PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Prank call to GMs Buddy Nix and Mark Dominik leads to charges

Status
Not open for further replies.
OT: Nix prank call leads to charges

labeling it a "prank" doesn't make it legal.

Exactly. Funny or not, I wasn't surprised to hear they were going to be dealt with legally. I'm just surprised at the severity of the potential penalty and they should definitely hope the judge goes relatively easy on them. But there's no way they deserve to not get some sort of punishment.
 
They didn't "tap" into a call. They made the calls to the 2 GMs and then shut up. Its like the old joke of calling two Chinese food restaurants and letting them talk to one another. There is over 90,000 of those on youtube.

The term “interception” means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication;

The language is clear.
 
Do you believe this somehow makes what they what they did legal?

They intercepted a wire communication in which the parties involved had a reasonable expectation of privacy, without those parties’ awareness or consent, and disseminated the contents of the private communication. That sure sounds like illegal wiretapping, regardless of methodology.

Was it a minor violation? Of course. Should the affected parties have just let it go? Perhaps. But labeling it a "prank" doesn't make it legal.

I don't really care if it is technically legal or not. The reality is that wire tapping laws are primarily put in place to protect us from illegal law enforcement wire tapping not against prank calls. The only reason that this is being looked at is because it was the NFL. If the DA received a call from Shanghai Village complaining of a similar prank call posted to youtube they would be ignored and justifiably so. Its a waste of time and money. If the NFL feels that they were damaged then they should sue these individuals privately except they won't do that because then they look bad. Instead they'll have the DA do their dirty work.

And for the record, I don't really know if it is legal or not. In most states only one party needs to consent to the recording. In this case since GM1 called defendant and then defendant called GM2 I think it might be enough to avoid it. However MA is one of those states that requires all parties to consent. They were in MA the call originated in NY. Which jurisdiction rules? Who cares.
 
The reality is that wire tapping laws are primarily put in place to protect us from illegal law enforcement wire tapping not against prank calls.

Uh, no. That's like those yahoos who say that the Second Amendment was put into place so the populace can arm itself against a tyrannical U.S. government, when the Constitution explicitly states otherwise.

At any rate, the language (again):

The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living.

The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime. Therefore, law enforcement officials must be permitted to use modern methods of electronic surveillance, under strict judicial supervision, when investigating these organized criminal activities.

The general court further finds that the uncontrolled development and unrestricted use of modern electronic surveillance devices pose grave dangers to the privacy of all citizens of the commonwealth. Therefore, the secret use of such devices by private individuals must be prohibited. The use of such devices by law enforcement officials must be conducted under strict judicial supervision and should be limited to the investigation of organized crime.
 
Uh, no. That's like those yahoos who say that the Second Amendment was put into place so the populace can arm itself against a tyrannical U.S. government, when the Constitution explicitly states otherwise.

At any rate, the language (again):

The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living.

The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime. Therefore, law enforcement officials must be permitted to use modern methods of electronic surveillance, under strict judicial supervision, when investigating these organized criminal activities.

The general court further finds that the uncontrolled development and unrestricted use of modern electronic surveillance devices pose grave dangers to the privacy of all citizens of the commonwealth. Therefore, the secret use of such devices by private individuals must be prohibited. The use of such devices by law enforcement officials must be conducted under strict judicial supervision and should be limited to the investigation of organized crime.

That's MA law right? They aren't being sued under MA law. They are being sued under federal law. Under federal law you can't violate the law as long as one party to the communication. Since the GM called these guys himself, an argument can be made that they are a party to the call.

And if you really do think this is worth the time of the courts how do you justify the selective enforcement of these laws when there are multitudes of cases like this on youtube.
 
That's MA law right? They aren't being sued under MA law. They are being sued under federal law. Under federal law you can't violate the law as long as one party to the communication. Since the GM called these guys himself, an argument can be made that they are a party to the call.

