Tuesday, November 28, 2006
JOE GETS HIS ASS KICKED (OUT) AGAIN
Is it again? I really don't know... in any event, ol' Joe from across the river, says some dude had him escorted from some sort of meeting of Salisbury public officials last night.... Poor ol' Joe... he's been a real pain-in-the-ass to the city council.... but that's a good thing.... and I can't help but notice that he knows how to research the law..... maybe he needs to research the state Open Meetings Act.... If he does, he'll find out that no member of the public may be barred from an open meeting unless they are disruptive to the meeting. Further, he discover that observers may photograph, videotape or record open meetings.... with that in mind, it behooves him to carry a tape recorder and record all conversations with elected official... just in case one of them errorneously tells police he was threatened and asks to have Joe removed... those tape recorders come in real handy if he ever need to file a complaint with the Open Meetings Board.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Gotta love Joe,
I think he does it just so they'll kick him out. It's good advertising for his Blog Site.
And the fact is we don't really need anymore porn pictures of the Mare floating around!
LOL.
Perhaps mercifully, I have no idea what the second sentence means.
RT
It's in his archives, but trust me you don't really need to see it.
Now the ladies on my site, that's a different story!
Dick, I think you may be only partially correct on the recording thing... the recording of private conversations between private citizens is indeed against the law unless both (all parties) are aware of and give consent to being recorded. The same does not hold true for public officials (when last I read) because private and public persons have different legally-defined reasonable expectations of privacy, especially as it pertains to their role in the public arena or forum.... That is, in the context of public information and business, public officials' right to privacy does not rise to the same level as that of a private even if the words of actions on the part of the public official are no spoken or performed in a public forum.
Well,
I wish I could have made the news in a much brighter situation but VERY similar to Jim Rapp's bullshit where he went to a Judge for a Peace Order against me because I said in a letter to the Mayor, "I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him" is somewhere along the line of Dunn's belief that my words last night were yet a threat to him. Oh well, I can tell you a real man would have never taken my words as a threat, that's for sure. Maybe I just don't understand that kind of thinking?
yeah Dick... I can't remember the entire doctrine, but I do recall that the sole instance where the state law on electronic recording over the telephone would not apply was if the recording party knew or had reason to believe the conversation would include statements relating to a felony crime that either had been committed or would be committed.
Post a Comment