Wednesday, July 22, 2026

Candid Comment - Public Filming and Constitutional Auditing: Rights, Risks, and the Problem With Rage Bait

Have you ever been in a public place and noticed someone filming? I am speaking mainly of places like a library, post office, police station, or other facility that is highly trafficked by the public. In Canada and the US, there are people who are described as First Amendment auditors and Charter auditors. They are a group often focusing on government buildings, public services, police facilities, and other locations where questions about public access, transparency, and recording rights may arise. The stated goal of many of these auditors, as you will see later in this article, is to ensure that officials and staff understand and respect legal rights with regard to public access and recording. These are informal labels rather than recognized legal professions or official legal classifications.

Canada and the U.S. have different laws that cover trespass, interactions with police, and privacy; knowing how to do a proper audit lowers risks. Anyone doing an audit should be aware of the laws that apply locally and that confrontations can lead to injury, legal repercussions, and financial loss. 

So what is the difference between a good-faith auditor and those creating rage bait content, and what are the risks for both? Let's talk about that. But before we begin that conversation, it should be noted that the camera is not the focus; the filming is not the problem; the camera itself is often not the central legal issue. The circumstances surrounding the recording—including where the person is standing, who controls the property, what is being recorded, and whether the activity interferes with others—can be just as important as the act of filming itself.

A good-faith auditor is someone who acts with professionalism. They usually go to a space and quietly do the audit. When challenged, they explain what they are doing and the purpose behind the audit. And in general, either leave when asked or explain what they are doing to officers and staff; if they are given a lawful order to leave by an authorized member of staff or police, they typically comply. Critics note that there are some auditors who are generally crafting a confrontation so they can get what is known as "rage bait." The idea can lead to engagement and helps them monetize their content. However, depending on the circumstances, being disruptive in public in many places may result in some of them ending up being put into a squad car and standing in front of a judge. So first let's tackle this question: Is auditing a good thing? The answer, surprisingly, at least in democratic countries like the U.S. and Canada, is yes.

The premise behind auditing is to do the following:

Exposing Systemic Training Failures: Auditors in their videos have sometimes documented that the people trusted with state power—such as police officers and government officials and staff—appeared to misunderstand or incorrectly explain laws with regard to recording and public access. In some documented cases these interactions prompted organizations to provide staff with clearer guidelines regarding public access and recording. 

Preventing "Mission Creep" and Institutional Overreach: Civil liberties are fragile. Those who do audits argue that if citizens do not actively exercise lawful rights—such as filming from public spaces, recording police where permitted by law, or accessing publicly accessible government facilities—public officials may gradually expand their authority beyond what the law permits. Responsible auditing can serve as a reminder that government powers have legal limits and that public spaces exist for the public to use. The same principle applies to private individuals and businesses: everyone is bound by the law. While private property owners may set lawful conditions for entry, neither governments nor private citizens are above the legal protections and restrictions established by law.

Sparking Institutional Reform: High-profile recording controversies, civil-rights litigation, and public scrutiny have prompted some police agencies and government organizations to clarify their policies and training regarding public recording. There are some police agencies that have adopted policies that emphasize that officers should not unlawfully interfere with or retaliate against individuals who are lawfully recording police activity. The ultimate benefit of reforms like this is less litigation.

Protecting Marginalized Communities: Bystander photography and video have played a powerful role in documenting and exposing police brutality and corruption. By defending lawful recording of police and government activity in public spaces, auditors may help reinforce the broader principle that ordinary citizens can document matters of public interest, subject to applicable laws and reasonable restrictions.

The good-faith auditor has a primary purpose, not to manufacture conflict or maximize profit. Their goal should be to document potential problems, encourage accountability, and promote respect for lawful rights. While the legal theory behind auditing holds immense value, critics argue that the modern movement has corrupted its own purpose. That is what is diminishing the value of auditing in their view:

Profit Over Principle: Some modern auditors operate within a digital economy where YouTube ad revenue, memberships, and viewer donations can create financial incentives for content that attracts attention. A calm, respectful interaction between an auditor and a public employee may generate limited engagement, while a confrontation involving conflict, raised voices, or controversy is more likely to attract views and shares.

