Qworst DSL - Liars!

you don't have to yell.

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.
"comuniations law" covers a lot more ground than that dealing
specifically with the FCC. The telco system is governed my it
as well as all "wireless" systems.

>
> 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.
only if the call is assumed to have originated in MT. otherwise, the
state
of origin has precidence.

>
> Here is the statute for MT. Read it for yourselves, and tell us all what is
> legal. The only answer is to tell the person straight up that you are
> taping it. You can't be coy. The point of the statute is to have ALL
> parties understand they are being taped; not to have them guess or infer.
>
> Notice that 48-8-219 (c)i does not give an exception for any thing suggested
> today; no defense depends on who called whom, and no defense depends on
> whether one person is out of state.
then it is in contention. at this point, federal law takes over, period.

<SNIP>
> AND HERE IS 69-6-104
>
> 69-6-104 Search Term End . Control of telephone communications to and from a
> person holding hostages -- nonliability of telephone company officials
>
<SNIP>
I am not sure how this would apply under "ordinary course of business".

Technomage Hawke

--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6