Having my phone call witnessed?

[quincy]

You should hand over what you know to the police to investigate.

 

[Zigner]

For a contract dispute?

 

[spflanze]

This:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...sion=&title=15.&part=1.&chapter=1.5.&article=



Yes.



None. Because it's illegal to record, or have anybody listen to, the conversation without his consent and if you do it you cannot use the conversation as evidence. Read the statute.

Sorry you got swindled.

There's a life lesson in there.

In the most optimistic scenario, which I give a low chance of, the swindler will say something to confirm the swindle in spite of knowing there are others listening. It is on this predicate I did ask for how many witnesses would be needed to make a strong case.

I am well aware I was too trusting. But comments in this regard are not helpful now.

 

[Zigner]

In the most optimistic scenario, which I give a low chance of, the swindler will say something to confirm the swindle in spite of knowing there are others listening. It is on this predicate I did ask for how many witnesses would be needed to make a strong case.

The information your "witness(es)" would provide is hearsay. Hearsay is not admissible.
Also, this is a contract dispute (civil, not criminal).

 

[quincy]

Yes, the point of recording the conversation would have been a way to gather evidence. But it is clear that if I were to do so without court order the recording would not be admissible, and could get me in legal trouble. Furthermore, I now know such court orders are issued only to police, and never for this type of crime:
....
And so the necessity to have witnesses instead of a recording. It appears it is required he know at the start of the call who else is listening. The two people who would witness the call he did meet when he came to where I live to negotiate and get paid for the deal. Those two did learn then what the swindler was there for by the swindler's own statements in conversation with them, but nether of the two witnessed the payment. I figure the odds he will say something to verify there was a deal and he was paid for it while knowing these two are listening to be low. But there is nothing to lose by trying and so I will try. And since he has already met these two I figure the odds he will have his guard down during the conversation to be somewhat higher. If it goes the way I hope it will the swindler will make another false promise to refund the money because he no longer wants to repair the car just as he did in a prior conversation that was not witnessed. This would confirm to the witnesses that he was paid, and for what he was paid for.

This appears to be more than a contract dispute, Zigner - but you are right that the police may see it as civil not criminal.

 

[Zigner]

Party A contracted with Party B to perform a service. Party B failed to perform said service and Party A now wants a refund. I don't think there is more to this than a contract dispute.

 

[spflanze]

Show me the statute. The ones I'm familiar with only apply to using electronic means to eavesdrop or intercept the communications.

The law is in this link given by adjusterjack:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...sion=&title=15.&part=1.&chapter=1.5.&article=
The part that answers your question is:

"or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state;"

The conversation would be sent from and received within the state of California. So the law is applicable to witnessed phone conversation.

I am not sure how this law were to apply if I were to record this call while calling the swindler from a one party consent state. In any case, it is not practical for me to do that for this amount of money.

 

[Zigner]

The law is in this link given by adjusterjack:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...sion=&title=15.&part=1.&chapter=1.5.&article=
The part that answers your question is:

"or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state;"

The conversation would be sent from and received within the state of California. So the law is applicable to witnessed phone conversation.

I am not sure how this law were to apply if I were to record this call while calling the swindler from a one party consent state. In any case, it is not practical for me to do that for this amount of money.

We're really going in circles here.

 

[quincy]

The law of the state with two-party consent applies.

Do not record the phone call without consent. If you do, or if you try to play games with the law, you open yourself up to a criminal charge.

 

[spflanze]

The problem with a "witness" to the recording is that the testimony that the "witness" to the call would be giving would be hearsay and not admissible anyway.

My intent is not to have a playback of the phone call's recording witnessed. My intent is to have the actual phone call witnessed in real time, while the swindler has full knowledge of who else is listening, and perhaps even taking part in it.

I recognize it is going to be my word, and the words of my witnesses against his. This is why I have asked how many witnesses will make a strong case.

The California wiretapping laws will not allow me to audio record the call. So witnesses for this call is what is left to me.

 

[quincy]

As long as everyone involved in the phone conversation knows the call is being recorded, there is not an issue. Just make sure that the consent is given before recording and again given on the recording.

 

[Zigner]

My intent is not to have a playback of the phone call's recording witnessed. My intent is to have the actual phone call witnessed in real time, while the swindler has full knowledge of who else is listening, and perhaps even taking part in it.

I recognize it is going to be my word, and the words of my witnesses against his. This is why I have asked how many witnesses will make a strong case.

The California wiretapping laws will not allow me to audio record the call. So witnesses for this call is what is left to me.

The "word" of your witnesses doesn't count. It's not admissible. It would be hearsay, which is not allowed.

 

[quincy]

The "word" of your witnesses doesn't count. It's not admissible. It would be hearsay, which is not allowed.

The witnesses could testify.

But the "swindler" has to be an idiot to agree to a recording and then admit to anything.

 

[Zigner]

The witnesses could testify.

But the "swindler" has to be an idiot to agree to a recording and then admit to anything.

Sure, but it wouldn't count for much

 

[quincy]

Sure, but it wouldn't count for much

I am thinking any phone call won't count for much.