Recording of an excommunication

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

The dishonesty doesn't bother you? Surely that should.

I guess we don't have all the facts. Perhaps he told them that he would only show to the hearing if they let him record it. Would they have let him record the hearing if he disclosed it? I doubt it. Doing it in secret is the only way the recording could have been made.

By the way the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has made it grounds for immediate firing to secretly record a conversation with a fellow member of metro (especially the ones with your incompetent supervisor). So I guess there are other organizations besides the church who would be sensitive to your position.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

How do we know he didn't get permission to record it?

What if he insisted? Would they then not allow him to be there?

Seems irrelevant since I doubt he asked, otherwise we would have been able to hear the SP much better. He recorded them unknowingly, after calling them his friends and wishing for good feelings with them.

His dishonesty doesn't bother you?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I guess we don't have all the facts. Perhaps he told them that he would only show to the hearing if they let him record it. Would they have let him record the hearing if he disclosed it? I doubt it. Doing it in secret is the only way the recording could have been made.

By the way the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has made it grounds for immediate firing to secretly record a conversation with a fellow member of metro (especially the ones with your incompetent supervisor). So I guess there are other organizations besides the church who would be sensitive to your position.

You seem hesitant to answer the question. Why?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

His dishonesty doesn't bother you?

No, because that would require Mike to side with the church, albeit indirectly.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I guess we don't have all the facts. Perhaps he told them that he would only show to the hearing if they let him record it. Would they have let him record the hearing if he disclosed it? I doubt it. Doing it in secret is the only way the recording could have been made.

By the way the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has made it grounds for immediate firing to secretly record a conversation with a fellow member of metro (especially the ones with your incompetent supervisor). So I guess there are other organizations besides the church who would be sensitive to your position.

In california it is a crime to record anyone without their permission.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Seems irrelevant since I doubt he asked, otherwise we would have been able to hear the SP much better. He recorded them unknowingly, after calling them his friends and wishing for good feelings with them.

His dishonesty doesn't bother you?

So you want to discuss the ethics of recording conversations? Let me know if you want to discuss this. Please briefly present your ideas on the subject, and I will respond. Please don't limit it to just excommunication hearings.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

In california it is a crime to record anyone without their permission.

except when the federal govt. conspires with telecom companies to record and sift through every conversation.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

except when the federal govt. conspires with telecom companies to record and sift through every conversation.

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.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/intro.html

Legal, but unethical? Please explain if that is your belief.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So you want to discuss the ethics of recording conversations? Let me know if you want to discuss this. Please briefly present your ideas on the subject, and I will respond. Please don't limit it to just excommunication hearings.

Well, at least we can't accuse you of a lack of transparency.

[SteelBlue]

If brother Lamborn would have just followed the Kevin Bacon method of anger management, perhaps all of this could have been avoided. I can tell you that the day I learned about polyandry I drove my yellow VW bug down to an abandoned warehouse and danced my heart out.