Qworst DSL - Liars!

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Chris
> Cowan
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 11:28 AM
> To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: Re: Qworst DSL - Liars!
>
>
> I'm totally not an expert, furthermore I'm not a lawyer either... I just
> like this discussion.
>
> So... (hypothetically) if it's legal for someone under the age of 16 in
> Montana to call a 900 number. Would it be legal for a 16 year old to
> call (from Arizona) a 900 Number in Montana?
>
> Not that this is exactly the same thing...but we are trying to decide
> which laws take precedent. I'm sure if you filled the complaint in the
> State of Arizona against a business in Arizona who was breaking Arizona
> Laws but doing it through another office in a another state, the case
> would still have precedent in Arizona.
>
> Now if they counter sue you in Montana that will be left up to the
> Montana courts. Can they even counter sue from another venue? I would be
> willing to bet that they can only counter from the original state. But
> keep in mind you can sue anyone for anything. It's up to the judge if he
> will hear you or not.
>
> From all the T.V. that I've watch usually states don't mix their legal
> battles unless it's a really big deal.
>
> Chris
> ________________________________________________
> 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
>