3ABN & Danny Shelton
v.
Gailon Joy & Robert Pickle
Plaintiff 3ABN's Requests for Production of Documents
and Things to Defendant Robert Pickle (First Set)
Document Request Nos. 9 & 10
|
Request No. 9:
All photographs (digital or film), slides, videotapes, films,
moving pictures, DVD's, CD's, CD-ROM, MP3's, or other types of
photographic representations in your possession relating to the
subject matter of this litigation.
|
Response by Defendant Pickle: We assume you must have meant
"Request No. 10," not "Request No. 9."
See auto-discovery materials.
For original copies of 3ABN broadcasts and programs in our possession, please contact 3ABN's archives
for copies of "The 3ABN Story," the various damage control 3ABN Live broadcasts (including that
of August 10, 2006, and February 15, 2007), the tribute to Tommy Shelton of December 31, 2006,
the May 2004 3ABN camp meeting broadcast that contains Danny Shelton's reaction when Elder Thorvaldson
and Dr. Abrahamsen arrived, and perhaps a few others.
|
Request No. 10:
All documents which were incorporated into, or which form the
basis for any statement in or on, the www.Save3ABN.com website.
|
Response by Defendant Pickle: Certainly you really meant
"Request No. 11," not "Request No. 10."
See auto-discovery materials.
A document we will highlight in this response is an email written on September 25, 2006, which
contained a published summary of the wiretapping and eavesdropping laws of Illinois, and a few other tidbits.
This formed the basis for statements concerning the possibility that Danny Shelton's recording of a conversation
of Linda Shelton and his divulging of the contents of that conversation may have been a felony.
You can find this email in the email collection and at the end of this response in the
Save3ABN.com collection in the auto-discovery materials.
|
-------- Original Message --------
| From: |
Bob |
| To: |
G. Arthur Joy |
| Subject: |
Re: Technology wire tapping |
| Date: |
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:19:04 -0500 |
|
Gailon,
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ should contain
all the information you need.
According to
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/illinois.html
 | Illinois |
|
[Back to state index]
720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-1, -2: An eavesdropping
device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without
the consent of all parties to the conversation under criminal
statutes. An eavesdropping device is anything used to hear or
record a conversation, whether the conversation is in person
or conducted by any means other than face-to-face conversation,
such as a telephone conversation.
In addition, it is criminally punishable to disclose information
one knows or should know was obtained through an eavesdropping
device. Offenses of the eavesdropping law are punishable as felonies,
with first offenses categorized as lesser felonies than subsequent
offenses. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-4. Civil liability
for actual and punitive damages is authorized as well. 720 Ill.
Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-6.
Standard radio scanners are not eavesdropping devices, according
to a 1990 decision from an intermediate appellate court. Illinois
v. Wilson, 554 N.E.2d 545 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). A camera is not
an eavesdropping device. Cassidy v. ABC, 377 N.E. 2d 126 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1978).
It is also illegal for any person to "videotape, photograph,
or film another person without that person's consent in a restroom,
tanning bed, or tanning salon, locker room, changing room or
hotel bedroom." 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/26-4(a).
| |
Published Winter 2003. © The Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press, 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22209. (703) 807-2100
|
Sounds serious. Anyone spreading stuff they should know was
obtained without the consent of all parties through an eavesdropping
device could be convicted of a felony in the state of Illinois.
Additionally, "Federal law [and some states' laws] requires
only one-party consent to the recording and disclosure of a telephone
conversation, but explicitly does not protect the taping if it
is done for a criminal or tortious purpose."
(http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html).
You can find similar statements throughout the web site, as in
the page on Wisconsin's statute. Thus, one could run afoul of
even federal law if the taping was done with the consent of only
one party and for the purpose of defaming the non-consenting party.
Bob
|
|
