Recording of government workers in performance of duties

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...p/8429&invol=1

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.

http://totalrecoil.wordpress.com/200...-firearm-laws/

Mounties Get Lesson On Gun Regulations
Northeast News By: Joei Warm September 5, 2007

DAWSON CREEK - Local RCMP have been enforcing firearm regulations
incorrectly. Thanks to an incident with a knowledgeable citizen, they
learned they have been applying the transportation regulations for
'restricted' firearms to even 'non-restricted' ones.

They discovered their mistake when they pulled two hunters over for a
routine traffic stop Aug. 24 and tried to seize two hunting rifles
sitting unloaded between the seats in the truck. Fortunately the
passenger, Jim Parfrey, is a federally-certified master firearms
instructor. His knowledge of the correct regulations led him to insist
RCMP investigate the way they handle these situations. In the end, he
got the firearms back with an acknowledgement from police that he was
right.

"The law is nebulous," said S/Sgt. Steve Grant. As soon as the error
was recognized the correct information was circulated to all members.
But "If it's that complex that they don't understand them (the
regulations), then how will that help them?" asked Parfrey.

Ironically, the Canadian Firearms website, which clearly states that
the requirement for safe transportation of nonrestricted firearms is
"unload your weapon", was set up and is operated by the RCMP. "They
didn't even seem to know they had a website," said Parfrey.

"There is no vagueness about the regulations," said BC Wildlife
Federation executive director Paul Adams. "I receive a couple of
complaints like this every year. There is a definite need for
education within the RCMP, especially with the younger officers."

"We can both appreciate that officers place themselves in more danger
than we do but I'm not sure that two old fogies are that much of a
threat," said Pouce Coupe resident and former Northern Lights College
president Jim Kassen, the truck's driver. The men were told their
firearms would be confiscated and that they would be charged with a
criminal offense even after it was seen that the rifles were
unloaded.

"It was extremely frustrating being ridiculed and ordered around,"
said Parfrey. He maintains the officers were angry and treated the men
like criminals. "If she had just said she was uncomfortable with the
firearms and wanted to put them in her car until the matter was
finished with I would have understood and handed them over," said
Parfrey.

"There is a difference in the interpretation of events," said Grant.
"I'm satisfied the officer acted appropriately."

After the matter was resolved Parfrey said the RCMP shift supervisor,
a "very big, well-muscled man", told him he didn't like the way his
officers had been treated and said if he had been the one to stop them
things would have gone worse. Parfrey took exception to what he saw as
intimidation by the supervisor.

Kassen thought the officer was threatening and said, "I had the
feeling his superior overruled him and that he might be feeling
vindictive." He remains concerned that there may be negative
consequences for the duo for standing up for their rights.

Grant doesn't see the situation in the same light but wants to tell
those who feel their rights have been ignored or who feel they've been
mistreated in some way that they're welcome to talk to him. "Come in
and see me."

To begin with, the law on the transportation of non-restricted
firearms is not "nebulous". It might be if you don't know the laws you
are enforcing, but the law is actually quite clear.The regulations
state in part:

Transportation of Non-Restricted Firearms
10(1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) ................, it is unloaded;

That's it. Period. There are further rules if the firearm is in an
unattended vehicle, but this was not the case in this particular
incident. So the only rule for non-restricted firearms is that they
must be unloaded. (plus there are additional stipulations for muzzle
loaders).

The Staff Sargeant in charge of the detachment said that he was
satisfied that the officer had acted appropriately. She didn't know
the law so she made up one of her own which I guess is now considered
to be appropriate behaviour. It is hard to believe that officers
working in Northern B.C. where hunting is a way of life wouldn't be
familiar with even the most basic firearm laws.

Also a bit scary to hear the comments from the RCMP shift supervisor.
If he had been the officer in the field "things would have gone
worse"? It sounds as though it could only have gone worse if he had
tasered them or done something equally violent.

Of course their big mistake was telling the police officer that she
was mistaken in her knowledge of the law. That just stiffens their
backs and you are immediately in trouble.

It has really gotten to the point where if you are a firearm owner you
should avoid contact with the police whenever humanly possible.
Unfortunate.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
and is filed under RCMP, canadian gun, gun control. You can follow any
responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to "RCMP officers enforcing non-existent firearm laws"
old whitguy Says:

September 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
when will the rcmp actually become a police force again? the pc group
that currently make up the force do not inspire confidence.

Bear Child Says:

September 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I have been a Firearms Safety Instructor for the Canadian Firearms Act
for the past 8 years for Members of my Fish & Game Club, and the
general public in my area.

