LogFAQs > #886183097

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Here is a letter I sent to my attorney explaining how I broke no laws.
DawkinsNumber4 09/07/17 11:12:21 AM #179:	Balrog0 posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... The argument is also moot considering I already cited federal case law saying the same thing in United States vs. Harpel. it's not the same thing, though, because federal law doesn't stipulate two-party consent it is possible and maybe even probable that you could win this, but the standing for other states/jurisdictions rulings is not binding so it's not a sure thing All parties must consent to the interception of the communication. Federal law and Maryland law have the same definition of intercept. Using a personal telephone as a telephone is not an electronic, mechanical, or other device. Furthermore, even if it was, when you talk to someone on the telephone you are consenting to the interception of your sent communication by both the recipient phone and the person utilizing said recipient phone to aurally intercept the communication. In this case an electronic communication. Only "oral communications" deal with privacy. The rest are only relevant if A. an intercept according to the statute happens, and B. whether or not all parties consented to it if so. When a phone is used as telephones are intended to be used it cannot be a statutory intercept. This is according to federal law. Federal definitions of "intercept" are the same as MD law (and PA). This is why they cite federal law. We have to prove an intercept was performed and that all parties didn't consent to it. With a telephone being an excluded electronic, mechanical, or other device, then we cannot even say an intercept occurred under law. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:886183097] in Here is a ... [t:75749597]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote>The argument is also moot considering I already cited federal case law saying the same thing in United States vs. Harpel.</quote> it's not the same thing, though, because federal law doesn't stipulate two-party consent it is possible and maybe even probable that you could win this, but the standing for other states/jurisdictions rulings is not binding so it's not a sure thing</quote> All parties must consent to the interception of the communication. Federal law and Maryland law have the same definition of intercept. Using a personal telephone as a telephone is not an electronic, mechanical, or other device. Furthermore, even if it was, when you talk to someone on the telephone you are consenting to the interception of your sent communication by both the recipient phone and the person utilizing said recipient phone to aurally intercept the communication. In this case an electronic communication. Only "oral communications" deal with privacy. The rest are only relevant if A. an intercept according to the statute happens, and B. whether or not all parties consented to it if so. When a phone is used as telephones are intended to be used it cannot be a statutory intercept. This is according to federal law. Federal definitions of "intercept" are the same as MD law (and PA). This is why they cite federal law. We have to prove an intercept was performed and that all parties didn't consent to it. With a telephone being an excluded electronic, mechanical, or other device, then we cannot even say an intercept occurred under law. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1