Current Events > Here is a letter I sent to my attorney explaining how I broke no laws.

(+) Yeah! (+)

marc55 posted...

this is weird

he sent a letter to the attorney ? i though it was the attourney the one who should know about laws and which ones you broke or not

it's like when you're babysitting a really young child who wants to play video games with you, so you hand them an unplugged controller and let them feel like they're doing something
---

but is he free to go?
---

literal_garbage posted...

marc55 posted...

this is weird

he sent a letter to the attorney ? i though it was the attourney the one who should know about laws and which ones you broke or not

it's like when you're babysitting a really young child who wants to play video games with you, so you hand them an unplugged controller and let them feel like they're doing something

Lmfao
---

You had better be paying that poor lawyer good money.
---

marc55 posted...

this is weird

he sent a letter to the attorney ? i though it was the attourney the one who should know about laws and which ones you broke or not

The wiretapping law is a very rarely prosecuted law in these situations. Usually it's for a politically motivated purpose. Such as the Linda Tripp case.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

marc55 posted...

this is weird

he sent a letter to the attorney ? i though it was the attourney the one who should know about laws and which ones you broke or not

The wiretapping law is a very rarely prosecuted law in these situations. Usually it's for a politically motivated purpose. Such as the Linda Tripp case.

This goober is suggesting he's being tried for political reasons now?
---

Who posted?
---

I'm so glad I'm not afflicted with mental health issues. The people who are, and the people who work with those people...it must be exhausting.
---

That_Happened posted...

I'm so glad I'm not afflicted with mental health issues. The people who are, and the people who work with those people...it must be exhausting.

I feel sorry for the progressives in Congress myself. Putting up with the people they have to put up with with their mental issues must be difficult.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

That_Happened posted...

I'm so glad I'm not afflicted with mental health issues. The people who are, and the people who work with those people...it must be exhausting.

I feel sorry for the progressives in Congress myself. Putting up with the people they have to put up with with their mental issues must be difficult.

Sure! Of course. Anything you say.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Who posted?

Someone who smashed you in your latest YouTube video
---

giantblimpN7 posted...

You had better be paying that poor lawyer good money.

What suggests to you that this dude has any amount of money
---

You know you're nuts when you try to explain law to your lawyer.
---

Is TC in prison yet?
---

Irony posted...

Is TC in prison yet?

One could argue that existence in a world where the satire comedy movie Idiocracy is becoming a plausible documentary about the future as being a prison of sorts.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Irony posted...

Is TC in prison yet?

One could argue that existence in a world where the satire comedy movie Idiocracy is becoming a plausible documentary about the future as being a prison of sorts.

Not if they aren't equal parts insane, oblivious, and pompous.

Legit question - have you been able to research records relating to any recent related cases *in Maryland*? I'm curious as to what the arguments on both sides were and what the outcome was.

Squadders letter to his attorney was passed around the office, laughed at, and then framed on a wall.
---

ArchiePeck posted...

Legit question - have you been able to research records relating to any recent related cases *in Maryland*? I'm curious as to what the arguments on both sides were and what the outcome was.

I cannot find any cases in Maryland where anyone was prosecuted for recording their own phone calls and I have only seen it argued (unsuccessfully) in cases requesting suppression when a law enforcement officer gives someone the equipment to do so.
---

I honestly just feel bad for squader at this point, for reasons Id probably get modded for saying.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

ArchiePeck posted...

Legit question - have you been able to research records relating to any recent related cases *in Maryland*? I'm curious as to what the arguments on both sides were and what the outcome was.

I cannot find any cases in Maryland where anyone was prosecuted for recording their own phone calls and I have only seen it argued (unsuccessfully) in cases requesting suppression when a law enforcement officer gives someone the equipment to do so.

Fair enough.

ArchiePeck posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

ArchiePeck posted...

Legit question - have you been able to research records relating to any recent related cases *in Maryland*? I'm curious as to what the arguments on both sides were and what the outcome was.

I cannot find any cases in Maryland where anyone was prosecuted for recording their own phone calls and I have only seen it argued (unsuccessfully) in cases requesting suppression when a law enforcement officer gives someone the equipment to do so.

Fair enough.