Regularly, I get feed back from my students that they have been
harassed by Provincial Police Officers for incidents exactly the same
as described above. I have taken to handing out to my students the
Canadian Firearms Centre's pamphlet of 'Safe Storage and
Transportation' so they can carry it in their glove compartment. They
then have it available to show zealous Police Officers what the law
actually says!

It is apparent to people my age, having experience with an earlier
generation of Policemen, that the current generation, of mainly urban
raised Police Officers, have a definite anti-gun bias that often is
often demonstrated through poor policing.

On Sep 17, 1:44 am, Greegor wrote:
http://totalrecoil.wordpress.com/200...rs-enforcing-n...

Mounties Get Lesson On Gun Regulations
Northeast News By: Joei Warm September 5, 2007

DAWSON CREEK - Local RCMP have been enforcing firearm regulations
incorrectly. Thanks to an incident with a knowledgeable citizen, they
learned they have been applying the transportation regulations for
'restricted' firearms to even 'non-restricted' ones.

They discovered their mistake when they pulled two hunters over for a
routine traffic stop Aug. 24 and tried to seize two hunting rifles
sitting unloaded between the seats in the truck. Fortunately the
passenger, Jim Parfrey, is a federally-certified master firearms
instructor. His knowledge of the correct regulations led him to insist
RCMP investigate the way they handle these situations. In the end, he
got the firearms back with an acknowledgement from police that he was
right.

"The law is nebulous," said S/Sgt. Steve Grant. As soon as the error
was recognized the correct information was circulated to all members.
But "If it's that complex that they don't understand them (the
regulations), then how will that help them?" asked Parfrey.

Ironically, the Canadian Firearms website, which clearly states that
the requirement for safe transportation of nonrestricted firearms is
"unload your weapon", was set up and is operated by the RCMP. "They
didn't even seem to know they had a website," said Parfrey.

"There is no vagueness about the regulations," said BC Wildlife
Federation executive director Paul Adams. "I receive a couple of
complaints like this every year. There is a definite need for
education within the RCMP, especially with the younger officers."

"We can both appreciate that officers place themselves in more danger
than we do but I'm not sure that two old fogies are that much of a
threat," said Pouce Coupe resident and former Northern Lights College
president Jim Kassen, the truck's driver. The men were told their
firearms would be confiscated and that they would be charged with a
criminal offense even after it was seen that the rifles were
unloaded.

"It was extremely frustrating being ridiculed and ordered around,"
said Parfrey. He maintains the officers were angry and treated the men
like criminals. "If she had just said she was uncomfortable with the
firearms and wanted to put them in her car until the matter was
finished with I would have understood and handed them over," said
Parfrey.

"There is a difference in the interpretation of events," said Grant.
"I'm satisfied the officer acted appropriately."

After the matter was resolved Parfrey said the RCMP shift supervisor,
a "very big, well-muscled man", told him he didn't like the way his
officers had been treated and said if he had been the one to stop them
things would have gone worse. Parfrey took exception to what he saw as
intimidation by the supervisor.

Kassen thought the officer was threatening and said, "I had the
feeling his superior overruled him and that he might be feeling
vindictive." He remains concerned that there may be negative
consequences for the duo for standing up for their rights.

Grant doesn't see the situation in the same light but wants to tell
those who feel their rights have been ignored or who feel they've been
mistreated in some way that they're welcome to talk to him. "Come in
and see me."

To begin with, the law on the transportation of non-restricted
firearms is not "nebulous". It might be if you don't know the laws you
are enforcing, but the law is actually quite clear.The regulations
state in part:

Transportation of Non-Restricted Firearms
10(1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) ................, it is unloaded;

That's it. Period. There are further rules if the firearm is in an
unattended vehicle, but this was not the case in this particular
incident. So the only rule for non-restricted firearms is that they
must be unloaded. (plus there are additional stipulations for muzzle
loaders).

The Staff Sargeant in charge of the detachment said that he was
satisfied that the officer had acted appropriately. She didn't know
the law so she made up one of her own which I guess is now considered
to be appropriate behaviour. It is hard to believe that officers
working in Northern B.C. where hunting is a way of life wouldn't be
familiar with even the most basic firearm laws.

Also a bit scary to hear the comments from the RCMP shift supervisor.
If he had been the officer in the field "things would have gone
worse"? It sounds as though it could only have gone worse if he had
tasered them or done something equally violent.

Of course their big mistake was telling the police officer that she
was mistaken in her knowledge of the law. That just stiffens their
backs and you are immediately in trouble.

