Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bvw
bvw:
"If there's any case law in Maryland about recording YOUR OWN phone calls, please let us know. You did claim you there was ..."

No, I did NOT make that claim. I said....

OS, in post # 161:
"If the conversations you record in your office are done without the prior knowlege and consent of everyone involved, including those on the other end of the phone line; and your office is in Maryland; then you have just admitted commiting a felony...."

I would also point out that on the page you referenced, the author, a Mr. Kevin Wood, has no title; thus he isn't a lawyer, judge or law professor. His opinion is no more authoritative than yours or mine. Here is a far more reliable source:

NOTE: The following link is to a .pdf document, and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

Opinions of the Attorney General, Opinion No. 00-020 (August 11, 2000) (scroll to bottom of page)

The Wiretap Act defines "intercept" to mean "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." CJ §10-401(3).9 The federal statute contains an identical definition. 18 U.S.C. §2510(4).

Interestingly, that was written two years ago by someone we're all very familiar with now - Chief Charles Moose, Phd. And as for the rest of your post....

OS, from post # 191:
"You say I must provide years-old news articles to back up a passing comment. Sorry, I'm not your research assistant. You are focused in on irrelevant peripheral issues (the Linda Tripp case), taking the thread away from the real issue at hand. That is the fedgovthugs harrassing and intimidating law-abiding gun owners.... remember ??? .... Sorry, you're just wasting our time here. I'm not playing your game."

I'm done with this irrelevant topic, and with you.

194 posted on 10/28/2002 9:03:30 PM PST by Vigilant1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]


To: Vigilant1
You claimed there were -- as your remembered reading -- a whole lot of cases where people were prosecuted for recording THEIR OWN phone calls. You haven't -- and frankly cannot -- back that up.

Now you also seem to be taking Chief "White-Van" Moose as some sort of authority, yet even that quote does NOT contradict the well-thought, well-researched legal analysis by Mr. Woods. In that piece Mr. Woods lays-out the one of the few relevant case law cites. This is from a Federal Appeals Court since cites for such cases are rare, yet as Mr. Woods clearly explains the legislative intent is the same in both Federal and the derivative Maryland statutes.

I emphasize the word legislative because, well, legislators are mere laymen and laywomen -- in this country election to a law-making body is not restricted to some elite group of lawyers, judges, professors -- at least last time I looked. Yet these very laymen write the law. Why then do you hold the clearly well-reasoned and well-researched views of a layman is such disregard. That is un-American, illogical, and unfair.

195 posted on 10/29/2002 5:44:35 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson