I wonder if it would be the same thought process if genders wre reversed.
Good point. She was aiding an intruder into his bedroom, perfectly justified to record it, especially since it had an impact on their divorce case.
It is 100% he who was wronged. Him recording it is 100% justified.
If he had put it on the Internet, or sent it to her friends, that would be different. She can’t complain that he recorded evidence in his own house.
You keep using the word intruder, but the person was invited by a legal occupant. The law doesn’t work on a tit for tat basis, one person’s bad behavior isn’t a legal excuse for someone else’s bad behavior.
I’m surprised he didn’t have a lawyer go through it and delete parts that would get him in trouble.
Good point. She was aiding an intruder into his bedroom, perfectly justified to record it, especially since it had an impact on their divorce case.
It is 100% he who was wronged. Him recording it is 100% justified.
If he had put it on the Internet, or sent it to her friends, that would be different. She can’t complain that he recorded evidence in his own house.
You keep using the word intruder, but the person was invited by a legal occupant. The law doesn’t work on a tit for tat basis, one person’s bad behavior isn’t a legal excuse for someone else’s bad behavior.
I’m surprised he didn’t have a lawyer go through it and delete parts that would get him in trouble.