Yeah maybe, but I'm starting the question...which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did Cindy come from Casey or did Casey come from Cindy? Two peas in a pod.
Phone call with Cindy and phone call with Leonard
- Thread starter Hailiejade77
- Start date
Yeah maybe, but I'm starting the question...which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did Cindy come from Casey or did Casey come from Cindy? Two peas in a pod.
I have been a lurker for some time. my crazy state of Tennessee regarding a recorded phone call. Only one person has to be aware of the phone call being recorded. its sounds crazy to me
FSU_Girl
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes but she was calling someone in FL which has different laws.
fixingtoburst
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 0
I bet LE has the same recorded conversation. LOL.
She needs to check into laws in other states though if she's going to go interstate. If she's going to keep doing this, she should probably talk to a lawyer about it...before she finds herself in the position of needing to hire one.
agreed, there is that way of looking at it too. these are baffling people.
My guess would be tranquilizers.
SeriouslySearching
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 35,527
- Reaction score
- 247
It said that the stricter laws would be applied in such a situation. Florida AND California have clear cut laws which are much stricter so would be the laws which would prevail in a legal proceeding against this person. It is illegal since she called them while they were out of state and in states which have different laws.
Someone was asking about the legality of the TN girl's call to CA:
This is the federal law:
The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate (between different states) or international wireline calls. Interstate or international wireline conversations may not be recorded unless the use of the recording device is:
*preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
*preceded by verbal notification that is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
*accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a beep tone, that automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use.
Also, a recording device can only be used if it can be physically connected to and disconnected from the telephone line or if it can be switched on and off.
This is FL law:
Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.
Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.
A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
This is the federal law:
The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate (between different states) or international wireline calls. Interstate or international wireline conversations may not be recorded unless the use of the recording device is:
*preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
*preceded by verbal notification that is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
*accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a beep tone, that automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use.
Also, a recording device can only be used if it can be physically connected to and disconnected from the telephone line or if it can be switched on and off.
This is FL law:
Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.
Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.
A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
Leonard said that. I like the guy, but he said a lot of things, not many of which ever came through. That doesn't make any sense to me. I put it in the same category as, "Get her our of jail, get her a hot shower and she'll tell me where the baby is."
I like Myspacecaller too. She's young but she's got some natural talent. She does need to check into the law regarding what she's doing though...BEFORE she gets in trouble.
SeriouslySearching
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 35,527
- Reaction score
- 247
LOL I am afraid it is a bit too late for that! Even if she removed the calls from her myspace now...I think she is in a good deal of trouble should someone decide to pursue it, IMO.
She should have consulted advice BEFORE she did something like this.
LOL I am afraid it is a bit too late for that! Even if she removed the calls from her myspace now...I think she is in a good deal of trouble should someone decide to pursue it, IMO.
She should have consulted advice BEFORE she did something like this.
Especially since she had it on there as downloadable. Yikes! I hope she's smart enough to get it off there NOW! Gotta give her credit for trying though!
nancy botwin
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree, and I'm a (non-practicing) attorney. It's in the myspacer's interest to take the Cindy Anthony audio off her site.
Someone was asking about the legality of the TN girl's call to CA:
This is the federal law:
The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate (between different states) or international wireline calls. Interstate or international wireline conversations may not be recorded unless the use of the recording device is:
*preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
*preceded by verbal notification that is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
*accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a beep tone, that automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use.
Also, a recording device can only be used if it can be physically connected to and disconnected from the telephone line or if it can be switched on and off.
This is FL law:
Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.
Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.
A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
This is the federal law:
The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate (between different states) or international wireline calls. Interstate or international wireline conversations may not be recorded unless the use of the recording device is:
*preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
*preceded by verbal notification that is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
*accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a beep tone, that automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use.
Also, a recording device can only be used if it can be physically connected to and disconnected from the telephone line or if it can be switched on and off.
This is FL law:
Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.
Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.
A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
pregodego2
Inactive
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2008
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 2
IMO, this girl is being ridiculous. Her voice annoys me and she can't finish a sentence. She second guesses her own self too much when talking. I think this is a huge invasion of privacy. These people have already had to do interview after interview, they get hocked every minute of everyday they are out of their houses. Just leave them alone, they don't need random strangers doing this.
Hey TN sweetie, do you mind me calling and asking you some personal questions after someone tragicly goes missing in your family? Would you even want me calling and asking about details if..let's say...your grandfather passed away?
IMO, this is very immature and we already hear enough on the news. I would rather hear it from a professional than someone on myspace.
Hey TN sweetie, do you mind me calling and asking you some personal questions after someone tragicly goes missing in your family? Would you even want me calling and asking about details if..let's say...your grandfather passed away?
IMO, this is very immature and we already hear enough on the news. I would rather hear it from a professional than someone on myspace.
Maybe someone should email her that. I"m guessing she just checked her own rules and didn't check on interstate recording.
wanttohelp
http://thewaronwomen.org
I have to second that im afraid, a bit too annoying with all the "likes", and wow who does she think she is calling these people up. weird.
Bree0372
Prayers for Tripp ~ Team Boom
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,805
- Reaction score
- 16
That's good news! It was interesting to hear though. I had messaged her through MySpace and gave her the FCC laws that were quoted here.
Thinking_Out_Loud
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 0
It makes you wonder if she was reading the forum... It makes me wonder who all reads the forum. I would guess JB gets his best ideas here by posting some forum about reasonable doubt. That would be funny if he was really that lame.