Current Events > I got denied home incarceration for following the judge's order...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mmhmm sure
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Mmhmm sure

It's true and court will prove it.
---

Okay yeah
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Canuklehead posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

They could have just left when they didn't witness a crime.

Nobody told them they were free to go.

"FREE to go" also means "FREE to stay" because that's what "FREE" means.

Free beer.

Jesus partner stop playing semantics. You just fail at it.

And your court records prove it.
---

Maintains innocence while just coming off a jail sentence
---

Akagami_Shanks posted...

Maintains innocence while just coming off a jail sentence

Awaiting a date in circuit court for an appeal as well.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Akagami_Shanks posted...

Maintains innocence while just coming off a jail sentence

Awaiting a date in circuit court for an appeal as well.

that you are going to lose yet again because you're just wasting time and public resources.
---

GOATTHlEF posted...

Wow man. This is pretty creepy.

Not surprising though
---

oh god, the stalkers thing is making me more paranoid :(.
---

He has two things on the subreddit this close to each other! Hahahaha.
---

GOATTHlEF posted...

The guy was about to leave when he asked for name...
https://www.reddit.com/r/amibeingdetained/comments/6judsc/he_could_have_just_taken_the_elevator_but_nope/djicrqd/

Does this redditor have a point about the situation back in December?

I posted that too before he went to jail.

https://www.reddit.com/r/amibeingdetained/comments/64nkit/am_i_being_detained_no_i_want_to_argue_more_and/
---

ClunkerSlim posted...

Honestly man, please rewrite the scenario according to how you think it should have went down. Because I can't see a single instance where Officer Molinuex did anything wrong or how anymore training would have changed anything.

it most likely means that they would have 1) noticed he was clinically crazy and 2) given info and training on how to interact with inpatient facilities in order to smoothly transition him into that rather than incarceration

he obviously needs institutional care at this point. he cant take care of himself. i think it would be better than jail for him
---

Balrog0 posted...

ClunkerSlim posted...

Honestly man, please rewrite the scenario according to how you think it should have went down. Because I can't see a single instance where Officer Molinuex did anything wrong or how anymore training would have changed anything.

it most likely means that they would have 1) noticed he was clinically crazy and 2) given info and training on how to interact with inpatient facilities in order to smoothly transition him into that rather than incarceration

he obviously needs institutional care at this point. he cant take care of himself. i think it would be better than jail for him

I know they were supposed to do a psychological screening/test whatever as part of his sentencing.
---

ClunkerSlim posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Akagami_Shanks posted...

Maintains innocence while just coming off a jail sentence

Awaiting a date in circuit court for an appeal as well.

I thought you were appealing the sentence not the verdict? Because I can tell you that no rational human being will ever watch that video and say "not guilty." You MIGHT convince them to give you your phone back. Might.

But you just lost this case in a pretty spectacular way and that was the case where you paid an actual attorney. But now you think you're going to beat federal wiretapping charges with a public defender and a cocksure attitude? Are you crazy? You've not even adequately explained to use why you think you're exempt from Maryland's two party consent law. For God sakes, if they offer you a plea deal then TAKE IT.

---

ClunkerSlim posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Akagami_Shanks posted...

Maintains innocence while just coming off a jail sentence

Awaiting a date in circuit court for an appeal as well.

I thought you were appealing the sentence not the verdict? Because I can tell you that no rational human being will ever watch that video and say "not guilty." You MIGHT convince them to give you your phone back. Might.

But you just lost this case in a pretty spectacular way and that was the case where you paid an actual attorney. But now you think you're going to beat federal wiretapping charges with a public defender and a cocksure attitude? Are you crazy? You've not even adequately explained to use why you think you're exempt from Maryland's two party consent law. For God sakes, if they offer you a plea deal then TAKE IT.

I am not exempt from the law. The law only applies to oral communications or other communications that are intercepted with a device other than a telephone or telegraph equipment furnished by the user or subscriber for connection to the facilities during the ordinary course of its business. Electronic communications.

There is already case law on this. State vs Martin. Went to the court of special appeals in 2014.
---

DelianSK posted...

Balrog0 posted...

ClunkerSlim posted...

