Replies

I must correct myself, it appears to be illegal (though I still believe the face to face issue is research worthy). My first glance makes it VERY significant that she was recording for herself and not for the enquirer or law enforcement. Something the enquirer reporter made pains to point out. She recorded on her own. (there may be a reporter exception) For Rush's purposed the tapes, if they even exist, are inadmissible and irrelevant. Will post additional statute in a moment:

934.06 Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications; exception.--Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The prohibition of use as evidence provided in this section does not apply in cases of prosecution for criminal interception in violation of the provisions of this chapter.

History.--s. 6, ch. 69-17; s. 4, ch. 89-269.

ok the statute in fl regarding recordings of oral communications:

Its long so I edited to just the prohibition and the penalties:

934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.--

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:

(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:

1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or

2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;

(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).

++++EDITED SKIP TO PENALTY PORTION++++

(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41.

(b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) and is not for any tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under paragraph (a) was committed is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then:

1. If the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in subparagraph (2)(h)7., the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

2. If the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.--s. 3, ch. 69-17; s. 1163, ch. 71-136; ss. 2, 3, ch. 74-249; s. 249, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 78-376; s. 187, ch. 79-164; s. 2, ch. 80-27; s. 1, ch. 87-301; s. 2, ch. 88-184; s. 2, ch. 89-269; s. 1582, ch. 97-102; s. 18, ch. 99-168; ss. 7, 9, ch. 2000-369; s. 2, ch. 2002-72.

Rush has a two year statute of limitation on a Civil suit for the audio recordings IF THEY INVOLVE HIM. For all we know there are no audio tapes of him.

Either way any "secretive" tapes she made are by statute INADMISSIBLE.

It is starting to look like a non story.

Seems like the limbaugh letter will have a new distribution system.

Good research.

Without a judge signed court ordered warrant everyone who touches the illegally made tape is automatically a criminal felon.

The Enquirer and housekeeper and prosecutor have all "confessed" publicly to having had possession of an illegally made audiotape.

The housekeeper and the National Enquirer are further co-conspirators in a for-profit criminal enterprise.

Conspiracy to commit a felony for openers and it expands from there.

Between that evidence and Attorney Black they are all in deep gooey stuff.

And for all those FReepers her on this thread saying Rush needs no attorney and should speak up 100% :

I hope to make some big bucks facing you in court one day.

Don't count on these low bid state prosecutors having any political futures.

I am constantly amazed by the lack of legal horsesense of so many attorneys.

It is always smart to open the actual statutes and read them before committing suicide.

All cases brought involving "fruit of the poisoned tree" evidence are doomed to failure.

A nutty prosecutor that attempts such BS may hang himself/herself within a few years.

Well, somebody always has to be the loser in a horserace.

Strict scutiny applies in CT.

"WILL" be guilty of a Class D criminal felony offense.

Not "MAY" be guilty......