Gee Davie,,the more you blow smoke out your ass, the more ignorant you
become, but I don't mind educating lids like yourself and
Gillinad,,,now, before you react and go to pieces, try educating
yourself on the law of communication,,,you know,,,the thing in which you
hold a license but still seem unable to learn anything concerning
it.....
_
9th Circuit Decides Wiretap Act Case
8/14.
=A0=A0The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in
Price v. Turner, a civil suit alleging violation of the Wiretap Act in
connection with the monitoring of cordless phone conversations. However,
since the events giving rise to this case occurred ten years ago, this
appeal was decided according to state of federal law prior to the 1994
amendments to the Wiretap Act.
Frank Turner used a radio scanner to listen to and record conversations
of his neighbors who used cordless telephones. These phones used analog
radio signals at fixed frequencies, and hence, were easy to monitor. He
heard discussions of criminal activities. Turner also informed the El
Dorado County Sheriff's Department, which told him to continue, and
provided him assistance. All of the intercepted phone communications at
issue in this case took place prior to the 1994 amendments to the
Wiretap Act. One person whose conversations he monitored was Leora
Price.
Price filed a civil complaint against Frank Turner and El Dorado County
alleging, among other things, violation of the Wiretap Act, invasion of
privacy, and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. =A7 1983. The District
Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all of Price's federal
claims. Price appealed.
The Appeals Court wrote that "At the time of its original enactment in
1968, the Wiretap Act did not expressly refer to the monitoring of radio
transmissions. When Congress enlarged the Act's coverage in 1986,
Congress explicitly excepted protection for the 'radio portion of a
cordless telephone communication.' ... It was not until 1994 that
Congress amended the Act to prohibit the interception of cordless
telephone communications." The Appeals Court affirmed.
_
Gee.....(caw.......caw........caw)
Delivered-To: =A0=A0 From: =A0=A0
(Twistedhed) Date: =A0=A0 Sun, Sep 7, 2003, 8:17pm
To: =A0=A0 Subject: =A0=A0 Cordless Phone law
Cordless Phone Conversations Can Be Private. Eavesdropping Can Be
Prosecuted!
_
Gee Davie-son,,,and here we have one but of MANY examples of a state
upholding the federal law. There's more but this is enough t illustrate
you, a hammie operator, know jack about communication law in the US as
it pertains to your illegal behavior that constitutes a felony that you
and Gilliland claim is legal.
=A0 _
=A0=A0The Michigan Supreme Court held this year that cordless phone
conversations may be considered "private conversations."=A0 In People v.
Stone, the Court approved a criminal prosecution against a husband who
had intercepted and recorded the cordless phone conversations of his
estranged wife.=A0 The Court decided, in a unanimous decision, that even
though a person may know that technology makes it possible to overhear
cordless phone conversations, that person can also presume that others
will obey the criminal law.
The Court ruled that such interception is a violation of the Michigan
eavesdropping statutes, and is also a felony under federal law.=A0 A
person therefore has what is known as a "reasonable expectation of
privacy" as to such communications.=A0 To what extent a "reasonable
expectation of privacy" may apply to a given case is a question of
fact.=A0 Cordless telephones apply; party lines do not.=A0 The inquiring
husband in Stone, therefore, was properly prosecuted under Michigan law.
COUPE, VAN ALLSBURG & PATER, P.C.
774 S. Washington Ave.
P.O. Box 1408
Holland MI 49422-1408
(616) 396-8883 ext 103
FAX (616) 396-8536

-
Gee, let's see again an active communication's law firm interpretation:

"and is also a felony under federal law.=A0"
=A0
=A0Hmmm,,,but we should believe Frankie and Hall, NOT the lawyers who
have been involved with such cases.
So, we now have Hall, who admitted to committing this FELONY, and
Gillinad who claims it isn't illegal to intentionally monitor a private
phone conversation.
Keep entertaining us, Frankie,, with the felonious N3CVJ..
You're quite welcome.
You guys really shouldn't shoot your mouths off about things you know
nothing of,,,like communication and communication law.