Prank call proves billionaire David Koch owns Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP

page: 3
77
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by inkyminds
it is NOT illegal wire tapping. Ir's a prank call. clearly the people doing the pranking are aware they are taping themselves.


But Walker does not realize he is being recorded, that's why it would be wiretapping. Obviously the pranksters would know they are recording themselves, isn't that obvious?
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


And the law very clearly says that at least one party must know they are being taped. Not both.

Are you REALLY not concerned that such a wealthy man has such obvious access to an elected official? I was under the impression the Right was quite critical of those sorts of things when they can point them out in relation to the opposition.

en.wikipedia.org...


Federal law requires that at least one party taking part in the call must be notified of the recording (18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d)). For example, it would be illegal to record the phone calls of people who come into one's place of business and ask to use the phone unless they are notified.
edit on 23-2-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2011 by inkyminds because: add law




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Wisconsin wiretap laws


If the person who records the wire, electronic, or oral communication is a party to the conversation or has obtained prior consent from one party, he may lawfully record and divulge the contents of the communication, unless he does so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Wis. Stat. § 968.31.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by inkyminds
 


Oh what a hoot. So if I call you and I'm recording the conversation so long as I know it that's okay, you don't have to know it? What if I wiretap the police, so long as I know I'm wiretapping the police, that's okay? How about if I put a tape recorder in the president's pocket and have a conversation with him, so long as I know I put it there, it's okay? Geez, talk about your boneheaded laws.



Well see here's the rub.


unless he does so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.


You also have to consider that he is impersonating someone else, so his legitimacy as being "party to the conversation" could be called into question.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by inkyminds


Are you REALLY not concerned that such a wealthy man has such obvious access to an elected official?


What access? A private citizen got a hold of Walker, so it must not be very hard.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
But Walker does not realize he is being recorded, that's why it would be wiretapping. Obviously the pranksters would know they are recording themselves, isn't that obvious?
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.


It's perfectly legal to record a telephone conversation if you are a party to the conversation. Both parties do not have to be aware of the recording. I used to work in insurance and this was a common practice, that's why attorneys tell their clients not to talk to insurance companies when they are involved in a liability claim.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

-David Rockefeller

Do not confuse what these people believe is the right thing with what normal people thinks is the right thing. Of course they believe they are doing the right thing, they are a bunch of psychopaths that can't see further than their godlike noses. We are most certainly too stupid to take care of our own business, so they will do it for us.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by inkyminds
 


Oh what a hoot. So if I call you and I'm recording the conversation so long as I know it that's okay, you don't have to know it? What if I wiretap the police, so long as I know I'm wiretapping the police, that's okay? How about if I put a tape recorder in the president's pocket and have a conversation with him, so long as I know I put it there, it's okay? Geez, talk about your boneheaded laws.



So, when we are listening in on terrorists and gangsters, we should let them know at the beginning of each call, right?

Do you ever think before you go off the deep end spouting stuff?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by inkyminds


Are you REALLY not concerned that such a wealthy man has such obvious access to an elected official?


What access? A private citizen got a hold of Walker, so it must not be very hard.


Yeah, you're right. I'm sure anyone could call the governor and get a direct line to voice their concerns. No conflict of interests there at all. Koch's position of power and influence did not play into the decision at all.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Well he's still impersonating someone. Let me go and impersonate Rahm Emmanuel so I can get a conversation with Barak Obama and I can record this so long as I'm part of the conversation. That's ridiculous, how much will you bet I get arrested?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

From the Wisconsin State Code

Wis. Stat. § 968.31: A person who is a party to a wire, electronic or oral communication, or who has obtained prior consent from one party, can legally record and divulge the contents of the communication, unless he does so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

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. See definition of "oral communication," Wis. Stat. § 968.27.

Effective Feb. 1, 2003, the punishment for recording or disclosing the contents of a conversation without the appropriate consent is imprisonment for up to six years and/or a criminal fine of up to $10,000. Wisconsin law expressly authorizes civil damages for violations and allows recovery of the greater of actual damages, $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees.
edit on 23-2-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


well we shouldn't listen in on gangsters or terrorists at all, it's called invasion of privacy and it invades their fourth amendment right. If you want to listen in on terrorists just plant a recording device on you and walk around the CIA, I guess so long as you are party to any conversation it is perfectly legal to do so.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I love how hard you are attempting to defend and dismiss this call.


Your delusions must run deep.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by filosophia
 


I love how hard you are attempting to defend and dismiss this call.


Your delusions must run deep.


Actually I stopped saying this call was a fake a long time ago, try and keep up. I just say what seems interesting to myself. I don't have any "delusions" that run anywhere. Yes, it did seem fake at first, it also does not coincide with what the 'Beast" normally puts out. That doesn't mean it has to be a fake, as points of the conversation seem to line up. So if the call really is real, they now are looking at potentially illegal recording of a phone conversation and impersonation.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Well, I'll give you guys this. It IS entertaining to see you twist in pretzels mis-interpreting wire-tap laws in an effort to deflect from information about Governor Walker you clearly find damning.

But you should remember, your stance here will be applied evenly in other cases.


Ex

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
If they are allowed to listen to my calls at their wim
and put a tracking device ON my vehicle while it is parked in my driveway,
on private property.
I think it's perfectly fair to listen to OUR public servents
in the performance of their duties.

I wonder why people are voting against their own best interests??
Seriously..............The koolaid is getting stronger these days isn't it?!



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by filosophia
 


I love how hard you are attempting to defend and dismiss this call.


Your delusions must run deep.

Not delusions. Ties. s ties run deep.

What other POSSIBLE explanation is there for such constant deflection and attempts at re-direction, first by claiming the call is fake, then through hilariously flawed and easily dis-proven interpretation of wire tap , and lastly by claiming Governor Walker routinely takes calls from all sorts of constituents, and it just so happens this was a rich and powerful one.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
Again I think some individuals on this thread may be confused as to what "One Party Consent" is.

One party consent means that the person being called, and recorded needs to be notified and aware of the taping.


No, it doesn't. You're just wrong about that.

It means that at least one person *taking part in the conversation* must know about the taping. That means A can call B and record B without his knowledge, but C cannot tape A and B's call without either of them knowing if C is not actually taking part in the conversation (ie: eavesdropping).



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex
If they are allowed to listen to my calls at their wim
and put a tracking device ON my vehicle while it is parked in my driveway,
on private property.
I think it's perfectly fair to listen to OUR public servents
in the performance of their duties.

I wonder why people are voting against their own best interests??
Seriously..............The koolaid is getting stronger these days isn't it?!


But what does it really prove? That Walker likes to talk? What does he really say that is more corrupt than wiretapping and impersonation? The "Koch" man slants everything to make it seem like he is talking about a "good old boys circuit" while Walker tries to stay business-like.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by Realtruth
Again I think some individuals on this thread may be confused as to what "One Party Consent" is.

One party consent means that the person being called, and recorded needs to be notified and aware of the taping.


No, it doesn't. You're just wrong about that.

It means that at least one person *taking part in the conversation* must know about the taping. That means A can call B and record B without his knowledge, but C cannot tape A and B's call without either of them knowing if C is not actually taking part in the conversation (ie: eavesdropping).


If that is the law, which I wouldn't be surprised if it was, it still does not make sense because that would allow you to tape conversations you have with people without their knowledge. If it is a video camera, obviously it is being filmed and the other person has a right to tell you not to shove the camera in their face. But impersonating someone and recording a phone conversation without the other parties consent does not seem to me to be very fair and lawful.

For everyone who says "But Walker is corrupt" Just realize that you are also falling into the "end justifies the means" attitude, you are okay with doing quasi-legal things just to prove that someone is a criminal?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by inkyminds
 


I never said that Walker takes routine calls from constituents, that was the main reason I thought this call was fake, because it is unlikely they would get through to his office. (Especially considering the quality of their previous prank phone calls).
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
77
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join