Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 306
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    8,387
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2563
    OK, I agree the guy's a despicable man and that his mouth seems to have exploded. But, just one question, can his wife really record him, will that really stand up in court? Or is it a moot point if reporting what he said has ruined his reputation. Unfortunately, I am quite sure he has enough money to fight what she said he said, not saying he will win, but just that he will carry it on until she has run out of money trying to drag him down.

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    12,995
    vCash
    450
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by overedge View Post
    Wow. It sounds like his career was already on the decline before the latest outburst, if this is the sort of work he was getting.....


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beaver_(film)



    As of July 9, 2010, a leaked racist tirade by Mel Gibson had caused its distributor, Summit Entertainment, to suspend production of the film indefinitely.

    It is wiki, so who knows how accurate it is.

  3. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    I'm in the West and my Heart in the East
    Posts
    7,105
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lacey View Post
    just one question, can his wife really record him, will that really stand up in court?
    It is legal to record conversations or even phone calls in which you are one of the participators, so yes it was legal, and will stand up in court, IMO.
    Last edited by Eden; 07-11-2010 at 04:02 AM.

  4. #64
    Watch me move
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    16,731
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Eden View Post
    It is legal to record conversations or even phone calls in which you are one of the participators, so yes it was legal, and will stand up in court, IMO.
    From the website you cited:
    Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
    The conversation took place in California, so the taping may not be legal if there wasn't mutual consent - unless this falls under some kind of exceptional circumstance.
    Who wants to watch rich people eat pizza? They must have loved that in Bangladesh. - Randy Newman on the 2014 Oscars broadcast

  5. #65
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    I'm in the West and my Heart in the East
    Posts
    7,105
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    My ex is a cop, and I know it's an international law that you can record conversation in which you are present.
    This is how the journalists and cops work. They or ordinary people don't need to ask for permission.
    I'll try to find a link.
    Last edited by Eden; 07-11-2010 at 04:35 AM.

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    I'm in the West and my Heart in the East
    Posts
    7,105
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Here it is
    Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?

    Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.
    From: Recording Phone Calls and Conversations

    Gibson's lawyers have filed against Oksana for leaking the tape to the media, and not for the fact that she recorded the conversation between them.
    They obtained a restraining order against Oksana forbidding her to release the tape, which is now part of sealed evidence in the custody case.

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    16,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by orbitz View Post
    When you had too much to drink and/or get extremely angry, your true feelings tend to come out. I think it's good that racist people don't have the sense to keep their true feelings to themselves, otherwise how else would you identity them.
    Good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex View Post
    Yeah, for some reason, Polanski has been forgiven by Hollywood. But I don't know if I could even watch a movie Gibson directed anymore.
    As horrible as Gibson's vile ranting is, Polanski is a child molester.

  8. #68
    Watch me move
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    16,731
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Eden View Post
    Gibson's lawyers have filed against Oksana for leaking the tape to the media, and not for the fact that she recorded the conversation between them.
    They obtained a restraining order against Oksana forbidding her to release the tape, which is now part of sealed evidence in the custody case.
    I'm not trying to be anal about this (really!) but the same website says that if both parties are in the same state when the conversation or phone call takes place, then the state law applies and not the federal law.....and California is one of the states that requires both parties to consent to recording.

    It's not clear from the stories about the tape where the conversation took place or if both parties were in the same place. It sounds to me like Gibson is on the phone, but it's not clear where he was calling from.
    Who wants to watch rich people eat pizza? They must have loved that in Bangladesh. - Randy Newman on the 2014 Oscars broadcast

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,331
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by cruisin View Post


    As horrible as Gibson's vile ranting is, Polanski is a child molester.
    But the thing to remember is that Polanski did what he did in a different time period than Gibson. There was no TMZ, Internet, etc. We weren't shown drunken photos of Polanski or interviews with people who were in the bar that night like we were with Gibson.

    In fact, the majority of the public couldn't tell you what Polanski exactly did other than a two sentence explanation that has been on television recently with news of him being possibly brought back. Gibson's previous comments and actions were played over and over again. His new ones are too.

    People do have short memories on this type of thing. If ones new behavior is such that it makes it hard to believe there was ever a problem. While what Polanski did was vile and horrible, he supposedly didn't continue in the behavior itself. He led a productive life - though on the run - that didn't exhibit the same type of behavior. Gibson's life is not showing any signs of rehabilitation. He is still making comments and now appears to have domestic violence issues.

    I guess I'm saying that it doesn't really matter whose crime is worse in the minds of the general public or Hollywood elite. It is the one whose crimes are most visable at the time that will receive punishment.

    To answer the original question. Gibson's career is done for as long as he continues this path. That will last as long as the behavior continues and he shows no remorse. That is to say he can turn it around, but the truth is that he probably doesn't see the need to do so.

    He doesn't seem to see that there is anything wrong with his beliefs or behavior. That is probably the saddest part of all for him. His kids, ex-wives, etc. can move past him and his antics. His former agents, business partners, etc. can find new clients and projects. He's still going to have to live with himself.

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,759
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Mel Gibson and Alec Baldwin are both almost cut from the same cloths. They're both seem on the outside like the greatest pal you would want to have around - funny, intelligent, nice, etc. - but privately they both have shown what ugly people they can be and are in real life if they felt that someone has crossed them. I have never been able to see Alec Baldwin in the same light again since his rant to his daughter a few years ago was made public. I shudder to think what his daughter goes through everytime he's upset at her. Creepy.

