One more thing the FCC makes rules and regulation and they can say one thing but it can not over turn the law. The law says we need consent. Remember "this call maybe recorded, this call will be recorded or this call is being recorded "is a form of a question.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

One more thing the FCC makes rules and regulation and they can say one thing but it can not over turn the law. The law says we need consent. Remember "this call maybe recorded, this call will be recorded or this call is being recorded "is a form of a question.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

I agree with both of your comments "Guest". We do need consent from the other person. Giving notification is not consent in federal law it is but in Florida state law its not. When you’re asking for consent your also giving notification.
If the person doesn’t give consent then the notification is no good and the recording can’t be done.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

I’m glad someone understands. I talk from experience. See I was sued for breaking the 2 consent Florida law. I gave notification of the recording by saying “This call will be recorded”. Make a long store short; I lost the case because Consent was not given by the other party.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

So, what you are telling me is that even though courts all across the land(yes, even in Florida) have upheld that such a notification satisfies the law's requirements, you somehow know better than the law?

Do me a favor--produce the actual portion of the Florida statute that states that notification is required to be followed by "yes". And when you cannot find it, that should tell you something. The actual wording of Florida's law says that all parties must give consent prior to the recording taking place. Case law has undoubtedly upheld that staying on the phone constitutes consent. Especially in this case---Ron says "this call is being recorded", and the other party did not say "I dont want to be recorded" or anything of the sort. As long as he said "I am recording this call" at the beginning of the call and not halfway through it, then he is within the law. It is that simple. If you lost your case in court, perhaps you should consider that the court and the law are not the same thing. You should also consider that you losing your case does not in any way mean that everyone else who has been in this boat has lost theirs.

Also, keep this in mind--the attorney's office who pushed this issue with Ron did NOT say "we are fighting this because Ron said he was recording the call but our employee never said 'ok, go ahead'...."--think about this. They claimed that he NEVER gave the notification. If the notification itself was not legal, they wouldnt be saying "he never notified us". They would be saying, "he didnt wait for her to say yes". Now, think hard about this one--this is an ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. Do you REALLY not realize that they know how to apply the law better than you do?

First, I didnt say that fed law superceeded Florida law, I stated that merely to address your claim that "civilians" have less rights than a business. And if you wish to only look at the Florida statute you will find that you are also wrong on that count. Florida law makes no restriction on an individual that it does not equally make on a business. So there is nothing that a business can do that an individual cannot.


See above, you are incorrect. Florida law backs me on this. Do the research.


This is not correct at all. In fact, here is a portion of the actual statute to show you this--

Pay close attention to that--did the word "verbal" appear anywhere in there? Did it say that a notification MUST be met with "ok" before the law is satisfied? No, it sure didnt. If you even had a case, you lost it because you didnt effectively argue the merits of your case, not because of the law. One could just as easily(and it has been done before) argue that by remaining on the phone after being told, and by choosing to continue the conversation, the person therefore knew they were being recorded, did not say ANYTHING to object, and was obviously willing to continue speaking, therefore it is REASONABLE to assume that they did not object to being recorded. Like I said, you didnt argue the merits of your case. Meanwhile, I went to school to study laws. I think I know what I am talking about here.

This is without a doubt a bunch of BS. I thought you researched this? Go read the Florids Statutes, particularly Statute 934. You will find that NO REFERENCE AT ALL is even in the law when it comes to businesses, NONE. The only entities mentioned are:

law enforcement
telephone or other communication service providers
911 services and other emergency services
individuals

There is NOT ONE STATEMENT made in the entire statute that addresses the rights of ANY OTHER BUSINESS with regards to intercepting phone calls. You know what this means? It means that they are held to the SAME standard as you. So much for all that research....


EXACTLY, and that is why Ron's opponent has no case here! Because she had the OBLIGATION to speak up if she did not wish to continue. She had the legal right to end it right there, and because she CHOSE not to, any attorney worth half a semester's tuition would be able to get that point across.



Wait a minute, stop right there. A minute ago, you just told us this:

We as civilians need verbal consent to record in a 2 party state.

And now, suddenly you change your mind, and say that the law does NOT make such a requirement? Let me get this right--you are perfectly happy to assume "verbal is needed" when the law doesnt say so, and you think thats acceptable. But you think at the same time that it is NOT acceptable to assume that continuing to participate equals acceptance? You need to grasp this--the laws are interpreted by our courts in many cases by using the "reasonable person" standard. If it is reasonable to assume that any reasonable person would object if they did not want to be recorded, then the court is well within its rights to rule that if she didnt want to be taped she should have said something when she had the chance. Remember, since I just showed you how businesses have NO MORE RIGHTS than you do....if I were wrong on this, then they would NOT be able to say "this call is being recorded" and get away with it. Go look on places like PACER sometime, you will see all the debt collectors that use that notification all the time and the law allows them to with no issues.

wow, there are not 15 2-party states, your research couldnt even get that one right.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

Maybe you should get and go back to law school. In Florida to be updated. Most of the things you said sound more like a 1 party consent law state. Me as a business owner and manager do have more rights when it’s come to recording conversations. I know where I stand in this. You don't.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

As to verbal consent. We still need that. I'll like for you to hold up in court by saying that we don't need verbal consent. that person may have not heard you when you said the notification or was away from the ear piece so their for continued talk with out knowledge of the recording or maybe their was to much noise in the background so that person didn't understand or hear you or simply the phone started to break up and the conversation was not to clear when the so called notification was given. So you see that's why we need the verbal consent. With the verbal consent their is no way they can claim any of the above mentioned reason they had no knowledge because of this ???. The meaning of consent is: to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield by verbal or writing. Not like you say "by remaining on the phone after being told, and by choosing to continue the conversation, the person therefore knew they were being recorded, did not say ANYTHING to object, and was obviously willing to continue speaking, therefore it is REASONABLE to assume that they did not object to being recorded." The law, court or judge can't assume like you said. Consent consent consent (verbal consent) is needed to record the phone conversation. Yes it’s true the word verbal is not mentioned that I know. The word consent is and again it means: to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield by verbal or writing.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

i would like to know which collector these guests work for as they spin this like a collector.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

Paul, the really long post was mine, guess I wasnt signed in....

Now, let's handle this mess.

Well, let's see here...I word-for-word quoted Florida statutes.....if you STILL think I was talking about some 1-party state, perhaps you should go look up the statutes I mentioned and quoted. Thanks for playing.

As for businesses, go look at that law. Point out where exactly in that statute it even mentions businesses and the rights they have when it comes to recording conversations. It simply is not in there. It's really funny that you seem to think you know so much, but when the actual law from Florida is laid in front of you, youre still trying to defend your sinking ship. Again, thanks for playing.

SHOW. ME. THE. LAW.

It is that simple. I already pointed this out to you. You can play make-believe all you wish, but the law says what it says....and it doesnt say what it doesnt say.

Where have you been? You claim you did all this research, and yet you didnt look into any case law to establish precedent in your own case? At this point, it's becoming pretty doubtful that you even ever had a case of your own. First it was "I personally went to court for this", and now your knowledge supposedly comes instead from "being a business owner and manager".

--which, in court, are all arguments that the other party can bring up to make their case. But we are talking about the matter of THE LAW. And as you are now even admitting, this law does NOT have such a requirement written into it. Period.

No, actually, it isnt. Consent does NOT automatically have to be either in writing or verbal. You threw that in to try to make your argument sound like it carried some weight. It doesnt.

Imagine a criminal sxual assault case in court. Imagine this--the defendant states that he slept with the "victim" and that she was a willing participant. He states that she consented to the act. The truth comes out that when he started trying to make out with her, she reciprocated, and she never tried to stop, get away, or refuse--and that nothing was at all forced upon her. DID SHE CONSENT? Did she put it in writing or verbalize it? DID SHE HAVE TO? I didnt think so.

You are again mixing up two different things here--court and law. And no amount of trying to change the meaning of words will help your case. Then again, dont take my word for it--here is a link to an attorney from the Pensacola, FL area. Look at what he says about those prerecorded disclosures that you claim dont satisfy the law:

floridacriminallawblog.com/2009/05/recording_telephone_conversati.html

Youre entirely convinced that I dont have a clue....how about a well-known, practicing attorney from Pensacola? Do you honestly think that you know the law better than he does?

See above....or, call that lawyer yourself if you still insist on keeping that chip on your shoulder. Either way, it's becoming quite obvious that you have no understanding of how the courts work. I should get paid to educate you this much.....good day.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

It’s obvious that you never had a case that deals with this type of issue. That’s why you talk with no experience. You can you show me so call statues, what other attorney’s say, rules and regulations, court and the law but when it all comes to play your all wrong. I only hope you never have a case in court like the discussion we are having. When you lose; think of me LOL in your mind. One more thing I don’t have show where in statues or law says anything; If you went to law school and even more if you’re an attorney you should to the research your self and you will see what I say has truth, meaning, and foundation. Also you should know there are statues that over weights the other when played correctly or researched accordingly. Also when you’re doing your reach look up case that has had this same issue. I did and found 3 cases were the recorder didn’t get verbal consent (Sorry’ let me say it in your slandered & language “consent”) and lost the case not including mine.

Good Day!

Enter Your Samebox Message:

Then why don't you give a link to the cases that you are referring to? Sounds like you botched yours, and are having a hard time getting over it.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

You talk about a criminal sxual assault case in court. Okay If a persons job is an escort (lets say it’s a guy) at the end of the escort service that guy gets invited to stay at the women home because it’s to late into the night and was very tired and sleepy so he accepts by saying ok. Then in the middle of the night the women starts to touch him while he is still sleeping then he gets an arousal due to the touching and the woman gives him oral pleasure then later on when he wakes up he sees lip stick marks on his ??. Because he got an arousal while sleeping was that consent for the oral pleasure or is that r.a.p.e?
If you don't know the answer is R.A.P.E.

Another thing I’m not sore about losing my case I’m just trying to pass my experience on to help others not to do the same mistake; and you should do the same. But wait you don't care cause you probably make $$$ money $$$ off of people like me and others like me in situations like this one; No wait you haven’t had a case like this one so why are you talking. That's why you say that we don't need verbal consent, consent and consent again.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

Look up the cases your self like I did.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

wow....if this is any indication of your style of "research" then it is obvious why you botched this whole mess. I am not an attorney, never claimed to be an attorney. I stated that I studied the law in college, it was my major. I work professionally in the criminal justice field, and I know the law. I am also very accomplished when it comes to civil law and dealing with bottom-feeder debt collectors. In fact, take yourself a look around this forum.....you will find dozens of people that I have personally helped--ranging from "who is calling me" to helping people get fraudulently-obtained default judgments vacated and cases won against illegitimate debt collectors. Not one time in here or elsewhere, regardless of the state involved, have I ever helped someone with what turned out to be bad or losing advice. And you, the so-called "business owner", havent told the same story twice in this thread.

That's funny.....few people on this forum have dealt down more debt collectors than I have, both in my own identity theft cases and on forums like this one--I have yet to lose even once when dealing with debt collectors. And yet I have no experience. Like I said, you lost your case--and in court it is all about how you argue the merits of your case. Clearly, you could have used our help when you went to court.....because you obviously didnt do that good a job yourself. Which brings us to another point--you supposedly went to court, without a lawyer, and you cant even get the number of one-party states correct with all this "research" you supposedly did. Better luck next time, "business owner".

hey, that's something else--youre a business owner, and yet you claim that you lost your case because you didnt have the same rights as a business. Maybe next time you tell this story, it will have an Elvis sighting thrown in for good measure....

1--there was nothing "so-called" about the laws I posted--they were taken directly from Florida statutes. Now youre gonna try to attack the credibility of what I posted, because you dont have anything else to stand on. Here's a hint--the deeper you dig the hole, the further you are away from being able to climb out of it.

2--Why wouldnt I post the statutes? Isnt the law what we are talking about in this thread? So why would you try to criticize me for posting it? Could it be because you were wildly incorrect about what it says? Hmmmm....

3--I posted the law. I posted both state and federal law, for reference. I posted FCC rules--and since you did so much "research", you would know that the FCC is the body that enforces those laws. So their statements are hardly the "throw-away" data youre trying to treat them like.

4--You claimed that the law said one thing. I posted the law that proves otherwise. you claimed that federal law didnt apply. I countered with Florida law. you claimed that the law "may not say this, but it means it". I countered with proof from one of the most well-known attorneys in Florida, and his EXPERIENCE that shows you to be, once again, dead wrong.

And now, your only "ammo" left is to try to discredit those pesky "so-called" statutes(because they prove you wrong), what some attorney or other says(because he proves you wrong), and what someone else's "rules and regulations" say(because they prove you wrong). You have nothing substantial to say--only lame attempts to complain that I posted THE LAW in a discussion about WHAT THAT LAW SAYS. Wow, is this how you argued your case in front of the judge? It's painfully easy to see how you lost.

Next time, hire someone who has a clue, you obviously dont have one.

