Current Events > I got denied home incarceration for following the judge's order...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Waffles would be worth it.

Not pancakes though.
---

But are you free to go?
---

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, they are. It's okay, though. You just lied about it being exclusively for personal use before. No big deal.

No they are not. This isn't rocket science.

"Phone calls are for personal use"

"Phone call happens that is then realized to be of public interest"

"Phone calls are still for personal use but some of them now are also disclosed because they are not ONLY for personal use but public interest"

You claiming they are exclusive does not make it so, as a matter of fact you cannot reason that they are other than to simply make the claim without basis.
---

Conflict posted...

Squader what exactly do you expect to do once you're found guilty? Which is still a lingering possibility despite your overconfidence.

Not a possibility according to case law.
---

Conflict posted...

Squader what exactly do you expect to do once you're found guilty? Which is still a lingering possibility despite your overconfidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsJTNDprmwk
---

Conflict posted...

Lol.

You still don't get it.

No reason to answer nonsense questions.
---

I'm beginning to think this is a cry for attention. Maybe Squader just needs a good friend? Just hit one of us up in a PM, dude.

Beyond the jokes and memes, there's surprisingly some good people here.
---

No reason to answer nonsense questions.

It's a valid question, if for no other reason than that the judge and/or jury are not infallible. Regardless of how right you think they are, they either could know better than you (unless you know the entirety of all law in Maryland and federal law verbatim as well as every relevant case), or, on the assumption you're right (an assumption you take to), they make a mistake.

This blind arrogance is why everyone here views you as a joke. He raised a valid question; you don't get to wave it away with "I'm right so it's irrelevant and nonsensical."
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Conflict posted...

Squader what exactly do you expect to do once you're found guilty? Which is still a lingering possibility despite your overconfidence.

Not a possibility according to case law.

Does your lawyer agree with you?
---

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/maryland-wiretapping-law-needs-update

This article appeared in The Baltimore Sun on June 1, 2010.

Anthony Graber is facing felony charges today. His crime? Recording a traffic stop with a video camera — supposedly prohibited in Maryland under an archaic “anti-wiretapping” statute that is well past due for a revisit by the General Assembly.

Mr. Graber was riding his motorcycle on I-95 in Maryland, speeding and popping wheelies and recording the experience with a helmet cam. An unmarked car cut him off as he slowed for traffic, and a man in a sweatshirt and jeans jumped out with a gun in his hand. Five seconds after the armed man exited his vehicle and approached Mr. Graber, he identified himself as a Maryland state trooper. But for the first four seconds of the encounter, it looks like a carjacking. Mr. Graber accepted a speeding ticket.

That was the end of the story until Mr. Graber posted video of the encounter on YouTube. Then six state troopers showed up with a search warrant, seized two computers, two laptops and a camera.

...

How is this possible? Because the Maryland wiretapping statute makes it a crime to record any conversation without the consent of all parties — a “unanimous consent” law. Maryland is one of a dozen states with such a statute; most jurisdictions are less strict. The penalty can be up to five years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.

....

The deterrent to recording police is still established. Mr. Graber faces long hours and thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. Even if he sues the police for violating his civil rights and wins monetary damages, he has been put through the wringer enough to make citizens pause before pushing the record button. In short, you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride — the ride to the station house and into court.

This boils down to “contempt of cop,” as it is known in civil liberties circles. The police are, in effect, telling Mr. Graber and anyone else who might record police activity in Maryland that they have little interest in police transparency and accountability.

...

The Maryland wiretapping law is itching for an update. The police work for the citizens of Maryland, and there is no reasonable argument that the citizens are not owed a transparent accounting of police actions funded by their tax dollars and potentially infringing on their liberties. Prosecuting those who capture police misconduct on tape thwarts the rule of law and makes civil servants into bullies. The legislature should amend the law and let Maryland law enforcement officers know that if they’re doing good police work, they should not be worried about getting caught on tape.

