Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, I haven't even looked for that. I listened to the entire call, and there isn't anything nefarious, so I was just waiting to see if it makes it to trial.
No it's you who are conflating issues. The "Fruit from the Poisonous Tree" doctrine has nothing to do with Georgia's privacy statutes. It applies everywhere.State activities are exempted from the law because the two party consent law is about privacy, not about 4th amendment. You're crossing wires on the issue.
So you are telling me that any phone conversation can legally be recorded in Georgia, no exceptions?This isnt an illegal wiretap. It's phone conversation between two parties, the state being one of those parties.
Do you have a source for this claim?We were talking about how sometimes evidence that is illegally collected can still be admissible, and that is generally if it was "innocently" acquired. But illegal wiretaps are ALWAYS excluded, it does not matter how they were acquired by the prosecutor.
I assume you mean Florida. Florida law and court precedent have exceptions for investigators and for public officials. A public officials engaging in official business do not have an expectation of privacy.So you are telling me that any phone conversation can legally be recorded in Georgia, no exceptions?
You do not recognize that Georgia's privacy law has categories of privileged communications that are illegal to record?
Do you have a source for this claim?
No, I am talking about Georgia. Georgia has a privacy statute that makes it a criminal act to record privileged communications.I assume you mean Florida. Florida law and court precedent have exceptions for investigators and for public officials. A public officials engaging in official business do not have an expectation of privacy.
Your reference says that it’s just evidence obtained from illegal state activity. If a private citizen were to illegally record someone, and the state obtains that recording, they can admit it. The point being, it definitely does matter how the prosecutor gets the information.Under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, evidence obtained as an indirect result of illegal state action is also inadmissible
Do you have any knowledge on what is illegal to record in Georgia? And why it would apply here?No, I am talking about Georgia. Georgia has a privacy statute that makes it a criminal act to record privileged communications.
Whether or not this particular call qualifies as a privileged communication in Georgia is up to the judge to decide.
The circumstances lead me to think it could be, else why would Raffy ask the J6 committee not to call her as a witness, and why did Fani need to give her immunity before her grand jury? She wasn't immunizing her from prosecution in Florida, right? That's not her jurisdiction. She was immunizing her in Georgia...
We already established that it was the State making the recording, so I see no reason to argue that point.Your reference says that it’s just evidence obtained from illegal state activity.
You can search Georgia's statutes online. Start here:Do you have any knowledge on what is illegal to record in Georgia? And why it would apply here?
law.justia.com
Which have broad exemptions in Florida state law, but since you aren't arguing that (this was the original purpose of the thread), no need to belabor it.We already established that it was the State making the recording, so I see no reason to argue that point.
I'll take it as a no. Since Fuchs was party to the conversation, the recording isn't illegal. There's nothing privileged about the conversation whatsoever.You can search Georgia's statutes online. Start here:
I have said several times that the law in Florida is not the question.Which have broad exemptions in Florida state law, but since you aren't arguing that (this was the original purpose of the thread), no need to belabor it.
Your categorical statement shows me that you are not really interested in the law.I'll take it as a no. Since Fuchs was party to the conversation, the recording isn't illegal. There's nothing privileged about the conversation whatsoever.
law.justia.com
Id be less certain about my position if you could provide any rational circumstance that would make the recording privileged.Your categorical statement shows me that you are not really interested in the law.
There is a long list of categories of privileged communications in the Georgia statutes, I have read it but I do not need to hunt it down again for you, since you are already certain of your position.
I do not need to prove it was a privileged communication. I only note that there are categories of communications that are privileged. As I said, it would be up to the judge to decide.Id be less certain about my position if you could provide any rational circumstance that would make the recording privileged.
law.justia.com
Admissibility to court has nothing to do with whether they can disclose it to the media.I have not even searched the administrative codes, but I would be very surprised if State employees, acting in the course of their duties, were permitted to just record any conversation with high public officials and disclose it to the media.
I never said it did. I am talking about the legality of the recording in Georgia. Admissibility is an entirely separate question.Admissibility to court has nothing to do with whether they can disclose it to the media.
There are open meeting laws and sunshine laws in Georgia that make public meetings and such open to anyone.If anything, discussions among public officials are less privileged than others, given they are discussing, you know, public matters.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I post my thoughts, if you want to ask a question I will try to answer it.If you ever come up with a rational argument for why it can't be admitted to court, let me know.
I searched and cannot find any reference to this. Can you provide one?she was granted immunity before the grand jury.
In the OP, and quoted by me a few posts back...I searched and cannot find any reference to this. Can you provide one?
If the taping was legal, why did she need to be granted immunity before testifying about it?No, it was immunity before the Georgia grand jury.
"A lawyer for Raffensperger’s office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee’s lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony."
I think it's a fair question.If the taping was legal, why did she need to be granted immunity before testifying about it?
