How To Sue the Auto Dialers

Bennett Haselton writes " Every year just before election day, I usually get a few phone calls from machines that dial numbers and play a pre-recorded message telling people to vote a certain way. I find these annoying even if I support the side I'm being asked to vote for, and most people don't realize that in most cases you can sue the organizations for making these calls, even if they are non-profits. So, you can make some money while advancing a good cause (i.e. stopping the bozos from doing it again). Here's how to file your case in Small Claims court, how to possibly negotiate an out-of-court settlement in advance, how to argue the case in court, and how to collect afterwards." His essay follows... Do you HAVE what it TAKES?

Before proceeding, decide if you think the stress is worth it. You're almost certainly stepping outside your comfort zone here.

Small Claims can be frustrating because the rules and procedures vary so much from one judge to the next, and judges differ wildly in how they interpret the laws. Their own biases come into play as well: they usually deal with cases involving people who have actually lost money or have been wronged in a serious way, and they may resent someone coming to court just to sue over a phone call.

In one particular case that provides a good example of what I'm talking about, I sued a spammer who came to court and claimed he never sent the mails and didn't even know how. When the judge stopped berating me long enough for me to continue, I then produced a tape recording of a conversation between me and the spammer, in which I had pretended to be an interested customer, and he offered to send 5 million e-mails for me for $500, and explained how they were routed through China to hide the origin. The judge got extremely flustered for a minute and then started to accuse me of "entrapment" (even though the recorded phone call took place after I had received the original spam), and she never commented on the fact that the defendant had just been caught lying under oath. I hadn't really expected him to go to jail for that, but I thought I would at least win the case; I didn't.

If you go to Small Claims court you have to be prepared to deal with that kind of Twilight Zone / Franz Kafka stuff. But the worst that can happen is that you'll lose.

How the law applies to non-profits

To clarify something important: In general, you can sue non-profits for $500 for calling your number and playing a pre-recorded message, unless in the recorded message they (a) identify themselves at the beginning of the message; and (b) give their return phone number (other than the number of the machine making the call) somewhere in the message. Most pre-recorded messages from non-profits do not meet these requirements, particularly the second one.

The federal law which states this is divided into two parts. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, section (b)(1)(B), states:

"It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States... to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B)".

and part (b)(3)(A) states:

A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State... an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater.

Now, part (2)(B) says that the FCC is authorized to make federal rules and may grant certain exemptions to non-profits. The actual rules that the FCC came up with are in the Code of Federal Regulations as 47 CFR 64.1200. The complete text of 47 CFR 64.1200 is here, but the relevant sections that apply are:

• (a) No person may: [...]

  • (2) Initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by Sec. 64.1200(c) of this section.

• (c) The term telephone call in Sec. 64.1200(a)(2) of this section shall not include a call or message by, or on behalf of, a caller: [...]

  • (4) Which is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

• (d) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages delivered by an automatic telephone dialing system shall:

  • (1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and
  • (2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player which placed the call) or address of such business, other entity, or individual.

The wording is important. Section (a) prohibits parties from making phone calls using a pre-recorded voice. Section (c) says that non-profits are exempt from the blanket ban in part (a). But then section (d) says that "All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages" must include a return phone number -- in other words, even if a party is allowed to make pre-recorded calls at all, they still have to conform to the restrictions in part (d).

I think this clearly applies to non-profits as well, for two reasons:

• First of all, part (c) does not say that non-profits are exempt from the entire law, it only says that they are exempt from the blanket ban in part (a) -- it does not say anywhere that they are exempt from part (d).
• Second, there's a simpler way of looking at it: if part (d) doesn't apply to non-profits and other parties that are exempt from the complete ban on pre-recorded calls, then who does it apply to? It doesn't apply to commercial companies, because under part (a), commercial companies can't make unsolicited pre-recorded calls at all, so it would make no sense to have a separate section requiring them to include a phone number.

What to do if you get a pre-recorded call

You probably don't need to keep a portable tape recorder by the phone just to record the call and prove that you received it. If you show up in court and claim that you received the pre-recorded phone call, it's unlikely that the non-profit's representatives, if they show up, will lie through their teeth and claim that it never happened. If they lose in court, all they lose is $500, but if they get caught lying under oath, they could in theory be convicted of a felony. (Although to tell the truth, sometimes the enforcement of perjury laws in Small Claims court is pretty lax.) The important things to note about the phone call are:

• Does the organization making the call identify themselves at the beginning of the message?
• Did they give their return phone number anywhere in the message?

If the answer to either of those questions is no, it's suing time! Finding the right party to sue

Even if the pre-recorded message gives the name of the organization, that may not be the actual party that used the machine to make the call. For example I got a call with a message identifying the caller as "Bob Thurston, Washington State Patrol Troopers Association president", but when I found his number and called him, he said the calls were actually being made by a group called Taxpayers for R-51. If I'm doing legwork to find out who made the call, sometimes I say that I'm interested in running my own campaign using a machine to dial numbers and play a message, and I want to find out how they did it. It's not illegal to lie.

Once you're reasonably sure you know the name of the organization that did it, you need to find the address where you can serve the papers on them. There are two broad approaches to this:

• Go to the Secretary of State's website for the state in which the organization is located, go to "Corporations" search, and search on the organization's name. If they are listed as a corporation in the state, there should be an address given for their "Registered Agent" as well. You're done; that's the address you need.
• If that doesn't work, unfortunately the remaining methods are a lot less precise. Your best recourse is to try and find the group using Google, and see if you can locate their street address.

What you don't want is P.O. Box or a rented mailbox, since you won't be able to serve papers on them there. If you get an address like "1234 100th Ave #542", that's ambiguous -- it could be an actual office building located at "1234 100th Ave" where they're in suite 542, or it could be a rented mailbox company like Mail Boxes Etc. where they rent box number 542. Usually what I do is Google the first part of the address, "1234 100th Ave", along with the city name -- that way you'll find other entities that share addresses at the same location. If it's an actual office building, usually you'll find companies that rent the other office suites, and you can just call them up and ask them, "Hey, is that an actual office building at 1234 100th Ave?" On the other hand, if 1234 100th Ave is a mailbox rental company, usually you'll find pages where people list their addresses as "1234 100th Ave, box 234" or "1234 100th Ave, PMB 341" (short for Postal Mail Box).

If you found the entity's address through their listing on the Secretary of State website, you're in luck, since companies are not supposed to list a P.O. Box or rented mailbox as their registered agent's address. But if you found the address through Google, it may not be a real street address. If it isn't, this is often where I hit a dead end, and with "only" $500 at stake I usually don't have the time to keep looking.

But if you think you've got their real address, keep going!

Filing in Small Claims

At this point you might be tempted to contact the organization first and negotiate a legal settlement as an alternative to suing them. What I've found however is that for cases this small, organizations usually won't take the threat of a lawsuit seriously until you actually serve them with legal papers, so I wouldn't bother negotiating until you've done that. (Also, if you try to negotiate in advance, this has the added disadvantage that once they know you're going to sue them, if they're a really underhanded bunch of people, they might try to make it harder for you to serve the papers on them.) If you think it's rude to just sue someone out of the blue -- well, shit, they called your house using a machine, didn't they?

So, in Washington at least, you can get a blank Notice of Small Claim form just by sending a self-address stamped envelope (should probably include about $1 worth of postage on the envelope since the forms can be heavy) to the local District Court and requesting the form. Then you can even file the case by filling out the form and mailing it back with a check for the Small Claims filing fee ($25 in Washington), plus another self-addressed stamped envelope. They'll mail you back the forms to be served. You never even have to go to the courthouse.

However, I'd recommend sitting in on part of a Small Claims calendar at the local courthouse to see how it usually works, and to make sure you wouldn't be nervous going through with it if the other side doesn't settle. Then while you're there, you can get the Small Claims form and file the case.

They will give you one copy of the Small Claims form for your records, and one copy that has to be served on the other party within a certain time frame (in Washington, 10 days before the court date). The clock is ticking, so now you have to serve the papers on the other party.

Serving the papers

Before having the Small Claims papers delivered to the defendant, you may want to attach a letter explaining that you're suing them for a phone call received on such-and-such a date. I tend to go that route, since I have nothing to hide anyway, and in any case the more you communicate, the more chance of getting a settlement. So, throw that in with the papers and then get ready to serve the papers on the defendant.

When you filled out the Small Claims form, it probably came with a pamphlet describing how to serve the papers on the other party. I'm describing the rules for Washington State; the rules in other states are similar.

There are two ways to serve the defendant: hiring a process server, or serving the defendant by mail.

• Hiring a process server. This is the preferred method if you don't mind spending about $40. (If you win, the cost of service of process is added to the amount of the judgment, so you'll get it back if the defendant pays the judgment.) Using the online yellow pages, just search in and around the city where the defendant lives, for (a) private process servers, and (b) the sheriff's department. I've called process servers and sheriffs in many different cities, and they charge amounts ranging from $10 to up to $150 for substantially the same service, and I've never figured out why. Sometimes the sheriff is the cheapest, and sometimes it's one of the private process servers. But whoever you use, make sure to find out what they require you to send them. They always require a letter of instruction tell them where to serve the papers on the defendant. In addition, be sure to ask them:

  • can they serve papers on behalf of a private individual, or will they only do it on behalf of law firms?
  • do they require a money order or can they take a plain old check?

• Serving the defendant by mail. Go to the post office and have the papers mailed to the defendant by certified mail with a return receipt. Here, you have to make a choice. IF you think the organization will actually show up in court (usually, if they're a well-established group and they don't want to be hit with a deluge of lawsuits because one person sued them and won), then certified-return-receipt is all you need. But if you think they might NOT show up and you want to have airtight evidence that you served the papers on them properly, you need to also send by restricted delivery to a person (i.e. a real human, not a company and not the organization itself) who is an officer of the organization. If you have their registered agent's name and address, that's the person to send to by restricted delivery.

  If you send by restricted delivery, it goes out with a little green card attached to it, and if the postal worker is doing their job, they should deliver the envelope only to the person listed as the recipient, and require them to sign the card and write their name legibly above their signature. Then, the green card gets mailed back to you. However, very often I'd find that the cards would come back with illegible signatures and no names or the wrong names. If you use this method, try writing on the envelope: "Attention USPS! This envelope MUST be delivered to the person named as the recipient, they MUST sign for it and their name must be printed LEGIBLY above their signature." I never got around to trying this, since by that time I'd given up on serving papers by mail, and always used process servers.

  Basically, the trade-off is that the stricter you want to be about how the papers are served by mail, the greater the chance that it won't work (e.g. if the mailman can't find the person), but the more solid your proof of service will be if they don't show up in court.

If you serve the defendant using a process server, you'll get back an affidavit of service in the mail. If you serve them by mail, you'll get a return receipt that (if the judge accepts it) will constitute your proof of service.

Negotiate with the defendant

Once you get your proof of service back in the mail, now the defendant knows they're being sued, so you can try to negotiate a settlement. This depends on your style, and theirs.

One thing to keep in mind: Don't worry if they threaten to tell the judge that you filed a lawsuit and then tried to "blackmail" or "extort" money from them or "shake them down". Judges encourage parties to settle lawsuits out of court. Unless the judge thinks your lawsuit is bogus to begin with, they're not likely to be swayed by the defendant claiming you tried to negotiate a settlement.

But assuming your efforts to shake down, extort, blackmail etc. the defendant were unsuccessful and they don't want to settle, the next step is your day in court.

Preparing for court

Make sure you bring all of the following:

• Your proof of service (see previous steps)
• A copy of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with parts (b)(1)(B) and (b)(3)(A) circled.
• A copy of 47 CFR 64.1200 printed out from this link, which shows the text of the law with proper indentation and formatting and makes it easy to read. Circle parts (a), (c), and (d).
• A copy of 47 CFR 64.1200 printed out from the official government site. Just to prove that the stuff you printed out in the previous step wasn't something that someone made up and posted to the Web as a prank. However the way they have it laid out is harder to read.
• A transcript of the phone call that you're suing over, if it was left as a voice mail, or if you managed to grab a recording of it with a handheld tape recorder when you first got the call.

In court

Before the judge appears, a mediator may ask if you want your case to be handled by mediation. If the other party is present, I'd recommend trying this option. The thing to remember about mediation is that if you and the other party can't reach an agreement, you can always go back before the judge. You're not giving up your day in court by agreeing to mediation.

If you can't reach an agreement, or the other party doesn't want mediation, or the other party isn't there, then when the judge calls you to present your case, show the judge your proof of service, your record of when you received the phone call, and the laws that make it illegal and specify $500 in damages.

What happens next varies wildly, depending on the judge. Some of them are polite and some of them yell at almost everybody. Some of them hate junk calls as much as you do, and some of them hate amateur wannabe lawyers clogging the court's time because they saw one episode of Law & Order and thought they could do it themselves. The future at this point is a fog that I can't predict, so I'm not going to try.

All that I can shout blindly into the fog is that judges do appreciate it if you stick to the law, and not try to make any emotional speeches about why you think the issue is so important. (All that happened to you anyway was that you got a phone call, which means you're not going to win the sympathy game anyway, so don't play!)

You're out of the fog? You won? Great, keep reading!

After you win

If the defendant doesn't pay after 30 days, call a local collection agency and ask them what you have to do for them to try to collect the judgment. Collection agencies normally don't charge any money up front, and only take a percentage of what they're able to collect. Unfortunately it can be as high as 40 or 50 percent. The upside though is that they don't get paid if they can't collect, so you know they're going to try.

From that point onward, the collection agency will be able to give you better advice than I can, so my narrative thread ends here, hopefully with you holding a judgment in your hands.

If enough people do this, maybe the problem will go away. Then again maybe all that will happen is that more non-profits will start putting the name of their organization and their phone number in the pre-recorded calls that they make, which means that you can't sue them. Then your only recourse is to call them up and chew them out, so make it good!

Comments

Why don't I ever get these calls?

[dada21]

I'm all cell phone now, so I can understand why _NOW_ I don't get any of these calls. But for years we had a landline -- the same number for years, too. We never got any solicitations, unwanted spam phone calls, attempts to switch long distance service, or recorded announcements. Ever!

That phone number was listed on the web, in the phone book, in my e-mail sig, pretty much all over the place. I used it on applications for frequent shopper cards, etc.

I've always been confused why some people get harassed, and others don't. I don't use credit cards or banks or stock investment companies -- is it the financial industry that sells that information the most often? Anyone work for a company that mines phone numbers?

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[diersing]

Its hard to admit to ourselves sometimes so it can help is a stranger does it...

You're not important. Its not, never has been and never will be, about you.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[Gospodin]

Try using deodorant.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[eln]

I understand how you feel. If you'd like, I can call you and attempt to sell you a wide variety of services, including obvious scams, for a small fee. For just a little extra, I can call you during the dinner hour.

Hurry, this offer won't last.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[kfg]

Anyone work for a company that mines phone numbers?

Believe it or not, there is a company out there that will supply all numbers, names and addresses for every listed phone in a given dialing area; to anyone.

KFG

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[sckeener]

I've always been confused why some people get harassed, and others don't.

I guess you don't live in a battle state.

Seriously I haven't had any political phone calls, but I live in Texas....

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[FatAlb3rt]

I get some autodialers on my cell phone - number comes across too. It's some pre-recorded guy that pauses and says in a hesitant voice "Hi, I'm [insert some jackass name]..." and then I tune him out - I think he's pitching credit card debt consolidation. I get this every few weeks, but I've gotten it a couple times in the last week.

I need to sue this guy. Or punch him in the face.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[soft_guy]

How do you get around using banks? Do you work? Does your employer pay you in cash? Do they pay you in gold dust? For most people, we have a checking account because we need to deposit our paychecks. Most banks won't cash your check if you don't have an account. Check cashing places are rip offs because they charge a percentage of the check just to cash it.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[Generic Guy]

dada21 is well known for being self-employed and an avid gold collector (hard currency over fiat greenbacks and all that). Since he avoids banks and credit as much as possible, and as I said self-employed, he probably isn't on the "popular" lists sold to the phone harassers.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[DigitAl56K]

Maybe you don't live in an area where there is a large population of target demographic, or else your area's vote is considered secure and so the auto-dialers are not cost effective.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[KermodeBear]

If you ever think that you're not important, try missing a few bank payments...

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[rootofevil]

that ones easy:

cash the check at the issuing bank. thats the whole point of the check, that you can present it to the bank and receive X dollars for it. when you deposit/cash it at your bank (assuming you have an account) all you are doing is having someone else do that part for you.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[HeavyD14]

Unsolicited calls to lines where the recipient has to pay tolls (eg cell phones) to receive the call are illegal under a federal law.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[Sarisar]

Personally I use gold dust. It looks nice, feels nice and, just in case any Cybermen turn up, can be used as a weapon.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

For a thankfully brief period of my life (teenager at the time) I was doing telemarketing. I discovered then that there are reverse-lookup phone books, where all phone numbers -- organized by street address within city -- are available, even unlisted numbers.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[camperdave]

A good amount of gold dust in the end of a sock will serve as a weapon against more than just Cybermen.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[jdavidb]

I put my name on a couple of online petitions a few years back that got my cell phone on the Republican Party call list. After dealing with several "Mr. Blackstone, would you please hold for an important message" messages a few times (no, I don't know why I listened to the whole things ... it took me awhile to realize these all meant "we need money," not "something important is happening RIGHT NOW") I asked them to please remove me from their list, and they did. Can't remember if I mentioned it was a cell phone or not.

I've never filled out another online petition, and I always warn people not to.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[duffbeer703]

Donating money to a "big money" charity and a political campaign, PAC or party organization is a good way to get you on these lists.

Another thing that triggers junk mailing and calls is change of address forms. Political campaigns pay good money for recent movers with a history of sending money to other political campaigns.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[jaredmauch]

Some banks charge a nominal fee (USD$3) to cash these types of checks if you do not have an account when you present them a check issued from their own bank. This can also be challenging in some cases where the bank name has changed in recent M&A activity and companies or private individuals are still using the older check stock. My bank has changed names several times in the past 11 years I've been a "working stiff". My requirements for paying with a check have gone down significantly recently as has my need for stamps. It makes my life generally easier because I spend less time paying bills, but instead of doing them all at once, i spend more time in interrupt mode handling them as they come in.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[Thansal]

Is NYC a battle area?

I get these all the time. I actualy recieved 3 of the exact same one in one night. Admitedly this is why I don't answer the phone in my house (any one who should be callign me has my cell #)

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[ACMENEWSLLC]

This year I have got over a hundred calls about the election. On my Cell Phone. At work mostly.

About 40 of these calls were from a group in NYC, NY. They would call and then hang up. Their return phone number on callerid was blocked from receiving calls.

