In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



I did NOT say I didn't have a cite. Where'd you come up with that amazing
claim?


My apologies, I misinterpreted an attribution. I read James' second
paragraph (sentence) as a "reply" to his first paragraph, as though you
had written his first paragraph.

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.

On Sep 20, 8:32*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. *Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was arrested and indicted though and it got as far as pre-trial
hearings to determine what was or was not admissible.
When prosecutors lost a lot of the evidence due to that
federal immunity they eventually dropped the case. I don't
know what you'd call that. I guess it's not a full prosecution,
but I'm sure from her perspective it was at least a partial
one.
I don't know what ex

On Sep 19, 9:38*pm, "Atila Iskander" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sep 19, 3:04 pm, "Atila Iskander" wrote:
wrote in message

....

On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record
a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says
you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." *It's illegal in Calilfornia to record
a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties
have
an expectation of privacy. *Generally, you don't have an expectation
of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. *And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party.

You may need to check back on that
To the best of my knowledge Open recording where the participant KNOWS he
is
being recorded is legal, since effectively with the knowledge the
participant is implying consent

Check back on what? *I said:

"And it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without informing
the other party."

That is consistent with what you just posted.

Actually, you need to read with more care
Most of the recording laws have NOTHING to do with open recording
When the recorder is obviously present, participation implies consent

I'll wait for you to cite the actual laws that you claim to be in force.- Hide quoted text -



Actually I think you need to read the thread as started by the OP:

"Do you know of a good voice activated voice recorder that uses AA
batteries? A while back, I had an air conditioning guy try to swindle
me...
So, from now on, I want to RECORD these guys quoting me stuff, just
in
case. Is it legal to stick a voice recorder in my pocket when
talking to
these guys? (I think it is but I'm not in the legal profession.) "

That sure doesn't sound like he intends to sit the
recorder in front of the HVAC guy and make it obvious that
he is recording him, ie an open recording.

I was replying in the context of the question at hand. And I
think it's obvious to everyone that if you sit a recorder down
in plain sight and turn it on, that the other party is in effect
consenting to proceeding.

On 9/20/12 10:06 AM, James Gagney wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:52:59 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions. But, my read
of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

How could it be an exception for you? You weren't doing the recording.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Yeah, you were. I just took your comment too narrowly.

snipped: traffic stop story/

Reading the California law, it seems that I can record the conversation -

You probably can because you're in a public place, where both you and
the cop don't have much expectation of privacy. If there's a right to
privacy, it's yours, so you can waive it. I think there's a federal
appellate decision that recording state officials in the public
performance of their duties is covered by the 1st Amendment. It's not
been blessed by the Supremes, but I doubt local officials would
challenge a recording.

but that HE can not without my consent. You might assume that I gave
consent because he turned it on in front of me - but - I didn't realize
what it was at the time and he certainly didn't ask me for permission.

If you can assert your right to record the cop because the stop was made
in public, what prevents the cop from asserting the same thing to record
you?

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it give
the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held device) or
does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record government activity
without consent?

California Penal Code Section 633, gives LEOs the right to record their
actions in performance of their jobs.

On 9/20/2012 8:06 AM, James Gagney wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:52:59 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions. But, my read
of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

How could it be an exception for you? You weren't doing the recording.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Here's what happened:
a) He pulled me over for speeding (34 mph in a 25 mph zone)
b) I said I wasn't speeding & that I wanted to see the radar reading
c) He got nasty verbally - and then after a few sentences where I said it
was my right to see the reading - he pulled out his recorder and turned
iton
d) Truthfully, I didn't even realize what he was doing when he fumbled
with his shirt pocket until I got back in the car and was waiting for the
ticket. It was only then I realized he got 'nice' only AFTER he turned
the recorder on and said a bunch of things which sounded like he was
ALREADY in court.
e) Afterward, I realized he changed his attitude for the recording and I
wished I had said "you didn't say that a minute ago" or something like
that to put it on his own recording.

Anyway, all that is over (I paid the ticket because it's easier not to
fight it).

Reading the California law, it seems that I can record the conversation -
but that HE can not without my consent. You might assume that I gave
consent because he turned it on in front of me - but - I didn't realize
what it was at the time and he certainly didn't ask me for permission.

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it give
the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held device) or
does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record government activity
without consent?


