Over the last 48 hours, (or so) there has been much said about Stephanie and Billy Burke.
Mayor McDermott was recorded on the steps of City Hall in what I truly feel was a personal conversation between three people. I have spoken to all three involved and I personally feel confident this was the case. As the Burke's were leaving one office inside City Hall, Mayor McDermott was walking out of another Office and they simply ran right into one and other. The Mayor said he had received Billy's e-mail and wanted to discuss it, would you join me in my Office? Stephanie stated his Office was being used, it's a beautiful day, let's go outside and talk, so they did. (Billy had stated to me they were in the building with the tape recorder because he had been told three different stories about absentee ballots and he went in to record the Clerk to have evidence. I asked Billy if the Clerk knew she was being recorded and he replied, "no".)
Their conversation with the Mayor, (IMHO) was one that was intended to be inside but the Daughter of one of the people working for City Hall was using the room to do her homework. So the intent, (as all parties understood) would have been private. As they were walking out the front door, Billy Burke reached into his pocket and hit record on his tape recorder. In my personal opinion, this was extremely out of line and I personally expressed this to Billy not only last week when he brought it up to me, well before any search warrant was brought forth. Billy fully expected this to happen and asked me to be prepared to bail him out. I was upset the day he mentioned it and I became even more upset after he was arrested and continued to use the Court of Public Opinion as his defense on the Blogs. I expressed that any good lawyer would have immediately told him to shut up and not say a word but they came to Salisbury News, the Daily Times and other places to express their disbelief that this had happened to them.
Billy called me the morning after he was arrested upset because I didn't have his back, yet I had already expressed almost a week earlier that I felt he was completely out of line. Look, I'm extremely up front and honest with people. Many may not like my being so forward but after I said my peace and even if I'm upset, that doesn't mean I don't have your back.
My problem started just as soon as Billy & Stephanie showed no remorse whatsoever and in fact pleaded to everyone to stand behind them as this was all about a conspiracy. No, that's not the case at all. In fact, the arrest warrant was issued well before the election and Mayor McDermott asked that they hold off the arrest until AFTER the election so no one could say they were treated unfairly.
In a conversation today with the Burke's, Stephanie asked me if it was me making comments on Story Chat and I replied, yes. She didn't say anything more so I simply stated that I felt what they had done was illegal and wrong and I also felt they were trying their case in the Court of Public Opinion. You may gain a strong following but when you get into a Court Room and a Judge sees there's been no remorse, you're making their case for them. Stephanie tried to explain to me how things went but I interrupted her and told her that I had already had this conversation last week with Billy and I know what had happened. I also expressed again that I felt what they had done was not only wrong, it was unethical to say the least.
The fact that the recording still remained on the Website was yet another major concern to me and it seemed like they were in a hurry at that point to end the telephone conversation so they could access their Site and remove it.
Look, I like Stephanie and Billy Burke. They have been friends for years. I didn't appreciate Billy sending me the e-mail the night of his arrest with links to those audio recordings in which I removed from his message. If I had posted those links I would have been just as liable as the Burke's and that just wasn't proper or right. Nevertheless, this was not my battle and I was offended that Billy would try to bring Salisbury News smack dab in the middle of it.
I personally feel that anyone with a good head on their shoulders would forever lose trust in Billy Burke, not knowing if they are being recorded or not. I expressed this with Billy & Stephanie in today's conversation. This is something I would NEVER do. I repeated that they had not put up the entire recording, just what they wanted others to hear and to me that was underhanded and unethical. I also expressed that Soldiers had died for our Freedom of Speech and that I felt that had abused their privilege.
Now I'm saying all of this to all of you so that you know, it doesn't matter who you are, if you break the law, you are accountable. This doesn't mean I won't back you or support you. However, I do NOT want others to believe that "I" would EVER do anything like this. Some may not like my style, my writing skills or the lack thereof, my personality or whatever. However, I am a straight shooter and I tell it like it is. I am not bailing on Billy & Stephanie Burke but I will say this, they need to shut up, (as I expressed to them very clearly today) and STOP making any comments anywhere. They need to go to Mayor McDermott and apologize and express that this will never happen again. Regardless of where this case goes, that's the honorable thing to do. They need to do so with a neutral witness so neither party can pass more blame on one and other and to confirm it was done.
Billy & Stephanie Burke need to shake the Mayor's hand and ask for forgiveness, not just say you're sorry. Mind you, this is how "I" feel. If they are truly sorry for their mistake, don't wait for a Court Date. Do it NOW.
All that being said, I have a few other things to express to everyone. Today I removed my links to several Blogs. We have stated we are on a new course and I'm sticking to my promise. I have removed the Burke's Blog, Michael Schwartz Blog, Outraged Dick's Blog and Jonathan Taylor's Blog.
It will take some time to heal the friendship we once shared with the Burke's and their actions from this point forward will assure whether or not we'll return to their Site. Jon and Dick are a given, I will not return there. Michael is yet another story and I'll keep that brief. I have spoken to several people in the Republican Party who share my disbelief in some of Michael's recent Posts. Several of us have agreed, we're done with Michael on a couple of levels. We'll not return to his Site and we'll also not welcome him to our homes, parties and special events any longer. I'm not going to pick on Michael, I'm just going to cut him off and be done with him.
Salisbury News has been evolving in the right direction the past couple of years and the only time we fall off the wagon is when we're distracted by some of the Anti Albero Blogs. The way I see it from this point forward is, they have a very long way to go to come anywhere near catching up to where Salisbury News is today. By ignoring them and moving forward, we can concentrate on what we want to do and not get side tracked by allowing statements like Michael recently made saying if you want Police Reports and local things to do then go to Salisbury News. You know what Folks, we provide a service. I'm not offended by such a statement, especially coming from a guy who averages 84 hits a day. Michael is living in a very unusual world thinking a guy with absolutely no influence and or visitors can pass off advice to someone getting hits in the millions. So we'll simply say goodbye to some and hopefully if they turn things around and deliver positive news and information we'll return one day and congratulate them for providing a service to you as well.
Onward and upward, they say. See you tomorrow.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
54 comments:
I've personally witnessed an extension of an 'olive branch' by Salisbury News to Michael and he has not yet acknowledged it.
I would leave Michael to his own devices. Maybe, overtime, he will come-a-round.
Smart move on your part Joe. A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf. In other words, once a Billy Burke ALWAYS a Billy Burke.
Distance Joe. It's a good thing.
Well said Joe. I have done the same. Happy Easter my friend.
You state your position very clearly, and I respect that. Please allow me to respectfully disagree. I don't know the Burkes or the mayor in question.
I don't believe the Burkes should apologize nor that the case against them is a slam dunk. It seems that expectation of privacy could be a huge legal factor in a case such as this. Regardless of the intended place of this conversation, (inside an office or outside), once it took place where it did, it became an open conversation on the steps of a public building.
If the conversation had taken place in a closed private setting, then clearly all parties would have had the expectation that they were speaking in private. If they were, indeed, on the outside steps of a public building, it would be very foolish and unreasonable to consider that a private setting.
As for the taping being unethical: If it's not illegal, I believe "all's fair in love and war." Evidently, the Burkes and the mayor had been at "war" for some time. When in the presence of an adversary, I believe one should follow the rule of boxing and "protect yourself at all times." If the mayor stepped into a public setting and spouted off, Mr. Burke should be commended for having the presence of mind to hit the record button. After all, it's not as if he betrayed a friend. If it was a legal recording in a public place, then, in my opinion, Mr. Burke used a legal tool against his enemy.
Of course, the courts will decide if the taping was legal, but I'd hate to think we live in a country where a citizen can't record an elected official in a public setting. Remember, with the patriot act, our government can record citizens private conversations anytime they like, expectation of privacy be damned.
Actually, I have no problem with that if it makes our nation safer, just as I have no problem with recording a government official in an open, very public place.
If found guilty by a local court, the Burkes should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, then upon their victory, sue for everything they are entitled to for this gross infringement on their rights as American citizens.
I must say this is comedic. Comedic in the sense the story of the arrest and search warrant executed on these folks in Pocomoke City registered nearly 100comments to this blog, the majority saying these bloggers were the victims of some sinister government revenge and malicious prosecution. The vocal villagers were screaming for heads to roll and holding these two maligned and misunderstood ninnyhammers up as heroes. The screaming crowd, unfamiliar with the totality of the circumstances leading up to the arrest, and absent any knowledge or sophistication in criminal law, especially the state statute in question, quickly assumed that because this couple are bloggers, and their sad tale appears on this blog, they must be innocent and Joe will rally all to their cause. Then Joe throws a major league curveball and tells the masses, "Hey folks, I think they really f--ked up." Whoa Nellie! If all those posting comments yelling government conspiracy were in the same room together, after reading this post by Joe, I can just see them all staring at each other with that look on their faces that screams, "I wonder what just happened and what do we do now?" A true Kodak moment. No doubt there will be a few, after first commenting they thought these people were getting a raw deal, will now post a comment saying it was always in their gut that this couple may have broken the law.
Joe, I really hope this instance demonstrates that many that write to your blog and slap you on your back are nothing but sheep. If you suggest a direction for them to go, they'll blindly follow. I know that can feel empowering, but is that what you're really all about. I'd much rather have intelligent discourse than be surrounded by yes men. Personally I have never had any use for yes men. They bring nothing to the table because I don't want to be surrounded by people telling me I'm right all the time, I want people warning and counseling me when I may be wrong.
All that said, I give you props for writing the truth in this case, no matter how unpopular it may be to some. That's the great thing about the truth, you never have to make excuses for it.
11:40 Now if only your opinion was based on any knowledge of the law. The only thing I agree with that you posted if the part about these people approaching the mayor. The mayor is now a witness to a criminal prosecution against them. A defendant approaching a witness in a case against him is never a wise move. As Joe suggested, and as any lawyer would advise them, the less they say to anyone about this incident leading up to trial the better. Everyone they talk to becomes another potential witness against them. Their guilt or innocence in the court of public opinion means nothing at this point.
Burke is an idiot for doing this in the first place. What exactly the hell did he think was going to happen when he started secretly recording people without their knowledge in conversations that were presumed to be private?
Burke is going to get his arrogant rear end publicly caned, and no amount of groveling apologies or ignorant bluster on his part are going to stop that process at this point.
I agree with a majority of your post, Joe. They shouldn't be talking about an active case, even if they believe they're in the right they should wait for the court to decide, THEN do the "I told you so."
However, I disagree with your belief that it was illegal. I don't believe this situation has been adequately defined in court but we shall soon find out. Despite any intentions whatsoever, if I was speaking to the Mayor on the steps of City Hall I would not speak of something that I wouldn't want someone else to overhear. The law, as quoted by many, seems to point to this being illegal. However, the definitions page for 10-402 expressly defines what it means to be oral communication as "private conversation". It's for the courts to decide, but I certainly would not be so sure Billy was guilty. What he did may be considered dishonest and underhanded and I really don't agree with it, but it's not entirely wrong. The Mayor has been holding secrets and speaking lies for far too long. If he really didn't like the Burkes, he should not have spoken his mind at all, much less to them in a 37 minute conversation in public, with the inclusion of very incriminating details!
Just my two cents.
I concur with 11:40pm. 12:02am, through your colorful imagination you make it quite clear you think yourself far above the average commenter, when in fact your simply a sheep of a different color, led by a different cause. Truth? Please tell your political/government position so we might better understand your fears and the holier than the average sheep mentality.
The law referencing wire tapping...is an abomination, it only protects the crooks that are in high places. If government is allowed to record, listen or spy, then "WE the People" should also be allowed that tool to expose political and governmental corruption. Can you even begin to imagine how many crooks, how much corruption could be exposed and thwarted? Thats what I call true government transparency!!
If communication is of a personal/family matter, by all means it should be private. If it in any way is related to the governance, position, or day to day operations of said position or department...in effect "owned by WE the People" ...then by ALL means it should be lawful to tape, record, listen to and display any and all communications from and by these type political and governmental positions and/or servants, paid for by "We the People"
By all means, lets expose the truth!
I do not know the Burkes, but I do know McDermott. He is as slimy as they come. He can talk a good line, but can't be trusted as far as he can be thrown.
Be very careful around him, especially with your wife. He has been known to publicly make inappropriate remarks to women, even in writing. Not nearly as smart as he wants you to believe he is.
I always flinched when, back in the former life of sbynews, wymzie would post something...it was always a rambling and amazingly right wing combination of thoughts, even on a notoriously Republican blog such as this one (was!). And Boss Hogg, who claimed to be persecuted by the powers that be in Pocomoke, was only slightly less annoying in his posts. I didn't mourn when they were removed from the list of contributors here.
Having said that, law is law and fair is fair. There seems to be an enormous amount of corruption in Pocomoke, which the citizens have been living with for so long that they don't know any different, or else they'd DO SOMETHING about it, like elect people who aren't corrupt the next election.
They didn't.
If the good (?) folks of Pocomoke want to live in their political squallor, without any attempt to clean things up, we must let them.
What I really don't like about this site is no matter how interesting the subject (and this post is very interesting) you end up taking it and twisting it around to talk about YOU. If you want to post a rant about Michael then do so but don't take every subject and make it about the great Joe Albero and his famous Blog.
Simply idiotic for a person to tape record another person and not expect disasterous results. On another front, if the Burkes are so unhappy in Pocomoke City, there's a solution. MOVE.
12:51 If I sat down with you for coffee and conversation at, say Panera Bread and you recorded our conversation without my knowledge or consent, do you think that would be legal? Panera Bread is, afteall, a public place. Or how about after the coffee inside, we continue our conversation on the parking lot. It is there you decide to reach into your pocket and begin recording our conversation. The parking lot is, afterall, a public place. Same with a public park, a library, or the steps of town hall. The fact the person being recorded is a mayor who you suggest is "holding secrets and speaking lies," (I don't know if you proferred that speculation and innuendo as a defense for the otherwise illegal recording behavior?) isn't justification for secretly recording an otherwise private conversation and has absolutely no bearing on the application of the specific statute this guy was charged with.
WOW,I am really disappointed in Joe. To many, there is a grey area in the law. Expectation to privacy, public setting, etc...
The fact that a politician doesnt want to be recorded speaks volumes in itself. For me I dont care if the government records my phone conversation, I dont care if my every word is being recorded, I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE! This is not the first time Mcdermott has run off at the mouth, he just got caught this time. Why should we let the government dictate what we can record, shouldnt the blabbermouth be responsable for keeping his mouth shut. Why do we have laws to protect those not smart enough, not to be recorded incriminating themselves. If Mcdermott had been recorded saying "good day Billy" do you think there would be an arrest?
i4ni
You all still think that in court the laws are up-held, what a joke that is. What happens in a court room is decided long before the judge takes the bench. Theres a "Bill of Rights" the question is how many can you afford? Im no lawyer thats for sure, but I know how the courts work. You want to beat this thing? Get your check book and some loan papers.
Joe, more than anything else, you finally won my respect for taking down the link to "Outraged Richard"'s blog. His site is strewn will vile, hate-filled bile that covers anyone unfortunate enough to read it.
Thank you for having the decency to remove this garbage. While your site may at times border on slanderous, I don't think I have ever read such hateful, personal attacks that I had the misfortune of coming across on Richard's site.
Joe:
We wish you a happy and blessed Easter Holiday.
All the best to you, Jennifer, Gavin and your entire family.
Sincerely,
Billy Burke & Family
Hey 8:56, you're not the Mayor on the steps of City Hall and we wouldn't be talking about problems with the city. I would probably be speaking to you about a private matter, but then again, if I really didn't want anyone else to hear, I wouldn't talk loudly about something sensitive in Panera Bread or loudly in the parking lot.
The apartment room precedent was judged by the ability of others to hear. If we were whispering or talking very low so that even the people at the next table can't hear, yes there is an expectation of privacy. If you spoke to me loudly enough for someone in the "next apartment" to hear then I have every right to record you as you obviously want to be heard.
The law also prohibits the use of sound amplification devices in a recording. If Billy's recording was taken at normal hearing with no amplification, while the Mayor was loud on the steps of City Hall, he's sitting right smack in the next apartment my friend. But we will see, this case will set an even further precedent.
Location, location, location.
Billy you walked right into it.
The Pocomoke Tattler and its band of loyal bloggers have been a friend to me and my family. WGMD suggested the site to my wife and they were the only ones who were willing to listen and help us. To take cheap shots at Billy and Steph only confirms that there is a special place in hell for you. Steph was the one who organized the search where police were absent from. She got donations from local businesses, and got over 150 people to donate their time and services. From the military, the guy who donated the porta potties (special thanks)to the people walking the area, we are greatful. I know first hand how Mcdermott treats people. We are the victems, my daughter is dead, yet Mcdermott yelled at my wife and called my dead daughter a sponge, and delayed the investigation for months.
Today is Easter, and I know where my daughter is. She had called me 12 years ago to tell me that she had been saved. She got on her knees and humble asked God to forgive her. Absent from the body, present with the Lord. I know my daughter wasnt perfect, but to have a man who claims to be a Christian, not consider Christine's murder worth his time because he thought she was a sponge and place himself above her and her family is not Christlike. I know who I am, I am not ashamed of the Gospel, I am not afraid to stand up for Billy and Steph, And I certainly am not afraid of Mike Mcdermott. For if God be with me, who can be against me. I know I will recieve alot of negative feedback for my veiws, but I count it all joy to have them.
As for Mcdermott, I know what you did, Christine told me things before she went to Pocomoke that are making sense now. You will be held accountable.
9:42 If you're not an attorney, and you're not, or never have been, a police officer, what exactly are your experiences with the court system for you to develop that opinion?
Funny how the jails are filled to capacity with people that have the exact same opinion as you - the courts are rigged and they're all innocent - but someone out there is certainly committing all that crime.
11:37 What part of the statute covering wiretapping doesn't include exclusions of titles/positions of people (except law enforcement conducting an investigation of a crime specifically listed in the statute) and what is being discussed at the time a conversation is being secretly recorded don't you understand? The fact it happened to be the mayor talking on the steps on the town hall doesn't make the act okay no matter how hard you wish or think it should.
As for the rest of the scenarios you mentioned in your post but aren't relevant to the case at hand, "stick to the facts ma'am, just the facts."
4:36 Ahhh, seems you're mixing the federal Patriot Act, which allows intelligence agencies to monitor international calls to protect you, your family and this country from additional terrorist acts, with the Maryland statute dealing with wiretapping, of which secretly recording a personal and private conversation is illegal. The state statute for which Burke was charged doesn't provide an exemption "for crooks in high places" as you suggest. A wife/husband who secretly records a conversation with their estranged spouse to get perceived leverage in their divorce could be charged as quickly as a multi-billionaire secretly recording a business competitor during a meeting.
I'm interested, however, in reading you expound further on what you perceive my "different color" and "different cause" to be. Since facts and experience apparently elude you in this instance, I'll give you an opportunity to do what you apparently do best, that is sharpen your apparent skills in guessing, supposition and innuendo.
"(Billy had stated to me they were in the building with the tape recorder because he had been told three different stories about absentee ballots and he went in to record the Clerk to have evidence. I asked Billy if the Clerk knew she was being recorded and he replied, "no".)"
--------------------------------
A so called "friend" would not feel the need to post the above quote and in bold at that. Your opinions have lost all value as far as I'm concerned, not to mention any morals you 'think' you might own.
The Burke's are good people that work hard to expose the corruption of Pocomoke (hazzard) politics.
They are people that say what they mean and mean what they say truthfully. Try it sometime, you might like it.
1:03 You are an example of how these blogs can be a positive source of outreach for members of the communities they serve. Sadly, while they do their share of good deeds, they offset the positive they do with stories and posts that are divisive and act only to attack individuals or create factions within a community.
Until the bloggers realize they can be informative without being destructive, spiteful and revengeful, events like those happening to your friends the Burkes will continue in their lives.
11:40,
Sir or Madam, you sound as if you may be a lawyer. If so, you surely understand what I'm writing. State and federal laws are usually good and when violated are fairly easy to prosecute with proper evidence. But these laws are not the final point in higher courts of law; the constitution is the standard which must be met.
11:37 said the constitutionally relevant words: "Location, location, location." Upon examinaning the particulars of this case, a wise prosecutors office wouldn't touch it with a 30 foot pole. Most prosecutors have political aspirations and don't want defeats and emarrassments in higher courts on their record.
A wise defense lawyer with a purpose to enhance his or her reputation for success would jump at the chance to take this case, GRATIS! Even an early loss in state court would only build the positive notoriety and glory of his or her ultimately assured victory in higher courts applying strict adherence to the constitution which I'm also sure you know superscedes all subordinate laws. The closer any case goes to the Supreme Court, the more intensely constitutional aspects are examined. The defendants in this case would be completely vindicated by the Supreme Court...care to make a little wager?
And I'll have you know that I am considered to have the best legal mind in my home which includes myself and two English Bull Dogs.
T.A.L.
1:13 You missed the point, I never said anything about their all innocent. Proper representation is costly. Anyone who has spent any time in court knows the deals arent made in the court room but in the chambers, thats the way it is. Do yourself a favor and dont try to teach me about a cage.
Interesting how "flexible" the morals and ethics of those supporting the Burkes are when it comes to illegal behavior. Apparently almost anything is permitted if it's being done against someone you dislike.
You disgusting hypocrites are tying yourselves into knots trying to justify Burke's slimy, underhanded behavior. I hope to God none of your children look to any of you for moral guidance, or they will soon learn there's one set of moral rules you apply to the people you like, and quite another set you apply to the people you dislike.
What a disgusting pack of immoral, unethical worms you are.
it sure is a lot of arm chair attorneys on here.
As I said in another post, I'm no attorney so I called the highest powers in the land, the FBI, and the attorney generals office. Both confirmed that Mr. Burke has NOT broken ANY wiretapping laws if the story is as published.
My relative, a teacher in the Baltimore area was telling me, that it is stressed to the teachers (esp parent/teacher conference time) to assume you are being recorded and to behave professonally at all times. Evidently teachers in alot of states have been recorded, been fired and have no grounds to seek a wiretap charge against the parent. She said because they work for the public it's fair game to record them in the performance of their duties. Same goes for police officers.
Let me get this straight...You would like to see the Burkes apologize to Mr./Detective/Mayor McDermott for taping him screaming at them for 37 minutes on the front steps of city hall? Would you also like for me to apoligize to Mr./Detective/Mayor McDermott after he called my daughter a "sponge" during a telephone conversation we had? Not to mention, during that same conversation he told me to stop getting on the Tattler because,"I was pi**ing people off"! Joe, you have no idea how brutal Mr./Detective/Mayor McDermott's words can be. If he can make a grieving mother cry, insult her child, and not think twice about it, he deserves what he gets. Just so you know, Mr./Dective/Mayor McDermott not once apologized to me, not once. If he did, that would be admitting that he was wrong!! He would never do that. The Burkes are not wrong in what they did. Mr./Detective/Mayor McDermott doesnt deserve an apology, the Burkes do, along with all the other people he has stepped on.
Lynn Dodenhoff
Christines mom
Dear Lynn,
Clearly you have a beef with the Mayor. However, YOU were NOT recording your conversation with him, not were the other people commenting here.
Each one of us have the right to privacy and now all of a sudden you want us all to define when and where it is well known, (without us being told) when and where we can and can't be recorded?
Get a grip. You're situation is far different from the Burke's, so cut the grandstanding crap as well. I have the right to my opinion and you have the right to yours. If YOU or anyone else recorded any one of my conversations without telling me first I would sue you faster than you could ever imagine.
The worst part is, the Burke's didn't just record TWO individuals illegally, they chose to post one of the conversations, (if not more) on their Blog. Getting back to another one of your points, you're right, it was a 30+ some off minuts conversation. HOWEVER, the Burke's only published a short portion of what they wanted everyone to hear.
It was wrong, it was unethical and IF the Daily Times had done it to you, the Burkes or anyone else you'd all be suing thenm like there was no tomorrow.
IT WAS WRONG, PERIOD.
To Christine Aheddy's family....I am so sorry for teh way this search and investigation has gone.
To the rest, The Burkes woyuld use any one to get their point accross. It is obvious that they will go to the bottom of the barrel and be as deceitfull and unethical as they can be. You woyuld think they would have enough on their plate...Speaking of which, did anyone read her platform and HOW was she going to accomplish it, even if it was the priorities of what Pocomoke Needed. I do not take up for any one, support any one, but I do look at what they propose and stand for.....
Also teh person who called the FBI, You dork, It's a Md law and not under the federal wiretapping laws.......
I am growingh very fond of SBY news because all can say what they feel respectfully and there is breaking firsthand news. keep it up Joe
Hey Lynn,
Why don't you be honest and tell everyone that the reason your daughter left in the first place is because you beat her up. Doesn't sound like you're up for mother of the year either.
Unless I had something to hide, I could care less if I was recorded. McDermott did not give a rats ass about what he said to the Burke's and whoever else heard his rantings. The only reason he brought these charges against Billy Burke is because he was caught saying incriminating things.
The people of Pocomoke are fed up with the crooked goings on here and we want it to stop. But if you say anything negative about what they are doing, they retaliate by either having the cops harress you or they will go after your property.
I'm not saying what Billy Burke did is right or wrong, but I can not blame him for wanting to catch McDermott in another of his lies and slanderious comments.
