|
saturday was great
Just a quick update for the AKC.
There was recorded telephone conversation between a "customer" and a keyclown supplier. The conversation consisted of the keyclown supplier offering to add 11 meters to a superstar radio. The conversation then progressed to what type of amp the superstar "would best drive". The customer was assured that by purchasing them both together a "perfect match" was assured. (Are you keyclowns really THAT stupid??) Oh, and did I mention, This is a VERY prominent keyclown supplier. The tapes along with a letter are on the way to Dallas. I understand the "customer" also offered to complete the transaction under the supervision of the authorities. Life is good. Uncle Hal |
"Uncle Hal" Don't Bother wrote in message om... Just a quick update for the AKC. There was recorded telephone conversation between a "customer" and a keyclown supplier. The conversation consisted of the keyclown supplier offering to add 11 meters to a superstar radio. The conversation then progressed to what type of amp the superstar "would best drive". The customer was assured that by purchasing them both together a "perfect match" was assured. (Are you keyclowns really THAT stupid??) Oh, and did I mention, This is a VERY prominent keyclown supplier. The tapes along with a letter are on the way to Dallas. I understand the "customer" also offered to complete the transaction under the supervision of the authorities. Life is good. Uncle Hal If the Feds cared, they'd have done it themselves. Did Barney Fife of Mayberry inspire this undercover work? |
"Uncle Hal" Don't Bother wrote in message . com...
Just a quick update for the AKC. There was recorded telephone conversation between a "customer" and a keyclown supplier. The conversation consisted of the keyclown supplier offering to add 11 meters to a superstar radio. The conversation then progressed to what type of amp the superstar "would best drive". The customer was assured that by purchasing them both together a "perfect match" was assured. (Are you keyclowns really THAT stupid??) Oh, and did I mention, This is a VERY prominent keyclown supplier. The tapes along with a letter are on the way to Dallas. I understand the "customer" also offered to complete the transaction under the supervision of the authorities. Life is good. Uncle Hal Mystery shopping is so much fun! |
|
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... Reply to: "Uncle Hal" I don't Want To Hear From You! From: "Uncle Hal" Don't Bother Group: rec.radio.cb Subject: saturday was great Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2004, 7:26am (EST-1) Organization: Don't Write X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Complaints-To: Just a quick update for the AKC. There was recorded telephone conversation between a "customer" and a keyclown supplier. The FCC can do nothing but contact the person. The FCC must personally witness the infraction prior to ANY action against the offender. 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. Twist, I *think* you might be mistaken on this one. The way *I* understand it, it is legal to tape a telephone conversation as long as one of the parties is aware it is being taped. Basically, it prevents wire-tapping where neither party is aware. A case in point would be where a husband who suspects his wife of cheating tapes her and the guy she is cheating with, without the knowledge of either. I know that is illegal, because we had a city councilman do that here...he wound up getting federal charges and felony for his eavesdropping. But, I still think it is legal for a person to tape another party without telling them. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. |
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:46:48 GMT, "U Know Who"
wrote: "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... Reply to: "Uncle Hal" I don't Want To Hear From You! From: "Uncle Hal" Don't Bother Group: rec.radio.cb Subject: saturday was great Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2004, 7:26am (EST-1) Organization: Don't Write X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Complaints-To: Just a quick update for the AKC. There was recorded telephone conversation between a "customer" and a keyclown supplier. The FCC can do nothing but contact the person. The FCC must personally witness the infraction prior to ANY action against the offender. 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. Twist, I *think* you might be mistaken on this one. The way *I* understand it, it is legal to tape a telephone conversation as long as one of the parties is aware it is being taped. Basically, it prevents wire-tapping where neither party is aware. A case in point would be where a husband who suspects his wife of cheating tapes her and the guy she is cheating with, without the knowledge of either. I know that is illegal, because we had a city councilman do that here...he wound up getting federal charges and felony for his eavesdropping. But, I still think it is legal for a person to tape another party without telling them. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Depends on what state you are in. In Texas as long as one party knows it being recorded its legal. |
"Lancer" wrote in message ews.com... On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:46:48 GMT, "U Know Who" wrote: "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... Reply to: "Uncle Hal" I don't Want To Hear From You! From: "Uncle Hal" Don't Bother Group: rec.radio.cb Subject: saturday was great Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2004, 7:26am (EST-1) Organization: Don't Write X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Complaints-To: Just a quick update for the AKC. There was recorded telephone conversation between a "customer" and a keyclown supplier. The FCC can do nothing but contact the person. The FCC must personally witness the infraction prior to ANY action against the offender. 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. Twist, I *think* you might be mistaken on this one. The way *I* understand it, it is legal to tape a telephone conversation as long as one of the parties is aware it is being taped. Basically, it prevents wire-tapping where neither party is aware. A case in point would be where a husband who suspects his wife of cheating tapes her and the guy she is cheating with, without the knowledge of either. I know that is illegal, because we had a city councilman do that here...he wound up getting federal charges and felony for his eavesdropping. But, I still think it is legal for a person to tape another party without telling them. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Depends on what state you are in. In Texas as long as one party knows it being recorded its legal. Same in California. Landshark -- That does suck..sometimes you're the windshield..sometimes you're the bug. |
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:47:56 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: 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. No, anyone can not most certainly can record the conversation they are part of and does not have to dosclose to other party they are being taped. Some states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. It is illegal under all jurisdictions to record calls in which one is not a party. Get your facts staright before you post your crap. |
From:
(U=A0Know=A0Who) "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... Reply to: "Uncle Hal" I don't Want To Hear From You! From: "Uncle Hal" Don't Bother Group: rec.radio.cb Subject: saturday was great Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2004, 7:26am (EST-1) Organization: Don't Write X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-RFC2646: Format=3DFlowed; Original X-Complaints-To: Just a quick update for the AKC. There was recorded telephone conversation between a "customer" and a keyclown supplier. The FCC can do nothing but contact the person. The FCC must personally witness the infraction prior to ANY action against the offender. 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. Twist, I *think* you might be mistaken on this one. The way *I* understand it, it is legal to tape a telephone conversation as long as one of the parties is aware it is being taped. 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. Basically, it prevents wire-tapping where neither party is aware. A case in point would be where a husband who suspects his wife of cheating tapes her and the guy she is cheating with, without the knowledge of either. I know that is illegal, because we had a city councilman do that here...he wound up getting federal charges and felony for his eavesdropping. But, I still think it is legal for a person to tape another party without telling them. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Wiretapping requires a judges order,,the taping of a conversation a person is party to does not. If I were to tape your conversation with a third party, I would be guilty of wiretapping without a judges consent. If I were to tape a private conversation of you and I on the telephone without your consent and knowledge, it could not be used or submitted in a court of law, as it was illegally obtained. One can tape a radio conversation, as it is not private, but one may not tape a private telephone conversation. For quick reference and recall of this topic, I invoke the case of Newt Gingrich having his cell phone conversation taped in Jacksonville, Fl a few years ago. While the recordings were made public and covered what were alleged conversations concerning alleged illegal acts, no action could be taken because of the maner in whcih the info was obtained,,,,illegally. |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:03:25 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: (Twistedhed) wrote in news:27923-41B5C689-445 : 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. Depends on what state you live in. |
|
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:
(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. better tell that to that woman who taped Bill Orielly or how bout Linda Tripp or the Scott Peterson case, no there was no judge permission beforehand and no they were not police officers it was recorded without the other persons knowledge ha ha Tipsy you got nailed in a lie, now do the crow eating shuffle LOL Instead of reaffirming the magnitude of your ignorance in redundant posts, check the law,,I did. One thing I was wrong about, a judges signature is NOT needed in Claifornia IF its in relation to law enforcement when taping a conversation, but a private citizen may not do so. You are now a felon for your acts of taping a party over the phone lines (an interstate commerce, making it federal) without their implicit permission. Better get educated before you wind up in prison. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. |
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. |
Wrong again Tipsy no way you can spin your way out of this one I think
its time for you to eat the crow now LOL |
|
