take a piss" clause.
If they'll do this to take a piss, what other minor excuses would they use to do more?

But still, the constitution is the law.
Either we apply it or not. I think you said something like that once or twice.
These agents swore an oath to uphold it. not to pick locks to take a piss.
Oaths busted.
Molehile or mountain, however on wants to characterize it.
Federal agents breaking into a home or biz is an illegal, unconstitutional act.

[Black Diamond]

You're turning a molehill into a mountain.

Breaking and entering, trespassing and unlawful use are against the law in most states I am aware of. I say most because it appears to be questionable in CA, WA, OR, MI and IL:rolleyes:

Makes one wonder what would happen if someone did that at the US Capitol:rolleyes:

Again, I am sure they have a "clause" somewhere that says they can. If not, brazen and stupid.

I was wondering if there was an old law on the books like that. I mean when Bush 43 came to the town i lived in in Michigan, he rode on a bus type thing (i am sure it was like em350 in stripes lol). I remember hearing if anyone jumps in front of the bus , the protocol was to run them over (shrug)

[Black Diamond]

I'd really love to see the "we can Bust into your house to take piss" clause.

But still, the constitution is the law.
Either we apply it or not. I think you said something like that once or twice.
These agents swore an oath to uphold it. not to pick locks to take a piss.
Oaths busted.
Molehile or mountain, however on wants to characterize it.
Federal agents breaking into a home or biz is an illegal, unconstitutional act.

:laugh:

[fj1200]

Not wanting to be the 1st to cry "unconstitutional".

This. \/


You're turning a molehill into a mountain.

And this. \/


The salon owner should rightly feel violated and look into suing.

[Black Diamond]

I'd really love to see the "we can Bust into your house to take a piss" clause.
If they'll do this to take a piss, what other minor excuses would they use to do more?

But still, the constitution is the law.
Either we apply it or not. I think you said something like that once or twice.
These agents swore an oath to uphold it. not to pick locks to take a piss.
Oaths busted.
Molehile or mountain, however on wants to characterize it.
Federal agents breaking into a home or biz is an illegal, unconstitutional act.

The law i was initially reminded of is during war you're required to allow soldiers stay at your house. I think it goes back 200+ years. I am not sure if it is still in effect.

[Gunny]

The law i was initially reminded of is during war you're required to allow soldiers stay at your house. I think it goes back 200+ years. I am not sure if it is still in effect.It is as far as I know still part of the Constitution even though obsolete.

Someone way back when on USMB posted a thread and I have seen from time to time articles and whatnot of obsolete laws still on the books. Lazy admin. Some are pretty funny. Others are ridiculous. Some make you think oops:laugh: Every once in awhile some goofball zealot prosecutor, not naming names leticia James , will pull out some ancient law, redefine it and misuse it to prosecute for political purposes.

Then you have to wonder why at some of them. Not that I really want to know, but no sleeping with your barnyard animals DOES beg the question why that law is necessary:laugh:

[Gunny]

I'd really love to see the "we can Bust into your house to take a piss" clause.
If they'll do this to take a piss, what other minor excuses would they use to do more?

But still, the constitution is the law.
Either we apply it or not. I think you said something like that once or twice.
These agents swore an oath to uphold it. not to pick locks to take a piss.
Oaths busted.
Molehile or mountain, however on wants to characterize it.
Federal agents breaking into a home or biz is an illegal, unconstitutional act.

Is not violating ANY law technically unconstitutional by default?

Not that you'll see the humor in this but there you have it:laugh:




(E)pay expenses for unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security and accounted for solely on the Secretary’s certificate; and





18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056)

[revelarts]

"After the incident was reported to the Secret Service, Powers received an apology from a representative of the agency's Boston field office. "He admitted that everything was done wrong," Powers recounted. "They were not supposed to tape my camera without permission, nor were they supposed to enter the building without permission.""
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/secret-services-unlawful-entry-taped-cameras-what-unfolded-at-us-salon-ahead-of-kamala-harris-fundraiser/articleshow/112446313.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

But Secret Service spokesperson Melissa McKenzie told iBerkshires,..."We hold these relationships in the highest regard and our personnel would not enter, or instruct our partners to enter, a business without the owner's permission,"...
https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/central_berkshires/salon-owner-secret-service-apology/article_8eef0cca-5677-11ef-899f-c34aa019b3da.html

Seems there is no clause that allows any of what they did.

i know some people think the govt has, or should have, the "right" to do anything at anytime, if they have a "good" reason.
And they can willy nilly write a law or give an order that's "legal".
But there's something called the castle doctrine. It's been around since English Common Law.
It's another OLD law that protects rights that old & young people seemed to have never known they'd lost.

No person or govt has the right to trespass or enter another's property. period. It's one of those libertarian ways of thinking.
Why should we be assuming there must be a law SOMEWHERE that allows the govt to do this or that?

A true life or death emergency everyone understands. And there's no time ... or need... to tape up cameras if that's the case.
But taking a piss is only an emergency for 6 year olds.. & Joe Biden.
No time to tape up cameras there either BTW.

[revelarts]

Is not violating ANY law technically unconstitutional by default?


It's my understanding that the Constitution legally grants & limits the govt's actions.
So anyone working for the Federal govt, Presidents, Congress, SCOTUS, bureaucrats, solders, contractors, volunteers and laws are limited by the terms.

As citizens (or non citizens) everyone, is limited by the all the other laws.
As longs as those laws are not unconstitutional.
It only gets muddy when dealing with state & local rights.
Many folks assume the feds have the ultimate power generally but constitutionally it's often not the case.

[fj1200]

This isn't a Constitution thing. It's a doing-stupid thing. If there were a law that they quoted that allowed their actions according to them then it would be a Constitution thing.

[revelarts]

This isn't a Constitution thing. It's a doing-stupid thing. If there were a law that they quoted that allowed their actions according to them then it would be a Constitution thing.

The constitution LIMITS what the Federal govt can do.
The Secret Service has no Constitutional authority to break into private property to take a piss or anything else.

That's why it's a Constitutional issue.
As well as breaking laws at a lower level.

The federal govt does not have a BLANK CHECK to do whatever it wants.
The constitution outlines the LIMITS of it's actions.
If Federal employees/agents/officials/contractors are not operating within those limits then they are operating UNconstitutionally.

Working for the federal govt means your actions are subject to the limits of the constitution.

[fj1200]

The constitution LIMITS what the Federal govt can do.
The Secret Service has no Constitutional authority to break into private property to take a piss or anything else.

That's why it's a Constitutional issue.
As well as breaking laws at a lower level.

The federal govt does not have a BLANK CHECK to do whatever it wants.
The constitution outlines the LIMITS of it's actions.
If Federal employees/agents/officials/contractors are not operating within those limits then they are operating UNconstitutionally.

Working for the federal govt means your actions are subject to the limits of the constitution.

The SS did not cite a law (that I saw) that supported their actions meaning when damages are considered the complaint isn't going to be stating that the SS engaged in unconstitutional actions, they're going to state that the SS acted stupidly. A federal officer speeding when not in pursuit is not acting unconstitutionally; they're speeding.

[Gunny]

The SS did not cite a law (that I saw) that supported their actions meaning when damages are considered the complaint isn't going to be stating that the SS engaged in unconstitutional actions, they're going to state that the SS acted stupidly. A federal officer speeding when not in pursuit is not acting unconstitutionally; they're speeding.

I read what the lady had to say. They were aware of SS presence and closed the store for the day. Her big concern is not what they did, but that they did it without permission. Didn't say anything about a lawsuit. I'm sure some shyster will talk her into it.

One thing I noticed reading he Boston SS's long-winded "apology", at no point did I see any admission/addressing any wrongdoing. Maybe I missed it :)

[revelarts]

The SS did not cite a law (that I saw) that supported their actions meaning when damages are considered the complaint isn't going to be stating that the SS engaged in unconstitutional actions, they're going to state that the SS acted stupidly. A federal officer speeding when not in pursuit is not acting unconstitutionally; they're speeding.


The SS did not cite a law (that I saw) that supported their actions meaning when damages are considered the complaint isn't going to be stating that the SS engaged in unconstitutional actions, they're going to state that the SS acted stupidly. A federal officer speeding when not in pursuit is not acting unconstitutionally; they're speeding.
A federal officer speeding when not in pursuit is not acting unconstitutionally?
um, yes, yes he is.
He's acting outside of his constitutional bounds. the bounds set for police actions UNDER constitutional law.
So it's UNconstitutional.
The Constitution is the Federal govts umbrella for all legal actions they are ALLOWED to take.
ANY govt action NOT under the umbrella is Unconstitutional.

Whether or not someone is going to file ...or it's worth it to file... an official constitutional "complaint" over speeding or the incident in the salon is another story.
But federal agents breaking into private property without probable cause or warrants is addressed explicitly in the constitution & many constitutional rulings by the SCOTUS.


Is the issue that you don't think it's worth going to court over?
I don't think it's worth going to court over either.
But factually, legally speaking it is unconstitutional.
Can we say that without people getting oddly uncomfortable?

[Black Diamond]

Why the duct tape over the camera

[fj1200]

A federal officer speeding when not in pursuit is not acting unconstitutionally?
um, yes, yes he is.
He's acting outside of his constitutional bounds. the bounds set for police actions UNDER constitutional law.
So it's UNconstitutional.
The Constitution is the Federal govts umbrella for all legal actions they are ALLOWED to take.
ANY govt action NOT under the umbrella is Unconstitutional.

Whether or not someone is going to file ...or it's worth it to file... an official constitutional "complaint" over speeding or the incident in the salon is another story.
But federal agents breaking into private property without probable cause or warrants is addressed explicitly in the constitution & many constitutional rulings by the SCOTUS.


Is the issue that you don't think it's worth going to court over?
I don't think it's worth going to court over either.
But factually, legally speaking it is unconstitutional.
Can we say that without people getting oddly uncomfortable?

Nope, just speeding. Or your going to have so many more constitutional crises than you do now because your line to cross is way out of whack.