Re: Wimpy

[Greegor]

Stolen text:
> While your state laws may prohibit recording,
> there is still a valid argument to make that a citizen
> should STILL have a right to record a government
> agent in the performance of their duties.
>
> The caseworker should have no expectation of privacy.
>
> It would need LITIGATION though.
>
> If you want to play that one out you might actually
> be better off to bait them into trying to
> charge you for breaking the state law.
>
> I think defending that one might be stronger
> than arguing to have the tape be allowed.
>
> Trying to have it allowed in court using that
> "government agent in the performance of their duties"
> argument might be a good way to get them
> to try to charge you.
>
> A charge I would WELCOME if I was in your state!
>
> But I am NOT a lawyer.

Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
would convict a person for tape recording government
agents in the process of interviewing themself.

Government agents interviewing citizens have
NO expectation of privacy.

The prosecutor would never charge it.

But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
that gets a LOT of attention now'days.
Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.

Which is dumber Dan?

My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
(A Bill Of Rights issue!)

or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
....and posting the EVIDENCE!

Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:
> Stolen text:
> > While your state laws may prohibit recording,
> > there is still a valid argument to make that a citizen
> > should STILL have a right to record a government
> > agent in the performance of their duties.
> >
> > The caseworker should have no expectation of privacy.
> >
> > It would need LITIGATION though.
> >
> > If you want to play that one out you might actually
> > be better off to bait them into trying to
> > charge you for breaking the state law.
> >
> > I think defending that one might be stronger
> > than arguing to have the tape be allowed.
> >
> > Trying to have it allowed in court using that
> > "government agent in the performance of their duties"
> > argument might be a good way to get them
> > to try to charge you.
> >
> > A charge I would WELCOME if I was in your state!
> >
> > But I am NOT a lawyer.
>
> Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
> would convict a person for tape recording government
> agents in the process of interviewing themself.

Then why is it against the law?

> Government agents interviewing citizens have
> NO expectation of privacy.

Then why is it illegal in some states?

> The prosecutor would never charge it.

You're taking a big chance with that statement, Greg.

> But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
> to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
> that gets a LOT of attention now'days.

>From whom?

Is it illegal?

> Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
> and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.

This from a turd who told a woman to get herself arrested in Court when
she wasn't even under investigation or a principle in the case. And was
in the middle of getting her children back.

Your advice is so ridiculous that sometimes I can't tell the difference
between you and Bob Jarovits.

> Which is dumber Dan?

Difficult to tell, Greg.

> My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
> (A Bill Of Rights issue!)

It's not a technicality, Greg.

It's specifically against the law in that state.

> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
> ...and posting the EVIDENCE!

Is that your best legal assessment, Greg?

> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?

I'm obviously smarter because I didn't advise anyone to get arrested.

Ya know, Greg.

Most of the time I think you couldn't be more stupid.

Then Oliver Sutton you do something even worse.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Stolen text:
>> While your state laws may prohibit recording,
>> there is still a valid argument to make that a citizen
>> should STILL have a right to record a government
>> agent in the performance of their duties.
>>
>> The caseworker should have no expectation of privacy.
>>
>> It would need LITIGATION though.
>>
>> If you want to play that one out you might actually
>> be better off to bait them into trying to
>> charge you for breaking the state law.
>>
>> I think defending that one might be stronger
>> than arguing to have the tape be allowed.
>>
>> Trying to have it allowed in court using that
>> "government agent in the performance of their duties"
>> argument might be a good way to get them
>> to try to charge you.
>>
>> A charge I would WELCOME if I was in your state!
>>
>> But I am NOT a lawyer.
>
> Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
> would convict a person for tape recording government
> agents in the process of interviewing themself.

Then why don't YOU break the laws in your state regarding this issue,
and get back to us, rather than suggest someone else, who has children
she's trying to get back, has succeeded in get one back already, do so
in the middle of her case?

No one is stopping YOU from choosing to do stupid things, Greg. Feel
free. You have so far.

> Government agents interviewing citizens have
> NO expectation of privacy.

There's an argument that does not fit the issue. Lots of people think a
lot of laws suck, Greg. Nonetheless, they obey them or lose.

>
> The prosecutor would never charge it.
>

Okay, break a law in your state that you think is comparable and
challenge the court with it. Get back to us with your result. Stop
asking other people to be your lab rat, Greg.

> But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
> to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
> that gets a LOT of attention now'days.

I'm still waiting for proof. Got any?

And do you have any proof it's a crime? You claimed it's a felony.

I asked you before to cite the law, and so far, nothing but accusations
and bull****, Greg.

> Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
> and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.

How can an open forum that guests can come and observe possibly offer an
expectation privacy, reasonable or otherwise?

>
> Which is dumber Dan?
>

Wait for my answer. 0:->

> My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
> (A Bill Of Rights issue!)

There is nothing in the bill of rights on this issue, but feel free to
cite something you think applies.

And legal "technicalities" are what put people in jail and or fined when
they violate them, and are convicted.

> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
> ....and posting the EVIDENCE!

You have proof of this?

Had he done so, please show where all those people that post and or read
under a nom d' electronique, or 'nym, are breaking any law, Greg.
>
> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?

Dan of Long Island is much much smarter.

He posts evidence. You post claims and bull****.

You think you can bluff your way out of the vicious trick you tried to
pull on a women who is at risk of losing her children. You tried to make
her your lab rat just like people in Oregon did to Christines. NO ONE
that gave them advice took their risk. They are in jail for years now.

Because of people just like you, ****ant.

You do this to every new person that comes here, and if they catch on to
you, you continue the harass them even for years.

You are one nasty little piece of work, boy, and it will catch up with
you. Trust me.

Buy rope. It will be much less painful than the long difficult times you
are buying yourself. One slip stupid. One person that takes your stupid
advice and loses and decides YOU are the source, and you are over.

You'll need three Lisa's to support what it will cost you.

0:-]

[Greegor]

Greg wrote
> Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
> would convict a person for tape recording government
> agents in the process of interviewing themself.

Dan wrote
> Then why is it against the law?

You haven't shown that it IS in the LEO Intervierw with citizen
context.

If it is, it should not be!
Special context for government agents in performance of their duties.

Citizens rule.

Greg wrote
> Government agents interviewing citizens have
> NO expectation of privacy.

Dan wrote
> Then why is it illegal in some states?

Now you changed to SOME states eh? Hehe..

Dan, wrong laws are passed all the time.
Some are unenforceable, others are just BEGGING for the slightest
challenge.

The fact you are saying SOME should be a clue to start with.

But your right to record a government agent
who is interviewing you is NOT the general
context of the laws you refer to.

Citizens rights AGAINST agencies are a priority.
Agencies have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Their people DO, on their lunch breaks or in the bathroom.
They do NOT have any right to PRIVACY while
INTERVIEWING or INTERROGATING a citizen
as part of their official agency duties.

That is NOT under general laws about recording,
but under that very special situation.

I am NOT an attorney, I am a CITIZEN.

Greg wrote
> The prosecutor would never charge it.

Dan wrote
> You're taking a big chance with that statement, Greg.

The prosecutor should know the "fluff" law would be STRUCK DOWN
at the slightest challenge, and they like the bogus intimidation.

Greg wrote
> But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
> to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
> that gets a LOT of attention now'days.

Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York wrote
>From whom?
> Is it illegal?

CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY!
Fake IP?
Fake Name?
To re-enter where you were EJECTED?
LIfting Confidential Support Group text to post PUBLICLY?
Later enlisting others to help you lift this text?
(Now it's a criminal conspiracy!)

See what your ATTORNEY says! ROFL!

Ask him what JURISDICTION that would be under!


Greg wrote
> Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
> and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.

