Recording Phone Calls - 2-Party Consent
Date: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 14:30
I live in Florida, a 2-party state, and recently had an awful experience with the attorney's office that represented me in an FDCPA lawsuit back in 2007. The CA I sued marked some debts as "satisfied and/or released" as part of a agreement they had with me, then turned around and sold those debts to other CA's. I contacted the attorney's office that represented me, asking the paralegal I dealt with back in 2007, what exactly does it mean "satisfied and/or released" in the agreement. The woman kept repeating for me to send a DV and C&d letter to the new CA, completely ignoring my frequently asking what it means by "satisfied and/or released" in the agreement back in 2007.
I finally asked to speak to someone else as I didn't feel she was either understanding my question or even acknowledging it. She then got hysterical, started yelling at me, and hung up the phone on me.
Keep in mind, the is an attorney's office that sues CA's for that exact same type of behavior.
Once I finally got her on the phone again, I started off the conversation by telling her I was recording the call, as I am supposed to do by Florida law. I wanted to cover myself so she couldn't say I was the one that got hysterical and started yelling (which she did, but that's a whole other story.) by having a record of any communication I had with her after that initial call. Unfortunately, I had not had the presence of mind to have recorded that first call; I didn't think I needed to. She neither acknowledged that I said this, or even objected to it in the entire phone conversation I had with her. It lasted several minutes.
Again, I made this statement at the very start of the call right after she answered and before we started talking about anything else. And I got it on the recording I said this.
Well, I ended up filing a complaint with the Florida Bar concerning this attorney. The woman I spoke with and recorded, the attorney's employee and paralegal, claims in a statement she included with the attorney's response to my complaint that she is aware of Florida law concerning recording phone calls and I have broken the law when I recorded that last phone conversation I had with her.
Did I? As I said, and you can hear it plainly in the recording, I advised her at the start of the call what I was doing. She didn't object and only waits until I file a complaint with the Florida Bar to claim she didn't give her consent and I somehow broke the law.
Now everything I have read on the Internet states I am in compliance with 2-party disclosure by advising her at the start of the call that it was being recorded and by having that as part of the recording.
What do you guys think?
If it is clearly stated on the recording that you were recording
If it is clearly stated on the recording that you were recording her and she did not object, she was in effect giving you permission.
The law office will probably offer to "not pursue the violation"
The law office will probably offer to "not pursue the violation" if you agree to drop the complaint. Don't. If you hear from them again immediately tell them that you are recording the call and they will probably go away.
If you are charged you can use the defense of implied consent based on the fact that she continued the conversation.
You can also ammend your complaint with the state bar. They would probably also tell you if you are in violation.
Yeah, after I got the response from the attorney's office to my
Yeah, after I got the response from the attorney's office to my complaint with the Florida Bar, I had the opportunity to submit a rebuttal.
Which I did.
I advised I would be more than happy to submit a copy of the recorded phone call to the Florida Bar, on their request, and they could hear that I advised the woman at the start of the call I was recording it and they would hear nothing in the way of her stating she did not wish the call to be recorded. I also asked for the investigator at the Florida Bar to make a determination, based on my statement and the copy of the recording, whether I did violate the law so I could be sure.
I didn't already forward the copy of the phone call to them as they ask to keep all "evidence" submitted to a minimum and if copies are needed that are referenced in complaints they will request it. Besides, it's now on my PC and I'm not sure how I could get it to them.
E-mail?
What the attorney's office is trying to do is portray me as a raving lunatic in their response in order to draw attention away from the fact they never even answered the core complaints I initially filed with the Florida Bar. I also pointed that out in my rebuttal.
Ron-- how ya been, man??? you covered exactly what the la
Ron--
how ya been, man???
you covered exactly what the law requires you to cover--think about it....dont the CA's always have the recorded messages when you call them, saying "telephone calls may be recorded"? They do not give you any option there--they tell you so that you are fairly warned. you did more than say 'this may be recorded', you said "I am recording this phone call". I couldnt imagine them telling you that you actually were in the wrong.
