Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "" video.

Typically, the only restrictions on recording are based on consent and whether or not the parties being recorded know about it. She doesn't get to tell him to shut off the recorder in the middle of a clearly illegal search and seizure action. If she doesn't like the recording, she has the option of just leaving.
50
Family courts often go after husbands viciously in search of money to hand over to the wife. SImply not being the father isn't always an excuse to not pay child support either.
17
@indescribableemptiness4104 Nothing, just that she can't demand that he turn off the cameras just because she doesn't like what she's doing being on camera. If she doesn't like it, she has the option of just leaving the property and approving and appropriate warrant to cover what's going on.
5
@RossTheBoss87 Nope, look up wiretap statutes, you don't just get to record people without their consent, even if you are on your property. There's a reason why stores post signs indicating that recording is in progress.
2
This is family court, abuse of power is more or less standard when it benefits the wife or children.
1
@TheCunningStunt Indeed, he's dealing with a judge who is already willing to break the law, doing things that are illegal or inflammatory is just going to make things more difficult later on. It's one of the reasons why running from the police is such a bad idea. Even if you are innocent, now you've got the legal consequences of running to deal with and it doesn't look great to the judge or jury.
1
@kitchenbriks3685 Absolutely. There's folks like my wife that don't understand something and then insist that it's a part of some sort of conspiracy when really, she just doesn't understand how it works. That's not to say that some of this stuff can't or shouldn't be fixed, but a lot of things that look fishy are legitimate.
1
@motocrosser784 You absolutely can, filming people on your property isn't an absolute right, there are restrictions to it.
1
@motocrosser784 That's not really accurate. By your reasoning, landlords can put up cameras in common areas if they like, because it's their property. Which is clearly not true.
1
@LSwick-ss6nm This isn't accurate, one of the terms of entering the premises is agreeing to be recorded and there are generally signs indicating it so you can opt out by not entering. By your reasoning, a landlord could install a camera in areas of an apartment other than the bedrooms and bathrooms, because it's their property, they can film. Which is obviously not true. People would quite reasonably be upset by being filmed.
1
In a courtroom there's usually members of the public so the lack of recordings is usually less of an issue. Family court can be a little different by its nature, but normally, you'd still have witnesses along with a courtroom record of what happens.
1
There are rarely things that go on in a courtroom that are done without anybody present other than administrative tasks to keep things moving. Things like discussing what evidence can be admitted, and even then there's normally a court recorder recording it so that any appeals have that record. The cameras thing isn't a very big deal, we had well over a hundred years of court cases where there were no cameras in courts at all, it's only been in relatively recent years that we have not just photos but video to go along with it as a normal practice. But, virtually anybody can go to virtually any court proceeding that they want to and sit in the back and watch. It's part of how the public knows that the judges and lawyers can be trusted in handling these things. This is normally the case unless there is a reason that meets the legal standards to have the room cleared. Typically this isn't done unless it's something particularly sensitive.
1
If I'm not greatly mistaken any proceeds for lawsuits related to this illegal action would be between him and the attorneys involved.
1
I guess what I don't get here is why she didn't just issue a search warrant and then have it served before he left court. For what's being done it wouldn't have taken long to get a couple deputies out there to conduct a much less problematic search of the house. That probably would have been within a judge's discretion to do if she thought that there were enough assets not being disclosed to be material for the matter of equitable distribution.
1