I think the law in California is that any time you interact with a
police officer, you can be recorded. The recording may not be
admissible in court based on the Miranda rules and such.

We have had dash cam recordings which may include the officer's audio
for a while. Local police in my city are now carrying video recorders
on their person. See

http://www.vievu.com/le2/

James Gagney wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:23:44 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all
parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic
amplifying or recording device,

Hey. I once was pulled over by a cop, and I argued with him, and he
pulled out a recorder, and turned it on.

Was that then illegal?

I wonder what would have happened had you done the same thing to him.....

Evan Platt wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:49:02 -0400, richard
wrote:

Most such laws pertain to telecommunications (wire tapping) devices.
If the conversation is truly "in the public eye", then there is no
need to ask permission. As expectation of privacy has been
diminished.

Funny, I thought you said this was called "Public Domain".

That's how tv camera crews get away with video recording people being
investigated by the cops.

Since when do tv camera crews record police investigations? What am I
missing?

The cable networks have a bunch of reality shows of car repossessors and
pawn shop arguments that depict people being themselves enguaged in their
normal activities. I like the, "bait car" episodes where the car thieves are
recorded while inside their stolen vehicle happily driving it away, before
the cops shut it down and lock all the doors...:^)

James Gagney wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:52:59 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions. But, my
read of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

How could it be an exception for you? You weren't doing the
recording.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Here's what happened:
a) He pulled me over for speeding (34 mph in a 25 mph zone)
b) I said I wasn't speeding & that I wanted to see the radar reading
c) He got nasty verbally - and then after a few sentences where I
said it was my right to see the reading - he pulled out his recorder
and turned iton
d) Truthfully, I didn't even realize what he was doing when he fumbled
with his shirt pocket until I got back in the car and was waiting for
the ticket. It was only then I realized he got 'nice' only AFTER he
turned the recorder on and said a bunch of things which sounded like
he was ALREADY in court.
e) Afterward, I realized he changed his attitude for the recording
and I wished I had said "you didn't say that a minute ago" or
something like that to put it on his own recording.

Anyway, all that is over (I paid the ticket because it's easier not to
fight it).

Reading the California law, it seems that I can record the
conversation - but that HE can not without my consent. You might
assume that I gave consent because he turned it on in front of me -
but - I didn't realize what it was at the time and he certainly
didn't ask me for permission.

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it
give the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held
device) or does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record
government activity without consent?

If you have the right, then the cop has the right. He is just a guy doing
his job, just as you are. (or might be) Most cops in the states I live in
have TV cameras mounted on their dashboards that record all their trqaffic
stops. If they can do it, you should be able to do it. And today, with TV
cameras so small you can run them up your arteries, any laws against them
would be unenforceable anyway. They sell these clips to reality TV shows,
and make a bundle of money for them, which benefits everyone too.....:^)

James Gagney wrote:

Reading the California law, it seems that I can record the
conversation - but that HE can not without my consent. You might
assume that I gave consent because he turned it on in front of me -
but - I didn't realize what it was at the time and he certainly
didn't ask me for permission.

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it
give the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held
device) or does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record
government activity without consent?

Think dash-cams on police cars.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

--
I could write about noble gases, but there would be no reaction.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:06:04 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:52:59 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions. But, my read
of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

How could it be an exception for you? You weren't doing the recording.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Here's what happened:
a) He pulled me over for speeding (34 mph in a 25 mph zone)
b) I said I wasn't speeding & that I wanted to see the radar reading
c) He got nasty verbally - and then after a few sentences where I said it
was my right to see the reading - he pulled out his recorder and turned
iton
d) Truthfully, I didn't even realize what he was doing when he fumbled
with his shirt pocket until I got back in the car and was waiting for the
ticket. It was only then I realized he got 'nice' only AFTER he turned
the recorder on and said a bunch of things which sounded like he was
ALREADY in court.
e) Afterward, I realized he changed his attitude for the recording and I
wished I had said "you didn't say that a minute ago" or something like
that to put it on his own recording.

Anyway, all that is over (I paid the ticket because it's easier not to
fight it).

Reading the California law, it seems that I can record the conversation -
but that HE can not without my consent. You might assume that I gave
consent because he turned it on in front of me - but - I didn't realize
what it was at the time and he certainly didn't ask me for permission.


