Apparently, a district attorney causes an accident and acts like she was victimized.
I’m just curious to know if when caught lying like that shown in the video above do attorneys lose their licenses ?
No, they don’t lose their licenses for lying. They get elected to public office!
8 Likes
Also, I’m wondering what’s the legal deal with having a dashcam? I might need to do some google research on this. But I did read somewhere that recording people without their consent can backfire.
How would we know ? This is Cartalk not Legal Talk .
1 Like
If the state BAR revoked licenses for lying, there would be no lawyers. That incident might affect their position as a government employee.
I don’t block (aggressive) drivers who are changing lanes. the collision was avoidable.
In the first few seconds of the video, the driver of the vehicle in the left lane is seen approaching the next vehicle unnecessarily fast in an effort to block the women. I let people have their way, it is easy to accommodate a lane change, I don’t have time to stand on the side of the road and argue about “space”.
3 Likes
The penalties for perjury in a Civil Case are either very slight or non-existent.
I think that this case was likely a Civil case, not a Criminal case.
2 Likes
Right. I’m just curious if an attorney is caught lying like that whether he’d lose his profession license.
I hate it when people in power use their status to intimidate the ordinary people.
Maybe you should just worry about your own problems . . . ? 
1 Like
To be fair, just about any time an attorney is talking, they are probably lying. As long as they aren’t in court, it’s ok. That’s why most people have such a low opinion of attorneys, politicians, etc. Even used car salesmen are considered more honest.
Not the attorneys I know and work with.
2 Likes
There are plenty of other professions people have a very low opinion of
First off the video shows the person may be lying in public on camera. That’s NOT the same as lying UNDER OATH. You don’t have to go back very far to find prime examples of this.
3 Likes
Go back and read it again, you missed the point entirely…
This is a legal issue that varies to a great extent, from one state to another.
-
One-party consent states: The majority of states (around 38 plus Washington, D.C.) follow the federal rule* and require only one party to consent to the recording of a conversation. This means you can record a conversation if you are a participant, even without the knowledge of other parties. Examples include New York, Texas, and Ohio.
-
All-party consent states: Approximately 11 states require all parties involved in a conversation to consent to the recording. These include California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
-
Mixed consent states: Some states have nuanced laws that might differentiate between in-person and phone conversations or have exceptions depending on the circumstances. For instance, Oregon requires one-party consent for phone calls but all-party consent for in-person conversations.
-
- The Federal Wiretap Act generally prohibits the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications unless one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.
-
This means that under federal law, you can typically record a conversation if you are a party to it, or if one of the parties has given consent
I live in an all party consent state. If the other party informs me that they are recording a phone cal, do I have to inform them that I’m recording it too? Both parties already consented.
That actually happened here in NH about 20 years ago. Not sure of the exact circumstances, but one party told the other party they were recording the conversation. So the other party decided to record it also. They were in some legal dispute. In court the first party played the tape they recorded - but they had altered it to seem like they were the victim. The second party produced their tape, and the first party tried to get it thrown out because the second party didn’t inform the first party they were also recording. The Judge threw out their motion stating they had every right to record the conversation without telling you because you had informed them you were recording them and you both consented. Party #2 won their lawsuit and was awarded triple damages because party #1 altered their evidence.
1 Like
She needs to be fired.
1 Like
Lying is more of a moral/ethical issue, than a legal issue unless under oath… imho
If everyone got fired for lying, well, probably wouldn’t be too many people working anymore… lol
4 Likes
She who? The one that had the evidence on her desk?
2 Likes
Do wiretapping eavesdropping laws even apply to dash cams?
They usually don’t record the other parties’ conversations.