seeing the truth

[eslund]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois

My brother in law is in the process of divorce with his lying , cheating wife. She does not provide for the family at all, as she is never home. She purchased a business that is 2.5 hours away and is using that as her cover for her adultery. He has had to take as many as three jobs at once to make ends meet all while she plays her games in another city with other men.

She now comes home mor often to make it look like she is there for her kids but comes and goes as she pleases without saying where she is going or who she is with.

At this time they are still married, and he makes every effort to include her in the childrens lives but that is not as important to her as her secret life. She constantly tells him that her new boyfriend is so much better than him, and tries to degrade him in front of the kids an always tries to turn the table to make it look like it is him that is the problem.

My question is can he use an automotive tracking device to prove her inexistance in the family liofe and how much she is not there for the kids? Also can an in home monitoring system be used to show how she demeans and degrades him and tries to ruffle feathers in the household while she is there. He has been the sole caregiver for the kids for more than seven years while she has been gone during the week.

Thanks for all answers.

Eslund

 

[cyjeff]

Audio recordings without the express prior consent of the recorded may not only be inadmissible in court but may also open up your BIL to criminal charges.

 

[redlace]

someone correct me if i'm wrong..but I do believe that telephone recordings are allowed. i believe that as long as one of the people in the conversation know about the recording its legal..that would be you..so if i'm correct, you could try to drag that info out of her on the phone.

 

[cyjeff]

Here are the statutes...

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 14 heading)
ARTICLE 14. EAVESDROPPING

(720 ILCS 5/14?1) (from Ch. 38, par. 14?1)
Sec. 14?1. Definition.
(a) Eavesdropping device.
An eavesdropping device is any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communications whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means; Provided, however, that this definition shall not include devices used for the restoration of the deaf or hard?of?hearing to normal or partial hearing.
(b) Eavesdropper.
An eavesdropper is any person, including law enforcement officers, who is a principal, as defined in this Article, or who operates or participates in the operation of any eavesdropping device contrary to the provisions of this Article.
(c) Principal.
A principal is any person who:
(1) Knowingly employs another who illegally uses an

eavesdropping device in the course of such employment; or
(2) Knowingly derives any benefit or information from the illegal use of an eavesdropping device by another; or
(3) Directs another to use an eavesdropping device illegally on his behalf.
(d) Conversation.

For the purposes of this Article, the term conversation means any oral communication between 2 or more persons regardless of whether one or more of the parties intended their communication to be of a private nature under circumstances justifying that expectation.
(e) Electronic communication.
For purposes of this Article, the term electronic communication means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, pager, computer, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, where the sending and receiving parties intend the electronic communication to be private and the interception, recording, or transcription of the electronic communication is accomplished by a device in a surreptitious manner contrary to the provisions of this Article. Electronic communication does not include any communication from a tracking device.
(Source: P.A. 91?657, eff. 1?1?00.)

(720 ILCS 5/14?2) (from Ch. 38, par. 14?2)
Sec. 14?2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
(1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an

eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the “Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963″, approved August 14, 1963, as amended; or
(2) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or

possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious hearing or recording of oral conversations or the interception, retention, or transcription of electronic communications and the intended or actual use of the device is contrary to the provisions of this Article; or
(3) Uses or divulges, except as authorized by this

Article or by Article 108A or 108B of the “Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963″, approved August 14, 1963, as amended, any information which he knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a charge brought under this Article relating to the interception of a privileged communication that the person charged:
1. was a law enforcement officer acting pursuant to

an order of interception, entered pursuant to Section 108A?1 or 108B?5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; and
2. at the time the communication was intercepted,

the officer was unaware that the communication was privileged; and
3. stopped the interception within a reasonable time

after discovering that the communication was privileged; and
4. did not disclose the contents of the

communication.
(c) It is not unlawful for a manufacturer or a supplier of eavesdropping devices, or a provider of wire or electronic communication services, their agents, employees, contractors, or venders to manufacture, assemble, sell, or possess an eavesdropping device within the normal course of their business for purposes not contrary to this Article or for law enforcement officers and employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections to manufacture, assemble, purchase, or possess an eavesdropping device in preparation for or within the course of their official duties.
(d) The interception, recording, or transcription of an electronic communication by an employee of a penal institution is not prohibited under this Act, provided that the interception, recording, or transcription is:
(1) otherwise legally permissible under Illinois law;
(2) conducted with the approval of the penal

institution for the purpose of investigating or enforcing a State criminal law or a penal institution rule or regulation with respect to inmates in the institution; and
(3) within the scope of the employee’s official

duties.
For the purposes of this subsection (d), “penal

institution” has the meaning ascribed to it in clause (c)(1) of Section 31A?1.1.
(Source: P.A. 94?183, eff. 1?1?06.)

(

 

[eslund]

I understand that he cannot use a taped conversation without her knowing about it. I want to know if he can legally use a tracking device to know where she is going to find out names of individuals that may later be called to testify in court.

Eslund

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois

My brother in law is in the process of divorce with his lying , cheating wife. She does not provide for the family at all, as she is never home. She purchased a business that is 2.5 hours away and is using that as her cover for her adultery. He has had to take as many as three jobs at once to make ends meet all while she plays her games in another city with other men.

She now comes home mor often to make it look like she is there for her kids but comes and goes as she pleases without saying where she is going or who she is with.

At this time they are still married, and he makes every effort to include her in the childrens lives but that is not as important to her as her secret life. She constantly tells him that her new boyfriend is so much better than him, and tries to degrade him in front of the kids an always tries to turn the table to make it look like it is him that is the problem.

My question is can he use an automotive tracking device to prove her inexistance in the family liofe and how much she is not there for the kids? Also can an in home monitoring system be used to show how she demeans and degrades him and tries to ruffle feathers in the household while she is there. He has been the sole caregiver for the kids for more than seven years while she has been gone during the week.

Thanks for all answers.

Eslund

All of that is really unnecessary. He obviously can prove that he has been the primary caretaker for the children, so he simply needs to file for a divorce and primary custody of the children.