Since you were in public (unless you were speeding in your living
room) he had every right to record you that you had to record him. In
public the expectation of privacy is diminished.

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it give
the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held device) or
does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record government activity
without consent?

Both have the same right in public.

--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

On Sep 21, 4:16*am, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:
On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. *Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.

* * *Which doesn't really mean anything.

Unless it's you and you have to shell out the money
for bail, pay thousands to a lawyer, have the arrest on
your record, have the emotional stress of going through
it, etc

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 03:16:42 -0500, K Wills wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she's at least as guilty as a ham sandwich (and a lot poorer now).

On 9/21/12 3:16 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she was prosecuted.

On 9/18/2012 3:58 PM, James Gagney wrote:

A while back, I had an air conditioning guy try to swindle me (he told me
point blank after I paid him $200 to test my AC that I needed an entire
new air conditioning system when the problem wasn't even related to the
home AC. The problem was a bad circuit breaker in the main fuse panel!).


Do you really want crooks working in your home?
Why don't you hire honest contractors?

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:51 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 3:16 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she was prosecuted.

No, it means she was charged. sheesh!

On 9/21/12 10:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:51 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 3:16 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she was prosecuted.

No, it means she was charged. sheesh!

You're too ignorant for outraged asides.

Prosecution is the institution of formal charges and the conducting of
the subsequent proceedings. The Maryland prosecutor indicted Tripp,
both sides argued motions about the evidence, the charges were dismissed.

I'm beginning to think that not only were you never a member of a
law-school faculty, but that you never even went to law school.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:38:45 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 10:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:51 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 3:16 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she was prosecuted.

No, it means she was charged. sheesh!

You're too ignorant for outraged asides.

Idiot. Charged prosecuted

Prosecution is the institution of formal charges and the conducting of
the subsequent proceedings. The Maryland prosecutor indicted Tripp,
both sides argued motions about the evidence, the charges were dismissed.

No, prosecution includes a trial. There was none.

I'm beginning to think that not only were you never a member of a
law-school faculty, but that you never even went to law school.

Another stupid Obamunist speaks.

On 9/21/12 7:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:38:45 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 10:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:51 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 3:16 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she was prosecuted.

No, it means she was charged. sheesh!

You're too ignorant for outraged asides.

Idiot. Charged prosecuted

Being charged is the first step in a prosecution.

Prosecution is the institution of formal charges and the conducting of
the subsequent proceedings. The Maryland prosecutor indicted Tripp,
both sides argued motions about the evidence, the charges were dismissed.

No, prosecution includes a trial. There was none.

You're far too ignorant to try this kind of bluff. Go he

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosecute

quote
pros·e·cute€‚ €‚[pros-i-kyoot] verb, pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
Law.
a. to institute legal proceedings against (a person).
/quote

Criminal legal proceedings start with an indictment. Many prosecutions
don't include trials.

I'm beginning to think that not only were you never a member of a
law-school faculty, but that you never even went to law school.

Another stupid Obamunist speaks.

Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me stupid.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:51:01 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 7:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:38:45 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 10:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:51 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 3:16 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she was prosecuted.

No, it means she was charged. sheesh!

You're too ignorant for outraged asides.

Idiot. Charged prosecuted

Being charged is the first step in a prosecution.

BEing born is the first step in life but it is *not* life.

Prosecution is the institution of formal charges and the conducting of
the subsequent proceedings. The Maryland prosecutor indicted Tripp,
both sides argued motions about the evidence, the charges were dismissed.

No, prosecution includes a trial. There was none.

You're far too ignorant to try this kind of bluff. Go he

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosecute

You're an idiot.

quote
pros·e·cute? ?[pros-i-kyoot] verb, pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
Law.
a. to institute legal proceedings against (a person).
/quote

Criminal legal proceedings start with an indictment. Many prosecutions
don't include trials.

Nonsense.

I'm beginning to think that not only were you never a member of a
law-school faculty, but that you never even went to law school.

Another stupid Obamunist speaks.

Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me stupid.

Only because you are. ...and an Obamunist.

On 9/21/12 8:06 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:51:01 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 7:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:38:45 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 10:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:51 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 3:16 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she was prosecuted.

No, it means she was charged. sheesh!

You're too ignorant for outraged asides.

