The views presented on this site in no way reflects those of my employer, family, friends, acquaintances or distant cousins as these generally fall into three categories: the smart ones that agree with me, those that tolerate me because of my wit, charm, great intellect and modesty, and those who think that I'm a raving wingnut who's one Kennedy away from going medieval on the next vegan moonbat that barks.
I do not do links for the sake of reciprocity. I link only to those sites that I read and I only read RSS feeds. Feel free to send me a link to your site and I'll take a look. If I like it, and if you have a feed, I'll add you to my blogroll.
Copyright Statement
Any original material is the intellectual property of the author and is not to be used without permission, other than normal Internet journalistic practices of extracting portions of a post, acknowledging the author and providing link-backs to the source post.
The state supreme court last week overturned the robbery conviction of a 17-year-old because it was based partly on testimony from an eavesdropping parent. The ruling reinforced Washington's strict privacy act, which says that consent from both parties is required to listen in on telephone conversations — even if you suspect your child is involved in a crime or is in danger.
Thankfully, the legislature is going to address this issue next month by excluding minors from the privicy act. Which means that perhaps the courts ruled according to the letter of the law. Funny how that only seems to happen when the law is something silly.