To 8:38
Your total lack of spelling and writing skill make it difficult to take anything you write seriously.
I think that cute littleton man is right. He must be like a judge or professor or something.
(Mr. Littleton) "ultimately assured victory in higher courts applying strict adherence to the constitution which I'm also sure you know superscedes all subordinate laws."
If Mr. Littleton is right Maryland law and all laws must meet constitutional standards if appealed to higher courts. Go Stephanie and Billy!
Angela
856 I suggest you stay anonymous,
Lynn did not beat Christine up.
Joe, I know you screen these blogs, so how did that one slip through. If you have a problem with me you come to me. You are as spineless as they come. you and me need to talk, face to face.
What makes you think I should reject comments.
4:58 Mmmmm, I'm wondering when the FBI and the attorney generals office became the "highest powers in the land." FBI agents are merely law enforcement officers with broader jurisdiction, and the United States Attorney Generals Office is nothing more than a state's attorney's office that prosecutes criminals in federal court. FBI agents wouldn't have a clue about Maryland state criminal statutes because they don't enforce them. They enforce violations of federal law.
Malpas vs. State **DOES NOT** fit in this case. Maryland statute makes it unlawful for "any person" to intercept "any wire, oral, or electronic communication". Code of Maryland, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, sec. 10-402(a) Note that it includes oral communication. In Maryland, an oral communication for purposes of the privacy statute is "any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation." Code of Maryland, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, sec. 10-401(2)(i). **NOTE** IT says the conversation is private, NOT THE SETTING. You can have a private conversation on the public steps of City Hall. **In Malpas vs State it was determined he had not intercepted the spoken word, but rather the ""RADIO SIGNAL"", as he was using a scanner (such as you would get at RadioShack) to listen in on cordless phone conversations...The law is the law..and Mr. Burke broke the law and will now have his day in court..This public court of opinion is a total waste of time..This is why we have courts..To totally downgrade McDermott and the Burkes is wrong..For Mr. Burke to do this is a bad thing...Doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad person...I think its time for everyone in Pocomoke to come together and find a solution to make things better than go to the nearest blog and bash one another..put your energy into useful things...
Anonymous 10:21PM...Truth hurts..doesnt it...08:56PM was right...
7:58 And that is one of the reasons there is a law about secretly recording a conversation. In this age of digital recordings, one need not think too long or hard about how easy it would be to edit a digital recording to have the finished product sound nothing like what was spoken during the actual conversation.
5:21 Your statement couldn't be more incorrect. Public employees, like teachers and police officers, have the same rights as everyone else in Maryland. Their conversations can't be recorded without their knowledge and consent.
10:58 I think it has been pretty well established that what the Burkes did was illegal. Only the pigheaded are holding onto their position that it was not.
Hey 4:56 -- I didn't try to justify, his "slimy, underhanded behavior" in fact I admitted it was such. But that doesn't make it illegal.
And 1:23-- Nothing specifically said anything about the titles/positions of people. So I guess you win! Except, it is very relevant in this situation. Laws, like the constitution, are very open to interpretation. The Mayor on City Hall steps is very open to defining the expectations of privacy aka "private conversation" as the law defines. you vehemently say this is illegal, but I think you must loike McDermott because I I'm not all about saying his innocent, just that it would be hard to prove he's guilty. Anyone who would claim without a doubt that Burke has violated the law based on the very definition of wiretapping would be a fool. And as for the scenario (singular, not scenerios) it's called a PRECEDENT and even though I'm not a lawyer I know enough to know that PRECEDENTS have extreme significance when defending a case because they show how the law has been interpreted before and how it should continue to be interpreted.
And Joe -- wrong doesn't mean illegal. There are plenty of bad things people can do well within the confines of the law.
10:58 -- "it was determined he had not intercepted the spoken word, but rather the ""RADIO SIGNAL"", as he was using a scanner" I seemed to have missed that part, however did you not read the part about the argument being so loud that you could hear it in the neighboring apartment and that's why it was ok to record? If the Mayor is speaking loud enough for anyone in the general vicinity to hear, which from the position of steps of city hall is anything greater than a whisper, then Malpas vs. State very well does apply here.
I rest my case.
Captcha word of the post: exaculg.
"State and federal laws are usually good and when violated are fairly easy to prosecute with proper evidence."
