Recording Conversations

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I wonder if some of those restrictions that supposedly exist in various states apply to police actions on the public highway. Presumably a traffic cop in a cop car with the flashing lights who stops you for a traffic infraction is NOT an undercover investigator whose identity must be kept secret. (There was, incidentally, a terrible fuss in the DC police dept about 15 years ago: The Police Dept made some deal with one of those highschool yearbook publishers to churn out a similar esprit de corps type photo album of members of the DC PD. Somehow, and it must be blamed on some genius inside the Police Dept, the yearbook-type photos of all the DC police included photos of undercover/plainclothes cops, some of whom already were sticking their necks out hobnobbing with druggies and mafia-types. No fatalities were reported, but a lot of those undercover cops sued the printer -- without asking how he got the official photos -- for screwing up their careers.)

Also, as you have undoubtedly seen from various real-life cop shows on TV, many police depts have their cars equipped with video cams and their uniformed cops wired for sound, so they have sound and picture of every second of every traffic stop. Nobody asks the permission of the person being stopped by the cop. You have at least as much right to wire your own car for sound and picture ... and if anyone ever asks, you did it as a public service in case the cop's film equipment went sour.

In the (I think remote) chance that somewhere there's a law that would apply to you filming cops who approach your car, I suspect that - if you have the cop on film doing something shameful - the police dept would just as soon make peace with you than have the dubious comfort of nailing you for a minor misdemeanor involved in the filming after you have revealed the evidence of a much worse crime involving the cops.

I'm still hung up on 'RIGHTS". If a public servent is in the line of duty, it is 'public" is it not? If its public, then how can you claim a right to privacy? Are we the people not supposed to watch are servents closely to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to?

If you tell a cop you are recording, chances are you are going to get the crap beat out of you. So by not telling them, as they ridicule you, call you names, lie, and you record it, I would think you were looking out for the "publics best interest".

[David Merrill]

One suitor Refused for Cause at the roadside stop and the cop wrote up an identical presentment, snuck up and quickly shoved the defendant copy into the open window of the van and ran off.

Such childish behavior is probably only one step away from going Postal. So you don't want police officers Going Postal.

So far when somebody is getting out of hand loudmouth drunk and I snap a photo of them or start taking video, they shape up real fast. But I half expect them to go ballistic; especially when they are more than me and in a gang.

People have different perceptions about national security and the sanctions we all must make about privacy since 911. Cops are people too. The looks I was getting from some of the police officers I photographed is chilling - but then they were in mourning about a comrade being shot by more than a camera. Many were pleasant enough, but some were quite chilling. It was like there was an unwritten rule that only TV Media News was licensed to photograph the ceremony.

As far as privacy in the home goes, I trust my own judgment and never record anybody like that. If there was a need I would certainly ask first because I feel violated when somebody records me without asking.

I went to a seminar fully decked with video and audio equipment. It was a free seminar by Robert Lawrence. I got there just as he was being announced and a man told me to quit setting up my video equipment. I asked him who he was, "Bob Lawrence". He said he would explain in a moment to everybody. [Minute Mark 5:15 - Session 1.]

This scenario is borderline. I kept my audio recorders on for the entire seminar. Against Bob's wishes that Barry Smith (LegalBear - now banished from Suijuris) have the only license and that we would have to wait and pay for the edited version. Well, I was not going to do that. I stepped across the line because I have a pretty photographic memory anyway. But I needed to relay Bob's take on the Lawrence Dismissal to Readers here at Suijuris during some heated discussion. So I recorded it...

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_session1.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_session2.mp3

It was clear that the PRA tactic (a failed tactic) was to become Barry's new Cash Cow should it have turned out to succeed.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

(a) Inasmuch as I have said (and the courts have said) that trying to 'Refuse for Cause" a traffic ticket won't work, I'm not sure that your friend really wants to make use of that video since it is evidence that he was doing something really stupid. He's lucky the cop just gave him a second copy of the ticket and didn't haul him in right then and there.

(b) As for that lecture by Lawrence, I don't know the details but such meetings - even without an admission price - are regarded as gatherings on private, not public, property and the property owner (in this instance, whoever hired the room) has some rights to prevent others from undermining the event. In this case, it is very probable that whoever hired the room or otherwise was put to expense to set up the event, expect to defray his expenses or even turn a profit by being able to peddle - exclusively - the audio or video of the lecture. Your making a bootleg tape of same clearly damaged his plan and he was within his rights to insist on keeping the recording rights to himself.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

(a) Inasmuch as I have said (and the courts have said) that trying to 'Refuse for Cause" a traffic ticket won't work, I'm not sure that your friend really wants to make use of that video since it is evidence that he was doing something really stupid. He's lucky the cop just gave him a second copy of the ticket and didn't haul him in right then and there.

That was not on video. I was using that as an example of childish cop behavior. The reason he behaved like that is the Refusal for Cause works so well. He had to start afresh with a new ticket.

I always advise the R4C go to the chief of police within the 72 (UCC) reasonable timeframe Registered Mail with a good evidence repository like the federal courthouse.

Don't Refuse for Cause to the police officer - he may well Go Postal.


(b) As for that lecture by Lawrence, I don't know the details but such meetings - even without an admission price - are regarded as gatherings on private, not public, property and the property owner (in this instance, whoever hired the room) has some rights to prevent others from undermining the event. In this case, it is very probable that whoever hired the room or otherwise was put to expense to set up the event, expect to defray his expenses or even turn a profit by being able to peddle - exclusively - the audio or video of the lecture. Your making a bootleg tape of same clearly damaged his plan and he was within his rights to insist on keeping the recording rights to himself.

Nope. The conference room is reserved for events on the presumption people will be eating the food. Nice try though Shoonra. But you are just as wrong about Refusal for Cause.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. After some thought this is simply your bias against Refusal for Cause by right bleeding over:

I don't know the details but such meetings - even without an admission price - are regarded as gatherings on private, not public, property and the property owner (in this instance, whoever hired the room) has some rights to prevent others from undermining the event.

In the vast minority of events, and possibly including this one, you might be right. However most of these meetings are much more along the lines of a parallel academia. This event like most was hoping to gather donations in hopes of making it worth Robert Lawrence's time, trouble and travel expenses. LegalBear (Barry Smith) makes a living giving paralegal-type services and was behind the erroneous ideas that the PRA Issue could fly and if it would have had substance was grabbing the recording rights on the hope to corner a startup market in patriot de-taxing. http://friends-n-family-research.inf...arry_Smith.wav

This genre of meetings are fairly common and usually do not take place under any campus roof, even as guest speakers. People are encouraged to bring notebooks and pens, and yes, recorders. So much so, that I walked in and opened up my tripod and camcorder and started setting up, figuring LegalBear was just there doing the same. Especially when people pay a tuition-style fee, a preset fee for the lecture, they are allowed to bring in recording equipment for notes. This is to my recollection, the first time somebody has refused people recording notes and I recall the fellows at the table behind me, seeing I was recording audio, complaining that they needed better notes than the written ones they were taking.

Speaking for myself, I was in the middle of the PRA Issue discussion with FreeIndeed and DawgWise here and was unwilling, after going to Denver to get some direct testimony from Robert Lawrence, to wait for the recordings; especially since the intent was to tailor the testimony through LegalBear. Bob mentions a commercial prohibition already mandated by some federal judge so I was actually preventing that - at least preventing any claim against my recording by LegalBear that could have subsequently gotten Bob in trouble.

Therefore once again, I think you are on dog food Shoonra. I think that because abatements and Refusal for Cause (avoidance) is such an effective tool in the hands of the unconditioned people, that you are threatened into making off-the-wall comments about privacy in public meetings.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[RICKO]

I have not given up on this thread, I have been away for the last couple days. I will read everyone's post. Thanks again.

[charlesa6]

Yeah, they are all there.

[RICKO]

I guess we can wrap this thread up. No sense in me beating a dead horse.The only thing I do wish is for us to come up with possibly a conclusion, the final word if you will. This has been, in my opinion, a gathering of great minds and I'm very thankful for everyone's input here. If you have any more information in regards to this thread please post.

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by RICKO

I guess we can wrap this thread up. No sense in me beating a dead horse.The only thing I do wish is for us to come up with possibly a conclusion, the final word if you will. This has been, in my opinion, a gathering of great minds and I'm very thankful for everyone's input here. If you have any more information in regards to this thread please post.

Just hope you got something out of it. I do have a case, when I get home, the US Supremes I believe decided. I will have to look to make sure, but I will post it, and think it will be very helpful. This is person to person, but I think when you read the case, you'll see how it may apply. Depends on your thinking.

One thing you cuold do, is I have a thread on here about David G. Attorney, you cuold look him up, email him, or I could give you his email I guess, and ask him what he thinks. He's from that side of the country, and I'm pretty sure this is right up his alley! (And its free!! LMAO, thats worth writting him right there! Anytime I get something for nuttin out of a lawyer, I'm happy)

[RICKO]

No problem here with that.