I don't know the particulars of this issue beyond what appears to be a case of someone airing a recorded conversation that was meant to be of a private nature. Apart from whether or not the airing of same was legally questionable, there remains the question: did a public official used his office for the private gain of another, as claimed? One cannot uncover a wrongdoing if there was no wrongdoing to begin with. The means of discovery may matter in a judicial context but that which was discovered is no less important.

-- (guamguy9@hotmail.com), October 13, 1998

Answers

If the AG's Office wasn't such a Joke, we would have seen the tapes given to a grand jury. Of course the funds were misspent.

Ken Hamlet filed an ethics complaint against Charfauros Lawyer Dave J. Lujan. What a joke. We read Hamlet's deposition, Pete Sgro wouldn't let him answer anything. But he had already damaged himself by blabbing all over the talk shows.

This George Bamba stuff is irritating as hell. Here's a guy who defends GTA's purchase of furniture.

-- The Guam News (guamnews@hotmail.com), October 15, 1998.

For guamnews, M. F. Shun, lighthouse and others, you can not use, discuss or divulge illegally intercepted tapes! Use in the Legislature? See below! Use in Grand Jury? See below! I will post other applicable laws as needed but please quit criticizing the AG's office, the media, etc. because they are not willing to break the laws of the United States and Guam to achieve your personal vindictive goals. It only shows you are ignorant or you don't care about the laws of our society!

If you have personal reasons to support Joe, fine. If you want to support Carl, fine. Talk about the plans and programs to make Guam a better place to live, work and raise our families. But to advocate breaking federal laws and interfere with the privacy of the citizens of Guam is WRONG!!! There is no legal exception for government workers, sorry!

-CITE-

18 USC Sec. 2515 01/06/97

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 119 - WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND

INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

-HEAD-

Sec. 2515. Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or

oral communications

-STATUTE-

Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no

part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived

therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or

other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department,

officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other

authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision

thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation

of this chapter.

-SOURCE-

(Added Pub. L. 90-351, title III, Sec. 802, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat.

216.)

-- (legal_truth@yahoo.com), October 15, 1998.

Can you cite some laws on corruption also? I know it's a federal law. Well, I'm sure I'll be reading it in the newspaper when the FBI investigations are completed and the indictments are handed down.

-- Che'lu (lubanos@ite.net), October 16, 1998.

Mr. Legal News,

Thank you for your legal opinion, and your citing of a federal law that doesn't apply to what I've been saying. I have not quoted any illegal recording or tape -- I've quoted what I've heard on a publicly broadcast cable channel of the Legislature, which is a public forum, and I've quoted things that are a part of the Legislature's official record, which is public. I've quoted things that are factual, and that nobody denies. Feel free to quote the law that stops me from doing that.

-- Lighthouse (lighthouse1999@yahoo.com), October 16, 1998.

Lighthouse, You asked so I will try to answer why discussing the tapes may be a violation of both Guam and Federal Law. First the applicable sections:

US Code Title 18 ' 2511,. "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited"

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who -

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when - (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e) (i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(A)(ii), 2511(b)-(c), 2511(e), 2516, and 2518 of this subchapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).

Chapter 70 of Guam Code Annotated "Miscellaneous Crimes"

Article 1. General '70.35. "Invasion of Privacy:" Penalty; Definitions. (a) A person commits a misdemeanor if, except as authorized by law, he: (1) - (3) Deleted (not applicable to this issue) (4) intercepts without the consent of the sender or receiver a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately; but this Paragraph does not extend to: (A) overhearing of messages through a regularly installed instrument on a telephone party line or on an extension; or (B) interception by the telephone company or subscriber incident to enforcement of regulations limiting use of the facilities or to other normal operation and use; or (5) divulges without the consent of the sender or receiver the existence or contents of any message described in Paragraph (4) if the defendant knows that the message was illegally intercepted, or if he learned of the message in the course of employment with an agency engaged in transmitting it. SOURCE: G.P.C. ''618, 619, 621, 640, 641, See also '639; *M.P.C. '250.12; Cal. ''1450-1464 (1971); Mass. ch. 272, ''13 and 14; N.J. '2C:33-12.