Anyways, stick to your guns on this one--dont let them settle the matter for anything. They treated you the same way that CA's treat people, and they dont have that right. Their entire job is to hear your concerns and address them--if they cannot handle it then they are in the wrong business.
Thanks all for your input. That's pretty much how I saw it to
Thanks all for your input.
That's pretty much how I saw it too; I in no way violated the 2-party consent law because I informed her at the start of the call it was being recorded. I just wanted to make sure others saw it that way too. As I say, I'm no expert on any of these laws, so there's always a chance I have interpreted them incorrectly.
I try applying "common sense" whenever I try reading and interpreting laws; however, I've quickly learned "common sense" doesn't always come into play.
skydivr7673, you are so right! Anyone that knows me can say that's one thing I am, when I feel I'm in the right about something, and that's stubborn as heck! So I am definitely going to be sticking to my guns on this one.
I have only to wait to hear back from the Florida Bar regarding my rebuttal to the attorney's response to my complaint now. I'll keep you all posted as to how it works out.
All i can offer anyone else in the way of advice, as I have always done on this site since I first came here: Stand up for yourself! If you don't look after your rights and try to avoid getting them trampled on, no one else will.
That doesn't just apply to collection agencies violating the FDCPA, either.
can you record calls?
I am trying to find out if I can record calls with an attorney or anyone else I talk to about a debt. I read somewhere that I can without saying something as long I am part of the conversation? Is this true or do I have to say " I am recording this call"
It's always best to let the other party know you are recording,
It's always best to let the other party know you are recording, regardless of whether it's a 1 party or a 2 party state, if only to cover your bases.
Your case is a 50/50. Remember the 2nd party which you are recor
Your case is a 50/50. Remember the 2nd party which you are recording has to say yes to the recording. Any phone call recording done after giving knowledge and the 2nd party continues talking without saying yes to the recording is not consent to record. The person has to speak the words yes or no. Common scene will be if the person continues talking after warned that is consent. But in the eyes of the law it might not just be that way. The person in your case didn't say yes but rather kept talking by law that???s not consent but then again it might be if argued really good; that???s why it a 50/50. I hope everything goes to your favor.
Click the link below regarding United States Telephone Recording
Click the link below regarding United States Telephone Recording Laws.
http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm
Quote:Your case is a 50/50. Remember the 2nd party which you are
Quote:
Your case is a 50/50. Remember the 2nd party which you are recording has to say yes to the recording. Any phone call recording done after giving knowledge and the 2nd party continues talking without saying yes to the recording is not consent to record. The person has to speak the words yes or no. Common scene will be if the person continues talking after warned that is consent. But in the eyes of the law it might not just be that way. The person in your case didn't say yes but rather kept talking by law that???s not consent but then again it might be if argued really good; that???s why it a 50/50. I hope everything goes to your favor. |
Ron, ignore that post, as it is false.
Let's all think about this for a minute--how many times have any of us been on the phone with a debt collector? Come on, we all know the drill---you call them and a prerecorded voice says "thank you for calling XYZ debt collectors, this call may be recorded...", right? That prerecorded message has always satisfied the requirements of the law when it comes to them, so how could it be different for us?
Simply put, the example that the debt collectors use--the prerecorded message--has stood up in court as an acceptable disclosure. In fact, you can bet your last dollar that the only reason why they have that prerecorded message is because of the law's requirement in some places that such a disclosure be made. If it werent for the law, they would not have wasted their time. Nowhere in those messages do they say "if you do not wish to be recorded, then hang up and dont call us". Nowhere in there does it ask for you to voice your consent. And the law and the courts have already backed those prerecorded disclosures as being adequate enough for the law's requirements.
Ron what you say is very true. But the reason why companies and
Ron what you say is very true. But the reason why companies and debt collectors have that prerecorded message and makes it legal. It???s because that of a business. For civilians like me and you we need that consent or give it. Just like a companies and debt Collection Company needs consent of their employee to record a non business (privet/personal) call. Point is businesses have special right that we don???t. Also when we call a business we have the right to say that we don???t want this call to be recorded. The option of ???opting out.???. So see the differences. I did my research of every point. U should too. so the statement below is true not false.
Your case is a 50/50. Remember the 2nd party which you are recording has to say yes to the recording. Any phone call recording done after giving knowledge and the 2nd party continues talking without saying yes to the recording is not consent to record. The person has to speak the words yes or no. Common scene will be if the person continues talking after warned that is consent. But in the eyes of the law it might not just be that way. The person in your case didn't say yes but rather kept talking by law that???s not consent but then again it might be if argued really good; that???s why it a 50/50. I hope everything goes to your favor.
Quote:Ron what you say is very true. But the reason why companie
Quote:
Ron what you say is very true. But the reason why companies and debt collectors have that prerecorded message and makes it legal. It???s because that of a business. For civilians like me and you we need that consent or give it. Just like a companies and debt Collection Company needs consent of their employee to record a non business (privet/personal) call. Point is businesses have special right that we don???t. Also when we call a business we have the right to say that we don???t want this call to be recorded. The option of ???opting out.???. So see the differences. I did my research of every point. U should too. so the statement below is true not false. |
Ron, once again, ignore THAT post as well.....because it is also false, and for two reasons.
First off, the federal law is ONE-PARTY. That means that according to the FCC, you dont even need to tell the other party youre recording, so why on earth would you need to get the other person to physically say "yes" when you dont even need to ask them in the first place? The one and only reason why you need to ask them in some states is because of STATE LAWS, not federal. And, in the case of state laws, every state has its own, so there cannot be an accurate statement like the one 'guest' just tried to make. In fact, the Florida statute makes no mention of a need for both parties to actually give positive consent by saying "yes" on the tape. So this one is, once again, wrong.
Second, 'guest' clearly needs to go back and do more research.....here is a quote from the FCC website:
Quote:
The FCC currently has no rules regarding recording of telephone conversations by individuals |
In other words, 'guest', your whole story about "we're civilians, we have to do more than a company" is pure BS.
Further down the FCC web page, we see this:
[quote]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.[/quote]
According to that info, as long as you provided verbal notification at the beginning of the call to inform the other person that it was being recorded, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY RESPONDED WITH AN ANSWER, you have met the FCC guidelines for interstate calls.
"guest", I think it's time to go back and do some more research.
Yep, and the beep is the best because they know very well what t
Yep, and the beep is the best because they know very well what that means.
Also, you are recording the call to produce as evidence, you are not intercepting someone else's call, which a business has an exception to do (such as a manager listening to a trainee's phone call or random monitoring). If you let anyone except for a court of law listen to that recording, then you may possibly have a problem.
I think that may be the source of guest's confusion.
Yes it true. But thing to remember in a 2 PARTY STATE like Flori
Yes it true. But thing to remember in a 2 PARTY STATE like Florida. Verbal consent is needed. If the notification is given and the 2nd party continues talking that is not verbal consent. Federal law does not apply in Florida. So here in Florida the 2 party consent law we need the verbal consent. And businesses do have rights that we don't. We as civilians need verbal consent to record in a 2 party state. Businesses don???t; that why they get off by saying the call maybe recorded or monitored for train or quality purposes. They don???t need are consent nether in state or federal; but we do. Remember you can always tell business you don???t what the call recorded (opt-out). Yes no where in the state or federal law says we need verbal consent; but its does not say continuing to talk is consent. The remark ???this call will be recorded or this call is being recorded??? is a form of a question and notification. If not answer buy saying okay or I understand then it is illegal to record the conversation. Again federal law does not apply in the 15 state???s that has the 2 party consent laws. If your calling a 1 party consent law (federal) and your calling from a 2 party consent law (state) its unclear which law to go by. Always use the 2 party consent law unless if both parties live in a 1 party consent law (federal)
Yes it true. But thing to remember in a 2 PARTY STATE like Flori
Yes it true. But thing to remember in a 2 PARTY STATE like Florida. Verbal consent is needed. If the notification is given and the 2nd party continues talking that is not verbal consent. Federal law does not apply in Florida. So here in Florida the 2 party consent law we need the verbal consent. And businesses do have rights that we don't. We as civilians need verbal consent to record in a 2 party state. Businesses don???t; that why they get off by saying the call maybe recorded or monitored for train or quality purposes. They don???t need are consent nether in state or federal; but we do. Remember you can always tell business you don???t what the call recorded (opt-out). Yes no where in the state or federal law says we need verbal consent; but its does not say continuing to talk is consent. The remark ???this call will be recorded or this call is being recorded??? is a form of a question and notification. If not answer buy saying okay or I understand then it is illegal to record the conversation. Again federal law does not apply in the 15 state???s that has the 2 party consent laws. If your calling a 1 party consent law (federal) and your calling from a 2 party consent law (state) its unclear which law to go by. Always use the 2 party consent law unless if both parties live in a 1 party consent law (federal)
One more thing the FCC makes rules and regulation and they can s
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.
One more thing the FCC makes rules and regulation and they can s
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.
I agree with both of your comments "Guest". We do need consent f
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.
I???m glad someone understands. I talk from experience. Se
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.
Quote:Yes it true. But thing to remember in a 2 PARTY STATE like
Quote:
Yes it true. But thing to remember in a 2 PARTY STATE like Florida. Verbal consent is needed. If the notification is given and the 2nd party continues talking that is not verbal consent. |
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?
Quote:
Federal law does not apply in Florida. So here in Florida the 2 party consent law we need the verbal consent. |
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.
Quote:
And businesses do have rights that we don't. |
See above, you are incorrect. Florida law backs me on this. Do the research.
Quote:
We as civilians need verbal consent to record in a 2 party state. |
This is not correct at all. In fact, here is a portion of the actual statute to show you this--
[quote](d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception. [/quote]
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.
Quote:
Businesses don???t; that why they get off by saying the call maybe recorded or monitored for train or quality purposes. They don???t need are consent nether in state or federal; but we do. |
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....
Quote:
Remember you can always tell business you don???t what the call recorded (opt-out). |
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.
Quote:
Yes no where in the state or federal law says we need verbal consent; but its does not say continuing to talk is consent. |
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.
Quote:
The remark ???this call will be recorded or this call is being recorded??? is a form of a question and notification. If not answer buy saying okay or I understand then it is illegal to record the conversation. Again federal law does not apply in the 15 state???s that has the 2 party consent laws. If your calling a 1 party consent law (federal) and your calling from a 2 party consent law (state) its unclear which law to go by. Always use the 2 party consent law unless if both parties live in a 1 party consent law (federal) |
wow, there are not 15 2-party states, your research couldnt even get that one right.
Maybe you should get and go back to law school. In Florida to be
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.
As to verbal consent. We still need that. I'll like for you to h
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.
reply
i would like to know which collector these guests work for as they spin this like a collector.
Paul, the really long post was mine, guess I wasnt signed in....
Paul, the really long post was mine, guess I wasnt signed in....
Now, let's handle this mess.
Quote:
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. |
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.
Quote:
As to verbal consent. We still need that. |
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.
Quote:
I'll like for you to hold up in court by saying that we don't need verbal consent. |
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".
Quote:
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. |
--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.
Quote:
The meaning of consent is: to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield by verbal or writing. |
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
Quote:
Florida state law makes it illegal to record conversations without all parties consent; this is exactly why many companies will announce on their prerecorded messages that "this call may be monitored or recorded for training purposes" when you first connect with their company telephone lines. |
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?
Quote:
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 |
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.
It???s obvious that you never had a case that deals with th
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!
Then why don't you give a link to the cases that you are referri
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.
You talk about a criminal sxual assault case in court. Okay If a
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.[quote][/quote]
Quote:It???s obvious that you never had a case that deals w
Quote:
It???s obvious that you never had a case that deals with this type of issue. |
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.
Quote:
That???s why you talk with no experience. |
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....