It has really gotten to the point where if you are a firearm owner you
should avoid contact with the police whenever humanly possible.
Unfortunate.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
and is filed under RCMP, canadian gun, gun control. You can follow any
responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to "RCMP officers enforcing non-existent firearm laws"
old whitguy Says:

September 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
when will the rcmp actually become a police force again? the pc group
that currently make up the force do not inspire confidence.

Bear Child Says:

September 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I have been a Firearms Safety Instructor for the Canadian Firearms Act
for the past 8 years for Members of my Fish & Game Club, and the
general public in my area.

Regularly, I get feed back from my students that they have been
harassed by Provincial Police Officers for incidents exactly the same
as described above. I have taken to handing out to my students the
Canadian Firearms Centre's pamphlet of 'Safe Storage and
Transportation' so they can carry it in their glove compartment. They
then have it available to show zealous Police Officers what the law
actually says!

It is apparent to people my age, having experience with an earlier
generation of Policemen, that the current generation, of mainly urban
raised Police Officers, have a definite anti-gun bias that often is
often demonstrated through poor policing.

While the U.S. federal law only requires one-party consent, many
states have accepted different laws. In some states all parties must
give their consent or at least be notified that the call is about to
be recorded (with necessary opt-out option: if you don't like them to
record the call, you can ask them to stop recording). There also was a
case law decision from many years ago (the 1950's) that went to the
Supreme Court and affirmed that the federal law does not supersede
state authority/statutes unless the call or the tap crosses state
lines - that is why each state went ahead and established their own
guideline/statute.

On Sep 17, 1:44 am, Greegor wrote:
http://totalrecoil.wordpress.com/200...rs-enforcing-n...

Mounties Get Lesson On Gun Regulations
Northeast News By: Joei Warm September 5, 2007

DAWSON CREEK - Local RCMP have been enforcing firearm regulations
incorrectly. Thanks to an incident with a knowledgeable citizen, they
learned they have been applying the transportation regulations for
'restricted' firearms to even 'non-restricted' ones.

They discovered their mistake when they pulled two hunters over for a
routine traffic stop Aug. 24 and tried to seize two hunting rifles
sitting unloaded between the seats in the truck. Fortunately the
passenger, Jim Parfrey, is a federally-certified master firearms
instructor. His knowledge of the correct regulations led him to insist
RCMP investigate the way they handle these situations. In the end, he
got the firearms back with an acknowledgement from police that he was
right.

"The law is nebulous," said S/Sgt. Steve Grant. As soon as the error
was recognized the correct information was circulated to all members.
But "If it's that complex that they don't understand them (the
regulations), then how will that help them?" asked Parfrey.

Ironically, the Canadian Firearms website, which clearly states that
the requirement for safe transportation of nonrestricted firearms is
"unload your weapon", was set up and is operated by the RCMP. "They
didn't even seem to know they had a website," said Parfrey.

"There is no vagueness about the regulations," said BC Wildlife
Federation executive director Paul Adams. "I receive a couple of
complaints like this every year. There is a definite need for
education within the RCMP, especially with the younger officers."

"We can both appreciate that officers place themselves in more danger
than we do but I'm not sure that two old fogies are that much of a
threat," said Pouce Coupe resident and former Northern Lights College
president Jim Kassen, the truck's driver. The men were told their
firearms would be confiscated and that they would be charged with a
criminal offense even after it was seen that the rifles were
unloaded.

"It was extremely frustrating being ridiculed and ordered around,"
said Parfrey. He maintains the officers were angry and treated the men
like criminals. "If she had just said she was uncomfortable with the
firearms and wanted to put them in her car until the matter was
finished with I would have understood and handed them over," said
Parfrey.

"There is a difference in the interpretation of events," said Grant.
"I'm satisfied the officer acted appropriately."

After the matter was resolved Parfrey said the RCMP shift supervisor,
a "very big, well-muscled man", told him he didn't like the way his
officers had been treated and said if he had been the one to stop them
things would have gone worse. Parfrey took exception to what he saw as
intimidation by the supervisor.

Kassen thought the officer was threatening and said, "I had the
feeling his superior overruled him and that he might be feeling
vindictive." He remains concerned that there may be negative
consequences for the duo for standing up for their rights.

Grant doesn't see the situation in the same light but wants to tell
those who feel their rights have been ignored or who feel they've been
mistreated in some way that they're welcome to talk to him. "Come in
and see me."

