September 17th 07, 10:45 PM
posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
|
|
|
"What controlling case law are you referring to?" is MY question, Greg, NOT yours.... HERE's where I asked in the original thread, Greg, you twice convicted wife abuser, and child abuser!
On Sep 16, 9:54 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Sep 16, 4:08 pm, Greegor wrote:
LIT Sure, I could say 'Your honor, this illegal recording
G Not illegal.
DS Why is it not illegal?
G Gov't workers interacting with private citizens
G have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
DS Even if violating their privacy is against the law?
Gov't workers interacting with citizens have no reasonable expectation
of privacy.
G If the caseworker is talking to LIT on the phone,
G they are not acting in their capacity as private citizens,
G they are acting in their capacity as government agents.
DS So you believe there's an exception to the law?
Post the law Dan! CT right?
DS An unwritten exception?
Isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy a prerequisite?
Governent agents interacting with citizens don't have that
expectation.
See below.
G If a caseworker is on lunch break or in the bathroom
G they might have a right to privacy then, but NOT
G when they call up private citizens as part of
G the performance of their duties as a government worker.
DS Is this exception documented in any of the privacy laws?
Privacy laws are for CITIZENS.
Privacy laws were NEVER to prevent citizens from catching
public servants in dishonesty or malfeasance in the
performance of their duties.
See below.
Like the cop who threatened to bogus up charges
on the vid kid in this news story..
DS The law in that state says it's illegal.
Post it Dan!
Scumbag, I said "The law in that state says it's illegal." a few post
back referring to the recording LIT made in her state.
If you want to screw around with what I say and make it look like I
just said it in the post you're responding to you can GFYS all day
long!!!
G There are higher laws.
and caselaw!
DS So there's NO CHANCE they'll be arrested?
Who said that?
G Arrested maybe, just like the kid who shot the video
G of the a-hole cop could have been arrested.
DS Why could he have been arrested?
Because individual cops do incredibly DUMB things!
So do live in unemployed boyfriends.
G He's very lucky he didn't.
DS What law did he violate?
Remember the officer said he would think of something later?
Didn't you read the article?
Apparently it was about the officer's POWER TRIP, not the law.
The laws we're speaking about are about recording telephone
conversations.
When Linda Tripp recorded Monica Lewinski, Monica had
a reasonable expectation of privacy, and was in a state
where recording calls without notice is illegal.
If that same call had taken place in Iowa Linda would
not have been charged for illegally recording.
By the way, Dan do you have any useful case law
regarding the recording of an ON DUTY government
agent by a citizen?
See below.
Do you know that if the guy this kid had video/audio
taped had been a citizen and not a cop, the AUDIO recording
is where most of the illegality would come up in most states?
Serrupticiously recording a citizen is a wholly
different thing than recording a cops interactions.
G Judges also do things that are illegal.
G Like signing invalid search warrants.
G Does that mean citizens should cringe in fear of that?
DS They shouldn't?
In the USA you think we need to fear our own law enforcement?
Do you wait to grow a spine until it's too late Dan?
Or is that just advice you give to others?
G In one famous case a Judge demanded that the
G guy who made him bad coffee should be brought
G before him. Eventually the coffee vendor sued
G and the Judge had absolutely NO immunity
G because what they did was so wrong.
DS What does this have to do with the legality
DS of recording telephone conversations?
You asked about possibility of arrest and implied
direction by a Judge. My point is that Judges can
always do the wrong thing.
G And higher courts have protected citizens right to record
G government officials interacting with them.
DS So if they do get arrested the whole catastrophe
DS will have to go to a higher court?
G No, the controlling caselaw should
G be enough to end the stand off.
DS What standoff?
DS Once you're arrested... you're arrested.
Lots of people are arrested and have charges dropped.
G What "controlling caselaw" are you referring to?
Check my post that you're SUPPOSEDLY responding to, Greg.
The above question "What "controlling caselaw" are you referring to?"
that you attribute to yourself was MY question.
I asked it.
And not only did you fail to answer you changed it from my question to
YOURS.
You F'n dirtbag LIAR!
DS How long will that take?
LIT was obtained while dealing with a
LIT government official leaking information
G What's this about a government official LEAKING INFORMATION?
G Generally that makes recording EVEN MORE COMPELLING!
DS Why is that?
DS Compelled to supress it
G Compelled by what?
G If the state does that it takes on a sort of racketeering flavor.
DS A racketeering FLAVOR???
DS Is THAT against the law?
G Compelled by what?
DS How freakin stupid are you, Greg?
DS If the court suppresses the recording you
DS claimed the court would "take on a sort of racketeering flavor."
DS I'm asking if what the court did was against the law?
Instant grounds for appeal.
G Which isn't unusual when it comes to Jevenile court
G because the whole process is so unconstitutional.
G burden of proof substandard (US Santosky v Kramer)
G rules of evidence substandard (US Crawford v Washington) no
hearsay
DS I find it amazing, Greg, that you claim what IS illegal is
legal...
DS and what is legal ISN'T!!!
G You DO know that some state LAWS are wrong, don't you?
DS Could you be more vague?
G You seem very confused about how state laws can exist
G that higher laws overrule.
DS You seem to be very confused that state laws
DS are still valid enforceable laws... in spite of the
DS "higher laws" that you claim overrule them.
Like back when Southern states law said blacks couldn't vote?
Were those "Jim Crow" laws valid and enforceable?
DS What color is the sky in your world?
G It looks white right now. Thin overcast.
G I don't take everything for granted like you do.
DS I don't take everything for granted, dipstick.
Sure! You think state law is the end of it! It's NOT!
G Apparently in your world the sky is blue
G because you're stuck in a BUREAUCRATIC
G cubicle with no windows and you take
G blue for granted. You don't bother to actually look.
DS Greg, I'm sitting at my computer an arms reach
DS from a window with a bird feeder on the outside
DS that's used all day long by my fine feathered friends.
DS If I lean forward a bit I can see an osprey nest
DS that's empty now (they just left a few days ago).
DS Every year I get to watch the same pair of adult
DS birds teach their offspring how to fly.
DS And the sky is blue.
The point here was that you were paying
attention to state laws, and ignoring higher laws,
(caselaw, Federal law and Federal caselaw)
on the subject.
Post some Federal caselaw on the subject Dan!
You also ignored the difference between the
privacy expectations OF a private citizen and the
privacy expectations OF a government agent
interviewing a citizen.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ma&vol=sjcslip....
Check this paragraph out, asshole,
...GREANEY, J. This case raises the issue whether a motorist may be
prosecuted for violating the Massachusetts electronic surveillance
statute, G. L. c. 272, § 99, for secretly tape recording statements
made
by police officers during a routine traffic stop. A jury in the
District
Court convicted the defendant on four counts of a complaint charging
him
with unlawfully intercepting the oral communications of another, in
violation of G. L. c. 272, § 99 F. The defendant appealed, and we
granted his application for direct appellate review. We conclude that
G.
L. c. 272, § 99, strictly prohibits the secret electronic recording by
a
private individual of any oral communication, and makes no exception
for
a motorist who, having been stopped by police officers,
surreptitiously
tape records the encounter. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of
conviction. ...
If you read this case public officials have no particular rights of
privacy, but the DO have the right to not be SECRETLY recorded under
the law of some states, and federal law.
See above.
|