The result is a cycle where controversial encounters can become financially rewarding for content creators. Viewers who engage with this material may experience frustration or anger, while the creator benefits from increased traffic, advertising revenue, and online exposure. This creates a situation where conflict itself can become part of the business model.

Targeting the Wrong People: Some critics argue that aggressive auditors do not focus their confrontations on policymakers, government officials, or institutions with the authority to change policies; instead, the aggressive auditors direct their attention toward frontline public employees, such as municipal clerks, librarians, and postal workers. These individuals often have limited authority over the rules or procedures being challenged.

While documenting government interactions can raise legitimate questions about transparency and accountability, confrontational encounters with low-level employees may do little to address the underlying policies or systems involved. Instead, these interactions can create highly shareable content where conflict and controversy drive viewer engagement, online exposure, and potential revenue.

Wasting Public Resources: When an auditor encounter escalates to the point where a municipal building must be secured, operations are disrupted, or emergency services are required, public resources may be diverted from their intended purposes. These responses require time, personnel, and taxpayer-funded resources to manage.

Public employees are trained and compensated to provide essential services, and their time is funded through public resources. While individuals have the right to question government actions and assert their legal rights, unnecessary escalation can place additional burdens on workers, agencies, and members of the public who rely on those services. In situations where public resources are required to manage avoidable conflicts, the financial and operational costs may ultimately be carried by the community. 

An aggressive auditor could damage the legitimacy of the audit and make good-faith auditors' work much more difficult. Because governments, businesses, property owners, and law-enforcement agencies have increasingly responded to confrontational auditing through policies, security measures, trespass enforcement, and litigation. They are using these tactics to make it more difficult for aggressive auditors to create their content. This in turn also affects good faith auditors. So what makes for a successful audit, and who fits into the role?

The answer is someone who is mature and has an advanced understanding of local law and an absence of financial bias. The ideal auditors are:

Credible Citizen Journalists: Individuals who view themselves as bound by professional ethics. They focus on documenting the truth, not manufacturing an argument. In other words, they know the rules: do not pick a fight, and if they do get into a discussion, know how to dial things down. 

Legal Advocates & Law Students: People who possess an academic interest in civil liberties. They may have some understanding about how constitutional rights function practically and how to document violations for the courts. In other words, people working on cases where the law is not being equally applied or there is overreach by officials and law enforcement and businesses. They also connect with legal experts to ensure that they are correctly doing an audit.

Community Watchdogs: Local residents with an established stake in their community. They audit to ensure their local tax dollars are funding well-trained public employees, rather than travelling long distances strictly to harass strangers. In other words, individuals who have a legitimate interest in their community and who approach audits with the goal of assessing institutional compliance rather than provoking individual employees.

So let's circle back to good vs. bad. In this graphic we see the top notable good vs. bad auditor bullet points.

One thing to keep in mind is that it is true that in many cases police, business people, and general workers in government may not have total 360° knowledge of the law. The auditor should consider leaving to avoid an escalation. There is always the legal route to challenge an order's legitimacy later in court. As I often say, sometimes it is wiser to concede the battle and withdraw to fight another day. And that is where the lawsuit option is. The point is to avoid a problem and lower the risk of retaliation. 

How are they viewed by experts, observers, and the general public at large? They see them in two distinct categories. 

Good-Faith Educators: Stand in public areas, remain completely calm, stay polite, and film without actively disrupting anyone.


Generally Tolerated: Some view them as eccentric but harmless or even respected for testing transparency.


Aggressive Agitators: Some of the more aggressive auditors wear masks, wander into restricted zones, yell insults, and film people up close to manufacture a crisis.


Highly Disliked: Some view them as manipulative, looking to exploit the law by creating confrontation and controversy for financial gain and online attention. 


Going the aggressive route can lead to some really bad outcomes. 

Increasing Legal, Financial, and Physical Risks: Confrontational auditing practices can lead to increased scrutiny and criticism of auditors; some encounters result in legal disputes, financial consequences, and physical confrontations. The good news is that severe outcomes, including death, remain extremely rare in Canada and the United States; however, auditors still face risks such as arrest, civil claims, criminal charges, equipment damage, or physical altercations depending on the circumstances. There is no reliable comprehensive dataset establishing the frequency of deaths involving constitutional or First Amendment auditors. However, documented fatal incidents appear to be exceptionally uncommon.

