Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 28 of 28
  1. #26
    Veteran David Bowie's Avatar
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Post Count
    1,092
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Nope, not at all. The court doesn't need anything because the tapes, even if 100% authentic, are inadmissible in court. Since Mel wasn't aware that he was being recorded, they cannot be used for evidence because it would violate California law which states that both parties have to be aware that the conversation is being recorded.

    Mel could have admitted to any crime he committed and the courts would have to throw the tapes out.
    I believe that that's true unless one believes that a felony is being commited. And since knocking someone's teeth in is a felony, then the tapes are admissible.

  2. #27
    Kooler than Jesus Nathan Explosion's Avatar
    Post Count
    2,994
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    I believe that that's true unless one believes that a felony is being commited. And since knocking someone's teeth in is a felony, then the tapes are admissible.
    Nope.

    California Wiretapping Law

    California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

    If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual cir stances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.

    If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

    Consult The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's Can We Tape?: California for more information on California wiretapping law.
    http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law

    Not only are the recording not admissible in court, but Mel can turn around and sue her for damages to his image by recording these tapes and the subsequent leak.

    This next link is a little broader with states but basically says that same thing, don't record private conversations without the permission of all parties.

    http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-conversations

  3. #28
    Believe. Fabbs's Avatar
    Post Count
    15,577
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    OkSkunka gets *only* 750K and to live in the house Mel bought her.
    Great money for most of us but still a far cry from what she tried to extort from Mel.

    She could have settled for 15 million 2 years ago but thought she could scam more.

    I'm sure Mel regrets more then words can say going the Russian Mail Order bride route for a piece.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •