Whats up?
Whats up with all the blank messages coming through the list... Am I the only one gettting these? Jon BeetsPacer Communications
Re: Automatic's
- Original Message - From: petro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 10:19 PM Subject: RE: Automatic's That *WILL* cause the target to collapse with anything over a .22LR, and if you get an eye will 100% guarenteed stop the fight (with that individual) now. Only one person has survived a shot (by a firearm) to the eye, and she's been on life support since she was hit by a .22. Where did this statistic come from? I find it fairly hard to believe Jon
Re: McVeigh did not reach burden for delay - June 4, 2001
I think that most people on this list do... Just because your not in court or calling every pilitician everyday does not mean your doing nothing... Subcribing to this list and discussing these topics, informing others in your beliefs and living your beliefs is a way in defending the constitution... Everyone has their own understanding of what the consitiution means and tries to live towards that long lasting belief.. Some just work harder than others Jon Beets Pacer Communications - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:02 AM Subject: Re: McVeigh did not reach burden for delay - June 4, 2001 On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Jim Choate wrote: On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what? You think anybody gives a shit about the constitution anymore? Actually, quite a few people. Name ten, and prove your assertion that they give a shit, by naming active steps that each has taken in the defense of this mythical constitution. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: Firearms parts bill
- Original Message - From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:41 AM Subject: Re: Firearms parts bill On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How much of a change in the landscape would this be? #It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed #manufacturer to manufacture or assemble a firearm. So much for cleaning your weapon. It will also devistate the hobby machinist market. Depends on what the licensing requirements are.. It may includes hobbyists... Jon
Re: Chinese hackers
Well check out www.idefense.com I don't know if they have any direct or indirect relation to the government but they have been doing their own research on the attacks... Jon Beets - Original Message - From: Morlock Elloi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 7:28 PM Subject: Chinese hackers Just a thought ... This Chinese hacker threat could be a hoax. After all, it is the ideal threat to the state. No one can prove od disprove anything, and all positive effects from the threat are present. I am sure that sheeple will accept net-regulating laws much easier after evil Chinese hackers are introduced. Is there any independent way to verify that attacks are really coming from China, and that USG did not contract chinese to do this ? __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
I just don't understand how you can get in trouble for recording an adult doing their job... I believe it was stated that this happened on a public highway and the officer was a state employee.. Whats the difference in me doing it versus the media doing it? With this same thought Rodney King could have gotten in trouble for recording his own beating or even the bystander that taped it.. The courts have already upheld that employees can be taped and monitored at work so whats the difference in a citizen doing it. I believe I asked for the exact article that referred to this incident but I never got a reply... I could'nt find it on Google which was where I was originally told to find it... Jon - Original Message - From: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bill Stewart' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:30 AM Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts. Peter Trei -- From: Bill Stewart[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] At 08:57 PM 04/24/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: No, I don't have any responsibility to tell you when I'm recording or why. The best protection for bad speech is more speech, get your own recorder. I predict a new industry, mobile surveillance systems for cars. There will be a small CCD camera mounted on the passenger side with a wide-angle or perhaps split lens system via a itty bitty periscope. There will also be a microphone on the driver side window sill, as well as the middle bumper area. It will drive a small 12VDC recorder (initially tape, moving to solid state). Tape? How antique!
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Do Maryland state police also have video in their vehicles like you see in other states? How does this apply to their taping law? I work in the Fire Department on an Air Force base in Oklahoma.. Even though Oklahoma only requires one party knowing of the recording, standard procedure in the Air Force is to send a beep over the phone line every 15 seconds so that everyone knows its being recorded... We have about 30 phone lines in the dispatch room and while a few are specifically for emergency reporting we do receive emergency calls on all the lines so we record all of them. I personally believe any conversation should be allowed to be recorded by either party of any call... I once received a call from a woman at another base. It was completely job related.. She asked what those beeps were for and I told her. Well she got kind of irritated and wanted me to give her a call on a non-recorded line.. I said no if she did'nt want it recorded we had no business talking about it. Let me tell you that tape machine has saved us more times than I can count.. Other agencies on base like to blame the fire department if something doesn't happen like it should.. Usually information being passed is not sent and when the fingers start pointing I just invite everyone over to the station to listen to the digital recording and that shuts them up quick... Jon - Original Message - From: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bill Stewart' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Sandy Sandfort' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:06 PM Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men -- From: Sandy Sandfort[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:30 PM To: Trei, Peter; 'Bill Stewart'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men Peter wrote: And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts. Details, citation, URL, please. S a n d y How many do you want? It looks like he's not behind bars, but got 6 months probation, a $500 fine, and a felony rap, for daring to record an officer on duty. The last post is the most complete, and is by a familiar name. Peter Trei - Here's the relevant state law for Massachusetts: [start quote] Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , ยง 99 (1999): It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years. [end quote] (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ is a useful resource) Similar laws exist in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. Try Googleing or Dejaing Micheal Hyde and porsche http://www.reason.com/9911/brickbats.html After being pulled over while driving in Abington, Massachusetts, Michael Hyde landed in court--on charges of wiretapping. Hyde thought he was being harassed because he had long hair and drove a fancy Porsche. The officers told Hyde his license plate wasn't properly illuminated and that his exhaust was too loud. The stop led to no traffic charges, but Hyde says he taped the police officer harassing him, asking if Hyde had drugs. And that's where the wiretap charge comes in. The police claim Hyde illegally violated the officer's privacy by taping the traffic stop. Police officers have the same rights as other citizens, said prosecutor Paul Dawley, adding that if the tables were turned and police were caught taping someone without permission, people would be outraged. That seems to ignore the fact that traffic stops are recorded all the time by videotapes mounted in police cruisers. The people stopped are rarely informed that they are being taped. http://www.interesting-people.org/199904/0043.html From: David P. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] [the URL for this was inadvertently left out... it is: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/107/metro/Motorist_s_tape_of_traffic_stop _lands_him_in_court+.shtml ] I thought I lived in a state that took the rights of citizens against abuse of police power seriously. In the following Boston Globe story, though, it appears that some police and D.A.'s will twist the laws as necessary to make sure that police actions are private and hidden from public scrutiny. David Brin - where are you when we need you? From the Boston Globe Online today: Motorist's tape of traffic stop lands him in court Wiretap charge in bid for misconduct (By Hermione Malone, Globe Correspondent) On Oct. 26, 1998, Michael Hyde got a familiar
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Here in the state of Oklahoma, recording conversations is legal as long as one of the individuals in the conversation knows its being recorded. So a third party wanting to listen in without the other two knowing is still required to follow the standard legal proceedings... Jon Beets - Original Message - From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:05 PM Subject: Recording conversations and the laws of men At 10:27 AM -0700 4/24/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (commenting on Aimee's words) Just so. Regardless of no phone recording laws, people continue to do it. Linda Tripp got caught in this, and only because she publicized her taping of her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Millions of other people do it everyday. Many modern phones and answering machines make it easier than ever.
Re: Interventions r gud
Subject: RE: Interventions r gud At 02:03 AM 4/23/01 -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote: I concur with your general direction. two thoughts came to mind: first, govt. employees aren't subject to lawsuits because of their official acts. Government employees are still responsible to know what they are allowed and not allowed to do.. If they do something outside of their written guidelines and it violates your civil rights or is a criminal act then they can be sued or arrested depending on what they did. If they followed departmental guidelines and those guidelines also violate your civil rights or is a criminal act then the organization is also at fault.. One thing to point out too... If a person knows that departmental policy does violate civil rights or is criminal in action then they can still be held liable.. But you have to prove that they knew it... Jon Beets I