  11. #71
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,089
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Let's hope it is.

  12. #72

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    I'm turning what????
    Age
    43
    Posts
    9,293
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    328
    Under California law, Penal Code section 632, it is illegal to tape a private phone call without every person's consent. A violation is a misdemeanor, subject to a possible $1,000 fine and, iirc, a short jail sentence. The recording also cannot be used in any judicial proceeding, except for a prosecution under that law. I believe a victim of a recording may also sue for $1,000. (I've had the law come up in a few cases, but it's been awhile, so I'm going on memory.)

    Given this law, the Gibson recording cannot be used in court and Oksana could get in legal trouble for the recording. As a practical matter, the PR impact will probably mean nothing happens to her.

  13. #73
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,759
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm sure Oksana and her team weighed the decision of breaking the law versus the damage it will do to Gibson's public image and decided that the latter option was worth the consequence.

  14. #74
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    I'm in the West and my Heart in the East
    Posts
    7,105
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by reckless View Post
    Under California law, Penal Code section 632, it is illegal to tape a private phone call without every person's consent. A violation is a misdemeanor, subject to a possible $1,000 fine and, iirc, a short jail sentence. The recording also cannot be used in any judicial proceeding, except for a prosecution under that law. I believe a victim of a recording may also sue for $1,000. (I've had the law come up in a few cases, but it's been awhile, so I'm going on memory.)

    Given this law, the Gibson recording cannot be used in court and Oksana could get in legal trouble for the recording. As a practical matter, the PR impact will probably mean nothing happens to her.
    Thanks for explaining. I thought a Federal law is above State law, guess I'm wrong.
    It is interesting, though. What happens regarding journalists' recordings when they are doing journalist investigations, or cops putting recording device on their sources, or people capturing all kinds of incidents or events on their cellular phones?! What happens regarding stores having hiden cameras?

  15. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    12,995
    vCash
    450
    Rep Power
    0
    Don't know about journalists. Cops get warrants. Stores can't record audio, just video.

  16. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    16,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Norlite View Post
    Don't know about journalists. Cops get warrants. Stores can't record audio, just video.
    So, Mel had better not learn to sign.

    Sorry, couldn't resist. I apologize if anyone feels it's not funny.

  17. #77

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,331
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    779
    I've never done investigative journalism, but my recordings of interviews and whatnot were always for accurately quoting people. On a few occasions politicians would say they didn't say something. One time playing it back to them and they stopped complaining.

    Most people use such recordings to either start off negotiations (I have you on tape so you better start talking) or to protect themselves in a situation. I would be willing to bet Oksana did just that. She is probably aware that the tape doesn't hold much water legally, but it does in the public relations world. He was probably given warning that she would release it if he didn't step up to paying, cooperating, etc.

  18. #78

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    I'm turning what????
    Age
    43
    Posts
    9,293
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Eden View Post
    Thanks for explaining. I thought a Federal law is above State law, guess I'm wrong.
    It is interesting, though. What happens regarding journalists' recordings when they are doing journalist investigations, or cops putting recording device on their sources, or people capturing all kinds of incidents or events on their cellular phones?! What happens regarding stores having hiden cameras?
    On criminal matters, state and federal laws are concurrent. It is only if there is a conflict in the law that federal law trumps state law. (That is under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.) There is no federal law governing recordings that authorizes courts to use recordings without consent, so the state law remains in effect.

    Wiretaps by police with a warrant are subject to exceptions to the California criminal law.

    As for journalists, they are subject to the same law as the regular public. However, the law only prohibits recordings where the person unaware of the recording has an expectation of privacy. Therefore, recording someone in a store is usually permissible, because other people are present and it is a place open to the public. However, it can be problematic say if the recording takes place in a manager's office or a backroom.

    Stores with hidden cameras are generally protected by the public nature of the store. However, many stores have signs alerting people to monitoring as a way of circumventing the law. You might be familiar with another common practice designed to deal with these laws -- when you call a company and get a recording telling you the call may be monitored or recorded for training or other purposes. That is designed to eliminate any argument that you had an expectation of privacy during the call.

    FYI, before the "Do Not Call" list, I relied on this law to avoid telemarketers. Sometimes, when they start, they will tell you that the call is being recorded. If I didn't want to be bothered, I would say that I do not allow myself to be recorded. Since the callers had no control over recording devices, they would have to hang up to avoid violating the criminal law.
    Last edited by reckless; 07-12-2010 at 01:40 AM.

  19. #79
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    833
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lacey View Post
    ..... but just that he will carry it on until she has run out of money trying to drag him down.
    ...and that's the unfortunate part of the justice system. Money wins.

  20. #80
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    16,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zowie View Post
    ...and that's the unfortunate part of the justice system. Money wins.
    But it doesn't have to be that way. Gibson clearly has "issues", a real ugly side to him. But, by making this public his girlfriend threw down a gauntlet. I am sure that part of the reason she did it was that they are not married. She has a child with him and wants to be supported. Not being married, she might get decent child support, but not likely to get any sort of "alimony type" award. I am sure there is a monetary issue on both sides. She had to know what she was getting into, after his prior "explosions". Not blaming the victim, but it's always better to solve your disputes privately.

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •