Uuuuhhh, hey Eric you dumbass, that wasn't like Rodney King, that was Don King, dillweed. Rodney was like the guy who was beaten senseless by the cops, for like uuuuhhhh, stealing some nachos or something.
Posted on 09/23/2009 2:35:47 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Linda Tripp will not be convicted of a crime for “recording” her conversations with Lewinsky because she did not “intercept” a communication. Below you’ll find a rather detailed explanation why. But it’s important to realize that the press reporting on this story is either so uneducated and uninformed that they cannot even read the text of the law applicable to Linda, or they are intentionally misrepresenting the law because of a pathological dislike for Linda and her actions. Whichever, there must be at least one honest and competent reporter out there interested in the truth about what Maryland law DOES say rather than what the great majority erroneously THINKS it says.
False Assumption #1: Maryland law prohibits the “taping” or “recording” of conversations without the consent of all persons.
The Truth #1: Maryland law prohibits the “interception” of “communications” without the consent of all persons to the communication and does not even mention “taping” or “recording” anywhere in the part of the statute related to criminal violations.
Explanation #1: Maryland law states the following verbatim:
Unlawful acts. — Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or
(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(a)(1)-(a)(3). (emphasis added)
Nowhere in the law are the words “tape” or “record” ever used.
Request to the Press #1: Stop incorrectly reporting that Maryland law prohibits the “taping” or “recording” of conversations without the consent of all persons and instead properly report that Maryland law prohibits the “interception” of “communications” without the consent of all parties.
Consent is addressed in the following provision of Maryland law:
It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution of laws of the United States or of this State. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(c)(3). (emphasis added)
“Screw acorn. What will be now be unleashed is the greatest legal defense fund in history that will empower these young heroes to penetrate the inner being of this vile entity with the unholy wrath on legions on conservative lawyers who will disembowel acrap and its leaders. Fund raising will start Monday on your favorite talk host. Good luck Commies!!! it will be MILLIONS!!!!! (I will give $1,776 quick)”
How do you REALLY feel about this issue, LF?
Anybody can file suit. The question is if the state will dismiss it on request.
Can we get a copy of the filing?
All of the text you cite is listed in the lawsuit including the “intercept” word.
Yup. Scroll back through this thread. Someone posted a link to it.
Uuuuhhh, hey Eric you dumbass, that wasn't like Rodney King, that was Don King, dillweed. Rodney was like the guy who was beaten senseless by the cops, for like uuuuhhhh, stealing some nachos or something.
The video taping was not 'intercepted'! James O'Keefe directly taped the criminals in action which is not unlawful in the state of Maryland according to their laws on the books.
FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
tgo (mark levin) says the discovery process can be hell
meaning - in their defense, they can place anyone and everyone under oath - subpoena any and all documents - give an anal exam to anyone that has ever uttered the word acorn
this could include members of congress and even der fuhrer
acorn and their advisers are idiots for doing this - i bet a legal foundation would gladly take them on as clients - i also bet the suit will be withdrawn before sunrise
“It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication”
I am curious as to what “intercept an ORAL communication” would entail. Any thoughts?
And yet they made Linda poor defending herself.
And yet they made Linda poor defending herself.
ping
No that is not what the law says or requires. These are people providing a service to the public. they have NO expectation of privacy in their comments. This suit is going nowhere ( except maybe some stupid judge who has a sister or an in-law in ACORN)
It could be good. Since the recordings themselves will probably have to be admitted into evidence and shown to the jury, it's possible that one or more members of the jury will be so outraged over the contents that they'll exercise their prerogative to engage in a little "jury nullification" and refuse to find for the plaintiffs.
You make a good point. How exactly does one “intercept” an oral communication, which is transmitted neither electronically nor telephonically? The statute doesn’t define the term, and I think it’s problematic with regard to oral communications.
The two party system has failed. It just doesn’t matter MUCH anymore, which one is in.
David Souter was replaced by Sotomoyer...and not a single thing on the SCOTUS has changed.
I’m totally looking at third parties.
After that, there’s nothing but revolution.
Because it funds homes for the downtrodden, unlucky and irresponsible - the Liberal “victim” base.
Lest we forget voter fraud.
The two party system has failed. It just doesn’t matter MUCH anymore, which one is in.
David Souter was replaced by Sotomoyer...and not a single thing on the SCOTUS has changed.
I’m totally looking at third parties.
After that, there’s nothing but revolution.
+++++++++++++++
I know you’re disgusted, but are you saying you will not support Conservative Republicans? The problem with 3rd parties are historical, systemic, legal and practical in the USA. Think about this before you toss your vote there.
In the history of the United States, not a single third party has come close to winning the presidency, only 7 3rd parties have even won a single state’s electoral votes and only 5 third parties have won even 10% of the vote.
For instance the lack of any proportional representation prevents 3rd parties from receiving any electoral representation. This is why we see 3rd parties laboring for 50, 75 years for NOTHING.
Also, 3rd party candidates now need to be polling 15% prior to the debates to be included. That would have eliminated both Perot and Anderson from the debates they participated in in 1992 and 1980. What chance is there if we’re not even included at all in a seat at the table? Do you relish laboring and financing a national 3rd party candidate that’s marginalized? If someone can show me a strategy that would bring a 3rd party candidate to the debates - I’m willing to listen.
Better option would be work within particular states that are most amendable to 3rd party candidates and begin there to field candidates and win electorally. The Reform Party did this (MN), but didn’t have a lasting vision/energy. Without some strategy toward electoral success, forget about it, it’s just a waste of time, treasure and talent.
You can certainly advocate for changes to the laws (hmmm, tough to do without any electoral power), but I think remaking the Republican party is a better short to medium term goal, perhaps in conjunction with changing laws related to 3rd parties.
So I would ask again - what is your strategy? I really am intrigued by what people think we can actually do, and how.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.