ok,
I've done a little digging (mostly for my own edification), but here
goes:
in talking with an attorney that has a specialization in
communications law, I asked if it were legal in arizona
(assuming this is where the call originates), it is legal for
one of the parties involved in the call to record the call.
you are NOT required to let the other party on the line know
that you are recording (however, courtesy says you should).
I tend to do this as a matter of course because I have no other
real way of taking fast notes. also, when you call qworst,
one of the thinsg they do tell you is "you call may be recorded
or monitored". Since they are headquartered in Denver, the state of
Colorado's laws would apply (and there, you are required to
notify the other party on the line that such a recording may
be taking place).
one last thing, the laws (and courts) will often favor the customer
in most regards such that the customer has legal protects under his/her
state laws and they take precidence.
this was hw it was explained to me. since this was a legal opinion,
such may change depending on who you talk to.
Technomage Hawke
Eric wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> 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
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
(text/plain)