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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?!

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).

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.

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?