Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Slavin vs. McClure

IF THE SHOE FITS
Last Monday's City Commission meeting brought out many locals who had an interest into what kind of boutique hotel is planned for the NW corner of Cathedral and St. George St. Suvo sat near the developer's husband and the attorney representing him, George McClure. Suvo introduced himself to McClure who had delivered a smooth polished presentation. He also met Mr. Mc Clure's client, a sullen looking guy named Schechter from Jacksonville.
At the break, Suvo was seated on a bench and two locals Merrill Roland and Ed Slavin approached. George McClure shows up and the three were standing as Suvo was seated.
Her is a first person open letter to both Slavin and McClure:
"The next time you see me and want to exchange pleasantries you are very welcome, both of you.
I will not stand for you to begin a confrontation with another directly in front of me.
I believe in civilized discourse and not angry name calling. Anger is nothing but fear and if you fearful souls want to "fight it out" do it away from me. I do not give a damn "who started it". Are you twelve years old?
I do not live in that world and hell, I've been in jail!"
My dog Karl could teach you better manners.

SUVO


18 comments:

  1. It sounded more like they were excitedly inviting each other to engage in factual discovery. At least they did not refer to one another as bloated trough hogs or use holocaust metaphors.

    But in this free country, go ahead and offer your guidance on the "art" of refined exchange and how to reference courteously those with whom you disagree.

    Entertain us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Greg Travous aka Suvo29 April, 2009

    Jeez! Why the mean comments? If we wrote "I like puppies", you would respond snidely?"

    I saw and heard no "courteous reference" to each other in the Salvin McClure exchange, unless you count motherf#$@^r and Cock%#@%^r in that category.

    You give me permission to offer my guidance as to how not to behave when directly in front of me.

    I write nothing that I would not say in person and i try to give respect to everyone, even those with whom i disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not mean, just factual.

    In person you are reserved, almost timid when talking to your opponents. On the net you call your opponents bloated trough hogs and compare them to Nazis.

    Not a big fan of either McClure or Slavin, but they both speak directly, in person, what they feel, without a net. As for the foul language, McClure IS one of those things and Slavin IS the other.

    The entertaining part is your wanting to control other people's speech on a public sidewalk. That is funny.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Greg Travous29 April, 2009

    Reserved, yes....timid...you don't know me.What appears timid to you may appear as discretion to others. Frankly, i do not like attention to myself. My art is another story. We must have met at one time or another.Perhaps you have arrested me? No? then you would know that I'm not all that shy. Why be anonymous ? Come see me in the Plaza.

    Yes, it is ironic that i would want two adult men to control themselves and act like a man should or they could exercise your right to be an ass away from me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was talking to you and another person when GEORGE McCLURE interrupted and started wagging his finger in my face, close to my left eye, emitting pejoratives. This was technically assault.

    I told him McCLURE go away.

    He persisted. Evidently, the once-influential developer spellbinder GEORGE McCLURE was very angry at being defeated on the ugly building his client wants to build across from the Cathedral. Every single one of us who testified at the public hearing testified against him, including a former City Commissioner and other very well-respected citizens. See
    www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com

    GEORGE McCLURE had no cause to interrupt our conversation -- he was rude. Likewise, McCLURE had no cause to interrupt then-Mayor George Gardner and I during a converation we were having a City Commission recess in April 2005.

    But McCLURE is a self-aggrandizing narcissist -- it's all about him -- notice how he kept using the words "I," "me," "my" and the royal "we" while testifying without being sworn in front of the St. Augustine City Commission. Unsworn testimony on development projects allows McCLURE to make unenforceable promises and untold misrepresentations. He's not allowed to do that at the County Commission, but Mayor JOSEPH LEROY BOLES, JR. has his own rules, which he makes up as he goes along.

    McCLURE's manner is that of a bully when dealing with public interest advocates. Like all bullies, McCLURE is a coward.

    The land-raping, tree-killing developers that McCLURE represents no longer get their way automatically.

    Four years later, McCLURE knows that ciizens are better organized and will not tolerate his influence-peddling and abuse.

    McCLURE's noisome nastiness and ad hominems are the raillery of a spoiled brat corporate lawyer who no longer is employed by ROGERS TOWERS.

    McCLURE never apologized for either the April 2005 or April 2009 incidents. Evidently being a corporate mouthpiece means never having to say you're sorry.

    If GEORGE McCLURE ever interrupts my private conversations again, should I ignore his ad homimens (and finger-wagging in my face)?

    Or should I invite him to resolve the matter by Marquess of Queensberry Rules? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_rules

    Should we box as a benefit for the Democrats?

    Should I tell him to start without me if I'm not there in ten minutes?


    What do you reckon?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Greg Travous aka Suvo29 April, 2009

    My Dad taught me to stand my ground while my Mother taught me to walk away.I pick my battles but would prefer to have none.

    Ad Hominem arguments do not deserve a response.

    Put a finger in my face and I will look the other way.

    Anyone who starts name calling is just a.....just a...ya see it's hard.

    We don't live in the "Wild West" anymore.That said, anyone who calls me "timid" is seriously making a misjudgement.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Greg Travous29 April, 2009

    one last comment i swear!

    I have never met any of our "opponents". Who are these shadow people?

    City Commissioners who voted us out of the Plaza take a wide berth whenever we are on the same path.

    I cannot say that about Joe Boles...he at least will not cross to the other side of the street when he sees me coming.I am also not always in the mood to "debate" our cause just because we ran into each other.I don't mind sharin' a joke or two.Life is too short to be angry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If GEORGE McCLURE wanted to talk civilly about aesthetics or architecture, that would be one thing.

    McCLURE was intentionally provocative and full of invective -- he invaded my personal face, stuck his finger in my eye and proceeded to make insulting remarks. What I said about his clients (and him) was on the public record, inside the Commission room. He had the chance to respond there. He did not do so.

    Were GEORGE McCLURE's remarks (in April 2005 and April 2009) "fightin' words?" Chaplinsky v. N.H.

    The fact that someone else was running a hidden video camera when McCLURE did it requires scrutiny, e.g., under state and federal laws against illegal surveillance.

    The fact that GEORGE McCLURE behaves so abusively, pointedly sticking his finger in my eye, allegedly in the presence of a hidden video camera (and multiple witnesses) bespeaks his hubris and overconfidence in City Commissioners -- unjust stewards of land use and environmental law allowing his clients to uglify Northeast Florida.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ed Slavin has never learned that his uncivilized behavior and ad hominem, often untruthful, attacks make him the biggest loser - totally ineffective.

    That's exactly why he was disbarred by the Tenn Supreme Court, along with his deceptive nature towards clients and the courts. He's a liar, and a really obnoxious one, too. Anyone that aligns themselves with this loser is going to end up with his slime upon them.

    Keep up the good fight, artists! Don't let this idiot/buffoon hamper your noble cause. You don't need THAT kind of support.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If there is ever a vote, I would vote to block Slavin from commenting on this blog. He has no quarter here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Slavin blocks his critics. Suvo engages his.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If GEORGE McCLURE wanted to talk civilly about aesthetics or architecture, that would be one thing. He's not civil. He can't find words to defend his actions, so he is ad hominem, sticking his finger in my eye, just as he did in April 2005. What a goober!

    For information on the Tennessee Supreme Court's suppression of free speech, don't rely on the anonymice Plazabummers (and GEORGE McClure).

    I represented a majority of the Administrative Law Judges at the U.S. Department of the Interior (Indian Probate Judges) and whistleblowers from all walks of life, simply trying to do their jobs without being treated as doormats for People of the Lie (like George McCLURE).

    I was recommended for a Pulitzer Prize by the Oak Ridge District Attorney in 1983 for exposing the largest mercury pollution event in world history (2.4 million pounds).

    I published seven articles in ABA publications (two in the Judges' Journal), including a Human Rights article that was the first ABA publication on the subject of Gay marriage (in 1991).

    Whatever has GEORGE McCLURE, the nattering nabob of negativism, ever do to help anyone else, or stand up for the environment and human rights? Answer here: ____

    As Nathan Hale once said, "my only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country." I was proud to defend environmental and nuclear whistleblowers against the likes of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and its influence-peddlers in the Tenessee Bar.

    Don't take my word for it. Here's what former United States Department of Labor Chief Administrative Law Judge Nahum LItt had to say in the St. Augustine Record about the Tennessee Supreme Court's violation of my First Amendment rights:

    http://tennesseecourts.org/documents/slavin.htm

    The statements in a letter (Nov. 26) about "findings" of the Supreme Court of Tennessee about the disbarment of Ed Slavin, a St. Augustine resident, must be taken with more than a grain of salt. Readers can form their own conclusions about fairness and justice in a case involving free speech rights of whistle blowers.

    First, this case was heard by a three-person tribunal appointed to sort out the charges and evaluate the evidence presented, particularly taking into account whether the testimony of the witnesses could be believed. One of the principle determinations of such a trial tribunal is the demeanor of the witnesses and it seldom that such a determination is challenged or overturned. That tribunal unanimously found that almost all of the evidence submitted, and particularly that of the current chief administrative law judge at the Department of Labor, was not credible. It similarly found that other complaints were not substantiated. It then determined that while Mr. Slavin was certainly outspoken, he was not guilty of most of the allegations. It recommended a slap on the wrist, a private reprimand for one minor violation.

    "And, lo and behold, the person the Tennessee Supreme court hand-picked as chancellor to "review" the matter, solely by chance we assume, turned out to be the son of a man who had been attacked and unmasked 20 years earlier by Mr. Slavin..."

    The case then took an unusual turn in that it was appealed. Few such cases are ever appealed. And, lo and behold, the person the Tennessee Supreme court hand-picked as chancellor to "review" the matter, solely by chance we assume, turned out to be the son of a man who had been attacked and unmasked 20 years earlier by Mr. Slavin as taking gratuities as the purchasing agent for Anderson County, Tenn. (Oak Ridge).

    Mr. Slavin was represented in his own case by the same attorney who had been the county attorney who cross-examined this "impartial" Chancellor's father. Nothing wrong with "me" hearing the case he found and he then recommended suspending Mr. Slavin for three years overturning the fact finding tribunal's findings of fact and making determinations that had been found wrong and factually inaccurate. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that this "impartial" chancellor committed no error, was correct in not recusing himself, and adopted his findings of fact as their own despite the fact that they were an appellate body and the facts before them were only those found by the fact-finding tribunal. That court then magnanimously reduced the suspension to two years. Remember, the Tennessee court's fact-finding body had thrown out all the "evidence." Then the Tennessee Supreme court disbarred Mr. Slavin without a trial, in absentia.

    Now what were Mr. Slavin's alleged "failings?" He complained the Department of Labor has failed to enforce almost all of the labor protective positions it is charged to enforce, has spent years deciding workers' cases that were supposed to have final decisions within 90 days, and had so-called "review boards" deliberately sit on cases for over five years.

    Mr. Slavin complained on behalf of his clients that they were entitled to decisions that could be appealed to courts, and that the delays were deliberate and unconscionable. There is ample evidence to support both charges, including that many of the delays were ordered by political appointees.

    As far as being banned by the chief administrative law judge at the Department of Labor, all that required was referral to one of his other administrative law judges for a decision (no trial). I am sure you can draw your own conclusions as to the fairness of the process. Mr. Slavin was one of the few advocates of whistle blowers who did not demand large retainers in advance and took cases that only St. Jude would entertain.

    Mr. Slavin can be both outspoken and annoying. He is opinionated and is not loved by everyone, but he has a right to his views, and free speech is more than sufficiently important to nurture and protect even when it difficult to like the person availing himself of the privilege.

    What Tennessee and the Department of Labor did was get rid of a qualified advocate who was outspoken about the failings of the system and those who administered that system. It was they who have eroded the public confidence in the judicial system.
    St. Augustine officials should listen respectfully and answer his questions about environmental crimes and other subjects.
    12/10/06
    NAHUM LITT
    (Nahum Litt is a retired chief administrative law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor)

    http://staugustine.com/stories/121006/opinions_4257505.shtml
    © The St. Augustine Record

    ReplyDelete
  13. Greg Travous03 May, 2009

    In all fairness, I gotta say that MClure was the initial aggressor in this unpleasnt exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In all fairness, "I gotta say" I was ambushed, not just by GEORGE MCCLURE sticking his finger in my eye, invading my space, interrupting our conversation and and making provocative statements, trying to start an argument.

