The legality of Recording: Where were Trump and RFK?
Just a few days ago, my tip to victims of harassing phone calls by Portfolio Recovery Associates was to tape all the calls themselves. This is because PRA lies in court and destroys evidence of the calls.
What I forgot to mention, is that when PRA called me, each call began with an admonishment that the call was recorded. Presumably, PRA was giving permission for all parties to record.
In Arkansas, only one party needs to give permission to record. Each state has its own rules, and whether the rules of the caller or receiver take precedence can fill an entire law review article.
In the video of a private conversation between RFK Jr. and Donald Trump posted by RFK the third, we have no indication where either party is located. I read five articles by MSM and not a single one discussed the state of origin or the state in which the call was received.
That information is necessary to evaluate the legality of sharing the recording with the world.
Ethics is another issue.
I agree with all RFK’s platforms. It is his integrity that I am questioning. (I already think Joe and Donald lack integrity.) I agree with the younger Robert Kennedy. The audio ought to be heard by the voters. I am concerned that RFK, presidential hopeful, was so apologetic to our face for doing the right thing. Own it, Bobbie!
Here is another brilliant idea. Let’s make a law that all presidential candidates may be recorded, wiretapped, and have to produce accurate copies of their childhood journals for public consumption. Not really, but instead of listening to politicians blow smoke up our asses, a little transparency would be a breath of fresh air.
Hey, while I’m creating utopia, let’s put surveillance equipment in all judges’ chambers and on their telephones. Wouldn’t We the People finally hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God?
Can I hire an attorney on limited scope if I am pro se? It depends.
Advocate Lucinda, Your Empowerment Lawyer, explains the advantage of hiring an attorney on limited scope if you represent yourself in court.
The problem is that the rules are different from state to state, in federal court and even between federal district courts in the same circuit. For example, the Central District in California, which covers Los Angeles, offers a clinic or free limited scope representation to pro se litigants. Its sister Ninth Circuit court to the south, which covers San Diego, forbids parties who cannot afford an attorney for all purposes to hire an attorney to explain distinct issues.
In fact, I asked Judge Janis L. Sammartino to allow me to hire an attorney to explain derivative actions to me. I later learned on my own that a derivative action is on behalf of an entity, like an LLC. A pro se litigant is not allowed to advocate a derivative action. Yet, Judge Sammartino forbid me from hiring an attorney on limited scope to represent the LLC in that small cut out claim.
This issue may be discussed in the petition for writ of certiorari I am preparing for the United States Supreme Court. Here is one of my two questions (as a work in progress):
Whether discriminatory practices against the vast majority property class, those who cannot afford legal representation, violate Constitutional due process and the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights, Article One?
The case I am using to present the question is in the Eighth Circuit and was presided over by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky at the District Court of Eastern Arkansas. If you are an attorney who wants to earn a quill, I am borrowing money to pay the filing fees and printing and would appreciate representation on contingency. Shoot an email to bohemian_books@yahoo.com if you can practice at the Supreme Court and want to take charge. Or if you can fund hiring an attorney on a fee basis and want to help the rest of us open the gates to justice.
A Higher Law 