OCDO meetup? 06/04/07

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

I think you might expect the next waiver to be a little more air tight, but the fact is that video from a public meeting cannot be restricted in such ways.

Only if they charged admission or held a private meeting could a waiver be used to stop your use of whatever you tape.

It is actually possible that by FORCING you to sign a waiver to video a public meeting, that they crossed a legal line someplace. I will have to look that up.

Regards

Did someone say Coookie!!

 

[Citizen]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Who wants a cookie :lol:

I'll take one at the next VCDL meeting.

While I've got you, how did you come to choose your pseudonym? If I recall, it means, "One who has attained spiritual perfection."

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Did someone say Coookie!!

Yes, but they spelled it, Caol Ila.

(Darn, auto-suggested m'self right into a powerful thirst for something slightlypeat-y and a bit smoky tasting. Y'all will have to 'scuse me for a little while.)

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

On signing waivers: I learned within a few minutes of siging my enlistment contract not to ever sign anything someone sticks in front of you without serious contemplation of what you're getting into or giving away. (Anyone here knows what USMC means, right? Hint: it's not Uncle Sam's Misguided Children...)

I certainly wouldn't trust a document shoved in my face by such rude and shifty-eyed folks as the MMMs.

Don't sign nuttin'.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

On signing waivers: I learned within a few minutes of siging my enlistment contract not to ever sign anything someone sticks in front of you without serious contemplation of what you're getting into or giving away. (Anyone here knows what USMC means, right? Hint: it's not Uncle Sam's Misguided Children...)

I certainly wouldn't trust a document shoved in my face by such rude and shifty-eyed folks as the MMMs.

Don't sign nuttin'.

Been there, done that, got the Tshirt, and I know what USMC means. Never sign your rights away.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Did someone say Coookie!!

Yes, but they spelled it, Caol Ila. 

(Darn, auto-suggested m'self right into a powerful thirst for something slightly peat-y and a bit smoky tasting.  Y'all will have to 'scuse me for a little while.) 

Good Idea, I think I'll have a Brandy.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Tess wrote:

bohdi wrote:

Horrid, you evil lurker Nice to meet you man.

Onto some other news, it is with my great pleasure to provide to you the waiver. It has no legal bearing on my ability to video tape that meeting, and I think if you'll look closely, you'll see why I had no fear of VIDEOTAPING that meeting. I'll give one of the left over cookies to the first person who can point out why. NS, damn I wish I had read this closer, and was able to communicate to you why it wasn't a problem. I just noticed it myself about 3 minutes ago.

Who wants my video :lol:

Oh, I'd love to be a lawyer and play with that one.
Does photographic representation include video? Could be argued; video has a photographic and an audio component.
One could argue that prior consent is given by the fact you are permitted to tape it; after all, it doesn't way prior "written" consent.
There is no POC information for you to use to get said consent.
There is no mention of WHICH meeting it references. There is no date.

Oooooohhhh - IANAL but it screams unenforceable to me.

YouTube probably wants it.

But you may want to edit the image to black out your address - for your privacy and that of your family.

Of course it's unenforceable. That's why NS should have signed it in the first place.

He just wasn't quick enough. Signing it and getting a copy of the waiver would have allowed the meeting to take place and for the video to be recorded.

Oh well. Maybe next time. :?

But the MMMers will just come up with some new angle for someone to fall for.

 

[Virginiaplanter]

imported post

Bohdi,


I Object to Hawkflyers answer under § vscr-5:17 (c) "An assignment of error which merely states that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient."

The correct answer and citation of authority is:


1) The contract in its ratified form does not affect Bohdi because of The Doctrine of Contra preferentem: "Used in the connection with the construction of written documents to the effect that an ambiguous provision is construed most strongly against the person who selected the language." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. Since The term photographic is not defined it therefore it is to be given its ordinary and customary meaning. "In the absence of a contrary definition, words are presumed to have their usual and ordinary meaning. Anderson v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 560, 565, 29 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1944). " A digital camcorder does not take photgraphs but digital images. Although The meaning of the term photograph is fairly debatible and sometimes used interchangeably, that debate would make it ambiguous. "'Language is ambiguous when it may be understood in more than one way, or simultaneously refers to two or more things.' " Supinger v. Stakes, 255 Va. 198, 205, 495 S.E.2d 813, 817 (1998)".

2) Any contract made in violation of Public Policy is Void Ab initio. The First Amendment is the public policy of the United States expressed by the people in their constitution. The Virginia Bill of Rights Article I, Section 12, first established this right and also protects it.

3) The meeting was held at a public building or place of public accomodation. There is no expectation of privacy in public places. To determine whether a citizen "enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy . . . we consider whether he [or she] has exhibited an expectation of privacy in the object and whether that expectation is one that 'society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.'" Anderson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 565, 576, 490 S.E.2d 274, 279 (1997).

I believe this is proper legal answer and therefore I lay claim to those cookies.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

bohdi wrote:

Who wants a cookie :lol:

I'll take one at the next VCDL meeting.

While I've got you, how did you come to choose your pseudonym? If I recall, it means, "One who has attained spiritual perfection."

Lol, you could quite possibly be the one who asked me that very question when I first started posting in the politics section about taxes, the IRS etc with the We The People Congress website and the V for Vendetta protest in DC.

Long story short - movie point break, Swayze's charecters name was Bohdi, thought it stuck. Learned later what it meant, I needed something to use so I figured that was better than chumleynuts or monkeynuts or other monikers I use when I don't want to provide a name but have to....:lol:didn't seem right to use the others here.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

HankT wrote:

...SNIP
Of course it's unenforceable. That's why NS should have signed it in the first place.

He just wasn't quick enough. Signing it and getting a copy of the waiver would have allowed the meeting to take place and for the video to be recorded.

Oh well. Maybe next time. :?

But the MMMers will just come up with some new angle for someone to fall for.

So is it your contention that they were looking for a reason not to hold their meeting?

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

On signing waivers: I learned within a few minutes of siging my enlistment contract not to ever sign anything someone sticks in front of you without serious contemplation of what you're getting into or giving away. (Anyone here knows what USMC means, right? Hint: it's not Uncle Sam's Misguided Children...)

I certainly wouldn't trust a document shoved in my face by such rude and shifty-eyed folks as the MMMs.

Don't sign nuttin'.

Navy, Never Again Volunteer Yourself - I got an extra 9 months for not asking the right questions when I dropped out of BUD/s...:banghead:

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:

Bohdi,


I Object to Hawkflyers answer under § vscr-5:17 (c) "An assignment of error which merely states that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient."

The correct answer and citation of authority is:


1) The contract in its ratified form does not affect Bohdi because of The Doctrine of Contra preferentem: "Used in the connection with the construction of written documents to the effect that an ambiguous provision is construed most strongly against the person who selected the language." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. Since The term photographic is not defined it therefore it is to be given its ordinary and customary meaning. "In the absence of a contrary definition, words are presumed to have their usual and ordinary meaning. Anderson v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 560, 565, 29 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1944). " A digital camcorder does not take photgraphs but digital images. Although The meaning of the term photograph is fairly debatible and sometimes used interchangeably, that debate would make it ambiguous. "'Language is ambiguous when it may be understood in more than one way, or simultaneously refers to two or more things.' " Supinger v. Stakes, 255 Va. 198, 205, 495 S.E.2d 813, 817 (1998)".

2) Any contract made in violation of Public Policy is Void Ab initio. The First Amendment is the public policy of the United States expressed by the people in their constitution. The Virginia Bill of Rights Article I, Section 12, first established this right and also protects it.

3) The meeting was held at a public building or place of public accomodation. There is no expectation of privacy in public places. To determine whether a citizen "enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy . . . we consider whether he [or she] has exhibited an expectation of privacy in the object and whether that expectation is one that 'society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.'" Anderson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 565, 576, 490 S.E.2d 274, 279 (1997).

I believe this is proper legal answer and therefore I lay claim to those cookies.