    GEORGE MCCLURE doesn't lose many votes in the City and County Commissions, but he's lost a lot of them recently. When GEORGE McCLURE wormed his way up to us and stuck his finger in my face, GEORGE MCCLURE had just withdrawn his client's proposal before he outright lost a vote on the ugly 20th century hotel his client wants to build across from the Second Spanish Period Government House and the Cathedral. McCLURE had to pull the project before it was defeated otwithstanding having the estimable City Commissioner DONALD CRICHLOW as his architect (CRICHLOW purports to be Roman Catholic, put how could a good Catholic design such an ugly building with the intent trash the view from his own Cathedral Basilia? Shame on DONALD CRICHLOW for violating the rights of artists in the Plaza de la Constitucion while wanting to ruin the historic downtown of our Nation's Oldest City).

    I was also ambushed by someone who you and I trusted and thought we were talking to privately -- he evidently proceeded to: (a) illegally tape our communication, in violation of Florida criminal laws, (b) place the tape on You Tube, (c) brag about it to the Plazabummers at Plazabum.com, (d) which posted an endorsement, apparently from an ex-Deputy Sheriff and Sheriff's Bagman, to the effect that it was okay to illegall tape me.

    That dog not only won't hunt (and it almost certainly doesn't pray or study law books). :)

    I reckon that Florida is what is known as a "two-party state," and it illegal to do what the person we were talking to did -- illegal and deeply offensive.

    Regarding the illegal taping, ask yourself, "has he taped me before?" "Did he tape us at the behest of McClure?" "Does he get his rockettes off by violating peoples' privacy rights?" "Does he reckon himself immune to Chapter 934?"

    Below are the pertinent Florida statutes --- the person you and I thought we were talking privately to can claim no permission from either one of us to tape. He has has no exemption from Florida criminal law. If so, let him tell us the exemption, or never tape anyone surreptitiously again.

