Oh? And what do they use to determine that? Their spacio-temporal-mind-probe-o-matic, which lets them discover what the legislators were thinking when they actually voted, in a different location, in the past?
Books, usually. Written records. The standard fare we use when trying to determine what other people are thinking at "some other coordinates in the space-time continuum".
Really, it depends on what's put in front of the judge or how motivated the judge is to conduct her own search of the record. Or how good the judge's underlings (i.e. clerks) are in doing the same research (quality varies rather widely). As I'm sure you're aware, quite a record trail is created before and after a law is passed. Legislators frequently write down what they wanted the law to do. Usually, the legislators actually meet and discuss what the particular law is supposed to accomplish. Very often, the annotated version of the statutes will themselves contain citations to a statement of purpose or intent or a record of the statute's history. For example, in this case may note the original law was passed in 1969. Do you really think the legislators actually contemplated the pervasive use of video recorders to record police attacking innocent people? Probably not. As I said before, this appears to be a wire-tapping law that someone would now like to use in a more expansive capacity. The legislators probably did not intend for the law to be used in the way you're describing.
As far as mind-probing device, I'm not aware of any such device. Or why you'd even use it--since the information is usually written down. If your confusion is that legislators decide what the law is and judges have no function, perhaps you don't quite understand how powers are separated in our current system.
You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.
Actually, no. To claim that I said things which I never said is very politician-like.
Actually, yes. You did, in fact, say pedestrian. (
Read it here). Personally, I can't say I've heard of someone walking in a private place being called a "pedestrian". But we could argue about who-said-whats or no-that's-not-what-I-meants all day.
Since you seem to think it's important to now point out that you left ambiguous whether the pedestrian was in public, let's just cut to the guts of this question: was your pedestrian in public or not? If I didn't interpret what you wrote correctly, what did you mean?
I don't comment on subjects I don't have competence in. You won't find me giving cooking advice. Or anything more than basic computer advice. For a couple examples. Like any mature individual, I don't pretend to have any high level of competence in fields which I do not.
I'm not sure of your purpose for randomly stating this. It's not really responsive to anything I've said. Perhaps you're suggesting that you're also not competent to speak in this area. I do recall you attempted to use the fact that I am not licensed in NH to suggest that I was not competent to interpret a statute. By implication, you would also not be competent to comment either. (Though, I completely disagree with that original premise.)
Earlier in this thread, you were making conclusions left-and-right about what's legal and illegal--incorrectly I might add--about body armor and videotaping police. And now you're telling us that "[you] don't comment on subjects [you] don't have competence in." But given your own reasoning that you would not be competent, I'm not sure why you're commenting in the first place--unless you wish to continue making more fallacious
special pleadings.
Just to be clear,
I am NOT saying you're not competent. Personally, I don't think attorneys are particularly special in their reading abilities. But by your own hand, you appear to be saying this is an area that you should not be commenting on. Still, you do seem to be representing that you've done the research in this area and you have the specific citations to controlling authority. And yet, you were quite eager--before anyone asked for it--to declare that you're unwilling to put any of your sources on this thread.
I think you should get a new job.
That's very kind of you to say so. As you previously shared, you don't comment on things in which you aren't competent in. Perhaps you shouldn't be commenting--at least without something more compelling to base your decision on than a few posts that criticize your own. If you truly wish to avoid addressing any actual criticisms of your posts by further personally attacking my ability to perform in my professional capacity, I would encourage you to review the
Forum Posting Policies. Do be a civil, non-libelous poster
Excepting, of course, that the plain text of the law says that it does apply. And so does every competent legal professional who's read it.
Seems to me the situation you described--quite clearly--falls outside the plain language of the statute.
In the situation you've described, there is no utterance that would qualify as a "telecommunication" or an "oral communication" under the statute.
There's really no way around that. The statute's language simply doesn't support a criminal act in your situation.
And if you disagree, please contribute by telling us
why--upon what reasoning--you disagree.
I'd be quite surprised for a "legal professional" to interpret it much differently, as that would probably qualify as professional malpractice.
Especially for a criminal defense attorney. The plain language of the law is not really in debate. And I mean that literally--you have not put forth any analysis or authority to support your position that videotaping a cop beating a random pedestrian is either wiretapping or eavedropping. But regardless of what the law clearly and obviously states, the question I have been asking is whether there is any case law interpreting the statute where the case resulted in a conviction (and in a situation similar to the one you've presented).
"
Every competent legal professional who's read it?" Really? You do mean attorneys, right? You didn't actually say "attorneys" or "lawyers". I wouldn't want you to now later claim, "Oh, I meant paralegals."
If you did mean attorneys, perhaps you can provide me with the names of one or two of the competent "legal professionals" who've read it and think the statute applies to the situation you've described for us? Unless there's contrary, guiding case law, they would be clearly incorrect. And I would be more than happy to call them up for a quick chat over their interpretation. It's an important issue after all. You can post the names of the attorneys here, send me a private message, or an email. Whatever you're comfortable with.
What questions or issues haven't I addressed? Every time you've made that childish accusation, I've asked that same question, and you've never answered it.
It's hardly an accusation. It's an accurate description of the discussion transpiring in this thread. In your previous post,
you explicitly quoted the questions I asked. If you refer to your response, you essentially refused to answer the questions. So I assume you were, in fact, aware of the questions you now claim to be ignorant of. But for clarity's sake:
But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?
To summarize this into a single question:
Is there a case in New Hampshire where a person has been convicted of wiretapping/eavesdropping for using a video camera to record the police beating up a pedestrian? And now, in addition, what's the case? And if you cannot answer this question, it really is okay to say, "I don't know."
I could really care less about more negative, chatty commentary. I'm interested to know what's out there. And if you have ulterior motives for withholding information from the thread, that's quite alright. By being here, I suppose I just assumed you're trying to help the cause of freedom, rather than hinder it.
Because, of course, it's just a pathetic attempt to attack my character to hide your own failings.
Joe
Joe, I have no need or desire to attack your character.
Your own demeanor speaks volumes more about that than I could ever say.
Despite how you seem to approach the boards here, the whole world is not against you.