Idiot. Charged prosecuted

Being charged is the first step in a prosecution.

BEing born is the first step in life but it is *not* life.

Prosecution is the institution of formal charges and the conducting of
the subsequent proceedings. The Maryland prosecutor indicted Tripp,
both sides argued motions about the evidence, the charges were dismissed.

No, prosecution includes a trial. There was none.

You're far too ignorant to try this kind of bluff. Go he

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosecute

You're an idiot.

quote
pros·e·cute? ?[pros-i-kyoot] verb, pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
Law.
a. to institute legal proceedings against (a person).
/quote

Criminal legal proceedings start with an indictment. Many prosecutions
don't include trials.

Nonsense.

You're far too ignorant to be so sure of yourself. Any prosecution that
ends with an initial guilty plea doesn't include a trial. Any
prosecution that the judge dismisses on motions before a jury is seated
doesn't include a trial. Any prosecution in which the defendant dies
before a jury is seated doesn't include a trial.
snip/

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:57:04 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 03:16:42 -0500, K Wills wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.


Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she's at least as guilty as a ham sandwich (and a lot poorer now).

Even the indicted ham sandwich could be found not guilty.
She did have to spend a lot on legal fees.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:16*am, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:
On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. *Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.

* * *Which doesn't really mean anything.

Unless it's you and you have to shell out the money
for bail, pay thousands to a lawyer, have the arrest on
your record, have the emotional stress of going through
it, etc


Being arrested isn't prosecution.
An indictment is a means to legally and formally make the
defendant aware that they have been charged. And since the only
evidence offered is from the prosecution, an indictment doesn't mean
anything. It's more noteworthy when returning a no bill occurs.

--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.

On Sep 22, 4:37Â*am, K Wills wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:16Â*am, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:
On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Â*Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.

Â* Â* Â*Which doesn't really mean anything.

Unless it's you and you have to shell out the money
for bail, pay thousands to a lawyer, have the arrest on
your record, have the emotional stress of going through
it, etc

Â* Â* Â*Being arrested isn't prosecution.
Â* Â* Â*An indictment is a means to legally and formally make the
defendant aware that they have been charged. And since the only
evidence offered is from the prosecution, an indictment doesn't mean
anything. It's more noteworthy when returning a no bill occurs.

--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An indictment is the first step in the process of prosecution.
That prosecution can end in a number of ways: conviction,
acquital, mistrial with prosecutor deciding not to retry,
dismissal of the charges by the judge, etc. In Tripp's case
she was indicted, arrested, and the case got as far
as pretrial hearings.

Here's a definition of the word prosecution:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosecute?s=t

pros·e·cute
€‚ €‚[pros-i-kyoot] Show IPA verb, pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
Law .
a.
to institute legal proceedings against (a person).

b.
to seek to enforce or obtain by legal process.

c.
to conduct criminal proceedings in court against.

2.
to follow up or carry forward something undertaken or begun, usually
to its completion: to prosecute a war.

3.
to carry on or practice.


I would say definition "a" was met in the Tripp case.
And my main point in the reply was that
the statement "being indicted doesn't mean anything",
is total BS. You wind up with an arrest on your record,
you usually have to post bail, which costs money, or
stay in jail pending trial, you
have to pay for a lawyer and you have the emotional
stress of it all. Indeed an indictment does mean a
lot.

On Sep 21, 9:54*pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/21/12 8:06 PM, wrote:





On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:51:01 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:38:45 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 10:53 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:51 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/21/12 3:16 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. *Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.

* * * * *Which doesn't really mean anything.

It means she was prosecuted.

No, it means she was charged. sheesh!

You're too ignorant for outraged asides.

Idiot. *Charged prosecuted

Being charged is the first step in a prosecution.

BEing born is the first step in life but it is *not* life.

Prosecution is the institution of formal charges and the conducting of
the subsequent proceedings. *The Maryland prosecutor indicted Tripp,
both sides argued motions about the evidence, the charges were dismissed.

No, prosecution includes a trial. *There was none.

You're far too ignorant to try this kind of bluff. *Go he

* * * *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosecute

You're an idiot.

quote
pros·e·cute? ?[pros-i-kyoot] verb, pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
* * Law.
* * * *a. to institute legal proceedings against (a person).
/quote

Criminal legal proceedings start with an indictment. *Many prosecutions
don't include trials.