To begin with, the law on the transportation of non-restricted
firearms is not "nebulous". It might be if you don't know the laws you
are enforcing, but the law is actually quite clear.The regulations
state in part:

Transportation of Non-Restricted Firearms
10(1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) ................, it is unloaded;

That's it. Period. There are further rules if the firearm is in an
unattended vehicle, but this was not the case in this particular
incident. So the only rule for non-restricted firearms is that they
must be unloaded. (plus there are additional stipulations for muzzle
loaders).

The Staff Sargeant in charge of the detachment said that he was
satisfied that the officer had acted appropriately. She didn't know
the law so she made up one of her own which I guess is now considered
to be appropriate behaviour. It is hard to believe that officers
working in Northern B.C. where hunting is a way of life wouldn't be
familiar with even the most basic firearm laws.

Also a bit scary to hear the comments from the RCMP shift supervisor.
If he had been the officer in the field "things would have gone
worse"? It sounds as though it could only have gone worse if he had
tasered them or done something equally violent.

Of course their big mistake was telling the police officer that she
was mistaken in her knowledge of the law. That just stiffens their
backs and you are immediately in trouble.

It has really gotten to the point where if you are a firearm owner you
should avoid contact with the police whenever humanly possible.
Unfortunate.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
and is filed under RCMP, canadian gun, gun control. You can follow any
responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to "RCMP officers enforcing non-existent firearm laws"
old whitguy Says:

September 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
when will the rcmp actually become a police force again? the pc group
that currently make up the force do not inspire confidence.

Bear Child Says:

September 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I have been a Firearms Safety Instructor for the Canadian Firearms Act
for the past 8 years for Members of my Fish & Game Club, and the
general public in my area.

Regularly, I get feed back from my students that they have been
harassed by Provincial Police Officers for incidents exactly the same
as described above. I have taken to handing out to my students the
Canadian Firearms Centre's pamphlet of 'Safe Storage and
Transportation' so they can carry it in their glove compartment. They
then have it available to show zealous Police Officers what the law
actually says!

It is apparent to people my age, having experience with an earlier
generation of Policemen, that the current generation, of mainly urban
raised Police Officers, have a definite anti-gun bias that often is
often demonstrated through poor policing.

In yet another case against ABC, a court ruled that police officers
who were secretly videotaped while they were searching a car did not
have a claim under New Jersey s wiretapping law. The officers had no
reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that occurred in a
car on the shoulder of a busy highway, the New Jersey appeals court
ruled. Moreover, police officers have a diminished expectation of
privacy because they hold a position of trust. Thus, the taping, done
for a show on racial profiling, was legal. (Hornberger v. ABC, Inc.)

On Sep 17, 1:44 am, Greegor wrote:
http://totalrecoil.wordpress.com/200...rs-enforcing-n...

Mounties Get Lesson On Gun Regulations
Northeast News By: Joei Warm September 5, 2007

DAWSON CREEK - Local RCMP have been enforcing firearm regulations
incorrectly. Thanks to an incident with a knowledgeable citizen, they
learned they have been applying the transportation regulations for
'restricted' firearms to even 'non-restricted' ones.

They discovered their mistake when they pulled two hunters over for a
routine traffic stop Aug. 24 and tried to seize two hunting rifles
sitting unloaded between the seats in the truck. Fortunately the
passenger, Jim Parfrey, is a federally-certified master firearms
instructor. His knowledge of the correct regulations led him to insist
RCMP investigate the way they handle these situations. In the end, he
got the firearms back with an acknowledgement from police that he was
right.

"The law is nebulous," said S/Sgt. Steve Grant. As soon as the error
was recognized the correct information was circulated to all members.
But "If it's that complex that they don't understand them (the
regulations), then how will that help them?" asked Parfrey.

Ironically, the Canadian Firearms website, which clearly states that
the requirement for safe transportation of nonrestricted firearms is
"unload your weapon", was set up and is operated by the RCMP. "They
didn't even seem to know they had a website," said Parfrey.

"There is no vagueness about the regulations," said BC Wildlife
Federation executive director Paul Adams. "I receive a couple of
complaints like this every year. There is a definite need for
education within the RCMP, especially with the younger officers."

"We can both appreciate that officers place themselves in more danger
than we do but I'm not sure that two old fogies are that much of a
threat," said Pouce Coupe resident and former Northern Lights College
president Jim Kassen, the truck's driver. The men were told their
firearms would be confiscated and that they would be charged with a
criminal offense even after it was seen that the rifles were
unloaded.

