Posted:
#26
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
CA lawyer here.
Racist thoughts and attitudes are protected free speech. Acting on those thoughts and attitudes, if done in a discriminatory fashion (i.e., I dunno, in housing?) is illegal under a number of federal and state laws.
On the flip side, recording someone without their consent is also illegal. That's why when, in CA, you call somewhere and you hear a recording that the call may be monitored and recorded for "quality assurance purposes" or really for whatever reason. Notice is the key point. The tape itself would not be admissible in a potential civil jury trial due to this fact, unless the woman could establish that Sterling knew the tape was rolling (highly unlikely -- he may be racist but isn't stupid enough to knowingly put that on tape, especially considering all the full page ads he puts out in the LA Times touting his work with underprivileged youth.)
Even if you could show that she recorded/released the tape, what good does that do you as Sterling's lawyer? You want to recover any "gifts" she got or money she embezzled. I guarantee she has either (a) already spent those funds or (b) will spend them on her attorney. She is, I'm willing to posit, likely "judgment proof". Congrats Donald, you get a judgment against her, and then she will just go file bankruptcy and it will be all wiped away.
CA lawyer here.
Racist thoughts and attitudes are protected free speech. Acting on those thoughts and attitudes, if done in a discriminatory fashion (i.e., I dunno, in housing?) is illegal under a number of federal and state laws.
On the flip side, recording someone without their consent is also illegal. That's why when, in CA, you call somewhere and you hear a recording that the call may be monitored and recorded for "quality assurance purposes" or really for whatever reason. Notice is the key point. The tape itself would not be admissible in a potential civil jury trial due to this fact, unless the woman could establish that Sterling knew the tape was rolling (highly unlikely -- he may be racist but isn't stupid enough to knowingly put that on tape, especially considering all the full page ads he puts out in the LA Times touting his work with underprivileged youth.)
Even if you could show that she recorded/released the tape, what good does that do you as Sterling's lawyer? You want to recover any "gifts" she got or money she embezzled. I guarantee she has either (a) already spent those funds or (b) will spend them on her attorney. She is, I'm willing to posit, likely "judgment proof". Congrats Donald, you get a judgment against her, and then she will just go file bankruptcy and it will be all wiped away.
"Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2510-2520)
any person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used can file a civil lawsuit.
Electronic Communication Privacy Act
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/98-326.pdf?
Does Sterling need to prove that she recorded him ,then released the tape ?
0
Hot Forum Topics