Nonsense.

You're far too ignorant to be so sure of yourself. *Any prosecution that
ends with an initial guilty plea doesn't include a trial. *Any
prosecution that the judge dismisses on motions before a jury is seated
doesn't include a trial. *Any prosecution in which the defendant dies
before a jury is seated doesn't include a trial.
snip/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with your interpretation of prosecution. Tripp was
indicted, they did discovery, the case got as far as pre-trial
hearings on admissibility of evidence. Following rulings
against the PROSECUTION with regard to much of that
evidence, the PROSECUTOR, dropped the case.
I would say Tripp was prosecuted. It meets definition
"a" that you provided. And as you point out, cases can
end in many ways without an actual trial decision.

The behavior you're seeing from krw is typical. When
he's lost an argument, he gets nasty and starts with the
name calling and vulgarity. He prefers to dig himself
in deeper, instead of admit he may be wrong.

On 9/22/12 3:37 AM, K Wills wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:16 am, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:
On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.

Which doesn't really mean anything.

Unless it's you and you have to shell out the money
for bail, pay thousands to a lawyer, have the arrest on
your record, have the emotional stress of going through
it, etc


Being arrested isn't prosecution.
An indictment is a means to legally and formally make the
defendant aware that they have been charged.

No, an indictment formally charges the person with the crime. If an
indictment is sealed, the person won't even find out about it until his
arrest. Arraignment is the formal judicial notice, although the police
must have informed the person of the charge when he is arrested.

And since the only
evidence offered is from the prosecution, an indictment doesn't mean
anything. It's more noteworthy when returning a no bill occurs.

No, an indictment means there's probable cause that the indicted has
committed a crime. This isn't nothing, but the bar is pretty low.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:22:41 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:37*am, K Wills wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:16*am, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:
On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. *Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.

* * *Which doesn't really mean anything.

Unless it's you and you have to shell out the money
for bail, pay thousands to a lawyer, have the arrest on
your record, have the emotional stress of going through
it, etc

* * *Being arrested isn't prosecution.
* * *An indictment is a means to legally and formally make the
defendant aware that they have been charged. And since the only
evidence offered is from the prosecution, an indictment doesn't mean
anything. It's more noteworthy when returning a no bill occurs.

--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An indictment is the first step in the process of prosecution.
That prosecution can end in a number of ways: conviction,
acquital, mistrial with prosecutor deciding not to retry,
dismissal of the charges by the judge, etc. In Tripp's case
she was indicted, arrested, and the case got as far
as pretrial hearings.


But an arrest still isn't prosecution.

Here's a definition of the word prosecution:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosecute?s=t

pros·e·cute
? ?[pros-i-kyoot] Show IPA verb, pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
Law .
a.
to institute legal proceedings against (a person).

b.
to seek to enforce or obtain by legal process.

c.
to conduct criminal proceedings in court against.

2.
to follow up or carry forward something undertaken or begun, usually
to its completion: to prosecute a war.

3.
to carry on or practice.


I would say definition "a" was met in the Tripp case.
And my main point in the reply was that
the statement "being indicted doesn't mean anything",
is total BS.

It doesn't. It doesn't mean the accused is guilty.

You wind up with an arrest on your record,

Again, an arrest isn't prosecution.

you usually have to post bail, which costs money, or
stay in jail pending trial, you
have to pay for a lawyer and you have the emotional
stress of it all. Indeed an indictment does mean a
lot.

You're trying to equate an arrest, which will be on one's record
if they are arrested regardless of anything else, with prosecution.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:01:13 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Unless it's you and you have to shell out the money
for bail, pay thousands to a lawyer, have the arrest on
your record, have the emotional stress of going through
it, etc


Being arrested isn't prosecution.
An indictment is a means to legally and formally make the
defendant aware that they have been charged.

No, an indictment formally charges the person with the crime.

Clearly you know more than Black's. Have you written the
publisher to have the entries corrected?

If an
indictment is sealed, the person won't even find out about it until his
arrest. Arraignment is the formal judicial notice, although the police
must have informed the person of the charge when he is arrested.

And since the only
evidence offered is from the prosecution, an indictment doesn't mean
anything. It's more noteworthy when returning a no bill occurs.

No, an indictment means there's probable cause that the indicted has
committed a crime. This isn't nothing, but the bar is pretty low.

It's nothing, really. The same can often be done with
information. The Constitution requires indictment for some crimes,
even though it is, IMO, not necessary. However, it remains nothing
more than my opinion.

--
"I look like I'm in the Harry Potter movie."
-- Rick Harrison (Pawn Stars)

On 9/22/12 5:27 PM, K Wills wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:01:13 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Unless it's you and you have to shell out the money
for bail, pay thousands to a lawyer, have the arrest on
your record, have the emotional stress of going through
it, etc


Being arrested isn't prosecution.
An indictment is a means to legally and formally make the
defendant aware that they have been charged.

No, an indictment formally charges the person with the crime.

Clearly you know more than Black's. Have you written the
publisher to have the entries corrected?

You can't always discern legal meanings from dictionaries, even legal
dictionaries. You have to look at legal procedure, and in the US, as I
point out below, an indictment may be handed up but kept from the accused.

If an
indictment is sealed, the person won't even find out about it until his
arrest. Arraignment is the formal judicial notice, although the police
must have informed the person of the charge when he is arrested.

And since the only
evidence offered is from the prosecution, an indictment doesn't mean
anything. It's more noteworthy when returning a no bill occurs.

No, an indictment means there's probable cause that the indicted has
committed a crime. This isn't nothing, but the bar is pretty low.

It's nothing, really.

Did you get that from Black's, really? Your indictment will lead to an
arrest warrant for you. An arrest warrant will lead to the police
taking you into custody. If you think that's nothing, then you and krw
deserve each other.

snip/

On Sep 22, 6:27*pm, K Wills wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:22:41 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 22, 4:37*am, K Wills wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:16*am, K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:05:48 -0500, deadrat wrote:
On 9/20/12 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. *Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

She was indicted.

* * *Which doesn't really mean anything.

Unless it's you and you have to shell out the money
for bail, pay thousands to a lawyer, have the arrest on
your record, have the emotional stress of going through
it, etc

* * *Being arrested isn't prosecution.
* * *An indictment is a means to legally and formally make the
defendant aware that they have been charged. And since the only
evidence offered is from the prosecution, an indictment doesn't mean
anything. It's more noteworthy when returning a no bill occurs.

--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An indictment is the first step in the process of prosecution.
That prosecution can end in a number of ways: conviction,
acquital, mistrial with prosecutor deciding not to retry,
dismissal of the charges by the judge, etc. *In Tripp's case
she was indicted, arrested, and the case got as far
as pretrial hearings.

* * *But an arrest still isn't prosecution.


She was not only arrested. She was INDICTED, which means she
was charged by a MD grand jury. Look at definiton
"a", which I provided:

"to institute legal proceedings against (a person)."

Being indicted is the institution of legal proceedings against
a person. In Tripps case, it went much further than that, with
discovery and pre-trial hearings on the admissibility of evidence.


0





Here's a definition of the word prosecution:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosecute?s=t

pros·e·cute
? ?[pros-i-kyoot] Show IPA verb, pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
Law .
a.
to institute legal proceedings against (a person).

b.
to seek to enforce or obtain by legal process.

c.
to conduct criminal proceedings in court against.

2.
to follow up or carry forward something undertaken or begun, usually
to its completion: to prosecute a war.

3.
to carry on or practice.

I would say definition "a" was met in the Tripp case.
And my main point in the reply was that
the statement "being indicted doesn't mean anything",
is total BS.

* * *It doesn't. *It doesn't mean the accused is guilty.

You wind up with an arrest on your record,

* * *Again, an arrest isn't prosecution.

Again, I responded to someone who said being indicted
was "nothing". I merely pointed out that having an arrest record,
in addition to other serious consequences, is not "nothing".



you usually have to post bail, which costs money, or
stay in jail pending trial, you
have to pay for a lawyer and you have the emotional
stress of it all. *Indeed an indictment does mean a
lot.

* * *You're trying to equate an arrest, which will be on one's record
if they are arrested regardless of anything else, with prosecution.

Go back and read what I wrote. I stated that an arrest record is
not "nothing" and has consequences in and of itself. That is seperate
from the issue of what constitutes being prosecuted.