ROFLMAO - for a second I thought I might actually be screwed. You guys are too much. Alright, Sorry Hawk, looks like you'll have to give up the cookie. Of course, at the rate Mr. and Mrs. Bohdi go through cookies, (I'm dieting) there may or may not be anyleft by the time I get to the next "public" activity that I can attend. Of course, there's always Giant, lol.

 

[IanB]

imported post

Hank,

You seem to relish in the fact that you think I (we) failed in our efforts last night. Sure, the intent was to tape the event and we were not sucessful.

But, by the MMM cancelling the event, and THAT being recorded, along with all the crazy stuff they said about private meetings and discrimination to name a few (all on video) I think we scored a much more powerful victory than we ever could have imagined. Not only that, but the MMM's agenda was not spread that night. I don't care what they do in a private venue. I do care about my taxpayer funded library being used as a backdrop for attacking freedom.

This will be my last reply to your posts Hank. You may not be against us, but I feel you don't support us either. You don't have much of anything positive to add to any discussion, and I'm for one am tired of your negativity. My not wishing to sign a document does not mean "I'm too slow" (retarded?) which is what you implied in your previous post. I don't give a hoot whether it's enforcible or not. I don't care to take the time away from work or spend money to defend myself against silly suits in court.

I encourage everyone else who is sick of Hank to do the same (ignore).

Goodbye Hank.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:

Bohdi,


I Object to Hawkflyers answer under § vscr-5:17 (c) "An assignment of error which merely states that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient."

The correct answer and citation of authority is:


[DELETED CAUSE IT MADE MY BRAIN HURT]

I believe this is proper legal answer and therefore I lay claim to those cookies.

Virginiaplanter, excellent first post and that's a LONG way to get a cookie! Welcome aboard!

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:

Bohdi,


I Object to Hawkflyers answer under § vscr-5:17 (c) "An assignment of error which merely states that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient."

The correct answer and citation of authority is:


1) The contract in its ratified form does not affect Bohdi because of The Doctrine of Contra preferentem: "Used in the connection with the construction of written documents to the effect that an ambiguous provision is construed most strongly against the person who selected the language." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. Since The term photographic is not defined it therefore it is to be given its ordinary and customary meaning. "In the absence of a contrary definition, words are presumed to have their usual and ordinary meaning. Anderson v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 560, 565, 29 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1944). " A digital camcorder does not take photgraphs but digital images. Although The meaning of the term photograph is fairly debatible and sometimes used interchangeably, that debate would make it ambiguous. "'Language is ambiguous when it may be understood in more than one way, or simultaneously refers to two or more things.' " Supinger v. Stakes, 255 Va. 198, 205, 495 S.E.2d 813, 817 (1998)".

2) Any contract made in violation of Public Policy is Void Ab initio. The First Amendment is the public policy of the United States expressed by the people in their constitution. The Virginia Bill of Rights Article I, Section 12, first established this right and also protects it.

3) The meeting was held at a public building or place of public accomodation. There is no expectation of privacy in public places. To determine whether a citizen "enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy . . . we consider whether he [or she] has exhibited an expectation of privacy in the object and whether that expectation is one that 'society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.'" Anderson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 565, 576, 490 S.E.2d 274, 279 (1997).

I believe this is proper legal answer and therefore I lay claim to those cookies.

All true, but the implication was that speed was important in responding. After all Citizen is a cookie guy too.:lol:

You did leave out that this is not really ambiguous any more. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Imaging Technologies, has defined Photographic and digital video as separate and distinct forms of image capture. Those definitions have been tested in court.

Regards

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Okay, I finally watched the whole 3 videos.

That woman's voice made me want to listen to nails on a chalkboard to relax after a few minutes, but I think it's pretty funny that the only thing we have to do to make the antis give up and quit is to show up and watch or tape them. Had I been there I would havebeen tempted to laughat them and told them they were scattering like roaches when the light comes on. I really have trouble taking these people seriously after we crashed their news conference back in January and they threw a hissy fit.

