Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

Expand Messages
  • Dawn Ek
    Arbonne is the company I work for. I needed the advice I asked for for personal reasons. Don t get too worried. Maybe you should take off the legal support
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Arbonne is the company I work for. I needed the advice I asked for for
      personal reasons. Don't get too worried. Maybe you should take off the
      legal support services".?



      Dawn Ek
      Arbonne Consultant
      ID 16607737
      dawnek@...
      We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
      its width and depth... - Evan Esar

      -------Original Message-------

      From: Vicki Siedow
      Date: 7/2/2007 1:24:01 AM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

      Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
      investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? People,
      please check who you're working with here.

      Vicki Siedow
      Siedow & Associates Investigations
      & Legal Support Services
      2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
      La Crescenta, CA 91214
      Los Angeles County
      CA PI License # 22852
      800.448.6431 toll free
      818.242.0130 local
      818.688.3295 fax
      <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
      <mailto:Siedow@...> Siedow@...
      Member NCISS, IWWA

      Need economical legal help?
      Concerned about Identity Theft?
      Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.

      _____

      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Dawn Ek
      Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 1:31 PM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

      That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response!
      Take Care,

      Dawn Ek
      Arbonne Consultant
      507.280.0579
      507.421.0730
      ID 16607737
      dawnek@rapidwebllp. <mailto:dawnek%40rapidwebllp.com> com
      We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
      its width and depth... - Evan Esar

      -------Original Message-------

      From: david jones
      Date: 7/1/2007 11:04:59 AM
      To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

      It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a
      transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation
      and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them
      as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the
      statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence
      providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the
      up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded,
      and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper
      guidance. Hope that helps.

      Best Regards,

      Steve

      dawnek71 <DawnEk@rapidwebllp. <mailto:DawnEk%40rapidwebllp.com> com> wrote:
      Is it legal and adminisable in
      court to use a digital voice recorder in
      Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
      TIA,
      Dawn

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      Betteye - I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Betteye -


        I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it
        is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney before
        even thinking of recording in Michigan. Although I am not an attorney,
        that is not how I read the law.


        The statute below states that a private conversation legally cannot be
        overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal
        eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a
        fine of up to $2,000.
        In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably
        should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony
        punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.
        Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages
        also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.
        The exact statute reads:
        750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation. Sec. 539c.
        Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation
        and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without
        the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or
        procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a
        felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years
        or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
        Even parents have limitations -
        Under the Michigan statute, a parent may not vicariously consent to a
        recording for a minor child. Williams v. Williams, 603 N.W. 2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App.
        1999).
        It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private
        place without the person's consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private
        place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or
        surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws §
        750.539a.
        And then you have at least one contrary court decision:
        The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only
        to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an
        interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record
        that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray,
        324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
        Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings.

        Sincerely yours,
        Sue
        ________________________
        Sue Sarkis
        Sarkis Detective Agency

        (est. 1976)
        PI 6564
        _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

        1346 Ethel Street
        Glendale, CA 91207-1826
        818-242-2505
        818-242-9824 FAX

        "one Nation under God"

        If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
        a military veteran !



        ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bob Hrodey
        ... Okay, here are TWO excellent resources that will give you some GUIDANCE. You still need to run your particular situation past a lawyer that you are paying
        Message 3 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Betteye, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 9:46 AM:
          > Please post the answer to the list. I was told that in Michigan it is legal to record a conversation.
          > The court upheld the recorded conversation. I don't know about phone recordings? I consider this the grey area. I have the understanding that you can record a phone conversation if you inform all parties that they are being recorded. Please tell how we could do a search to determine the legality of recordings.
          >
          > I know a disbarred circuit court judge. I will try to locate her now be back with more on this issue.
          >
          > thanks
          > Betteye

          Okay, here are TWO excellent resources that will give you some
          GUIDANCE. You still need to run your particular situation past a lawyer
          that you are paying to get a solid legal opinion. This area of the law
          is in a constant state of change as new technologies emerge and as PI's,
          private citizens, news reporters, police, etc. do new and incredibly
          stupid things with it.

          http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

          http://www.poynter.org/resource_center/

          And, Bettye, you're kidding us about getting information from a
          disbarred judge, right? LOL!


          --
          Enjoy,

          Bob
          _______________________________________________________________________
          Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
          Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
          Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
          Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
          e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
          Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
        • Jim Parker
          Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on
          Message 4 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            <<<< Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL
            recordings. >>>>


            Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on the
            surface to be an all party state, but case law has decreed otherwise.

            In order to make sense of the statute, you must first read how Michigan
            defines "eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping"

            750 §539a(2))

            (2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
            transmit any part of the PRIVATE DISCOURSE OF OTHERS without the permission
            of all persons engaged in the discourse. [emphasis added]

            The key phrase in there is "private discourse of others"

            Michigan courts have held that any conversation you are a party to is not a
            conversation "of others" and can therefore be recorded.

            If, however, you were listening (and/or recording) the conversation on an
            extension phone, but were not a party to the actual conversation, even if
            one of the parties knew of the recording, that would violate the statute.

            In other words, parties can record their OWN conversations, but if a third
            party records it or is involved in the recording of it, it's illegal.

            I believe you'll find the relevant case law in: Sullivan v Gray, 324 N.W.2d
            58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), which concludes:

            "We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes
            participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the
            subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute
            contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not
            otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on."

            It's not a particularly well written law.

            Jim



            -----Original Message-----
            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
            On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
            Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:14 PM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

            Betteye -


            I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it

            is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney
            before
            even thinking of recording in Michigan. Although I am not an attorney,
            that is not how I read the law.


            The statute below states that a private conversation legally cannot be
            overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal
            eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two
            years and a
            fine of up to $2,000.
            In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably

            should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a
            felony
            punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.
            Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages

            also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.
            The exact statute reads:
            750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation. Sec. 539c.
            Any person who is present or who is not present during a private
            conversation
            and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without
            the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or
            procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is
            guilty of a
            felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2
            years
            or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
            Even parents have limitations -
            Under the Michigan statute, a parent may not vicariously consent to a
            recording for a minor child. Williams v. Williams, 603 N.W. 2d 114 (Mich.
            Ct. App.
            1999).
            It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private
            place without the person's consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private
            place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion
            or
            surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws
            §
            750.539a.
            And then you have at least one contrary court decision:
            The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only

            to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an
            interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to
            record
            that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray,

            324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
            Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings.

            Sincerely yours,
            Sue
            ________________________
            Sue Sarkis
            Sarkis Detective Agency

            (est. 1976)
            PI 6564
            _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/ <http://www.sarkispi.com/> )

            1346 Ethel Street
            Glendale, CA 91207-1826
            818-242-2505
            818-242-9824 FAX

            "one Nation under God"

            If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
            a military veteran !

            ************************************** See what's free at
            http://www.aol.com <http://www.aol.com>

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jim Parker
            Is there any
            Message 5 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              <<<< what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
              investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? >>>>


              Is there any particular reason why they shouldn't? I thought one of the
              purposes of this list was to give advice?

              Jim



              -----Original Message-----
              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
              On Behalf Of Vicki Siedow
              Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:23 AM
              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

              Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
              investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? People,
              please check who you're working with here.

              Vicki Siedow
              Siedow & Associates Investigations
              & Legal Support Services
              2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
              La Crescenta, CA 91214
              Los Angeles County
              CA PI License # 22852
              800.448.6431 toll free
              818.242.0130 local
              818.688.3295 fax
              <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/ <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> >
              http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com <http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com>
              <mailto:Siedow@... <mailto:Siedow%40LawAndOrder.com> >
              Siedow@... <mailto:Siedow%40LawAndOrder.com>
              Member NCISS, IWWA

              Need economical legal help?
              Concerned about Identity Theft?
              Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.

              _____

              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
              [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
              On Behalf Of Dawn Ek
              Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 1:31 PM
              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

              That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response!
              Take Care,

              Dawn Ek
              Arbonne Consultant
              507.280.0579
              507.421.0730
              ID 16607737
              dawnek@rapidwebllp. <mailto:dawnek%40rapidwebllp.com> com
              We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
              its width and depth... - Evan Esar

              -------Original Message-------

              From: david jones
              Date: 7/1/2007 11:04:59 AM
              To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

              It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a
              transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation
              and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them
              as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the
              statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence
              providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the
              up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded,
              and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper
              guidance. Hope that helps.

              Best Regards,

              Steve

              dawnek71 <DawnEk@rapidwebllp. <mailto:DawnEk%40rapidwebllp.com> com> wrote:
              Is it legal and adminisable in
              court to use a digital voice recorder in
              Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
              TIA,
              Dawn

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jim Parker
              Although you ve received responses ranging from excellent to the
              Message 6 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                <<<< Is it legal and adminisable in court to use a digital voice recorder
                in Minnesota. >>>>


                Although you've received responses ranging from excellent to the truly
                preposterous, the correct answer is: "it depends."

