It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by coffeesniffer
reply to post by Klassified
I guess it just go's to show how blaytent (insert any powerful figure/body here) are now with their public exibition of human corruption. Nothing will come of this, the show will continue. I guess what im really saying is the fire has always been burning, it continues to get hotter over time but we can't put it out without a much greater percentage of humans wanting to live a different way.
Just a stoned man's view of this
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Xcathdra
What do you think about this one though, Xcath?
A JUDGE using this to throw someone in the slammer?
Something stinks to high heavens on multiple layers in this particular case, and I think Illinoise is in need of some major overhauls with this crap.
Originally posted by Britguy
I'd hardly call the videotaping or audiotaping "wiretapping" as it's done in plain sight most of the time and involves no illegal access to communications lines or equipment.
Also, isn't the courthouse a public area and the judge too a public employee? If so then as public servants they should have no need to privacy in a public building, and everything they say or do in the capacity of their profession should be a matter of public record.
The judge needs reminding that he/she is there to serve the public, not the other way around, which also applies to the police and any other taxpayer funded individual or organisation. It's called accountability!
Harrell then informed the defendant that he was in violation of the Illinois wiretapping law, which makes it a Class 1 felony to record someone without his consent. “You violated my right to privacy,” the judge said.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Well, here is the kicker but let me completely explain. The Judge was correct in what he did. A State that requires 2 party consent in order to audio / video record cannot be done by proxy (another person giving consent to record another person). The article stated he talked to the county clerk, which is where the issue starts.
When he went to court with the recorder, he should have asked everyone present if it was ok for him to record. If one person objects, and that person is part of the court proceedings, then technically he just violated the Illinois wiretap law.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Have we actually got an independent source for this ?
I'm not entirely sure that it's true, or, more than likely, it has been blown out of all proportions for some reason.
Originally posted by TKDRL
You know, police should be scared of these laws.... Think about it, it is getting to a breaking point if it keeps going. If I am gonna get 75 years for recording some corrupt cop to expose evil.... Might as well kill and bury the cop instead and take my chances. At least killing the evil cop makes sure the cop can't victimize anyone else, recording it might not help at all, and still heading to jail. Makes sense to me.