It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession of Involvement In the 9/11 Black Op

page: 8
43
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by neil_86

I had a hard time making sense out north side approach evidence, having never been in that area and not knowing any of the people whose testimony you were referring to. But I understood the



I feel ya but that's because so far we've been compiling and releasing info as we get it edited as little as possible to just get it out in the public domain.

We're about to put out a new VERY concise presentation (called "National Security Alert") that will be extremely easy to watch and understand that will make it quite clear to everyone that there is no possibility of the plane hitting the light poles.

And THEN we hit them with the Lloyde stuff (including the ridiculousness of the pristine hood etc) leaving no doubt that this scene was staged.

Bottom line we've been screaming about the blatant anomalies and suspicious details in Lloyde's account for years now to no avail.

The north side evidence is hard proof that the plane did not hit the poles and there is no way to spin this. It is impossible for 13 witnesses to be wildly and drastically mistaken in the exact same way considering such a simple right or left detail while nobody directly refutes them.

All of it exposes the deception, but yeah, we strongly feel this is the most vulnerable scenario in the 9/11 black operation so if we hyper-focus on the cab, light poles, and the north side witnesses, no logical honest patriot will be able to deny that we have a serious problem here.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
In the interest of fair play. I respectfully ask all the defenders of official 911 explanation to help me make the choice between

Officiall 911 explanation

And

The physics.

For my sake, please dont refer to any of the 13 Craig's witnesses. They are not relevant here. Even if Craig did not have any witness of north side approach, the the pristine taxi hood is still inexplicable.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
You specifically say in the video that his answers are different when he knows that he is being recorded as opposed to when he does not know.

But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private.

www.citmedialaw.org...

The conversations took place in private places, i.e. a home and in a vehicle, you broke the law and violated this mans rights. You certainly violated his rights as a human being. You claim he should have had a reasonable expectation on one hand, but again you point out that his answers are different when he does not know he is being recorded. This is ironclad proof that you indeed recorded him w/o knowledge.

Just because it is a common practice does not mean it is OK.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Um, I have only read the first post and the last....yours.

"One party consent" under Virginia law (and incidentally federal law) includes the consent of the participant-recorder.


The restatement in your link is flatly wrong:




The wiretapping law does not cover oral communications when the speakers do not have an "expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectations." See Virginia Code § 19.2-61. Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place, such as a street or restaurant, without consent. But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private.



They mangle the significance of the definition of "Oral communication".

The actual Virginia statute says:




§ 19.2-61. Definitions.

"Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectations but does not include any electronic communication;



In other words, in a lay sense, this means "oral communications" in private places.

The Virgina statute continues:



§ 19.2-62 (B)(2)

It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.



So, there was nothing wrong with recording the subject without his consent in this circumstance.

Just sayin'.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by loam]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Don't you bother reading your own evidence which you link to?

Lloyde and his wife both allowed CIT to videotape them in their own home.
Two parties gave their consent.

Craig was also there and in the videos and gave his consent.
Three parties gave their consent.

How many do you need? No. Maryland law has nothing to do with this.



Virginia Wiretapping Law
Virginia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. Virginia makes it a crime to intercept or record any "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one party to the conversation consents. Virginia Code § 19.2-62. Therefore, if you operate in Virginia, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance.

www.citmedialaw.org...




But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private.


But Craig (one of the parties) did give his consent.

And Lloyde (one of the parties) also gave his consent in the home.

Is any of this too complicated for you?



[edit on 5/6/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


It would have been 100% legal for me to record my conversations with them without their consent since it was in Virginia.

However they gave me full consent and invited me in their home for the explicit purpose of recording them and doing an interview.

It is true that while the video camera was turned off, I kept audio recoding which is what captured Lloyde in his lie and his wife telling me that she AGREES that the plane did not hit the building and kept on going.

But it was 100% legal and 100% ethical since I already had their consent to record.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
You don't have to justify yourself Craig. People are just getting a little
unsettled because hard evidence is turning up disproving the goverment
story.

All they can throw back in our face is a time delayed, 5 frame sequence
that shows a purple dinosaur and a big ball of fire. Can't you see the 757?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jprophet420
 


It would have been 100% legal for me to record my conversations with them without their consent since it was in Virginia.

However they gave me full consent and invited me in their home for the explicit purpose of recording them and doing an interview.

It is true that while the video camera was turned off, I kept audio recoding which is what captured Lloyde in his lie and his wife telling me that she AGREES that the plane did not hit the building and kept on going.

But it was 100% legal and 100% ethical since I already had their consent to record.



no, it wouldnt. in virginia the law specifically states that the person has to be in public if applying the one person consent rule. I linked to it. Read it. You specifically say that he did not know he was on audio. Your exact words were "...Unaware that he was being audio recorded..."



Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place, such as a street or restaurant, without consent. But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private.


you make the point...

It would have been 100% legal for me to record my conversations with them without their consent since it was in Virginia.


Thats NOT what the law says. It would only be legal if you notify them that they are being recorded OR in a public place. Someone cannot be unaware of something and give consent.


Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



Originally posted by jprophet420
in virginia the law specifically states that the person has to be in public if applying the one person consent rule. I linked to it. Read it.


As I have already pointed out, your link flatly misreads the law.

I've already provided the actual language above.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by loam]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 

Why don't you go and hire a team of lawyers to act for Lloyde and his wife. If you are so convinced that Craig broke the law, then you'll be certain of a large settlement, right? Lloyde and his wife can sling some of the proceeds your way.