Legal Risk: When auditors operate within the law, lawful recording itself may carry relatively limited legal risk. However, legal disputes can arise when recording intersects with trespass, obstruction, privacy, or other laws. There are no comprehensive statistics measuring the rate at which charges against auditors are withdrawn, dismissed, or proceed to trial, making precise estimates difficult. Nevertheless, legal disputes remain an occupational hazard for many auditors. Canada and the United States share many similarities as common law jurisdictions, but important differences exist. Canada has a single federal Criminal Code that applies nationwide, whereas the United States has a combination of federal criminal law and individual state criminal codes. In civil matters, both countries primarily follow the common law tradition, with Quebec and Louisiana retaining civil law systems for private law. Auditors who are arrested or sued may incur legal fees, fines, settlements, probation, or, in more serious cases, imprisonment if convicted. Even when charges are ultimately withdrawn or dismissed, the financial and personal costs of defending a legal action can be substantial.

Financial Risk: For auditors who monetize their content, copyright claims can create financial risks on platforms such as YouTube. Background music played by police officers, businesses, passing vehicles, or members of the public can inadvertently trigger automated copyright detection systems, rendering portions of otherwise lawful recordings difficult or impossible to monetize. For creators whose videos generate substantial viewership, a copyright claim on a viral video can result in significant lost advertising revenue. In addition to copyright-related losses, some Canadian Charter and First Amendment auditors incur considerable legal expenses defending themselves against civil lawsuits, criminal charges, or other legal actions arising from their work. Even when those cases are ultimately dismissed or resolved in the auditor's favour, the financial burden of obtaining legal representation can be substantial.
Physical Altercations and Damage to Equipment: One of the most notable risks faced by charter and First Amendment auditors is the potential for physical confrontation and damage to their equipment. Professional cameras, smartphones, microphones, and other recording gear can represent a substantial financial investment, making damage or loss particularly costly. During confrontational encounters, auditors may have their cameras grabbed, their view intentionally obstructed, or their access physically blocked. Verbal abuse is commonly documented, and in some of the videos uploaded to the internet, encounters shown in the content show escalations of physical assaults involving pushing, punching, grabbing, or forcefully restraining the auditor. Physical harm cannot be entirely discounted. Maintaining situational awareness, understanding the applicable law, and avoiding unnecessary escalation are important measures for reducing these risks.
This said, there is the evolution we see with regard to auditing in the US and Canada
Era & Years Altercation Frequency Primary Conflict Type Institutional Response
Genesis Era (Pre–2016) 🟢 Exceptionally Low Sidewalk filming / Heavy-handed arrests Confusion; unconstitutional wiretapping charges.
Emerging Era (2016–2019) 🟡 Moderate & Rising Interior lobbies / ID demands / Standoffs Panic calls from staff; regular trespass arrests.
Peak Friction (2020–2022) 🔴 Extremely High High provocation / Physical fights / Swatting Physical takedowns; citizen backlash; camera smashing.
Saturation Era (2023–2025) 🔵 High Volume, Low Force Financial warfare / Admin blockades Retraining programs; "weaponized audio" tactics.
Lockdown Era (2026+) 🟢 Stabilized / Plateaued Structural deadlocks / Legal battles Secured interior doors; keycard locks; strict zone control.
Another risk that aggressive auditing creates is sextortion.
Pipeline Type Source Vulnerability Sextortion Mechanism & Threat
1. Face Harvesters High-definition (1080p/4K) close-ups of government workers or citizens uploaded to YouTube/TikTok. Scammers feed footage into AI face-swapping software to create explicit deepfakes, then demand a ransom.
2. Crowdsourced Doxxing Auditor fan bases uncover names, workplaces, and social media handles of people in the videos. Crime rings scrape this contact data to build a curated list of the victim's family and bosses for targeted blackmail.
3. Rogue Auditors Bad-faith actors capture individuals in private or embarrassing scenarios on sidewalks or through windows. Instead of uploading the video, rogue actors demand cash or intimate content to keep the footage offline.
4. Counter-Attacks High-profile auditors expose their own faces, voices, and locations to the public. Trolls catfish the auditor to trick them into sending explicit material, threatening to leak it to their subscriber base.
By actively being aggressive and zooming in and getting a close-up, an auditor could potentially cause serious harm to people. Government workers, the police, and people with medical or mental health issues could face potential risk due to actions of an aggressive auditor. Even those looking for justice through the courts can become victims; an aggressive auditor filmed them. And those who are fed up with auditors can and do go after them and their families. 
The way to avoid risk is to adhere to standards and the law. Below are some guidelines for safe auditing. 
Defense Phase Actionable Strategy How It Disrupts the Pipeline
1. Immediate Tactics While Being Filmed Control Your Expressions Avoid intense, angry, or expressive facial movements. Deepfake AI software thrives on dynamic expressions to map faces accurately.