I provided a dictionary definition of prosecution that shows it's
the institution of legal proceedings and/or to conduct criminal
proceedings against someone in court. That is exactly what
was done in Tripp's case.

Where are your references? In your view, what exactly has to
occur for a person to meet the definiton of being prosecuted?

A person is indicted, tried and halfway through the trial, the judge
dismisses the charges. Was that person prosecuted? yes or no?

A person is indicted, tried and it ends in a mistrial. The state
decides not to conduct another trial. Was that person prosecuted?

K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:06:04 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:52:59 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions. But, my
read of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

How could it be an exception for you? You weren't doing the
recording.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Here's what happened:
a) He pulled me over for speeding (34 mph in a 25 mph zone)
b) I said I wasn't speeding & that I wanted to see the radar reading
c) He got nasty verbally - and then after a few sentences where I
said it was my right to see the reading - he pulled out his recorder
and turned iton
d) Truthfully, I didn't even realize what he was doing when he
fumbled with his shirt pocket until I got back in the car and was
waiting for the ticket. It was only then I realized he got 'nice'
only AFTER he turned the recorder on and said a bunch of things
which sounded like he was ALREADY in court.
e) Afterward, I realized he changed his attitude for the recording
and I wished I had said "you didn't say that a minute ago" or
something like that to put it on his own recording.

Anyway, all that is over (I paid the ticket because it's easier not
to fight it).

Reading the California law, it seems that I can record the
conversation - but that HE can not without my consent. You might
assume that I gave consent because he turned it on in front of me -
but - I didn't realize what it was at the time and he certainly
didn't ask me for permission.


Since you were in public (unless you were speeding in your living
room) he had every right to record you that you had to record him. In
public the expectation of privacy is diminished.

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it
give the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held
device) or does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record
government activity without consent?

Both have the same right in public.

Buy yourself a Tascam GY-R!, ($150) Carry it with you at all times. It can
be started at the touch of a button. The next time you are stopped, turn it
on and record everything yourself. Then you will have the evidence you need
when you get to court.

Bill Graham wrote:
K Wills wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:06:04 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:52:59 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions. But, my
read of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

How could it be an exception for you? You weren't doing the
recording.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Here's what happened:
a) He pulled me over for speeding (34 mph in a 25 mph zone)
b) I said I wasn't speeding & that I wanted to see the radar reading
c) He got nasty verbally - and then after a few sentences where I
said it was my right to see the reading - he pulled out his recorder
and turned iton
d) Truthfully, I didn't even realize what he was doing when he
fumbled with his shirt pocket until I got back in the car and was
waiting for the ticket. It was only then I realized he got 'nice'
only AFTER he turned the recorder on and said a bunch of things
which sounded like he was ALREADY in court.
e) Afterward, I realized he changed his attitude for the recording
and I wished I had said "you didn't say that a minute ago" or
something like that to put it on his own recording.

Anyway, all that is over (I paid the ticket because it's easier not
to fight it).

Reading the California law, it seems that I can record the
conversation - but that HE can not without my consent. You might
assume that I gave consent because he turned it on in front of me -
but - I didn't realize what it was at the time and he certainly
didn't ask me for permission.


Since you were in public (unless you were speeding in your living
room) he had every right to record you that you had to record him. In
public the expectation of privacy is diminished.

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it
give the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held
device) or does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record
government activity without consent?

Both have the same right in public.

Buy yourself a Tascam GY-R!, ($150) Carry it with you at all times.
It can be started at the touch of a button. The next time you are
stopped, turn it on and record everything yourself. Then you will
have the evidence you need when you get to court.

I meant, "Tascam GT-R1"

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:42:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

[...]

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it
give the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held
device) or does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record
government activity without consent?

Both have the same right in public.

Buy yourself a Tascam GY-R!, ($150) Carry it with you at all times. It can
be started at the touch of a button. The next time you are stopped, turn it
on and record everything yourself. Then you will have the evidence you need
when you get to court.

Considering the only time I've been pulled over in the past eight
years was due to my tag lights being out (I didn't get a ticket and
replaced the bulbs in less than an hour), I don't expect I'll need to
worry.

--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:49:06 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

[...]

If these people are outside, there isn't much in the way of an
expectation of privacy.

