8 Ways To Take Down Flock Without A Sawzall:
1. Demand An Audit
Most cities never independently audit whether Flock cameras in town actually reduce crime. Ask your city council to show evidence that these cameras reduced violent crime. Make them prove it. They usually can't.
2. Find Out When the Contract Expires
Every Flock camera program has a contract renewal date. Use FOIAs to request the original contract, all amendments, renewal dates, and termination clauses.
This one is SO important because we must organize BEFORE renewal, not AFTER the cameras go up.
3. Demand the Privacy Impact Assessment
Before deploying any type of surveillance devices with public funds, many city governments are supposed to evaluate the privacy risks.
Ask for privacy Impact Assessment, civil liberties review, and constitutional analysis. If they never conducted one... Ask why not (they hate that.)
4. Show Up Before They Vote
Flock cameras aren't installed overnight. They usually require budget approval, council approval, contract approval. Use tools like "Citizen Portal" to setup automatic notifications for upcoming city council meetings. Speak before, not after installation.
5. Follow the Money
Want to know why your city suddenly wants Flock cameras? It's usually always grants or cronyism.
Ask for grant applications: DHS grants, DOJ grants, Homeland Security funding, ect. Surveillance programs begin because outside money make them "free."
6. Ask About Data Sharing
Every city should have to answer this question: "Exactly which agencies can search our city's license plate database?"
Ask for sharing agreements, MOUs, list of agencies with approval, and search logs. Most people think it's just local police. It rarely is, usually the feds too.
7. Audit Every Search
Public records requests aren't just for the contracts. You can publicly request every audit log showing who searched the Flock system and why.
Ask for date, user, reason for search and any case numbers. Abuse often shows up in the logs before it makes the news or a viral social media post.
8. Compare Crime Before & After
Download your city's crime data. Compare property and violent crime before and after Flock was installed.
If there's no meaningful change... Ask why taxpayers are still paying for it. If officials claim the cameras are effective, ask them to produce the evidence supporting continued funding.
Public request the contract. Find the public records portal for your muni. A lot of council meeting contract approval minutes are online. Put in the online request for the contact, too.
This is a reasonable position and noble effort. However, be methoidical though and please, please understand "Flock" is the red herring (and very real at the same time) - the "Band Aide" of suvillance. Do not narrow requests Flock as a company - know what you are after. For example, are you looking for LPR information? The brand is irrelevent and the results will prove that out. Equally important, know why you are looking for this information. In my opinion, the real problem comes before these devices are installed. If you don't see this as the problem then you may arrive at, who has access to what and what is the lawful means to obtain the data? Both are major problems, the latter emphasises the importance of the prior. Unfettered access to any data for any reason undermines the very foundation of privacy let alone the potential and likely constriutional infringment - especially when access logs are seemingly non-existent and when they are, a generic ID is often used. There is little to no proper audit log. Don't get distracted with the headlines - "Flock" is just each of us living in the sheepfold. As the post here asserts, understanding the overall efficacy in stopping crime is an important data point. Good luck getting that and we all outta try to obtain this data lawfully.
@b_freely in addition to LM Studio, Anything LLM is an alternative. In fact, you can use them together for various use cases. Great local setup but there is a learning curve to hone any of them but its truly a fun study.
Thank you. I didn’t like the term “policing” but used it because I was in a hurry.
I’m not so much proposing accountability within our group, but more of a respectful mentoring within our group. We share common goals and we need to help each other achieve the highest of those which is getting our side of the stories heard, getting our papers read, getting our arguments acknowledged.
If someone posts their next paper for review and others here review it and offer constructive recommendations, those recommendations should be seriously considered. However I think we should all also learn from each other, and I’m not sure this is happening either.
What I posted further above has to do with how we, who have experienced dismissal because of injustice because our papers are clearly not being read, based on my research we need to start following better procedures for preparing for appeal. It is NOT just about creating the record. It is about injecting into the arguments early on, that SCOTUS is in our path and we will go there if we need to. I.E. achieving our goal of having an opportunity to be heard in the judicial system, where the term “heard” is not just the opportunity to file papers. This is part of our due process rights.