Keep Your Voice Level Speak in a calm, monotonous tone or remain completely silent. This prevents bad actors from gathering clean voice clips for AI audio cloning.
De-escalate the Scene Walk away or ignore the camera completely. Denying auditors dramatic "viral moments" lowers the chance your video gets pushed by algorithms.
2. Lockdown Your Digital Footprint Audit Your Social Privacy Set Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn accounts to strict private modes. Hide your friend lists and connection directories.
Remove Contact Details Delete your phone number, email address, and workplace listings from your public-facing social media biographies.
Scrub Public Registries Use data removal services to opt-out of data broker sites that publish your home address, family members, and phone histories online.
3. Immediate Steps If You Are Extorted Never Pay the Ransom Paying extortionists never guarantees data deletion. Instead, it flags you as a profitable target for repeated blackmail.
Preserve the Evidence Take screenshots of all threats, messages, phone numbers, and payment addresses before blocking the scammer. Keep the raw chat logs.
Report to Authorities File an immediate report with the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at ic3.gov or contact your local cybercrime unit.
Flag to Platforms Use the automated reporting tools on YouTube, TikTok, or X to flag the video for harassment, privacy violations, or non-consensual content.
For Canadians, you want to use these resources.
Canadian Resource Group Official Reporting Portal Mandate & Action Steps
1. Centralized Cybercrime Reporting reportcyberandfraud.canada.ca Co-managed by the RCMP and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre (CAFC). Use this secure federal portal to track down digital extortion networks.
2. Local Police Enforcement Your Municipal Police or Local RCMP Detachment Contact your local service (e.g., Toronto Police, Ottawa Police) to launch a direct criminal investigation. Local police hold the mandate to investigate these crimes.
3. Youth & Minor Protection Cybertip.ca & Project Arachnid Operated by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P). Implements rapid internet crawling to detect and remove non-consensual sexual images of minors under 18.
4. Provincial Take-Down Services Provincial Agencies (e.g., B.C. Intimate Images Protection Service) Provides regional legal mechanisms to force social platforms to take down leaked or deepfaked content. Check your specific province for active take-down support.
As noted, there are good-faith auditors who actually do the work. They do so by auditing the process, not the people. I touched on this earlier in this article, but it is worth revisiting this point. There is a good and justifiable reason to conduct an audit. How that should be done is the key to being good at auditing.
The first step is to check your motive. Why are you doing the audit? What purpose do you have for going to a public space with a camera and mic? What is the goal you want to achieve?
Know the law or have a basic enough understanding of what the law says you can and can not do. You can record openly while on a sidewalk even if it is in front of a bank or government office or small store. But, once you step onto the property, the legal framework changes. You can be asked to stop recording in a Walmart, even in their parking lot, which is private property. For a government building or say an LCBO, which is our liquor store here in Ontario, no! You have no legal grounds to record even in the parking lot. For places like Canada Post even inside a drugstore like a Rexall, or say Service Ontario or any Canadian government facility. NO! You are not allowed to record inside or in the lot; only on the sidewalk. The same goes for hospitals and clinics. For police and fire stations in general, the sidewalk is fine. Below is the complete breakdown of this. I should point out this is Canada-based; in the US the rules may be different. You want to check local, county, state, and federal regulations. 
With that said, you may want to take note that privacy laws are very complex in Canada and the US. The restrictions are based on ownership and policies alongside the laws governing privacy. Circumstances, especially with regard to doing audits in parking lots, need analysis to ensure that, indeed, the area in question, while public, is not an area open as a public forum space. This is true of spaces where government or other kinds of business take place. You may want to consult a lawyer before doing an audit in such spaces. 
Facility Type Film Inside? Film Parking Lot? Film From Sidewalk? Primary Legal Mechanism
LCBO Stores ❌ No ❌ No (Private/Plaza) ✅ Yes Retail Policies & Trespass to Property Act
Service Canada / Ontario ❌ No ❌ No (Leased plazas) ✅ Yes Citizen Privacy Acts & SIN Data Protection
Police Stations ❌ No (Lobbies blocked) ❌ No (Secure compounds) ✅ Yes Informant Privacy & Active Investigations
Fire Stations ❌ No (Unless crew permits) ❌ No (Operational lanes) ✅ Yes Workplace Rules & Emergency Response
Hospitals ❌ No (Strictly banned) ❌ No (Private grounds) ✅ Yes Patient Health Information Acts (PHIPA)
It goes without saying that while you can record on the sidewalk and have someone's private home or an apartment building in the shot, zooming into the house is risky. Zooming in and possibly capturing intimate moments could lead to charges.
Is there a proper way to do an audit? Yes, absolutely, there is a proper way to do an audit. An accurate audit does the following things:
📋

