Detroit Michigan Recorded Training And Told To Commit A Felony Of Voter Fraud
(youtu.be)
🛑 STOP THE STEAL 🛑
Comments (289)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
I guess it would depend on if Michigan is a one-party consent state?
SPEZ: How convenient, MI is two-party consent. https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/michigan-recording-laws/
The idea of a two party consent state should fall apart if it actually proves a crime, I swear.
It does if you do it right in court.
Get the person to lie about what they said IN COURT. Tell the judge you have evidence to the contrary. It is the one way I know you can use it despite consent laws.
There's also things like "I was recording this for notes that I could review later." You can also determine if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They do not. This is how Wal-Mart records you without permission while you shop.
I've read a book or two on private investigator training because I want to take the test in my state at some point. One book I read talked about recording someone through their window and it was admissible in court. They didn't bother to draw the curtains and they did what they were doing in plain view of the window. Had hey drawn their curtains they would have an expectation of privacy.
I don't really think the two-party consent laws will defend them against this recording. No one in that room had an expectation of privacy.
That can probably help protect you from future prosecution after the Judge allows your recording.
Then the Trump Team needs this for the casework
It does if they admit to a crime or the planning of one.
If somebody is stupid enough to admit to a crime they did or planning, and there is evidence that leads to arrest, they are fucked. This isn't like TV. You don't need a warrant. If you are in the middle of a divorce you can record any phone call with your soon-to-be-ex as they are considered your wife still and they don't have reasonable expectation of privacy.
You only really need permission if you are archiving the conversation and there is no other reason to expect otherwise. If they are stupid enough to not agree to recording, and they admit they murdered somebody, they can still get arrested.
This would be completely admissible as evidence as long as they can identify who/what/where/when/why.
Evidence has to be presented before any proceeding otherwise its thrown out. Those gotcha games are the reason.
The SCOTUS will destroy that
In Michigan you are one the of the parties so its fine either way.
No... Thats how ONE party consent works.
You don't need consent if recording a government official while they are operating in their official capacity.
Not in Michigan you are wrong. Yes the law says one thing kinda and judges have been saying another.
A recorded call that violates 2 party consent may still be used as evidence. The person who made the recording may still be in trouble though.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/15/federal-judge-questions-michigans-secret-recording-law-asks-high-court-weigh/3662931001/
Obama judge muddied the waters to protect a Project Veritas target so now it's before the Michigan Supreme Court, which just flipped to 4-3 Democrat majority because of the rigged voting. What a clusterfuck
Ooooh...oh...ooooh....oh yeah I memba!!!
Two party consent usually isn’t required when a crime is being committed.
Plus, there's ability to record a government official performing in their official capacity? IANAL but I don't think situations like these are as clear as "one party/ two party" consent rules.
Could this fall under the protection of the first amendment to record in a public place?
Yeah; this isn’t a permission needed situation. It’s a training provided to a class and members of the public and not subject to that requirement.
Just checked, it is