                Your inquiry begs more questions than it does answers. Everything would
                depend on exactly how you planned on using the recording device, who would
                be aware of the recording and a variety of other factors.

                With the little you have provided, it would be impossible for anyone to give
                you a "yes" or "no" answer.

                Jim



                -----Original Message-----
                From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                On Behalf Of dawnek71
                Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 12:31 AM
                To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                TIA,
                Dawn
              • suesarkis@aol.com
                Jim, Betteye and all - The question is not about court opinion, it is about published law. My answer does not dispute the fact that some courts have handed
                Message 7 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim, Betteye and all -

                  The question is not about court opinion, it is about published law. My
                  answer does not dispute the fact that some courts have handed down opinions that
                  such activity is permissible, but the published law continues to state that the
                  activity is illegal - this has not changed in spite of what some state
                  courts may have said.

                  The comments about judicial opinion cloud the original question and serve
                  little more than confusing information. In contrast, I stuck with the original
                  question and I wholeheartedly stand by my NON-LAWYER answer. The published
                  law in Michigan deems this activity "illegal".

                  It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct.
                  App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not
                  representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE
                  THE WORDING OF THE LAW and obviously the lawmakers have had plenty of time
                  since 1982 to change the law had they agreed.

                  The state Supreme Court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a
                  conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants' expectations
                  of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding
                  inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that
                  the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party
                  may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all
                  parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999).

                  Although Jim pointed out (as did I) decisions that appear to support the
                  notion that one can, in some instances, record conversations, and while some
                  courts have obviously conflicted in their opinions as to the permissiveness of
                  the law, Betteye's question was related to what the law “says”. Courts do not
                  always support the letter of the law which often leads to statutory changes,
                  but this has not happened as of yet.
                  As it currently stands the law is still clear that one cannot record a
                  conversation in the State of Michigan, even if he is a consenting party, when
                  other parties to the conversation have not given consent.

                  I maintain that the definition of “eavesdropping” extends to recording
                  conversations to which you are a part based on the Supreme Court ruling.

                  “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
                  transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all
                  persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other
                  provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning
                  interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications
                  common carriers.”

                  Ambiguity abounds in Michigan !!


                  Sincerely yours,
                  Sue
                  ________________________
                  Sue Sarkis
                  Sarkis Detective Agency

                  (est. 1976)
                  PI 6564
                  _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                  1346 Ethel Street
                  Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                  818-242-2505
                  818-242-9824 FAX

                  "one Nation under God"

                  If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                  a military veteran !



                  ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Jim Parker
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    <<<< It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW >>>>

                    And no one would expect it to. It's not the court's job to change the wording of the law, it's the court's job to INTERPRET the wording of the law.

                    As it is, in Sullivan v. Gray, the appeals court noted that:

                    "We believe the statutory language, on its face, UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXCLUDES PARTICIPANT RECORDING from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others".

                    Even in the case you mention, Dickerson v. Raphael, the court noted that Dickenson's daughter MAY HAVE BEEN WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO RECORD THE CONVERSATION HERSELF, but it was the involvement of a third party (Sally Jessy Raphael's sound technician) making the actual recording that violated the statute.

                    You'll note that that's precisely what I said in my earlier response (see my previous post below).

                    So your statement of " Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings." is entirely incorrect.

                    Jim


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Parker
                    Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:33 PM
                    To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                    <<<< Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL
                    recordings. >>>>


                    Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on the
                    surface to be an all party state, but case law has decreed otherwise.

                    In order to make sense of the statute, you must first read how Michigan
                    defines "eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping"

                    750 §539a(2))

                    (2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
                    transmit any part of the PRIVATE DISCOURSE OF OTHERS without the permission
                    of all persons engaged in the discourse. [emphasis added]

                    The key phrase in there is "private discourse of others"

                    Michigan courts have held that any conversation you are a party to is not a
                    conversation "of others" and can therefore be recorded.

                    If, however, you were listening (and/or recording) the conversation on an
                    extension phone, but were not a party to the actual conversation, even if
                    one of the parties knew of the recording, that would violate the statute.

                    In other words, parties can record their OWN conversations, but if a third
                    party records it or is involved in the recording of it, it's illegal.

                    I believe you'll find the relevant case law in: Sullivan v Gray, 324 N.W.2d
                    58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), which concludes:

                    "We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes
                    participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the
                    subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute
                    contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not
                    otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on."

                    It's not a particularly well written law.