Well... I hope the law has changed a lot since 2010, otherwise they could add that video of you recording the cop on the street. If this really is a case of "contempt of cop" then you pissed these guys off and they very well may go out of their way to use you to prove a point. If they get a sympathetic judge then you may well lose this thing and have to appeal from a jail cell.

Anthony Graber later got off because the judge ruled there was no expectation of privacy on a public street. But there is an expectation of privacy in phone calls, so I don't know how you're expecting to walk so easily.

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Conflict posted...

Lol.

You still don't get it.

No reason to answer nonsense questions.

Dude, everything with you has been nonsense charges and questions. You've been evicted, had property taken by the police, been arrested, AND you have done jail time for things you consider to be nonsense. Wake up! You're going to jail again.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Not a possibility according to case law.

this is neither how case law nor possibility works, unfortunately
---

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

Menardi posted...

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

I marked them
---

thelovefist posted...

Menardi posted...

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

I marked them

fucking rekt

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

he receives his paycheck on the dime of myself and my family.

This is such a false generalization it's not even funny (not that it would be). It implies your and your families dime pays his complete salary, and for the record, taxes alone are not where all of police's salaries comes from. Respectfully, this furthers the proof that you have issues and as logical as you'd like to believe.

He doesn't pay taxes in any case. He is a perennial recipient of welfare.
---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

thelovefist posted...

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

he receives his paycheck on the dime of myself and my family.

This is such a false generalization it's not even funny (not that it would be). It implies your and your families dime pays his complete salary, and for the record, taxes alone are not where all of police's salaries comes from. Respectfully, this furthers the proof that you have issues and as logical as you'd like to believe.

He doesn't pay taxes in any case. He is a perennial recipient of welfare.

In his defense he pays, "when he can." Though I can't believe I'm defending him in any sense, regardless.

He pays taxes with the money the government gives him?
---

@thelovefist posted...

Menardi posted...

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

I marked them

Still salty I kicked you off the board lmao.

Doesn't matter. You accomplished nothing.

thelovefist posted...

Menardi posted...

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

I marked them

Rekt.
---

The feeding of the troll stops here, it's too damn obvious but I guess the bait is too strong for the weak minded.
---

serves you right clown
---

Menardi posted...

thelovefist posted...

Menardi posted...

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

I marked them

Still salty I kicked you off the board lmao.

Doesn't matter. You accomplished nothing.

Your posts were deleted and you were triggered
---

This is exactly why I have menardi on block.
---

thelovefist posted...

Menardi posted...

thelovefist posted...

Menardi posted...

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

I marked them

Still salty I kicked you off the board lmao.

Doesn't matter. You accomplished nothing.

Your posts were deleted and you were triggered

No, I just found it humorous that he marked them. I still wonder who did, because your marks don't go through.

Karma is inconsequential to me.

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, they are. It's okay, though. You just lied about it being exclusively for personal use before. No big deal.

No they are not. This isn't rocket science.

"Phone calls are for personal use"

"Phone call happens that is then realized to be of public interest"

"Phone calls are still for personal use but some of them now are also disclosed because they are not ONLY for personal use but public interest"

You claiming they are exclusive does not make it so, as a matter of fact you cannot reason that they are other than to simply make the claim without basis.

The very second that you started using it for 'public interest' it ceased to be 100% for personal use. If I say "I'm buying this car only to drive it to work" and then decide it turns out that I need it to drive to the store for groceries, it ceases to be exclusively for work. It now is for work and groceries, which is an entirely different category.

If something is 100% A, and then is suddenly used for B, it is now A+B and no longer 100% A. It can't be both !00% A and 50% A + 50% B.

I'm not sure why you are defending this doublethink so hard since you said it doesn't matter. You fibbed before, apparently for no reason since you said it doesn't matter, and I don't get why that hurts your ego so much to admit.

Edit; Also, you specifically said that they were exclusively for personal use, which you now admit is not true.

I forget does XSquader pay taxes?

TRC posted...

I forget does XSquader pay taxes?

No, he receives government subsidies. The taxpayers are literally paying for him not to work and to waste other people's time with this nonsense.
---

TRC posted...

I forget does XSquader pay taxes?

No, he gets money when YOU go to work and then pay your taxes. Your hard earned money also goes on police time, legal processes and prison funding. ENJOY!

Conflict posted...

smoliske posted...

thelovefist posted...

Menardi posted...

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

I marked them

fucking rekt

southcoast09 posted...

thelovefist posted...

Menardi posted...

Looks like little squaddie got a little butthurt and reported my posts, even though I'm "on ignore".

I marked them

Rekt.

Not gonna comment on what lovefist did but it's kinda embarrassing that you two dweebs consider that "rekt"

You requested, via PM, that goatthief help you mark somebody for whatever reason.
---

Actually you know what I remembered that now... but I'm not gonna lie he does seem like he is actually disabled. >_>

I sympathize with those that don't like paying taxes though... Last year I had to shell out 11,000 for taxes :(

Honestly I'd rather my taxes go towards welfare for the mentally ill than have it spent blowing up caves in Syria, but that's a whole other subject lol

Eevee-Trainer posted...

No reason to answer nonsense questions.

It's a valid question, if for no other reason than that the judge and/or jury are not infallible. Regardless of how right you think they are, they either could know better than you (unless you know the entirety of all law in Maryland and federal law verbatim as well as every relevant case), or, on the assumption you're right (an assumption you take to), they make a mistake.

This blind arrogance is why everyone here views you as a joke. He raised a valid question; you don't get to wave it away with "I'm right so it's irrelevant and nonsensical."

Because I do have the relevant case law memorized, specifically from "United States vs Harpel" and from "Martin vs. Maryland".
---

BeyondWalls posted...

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/maryland-wiretapping-law-needs-update

This article appeared in The Baltimore Sun on June 1, 2010.

Anthony Graber is facing felony charges today. His crime? Recording a traffic stop with a video camera — supposedly prohibited in Maryland under an archaic “anti-wiretapping” statute that is well past due for a revisit by the General Assembly.

Mr. Graber was riding his motorcycle on I-95 in Maryland, speeding and popping wheelies and recording the experience with a helmet cam. An unmarked car cut him off as he slowed for traffic, and a man in a sweatshirt and jeans jumped out with a gun in his hand. Five seconds after the armed man exited his vehicle and approached Mr. Graber, he identified himself as a Maryland state trooper. But for the first four seconds of the encounter, it looks like a carjacking. Mr. Graber accepted a speeding ticket.

That was the end of the story until Mr. Graber posted video of the encounter on YouTube. Then six state troopers showed up with a search warrant, seized two computers, two laptops and a camera.

...

How is this possible? Because the Maryland wiretapping statute makes it a crime to record any conversation without the consent of all parties — a “unanimous consent” law. Maryland is one of a dozen states with such a statute; most jurisdictions are less strict. The penalty can be up to five years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.

....

The deterrent to recording police is still established. Mr. Graber faces long hours and thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. Even if he sues the police for violating his civil rights and wins monetary damages, he has been put through the wringer enough to make citizens pause before pushing the record button. In short, you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride — the ride to the station house and into court.

This boils down to “contempt of cop,” as it is known in civil liberties circles. The police are, in effect, telling Mr. Graber and anyone else who might record police activity in Maryland that they have little interest in police transparency and accountability.

...

The Maryland wiretapping law is itching for an update. The police work for the citizens of Maryland, and there is no reasonable argument that the citizens are not owed a transparent accounting of police actions funded by their tax dollars and potentially infringing on their liberties. Prosecuting those who capture police misconduct on tape thwarts the rule of law and makes civil servants into bullies. The legislature should amend the law and let Maryland law enforcement officers know that if they’re doing good police work, they should not be worried about getting caught on tape.

