Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

If the person doing the recording has reason to suspect illegal activity would be discussed, in some cases otherwise illegal recording is sometimes rendered legal.

What? No. It’s illegal to record someone who has an expectation of privacy without telling them. You don’t get to determine that expectation of privacy.

If you are called to testify as to something you yourself heard, you have to have heard it firsthand with your own ears, not a recording you made expecting to provide proof of something. You did not witness it and it is hearsay. “I heard a recording of X telling Y that they did Z” is not admissible even if it happened in the middle of Times Square because you personally did not witness X telling Y anything.

I did not say that the person doing the recording gets to determine the expectation of privacy.

I said that in some states the statute on such recordings provides for an exception in certain circumstances if the person has reason to believe illegal activity is going to be discussed. In other states, the exception is not in the statute but, but the decision to prosecute might take that into consideration. I’m not sure whether that exception applies in the state of NJ.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I did not say that the person doing the recording gets to determine the expectation of privacy.

I said that in some states the statute on such recordings provides for an exception in certain circumstances if the person has reason to believe illegal activity is going to be discussed. In other states, the exception is not in the statute but, but the decision to prosecute might take that into consideration. I’m not sure whether that exception applies in the state of NJ.

Is this assertion based on any actual statute in any state that you can cite? Or is it based on @hut-ho78’s claim in a previous thread (which to my knowledge did not cite any such statute or exception)? Even the police have to get a warrant to record people who they suspect are plotting crimes. Are you and HH suggesting that citizen vigilantes can just up and decide to break wiretapping laws if they suspect someone else is up to no good? Please cite your sources.

ETA, you do realize you are arguing with a legal professional there, dontcha? [edited to add an apostrophe and the letter s to denote attribution).

[hut-ho78]

@eggbutt

So you are confirming she has no recordable source of income that she has lost since August 7, 2019?

No. How would I know how she makes her living in the past and today?

[Knights_Mom]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

I did not say that the person doing the recording gets to determine the expectation of privacy.

I said that in some states the statute on such recordings provides for an exception in certain circumstances if the person has reason to believe illegal activity is going to be discussed. In other states, the exception is not in the statute but, but the decision to prosecute might take that into consideration. I’m not sure whether that exception applies in the state of NJ

Is this assertion based on any actual statute in any state that you can cite? Or is it based on @hut-ho78 claim in a previous thread (which to my knowledge did not cite any such statute or exception)? Even the police have to get a warrant to record people who they suspect are plotting crimes. Are you and HH suggesting that citizen vigilantes can just up and decide to break wiretapping laws if they suspect someone else is up to no good? Please cite your sources.

ETA, you do realize you are arguing with a legal professional there, dontcha?

I recall recently being criticized because I mention law from my state to illustrate possible law in other states like NJ and Florida. So I find the bolded part above highly ironic.

[hut-ho78]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

I did not say that the person doing the recording gets to determine the expectation of privacy.

I said that in some states the statute on such recordings provides for an exception in certain circumstances if the person has reason to believe illegal activity is going to be discussed. In other states, the exception is not in the statute but, but the decision to prosecute might take that into consideration. I’m not sure whether that exception applies in the state of NJ.

Is this assertion based on any actual statute in any state that you can cite? Or is it based on @hut-ho78’s claim in a previous thread (which to my knowledge did not cite any such statute or exception)? Even the police have to get a warrant to record people who they suspect are plotting crimes. Are you and HH suggesting that citizen vigilantes can just up and decide to break wiretapping laws if they suspect someone else is up to no good? Please cite your sources.

ETA, you do realize you are arguing with a legal professional there, dontcha? [edited to add an apostrophe and the letter s to denote attribution).

My example was a person in a two party consent state who recorded her boss on the phone pretty much engaging in phone sex and a proposition for pay to play job rewards. It violated state law and employer rules. She was not in trouble with the law or her employer for taping him. He was escorted from the building by security.

I think it depends on a lot of factors.

[lazaret]

I am not aware of any statute in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar where the subject of a recording exclusively invalidates the two-party requirement.

I imagine such a provision, were it to exist, would be subject to an immediate constitutional challenge as to a due process violation. If anything you ever said that could conceivably be recorded could be admitted as an authenticated recording due solely to the subject matter as interpreted by someone else, that would be a very clear due process violation.

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

I did not say that the person doing the recording gets to determine the expectation of privacy.

I said that in some states the statute on such recordings provides for an exception in certain circumstances if the person has reason to believe illegal activity is going to be discussed. In other states, the exception is not in the statute but, but the decision to prosecute might take that into consideration. I’m not sure whether that exception applies in the state of NJ.

Is this assertion based on any actual statute in any state that you can cite? Or is it based on @hut-ho78’s claim in a previous thread (which to my knowledge did not cite any such statute or exception)? Even the police have to get a warrant to record people who they suspect are plotting crimes. Are you and HH suggesting that citizen vigilantes can just up and decide to break wiretapping laws if they suspect someone else is up to no good? Please cite your sources.

ETA, you do realize you are arguing with a legal professional there, dontcha? [edited to add an apostrophe and the letter s to denote attribution).

My example was a person in a two party consent state who recorded her boss on the phone pretty much engaging in phone sex and a proposition for pay to play job rewards. It violated state law and employer rules. She was not in trouble with the law or her employer for taping him. He was escorted from the building by security.

I think it depends on a lot of factors.

You’re conflating different things again. My Cousin is the head of HR for a global bank. They routinely get cases like this. It’s not pursued criminally. They get fired on the spot and get escorted out. It is not a criminal trial situation.

[hut-ho78]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

I did not say that the person doing the recording gets to determine the expectation of privacy.

I said that in some states the statute on such recordings provides for an exception in certain circumstances if the person has reason to believe illegal activity is going to be discussed. In other states, the exception is not in the statute but, but the decision to prosecute might take that into consideration. I’m not sure whether that exception applies in the state of NJ.

Is this assertion based on any actual statute in any state that you can cite? Or is it based on @hut-ho78’s claim in a previous thread (which to my knowledge did not cite any such statute or exception)? Even the police have to get a warrant to record people who they suspect are plotting crimes. Are you and HH suggesting that citizen vigilantes can just up and decide to break wiretapping laws if they suspect someone else is up to no good? Please cite your sources.

ETA, you do realize you are arguing with a legal professional there, dontcha? [edited to add an apostrophe and the letter s to denote attribution).

My example was a person in a two party consent state who recorded her boss on the phone pretty much engaging in phone sex and a proposition for pay to play job rewards. It violated state law and employer rules. She was not in trouble with the law or her employer for taping him. He was escorted from the building by security.

I think it depends on a lot of factors.

You’re conflating different things again. My Cousin is the head of HR for a global bank. They routinely get cases like this. It’s not pursued criminally. They get fired on the spot and get escorted out. It is not a criminal trial situation.

But then the fired person can sue for wrongful termination in civil court. The proof? An illegal recording. I don’t think the recording could be used in a criminal trial but apparently it might in a civil trial.

My question is if a recoding is used in a civil trial does that make it clean to use in a criminal trial?

[erinmeri]

@hut-ho78

My example was a person in a two party consent state who recorded her boss on the phone pretty much engaging in phone sex and a proposition for pay to play job rewards. It violated state law and employer rules. She was not in trouble with the law or her employer for taping him. He was escorted from the building by security.

I think it depends on a lot of factors.

Okay, so completely anecdotal and not involving law enforcement. His employer fired him, as well they should have. That said - just because she was not charged or prosecuted does not mean she did not violate any laws. But you understand that, right?

[lazaret]

And if someone were to bring civil charges and wish to use that recording as evidence as to the truth of the matter, the recording isn’t the evidence - the person’s testimony who witnessed the conversation is the evidence.

Let’s say the boss sued for wrongful termination. The defense from the company is that the employee violated company rules and was terminated for same. Other employees witnessed the behavior that violated the rules. Company has proof that the employee knew the rules and knowingly violated them. The recording doesn’t matter at all (whether it’s legal, illegal, or doesn’t even exist) because a person exists who can testify to the action.

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

I did not say that the person doing the recording gets to determine the expectation of privacy.

I said that in some states the statute on such recordings provides for an exception in certain circumstances if the person has reason to believe illegal activity is going to be discussed. In other states, the exception is not in the statute but, but the decision to prosecute might take that into consideration. I’m not sure whether that exception applies in the state of NJ.

Is this assertion based on any actual statute in any state that you can cite? Or is it based on @hut-ho78’s claim in a previous thread (which to my knowledge did not cite any such statute or exception)? Even the police have to get a warrant to record people who they suspect are plotting crimes. Are you and HH suggesting that citizen vigilantes can just up and decide to break wiretapping laws if they suspect someone else is up to no good? Please cite your sources.

ETA, you do realize you are arguing with a legal professional there, dontcha? [edited to add an apostrophe and the letter s to denote attribution).

My example was a person in a two party consent state who recorded her boss on the phone pretty much engaging in phone sex and a proposition for pay to play job rewards. It violated state law and employer rules. She was not in trouble with the law or her employer for taping him. He was escorted from the building by security.

I think it depends on a lot of factors.

You’re conflating different things again. My Cousin is the head of HR for a global bank. They routinely get cases like this. It’s not pursued criminally. They get fired on the spot and get escorted out. It is not a criminal trial situation.

But then the fired person can sue for wrongful termination in civil court. The proof? An illegal recording. I don’t think the recording could be used in a criminal trial but apparently it might in a civil trial.

My question is if a recoding is used in a civil trial does that make it clean to use in a criminal trial?

The employer is not making the recording in the first place so who did?

Who puts it into evidence? A judge would determine any motion to quash. You make no sense.

[erinmeri]

@lazaret

I am not aware of any statute in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar where the subject of a recording exclusively invalidates the two-party requirement.

I imagine such a provision, were it to exist, would be subject to an immediate constitutional challenge as to a due process violation. If anything you ever said that could conceivably be recorded could be admitted as an authenticated recording due solely to the subject matter as interpreted by someone else, that would be a very clear due process violation.

Thank you, that makes a whole lot of sense to me! I appreciate your thoughtful and educational replies here!!

[Knights_Mom]

@lazaret

And if someone were to bring civil charges and wish to use that recording as evidence as to the truth of the matter, the recording isn’t the evidence - the person’s testimony who witnessed the conversation is the evidence.

Let’s say the boss sued for wrongful termination. The defense from the company is that the employee violated company rules and was terminated for same. Other employees witnessed the behavior that violated the rules. Company has proof that the employee knew the rules and knowingly violated them. The recording doesn’t matter at all (whether it’s legal, illegal, or doesn’t even exist) because a person exists who can testify to the action.

Yes. In one case my cousin told me about the employee was in a glass walled office and routinely felt the need to pet the pony. Numerous passing employees would see it. It was a repeated behavior.

BTW the employee said that no where in the employee handbook was it stated that there can be no pony petting at work.

[eggbutt]

Back to IM’s firecracker yesterday. I don’t believe RC has settled anything with anyone nor has anyone representing her. I can’t find any documentation or filing of any settlement with Lauren Shay Kanarek. Has anyone seen any filings that I missed?

[lazaret]

I routinely wonder, in the case that there are oddly specific rules announced, what exactly someone did to result in that rule.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

OK, but would you characterize posters referring to me as “clueless” and being intentionally condescending as engaging in “shit talking”, as you characterized IMs posts?

I already characterized it for you. Please re-read my post rather than demand I reply to the same question, re-worded.

(This behavior is, in fact, something cited in my post. It’s not a good look and might contribute to why you find yourself on the receiving end of unwanted attention. Had you read my post, you’d understand that.)

[Knights_Mom]

@lazaret

I routinely wonder what, in the case that there are oddly specific rules announced, what exactly someone did to result in that rule.

Like on a container of rat poison that is marked “Do Not Ingest”? LOL

[hut-ho78]

@lazaret

And if someone were to bring civil charges and wish to use that recording as evidence as to the truth of the matter, the recording isn’t the evidence - the person’s testimony who witnessed the conversation is the evidence.

Let’s say the boss sued for wrongful termination. The defense from the company is that the employee violated company rules and was terminated for same. Other employees witnessed the behavior that violated the rules. Company has proof that the employee knew the rules and knowingly violated them. The recording doesn’t matter at all (whether it’s legal, illegal, or doesn’t even exist) because a person exists who can testify to the action.

Oh no. What if SM likes the guy that was fired and doesn’t like the person who recorded him?

[erinmeri]

@lazaret

I routinely wonder, in the case that there are oddly specific rules announced, what exactly someone did to result in that rule.

I don’t want to know! Some things shouldn’t have to be spelled out, but people do some really wackadoodle things…

Edited to correct should to shouldn’t, and an errant o. Need glasses.

[Knights_Mom]

Do Not Dress As A Midnight Ninja To Spy