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.

 

Donald Koberg: Another ae911truth member speaks.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


If i was a Lawyer i think I would call that Conjecture..Just because of a date doent make its uses as a whole any different,between 1900 till now..




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Thank you for posting yet another video of your actions. I'm downloading and saving these videos as evidence. I've been in contact with Richard Gage about these videos.

You do realize that you could be facing impersonation, defamation and slander charges? Do you also realize the it is illegal to record phone calls without the other person's knowledge or consent? There are federal and state laws against this. You should Google the laws before recording another call.

You are potentially in some hot water, Troy. Your actions are dispicable and I hope that AE911T and the architects you illegally recorded come after you with everything they've got. You know architects are well payed and can afford some expensive lawyers, can you?



I'm glad your not an attorney it is not illegal to record a conversation as long as one of the parties know the conversation is being recorded.Where you aware of that? I can legally record any conversation i have with anyone and its perfectly legal.And since its me i can use my recording any way i like again perfectly legal.Funny how people think they have rights that don't exist. Hoow do you think talk radio hosts get away with there live calls they put on the radio?


Im glad you're not an attorney either, most states have the 2 party rule (must have both parties consent), and a few have the 1 party rule. Out of the few with the 1 party rule, all have at least one case law for a reasonable expectation of privacy to be met.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. Federal wiretap statutes also permit one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most circumstances. Twelve states forbid the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

This law has all ready been challenged in California, Florida Maryland Michigan and pennsylvania were on appeal there judges conceeded to federal law which makes it legal.So trust me when i say not one lawyer is concerned with state statutes they simply argue its a violation of the 1st amendment.


ps: The only time this has been upheld is when ilegal activity is involved where the evidence may get thrown out in criminal court when involving prosecution but there is just as many case files where there excepted as well. Depends on the judge to determine if the criminal had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[edit on 6/13/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I stand corrected, more states have the one party rule:


States Requiring One Party Notification
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
District Of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma Oregon
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming




States Requiring Two Party Notification
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida Massachusetts
Maryland
Michigan
Montana New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington


However it is still illegal state to state if either state is in the 2 party notification list, or case law has been established. Federqal jusristiction does not supercede state law either and is upheld by case law. It is also harassment in all 50 states, and unethical in all 50 states.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Way to back peddle dont hurt yourself! Read my previous post i will not repost again do to mods getting me for quoting. But even in states where they require 2 party consent has not held up to appeal because it is a violation of the 1st amendment.At least law schools starting to pay off all ready!


Oh decided to add this as well Defamation would be nearly impossible to prove in this case as well. For one the individual has to know they are telling a lie in this case i think he believes what he says to be fact.Second The injured party has to show some kind of damages caused by the defendant in this instance i dint think he lost his job or had any other negative effects other than pride. Third if any individual could come up with the same conclusions through evidence again thrown out.And finally just proving that 1 statement made by the claimant was inaccurate and his defamation suit goes bye bye. So what it comes down to is there is no way that he could litigate this case and win,I could win this case and I'm not finished law school!

[edit on 6/13/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I corrected myself where I was wrong, as I said its still harassment, still unethical. I don't really care or am worried about it going to court, I care that the mods take note and due course here at ATS.

Illegal but not worth taking to court is still a violation of TOS here.

BTW what was your LSAT score?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I just made a thread about this person here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yes, I apologize for being stubborn on that point also, I asked a lawyer today, and he told me essentially the same thing. He said only if it was multiple calls with obscene language he would feel confident in taking the case on.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jimminycricket
 


Its OK some one may harass people on the phone be a jerk which is certainly the case in the part i heard. He was trying to make fun of the person but in reality just showed how stupid he was as well. But unfortunately this isn't enough to prosecute. People have a legal right to call you and be a jerk. But in reality one day he will make one of these calls and some one will track him down and explain why people shouldn't do this.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
you poor misguided man. are such a tailwagger to the domestic enemies
of our constitution that you just can't see the forest for the trees.i bet in six
months your gonna be one the biggest cry babies out there too. people
like you are portrayed over and over again in the movies,and they always meet a horrible fate.something you might want to think about next time
you start pushin no.s on that phone of yours.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I would like to know more abt this .,,,,anyt reference i can follow ?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join