I was almost ready to vote for the /other/ guy's Governor candidate. But she's called me around 30 times and I am sick of it. The Republican and I currently are dishing out an issue in court, but he's only called me 2 times. There is not 3rd person to vote for.

Anyway, this is getting old and it's worth fighting. Thanks for the post.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[47001foo]

And what's your number again?

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[diersing]

They won't care who pays them, your account is behind and the contact information associated to it led them to you. You think they care your job outsourced? It reminds me of a line from the Sopranos

"F you, pay me".

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[epee1221]

And according to the judge in TFA, now that you've made an offer to violate the law, it's entrapment if he sues you for it.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[pla]

How do you get around using banks?

As someone who has a single savings account that I use only as a free check-cashing service, I can perhaps shed some light on that...


First, as long as you keep a minimum balance (usualy $5), you can deposit a check and then withdraw it three days later. If you keep your balance equal to the largest amount you expect to get a check for, you can "cash" any check immediately (against your own money! And people wonder why some of us distrust banks?).

Second, you have no particular need to give your phone number to your bank. Your SS#, yes. Phone number, no. Address takes a bit more work (I suppose you could use a PO box), but I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting junkmail from their bank (not including CC companies as "banks").

Third, money orders. They cost a buck each, and you can send them completely anonymously (most have a line for your signature and address, but in over a decade of writing in random garbage (in some cases, not even intelligible Roman characters), I have yet to have a company complain that they couldn't cash it).


As a bit of a full disclosure, I do actually have a credit card. Why? Because they can only play games with their own money, not mine. In the event of a massive clerical error or computer failure or the like, the burden rests on them to prove that I really owe them money, not on me to prove I really had money in an account. And if they somehow just completely "forget" about me, you won't see me cry for the loss. Oh, and they don't need my phone number, either, although they seem to really try to use it, as they ask for my "new" number every time I find myself forced to speak to one of their reps. Hey, no problem, I can make up random numbers as fast as they can sell them to mailing lists.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[tehlinux]

I would just register as a member of the opposite party, and then sue the organizations when they called. Hell, I'd sue my own party too for $500!

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[deathy_epl ccs]

Make sure you are listed in the Do Not Call registry as well as this would give you some additional firepower in court.

The thing to bear in mind is that the original poster was talking about political campaign calls... and the DNC does not apply to political campaigning.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[phantomlord]

I came home from work yesterday to find five messages waiting for me on my answering machine. I got another 3 calls last night. I get called participate in polls 2-3 times a month, a little more than that lately. I get an occasional push poll call. I average 2-3 fliers supporting candidates all over the spectrum a day.

I'm registered to a party, vote in every primary and election... My Dad lives with me and isn't affiliated with any party but is disabled so he receives a permanent automatic absentee ballot. We're completely inundated this time of year because the politicians KNOW that we're going to vote. My Dad's ballot already went out a couple weeks ago and my mind has been made up for a while about how I'm going to vote.

I appreciate that they want to get the word out to voters... but jeez, you'd think they see how often both my dad and I vote and figure out we're likely to already support our own ideologies and not be one of the fence sitters who don't know if they're going to vote much less who they want to vote for.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[RobertLTux]

bad luck since you got hit by a wardialer (real old school one). depending on how many lines it had it called (#number of linesX0.5X15) in the time you had been hooked up (and you got called)

9999 numbers in the block 30 second per call with 20 lines its only about 4 hours to sweep a combo of area code and exchange

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[BobzNKazoo]

It is completely illegal for telemarketers or organizations to make sales calls to a cell phone. Since you pay by the minute, they are not allowed to make that call. I have only gotten one of these calls, and when I told the guy it was my cell phone he apologized profusely and hung up.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[rizzo420]

you know... i never attributed all the survey calls i get to that, but in RI, we got a big casino battle with a question on our ballot for a constitutional amendment allowing a casino and we have a big battle for senate between lincoln chafee (the liberal republican) and sheldon whitehouse (the democrat running who isn't anymore liberal than chafee). plus the state attorney general who oversaw the station nightclub fire that killed 100 is up for re-election. i guess that explains all the calls, not to mention i'm registered as affiliated with the democratic party.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[sckeener]

Admittedly District 22 is currently getting a lot of coverage in Texas. That is Tom Delay's old District.

In the past I really haven't even seen many tv spots. If it wasn't for The Daily Show I would have missed all the presidential ads.

I remember during the 2004 election, the democrats wrote off the entire state of Texas. Why spend money or waste time when you know you don't have a chance?

I didn't agree and thus Tom Delay got into office again.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[Howserx]

I get these from banks and credit card companies. The second I hear "please hold for ..." the next noise I hear is "Click". Me calling and being put on hold is one thing, getting a call and put on hold is BS I ain't putting up with. When these people eventually do get a hold of me they seem surprised that I hung up and didn't wait. Important to you doesn't mean important to me. The Collection agencies do this too but I like wasting their time. after moire then a year of threats and bulling I still get a kick out of the new stories they come up with. I especially like telling them "I'll call Citibank and ask for a 29.5% interest loan and get right back to you"

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[arrrrg]

I have got 3 of these calls in the past five days on my cell phone. I am pretty pissed about it, but they were all automated and didn't give a callback number, and I don't have the time to hunt these guys down and sue them. I was definitely happy to see the article though; hopefully someone else with more time on their hands will take matters into their own hands.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[cob666]

Believe it or not, there is a company out there that will supply all numbers, names and addresses for every listed phone in a given dialing area; to anyone.

I did some consulting work for a rather large power company in the Boston area about 10 years ago and they had a subscription to a set of CDs that had all phone numbers on it (even unlisted ones.) You could search by name, phone number or address. A search by address (ie: 5 Maple St.) the software let you see who lived nearby (9 Maple St.) Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get a copy.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[Drathos]

Four words: Do Not Call List

Before signing up on the DNC, I never got these calls. Now I get them several times a day.

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[TheVision]

"I'm glad someone posted up this spammer-sue-howto." ...except for the fact that the collections section is completely wrong. You don't hire a collection agency after you win a court case, nor do you have to pay "40 - 50%" . If the defendant doesn't pay after a judgement against them has been secured, you file an order of execution which will give you the ability to go to their bank and have the judgement withdrawn. You can also get an order against their tangible property. You have to hire a sheriff to do this, but that cost will be added (plus post-judgement interest) to what is collected.

    As long as I'm picking nits, you can't do the following, either:

"I then produced a tape recording of a conversation between me and the spammer ..."

    Prior to your hearing, you have to go through the discovery process where you share your evidence with the other party. If you don't, you can't use it to support your case. Perhaps that's why the judge got upset...

Re:Why don't I ever get these calls?

[Vintermann]

Let us sing with Max Raabe:
Kein schwein ruft mich an!

Yes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Dude promised me that if I sent $1 to some address on Evergreen Terrace I would have eternal happiness. Why would I want to sue eternal happiness?

Re:Yes but...

[DaveM753]

Sorry Dude.

Re:Yes but...

[stu42j]

I think I would be happier WITH the dollar.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Reapman]

Well.. if there's one thing we need in North America, it's more lawsuits!!

The idea of a "how to sue" guide is personally rather sickning, unless your helping someone fight a big evil corporation dumping sewage into your water supply or something like that. Just because they call you? Sorry, no thanks. Annoying yes. Worth suing? No. No. And more NO.

Wait a Second...

[rudeboy1]

Given the numerous threads/posts here about how litigation-happy this country is, what is a story like this doing on the front page? I mean, while I can see this is a clear shot at some free money, it's sort of exactly the problem we all have been complaining about when stories break about SCO, Jack Thompson, and recently SGI.

I'm interested to see how the Slashdot majority weighs in on this, (note I said majority, not vocal minority of asshats). It seems like we might set an example and find other means of stopping these calls that doesn't involve litigation, so to not add further weight to the argument that the US law system is upside down. What do you think?

Re:Wait a Second...

[syphax]

while I can see this is a clear shot at some free money

Given the time involved, this doesn't sound like free money to me. For me, in terms of opportunity cost, this would be a serious money loser.

I think most of us would agree that the U.S. has more than its fair share of lawsuits. That doesn't mean they are all frivolous, though. And in this case, I would argue the goal is clearly not financial gain (how much money per hour would this net you?), but to punish organizations violate break a law (that would otherwise not be punished). Is that so terrible? And we're talking about small-claims court. He's not exactly delaying the Enron trials.

Re:Wait a Second...

[tinkerghost]

Given the time involved, this doesn't sound like free money to me. For me, in terms of opportunity cost, this would be a serious money loser.

Hmm,

• 1-2 hrs to find agent
• 2 hrs to order & fill out paperwork
• 8 hrs in court

$500/12=$41.66/hr -- that's a lot better than what I make now. If they make multiple calls you can hit them all at the same time - so it goes up fast. I know that when I get a call for red cross blood drives or a political spam, 3 minutes later my wife gets one.

Re:Wait a Second...

[FatAlb3rt]

So...you never bitch about spam? It's the same thing. Probably not worth $500 for what you have to go through, but the idea is to make it difficult enough on their end that they find another approach to their marketing.

Re:Wait a Second...

[syphax]

Fair enough, but get back to me after you actually win one having investing only 12 hours. Include time and fees spent on collection. Include a loss or two mixed in (I have no idea what the success rate is on this). And so forth. If you do successfully double up, maybe you have a case. Are claims in small claims court limited by complaint or by appearance?

Re:Wait a Second...

[DragonWriter]

Er, you only included an optimistic assessment of the time (and not costs!) it takes to get the judgement.

You failed to include the time and costs associated with collecting the judgement, which may well be non-negligible.

(I've also found that most phone spammers in fact give an identity up front; I usually hang up before I find out if "during or after" the message, they also provide a return phone number; so, factor in also the time cost of listening through all incoming phone spam to find the ones that do break the rules, rather than hanging up as soon as you recognize phone spam.)

Re:Wait a Second...

[DragonWriter]

Are claims in small claims court limited by complaint or by appearance?

Usually by filing (which I would call "complaint", but I'm not sure if you are using "complaint" to mean a single offense or a single filing, when contrasted with "appearance.)

Re:Wait a Second...

[DragonWriter]

It let's you sue people in other countries for stuff that may not be illegal there.

Well, it lets you soom them in US courts for actions that are illegal in the US that have an illegal effect in the US; lots of laws do that.

Though actually enforcing a judgement in such a case may be costly and difficult.

Re:Wait a Second...

[budgenator]

Nobody has noticed yet that the same law can be used to sue spammers as well; you would think people would be lining up to sue e360 for picking on spamhaus!

Re:Wait a Second...

[syphax]

Usually by filing (which I would call "complaint", but I'm not sure if you are using "complaint" to mean a single offense or a single filing, when contrasted with "appearance.)


IANAL; I have no idea (wisdom is knowing what you don't know, right?). I would assume you can't make $500 or whatever the cap is per call with a single filing and visit to court, but again, I have no idea. If you could, than maybe this could be a profitable endeavor (not for me, thanks).

Re:Wait a Second...

[Kamots]

Have you considered just setting the receiver down instead of hanging up? For every person that does that it's at least 1 fewer person that gets called that day.

Just a thought.

Re:Wait a Second...

[greengearbox]

What do you think?

I think that the fact that frivolous lawsuits exist should have no bearing on a citizen's decision to use the court system (which he's paying for, after all) to enforce the law.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[JMan1865]

Please remember - most political groups are EXEMPT from the DNC registry - the DNC list is for business only.

You're my hero

[QuasiEvil]

I've been getting about two of these suckers a day on my answering machine. I never actually listen, but just delete. Now that I know it's a potential profit center, they might be worth listening all the way through to see if they qualify for further action. Thanks for the info on how to finally discourage these bastards.

Re:You're my hero

[ocbwilg]

I've been getting about two of these suckers a day on my answering machine. I never actually listen, but just delete. Now that I know it's a potential profit center, they might be worth listening all the way through to see if they qualify for further action. Thanks for the info on how to finally discourage these bastards.

You can do the same thing with junk faxes. I believe that it is the same legislation that forbids those as well. I'm also pretty sure that willful violation can get you triple damages ($1500), so if they've been told to stop sending you junk faxes and still continue to do so, you're in the "big money." Of course, the downside is that you will probably have a hard time collecting on a small claims judgement. If you're suing a junk fax company, they're usually fly by nights and change names/ownership frequently. If you're suing a non-profit for their calls (and right now it's usually election campaigns) then they typically dissolve after the election is over and leave lots of unpaid bills. For example, I had a friend who used to work for Ameritech (before they were SBC or AT&T) who told me that a certain senator's campaign (he's no longer in office) never paid their final phone bill, and it usually got written off as bad debt.

Realistically, if you wanted to spend a lot of time trying to work the system like this, you could probably set up a fax machine and phone line and make a fair living at it. Even if you only averaged 2 wins a week that's still better than a lot of jobs (and certainly fast food jobs). Assuming that you could actually collect. The downside is that the judge might eventually get sick of you or you would run out of people to sue.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[eck011219]

The Do Not Call List doesn't apply to most telemarketers. Churches, Nonprofits, political organizations, brotherhoods of benevolent amputee police orphans, and so on are all able to continue calling. They are obliged to take you off their list if you ask, but that rarely happens. And for the political stuff, it's so time-sensitive, that the two weeks it takes to scratch your name off a list is typically longer than the time left to the election. The only people who can't call you, as near as I can tell, are the timeshare folks and Sony. And I get enough faxes from the timeshare folks that they don't need to call me.

Still, I agree -- I wish I had the kind of time and energy to devote to negotiating settlements out of small claims court cases. I don't generally have time to talk to these chuckleheads in the first place, let alone stick it to them. I guess I don't have what it takes.

Wow...

[JoeLinux]

Money, and from the telemarket community. We could set up a fund dedicated to calling the owners of these telemarketing companies during dinnertime.

"Mr Johnson?"

"This is he."

"Yes, we'd like to offer you $100 for buying our aluminum siding within the next 48 hours..."

"I'm sorry, but I'm not interested"

"Would you like to refinance your house? rates have never been lower..."

"Uhhh...no thanks.."

"Could you take the time for a quick 3 minute survey?"

"Well, I don't think I should..."

"Ok, first question: Are telemarketing companies the scum of the EARTH, or simply localized scum within their communities?"

"Now, I don't think..."

"Congratulations sir, you've won an absolutely free vacation in Hawaii!"

"But I already have a...."

"All you need to do is sell 50 of these hats that have 'I'm with stupid' stitched into the cap. Unfortunately, the printer messed up, so they just say, 'I'm stupid'. We'll send these out to you right away"

"Would you just leave me alo..."

"Sir, the Democrats and Republicans could take this election if we aren't careful. Evidently, they've got the asshat telemarketing vote all cinched up. We would strongly encourage you to get on a rainbow wig, go out on state street and encourage people to vote Independent. Our motto this year is 'No, really, it's not a wasted vote'"

"AAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!"

"Sucks to be you sir" *click*

Re:Wow...

[radarjd]

We could set up a fund dedicated to calling the owners of these telemarketing companies during dinnertime

Actually, if I could make a slight modification -- call the spouses of the owners of these telemarketing companies.

Re:Wow...

[RealGrouchy]

Any time our organization gets a call from a telemarketer, I would sic our marketing person on them in retaliation.

Hopefully that will no longer need to happen. Just before reading this article, I got a junk mail, and the guy at the company I spoke with told me about the Canadian Marketing Association's do not contact list.

I registered it for all the names and contacts I could think of in our organization. (Personally, I have a cell phone and a PO box. My mailbox at home is duct-taped shut with "RTS - No junk!!!!!!!!!" written on the tape.)

- RG>

Re:Wow...

[budgenator]

WOW that was funny!

Re:Is this guy for real?

[syphax]

From the FAQ:

Q: If I register my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, will it stop all telemarketing calls?

A: No. Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most, but not all, telemarketing calls. You may still receive calls from political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors or companies with which you have an existing business relationship.

So you are still wide open for push-polls, etc. That's the whole point.

Taking these guys to court does require a lot of time and effort, but as far as I know it's the only recourse we have. That said, caller ID works pretty well as a spam filter for me...

Don't count your chickens....

[anachattak]

Two big words of warning: 1) This law is probably unconstitutional where political speech is concerned. Political speech is more protected than mere commercial speech, so while it may be able to stop sales call harrassment, it won't stop solicitations for political organizations. Also, it won't stop calls from companies with whom you have a pre-existing business relationship (i.e. your phone company), unless you specifically tell them (preferably in writing) that you do not want to be solicited in the future. 2) I've tried using this law to chase junk faxers and it is an enormous waste of time. You can catch the small-timer local advertisers (by suing them personally and joining the junk faxer, if you can find them), but the penny-stock faxes will keep coming through. Usually they're out of state and domesticating a local judgment to their home state and executing on it is near impossible. Not to discourage anyone, but this will not bring down the big junk fax/phone spammers (and depending on what you make an hour, may not be worth the time you invest in it).

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[gfxguy]

Even free speech doesn't provide the rights to a venue - unsolicited calls, especially auto-dialed recorded calls, are subject to restrictions. It doesn't restrict political speech, it doesn't even say a politician CAN'T use an auto-dialer to send prerecorded messages - the law just says there are certain ways this must be done.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[tinkerghost]

No, free speech doesn't remove telecommunications restrictions. You can't say fuck or show nipples on broadcast TV just because it's part of a political ad. Nor can you send faxes to fax machines. Spam is somehow fair game though... they don't have to include an opt out for future messages.
Hmm, "Vote the strict FSM ticket this year... for a preview of life under the FSM party, here's a tour of the afterlife's stripper factory..."

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[SillyNickName4me]

Political speech is more protected than mere commercial speech, so while it may be able to stop sales call harrassment, it won't stop solicitations for political organizations.

Freedom of speech, political or otherwise, does not include the right to force people to listen to you.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[PaxTech]

Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else thought of just hanging up the phone? No one's forcing you to listen, and I hardly think that occasional unsolicited phone calls touting candidates for office during the couple of weeks prior to national elections is a serious problem threatening our society.

Frankly just READING the above post would suck away more of my time than fifty political phone calls, leaving aside the underlying idea of intentionally wasting hours of my valuable time trying to sue the caller for wasting a minute or so of my time. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis that has one simple answer: Just hang up the phone.

