Man faces 75 years in jail for recording conversations with public officials.

[Belmont31R]

Before we start this is not about LEO's but more of these insane laws, prosecutors, and legislatures that wrote these laws.




Anyways this guy thought he was being hassled, and so he started recording conversations he had with various public officials. He planned to file a civil rights lawsuit. Instead once they found out about the recordings he is now being charged with 5 counts of illegal wiretapping.



I think its INSANE and just goes to show how far we are down the shitter when recording a conversation with a public official can land you what amounts to a life sentence. This is on par with anything the British ever did, and reeks of the tyranny which has come over this country. No more accountability for the government, they feel they can hide behind that .gov title, and are above the laws the rest of us peons are forced to live with.


Just to show how stupid these laws are what happens when a business owner has CCTV going, the camera is pointed to the parking lot with a road in the background, and records a public official doing something? Lock em up for 15 years?


They might as well start handing out immunity cards to these shit stains which just puts it in writing they are a special class and the law doesn't apply to them, and they'll bend/twist the existing laws to suit their needs.


I don't even want my kids to grow up in this type of environment. All we're doing now is popping out more slaves who will live their entire lives under the government boot. With this guy not only are they telling him what he can and can't do with HIS property but when he decided to fight back they got him good with the wiretapping charges.

:mad:



Crawford County State’s Attorney Tom Wiseman is currently bringing five felony charges against Michael Allison, a 41-year-old construction worker who recorded police officers and other public officials he thought were harassing him. (I'm writing a feature about Allison's case for a forthcoming issue of Reason). Allison was fighting a zoning ordinance forbidding the storage of unregistered or inoperable vehicles on private property. Allison thought he was being unjustly targeted by local authorities and was planning a civil rights lawsuit, so he began recording his conversations with local law enforcement. He faces up to 75 years in prison for the recordings.


http://reason.org/news/show/police-officers-civil-rights

[bp7178]

That article you linked really doesn't give much information about the particulars of the case at all.

Before playing Johnny law, it would have been prudent for him to research what he was doing to make sure it was legal, or to consult an attorney. The latter making the most sense.

What people outside of the system don't realize is that maximum sentences are almost NEVER carried out. These things are largely dependent on prior criminal records of the offender, violence of the offense, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

I get your point about citizens needing a blanket of protection from corruption, but there is simply not enough information here to form an unbiased opinion about the incident.

[Belmont31R]

That article you linked really doesn't give much information about the particulars of the case at all.

Before playing Johnny law, it would have been prudent for him to research what he was doing to make sure it was legal, or to consult an attorney. The latter making the most sense.

What people outside of the system don't realize is that maximum sentences are almost NEVER carried out. These things are largely dependent on prior criminal records of the offender, violence of the offense, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

I get your point about citizens needing a blanket of protection from corruption, but there is simply not enough information here to form an unbiased opinion about the incident.




He wasn't playing johny law. It was a guy trying to defend his property rights.


Saying before we do anything we should consult a lawyer is symptom of the problem. They have laid out a minefield for us waiting for someone to slip up, and then get hammered. Thats now how things should be. Im sure everyone has hundreds of dollars laying around waiting to hand over to a lawyer to get an opinion about how to not step on a mine....:) I mean we don't have enough lawyers as it is...right? And then if you do step on one we have tens of thousands for a legal defense while the government has a limitless amount of money and resources.


Grand system we got goin on here.

[SteyrAUG]

He wasn't playing johny law. It was a guy trying to defend his property rights.


Saying before we do anything we should consult a lawyer is symptom of the problem. They have laid out a minefield for us waiting for someone to slip up, and then get hammered. Thats now how things should be. Im sure everyone has hundreds of dollars laying around waiting to hand over to a lawyer to get an opinion about how to not step on a mine....:) I mean we don't have enough lawyers as it is...right? And then if you do step on one we have tens of thousands for a legal defense while the government has a limitless amount of money and resources.


Grand system we got goin on here.

Yeah, pretty much. And those who need lawyers the most are usually those who can least afford one. Which is why somebody is usually trying to screw them out of something in the first place.

[bp7178]

You don't have enough information to about the case. You don't know the circumstances of any of these recordings, how they were conducted, who they were between etc.

There are reasons laws were enacted about parking such vehicles. Just because you don't understand the reasons, or don't care to, doesn't give you some free pass to do whatever just because.

There are certian laws which cover offenses of moral turpitude. Things like robbery, rape, murder etc, which on a basic human level you know its wrong to do.

Then there are laws which can be considered statue offenses. It's illegal because there is a law saying it is. You have to understand somewhere, at some point, there was a vaild reason for someone putting it on paper. Someone who was elected by the people of the community, and signed off by someone again who was elected by the community. A lot of the time, especially with these types of matters, they are brought to the attention of those with the power of the pen by the community.

Like the rest of the community saying they don't want their town looking like a junk yard. Or maybe they have a high water table and don't want broken down cars leaking oil etc into their ground water.

If he was going to file a civil suit, which your slanted article says he was planning on, wouldn't doing legal research or consulting an attorney be the prudent thing to do? I'm not saying he had to shell out hundreds of dollars. In this day and age of information, this stuff isn't hard to come across.

Again, that article wasn't about his case in particular, there was maybe one paragraph on it.

Funny thing about police work. 20% is crime, 80% is probably civil related stuff. Neighbors feuding, people just being shitty to each other etc. I'm all for the plight of the working man, but don't assume you know anything about what probably has been an on-going problem for years from one paragraph on the internet. I'm not a fan of big goverment either. I just wouldn't back this guys horse on the info you have.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Before playing Johnny law, it would have been prudent for him to research what he was doing to make sure it was legal, or to consult an attorney. The latter making the most sense.



I wonder where we would be if John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had consulted and followed the advice of their lawyers.

[bp7178]

I wonder where we would be if John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had consulted and followed the advice of their lawyers.

That makes no sense. Do you think they park cars on their lawns too?

[Belmont31R]

Ive read several articles on this case not just one paragraph of one article.



4 of the counts came after his vehicles were seized, and he was recording his conversations with LEO's.


1 count was when he was being tried for a misdemeanor related to violating the vehicle ordinances, and he asked for a court recorder to transcribe the trial. The judge said misdemeanors do not warrant a recorder, and so he pulled out a personal audio recorder to record the trial. The judge had him jailed for violating her right to privacy, and his recorder was confiscated. On it they found the previous recordings he did while talking to the LEO's.


About the vehicle thing it doesn't really matter what the community wants if it violates someones rights. We don't live in a democracy where mob rule makes laws. All laws still have to conform to the Constitution of the US and the various states. Personal property rights are the backbone to this country, and its absolutely wrong to tell people what to do on their own property as long as they are not doing something that then infringes on someone elses rights. If leaking oil is a hazard then all cars should be banned because they all have the potential to leak oil.


A community shouldn't have the right, as a majority, to go around telling people what to do with their land. We aren't totally communist yet, and its HIS land not the community's.

[Belmont31R]

That makes no sense. Do you think they park cars on their lawns too?




Its his land not anyone elses.

[bp7178]

This is what I get for getting involved in an anti-goverment thread.

How are personal property rights the backbone of this country?


1 count was when he was being tried for a misdemeanor related to violating the vehicle ordinances, and he asked for a court recorder to transcribe the trial. The judge said misdemeanors do not warrant a recorder, and so he pulled out a personal audio recorder to record the trial. The judge had him jailed for violating her right to privacy, and his recorder was confiscated. On it they found the previous recordings he did while talking to the LEO's.

If that's actually what happened, I don't agree with what the judge did. Trials have zero expectation of privacy, its all public record.

The same laws keep the goverment from recording your conversations and communications w/o a warrant, grand jury supeona, court order etc. It takes a huge amount of evidence. Wire taps and pen registers are no joke to get.

