Unconstitutional Statute!

[Bob Sciarrone]

Well folks,

What I'm working on shall be for the people not to be convicted of a bogus crime.

More to come on this. I guarrantee it!

[Bob Sciarrone]

I am currently working on the PA wiretap statute. While I beieve that the PA wiretap statute is mostly consistant with the Federal wiretap statute, the ommission of a clause within the PA wiretap statute that is included in the Federal Statute denys the citizens of this Commonwealth equal protection of the Law and violates our 14th Amendment. More to come as I am starting to work directly with the Lawmakers of this Commonwealth.

I do not want any law enforcement agency to abuse this statute to satisfy any personal agenda nor to punnish any citizen for a personal satisfaction which was done in my case.

It may be too late for any action in my case, however, I don't want another citizen to endure what I went through. This statute must be amended.

[Bob Sciarrone]

This morning I met with the Honorable Mario Scavello. The conversation that was discussed was amending the PA Wiretap Statute to conform with the Federal Wiretap Statute.

NOTE: Both Statutes are exclusive and this plays a major role in this case. Since both laws are exclusive, the Federal Law Preempts State Law.

The Federal Law states:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2511(2)(d)

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html


While State Law can make a more stricter version of a Federal Law, it can not conflict with the Federal Law if they are both exclusive Laws. The Federal Law shall Preempt the State Law.


Types of preemption

Two situations where preemption claims might or may arise: express preemption and implied preemption.

Express preemption occurs where Congress says within the statute 'we hereby preempt' or uses words of similar import. Here, federal laws are explicitly precluding state and local regulations.

Implied preemption has, within itself, three sub-categories: conflicts preemption, preemption because state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective, and preemption because federal law occupies the field.

Conflicts preemption is where it is impossible to comply with both the federal statute and the state or local law. In this situation, the federal statute must be followed. It is, however, appropriate to have two laws, one federal and one state, that differ. The federal law, in this case, may be a minimum standard, while the state enacts a law to be more strict. State law, therefore, would not be preempted. Preemption would only occur if the federal and state laws were mutually exclusive.

The second type of implied preemption is preemption because state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective. This type of preemption occurs when a state or local law interferes with a goal or objective Congress was trying to attain with a federal statute. The purpose of each law must be determined and compared to each other. If both laws are trying to achieve the same goal, federal law will preempt the state or local regulation.

The final type of implied preemption is preemption because federal law occupies the field. In this situation, one must look at Congress's intent, and whether the federal law was meant to be exclusive in that area. The most common examples are in areas of foreign policy and immigration. Implied preemption has also been held to apply to the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), giving the federal government the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve Labor Union versus Employer contract disputes, as well as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction (with minor exceptions) over enforcement of the substantive provisions of employer-sponsored Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (Cigna v. Calad, 2004), under the assumption that these laws were made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution



So, since Federal Law occupies the field, the State and Federal Laws conflict with both exclusive laws, it impedes with the objective of the Federal Law and it is impossible to comply with the Federal Statute and State Law. The Federal Law must preempt State Law.





Honorable Mario Scavello is going to write up a bill to amend this Statute and submit it to the House. He stated that I would get the Bill number about February.

As this progesses, I shall post it accordingly.

[Bob Sciarrone]

I called Mr. Ken Brown who is the Senior Deputy Attorney General this morning. I left him a message regarding the PA Wiretap Law and the conflict that exists with the Federal Statute and the clause that excusively occupies the field.

NOTE: Marshall Anders, Esq. who has 30 years experience as an Attorney should have brought this up at my trial and also notified the Attorney General's Office about this in 06.

I'll be posting updates as they occur.

[Bob Sciarrone]

Well,

As in all I do I shall be left alone to do it. I'll update this as time permits!

[Bob Sciarrone]

I spoke with Mario the other day. He told me that put in a bill to the Hose that would amend the Statute. He also told me it doesn't have much support but he did it anyway. He said if it gets defeated, he would reintroduce it every time.

You can't beat that!!

THANK YOU MARIO SCAVELLO

You have no idea how proud I am of you Sir!!

Mario Scavello is a man of his word!!!!!

A HUGE THANK YOU SIR!!

[Bob Sciarrone]

Ok folks,

Mario introduced the Bill to the House on April 21st, 2009. The Bill number is 1308. It was referred to the Committee on Judiciary on April 21st, 2009.

The beauty of this bill is that if someone has the intent to harm you, you retain the right to protect yourself by recording the conversation only for the accuracy of what you said to that person.

If you show any other intent, you will be found guilty of violating the Wiretap Statute.

In essence, it shall further protect the citizens from harm while protecting an innocent caller or callee.

The Federal Law just does that and the State Law should follow suit. That is one good strong Federal Law and I believe in it.

I ask all citizens to call their Reps and support this most important Bill.

The State Representatives who are in support as of April 21st, 2009 are:

Honorable Scavello who introduced it, the Honorables Creighton, Cutler, Gingrich, Hennessey, Kortz, Moul, Siptroth, Watson and Wheatley

[Bob Sciarrone]

HB11308. Please read this Bill

[Principessa71167]

Don't have time to read the post but I like the name selected for this topic and couldn't agree more :001_angelpray:

[Bob Sciarrone]

This is still in the Judiciary and I'll be letting everyone know when I hear about this from Mario.

I haven't forgotten about this and neither has Mario.