good idea, Keith. getting qwest's version of the tape, IF THERE IS ONE, is what civil discovery is all about. such a thing would be a nightmare because of the time and hassle involved. qworst has enough money to bury all of us in interrogatories and depositions. but i still like the idea. > -----Original Message----- > From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us > [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Linux > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:30 PM > To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us > Subject: RE: Qworst DSL - Liars! > > > Why not just subpoena their tape? That is what it is for right? Quality > control? Your disputing their quality and you want control. > > This is just the example of why the yellow pages is half attorneys. > > I submit there is a good argument that you are doing business with an > Arizona company from Arizona so Arizona law should apply. > > Now the million dollar question. Since it is illegal in MT to record a > conversation without the consent of all parties, what do the police do? > What about the 911 operator, fire, police, undercover ETC? > > And what about those missing minutes from the Nixon tapes? > > Keith > > > > *!* Message: 7 > *!* Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:24:00 -0800 > *!* From: "Eric" > *!* To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us > *!* Subject: RE: Qworst DSL - Liars! > *!* Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us > > *!* Ok I guess I 'm back in. > > *!* I'm not an expert either. But I don't need to be. This stuff is not > estate > *!* planning or securities regulation. Most of this is pretty basic. > > *!* So if I call qworst and inquire about a DSL package, my call > may be sent > to > *!* MT. I start taping, and qworst starts lying. I then rely on > qworst-lies > *!* (because I believed them initially) to my detriment. I receive a bill > with > *!* a charge that was not explained to me by the qworst liar in MT. What > now? > > *!* Sue qworst (I really like saying that) in Arizona small claims court. > That > *!* court would have personal jurisdiction over me and qworst because of > actual > *!* presence in the state, as well as subject matter jurisdiction over the > case > *!* because qworst's behavior is tortious, and is for an amount > under $5,000 > *!* let's say. > > *!* Trial day comes and I ambush qworst with an ill-gotten conversation. > qworst > *!* objects because it was illegally obtained and because it is hearsay. > What > *!* principle does the judge use to exclude it? I am not > exactlly sure, but > *!* although it could survive the hearsay objection (because a > tape-recording is > *!* not exactly he-said/she-said), I am VERY doubtful that the > tape would be > *!* admitted as evidence. This is because it is illegally gained, albeit > only > *!* under MT law, not AZ. I can't cite the specific rule of evidence by > which > *!* it would be excluded, but it just would. > > *!* Even if it was not excluded as evidence in the case you > brought, qworst > now > *!* has ammunition to bring their own suit against you. And they > could try > to > *!* do it either in MT or AZ. MT, however, may not have personal > jurisdiction > *!* over me bc I have never been there, and did not choose to have my call > go > *!* there. This one is close. But even so, qworst could bring > suit against > me > *!* in AZ for violation of MT law. This can be done. I have seen cases > where a > *!* whole bunch of different state laws were broken, but the case was only > *!* brought in one. I have not seen a case like this one where > only one law > was > *!* broken, but the case was brought in another. But I don't > have that much > *!* experience, so what do I know! I bet it could be done though. > > *!* So now you have qworst by the nads, and they have you. What has this > gotten > *!* you? What's more, the evidence you have may be excluded by > the Arizona > *!* small-claims court because it was illegally obtained. Then > you are in a > *!* case where the only one whose nads are had is YOURS. > > *!* And don't forget that we have only been talking about civil law here. > Me v. > *!* Qworst is civil. But violation of wiretap statutes is a > crime, at least > in > *!* some states. Remember the prosecutors' in Maryland tried to get the > nads > *!* of Linda Trip for taping her phone calls with 'ole Monica. The only > reason > *!* this prosecution was unsuccessful was because K. Star had granted her > *!* immunity at the federal level for her actions; since fed. law trumps > state, > *!* no prosecution nor no nads could be had. But don't count on Star > saving > *!* your nads in this case. > > *!* bye > > > > > /--------------------------------------- > | Keith Smith > | Christian Information Exchange > | (520) 298-2227 > | P.O.Box 32158 > | Tucson, AZ 85751 > | Keith@ChristianExchange.org > | http://www.ChristianExchange.org/ > \--------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________ > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail > doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail. > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >