You're angry at this paper for reporting that you record conversations which gives people an impression that you record conversations without permission so you call up this guy and record the conversation without permission?
And you think you owned this guy?
So apparently you don't understand words? The paper states I am charged with "illegally taping phone calls" when I am charged with "Intercept" of an "Electronic Communication". It is important to say the right thing because recording telephones calls isn't a crime and never has been. Intercepting a communication against the strictures of state law is what would have to be done. Recording your own conversations cannot be an intercept because you are authorized to receive a communication willfully given to you by the sender of said communication. Furthermore, a telephone furnished by the user or subscriber, for connection to the facilities, during the ordinary course if its business" is NOT considered an "Electronic, Mechanical, or Other Device" under the strictures of the statute as it is written in General Proceedings 10-402. There is also case law on this matter.
They dun goofed.
But you were arguing you were being defamed that they reported you recording calls without permission. While recording a call without their permission.
You even avoid answering that you're recording the call when asked. How are you supposed to sue for defamation? I was under the impression from your posts here that you constantly record calls. ---