Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dianna; MeeknMing
Under existing Florida statutes any audiotapes the woman made are 100% illegal and a criminal felony.

Tape possession, listening, duplication, transferring by even a Florida state prosecutor is 100% illegal and is tainted and unusable in any court hearing or trial and subjects the Prosecutor to criminal and civil actions.

Tappe possession, listening, duplication, transferring by the National Enquirer is 100% illegal and subjects the Enquirer to criminal and civil actions.

In Connecticut this is a Class D criminal felony with a sentence of 5 years in prison.

Florida is a 2-party taping state; requires the "tapee" to give 100% permission before stealth tape recording.

CT is a 1-party state; you can tape anyone except a practicing attorney, physician, or clergyman on the phone or in person without the "tapee's" permission.

BIG BUTT :

(Example)

An Connecticut attorney put a voice-activated audio tape recoerder under the bed in the Master Bedroom.

Mommy was suspected of having an affair when Daddy was at work.

Daddy caught Mommy with the audiotape.

Daddy was a "3rd-Party" and therfore commited a Class D criminal felony.

Daddy is now in a CT state prison doing hard time.

The housekeeper, Prosecutor, and Enquirer can all be nailed on XHD criminal felony charges and also sued blind in civil lawsuits also.
Doubt my example?

GOOGLE :

State of CT -V- Wiretapping Class Action Federal Lawsuit

CT payed out 17 million $s, paid their defense attorney firms over 6 million $s more!

CT Gov Grasso did not run again; CT HP Commissioner fired; 100s of careers ruined.

Mess with me and it will cost you.

Bigtime

If you think those leftie attorneys in FL 2000 were pitbulls you ain't seen nuthin' yet
139 posted on 10/09/2003 9:07:02 PM PDT by autoresponder (I heard Wolf Blitzer on CNN using our exact words tonight; media showprep at FreeRepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: autoresponder
I believe in FL you can tape face to face conversations. They did it to Jeb Bush at an invitation only meeting to discuss how they were going to deal with two absurd constitutional amendments that passed. (bullet train and mandatory class sizes)
146 posted on 10/09/2003 9:11:12 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]

To: autoresponder
Under existing Florida statutes any audiotapes the woman made are 100% illegal and a criminal felony.

Tape possession, listening, duplication, transferring by even a Florida state prosecutor is 100% illegal and is tainted and unusable in any court hearing or trial and subjects the Prosecutor to criminal and civil actions.

Not to question your accounting of the law but those DemoRat operatives who "happened" to tape a conference call between Newt Gingrich and his lawyers got off with a $500 fine. Laws are for other people.

148 posted on 10/09/2003 9:15:31 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]

To: autoresponder; All
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.
162 posted on 10/09/2003 9:24:07 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]

To: autoresponder

325 posted on 10/10/2003 3:36:12 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Check out the Texas Chicken D 'RATS!: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/keyword/Redistricting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson