JOHN CUSACK AND MR. FLIPFLOP

Hey John and Bill,

Very busy today and did not have time for your flipflopping. Am nice/am mean, am basically whatever John Cusack tells me to be in order to threaten you once again regarding MY TAPE (in a very safe place, by the way - just confirmed it has landed safely and is secure and restful - unless you annoy me enough with your lies where I may have to use it). You must love me very much since you call me so often and after I have not spoken to you for days. Last call July 31, 2006. Am very flattered, but disgusted at the same time.

WHY ARE YOU BOTH SO CONCERNED WITH MY LITTLE TAPE - JUST A TALK, A CHAT, RIGHT? IF NOTHING DAMAGING ON IT, WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH? IF THERE ARE NO THREATS ON IT, WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH? WHY THREATEN ME AGAIN, BILL, WHEN I CALL YOU ON YOUR LIES REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF MY TAPE? MY TAPE, MY TAPE, MY TAPE, MY TAPE, NAH Na NAH Na NAH Na.

YOU ARE ALL SO OBVIOUS, IT IS REALLY HYSTERICAL, NO REALLY, I AM ACTUALLY, LAUGHING AT THIS VERY MOMENT - but then again, I tend to crack myself up all the time, so could be that. And Bill, you can stop with the nice-guy routine - not buying it anymore. At least be true to yourself and speak as you did on your last message to me. The "Hey Shera", like we're buddies or something just doesn't cut it. More lies, you're a bad actor - hope you don't do that as well. Never heard of you in that arena, so if you do, must be as bad as I imagine.

You said my blog was very funny and emphasized that it must have taken a long time to write. No, actually wrote it quite fast - am very smart, clever and talented is all. Rest of time on internet was replies to emails that I had to answer even though it interrupted my blog.

Loved your last message about the attorney. God, you are the one who is really, really funny. Will not respond to any of your calls, by the way. Feel it is wiser to remain on the internet at this point in time as is public domain, which we both know.

Will share some knowledge with you, Mr. Flipflop, just don't go flipfloppin' away since is very long and not sure 1) if your attention span is adequate enough to read it all and 2) am not sure you are smart enough to comprehend it.

Regardless, here it is:

1) http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html

Now pay very close attention to the part where it says, and I quote, "In the state of California, one party consent can be applied only under circumstances in which one party is involved in criminal activity which would include extortion or blackmail".
Believe "possible" threats to other's well-being would be included under "criminal". Am still investigating possible "blackmail" by Cusack.

2) http://www.spyman.com/laws.htm

Again, try and stay with me here - this one is fairly simple. "The federal Wiretap laws have been expanded to include cellulars and cordless phone conversations. Cellular and cordless conversations can be recorded with the consent of one party." Easy to understand, eh?

3) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html

Criminal purpose. Federal law 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. Many states have similar exceptions. Employees of a "psychic hotline" who were secretly recorded by an undercover reporter working for "Primetime Live" sued ABC for violation of the federal wiretapping statute, arguing that the taping was done for the illegal purposes of invading the employees privacy. The federal appellate court in Pasadena (9th Cir.) affirmed the dismissal of the employees claim in September 1999. According to the court, an otherwise legal taping that is done to achieve a "further impropriety, such as blackmail," becomes a violation of the law. But even if ABC s means of taping were illegal because the act violated the employees privacy, that does not make the taping illegal under the wiretap act, the court held. Because the employees "produced no probative evidence that ABC had an illegal or tortious purpose" when it made the tape, the reporter did not violate the federal statute. (Sussman v. American Broadcasting Co.)
YOU BOTH KNOW BY NOW THAT I HAVE NO ILLEGAL OR TORTIOUS PURPOSE HERE. 'NUFF SAID.

4) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html

Am breaking it up into sections to make it easier for you to understand. There is much more on this site, but am only quoting what I feel pertains to our situation.
Trespass. A party whose conversation is surreptitiously recorded, whether with a tape recorder or a hidden camera, may also raise such newsgathering claims as trespass and intrusion, examining the issue of the scope of a party s consent. For example, in Desnick, the doctor sued the network for trespass because he did not know of the taping. But the court stated that consent to an entry is "often given legal effect" even though the entrant "has intentions that if known to the owner of the property would cause him . . . to revoke his consent." Desnick refers to Desnick v. ABC and is cited earlier on website.
To bypass the legalese for you guys, basically doesn't matter if you do not consent to taping after the fact. Too bad for you! My conversation with Mr. Flipflop was neither a trespass or intrusion - in fact, I was returning his call per HIS REQUEST.

5) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html

Expectations of privacy. The other issue that courts address in evaluating these cases is whether or not the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the filming took place. In Desnick, the court held that the doctor did not have such an expectation of privacy in an area where he brought his patients.
NOW CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF OUR TOPIC AND THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR ANY EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY FROM EITHER ONE OF US - FOR ALL I KNEW, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN TAPING THE CALL, AS WELL.

6) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

In light of the differing state laws governing electronic recording of conversations between private parties, journalists are advised to err on the side of caution when recording or disclosing an interstate telephone call. The safest strategy is to assume that the stricter state law will apply.

For example, a reporter located in the District of Columbia who records a telephone conversation without the consent of a party located in Maryland would not violate District of Columbia law, but could be liable under Maryland law. A court located in the District of Columbia may apply Maryland law, depending on its "conflict of laws" rules. Therefore, an aggrieved party may choose to file suit in either jurisdiction, depending on which law is more favorable to the party s claim.

In one case, a New York trial court was asked to apply the Pennsylvania wiretap law — which requires consent of all parties — to a call placed by a prostitute in Pennsylvania to a man in New York. Unlike the Pennsylvania wiretap statute, the New York and federal statutes require the consent of only one party. The call was recorded with the woman s consent by reporters for The Globe, a national tabloid newspaper. The court ruled that the law of the state where the injury occurred, New York, should apply. (Krauss v. Globe International)
MY "INJURY" OCCURRED IN NEW YORK!

7) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Journalists should be aware that wiretap laws raise issues beyond just whether they have met consent requirements. The federal law and many state laws explicitly make it illegal to possess — and particularly to publish — the contents of an illegal wiretap, even if it is made by someone else. Some states that allow recordings make the distribution or publication of those otherwise legal recordings a crime.

The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (amending the federal wiretap law) makes it illegal to possess or divulge the contents of any illegally intercepted communication.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in May 2001 that several media defendants could not be held liable for damages under the federal statute for publishing and broadcasting information obtained through an illegal interception of a private conversation.

The case arose from a cell-phone conversation in Pennsylvania about contract negotiations for local school teachers. During the conversation, Anthony Kane Jr., president of the local teachers union, told Gloria Bartnicki, a union negotiator, that if teachers demands were not met, "we re gonna have to go to their, their homes . . . to blow off their front porches, we ll have to do some work on some of those guys." While Bartnicki and Kane spoke, an unknown person illegally intercepted the call, and a tape recording was left in the mailbox of a local association leader. The association leader gave a copy of the tape to two radio talk show hosts, who broadcast the tape as a part of a news show. Local television stations also aired the tape, and newspapers published transcripts of the conversation.

Bartnicki and Kane sued some of the stations and newspapers that had disclosed the contents of the tape. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which found that First Amendment principles trumped the privacy concerns of the union leaders.

In ruling that disclosure of a matter in the public interest outweighed claims of privacy, the majority of the Court supported "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open." The majority explained that those who participate in public affairs have a diminished expectation of privacy, especially when they propose to carry out wrongful conduct.

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT LAST SENTENCE, GUYS. AND THIS WAS ABOUT AN ILLEGAL TAPING - MINE WAS LEGAL!

8) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/intro.html

The federal wiretap law was amended in 1986 and 1994 to expand the definition of electronic communications to include cellular and cordless phone conversations. Under the statute, cellular and cordless phone conversations can be recorded with the consent of one party.

The federal law was changed to accommodate the differences between the cordless telephone system and the traditional telephone system, which transmits communications by wire or cable.
JUST SOME MORE ON CELLULAR LAW IN CASE YOU DIDN'T COMPREHEND IT THE FIRST TIME 'ROUND.

9) http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html

Calls Crossing State Lines
Calls that cross state lines become complicated legal issues especially when one state is a one party consent state and the other state is an all party consent state. What has happened is that you didn't violate the law in the one party consent state and violated the law in the all party consent state. Moreover, since the call went across a state line, the federal laws would certainly apply. The most famous case involving this type of issue is the Linda Trip case. You will recall that Linda Trip recorded the telephone conversations of Monica Lewinski concerning her relationship with President Clinton. Trip was in Maryland and Lewinski was in DC. Note that Maryland is an all party consent state while DC is a one party consent state. The law is actually quite fuzzy on these issues. The recorder is advised to assume that the sticker law would apply.
JUST SOME MORE OF WHAT YOU THREATENED ME ABOUT.

10) There should always be ten.

Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632: It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties.

It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception.
NOW YOU MIGHT BE GOING "HA" AT THIS POINT, BUT STOP! I NEITHER INTERCEPTED NOR EAVESDROPPED ON ANY CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION. I WAS A PARTY IN THE COMMUNICATION.


O.K., so we have our ten, some obvious, but really feel I need to be that way with you. And if thinking of certain California case (which probably aren't), doesn't apply. Read it and weep.

So, have to tell both you, Bill and John, that I am very much a "behind the scenes" type of person. Don't crave attention, like to observe - learn so much more that way and LEARNING IS FUNDAMENTAL!

Would be great hardship for me if I were somehow forced to enter the limelight, so to speak. If pursue what you say, (which we both know you can't, well actually, can do whatever you like, but you don't have a leg to stand on) - I might have to go in front of the cameras, answering questions and all. Would make me so uncomfortable. And might have to tell them all I know about Cusack since that was the basis of our conversation. And the interviews, oh my God, I don't know how I could handle something like that. You know how prying those TV reporters are. I might not perform so well under pressure and they might make me reveal things that perhaps I wouldn't if they weren't so relentless. And the magazines, perhaps a little more comfortable if I had to talk to them, but same thing, would probably drill me endlessly to try and make me tell all I know about John Cusack - may feel so pressured that it would all come out. All those reporters who would find out about unfounded charges brought against me, clamoring for my story on this mystery celebrity who has also been so silent. Would pursue their own investigations and could possibly turn into a crazy media frenzy. Would be such a shame and such a discomfort for me - would hate to have to do that and might really hurt Cusack's reputation and freedom as well as your own and that would be so sad for me.

And, unfortunately, know the media will be there - many are contacts of people on "Team Shera" - and will put moral obligation speech to me, probably make me feel guilty and feel I must do this out of responsibility to the public blah, blah, blah. Might have no choice - am easily coerced when people give me moral lectures.

And so despite the fact that what you threatened me with today, you claimed would involve only you, I think that is not going to be the case. Could be pure conjecture here, but I know these moral do-gooders and they're going to want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that completely involves Cusack and his actions - he might have to be brought into this to testify, give statements to press, etc. Can't see how that couldn't be the case, but who knows? The media loves exposing the truth, especially about celebrities who so defiantly deny their endless requests for personal information; and they love to watch these people fall from grace. There is nothing, unfortunately, that I can do to stop that machine. It is way too strong for me. Am only 5'2".

Hope you enjoyed this blog as much as my previous one. Always here to entertain!

Shera