"It was extremely frustrating being ridiculed and ordered around,"
said Parfrey. He maintains the officers were angry and treated the men
like criminals. "If she had just said she was uncomfortable with the
firearms and wanted to put them in her car until the matter was
finished with I would have understood and handed them over," said
Parfrey.

"There is a difference in the interpretation of events," said Grant.
"I'm satisfied the officer acted appropriately."

After the matter was resolved Parfrey said the RCMP shift supervisor,
a "very big, well-muscled man", told him he didn't like the way his
officers had been treated and said if he had been the one to stop them
things would have gone worse. Parfrey took exception to what he saw as
intimidation by the supervisor.

Kassen thought the officer was threatening and said, "I had the
feeling his superior overruled him and that he might be feeling
vindictive." He remains concerned that there may be negative
consequences for the duo for standing up for their rights.

Grant doesn't see the situation in the same light but wants to tell
those who feel their rights have been ignored or who feel they've been
mistreated in some way that they're welcome to talk to him. "Come in
and see me."

To begin with, the law on the transportation of non-restricted
firearms is not "nebulous". It might be if you don't know the laws you
are enforcing, but the law is actually quite clear.The regulations
state in part:

Transportation of Non-Restricted Firearms
10(1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) ................, it is unloaded;

That's it. Period. There are further rules if the firearm is in an
unattended vehicle, but this was not the case in this particular
incident. So the only rule for non-restricted firearms is that they
must be unloaded. (plus there are additional stipulations for muzzle
loaders).

The Staff Sargeant in charge of the detachment said that he was
satisfied that the officer had acted appropriately. She didn't know
the law so she made up one of her own which I guess is now considered
to be appropriate behaviour. It is hard to believe that officers
working in Northern B.C. where hunting is a way of life wouldn't be
familiar with even the most basic firearm laws.

Also a bit scary to hear the comments from the RCMP shift supervisor.
If he had been the officer in the field "things would have gone
worse"? It sounds as though it could only have gone worse if he had
tasered them or done something equally violent.

Of course their big mistake was telling the police officer that she
was mistaken in her knowledge of the law. That just stiffens their
backs and you are immediately in trouble.

It has really gotten to the point where if you are a firearm owner you
should avoid contact with the police whenever humanly possible.
Unfortunate.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
and is filed under RCMP, canadian gun, gun control. You can follow any
responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to "RCMP officers enforcing non-existent firearm laws"
old whitguy Says:

September 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
when will the rcmp actually become a police force again? the pc group
that currently make up the force do not inspire confidence.

Bear Child Says:

September 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I have been a Firearms Safety Instructor for the Canadian Firearms Act
for the past 8 years for Members of my Fish & Game Club, and the
general public in my area.

Regularly, I get feed back from my students that they have been
harassed by Provincial Police Officers for incidents exactly the same
as described above. I have taken to handing out to my students the
Canadian Firearms Centre's pamphlet of 'Safe Storage and
Transportation' so they can carry it in their glove compartment. They
then have it available to show zealous Police Officers what the law
actually says!

It is apparent to people my age, having experience with an earlier
generation of Policemen, that the current generation, of mainly urban
raised Police Officers, have a definite anti-gun bias that often is
often demonstrated through poor policing.

Although Boehner did not sue any member of the media, a decision in
the case may shed light on the legality of disclosing the contents of
an illegally taped conversation where the conversation does not
involve threats of violence. (Boehner v. McDermott)

All articles except the first one were taken from: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

On Sep 17, 6:11 am, lostintranslation
wrote:
On Sep 17, 1:44 am, Greegor wrote:



http://totalrecoil.wordpress.com/200...rs-enforcing-n...

Mounties Get Lesson On Gun Regulations
Northeast News By: Joei Warm September 5, 2007

DAWSON CREEK - Local RCMP have been enforcing firearm regulations
incorrectly. Thanks to an incident with a knowledgeable citizen, they
learned they have been applying the transportation regulations for
'restricted' firearms to even 'non-restricted' ones.

They discovered their mistake when they pulled two hunters over for a
routine traffic stop Aug. 24 and tried to seize two hunting rifles
sitting unloaded between the seats in the truck. Fortunately the
passenger, Jim Parfrey, is a federally-certified master firearms
instructor. His knowledge of the correct regulations led him to insist
RCMP investigate the way they handle these situations. In the end, he
got the firearms back with an acknowledgement from police that he was
right.

"The law is nebulous," said S/Sgt. Steve Grant. As soon as the error
was recognized the correct information was circulated to all members.
But "If it's that complex that they don't understand them (the
regulations), then how will that help them?" asked Parfrey.

