Dear bbaur, you possess an incomplete and illogical manner of thinking to say the least, you are the sort of person that gives me shivers. I had you on my ignore list but I took you off it by mistake. hehe (I LOVE the ignore feature of this board!!!) I am referring of course specifically to what I wrote here and your response to it. Anyway. Thank God for Anthony. My friend here Barry has gone away, alas.
EXCEPT IN A COUPLE OF STATES, IT IS LEGAL TO TAPE RECORD THE CONVERSATION ON THE PHONE AS LONG AS YOU CONSENT TO IT, AND YOU ARE ONE OF THE TWO PARTIES ON THE CALL! If you think it is wrong to tape record and are worried about it, but have to for some reason...tell them you HAVE to record it for EVIDENCE...
GEORGE: With respect my friend, I believe youâ??re missing the point: even if one party to a taping objects, there is no EVIDENCE! This is a universal principle even under the Federal concept of one party consent, which I believe you may have been referring to. But here is the real rubâ?¦ If Iâ??m collecting from California on a consumer in Ohio, and Ohio law allows for recording telephonic conversations (even under one party consent)? Because California law does not allow such makes the â??evidenceâ? inadmissible, and possibly subjects the consumer to criminal proceedings. You see itâ??s also a universal concept of evidence codes that proof obtained by illegal (or specious) means, CANNOT be admitted as â??evidenceâ? of alleged wrongdoing. BTW, Iâ??m sad to see your trademark (ALL CAPS) goâ?¦ Oh well, things change. [;-)
Yes George, I think you are quite correct. But when the caller making threats on somebody's life or using foul offensive and abusive language on the phone, then it is no longer a matter of some judge jude dog and pony show. As in the situation I spoke of earlier, where a caller used foul and abusive language and/or threatens to commit murder or other heineous crime then those facts become much more important. In addition to the two FBI agents we originally called in, the city police also just left after spending about half an hour or more with the lady who had been threatened. They too listened to the caller on the tape and said nothing at all about any "illegal taping" or that we are wrong in doing so. All callers are warned that their calls might be taped for training purposes, and this joker didn't even pay any attention to that. And if a bill collector uses foul and abusive language on the phone, it is no longer a matter of playing i t in some summary judgement action against him. It's a Federal offense to use foul or abusive language on a telephone. It's not even a matter of calling in the U.S. Department of Justice or the FBI. It's a matter of concern to the Federal Communication Commission and they don't take it lightly. And it makes no difference to the Feds how big or bad them bill collectors think they are, the Feds are bigger and badder by far. They are so big and bad that even Montgomery Wards didn't even want to hear about the consequences the FCC was going to put on them back in 1974 when one of their collectors used a lot of foul and abusive language on me.
All: Pleeeeeeze, my sides are aching from intense laughter; spare me!! The above concept is a no huntin hound if ever there was one! The FCC has eight (8), count â??um, just a little over a half dozen field agents for the Western US alone! A tad bit over that number for the balance of the country. They havenâ??t the time, inclination, manpower nor interest in pursuing such frivolity! As far as collectors swearing or using profanity over the phone? Maybe 20 or 30 years ago, but today thatâ??s a notion rare in engagement â?? to the ultra-far end of extreme! To allege anything but simple demonstrates a total lack of grasp for real world happenings. (In my best Tattoo voiceâ?¦) â??The plane, the plane!â?
While I must admit that it is rare these days, it still does happen. And if you want to start laughing out the other side of your face, funny boy, just get stupid enough to start cussing somebody out on the phone, threatening to kill them or other equally dumb stuff and you just might end up so far back in the jailhouse they will have to feed you your beans with a shotgon. There are those out there who still pull those kinds of boners although all the collection agencies know better, some people who own small companies and get mad because somebody didn't pay a bill on time can and sometimes do stupid things and go out trying to collect their bills anyway they can. We had a hispanic fellow who ran a sleaze type tote-the-note car lot and he went out collecting his bills with a shotgun under one arm right here in Oklahoma City not all that long ago. He never sold any cars to anybody but hispanics, his own people. And it was pretty well known that if you didn't want him showing up on your front doorstep with a shotgun late at night then you had better make your car payments on time. One night a couple of months ago, they found him along a side street laying up alongside a curb all shot up. Somebody beat him to the draw. He lived through the experience somehow, but he sure don't go carrying no more shotguns around with him. But if you think things like that don't happen, then you better start laughing out the other side of your face, because they still do. And unless you want another war, you just go find somebody else to laugh at.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ At first, the question of whether or not to tape record a phone call seems like a matter of personal preference. Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others donâ??t like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subjectâ??s consent, others do it routinely. However, there are important questions of law that must be addressed first. There are both federal and state statutes governing the use of electronic recording equipment. The unlawful use of such equipment can give rise not only to a civil suit by the "injured" party, but also criminal prosecution. Accordingly, it is critical that journalists know the statutes that apply and what their rights and responsibilities are when recording and disclosing communications. Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping -- listening in on conversations of others without their knowledge -- they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews. Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.) Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping. It shouldnâ??t need to be said, but it is illegal in all states to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear. Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication. At least fifteen states have laws outlawing the use of hidden cameras in private places. Be warned, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy. This guide provides a quick reference to the specific provisions of each jurisdictionâ??s wiretap law. It outlines whether one-party or all-party consent is required to permit recording of a conversation, and provides the legal citations for wiretap statutes. Some references to case law have been provided in instances where courts have provided further guidance on the law. Penalties for violations of the law are described, including criminal penalties (jail and fines) and civil damages (money that a court may order the violator to pay to the subject of the taping). Instances where the law specifically includes cellular calls and the wireless portion of cordless phone calls are also noted, but many laws are purposely broad enough to encompass such calls without specifically mentioning them. Sidebar articles throughout the guide address specific issues related to taping. Note that these are general discussions, and you will have to consult the state entries to see how these issues apply in particular states. Still have questions about how the laws affect you? Journalists can always call the Reporters Committeeâ??s hotline at 800-336-4243 for further information. Special thanks to Reporters Committee staff attorney Nicki Ballinger for extensively updating this guide. She built on the work of legal fellows and interns who contributed to previous editions. Published Spring 2000. © The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22209. (703) 807-2100
GEORGE: Slick article, thanks, and after reading it I believe weâ??re on the same page, essentially saying the same things. After all, taping collection calls is nothing new. Nonetheless, theyâ??ve never work for the consumer so long as Iâ??ve been around â?? for reasons previously stated.
Sheindlin, Shmydlin... Be A Mentch! You know, something told me I mispronounced (not to mention misspelled) it!
Re: Sheindlin, Shmydlin... Be A Mentch! Ok, so, should I send the letter or not? I really haven't gotten a straight answer. I know that some think that the letter I posted is good but, after rereading it, I made a few modifications. Here is the revised letter: Re: inquiry dated 08/21/01 via Business Telephone Greetings: Thank you for your recent inquiry. This is a request for validation made pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Be advised that I am not requesting a "verification" that you have my mailing address, I am requesting a "validation;" that is, competent evidence that I have some contractual obligation to pay you. You have contacted me at a work phone number and I require that all correspondence be done in writing, as are my legal rights. Any further contact to me through this business phone line will be refused and documented. Best regards, Any new suggestions?
Hahaha: A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C. GEORGE WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT, YOU ARE AMAZING!!!! LOL - YOU ROCK! ITS LIKE WHEN YOU THINK OF "A PLATE OF SHRIMP" AND JUST THEN SOMEONE SAYS "PLATE" OR "SHRIMP" OR "PLATE OF SHRIMP" -PEACE, DAVE ps DID YOU CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS TO LOWERCASE VERSIONS OF THEIR CAPITAL COUNTERPARTS? T'WOULD MAKE THE TRAnsition to lower case somewhat easier. Though I admit, I still hoPE YOU WILL RETURN TO YOUR UPPERCASE SELF AGAIN SOON. BREAKIN THE LAW! BREAKIN THE LAW! Hehehehe All CAPS used in this post are copyrighted and used by permission from GEORGE. Any reproduction or unauthorized taping of the CAPS used in this post without the written consent of GEORGE and Major League Baseball is expressly forbidden.
Re: Sheindlin, Shmydlin... Be A Mentch! Yes Erica! I think your letter is perfect! Send it and get them to start playing your game, your way. Good Luck! -Peace, Dave
FORGET THE $29.95 I'LL TAKE 2 F.I.C.O. POINTS FROM EACH READER... www.GOOGLE.com Type in the box....RECORDING PHONE CALLS 1st one said something about mp3...skip 2nd one said "CAN WE TAPE?"
LOOK LEFT, STATE BY STATE ANSWERS... When I am a party to the phone conversation in COLORADO...I can record all day long... I don't have the recorder...but if I bought one, I could use it LEGALLY!!!!!
George, I really don't have 2 FICO points to spare. Will you take 2 collection calls instead? I got plenty of those! hehe