Institutional Compliance Audit Target Checklist

What a Good-Faith Audit Objectively Evaluates

🏛️ 1. Physical & Public Access Points

  • Unlocked Public Lobbies: Verifies that areas meant for the general public remain open and accessible during standard operational hours.
  • Clear Property Boundaries: Checks for distinct physical or visual transitions separating public spaces from restricted employee zones.
  • Secure Employee Barriers: Ensures that high-security areas (like server rooms or private offices) are properly locked to safeguard sensitive records.

🖼️ 2. Mandatory Postings & Signage

  • Public Fee Schedules: Confirms that service fees, structural fines, and permit costs are openly posted for consumer transparency.
  • Hours of Operation: Verifies that facility hours are accurately and clearly displayed at all primary public entrance ways.
  • Nondiscrimination Policies: Checks for mandated public notifications, such as labor law posters or accessibility guidelines.

🗃️ 3. Information & Public Records Access

  • FOIA/FOI Resource Forms: Confirms that Freedom of Information request documents are physically stocked or easily available to citizens.
  • Public Comment Sheets: Verifies that feedback forms or public sign-up sheets for municipal council meetings are openly provided.
  • Informational Pamphlets: Checks that educational materials regarding local government programs are accessible without barriers.

👮 4. Staff & Security Policy Compliance

  • Official Identification: Documents whether public employees and security personnel are wearing visible, compliant name tags or badge numbers.
  • Verbal Policy Accuracy: Tests whether employees correctly cite actual municipal laws regarding photography rather than fabricating rules.
  • De-escalation Capabilities: Evaluates whether facility security handles a passive camera calmly or instantly escalates to law enforcement intervention.
The key thing to remember is that when doing an audit, your goal is to check process, procedure, and compliance. It is not to target the staff. You are ensuring the building itself and the documents the staff are in charge of meet standards and compliance rules and laws are upheld. Generally speaking, if an auditor is in a public space, they are allowed to record; if not, then there is a strong chance they will be stopped. So if you want to join the ranks and do audits, you may want to ensure you are acting with good intentions. 
There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money from the content you create. Many people who do this are monetizing the content. The issue is the confrontations most often associated with the audits. It is not wrong to make money from the content. It becomes a problem when the action is solely to craft a crisis to gain a large amount of views to gain profit that is causing the controversy, scrutiny, and pushback. A good faith audit follows the following structure.

The Good Faith Auditor Checklist

Step-by-Step Compliance for 1A & Charter Audits

1. Pre-Audit Preparation

2. Equipment & Backup Setup

3. On-Site Execution

4. Interaction & De-escalation

5. Law Enforcement Strategy

To conclude, the goal for a good audit is to audit process, procedure, access, and compliance. The building is the target to audit, and the way people are treated is to ensure that the law is upheld. While it is ok to make money with the content, creating a dramatic scene could lead to adverse reactions and other outcomes that may include, in rare circumstances, jail but, more often than not, confrontations that can get physical and may lead to charges being laid. In addition, the monetization scheme could be interrupted by lawsuits and copyright strikes. In the rarest of circumstances an auditor can end up injured or killed. 
In practice, most of the time, most audits that are aggressive in nature lead to no immediate impacts other than verbal confrontations and the occasional push and shove. 
Thanks for reading this article; let me know what you think of it, and if you have been in front of or behind the camera, what is it like? I will see you in the next one. 