Ironically, the Canadian Firearms website, which clearly states that
the requirement for safe transportation of nonrestricted firearms is
"unload your weapon", was set up and is operated by the RCMP. "They
didn't even seem to know they had a website," said Parfrey.

"There is no vagueness about the regulations," said BC Wildlife
Federation executive director Paul Adams. "I receive a couple of
complaints like this every year. There is a definite need for
education within the RCMP, especially with the younger officers."

"We can both appreciate that officers place themselves in more danger
than we do but I'm not sure that two old fogies are that much of a
threat," said Pouce Coupe resident and former Northern Lights College
president Jim Kassen, the truck's driver. The men were told their
firearms would be confiscated and that they would be charged with a
criminal offense even after it was seen that the rifles were
unloaded.

"It was extremely frustrating being ridiculed and ordered around,"
said Parfrey. He maintains the officers were angry and treated the men
like criminals. "If she had just said she was uncomfortable with the
firearms and wanted to put them in her car until the matter was
finished with I would have understood and handed them over," said
Parfrey.

"There is a difference in the interpretation of events," said Grant.
"I'm satisfied the officer acted appropriately."

After the matter was resolved Parfrey said the RCMP shift supervisor,
a "very big, well-muscled man", told him he didn't like the way his
officers had been treated and said if he had been the one to stop them
things would have gone worse. Parfrey took exception to what he saw as
intimidation by the supervisor.

Kassen thought the officer was threatening and said, "I had the
feeling his superior overruled him and that he might be feeling
vindictive." He remains concerned that there may be negative
consequences for the duo for standing up for their rights.

Grant doesn't see the situation in the same light but wants to tell
those who feel their rights have been ignored or who feel they've been
mistreated in some way that they're welcome to talk to him. "Come in
and see me."

To begin with, the law on the transportation of non-restricted
firearms is not "nebulous". It might be if you don't know the laws you
are enforcing, but the law is actually quite clear.The regulations
state in part:

Transportation of Non-Restricted Firearms
10(1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) ................, it is unloaded;

That's it. Period. There are further rules if the firearm is in an
unattended vehicle, but this was not the case in this particular
incident. So the only rule for non-restricted firearms is that they
must be unloaded. (plus there are additional stipulations for muzzle
loaders).

The Staff Sargeant in charge of the detachment said that he was
satisfied that the officer had acted appropriately. She didn't know
the law so she made up one of her own which I guess is now considered
to be appropriate behaviour. It is hard to believe that officers
working in Northern B.C. where hunting is a way of life wouldn't be
familiar with even the most basic firearm laws.

Also a bit scary to hear the comments from the RCMP shift supervisor.
If he had been the officer in the field "things would have gone
worse"? It sounds as though it could only have gone worse if he had
tasered them or done something equally violent.

Of course their big mistake was telling the police officer that she
was mistaken in her knowledge of the law. That just stiffens their
backs and you are immediately in trouble.

It has really gotten to the point where if you are a firearm owner you
should avoid contact with the police whenever humanly possible.
Unfortunate.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
and is filed under RCMP, canadian gun, gun control. You can follow any
responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to "RCMP officers enforcing non-existent firearm laws"
old whitguy Says:

September 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
when will the rcmp actually become a police force again? the pc group
that currently make up the force do not inspire confidence.

Bear Child Says:

September 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I have been a Firearms Safety Instructor for the Canadian Firearms Act
for the past 8 years for Members of my Fish & Game Club, and the
general public in my area.

Regularly, I get feed back from my students that they have been
harassed by Provincial Police Officers for incidents exactly the same
as described above. I have taken to handing out to my students the
Canadian Firearms Centre's pamphlet of 'Safe Storage and
Transportation' so they can carry it in their glove compartment. They
then have it available to show zealous Police Officers what the law
actually says!

It is apparent to people my age, having experience with an earlier
generation of Policemen, that the current generation, of mainly urban
raised Police Officers, have a definite anti-gun bias that often is
often demonstrated through poor policing.

Although Boehner did not sue any member of the media, a decision in
the case may shed light on the legality of disclosing the contents of
an illegally taped conversation where the conversation does not
involve threats of violence. (Boehner v. McDermott)

All articles except the first one were taken from: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Recording Phone Calls. In Connecticut, recording of
phone calls is regulated more strictly than merely listening
to phone calls. Federal law treats both activities the same,
but Connecticut state law limits recording more strictly,
prohibiting recording except whe
(a) all parties to the call (not just one party)consent to the
recording; or
(b) all parties to the call are informed at the start of the
conversation that it will be taped; or
(c) a warning tone is repeated every 15 seconds during the
part of the call being taped.
The strict requirements under the Connecticut law are
important reminders to always check local laws. You can't
simply rely on federal law alone, or on what you hear on the news
about cases in other states.
www.levettrockwood.com/news9-98.pdf

On Sep 17, 6:22 am, lostintranslation
wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:11 am, lostintranslation
wrote:



On Sep 17, 1:44 am, Greegor wrote:

http://totalrecoil.wordpress.com/200...rs-enforcing-n...

