supperdave
that makes me happy ,and i'm sure it doesn't make any difference to spark,or lamonte either.

you have a nice day hear.
ps resume your meds

Sorry, I don't speak text. And I won't take any time to figure out your initials. You know, you really don't distinguish yourself when you post meaningless drivel. I understand that some people get their jollies that way, that's really too bad. My guess is that you are about a 23-year-old girl that still lives with your parents. And no, you don't know me in the real world. I don't associate with people that have no focus in their life. You can reply again if you'd like - you've just joined the ranks of the SuperDave "ignore" list, these are people I no longer read. The list now contains spark, lamonte and ljs. You three can have a wonderful time spewing to each other, I won't waste any more time with you. Everyone else, have a great weekend!

SuperDave by the way i do know you ,you should tumble wise when you get off the stuff .

NOW THINK REALLY THINK = OF THE PAST

SuperDave H-L-&-S

lja: Ha! You had me literally Laughing Out Loud! If you knew me, you would consider me one of the least "uptight" people you've ever met. Nice try though, thanks for the humour. So do you have anything intelligent to say, or do you just like to try to push peoples' buttons? I think there must be more to you than that......

SuperDave you seem like a very uptight person ,don't be so serious take a walk that may relax you i don't know what else to say .

Wow - first it was okay for me to have a "hissy fit", and now I get to take a Valium! You guys are soooo generous. The hissy fit was kind of fun, but sorry, I don't take drugs. No, I just thought it be nice if people actually made some attempt to make sense. And despite what some of you like to say, I am not "upset", I'm not "complaining" or "whining" LOL. Those terms are just attempts to obfuscate my comments. Keep trying though - good luck!

Thats ok SuperDave take it easy ,have a Valium

klick: I still don't understand either of your posts. What was supposed to be funny? And what is "1984 hammerfor"? Keep in mind, if I don't understand your comments, then most likely many other people don't understand either. Please explain!

SuperDave a little humor and 1984 hammerfor answer to pound in nails . to much time on my hands

klick: I didn't understand either of your last two comments. Please clarify.

1 1984 hammerfor good condition .

SuperDave isn't it fun to stick the knife in and turn it a little once in a while . ole buddy ole pal . tell ya what i'm gonna do

Not just your computer. There's a bunch of stories not showing up. They must be having issues.

Wow! You folks really like to duke it out,this is better than watching wrestling on t.v.

Note to all. Super Dave ignores both of us because we upset him on the ice arena discussion because even on that story he was complaining about the government and thinks he's smarter than all of you. Stop taking it so personal Dave. Like I said, I don't dislike anyone on here. I contribute plenty by trying to wake up the unrealistic and the constant complainers that pollute this great city we live in. You my friend, fall right in that category. Have a great day playing hooky. Enjoy yourself. Watch out where you spend your tax dollars. I know that's a problem for you.

Note to all - I currently ignore both "spark" and "lamonte" (and if you want to save yourself some time and reading - highly recommended!). Neither contribute much to the discussion. Everyone have a great weekend, I'm playing hookey the rest of the day :O) ttfn.

Jeez SuperDave, I thought we were talking about some pedophiles here. Everyone knows you hate the government. Sounds to me like the person that needs to get out a little is yourself. Until then, I'll protect and let others protect my kids from these type of people at all costs.

klick: The old eyes have deceived me again. I see that you didn't call me a jerk afterall, you called me "jack" ha ha. Whatever.
I didn't really want to do this, you all know how to use Google and can do it yourself. Just Google "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about" (in quotes as shown). Interesting results - I see none that support that "myopic worldview".
Although someone, instead of thanking me for doing the research for them, will tell me I am "paranoid" (I'm not), here is some stuff I borrowed from the search results:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It seems as if the people are so wrapped up in themselves that the outside world is not even there. There is one thing that people say that proves they have no clue what they are talking about. “If you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” This statement only proves they have spent too much time in front of the television.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With each new step (that is taken by government), a step backwards in our individual rights is taken. Just compare where we are today with where we were before Sputnik. We can now have all our correspondence read, our telephone conversations monitored, overhead photos taken of our homes, street cameras watch our every move and our right to Habeas Corpus blocked in some cases. I ask you, is this truly progress? Some people will say yes, these are obviously people that either work for the government or are so deluded that they don't realize what is truly going on. They usually say, "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about". As you can see, they miss the point completely, that is what people in the old Soviet Union were told.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I hope that resolves the issue once and for all. If you still don't get it, try re-reading a few times. If that doesn't help, then I can't help you any further.

SuperDave- Why is klicks statement incorrect? Because you don't agree with it? I'm confused. Many would completely disagree with you, but that doesn't make his statement incorrect. That statement makes complete sense and is common sense.

janesvillean - Thanks for the links. I'll have a hissy fit later today when I have a minute.
klick - So sorry for misspelling your name. No, I'm not a jerk, and yes, your statement is incorrect. That's the same attitude that people had at first with the Nazis. And, no, I'm not saying the police are Nazis. And I'm not "whining" or "complaining" LOL for stating my thoughts. Let's see, what else can I anticipate that you will say next? SHOUTING? You've already resorted to namecalling, so the next thing on the list is changing the subject. Go ahead.

I don't know about you but my lunch break is going from XXX to PG 13 conversations now..They really know how to take the fun out of everything!!!

Oh just great..now they all know my husband's & my dirty little secrets...LMAO

Good Lord - Phone companies record conversations daily and play them back and forward them.

SuperDave, in decades? You must not get out much:
http://news.google.com/news?q=hissy+fit
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hi...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/...
http://filmbait.com/209-christian-bale-h...
.
The plain fact is that this ruling created no new law. It was pretty much some appeals court judges laughing a guy out of court for a textbook example of seeking to get off on a novel technicality. The judges said that the law's clear intent was to include police officers.
.
Now, since we live in a democracy, your next move would be to contact your legislator and ask him or her to try to change the law.

SuperDave you can't even get my screen name right .

"if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about . and thats a fact jack

HA! Wow. I had no idea my prediction would be this prescient - especially when I predicted it on this very page! click said "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about". We've covered this before, it's not true. click - see the first post if you're clueless. Word for word.

"if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about .

sannio- If it means getting these pedophiles off the streets and keeping them away from kids, I could care less how they try and catch these sick freaks. My comment was not sarcastic at all. As far as I'm concerned, the moment someone decides to do something like this, you just tossed your rights out the window. Sorry.

spark - are you for real, or was that just a very sarcastic remark?

Just shows you how sick police officers minds are. I don't know any mothers who would have sex with their 12 yr old daughter? Step fathers maybe.

If you would just behave, you wouldn't get in trouble. Didn't you learn that when you were like 10? Roll the dice and try and beat the odds. If you get caught, don't matter how you got caught. YOU GOT CAUGHT!

This is just another way to keep people honest. A series of checks and balances if you will. This is the risk you take when you talk on the phone and can't actually see the person you are talking to. Really no different than giving your financial/personal information to someone over the phone who you do not know when it could really be a scammer. As far as Miranda goes, if the person in not in physical custody, i.e. phone, they have the right/capability to hang up anytime therefore Miranda need not apply. Whats next, will the police need to a wear a tee shirt telling the world they are police while working undercover?

ljs: cops lie all the time. Its surprising they can remember their own names.

Sorry--I had missed copperguys post. Didn't mean to be repetitive

The reference to Miranda is interesting. Miranda merely states that police officers have to inform citizens of their rights, WHEN they are in POLICE CUSTODY, in order to be able to use that information in further proceedings. (Caps are for emphasis, not for "shouting" :-). It does not apply to investigations being carried on without a suspect in custody.

I also read the opinion. Sort of a bizarre argument put forth by Ohlinger.

So, to your concerns, SuperDave, no worry. As JV said, this case doesn't change anything.

Many times, an opinion will cause me to read the briefs in the case. Not so here. This was a nothing case.

Hmmm. Not sure exactly how to have a "hissy fit" (haven't heard that term in decades, you're really dating yourself). Could you demonstrate?

Actually, SuperDave, it affects no one, because the law was not expanded. But feel free to have a hissy fit if it makes you feel better.

That was a classic comment. Name-calling, accusing of "whining" and "complaining". That's the stuff of intellectual impotence. Thanks to ljs64 for saying "Keep your nose clean and you'll have no problems", thereby fulfilling my prediction in the very first post. Ha! He/she is wrong of course, but we've already discussed that idea many times so no more here.
And it only affects a small percentage, so it's okay and we are not allowed to comment (I mean "whine") about it. Sorry ljs64 if you have nothing constructive to add, just read other's comments.

This wasn't really a substantive opinion; it didn't change existing case law, simply upheld it and rejected a novel interpretation that the defendant put forth. The court called his argument "inconsistent" as it acknowledged that citizens recording conversations could be doing so "under color of law", yet that somehow a law enforcement officer is NOT acting "under color of law" (at least, that's what the appeals judges got out of his petition). The court pointed out that the facts of the case were not disputed, nor the wording of the law itself.
http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/Displ...
.
Anyway, this changes nothing. No laws were overturned. No liberties were discovered or constricted.

P.S. Did you know law enforcement / undercover officers can actually lie to you too? The outcome / evidence gained in that would be admissible in court.

You clowns complain when police officers don't do their job and catch every bad guy/girl and then when they have powers to do so you complain. This has probably affected 1/10 of one percent of all people in this state and you whiners are making it a big deal. Keep your nose clean and you'll have no problems with law enforcement.

copperguy: Thanks for the clarification. I guess I see it as obtaining evidence from inside a person's home without a warrant. Frankly I have mixed feelings about this - if they use it to get the bad guys that's a positive outcome. But what if they start compiling audio dossiers of people they simply don't like, with no probable cause? Can you imagine trying to defend yourself from an out-of-context recording of yourself saying something you don't even remember saying?

good bye miss constitution. you served us well and you will be missed.

Can you say "Gestapo"?

rooster-I'm with you there.

I do believe anyone can record a phone call, with out consent of the other party at least in Wis. You don't need to be the police to do that.. I don't know why you would.

pedophiles off the street. works for me and my children and my grandchildren.

SuperDave: Not arguing here, just a little clarification. And, I have not read this opinion, so I am only surmising.

You seem to be confusing issues, here. At the risk of adding to that confusion, I want to point out that Miranda involves custodial interrogations. If you are in custody (in other words, you are not free to leave), and are asked incriminating questions, then Miranda applies. Ohlinger clearly was not in custody, so Miranda does not apply.

I have long had concerns about this type of investigation, and I suspect that one court or another will eventually find that it is entrapment. That said, I'm also quite sure that the investigators are very careful in how they conduct the investigations. If the suspect seeks the illegal activity wholly of his/her own accord, then entrapment is likely not to be an issue for the courts.

Presenting one's self as a potential victim does not alone mean that you are suggesting that the suspect victimize you.

The Bush administration counted on the “national security” invocation to provide a get-out-of-jail card for a myriad of abuses - both domestic and foreign - and then they proceeded to pack the Courts to support their intentions. Warrantless searches and invasions of privacy are now becoming the norm, not the exception. Reminder: The 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " How many times must the Constitution be violated before citizens recognize that, thanks to all the blatant violations of the Bush administration, the government became fundamentally lawless?

biggirl: Thanks for your support.
panzer: Has it ever affected me? Well I have never recorded a phone conversation, but I have no idea if the person on the other end has done so. How would I know that? Or if the person on the other end was a police officer posing as someone else and recording the conversation, how would I know? The problem I have with this is that you could be interviewed by a police officer, and recorded, without your knowledge. If they can't do it in person (are the words "Miranda Rights" familiar to you?), then why can they do it over the phone?

Again the constitution is underminded.IMO

SuperDave: You're right on, of course. Notice how panzer did exactly what you predicted, and sought to blame you for some supposed immorality simply because you were standing up for our liberty. What ever happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"?

It's been "one party consent" for at least the last 15 years. Has it ever affected you SuperDave?

As much as I want to see sex offenders prosecuted, this is scary stuff. Now I bet someone will say, "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about". That naivete has been addressed several times, so please don't bother.