I guess the old saying is true: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Now, expect them to show up at the next VCDL meeting of course. Be aware.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Virginiaplanter wrote:

Bohdi,


I Object to Hawkflyers answer under § vscr-5:17 (c) "An assignment of error which merely states that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient."

The correct answer and citation of authority is:


1) The contract in its ratified form does not affect Bohdi because of The Doctrine of Contra preferentem: "Used in the connection with the construction of written documents to the effect that an ambiguous provision is construed most strongly against the person who selected the language." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. Since The term photographic is not defined it therefore it is to be given its ordinary and customary meaning. "In the absence of a contrary definition, words are presumed to have their usual and ordinary meaning. Anderson v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 560, 565, 29 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1944). " A digital camcorder does not take photgraphs but digital images. Although The meaning of the term photograph is fairly debatible and sometimes used interchangeably, that debate would make it ambiguous. "'Language is ambiguous when it may be understood in more than one way, or simultaneously refers to two or more things.' " Supinger v. Stakes, 255 Va. 198, 205, 495 S.E.2d 813, 817 (1998)".

2) Any contract made in violation of Public Policy is Void Ab initio. The First Amendment is the public policy of the United States expressed by the people in their constitution. The Virginia Bill of Rights Article I, Section 12, first established this right and also protects it.

3) The meeting was held at a public building or place of public accomodation. There is no expectation of privacy in public places. To determine whether a citizen "enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy . . . we consider whether he [or she] has exhibited an expectation of privacy in the object and whether that expectation is one that 'society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.'" Anderson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 565, 576, 490 S.E.2d 274, 279 (1997).

I believe this is proper legal answer and therefore I lay claim to those cookies.

All true, but the implication was that speed was important in responding. After all Citizen is a cookie guy too.:lol:

You did leave out that this is not really ambiguous any more. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Imaging Technologies, has defined Photographic and digital video as separate and distinct forms of image capture. Those definitions have been tested in court.

Regards

I'm in a compromising mood, three cookies are to be had, but while I'm at it I'll probably owe one to Citizen and BobCav for adding some common sense at a critical time. Not to mention Bob just has me rolling most of the time with his posts! I'm off to render, then splice, and render again, and play some battlefield 2. Hopefully I'll have this posted to youtube by tomorrow, editing is done.

 

[VAopencarry]

imported post

unrequited wrote:

THAT IS HYSTERICAL!!!!!!! I almost fell out of my seat laughing.:lol::lol:

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Okay, I finally watched the whole 3 videos.

That woman's voice made me want to listen to nails on a chalkboard to relax after a few minutes, but I think it's pretty funny that the only thing we have to do to make the antis give up and quit is to show up and watch or tape them. Had I been there I would havebeen tempted to laughat them and told them they were scattering like roaches when the light comes on. I really have trouble taking these people seriously after we crashed their news conference back in January and they threw a hissy fit.

I guess the old saying is true: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Now, expect them to show up at the next VCDL meeting of course. Be aware.

Think we should have some waivers ready for them?

Something to the effect:
Welcome to our meeting. As this area has being designated as free zone, we cannot be held responsible for damage done to authoritarian notions or tyrannical ideals. Do not be alarmed if you feel free in the next hour and you abandon your statist or gun control principles.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Okay, I finally watched the whole 3 videos.

That woman's voice made me want to listen to nails on a chalkboard to relax after a few minutes, but I think it's pretty funny that the only thing we have to do to make the antis give up and quit is to show up and watch or tape them. Had I been there I would have been tempted to laugh at them and told them they were scattering like roaches when the light comes on. I really have trouble taking these people seriously after we crashed their news conference back in January and they threw a hissy fit.

I guess the old saying is true: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Now, expect them to show up at the next VCDL meeting of course. Be aware.

"In peace, there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness, and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger, stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood...now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, hold hard the breath, and bend up every spirit to its full height!" - William shakespeare

They will never walk into a room full of armed citizens. If they do they will be expected to behave just as well as any VCDL member.

Regards