Mounties Get Lesson On Gun Regulations
Northeast News By: Joei Warm September 5, 2007

DAWSON CREEK - Local RCMP have been enforcing firearm regulations
incorrectly. Thanks to an incident with a knowledgeable citizen, they
learned they have been applying the transportation regulations for
'restricted' firearms to even 'non-restricted' ones.

They discovered their mistake when they pulled two hunters over for a
routine traffic stop Aug. 24 and tried to seize two hunting rifles
sitting unloaded between the seats in the truck. Fortunately the
passenger, Jim Parfrey, is a federally-certified master firearms
instructor. His knowledge of the correct regulations led him to insist
RCMP investigate the way they handle these situations. In the end, he
got the firearms back with an acknowledgement from police that he was
right.

"The law is nebulous," said S/Sgt. Steve Grant. As soon as the error
was recognized the correct information was circulated to all members.
But "If it's that complex that they don't understand them (the
regulations), then how will that help them?" asked Parfrey.

Ironically, the Canadian Firearms website, which clearly states that
the requirement for safe transportation of nonrestricted firearms is
"unload your weapon", was set up and is operated by the RCMP. "They
didn't even seem to know they had a website," said Parfrey.

"There is no vagueness about the regulations," said BC Wildlife
Federation executive director Paul Adams. "I receive a couple of
complaints like this every year. There is a definite need for
education within the RCMP, especially with the younger officers."

"We can both appreciate that officers place themselves in more danger
than we do but I'm not sure that two old fogies are that much of a
threat," said Pouce Coupe resident and former Northern Lights College
president Jim Kassen, the truck's driver. The men were told their
firearms would be confiscated and that they would be charged with a
criminal offense even after it was seen that the rifles were
unloaded.

"It was extremely frustrating being ridiculed and ordered around,"
said Parfrey. He maintains the officers were angry and treated the men
like criminals. "If she had just said she was uncomfortable with the
firearms and wanted to put them in her car until the matter was
finished with I would have understood and handed them over," said
Parfrey.

"There is a difference in the interpretation of events," said Grant.
"I'm satisfied the officer acted appropriately."

After the matter was resolved Parfrey said the RCMP shift supervisor,
a "very big, well-muscled man", told him he didn't like the way his
officers had been treated and said if he had been the one to stop them
things would have gone worse. Parfrey took exception to what he saw as
intimidation by the supervisor.

Kassen thought the officer was threatening and said, "I had the
feeling his superior overruled him and that he might be feeling
vindictive." He remains concerned that there may be negative
consequences for the duo for standing up for their rights.

Grant doesn't see the situation in the same light but wants to tell
those who feel their rights have been ignored or who feel they've been
mistreated in some way that they're welcome to talk to him. "Come in
and see me."

To begin with, the law on the transportation of non-restricted
firearms is not "nebulous". It might be if you don't know the laws you
are enforcing, but the law is actually quite clear.The regulations
state in part:

Transportation of Non-Restricted Firearms
10(1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) ................, it is unloaded;

That's it. Period. There are further rules if the firearm is in an
unattended vehicle, but this was not the case in this particular
incident. So the only rule for non-restricted firearms is that they
must be unloaded. (plus there are additional stipulations for muzzle
loaders).

The Staff Sargeant in charge of the detachment said that he was
satisfied that the officer had acted appropriately. She didn't know
the law so she made up one of her own which I guess is now considered
to be appropriate behaviour. It is hard to believe that officers
working in Northern B.C. where hunting is a way of life wouldn't be
familiar with even the most basic firearm laws.

Also a bit scary to hear the comments from the RCMP shift supervisor.
If he had been the officer in the field "things would have gone
worse"? It sounds as though it could only have gone worse if he had
tasered them or done something equally violent.

Of course their big mistake was telling the police officer that she
was mistaken in her knowledge of the law. That just stiffens their
backs and you are immediately in trouble.

It has really gotten to the point where if you are a firearm owner you
should avoid contact with the police whenever humanly possible.
Unfortunate.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
and is filed under RCMP, canadian gun, gun control. You can follow any
responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to "RCMP officers enforcing non-existent firearm laws"
old whitguy Says:

September 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
when will the rcmp actually become a police force again? the pc group
that currently make up the force do not inspire confidence.

Bear Child Says:

September 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I have been a Firearms Safety Instructor for the Canadian Firearms Act
for the past 8 years for Members of my Fish & Game Club, and the
general public in my area.

Regularly, I get feed back from my students that they have been
harassed by Provincial Police Officers for incidents exactly the same
as described above. I have taken to handing out to my students the
Canadian Firearms Centre's pamphlet of 'Safe Storage and
Transportation' so they can carry it in their glove compartment. They
then have it available to show zealous Police Officers what the law
actually says!

It is apparent to people my age, having experience with an earlier
generation of Policemen, that the current generation, of mainly urban
raised Police Officers, have a definite anti-gun bias that often is
often demonstrated through poor policing.

Although Boehner did not sue any member of the media, a decision in
the case may shed light on the legality of disclosing the contents of
an illegally taped conversation where the conversation does not
involve threats of violence. (Boehner v. McDermott)

All articles except the first one were taken from: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Recording Phone Calls. In Connecticut, recording of
phone calls is regulated more strictly than merely listening
to phone calls. Federal law treats both activities the same,
but Connecticut state law limits recording more strictly,
prohibiting recording except whe
(a) all parties to the call (not just one party)consent to the
recording; or
(b) all parties to the call are informed at the start of the
conversation that it will be taped; or
(c) a warning tone is repeated every 15 seconds during the
part of the call being taped.
The strict requirements under the Connecticut law are
important reminders to always check local laws. You can't
simply rely on federal law alone, or on what you hear on the news
about cases in other states.www.levettrockwood.com/news9-98.pdf

Greg
You said a little bit back that there are higher laws and caselaws.
The higher federal law pertaining to recording laws does NOT outrule
individual state laws regarding recording phone conversations.
Meaning, one can not record a phone conversation in a one party state
and use the federal law as a defense. It doesn't work that way. Even
the case law cases I have read all basically say the same thing: You
broke state law. Here's your fine and here's your jailtime. Have a
nice day. There are very few exceptions but those exceptions protect
certain individuals and certain incidences; not a general rule of
thumb. Is it clear YET that you have been beat on this one?

In regards to this case where the kid records the cop making threats;
The officer acknowledges he saw the camera. He did not say to stop
the recording. He did not make any attempts to break the camera.
Therefore, it will be considered as consent to record. He knew he was
being recorded and did NOT object to it. If, on the otherhand, the
officer saw the camera and he demanded it be turned off and it was not
turned off, there is reason to believe that driver might have been
charged. However, on the same hand, police officers acting in the
public eye do not have reasonable expectations of privacy so it is a
sticky-wicket.

"lostintranslation" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.'

Correct. Some people here have argued that if making a recoding on one
state of a person in another state where it is unlawful to record without
permission or a warrant is perfectly legal because in the originating state
one can record without permission or warrant that it is legal. They are
wrong.

However when speaking of recording a government employee (the original
issue here) such as a CPS worker visiting your home, some have incorrectly
argued that the CPS worker has an "expectation of privacy." That argument is
pure horse-****. Same if it is a law enforcement officer. Same would apply
out on the sidewalk. There is NO expectation of privacy in public. But the
advocates can try to make the argument that public acts are private. It
hasn't really worked well in the courts as I am SURE Attorney Dan Sullivan
can tell us.

On Sep 17, 8:22 am, "KRP" wrote:
"lostintranslation" wrote in message

ups.com...

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.'

Correct. Some people here have argued that if making a recoding on one
state of a person in another state where it is unlawful to record without
permission or a warrant is perfectly legal because in the originating state
one can record without permission or warrant that it is legal. They are
wrong.

However when speaking of recording a government employee (the original
issue here) such as a CPS worker visiting your home, some have incorrectly
argued that the CPS worker has an "expectation of privacy." That argument is
pure horse-****.

Why?

Got citations?

Same if it is a law enforcement officer. Same would apply
out on the sidewalk. There is NO expectation of privacy in public. But the
advocates can try to make the argument that public acts are private. It
hasn't really worked well in the courts as I am SURE Attorney Dan Sullivan
can tell us.

"It hasn't really worked well in the courts?"

Why don't YOU tells us, kenny boy?

It's YOUR claim.

Got citations?

How 'bout this???

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.

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.

Greg?