Hypothetically if that conversation happened on the phone with people from multiple states, like RC from her state then any plot to kill becomes a case for the FBI.
And it wasn’t.
22 Likes
I agree with the others, the likelihood this is true is very LOW at this point. Other than that, I’d expect proof of a claim like that for me to really believe it.
19 Likes
Just because the location is private property does not necessarily establish that there is an expectation of privacy.
Shopping malls are private property, for example. There would not be an expectation of privacy at a shopping mall Starbucks or food court or at the perfume counter.
2 Likes
Clearly a shopping mall is quite different than a barn. In so many ways. For instance, go to any BNTs barn and just start walking around, uninvited. See what happens.
43 Likes
A shopping mall is designed to BE a public space and for many, many people to move about.
A private barn that is also a place of business is NOT comparable to a shopping mall in any way, shape or form.
It’s ludicrous to suggest they are equivalent.
42 Likes
So. Much. Lunging.
21 Likes
Hey does anyone have or remember LKs FB post showing a pic of the AR15 and a handgun?
4 Likes
I think the recordings contain many statements that admit both innocent and criminal interpretations.
“Wait until Ruth gets here.”
I’m going to effing kill her.”
It’s sort of like a Rorschach ink plot: there are very different potential interpretations of the same image, and the interpretation reveals something about the mindset of the viewer or listener.
I do not think that MHG saying “I’m going to effing kill her” means that MHG was intending to attempt to kill LK, or conspire with MB for him to kill her. I think it was a non literal expression of hatred and frustration. If the Morris County prosecutors office thought likewise, that explains why no one was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. I don’t think there was a conspiracy to commit murder.
But I also think that the criminal interpretation of the audios creates enough ambiguity to shield LK for having made them. In some states, audio recordings which would otherwise be illegal are explicitly permitted if the person making them has reason to believe illegal activity is being discussed. In other states, it’s not in the statute, but the same consideration is applied when considering charging the recording as a crime.
There is lots of stuff in the recordings that is ambiguous. LK interpreted it one way before being shot and interpreted it differently after being shot. I think the ambiguity shielded both the MB side from conspiracy charges and will shield LK from illegal recording charges, even if the criterion of an expectation privacy is met.
2 Likes
How are you able to characterize the recordings? They haven’t been made available to the public that I’m aware.
38 Likes
I did not suggest or say a privately owned boarding barn and a privately owned shopping mall “were equivalent”, did I? Of course they’re not.
@Angela_Freda seemed to think that the fact of private ownership, by itself, established the expectation of privacy. It doesn’t. I gave a stark example of how she was wrong; a privately owned shopping mall does not necessarily mean there is an expectation of privacy.
For a privately owned boarding barn in which LK has been allowed access as one person among 30 or 40 using the barn, I think that there will be some areas in which there would be an expectation of privacy and others in which there is no expectation of privacy. I think the lawyers for both sides will run up big fees litigating the matter.
1 Like
Shield LK? How? When LK planted the devices she wouldn’t have known a thing. The act was illegal. She is not Nostradamus.
Surely you must know she planted what she planted to get dirt on others so she could use that dirt against them via threats, blackmail or intimidation. I think that based on how she tried some of that with me. So that’s my educated opinion and most probably fact.
There is no authority to illegally record someone if you think illegal things are being discussed. Not even law enforcement has that right. Only a judge can authorize that even for police.
And I’m most curious how you can postulate that you know what those recordings contain when no one else does.
Makes me suspicious of your statements of no personal knowledge of anything.
36 Likes
Perhaps you should ask @trubandloki to refrain from tagging me and Hut-Ho and asking us our opinion of the amended suit with the complaint about illegal recording, if you’re bored with this topic.
Perhaps you have trubandloki on ignore, and didn’t see her cracking the lunge whip.
1 Like
I suck at cracking a lunge whip. It is a skill I have never mastered. Seriously.
I asked a question, I am not sure you have answered that question though.
You don’t need to be all YD on us and tag me twice in one post. Did you think I would miss the first tag so I needed a second tag.
I look forward to reading your response to my question…
22 Likes
When? When? WHEN is the ignore function going to get fixed?!?!?
11 Likes
No, I meant to tag you just once, and meant to simply refer to your screen name without the ampersand the second time. In general, I type fast, and don’t spending 45 seconds carefully pondering whether or not to slip in the ampersand when I mention a screen name.
Do you object to being tagged? You who repeatedly tags IM, Seeker, Hut-Ho and me after we’ve dropped out of the discussion for hours or days or weeks? You don’t see that as cracking s lunge whip, however clumsily?
My avoiding answering your question was deliberate. I ignored your post and chose to respond to a post by Jealoushe on the topic of the recordings instead.
1 Like
The rule is different for LE vs private individuals. LE needs to get prior authorization from a judge based on evidence of probable illegal activity.
For a private individual, otherwise illegal recordings are not a crime if, after the fact, the person recording can show there was reason to believe illegal activity is being discussed. Of course, it depends on the state, etc, etc.
1 Like
Perhaps you should notify NJ of that.
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-jersey/new-jersey-recording-law
23 Likes
Which states have these laws? Does NJ?
8 Likes
Wouldn’t you think people would tire of posting the same erroneous claims only to have others cite the actual laws/facts/evidence?
35 Likes
Some states have the provision explicitly written into the statute, in others it’s a part of case law. In still others, perhaps it’s not a consideration at all.
If I were a criminal lawyer specializing in this issue in the state of NJ, I would know if NJ is one of the states in which the provision is explicitly included in the statute. But I’m not.
As a non expert, all I know is that LK and RG have not been charged criminally over the recordings. That’s suggestive, but not definitive.
