But can the fired employee successfully sue the person who violated that two party consent law in making the recording? Will the fact that the person doing the recording suspected, then documented, illegal activity being discussed shield them from prosecution tor having violated tro paety consent?
What a foolish question that has nothing to do with anything.
29 Likes
I thank you for your explanation.
I was making a point about SM, not the interpretation of the law.
1 Like
You can sue anybody for anything. How far it gets depends on how legitimate the court thinks your cause is.
However, you love to talk about proximate cause, and in this case, the proximate cause of the employee’s termination wasn’t the person recording him, it was that he was actually breaking the rules. Let’s say, though, that this person is well heeled and the recorder sent the recording to the terminated employee’s wife, who then divorced him. Sure, that person could bring suit for emotional damages and loss of consortium if they wanted to make someone’s life really annoying.
In NJ, if that recording was shared with anyone, then NJ statute lays out the specific circumstances and damages allocatable to that offense. Whether it is worth the cost to the terminated employee to personally bring suit, to use an ill placed pun, the jury is out. Not bringing suit doesn’t mean the person did nothing wrong. It means simply that proving they did or did not do wrong in the eyes of a court of law was not the action someone chose to take.
39 Likes
I suspect, but do not know, that the boss was using a company phone, in which case his right to privacy may not exist. Legal peeps, perhaps you know the answer to this.
4 Likes
You characterized it as “cringey” and perhaps not amusing. Definitely you did not characterize it as “shit-talking”.
So if IM refers to posters as “fools” you consider that “shit-talking”, but when posters refer to me as clueless, obtuse, suffering from reading comprehension problems, and generally condescend, you consider yourself above such “cringey” behavior, but don’t consider it “shit-talking” by others when directed at me.
No. The recording would be inadmissible as to the facts of the alleged crime as well as to what the person recording “heard” since they were not present.
For all they know a Teddy Ruxpin playing a tape of someone’s voice is what is on that tape. Unless you personally witnessed a conversation and can testify as to what someone personally said to you or in your presence, with respect to you, that conversation never happened.
31 Likes
You generally agree in your terms of employment that you have no right to privacy on any company provided device or network and that you agree that the company can monitor your activity by any means they deem necessary. Your acceptance of employment agrees to those terms.
26 Likes
I found this article on whistle blowing and illegal recordings.
Aww! I loved Teddy Ruxpin!
2 Likes
Whistleblowing has no bearing on proving the alleged activity. A recording might provide information, but it’s not evidence. I explained this above but also, Sarbanes-Oxley empowers the SEC to exercise specific enforcement rights against personnel who voluntarily participate in the activities the SEC regulates. It has zero bearing on what two private citizens can do with respect to litigation between themselves.
38 Likes
Wow, this is exhausting 
31 Likes
I’m not questioning the admissibility or inadmissibility of the recording in a trial over the acts committed by the person recorded.
I’m talking about the exposure of the person making the recording to criminal or civil penalties. I think in some states, such exposure depends on whether the person doing the recording had reason to suspect illegal acts would be discussed.
Charming. Arguing with a lawyer repeatedly who is attempting to explain the law to you with a great degree of patience.
Furthermore from your own article (did you read it???):
“No Law Provides Blanket Authorization to Record Workplace Conversations**
Though using workplace audio or video recordings to blow the whistle can be protected under some whistleblower protection laws, there are several countervailing issues that whistleblowers and their counsel should consider before using a recording to advance a whistleblower retaliation or whistleblower rewards claim.
First, the SEC will not use privileged information (e.g., a recording of a lawyer providing advice), and the SEC seeks to avoid receiving any privileged information because of the risk that it could taint an investigation. To the extent a whistleblower has a recording containing privileged information, the whistleblower and counsel should proceed very carefully and should consult state attorney ethics rules.
Second, an employee could face civil or criminal liability for making a surreptitious recording in a state in which two-party consent is required. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has issued a helpful state-by-state guide to taping phone calls and in-person conversations, which is available here.”
Please stop with the Google Law Degree. It’s not becoming.
[edited to try and italicize excerpt, to no avail. So I quoted it.]
34 Likes
So, looks like I missed some fun around here, darn it.
Since Jonathan Kanarek misquoted me (thank you @trubandloki for catching that) and has made other questionable statements, I’m not sure I believe that Ruth Cox has settled or handed over any money yet. There’s nothing on the website, so, who knows?
What I do know, is both Michael Barisone and Sweet Grass Farms included this language in their pleadings. SGF, in their original answer, way back in the dawn of the case, and Barisone, in his original, and amended answer.
If Ruth Cox entered into a settlement agreement, I am sure we will hear more, based on these docs.
19 Likes
I just wanted to add that I included the paragraph about recording privileged conversations because LK and RG are alleged to have recorded Lauren’s attorney as well as Barisone’s. I know this is the SEC, but it seemed at least tangentially relevant.
But my main point, @hut-ho78, was your own article refutes what you and @CurrentlyHorseless are trying to state. See the paragraph about criminal and civil liability.
Edited a typo. Updated: TWO!!
19 Likes
I am just catching up. RC gave her gun for “safekeeping” to a man that was noticeably on his way to a breakdown due to the stress of the conflict, among other things. LK deserved a settlement for RC’s illegal actions in bringing the gun into NJ and poor decision handing it to MB. For RC’s part in this tragedy the amount is appropriate, IMO. I guess it is all relative but I don’t consider that amount, while not a big payout, chump change( must be some very wealthy people here).
2 Likes
Yeah, as mention in my post way above that got buried in CH’s repetitive posts, I haven’t been able to find anything either.
Thank you for the screenprints @ekat!
10 Likes
Pedantic is a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own Google expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter. If the shoe fits.
22 Likes