It seems to me that 18USC ' 2511. (c) and (d) are very clear. If you intentionally disclose to any other person or use the contents of any electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the in violation of ' 2511 (see above (a) and (b)) then you have violated Federal law.

'70.35. (5) Guam Code Annotated also seems clear to me. If you know that a telephone message was illegally intercepted and you divulge the existence or contents without the consent of the sender or receiver you are guilty of a misdemeanor.

Lighthouse, these are just the local and Federal criminal provisions. There are also civil liabilities to such disclosures. I hope if you are intent on discussing the tapes, you or your counsel can cite the authority (both Federal and local) that provides for an exception or defense based upon previous disclosure. My research shows that an improperly disclosed protected or private communications does not loose its protection.

As I see it, you know the communications were illegally intercepted. Because you have access to these private communications, you want to discuss them in public WITHOUT permission of either party. I dont believe just because one or more of the parties work for the Government will be a satisfactory defense. Neither is a previous disclosure a defense.

Lighthouse, you always ask for proof. Now it is your turn to prove that these tapes can be legally discussed. As a responsible moderator, it would be negligent to allow or encourage an illegal activity in this forum!

(Sorry about the formatting of the cites, this forum does not allow normal legal formatting)

-- (legal_truth@yahoo.com), October 17, 1998.

Mr. Legal News,

The laws you state are very clear. Your interpretation of them is another matter.

I am disclosing the contents of what I heard on a public broadcast on television, what I read about in the paper, what I see in the media, what is part of the public record at the Legislature, and what people are talking about on the streets.

I have no knowledge of the contents of any electronic communication that was illegally obtained. I have knowledge of the contents of electronic communication that was completely legal -- cable television.

You and others claim that you know or have reason to know that the electronic communication has been illegally obtained. I have no such knowledge. I have seen no evidence that the tapes are illegal (just a lot of outcry) and have seen no court decision declaring those specific tapes illegal. They are illegal if the courts say they are. The courts have not made a decision. And even if the courts find them illegal, I have not listened to these allegedly illegal tapes and don't know what's on them. I have not even seen the tapes or seen them played.

If I see a court decision proving me wrong, I'll stop talking about the contents of public television, media stories, public record and street conversations. As far as I know, the courts have not ruled this way.

-- Lighthouse (lighthouse1999@yahoo.com), October 17, 1998.

The following is a fact sheet from the FCC. I am sure many of you wont agree with it but it is in line with what the Guam US Attorney stated last week. But then why should we take the FCC or US attorneys opinions? They obviously know less about what can and can not be divulged then most members of this forum.

FACT SHEET

JANUARY 1997

INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE OF RADIO COMMUNICATIONS

This Fact Sheet provides general information regarding the interception of radio communications as governed by the Communications Act. This Fact Sheet should not be used as guidance for deciding whether you can engage in any specific activity. This is because this information is too general and because there are other statutes -- Federal and State -- that also govern the interception of radio communications and may make an activity unlawful and may subject the violator to severe criminal penalties. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2520. In addition criminal prosecution for a violation of the Communications Act is within the discretion of the Department of Justice.

Of those statutes that may govern interception of radio communications, the FCC only has the authority to interpret Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 605, "Unauthorized Publication of Communications." Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although mere interception of radio communications may violate other Federal or State statutes. In other words, if you happen to overhear your neighbor's cordless telephone, you do not violate the Communications Act. Similarly, if you listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you are not in violation of Section 705. However, a violation of Section 705 would occur if you divulge or publish what you hear or use it for your own or someone else's benefit. An example of using an intercepted call for a beneficial use in violation of Section 705 would be someone listening to accident reports on a police channel and then sending his or her tow truck to the reported accident scene in order to obtain business.