    Here are the pertinent Florida criminal statutes, which require my permission before anyone outside law enforcement (with a warrant) can tape anyone else in person or on the telephone:
    CHAPTER 934
    SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS
    934.01 Legislative findings.
    934.02 Definitions.
    934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.
    934.04 Manufacture, distribution, or possession of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices prohibited.
    934.05 Confiscation of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices.
    934.06 Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications; exception.
    934.07 Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.
    934.08 Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications.
    934.09 Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.
    934.10 Civil remedies.
    934.15 Situations in which law enforcement officer may order telephone line cut, rerouted, or diverted.
    934.21 Unlawful access to stored communications; penalties.
    934.215 Unlawful use of a two-way communications device.
    934.22 Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records.
    934.23 Required disclosure of customer communications or records.
    934.24 Backup preservation; customer notification; challenges by customer.
    934.25 Delayed notice.
    934.26 Cost reimbursement.
    934.27 Civil action: relief; damages; defenses.
    934.28 Exclusivity of remedies and sanctions.
    934.31 General prohibition on pen register and trap and trace device use; exception.
    934.32 Application for an order for a pen register or a trap and trace device.
    934.33 Issuance of an order for a pen register or a trap and trace device.
    934.34 Assistance in installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device.
    934.41 Alternative penalty.
    934.42 Mobile tracking device authorization.
    934.43 Criminal disclosure of subpoena, order, or authorization.
    934.01 Legislative findings.--On the basis of its own investigations and of published studies, the Legislature makes the following findings:
    (1) Wire communications are normally conducted through the use of facilities which form part of an intrastate network. The same facilities are used for interstate and intrastate communications.
    (2) In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, and to prevent the obstruction of intrastate commerce, it is necessary for the Legislature to define the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized and to prohibit any unauthorized interception of such communications and the use of the contents thereof in evidence in courts and administrative proceedings.
    (3) Organized criminals make extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission is an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the administration of justice.
    (4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court. Interception of wire and oral communications should further be limited to certain major types of offenses and specific categories of crime with assurance that the interception is justified and that the information obtained thereby will not be misused.
    History.--s. 1, ch. 69-17.
    934.02 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
    (1) "Wire communication" means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception including the use of such connection in a switching station furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of intrastate, interstate, or foreign communications or communications affecting intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce.
    (2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
    (3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.
    (4) "Electronic, mechanical, or other device" means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication other than:
    (a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, or facility, or any component thereof:
    1. Furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business; or
    2. Being used by a provider of wire or electronic communications service in the ordinary course of its business or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of her or his duties.
    (b) A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal.
    (5) "Person" means any employee or agent of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation.
    (6) "Investigative or law enforcement officer" means any officer of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct on behalf of the Government investigations of, or to make arrests for, offenses enumerated in this chapter or similar federal offenses, any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses, or any other attorney representing the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof in any civil, regulatory, disciplinary, or forfeiture action relating to, based upon, or derived from such offenses.
    (7) "Contents," when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
    (8) "Judge of competent jurisdiction" means justice of the Supreme Court, judge of a district court of appeal, circuit judge, or judge of any court of record having felony jurisdiction of the State of Florida, irrespective of the geographic location or jurisdiction where the judge presides.
    (9) "Aggrieved person" means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.
    (10) "Law enforcement agency" means an agency of the State of Florida or a political subdivision thereof or of the United States if the primary responsibility of the agency is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, traffic, or highway laws of this state and if its agents and officers are empowered by law to conduct criminal investigations and to make arrests.
    (11) "Communication common carrier" shall have the same meaning which is given the term "common carrier" in 47 U.S.C. s. 153(h).
    (12) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system that affects intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce, but does not include:
    (a) Any wire or oral communication;
    (b) Any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
    (c) Any communication from an electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or an object; or
    (d) Electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds.
    (13) "User" means any person or entity who:
    (a) Uses an electronic communication service, and
    (b) Is duly authorized by the provider of such service to engage in such use.
    (14) "Electronic communications system" means any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical, or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications.
    (15) "Electronic communication service" means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.
    (16) "Readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not:
    (a) Scrambled or encrypted;
    (b) Transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;
    (c) Carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;
    (d) Transmitted over a communications system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone-only paging system communication; or
    (e) Transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25; subpart D, subpart E, or subpart F of part 74; or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio.
    (17) "Electronic storage" means:
    (a) Any temporary intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof.
    (b) Any storage of a wire or electronic communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication.
    (18) "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.
    (19) "Remote computing service" means the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system.
    (20) "Pen register" means a device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, but such information does not include the contents of any communication. The term does not include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing or recording as an incident to billing or for communication services provided by such provider, and does not include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of its business.
    (21) "Trap and trace device" means a device or process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication, but such information does not include the contents of any communication.
    (22) "State" means any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other possession or territory of the United States.
    (23) "Subpoena" means any administrative subpoena authorized by federal or Florida law, federal or Florida grand jury subpoena, or any criminal investigative subpoena as authorized by Florida statute which may be utilized on behalf of the government by an investigative or law enforcement officer.
    (24) "Foreign intelligence information" means information, whether or not concerning a United States person, as that term is defined in 50 U.S.C. s. 1801, which relates to:
    (a) The ability of the United States to protect against actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
    (b) Sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
    (c) Clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service, a network of a foreign power, or an agent of a foreign power; or
    (d) With respect to a foreign power or foreign territory, the national defense or security of the United States or the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
    (25) "Protected computer" means:
    (a) A computer for the exclusive use of a financial institution or governmental entity;
    (b) A computer that is not for the exclusive use of a financial institution or governmental entity, but that is used by or for a financial institution or governmental entity and with respect to which unlawful conduct can affect the use by or for the financial institution or governmental entity; or
    (c) A computer that is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States.
    (26) "Computer trespasser" means a person who accesses a protected computer without authorization and thus does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to any communication transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer. The term does not include a person known by the owner or operator of the protected computer to have an existing contractual relationship with the owner or operator of the protected computer for access to all or part of the protected computer.
    History.--s. 2, ch. 69-17; s. 1, ch. 72-294; s. 1, ch. 74-249; s. 1, ch. 80-27; s. 1, ch. 88-184; s. 1, ch. 89-269; s. 1581, ch. 97-102; s. 8, ch. 2000-369; s. 1, ch. 2002-72.
    934.03 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:
    1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
    2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;
    (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) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation;

    shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).
    (2)(a)1. It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his or her employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his or her service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
    2. Notwithstanding any other law, a provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person, may provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to a person authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications if such provider, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person, has been provided with:
    a. A court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge; or
    b. A certification in writing by a person specified in s. 934.09(7) that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required.
    3. A provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person may not disclose the existence of any interception or the device used to accomplish the interception with respect to which the person has been furnished an order under ss. 934.03-934.09, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notice to the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure renders such person liable for the civil damages provided under s. 934.10, and such person may be prosecuted under s. 934.43. An action may not be brought against any provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under ss. 934.03-934.09.
    (b) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his or her employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. ch. 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.
    (c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.
    (d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.
    (e) It is unlawful to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing any criminal act.
    (f) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an employee of a telephone company to intercept a wire communication for the sole purpose of tracing the origin of such communication when the interception is requested by the recipient of the communication and the recipient alleges that the communication is obscene, harassing, or threatening in nature. The individual conducting the interception shall notify local police authorities within 48 hours after the time of the interception.
    (g) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an employee of:
    1. An ambulance service licensed pursuant to s. 401.25, a fire station employing firefighters as defined by s. 633.30, a public utility as defined by ss. 1365.01 and 366.02, a law enforcement agency as defined by s. 934.02(10), or any other entity with published emergency telephone numbers;
    2. An agency operating an emergency telephone number "911" system established pursuant to s. 365.171; or
    3. The central abuse hotline operated pursuant to s. 39.201,

    to intercept and record incoming wire communications; however, such employee may intercept and record incoming wire communications on designated "911" telephone numbers and published nonemergency telephone numbers staffed by trained dispatchers at public safety answering points only. It is also lawful for such employee to intercept and record outgoing wire communications to the numbers from which such incoming wire communications were placed when necessary to obtain information required to provide the emergency services being requested.
    (h) It shall not be unlawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for any person:
    1. To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.
    2. To intercept any radio communication which is transmitted:
    a. By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
    b. By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including any police or fire communications system, readily accessible to the general public;
    c. By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
    d. By any marine or aeronautical communications system.
    3. To engage in any conduct which:
    a. Is prohibited by s. 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
    b. Is excepted from the application of s. 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by s. 705(b) of that act.
    4. To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station of consumer electronic equipment to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference.
    5. To intercept, if such person is another user of the same frequency, any radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system.
    6. To intercept a satellite transmission that is not scrambled or encrypted and that is transmitted:
    a. To a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or
    b. As an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls, when such interception is not for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.
    7. To intercept and privately view a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or to intercept a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted, if such interception is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain.
    (i) It shall not be unlawful under ss. 934.03-934.09:
    1. To use a pen register or a trap and trace device as authorized under ss. 934.31-934.34 or under federal law; or
    2. For a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of such service.
    (j) It is not unlawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser which are transmitted to, through, or from a protected computer if:
    1. The owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the communications of the computer trespasser;
    2. The person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
    3. The person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the communications of the computer trespasser will be relevant to the investigation; and
    4. The interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to, through, or from the computer trespasser.
    (3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.
    (b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication:
    1. As otherwise authorized in paragraph (2)(a) or s. 934.08;
    2. With the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;
    3. To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or
    4. Which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.
    (4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41.
    (b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) and is not for any tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under paragraph (a) was committed is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then:
    1. If the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in subparagraph (2)(h)7., the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
    2. If the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
    History.--s. 3, ch. 69-17; s. 1163, ch. 71-136; ss. 2, 3, ch. 74-249; s. 249, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 78-376; s. 187, ch. 79-164; s. 2, ch. 80-27; s. 1, ch. 87-301; s. 2, ch. 88-184; s. 2, ch. 89-269; s. 1582, ch. 97-102; s. 18, ch. 99-168; ss. 7, 9, ch. 2000-369; s. 2, ch. 2002-72.
    1Note.--Repealed by s. 1, ch. 89-86.
    934.04 Manufacture, distribution, or possession of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices prohibited.--
    (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who intentionally:
    (a) Sends through the mail or otherwise sends or carries any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications as specifically defined by this chapter; or
    (b) Manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications as specifically defined by this chapter;

    shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
    (2) It is not unlawful under this section for:
    (a) A provider of wire or electronic communication service or an officer, agent, or employee of, or a person under contract with, such a provider, in the normal course of the business of providing that wire or electronic communication service; or
    (b) An officer, agent, or employee of, or a person under contract with, bidding upon contracts with, or in the course of doing business with, the United States, a state, or a political subdivision thereof, in the normal course of the activities of the United States, a state, or a political subdivision thereof,

    to send through the mail; send or carry in intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce; or manufacture, assemble, possess, or sell any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.
    History.--s. 4, ch. 69-17; s. 1164, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 88-184; s. 3, ch. 89-269.
    934.05 Confiscation of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices.--Any electronic, mechanical, or other device used, sent, carried, manufactured, assembled, possessed, or sold in violation of this chapter may be seized and forfeited to the state.
    History.--s. 5, ch. 69-17; s. 4, ch. 88-184.
    934.06 Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications; exception.--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 state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The prohibition of use as evidence provided in this section does not apply in cases of prosecution for criminal interception in violation of the provisions of this chapter.
    History.--s. 6, ch. 69-17; s. 4, ch. 89-269.

    ReplyDelete
  15. www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com06 May, 2009

    Not surprisingly, GEORGE McCLURE has NOT responded.

    Not surprisingly, the person who allegedly taped GEORGE McCLURE's finger-wagging in my eye (and sequelae) at the City Commission meeting has NOT responded.

    Illegally taping a citizen activist and placing the illegal tape on You Tube -- priceless!

    What does that say about the political structure in St. Augustine, Florida that anyone would defend such an illegal practice?

    Such intrusions into privacy rights are what led Louis D. Brandeis and a colleague to publish their famous Harvard Law Review article on privacy rights.
    http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

    Perhaps GEORGE McCLURE and the illegal taper will read Florida law (and Justice Brandeis' article) and maybe learn from their transgressions and resolve to sin no more, no matter what the putative advice from Plazabummers such as MICHAEL GOLD.

    What do you reckon?>

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous07 May, 2009

    We reckon that if you were any authority on THE LAW, you wouldn't have been CONVICTED of abusing the law, being a LIAR, and misrepresenting your clients, Mr. DISBARRED.

    Next question.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I reckon if the Anonymice from Plazabum had any moral courage, they would identify themselves. Like those who blew up little girls at a church in Birmingham and killed civil rights activists throughout the South, they are back-shooting cowards. I wear their scorn as a badge of honor.

    I was honored to represent whistleblowers and others whose First Amendment rights were violated.

    Anyone who thinks the Tennessee Supreme Court is a paragon of truth and virtue probably doesn't get out much and their ancestors were probably rooting for school teacher John Scopes to be convicted of the "crime" of teaching evolution.

    Anyone who thinks secret show trials in absentia and First Amendment violations are constitutional probably works for WILLIAM B. HARRISS and TIMOTHY BURCHFIELD. They probably like illegal dumping and destruction of our environment.

    Methinks the Anonymice -- fed by WILLIAM B. HARRISS, TIMOTHY BURCHFIELD, GEORGE McCLURE, developers, government officials and their running dogs -- are frustrated people.

    They are ashamed to associate their names and titles with their illiterate Internet hate crimes.

    They are a pack of liars and miscreants, the kind of crazy people who put solid waste in the Old City Reservoir (40,000 cubic yards) and destroy a 3000-4000 year old Indian village (Red House Bluff) while supporting segregationist employment, roadbuilding and housing policies.

    They are angry that I reported them to federal officials. I'd do it again (and twice on Sunday), secure in the knowledge that our Foundering Fathers stood up to oppression and wanted us to do so -- that's why they wrote the Bill of Rights and Constitution (our Owners' Manual for our country).

    Anonymice are angry government officials and their entouarages who habitually violate the 14th and 15th Amendments.

    What do you say to that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

    ReplyDelete