Not home repair, per set ... but voice recording home repairmen question

Page 2 of 2  
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Its very simple. If the law is unenforceable, then it is a stupid law. Therefore it must have been conceived of by, and implimented into law by, liberals... QED
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Graham wrote:

You see, only a dumb liberal would be too stupid to be able to forsee the day when cameras and digital recorders would become so small that they could be carried in rings, necklasses and wristwatches. The fact that Morton Gould, back in the forties, conceived of cell phones that could be carried on te wrist don't make no never mind to a liberal idiot. So any law that outlaws clandestine recording/photographing, is, or at least will be, unenforceable.... Also, they can make its use in court illegal, but thast is also stupid, because courtrooms are, or should be, interested in the truth, and recording devices are manufactured for the primary purpose of aiding in the discovery of truth. So, eventually, they will have to be legalized no matter how hard stupid people work to keep them out of the courtroom. Some things are so easy to predict that even a dumb liberal should be able to do so......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you don't know where and when what laws were passed, but you still assert that such laws are in force ??? Hello ??? Come back WHEN you can cite ACTUAL law to support you claim to be somewhat credible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just get it in writing.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:58:47 +0000, James Gagney wrote:

UPDATE: The California voice recording law is apparently thus: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law
California Recording Law
Note: This page covers information specific to California. For general information concerning the use of recording devices see the Recording Phone Calls, Conversations, Meetings and Hearings section of this guide. California Wiretapping Law
California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi- public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.
If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.
Consult The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's Can We Tape?: California for more information on California wiretapping law. California Law on Recording Court Hearings and Public Meetings
Court Hearings
In a California state courtroom, you may be able to use a recording device if specific requirements are met. Anyone may use an inconspicuous personal recording device for note-taking purposes with the advance permission of the judge. For photographing, recording (other than as above), or broadcasting a court proceeding, you must file official media coverage request forms. These forms must be filed with the court at least five days before the event to be covered. The court has broad discretion to grant or deny such requests based on a number of factors. See Rule 1.150 of the California Rules of Court for details.
Federal courts in California are part of the Ninth Circuit. In Ninth Circuit appellate proceedings, cameras and recording devices are permitted at the discretion of the presiding panel of judges. To get permission, you need to file an Application for Permission to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast from the Courtroom three days in advance, although the panel can waive the advance notice requirement. Recording devices and cameras generally are prohibited in federal district courts in California.
For information on your right of access to court proceedings, please consult the Access to Government Information section of the guide.
Public Meetings
If you attend a public meeting (i.e., a meeting of a governmental body required to be open to the public by law) in California, you may make an audio or video recording unless the state or local body holding the meeting determines that the recording disrupts the proceedings by noise, illumination, or obstruction of view. Cal. Gov't Code § 11124.1(a); Cal Gov't Code §§ 54953.5(a),-.6.
For details on your right of access to public meetings, see the Access section and the The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's Open Government Guide: California.
For information on your right of access to public meetings, please consult the Access to Government Information section of the guide.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/18/2012 3:58 PM, James Gagney wrote:

Do you really want crooks working in your home? Why don't you hire honest contractors?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:16:51 -0400, Jack wrote:

The problem is that you have no way of knowing if they're lying to you, until AFTER the fact.
It's then that the recording can be replayed to them so 'remind' them of what they said to you.
Without the recording, they can say "I didn't say that".
Why else record?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't record, get everything in writing. Make sure it is signed. That should make it a legal document if ever needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ralph Mowery wrote:

It's hard to make a written memorandum of everything that's said and a recording is just as good (sometimes better) than a written document.
A "contract" is a meeting of the minds on the mutual rewards and obligations of the parties to the contract.
An "oral" contract is just as valid as a written one (with a few exceptions such as the sale of real estate). The problem with an oral contract, though, is that it degenerates into "he said, she said" confusion with no clear answer as to who is right. A recording usually eliminates that problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.