>Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest
>>> in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately
>>> damage or destroy it without permission.
>> How far does this go?
>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist
>> painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism,
>> and he is convicted.
>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
>> ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
>> neighbors are complaining.
>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>> rights here to preserve his work?
>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>> house.
>There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and the canvas >its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The information on them >was his private "papers" and should have been protected by the forth >amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he purchased the tape and recording >equipment with government money, everything belonged to them, and so they >tromped on his forth amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers >and effects.
That's a poor analogy.
Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid. He
used government funds and recorded in a government office (the Oval
Office).
Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his >work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
that's me.
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
In <9t4j189hdnrk90o47794n768b7713q1...@4ax.com>, on 08/01/2012
at 03:39 PM, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> said:
>I post a link to the very article in question.
Still lying, I see. You did not post a link in Message-ID:
<hm2e18d09k1bk3j9ohu1ohitupcu1nm...@4ax.com>, you posted a message
id[1]. Or are you just too ignorant to know the difference?
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:50:56 -0400, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>In <9t4j189hdnrk90o47794n768b7713q1...@4ax.com>, on 08/01/2012
> at 03:39 PM, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> said:
>>I post a link to the very article in question.
Interesting. That line appears NOWHERE in the article to which
you replied.
>Still lying, I see. You did not post a link in Message-ID:
><hm2e18d09k1bk3j9ohu1ohitupcu1nm...@4ax.com>, you posted a message
>id[1]. Or are you just too ignorant to know the difference?
Here is the text from the post to which you replied (feel free to
check the headers and confirm your deception):
[Begin C&P]
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:14:03 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>In <nn2e189sng9op6j72u008ut1m7nm7aj...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
> at 05:30 PM, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> said:
>> And yet I the post I just sent, I was able to prove you a liar.
>Not even close.
>> How do you explain this?
>You're an idiot. You didn't send me a post, you sent me a message id,
I didn't send YOU anything. I sent a post to Usenet. While you
read it, don't presume you alone received it. I'm sure others
downloaded the post, though each person would need to state so for
themselves.
>which google was able to find only in the article citing it.
How odd that in the post I just sent, I post a link to the very
article in question.
Would you like it again? I'm willing to expose you for the liar
you are. Just let me know.
>> You mean you flat out lie.
>No, I mean that you're not only a liar but an idiot.
Odd that while I've proved you a liar, and an idiot, you've been
unable to do so with me.
How do you explain this?
>>Feel free to get the mental heath care your pathological lying makes
>>very clear you NEED.
>Well, somebody does.
And that you are compelled to lie shows it's you.
[END C&P]
If you'd just be honest, you wouldn't get caught lying.
-- Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
>>>In <hm2e18d09k1bk3j9ohu1ohitupcu1nm...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
>>> at 05:30 PM, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>Please see Message-ID:
>>>><9u6u085su170ut3ajrrk00akcir6o97...@4ax.com>
>>>The issue is article <dg1218pu82re13vit46ugj3dppt7nr2...@4ax.com>.
>> No it's not. Don't whine that your lie was exposed.
>Still denying the obvious?
See below where I prove you the liar you are.
>>>Were there a working archive I'd read the other article just for
>>>laughs, but google is well and truly broken.
>> A pity you can't figure out how to make use of MIDs. It's really
>>very simple.
>> Personally, I think you were able to use it and saw that your lie
>>was exposed and now, in desperation, you're trying to deflect from it.
>> Here's a direct link to the post that you are DESPERATE to avoid:
>> BTW, I used the MID to find it on Google.
>> Note where I wrote, "While it would be a very stupid thing to do,
>>I could buy an original Van Gogh and cover the work with any paint I
>>wish. There is no law that prevents this."
>> As you can see, I was the one who brought up the matter of
>>ruining a painting. No amount of your lying will alter this very
>>simple truth.
>>>> And yet I've just PROVED you a liar.
>>>No, you've proved that you're an idiot.
>> You LIED about what began the discussion about ruining a
>>painting. I can only guess that you thought that since you are unable
>>to make use of the MID I posted, no one else will be able either.
-- "I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George
K Wills wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest
>>>> in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately
>>>> damage or destroy it without permission.
>>> How far does this go?
>>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist
>>> painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism,
>>> and he is convicted.
>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
>>> ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
>>> neighbors are complaining.
>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>> house.
>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
> That's a poor analogy.
> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid. He
> used government funds and recorded in a government office (the Oval
> Office).
> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
> that's me.
SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the government the money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment and the blank tapes. Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes. Anyone with any hint of logic in his soul would know that. Do you really think the framers of our constitution were talking about the recording media when they wrote the forth amendment? No. SCOTUS clearly violated Nixon's forth amendment rights. It was a disgrace, and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and yours) too.
> K Wills wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest
>>>>> in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately
>>>>> damage or destroy it without permission.
>>>> How far does this go?
>>>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist
>>>> painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism,
>>>> and he is convicted.
>>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
>>>> ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
>>>> neighbors are complaining.
>>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>>>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>>> house.
>>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
>> That's a poor analogy.
>> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
>> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid. He
>> used government funds and recorded in a government office (the Oval
>> Office).
>> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
>> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
>> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
>> that's me.
> SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the government
> the money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment and the blank
> tapes.
Every time I think you can't get any more ignorant, you prove me wrong.
> Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.
The gov has the right to evidence of a crime.
> Anyone with any hint of logic in his soul would know that.
That wouldn't be you.
> Do you really
> think the framers of our constitution were talking about the recording
> media when they wrote the forth amendment?
It's "fourth." And no, the framers didn't have "recording media" in mind when they banned unreasonable search and seizure, bu they're covered anyway. The framers certainly recognized that a criminal justice system requires reasonable search and seizure to prosecute criminals like Nixon.
Despite his protestations, Nixon was a crook, and the government was entitled to seize the evidence of his crimes using the due process afforded by the judiciary.
> It was a disgrace,
Nixon's crimes? You bet. Your abyssal ignorance? Ditto.
> and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and yours) too.
Horseshit. The government still needs a judicial order based on cause to seize any of my personal effects, just as they needed one to seize Nixon's tapes.
Note that not even Nixon argued 4th Amendment issues in challenging the subpoena. He relied on executive privilege.
> On 8/2/12 7:36 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> K Wills wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest
>>>>>> in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately
>>>>>> damage or destroy it without permission.
>>>>> How far does this go?
>>>>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist
>>>>> painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism,
>>>>> and he is convicted.
>>>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
>>>>> ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
>>>>> neighbors are complaining.
>>>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>>>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>>>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>>>>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>>>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>>>> house.
>>>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>>>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>>>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>>>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>>>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>>>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>>>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
>>> That's a poor analogy.
>>> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
>>> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid. He
>>> used government funds and recorded in a government office (the Oval
>>> Office).
>>> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
>>> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>>>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>>>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
>>> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
>>> that's me.
>> SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the government
>> the money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment and the blank
>> tapes.
> Every time I think you can't get any more ignorant, you prove me wrong.
>> Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.
> The gov has the right to evidence of a crime.
>> Anyone with any hint of logic in his soul would know that.
> That wouldn't be you.
>> Do you really
>> think the framers of our constitution were talking about the recording
>> media when they wrote the forth amendment?
> It's "fourth." And no, the framers didn't have "recording media" in mind
> when they banned unreasonable search and seizure, bu they're covered
> anyway. The framers certainly recognized that a criminal justice system
> requires reasonable search and seizure to prosecute criminals like Nixon.
> Despite his protestations, Nixon was a crook, and the government was
> entitled to seize the evidence of his crimes using the due process
> afforded by the judiciary.
>> It was a disgrace,
> Nixon's crimes? You bet. Your abyssal ignorance? Ditto.
>> and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and yours) too.
> Horseshit. The government still needs a judicial order based on cause to
> seize any of my personal effects, just as they needed one to seize
> Nixon's tapes.
> Note that not even Nixon argued 4th Amendment issues in challenging the
> subpoena. He relied on executive privilege.
Yes, so I've heard with respect to executive privilege.
>K Wills wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest
>>>>> in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately
>>>>> damage or destroy it without permission.
>>>> How far does this go?
>>>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist
>>>> painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism,
>>>> and he is convicted.
>>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
>>>> ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
>>>> neighbors are complaining.
>>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>>>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>>> house.
