Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[Knights_Mom]

@eggbutt

@lazaret

In NJ it is a felony to record someone without their permission (first part) and a secondary charge to then share that recording with others (second part)

The damages for such are in the statute. It’s very clear. Making a recording of a conversation you were not a part of and then sharing that with another person is a felony.

But civil penalties aren’t up to the state. They’re up to whoever wants to bring someone to the mat for their bad acts.

ETA: each occurrence counts. Each recording, and each sharing of each individual recording, and each individual recorded - each combination is its own occurrence.

Wow!!!

So this could be big time, major trouble for Miss Kanarek and her buddy, Rob?? Is prison a possibility?

Why has The State of New Jersey not acted already? What media outlets need to be made aware of this bombshell?

No debtors prison.

They’d file bankruptcy is my bet.

[eggbutt]

What about mom & dad?

[Knights_Mom]

@eggbutt

What about mom & dad?

Possible. Difficult to prove. LK posted her acts 1000 times. Others didn’t. So getting proof more difficult.

[eggbutt]

@lazaret, for over three years, and actually longer than that, I have waited for information like this! This must be Karma getting ready to pay a visit!

Is this why Lauren doesn’t want to return to NJ or can NJ go after them in FL?

[PDDT]

As long as you don’t put it in the bed of your truck…

[iridedressage]

So I’m guessing SS knows they were given transcripts of illegal recordings?

[eggbutt]

@iridedressage

So I’m guessing SS knows they were given transcripts of illegal recordings?

Dang!!! Come USEF, whatcha gonna do now? This is getting real!! Seems there should be several phone calls made tomorrow!

I still want to know why Schellhorn and/or his boss didn’t act on this law breaking years ago!!!

[3PonyFarm]

What if the claim is made that the attorney ED told them that the recordings were legal? Would that matter at all?

[hut-ho78]

@Jenerationx

@hut-ho78

I’m in a two party consent state but if one party is breaking the law for example sexual harassment or bribery, the person recording to my limited knowledge of actual events has not been charged with breaking the law. If it was a recording from a non law enforcement party and given to law enforcement, I think that is ok.

No. You are wrong. It depends on the state.

You cannot be the “one party consent” in a one party state if you are not part of the conversation either. You cannot record someone else’s conversation in the background and then claim you’re the consenting party.

You may be right. However, I think it depend on how Nee Jersey looks at it.

New Jersey law allows for one party content and in a public area where privacy is not expected. Key to the second is how New Jersey has set precedence for public area where privacy is not expected.
The term “public” can have have very different meanings. I’m interested in seeing how that is interpreted for the court case if it even comes up.

I don’t think there were any illegal recordings. If they don’t settle, we may find out.

[LilRanger]

@Knights_Mom

81 recordings was it?

Not sure they were all illegal if some were done by one of the working students who were asked to leave before the end of July. The comment by lk above hints that some of the recordings may have been made by an accomplice who wasn’t suspected of recording conversations she was part of. Like at a staff meeting or something.
But that doesn’t mean other recordings weren’t done with out meeting the consent laws.

[LilRanger]

@3PonyFarm

What if the claim is made that the attorney ED told them that the recordings were legal? Would that matter at all?

They might have a malpractice case against him, but it wouldn’t absolve them of liability.

[eggbutt]

So the sister working students could be in serious trouble now too?

[3PonyFarm]

I just remember Judge T saying they wouldn’t be charged because an attorney told them they were legal.

I would guess the attorney could say they didn’t follow his guidelines.

[lazaret]

No. Well, it doesn’t matter if you are acting on the advice of an attorney in committing a crime via a vis your guilt or innocence in a court of law.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, as it were.

Judge T doesn’t get to decide who is charged, that’s up to the state. Probably many reasons why they weren’t. However that also doesn’t really matter as civil penalties can attach for the act in question regardless.

[eggbutt]

Isn’t that interesting! Judge T is involved in everything isn’t he?

[3PonyFarm]

Thanks!

[LilRanger]

@eggbutt

So the sister working students could be in serious trouble now too?

Not if they were part of the conversation, no. If they recorded convos they weren’t involved in then possibly. But as you can see, the fact a law was broken is not a guarantee there will be a prosecution.

[3PonyFarm]

Did you ever find out if he faced any repercussions for his Krol comments?

[Sdel]

@LilRanger

But as you can see, the fact a law was broken is not a guarantee there will be a prosecution.

No, and ironically the lawyer for the police basically argued that the police were not obligated to “investigate” a crime.

[3PonyFarm]

Are we likely to see any new filings this week or maybe after the holiday? They are interesting. Even more so once the legal peeps explain them for those of us who can’t make heads or tails out of them.