Honestly man, please rewrite the scenario according to how you think it should have went down. Because I can't see a single instance where Officer Molinuex did anything wrong or how anymore training would have changed anything.

it most likely means that they would have 1) noticed he was clinically crazy and 2) given info and training on how to interact with inpatient facilities in order to smoothly transition him into that rather than incarceration

he obviously needs institutional care at this point. he cant take care of himself. i think it would be better than jail for him

I know they were supposed to do a psychological screening/test whatever as part of his sentencing.

They did not do that because they are a bit incompetent so I provided them with my own copy from my own work with the Board of Education since they (the courts) messed that up.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

DelianSK posted...

Balrog0 posted...

ClunkerSlim posted...

Honestly man, please rewrite the scenario according to how you think it should have went down. Because I can't see a single instance where Officer Molinuex did anything wrong or how anymore training would have changed anything.

it most likely means that they would have 1) noticed he was clinically crazy and 2) given info and training on how to interact with inpatient facilities in order to smoothly transition him into that rather than incarceration

he obviously needs institutional care at this point. he cant take care of himself. i think it would be better than jail for him

I know they were supposed to do a psychological screening/test whatever as part of his sentencing.

They did not do that because they are a bit incompetent so I provided them with my own copy from my own work with the Board of Education since they (the courts) messed that up.

You didn't prove anything. You were wrong and went to jail
---

don't drop the soap
---

literal_garbage posted...

Do you think that you could stop bothering us with this

/thread
---

So let me just get this straight;
- Wiretapping refers to electronically recording a phone line (or 'wire').
- Maryland is a 2 consent state, that means that all recordings have to have both parties consent to record.
- The above mentioned law was created but does not refer to calls recorded over phones.

So what exactly was the law referring to? What sort of wire-tapping doesn't involve phone lines?

Also, I'm not sure if I missed this, but do you still maintain that the recordings you posted to YouTube were for personal use?

Dash_Harber posted...

So let me just get this straight;
- Wiretapping refers to electronically recording a phone line (or 'wire').
- Maryland is a 2 consent state, that means that all recordings have to have both parties consent to record.
- The above mentioned law was created but does not refer to calls recorded over phones.

So what exactly was the law referring to? What sort of wire-tapping doesn't involve phone lines?

Also, I'm not sure if I missed this, but do you still maintain that the recordings you posted to YouTube were for personal use?

It excludes your own phone when you pay for the line and furnish the connection to the facilities. The law is intended to keep people from eavesdropping. You can't eavesdrop on your own communications.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

So let me just get this straight;
- Wiretapping refers to electronically recording a phone line (or 'wire').
- Maryland is a 2 consent state, that means that all recordings have to have both parties consent to record.
- The above mentioned law was created but does not refer to calls recorded over phones.

So what exactly was the law referring to? What sort of wire-tapping doesn't involve phone lines?

Also, I'm not sure if I missed this, but do you still maintain that the recordings you posted to YouTube were for personal use?

It excludes your own phone when you pay for the line and furnish the connection to the facilities. The law is intended to keep people from eavesdropping. You can't eavesdrop on your own communications.

But the videos you posted on YouTube were for your own personal use?

Also, why does two party consent even exist, then? Since listening in on someone's calls is something else, and two consent means that both parties involved in the conversation (ie; personal use) have to give their consent?

For example, if Jim and Bob are having a conversation, and Sam illegally taps into their phone, then it wouldn't be a case of two party consent, as the two parties (Jim and Bob) are actually being listened to by a third party (Sam).

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

So let me just get this straight;
- Wiretapping refers to electronically recording a phone line (or 'wire').
- Maryland is a 2 consent state, that means that all recordings have to have both parties consent to record.
- The above mentioned law was created but does not refer to calls recorded over phones.

So what exactly was the law referring to? What sort of wire-tapping doesn't involve phone lines?

Also, I'm not sure if I missed this, but do you still maintain that the recordings you posted to YouTube were for personal use?

It excludes your own phone when you pay for the line and furnish the connection to the facilities. The law is intended to keep people from eavesdropping. You can't eavesdrop on your own communications.

But the videos you posted on YouTube were for your own personal use?

Also, why does two party consent even exist, then? Since listening in on someone's calls is something else, and two consent means that both parties involved in the conversation (ie; personal use) have to give their consent?

For example, if Jim and Bob are having a conversation, and Sam illegally taps into their phone, then it wouldn't be a case of two party consent, as the two parties (Jim and Bob) are actually being listened to by a third party (Sam).

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcj§ion=10-401&ext=html&session=2017RS&tab=subject5



https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-harpel

1Harpel also contends that there can be no interception when a telephone extension is used because 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a) excludes from its definition of "electronic, mechanical, or other device" telephone equipment "furnished to the subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business. . . ." He maintains that it is just as likely as not under the evidence that the subject conversation was recorded through the use of an extension telephone and argues that there was therefore no interception. We agree that the evidentiary inferences point to the use of an extension telephone and thus face an interesting issue of statutory construction.
The government has adopted the position of the trial court below that the intercepting device was the recorder and not an extension telephone. While such a view avoids the problem presented, we are simply not persuaded by this contention. 2We agree with appellant that the recording of a conversation is immaterial when the overhearing is itself legal. 2It is the means whereby the contents of the conversation are acquired that is crucial. See State v. Vizzini, 115 N.J.Super. 97, 278 A.2d 235. 1A recording device placed next to, or connected with, a telephone receiver cannot itself be the "acquiring" mechanism. 2It is the receiver which serves this function — the recorder is a mere accessory designed to preserve the contents of the communication. This interpretation comports squarely with the clear distinction drawn between "intercepting" and "recording" under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a), which deals with judicially authorized interceptions:The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. [emphasis added].
1We therefore conclude that the tape recorder in question cannot constitute the intercepting mechanism when used, as it is argued here, connected to a telephone receiver
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...


So you are just going to ignore my question, then?

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...


So you are just going to ignore my question, then?

My response answers your question. The answer is "To prevent eavesdropping". You cannot eavesdrop on your own conversations.
---

So I have a question. Between the moment of the police entering the lobby of your building and this conversation today... do you take any responsibility for the situation as it unfolded, the ensuing legal troubles and your eventual incarceration? Like does ANY of the blame fall on you in your eyes?
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...


So you are just going to ignore my question, then?

My response answers your question. The answer is "To prevent eavesdropping". You cannot eavesdrop on your own conversations.

Then the law makes zero sense; if a third party is recording, there are three parties involved, not two.

Anyway, I asked another question; Do you still maintain all your recordings, including the ones you uploaded to YouTube, were for personal use?

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...


So you are just going to ignore my question, then?

My response answers your question. The answer is "To prevent eavesdropping". You cannot eavesdrop on your own conversations.

Then the law makes zero sense; if a third party is recording, there are three parties involved, not two.

Anyway, I asked another question; Do you still maintain all your recordings, including the ones you uploaded to YouTube, were for personal use?

"Recording" and "intercepting" are not the same thing. You can intercept without recording. For example if someone connects a device to your home landline to listen to YOUR phone calls without your knowledge. It doesn't even have to be a recording, just the simple fact they are listening without concept. Their hearing is where the intercept occurs because they shouldn't be listening.
---

GOATTHlEF posted...

You got beat up by the racists, didn't you? That's why you won't talk about it?

No it was just not anything important but a 5 minute loud verbal altercation.
---

GOATTHlEF posted...

What was it about?

Pancakes.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...


So you are just going to ignore my question, then?

My response answers your question. The answer is "To prevent eavesdropping". You cannot eavesdrop on your own conversations.

Then the law makes zero sense; if a third party is recording, there are three parties involved, not two.

Anyway, I asked another question; Do you still maintain all your recordings, including the ones you uploaded to YouTube, were for personal use?

"Recording" and "intercepting" are not the same thing. You can intercept without recording. For example if someone connects a device to your home landline to listen to YOUR phone calls without your knowledge. It doesn't even have to be a recording, just the simple fact they are listening without concept. Their hearing is where the intercept occurs because they shouldn't be listening.

You still not answering anything.

First, why call it two party consent if it actually refers to a third party intercepting and recording a private conversation?

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...


So you are just going to ignore my question, then?

My response answers your question. The answer is "To prevent eavesdropping". You cannot eavesdrop on your own conversations.

Then the law makes zero sense; if a third party is recording, there are three parties involved, not two.

Anyway, I asked another question; Do you still maintain all your recordings, including the ones you uploaded to YouTube, were for personal use?

"Recording" and "intercepting" are not the same thing. You can intercept without recording. For example if someone connects a device to your home landline to listen to YOUR phone calls without your knowledge. It doesn't even have to be a recording, just the simple fact they are listening without concept. Their hearing is where the intercept occurs because they shouldn't be listening.

You still not answering anything.

First, why call it two party consent if it actually refers to a third party intercepting and recording a private conversation?

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

It's not two party consent. It's "all party consent". Again, it does not apply to your own telephone calls only the telephone calls of other people. it still applies for oral and wire communications not on the telephone though. Remember that's an exclusion.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcj&section=10-401&ext=html&session=2017RS&tab=subject5

"(8) “Electronic, mechanical, or other device” means any device or electronic communication other than:
(i) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or other facility for the transmission of electronic communications, or any component thereof, (a) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business OR furnished by the subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of the service and used in the ordinary course of its business; or (b) being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties; or
(ii) A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal.
"
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

(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;

This is why your question is irrelevant.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

This is why your question is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. You stated before that was the case. I asked for clarification. So ...

Dash_Harber posted...

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

Dash_Harber posted...

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

It's irrelevant because you cannot disseminate a intercept unlawfully if it's not an actual intercept.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

It's irrelevant because you cannot disseminate a intercept unlawfully if it's not an actual intercept.

It's an unrelated question. I'm not tying the two together. Do you maintain that the recordings were all for personal use?

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

It's irrelevant because you cannot disseminate a intercept unlawfully if it's not an actual intercept.

It's an unrelated question. I'm not tying the two together. Do you maintain that the recordings were all for personal use?

Public interest. Obviously I don't post most of my phone calls. So I do it for personal use unless I find something of public interest during the course of my business.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

It's irrelevant because you cannot disseminate a intercept unlawfully if it's not an actual intercept.

It's an unrelated question. I'm not tying the two together. Do you maintain that the recordings were all for personal use?

Public interest. Obviously I don't post most of my phone calls. So I do it for personal use unless I find something of public interest during the course of my business.

So that is a no, you were lying before when you said all your recordings were for personal use? Okay.

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

It's irrelevant because you cannot disseminate a intercept unlawfully if it's not an actual intercept.

It's an unrelated question. I'm not tying the two together. Do you maintain that the recordings were all for personal use?

Public interest. Obviously I don't post most of my phone calls. So I do it for personal use unless I find something of public interest during the course of my business.

So that is a no, you were lying before when you said all your recordings were for personal use? Okay.

They are for personal use but during my personal use if I find something of public interest then it need be disclosed. Why shouldn't it be?
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

It's irrelevant because you cannot disseminate a intercept unlawfully if it's not an actual intercept.

It's an unrelated question. I'm not tying the two together. Do you maintain that the recordings were all for personal use?

Public interest. Obviously I don't post most of my phone calls. So I do it for personal use unless I find something of public interest during the course of my business.

So that is a no, you were lying before when you said all your recordings were for personal use? Okay.

They are for personal use but during my personal use if I find something of public interest then it need be disclosed. Why shouldn't it be?

Did I make a judgment call? No.

I'm simply saying that earlier, in a previous topic, you lied and stated allyour recordings were for personal use. You have now admitted the lie. That is all I was curious about.

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Second, for the fifteenth time; Do you maintain that all your recordings, including the ones featured on your YouTube account, were for personal use?

It's irrelevant because you cannot disseminate a intercept unlawfully if it's not an actual intercept.

It's an unrelated question. I'm not tying the two together. Do you maintain that the recordings were all for personal use?

Public interest. Obviously I don't post most of my phone calls. So I do it for personal use unless I find something of public interest during the course of my business.

So that is a no, you were lying before when you said all your recordings were for personal use? Okay.

They are for personal use but during my personal use if I find something of public interest then it need be disclosed. Why shouldn't it be?

Did I make a judgment call? No.

I'm simply saying that earlier, in a previous topic, you lied and stated allyour recordings were for personal use. You have now admitted the lie. That is all I was curious about.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, they are. It's okay, though. You just lied about it being exclusively for personal use before. No big deal.