BS. If two people are standing outside on private property
with clear sight all around, no one else there, there is certainly
a reasonable expectation of privacy, very similar to if they
were meeting inside a home. In fact, if anything, it could
be argued that the contractor might be entitled to less
protection inside the customer's home, where the home
owner might be more entitled to have some recording
system set up. I think you will find that in those states
that have laws covering fact to face converstations,
covertly taping someone in an empty parking lot is
treated exactly the same as if you did it in your house.
If they wanted to draw that distinction, they would have
done it in the law.

But today, they make hi fidelity recorders that are about the size of a pack
of cigarettes that can record for 24 hours or more on a battery and 16 gig
memory card. So there is no such thing as an, "expectation of privacy" any
more.

Even before that the expectation of privacy was diminished when
out in public.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

K Wills wrote:

It's nothing, really. The same can often be done with
information. The Constitution requires indictment for some crimes,
even though it is, IMO, not necessary. However, it remains nothing
more than my opinion.

Slight correction. An indictment by a grand jury is only incumbent upon the
federal government. This provision of the 5th Amendment has not been
"incorporated" upon the states.

On Sep 24, 5:01*am, K Wills wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:49:06 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

[...]





If these people are outside, there isn't much in the way of an
expectation of privacy.

BS. *If two people are standing outside on private property
with clear sight all around, no one else there, there is certainly
a reasonable expectation of privacy, very similar to if they
were meeting inside a home. *In fact, if anything, it could
be argued that the contractor might be entitled to less
protection inside the customer's home, where the home
owner might be more entitled to have some recording
system set up. *I think you will find that in those states
that have laws covering fact to face converstations,
covertly taping someone in an empty parking lot is
treated exactly the same as if you did it in your house.
If they wanted to draw that distinction, they would have
done it in the law.

But today, they make hi fidelity recorders that are about the size of a pack
of cigarettes that can record for 24 hours or more on a battery and 16 gig
memory card. So there is no such thing as an, "expectation of privacy" any
more.

* * *Even before that the expectation of privacy was diminished when
out in public.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're confusing being outside with being in public.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:17:41 -0700, wrote:

That sure doesn't sound like he intends to sit the recorder in front of
the HVAC guy and make it obvious that he is recording him, ie an open
recording.

I want it hidden in my pocket.

But, the real question wasn't about legality (although I had never even
prior considered it being illegal until you guys pointed that out).

I just wanted a Vox voice activated recorder that used AA batteries!

I wonder if I didn't mention the original purpose if the thread would
have given suggestions of what YOU guys use for voice recordings?

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:42:52 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:

Buy yourself a Tascam GY-R!, ($150)

Finally, an answer of what recorder has AA batteries & voice activation
(so it can be left on all the time)!

Looking up this device:
http://tascam.com/product/gt-r1/

I like that the USB 2.0 jack charges the recorder in addition to copying
files to the PC, and that it uses an SD card for storage.

Of the two requirements, the AA battery need may be moot if it's a
rechargeable battery - but the specifications page says nothing about it
being voice activated:
http://tascam.com/product/gt-r1/specifications/

Did I miss something in the spec for vox voice activation?
Here's what that spec page says:
Portable stereo recording with built-in condenser microphones
MP3 or WAV file recording, up to 48kHz/24-bit
1/4" Instrument input for Guitar or Bass
Amp simulation, reverb and multi-effects
Over 80 rhythm tracks in a variety of styles
Overdub function allows users to record over an existing track
Powered microphone input
Low cut filter and analog limiter on input
Loop and change the speed of music playback without changing the
pitch to learn and transcribe new music
Guitar and Bass canceller allows musicians to play along
Includes 1GB SD Card and rechargeable battery
USB 2.0 Connection to computer for file transfer and charging
Optional AK-DR1 includes a tabletop stand, microphone clip and
windscreen

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:15:03 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
I meant, "Tascam GT-R1"

I appreciate the pointer because the original goal is to find a voice-
activated recorder that can stay on all the time to only record
conversations, and which has a convenient battery.

Googling for Tascam GT-R1 specifications, and looking to see if it's
voice activated and whether it has AA batteries ... unfortunately says
nothing about either goal.

The battery appears to be rechargeable (which is fine); but it doesn't
say whether it has VOx or not, so, for example, it can be left in a room
where workers are rebuilding the kitchen, and all the conversations can
be recorded.