National enterprise systems, RJM Acquisitions, Portfolio, NCO Financial, Palisades, and LTD Financial, among others, have already found out differently in trying to deal with my experience. Each of those is a bottom feeding debt collector that tried to sneak one past me or someone that I know. Each one went down swinging. So much for "when I lose"....huh, chief? More to follow, as there is one on the hook right now that's about to be caught and cleaned. This is what happens when junk debt buyers dont care whether or not they have the right person, they only care about money. In EACH case, I recorded calls. In EACH CASE, those recordings were the perfect evidence. On four of those occasions, the debt collector tried their best to have the tapes excluded....they all failed, just like you did in court, and just like you have in this thread.

What kind of moron are you, anyways? Seriously? I posted the actual laws....and now youre STILL trying to pretend that I need to go look them up?

What you say has no truth, no meaning, no merit, and no foundation. Foundation is the law--thats where the court must start. The law doesnt agree with you. Truth doesnt apply to many court proceedings because it is all about HOW YOU ARGUE YOUR CASE. You just dont get this....and it shows your lack of knowledge tremendously. There are tons of cases out there where the exact same question came up in two different cases, and the courts have ruled in differing ways based upon HOW THE MERITS OF THE CASE WERE PRESENTED. Court is NOT the law. Go get educated already.

In many cases, yes, but not in this case. There is only one law in Florida that deals with recording telephone calls, and this is it. There is no other statute outside of that section that deals with it. So there is no such occurance here. It would be different if there were other circumstances, but so far as you have told here, there arent. For instance, you are not law enforcement, so there is nothing there that would override the standard set by FL statute.

WOW....

1--the word "slander" has not one shred of ANYTHING to do with this discussion. Do you even know what that word means? It's more and more obvious with each new post you make how you lost your case.

2--Post up the cases, then--let's see what you got. You called me out on doing research, and I followed through. You challenged me about what the law said, and I produced the statutes to support my case. Its now your turn to be a stand-up guy--post the cases.

wow...just wow....a first year law student can shoot this comparison down in a new york minute. SLEEPING and ACTIVELY CONTINUING A PHONE CONVERSATION are nowhere close to the same thing. WOW you are clueless. Are you now going to suggest that the lady that was yelling at Ron on the phone was ASLEEP when she was doing it? Dude, seriously, hang it up already. You've lost this one in a massive way, and all youre doing right now is making yourself look even more ignorant by the minute. You lost your case because you didnt have a clue how courts work and what the law is. It's obvious. You keep talking about all this research you have done, and yet youre convinced that there are still 15 1-party states--you couldnt even get that small a detail correct!

Me thinks you need a LOT more research, champ.....just wow.

Oh, one more thing--it's also obvious by the posting style and poor grammar that you were posting as another "guest" just so you could pretend that someone agrees with you in this thread. Thats even more lame, even for you. Time to hang this one up, for real. You missed by a country mile.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

hello skydiver.i was aware that was you.all the cu and pastes gave it away.i do agree with the other guest.give a link to your cases.it irritates me when a guest says LOOK IT UP.i'm not looking anything up.you prove it to me.if not,i'm running with the assumpion of someone trying to convolute the subject,and will take appropriate action in the future.

Enter Your Samebox Message:

1. Where did you ever get the idea that I was threatening you in this here forum. Cause I’m not I just having a discussion.

2. I never said that theirs 15 1 party state go back and read the forum I said 15 2 party state. Learn to read and stop twisting things around.

3. Why the insults; I never insulted you.

4. I never mentioned that my case had anything to do with my business.

5. I did have an attorney that was defending me in the case. So I’m going by what the attorney told me of why I lost the case.

6. My case was not with a debt collector it was with a guy that still works at a Wendy’s as a cashier.

7. You turned the example that I gave after you did 1st about the sxual assault case in court. You completely turned it around the guy was the one that was sleeping not the girl. "You can't even get or read that right." Toping it off that you never answer the question.

8. My education may not go as far as yours. That’s probably because I didn’t have a sugar daddy like you did to pay for all those expenses. Free loader. If its one thing that I hate is people that thinks their better then the others cause they from a hirer class “$$$” That the only thing here that was proven to me.

9. Your right its time for me to hang it up. But not because you told me or threatened me. But because you have still not proved to me beyond the doubt that I'm wrong also because I'm wasting my time in this with stuck ups..

After all people will do what they want. It’s their life. Hope you have one.

This forum and so called law student here are a joke. These law students should have stayed in school and finished it to learn more.

You will hear no more from me
Hanging up the keyboard here.

Remember get VERBAL CONSENT

asta la vista.

Enter Your Samebox Message: