Recording of government workers in performance of duties

Sure, I could say 'Your honor, this illegal recording

Not illegal.

was obtained while dealing with a
government official leaking information

What's this about a government official LEAKING INFORMATION?

Generally that makes recording EVEN MORE COMPELLING!

On Sep 15, 11:32 pm, Greegor wrote:
Sure, I could say 'Your honor, this illegal recording

Not illegal.

Why is it not illegal?

The law in that state says it's illegal.

was obtained while dealing with a
government official leaking information

What's this about a government official LEAKING INFORMATION?

Generally that makes recording EVEN MORE COMPELLING!

Why is that?

Compelled to supress it

LIT Sure, I could say 'Your honor, this illegal recording

G Not illegal.

DS Why is it not illegal?

Gov't workers interacting with private citizens
have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

DS The law in that state says it's illegal.

There are higher laws.

And higher courts have protected citizens right to record
government officials interacting with them.

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

Compelled by what?

If the state does that it takes on a sort of racketeering flavor.

Which isn't unusual when it comes to Jevenile court
because the whole process is so unconstitutional.
burden of proof substandard (US Santosky v Kramer)
rules of evidence substandard (US Crawford v Washington) no hearsay

On Sep 15, 11:54 pm, Greegor wrote:
LIT Sure, I could say 'Your honor, this illegal recording

G Not illegal.

DS Why is it not illegal?

Gov't workers interacting with private citizens
have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Even if violating their privacy is against the law?

DS The law in that state says it's illegal.

There are higher laws.

So there's NO CHANCE they'll be arrested?

And higher courts have protected citizens right to record
government officials interacting with them.

So if they do get arrested the whole catastrophe will have to go to a
higher court?

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

Compelled by what?

If the state does that it takes on a sort of racketeering flavor.

A racketeering FLAVOR???

Is THAT against the law?

Which isn't unusual when it comes to Jevenile court
because the whole process is so unconstitutional.
burden of proof substandard (US Santosky v Kramer)
rules of evidence substandard (US Crawford v Washington) no hearsay

I find it amazing, Greg, that you claim what IS illegal is legal...

and what is legal ISN'T!!!

What color is the sky in your world?

On Sep 16, 8:03 am, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:54 pm, Greegor wrote:

LIT Sure, I could say 'Your honor, this illegal recording

G Not illegal.

DS Why is it not illegal?

Gov't workers interacting with private citizens
have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Even if violating their privacy is against the law?

If the caseworker is talking to LIT on the phone,
they are not acting in their capacity as private citizens,
they are acting in their capacity as government agents.

If a caseworker is on lunch break or in the bathroom
they might have a right to privacy then, but NOT
when they call up private citizens as part of
the performance of their duties as a government worker.

DS The law in that state says it's illegal.

There are higher laws.

So there's NO CHANCE they'll be arrested?

Arrested maybe, just like the kid who shot the video
of the a-hole cop could have been arrested.
He's very lucky he didn't.

Judges also do things that are illegal.
Like signing invalid search warrants.
Does that mean citizens should cringe in fear of that?

In one famous case a Judge demanded that the
guy who made him bad coffee should be brought
before him. Eventually the coffee vendor sued
and the Judge had absolutely NO immunity
because what they did was so wrong.

And higher courts have protected citizens right to record
government officials interacting with them.

So if they do get arrested the whole catastrophe
will have to go to a higher court?

No, the controlling caselaw should
be enough to end the stand off.

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

Compelled by what?

If the state does that it takes on a sort of racketeering flavor.

A racketeering FLAVOR???

Is THAT against the law?

Compelled by what?

Which isn't unusual when it comes to Jevenile court
because the whole process is so unconstitutional.
burden of proof substandard (US Santosky v Kramer)
rules of evidence substandard (US Crawford v Washington) no hearsay

I find it amazing, Greg, that you claim what IS illegal is legal...

and what is legal ISN'T!!!

You DO know that some state LAWS are wrong, don't you?

You seem very confused about how state laws can exist
that higher laws overrule.

What color is the sky in your world?

It looks white right now. Thin overcast.
I don't take everything for granted like you do.

Apparently in your world the sky is blue
because you're stuck in a BUREAUCRATIC
cubicle with no windows and you take
blue for granted. You don't bother to actually look.

On Sep 16, 12:57 pm, Greegor wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:03 am, Dan Sullivan wrote:

On Sep 15, 11:54 pm, Greegor wrote:

LIT Sure, I could say 'Your honor, this illegal recording

G Not illegal.

DS Why is it not illegal?

Gov't workers interacting with private citizens
have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Even if violating their privacy is against the law?

If the caseworker is talking to LIT on the phone,
they are not acting in their capacity as private citizens,
they are acting in their capacity as government agents.

So you believe there's an exception to the law?

An unwritten exception?

If a caseworker is on lunch break or in the bathroom
they might have a right to privacy then, but NOT
when they call up private citizens as part of
the performance of their duties as a government worker.

Is this exception documented in any of the privacy laws?

DS The law in that state says it's illegal.

There are higher laws.

So there's NO CHANCE they'll be arrested?

Arrested maybe, just like the kid who shot the video
of the a-hole cop could have been arrested.

Why could he have been arrested?

He's very lucky he didn't.

What law did he violate?

The laws we're speaking about are about recording telephone
conversations.

Judges also do things that are illegal.
Like signing invalid search warrants.
Does that mean citizens should cringe in fear of that?

They shouldn't?

In one famous case a Judge demanded that the
guy who made him bad coffee should be brought
before him. Eventually the coffee vendor sued
and the Judge had absolutely NO immunity
because what they did was so wrong.

What does this have to do with the legality of recording telephone
conversations?

And higher courts have protected citizens right to record
government officials interacting with them.

So if they do get arrested the whole catastrophe
will have to go to a higher court?

No, the controlling caselaw should
be enough to end the stand off.

What standoff?

Once you're arrested... you're arrested.

What "controlling caselaw" are you referring to?

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

Compelled by what?

If the state does that it takes on a sort of racketeering flavor.

A racketeering FLAVOR???

Is THAT against the law?

Compelled by what?

How freakin stupid are you, Greg?

If the court suppresses the recording you claimed the court would
"take on a sort of racketeering flavor."

I'm asking if what the court did was against the law?

Which isn't unusual when it comes to Jevenile court
because the whole process is so unconstitutional.
burden of proof substandard (US Santosky v Kramer)
rules of evidence substandard (US Crawford v Washington) no hearsay

I find it amazing, Greg, that you claim what IS illegal is legal...

and what is legal ISN'T!!!

You DO know that some state LAWS are wrong, don't you?

Could you be more vague?

You seem very confused about how state laws can exist
that higher laws overrule.

You seem to be very confused that state laws are still valid
enforceable laws... in spite of the "higher laws" that you claim
overrule them.

What color is the sky in your world?

It looks white right now. Thin overcast.
I don't take everything for granted like you do.

I don't take everything for granted, dipstick.

Apparently in your world the sky is blue
because you're stuck in a BUREAUCRATIC
cubicle with no windows and you take
blue for granted. You don't bother to actually look.

Greg, I'm sitting at my computer an arms reach from a window with a
bird feeder on the outside that's used all day long by my fine
feathered friends.

If I lean forward a bit I can see an osprey nest that's empty now
(they just left a few days ago). Every year I get to watch the same
pair of adult birds teach their offspring how to fly.

And the sky is blue.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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?

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?

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://www.callcorder.com/phone-reco...aw-america.htm
Some interesting phone recording laws. Notice that it says:
'Evidentiary Issues

Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do
so with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as
evidence. Such recordings are subject to significant barriers to use
as evidence. First, if made in violation of either federal or state
law, the recordings will almost certainly be inadmissible. Second,
even if lawfully recorded, the tapes will be exempt from the hearsay
rule and will not, in most jurisdictions, be usable for impeachment.
Anyone contemplating an evidentiary use of surreptitious recordings
should consult with an attorney prior to making the recording.'

On Sep 16, 5:03 pm, lostintranslation
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.

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.

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!

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!

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?

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?

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://www.callcorder.com/phone-reco...aw-america.htm
Some interesting phone recording laws. Notice that it says:
'Evidentiary Issues

Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do
so with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as
evidence. Such recordings are subject to significant barriers to use
as evidence. First, if made in violation of either federal or state
law, the recordings will almost certainly be inadmissible. Second,
even if lawfully recorded, the tapes will be exempt from the hearsay
rule and will not, in most jurisdictions, be usable for impeachment.
Anyone contemplating an evidentiary use of surreptitious recordings
should consult with an attorney prior to making the recording.'

No mention of interviews with government agents?

The cop in this news story was serruptitiously recorded
(including audio) but he was a government agent.

On Sep 16, 7:32 pm, Greegor wrote:
On Sep 16, 5:03 pm, lostintranslation
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.

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.

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!

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!

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?

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?

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://www.callcorder.com/phone-reco...aw-america.htm
Some interesting phone recording laws. Notice that it says:
'Evidentiary Issues

Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do
so with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as
evidence. Such recordings are subject to significant barriers to use
as evidence. First, if made in violation of either federal or state
law, the recordings will almost certainly be inadmissible. Second,
even if lawfully recorded, the tapes will be exempt from the hearsay
rule and will not, in most jurisdictions, be usable for impeachment.
Anyone contemplating an evidentiary use of surreptitious recordings
should consult with an attorney prior to making the recording.'

No mention of interviews with government agents?

The cop in this news story was serruptitiously recorded
(including audio) but he was a government agent.

Didn't the cop comment on being video taped on the recording?