The Communications Act does allow for the divulgence of certain types of radio transmissions, however. The statute specifies that there are no restrictions on the divulgence or use of radio communications that have been transmitted for the use of the general public (i.e. transmissions of a local radio or television broadcast station); or relate to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress; or are transmitted by amateur radio or citizens band radio operators.

In addition, courts have held that the act of viewing a transmission (such as pay television signal) that the viewer was not authorized to receive is a "publication" violating Section 705. Section 705 also has special provisions governing the interception of satellite television programming that is being transmitted to cable operators. The section prohibits the interception of satellite cable programming for private home viewing if the programming is either encrypted (i.e., scrambled) or is not encrypted, but is sold through a marketing system. In these circumstances, you must obtain authorization from the programming provider in order to legally intercept the transmission.

The FCC also receives many inquiries regarding the interception and recording of telephone conversations. To the extent these conversations are radio transmissions, there would be no violation of Section 705 if there were no divulgence or beneficial use of the conversation. Again, however, the mere interception of some telephone- related radio transmissions, e.g., cellular, cordless and landline conversations, may constitute a criminal violation of other Federal or State statutes. Further, there are Federal and State tariffs that impose conditions for recording telephone conversations. See Use of Recording Devices, 2 FCC Rcd. 502 (1987).

The Act also contains provisions that affect the manufacture of equipment used for listening to or receiving radio transmissions, such as "scanners." Section 302(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 302(d), prohibits the FCC from authorizing scanning equipment that is capable of receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to domestic cellular services, that is capable of readily being altered by the user to intercept cellular communications, or that may be equipped with decoders that convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio. In addition, such receivers may not be manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States after April 26, 1994. 47 CFR 15.121. FCC regulations also prohibit the sale or lease of scanning equipment not authorized by the FCC. 47 CFR 2.803.

If after having read this Fact Sheet you want to file a complaint because you believe someone is unlawfully intercepting and divulging or beneficially using radio transmissions, or is in violation of the Act's scanner equipment provisions, you should address your complaint, in writing, to the FCC.

- For Telephone interception related complaints contact:

Consumer Protection Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau at 2025 M Street. N.W., Room 6202, Washington, D.C. 20554; (202-632- 7553.)

- For Wireless (including cellular telephone) interception related complaints contact:

Enforcement Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at 2025 M Street N.W., Room 8308, Washington, D.C., 20554; (202-418-0569.)

- For Satellite Programming interception related information contact:

Satellite and Radio Communications Division, International Bureau at 2000 M Street N.W., Room 800, Washington, D.C. 20554; (202-418-0749.)

- For Scanner equipment and cordless telephone interception related

complaints contact:

Enforcement Division, Compliance and Information Bureau at 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 734; (202) 418-1100;

or Equipment Authorization Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, 7435 Oakland Mills Road, Columbia, MD 21036; (301) 725-1585, ext 221.

Please keep in mind that in order for the Commission to evaluate the merits of your complaint, you must provide very specific information; general allegations usually will be inadequate to warrant any action.

If the matter you are concerned about does not appear to fall exclusively within the parameters of Section 705, the FCC strongly recommends you seek the assistance of an attorney. Further, if you have information regarding a violation of any Federal criminal statute, you should contact your local FBI office.

**********************************************************************

In June 1997 the FCC provided the following information in a clarification.

DA 97-1237

June 13, 1997 DIVULGENCE OR BENEFICIAL USE OF INTERCEPTED CELLULAR, PCS AND CORDLESS TELEPHONE CALLS VIOLATES THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT

In response to numerous inquiries, we take this opportunity to remind all members of the public that section 705 of the Communications Act prohibits the interception and divulgence or beneficial use of certain radio communications, including cellular, cordless telephone and personal communications service (PCS) calls, without the authorization of the sender of the communications.

We note that this prohibition applies to all members of the public, including members of the news media and news media organizations.

The FCC takes violations of section 705 very seriously. We will forward any complaints alleging interception and divulgence or beneficial use to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. Further, we may also take action to impose possible sanctions. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. '' 312, 503(b).

For more detailed information, see Fact Sheet, "Interception and Divulgence of Radio Communications" (January, 1997), available from the Office of Public Affairs.

By the Deputy General Counsel.

Additional questions concerning this Public Notice may be addressed to:

Office of Public Affairs: David Fiske at 202-418-0500 Office of General Counsel: Marjorie Bertman at 202-418-1720. ---FCC---

I will post Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 605 at a later time.

-- (legal_truth@yahoo.com), October 18, 1998.

As I promised, here is 47 U.S.C. Section 605. It is referenced in the FCC Notice Previously posted.

CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION SUBCHAPTER VI - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS -HEAD- Sec. 605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications -STATUTE- (a) Practices prohibited Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, (1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney, (2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination, (3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed, (4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving, (5) in response to a subpena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of other lawful authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator. (b) Exceptions The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the interception or receipt by any individual, or the assisting (including the manufacture or sale) of such interception or receipt, of any satellite cable programming for private viewing if - (1) the programming involved is not encrypted; and (2)(A) a marketing system is not established under which - (i) an agent or agents have been lawfully designated for the purpose of authorizing private viewing by individuals, and (ii) such authorization is available to the individual involved from the appropriate agent or agents; or (B) a marketing system described in subparagraph (A) is established and the individuals receiving such programming has obtained authorization for private viewing under that system. (c) Scrambling of Public Broadcasting Service programming No person shall encrypt or continue to encrypt satellite delivered programs included in the National Program Service of the Public Broadcasting Service and intended for public viewing by retransmission by television broadcast stations; except that as long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of the same program. (d) Definitions For purposes of this section - (1) the term ''satellite cable programming'' means video programming which is transmitted via satellite and which is primarily intended for the direct receipt by cable operators for their retransmission to cable subscribers; (2) the term ''agent'', with respect to any person, includes an employee of such person; (3) the term ''encrypt'', when used with respect to satellite cable programming, means to transmit such programming in a form whereby the aural and visual characteristics (or both) are modified or altered for the purpose of preventing the unauthorized receipt of such programming by persons without authorized equipment which is designed to eliminate the effects of such modification or alteration; (4) the term ''private viewing'' means the viewing for private use in an individual's dwelling unit by means of equipment, owned or operated by such individual, capable of receiving satellite cable programming directly from a satellite; (5) the term ''private financial gain'' shall not include the gain resulting to any individual for the private use in such individual's dwelling unit of any programming for which the individual has not obtained authorization for that use; and (6) the term ''any person aggrieved'' shall include any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming, and, in the case of a violation of paragraph(4) of subsection (e) of this section, shall also include any person engaged in the lawful manufacture, distribution, or sale of equipment necessary to authorize or receive satellite cable programming. (e) Penalties; civil actions; remedies; attorney's fees and costs; computation of damages; regulation by State and local authorities (1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both. (2) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such conviction and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent conviction. (3)(A) Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a) of this section or paragraph (4) of this subsection may bring a civil action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction. (B) The court - (i) may grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of subsection (a) of this section; (ii) may award damages as described in subparagraph (C); and (iii) shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an aggrieved party who prevails. (C)(i) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed, at the election of the aggrieved party, in accordance with either of the following subclauses; (I) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator's profits, the party aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation; or (II) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of subsection (a) of this section involved in the action in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just, and for each violation of paragraph (4) of this subsection involved in the action an aggrieved party may recover statutory damages in a sum not less than $10,000, or more than $100,000, as the court considers just. (ii) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory, by an amount of not more than $100,000 for each violation of subsection (a) of this section. (iii) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $250. (4) Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, or direct-to-home satellite services, or is intended for any other activity prohibited by subsection (a) of this section, shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or both. For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of this paragraph, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation. (5) The penalties under this subsection shall be in addition to those prescribed under any other provision of this subchapter. (6) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent any State, or political subdivision thereof, from enacting or enforcing any laws with respect to the importation, sale, manufacture, or distribution of equipment by any person with the intent of its use to assist in the interception or receipt of radio communications prohibited by subsection (a) of this section. (f) Rights, obligations, and liabilities under other laws unaffected Nothing in this section shall affect any right, obligation, or liability under title 17, any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, or any other applicable Federal, State, or local law. (g) Universal encryption standard The Commission shall initiate an inquiry concerning the need for a universal encryption standard that permits decryption of satellite cable programming intended for private viewing. In conducting such inquiry, the Commission shall take into account - (1) consumer costs and benefits of any such standard, including consumer investment in equipment in operation; (2) incorporation of technological enhancements, including advanced television formats; (3) whether any such standard would effectively prevent present and future unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming; (4) the costs and benefits of any such standard on other authorized users of encrypted satellite cable programming, including cable systems and satellite master antenna television systems; (5) the effect of any such standard on competition in the manufacture of decryption equipment; and (6) the impact of the time delay associated with the Commission procedures necessary for establishment of such standards. (h) Rulemaking for encryption standard If the Commission finds, based on the information gathered from the inquiry required by subsection (g) of this section, that a universal encryption standard is necessary and in the public interest, the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking to establish such a standard. -SOURCE-

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VII, Sec. 705, formerly title VI, Sec. 605, 48 Stat. 1103; June 19, 1968, Pub. L. 90-351, title III, Sec. 803, 82 Stat. 223; Sept. 13, 1982, Pub. L. 97-259, title I, Sec. 126, 96 Stat. 1099; renumbered title VII, Sec. 705, and amended Oct. 30, 1984, Pub. L. 98-549, Sec. 5(a), 6(a), 98 Stat. 2802, 2804; Nov. 7, 1988, Pub. L. 100-626, Sec. 11, 102 Stat. 3211; Nov. 16, 1988, Pub. L. 100-667, title II, Sec. 204, 205, 102 Stat. 3958, 3959; Oct. 25, 1994, Pub. L. 103-414, title III, Sec. 303(a)(25)-(28), 304(a)(15), 108 Stat. 4295-4297; Feb. 8, 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, title II, Sec. 205(a), 110 Stat. 114.) -MISC1- AMENDMENTS 1996 - Subsec. (e)(4). Pub. L. 104-104 inserted ''or direct-to-home satellite services,'' after ''programming,''. 1994 - Subsec. (d)(6). Pub. L. 103-414, Sec. 303(a)(25), substituted ''subsection (e)'' for ''subsection (d)''. Subsec. (e)(3)(A). Pub. L. 103-414, Sec. 303(a)(26), substituted ''paragraph (4) of this subsection'' for ''paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of this section''. Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103-414, Sec. 303(a)(27), redesignated subsec. (f), relating to universal encryption standard, as (g). Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103-414, Sec. 304(a)(15), which directed substitution of ''The Commission'' for ''within 6 months after November 16, 1988, the Federal Communications Commission'', was executed by making the substitution in text which read ''Within 6 months'' rather than ''within 6 months'' in introductory provisions to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Pub. L. 103-414, Sec. 303(a)(27), redesignated subsec. (f), relating to universal encryption standard, as (g). Former subsec. (g) redesignated (h). Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103-414, Sec. 303(a)(27), (28), redesignated subsec. (g) as (h) and substituted ''subsection (g)'' for''subsection (f)''. 1988 - Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 100-626 added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e). Subsec. (d)(6). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(1), which directed the addition of par. (6) to subsec. (c), was executed to subsec. (d) to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the intervening redesignation of subsec. (c) as (d) by Pub. L. 100-626. Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(2)-(12), which directed the amendment of subsec. (d)(1) to (4) of this section, was executed to subsec. (e)(1) to (4) of this section, see below, to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the intervening redesignation of subsec. (d) as (e) by Pub. L. 100-626. Pub. L. 100-626 redesignated subsec. (d) as (e). Former subsec. (e) redesignated (f). Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(2), substituted ''$2,000'' for ''$1,000''. Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(3), substituted ''$50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such conviction and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years'' for ''$25,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for the first such conviction and shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years''. Subsec. (e)(3)(A). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(4), inserted ''or paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of this section'' before ''may bring''. Subsec. (e)(3)(B). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(5)-(8), struck out ''may'' after ''The court'' and substituted ''may grant'' for ''grant'' in cl. (i), ''may award'' for ''award'' in cl. (ii), and ''shall direct'' for ''direct'' in cl. (iii). Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(i)(II). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(9), inserted ''of subsection (a) of this section'' after ''violation'', substituted ''$1,000'' for ''$250'', and inserted before period at end '', and for each violation of paragraph (4) of this subsection involved in the action an aggrieved party may recover statutory damages in a sum not less than $10,000, or more than $100,000, as the court considers just''. Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(ii). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(10), substituted ''$100,000 for each violation of subsection (a) of this section'' for ''$50,000''. Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(iii). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(11), substituted ''$250'' for ''$100''. Subsec. (e)(4). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 205(12), added par. (4) and struck out former par. (4) which read as follows: ''The importation, manufacture, sale, or distribution of equipment by any person with the intent of its use to assist in any activity prohibited by subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to penalties and remedies under this subsection to the same extent and in the same manner as a person who has engaged in such prohibited activity.'' Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 204, added subsec. (f) relating to universal encryption standard. Pub. L. 100-626 redesignated subsec. (e), relating to rights, obligations, and liabilities under other laws, as (f). Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 100-667, Sec. 204, added subsec. (g). 1984 - Pub. L. 98-549, Sec. 5(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) to (e). 1982 - Pub. L. 97-259 struck out ''broadcast or'' after ''communication which is'', substituted ''any station'' for ''amateurs or others'', struck out ''or'' after ''general public,'', and substituted ''ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator'' for ''ships in distress''. 1968 - Pub. L. 90-351 inserted ''Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18'', designated existing provisions as cls. (1) to (6), inserted ''radio'' before ''communication'' in second and fourth sentences, struck out ''wire or'' before ''radio'' in third sentence, and substituted ''intercepted'' for ''obtained'' in fourth sentence. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1988 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 100-667 effective Jan. 1, 1989, see section 206 of Pub. L. 100-667, set out as an Effective Date note under section 119 of Title 17, Copyrights. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT Section 5(b) of Pub. L. 98-549 provided that: ''The amendments made by subsection (a) (amending this section) shall take effect on the effective date of this Act (Dec. 29, 1984).'' Amendment by Pub. L. 98-549 effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98-549, set out as an Effective Date note under section 521 of this title. -SECREF- SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 548, 612 of this title; title 18 section 2511; title 50 section 1805.