I think we all need to strategize our oppositions to MTD’s in such a way that constitutional arguments are asserted up front, giving us a stronger path to SCOTUS. I believe we are all experiencing the same type of injustice, simply “writing papers” is NOT being “heard”! I don’t think attacking the judges and attorney’s in court actions is effective and does not benefit anyone outside that individual case.
I think getting our time in front of SCOTUS is the key as that can benefit everyone. It may take more than one attempt. And if we can get multiple to SCOTUS at the same time it strengthens our case and increases our chances of the case being heard as they will combine the cases.
I will post more details of what I’m proposing over the next few days. I’ve been watching the SCOTUS calendar and very interesting things happen there.
Hope this makes sense.
I’m not so much proposing accountability within our group, but more of a respectful mentoring within our group. We share common goals and we need to help each other achieve the highest of those which is getting our side of the stories heard, getting our papers read, getting our arguments acknowledged.
If someone posts their next paper for review and others here review it and offer constructive recommendations, those recommendations should be seriously considered. However I think we should all also learn from each other, and I’m not sure this is happening either.
What I posted further above has to do with how we, who have experienced dismissal because of injustice because our papers are clearly not being read, based on my research we need to start following better procedures for preparing for appeal. It is NOT just about creating the record. It is about injecting into the arguments early on, that SCOTUS is in our path and we will go there if we need to. I.E. achieving our goal of having an opportunity to be heard in the judicial system, where the term “heard” is not just the opportunity to file papers. This is part of our due process rights.
I think we all need to strategize our oppositions to MTD’s in such a way that constitutional arguments are asserted up front, giving us a stronger path to SCOTUS. I believe we are all experiencing the same type of injustice, simply “writing papers” is NOT being “heard”! I don’t think attacking the judges and attorney’s in court actions is effective and does not benefit anyone outside that individual case.
I think getting our time in front of SCOTUS is the key as that can benefit everyone. It may take more than one attempt. And if we can get multiple to SCOTUS at the same time it strengthens our case and increases our chances of the case being heard as they will combine the cases.
I will post more details of what I’m proposing over the next few days. I’ve been watching the SCOTUS calendar and very interesting things happen there.
Hope this makes sense.
without addressing the fact that a sworn complaint is only a sworn complaint (and not TCCP 27.01 primary pleadings presented to commence a criminal court case, drawn up per TCCP 21.01 or 21.20 based on the sworn complaint and filed along with the sworn complaint, as required by TCCP 21.22)?
i think the easiest part to attack there is the obvious fact that the officer who wrote the citation is patently unauthorized by law to be the prosecutor on behalf of the state. if he is the complainant then he might later be called up as a potential witness, if the state ever decides to present the matter to a court. but witnesses or potential witnesses are not the same thing as district attorneys or county attorneys or grand jurors.
so the sworn complaint, even if sufficient, is nothing more than a sworn complaint.
EDIT: and a complainant can't be the prosecutor, or vice versa.
i think the easiest part to attack there is the obvious fact that the officer who wrote the citation is patently unauthorized by law to be the prosecutor on behalf of the state. if he is the complainant then he might later be called up as a potential witness, if the state ever decides to present the matter to a court. but witnesses or potential witnesses are not the same thing as district attorneys or county attorneys or grand jurors.
so the sworn complaint, even if sufficient, is nothing more than a sworn complaint.
EDIT: and a complainant can't be the prosecutor, or vice versa.
bob had a this to add
One suggestion
One thing I would simplify from your protocol is the instruction to quote every legal authority in full and avoid ever paraphrasing the law. While quoting key statutory language or the most important holding from a case is often effective, courts generally expect advocates to accurately summarize legal principles as well, supported by citations. Long block quotes from every authority can make briefs harder to read. A balanced approach is usually stronger:
Quote the exact statutory language or a dispositive passage when the wording matters.
