Johnstown, New York Building Inspector Jeff Persch Says, "It's Unfortunate people have a 1st Amendment right."

Regardless of your opinions on the activities and demeanor of so-called 1st Amendment Auditors, popularized on platforms like YouTube, Facebook Reels, and TikTok, I believe they serve an important function.

Far too often, public sector officials seem to forget who they serve. The government does not operate independently of the People; rather it is dependent on the People who grant them the ability to serve, whether or not they are elected to their positions.

Indeed, these audits often provoke strong reactions, which in turn attract views. 1st Amendment Auditors essentially earn their livelihood from an engaged audience, many of whom harbor resentment toward their government and its officials. However, they also function as independent members of the press, something that can be argued, at a time when most major news organizations can no longer be trusted to deliver the news honestly and fairly, provides us with vital insights into the workings of our government that might otherwise remain hidden.

Consider that part of the reason these audits elicit certain responses is the lack of understanding among many government officials regarding their roles in the public sector, the rights of the public, and the significance of transparency within our government.

Mainstream media often ignores these stories, but 1st Amendment Auditors bring them to light. How do government officials act when the doors are closed, and no one is watching? And how do they feel about the importance of transparency? Or what about the importance of the Constitution? Do they understand it? Do they understand their role regarding it? Do they understand the rights of the People? Do they appreciate it? Do they fundamentally understand that their role is to serve the public rather than be in control of it?

Increasingly, I find myself writing about these audits and sharing my thoughts on the behavior of certain government officials within them. I believe it's crucial for people to understand the roots of the divide between the People and their government.

When public servants forget they work for us, they assume power and authority that rightfully belongs to the People.

Consider a recent audit conducted by 1st Amendment Auditor Auditing Erie County during a visit to the Town of Johnstown, New York. The auditor encountered building inspector Jeff Persch, who, although not excessively rude, clearly did not understand nor appreciate the auditor's rights. One particular comment Persch made to the Sheriff's Deputy who arrived on the scene, after police were called, stood out as especially appalling and worth highlighting.

"It's unfortunate that people have a First Amendment right," Jeff Persch remarked.

To me, it underscores a troubling mentality that seems deeply ingrained within our government and is frequently exposed during these audits. It conveys a sentiment of, "We are above the People." It's particularly concerning when public sector employees are unaware of fundamental public rights, to the extent that they call the police on someone simply for exercising their 1st Amendment rights. I find the lack of understanding regarding public access and the right to a free press quite alarming as well.

How many times does someone, when an auditor identifies himself as a member of the press, get asked to display credentials? All the time. Yet, there is no such thing as press credentials. Anyone can be a member of the press as is implicitly afforded by the Constitution, and the only credentials necessary is that document itself.

The question becomes, why are so many public sector employees and officials, many of whom take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, so blatantly unfamiliar with the very rights they are meant to honor and protect in their duties to the public?

What does this say about someone like Jeff Persch in his role? Does he see himself as a servant of the People or as an authority figure above them? If he doesn't respect the right to free speech, how will he respond to any complaints or concerns from the public he serves?

Admittedly, Persch's remark about the 1st Amendment was in response to the auditor calling him a punk. However, the context does not diminish the significance of the comment itself. The fact that Persch took offense does not invalidate the auditor's right to call him a punk. When Persch mentioned this to the deputy, it seems as though he hoped it would lend credibility to his claim that the auditor was in the wrong.

It's important to note that the auditor's comment came after Persch had already been infringing upon his 1st Amendment rights. I think this is crucial to understanding the situation.

Whether or not Persch actually feels this way about the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution is impossible to know. I don't know Persch personally. But clearly, he does not fully comprehend his role, or the rights of citizens—camera in hand or not. 

I did reach out to the building inspector, as well as copied my correspondence to the town supervisor, clerk, and the Mayor of Johnstown, Amy Praught for comment. So far, I have not received any response regarding the matter. Usually, I don't. But I would be curious to know not only their thoughts on the Constitution, but on 1st Amendment auditors as well.

If nothing else, I think that anyone working in the public sector should, regardless of their opinions, uphold the rights of citizens afforded to them, and moreover, fully understand what those rights are that citizens have.

That being said, I have to give a strong round of applause to the Sheriff's Deputy who answered the call for doing his duty and honoring the rights of the auditor. In the early days of 1st Amendment auditing, police were far less informed about public citizen rights in public buildings, and thus, I think it goes back to the importance I alluded to in the beginning, of these audits in the first place.

Some auditors may be annoying in the way they approach things, but at the same time, they are serving to educate many people who clearly need to be educated. Perhaps Jeff Persch will have a different perspective of not only his role as a public servant, but also of the public at large he serves, going forward.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer 

Edgewater, New Jersey Mayor Slams Door on Perceived "Threat," And Leaves His Secretary to Fend for Herself

If you don't know who James Freeman is, perhaps you should. On the one hand, he's among a growing group of people known as 1st Amendment Auditors, but on the other hand, he is also a champion of policing the police and holding our elected officials and public servants accountable.

Regardless of what anyone feels about 1st Amendment auditors in general, with some people finding their antics to be antagonistic, what they accomplish, besides getting multiple hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube, are the exposition of countless glaring examples of our government running amok. What never ceases to amaze me during these encounters, which I have viewed countless hours of, is the common lack of understanding of our most basic of Constitutional rights.

With often times razor sharp precision, these auditors expose how common it is, and how easy it can be, to have our civil rights blatantly and unabashedly denied if We the People do not understand our rights.

In a recent video, posted by James Freeman, they entered a public building, which is within their rights to do, lawfully, and set about "auditing" the facility. What was most interesting to me about the video was the reaction of the Edgewater mayor, Michael J. McPartland, when James Freeman encountered him at his office.

Granted, there may have been some question about whether the area that James Freeman and his group that was with him on that day were in a "public hallway" accessible to the general public, it is clear that they were "buzzed in," and did not immediately pose any perceived threat to anyone before being "cleared" to enter the areas that they were in.

Which includes the mayor's office.

When James Freeman approached the office, the mayor was inside at his desk, and immediately panic alarms went off. I will grant you, being the mayor and considering sometimes people are up to doing nefarious things, maybe some of his "panic" was warranted.

However, he's the mayor. He is representative of the people. He is an elected official who enjoys his position directly by the will of the people.

Beyond that, James Freeman did not present himself as any threat, simply saying, "Hey, how you doing, mayor?" 

He immediately got up and said, "I don't know you," and proceeded to shut and lock his door. 

I mean, rather than greet a citizen, assess the situation, and perhaps even engage in a conversation, the mayor instead chose to isolate himself in his office. The question of course is, why did he do that? He felt threatened, of course. 

But wait a minute. If the mayor felt that James Freeman posed a threat, why did he lock himself in his office and leave his secretary, Nancy, to fend for herself? I think that's the story here more than the actions of James Freeman, whether or not he was supposed to be there, or whether or not he actually posed any threat.

Wouldn't his very first order of business be to protect at least his office staff?

Instead, the mayor decided to leave the "threat" to his secretary to handle on her own with the only support from the mayor coming from behind a closed, locked door, shouting commands to her. Meanwhile, you can also hear the mayor quite distraught, inside his office calling for the police to come.

Again, if this is such a dire situation in his mind, why would the mayor decide to protect himself and leave his secretary to deal with the issue? While I can understand fear, to me the acts of the mayor were cowardly—and frankly unbecoming of a mayor.

One can certainly question what James Freeman and others in his camp do, and perhaps even sometimes the way they choose to do it. But the bottom line is that in doing these audits, they also expose things that I think are important for the general public to understand.

In this particular case what was exposed was a mayor who believes he is above the people who elected him, and certainly more important than his secretary. Her safety was of no concern whatsoever for the mayor.

It has to be a terrible embarrassment for him, and that seems apparent considering in a follow up live stream James Freeman posted, the mayor has made privacy complaints regarding the video and is trying to have the video taken down.

It won't be taken down, but of course the mayor is embarrassed. And he should be, frankly. How can the people trust him to make the right decisions if the city is ever faced with a situation that calls for swift, decisive action in the interest of the people and not just himself?

If the mayor is ever called to answer questions about his actions, I'd be very interested to know what his explanation will be.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer