III. Attorney and Law Firm’s Motion to Dismiss A. Standard Attorney and Law Firm submitted no evidence beyond the pleadings in support of their motion to dismiss, and Father submitted no evidence in his response. Accordingly, the Rule 12(b)(6) standard set forth above applies to the motion. B. Parental Immunity/Extension Phone Exemption/Consent Exception In the first two sections of their brief, Attorney and Law Firm argued that Father failed to state a claim against Mother or Stepfather and therefore failed to state a claim for liability against them. The court agrees that if no unlawful interception initially occurred, there can be no liability for subsequent use or disclosure of the interceptions by Attorney and Law Firm. See Newcomb v. Ingle, 944 F.2d 1534, 1535 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Simmons v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 452 F.Supp.
holding that both the unlawful possession and unlawful use prongs were met and noting that the firearm transferred to the individual was not registered making the individuals possession of it necessarily unlawful holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense holding that a plaintiff who charged the defendants with conspiring to perpetrate an unlawful purpose could not recover because the defendants committed no unlawful act holding that because original interception was not unlawful subsequent use by prosecutor could not be found unlawful holding evidence obtained following unlawful police conduct nevertheless admissible because evidence not obtained by virtue of that unlawful conduct