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... 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. But in the case of scanners, neither party knew they were being heard. And anyway, that law is very unique, to a unique situation, due to how pervasive cell phone usage has become, and how that privacy is expected by most users who don't realize it's actually a radio. 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. Twist, states CAN make laws that are more restrictive than federal law. What they cannot do, is take away certain rights. Case in point: It is legal to drink alcohol in public on Sunday in the eyes of the feds. Some states say it is illegal. And this is just one case, there are many others. Where did you get this notion that states laws cannot be more restrictive? |
AKCM wrote:
Twist, states CAN make laws that are more restrictive than federal law. What they cannot do, is take away certain rights. Case in point: It is legal to drink alcohol in public on Sunday in the eyes of the feds. Some states say it is illegal. And this is just one case, there are many others. Where did you get this notion that states laws cannot be more restrictive? I said no such thing. State law can always be more restrictive than federal law, but it may never permit what federal law restricts. I said federal law always supercedes state law. If a state law permits it, (such as medicinal pot) and the federal law restricts it (such as telephone tampering and wiretapping), the federal law wins every time, unless, of course, a state chooses to secede and avail itself of all federal monies and benefits it receives. |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... AKCM wrote: Twist, states CAN make laws that are more restrictive than federal law. What they cannot do, is take away certain rights. Case in point: It is legal to drink alcohol in public on Sunday in the eyes of the feds. Some states say it is illegal. And this is just one case, there are many others. Where did you get this notion that states laws cannot be more restrictive? I said no such thing. State law can always be more restrictive than federal law, but it may never permit what federal law restricts. I said federal law always supercedes state law. If a state law permits it, (such as medicinal pot) and the federal law restricts it (such as telephone tampering and wiretapping), the federal law wins every time, unless, of course, a state chooses to secede and avail itself of all federal monies and benefits it receives. But federal law states you can tape a private conversation as long as one party is aware. |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: i work with law enforcement officials on a daily basis 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 Really, what do you do for a living? |
Really, what do you do for a living?
private eye. |
|
|
|
"Steveo" wrote in message ... itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: i work with law enforcement officials on a daily basis 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 Really, what do you do for a living? He's a tuning fork for radar guns ;) That's why he was selling his radar detector on EBay. 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. |
"Landshark" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: i work with law enforcement officials on a daily basis 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 Really, what do you do for a living? He's a tuning fork for radar guns ;) That's why he was selling his radar detector on EBay. Landshark Radar dectectors are so 90's. Reckon his dad knows he's about to part with his radar detector? Breaker Breaker WA3MOJ. |
From:
(U=A0Know=A0Who) "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... AKCM wrote: Twist, states CAN make laws that are more restrictive than federal law. What they cannot do, is take away certain rights. Case in point: It is legal to drink alcohol in public on Sunday in the eyes of the feds. Some states say it is illegal. And this is just one case, there are many others. Where did you get this notion that states laws cannot be more restrictive? - I said no such thing. State law can always be more restrictive than federal law, but it may never permit what federal law restricts. I said federal law always supercedes state law. If a state law permits it, (such as medicinal pot) and the federal law restricts it (such as telephone tampering and wiretapping), the federal law wins every time, unless, of course, a state chooses to secede and avail itself of all federal monies and benefits it receives. But federal law states you can tape a private conversation as long as one party is aware. Not on the telephone, it doesn't. |
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. |
|
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 |
twithed is too retarded and impressed with his own retardation, to get
the picture. He stays busy pimping FUGGLY. |
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. |
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:32:19 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: (Twistedhed) wrote in news:7084-41B8E350-332 : What type? I mean, it really has no merit or relation, but YOU mentioned it so you wanted it known. What type? correctional Facility i am locked up. mommy sent you to bed without supper again? |
On 10 Dec 2004 01:49:13 -0800, "Psychiatrist to keyclowns"
wrote: twithed is too retarded and impressed with his own retardation, to get the picture. He stays busy pimping FUGGLY. Your Fuggly. Or least that is the name you go by on this group. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com