Qworst DSL - Liars!

[Eric]

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" <yonica@qwest.net>
> *!* 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
>