Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

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.

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.

Perhaps you should notify NJ of that.

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-jersey/new-jersey-recording-law

Did you click on the link in order to read the entire NJ statute, @Knights_Mom?

I clicked on the link and got an error message of “resource not found”, so couldn’t read the NJ statute.

[Sdel]

@Knights_Mom

And I’m most curious how you can postulate that you know what those recordings contain when no one else does.

Well, honestly, it’s probably very unlikely that LK only shared with Shelly Nellie. She probably has a small close circle that probably got a few carefully crafted looksies.

I do know she said a few times that she has people watching the forum for her. And I do know she and a few people were talking about some of us on her FB. Some of the comments were pretty identifiable.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@SillyHorse

Wouldn’t you think people would tire of posting the same erroneous claims only to have others cite the actual laws/facts/evidence?

Did you click on the link to read the NJ statute, @SillyHorse? I clicked on the link provided by KM and got the message “resource not found”.

Providing a broken link to the statute is not that useful in disproving “erroneous claims”.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@SillyHorse

Wouldn’t you think people would tire of posting the same erroneous claims only to have others cite the actual laws/facts/evidence?

Did you click on the link to read the NJ statute, @SillyHorse? I clicked on the link provided by KM and got the message “resource not found”.

Providing a broken link to the statute is not that useful in disproving “erroneous claims”.

Worked just fine for me. Interesting……

[Kitty64]

Worked fine for me too.

[Maria]

worked fine for me too.

[Maria]

Here ya go.

New Jersey Wiretapping Law

New Jersey’s wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. New Jersey makes it a crime to intercept or record an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.J. Stat. §§ 2A:156A-3, -4. (link is to the entire code; you need to click through to Title 2A, Article 156A, and then locate the specific provisions). Thus, if you operate in New Jersey, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties.

In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the New Jersey wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.

Consult the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Can We Tape?: New Jersey for more information on New Jersey wiretapping law.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

@SillyHorse

Wouldn’t you think people would tire of posting the same erroneous claims only to have others cite the actual laws/facts/evidence?

Did you click on the link to read the NJ statute, @SillyHorse? I clicked on the link provided by KM and got the message “resource not found”.

Providing a broken link to the statute is not that useful in disproving “erroneous claims”.

Worked just fine for me. Interesting……

The initial link to the “legal guide” works fine. When you have the “legal guide” screen up, it has a link to the “full NJ statute”. That’s the link that doesn’t work. You apparently didn’t try to click on the link to the NJ statute, either.

[hut-ho78]

KM’s attachment cut off the recordings where privacy is not expected. The locker area in the barn was for tack an horse equipment. It was not a an area where people would be expected to be undressed of their conversations not overheard.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-it-illegal-to-record-others-in-new-jersey-29721

[Kitty64]

Why are you bringing in other states laws into this conversation? We are talking about NJ and NJ law. What another state does is irrelevant to this case.

And whether someone is charged with a crime is not necessarily a reflection on their guilt or innocence.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

Please try clicking on the second link in green and see if you get the NJ statute.

[Kitty64]

Sorry, but I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s changed my shirt or pants in the tack room. Nice try, though.

[Maria]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Providing a broken link to the statute is not that useful in disproving “erroneous claims”.

That wasn’t KM’s fault. She provided the link, the link has an error on it, so whoever posted the initial link messed up not KM. Google the Statue number or the Title and quite possibly you will get what you are looking for.

Again not KM’s fault.

[hut-ho78]

Here is an interesting New Jersey law firm article on wire tapping for the purpose of getting proof of illegal activity in the work place.

Is it Legal to Make Voice Recordings in the NJ Workplace?

[Jealoushe]

@Knights_Mom

She is not Nostradamus.

I LOL’d at this.

[MorganSercu]

LK wasn’t an employee of Michael Barisone either and even if she were, she still isn’t permitted to place a recording device in his OFFICE and record conversations to which she is not a party.

Being a sneak doesn’t make you party to a conversation. It just makes you a creepy eavesdropper when you DON’T record. It should make you a felon when you do record a conversation in which you are not a participant.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Maria

@CurrentlyHorseless

Providing a broken link to the statute is not that useful in disproving “erroneous claims”.

That wasn’t KM’s fault. She provided the link, the link has an error on it, so whoever posted the initial link messed up not KM. Google the Statue number or the Title and quite possibly you will get what you are looking for.

Again not KM’s fault.

I was just pointing out that KM had not provided a working link to the statute. Of course it’s not her fault that the link was broken.

[hut-ho78]

https://nj.gov/state/dos-statutes.shtml

[CanteringCarrot]

Whether or not MB’s office, tack room, barn aisle, etc. Is a public place and/or meets or doesn’t meet the expectation of privacy requirements it’s still a weird thing to do. I could never imagine setting up recording devices on someone else’s property and without their permission. There were absolutely no good intentions involved here.

Due to the behavior and odd secrecy surrounding these recordings, I’m doubtful that they even still exist or say anything that’s useful or can be proven to be malicious. I don’t know if this is a distraction, a delusion, or some other 8D chess move, but it’s become, quite frankly, stupid. You either have then or you don’t. If they’re so damning, why wouldn’t you hand them over willingly? That’s a rhetorical question.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@CanteringCarrot

Whether or not MB’s office, tack room, barn aisle, etc. Is a public place and/or meets or doesn’t meet the expectation of privacy requirements it’s still a weird thing to do. I could never imagine setting up recording devices on someone else’s property and without their permission. There were absolutely no good intentions involved here.

Due to the behavior and odd secrecy surrounding these recordings, I’m doubtful that they even still exist or say anything that’s useful or can be proven to be malicious. I don’t know if this is a distraction, a delusion, or some other 8D chess move, but it’s become, quite frankly, stupid. You either have then or you don’t. If they’re so damning, why wouldn’t you hand them over willingly? That’s a rhetorical question.

The prosecutor’s office has already handed over about 80 recordings to all parties, including SGF.

KK was subpoenaed for her transcripts of the recordings, but the subpoena was quashed. Perhaps a subsequent subpoena will request a subset of the transcripts.

Perhaps Barisone’s lawyers want the transcripts because they want to dispute who is saying what’s on the recording, rather than dispute what was said on the recordings.