Dan wrote
> This from a turd who told a woman to get herself arrested in Court when
> she wasn't even under investigation or a principle in the case. And was
> in the middle of getting her children back.

Your claims and the actual text don't match exactly.

Dan wrote
> Your advice is so ridiculous that sometimes I can't tell the difference
> between you and Bob Jarovits.

Greg wrote
> Which is dumber Dan?

Dan wrote
> Difficult to tell, Greg.

ROFL!


Greg wrote
> My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
> (A Bill Of Rights issue!)

Dan Sullivan wrote
> It's not a technicality, Greg.

Government agent is a special case that would need study.
No "reasonable expectation of privacy" in performance of duty.

Dan wrote
> It's specifically against the law in that state.

Nope. GENERALLY illegal in that state,
not specifically in the case of government agents performing duty.

That was the point.

Greg wrote
> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
> ...and posting the EVIDENCE!

Dan wrote
> Is that your best legal assessment, Greg?

It's the "Time Magazine" version, Dan.

Greg wrote
> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?

Dan wrote
> I'm obviously smarter because I didn't advise anyone to get arrested.

Perpetrating a Felony yourself is SO MUCH BETTER Dan! <g>

Dan wrote
> Ya know, Greg.
> Most of the time I think you couldn't be more stupid.
> Then Oliver Sutton you do something even worse.

You laugh so hard you get caught perpetrating a FELONY!

[0:->]

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Stolen text:
>>> While your state laws may prohibit recording,
>>> there is still a valid argument to make that a citizen
>>> should STILL have a right to record a government
>>> agent in the performance of their duties.
>>>
>>> The caseworker should have no expectation of privacy.
>>>
>>> It would need LITIGATION though.
>>>
>>> If you want to play that one out you might actually
>>> be better off to bait them into trying to
>>> charge you for breaking the state law.
>>>
>>> I think defending that one might be stronger
>>> than arguing to have the tape be allowed.
>>>
>>> Trying to have it allowed in court using that
>>> "government agent in the performance of their duties"
>>> argument might be a good way to get them
>>> to try to charge you.
>>>
>>> A charge I would WELCOME if I was in your state!
>>>
>>> But I am NOT a lawyer.
>> Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
>> would convict a person for tape recording government
>> agents in the process of interviewing themself.
>
> Then why is it against the law?
>
>> Government agents interviewing citizens have
>> NO expectation of privacy.
>
> Then why is it illegal in some states?
>
>> The prosecutor would never charge it.
>
> You're taking a big chance with that statement, Greg.
>
>> But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
>> to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
>> that gets a LOT of attention now'days.
>
>>From whom?
>
> Is it illegal?
>
>> Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
>> and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.
>
> This from a turd who told a woman to get herself arrested in Court when
> she wasn't even under investigation or a principle in the case. And was
> in the middle of getting her children back.
>
> Your advice is so ridiculous that sometimes I can't tell the difference
> between you and Bob Jarovits.
>
>> Which is dumber Dan?
>
> Difficult to tell, Greg.
>
>> My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
>> (A Bill Of Rights issue!)
>
> It's not a technicality, Greg.
>
> It's specifically against the law in that state.
>
>> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
>> ...and posting the EVIDENCE!
>
> Is that your best legal assessment, Greg?
>
>> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?
>
> I'm obviously smarter because I didn't advise anyone to get arrested.
>
> Ya know, Greg.
>
> Most of the time I think you couldn't be more stupid.
>
> Then Oliver Sutton you do something even worse.

R R R R R R R R ...... <gasp> R R R R RR R <WHEEZE>

I'm dying here. Stop it Dan.

RR R R R R R

>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greg wrote
>> Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
>> would convict a person for tape recording government
>> agents in the process of interviewing themself.
>
> Dan wrote
>> Then why is it against the law?
>
> You haven't shown that it IS in the LEO Intervierw with citizen
> context.
>
> If it is, it should not be!
> Special context for government agents in performance of their duties.
>
> Citizens rule.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Government agents interviewing citizens have
>> NO expectation of privacy.
>
> Dan wrote
>> Then why is it illegal in some states?
>
> Now you changed to SOME states eh? Hehe..
>
> Dan, wrong laws are passed all the time.
> Some are unenforceable, others are just BEGGING for the slightest
> challenge.
>
> The fact you are saying SOME should be a clue to start with.
>
> But your right to record a government agent
> who is interviewing you is NOT the general
> context of the laws you refer to.
>
> Citizens rights AGAINST agencies are a priority.
> Agencies have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
> Their people DO, on their lunch breaks or in the bathroom.
> They do NOT have any right to PRIVACY while
> INTERVIEWING or INTERROGATING a citizen
> as part of their official agency duties.
>
> That is NOT under general laws about recording,
> but under that very special situation.
>
> I am NOT an attorney, I am a CITIZEN.
>
> Greg wrote
>> The prosecutor would never charge it.
>
> Dan wrote
>> You're taking a big chance with that statement, Greg.
>
> The prosecutor should know the "fluff" law would be STRUCK DOWN
> at the slightest challenge, and they like the bogus intimidation.
>
> Greg wrote
>> But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
>> to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
>> that gets a LOT of attention now'days.
>
> Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York wrote
>>From whom?
>> Is it illegal?
>
> CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY!
> Fake IP?
> Fake Name?
> To re-enter where you were EJECTED?
> LIfting Confidential Support Group text to post PUBLICLY?
> Later enlisting others to help you lift this text?
> (Now it's a criminal conspiracy!)
>
> See what your ATTORNEY says! ROFL!
>
> Ask him what JURISDICTION that would be under!
>
>
> Greg wrote
>> Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
>> and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.
>
> Dan wrote
>> This from a turd who told a woman to get herself arrested in Court when
>> she wasn't even under investigation or a principle in the case. And was
>> in the middle of getting her children back.
>
> Your claims and the actual text don't match exactly.
>
> Dan wrote
>> Your advice is so ridiculous that sometimes I can't tell the difference
>> between you and Bob Jarovits.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Which is dumber Dan?
>
> Dan wrote
>> Difficult to tell, Greg.
>
> ROFL!
>
>
> Greg wrote
>> My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
>> (A Bill Of Rights issue!)
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote
>> It's not a technicality, Greg.
>
> Government agent is a special case that would need study.
> No "reasonable expectation of privacy" in performance of duty.
>
> Dan wrote
>> It's specifically against the law in that state.
>
> Nope. GENERALLY illegal in that state,
> not specifically in the case of government agents performing duty.
>
> That was the point.

Show were there is an exemption for recording a government agent without
their knowledge in that state.

>
> Greg wrote
>> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
>> ...and posting the EVIDENCE!
>
> Dan wrote
>> Is that your best legal assessment, Greg?
>
> It's the "Time Magazine" version, Dan.

Which means you can't answer.

>
> Greg wrote
>> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?
>
> Dan wrote
>> I'm obviously smarter because I didn't advise anyone to get arrested.
>
> Perpetrating a Felony yourself is SO MUCH BETTER Dan! <g>

Show the statute that makes the reprinting of a public conversation a
felony.

And we can bring charges against a great many reporters and media people.

> Dan wrote
>> Ya know, Greg.
>> Most of the time I think you couldn't be more stupid.
>> Then Oliver Sutton you do something even worse.
>
> You laugh so hard you get caught perpetrating a FELONY!

I can't believe you didn't get it...oh well, yes I can.

You keep screaming "felony" but YOU don't cite the law that makes what
you claim was done a felony.

Are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself, with your obvious
dodge and diversion from the thing you did in giving advice to someone
to expose herself to the court as a law breaker in that state?

When are you simply going to grow up an be a man and own up to your
mistakes and do your best to correct them?

0:-]