>>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
>> That's a poor analogy.
>> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
>> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid. He
>> used government funds and recorded in a government office (the Oval
>> Office).
>> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
>> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
>> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
>> that's me.
>SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the government the >money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment and the blank tapes.
Why? In all seriousness, it did seem a legitimate purchase. At
least on its face. He used government money to buy equipment used in a
government office.
>Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.
I think you mean hear :)
Cute jokes aside, a legally obtained subpoena was issued for the
tapes. This gave prosecutors, and defendants, the right to listen.
And they would need to listen to know if there was anything that
could/would be used at trial.
>Anyone with any >hint of logic in his soul would know that. Do you really think the framers >of our constitution were talking about the recording media when they wrote >the forth amendment? No.
Since such media didn't exist, they probably didn't have that in
mind.
David Bernier wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 09:30 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 8/2/12 7:36 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> K Wills wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing
>>>>>>> interest in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't
>>>>>>> deliberately damage or destroy it without permission.
>>>>>> How far does this go?
>>>>>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an
>>>>>> artist painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for
>>>>>> vandalism, and he is convicted.
>>>>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an
>>>>>> anti-grafetti ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste
>>>>>> in art and the neighbors are complaining.
>>>>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>>>>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>>>>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>>>>>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>>>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>>>>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>>>>> house.
>>>>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>>>>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>>>>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>>>>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>>>>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>>>>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>>>>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
>>>> That's a poor analogy.
>>>> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
>>>> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid.
>>>> He used government funds and recorded in a government office (the
>>>> Oval Office).
>>>> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
>>>> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>>>>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>>>>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
>>>> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
>>>> that's me.
>>> SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the
>>> government the money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment
>>> and the blank tapes.
>> Every time I think you can't get any more ignorant, you prove me
>> wrong.
>>> Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.
>> The gov has the right to evidence of a crime.
>>> Anyone with any hint of logic in his soul would know that.
>> That wouldn't be you.
>>> Do you really
>>> think the framers of our constitution were talking about the
>>> recording media when they wrote the forth amendment?
>> It's "fourth." And no, the framers didn't have "recording media" in
>> mind when they banned unreasonable search and seizure, bu they're
>> covered anyway. The framers certainly recognized that a criminal
>> justice system requires reasonable search and seizure to prosecute
>> criminals like Nixon.
>>> No. SCOTUS clearly violated Nixon's forth amendment rights.
>> Despite his protestations, Nixon was a crook, and the government was
>> entitled to seize the evidence of his crimes using the due process
>> afforded by the judiciary.
>>> It was a disgrace,
>> Nixon's crimes? You bet. Your abyssal ignorance? Ditto.
>>> and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and yours) too.
>> Horseshit. The government still needs a judicial order based on
>> cause to seize any of my personal effects, just as they needed one
>> to seize Nixon's tapes.
>> Note that not even Nixon argued 4th Amendment issues in challenging
>> the subpoena. He relied on executive privilege.
> Yes, so I've heard with respect to executive privilege.
Just because Nixon and his lawyers were too stupid to be able to read and interpret the US Constitution, that doesn't mean that his 4th amendment rights weren't violated. I say they were, and Nixon should have dug a hole in the White house lawn, had a big bar-b-que, invited the press, and tossed those tapes into the pit as soon as the hot dogs were cooked and served.
Just gbecasue the government does something, that doesn't mean its right. - Only liberals believe that.....
K Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:36:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> K Wills wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing
>>>>>> interest in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't
>>>>>> deliberately damage or destroy it without permission.
>>>>> How far does this go?
>>>>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an
>>>>> artist painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for
>>>>> vandalism, and he is convicted.
>>>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an
>>>>> anti-grafetti ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste
>>>>> in art and the neighbors are complaining.
>>>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>>>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>>>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>>>>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>>>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>>>> house.
>>>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>>>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>>>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>>>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>>>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>>>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>>>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
>>> That's a poor analogy.
>>> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
>>> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid.
>>> He used government funds and recorded in a government office (the
>>> Oval Office).
>>> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
>>> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>>>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>>>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
>>> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
>>> that's me.
>> SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the
>> government the money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment
>> and the blank tapes.
