Eric wrote:
>
> "Communications law," huh? you must be joking. This is a matter of
> criminal law. Communications lawyers, if there is such a thing, would
> specialize in the regualtion of the airwaves--i.e., FCC stuff.
I'm not so sure that it would stop there but I'll leave it at that...
> Look, everyone agrees it is not a violation of ARIZONA law to tape a
> conversation with only ONE person's consent. The issue here is MONTANA law,
> and ITS requirements. The only issue here is how to get around the MT
> requirement that ALL parties to a conversation consent. Several suggestions
> have been made.
So, just tell them that it is being taped on your side too and leave it
at that. Actually that is a good stratigy anyway. it say that I am
paying attention to the details and we are playing on a relatively level
playing field... If this causes them to play streight and not lie then
I win. If they lie and I then take them to court after playing by the
rules I have a good chance of winning...
EBo --
(text/plain)