I'm all for suing commercial telemarketers if that's what anyone wants to do, they suck and should be killed. Political calls are different, they're infrequent and banning them would have implications for free speech as a whole.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[LMariachi]

No one's forcing you not to hang up the phone.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[SillyNickName4me]

Oh, I can hangup the phone perfectly fine, but really, why does freedom of speech make that people think they have the right to disturb me with their nonsense whenever they want? Even when I hangup on them, they have still taken my time and interrupted whatever I was doing.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[operagost]

If political ads involved nipples, I don't think I'd object so much.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[karnal]

Keep in mind there aren't laws against showing nipples or saying the word "fuck" on broadcast TV, IIRC.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[joshetc]

Here is my afternoon routine:
4:00PM - Leave work
4:15PM - Arrive at home
4:20PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
4:30PM - Check e-mail and delete all spam
4:50PM - Start making dinner
4:55PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:00PM - Make table
5:15PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:20PM - Sit down to eat
5:22PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:23PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:24PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:25PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:26PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:27PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:28PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:30PM - Start eating
5:31PM - Answer phone call from telemarketer
5:40PM - Finish eating
5:45PM - Do Dishes
6:00PM-9:00PM - Watch TV and Answer phone call from telemarketers
9:30PM - Cry myself to sleep over how many annoying phone calls I had to answer that day

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[SillyNickName4me]

No one's forcing you not to hang up the phone.

By the time I can hangup, they already took some of my time, forced me to listen to whom they are, disturbed whatever I was doing and such.

So while I can hangup the phone, that does not solve the problem.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[tinkerghost]

Hmm, Fine point, why don't you go argue with the FCC about that one.
You might just have about as much luck as trying to argue with the IRS that there is no statute requiring individuals to pay income tax - corperations yes, but not individuals. There is a crapload of tax-code, but no statute which specifically authorizes the IRS to collect income tax from individuals.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[karnal]

Again, note that I did not explicitly say it would not be close to impossible to broadcast nipples or the word "fuck" on TV. I just said there was no law on the books about it.

Stop getting so snippy; you'll live longer.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[tinkerghost]

Wasn't trying to be snippy. I agree, I don't believe there is a law on the books about nipples on broadcast TV, just FCC regulations. However for practical intents & purposes, it's law.
To the original argument, if this law regarding adding identification & a contact number are unconstitutional, then so are all of the ones that specifically require that the identity of the funder of political ads be on the ad.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[carpeweb]

Weren't there a couple of strippers and a porn star or two in the Million Gubernatorial Candidate March in Kahleefohneeyah a few years back? Anyway, it wouldn't have surprised me if one or more of them said "fuck" while showing nipples ... maybe not on the campaign trail, but certainly at some point ...

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[anachattak]

Honestly, even if it happened on national level, it wouldn't make the American electoral system any less of a farce. The prevailing opinion on this thread appears to be: let me say and show whatever they want, just don't let them call during dinner.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[belmolis]

there is no statute requiring individuals to pay income tax - corperations yes, but not individuals. There is a crapload of tax-code, but no statute which specifically authorizes the IRS to collect income tax from individuals.

Sorry, but this is an urban myth. See the Wikipedia article on Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Re:Don't count your chickens....

[TClevenger]

No one's forcing you to listen, and I hardly think that occasional unsolicited phone calls touting candidates for office during the couple of weeks prior to national elections is a serious problem threatening our society.

Occasional? Try 16 phone calls just this past Saturday, starting at 7:00am and lasting until 9:30pm. And last election, we got wonderful calls that started with, "Your daughter could be having an abortion RIGHT NOW!"

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Aladrin]

Yeah, he does have too much time on his hands. But he's doing something he (and I) care about. I simply don't have the time/patience/money to be bothered. But I'm glad he does it. The very fact that he does it, and has just made it public how, servers my purposes. Fewer companies will be willing to get sued like this once a few people start. And it'll stop.

I'm on the Do Not Call list and it works GREAT. We cancelled our landline anyhow, and it's just the cellphone... But after a month of being on the DNC list, the calls were very very few and far between. And months later we got NONE. I get none on my cellphone. (I signed up as soon as I got the number.)

But for those who think they are exempt (politicians, non-profits) this makes me happy. Especially since it's going to do it's work without my lifting a finger.

The Court System

[lymond01]

Anyone who's had dealing with the court system here in the U.S. would know that you want no part of it.

You: Hi, I'm here to file my small claims court grievance towards this political party.

Claims Court Window: Hmm, you need to take this form across the street, 3rd floor, room 314.

You: Oh. But you're the Small Claims Court window...what's in 314?

CCW: That's the filing window. Once your claim is filed, then any future dealings with the court will begin here.

You: Ah. Makes sense. Thanks. ...

You (at window 314): Hi, I'm here to file for Small Claims Court.

314: Small claims? How'd you get here? This is the window for filing for divorce court.

You: But the woman in the Small Claim Courts window said 314 was where I file.

314: Lemme see that. No...go talk to her again. She should be able to help you. Next!

And around and around it goes. If you ever do file, expect to wait 6 months, then be asked to come in at 8 in the morning so you can sit outside the courtroom until your case is called at 11 so the judge can set a date for your next hearing in 2 months. That's it.

But hey...it might be worth the money!

Re:The Court System

[planetmn]

Actually, at least the one time I sued somebody in small claims court it was rather straightforward and the court employees were very helpful.

I was 18, when down to the court, paid the fee (maybe $35) and the clerk told me what forms to fill out. She also told me the options for serving the papers. In addition, she pointed me to the computers where I could search for other cases to help research my claim.

I served the papers, and a court date was set. I was told to arrive at a specific time (I believe noon). There were quite a few of us. The judge first handled the cases where one side did not show, and then moved on to the cases that would be argued. I was maybe halfway down the list, and it was about 1pm when we started. We argued our sides of the case for about 25 minutes or so, the judge said he would rule in a few weeks. A week later (which included Thanksgiving), I received a notice from the court that the judge had ruled in my favor, what the judgement was, and when it was due by. The day after it was due (it was unpaid at the time), I went back to the court, filed the paperwork which would allow me to request that the Sherriff collect the judgement. (I received the check before I actually requested the collection).

All in all, it was rather painless, at least as painless as I think it could be.

Just my experience. From it I wouldn't deter people from persuing valid cases (though I personally don't feel this one is valid).

-dave

Re:The Court System

[Wavicle]

I have heard of Judges doing this before. This is why the judicial system has an appeals court. The judge in your case denied you your constitutional right (Amendment 6) to confront your accuser (the state). Had the officer calibrated the laser? Was this model known to occasionally record brick walls moving at any speed? These are problems recorded in the past with laser speed detectors, and you had no chance to ask the officer these questions.

You had cause to appeal your case, which almost certainly would have been overturned.

Re:The Court System

[DragonWriter]

I have heard of Judges doing this before. This is why the judicial system has an appeals court. The judge in your case denied you your constitutional right (Amendment 6) to confront your accuser (the state).

6th Amendment rights apply only to criminal cases. Traffic violations are generally not criminal cases in the Constitutional sense, and 6th Amendment rights therefore often do not apply to them.

OTOH, one could make an argument that in a case like this, a 14th amendment due process violation occurred. Not quite the slam dunk that it would be if it was a criminal case and the 6th amendment could be invoked, though.

Get a book about small claims procedures

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

It may have advice such as

"Be brief". Judges have more caseload than they want. What happens when you ask for the time of a busy person and drone on and on and on and on and on and on?

"Be gone". If the other party doesn't show up, you have a default judgment. If you stick around to observe the spectacle of justice and the other party shows up late, the judge might feel entitled to restart proceedings.

Re:Get a book about small claims procedures

[arbitraryaardvark]

I recommend nolo press, either, how to win in small claims court, or how to win in small claims court in california. www.nolo.com ? I am an attorney, have sued in small claims a few times, and verify what Bennet says in the article. Bennett, btw, is a cool guy, long history of hactivism with peacefire and other groups. His approach is to use both technical solutions and legal solutions. My state's (indiana) Attorney General has been going after automated political telemarketers, and winning. Usually I'm a free speech absolutist, but I agree pre-recorded junk calls are a pain and worth fighting.

Ummmm... no

[supabeast!]

IANAL, but I still think that I'm qualified to point out that filing a lawsuit based on an essay posted to Slashdot is a really stupid thing to do.

Re:Ummmm... no

[uvajed_ekil]

Well.....Don't forget were talking about small claims court, which is meant to be a simple means of dispute resolution and remedy that is available for ordinary people, generally without a lawyer. The suit would be based on a law (or laws), someone breaking the law, and the filer wanting to recover damages as allowed by the law. So while this "guide" may provide a basic framework as to what is needed to sue, it also clearly states that you need to prepare your case thoroughly. It isn't like the poster said "Take what I typed here, fill in the blanks with the names of random people, go to the court house, and profit!"

Re:Is this guy for real?

[w33t]

Personally I think it's great that someone is intepreting the law and creating a clear cut course of action for the rest of us.

Law is such an esoteric and secrative thing. Even consulting with a lawer costs upwards of hundreds of dollars.

Legal wrangling is a boring, tedious and stressful endevour. We should thank and praise anyone who discloses their knowledge so freely as this.

I have great respect for the legal hobbyists here on slasdot. In fact, this is really the only place where I have ever seen legal discussion and disclosure offered in such a free manner.

Of course, word to the wise, remember that most of these guys are not lawyers (some use a clever acronym to indicate this). Take everything with a grain of salt - nonetheless, be happy and thankful that you have any meal to salt at all.

If people start suing en mass

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

...they will just outsource the calling to Indian callcenters.

Imagine that!

Re:If people start suing en mass

[Tweekster]

What difference does that make?

absolutely none, if i pay you to break the law, i am just as guilty as if i broke the law.

Re:If people start suing en mass

[soft_guy]

if i pay you to break the law, i am just as guilty as if i broke the law.

That's not true. If it were then murder for hire would be illegal.

Re:If people start suing en mass

[sobachatina]

Right.

Murder for hire is illegal.

Or were you being sarcastic?

Re:If people start suing en mass

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

If an Indian callcenter makes a call - it's just another unsolicited call, and autodialer rules do not apply. It's the same as when volunteers call.

Besides, it was a joke - 'k?

Re:If people start suing en mass

[vashfish]

That's not true. If it were then murder for hire would be illegal. Umm...

Re:If people start suing en mass

[BunnyClaws]

They already do this. I worked for a major call center. They had multiple call centers in India.

Re:If people start suing en mass

[TheManFromTheWoods]

They already do this.

Whoosh!

Is it worth it?

[warrior_s]

If its just for money its not worth it.. assume you make $20/hr and if you spend 30Hrs of you time on this shit, you are loosing $600. If its not for money, still those companies are not going to stop making calls just because some jack-ass tried to get $500 from them.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Gemini_25_RB]

I really don't get the math here. 20 * 30 = 600, agreed. But are you "loosing" 600 if you regain 500? I'd say its more like: You are losing ((hourly wage)(time spent not working) - 500).

Re:Is it worth it?

[Xel]

If i make $20 an hour, am I losing $200 after playing 10 hours of WoW, or watching Battlestar Galactica, or hanging out at the mall?

Correction: It's not worth it if you're not having fun. But I can see how this could be a real educational experience, or at least a distraction. There are some people on /. that could get genuinely excited about running around courthouses from window to window with pink, green and white forms clutched excitedly in hand.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Registered Coward v2]

Wow, this guy has far too much time on his hands. I can understand the desire to sue annoying telemarketers and politicians of an opposing part, but your own candidate or ... nonprofit organizations? "Sorry Mr. Smith, we can't provide your insulin shots this month because we've been sued while looking for contributions." This seems a little sick.

Independent of whether more suits are a good thing, it's more like:

"we'll have to spend some of the 10 cents on the dollar we get from telemarketing companies if we get sued; let's follow (or change) the law so we are covered."

My guess is once a big non-profit gets hit a few times they'll go the "pay our lobbyists with the money we could spend on insulin shots to change a law we don't like since we are doing good and the evil citizens are attacking us - the good guys - you are in favor of sus spending money on helping the children instead of fighting lawsuits, aren't you Mr or Ms Congressperson?"

Three comments

[linuxwrangler]

1. Do more research. There is much more to the law than the OP mentions including....wait for it....exemptions for political calls. Imagine that. And for pre-existing relationships, research surveys (provided they are real surveys, not disguised sales calls), etc. There is also a mishmash of state laws to consider - many of which have not been well tested in the courts.

2. If you have the time and inclination and are willing to do the additional research, go for it. You are doing the rest of us a favor.

3. If you would rather have some fun instead (only for live person calls), use the anti-telemarketer script found here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~egbg/counterscript.html

Re:Three comments

[Dan Ost]

How could a recorded message possibly qualify as a survey?

Also, do the exemtions for political calls cover recorded messages with political content?

Re:Three comments

[syousef]

I usually play a game with them. I say uh-huh just enough to get them talking. I'm careful not to agree to anything though, and I don't give them any information. The ones selling stuff usually go into this long speil about how lucky you are to be selected for their wonderful product and start telling you about it. At which point I either go silent and try not to laugh at their "hello? hello?" at the other end (so I can time how long it takes them to hang up) or I just put the phone down for a couple of minutes. Unfortunately they usually move on after about 30 seconds to a minute. If they're going to waste my time though, I'm going to take great pleasure in wasting as much of theirs as I can. One game you can play is to see how long you can keep them talking without agreeing to anything. There's no point in asking them not to call or getting angry at them. They don't care.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

Wow, that post is an excellent example of what's wrong with the world today. Everything is evil if and only if a big corporation does it.

-Pollution is evil if corporations do it, but if you're burning wood in your fireplace, and impacting my life much more, that's okay.
-If you kill someone wtih your car, you're on the hook for, what, $200,000? If a UPS driver does it, bump that up to a million.
-If a doctor botches an operation and kills someone, yep, $200,000. But if he has a big evil insurance corporation backing him, meh, they can afford a million or so, right?
-If the Graemen Bank empowers people through microloans, that's SO GREAT. But if a regular for-profit bank did it, that would be evil.
-If you want to hire someone to fix your toilet, you pay whatever they agree to. But if you're a corporation that wants to hire someoen to regularly fix toilets, well, that's just evil. You're going to have to pay his medical and dental, pay minimum wage, contribute to his social security account, be on the hook for discriminatory lawsuits, etc.

And now:

-If a corporation annoys you to no end with autodialing, SHUT EM DOWN. But if it's "just" a non-profit organization doing the exact same thing, nah, let it slip.

I'm serious -- can someone explain this to me?

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Salvance]

Yes, they're exempt, but MOST of them use and honor the DNC registry (or utilize lists that have already been scrubbed of individuals on the registry).

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Tweekster]

Well a nonprofit organization shouldnt be wasting money breaking the law.

I vote partially based on these calls

[jridley]

I keep track of these calls. If they're about issues I have a position on, I ignore them. But if they're on issues I'm undecided on, I generally vote against the people who are annoying me with recorded announcements.

Last election I had a tough time because on a few proposals, both sides were bugging me about equally. So I voted against the side whose recording pissed me off the most.

I used to do this for elected positions as well, but this year my strategy is simpler; I wouldn't vote for a republican to be a damn dog-catcher. I'll vote Martian Invaders party if I have to in order to vote against a republican.

Re:I vote partially based on these calls

[azuravian]

That's an excellent strategy. Regardless of the values or positions of the individual running for office, you will vote against them. And people wonder what's wrong with this country.

Oh, and I'm not a republican.

Re:I vote partially based on these calls

[rahvin112]

There is one simple fact, regardless of the person, their stated views, and even their voting history. If it comes down to something that the party decides is important 95% of the elected officials are going to vote along party lines. Given the current line of the republican party is tax-cut and spend, right to life regardless of how the majority of america feels about it, and the belief that we can actually win a war on terror.

In my opnion the republican party no longer represents what they did 20 years ago. It has been corrupted and swung so far to the right that the parties positions represent the views of less than 20%. For those reasons I don't feel it's wrong to vote against republicans strictly based on party, what's wrong is voting for any party just because of the party. In fact I saw my states senators and represntatives who are anti-goverment interference in family decisions (something that is an incredibly powerfull position that is probably supported by over 90% of the population in Utah) vote to interfere in the Shivo case because the party wanted them to, not because anyone in Utah thought it was right for the federal government to intervene in a private family decision, and in fact was widely condemed in the state by the LDS Church and many others.

I agree with you that you should select canidates based on their views, but there is one essential criteria as well, when the chips are down are they going to vote the party line and do you agree with that party line? Because if they vote party line and the party line is about tax-cut and spend, or government interference in your own home and medical decisions I don't want anything to do with them regardless of how they vote the rest of the time. It's those key votes that hurt america the most.

Re:I vote partially based on these calls

[Kazoo the Clown]

Frankly, if their values include it being OK to telephone you with SPAM, then they're worth voting against. Especially if they do it repeatedly. Here in California, I'm not a Republican but I wouldn't vote for Democrat Betty Karnette if you took a gun to my head. I get several spam snail-mails (about one per day in the last week), automated phone calls and this time even emails trying to argue her case and as far as I'm concerned, based solely on that she's complete scum. I'll probably vote the Libertarian ticket on that race. If it continues I may even vote Republican (gasp!) just because it's so clear to me she deserves to lose, and lose badly.

In fact it looks like I'll be voting Libertarian on most everything-- the idea that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans would be hilarious if it didn't tend to actually get them voted in by people who should know better. I'll also be voting NO on most of the funding bills, even those for good causes because it's clear the bureaucracy can't manage it's money worth s**t and it'd just be throwing good money after bad.

IMHO-- politics in the US is not just an embarrasment anymore, it's a complete catastrophe as the general populace just doesn't get it-- keeps playing the "my team's better than your team" and "my team right or wrong" that's got us dug into the immense crater we're in now-- and just keeps electing these crooks back into office year after year. Just how darn bad do things have to get before voters will learn that choosing Republican *or* Democrat on the ticket is just a recipe for another round of abuse and corruption?

Re:I vote partially based on these calls

[jridley]

You will (if you read my post) note that I said that I swing my vote on this criteria ONLY if it's an issue or candidate that I do not already hold a definite position on.

Bugging me too much might make me reconsider voting for a candidate.

Did he read the whole thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like he might not have read all of Sec 64.1200:

64.1200(3) The term telephone solicitation means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message:

* (i) To any person with that person's prior express invitation or permission;
* (ii) To any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship; or
* (iii) By or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

Candid Redorder

[Ray Radlein]

I sued a spammer who came to court and claimed he never sent the mails and didn't even know how. When the judge stopped berating me long enough for me to continue, I then produced a tape recording of a conversation between me and the spammer, in which I had pretended to be an interested customer, and he offered to send 5 million e-mails for me for $500, and explained how they were routed through China to hide the origin. The judge got extremely flustered for a minute and then started to accuse me of "entrapment" (even though the recorded phone call took place after I had received the original spam), and she never commented on the fact that the defendant had just been caught lying under oath. I hadn't really expected him to go to jail for that, but I thought I would at least win the case; I didn't.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, what you did is illegal in many jurisdictions (hopefully not yours, of course!), and inadmissable in others, unless you notified the spammer in advance that you were recording the conversation. People interested in doing this should probably make sure for themselves before doing so.

Re:Candid Redorder

[gpeters]

I think the nature of your mistake is that you didn't read his account of the matter. The spammer consented to the audio recording in this case.

Re:Candid Redorder

[taustin]

Particularly since, in some states, recording a conversation (on the phone or otherwise) without permission from all parties is a felony.

Re:Candid Redorder

[panthrkub]

The spammer was notified. RTFA

Re:Candid Redorder

[taustin]

Whoa, you have to ask permission from the NSA?

Technically, in Califorina at least, yes, you do.

Re:Candid Redorder

[furchin]

RTFM -- in it, he describes his technique for getting permission, as it is indeed illegal in Washington to record telephone conversations without the consent of both parties.

Re:Candid Redorder

[mackyrae]

If, in his state only one party has to be aware of the recording, it was legal. The law varies from state to state. Some states say recording it without both parties' consent is illegal. Some say only one has to know. If he knew he was being recorded and his state said he's the only one who has to know, it's perfectly legal.

Re:Candid Redorder

[RobertLTux]

easy fix for this "issue"

1 record more or less ALL of your calls
2 break into the speal and state "for quality and lawsuit purposes this call may be monitored or recorded"
  (they may hang up at this point)
3 set your recorder to emit a beep every minute or so (you can get a recorder that will do this at the likely places)
4 profit!!

Bonus points if you have the stones to stream your phone to your website ie
"Judge : and do you have any evidence of these claims?
  You : here is an MP3 file and sworn statements from 24 different people that listened in via my website (note the police officer and the jesuit monk)"

Re:Is this guy for real?

[MrTester]

Im guessing that the people who "Dont get this" dont live in swing states.

I am getting sick and tired of getting home from work and having my answering filled up with 5 or 6 candidates recorded messages. Thats not everyday, but it happened 4 or 5 times last month. I have at least 1 every damned day.

Between that and the CONTINUOUS negative political advertisements I cant stand it. There are literally 2 minute advertisement blocks that are nothing but one political add after another. "I hate candidate A" and "I love candidate A" adds back to back.

I find myself asking "Is Democracy worth this? Whats a little Fascisim if it brings peace and quiet?" Before anyone gets irate, thats a joke.

Yes, let's just ignore the legal system!

[karmaflux]

I completely agree. I can't believe the sheer audacity of this jerk! The last thing America needs is its citizens attempting to enforce national laws!

wait...

suing collection agencies?

[Gospodin]

What I'd like to know is this: Can I sue collection agencies who call my house looking for the wrong person? They either leave me a message or, worse, ask me to hold to speak to a representative, but when I try holding and telling them I'm not their man, typically after about 10 minutes of holding the call drops. Then the next day I get another message from the same people. Very frustrating!

A couple of times I have actually managed to get to a person and tried to explain that I'm not the one. They're very unwilling to listen to this: "What is your social security number?" "I don't give out my social security number to strangers. Who is this and what is it in reference to?" "We can't give out that information?" "This is a collection agency, right? I have no debts in default, so I'm sure I'm not the person you want." "If you give us your social security number, we can check to see if it matches the one we're looking for." "Sorry, I won't unless you tell me exactly who you are. Or you could give ME the social YOU are looking for and I'll tell you if it matches mine." (repeat a few more times) "Look, what type of account is it that's in default?" "Ummm.... it's a Citibank Visa." "Well, there you go. I've never even owned a Citibank Visa. Bye." (click).

As fun as this sort of conversation can be, it's not worth the messages and the holds/dropped calls.

Re:suing collection agencies?

[Kindgott]

This is especially maddening. I once received a call looking for -- get this -- my brother's mother-in-law! She doesn't even have the same last name or live anywhere near me, and I'm still not sure how the agency even figured out we were related. My brother doesn't even have the same last name as I do, thanks to a name change.

Lately, I have been getting calles from a "Ken Hughes", simply stating to call a toll free number, and that it is not a solicitation. If you google his name, you'll find some interesting opinions on him and his company.

I have been considering calling back and threatening to report them to the attorney general here in New York, but sometimes I wonder if it is really worth all the bother.

Re:suing collection agencies?

[Bieeanda]

You said it yourself: They're vicious scum. They treat everyone the same way, regardless of whether they have the wrong number, or a deadbeat's roommate, or they're on a direct line to God. As far as they're concerned, you're lying when you tell them that they've got the wrong person. Most of the time, they really don't care if they have the wrong person or not-- if you're a relative or a roommate, they can keep pestering you until you come down on their real target for them or agree to pay the bill just to get them off your ass. They really don't give a shit what happens, as long as they get the fat commission waiting at the finish line for them.

From personal experience, they'll happily lie to you or hang up when you try to turn the tables on them. I had one threaten to take me to court and refuse to discuss the possibility of a payment plan. Fortunately, relatives came through and helped me to pay the lump sum that was owed... and then, two days later, a letter came from the agency offering to sort out the payment plan that their agent flatly ignored.

Re:suing collection agencies?

[Gospodin]

I would sort-of-understand if they were calling me about a relative. It would be scummy, sure, but at least it would make sense. But so far the only calls I've received (and I've received many, believe me) have been for people I've never even heard of.

I suspect having a very common name helps - I'm probably on a "likely alias" list somewhere.

Re:suing collection agencies?

[Bieeanda]

There's also the unpleasant possibility of having received a deadbeat's previous phone number when switching service to a new home.

Re:suing collection agencies?

[Gospodin]

Definitely. That may have happened, too. But that's not the only explanation, because I've gotten calls for several different unknown [alleged] deadbeats, including at phone numbers that I've had for 6+ years.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Wow, this guy has far too much time on his hands. I can understand the desire to sue annoying telemarketers and politicians of an opposing part, but your own candidate or ... nonprofit organizations? "Sorry Mr. Smith, we can't provide your insulin shots this month because we've been sued while looking for contributions." This seems a little sick.

First, it's a lot crappier and less prinicpled to sue your own candidate but not others. Do it for all or none. Second, nonprofit doesn't mean charity necessarily. There are a lot of nonprofits out there that make a ton of money, with the stipulation that they spend it all (ie, funnel it all to a for-profit sister entity). Third, laws apply to everyone, and if the charity wants my time on the phone, the least they can do is provide a human of their own. This guy's mainly suing the clowns with the pre-recorded messages, as it's completely legal for charities to call you with a live voice, and the DNC list doesn't block that.

Sad time to not have mod points

[JazzLad]

Props to you, you say well what I think.

-
Don't bother modding me down, mod parent up.

Huh?

[linuxg0d]

Wow! Typically an American standpoint. It costs more than 500$ to sue someone in Canada, and frankly, there are way bigger fish to fry than some auto-dialer company. Frankly, I'm not sure why this was even Slashdotted. :( What content is there in this that is even remotely interesting?

Sue non-profit organizations for profit

[Dragged Down by the]

What a friggin' lawsuit happy country you guys live in ...

Re:Sue non-profit organizations for profit

[smooth wombat]

It's not just non-profits that we sue. We sue for-profit companies who produce products which are known to be harmful to us, even after being told for three decades that what they produce is harmful, yet still continued to buy and use the product, and win.

Then of course there are the 'stupid lawsuits'. The ones where people are too stupid to not suffer harm yet somehow think it's someone elses fault. Like this one.

But hey, that's what one gets when you have schools, and parents, more interested in what religious study to shove down peoples throats rather than teaching students to be critical thinkers.

Re:Sue non-profit organizations for profit

[operagost]

Should we let the laws go unenforced?

Re:Sue non-profit organizations for profit

[Quila]

Non-profits can be just as bad as for-profits. Also, their cause can be one that you abhor.

Differentiate between "lawsuit" and small claims court. Small claims court is simply: you have a grievance, you file, you serve, you get your few minutes in front of the judge to make your case, judgment made. No lawyers, no juries, little time and expense, designed for grievances of small value, which is exactly what these calls are.

Re:Sue non-profit organizations for profit

[VGR]

We sue for-profit companies who produce products which are known to be harmful to us, even after being told for three decades that what they produce is harmful, yet still continued to buy and use the product, and win.

And for how many of those decades were we told that nicotine is as physically addictive as heroin?

Tobacco companies have known since the fifties of this addictive nature, but I don't recall seeing it mentioned on the packaging of any tobacco product, ever.

Even when told how dangerous it is, virtually no smoker has the ability to quit once they've started, regardless of their desire to do so. Of all the smokers you've known, how many would have started if they'd known it was that addictive? A lot of people willingly submit to brief danger (like unintentionally inhaling gasoline fumes) but would think differently if they knew one moment of contact would force them into a lifelong spiral of increasing exposure to the same danger.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[JMan1865]

True - and those that don't - deserve anything listed above in the original essay. Follow the rules, and you can't be sued. Don't follow the rules, and you should be surprised when someone eventually calls you on it.

Re:Boggling

[qwijibo]

I'm glad there are people with enough free time to do this. My time is worth too much to me to bother. I have video games at home I haven't played enough. =)

However, I know that many companies will blatantly violate any law that is inconvenient if the cost of dealing with people like him is less than the perceived profit of recorded calls as a marketing channel. When no one does anything, it's practically like the law doesn't exist. If the law didn't exist, every company would use recordings - they're cheaper than telemarketers we know how common telemarketers are.

This would be great . . . except.

[chasisaac]

All the local ya-hoos (this is a reference to Guliver's Travels, not a website, for those of you who do not read) have started having live people call me, daily. these live people screech through their memorized speeches quickly. They then hang up. I feel like that I have a drive-by phone call. The real problem with these calls. Is I am to darn polite to tell them off. As soon as I wait for them to breathe they hang up.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[tinkerghost]

Wow, this guy has far too much time on his hands. I can understand the desire to sue annoying telemarketers and politicians of an opposing part, but your own candidate or ... nonprofit organizations?

Read the essay again, you only get to sue non-profits if they don't

1. Identify who they are at the beginning of the call
2. give a return phone number

That's not a real high hurdle to avoid being sued. "Hello, this is Non-Profit-From-Hell. We would just like a moment of your time ... Thank you, for further information, please call 1-888-3825-033." That's it. Insert whatever else you want for '...' and you can't be sued.

On the other hand, I've had problems with a credit card company where they called 6 times a day & never left a company name .... it's nice to know I can sue them for every call .... 6/day X 6days a week = $3600/wk = 14.4K/mth ---- I can stop working & just let them keep calling.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Knetzar]

Look, if a group is doing something illegal, then why not sue them? I'm against law suits for things that are silly (not protecting people from their own stupidity), but when there is a clear law saying that they can't do something, and they do it anyway, we need to stop them. Otherwise the laws are pointless. How would you recommend fixing it? How would you stop calls from coming in if you got called every few minutes by computers?

Hate to burst your bubble...

[djones101]

But you're wrong.

(a)(2) "Initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by Sec. 64.1200(c) of this section."

"The term telephone call in Sec. 64.1200(a)(2) of this section shall not include a call or message by, or on behalf of, a caller: [...]
* (4) Which is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization."

Did you just glance over the word not and pretend it wasn't there? Or did you just not read close enough?

By FCC regulation, calls from non-profits, as well as political advertisements, are exempt from laws governing unsolicited communications. I spent the better part of 2 years working with autodialers, configuring them for sending out pre-recorded messages to the homes of those who were eating a nice, quiet dinner. During my brief time doing that sort of work at that organization (I have since found employment elsewhere that doesn't make me feel like Satan at the end of the day), I became well versed in the nuances of the law regarding solicited and unsolicited telephone calls. I can assure you, if you get phone calls from George Bush advertising your local Republican candidate as the best person for the job, the ONLY recourse you have is to hang up the phone and pray for November to be over.

Re:Hate to burst your bubble...

[hacker]

By FCC regulation, calls from non-profits, as well as political advertisements, are exempt from laws governing unsolicited communications.

Unless, as I've stated in my previous reply, you specifically ask that they stop calling you... and they continue to call.

Re:Hate to burst your bubble...

[The Cisco Kid]

You didnt read carefully enough, Yes, non-profits are exempt from (a)(2) - but they are not exempt from (d), where it says they have to (1) clearly identify thermselves at the beginning of the call, and (2) provide their OWN telephone number as well.

Re:Hate to burst your bubble...

[terrymr]

Did you just glance over the word not and pretend it wasn't there? Or did you just not read close enough?

No more than you just pretended the subsections requiring the organization to identify itself at the start of the call and provide a callback number weren't there. Did you even read the summary ?

Re:Hate to burst your bubble...

[operagost]

And you're wrong just like the other guy who didn't RTFA, because even non-profit automated messages MUST identify the caller and MUST provide a callback number. Many don't provide the latter.

No, I don't have what it takes.

[Ocular Magic]

It seems to me this person has more time than most. Wanting to sue someone for being annoying is just sad. It's an ad, hang up the phone! What did that take, 5 seconds, now move on with your life. I could understand if your phone was ringing off the hook and you were forced to unplug it due to the volume of calls. But this doesn't seem like the problem the person is having. How about using caller ID? If you don't know the number, don't answer the phone. If it's extremely important, the person would/should leave a message and if you recognize the voice, pick it up. If you're thinking that you shouldn't HAVE to do that, no, you shouldn't, but life has it's annoyances and ads on the phone are just one tiny fraction of what you're going to run up against. Are you going to track down and sue that kid that crank called you at 2am? This person probably would.

Re:No, I don't have what it takes.

[ErikZ]

By that logic, we don't need a "Do not call" list.

Imagine getting a phone call every time you get email spam.

Re:No, I don't have what it takes.

[Blailus]

The phone was ringing off the hook in my case. Our phone rang many times a week, and perhaps 10% of the time, it was a phone call we intended to recieve, or wanted to recieve. I took the easy way out, and cancelled our landline phone, since, being all cell now, means you don't get any solicitors (yet).

Hi, this is George W Bush...

[tulmad]

I got a recorded call from GWB the other day telling me how I should vote Republican this election season to protect our homeland from "terrists". I had a good hearty laugh through most of the call before I hung up on it.

Idiots.

[Carik]

Just what we need. More idiots suing people for... not much.

If you don't want to listen to these, hang up on them. If you don't feel like picking up, don't. The world won't end because you didn't answer the phone. Yes, I get these sometimes, and used to get them constantly. I just started hanging up on the machines, and telling the people "Please put me on your do not call list. If you wish to contact me in the future, please send me something by mail." None of them ever send me anything in the mail, and they stop calling me.

Sure, these calls are anoying, but they're hardly worth a lawsuit.

Re:Idiots.

[The Cisco Kid]

How about being able to use one's phone line for the purpose they have it for? Eg, if it rings, its someone they've given the number to, and/or are expecting a call from?

What if a loved one is in an accident, and the hospitcal tries to call them only their number is busy with the telemarketing call? Or if it goes to an answering machine, but it cant take any more messages becuase its full of telemarketing drivel?

And how do you tell a recording to stop calling you?

Wether its worth a lawsuit is entirely up to the person getting the calls. I suppsoe you are ok with email spam too? Just hit Delete, right? Thats the right option, only its the spammer that needs to be deleted, not just the spam.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[squiggleslash]

The Do Not Call list doesn't cover these types of pre-recorded telemarketing calls (not least because, as the article points out, they're illegal anyway.) We receive them at home, I've even had a few to my cellphone. I'm on the Do Not Call list. I'm not even a US citizen so telling me who to vote for is doubly annoying.

And if they flout the DNC list, then, well, what's the point of being on it if you're not going to enforce it. You appear to be saying "You should put yourself on various lists you're on anyway, and then ignore it when people call." What a great idea! Render the list entirely useless!

I'm fully in favour of suing in these instances. We're not talking about bankrupting judgements of the "six-digit lawyers fees alone" variety, we're talking about small claims court, being used to enforce a law that is perfectly legitimate, whose flouters are being deliberately anti-social and committing offenses against you, the suer.

What's the problem with that?

Apply anti-spam rules ...

[Richard W.M. Jones]

What's needed is some sort of captcha for telephone calls.

Answering machine: To connect to Mr Jones, please press keys one, six, three and nine now.

Auto-dialer: [Launches into pre-recorded message]

[Ten seconds later, answering machine hangs up]

Rich.

Re:Apply anti-spam rules ...

[ptbarnett]

What's needed is some sort of captcha for telephone calls.

I have one. I use a device from TalkSwitch to present the caller with two options: "If you are attempting to sell me a product or service, or are taking a poll or survey, please press 4. Otherwise, press 5".

Pressing 4 yields: "Please put me on your do-not-call list and do not call again. (click)." Pressing 5 rings the phone in my house. In practice, live telemarketers probably just hang up. Automated dialing systems don't know to press 5.

The device can recognize distinctive ring cadences, so only my listed phone number is handled this way. I give the listed number to businesses, and any caller ID that is captured from my outgoing calls also displays this number. I give the secondary number to friends and family, and it rings through without any interruption (except in the middle of the night).

How ironic... I just received another this morning

[hacker]

We've been on the Do Not Call list for about 3 years (or however long its been in service). We receive 5-8 calls a week from telemarketers on our home telephone as well as our mobile numbers (all numbers areon the Do Not Call list).

I've called every single candidate and their respective parties and asked that I be removed from their automated call list.

The NRCC is the worst offender here, and the only one who has consistently ignored my requests that they stop calling us..

1. I can't hang up on them. They tie/lock up the line. I've hung up, waited 30 seconds, picked up, they're still talking. Hung up again, waited 2 minutes, picked up and they're still talking. Their automated calls last about 8 minutes long.
2. They completely fill our answering machine, so REAL phone calls can't be left.
3. They call us at all hours of the day and night. 7am, 10pm, it doesn't matter. I have a young daughter and my wfie has elderly parents. When we receive a call at 10pm, 11pm at night, we automatically think someone is hurt or in the hospital. Damn the NRCC for adding this stress to our lives!
4. They ignore our requests to remove us from their list, multiple times (3 requests this week alone!)
5. Since they block their incoming number, I can't trace them (but law enforcement can)

So now, I've decided to file police reports against the calls, after using *57 to track and trace them. Since they block their numbers, they are violating the law, and law enforcement will take care of it.

Also, I've openly let them know that for every call I receive after I've asked them not to call, I will convince another person NOT to vote for their candidate (so far, that's about 12 calls or 12 people who will not vote for their candidates in the last two weeks).

If they can't listen to their constituents, why should I vote for them?

And so I won't.

Do you HAVE what it TAKES?

[trudyscousin]

Lately, I've been coming home to find my answering machine's memory completely filled with pre-recorded campaign messages. Yes, it's annoying.

That notwithstanding, a $500 small claims award (assuming that's how much I'd have for my trouble) is a little more than what I earn in a day, and I'd rather spend my day at work than go through all that described in the article.

So no, I don't have what it takes. I don't have the time.

Utah is nice and quiet ...

[JazzLad]

... 'course, 20-30% of the vote doesn't count. If only we had a Democracy. Unfortunately, a Republic isn't the same thing.

On a side note (please don't flame, only an observation), I find it interesting that we are trying to spread a form of govt. we don't use ... why don't we want to make the rest of the world Republics?

-
I used to have a witty sig ...

If you wanna sue, get a lawyer

[ubuwalker31]

Going through a small claims process to collect $500 is a hit or miss proposition for a pro se litigant. If you go to a lawyer, I am sure that he will find a way to recover triple that amount through a settlement. The lawyer can organize a number of plaintiffs and perhaps even a class action. The lawyer will front all of the fees, usually.

Just like how you shouldn't self-medicate yourself, you shouldn't represent yourself in court. Your just asking for trouble, and stress, and a huge headache.

Re:If you wanna sue, get a lawyer

[Quila]

Just like how you shouldn't self-medicate yourself, you shouldn't represent yourself in court.

This is small claims. It's like saying you shouldn't self-medicate with ibuprofen, mostly harmless and with a good possibility of positive results.

Re:If you wanna sue, get a lawyer

[DragonWriter]

Going through a small claims process to collect $500 is a hit or miss proposition for a pro se litigant. If you go to a lawyer, I am sure that he will find a way to recover triple that amount through a settlement.

If you find a lawyer who can routinely get defendants to settle for three times the maximum they could be held liable for in court, I'd be pretty surprised.

OTOH, if you are more interested in stopping the calls than trying to collect judgements, it may be more worthwhile to report matters to your state's attorney-general: states can, and most do, enforce this federal law, rather than forcing citizens to do private actions as their only recourse.

And most cases that are eligible for small claims are one's that you'd never see any money from if you could find a lawyer to take the case, because there isn't enough money involved to leave any for you if the lawyer gets enough to justify taking the case in the first place.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[TubeSteak]

It seems to me that the Congress & Senate knew exactly what they were doing when they passed that law.

But, since you find this sickening: how many auto-dialed & pre-recorded phone calls, from one company, would it take for you to change your opinion? 10? 20? 50?

What about one auto-dialed & pre-recorded phone call from 10 companies? Or 20? or 50?

Would you tolerate the annoyance because it isn't a "big evil corporation dumping sewage into your water supply"?

If you really find Bennett Haselton's behavior offensive, try to get the law changed, because he isn't doing anything wrong.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[chasisaac]

This is a small claims lawsuit. It this took up a real court's time. I would be ticked. Plus there is always the chance to be on Judge Judy or the People's Court and make more money. Of course is this really worth the effort?

Re:Is this guy for real?

[American AC in Paris]

The idea of a "how to sue" guide is personally rather sickning, unless your helping someone fight a big evil corporation dumping sewage into your water supply or something like that. Just because they call you? Sorry, no thanks. Annoying yes. Worth suing? No. No. And more NO.

...what if the autodialer is somebody hawking usurious home loans?
What if the autodialer is performing push-polls which disseminate lies about an opposition candidate, e.g. "Jon Doe supports legislation designed to help terrorists attack America"?
What if the autodialer is a scam artist?

Autodialers are attractive to fraudsters, con artists, dirty politicians, loan sharks--in general, scumbags with few qualms about bilking the general public for their own personal gain. They're the spammers of the phone world; some of it is legit, more of it is hazy, a lot of it is flat-out illegal, and all of it is a nuisance. Is it not worth our time and energy to try to keep these people from being public nuisance? Can you think of a better venue for stopping these scumbags than a court of law?

Bias in small claims court judges

[stinerman]

I can attest to the outright activism in at least my local (Dayton, OH) area judges.

It is Ohio law that any security deposit should be returned to a tenant 30 days after the tenant moves out, assuming the tenant left a forwarding address for the deposit. If the landlord fails to do this, the tenant can get double the money they were supposed to recieve. Two lawyers both said that while my landlord was in violation of the statute (it took her 37 days to return my deposit), I'd be hard pressed to find any judge that would find in my favor. The law is in plain black and white, but apparently no judge in the area will "enforce" it.

Activist judges, indeed.

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[The Cisco Kid]

I think the key point in why a judge isnt likely to giev you double your deposit is that you *did* get the deposit back, but it was just a bit late.

If the landlord didnt give you your deposit back at all, then I suspect your chances would be better.

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[Dachannien]

I know this is getting way off-topic here, but judges (especially in small-claims court) are usually unwilling to give a plaintiff a bonanza (that is, damages in excess of actual damage suffered). Small-claims court is about making the plaintiff "whole", allowing them to recoup money to cover the damages they have suffered. When there is no indication of any actual damages, a small-claims judge is unlikely to award statutory damages unless the defendant's behavior was malicious or grossly negligent.

In the particular case of the law you mentioned, the law says that you are entitled to receive your property/money in addition to "damages equal to the amount wrongfully withheld". Judges will usually look at the situation and determine whether you were actually damaged by the landlord's behavior, because the law is there to motivate the landlord to return your security deposit in a timely fashion, not to create a payday for the tenant.

Since, as you described it, the landlord actually did remit the security deposit, just 7 days late, it's unlikely that a judge would be willing to award damages on top of the security deposit that you actually got back. If the landlord takes long enough that s/he hasn't returned the deposit before the suit is actually heard, that's another matter entirely.

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[stinerman]

You and others have echoed the fact that I did get it back. That isn't my point.

My point is that the law, in plain language, says that I am entitled to double the deposit (less deductions for property damage). To wit ( 5321.16):

(B) Upon termination of the rental agreement any property or money held by the landlord as a security deposit may be applied to the payment of past due rent and to the payment of the amount of damages that the landlord has suffered by reason of the tenant's noncompliance with section 5321.05 of the Revised Code or the rental agreement. Any deduction from the security deposit shall be itemized and identified by the landlord in a written notice delivered to the tenant together with the amount due, within thirty days after termination of the rental agreement and delivery of possession. The tenant shall provide the landlord in writing with a forwarding address or new address to which the written notice and amount due from the landlord may be sent. If the tenant fails to provide the landlord with the forwarding or new address as required, the tenant shall not be entitled to damages or attorneys fees under division (C) of this section.

(C) If the landlord fails to comply with division (B) of this section, the tenant may recover the property and money due him, together with damages in an amount equal to the amount wrongfully withheld, and reasonable attorneys fees.

This is the law of the state of Ohio and judges are not upholding it. If the intent of the legislature is to be sure tenants get their security deposits back in a timely fashion, then the law should say "in a reasonable time" or something to that effect. It does not. It says 30 days. If it takes 31 days, the law clearly states the rights of the tenant. This seems to be a no-brainer.

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[Dachannien]

Out of curiosity, why didn't you go ahead and file a suit anyway? It costs a day off work plus a small fee ($50 in City of Dayton small claims) to file the suit, a cost which automatically gets reimbursed if you win, and since the would-be defendant is a landlord, it would be easy to have them served by mail (see TFA for info on that).

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[planetmn]

It's not surprising, and I don't think unreasonable.

Did they violate the wording of the law? Yes, but at the same time, you received your deposit back, albeit 7 days late. The spirit of the law is to make sure that the deposit is returned within a short amount of time, and while the wording of the law places a strict limit, small claims judges (in my experience - which is only once case), want to make sure that the spirit is upheld, and aren't as concerned with the the specifics.

If you want the letter of the law in this case to be upheld, then you have to be willing to uphold it yourself.
The tenant shall provide the landlord in writing with a forwarding address or new address to which the written notice and amount due from the landlord may be sent. If the tenant fails to provide the landlord with the forwarding or new address as required, the tenant shall not be entitled to damages or attorneys fees under division (C) of this section.
Did you provide the forwarding address when you moved out? Can you prove that? Unless you can prove that you provided the forwarding address at that time (and I honestly don't know how you would, you would have to in effect have somebody "serve" them), the judge is going to think that 7 days late is reasonable.

Also, were you harmed? If waiting that extra 7 days put an undue burden on you or your family, then you would probably have more of an argument. At the same time, if the landlord states that his or her child was in the hospital during that time, the judge is going to be more sympathetic.

Basically, you got your money, and if you weren't harmed, I'd let it go. We have too many unneeded lawsuits clogging up our courts.

-dave

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[Chirs]

"Basically, you got your money, and if you weren't harmed, I'd let it go. We have too many unneeded lawsuits clogging up our courts."

But he didn't get his money. He lost 7 days worth of interest on that money. Assuming $1000 for rent at 4% interest, that's about 77 cents. It doesn't seem like much. But now imagine a large property owner with many thousands of tenants. If they stiff all their tenants, that's thousands of dollars of interest that they've earned unjustly.

The law is what it is. The judge shouldn't decide whether or not to enforce it--their *job* is to enforce it, at least as long as its constitutional. In this case the OP should have got the double damages.

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[planetmn]

But a judge didn't decide whether or not to enforce it, it never went in front of a judge, instead, he solicited advice from a couple of lawyers without knowing any specifics. Like I said in my above post, the reason that it might be hard to get a judge to rule in favor of the tenant is that the tenant may be unable to prove that the address was provided at a certain time.

Judges must rule based on proven facts, not based on a "he said, she said" situation.

-dave

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[stinerman]

Did you provide the forwarding address when you moved out? Can you prove that? Unless you can prove that you provided the forwarding address at that time (and I honestly don't know how you would, you would have to in effect have somebody "serve" them), the judge is going to think that 7 days late is reasonable.

Yes and yes. I have a signature from an agent of my landlord attesting to that fact (and it was spelled out in my rental agreement I could go through the agent to do business; in fact, most of the time I did).

Basically, you got your money, and if you weren't harmed, I'd let it go.

It isn't even so much about the money as it is being amazed that judges won't uphold plain, black letter law. Doubling my money would have only netted me another $275 or so (and from where I'm sitting, a very poor college student, that is a lot of money). If 7 days late is not really that big of a deal, then where is the cut off? 14 days late? 30 days late? 2 years late?

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[stinerman]

It was actually in Fairborn (a suburb). The amount of money wasn't too much, and a cost-benefit analysis, wasn't worth my time -- especially with the legal advice I had gotten.

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[mgblst]

You are being a little pedantic, that is why. Judges utilise common senes, and 7 days isn't that much? Were you out on the street, starving because of the delay? Maybe then you would have a case, but the 7 days worth of interest you would have missed out on at the bank isn't really a food reason to sue someone.

The only bias is against pedantic little fools who love to sue everybody.

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[kwieland in stl]

I had a similar situation when my car got towed. The subdivision that towed my car was in violation of several towing rules. For example, if you tow someones car, you have to have signs that are of specified dimensions, or wait certian amount of time, etc, etc. Since I am a student also, $250 is a lot of money. So, I took it to small claims court and lost (they counter sued for $250 for "tresspassing", which surprised me). The judge basically said, I don't care. Sorry.

If you RTA mentioned you can see how hit and miss the small claims court system is. In my case, I wanted to have the experience of small claims court in case I needed it later. All in all, the other guy hired a lawyer and spent two hours in court, so I feel a little better about it.

For what it is worth...

K

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[planetmn]

Then sue. According to your original post:
Two lawyers both said that while my landlord was in violation of the statute (it took her 37 days to return my deposit), I'd be hard pressed to find any judge that would find in my favor.

So you are taking the word of these two lawyers as being the word of the judge. While it may be true, it may not be. Why do you claim that:
I can attest to the outright activism in at least my local (Dayton, OH) area judges.

When all you can say is that according to some lawyers this is the case. In fact, you can't attest to the outright activism.

So if you can prove your side, then sue. I was trying to show that if you uphold one side to the letter of the law, you must uphold the other. And in this case you can. If you do lose, and in fact the judge does ignore the law, then you can attest to the "outright activism" but you can't just take the word of the two lawyers you spoke to.

-dave

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[planetmn]

To quote a response of mine from above: But a judge didn't decide whether or not to enforce it, it never went in front of a judge, instead, he solicited advice from a couple of lawyers without knowing any specifics. Like I said in my above post, the reason that it might be hard to get a judge to rule in favor of the tenant is that the tenant may be unable to prove that the address was provided at a certain time.

Judges must rule based on proven facts, not based on a "he said, she said" situation.

For all we know, the judge may side with him. But we won't know, because he decided that the two lawyers spoke for the judge (which they do not).

-dave

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[Raenex]

I don't feel any pity for landlords who don't return security deposits promptly. I've heard too many horror stories of people just not getting their money back. I myself asked for my security deposit back, and after a week of hearing absolutely nothing, made a very stern call and said something like "I was hoping we could settle this in a civilized manner". Well they called back within an hour and I received my check in the mail the next day.

If it takes a lawsuit and double damages to teach these jerks a lesson then I'm all for it. Maybe then the next guy won't have to wait and hope he gets his money.

Re:Bias in small claims court judges

[sjames]

They named a number of days to avoid endless haggling over what a reasonable amount of time is. Most judges are not going to award damages for being 7 days late. Much the same way they're not likely to let a bank foreclose if you pay 7 days late.

Do you really want to turn the law into even sillier games than it is already? Your honour, he paid me back 1 WHOLE SECOND late, I expect double the amount owed now!

Re:Is this guy for real?

[stevesliva]

I'm serious -- can someone explain this to me?

Juries cannot be expected to spend the defendant's money in a rational way; there is no benefit for thrift. Politicians cannot be expected to spend corporations' money in a rational way, unless incentives are provided--and they often are.

Serious question

[WedgeTalon]

I have a serious question. What if the beginning of the call is cut off on my voice mail? 99.999% of the time, they will start leaving the message while my outgoing greeting is still playing. Any idea on if this would invalidate my claim against them (or make it better)?

Re:Serious question

[jgoemat]

I have no idea if legally that would hurt you, but I wouldn't think so. If they play their name before the beep, that is their fault. I think it would be the same as if they started playing their message before you picked up the phone, the actual call that you received didn't have that information.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[DoomfrogBW]

Unfortunately, the only way to get people off your back is to sue nowadays. Simply asking them to stop does not work especially in civil situations. He does encourage trying to negotiate with them. Remember, you are the victim receiving the unwanted phone call solicitation not the solicitors.

It ain't rocket science....

[Vellmont]

IANAL, but I still think that I'm qualified to point out that filing a lawsuit based on an essay posted to Slashdot is a really stupid thing to do.

Where does this attitude come from? Slashdot has a definite DIY community to it. Maybe your first lawsuit isn't going to suceed or make much money. But then again your first attempt at making pottery, or programming probbably won't be very good either. Of course you aren't qualified to file a lawsuit based on one essay. But that doesn't mean there's not something to be gained from starting the process.

Really, what are the risks involved here? You lose? All you've lost is some time. If you aren't prepared to lose that, then don't do it. The gains are feeling that you've accomplished some minor dig against a scumbag telemarketer, and maybe a little money.

It's not like you're building a bridge which could collapse and kill people, putting together a rocket that could explode, or duplicating the efforts of the MythBusters. Why not Try This At Home?

Re:It ain't rocket science....

[Vellmont]

Following your line of thinking, your first lawsuit should be one where the other party is ordered to say "Hello world" ;-)

Actually, I'd make a bet that small claims court is the equivalent of "Hello World". It's filled with individuals suing other individuals. I don't think lawyers are even allowed to be involved.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[db32]

The unsolicited fax thing has been illegal for a long long while now. But if you really are still getting them and not just making up another slashdot reply, I have a few fun ideas for you

1. Fax them replies back, the more their fax machine is busy the less they are faxing.
2. Same as above, but take 3-5 pages and tape them together in a loop, keeps their machine terribly busy and they run out of paper
3. Same as above, but use black paper. No ink, no paper, no dialing for them. And we have all seen how ink prices are, and how willing companies are to throw around DMCA charges to prevent cheap refills.

No gaurontees on the legality of any of this fun, but I imagine they would be hard pressed to say in court that they didn't solicit a response from you with their unsolicited faxes.

another solution...

[32Na]

I suspect the political callers are getting numbers from voter registration databases. In my case, I have only a cell phone, so I don't think these groups would have any other way of getting the number. Thus there are probably easier solutions (easier than taking every automated caller to court, anyway): I could choose not to give my # when registering to vote, although this means opting out of some nice services such as phone reminders of when/where my polling place is. Another nice option would be to have a 'do not share number' option on the registration form, so that only the county elections office can use it (showing american bias).

some mistakes, sort of

[www.sorehands.com]

Bennett is in Washington, and does not point out that those are Washington rules. Each state has their own rules, but most are similar.

Some differences in California are:
    1. You can use regular certified mail in small claims, only if the court does it. They charge $8.00 to do it.
    2. You can serve a rented mailbox, or what it is technically called is a commercial mail receiving agency (CMRA).
        Under California Business and Professions Code 17538.5, when a person takes out a box in a CMRA, you appoint the CMRA as an agent for service of process.

Also, he does not mention that with a P.O. Box, there is a form that can be used to request the box owners name and address for
service of process.

Re:some mistakes, sort of

[pjt33]

Does

I'm describing the rules for Washington State

not count as pointing out that these are Washington rules?

Re:some mistakes, sort of

[www.sorehands.com]

I thought that referred to that specific section. Maybe I am being too picky.

Re:some mistakes, sort of

[pjt33]

But that specific section was about process serving, which is precisely the area you're picking up on.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Registered Coward v2]

Read the essay again, you only get to sue non-profits if they don't

      1. Identify who they are at the beginning of the call
      2. give a return phone number

That's not a real high hurdle to avoid being sued. "Hello, this is Non-Profit-From-Hell. We would just like a moment of your time ... Thank you, for further information, please call 1-888-3825-033." That's it. Insert whatever else you want for '...' and you can't be sued.

While I agree that is not much of a hurdle I doubt most non-profits want to called about their telemarketing - I doubt their staff could handle any serious influx of calls. Of ocurse, they could just direct you to a full voice mail in-box.

Carefull!

[humphrm]

This is a very very broad HOWTO, and does not take into account the special requirements in some courts that can get you into very real trouble.

IANAL, but I have sued in small claims court, and lived to tell about it. I found out the day I arrived in court that I was totally unprepared because I did not understand the process, and I was lucky that the defendant didn't understand how unprepared I was, so I managed to get a 50% settlement.

Some courts (for instance, Cook County court in Illinois) give defendants the absolute right to a jury trial and an attorney. So this means, even though you file pro-se, the defendant is well within his or her rights to hire a lawyer. A smart lawyer. For those keeping track, you are representing yourself, thus you are a dumb lawyer. Just guess how that turns out.

The jury trial part is especially tricky, and what almost killed my case. In a normal small claims bench trial, a judge listens to your argument and makes a decision. In in jury trial, you must present evidence is certain acceptable ways, and if you do not, your testimony will be surpressed. If you try to "get some testimony past" the rules of evidence, you might go to jail for contempt. And if you arrive in court without Jury Instructions (a legal document that you must write prior to your court date) it is entirely likely that your case will be dismissed before you even raise your right hand, and a judgement entered against you for wasting the court's (and defendants) time.

Don't know how to write jury instructions? Neither do 90% of the attorneys out there. Only litigators know this valuable information. Good luck getting free advice from them. Hint: They don't post these instructions on websites.

Re:Carefull!

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't post thses instructions on websites!
Just sample jury instructions on a government website......

Re:Carefull!

[amchugh]

IANAL also.

Nolo press guides have sections on jury instructions.

http://search.nolo.com/query.html?qt=jury+instruct ions&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=search&col=b2sto re

Re:Carefull!

[ari_j]

Suing under a federal statute is even more interesting. There is not much to stop the defendant from removing the case to a federal district court, and if you are unlucky (read: you didn't hire a lawyer) then the defendant might get the case transferred to venue in another state. One trip to the venue jurisdiction will cost you more than the case is worth, so you drop the matter and the defendant wins with two court filings.

Re:Carefull!

[Dean Hougen]

So this means, even though you file pro-se, the defendant is well within his or her rights to hire a lawyer. A smart lawyer. For those keeping track, you are representing yourself, thus you are a dumb lawyer. Just guess how that turns out.

I guess that I win. Or, at least when I actually tried it, I won. I clobbered the defendant and his lawyer like the Thing clobbering a couple of pigeons.

Take the law seriously but don't be scared of lawyers.

Dean

P.S. No, I wasn't silly enough to try to sue a telemarketer. I was suing my former landlord to get back my security deposit.

Politicians are the worst offenders

[Coopjust]

At least telemarketers have to listen to the Do Not call list...

The other day I recieved several calls (some at night!) from (area code) 000-0000. Of course, not a valid number. I pick up the 12th time it rings. It's a prerecorded message from an assembly candidate that I have recieved 5 other prerecorded messages from.

I don't find out who it is until 15 seconds in and no callback number. At least the telemarketers would have to take you off their list! I can't figure out a way to stop the calls...

Re:Politicians are the worst offenders

[Ant P.]

Here's what I'd recommend:

Leave the phone off the hook. When you start getting house visits from people thinking you were dead etc., tell them exactly who's to blame. You can use the phone normally after the election day.
Also remember to make use of your local anti-harassment laws (if you're lucky enough to have them).

Re:Is this guy for real?

[SillyNickName4me]

but your own candidate or ... nonprofit organizations? "Sorry Mr. Smith, we can't provide your insulin shots this month because we've been sued while looking for contributions." This seems a little sick.

Very simple, stop looking for contributions in ways that piss people off.

Re:Boggling

[Skreems]

I agree, if you get a phone call once or twice a week, it's an annoyance but probably not worth legal action. But if your number gets on the wrong list and you're getting multiple phone calls per day, they've basically destroyed the convenience factor of even carrying a cell phone, and they're disrupting your life. I totally support anyone who tries to stop that type of behavior.

I also think we can and should put some technological work into solving this. For example, maintain a "white list" of people who are allowed to demand your immediate attention, and when your phone is in "restricted" mode, route any other caller directly to voice mail so you can deal with them at a later time.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[orasio]

It's easy.
Big corporations as a group have great power. When they do good, they have the power to do great good. When they do bad stuff, it can be very bad.
In the past, some (it can be argued that most) corporations did bad stuff.
Now, some people don't trust them. It's easy.

Aside from that, a big corporaton isn't entitled to the same rights a regular person is.
Corporations don't need the same kind of protection a person needs, or even a small organization.
Fairness is not the same as treating everyone the same way. It's about treating different subjects according totheir differences.

Re:Boggling

[Chaffar]

Well some people find it appopriate to protest in front of TV channel headquarters to get them to change their programming, instead of changing the goddamn channel. Hell I don't care, if people find time to sue telemarketers, I'm not going to stand in their way. In any other situation I would've agreed with you though :)

It's only time-consuming the first time

[Animats]

The neat thing about doing small claims cases like this is that it's only time consuming the first time. Once you've found all the resources you need and have all the materials ready, the second case is basically macro instantiation.

Process servers are useful. The first time I used one, it was a company named "Attila the Hun School of Charm". Really. I went down to their place in person, and as I was filling out the paperwork, one of the process servers comes in. He looks like a football linebacker and is driving a Jeep with big tires. A few days later, I get the return from the process server, describing the delivery of the summons: "Person appearing to be in charge threw papers out front door". When I got to court with that, it was an instant win - default judgement in my favor.

Collection approaches vary by state. I'm in California. I had a court judgement against a retail store, and after some non-fruitful phone calls and letters, I paid for a "till tap" and an "8 hour keeper", services of the County Sheriff. This works against any business with a cash register. A uniformed, armed sheriff or two show up at the business, present a copy of the court judgement to the store manager, and take the money out of the cash register. That's the "till tap". Refusing to pay is not an option. If there's not enough money in the cash register, they stick around for up to eight hours, standing next to the cashier and taking the money as it comes in. Persons who pay by check are told to make their check out to "County of ...". They handle credit cards, too. That's the "8 hour keeper". It seldom gets that far; businesses will frantically come up with some cash to get rid of the sheriff.

Eventually, you get a check from the sheriff's office. The fee for the "8 hour keeper" is added to the judgement. So you get that payment back.

Re:It's only time-consuming the first time

[MooUK]

That sounds very very satisfying from the winner's point of view... I like it.

Re:It's only time-consuming the first time

[hacker]

Collection approaches vary by state. I'm in California. I had a court judgement against a retail store, and after some non-fruitful phone calls and letters, I paid for a "till tap" and an "8 hour keeper", services of the County Sheriff.

I'm curious... what was the initial complaint against the retail store for?

Re:It's only time-consuming the first time

[mr_matticus]

They actually will not force people to write checks to third parties, nor will they reroute credit or debit cards when performing a till tap. Till taps only extend to cash on hand--if there isn't enough cash in the register, you have to request subsequent till taps. Paying additional fees for a "keeper" (it need not be 8 hours) is also possible, but is substantially more expensive, and keepers can and will collect all forms of payment accepted at the business. Note that the business may opt to close, in which case you lose the high fees you paid and still do not recover your judgment. You may then have to file another claim to recover those fees.

It's important to note that the fee for a till tap is usually about $85-90 and it is not the best way to recover your judgment. The easiest and cheapest method is a bank levy--all you need to know is the bank where the business' accounts are located. The fee for this is much lower. The fees for enforcing compliance are not always returned to the plaintiff (it varies from case to case and county to county), making the more expensive options (till taps, keepers) a potentially risky gamble.

Re:It's only time-consuming the first time

[Myopic]

Wow. I had never heard of a till tap so I wiki'd it. Surprisingly, there is no wiki for till taps. So I googled it and came up with this page, which is pretty informative, and offers even more tips than you had: http://www.scacadvice.com/pages/collecting.htm#P62 0_53608

Break the law, pay a fine. What's wrong with that?

[ChaosDiscord]

The author is very clear: only sue if they broke the law. The law is clear, and the punishment for breaking the law is that people get to personally fine you for $500. Given the unlikelyhood of an organization giving you $500 just because you send them a letter complaining, we need a government system to enforce the law, to give you and the organization a chance to speak your case and sort things out. That system is the court system.

If you don't want to be sued for $500, follow the letter of the law. It's not hard: clearly state the name of your organization and a phone number for your organization that can reach a human being. If you don't sue, these people get to continue breaking this law without punishment. Sure, it's a very minor offense, but it's annoying to a large number of people. If people weren't enforcing these laws the telemarketing (and junk fax, which has similar laws) problem would be far, far worse than it is.

This sort of lawsuit is not what is bogging down our court systems. This sort of small case is exactly why small claims courts exist. Generally speaking they're very efficient because they do away with much of the overhead of a full trial. On the down side you get less consistent and occasionally wrong decisions, but I'm prepared to take a little risk for small claims.

Good comes from this sort of law: it dramatically cut down on junk faxes. Maybe it's protecting us from sewage dumped in our water sources, but the cost to society as a whole is trivial and there is a real benefit.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Fahrenheit 450]

Fewer companies will be willing to get sued like this once a few people start. And it'll stop.

You really think so? Chances are their damages in any case will be small (assuming they actually lose), so it could take a lot of these suits before they notice the effect. But to have lot s of suits, you have to have a lot of people who feel that a half a day spent in court (plus time for preparation) is worth more to them than the two seconds it takes to hang up the phone because it's being done for some "higher purpose". I sure as hell ain't one of those people -- I'm a bit more pragmatic than that.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[LoadWB]

I like this idea, and I will explain why.

Simply put, anyone who calls me without my consent is leeching from my resources, namely time and money, though others may come to mind. I broke my toe once running from the bathroom to answer the phone and it turned out to be one of these types of calls. It probably goes without saying that my toe was not the only thing which wound up broken (poor phone.)

I pay for a telephone line for MY convenience, not someone else's. And I find it unpalatable that, in order to NOT receive phone calls which I do not solicit, I must pay a monthly or yearly fee. The cost of such anti-annoyances should be levied on those who perpetrate the annoyance, not those who wish to avoid it.

Simply put, my phone is publicly listed so that friends, family, and acquaintances (past or present) may have an easy reference to get hold of me -- again, this is my convenience. Not for marketing types to harass me. (as a quick aside, I might have as much of a problem if the bastards would take my first NO THANK YOU as an answer.) Another part of this convenience which torques me is the CID spoofing or blocking: CID was supposed to be a way to avoid such phone calls, but with so many systems which do not provide CID information (my girlfriend's office call-out, some cell phone carriers, and so on) sometimes you simply HAVE to answer those OUT OF AREA or UNKNOWN calls. And again, call blocking services (like Sprint/Embarq's Privacy ID) levy additional costs unto me and undo inconvenience unto those to whom I really do wish to speak.

My preference is that they should NOT be allowed to call, period. If the United Way wants to spend money on getting the word out, there are much better venues than bothering me, such as TV, radio, and newspaper ads, billboards, and so on.

If you do not take action, then the problem persists and has the potential to increase in severity. If enough people do this, calling agencies will take notice and work to conform with the law. Then if people have problems with the law, or even now, people can contact their local congress-critter and let him or her know about these objections.

The law is there for a reason, folks. You would be wise to take advantage of any part of The System which actually works in your favor.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Reapman]

No. i don't care if it's big corporation dialing me, or non profit. I don't like it. But I'm not at a point where I think I'm going to promote suing them into oblvion for THAT. If a small tiny non profit dumps sewage into my backyard, I'll sue em too. It's not big vs small. It's truley important issue vs trivilalities.

of course

[Phantom of the Opera]

The landowners are more likely to vote for those judges, and if you are moving out of the area, you are not going to be voting for them.

If you are going to try to sue someone...

[DragonWriter]

If you are going to try to sue someone, I wouldn't rely on legal advice from someone who is apparently a non-lawyer and puts out a guide to suing on a federal law claim in small claims court that tries to make it seem open-and-shut simple. First, if you are going to sue in small claims court, and don't want to pay an attorney, you need to research the law governing the and procedures applicable to small claims court in your state: either going directly to the law, or (more friendly), one of the guides from reputable self-help legal publishers.

Second, I'd look into a better reference on the applicable law (again, you can go directly to the law, but if you are going to take someone else's word on interpretation without hiring a lawyer, again, go to a reputable source.) Its worth noting that if you check the official site, the regulations cited (47 CFR 64.1200) do not match the material quoted.

Its also important to note that the requirement for a the required identification and phone number is "during or after the message": if you want to do this, you've got to first listen to the whole message, and if they complied with the rules, there is nothing you can do to get back the time you wasted listening to the message.

Also, quite a few election-year messages are delivered by entities that exist and are created for the election, which may not have any remaining resources after the election, and may even be disbanded shortly afterward. While if you have a major claim against such an entity it might be worthwhile to do the work needed to try to attack the sponsors behind it, trying to do that to enforce a liability that (even with the triple award for "willful and knowing" violations) is only at most $1,500 (if you can't prove actual damages of over $500) is, well, likely to be a headache.

Its probably easier to report violations to your state authorities: state attorneys-general also have the right to bring actions, and if more people report violations, there is more they can do. And state attorneys-general have a lot more resources to conduct investigations, can claim the statutory damages for all violations by the targets of their suits, not just the one that was made to you—and because they can aggregate the claims, it makes the cost of litigation a lot more bearable for them. Get your tax moneys worth out of your state government, let them do the heavy lifting.

That being said, this message should serve as a good reminder that you do have the power for do-it-yourself enforcement here, though I wouldn't rely on this as a guide to how.

Re:If you are going to try to sue someone...

[Daemonstar]

f you are going to try to sue someone, I wouldn't rely on legal advice from someone who is apparently a non-lawyer and puts out a guide to suing on a federal law claim in small claims court that tries to make it seem open-and-shut simple.

Agreed. In the essay the author states:

he judge got extremely flustered for a minute and then started to accuse me of "entrapment" (even though the recorded phone call took place after I had received the original spam), and she never commented on the fact that the defendant had just been caught lying under oath.

Now, I realize that this is Washington, but, in Texas, entrapment is a defense to prosecution (i.e.: it is not the judge's place to help defend a party in a suit; the party must defend itself using the chosen defense). Besides, at least in Texas, entrapment must involve law enforcement:

8.06. ENTRAPMENT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. (b) In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.

If the writer really knew the law, this would be a non-issue; besides, you can always appeal your ruling to a higher court (doesn't mean they will hear it, though).

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

Are you kidding me? The air I breathe sucks, more than anything resulting from factories or cars, because non-corporations burn wood and (until I can move to a better area) I have to tolerate non-corporation-operated Harleys making horrible noise and non-corporation operated Cadillacs belching bass music ...

But that's somehow "less bad" because it's a not a corporation doing it?

Re:Is this guy for real?

[American AC in Paris]

I tend to agree with you that corporations are made out to be greater evils than they really are.

That said, this hatred of corporations didn't emerge from a vacuum, and it isn't simply irrational jealousy of success. There are a lot of corporations out there which have behaved and continue to behave in morally reprehensible ways. They're generally run by decent human beings, but these decent human beings generally put financal gain over greater good.

Trouble is, they're expected to do so. They answer first and foremost to their stockholders. When they're faced with a choice between either maximizing profit for their own shareholders or doing what is in the best interests of everyone, most corporations take the former path. If they don't, they have to wade through a storm of shareholder anger and legal action.

So, while a lot of criticism of corporations is over the top, it's disingenuous for one to scratch one's head and wonder aloud what's wrong with all this idiots whining about evil corporations. There's plenty of reason for the average Joe to be wary of corporations. Corporations don't exist to watch out for the Little Guy. Corporations exist to make money. No, a corporation won't go out of its way to step on the Little Guy--but if there's money to be made and it's legal to do so, don't expect them to stand up for the Little Guy, either. They won't demolish your grandmother's house out of spite or malice, but they also won't hesitate to get her out of the way if she's holding up plans for a highly profitable new shopping center.

Therein lies the "evil" of corporations. They're not out to get us, but when it comes down to the wire, their own profits are more important to them than the greater good. If that doesn't make you wary, it should.

did you?

[leehwtsohg]

Not only did he read the whole thing (well, I'm not actually sure of that - all I'm sure of is that he read more than you), but he already replied to your concern in the article. What you are talking about is whether or not they are allowed to call you. Indeed, it seems that according to the law, they are allowed to call you. You're not suing them for that.
When they call you (since they're allowed to), if they use an arificial or pre-recorded message, it has to include who is calling, and what their phone number is. You are suing them for not doing that (if indeed they haven't...)

This is section (d), which applies in any case, especially in those cases where the organization is allowed to call you.

(d) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages delivered by an automatic telephone dialing system shall:
(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and
(2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player which placed the call) or address of such business, other entity, or individual.

Re:did you?

[DragonWriter]

Actually, per the GPO's online site which claims to be current as of October, 30, 2006, 47 CFR 64.1200(d) reads:

(d) No person or entity shall initiate any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet the following minimum standards:

(1) Written policy. Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing purposes must have a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list.

(2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be informed and trained in the existence and use of the do-not-call list.

(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or entity making a call for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such a call is made) receives a request from a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls from that person or entity, the person or entity must record the request and place the subscriber's name, if provided, and telephone number on the do-not-call list at the time the request is made. Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are made) must honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call request within a reasonable time from the date such request is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the date of such request. If such requests are recorded or maintained by a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made, the person or entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made will be liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call request. A person or entity making a call for telemarketing purposes must obtain a consumer's prior express permission to share or forward the consumer's request not to be called to a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf a telemarketing call is made or an affiliated entity.

(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity making a call for telemarketing purposes must provide the called party with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted. The telephone number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges.

(5) Affiliated persons or entities. In the absence of a specific request by the subscriber to the contrary, a residential subscriber's do-not-call request shall apply to the particular business entity making the call (or on whose behalf a call is made), and will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably would expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and the product being advertised.

(6) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. A person or entity making calls for telemarketing purposes must maintain a record of a consumer's request not to receive further telemarketing calls. A do-not-call request must be honored for 5 years from the time the request is made.

(7) Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations are not required to comply with 64.1200(d).

The essay seems to be based on an inaccurate (perhaps because outdated) version of the regulations at issue; the provisions the article refers to being in 64.1200(d) are in 64.1200(b), the exception listed in 64.1200(c) is in part of 64.1200(a); the general gist is approximately the same, but the details are all mixed up.

This will be modded redundant....

[leehwtsohg]

You must not actually have read the article (well, this is slashdot), or maybe not understood it. It could also be that you're biased, since you're "from their camp..."
But, above, he alreeady answered you concern. As I answered to someone else,

What you are talking about is whether or not they are allowed to call you. Indeed, it seems that according to the law, they are allowed to call you. You are not suing them for that.
When they call you (since they're allowed to), if they use an arificial or pre-recorded message, it has to include who is calling, and what their phone number is. You are suing them for not doing that (if indeed they haven't...)

This is section (d), which applies in any case, especially in those cases where the organization is allowed to call you.

(d) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages delivered by an automatic telephone dialing system shall:
(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and
(2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player which placed the call) or address of such business, other entity, or individual.

Re:This will be modded redundant....

[powerlord]

(2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player which placed the call) or address of such business, other entity, or individual.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the callers to make the pre-recorded message include the phone number at the end of the message, say at the 60 second mark.

Then they can end the message with "A phone number to reach the caller will be provided in 10 seconds", ostensibly to provide time for a person wishing to record the number to grab a pen and paper.

Of course, most recording machines cut off before this number is reached, however that is not their problem ... is it?

I need a bigger font

[Bassman59]

on this 19" CRT running FireFox at 1600x1200, this article showed up in the bookmark bar and I thought the title was "How To Sue The Auto DEALERS."

I hate auto dealers much more than I hate auto dialers.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

Many groups are out to pursue their interests at the expense of others. Instead of money, they may be after the shutdown of industrial society, or conversion to some type of Christianity, or sending blacks back to Africa. You can find these supposed impurities in anyone's motives. What makes "the pursuit of money" different?

In any case, my air is dirty around Winter. The fact that it's non-profit, non-corporations burning the wood is little consolation.

all fine and dandy BUT

[hurfy]

This only works for the ones that are fairly close to following the law. Not sure how i feel about going after the borderline cases.

The most obnoxious ones are untouchable. If they don't give you the name of the organization like they are supposed to you have no way to find it or even the phone number :(

I tried to track down one that was using an autodialer and message to pitch a obvious credit card scam. I pressed 9 to get a person, between message and person i still had no idea who it was. No one cares that these guys are breaking the law (several of them in WA which is pretty strict). Telephone co won't help and cops don't care unless there is 10k or a body on the line :/ Trying to get help from phone comapny was more frustrating than the scammer calling so..........

Nice in theory but there is no way to stop the ones that really need to be stopped.

Re:Boggling

[djchristensen]

And you will stop perpetuating this kind of lawyer-centric society.

Um, read the article, no lawyers involved.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Reapman]

If it was calling about fighting cancer or about GWB or Donald Trump selling his book, I still would'nt care. Sorry if I made it sound like a big vs small thing, but it's not to me. I just personally find suing about phone calls a waste of time (imo), and suing about toxic sludge being dumped illegally not a waste of time. Like I said in a post above... show me a small tiny non profit dumping sludge illegally, and I'll be all for suing them. Show me a big company cleaning up their act, I'll cheer.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Dhalka226]

I'm serious -- can someone explain this to me?

While I agree with some of what you are getting at, a few of your points are misplaced because they're separate issues. The whole "if you do it it's $200,000, if a corporation does it it's a million" spat are what I'm referring to specifically.

This is essentially as it should be. The compensatory damages--damages for actual harm--would likely be the exact same in the case of the person killing somebody with their car as it would be for the UPS driver. These are fairly easy to document and hard to make up. Ambulance ride, hospital stay before the person died, tests, funeral, etc etc. Where the big money starts coming down is in punitive damages, meant to punish the person for what they did and, hopefully, prevent it from happening again.

Are punitive damages way bigger against a corporation than an individual? Yes. Should they be? Yes. I'm a college student. It would take very little to crush me, financially speaking, for a long time. (Hell, my student loans will do a good job of that!) The whole "serious punishment" thing could be achieved against me fairly cheaply. Not only that, but if they tried to make some ridiculously high judgment against me they wouldn't get it. Much as I would like to believe otherwise, chances are I won't make millions of dollars in my lifetime; multi-million dollar judgments would be rather wasteful. On the other hand, would UPS really give a crap if they were hit with punitive damages of $10,000? Their lawyers would probably laugh their asses off, open up their wallets and pay it right on the spot. In fact it would probably cost UPS more to go to court and defend the suit than it would to just pay the money in the first place. The whole goal is to make the mistake expensive.

It kind of reminds me of that little "story" or whatever from Fight Club. I'm probably butchering it, but it went something like "if the rate of failure times the expected damages is less than the cost of the recall, we don't do the recall." The point of high punitive damages it to stop wrong behavior.

I do believe punitive damages get out of control in terms of the amount awarded and even in the logicality of who some of the suits are brought against (I don't think UPS should be sued simply because the driver was working for UPS at the time of the accident, for example), but that's a different topic for a different day. Assuming the suits are valid and show some sort of systemic problem that the justice system really ought to address, different judgments SHOULD be awarded against different respondents even with the same set of facts.

Another unrelated point --

-Pollution is evil if corporations do it, but if you're burning wood in your fireplace, and impacting my life much more, that's okay.

-- Well I think you're going to have trouble finding anybody who says that burning wood in a fireplace, whether done by an individual or corporation, is evil. But that said, the issue is scope. As an individual, the amount of damage I can do is fairly limited; the amount a corporation can do is relatively high. I'm not saying to let all individuals off the hook, but if you're going to start cracking down someplace, it seems to me that the worst offenders is a good place to do it.

That said, I also do not agree with your premise. A car manufacturing plant has certain pollution restrictions. The cars they produce have certain requirements in terms of exhaust and things like that. But that doesn't mean they bear sole responsibility: Every so often, at least in Illinois, we have to take our cars in for emissions testing. If there is a problem, it's not the manufacturer who bears the responsibility of fixing it. I'm sure there are other similar examples as well.

The whole toilet example must be going over my head, because I don't know of any significant group of people who have a problem with essentially contract emplo

Class Action is a joke

[Lead Butthead]

If you go to a lawyer, I am sure that he will find a way to recover triple that amount through a settlement. The lawyer can organize a number of plaintiffs and perhaps even a class action. The lawyer will front all of the fees, usually.

Yes, and the lawyer(s) also pockets most of the settlement.

Re:Class Action is a joke

[ubuwalker31]

Doubtful. The lawyer would probably be able to collect attorney's fees, and perhaps argue for a punitive damage award, and make a sophisticated argument based on state law/common law/case law, and not just statutes.

serving process

[drinkypoo]

This guy makes it sound like the process of serving papers is straightforward. It is not necessarily so. For example California has like 52 different counties and each one does things differently. In some counties, you are require to serve papers in person yourself. In some counties, you are not permitted to serve papers yourself, and must have them served by someone else. In some counties, this must be the sheriff and there is a flat fee for serving papers. In some counties, this must be a registered process agent (usually a bail bondsman) and there is a flat fee. In some counties, anyone can serve but you (the person filing) and there is no flat fee. You need to be aware of this particular little fact because if you do not properly serve the papers, your whole case can be invalidated and you will be sad.

Re:serving process

[drinkypoo]

THAT is covered in the essay itself. In order to get your money and/or your attention they need to give you some kind of contact information. Then you have to tunnel your way through their structure in order to find out who to sue.

Is it any wonder he lost his "spammer" case?

[Hamoohead]

From the article:

"If I'm doing legwork to find out who made the call, sometimes I say that I'm interested in running my own campaign using a machine to dial numbers and play a message, and I want to find out how they did it. It's not illegal to lie."

It may not be illegal, but it sure won't win your case. "Umm yer honor, I'd like to submit this evidence, that I, well, lied to obtain."

Re:Is this guy for real?

[prgrmr]

Wow, this guy has far too much time on his hands...This seems a little sick

He's actually doing us all a favor by insisting that theses companies (non-profit and for-profit alike) abide by the law and thereby resepect our privacy. The heart of the law and the FCC rules are our freedoms of speach and assembly, from which are derived our freedoms of association and privacy. To be truly free, the choice for association must also include the choice to not associate. His actions are an affirmation of the choice to voluntarily deny or revoke association.

Besides, if any one non-profit's continued success hinges on a mere $500.00, they were already very close to going out of business anyway.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Vellmont]

-Pollution is evil if corporations do it, but if you're burning wood in your fireplace, and impacting my life much more, that's okay.

One guy burning wood in his fireplace has very little impact on anything. If everyone started burning wood to heat their homes again, it'd start to be a problem. A large entity spewing out tons of extremely toxic pollutants into the air, water, soil is a much bigger deal. In many communities backyard bonfires have become a problem because there's no chimney to send the smoke high enough in the atmosphere to avoid sending smoke into neighbors homes. So pollution isn't just a problem with large entities, a collection of individuals can create problems as well.

-If you kill someone wtih your car, you're on the hook for, what, $200,000? If a UPS driver does it, bump that up to a million.

Depends on if UPS is negligent and encouraging drivers to drive recklessly to make schedules, or knowingly employees someone that drives recklessly. It's called punitive damages. A $200,000 judgement against an individual is a huge amount and is an effective deterent. A $200,000 judgement against a large corporation like UPS is peanuts and does exactly nothing to prevent them from having these entirely made up policies (I don't think UPS does anything like this, it's just for illustrative purposes). Come to think of it I believe Dominoes was held liable for traffic accidents a number of years ago because of their "30 minutes or less" guarantee. They eventually had to drop it because it was causing too many accidents.

-If a doctor botches an operation and kills someone, yep, $200,000. But if he has a big evil insurance corporation backing him, meh, they can afford a million or so, right?

Same thing as the UPS example. If the insurance company or HMO is at fault, they should have punitive damages against them otherwise they'll do little to correct the problem.

If you want to hire someone to fix your toilet, you pay whatever they agree to. But if you're a corporation that wants to hire someoen to regularly fix toilets, well, that's just evil. You're going to have to pay his medical and dental, pay minimum wage, contribute to his social security account, be on the hook for discriminatory lawsuits, etc.

There's a difference between an independant contractor, and an employee. Corporations hire indendent contractors all the time to fix toilets or whatever. What they can't and shouldn't do is pretend an employee is an independant contractor just to avoid paying benefits, SS, and liability.

-If a corporation annoys you to no end with autodialing, SHUT EM DOWN. But if it's "just" a non-profit organization doing the exact same thing, nah, let it slip.

Well, annoyance is a matter of perspective. Some people aren't annoyed by carpet cleaners calling them to sell them carpet cleaning. Other people don't mind being called by non-profit XYZ who wants to save the whales. If you're annoyed by them, they've wasted your time and you get pissed off. Personally I hate anyone calling me to sell me something or get me to believe something or want me to donate money to them. I disagree with the idea that non-profits should somehow be able to still call me. Other people seem to argue there's free speech at stake here. Frankly I think it's ridiculous that anyone with a political message should be able to ring my telephone in my own home anytime they please when I've explicitly requested that they not do so.

The basic thing here is that corporations shouldn't be treated like normal citizens because they're a lot more immune to damage. You can't put a company in jail, fine them a (relatively) small amount of money, etc. They have a lot more resources to defend themselves, so the punishment also needs to be more severe.

Re:tape call?

[jbrandv]

It really depends on the state laws. Here in New Mexico only 1 party has to know the call is being recorded. So it would only be inadmissible if a third party was recording both sides of the conversation.

Actually, I did work for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of fact, I did work for one of these companies. Just for the record, we actually employed real callers, went out of our way to follow all the laws (including do not call), etc etc etc.

Where the numbers come from generally changes with the product a given company is selling. We did fund raising for charities, so we generally dug up lists of people who had previously given to other (usually related) charities. We did occationally use the white pages to "cold call" people, but that was usually only on slow days and being how unprofitable it was to randomly call people without any assurance that they'd buy we didn't do it very often. Spammers have the advantage of being able to send millions of emails with minimal costs. Bandwidth is cheap. Long distance phone service is not. This is one of the reasons that telemarketing companies are so big on VoIP stuff and why the phone companies aren't.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[hackstraw]

I'm serious -- can someone explain this to me?

"This" is a little unclear, but regarding the less than 1 mil for a peon and greater than 1 mil for a corp, its called a sliding scale. You can't even get a corp's attention for less than a mil because it will go to their legal department and your cheap lawyer will not understand their legalese and tell you "there is nothing we can do". Heck, just the time involved in a big case justifies a good portion of the money. The money involved is directly proportional to the time it takes to go to court if it does. This is also a good thing because if any bozo could sue Google for $5 mil and get a check next week, EVERYBODY would be doing it. If someone sues Google and wins $5 mil after a 5 year legal battle and then the lawyers take all of the money, people are less likely to sue at the drop of a hat.

I hate to be defending the system, but I've been involved with it, and it makes much more sense than it seems at the surface.

There is always the appeal process too...

Why do I get these calls?

[indigest]

I'm all cell phone as well and I have gotten three of these calls in the last couple days. I don't understand why because I've been registered with donotcall.gov since 2005 and I never give out my personal cell phone number. The calls just show up as Unavailable so I answer them and burn airtime. I would be angry if I was over my minutes; thankfully, the Verizon minutes used Firefox plugin helps me avoid that. Anyone else getting these calls on cell phone or know of ways to stop them?

Re:Why do I get these calls?

[zxnos]

if it comes up unavailable just send it to voice mail. if it is important they will leave a message - if sally solicitor left the message, dont listen and delete it. check messages in the evening when your (most people have this) minutes are unlimited. works for me anyway. just because you have a cell doesnt mean you have to answer every single call no matter where you are.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Aladrin]

That it'll 'stop'? No, poor choice of words on my part. The frivolous ones will stop. And the non-frivolous ones will take greater care to follow the law.

Also remember that their cost is not the $500 they pay the person they sue them. They also lose lawyer's fees (even if only their own) and time, and bad press. (Some may argue that there's no such thing as bad press... Different argument.) If they have even a few people sue them each time they make a set of these calls, they may find that they are not worth the trouble.

and if you couldn't serve the process???

[advocate_one]

then what... the article above presupposes that your process was successfully served...

Re:Is this guy for real?

[marsu_k]

Regarding firewood and pollution, wood can be very efficient and environmentally friendly as a heat source. Quoting from here:

The technique of compressing wood pulp into pellets or artificial logs provides an excellent means of reducing emissions: not only is the combustion very clean (this of course depends on a well-designed combustion chamber and feeding system), but because of the increased wood density and reduced water content, the transport bulk is reduced by 30 to 70%. Thus the fossil energy consumed in transport is reduced (and in fact represents a tiny fraction on the fossil fuel consumed in producing and distributing heating oil or gas).

What are you accomplishing here?

[karlandtanya]

I understand your disclaimer at the beginning of the essay--Do you HAVE what it TAKES, but it seems that "what it takes" is a serious axe to grind and nothing better to do.

You're not doing it for the money, are you? Please explain if I've missed that benefit here.
Net dollars in your pocket divided by total hours spent?
Is this lucrative?

Do your efforts actually discourage the calls? Again, if you have some facts, please share them.
Let's say that everyone who gets a noncompliant message gets a $500.00 judgement and shuts the business down.
All you've done is guarantee that their successor complies with 64.1200(d) and (e)(1).

Maybe you should consider joining the volunteer police force in a nearby small town?
You'll make a real contribution to the community and the stress (if that's your thing--which it seems to be) will be present, albeit in a different form.

STOP SUING!

[Ericzombie]

Please people. Stop suing for stupid little crap like this. The legal reason for suing is to protect consumers from being taken advantage of by others. People are suing far too often these days, and it's really inhibiting the efficiency of the courts, increasing insurance rates for all practices, and needlessly restraining the economy. If you really, REALLY want to make a difference, use your vote and your voice to rally others to not vote for that person. To sue them is to give them press, and as they say, there is no such thing as bad press. If you want to make a difference, don't waste your time and money suing. Learn to use your voice and vote to change the world.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[wiz31337]

I completely agree. Everyone is too sue happy over petty things in this country. I don't like telemarketers, in fact it makes me rather angry when they call in the middle of supper, but there is a simple solution to this problem. Instead of taking time out of your day to document all of the calls you receive, take time off work, show up in court and tell them how this telemarketer has ruined your life... Just hang up the phone, and go back to the table.

Some will argue that they are being called on their cellphones and it is wasting their minutes. Even if you get charged a $1 a minute for your calls, is it really worth a $1 to take these people to court? Sure you may get some money out of the deal, but you are certainly not going to stop telemarketers forever.

Start With This Company

[transcender]

If you have gotten a call from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), National Rifle Association (NRA), or any of a plethora of disingenuous, zealous, dime-wringing bible thumping organizations... than point your finger at this company. http://www.infocision.com/ They have tons of dialers.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Blailus]

Taking these guys to court does require a lot of time and effort, but as far as I know it's the only recourse we have. That said, caller ID works pretty well as a spam filter for me... My only problem with that is, now, to have an effective block against people I don't want calling me, I have to pay for an additional service, so that I can properly use my service I was already paying for? No! Frankly, its far better and more cost efficient, to own a cellphone. As I understand it, telemarketers, polititions, and any other group which uses unsolicited phone calls to push its business aren't allowed to call cell phones (due to the cost levied on the reciever I believe). Thus, I can have a cell phone and hopefully, never recieve any "junk calls" which, luckily, haven't occurred yet. I definately agree with the parent though, especially because its the only recourse seemingly available. Why in the world do people put up with this crap? Because it is easier to try to ignore it than to deal with it. THAT is what is wrong with the US, not that we have "too many" frivolous lawsuits.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

One guy burning wood in his fireplace has very little impact on anything.

Fallacy of composition -- I'm sure one small corporation's pollution wouldn't have much impact on anything either.

Even so, it's false. If even one person burns wood, that signficantly affects my personal air quality, more than any corporation, or all the autos in my city ever have. I understand that corporations now have regulations to comply with (your next point), but that misses the point! Why must they adhere to these regulations, but individuals are given free reign to pollute MY AIR with their stupid woodburning, without having to get anyone's by-your-leave? We all know the answer: because they're not trying to make a profit doing it. The moment Globocorp sets up a similar-scaled operation that burns wood, THEN the protestors appear. Go fig.

A $200,000 judgement against an individual is a huge amount and is an effective deterent. A $200,000 judgement against a large corporation like UPS is peanuts and does exactly nothing to prevent them from having these entirely made up policies

And what if the UPS driver's just an idiot? You think UPS is off the hook? In any case, if it were really about punishing the lawbreaker, the award net of real damages should go to a fund to pay for cases where the real perpetrator can't be found. But then again, it was never about making the victim whole, was it?

If the insurance company or HMO is at fault, they should have punitive damages against them otherwise they'll do little to correct the problem.

The insurance company merely pools the risk and pay the damange. They don't perform the operation. Yet juries ROUTINELY award huge damages to insured doctors solely on the grounds that they know someone with deep pockets will be paying. It has nothing to do with the insurance company's acts.

There's a difference between an independant contractor, and an employee. Corporations hire indendent contractors all the time to fix toilets or whatever. What they can't and shouldn't do is pretend an employee is an independant contractor just to avoid paying benefits, SS, and liability.

