Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:05 pm to Crew92Ag
quote:
And I'm the idiot?
Yes. Yes, you are.
quote:
But go back and search for the actual wiretapping laws that include recording of a conversation between two people that are not on the phone. And you will find out that it is a felony.
You're still wrong. Connecticut's wiretap statute generally prohibits anyone from intercepting wire communications without at least one party's consent or a court order (CGS § 54-41a, et seq.). A wire communication is any communication “made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of telephone or telegraph between the point of origin and the point of reception.” A common carrier must provide or operate the facilities “for the transmission of intrastate, interstate or foreign communications" (§ 54-41a(1)). (A common carrier is an entity that, for a fee, transmits communications by wire or radio.)
“Intercept” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a wire communication using any electronic, mechanical, or other device. The statute excludes standard hearing aids and telephone or telegraph equipment a common carrier is using in the ordinary course of its business (§§ 54-41a(2) and (3)).
The state crimes for which wiretaps are authorized are: gambling, bribery, racketeering, manufacturing and selling narcotics or hallucinogens, and felonies involving violence. Only the chief state's attorney or the state's attorney for the judicial district in which the interception will be conducted can file a wiretap application (§ 54-41b).
A three-judge panel must unanimously agree that the applicant has met certain legal requirements before it can issue a wiretap order (§ 54-41d), and cannot approve more than 35 wiretap applications in any calendar year unless it finds that there is an emergency situation in which the commission of a covered offense may result in imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare (§ 54-41d). The state's attorney applying for a wiretap order in excess of the annual limit must notify the governor and Judiciary Committee of the emergency and nature of the imminent peril (§ 54-41c).
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:07 pm to AUnite
Their wiretapping laws include eavesdropping. Sorry I did not differentiate between the two.
I will be more specific in the future. I edited my post to make it more clear.
I will be more specific in the future. I edited my post to make it more clear.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:07 pm to AUnite
3803
This post was edited on 8/7/13 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:09 pm to WestCoastAg
Sounds like Nite has her info in order And video =/= a private phone conversation. There is no issue here.
At this point, with everything that has come out, unless everyone can be bought off - the chances of Johnny sitting some game is pretty likely. Based on what we've seen, he 1)signed things he knew were going to be sold; 2)took money for signing them; and 3)knowingly lied about it. A&M released a statement on 3/6/13 saying that Johnny never took money or knowingly signed things he knew were going to be sold. He lied to them.
4 games minimum, maybe more. And if he refuses to cooperate, they may throw the book at him just for that.
At this point, with everything that has come out, unless everyone can be bought off - the chances of Johnny sitting some game is pretty likely. Based on what we've seen, he 1)signed things he knew were going to be sold; 2)took money for signing them; and 3)knowingly lied about it. A&M released a statement on 3/6/13 saying that Johnny never took money or knowingly signed things he knew were going to be sold. He lied to them.
4 games minimum, maybe more. And if he refuses to cooperate, they may throw the book at him just for that.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:09 pm to Crew92Ag
Isn't eavesdropping someone listening in on a conversation between 2 other people?
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:10 pm to AUnite
quote:
Whether an improper phone recording is criminal will depend on the circumstances. For example, it is a Class D Felony in Connecticut to engage in wiretapping or "mechanical overhearing" of a conversation. Wiretapping and mechanical overhearing are defined to include "intentional overhearing or recording" of telephonic communication or conversations
For your reading pleasure.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:11 pm to The_Joker
exactly
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:14 pm to Crew92Ag
quote:
Their wiretapping laws include eavesdropping. Sorry I did not differentiate between the two.
PLEASE show me where it doesn't require telephone conversations
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:15 pm to Crew92Ag
quote:
Whether an improper phone recording is criminal will depend on the circumstances. For example, it is a Class D Felony in Connecticut to engage in wiretapping or "mechanical overhearing" of a conversation. Wiretapping and mechanical overhearing are defined to include "intentional overhearing or recording" of telephonic communication or conversations
For your reading pleasure.