Have you figured out a way in which the light pole could punch through the windscreen, leaving no damage to the bonnet or frame, all while the taxi was skidding to a stop from a speed of 20 metres per second?

I'm not letting your distractions try to dilute the purpose of this thread.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I may be mistaken but if you read this:

"Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place, such as a street or restaurant, without consent. But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private."

I think somewhere in there are the words "SHOULD" as in you "should" seek consent .... not you MUST seek consent!

Just a thought....

edited to make sense...

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Dwest]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
www.citmedialaw.org...
leg1.state.va.us...
www.rcfp.org...

The page links directly to the law. You go on to quote the law which again directly states prior consent. In his post Craig directly states that at points in the conversation that Lloyd was unaware. So even if what I posted was "wrong", according to the actual law as it is written verbatim, it is certainly illegal to record someone without their consent in a private place in the state of Virginia.

If Lloyd was unaware of the recording, he could not possibly have given consent. The only way it would be legal is if at their first interaction Craig told Lloyd that he was going to audio record him every time. This is not the case by Craigs own admission.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jprophet420
 


you make the point...

It would have been 100% legal for me to record my conversations with them without their consent since it was in Virginia.


Thats NOT what the law says. It would only be legal if you notify them that they are being recorded OR in a public place. Someone cannot be unaware of something and give consent.



In your interpretation of the law, how often must the recording party reacquire consent from the consenting party?
Every half hour?
Every 5 minutes
Every 5 seconds?

You are spouting specious nonsense.

Or prior to commencing recording when first entering the home?

That is when Lloyde and his wife gave their consent.

That is also when Craig gave his consent.

Do you want to sue somebody Craig?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

That is when Lloyde and his wife gave their consent.


Really? Lloyd said you can start audio recording me now, but then somehow he didn't know he was being recorded? Please explain how that went down, I would love to hear it.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Lloyde NEVER had to be aware that I was recording him if I am a party to the conversation.



Therefore, if you operate in Virginia, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or (not and but "or") you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance.


However, if I was NOT a party to the conversation, and nobody who WAS a party to the conversation knew I was recording....it would be illegal.

Clearly that was not the case.

But as you erroneously referenced earlier....EVEN THAT is legal during a situation where :



The wiretapping law does not cover oral communications when the speakers do not have an "expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectations." See Virginia Code § 19.2-61. Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place, such as a street or restaurant, without consent. But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private.



Read that last bolded sentence very slowly and carefully and consider it in context of the statement of law before it.

One party consent is all that is required.

It was a private conversation to which I was a party.

Since I was clearly part of the ummm "party"....my consent is all that was required.

Lloyde will never sue me for 2 reasons...

1. I did nothing wrong and he has no case.
2. I have proof that he he was a participant in a black operation of mass murder.

So please, raise the funds, get an entire team of lawyers, and try to get Lloyde to sue me for this.

I'm begging you.




[edit on 6-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



Originally posted by jprophet420
So even if what I posted was "wrong", according to the actual law as it is written verbatim, it is certainly illegal to record someone without their consent in a private place in the state of Virginia.


Good luck with that legal theory. It simply isn't true.



Originally posted by jprophet420
If Lloyd was unaware of the recording, he could not possibly have given consent.


Again, he didn't have to. The other guy was all that was needed.

Say otherwise as much as you like though.

I sometimes look up at the rain and insist it will not touch me when outdoors. It's never true, but it makes me feel better.





reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Lloyde NEVER had to be aware that I was recording him if I am a party to the conversation.


Quite right.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by loam]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Of course you're begging me Craig, you stand to make money from it. The $2500 dollar fine would more than be covered by the escalated sales on your website.
you say all this:

Lloyde NEVER had to be aware that I was recording him if I am a party to the conversation.

Therefore, if you operate in Virginia, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or (not and but "or") you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance.


...but leave out the part where what you quoted applies to public places where a reasonable expectation of privacy is non existent.


Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.


I cant quote the entire law, thats the relevant issue.

You may tape in public without consent. You may not tape in private w/o consent. Thats Virginia law.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



Originally posted by jprophet420

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.


I cant quote the entire law, thats the relevant issue.


You aren't quoting the law. You're quoting someone's misinterpretation of it.

I've already given you the original statutory language in one of my previous posts.

You simply don't have this issue right. Cling to someone's misunderstanding of the law all you like, but it wont convert it into truth.


Originally posted by jprophet420
You may not tape in private w/o consent. Thats Virginia law.


No, it isn't.

See above.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by loam]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The "private conversation" part meaning that a 3rd party who is NOT a part of the private conversation may not record it.

Since I clearly WAS a part of the private conversation, my consent is all that was required.

This is a fact and if you can't admit it you are only exposing your failure to comprehend the language of the law or else an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion in a desperate attempt to assassinate my character by falsely accuse me of a crime that I did not commit, while of course diverting the discussion from the FACTS and the hard evidence presented.

I legally recorded Lloyde during OUR private conversation to which I was a party with MY consent and it exposed how he deliberately lied and contradicted himself while also admitting he was part of a conspiracy.

Funny how what Lloyde said doesn't bother you but it DOES bother you that I reported this information legally and ethically.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam


Originally posted by jprophet420

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.




You aren't quoting the law. You're quoting someone's misinterpretation of it.




Actually that interpretation is correct it just doesn't apply to my situation.

It is referring to when it is ok or not ok to record a conversation with ZERO consent from any of the participating parties.

Since I was a participant in the "private conversation", my consent (one party) is all that was required.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join