Comments on: Iowa Rules Against Husband Who Secretly Videotaped Wife in Bedroom

By: friend of the famalies

friend of the famalies — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:05:54 +0000

yes you are all idiots here read the transcript before you comment their was no proof of any of this their was no tape viewed no witnesses nothing just a materialistic peice of shit that wanted to use this senario to strip everything away from him, remember it was the husbon that filed for divorce not her she cheated on her first husbon for years with her second husbon and than cheated with another married man whom she has been living with for 3 years that had just recentally got divorced this past year, this lady cannot find a single man she goes after married ones and gets off on breaking up famalies, i also know for a fact these 2 were involved with a couple of swingers so this ex wife does have great morals i know very well of these 2 lets get the real story and talk

By: cathy the exwife

cathy the exwife — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:40:16 +0000

You idiots we did not tape each others phone conversations he lied in court he showed no proof he is scum of the earth He lied about everything he was a controll freek I found the tape when he was switching it out and I was not sure what was on it and I had my sister view it for me cause I tryed and it made me physically ill to see what he was doing he was into voyierism he is a sick man and i am glad its over…………..

By: cearta.ie » Privacy in a private place: nude people have rights too

cearta.ie » Privacy in a private place: nude people have rights too — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:42:47 +0000

[...] Jonathan Turley I learn that, in Tigges v Tigges, 07–1103 (December 19, 2008) (pdf) a court in Iowa held against a husband who secretly videotaped his wife in the bedroom (see also Overlawyered | [...]

By: Man Found Guilty in Videotaping of Girlfriend « JONATHAN TURLEY

Man Found Guilty in Videotaping of Girlfriend « JONATHAN TURLEY — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:36:33 +0000

[...] Putting aside the applicability of the state law, a videotaping does appear to exceed the scope of consent in such circumstances. A similar argument was made recently in the case of a man who recorded his wife in their bedroom, here. [...]

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:23:33 +0000

Just knowing that my soon-to-be-ex has a mind that works the same way that this creepy peeping tom, was enough to make me move out of my familial home (even though the judge awarded it to me) and into an investment property that he had never been to. Good Article!

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:03:56 +0000

These two are an interesting couple or ex-couple. The Ex-husband is a real scum bag. I was amazed at the claim that he didn’t show the video to anyone except his sister-in-law. How did they ever think that disclosing to any third party is not a disclosure? I have to go now and check out all the hiding spots in my bedroom!

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:58:47 +0000

Patty C:

I have now and his is a riot.

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:32:20 +0000

seamus,

I heard someone decided to take down equipment in your office bathroom. The fart cam is out of business!

By: seamus

seamus — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:52:59 +0000

Looks like I’ve got some equipment to take down.

By: Sally

Sally — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:38:11 +0000

Patty C, that is hilarious!!!

By: Patty C

Patty C — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:26:24 +0000

Patty C:

They have no capacity to execute those NDA’s and I will take that case pro bono.

—-
mespo,
ever see Dane Cook’s stand up routine?
(4mins..)

By: Patty C

Patty C — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:01:44 +0000

I agree, mespo – to a point. These two do sound made for each other, but I would be mortified to learn I was married to a hi-tech closet
‘peeping tom’ and that my sister is a ‘voyeur’.

However, the people who invested in Madoff’s schemes were far from stupid.

It was the SEC who was stupid and willfully blind to repeated warnings for a decade. That’s how a 10B scam turned into a 50B scam.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/12/16/how_a_pyramid_scheme_takes_shape/

Both Henry and Casey recall Markopolos alerting SEC officials of his suspicions and giving them memos, starting with the Boston office around 2000, and later, according to Casey, contacting officials at the SEC’s New York offices.

Henry said yesterday that when he first heard of Madoff’s arrest, he called Markopolos to compare notes.

Markopolos, Henry said, remarked, “It’s about time!”

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:43:31 +0000

If true, those investors occupy no better status than our voyeur spouses here.

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:32:35 +0000

That’s not really true mespo,

Warnings (very specific ones — it’s a ponzi scheme) about Madoff have been around for years. If they didn’t know it’s because they didn’t want to know. The evidence was also right in the claimed returns–these returns were not credible. Yet people looked the other way and invested anyway.

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:25:52 +0000

Jill:

The difference is that Madoff’s victims didn’t know his intentions before getting into bed with him. Our fine spouses here did. They’d have a tough row to how with me as judge.

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:22:26 +0000

mespo,

I agree that the taping before marriage is really creepy and certainly would be an excellent argument for never getting married or dating (either one of them!), but even really stupid people should have recourse in the courts. The people who invested in Madoff’s ponzi scheme give every indication of being both stupid and greedy but they still got ripped off. If we wait for pure plaintiffs we might as well close the courts!!! (Maybe Snow White v. The Wicked Queen???)

Nevertheless, I have seen people be more and more ready to tape each other and get into the private lives of others and I find that disturbing. The privacy zone in our lives is almost non-existent, due to the govt., corporations and so called intimates!!! Yicks!

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:06:29 +0000

Patty C:

They have no capacity to execute those NDA’s and I will take that case pro bono.

By: Patty C

Patty C — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:03:13 +0000

‘Since my kids treat my morning shower as a live performance suitable for group viewing, I can’t imagine any privacy expectations that I have left at this point. However, this case hits at a fascinating point between common views of spousal and tort liability.’

——-
What about those annual ‘NDA’s’ you have the children sign, JT?

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:35:26 +0000

“Even before their marriage, Jeffrey and Cathy had recorded each other’s telephone conversations without the other’s knowledge and consent.”
***************

These two are creepy and made for each other. Spy versus spy? I would have denied each a recovery against the other on the grounds each assumed the risk by marrying the other.

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:00:33 +0000

He showed them to her sister? ICK!!!

I think this is the correct ruling. Marriage started out as “the two shall become one and that one shall be the man”. The father gives away his ownership of the bride to the ownership of the husband (giving her hand in marriage). These views of marriage still lurk, sometimes in complete openess, in our legal system.

The idea of marriage as two people who give up their individuality needs to go. Marriage gives people legal rights and responsibilities towards each other. It should not be taken to dimish the personhood of the two partners.