Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. While going thru a state data base/Wisc.DOJ I came across a charge for a city ordinance violation that had incorrect disposition on it. I had met with a city attorney who dismissed it. When looking at the record it said I was fined and convicted. It also says a few years later that the record was modified. Are there any circumstances under which this could be reversed with out my knowledge? It says on the court website that a judge must approve a dismissal but that they almost always go along with what the city attorney recommends. At the time I was never told of this, so it may not have applied as this occurred many years ago, but this just a guess. Also, three years later I was no longer living at the address so if the court did send me a correspondence, there is a chance I may not have received it, but this is again a guess. I also contacted the court and they say they have no record on file. In addition I called the DOJ data base customer service and they would not tell me what the adjustment was that was done later. Also spoke with a attorney and he said that many times errors are made and that he recently had a record removed because the doj employee clicked the wrong button when entering court info, but hey will never admit it.
  3. Today
  4. adjusterjack

    Bankruptcy on my credit report.

    Go to www.annualcreditreport.com and review all three of your credit reports (it's free once a year). Each one will have a dispute feature where you can have errors removed during your review. It's the easiest way so try it first.
  5. MiddlePart

    Bankruptcy on my credit report.

    Normally, bankruptcies automatically delete from one's credit report ten years after the filing date. Sometimes in only 7 years. It depends on which kind of bankruptcy proceeding it was (chapter 7 vs. chapter 13). If you're still seeing it on a current year credit report 16 years after the filing date, you probably need to contact the credit bureau to find out why they're still showing it.
  6. Alabama Bankruptcy is still showing on my credit report. How long does it stay there? filed 2002 How do I get it removed? Thank you wonderful people for all you do.
  7. PayrollHRGuy

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    So it is just navel inspection. He is violating the law of two states. Federal law does not preempt those laws. But you had that answer within the first couple of posts.
  8. Livestreamer

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    This is a topic about the discussion of recording phone calls and laws pertaining to that....not about people being reported or out comes of calls being recorded...just the actual law itself.
  9. Livestreamer

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    I am not talking about hypothetical scenarios , like I said there is video evidence of everything I stated. Currently no one has actually broken down 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) , which is the defense the caller is using. Seeing as the calls cross state lines...rather than staying within one state. However 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) contains two parts. When more than one state is involved...things get alil tricky. The long standing debate over State vs federal has been a very long debate...situations like this becomes where federal law gives a person a right to record phone calls if they are part of the conversation while the states in questions doe snot allow this, conflicting laws....federal gives more rights than the state level...the two laws conflict each other...and we have more than one state involved. However under the second part of 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) it adds a clause that voids the use of this law as a defense if other factors come into play. So this is where the people who the calls are being made against comes into play.
  10. doucar

    Jail time for theft 4th degree?

    Up to 1 year in the county jail and up to a $6000.00 fine each.
  11. Mary Gilbert

    Jail time for theft 4th degree?

    Wondering how much jail time for property theft in the 4th degree and resisting arrest.
  12. Yesterday
  13. PayrollHRGuy

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    No, it isn't irrelevant. If you or someone aren't going to report it to the police this is all just hypothetical navel inspection .
  14. doucar

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    This is exactly why I rarely respond to hypothetical scenarios. Tax answered the question about why he is breaking the law thoroughly in his initial response, so I see no need to repeat it.
  15. RetiredinVA

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    Neither example concerns illegal recording or broadcasting phone calls to nerchants. One example involved "swatting" and a clearly illegall false 911 call. The other involved a telephonic bomb threat, which was also clearly illegal. If those calls were brodcast, I wonder why there was no investigation.
  16. When you decided to move into a place that allows smoking....what did you expect?
  17. Thank you! I am pleased to announce, they paid my claim!
  18. Last week
  19. makinganattempt

    Judgement in my favor. What do I need to file next

    Thank you so much for your help! Very much appreciated
  20. Livestreamer

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    "The only really "innocent" persons here are the businesses." Legally speaking the live streamers would be seen as innocent as well..since the live streamers are breaking zero laws. If we are being 100% correct here. -------------------------------- "any reasonably intelligent adult would know that." However the people answering the phones tends to think they are talking to a law enforcement... -------------------------- "it's not really believable that YouTube has a "corp[orate] security office"" However more than 10 locations believed this...video evidence of this as well. --------------------- "This is the least believable of all." Actually if we are being 100% correct here...it is very rare a worker answering a phone from say "wal-mart" is going to have ever talked to Corp office. Also like I stated before this caller is doing what is called "spoofing" which means the caller id will show the real corp office number in the caller id. I can provide you with examples where even the police have even fallen for the "spoofing" trick. -------------------------------- Here is a prime example for you, since I am not about "personal" "opinions" etc...I am more about "factual" and legal" stand points...stuff that actually has weight in courts of laws. The case of Andrew Finch ( a live streamer out of Wichita), he was live streaming himself in his home..Tyler Barriss was arrested over making a fake 911 call on Mr. Finch....the call lead to Mr.Finch's death....not once did Mr.Finch brake any laws...nor could he have been charged with anything due if he lived due to him not doing anything illegal. This is factual. Now you saying "no one would believe that those calls"...that is a "opinion"...however the "factual" statement for this is the locations "do" believe the calls which leads to people being removed from said locations and even having 911 called to investigate...no charges are ever brought against the said live streamers due to no crimes being committed. Video evidence of said locations having a belief the calls are real proves this to be "factual" and trumps your "opinion" of "no one would believe this". The case of Paul Denino where he was live streaming from an airport, a caller made bomb threat to the airport....again zero charges was filed against Paul Denino due to said live streamer breaking zero laws....this is "factual". Innocent in the eyes of the court is being free from breaking of laws...so if the people is not innocent you would have to state laws they broke. The only one breaking laws in this topic would be the caller. In "fact", numerous states have now increased "swatting" laws "against" "callers" which is often referred to as "Anti Swatting bills" (Example being Kansas Governor Jeff Colyer signing into effect tougher swatting charges recently) yet zero states have changed "live streaming" laws...."Live streaming" for the most part follows partially under First Amendment which is a constitutional right of all American citizens. Your more than welcome to try and explain on a "law" forum how people who are in "full" compliance with streaming website guidelines (with zero infractures), in full compliance with both state and federal laws...is in the wrong or not a victim when someone brakes the law against them...pretty sure that argument you have been giving would not hold up in a court...opinions over factual evidence does not carry well in courts of law either...but you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.
  21. Livestreamer

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    "Are you going to report the FL guy to the police? If not there is nothing that is going even to begin to happen." This topic is not about any of that..this topic is specifically about the laws of recording private phone conversations....specifically when it crosses state lines. If charges is pressed etc is irrelevant.
  22. pg1067

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    First of all, there's a difference between "braking" and "breaking." Second, the people who are being targeted by this person certainly have an expectation that what's been happening will continue, so they can continue with what they're doing at their own risk. Third, the guy in Miami isn't (apparently) breaking any laws simply by calling and making reports. The only really "innocent" persons here are the businesses. Whoop-de-doo. What's a "highway authority"? CalTrans is a "highway authority" in California, but folks calling from CalTrans identify themselves as such, not as "highway authority." They also don't have badges. Even if the person making the call said, "I'm officer Butthead from the Idiotville Police Department, and my badge number is 123456," that's not how police officers do their jobs, and any reasonably intelligent adult would know that. That's an even bigger candidate for a "who cares?" response. Also, it's not really believable that YouTube has a "corp[orate] security office" that is staffed with people who make calls of the sort you've described. This is the least believable of all. Businesses typically know who the contact persons with their corporate offices are. In any event, the point is that the businesses receiving the calls need to be more careful. Concur.
  23. adjusterjack

    HOA Issues

    The results often end up the same as "trumping."
  24. There is a generic Judicial Council form judgment. I've never used it, though, and have always drafted my judgments in unlimited civil cases. In the abstract, I can't see any obvious reason not to use the form.
  25. makinganattempt

    Judgement in my favor. What do I need to file next

    So is the proposed judgement just the form that I can pull up online or does it need something wrote up regarding the judges decision attached to it as well
  26. PayrollHRGuy

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    Are you going to report the FL guy to the police? If not there is nothing that is going even to begin to happen.
  27. Livestreamer

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    "No one's making money by livestreaming lunch at McDonald's or shopping at Home Depot." These live streamers are making around 200 - 30,000 per live stream, this does not include ad revenue or sponsorship income. Even at the 200.00 a day level your looking at 1400 a week just from the super chat etc alone. Even just live streaming a 6 hr or so sleeping stream people can pull 3,000 to 6,000 in donations alone. The live streamers in this case really is pulling those kind of numbers. ----------------------------- "Even if the a-hole in Miami who is taking it a step further and illegally recording the calls gets busted, Bob will still have suffered the consequences." If someone is not braking the law, you can't say...well you was not braking the law so you should expect people to brake the law against you so you should quit doing this to make a income...no one has a right to brake the law against people who is not braking the law. Just because someone is sharing their life with the world near your business does not give anyone the right to call your phone and then broadcast your private phone to the world....you can't tell someone to give up their freedoms of being an American citizen just because someone is braking the law against you. ---------------------- "The idiot in Miami is violating Florida and California law and is subject to prosecution" And that is where the issue lies....2 states which means Federal...Federal law which brings in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) which states only 1 party needs to be part of the conversation....however 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) contains two parts....so your dealing with 2 states which under their laws makes it illegal by just being only one party then you have federal which states only 1 party is needed yet it has stipulations. ------------------------------ "The businesses who are being subjected to these calls appear to need to be more careful about believing complaints" Generally one would think this however the caller claims to be from "highway authority" and provides a "badge number", claims to be calling from "youtube corp security office", the businesses' corp office, etc etc and then the person will do what is called "spoofing" the phone call where they can enter the actual corp office etc number in the business' caller id.
  28. PayrollHRGuy

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    The guy doesn't need a defense until he is charged with a crime.
  29. Livestreamer

    Recording private phone calls and re-broadcasting

    Yes that is the idea I am thinking...and this is the reason I myself think 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) as a defense is VOID....the calls are made specifically to harass, slander, etc etc the live streamers...
  1. Load more activity
×