In protecting yourself from the wiley ones, the question of 'recording telephone conversations' without explicit permission arises. The laws, and statutes vary from state to state as does also the view in a given State Court as to its jurisdiction regarding this activity in connection with telephone calls between that state and another State.

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 05:23:53 -0400
From: judy morris 
Subject: Taping Phone Calls IN A NUTSHELL --GOOD GOOD NEWS GUYS

Sorry it took me so long to figure this out, but thanks to someone on this
list, we NOW HAVE THE DEFINITVE ANSWER ON TAPING PHONE CONVERSATIONS and
the news IS GREAT..

Website http://www.rcfp.org/taping

"A majority of states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes
based on federal law.  Thirty eight states and the District of Columbia 
permit an INDIVIDUAL TO RECORD A CONVERSATION TO WHICH THEY ARE A PARTY
WITHOUT INFORMING THE OTHER PARTY THAT THEY ARE DOING SO.  These laws 
are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and AS LONG AS YOU ARE
A PARTY TO A CONVERSATION, IT IS LEGAL FOR YOU TO RECORD IT."

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all 
parties to the conversation.  These jurisdictions are CA, CT, DE, FL,
IL, MD, MA, MI, MT, NH, PA, WA.  These have two party consent laws.

There must be a God, because when UNUM was conducting its interviews 
with me I happened to be staying with a friend in Kentucky.  I wasn't
sure if it was legal but I taped them.  Since Maine is also a ONE PARTY
state, it doesn't matter if they called me or I called them.

By the time I got to Florida and could see all the lies they are telling,
I decided to ask them if they would agree to be taped just to see what
would happen.  Of course, they said no, so I did not tape them in Florida.

I do however have some wonderful tapes of the intake conversation with
my adjusters.  And they were ALL taped IN ONE PARTY STATES.  AND UNUM's
Private Investigators CAN vouch for the fact that I was there AND NOT in
Massachusetts which is a two party state.

So tape away people, as long as you are not in one of the twelve 2 party 
states listed above.

By the way ROGER - MISSOURI IS ALSO A ONE PARTY STATE.  What a shame we 
didn't get a recording of that asshole telling you the trouble they
could make for you and your family.

You can buy at Radio Shack a tape recorder that hooks up to your phone and
the adapter for less than $50.  Some answering machines, like the one I
have now, have a button you can push during the conversation called 2-way
record.   CUTE HUH.  Come 'on guys, let's catch us some corporate criminals
IN THE ACT. 

By the way, even if they don't threaten you on the phone, all those lies
and deceptions the engage in constitute WIRE FRAUD.

Judydoc

   The following discusses only an aspect of Koch v. Kimball; there is an
   interest in the last sentence regarding a specific court ruling by a
   Florida Appeals Court on recording telephone conversations between
   a person in Florida and another in anothe State (Georgia).
   At issue is a "long arm principle" which can come into play in those
   States with a "2 party consent" law.

   -- Bill


      Q. Personal Jurisdiction
   
      In Koch v. Kimball, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D594 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998), the
      Second District Court of Appeal considered an order denying a motion
      to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction. The case arose out of
      appellant's tape recording of a telephone call which she placed from
      her home in Georgia to her supervisor, appellee, in Tampa, Florida.
      Appellant was a salesperson for Progressive Insurance. Part of her
      territory was Florida. During her employment with Progressive, and in
      furtherance of her job duties, she made five three-day business trips
      to Florida. She was also required to make weekly telephone calls to
      appellee. She made those calls from her home in Georgia to appellee's
      home in Tampa. She tape-recorded one of those calls.
      
      As a result of the tape recording, appellee sued Appellant alleging a
      violation of the Florida Security of Communications Act. Appellant
      moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction under the long
      arm statute and minimum contacts. The trial court denied the motion to
      dismiss. On appeal, the appellate concluded that sufficient
      jurisdictional facts were established to find that Florida had
      jurisdiction under the long arm statute. Furthermore, there were
      sufficient minimum contacts established to satisfy due process.
      
      Pursuant to Section 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997),
      jurisdiction is proper when the defendant commits a tort within the
      State of Florida. The appellate court concluded that a tort was
      committed in Florida, when Appellant recorded Appellee's telephone
      call. The court concluded that the actual interception occurs not
      where the communication is heard, but where the communication
      originates. The court interpreted the Act to provide that the
      interception occurs where the words or communication is uttered, not
      where it is recorded or heard.
   
   If I read the last sentence correctly, it says that if the insurance
   company, or anybody calls you, there nothing wrong with you simply
   recording that conversation without stating that you are doing so;
   yet, if you call whomever and record the conversation there can be
   a tort committed.  This is all regarding statues of the State of Florida,
   and could possibly not hold explicitly in other States, but there is
   a legal principle at issue here and in at least this case, a court has
   interpreted the meaning and intent of the interception that arises
   in such recording.

   -- Bill