-- (legal_truth@yahoo.com), October 18, 1998.

Mr. Legal Truth,

You have just wasted my time. I read through your entire lengthy post and didn't find anything that applied to the points I made in the last post.

I have not intercepted any kind of conversation nor have I seen a tape of any such intercepted conversation nor have I listened to a tape of any such intercepted conversation. I've watched a cable television broadcast (that I was authorized to receive), I've read media reports, and I have every right to talk about the things I watch and read unless you point out what court decision has interpreted the laws you're posting to apply to my situation. None of the specific information I've received (Hamlet getting a free hotel room after Paka) has been ruled by any court as illegal to talk about.

I appreciate the legal research you've done, but still none of it applies to the acts that I have committed, as far as I know.

-- Lighthouse (lighthouse1999@yahoo.com), October 18, 1998.

Again, illegal is illegal is illegal!!

You start trespassing on peoples' private phone conversations and where does it end.

It ends in daily violations of our rights. Don't open this pandora's box because you will most definately not like it.

I had to repost this as my other post was erased.

Methinks that before you start pointing fingers you should look in the mirror re: moderated forums.

-- laus Deo (luasdeo@Deo.com), October 21, 1998.

Legal Beagle:

Great stuff. Lighthouse is correct though, lot of interpretation, you could say that contrast may be applied to a good play, like Hamlet Prince of Denmark. You know where interpretation gets us. Dancing! Dancing! Who said illegal is illegal. They're right. I say both of them step foward and do the time.

Since when did one crime supercede another crime? Come on lets not be ignorant in regard to the application provided of an event that has been documented.

Also legal beagle did you copy/paste that or did you type it in? Great work. Good skills.

-- Edward Dumas (saligao@hotmail.com), October 28, 1998.

Edward Dumas

Who appointed you the judge? After reading your several inputs, it seems you see yourself as the center of the world with your own limited outlook in life. You proivde no evidence and incidents favorable to your side and play into an imaginary prejudice world. You really have nothing to add but your distorted thinking.

-- (peers@kuentos.com), October 28, 1998.

Peers:

Please don't let me get to you. But as for being the center of the Earth and having a limited outlook at things you maybe right. You just might be right.

But unfortunately interpretation in a law is usually a way of evasively finding a much more intricate definition. The application of this method is a funnel for manifesting a turgid response, deviating from the general principle of the intial law stated. Of course this could be argued but certaintly the fundamental contents of the whole will be manipulated.

Yesterday, Mr. Rapadas stated that he "is looking into the law to see how it is being interpreted, or how it can be interpreted." He did not exactly stated as that (please forgive me) but the catalyst is there. The catylyst of interpretation which allows avatots of justice, aka attorneys, the ability to manipulate or redefine laws and thus challenge them.

Now as to being a judge. Quite respectfully, everyone that enters here in a forum is a judge. A mediator is not a judge but somone who "mediates." Hey peers, your a judge too.

Do you dance to the 98Jamz too? It great you should try it.

One more thing, what I have given you is an exert, in regard to interpretation, given to me by wonderful Professor at Berkely (who I really didn't like) so don't qoute me on that. But because I support it you could challenge me on it. So peer, lets danse to the 98 Jamz. Cool.

-- Edward Dumas (Saligao@hotmail.com), October 28, 1998.

Edward Dumas

With all due respects you have touched a nerve and in my humble opinion your scintilla interpetations are not worthy of a closer examination. Yes, I acknowledged weakness in my judgement it makes it easier to accept your ignorance of the law. This is one situation that you have handled so badly with your several postings.

-- (peers@kuentos.com), October 29, 1998.

Peers,

I don't understand a single thing you're saying. Please make a point, and do it clearly, for the benefit of the rest of us. You talk about Edward's "ignorance of the law." Fine. Now enlighten us, and cite the court decisions that have interpreted the laws that "legal truth" have quoted as applying to my situation. Otherwise, you're doing nothing to stop the "ignorance" that you point out.

Thanks in advance for clearing things up.

-- Lighthouse (lighthouse1999@yahoo.com), October 29, 1998.

Peers what are you trying to say? What Edward Dumas says is far more clear then all the little words you just typed. I think you should save your comments and go elsewhere. Everything you say is so empty and has nothing to do with whatever you want to critize.

-- whocares (whocarespeers@net.com), October 29, 1998.

Tony Lighthouse

I guess the good was Simon and you are the sick perveted and twisted version of the family. Simon says brother lighthouse tell the truth and it will set you free, but you can't understand any version of truth and honesty in your unlighted life. You are a fraud getting paid by the taxpayers as you post in your own forum, they should fire you from the courts, but they will not because they own your balls. Your nothing but a fraud.

-- (kar@hotmail.com), October 29, 1998.

To kar,

Thank you for the compliments -- you are too kind. BTW, I don't know Simon Sanchez, although he does seem like a good guy. You are free to keep thinking I'm Tony.

You made references to the "truth" and implied that I've been lying. Fine. Now please point out specifically which lies you're talking about, so I can adress that. I can't address a generality like "you can't see the truth". It's easy to make statements like that, but it's harder to actually provide evidence that what I'm saying is lies. Come back when you are able to do so.

-- Lighthouse (lighthouse1999@yahoo.com), October 29, 1998.