> Why? In all seriousness, it did seem a legitimate purchase. At
> least on its face. He used government money to buy equipment used in a
> government office.
>> Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.
> I think you mean hear :)
> Cute jokes aside, a legally obtained subpoena was issued for the
> tapes. This gave prosecutors, and defendants, the right to listen.
> And they would need to listen to know if there was anything that
> could/would be used at trial.
>> Anyone with any
>> hint of logic in his soul would know that. Do you really think the
>> framers of our constitution were talking about the recording media
>> when they wrote the forth amendment? No.
> Since such media didn't exist, they probably didn't have that in
> mind.
> Not so. That a subpoena was sought shows the Constitution was
> being followed.
>> It was a disgrace, and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and
>> yours) too.
> Mine still exist. I can't see how yours have been taken away.
Oh, I see. As long as you, "get a subpoena, you can tromp on anybody's constitutional rights anjd its A-OK.... Gee..... I wonder if the founding fathers knew that.... All Obama has to do is, "Get a subpoena" and he can trash the whole Constitution.... Come to think of it, that's what he's doing anyway, with or without a subpoena.....
Bill Graham wrote:
> K Wills wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:36:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> K Wills wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing
>>>>>>> interest in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't
>>>>>>> deliberately damage or destroy it without permission.
>>>>>> How far does this go?
>>>>>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an
>>>>>> artist painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for
>>>>>> vandalism, and he is convicted.
>>>>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an
>>>>>> anti-grafetti ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste
>>>>>> in art and the neighbors are complaining.
>>>>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>>>>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>>>>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>>>>>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>>>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>>>>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>>>>> house.
>>>>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>>>>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>>>>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>>>>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>>>>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>>>>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>>>>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
>>>> That's a poor analogy.
>>>> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in
>>>> the residential part of the White House, your argument could be
>>>> valid. He used government funds and recorded in a government
>>>> office (the Oval Office).
>>>> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
>>>> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>>>>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>>>>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
>>>> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
>>>> that's me.
>>> SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the
>>> government the money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment
>>> and the blank tapes.
>> Why? In all seriousness, it did seem a legitimate purchase. At
>> least on its face. He used government money to buy equipment used in
>> a government office.
>>> Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.
>> I think you mean hear :)
>> Cute jokes aside, a legally obtained subpoena was issued for the
>> tapes. This gave prosecutors, and defendants, the right to listen.
>> And they would need to listen to know if there was anything that
>> could/would be used at trial.
>>> Anyone with any
>>> hint of logic in his soul would know that. Do you really think the
>>> framers of our constitution were talking about the recording media
>>> when they wrote the forth amendment? No.
>> Since such media didn't exist, they probably didn't have that in
>> mind.
That's why I was careful to say, "recording media". Recording media of one type or another hasw existed for thousands of years. A poen and parchment was the recording media when the constitution was written, and the founding fathers meant the information, and not the parchment and ink when they wrote the forth amendment. Apparently SCOTUS is too stupid to realize that.....
> David Bernier wrote:
>> On 08/02/2012 09:30 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 8/2/12 7:36 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> K Wills wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>>>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing
>>>>>>>> interest in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't
>>>>>>>> deliberately damage or destroy it without permission.
>>>>>>> How far does this go?
>>>>>>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an
>>>>>>> artist painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for
>>>>>>> vandalism, and he is convicted.
>>>>>>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an
>>>>>>> anti-grafetti ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste
>>>>>>> in art and the neighbors are complaining.
>>>>>>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>>>>>>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>>>>>>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>>>>>>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>>>>>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>>>>>>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>>>>>>> house.
>>>>>> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and
>>>>>> the canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
>>>>>> information on them was his private "papers" and should have been
>>>>>> protected by the forth amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he
>>>>>> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
>>>>>> everything belonged to them, and so they tromped on his forth
>>>>>> amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.
>>>>> That's a poor analogy.
>>>>> Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
>>>>> residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid.
>>>>> He used government funds and recorded in a government office (the
>>>>> Oval Office).
>>>>> Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
>>>>> enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.
>>>>>> Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>>>>>> work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....
>>>>> I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
>>>>> that's me.
>>>> SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the
>>>> government the money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment
>>>> and the blank tapes.
>>> Every time I think you can't get any more ignorant, you prove me
>>> wrong.