Well... I hope the law has changed a lot since 2010, otherwise they could add that video of you recording the cop on the street. If this really is a case of "contempt of cop" then you pissed these guys off and they very well may go out of their way to use you to prove a point. If they get a sympathetic judge then you may well lose this thing and have to appeal from a jail cell.

Anthony Graber later got off because the judge ruled there was no expectation of privacy on a public street. But there is an expectation of privacy in phone calls, so I don't know how you're expecting to walk so easily.

Phone calls are made using a device that is NOT an "electronic, mechanical, or other device" according to the statute. Your own personal phone making telephone calls during the ordinary course of it's business is specifically excluded as these laws are intended to be "eavesdropping laws" and you cannot eavesdrop on yourself.
---

DelianSK posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Conflict posted...

Lol.

You still don't get it.

No reason to answer nonsense questions.

Dude, everything with you has been nonsense charges and questions. You've been evicted, had property taken by the police, been arrested, AND you have done jail time for things you consider to be nonsense. Wake up! You're going to jail again.

My property was returned, the eviction case is mysteriously still active, half the wiretapping charges have been thrown out before I have even gone to court, and I did jail time for fighting for my beliefs.

Quit hating because you are too cowardly to fight for what you believe in.
---

prettyprincess posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Not a possibility according to case law.

this is neither how case law nor possibility works, unfortunately

Court of special appeals ruled on it. Lower court cannot supercede the court of special appeals.
---

Because I do have the relevant case law memorized, specifically from "United States vs Harpel" and from "Martin vs. Maryland".

Cool. Address the rest of my post.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

prettyprincess posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Not a possibility according to case law.

this is neither how case law nor possibility works, unfortunately

Court of special appeals ruled on it. Lower court cannot supercede the court of special appeals.

Remember folks, banging your head on a squad car is fighting for your beliefs.
---

I love ya to death Xsquader lol but yeah, not sure sure that beating the shit out of yourself is fighting for your beliefs

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Eevee-Trainer posted...

No reason to answer nonsense questions.

It's a valid question, if for no other reason than that the judge and/or jury are not infallible. Regardless of how right you think they are, they either could know better than you (unless you know the entirety of all law in Maryland and federal law verbatim as well as every relevant case), or, on the assumption you're right (an assumption you take to), they make a mistake.

This blind arrogance is why everyone here views you as a joke. He raised a valid question; you don't get to wave it away with "I'm right so it's irrelevant and nonsensical."

Because I do have the relevant case law memorized, specifically from "United States vs Harpel" and from "Martin vs. Maryland".

I have put in notifications of what to expect to a higher authority so it would be bad for them to continue to step outside of the law.
---

TRC posted...

I love ya to death Xsquader lol but yeah, not sure sure that beating the shit out of yourself is fighting for your beliefs

That happened by accident. That may not make sense to you but when you are me trust me, that's the type of thing that can happen by accident. So that's why I try to be as much of a robot as possible.


I have recovered since then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqPgJAhTtPU this video had a valid complaint lodged that was sustained.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

DelianSK posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Conflict posted...

Lol.

You still don't get it.

No reason to answer nonsense questions.

Dude, everything with you has been nonsense charges and questions. You've been evicted, had property taken by the police, been arrested, AND you have done jail time for things you consider to be nonsense. Wake up! You're going to jail again.

My property was returned, the eviction case is mysteriously still active, half the wiretapping charges have been thrown out before I have even gone to court, and I did jail time for fighting for my beliefs.

Quit hating because you are too cowardly to fight for what you believe in.

You are gonna get locked up no matter how much you sugarcoat it
---

a little time in prison will straighten him out, and loosen him up for that matter

smoliske posted...

a little time in prison will straighten him out, and loosen him up for that matter

Because imprisoning someone for their beliefs is the American way?
---