3 ms·

I am under a hold for all written records. A co-conspirator contacts me via email and I reply the following: "Please meet me under the sletchy bridge at 2am. Al

I am under a hold for all written records. A co-conspirator contacts me via email and I reply the following: "Please meet me under the sletchy bridge at 2am. Alone. Make sure nobody follows you. Don't wear a wire." Am I under a legal requirement to record in person meetings? No. Am I obviously attempting to avoid the hold? Yes. Guess what the legal charge is for attempting to avoid preserving records? You have not discovered some clever loophole.

yallpendantools 4y ago
Your analogy uses loaded terms (co-conspirator) and makes use of biased character portrayals (alone by a sketchy bridge at 2AM, don't wear a wire). Even in this case, unless the court issued an order that forbids physical meet-up/contact between the accused, I don't see anything the court can hold against them. Meeting at a bridge at 2AM is not a crime, and doesn't mean they are avoiding anything other than other people.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  like the poster you are responding to, I can obviously see something the court can hold against them, so it seems maybe your inability to see it is more a reflection of you than the situation perhaps it bears repeating that judges aren't robots and can see someone obviously trying to evade an order and impose sanctions accordingly oh, the topic totally changed once you moved to a history free chat? got any proof? no? that's too bad, seems the judge'll have to assume the most likely scenario in their judgement
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
What if they have a video conference with you and hold up a piece of paper with written text on it. Do you now need to have recorded your meeting?
- stale2002 4y ago
  That depends, are you doing this for the purpose of obviously attempting to get around a court order? If so, then that would be illegal to do what you are suggesting. Judges to not take kindly to 'clever' programmer loopholes. If you do that, you are just going to go to jail.

yallpendantools 4y ago

Your analogy uses loaded terms (co-conspirator) and makes use of biased character portrayals (alone by a sketchy bridge at 2AM, don't wear a wire). Even in this case, unless the court issued an order that forbids physical meet-up/contact between the accused, I don't see anything the court can hold against them. Meeting at a bridge at 2AM is not a crime, and doesn't mean they are avoiding anything other than other people.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
like the poster you are responding to, I can obviously see something the court can hold against them, so it seems maybe your inability to see it is more a reflection of you than the situation perhaps it bears repeating that judges aren't robots and can see someone obviously trying to evade an order and impose sanctions accordingly oh, the topic totally changed once you moved to a history free chat? got any proof? no? that's too bad, seems the judge'll have to assume the most likely scenario in their judgement

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

What if they have a video conference with you and hold up a piece of paper with written text on it. Do you now need to have recorded your meeting?

stale2002 4y ago
That depends, are you doing this for the purpose of obviously attempting to get around a court order? If so, then that would be illegal to do what you are suggesting. Judges to not take kindly to 'clever' programmer loopholes. If you do that, you are just going to go to jail.