But would you? That’s not really something common place. Changing in a tack room is.
12 Likes
But it was RG’s. Both the barn and the house.
2 Likes
@Knights_Mom. That’s just one example of an exception to the basic wiretapping rule that depends on the discussion of illegal activity.
Ok so then do a little research, work your pretty little Google fingers and do a search using the wording you see on the page. Not hard. As I had the answer I needed I did not feel the need to dig further. Answer accomplished. As you are motivated to try and prove me wrong in defense of your beloved princess, I’m afraid you’ll have to work a little bit harder for it.
As for me and others, we have the answer. LK illegally placed recording devices.
And that’s why they couldn’t be used at the criminal trial and that’s why they are brought up by the Defendants in the civil proceeding.
22 Likes
This comment begs the question, why are you here then? Much like LK…
16 Likes
Admittedly done at the request of LK you can try that defense. I’m sure it will then be clear to the jury exactly what [edit] LK and her employee are. Oh yes, we can easily also list RG as LKs employee too. I wonder if she ever filed the necessary paperwork for that?
12 Likes
Sure, lots of people change in tack rooms. But they shouldn’t expect that no one is going to walk in to put a saddle away while they’re changing because a tack room is a common area that people walk freely into and out of whenever they want. You undress in a tack room at your own risk. If you want better assurance that you will be changing your clothes in the absence of an audience, you go change in the bathroom. There is an expectation of privacy in a bathroom. Do you see the difference?
7 Likes
I said up thread. I like to discuss the actual trials. Why are you here?
1 Like
The recordings weren’t being used to discuss workplace issues. They were being used because princess was pissed she wasn’t teachers pet. LK wasn’t the employee and the recordings had her as the subject. Recordings that she testified occurred at her direction regarding care of her fragile ego and her horses. Not at all about RGs work.
20 Likes
Oh, you’ve researched the entire NJ statute on wiretapping and found no exceptions at all based on recording a discussion of illegal activity?
I wasn’t aware of that.
1 Like
People off the street are not able to just waltz into the barn or tackroom. It’s is private with an expectation of privacy.
20 Likes
Exceptions to NJ wiretap…
2A:156A-4. Lawful interception activities; exceptions
4.It shall not be unlawful under this act for:
a.An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service. No provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks;
b.Any investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such officer is a party to the communication or where another officer who is a party to the communication requests or requires him to make such interception;
c.Any person acting at the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; provided, however, that no such interception shall be made without the prior approval of the Attorney General or his designee or a county prosecutor or his designee;
d.A person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted or used for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act. The fact that such person is the subscriber to a particular telephone does not constitute consent effective to authorize interception of communications among parties not including such person on that telephone. Any person who unlawfully intercepts or uses such communication as provided in this paragraph shall be subject to the civil liability established in section 24 of P.L.1968, c.409 (C.2A:156A-24), in addition to any other criminal or civil liability imposed by law;
e.Any person to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
f.Any person to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted:
(1) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(2) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communication system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(3) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(4) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;
g.Any person to engage in any conduct which:
(1) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
(2) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;
h.Any person to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted; or
i.A provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.
L.1968,c.409,s.4; amended 1975, c.131, s.1; 1978, c.51, s.2; 1993, c.29, s.3; 1999, c.151, s.3.
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2a/section-2a-156a-4
It doesn’t look to me that there are exceptions for “criminal intent”.
13 Likes
Exactly, why do they waste their time here? I challenge this poster to show where any of these posters with legal expertise have lied about the law.
They lie about me and others. Who has lied about this poster?
It’s a little hard core group but their relentless pounding has changed the threads.
It’s like a cult.
What irony! Again, why do they continue to subject themselves to all the “pounding” and being called liars?
Recall how peaceful the thread was several days ago when the real cult disappear for a few days?
20 Likes
I have never been to a barn that did not allow everyone at the barn to walk into the tack room freely anytime they needed to. There was no expectation of getting permission to enter, and no expectation to knock on a door before entering. In other words, the tack rooms I have been in are considered common areas and anyone who wanted to change clothes there was welcome to but was not to expect privacy while doing so. Also, conversations covering topics considered private, such as those involving money for example, never took place in the tack room because everyone knows that the tack room is a common area where anyone can enter at any time and therefore there is no expectation of privacy. YMMV.
1 Like
So LK carried WC?
3 Likes
Wait, we are not supposed to change our clothes in the tack room now?
Gasp
My concrete plausible theory on this topic leans more to them wanting to know what information Kirby Kanarek (@Seeker1) and Lauren Kanarek has been distributing to people, saying Michael said it.
I wonder this also!
The example in the linked wire tapping article is a locker room. You can not record people in a locker room. Now, using your example here then there should be no expectation of privacy in a locker room either because people come and go from a locker room while you are changing. They come in to get their things out of their locker and then leave, all while you are changing.
Do you see the difference between your poor explanation and what is really happening?
A parking lot is not a comparison.
Are people knocking before they enter a locker room?
14 Likes
It doesn’t l. And I haven’t found any case law (yet) that changes that.
11 Likes
The people who are at the barn because they are established customers sre told where and when they can access the property. People off the street do not have the same invitation. If you doubt my word I’ll give you the address of a barn in your area and you try waltzing in at 2 am and we shall see what happens.
24 Likes
The article that Hut posted about the whole workplace thing includes directions to follow the NJ one party consent rules, you can’t just toss a recorder in your bosses office an walk away.
Darn, I hate it when the rules are so clear…
28 Likes
Oh gee, they don’t understand law. Color me SHOCKED.
17 Likes