Again, if your text I quoted above is accurate, I have issue with how those laws are being applied.

[Belmont31R]

How are personal property rights the backbone of this country?







Because the fruits of your labor is what drives everything. If you don't own what you produce or acquire then you have nothing, and no motivation to continue producing. In communist countries they provide the motivation by a guy with a gun behind you.


Further the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments all deal with personal property.


No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.




In a capitalist system people have to do be able to use personal property for economic gain. If someone else can tell you what to do with your property then you really don't have a right to it, and you're depriving that person of the decision to allocate their resources as they see fit. By depriving a person to choose how to allocate their resources and property you're basically dabbling your toes into socialist and communist systems. Capitalism, communism, and socialism are all economic systems. By allowing a majority of a given area to tell someone else how to allocate another persons resources and denying them their rights to personal property its basically an abandonment of capitalism and heading towards one of the other two economic systems.

Where personal property rights end is when the use of that land infringes on someone elses land. Like if a stone mine opens up next door, and their blasting shakes my house apart they would be denying me my use of my land as I see fit which would be habitation.


While I see where you're coming from its really dangerous territory to say a majority can decide what someone else does on their property. I mean if your town suddenly became a majority Muslim, and they all got together and said no more pigs will be allowed would you be ok with that? Mob rule is a VERY dangerous thing, and that is exactly why we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.


Now before you accuse me of it no I am not saying property rights are endless and you can do whatever you want. Your rights end where another's begin. If you dump oil on your land, and a neighbors land becomes contaminated you've violated that persons property.


But as time has gone on property rights have been dumbed down, and people think they can tell other people how to live. Personal property rights have always been a target of communist influenced people. They are a key factor in preserving both personal freedom and a capitalist economic system.


Here is a good article on the subject. Its not just about "do whatever I want" its about preservation of a free market economic system. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html

[bp7178]

Further the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments all deal with personal property.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Not one of those directly deals with personal property in the way you are intending.

The 3rd is about the quartering of soldiers.

The 4th is about search and seizure, and the probable cause requirement of same.

The 5th is due process.

Two of those mainly deal with criminal law process.

None of these say its unreasonable for the goverment to say you can't park a car on your lawn.

There is a balance that must be struck between individual rights and majority rule. Courts have almost always sided on the rights of the individual.

But the property and the parking of cars really isn't the issue. The application of wire-tapping laws to public officials is. That is what the article was about.

I largely feel this is very much a regional thing. I don't see that flying here at all.

But that is only based on one half of the story.

As much as some people, especially on this website, distrust the goverment, they seem to have a lot of trust in the media. Which is beyond ****ed up.

There is side A, side B, and somewhere between the truth.

[Belmont31R]

None of these say its unreasonable for the goverment to say you can't park a car on your lawn.


That's not the way our law is supposed to work. Our rights are not limited to what is expressly written down but the government's powers are limited to what is written. The 9th and 10th Amendments say exactly that.



Anyways here is the court records: http://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_dispositions.jsp?court=IL017015J&ocl=IL017015J,2009CF50,IL017015JL2009CF50D1




At least one of the statutes he is accused of violating: 720 5 14 2(A)(1) http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K14-2

[Moose-Knuckle]

The same laws keep the goverment from recording your conversations and communications w/o a warrant, grand jury supeona, court order etc. It takes a huge amount of evidence. Wire taps and pen registers are no joke to get.


"Cough". . .Patriot Act. . ."cough". . .NSA. . ."cough".

Privacy is a bygone concept. We are so far beyond "big brother" it's not even funny.

[bp7178]

I think this is being discussed in another thread here. This time the guy is an auto mechanic, not a construction worker, but I'm pretty sure it's all the same.

A $350 dollar bond. Pretty sure he's not getting 75 years here...kind of goes to my point about sentencing. What's funny is how old the case is. I was surprised to see it was from 08'.

The other thread had an article where the author made much to do about how could he even be arrested, recent court decisions etc etc. It's three hears old. I would be amazed if this went anywhere.