Quote:
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. |
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.
Quote:
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. |
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.
Quote:
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. |
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.
Quote:
Also you should know there are statues that over weights the other when played correctly or researched accordingly. |
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.
Quote:
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. |
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.
Quote:
You talk about a criminal sxual assault case in court. Okay If a persons job is an escort (lets say it???s a guy) |
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.
reply
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.
1. Where did you ever get the idea that I was threatening you in
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.
Quote:1. Where did you ever get the idea that I was threatening
Quote:
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. |
um, dude, for real, no one here claimed you threatened them. Seriously. Where in the world did you get that from?
Quote:
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. |
wow.....a simple error in twisting my tongue--but in the end, there arent 15 two-party states, and that was the point I was making. It isnt about anyone twisting your words around, its about you simply being wrong. Now, own up like a man and be done with it already.
Quote:
3. Why the insults; I never insulted you. |
No, you just persist in displaying incredible ignorance, which is often worse than insulting someone.
Quote:
4. I never mentioned that my case had anything to do with my business. |
You never mentioned a lot of relevant things....your point? Oh, thats right, you dont have one.
Quote:
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. |
So, let me get this straight....you had a lawyer, who did a crappy job and lost you your case. And when he makes an excuse as to why he didnt win for you, you believe that over the actual word-for-word statutes, the FCC rules, case law and precedent, and the words of a well-respected and known attorney in that state? Not to mention the wealth of experience and information this forum's members have put in front of you. He lost you your one case, and then collected his fee anyways, and made an excuse to you. Meanwhile, we're telling you about SEVERAL real-world cases, the actual laws that pertain to this, and lots of other info, all of it factual and verifiable, and youre still this thick? wow....that attorney must have seen you coming...
Quote:
6. My case was not with a debt collector it was with a guy that still works at a Wendy???s as a cashier. |
It doesnt matter--as I showed you, the Florida statutes make no distinction whatsoever between the different types of business, so it would be the same either way. Also, the Florida statutes make no distinction between a business and an individual, meaning the same standard applies to EVERYONE in FL, except for law enforcement, emergency personnel, and telephone/internet service providers. The law speaks for itself, chief. Try reading it sometime.
Quote:
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. |
Wow....no, genius, I didnt turn it around at all. When I said SHE in that post, I was referring to the WOMAN that the guy who started this thread was speaking to on the phone. Read it again:
[color=Blue]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?[/color]
I very clearly compared your example to the events that Ron posted about when he started this thread, pal. Once more, if this is how your brain works, I can only imagine the kind of "research" you pulled together....you couldnt even read one friggin paragraph and understand it.
Second, I did answer you when I blew that ridiculous attempt at a comparison down the crapper where it belongs. SLEEPING through something and ACTIVELY TAKING PART in it are not at all comparable. There's your answer. Do you need flash cards or smaller words to understand?
Quote:
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. |
Judging by your reading skills, it appears as though your education didnt reach the 9th grade....
Anyways, youre wrong again, big guy. I served this country in Navy special ops for five years. When I left the Navy I became a firefighter. When I got sick with cancer, I had to leave the department. when I became cancer-free again, I paid for my own education. I didnt get handed anything. Dont even think you have any place to try to act like you know me. you arent fit to shine the boots I put on when I went into combat, so I could protect your right to be a complete moron at your leisure.
Quote:
9. Your right its time for me to hang it up. |
FINALLY, something youve said that everyone can agree on.....
That really made my morning! Thank you all for the sheer comedy.
That really made my morning! Thank you all for the sheer comedy. This is in now way an attempt at sarcasm to try and lessen one or the others' arguments. It was truly amusing watching the whole back-and-forth. Thanks! :)
How Do You Persue Criminal / Civil Case for Violation
Been looking around for templates, etc. I want to do it right so that companies that ignore the law, even after I tell them, Per Cal Penal Code 632(a), I DO NOT GIVE consent to record this conversation."
If you do not consent to being recorded, then hang up.
If you do not consent to being recorded, then hang up.