Summarize the governing legal rule in your own words where appropriate, with a citation.
Apply that rule to your facts in your own analysis.
That approach is consistent with common legal writing practice while still grounding your arguments in the controlling authorities.
Overall, the staged drafting system you've developed—intake, skeleton, facts, individual argument sections, and final verification—is a disciplined workflow that can help reduce omissions in complex legal filings.
One suggestion
One thing I would simplify from your protocol is the instruction to quote every legal authority in full and avoid ever paraphrasing the law. While quoting key statutory language or the most important holding from a case is often effective, courts generally expect advocates to accurately summarize legal principles as well, supported by citations. Long block quotes from every authority can make briefs harder to read. A balanced approach is usually stronger:
Quote the exact statutory language or a dispositive passage when the wording matters.
Summarize the governing legal rule in your own words where appropriate, with a citation.
Apply that rule to your facts in your own analysis.
That approach is consistent with common legal writing practice while still grounding your arguments in the controlling authorities.
Overall, the staged drafting system you've developed—intake, skeleton, facts, individual argument sections, and final verification—is a disciplined workflow that can help reduce omissions in complex legal filings.
One thing I would simplify from your protocol is the instruction to quote every legal authority in full and avoid ever paraphrasing the law. While quoting key statutory language or the most important holding from a case is often effective, courts generally expect advocates to accurately summarize legal principles as well, supported by citations. Long block quotes from every authority can make briefs harder to read. A balanced approach is usually stronger:
The above is AI bullshit. It does not understand the underlying principals. A native reader will look at the extensive quote and will not read it. That is not why it is there. It is there so that the court and lawyers see that it is specifically before the court and if someone is already familiar with the law, they can read it or, if unsure, they can skim it.
It is designed for a couple of purposes. One is to bread up the visual structure of the narative so that the reader can easily orient themselves within the document.
The above is AI bullshit. It does not understand the underlying principals. A native reader will look at the extensive quote and will not read it. That is not why it is there. It is there so that the court and lawyers see that it is specifically before the court and if someone is already familiar with the law, they can read it or, if unsure, they can skim it.
It is designed for a couple of purposes. One is to bread up the visual structure of the narative so that the reader can easily orient themselves within the document.
I have included a number of conventions toward readability for humans. The page is a map of the legal territory and by indents, italics, and subtle font changes, we give texture for the eye so that it can maintain orientation within the volume of the document. If I ask you a question, or you hear a noise and look away, you can then turn back to the document and immediately find your place without dropping out of mental flow.
Over come the fact that judge consider speeding ticket
without addressing the fact that a sworn complaint is only a sworn complaint (and not TCCP 27.01 primary pleadings presented to commence a criminal court case, drawn up per TCCP 21.01 or 21.20 based on the sworn complaint and filed along with the sworn complaint, as required by TCCP 21.22)?
i think the easiest part to attack there is the obvious fact that the officer who wrote the citation is patently unauthorized by law to be the prosecutor on behalf of the state. if he is the complainant then he might later be called up as a potential witness, if the state ever decides to present the matter to a court. but witnesses or potential witnesses are not the same thing as district attorneys or county attorneys or grand jurors.
so the sworn complaint, even if sufficient, is nothing more than a sworn complaint.
EDIT: and a complainant can't be the prosecutor, or vice versa.
i think the easiest part to attack there is the obvious fact that the officer who wrote the citation is patently unauthorized by law to be the prosecutor on behalf of the state. if he is the complainant then he might later be called up as a potential witness, if the state ever decides to present the matter to a court. but witnesses or potential witnesses are not the same thing as district attorneys or county attorneys or grand jurors.
so the sworn complaint, even if sufficient, is nothing more than a sworn complaint.
EDIT: and a complainant can't be the prosecutor, or vice versa.
