Recording Conversations

[Smith]

This forum is about law and contracts right??

Put a disclaimer on the car visible and in small print ..They agree to the recording by stopping the vehical etc.

If they do not like it too bad they entered a contract by exercising a condition of the contract.

Just like we are assumed to be US citizens by virtue of being born in our respected Republics ( states ),but we have to rebut everything they assume .

Make them play the same game .

[charlesa6]

[quote=Smith]

This forum is about law and contracts right??

Yes!!

Put a disclaimer on the car visible and in small print ..They agree to the recording by stopping the vehical etc.

O yea, you can do that, however, remember their motto: Brutality,excessive force etc. They can do anything to save their a$$, and yank everything you have in your possession or go to jail without any evidence except if you have a witness taping the scenery or your conversation with the public servant unknowingly,unintensionally, involuntarily against him which can be use as a admissible evidence from third party witness in the court of law, because you have a witness which give your case more teeth.

OR
You can exercise the Fourth Amendment protection right, to ensure the public servant is not violate your right by search and seizure.
Fourth Amendment apply: The public servant stops the individual while walking on the street without any reason.
2. Pull over for traffic violation, and the public servant search your trunk or inside your car.
3.Public servant enter your abode to place him or her under arrest.
4.Public servant enters your abode search for evidence.
5.Public servant confiscates individual property and places it under public servant control.

[RICKO]

Sorry for not following up on this last night but I just finished buying a home I and have been pretty busy. Guys I have to say well done. I really did not expect this much information to be thrown at this. Boy was I wrong. I think my best bet is to record the conversation without the the officer being aware of the conversation being taped for now until I find out more info on legal aspect of it. To be honest with you I don't even know where to begin. I'll figure it out.

[Siren]

Originally Posted by RICKO

Then I started to think about attaching a tape recorder somewhere(visible or not that is up for debate)in the car so when the police officer gets donut muscles you can get him on tape. Now the big question here is do you have to let him or her know that they are being recorded? Would they yank you out of your vehicle? Will they attempt to search your vehicle? Now I'm not saying I was the first to come up with this but it's something to talk about.

Well, I can't speak for your state, but in my state (Oregon) it is legal to tape anything, including phone conversations, if just ONE of the parties knows that the conversation is being recorded. That is I'm sure to protect the "big boys," but it can work to our advantage as well.

So in my state, that means if I know that I am recording a conversation that I am having with any other person, it's legal and admissible in court.

You can find out what your state regulations are in this respect. Don't know where to ask, though, maybe a big media person like, in my state, Lars Larson... Or a local attorney in your state, defense attorney's would doubtless know...

Also, you need to download the suijuris administrator's thread on UCC 1-207 (which became 1-308). If you write behind your signature "without prejudice," or "all rights reserved," I believe they cannot ticket you, since you are announcing that you are reserving all your common law and constitutional rights.

These rights are generally unknown by the vast majority of the public (Humm. WHY are they not taught in public schools? Is it a conflict of interest?) because unlike the citizens who freed this great country, we do not know the very basic of our rights; otherwise, no citizen would put up with the intimidation and tyranny which is beginning to be commonplace in our erstwhile free country.

Please go to google.com and click on the blue video link, then do a search for Hollywood Producer Aaron Russo's latest movie, "America: Freedom to Fascism." Then go away for a long time while the program "buffers" else you will get extremely frustrated. Also search for Alex Jones' latest documentary," TerrorStorm," and pull up the Deluxe High Quality version... You can also order the dvd's from their respective websites, Aaron's is "www.freedomtofascism.com" and Alex has two websites: "www.infowars.com," and "www.prisonplanet.com."

Cheers!

-- Siren

[RICKO]

Thanks Siren, this is very good information!

[mrg]

As far as I know, if the event is taking place in a public, recording is ok, as I believe that would be protected right under Article I of the "Articles in addition to..."

"Police," however will do whatever they feel like doing, whenever they feel like doing it, up to and including murder.

Years ago, in Texas, a popular bumper sticker read something to the effect of:

Will you insist upon your rites?

[RICKO]

I don't doubt they are capable of doing crazy acts. The thing is MRG, if there is anything that the military taught me it would mainly be not to underestimate ones actions EVER!!! So going into these situations we must be prepared to act a certain way not to give them a heads up on what you have in your arsenal. It's like you pulling out a gun and them pulling out a bigger and better gun. If you were to be patient, given the chance you can use your arsenal without giving them the chance to use theirs no matter what they have. Hope this makes some sense.

[ndusa]

Here some stuff that will help. RICKO, remember, these mostly apply to us, the people, not the public servants. Look at your FOIA/Records act and see if that offers them any protection. If not, then this may not apply to them.

While the U.S. federal law only requires one-party consent, many states have accepted different laws. In some states all parties must give their consent or at least be notified that the call is about to be recorded (with necessary opt-out option: if you don’t like them to record the call, you can ask them to stop recording). There also was a case law decision from many years ago (the 1950's) that went to the Supreme Court and affirmed that the federal law does not supersede state authority/statutes unless the call or the tap crosses state lines – that is why each state went ahead and established their own guideline/statute.

States Requiring One Party Notification
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
District Of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


States Requiring Two Party Notification
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Massachusetts
Maryland
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington

Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do so with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as evidence. Such recordings are subject to significant barriers to use as evidence. First, if made in violation of either federal or state law, the recordings will almost certainly be inadmissible. Second, even if lawfully recorded, the tapes will be exempt from the hearsay rule and will not, in most jurisdictions, be usable for impeachment. Anyone contemplating an evidentiary use of surreptitious recordings should consult with an attorney prior to making the recording.
AND

:Yes I do. *Caution* Your mileage may vary widely by state. My
experience is based on the laws of Tennessee and GA.

I have used tape recordings of my own phone calls in court. According
to FCC rules, only one party to the conversation (that's me) now must
to be aware of the recording. In other words, third party wiretapping
is still illegal but it is not illegal to record your own
conversations.

The recordings may be introduced as evidence but only under strictly
controlled conditions. The recordings must have been made available
for discovery in the pre-trial proceedings. It is advisable to have
written transcripts made of the important parts. The recordings can
only be used as rebuttal evidence. It is considered heresay (?!?) as
direct evidence. In other words, you CANNOT use a recording to prove
something was said. You CAN use it to prove that the person who said
it is now lying about what he said.

Tapes are subject to all the usual rules of evidence. The other side
will do all in its power to discredit the tapes. It is highly
advisable to set up a recording system with this in mind - a lawyer's
adivice is highly recommended. One of the big things you'll need to
do is to be able to prove the authenticity of the tapes and to prove
the time and dates of the recordings. What I did was after the call
was finished and with the tape still rolling, I'd dial the local time
and temp. number and get a time stamp or for really important calls,
I'd call the National Observatory number in DC. The DTMF would be
recorded and the charge would show up on the phone bill.

In summary, yes one can make very effective use of phone recordings
but some legal advice and planning is necessary. I'd imagine that an
ad-hoc recording of a conversation that started to get hot probably
would not withstand the challenge to its authenticity. And I'll
repeat again, get good legal advice in your state. I've heard that
some states have tried to restrict your right to record. It is my and
my attorney's opinion that federal preemption would apply but none of
us likely has enough money to prove the point.


John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems, Inc.

[ndusa]

I found this in Montana, PA and MT are in the same catagory, but MT has followed a case YOU MUST READ! Here:

Public employees in Montana do not have the same rights to privacy in employment and conduct of their responsibilities that employees in the private sector enjoy. 44 Mont. A.G. Op. 40 (1992), citing Redding v. Brady, 606 P.2d 1193 (Utah 1980).

[palani]

So after you turn the recorder on you drag out a stubby pencil and grab a piece of paper and ask the other party "do you mind if I record this conversation?" then proceed to take notes. The perception is the recording is written when in fact you are taping.