The theme of this post is that there are women out there who have realized what a powerful weapon they have in the form of being able to accuse men of rape, abuse, or domestic violence. And some of them are using it as a "get out of jail free" card.

I actually tried to talk a friend into recording his psycho STB-ex's attepts to have her brother & dad beat him up, and her alienating his daughter. The guy was too much of a wuss and would "never violate privacy." She falsely accused him of abusing their daughter, got complete custody without having to prove her allegations, and got permission to move 800 miles away with her. He now is only allowed to see her twice a year, under supervision by some CPS pinhead, and he gets to facetime her every couple of weeks.

In a he-said/she-said case nowadays, a woman only has to allege something and a man can have his life wrecked.

A guy can only defend himself with documentatary evidence. You may hate it, but that's the double standard. Whatever changes in the system need to be made, that's not going to help you in the short term. In todays climate, you need to obtain the documentary evidence.

Story in the media: a guy in Florida gets engaged to a klepto girlfriend and finds out she's been stealing jewels from his place and shipping them to her dad.

So he calls off the wedding and sues her to get back the jewels, or at least the money if they've been fenced.

Girl calls the cops, shows them bruises on her face, and claims hes been battering her.

Now the guy is facing arrest and a criminal prosecution. Seems like she's turned the tables on him.

Bu no, he has tapes she didn't know about showing her hitting herself to get "the batterd woman" look.

His lawyer takes the evidence to cops and gets the charges dropped.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3763105/Millionaire-releases-surveillance-video-glamorous-ex-fiancee-beating-claiming-abused-vicious-divorce.html

You can see her antics here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbd1VNPe6tg

Or here's another case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op4scME3Ym4

In this case, a woman who was afraid cops might separate her from her kid went upstairs when the guy was being interviewed, bruised herself on the neck, then came down and accused him of battering her. Incompetent White Knight cops immediately arrest the guy instead of investigating properly.

Fortunately, as in the other case, the guy had video.

This has to become the new mantra for guys:

The minute a woman shows even the slightest sign of craziness, makes a threat to call the cops on you, or expresses sympathy for women who make false accuations- "start recording, and get away from her".

Guys may find the suggestions in this article helpful

http://shrink4men.com/2010/12/09/what-you-should-do-if-your-wife-or-girlfriend-threatens-to-call-the-police-and-make-false-allegations/


Postscript monkey_typist has brought up the question of what guys are supposed to do when they live in "two-party consent" states (and countries) where laws say you are not supposed to record conversations without the consent of the other party.

Readers might find this interesting: California has the worst two-party consent rules in the country, but Mike Cernovich links to an example of a lawyer in San Francisco who literally saved his ass from jail by recording his sexual encounters. There's no question he would have gone to jail without the recordings. The guy was a lawyer, so there was no question he knew what he was doing was illegal under state law. But what's the prospect of a fine and some pobation compared to the possibility of having you life destroyed by being sentenced to 10 years in jail and being put on a public sexual offenders list?

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2011/09/21/how-to-avoid-a-false-rape-case/

FWIW, I've never heard of a person in California being successfully prosecuted for violating two-party consent when the evidence recorded has indicated a crime by the other party or exonerated an accused. YMMV.

You have been warned, though. Record, but in two-party consent states, keep what you've done totally secret and secure. If you do face a false accusation, and one or more of your recordings can exonerate you, you have to hire a lawyer, and only give the recordings to your lawyer. He must approach the police and prosecutor about the evidence.

In fact, even in 1-party consent states, keep the existence of your recordings totally secret. Did you notice that in both the news stories above, the guys hired counsel and gave their recordings to their lawyers, who handled the dealings with the legal system.

The guy in Texas was even a judge, but he didn't try to use the video evidence himself.

Why is this? Because police can sieze things from you if you present it by yourself. Video evidence has been wrecked when in police custody, either by nefarious design or by stupidity.

If you give it to your lawyer it is protected by attorney-client privilege, and police almost never risk siezing things from lawyers. They are inviting a huge lawsuit if they do that.

And of course police can't sieze what they don't know about. To quote Gandalf, "Keep it secret, keep it safe"


And in the Holy Shit! Historical Category, does anyone remember a lady named Linda Tripp?

She recorded conversations with a young White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.

Now you know who we're talking about.

Well, Monica regarded Linda Tripp as a mother hen kind of figure and started baring her soul about what she was doing with then-president Bill Clinton.

Lewinsky said something that scared the living daylights out of Tripp. She said: "I don't want to end up like Caity."

Linda knew who Mary Caitrin Mahoney was, and what had happened to her.

(Do a search on "Mary Caitrin Mahoney Clintons" if you'd like to know why Linda Tripp's blood froze when Monica said that to her)

Tripp sought advice, and her literary agent advised her that recording Monica's information and managing it so the Clintons and the DNC establishment know of its existence, but had no way to sieze it or access it, was the only way to ensure she stayed alive.

Tripp, her agent, and her team of lawyers all knew it was illegal to make the recordings under Maryland's two-party consent laws, but when the choice was between a possible fine and probation, or ending up like Caity Mahoney, the choice is obvious. What followed went down in history.

And for the record, Linda Tripp ended up not being prosecuted for making the recordings, in spite of intense pressure from DNC operatives and White House people.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/may/25/news/mn-33924


tl;dr

Record that shit. Even in two-party consent states. Be mature about it. Keep it totally secret and secure. If you need to use a recording, do it only through a lawyer with whom you have an attorney-client relationship.