Uploaded February 2025 | Updated September 2026, 7 hours ago
I routinely hear the auditors get Postal Service "Poster 7" wrong. While this directive has no effect on my life, and after about 20 minutes of "research," I see that criminal convictions can be obtained through creating a "disturbance," which is largely at the discretion of the manager of person in charge. If they so desired, the Post Office could pursue federal injunction charges. I also go through the incorrect interpretation that you can photograph "if it is for news purposes." No, that's not what it says. It must be part of a "public meeting," and not just for yourself without the meeting. Auditors must understand that the "Disturbance" aspect of Poster 7 creates a wide trap. If the manager, who is vested with wide discretion, thinks you are creating a disruption, then she can have you charged and arrested. There is no requirement that I can see where you must first demand to be "trespassed."
None of the is legal advice, and no attorney--client relationship is formed. Always consult with a locally licensed attorney before making any decisions. You cannot rely on this information. I reserve all rights, including California's anti-SLAPP statute. To those auditors who disagree with my position on this, then show me the actual research that proves that I am wrong, or any cases, internal memorandum or something other than you simply do not agree. I have said from the beginning that auditing at a Post Office is very dangerous. Post offices have a "friendly" sounding name, but they have their own police force, and will pull you into federal court on civil criminal (or both). The best thing you can do is to simply ask for permission before doing anything, and before entering the facility or the grounds. But, you do you.
I routinely hear the auditors get Postal Service "Poster 7" wrong. While this directive has no effect on my life, and after about 20 minutes of "research," I see that criminal convictions can be obtained through creating a "disturbance," which is largely at the discretion of the manager of person in charge. If they so desired, the Post Office could pursue federal injunction charges. I also go through the incorrect interpretation that you can photograph "if it is for news purposes." No, that's not what it says. It must be part of a "public meeting," and not just for yourself without the meeting. Auditors must understand that the "Disturbance" aspect of Poster 7 creates a wide trap. If the manager, who is vested with wide discretion, thinks you are creating a disruption, then she can have you charged and arrested. There is no requirement that I can see where you must first demand to be "trespassed."
None of the is legal advice, and no attorney--client relationship is formed. Always consult with a locally licensed attorney before making any decisions. You cannot rely on this information. I reserve all rights, including California's anti-SLAPP statute. To those auditors who disagree with my position on this, then show me the actual research that proves that I am wrong, or any cases, internal memorandum or something other than you simply do not agree. I have said from the beginning that auditing at a Post Office is very dangerous. Post offices have a "friendly" sounding name, but they have their own police force, and will pull you into federal court on civil criminal (or both). The best thing you can do is to simply ask for permission before doing anything, and before entering the facility or the grounds. But, you do you.
