Recorded Sessions?

But not in a private establishment where intimate activities are being taken place..

I don't see people all day Sorry I actually take care of my body & limit clients.. Originally Posted by Dorthy_Monroe

You should take care of your mind while your at it and learn the law about which you are spouting off about.

I have...in fact LL will not confirm to you that it is against the law to audio record in the setting you describe...if he had any integrity he would. He has none and continues to lead you and others believe you are correct. You are not. In fact if you contact me i will accompany you to any attorney office and have them confirm that you are incorrect. I will pay if you are correct.

Talk LL into bringing 5k to bet which of us is correct. I promise you he is not stupid enough to bet any money on this issue. This is not a subjective matter. You can audio record private conversation between two people in Texas as long as you have the consent of one of the parties. Hookers private fucking moments are not immune. Jesus Christ girl...you better stay retired if you have no more brain power than this.

You can audio record private conversation between two people in Texas as long as you have the consent of one of the parties. Originally Posted by WTF

Is it consent from one of the parties? Or is it that you can record as long as the other party has been advised of the recording? Semantics. I know. But what is the law if not simantics?

"What is the definition of is?" William Jefferson Clinton

Any ruling from the legal forum? I've asked in a previous post.

Post 692

Is it consent from one of the parties? Or is it that you can record as long as the other party has been advised of the recording? Semantics. I know. But what is the law if not simantics?
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Glad you asked, maybe LL and Dorothy can learn something. This all pertains to audio recording btw.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/reco...-conversations

Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.
In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted "one-party consent" laws ** and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.

** Texas is of the 38 that are one-party consent States.

Below is what seems to be tripping up LL and Dorothy. They seem to be having trouble differentiating between two people engaged in conversation and one party recording it and a third party secretly recording two other people's conversation in which the third party is not a part of


Can you record a phone call or conversation when you do not have consent from one of the parties?
Regardless of whether state or federal law governs the situation, it is almost always illegal to record a phone call or private conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent from at least one party, and could not naturally overhear. In addition, federal and many state laws do not permit you to surreptitiously place a bug or recording device on a person or telephone, in a home, office or restaurant to secretly record a conversation between two people who have not consented.

Don't give out ideas that will cause back lash,,,,

Dear Little Boy .... ...you should probably go sit on the bench and keep quiet. 5th Amendment. But you won't. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I get an A+! Originally Posted by LexusLover

My audio is on a continuous loop

Originally Posted by WTF

So is your "mouth"! But I'm sure the ladies are glad to see it writing that you're recording "continuously"!

I'm making straight A+'s Originally Posted by LexusLover

I will believe LL before I believe WTF IJS Originally Posted by Dorthy_Monroe

How about you pony up and contact a Lawyer...and stfu with your IJS shit. You sound like a retard.


After he tells you exactly wtf i been telling you, how about instead of kissing LL's you bite mine. Originally Posted by WTF

The LITTLE ATTACK BOY at it again. If one doesn't agree with WTF they are "shit" or "retards" ....... "dumb" ....... School yard games from "the MOUTH"!

Are you a lawyer ?

No exactly I'm not kissing his ass he is stating facts ijs ijs ijs ijs ijs Originally Posted by Dorthy_Monroe

Don't give out ideas that will cause back lash,,,, Originally Posted by Lorde

That just about sums up WTF's LEGAL ADVICE! .... "back lash"!

YET ANOTHER A+

Glad you asked,
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/reco...-conversations

Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded. Originally Posted by WTF

Tha.k you.

Federal law and several states require only that one party to the conversation consent to the recording. If you are a party to the conversation that you are recording, then your consent is sufficient. New York, Louisiana, and Texas adhere to this requirement.

However, even if the recording is the type of evidence that is admissible, you still may not be able to introduce the tape in court due to a lack of predicate. Predicate refers to the foundation that you must establish to ensure the evidence is reliable. For example, until you establish that the voice on the tape is actually belongs to the person you are claiming it does, the recorded conversation is hearsay and will not be admitted.



Read more: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/c...#ixzz3qzXsmTE7
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook

As long as I'm ok with recording a phone call or audio recording a conversation, the other party need not know? Or just need not consent?

Just as a side note;
If you tell telemarketers or anyone harassing you on the phone (salespeople, collections, etc)

"Just so you know, I am recording this phone call..."

Usually you will get a, "CLICK."

That is what they have been trained to do.
(TMobile actually trained me once upon a time, as was thier instructions as well.
Weird right? lol)


Ijs ijs ijs ijs ijs ijs

The LITTLE ATTACK BOY at it again. If one doesn't agree with WTF they are "shit" or "retards" ....... "dumb" ....... School yard games from "the MOUTH"!
Originally Posted by LexusLover

LOL, LL, you calling me a Little Boy while crying about name calling. Priceless. Let me give you a hint there Mr. Cry Baby, I give out the exact same amount of respect that the poster shows toward me. In the case of Dorothy and yourself , it ain't much.

This is not a matter about agreeing with me. It is a matter of understanding the law. You have tried lead people to believe that it is illegal for clients or providers to audio record their conversation. Why is that? Why would you initially lead folks on here to believe a lie? Why were you hostile towards the provider who taped her conversation with the Vice Officer? That taping got her charge dropped. Whose side are you on?

That just about sums up WTF's LEGAL ADVICE! .... "back lash"!

YET ANOTHER A+ Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL , if you continue to come on here and spread untruths , I will counter that with the truth or what in your world you call back lash.

How about telling Dorothy the truth, you convoluted video recording with audio recording. You have led that poor girl to believe something that just is not true.