My attorney cannot find any either.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

marc55 posted...

thelovefist posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Their own policy.

Were you using department equipment?

over a day and he still refuses to answer this



im guessing the answer is "no"

That guy is ignored. I don't have to be using department equipment. They know they don't have an expectation of privacy and are being recorded. It says so in their own policy.

Well since you appear to have posted that as some sort of justification for what you did yes you did have to be using department equipment. That's what it says....
---

Your attorney isnt even looking
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Your attorney isnt even looking

Why would he even have to do when squader is sending him all this useful information for free.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

marc55 posted...

thelovefist posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Their own policy.

Were you using department equipment?

over a day and he still refuses to answer this



im guessing the answer is "no"

That guy is ignored. I don't have to be using department equipment. They know they don't have an expectation of privacy and are being recorded. It says so in their own policy.

but going by your link you have to it says so right there
---

You guys are being intentionally dense. The policy uses the phrase "department equipment" to make it obvious that it's not talking about personal items (cell phones). Meaning the employer can't say, "we need to check your cell phone for quality assurance purposes".

It also makes it abundantly clear that anyone that works there, already knows their calls are being recorded. If it's legal for a call to already be recorded on one end, how is it illegal for the other party to record it too?

Wiretapping laws are in place to prevent people from deliberately intercepting calls they have no business listening to. Twisting the law so that anyone recording a call they are party to, is wrong. How can you go out on the street, record anyone you want to, without their permission, but not record a phone call you are party to? It's pretty obvious that these charges are an attempt to bully and intimidate.
---

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

The attorney just wanted a good laugh, he knows TC is off to prison and theres nothing he can do to help the nutcase
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

This state has believed the terms "intercept" and "record" are interchangeable for years. Apparently I am going to be breaking ground by going in there and basically saying "Yeah I recorded without consent, but I didn't intercept without consent and you people are dumbasses". Which is an interesting argument, but like I said I am not wrong and the lack of case law on the matter is pretty implicative itself.
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

You guys are being intentionally dense. The policy uses the phrase "department equipment" to make it obvious that it's not talking about personal items (cell phones). Meaning the employer can't say, "we need to check your cell phone for quality assurance purposes".

It also makes it abundantly clear that anyone that works there, already knows their calls are being recorded. If it's legal for a call to already be recorded on one end, how is it illegal for the other party to record it too?

Wiretapping laws are in place to prevent people from deliberately intercepting calls they have no business listening to. Twisting the law so that anyone recording a call they are party to, is wrong. How can you go out on the street, record anyone you want to, without their permission, but not record a phone call you are party to? It's pretty obvious that these charges are an attempt to bully and intimidate.

This is also why so many attorneys are unfamiliar. My last attorney (before I fired him) literally said "This is all new to me".
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

This state has believed the terms "intercept" and "record" are interchangeable for years. Apparently I am going to be breaking ground by going in there and basically saying "Yeah I recorded without consent, but I didn't intercept without consent and you people are dumbasses". Which is an interesting argument, but like I said I am not wrong and the lack of case law on the matter is pretty implicative itself.

Your endless delusions of grandeur are equal parts sad and funny.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

This state has believed the terms "intercept" and "record" are interchangeable for years. Apparently I am going to be breaking ground by going in there and basically saying "Yeah I recorded without consent, but I didn't intercept without consent and you people are dumbasses". Which is an interesting argument, but like I said I am not wrong and the lack of case law on the matter is pretty implicative itself.

How can you be so confident that you'll win if there is almost no precedent for your case in MD? It really could go either way man
---

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

f there is almost no precedent for your case in MD?

Because the fact there is no precedent is telling because there are cases where this charge was successfully prosecuted and none of them involved personal telephone calls with equipment furnished by the user or subscriber, for connection to the facilities, during the ordinary course of its business. In other states with similar laws there is precedent and they have agreed with the whole reason this is stupid and that is you CANNOT eavesdrop on yourself and these laws were intended to prevent eavesdropping.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

This state has believed the terms "intercept" and "record" are interchangeable for years. Apparently I am going to be breaking ground by going in there and basically saying "Yeah I recorded without consent, but I didn't intercept without consent and you people are dumbasses". Which is an interesting argument, but like I said I am not wrong and the lack of case law on the matter is pretty implicative itself.

I hope they break new ground by giving you life without parole for a minor infraction.

When is this all going down? I'll make sure to be on the board for that day.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

This state has believed the terms "intercept" and "record" are interchangeable for years. Apparently I am going to be breaking ground by going in there and basically saying "Yeah I recorded without consent, but I didn't intercept without consent and you people are dumbasses". Which is an interesting argument, but like I said I am not wrong and the lack of case law on the matter is pretty implicative itself.

I hope they break new ground by giving you life without parole for a minor infraction.

When is this all going down? I'll make sure to be on the board for that day.

It isn't a minor infraction. He is charged with multiple felonies and is facing many decades in prison.
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...


Since you are apparently so smart, use your skills.
---

thelovefist posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

This state has believed the terms "intercept" and "record" are interchangeable for years. Apparently I am going to be breaking ground by going in there and basically saying "Yeah I recorded without consent, but I didn't intercept without consent and you people are dumbasses". Which is an interesting argument, but like I said I am not wrong and the lack of case law on the matter is pretty implicative itself.

I hope they break new ground by giving you life without parole for a minor infraction.

When is this all going down? I'll make sure to be on the board for that day.

It isn't a minor infraction. He is charged with multiple felonies and is facing many decades in prison.

How many times does the term concurrent sentences have to come up before it sinks in to people.
---

Burgess posted...

thelovefist posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

This state has believed the terms "intercept" and "record" are interchangeable for years. Apparently I am going to be breaking ground by going in there and basically saying "Yeah I recorded without consent, but I didn't intercept without consent and you people are dumbasses". Which is an interesting argument, but like I said I am not wrong and the lack of case law on the matter is pretty implicative itself.

I hope they break new ground by giving you life without parole for a minor infraction.

When is this all going down? I'll make sure to be on the board for that day.

It isn't a minor infraction. He is charged with multiple felonies and is facing many decades in prison.

How many times does the term concurrent sentences have to come up before it sinks in to people.

The judge is not obligated to provide a concurrent sentence. They can provide consecutive ones. When it comes to the BS called the "justice system" you never assume on sentencing. I didn't break the law anyways so it shouldn't matter if we get someone with some sense.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Burgess posted...

thelovefist posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Why would one need to write a letter to their attorney explaining how they're innocent?

This state has believed the terms "intercept" and "record" are interchangeable for years. Apparently I am going to be breaking ground by going in there and basically saying "Yeah I recorded without consent, but I didn't intercept without consent and you people are dumbasses". Which is an interesting argument, but like I said I am not wrong and the lack of case law on the matter is pretty implicative itself.

I hope they break new ground by giving you life without parole for a minor infraction.

When is this all going down? I'll make sure to be on the board for that day.

It isn't a minor infraction. He is charged with multiple felonies and is facing many decades in prison.

How many times does the term concurrent sentences have to come up before it sinks in to people.

The judge is not obligated to provide a concurrent sentence. They can provide consecutive ones. When it comes to the BS called the "justice system" you never assume on sentencing. I didn't break the law anyways so it shouldn't matter if we get someone with some sense.

Yes you did. Your defense appears to be predicated on the law being wrong not whether or not you broke it.
---

Bump
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

It's honestly sad that the court fees and inevitable jail time TC is going to receive are far costlier than the mental health services he needs.

he has those things and this is the result

what would your proposed solution be when therapy isn't working?
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

My last attorney (before I fired him)

Last time I checked, he quit on you.

The politician you didn't give us the name and email address of but who we found anyway?
---

Bump
---

I'm in Florida and this stupid hurricane has given me some time to waste so I spent a few minutes actually looking into this today. ***Disclaimer -- I'm not providing legal advice, just discussing what is a hypocritical scenario described by TC -- I don't practice in MD and the following is really just a rough outline of my thoughts on this hypothetical***

TC is annoying and clearly doesn't help himself by constantly putting himself in bad situations but the issue in this case is actually pretty interesting and I think he has a decent argument. It looks like an interesting area of law that isn't really clear in MD (from what I can find after about 20mins -- did not do any case law research).