One thing I would simplify from your protocol is the instruction to quote every legal authority in full and avoid ever paraphrasing the law. While quoting key statutory language or the most important holding from a case is often effective, courts generally expect advocates to accurately summarize legal principles as well, supported by citations. Long block quotes from every authority can make briefs harder to read. A balanced approach is usually stronger:
Quote the exact statutory language or a dispositive passage when the wording matters.
Summarize the governing legal rule in your own words where appropriate, with a citation.
Apply that rule to your facts in your own analysis.
That approach is consistent with common legal writing practice while still grounding your arguments in the controlling authorities.
Overall, the staged drafting system you've developed—intake, skeleton, facts, individual argument sections, and final verification—is a disciplined workflow that can help reduce omissions in complex legal filings.
Quote the exact statutory language or a dispositive passage when the wording matters.
Summarize the governing legal rule in your own words where appropriate, with a citation.
Apply that rule to your facts in your own analysis.
That approach is consistent with common legal writing practice while still grounding your arguments in the controlling authorities.
Overall, the staged drafting system you've developed—intake, skeleton, facts, individual argument sections, and final verification—is a disciplined workflow that can help reduce omissions in complex legal filings.
One thing I would simplify from your protocol is the instruction to quote every legal authority in full and avoid ever paraphrasing the law. While quoting key statutory language or the most important holding from a case is often effective, courts generally expect advocates to accurately summarize legal principles as well, supported by citations. Long block quotes from every authority can make briefs harder to read. A balanced approach is usually stronger:
The above is AI bullshit. It does not understand the underlying principals. A native reader will look at the extensive quote and will not read it. That is not why it is there. It is there so that the court and lawyers see that it is specifically before the court and if someone is already familiar with the law, they can read it or, if unsure, they can skim it.
It is designed for a couple of purposes. One is to bread up the visual structure of the narative so that the reader can easily orient themselves within the document.
I have included a number of conventions toward readability for humans. The page is a map of the legal territory and by indents, italics, and subtle font changes, we give texture for the eye so that it can maintain orientation within the volume of the document. If I ask you a question, or you hear a noise and look away, you can then turn back to the document and immediately find your place without dropping out of mental flow.
The above is AI bullshit. It does not understand the underlying principals. A native reader will look at the extensive quote and will not read it. That is not why it is there. It is there so that the court and lawyers see that it is specifically before the court and if someone is already familiar with the law, they can read it or, if unsure, they can skim it.
It is designed for a couple of purposes. One is to bread up the visual structure of the narative so that the reader can easily orient themselves within the document.
I have included a number of conventions toward readability for humans. The page is a map of the legal territory and by indents, italics, and subtle font changes, we give texture for the eye so that it can maintain orientation within the volume of the document. If I ask you a question, or you hear a noise and look away, you can then turn back to the document and immediately find your place without dropping out of mental flow.
AI doesn't get that kind of stuff unless you specifically force it to pay attention to it.
Courts do whatever they want until you start back handing them. Do an MTD for no jurisdiction, ultra vires, no charging instrument and violating your due process rights as the accused.
Follow that MTD up with mirrored judicial conduct complaints and bar grievances against any attorney that is even mildly connected to this embarrassment. Then file crims on the judge for official oppression.
And tcole the cop and his supervisor for being thin blue pieces of shite.
Follow that MTD up with mirrored judicial conduct complaints and bar grievances against any attorney that is even mildly connected to this embarrassment. Then file crims on the judge for official oppression.
And tcole the cop and his supervisor for being thin blue pieces of shite.
This is a SIMPLE example of a well curated local AI output with 14 billion parameter model on a document the model explicitly states it knows about. When asked what the document says, here is the 'sanitized' (remove PII) output. I share this to simply demonstrate that no output can never be trusted. I am standing up another agent to validate the output - there is no closed loop. The gating and validation is literally endless. This is one small, simple example.
I have put protocols in place so that I depend on nothing the AI says. I only rely on the actual law specifically quoted and included in the documents.
Comments
Post a Comment