TomServo
<Bronze Donator>
- 7,493
- 11,574
while shitting.Cad's already recording minutes to bill him.
while shitting.Cad's already recording minutes to bill him.
booHe's probably already walking to the shitter with tablet and stopwatch in hand
Nah, I just hate to see a bro make a mistake. I feel like he's looking for excuses not to leave. He needs to man up, confront her, and get this shit done. If he thinks she's acting psycho when he leaves her at home on a day trip, wait for the freak out when she gets served with the divorce suit.So that's two statutes that Cad has proven your knowledge wrong, Tarrant. Maybe you should pay Cad the retainer, instead of your current lawyer.
Lol.He's probably already walking to the shitter with tablet and stopwatch in hand
So then you're wrong, the recordings would be inadmissibleNo they are not.
A party to the conversation isexempted from liability, however, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing anycriminal or tortious act.
I think you're missing an "unless" in there broSo then you're wrong, the recordings would be inadmissible
Seriously. It's going to be epic levels of nuclear. Tarrant is still convincing himself that she's going to be "reasonable". Like Cad said, it sound like he's just making excuses now that things have settled down a little, or the reality of leaving and what that entails is settling in. Habits and complacency are hard to break.If he thinks she's acting psycho when he leaves her at home on a day trip, wait for the freak out when she gets served with the divorce suit.
His wife would have to be committing a criminal or tortious act. Though I suppose if while she was breaking his shit in front of him she was like "See that! I'm breaking your precious dice! Take that dice! That's the sound of me breaking his dice!" it would count but what would that have to do with a custody battle?I think you're missing an "unless" in there bro
Of course, I'm being sarcastic about the retainer, but I totally agree that it sounds like excuses for leaving. I want nothing more than for Tarrant and his kid to improve their situation.Nah, I just hate to see a bro make a mistake. I feel like he's looking for excuses not to leave. He needs to man up, confront her, and get this shit done. If he thinks she's acting psycho when he leaves her at home on a day trip, wait for the freak out when she gets served with the divorce suit.
No, the person recording cannot be recording for criminal or tortious acts. That's how I read it, at least.His wife would have to be committing a criminal or tortious act. Though I suppose if while she was breaking his shit in front of him she was like "See that! I'm breaking your precious dice! Take that dice! That's the sound of me breaking his dice!" it would count but what would that have to do with a custody battle?
Ex parte protection order, if available is a legal means to get her out of the house. Usually have to fear for the safety of yourself or others. It can even be emotional safety. My ex-wife actually used a phrase that I meant that I would take care of the kids if she left to tell the judge I was going to run off with them. The cops were only involved in serving the order. They had never been called to my house prior to that.There are no legal means to get her out of the house. Even if she threatens violence against him or their kid, she'll just deny it if Tarrant calls the cops.
Ok so I was reading it backwards, it sounded to me like the party who was being recorded was exempt? I still think I'm reading it right though, the person being recorded is exempt from liability, not the person doing the recording. Why would the person doing the recording be held liable?I think you're missing an "unless" in there bro
So a party is exempted from liability... (i.e., recordings admissible).. UNLESS... criminal or tortious. So if the recordings are used for a criminal or tortious purpose, then they are inadmissible/illegal.
You're reading that backwards, you can't be recording for criminal or tortious reasons. So you can't be using the recording for extortion (criminal) or invasion of privacy (tortious) or defamation of character (tortious) etc.His wife would have to be committing a criminal or tortious act. Though I suppose if while she was breaking his shit in front of him she was like "See that! I'm breaking your precious dice! Take that dice! That's the sound of me breaking his dice!" it would count but what would that have to do with a custody battle?
Its a wiretapping statuteWhy would the person doing the recording be held liable?
Inadmissible if they are discussing turtles. Man the law is strange.I was reading it as tortoise
and you're 100% positive that telling her that you're filing for divorce won't cause her to immediately crank the crazy back to 11?I'm not making excuses for anything, I've devoted my whole day today to this stuff so far. Also, I know my wife better than any of you, she has lucid moments where she's fine and nothing phases her and she's 100% reasonable. That's the moment I wait for and have been advised to wait for as long as it doesn't go too long.