AKC Master wrote:
Ok, whatever you think, but:

Federal law allows recording of phone calls

and other electronic communications with the

consent of at least one party to the call.


Friendly disagreement here. If that were true, the federal law would
supercede many state laws in this regards.

A majority of the states and territories have

adopted wiretapping statutes based on the

federal law, although most also have extended
the law to cover in-person conversations.


Wiretapping is very different than the mere taping of a conversation.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia
permit individuals to record conversations to

which they are a party without informing the

other parties that they are doing so.


But if federal law supercedes state law (as it always does), then the
other states laws are ng. Here's the difference, right from a LEO's
mouth, with a hypothetical situation:
"If Uncle George touches his underaged niece in an inappropriate manner,
the LEOs may enact a scenario, such as having the niece call the uncle,
and ask "Uncle George, why did you do such a thing?"....and the leos can
tape the call. However, a private party may NOT tape a private telephone
conversation without the other parties strict permission. Let's forget
about ALL other scenarios and focus on the telephone, as this is where
he committed his felony. NO state permits the taping of a private
telephone conversation without the permission of the person being taped.
They MUST be informed when this is doen by a private party. The
telephone system is subject to federal statutes, not state and is
governed by the FCC. Email them and ask them about this law. It's a
felony to record a private party conversation on the telephone without
their permission. Such is the reason for the blacking out of the cell
band on scanners.

These laws are referred to as "one-party

consent" statutes, and as long as you are a

party to the conversation, it is legal for you to

record it



Perhaps,,but not on the telephone.

. (Nevada also has a one-party






consent statute, but the state Supreme Court

has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most

circumstances, the consent of all parties to a

conversation. Those jurisdictions are

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and

Washington. Be aware that you will

sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately

as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more

than two people involved in the conversation,

all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always

.illegal to record a conversation to which you

are not a party, do not have consent to tape,

and could not naturally overhear.


Agree.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
Twisty misguidedly wrote:
Besides, you broke the law the second you began taping a telephone
conversation without the person's implicit permission and
acknowlegement.
You're not only a hypocrite when it comes to the law, you're an
uninformed hypocrite concerning the laws of the FCC that govern
communications. Educate yourself.
_
ROFLMAO 100000000 XXXXXXX Twsity the NG Lawyer telling someone else they
are uniformed and calling them a hypocrite, when he is the Biggest
Hypocrite of all Look at his Post anyone most certainly can record the
conversation they are part of and does not have to dosclose to other
party they are being taped. A 3rd party cannot tape 2 people who have no
idea they are being taped.
_
Again, when you manage you compose yourself and remove yourself from
under the table, educate yourself on this matter. This is why you suffer
such a great communication deficit. Your ignorance has no bounds,
despite being properly informed, repeatedly.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:27923-41B5C689-445
@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net:
Nope. It is illegal to tape a private conversation without the explicit
permission of the partiy OR parties being taped. In other words, it is
illegal to tape a party without their knowledge.

Bull****, you lying sac of man ****, not if the

person doing the taping is part of the

conversation.


LOL,,I checked and rechecked this,,,not only is it illegal, it's a
felony. Once again, get yourself educated.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:29441-41B70F4D-19
@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net:
LOL,,I checked and rechecked this,,,not only is it illegal, it's a
felony. Once again, get yourself educated.

You have checked with the wrong people


No,,you have.

then, or the wrong state, i work with law

enforcement officials on a daily basis

What type? I mean, it really has no merit or relation, but YOU mentioned
it so you wanted it known. What type?


this has come up in may scenarios such as

wire taps also law enforcement have cameras

in thier cruisers and wear microphones they

dont have to and dont tell you that you are

being audio and video recoreded anything you
say can be used as evidence against you.


Correct. LEO's are permitted to so in many states when investigating
crimes, but you are not a LEO.

I can record a phone conversation with you

and not tell you,


You sure can, but it makes you a felon.

i cannot record you and landshark talking with

out telling either of you. End of story.


You sure can, but it sill makes you a felon. Please cite the LEA you
invoked that gave you poor and incorrect advice. Their department
attorney needs to know they have an active LEO running around that isn't
educated on the laws they are to enforce. In fact, now that you
mentioned a LEO told you this, if there are ANY cases involving this
alleged LEO that have anything to do with such in the past, grounds
exist to have the case tossed out or even overturned. Why do I have this
feeling you won't address the LEA the LEO allegedly belongs to that
allegedlytold you this bull****.
Nevertheless, I already checked this and rechecked it, you have not and
are relying on mistaken persoal belief, so you are free to believe
whatever you will...contact the FCC and ask them. It is your right to
insist on remaining wrong and in the dark even when the information is
made available to you. Then pluck the feathers from the ornithological
dining experience from whcih you are so familiar. In the mean time,
continue to "x-no archive" your posts and scream about all you do not
comprehend. While you are at it, blame me a few more times for your
ignorance and plight.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:29441-41B70F4D-19
@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net:

You sure can, but it sill makes you a felon. Please cite the LEA you
invoked that gave you poor and incorrect advice. Their department
attorney needs to know they have an active LEO running around that isn't
educated on the laws they are to enforce. In fact, now that you
mentioned a LEO told you this, if there are ANY cases involving this
alleged LEO that have anything to do with such in the past, grounds
exist to have the case tossed out or even overturned. Why do I have this
feeling you won't address the LEA the LEO allegedly belongs to that
allegedlytold you this bull****.
Nevertheless, I already checked this and rechecked it, you have not and
are relying on mistaken persoal belief, so you are free to believe
whatever you will...contact the FCC and ask them. It is your right to
insist on remaining wrong and in the dark even when the information is
made available to you. Then pluck the feathers from the ornithological
dining experience from whcih you are so familiar. In the mean time,
continue to "x-no archive" your posts and scream about all you do not
comprehend. While you are at it, blame me a few more times for your
ignorance and plight.

Why even bother with Geo WA3MOJ? He will argue, just for the sake of
causing hate & discontent. He doesn't care about anything other than being a
troll and harassing CB'rs, in
CB group.

Landshark


--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
i work with law

enforcement officials on a daily basis

What type? I mean, it really has no merit or relation, but YOU mentioned
it so you wanted it known. What type?

this has come up in may scenarios such as

wire taps also law enforcement have cameras

in thier cruisers and wear microphones they

dont have to and dont tell you that you are

being audio and video recoreded anything you
say can be used as evidence against you.

Correct. LEO's are permitted to so in many states when investigating
crimes, but you are not a LEO.

No pulling you over for speeding, or a traffic

violation is not a crime.



Only you misinterpret it to have a relation.
Pulling one over for whatever reason takes place in public. The Supreme
Court ruled one does not have a reasonable right to expect privacy in
public.

Spin some more yarn


You are the only one confused with this issue and insisting on remaining
ignorant, despite being properly informed several times. You claimed you
taped a private party on a telephone call initiated by yourself, and the
person on the other end was not informed you were taping them. If that's
the case, you're a felon, and blaming me and conjuring up images of
traffic law and other irrelevant scenarios won't change that, or your
ignorance. Carry on.

Twist, read these. I think you'll see it is you who misunderstood. One party
consent is legal in most states. Need more? I suppose I can did deeper.


http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

http://www.jhllp.com/CM/Articles/Articles17.asp

Nah,,,I like the links you provided.
Conclusion
Intercepting and monitoring telephone conversations, even if done with
the best of intentions, can have serious legal consequences. State and
federal law provide criminal penalties for the unauthorized recording of
telephone conversations, and the person whose conversations have been
intercepted may seek to recover money from the responsible parties as
well. Before embarking on any course which might violate state or
federal laws regulating the interception of telephone conversations, it
is imperative that advice be obtained from experienced, competent legal
counsel.
=A9 FindLaw. All rights reserved.
Firm=A0Overview=A0| Attorney=A0Profiles=A0| Client=A0Testimonials=A0|
Articles=A0| Newsletters=A0| Client=A0Rights=A0| FAQs=A0|
Resource=A0Links=A0| Agencies/Other=A0Resources=A0|
-
So,,let us get back to the issue at hand, shall we? The issue was, he
claimed he recorded a telephone conversation without the other parties
consent. I claimed it was a felony. He claimed it was legal for him to
do so. He resides in a two party consent state. That make HIS
actions...illegal. He called a party out of state. That not only
involves the other state, but makes it a federal issue. Federal issues,
when arising verses state issues, always win. Read your link. It
reiterates one who thinks they are legal under the laws of their state,
should retain counsel before taping telephone conversations, as there
are too many other implications and variables relating to this issue.
Your link also claims that one may seek damages against his actions.
Picture this. The place he turns in is busted...say they get an NAL. The
business, in turn, seeks damages against the one who made the call.
Since our boy broke the law by illegal taping (by virtue of living in a
two party consent state, if nothing else), he is in heap trouble, for
sure. A decent lawyer wouldn't even allow the fact the NAL was issued to
even be entered or brought up as a defense tactic, as it happened after
the fact, and would not exist if not for the crime of illegal taping.
Bottom line, is I never contested state law and never claimed to know
each state's law, with the exception of California and Florida. Federal
law supersedes state law and the implementation of wire tapping done by
a private party without the other party's consent is illegal, as held by
the United States Government. Once again,,,,,,,bottom line is our boy is
an illegal felon for his actions and invoking all 50 states and their
laws and my knowledge of such will not change that fact. His acts being
legal or illegal were the topic, not whether an act that is illegal per
the US government is tolerated in certain states, as for the last time,
state laws are tossed aside when they conflict with federal laws. If
states do not follow the federal law, even when their own state laws may
differ, they are threatened of having ALL federal monies
and benefits stripped. I'm sure I can find many links illustrating
federal law supersedes state laws, if you need more information. The pot
laws regarding medicinal purposes in many states is a picture-perfect
exampe of the feds exercising their rights over state law.