Unless you're an attorney, which your writing clearly indicates you are not, you have no clue whether preparing a case for prosecution is "faily easy" or not. What exactly do you mean by "proper evidence?" Maybe you mean sufficient evidence to secure a conviction? A state's/district attorneys office wouldn't move forward by taking a case to trial unless they feel they have the evidence necessary to secure a conviction. Some "borderline" cases are prosecuted, but they know going in whether a case is a slam dunk or not.
"Upon examinaning the particulars of this case, a wise prosecutors office wouldn't touch it with a 30 foot pole. Most prosecutors have political aspirations and don't want defeats and emarrassments in higher courts on their record."
Actually most prosecutors have no aspirations of political office, instead they are happy obtaining a few years of trial experience in the prosecutors office while receiving a steady and guaranteed paycheck with benefits. They then move on by opening their own law office or getting a job as a corporate attorney or with a larger private law firm where they can make a lot more money. And it's not the prosecutors that are concerned if one of their cases is taken to a higher court on appeal, it's the judge, the trier of fact, that sometimes worries of that possibility. Judges don't like other judges second guessing them, and they don't like their trial rulings overturned on appeal. It's a judge's rulings that are scrutinized on appeal, not the prosecutor's.
I find it interesting that you feel strongly that what Mr. Burke did was wrong, yet you report here what was said by Mr. Burke in private conversations. Pot calling the kettle black. What he did is a least morally wrong. And so is what you have done in relating to your readers details of what were private conversations between supposed friends. Shame.
Anon 11:19
You couldn't be more incorrect.
Google
"the whole world is watching" + camera phones
Pay close attention to the 2nd paragraph under the section titled:
The Camera Phone Rules
11:47, the DA's office wouldn't "move forward by taking a case to trial unless they feel they have the evidence necessary to secure a conviction"
Do you remember the infamous OC "fetus collector". She was held for a couple of months, only for the charges to be DROPPED because DA came to the conclusion she hadn't broken any laws. At first it looked like a slam dunk case but when closely scrutenized it became apparent the statute with which she had been originally charged , had been apparently "twisted" to secure an arrest warrant.
8:49 Your post has simply supported what I wrote.
You wrote: '...only for the charges to be DROPPED because DA came to the conclusion she hadn't broken any laws."
The state's attorney's office decided there wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction in court in this particular case so the charges we dropped.
8:26 Try to stay focused, son. The story and all these comments relate to the secret recording of a private conversation and the Maryland statute which prohibits such conduct. You then bring in an entirely different topic of discussion: the taking of pictures with cell phones. You want to talk oranges when the discussion has been on apples. Taking photos of someone in public and secretly recording a conversation are night and day.
Try working on your focus and critical thinking skills.
9:49, the evidence didn't support the MD Viable Fetus Act, the statute with which Freeman was charged.
9:58, "Don't tase me bro"-the article mentioned above is in reference to video recordings of officers, not still photos taken with camera phones. Go back and read it please.
Dear 11:47,
Sir or Madam,
Many times there is more than sufficient evidence that is inadmissible because it is not PROPERLY obtained. That is, of course, what I meant by “proper evidence.”
I see that you wisely did not question that all laws and each case must meet the standard of the U.S. Constitution. Many cases are dismissed and many laws or portions of laws are ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court for not meeting this standard.
Of course persecuting, oops, I mean prosecuting attorneys have a long, well documented history of using their office to advance political aspirations, even when they believe themselves to be above the same laws they prosecute others for violating. I present prosecutors Elliott Spitzer and Thomas Capano as evidence supporting this statement!
There is a reason that lawyers are almost universally held to be slimy and the butt of many jokes about dishonesty. But I am a simple man, so perhaps you will have more respect for the opinion of a recognized all time world class thinker to make this point.
Mr. William Shakespeare: HAMLET.
”There's another: why may not that be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddits now, his quillets, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks? why does he suffer this rude knave now to knock him about the sconce with a dirty shovel, and will not tell him of his action of battery? Hum! This fellow might be in's time a great buyer of land, with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers, his recoveries: is this the fine of his fines, and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his fine pate full of fine dirt? will his vouchers vouch him no more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length and breadth of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of his lands will hardly lie in this box; and must the inheritor himself have no more, ha?”
I will not even repeat the more well known quote from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, as I do not wish to appear to approve of wholesale violence against any group when there may actually be an honest person residing somewhere in their ranks.
T.A.L
Post a Comment