In the State of Texas , it is legal for one party of the conversation to audio record that conversation. Now you can keep boohooing about name calling while you yourself are calling names but why don't you come clean and tell the truth.


.

As long as I'm ok with recording a phone call or audio recording a conversation, the other party need not know? Or just need not consent? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The other party need not know as long as you are ok with it....in Texas. If they are calling from another state, you might need to check that states laws.

In regards to client/provider relationship, which is really what we are talking about here, either party may audio record without the others permission.

I'm not sure why LexusLover is trying to confuse folks about that fact on here.


.

Federal law and several states require only that one party to the conversation consent to the recording. If you are a party to the conversation that you are recording, then your consent is sufficient. New York, Louisiana, and Texas adhere to this requirement.

However, even if the recording is the type of evidence that is admissible, you still may not be able to introduce the tape in court due to a lack of predicate. Predicate refers to the foundation that you must establish to ensure the evidence is reliable. For example, until you establish that the voice on the tape is actually belongs to the person you are claiming it does, the recorded conversation is hearsay and will not be admitted.



Read more: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/c...#ixzz3qzXsmTE7
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook Originally Posted by Lorde

That is correct but were you a provider who had been arrested , would you rather have that audio tape recording that shows you never agreed to fee for service and the Vice Officer arresting you saying it was your word against his. Or............................ ............. nothing?

OMG... Page 47, post 700+ can you two just agree to desagree on this one ??

I don't mean to be rude or hurt anybody's feelings, but NOBODY is going to listen to either one of you. We were not (audio) recording sessions before and we're NOT going to start now because of what either one of you are saying, or because some Nut Case, who likes to cream pie young newbies, said he recorded all his sessions ( which I still think that was bs, and he only said that, stupidly thinking that, it was going to help his case) Neither we're (at least I know I'm not) going to start recording our sessions because of the case WTF is using as an example.
I mean is great that, that worked out well for her, but you know what would have worked out even better and saved her all the time and headache of going to court, paying a bond and being on the news ?? NOT INVITING THAT OFFICER IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you read the article it seems to me that it was a woman who works from bp or a similar site, it says that after a phone call, she agreed to have him over... A phone call!! Really, who does that? I know damn well I don't.

And any provider who appreciates their freedom and having a clean record doesn't either. The best advice anybody can give is TO SCREEN, and also FOLLOW YOUR GUT, if you have any doubt, or see any red flags from a "potential client" DON'T SEE HIM, you will be happy you didn't. I don't know why provider would agree to see a guy, if they have a doubt about them being LE and then say "oh it's ok I'll just record the session" really ? Who is stupid enough to run their business like that ?? Even if the law allows you to record it, that doesn't guarentee you're going to be exempt from all charges.
I personally don't trust the system, why ? Because the system is fucked up, we see everyday people on videos getting away with their crimes. Police Officers in VIDEO (not just audio recording) getting away with beating up people, killing people for petty violations and abusing their authority on VIDEO and still getting away with it. Now what makes you think that I as a provider (whore, hooker whatever y'all call us) who does something that is considered illegal on regular basis, is going to rely on an audio recording, to keep myself safe ??

Bottom line regardless of the law, recording someone without their consent is disrespectful and paranoid. And it should not be the method you use to protect yourself from LE. SCREENING is what it should be, I understand nothing is 100% but like I said before if you're ever skeptical about a potential client or see any red flags, Do yourself a favor and don't see them is not worth it.

WTF- nobody cares if you're right or not, just let it go.

And any provider who appreciates their freedom and having a clean record doesn't either. The best advice anybody can give is TO SCREEN, and also FOLLOW YOUR GUT,

. Originally Posted by Natalia Mori

Tell me again, how long have you been in this business?
So that is your legal advice? Screen. You do not think that a Vice officer can penetrate your screening? That is in fact what is wrong with screening...its false sense of security.

And you think your lawyer will say "Judge my client was following her gut so please do not convict her!"

WTF- nobody cares if you're right or not, just let it go. Originally Posted by Natalia Mori

Since when did you start speaking for everybody?

Bottom line regardless of the law, recording someone without their consent is disrespectful and paranoid. And it should not be the method you use to protect yourself from LE. SCREENING is what it should be, I understand nothing is 100% but like I said before if you're ever skeptical about a potential client or see any red flags, Do yourself a favor and don't see them is not worth it.
. Originally Posted by Natalia Mori

Question , where do you ladies keep all this screen information? You act as if you are not recording it down somewhere! There is a provider in the SW part of town who compromised her screening information six months back and all the ladies she was in contact with. LE had that information. What are you doing to keep that out of LE hands? So in fact you already are recording clients personal information. Audio recording is much less invasive than what you are currently doing. I love it when the rookie flavor of the month , instantly becomes the expert in all things hobby related. Your management should advice you to listen more and speak less.

So that is your legal advice? Screen. You do not think that a Vice officer can penetrate your screening? That is in fact what is wrong with screening...its false sense of security.

And you think your lawyer will say "Judge my client was following her gut so please do not convict her!"




Since when did you start speaking for everybody? Originally Posted by WTF

No it is not "legal advice" I have no reasons why to give "legal advice", like you think YOU DO... Lol! that is my advice to PROVIDERS, on what has always worked out for me. And if they do it right they won't have to go be before a judge like you're implying.

No offense but when it comes to this you obviously don't know WTF you're talking about, I'm speaking from experience on what I do everyday you're speaking from assumptions and ideas that makes sense in your head. They obviously don't have to reflect the reality of things to be true to you, they just have to make sense in your head.
We ALL see that, except for you.

Lastly please the people reading this, who actually care if WTF is right please speak up and say "I do" since he doesn't believe me...