Okay, I'll bite

Since it's a slow news day and because I feel like doing so, I'll play along and respond to some of the comments from the four or five "anonymous" (as always, I appreciate all comments, but weigh accordingly the statements from people who decline to post under their own name) posters who seem to have a problem with my actions at the O'Connor Federal Building on April 6 of this year. I do find it interesting that these responses all came the same day that I finally managed to speak on the phone with the very unprofessional employee at the Arizona U.S. Marshals Service office who has been ducking me for quite some time. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

1. "all he did was ask you a question which you responded to very rudely"

Was I rude? From the transcript of my audiotape recording of our interaction:

Guard 1: Good morning, sir.

Me: Good morning.

1: Are you just doing meter checks, or are you videotaping the, uh, building?

Me: I’m a private citizen standing on public property.

1: I know but I’m just asking you a question – are you videotaping the building?

Me: I’m kind of busy right now; I’d rather not answer any questions.

1: You’re not under arrest or anything.

Me: Well, then I’d like to go about my business, thank you.

1: May I see your driver’s license or ID please?

Me: I don’t have any on me, sir.

I think the transcript clearly shows that I was perfectly polite and respectful to the guard when he first approached me. I simply chose to not submit to his interrogation (which is a Constitutional right, at least the last time I checked).

I think you're confusing politeness with cooperation. Since I was engaged in perfectly lawful behavior on a public sidewalk and the guard isn't a sworn law enforcement officer, I was under no obligation to explain myself to him, just as I would feel free to ignore any other private citizen that came up and started quizzing me about what I was doing. I made it clear that I was busy and didn't wish to talk with him further; his lawful options at that point were to either leave me to go about my business or call the Phoenix police and let them handle the situation (remember, I was standing in a place where the guard had no authority over me whatsoever), but he chose to continue to attempt to pry information out of me, at which time I decided to ask if I was free to leave. He responded "Not yet" which constitutes proof that he was in fact detaining me, unlawfully in my opinion.

Once I believed that I was in fact being detained (whether lawfully or otherwise), I naturally refused to provide any other information without having the assistance of legal counsel (again, one of my Constitutional rights), which is precisely why I only said "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" to him until he threatened me with arrest, and then only to ask with what offense I would be charged with, a question he was unable to answer.

2. "He was just doing his duty and trying to protect a federal building"

I understand and appreciate that fact. The guard's authority and duties, though, do not trump the rights of a law-abiding citizen, however much the government apparently wishes that fact to not be true.

3. "do something productive with your life instead of abusing the civil legal system and trying to bilk money from governement [sic] agencies through using false allegations"

I have filed no legal action and have not asked for a single dime from anyone. The only thing that I have requested from U.S. Marshal David Gonzales is that the officers involved be disciplined as he sees fit for their unlawful actions, and that further training be provided to the officers regarding the limits of their authority. I have further asked that one of his Deputy Marshals be provided counseling regarding acceptable professionalism from a public employee, as well as instruction concerning basic telephone etiquette. My allegations are all factual and fully documented, by the way.

4. "If you are photographing a federal building you need to be looked into"

I wonder what perfectly normal activities you do as part of your daily life that "need to be looked into" by some "authority" or another?

5. "Especially with your anti government views"

I reject that label entirely. I am not anti-government. I am, however, anti-intrusive and authoritarian government, one that would so casually violate the very rights that they purport to hold so dear. I also agitate for it and its official agents to be held accountable under the same laws that they impose on the general population. I don't think that's too much to ask for.


Again, I'll have much more on this topic late next week or early the week after, as I am sincerely giving Marshal Gonzales every possible chance to resolve my long-outstanding complaint in a professional way.