Russell in court 8/19/08 at 10am in Keene

[dalebert]

cool video ... I didn't exactly add entertainment value with my boring trial

Are you kidding? You should see the reaction you elicit from viewers when you answer definitively, "NEVER". My roommates and I are laughing our asses off.

[SamIam]

Great job on the video. Once I'm up, we can bring in 4 cameras so one can be zoomed on each person in the court. What a silly rule.

Russell, "uuummmm, Never.". That was classic.


When the bureaucrats say they don't give you permission, remind them that you don't need their permission. A friend of mine was watching courtTV cover a case in Mass. The police drove the lady up to NH, so they could record the call without informing the other party. I question wither or not the notification is even necessary. Or perhaps it was yet another example of police ignoring their own law.

[Coconut]

Great job on the video. Once I'm up, we can bring in 4 cameras so one can be zoomed on each person in the court. What a silly rule.

When the bureaucrats say they don't give you permission, remind them that you don't need their permission. A friend of mine was watching courtTV cover a case in Mass. The police drove the lady up to NH, so they could record the call without informing the other party. I question wither or not the notification is even necessary. Or perhaps it was yet another example of police ignoring their own law.

Thanks sam. They will limit the number of cameras in the courtroom as well though. I guess I could do that too. "If you're not going to let me move my camera, I'll need to bring in all of them and set up 4 tripods" heh.

Anyway, recording laws are different for different states.

[Russell Kanning]

it is funny all of their little rules
he acted like the filming thing was the most important part of the day in court

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Anyway, recording laws are different for different states.

I'm really curious about that one. Do you happen to know if consent is required, or merely notification. It seems to me that saying (on a recording) "You're being audio recorded" itself would violate the law if CONSENT was required but "You're being audio recorded. / I don't give you permission. / I don't need your permission, merely that you're informed. This is a public place, you're free to not speak if you wish." seems much more effective.

If not, you could do wiretapping civil disobedience. 

[Barterer]

Congratulations on getting out of this with about the minimum trouble anyone could expect.  That community service option does help everyone end the ordeal while "saving face." 

I wonder if those open-carry litter pickups could get registered as a "community service" acceptable to the court.  What would be funnier, freestaters getting out of trouble by doing what they do anyway, or Russell having to borrow a pistol to do the service? 

[Russell Kanning]

the idea of helping clean the roads ... the government doesn't want me to drive on ... is funny too

I might be helping out the Grafton Fire Department for the time.

If you have an organization who is acceptable to a court like the one in keene ... let me know.

[Coconut]

Anyway, recording laws are different for different states.

I'm really curious about that one. Do you happen to know if consent is required, or merely notification. It seems to me that saying (on a recording) "You're being audio recorded" itself would violate the law if CONSENT was required but "You're being audio recorded. / I don't give you permission. / I don't need your permission, merely that you're informed. This is a public place, you're free to not speak if you wish." seems much more effective.

If not, you could do wiretapping civil disobedience. 

My best guess would be that consent is required, but it's written about in the law in various conditions which make it confusing (what law isn't?). Some parts make it seem that it's only illegal if your recording device is hidden.

Then again there is precedence that it's ok, such as news agencies releasing video of people walking away from cameras. If they weren't allowed to record that without consent, they could not have aired it. And if he's informed, and continues to speak, could it be implied consent? I used the audio anyway, not as a "f you. You were recorded anyway!" but because I was reporting on what happened. Hopefully I don't have to find out the hard way that it's not allowed.

Edit: the first hit on my google search says that in 38 states you can record someone if only one party to the conversation consents. NH isn't one of them.

Edit2: "It is always legal to tape or film a face-to-face interview when your recorder or camera is in plain view. In these instances, the consent of all parties is presumed."
This would cover me with the woman that got pissed that I was recording her "Without her permission"

[FTL_Ian]

The only reason not to blatantly tape bureaucrats is if you feel you can gain more from them somehow by being respectful to their demands.  It's all up to you.

[FTL_Ian]

When they say, "I don't give you permission to record me." 

Perhaps we should say, "I didn't ask you for permission.  Is this public property?"

[Kat Kanning]

Sets a nice antagonistic tone.

[Coconut]

Sets a nice antagonistic tone.

and what does "HA! Which I don't give you permission for!" do?

Perhaps starting Ian's statement with Ridley's famous "I mean no disrespect but..."

[Kat Kanning]

Well that "lady" clearly already had a bug up her butt. 

BTW, thanks for braving the bureaucrats and filming all this!

[bile]

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

For those interested:

N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2: It is a felony to intercept, or disclose the contents of, any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. However, it is a misdemeanor for a party to a communication, or anyone who has the consent of only one of the parties, to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication.

Civil damages are expressly authorized for unlawful interceptions for the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000 in addition to punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:11.

Use of a hidden camera in a private place without the consent "of the persons entitled to privacy therein" is a misdemeanor. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:9. A classroom was not a private place where a school custodian could reasonably expect to be safe from video surveillance. State v. McLellan, 744 A.2d 611 (N.H. 1999).

[Pat McCotter]

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

For those interested:

N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2: It is a felony to intercept, or disclose the contents of, any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. However, it is a misdemeanor for a party to a communication, or anyone who has the consent of only one of the parties, to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication.

Civil damages are expressly authorized for unlawful interceptions for the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000 in addition to punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:11.

Use of a hidden camera in a private place without the consent "of the persons entitled to privacy therein" is a misdemeanor. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:9. A classroom was not a private place where a school custodian could reasonably expect to be safe from video surveillance. State v. McLellan, 744 A.2d 611 (N.H. 1999).

Been rehashed many times on here. Laws mean whatever the govt wants them to mean. Read the pages herein, learn and Welcome to the NH Undergound!