That's great and dandy...where's the link?
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:18 pm to Roger Klarvin
Why the Worf gif for this?
What do you disagree with from my post? The NCAA doesn't have to reveal it's sources. They don't even have to say they watched a video from an unnamed source. They can just say based on our review of the information we've received, Manziel is ineligible. What about that is so difficult to understand or admit?
Oh, and this video doesn't sound like some FBI surveillance type video from a camera hidden in the air vents. Schad said it was from a cell phone. If the camera is in view and JFF is talking openly, there is such a thing as implied consent.
Him not saying, "Hey get that camera out of my face you can't record this" would likely qualify. No DA is going to pursue a case when the interactions are clearly being recorded.
And as another poster said, there is no expectation of privacy if there was someone else in the room as well.
quote:
The broker can show the NCAA the video under condition of anonymity. He would never have to testify, hell the video doesn't even have to be released to the public. The NCAA can just look at it, and say "Yep that's him. Thanks. He's ineligible."
What do you disagree with from my post? The NCAA doesn't have to reveal it's sources. They don't even have to say they watched a video from an unnamed source. They can just say based on our review of the information we've received, Manziel is ineligible. What about that is so difficult to understand or admit?
Oh, and this video doesn't sound like some FBI surveillance type video from a camera hidden in the air vents. Schad said it was from a cell phone. If the camera is in view and JFF is talking openly, there is such a thing as implied consent.
Him not saying, "Hey get that camera out of my face you can't record this" would likely qualify. No DA is going to pursue a case when the interactions are clearly being recorded.
And as another poster said, there is no expectation of privacy if there was someone else in the room as well.
This post was edited on 8/7/13 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:20 pm to Tiger Voodoo
0-2% he is ruled ineligible.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:26 pm to ColoradoAg
quote:
Daddy is that damn vengeful
All the more reason to bring him down. He's not bigger than the game and the NCAA needs to either "Nut Up" and take him down or close their doors forever. Either way, I hope that all of this negative publicity will force changes to the system. I can't see where allowing pay for play in any scenario would be a good thing for college athletics. The NCAA should (also) be forced to take any profits made from players and give that money back to (directly) fund scholarships for kids that can't afford to attend college.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:28 pm to AUnite
They wouldn't even have to reveal who showed them a video...there is precedent trust me. We Alabama fans know all about secret witnesses.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:38 pm to antibarner
Dammit I was trying to upvote SL tiger and actually hit down. Big fingers are bad for touch screens. 
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:41 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The NCAA doesn't need burden of proof, and it's obvious he did it. Done deal... at least 4 games, I predict 6. Could be ineligible if any key witnesses crack.
Statements like that will keep these aggies coming back well into 250 pages. All past actions by the NCAA don't matter cause the aggies say he plays this year no matter what. Somehow that doesn't fly for the rest of us that have seen them bring down many other schools. Believe what you want fools but I'd put his chances at playing before the 5th game at no better than 30%. That might be a stretch (too high) but I'm trying to see it both ways.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:43 pm to Othello
This thread gets better by the hour.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:44 pm to SL Tiger
quote:
Statements like that will keep these aggies coming back well into 250 pages. All past actions by the NCAA don't matter cause the aggies say he plays this year no matter what. Somehow that doesn't fly for the rest of us that have seen them bring down many other schools. Believe what you want fools but I'd put his chances at playing before the 5th game at no better than 30%. That might be a stretch (too high) but I'm trying to see it both ways.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:48 pm to HawgAlude
quote:
They will do nothing
This is probably true unless the NCAA decides to take away some wins from A&M after this season.
quote:
and it is even been reported here in Central Arkansas that some powerful TAMU alumni have a 11 million dollar bonus for John if he makes it to his senior season. Corruption is at all levels.....
You lost me with this statement.
Page 191 of 340
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News