                    Jim
                  • Bob Hrodey
                    ... Not to mention the fact that case law controls, not the statutory law. The law is a living thing and constantly evolves by case law. If you doubt it, try
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 1:36 PM:
                      > <<<< It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW >>>>
                      >
                      > And no one would expect it to. It's not the court's job to change the wording of the law, it's the court's job to INTERPRET the wording of the law.
                      >
                      > As it is, in Sullivan v. Gray, the appeals court noted that:
                      >
                      > "We believe the statutory language, on its face, UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXCLUDES PARTICIPANT RECORDING from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others".
                      >
                      > Even in the case you mention, Dickerson v. Raphael, the court noted that Dickenson's daughter MAY HAVE BEEN WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO RECORD THE CONVERSATION HERSELF, but it was the involvement of a third party (Sally Jessy Raphael's sound technician) making the actual recording that violated the statute.
                      >
                      > You'll note that that's precisely what I said in my earlier response (see my previous post below).
                      >
                      > So your statement of " Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings." is entirely incorrect.

                      Not to mention the fact that case law controls, not the statutory law.
                      The law is a living thing and constantly evolves by case law.

                      If you doubt it, try arguing a case in a court using outdated law and
                      watch the judge (if they catch you) hand you your head. I've seen it
                      happen to clients/friends who missed a cite while Sheperdizing a case.
                      It ain't pretty.

                      Granted, one Court's ruling (provided it's a trial court) does not set
                      precedent anywhere but that particular court. An appellate court,
                      however does set precedent in that district and the state supreme court
                      sets it for the state, etc. Again, these can be treacherous waters in
                      which to tread and your best bet is to pay for a legal opinion based
                      upon your factual situation. The only think black and white in the law
                      what's printed in the law books and that, as you know, is subject to
                      varying opinions depending on where in the state you are and at what
                      point in time.


                      --
                      Enjoy,

                      Bob
                      _______________________________________________________________________
                      Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                      Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                      Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                      Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                      e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
                      Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                    • ceecee lynn
                      I m not eavesdropping on anybody. I m sharing what I know about the law. I m a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No.
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I'm not eavesdropping on anybody. I'm sharing what I know about the law. I'm a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No. It's not. If you don't want me in here, I'll cancel out my subscription with you people and that's that. I don't need trouble makers making any legal problems for me when I only wanted to learn something. You people are very rude. Do you know that. And I certainly don't appreciate the idle threats of imprisonment, because I'll refer this site over to my local detective bureau for further investigations. I'm a snitch for the law. I support the law. Ok? My God. You people are nutty. Good bye. I don't need your abusive talk. Cindi.


                        ---------------------------------
                        TV dinner still cooling?
                        Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Bob Hrodey
                        ... Did I miss something? Don t seem to recall anyone really coming down all that hard on Cindi. Guess this is Darwin in Action -- Enjoy, Bob
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jul 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ceecee lynn, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 2:57 PM:
                          > I'm not eavesdropping on anybody. I'm sharing what I know about the law. I'm a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No. It's not. If you don't want me in here, I'll cancel out my subscription with you people and that's that. I don't need trouble makers making any legal problems for me when I only wanted to learn something. You people are very rude. Do you know that. And I certainly don't appreciate the idle threats of imprisonment, because I'll refer this site over to my local detective bureau for further investigations. I'm a snitch for the law. I support the law. Ok? My God. You people are nutty. Good bye. I don't need your abusive talk. Cindi.
                          >

                          Did I miss something? Don't seem to recall anyone really coming down
                          all that hard on Cindi.

                          Guess this is "Darwin in Action"<g>

                          --
                          Enjoy,

                          Bob
                          _______________________________________________________________________
                          Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                          Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                          Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                          Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                          e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
                          Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                        • Robert Bryan
                          Bob, Guess your right. I haven t seen anyone coming down that hard either. Oh well, thats life. Have a great 4th everyone, be safe & careful out there. Night
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jul 3, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bob,

                            Guess your right. I haven't seen anyone coming down that hard either. Oh well, thats life.

                            Have a great 4th everyone, be safe & careful out there.

                            Night Owl Investigations www.nightowlinvestigations.com

                            Robert Bryan
                            Owner/Investigator Night Owl Investigations
                            P.O. Box 19137
                            Panama City Beach, FL 32417
                            nightowl1@...
                            gulfcoastpi@... tel:
                            fax:
                            mobile: 850-522-8010
                            850-522-0704
                            850-527-0215




                            Want to always have my latest info? Want a signature like this?



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.