Nearly every State in the Union, has a statute that reads almost identically to 18 USC 641. In governmental employ (at whatever level) one would be a fool to assume that such a prohibition did not exist -- absent exhaustive research into the statutes and/or ordinances covering that particular jurisdiction.
I, admittedly, have not done an exhaustive search, but in every jurisdiction where I have had occasion to check, such a prohibition _was_ enshrined in law.
So? The fact that they choose to do so, does not mean that they are _required_ do do so.
For Feds, it is -not- "policy", it is the _law_. And *that* law (18 USC 641) does _not_ apply to any private employment situation. Regardless of what the employer's policies might be.
A private employer _cannot_ avail themselves of that law, in the event of employee misfeasance. They may be able to avail themselves of municipal or state law, regarding 'petty theft', In general, however, the penalties for that are generally an order of magnitude less than that for 18 USC 641.
I've sat in a federal courtroom, and witnessed sentencing for an 18 USC 641 violation. It wasn't a single egregious act, but an ongoing series of really 'little' things. After having been reminded by management "not to". The idjit had a side-line personal business, and was doing stuff for it at the office, after hours -- writing correspondence, and printing it out, doing estimates in a spread-sheet, a little bit of photo-copying, etc.
Again, you miss the fundamental point. A private employer _can_ allow such private use. A Federal (nor in many states) agency employer
*cannot*.The fact that _some_ private employers do not do so does not invalidate the difference.
"Are not forbidden to" is an *entirely* different thing from "are not allowed to". Even if specific implementations under the two different sets of 'rules' happen to be similar.
Cite: TINKER ET AL. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
393 U.S. 503 (1969)
In the above-mentioned situation, I can state as fact that private employers banning exactly the same apparel did *NOT* have any problems. One of the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned case actually got _fired_ from a private-industry job at the same time that case was proceeding. For wearing the specific item of apparel -- after having been instructed not to -- that was the subject of the lawsuit.
What I said _is _true. "Words alone" do *NOT* constitute a threat. There are other elements that _must_ be present before a speaking or a writing is a threat.
BTW, My claim was that "how" a thing is said is a primary element of a "disorderly conduct" charge.
"How" you came to conclude that it is relevant to a charge of 'making threats', I do not follow.
If it is not obvious to you, different laws (and different crimes) have different 'required elements' as to what constitutes a violation. Prosecution for "making threats" is an *entirely* different matter, with entirely different component requirements than 'disorderly conduct'.
Any time you start asserting claims about how someone/something is required or forbidden to act, that _is_ the realm of law.
Actual practice -- how people/organizations 'do' or 'do not' act, is a significantly different set of boundaries.
What "is" allowed is considerably more restrictive than what 'can be' allowed. What "is not" allowed is much more restrictive than what 'cannot be' allowed. That which 'is allowed' is often more restrictive than 'that which is not forbidden'. That which 'is not allowed' is often *much* more restrictive than 'that which is not forbidden.
*ALL* of our differences of opinion come from your co-mingling of those distinct classifications.That, kiddo, *IS* the way the law works. Get used to it.
If you want to assert what is required/forbidden by law, you have to get the details right.
Since you bring it up. I will repeat that the *FULL* standard _does_ specifies a 4x4 matrix of frequency pairs.
The Autovon phones were 100% compliant with the specifications in the standard.
The 'vast majority' of Touch-Tone phones in existence for the 'civilian' (shall we say) market do not implement the _full_ standard, They are, none the less "standards-compliant", as a "subset implementation", which is recognized and allowed for in the standard.
And, since you have chosen to bring it up, your prior assertation about the Arsenal having "Autovon" phones that were pulse-dial, behind a cord-board switchboard is utter cr*p. The actual Autovon system was '4-wire' -- with outgoing audio on a _separate_ wire-pair from incoming audio. This 4-wire architecture was carried all the way through to the telephone sets. For sets that were used both for PSTN and Autovon, there _was_ a hybrid in the phone, for PSTN call use -- disconnected and bypassed, when an Autovon call was made.
You wouldn't want to try to _prove_ that statement, would you?
I said that certain certifications were the only thing that parties were *required* _to_accept_.
If you offer 'something else', they _may_ accept it, or they MAY NOT.
And, if they do not accept it, "tough cookies" applies. You cannot force them to accept that 'inadequate documentation'. You have to go get 'the real thing'.
The full-blown works are not always 'necessary', they are, however _guaranteed_ to be 'sufficient'.
"Reality' is in the details. What 'may' work in some situations is unrelated to what is guaranteed to work in *all* situations. If, as in the case of the ISP and the deceased soldier, the party refuses to accept any 'lesser standerd', there is nothing that one can do, but provide the court order. As that soldiers kin did, and which was then accepted.
Now, go back and review what I _actually_ said on that subject.
Which was that *IF* the external agency demands 'proof', of the right to access the property of another, that the only document that they are *required* to accept is the order from the probate court. They may _choose_ to accept some 'lesser standard', but they are *not* _required_ to accept anything short of the court order of executorship.
As with *any* legal mater, the precise details of the specific situation make _all_the_difference_in_the_world_. Accessing a bank account established 'with right of survivorship' is fairly trivial. Accessing a safety-deposit box, where no such provision had been made, and no alternate signatory was on record, can be a much different story. Especially if you don't have the key in hand.
_In_the_event_ that an external agency 'refuses to accept' whatever 'lesser standard' documentation you provide, you are simply SOL until you get the 'real thing'. There is no way, practically, *or* legally, to force them to accept the 'inadequate' documentation offered.
Note that just because the 'external agency' is required to accept a thing as proof, does not mean that _you_ are required to present that thing. If they will accept a 'lesser standard', well and good. IF they refuse to do so, you have no alternative, but to present the 'real thing'.
Referrals from those you know who have been in 'like' situations is a good start.
A referral from a competent (in other areas) attorney is also a good beginning.
If you don't know any competent attorneys yourself, and if you don't know people who have been in 'like situations', then you start looking for people you know, who know a competent attorney. And ask them for a referral in the area you have need.