TIRES PLUS!!! Unbelievable what I found today... is this really possible? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JimmyL · #31 10-01-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad300tdt

Try to relax and have a laugh at how Jimmy used the "word" nimrodetry.

I think that came straight from Schoolhouse Rock!!

"Conjunction junction what's your function.........."

DeliveryValve · #32 10-01-2008, 02:06 AM

Damn, that sux! I hope you stick it to them!

Since ol' Turbo loves getting an oil bath (twice), maybe you should change it's name to oil turbo or ol' oiler...... jk jj.

remotemark · #33 10-01-2008, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simpler=Better

Get a lawer, also stick an audio recorder in your pocket.

Whatever you do, don't do that. It's a crime to record a conversation without the other person's consent.

#34 10-01-2008, 06:31 AM

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Quote:

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4001: Unlawful eavesdropping consists of secretly listening to, recording, or amplifying private conversations or using any device to intercept a telephone or wire communication "without the consent of the person in possession or control of the facilities for such wire communication." Violations are misdemeanors. A criminal breach of privacy, punishable as a misdemeanor as well, occurs when any means of private communication is intercepted without the consent of the sender or receiver. Divulging the existence or contents of any type of private communication, whether carried out by telephone or even letter, is also a misdemeanor if the person knows the message was intercepted illegally. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4002. The state's highest court has interpreted the eavesdropping and privacy statutes to sanction one-party consent for taping of conversations and in interpreting both statutes stated: "In other words, any party to a private conversation may waive the right to privacy and the non-consenting party has no Fourth Amendment or statutory right to challenge the waiver." Kansas v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984).

Quote:

The question of whether a recording device is in plain view is not always straightforward. Five minutes into an in-person interview between a reporter and a deputy sheriff in Oregon, the deputy asked whether the object protruding from the reporter s pocket was a tape recorder. The reporter stated that it was and that it was on, and the interview continued for another 10 to 15 minutes. The reporter was later convicted under a state statute making it a crime to record a face-to-face conversation without informing all of the parties.

On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court held that a judge could have reasonably found that the recorder was concealed, despite the fact that the sheriff continued to participate in the interview after the reporter told him that he possessed a tape recorder and that it was on. On retrial, the reporter was acquitted on the illegal recording charge. (Oregon v. Knobel)

JackG · #35 10-01-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

That's a little extreme, don't you think? In addition to my 560SL, I own a 1979 Thunderbird, 1976 Chevy C20 flatbed P/U and a 2003 Mits. Outlander.

I'm sorry to hear that

. Anything we can do?

#36 10-01-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackG

Anything we can do?

Can we get you a decent car?

jplinville · #37 10-01-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remotemark

Whatever you do, don't do that. It's a crime to record a conversation without the other person's consent.

Not necessarily true. During my divorce, I recorded EVERY conversation with the ex wife and used it against her in court. In Ohio, as long as one of the parties is aware of the recording devise, it's admisable in court.

qwerty · #38 10-01-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remotemark

It's a crime to record a conversation without the other person's consent.

Not in 38 states, it's not (Kansas included.)