Im sure May is in a panic over this.
View attachment 5322015
I didn't see any "filming," or "photographing" in the rage fest from the other day, just heard sound with a blocked camera lens (in a pocket or behind something, I assume). So what is the relevance of this dumb tweet, unless he knows or suspects* he has also been filmed or photographed by her doing awful things? (Or if the law also prohibits recording audio without consent, he gotcha'ed the wrong section.)
*agree with those who question his recollection of anything. Even normal drunk people forget details; Ralph spent months in a state of inebriation that likely means he remembers fuck-all about anything.
LOL
Mexican law is retarded, I don't think this would fly for Ralph but he could potentially call what's call an "Amparo" which is a pre-appleal of sorts where you claim law is being broken to prosecute you. (Basically quoting the video is no evidence of abuse becasue it was recorded illegaly) BUT if by any chances This worked for Ralph you'll get a million angry feminists going at the court's throat for which the Mexican government would just fucking deport him and let America deal with him.
Which is not a good thing for Ralph.
Sorry for double post.
Do the items you note above (amparos and exclusion of evidence obtained illegally) apply across all types of cases and beyond government surveillance evidence?
I also saw this note - a few years old but perhaps relevant, which concludes that it is not illegal for a person to record a conversation if they are part of it.
Also, lol: Ralph, who is an even better lawyer than Nick, completely mischaracterizes the article he quoted, which is focused on taking tourist photos. The article Ralph quoted from says:
Regarding photographing individuals, the law clearly states that is illegal without express prior permission, even if in a public place. The exception applies to civil servants, such as police officers, who can always be photographed while they are carrying out their duty. The same is true for those who put themselves in the public limelight: actors, singers and the like.
Lol.
And btw, there's a harm standard, and "it shows me doing illegal stuff to my wife, unfair!" might not meet it.
Taking a “tourist” shot in which people happen to be in the shot’s background would not meet the legal standard for proving harm, but walking up to a stranger and taking a closeup — totally legal in many countries — would meet the standard of harm in Mexico.
Oh, and btw:
Luckily, there are no criminal penalties for violating this law, but a judge would have wide latitude in imposing civil fines.
Here's the article, since he didn't provide it:
https://pulsenewsmexico.com/2022/07...text=The law goes so far,if in a public place.
He might not be wrong, but I'd feel pretty solid that he's also not completely right. But if he's going to be digging into Mexican law, he really ought to be more focused on certain other Mexican laws:
5.5.1 What are the penalties and sentencing laws for first-time domestic violence offenses?
The specific crime of "domestic violence" establishes a penalty of imprisonment for six months up to four years and psychological treatment; however, a family bond also serves as an aggravation of other crimes.