And if you really do think this is worth the time of the courts how do you justify the selective enforcement of these laws when there are multitudes of cases like this on youtube.

The feds seem to think otherwise. If they broke the law, they should pay a price, regardless of what's on YouTube.
 
If they broke the law, they should pay a price, regardless of what's on YouTube.

A. Not all laws are good or just.
B. The price they pay will be wildly incommensurate with their actual transgression because we live in a world where HSBC can facilitate drug laundering of billions of dollars yet not one person in charge face criminal charges but a guy with a nickel bag gets put away for intent to distribute. So please, spare me the empty and dated platitudes.
 
Whatever they get they deserve, in my opinion. Self-styled, clever smart-asses who figured they could do whatever they wanted to do without repercussions. If it happened to them they'd be crying like babies for justice. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Onward and upward.
 
A. Not all laws are good or just.
B. The price they pay will be wildly incommensurate with their actual transgression because we live in a world where HSBC can facilitate drug laundering of billions of dollars yet not one person in charge face criminal charges but a guy with a nickel bag gets put away for intent to distribute. So please, spare me the empty and dated platitudes.

Try decaf.
 
A. Not all laws are good or just.
B. The price they pay will be wildly incommensurate with their actual transgression because we live in a world where HSBC can facilitate drug laundering of billions of dollars yet not one person in charge face criminal charges but a guy with a nickel bag gets put away for intent to distribute. So please, spare me the empty and dated platitudes.

This is the correct answer and all other answers will get zero credit. No partial credit.
 
Uh, no. That's like those yahoos who say that the Second Amendment was put into place so the populace can arm itself against a tyrannical U.S. government, when the Constitution explicitly states otherwise.

Um no, but this isn't a political board so I'll just leave you to your ignorance instead of educating you.
 
Um no, but this isn't a political board so I'll just leave you to your ignorance instead of educating you.

Feel free to educate me.
 
The feds seem to think otherwise. If they broke the law, they should pay a price, regardless of what's on YouTube.

And in the end us taxpayers will have to foot the bill for a trail because a millionaire was embarrassed by a crank call. Forgive me if I don't jump for joy and sit in admiration of our justice system. How anyone can think this is worth the time of our overburden courts is beyond me.
 
And in the end us taxpayers will have to foot the bill for a trail because a millionaire was embarrassed by a crank call. Forgive me if I don't jump for joy and sit in admiration of our justice system. How anyone can think this is worth the time of our overburden courts is beyond me.

I agree regarding the cost, but it'll never go to trial. I was arguing your contention that their behavior wasn't illegal, and your curious belief that wiretapping laws are only applicable to government.
 
500,000 $??? Why so serious??


As a deterrent, and as a sentencing guideline for particularly heinous harrassing phone calls from stalkers.

Crank calls to gullible NFL GMs, or to sports talk radio stations from trolls in opposing cities, should carry a much higher penalty, like a first round draft pick.

Hang on while I get Rex on the line....
 
I agree regarding the cost, but it'll never go to trial. I was arguing your contention that their behavior wasn't illegal, and your curious belief that wiretapping laws are only applicable to government.

I didn't mean to convey either of those positions. My only point was that this is a trivial application of this law.
 
I didn't mean to convey either of those positions. My only point was that this is a trivial application of this law.

No, YOU shut up!

Sorry, was ready to argue. My bad for misinterpreting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MORSE: Final Patriots Mock Draft
Former Patriots Super Bowl MVP Set to Announce Pick During Draft
TRANSCRIPT: Mike Vrabel’s Media Statement on Tuesday 4/21
MORSE: What Will the Patriots Do in the Draft?
MORSE: Patriots Prospects and 30 Visits
Patriots News 04-19, Countdown To Draft Day
MORSE: Patriots Mock Draft 6 – A Week Before the Draft
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/13
Patriots News 04-12, What To Watch For In The NFL Draft
MORSE: Pre-Draft Patriots News and Notes
Back
Top