>>>> Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.
>>> The gov has the right to evidence of a crime.
>>>> Anyone with any hint of logic in his soul would know that.
>>> That wouldn't be you.
>>>> Do you really
>>>> think the framers of our constitution were talking about the
>>>> recording media when they wrote the forth amendment?
>>> It's "fourth." And no, the framers didn't have "recording media" in
>>> mind when they banned unreasonable search and seizure, bu they're
>>> covered anyway. The framers certainly recognized that a criminal
>>> justice system requires reasonable search and seizure to prosecute
>>> criminals like Nixon.
>>>> No. SCOTUS clearly violated Nixon's forth amendment rights.
>>> Despite his protestations, Nixon was a crook, and the government was
>>> entitled to seize the evidence of his crimes using the due process
>>> afforded by the judiciary.
>>>> It was a disgrace,
>>> Nixon's crimes? You bet. Your abyssal ignorance? Ditto.
>>>> and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and yours) too.
>>> Horseshit. The government still needs a judicial order based on
>>> cause to seize any of my personal effects, just as they needed one
>>> to seize Nixon's tapes.
>>> Note that not even Nixon argued 4th Amendment issues in challenging
>>> the subpoena. He relied on executive privilege.
>> Yes, so I've heard with respect to executive privilege.
> Just because Nixon and his lawyers were too stupid to be able to read
> and interpret the US Constitution, that doesn't mean that his 4th
> amendment rights weren't violated.
Nixon himself was a very smart lawyer. He graduated at the top of his class at Duke Law. His lawyer in the tapes case was James St Clair, who graduated from Harvard Law and had a brilliant career in public service. You think these two didn't know how to read the Constitution? And who are you? Besides an egregious ignoramus, that is.
> I say they were, and Nixon should
> have dug a hole in the White house lawn, had a big bar-b-que, invited
> the press, and tossed those tapes into the pit as soon as the hot dogs
> were cooked and served.
Destroying subpoenaed evidence is a crime, which would have led to his immediate impeachment and conviction.
> Just gbecasue the government does something, that doesn't mean its
> right. - Only liberals believe that.....
Just because you don't like the result, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Only an ignoramus believes that.
>> Not so. That a subpoena was sought shows the Constitution was
>> being followed.
>>> It was a disgrace, and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and
>>> yours) too.
>> Mine still exist. I can't see how yours have been taken away.
>Oh, I see. As long as you, "get a subpoena, you can tromp on anybody's >constitutional rights anjd its A-OK....
Since a subpoena was sought and issued means the Constitution was
followed.
>Gee..... I wonder if the founding >fathers knew that.... All Obama has to do is, "Get a subpoena" and he can >trash the whole Constitution....
Huh?
>Come to think of it, that's what he's doing >anyway, with or without a subpoena.....
I don't know if he's authorized to ask for a subpoena or not. If
he is and can show a judge why one is needed, then the Constitution
will have been followed.
-- Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
> New Google Newsgroups allows bully posters to eliminate the posts of
> others under a mechanism of:
> "This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse."
> Google is a private company, but in this case, it is using the posts
> of Usenet which is not a private company.
> Freedom of Speech is being denied in this "New Google Newsgroups" and
> many authors are censored in this new format.
> Can Google be sued for this new format?
> .....
> Or, can Google be forced to retain the posts of Usenet and if Google
> wants to radically change the formatting of those posts, that Google
> must create an entirely new portal with different names of newsgroups
> and cannot use Usenet of sci.math, sci.physics, misc.legal etc etc.
> I believe Usenet can be considered a separate entity from that of
> Google Newsgroups, and thus Usenet a separate legal entity.
> I believe the changes of New Google Newsgroups infringes on the
> Freedom of Speech of Usenet and all the posts that preceded these
> sweeping changes by Google.
What Freedom of Speech of Usenet? If you know how to do it,
you can cancel someone else's posts today.
Moderated Usenet Newsgroups are run by people who pick and choose what gets posted. There was one moderator who only
sent rejection notices if he felt like it and banned people
who argued with him.
As for Google: in my rarely humble opinion, Google has the
integrity of a third world country when it comes to copyright
infringement. My only concern with the last sentence is that North Korea may sue me for defamation of character.
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