The state has charged him with several violations of Section 10-402 of what is essentially the Maryland Criminal Code. As is relevant to the set of facts TC has presented, its a felony for any person to "[w]ilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;"

Although there are a few elements the only one that is really at issue is whether or not recording the phone call was an "interception" as defined in MD.

According to 10-401 (3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

Although "Aural transfer" is defined I don't think the definition applies because the definition of "interception" does not use the whole term. The other important term in the definition of "interception" is "acquisition." That is different from the term "recording" but I think the prosecutor will argue that recording is a type of acquisition and this seems like a pretty straight forward argument that I would be worried about as the defense.

I see there being two main arguments a defense atty would likely make.

(1) "intercept" is different than "record" (and so is "acquire"). Basic tenants of statutory construction requires courts to give words meaning and assume that words are chosen for a reason. The legislature chose the word intercept and not record for a reason -- then the attys argue over what the reason is. From what I found it isn't clear, and this is where both sides will win/lose the case. If this issue has come up before in MD the arguments would be about why the holdings in previous cases should or shouldn't apply. A good atty would also look at other states/fed laws if there is anything that could help but it would be purly persuasive argument not binding on the court.

(2) the second argument is more of a due process/policy argument. I think there is a decent argument that can be made about the term "intercept" being vague if it applies to recording phone conversations made between two people. As it is commonly used a conversation between two parties cannot be intercepted by one of those two parties -- interception implies a third party is accessing the conversation. If a term is found to be vague the party that is being charged with violating the law is given deference and the state would lose.

Bottom line is that TC is annoying and here always looking for attention but he may have a decent argument in this case. From a pure legal concepts perspective its kind of an interesting argument. I have a feeling there are politics involved too. I feel like the SA's office probably didn't want to bring the case but TC pissed someone off so they were told to make an example out of him. That's also assuming there isn't some kind of black and white legal opinion on this issue that makes it clear the SA's office has a slam dunk case.

Did you guys request any e-mails between the SA's office and the police department in your production requests?
---

No, but I can ask my attorney to request anything like that. Also, it's important to remember why it takes a 3rd party to intercept. The reason why is laid out in 10-402 "(3) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the 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 this State."


"where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception"


And this is saying it has to be a 3rd party. If you are a party to the conversation then consent is implied as the person is willfully sending the communication to you with the understanding and intention for you to receive it. It makes sense when you remember why these laws exist, you cannot eavesdrop on yourself and these laws were created to prevent eavesdropping.

So I am of the belief that it is not an intercept by law because an electronic, mechanical, or other device was used and furnished by the user or subscriber (myself) for connection to the facilities, during the ordinary course of its business., but even if it was then it was not an intercept made without consent of all parties to the communication because when you are talking to someone on the phone you know that their phone will be acquiring the communication as it is mandatory that the phone acquire the communication so that the communication can be aurally acquired by the INTENDED RECEIVER.


Then there is the fact the phone call they admit started the investigation I have proven with documents from the city to be a recorded line and for them to have no expectation of privacy regarding the matter.

and they may try to argue that a recording is an acquisition but this language here "(ii) Communications intercepted under this paragraph may not be recorded, and may not be used against the defendant in a criminal proceeding." combined with what was stated in United States vs. Harpel "The government has adopted the position of the trial court below that the intercepting device was the recorder and not an extension telephone. While such a view avoids the problem presented, we are simply not persuaded by this contention. We agree with appellant that the recording of a conversation is immaterial when the overhearing is itself legal. It is the means whereby the contents of the conversation are acquired that is crucial. See State v. Vizzini, 115 N.J.Super. 97, 278 A.2d 235. A recording device placed next to, or connected with, a telephone receiver cannot itself be the 'acquiring ' mechanism. It is the receiver which serves this function-- the recorder is a mere accessory designed to preserve the contents of the communication. This interpretation comports squarely with the clear distinction drawn between 'intercepting' and 'recording' under 18 U.S.C. 2518(8)(a), which deals with judicially authorized interceptions:"

shows that it is clear that, exactly as the judge in Harpel's appeal stated, that the recorder is a mere accessory intended to preserve the contents of a communication (intercepted or otherwise) whereas to "intercept" deals solely with the means by which the communication was acquired. So the acquisition always happens prior to the preservation and this law only deals with the acquisition of the communication, not its preservation.
---