He's got bigger issues than me. Rhode Island is a one party consent state. He is correct. But.....where he went wrong was YouTube. Unfortunately it's a Californian based company, thus is an all party consent state. I won't go into detail. He will find out the specifics of what I mean soon enough. What a sad fellow.
1. I didn't mean YOUR ass as in you personally. I meant the membership slates ass.
2. UGHHH I don't want to school you on this...I REALLY don't because it would be like poetry to watch Nick W destroy her in court, but I have a big mouth, and I'm probably going to catch a ration of $&#& from him for telling you this, but I gotta do it...
You are right.....sort of. But I'm impressed that you were able to retain that information for a period, and then reiterate it on here. I didnt think you had it in yah Stinky!
It is ILLEGAL (in EVERY state) to BROADCAST a phone call between private citizens without the consent of ALL parties involved. In Rhode Island and 37 other states, the RECORDING of the call is perfectly legal. The BROADCASTING of it is absolutely illegal. (It has absolutely nothing to do with the State of California...if it did, the lawsuit would HAVE to be filed in California, and since neither party is from California, and the alleged illegal act of recording did not take place there, she would not be able to even file it.)
Here's the part where you and her "Lawyer" get schooled. The call that took place was NOT between two private citizens. The call that took place was between a union official and a member of that union. The purpose of the recording was to expose corruption in an organization. The burden of proof on Nick would be to prove that corruption was in fact exposed (Which it ABSOLUTELY was...good luck finding a judge that would say otherwise there Stinky) Therefore, the recording AND broadcasting of the call are perfectly legal under R.I. General Law
§ 28-50-4. Also known as the whistle blower protection law.
Now here's why Nick is gonna be pissed at me. Listen up Stink, I'm giving you pearls here son. IF this liaison goes after him with the threat of a lawsuit (YOUR post on this thread alone is proof enough there was a threat) he could file a counter suit which claims her initial suit is a violation of
§ 28-50-4 which states, and I quote:
[FONT=Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif]
"[/FONT]Public and private employers cannot discharge, threaten or discriminate against an employee for reporting to a public body a violation of law or regulation or for participating in an investigation, hearing, inquiry or court action. An aggrieved employee has three years after an alleged violation to file an action for relief or damages."
And the most embarrassing part about ALL of it for this Liaison is, her claim would get thrown out, and Nick would ABSOLUTELY win his counter.
In another thread, you asked "Who is a pre law undergrad?" That would be me.