Cliff T. 

Notable citations and their links

Here is the curated list formatted as clean, scannable Markdown. You can copy and paste this directly into your blog editor, and the links will automatically turn into clickable text.

Canadian Police Agencies

  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP): Rewrote its baseline use-of-force manuals for the first time in 30 years to introduce a new Public and Police Safety Framework. Read the updated framework goals in the RCMP Departmental Plan and track current progress via the RCMP Departmental Results Reports.
  • Ottawa Police Service (OPS): Overhauled its tactical training matrix and frontline deployment workflows after an independent administrative review. View the full structural findings in the Ottawa Auditor General Staffing Audit.
  • Toronto Police Service (TPS): Redrafted its core protocols following human rights audits regarding systemic profiling and force disparity. Access the live, updated database of public procedures via the Toronto Police Service Procedure Listing.
  • Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) & Municipal Forces: Phased out historical 2004 physical restraint models in favour of a modern de-escalation framework. Review the provincial directives via the Ontario Public-Police Interactions Training Aid Document.

United States Police Agencies

  • Washington State Law Enforcement: Forced widespread revisions to local patrol tactics manuals following a state-wide compliance investigation. Review the training gaps and compliance tracking updates on the Washington State Auditor Police Training Connection.
  • Mesa Police Department & National Lexipol Agencies: Rewrote standard operating manuals to include explicit directives that ban officers from retaliating against public recording or making unlawful identification demands.

Research regarding the risks of deepfakes and sextortion / extortion 

Citation for the historical trends regarding Auditing

🟢 Genesis Era (Pre–2016)

  • Summary: Characterized by widespread institutional ignorance and confusion regarding citizen recording rights. Police departments frequently arrested citizens on public sidewalks using non-applicable wiretapping laws, leading to major civil rights lawsuits.
  • Citation: This era was structurally closed by the landmark ruling in Glik v. Cunniffe (2011), which legally solidified the public’s First Amendment right to openly film law enforcement personnel in public spaces.

🟡 Emerging Era (2016–2019)

  • Summary: Activists moved inside public buildings, deliberately testing the limits of public lobbies, municipal service desks, and identification demands. Staff panic led to frequent, legally vulnerable trespass enforcement actions.
  • Citation: The shift to interior spaces prompted national directives, such as the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom's 2019 Advisory Bulletin, which warned municipal employees not to engage or escalate.

🔴 Peak Friction (2020–2022)

  • Summary: Driven by explosive YouTube algorithm monetization and post-2020 social unrest, audits became highly confrontational. This phase peaked with physical altercations, broken cameras, swatting incidents, and massive civil payouts by municipalities.
  • Citation: High-profile flashpoints, such as the 2021 New London incident covered by Police1, exposed deep systemic training gaps and led to immediate officer suspensions and forced retirements.

🔵 Saturation Era (2023–2025)

  • Summary: Agencies realized physical force played directly into the hands of auditors seeking litigation payouts. Institutions switched to non-engagement tactics, administrative blockades, and creative operational disruptions.
  • Citation: Law enforcement industry guidelines shifted toward de-escalation, as documented in the Police1 Academy Guide on Handling Audits (2023), which trained officers to ignore provocations and weaponize copyrighted background music to stop streams.

🟢 Lockdown Era (2026+)

  • Summary: Municipalities finalized the physical and structural redesign of public properties. By installing electronic badge access systems, heavy security glass, and double-door traps, institutions effectively blocked audit activities.
  • Citation: These measures rely on the Public Forum Doctrine established in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense Fund (1985), allowing agencies to legally declare secured interior employee areas as "Non-Public Forums" where recording is entirely banned.
References

Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39. https://justice.gc.ca

Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2026). Authorization to carry. Government of Canada. https://rcmp.ca

at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Featured Post

Weirdness in Politics - Quirky Characters And Their Antics Impact - This Edition of Candid Comments

  Politics has always been a stage where in certain circumstances dramatic personalities and eccentric behaviors are seen. Across the ages, ...