WHY? The "difference" you've cited is just an attempt to equate the "law as it stands" with "justification for the law as it stands". I know the law treats these alleged "separate cases" differently; the question is why it does so. Why can I get away with hiring someone repeatedly -- as contract labor and not have to worry about charges that I'm not paying the "benefits" that are supposed to accrue to regular employees, but corporations have to walk on eggshells when hiring the labor of others?

The basic thing here is that corporations shouldn't be treated like normal citizens because they're a lot more immune to damage. You can't put a company in jail, fine them a (relatively) small amount of money, etc.

Yes, you can always jail the individuals criminally culpable for their actions. Why do people always assume otherwise? An individual or individuals always bear the cost of fines and regulations, regardless of the overlying legal structures that are set up. You're just making the fallacy that says "Corporations don't have free speech rights!" Ignoring that the same right can be equivalently expressed as the rights of individuals.

Sorry, I have to appologise to grandparent

[leehwtsohg]

I must have been a bit upset. Don't know why. Well, actually, it was 'cause I got lost on the way home. Anyway, saying that the grandparent was biased because he (or she) was "on their side", was low. You did the right thing! You left! Sorry.
But you still didn't understand the article...

Re:Is this guy for real?

[dctoastman]

-If you want to hire someone to fix your toilet, you pay whatever they agree to. But if you're a corporation that wants to hire someoen to regularly fix toilets, well, that's just evil. You're going to have to pay his medical and dental, pay minimum wage, contribute to his social security account, be on the hook for discriminatory lawsuits, etc.

First of all, plumbers aren't cheap. Definitely not minimum wage.
But that is besides the point. A corporation will offer medical and dental insurances in addition to wages as an incentive for that person to plumb exclusively for the corporation. Generally a hired plumber makes less per hour than a contracted plumber, but the contracted plumber does not have the benefit of definite work.
Corporations do not contribute to Social Security. Do not. Social Security is taken out of your wages.
As for discriminatory lawsuits. If you think a business has to treat all patrons equally, then they must hire equally as well.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[fumblebruschi]

Im guessing that the people who "Dont get this" dont live in swing states

I don't know...I live in Massachusetts, which is not a swing state--neither party spends much money here because both assume the commonwealth will vote Democrat whatever happens. Still, I get lots and lots of messages, both commercial and political. I can't say I've noticed any dimunition of call volume since I went on the do-not-call list, either. I probably get seven to ten calls a day, most of them during the day when I'm not home. It doesn't get up my nose enough that I feel like suing, though. I mean, how much time does it take out of my day? Get home, delete seven phone messages after listening to one second of each. End of problem. Total investment, seven seconds. Also, the vast majority of my phone calls are only a second or so long; they all go "Hello?" "Can I speak--" *Click.* I don't really see why people are concerned about being rude to telemarketers. It's not like I scream at them, I just hang up without saying anything. Why is that rude?

Looking at it from the other side, it's worth mentioning that back in college I knew a girl who worked for a while as a telemarketer, and then left that job to go work for a phone-sex line. She said the phone-sex place not only paid more but treated the employees better. Me: "Wait, you switched jobs because the sex-worker industry has more human dignity?" Her: "Don't scoff till you've done both."

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

First of all, plumbers aren't cheap. Definitely not minimum wage.

I know. That was just an example of a labor law. There is a labyrinthine network of them, all of which I have to comply with... but only if I'm a big evil corporation.

A corporation will offer medical and dental insurances in addition to wages as an incentive for that person to plumb exclusively for the corporation.

Money does the same thing. These are "offered" either because laws require benefits to be paid when "full time" status is reached, or because the corporation is given favorable tax treatment when buying them for employees. The ones that don't have time to figure out this loophole -- well, who cares about them?

Corporations do not contribute to Social Security. Do not. Social Security is taken out of your wages.

??? Yes, they do. Get a clue, kid. The employer pays a tax that matches the amount shown on your paystub. It is in addition to your deduction. Now, there's an important point to make here, which is that the *economic incidence* of BOTH parts falls on the worker. That is, if corporations weren't made to match it, market wages would rise by that amount. But the point is, the corporation has to go through the hassle of properly registering you and making sure that portion goes to that tax, while you don't have to do the same thing for a one-time plumbing job.

As for discriminatory lawsuits. If you think a business has to treat all patrons equally, then they must hire equally as well.

Uh huh. The point is, those laws only attach when it's a "big evil corporation". If you personally wanted to turn away every plumber when you found out he was black, you wouldn't have to worry about being sued. Corproations, on the other hand, have their hiring patterns monitored. Fair, eh?

Ask Slashdot

[neonfrog]

A perfect response to !!!

Re:Did you understand the whole thing?

[gartogg]

Ummm.. notice the difference between a solicitation and a call. Different terms, this does not apply to what is above. Sorry.

Re:Ask Slashdot - oops

[neonfrog]

A perfect response to How to Handle Political Telemarketing?!!!

how to identify caller?

[beefubermensch]

If they don't say who they are and don't give a return number, how do you identify them? I get calls like this all the time -- they block *69.

-Carl

Re:Is this guy for real?

[DragonWriter]

Now, there's an important point to make here, which is that the *economic incidence* of BOTH parts falls on the worker. That is, if corporations weren't made to match it, market wages would rise by that amount.

Well, that's a little crazy, a more sensible analysis would be that it is likely that most of teh burden falls on the worker, and that if the employer contribution were removed, market wages would rise by some amount less than the employer contribution and greater than 0.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[American AC in Paris]

Many groups are out to pursue their interests at the expense of others. Instead of money, they may be after the shutdown of industrial society, or conversion to some type of Christianity, or sending blacks back to Africa. You can find these supposed impurities in anyone's motives. What makes "the pursuit of money" different?

There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of money, and I never said anything of the sort. There is something wrong, in my opinion, with letting the pursuit of money trump what is best for society as a whole. I'm not suggesting that the distinction is always easy or obvious. I'm asserting that there's something not right about acting in a manner which places your own personal gain over the well-being of those around you. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that we should be villified for being imperfect creatures; we're all going to make mistakes and bad decisions. Rather, I'm saying that we should strive place a higher value on the well-being of society as a whole than on the well-being of our own selves and associates.

I genuinely believe that a happy, healthy society is more important than a happy, healthy me. That doesn't mean that I'm going to work myself to death trying to right every wrong I see. It does mean that I try to consider the consequences of my actions, and strive not do something that would harm others--even if it would bring me considerable personal gain. It isn't always an easy or obvious choice, and often I'm not even aware that a choice is being made; but by striving to be a good person, it helps me actually be a good person.

Yes, I'm an idealist. Frankly, it helps me be an honest, good person, even though I have trouble living up to my own ideals. My country was founded by idealists, and despite their mistakes and shortcomings, I think they did a damn good job, on balance.

In any case, my air is dirty around Winter. The fact that it's non-profit, non-corporations burning the wood is little consolation.

Why not pursue a solution to this problem, then? Why not go to your local government and propose restrictions on wood burning? You can't be the only person out there who finds it offensive, and you can make a solid case that it's in the best interest of your community to restrict the burning of wood.

sort-of like lice

[maddogsparky]

"That was a lot of research and writing for a stupid knee jerk reaction to a rather simple and short-lived annoyance."

Lice is only annoying when it itches. People still found ways to get relief from it

IF you get a judgement

[Some_Llama]

How long od you have to collect? I got a judgement against a former roommate years ago and was never able to collect (real jerk he was) do I still have the ability to file this with a collection agency? I still have all of the paperwork...

Re:IF you get a judgement

[caffeineboy]

You need to look up the laws for your state. In California judgements are enforceable for ten years, and they are renewable for another 10 years after that. On top of this you accrue 10% interest on the settlement every year it goes uncollected.

This can add up to a tidy sum. So, if you still have your paperwork and your state has laws similar to California you are in luck. Now, if your roommate still has no money you might be out of luck, but there are ways of getting money from them. Look it up for your state; in California there are a lot of ways to force payment of a settlement.

Good luck!

Re:IF you get a judgement

[Some_Llama]

I am in california, but previously when trying to collect the plaintiff refused (this was a judgement for their part of the bills which we all agreed to pay equal shares, electric, phone, water, etc).

Thanks for the info, i'll check my records and see if I am still eligible.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

It might not perfectly match, but it probably wouldn't be signficantly below current employer contributions. Consider:

-Right now, the employer can profitably employ you with costs of X (salary plus everything else they must pay for you to be there).
-Your costs (hypothetically) drop by Y (the contribution they no longer have to make).
-They attempt to keep your salary the same.
-Then someone tries to poach workers by diverting part of Y to salaries.
-Current employers respond by diverting the same.
-Process repeats until salary has increased by about Y.

Re:this guy is clueless

[DragonWriter]

Since tape recording a conversation without asking for consent IS entrapment and illegal

Its not entrapment (which is a kind of government misconduct in a criminal case that is not necessariyl linked to telephones at all), and its only illegal in some states (under federal law, only one parties consent is required for recording, though several states require both party's consent.)

Of course, that underscores a problem with the piece as advice to rely heavily on: in addition to being based on a not-current version of the regulations, it papers over the significant differences in law that may apply in different jurisdictions.

The loophole I've been falling victim to

[dmomo]

I've been getting a lot of calls that seem to be the "wrong number". When I tell the caller that they've reached the wrong person, they say. Sorry for the mistake, sir. Perhaps you would be interested in .... It's been happening more and more lately. I would imagine with auto-dialers it wouldn't be the case. Looks like they are using cold calling "dialing mistakes" intentionally. They could all be errors, but it does seem quite suspicious.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

me:Many groups are out to pursue their interests at the expense of others. Instead of money, they may be after the shutdown of industrial society, or conversion to some type of Christianity, or sending blacks back to Africa. You can find these supposed impurities in anyone's motives. What makes "the pursuit of money" different?

you: There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of money, and I never said anything of the sort. There is something wrong, in my opinion, with letting the pursuit of money trump what is best for society as a whole.

Okay, sure -- just as there's something wrong with letting the pursuit of {the shutdown of industrial society, conversion of everyone to some type of Christianity, sending blacks back to Africa} to trump what is best for society has a whole. Why is the "money" motive so much more a target of approbation, even if, the wrong commited to that end isn't as bad as that committed to other ends?

Why not pursue a solution to this problem, then? Why not go to your local government and propose restrictions on wood burning? You can't be the only person out there who finds it offensive, and you can make a solid case that it's in the best interest of your community to restrict the burning of wood.

Of course I'm not. And of course I've tried. But I'll always run into the wall: people have more relaxed standards for those polluting to "create the mood" than for those polluting to "earn money". My question here is: why?

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Vellmont]

Fallacy of composition -- I'm sure one small corporation's pollution wouldn't have much impact on anything either.

Reality has proved you wrong. Even small companies dumping toxic waste has a large impact on a large amount of people. Love Canal wasn't created by some huge multi-national. According to wikipedia:

n 1942, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum) expanded use of the site, and, by 1947, acquired the land for its own private use. In the subsequent five year period, the company buried 21,800 tons of toxic waste in the area. Once the site had been filled to capacity in 1952, Hooker closed the site to further disposal and back-filled the canal.

Even so, it's false. If even one person burns wood, that signficantly affects my personal air quality, more than any corporation, or all the autos in my city ever have. I understand that corporations now have regulations to comply with (your next point), but that misses the point! Why must they adhere to these regulations, but individuals are given free reign to pollute MY AIR with their stupid woodburning, without having to get anyone's by-your-leave

Well, it's simply not true that individuals have free reigh to pollute air. There ARE regulations on pollution that individuals have to comply with, just like I was saying about peoples backyard bonfires. It used to be legal for individuals to burn leaves in the summer in most cities, but the practice was banned due to air quality issues. Your argument is simply false. Individuals don't have free reign to do whatever they please to pollute the air.

And what if the UPS driver's just an idiot? You think UPS is off the hook?

Maybe. If a jury can't be convinced that UPS was negligent, then they'll not be held liable. Of course a case where UPS isn't liable would likely never even get to a jury.

Why can I get away with hiring someone repeatedly -- as contract labor and not have to worry about charges that I'm not paying the "benefits" that are supposed to accrue to regular employees, but corporations have to walk on eggshells when hiring the labor of others?

Well, because corporations have a lot more power than you do. Why do you think that power doesn't scale up from you to a multi-billion dollar corporation? Any entity with more power should be treated differently than some poor schlum. Why do you think individuals and huge corporations are equal? And again, inidividuals don't have free reign to do whatever they please. I seriously doubt you could hire a Nanny and treat him/her as an independant contractor when they're really acting as an employee. That's mostly a tax avoidance issue since generally I don't think you're required to give benefits when you're just one guy hiring a nanny, but I may be wrong.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[marsu_k]

If even one person burns wood, that signficantly affects my personal air quality, more than any corporation, or all the autos in my city ever have. I understand that corporations now have regulations to comply with (your next point), but that misses the point! Why must they adhere to these regulations, but individuals are given free reign to pollute MY AIR with their stupid woodburning, without having to get anyone's by-your-leave?

Two words: wood pellets. How you can say that they'd affect air quality more than all the autos in your city ever have is beyond me.

So, is wasting time bad or not?

[benhocking]

I just personally find suing about phone calls a waste of time (imo), and suing about toxic sludge being dumped illegally not a waste of time.

So, you're complaining that suing about phone calls (which waste your time) is ... a waste of time. Is wasting time "bad", or not? More to the point, why is it bad in one case and not the other? Personally, I wouldn't be willing to waste my time suing over phone calls that waste my time, but if someone else chooses to (and in the process hopefully saves me time), more power to them. Of course, whether or not it's a waste of time is a matter of opinion, but I think the person whose time it is should be allowed to make that call (in general).

If your only complaint is that it's not worth your time, that's fine. However, it seemed that you thought it wasn't worth anyone's time, and that's a decision that can only be made by the individual.

Re:So, is wasting time bad or not?

[Reapman]

I guess I don't think of suing someone unless it's a REALLY BIG DEAL like life or death. Obviously some people feel that inconvenience is worth their time and effort to sue. wow, hanging up on auto dial takes up HOURS A DAY for me)

Re:Is this guy for real?

[szembek]

I burn wood and the air where I live is just fine.

Autodialers are easy to get rid of

[SCHecklerX]

Just prepend the 3 tone SIT to the beginning of your answering machine greeting, and let it answer. They won't leave a message, and they won't autodial again.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[syphax]

Because it is easier to try to ignore it than to deal with it.

Fair enough. People are busy. Of course, the crap we put up with goes far past spam calls (see: current Administration), but I agree it's a fundamental problem. As a French friend put it this summer, the French know how to attack their government. Piss off the farmers and out come the tractors. But I digress.

Me, I willingly pay for caller ID b/c I can better manage when I talk to certain family members who call way too much. And I have a mobile, but I use the landline when I'm home. Why? I can't really articulate it, but I just don't like talking on a mobile. Just don't. And I see my landline as part insurance policy- when I call 911, I want the boys to know *exactly* where to go, stat. When I'm 100% confident that I would get the same or better reliability for emergency services from my mobile (phone to tower to dispatch to local police/fire), then I'm consider giving up the landline (though my DSL connection would also be a factor). I don't want a dead kid b/c I was too cheap. Overdramatic, yeah, but not so much if you have young boys with no fear.

Oh, and I get a Spanish language spam on my mobile 1-2x a week. Same one every time.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[szembek]

Burning wood is an excellent way to heat your home all winter long. I live in upstate NY and would not likely consider another form of heat. I don't know where you guys live, but any legislation restricting the burning of wood wouldn't fly around me.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

Reality has proved you wrong. Even small companies dumping toxic waste ...

You're not listening. My point was, I can use the same trick you did, and subdivide low enough to where the pollution is not a problem, and then make the unfair comparison of that one small amount, to a larger polluter. It's STILL an invalid comparison. You couldn't dismiss the damage of wood burning just because one person plus or minus doesn't make a difference. (I can imagine your reaction to "Ford's vehicles shutting down forever would make no difference in global warming, so Ford should be exempt from any carbon emissions standards." !)

Of course, I don't even need to rely on this, like I said last time. In the argument I made that you ignored, I pointed out that one person DOES make a difference TO ME. If ONE person burns wood, I can tell.

Well, it's simply not true that individuals have free reigh to pollute air. There ARE regulations ...

Fine. So they can't burn leaves. (Though I've never seen incredibly vigorous enforcement of this, to be honest.) They still have free reign to burn logs. That was my point.

Maybe. If a jury can't be convinced that UPS was negligent, then they'll not be held liable. Of course a case where UPS isn't liable would likely never even get to a jury.

Right, because juries NEVER ignore the evidence and vote on envy, esp. with wealth corporations.

Well, because corporations have a lot more power than you do.

Aha! FINALLY we get to the hard core of why you think there's a distinction. (Wish it didn't take this long to get you to admit to this justification, but whatever.) Because of your childish envy -- the kind the rest of us grew out of at about six. Oh, I know, you cloak in terms of "power", but we all know what you're talking about.

It's illegal for Prof Hawking to use the phone!

[2008]

If I'm reading that legislation right then making a phone call with a pre-recorded voice (like Stephen Hawking's artificial voicebox) isn't allowed...
although, to be fair, if he called me I'd assume it was someone pranking me and I'd ask how his rap career is going.

Re:It's illegal for Prof Hawking to use the phone!

[The Wicked Priest]

Hawking's voice isn't prerecorded, it's synthesized as he uses the device.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[purfledspruce]

Lawsuits happen because *people* break laws, not corporations. It takes a person to make a choice that breaks a law. If you think that it's worse because a person in a big (and therefore evil?) company does it, rather than in a small (and therefore good?) company, then you are simplifying things too much.
If you do not punish wrongdoers, then the wrongdoing will continue. Let's say that the average adult in the US earns $15 per hour. Let's say that the average person in the US receives one phone call per week. Let's say that the average person spends one minute on the phone. Now, let's do the math:
200,000,000 (estimated number of adults) * 1/60 (one minute of his or her time) * $15 (average salary assumption) * 52 (number of calls in a year) = $2.6 Billion, no kidding, Billion dollars of time wasted per year.
I don't care if it's a non-profit or some "big evil company" that's wasting our time--I don't want them to do it. If we punish them enough times, then they'll stop. Otherwise, they will continue, despite it being against the law, because there's no reason for them not to do it--and it is in their own self interest to do so.
If you want an example of how people will continue to do things that are against the law when there's virtually no punishment, look at how many people drive the speed limit. There is an immediate self-interest (getting where you're going faster), and almost no punishment (people are generally not pulled over), so almost everyone does it almost every time they get on an open road.
So, you're right, don't bother going to court to protect your rights. I'm sure the politicians will punish these wrongdoers...oh, wait, the whole point of this was that it was the politicians doing it!

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

Um ... people don't burn those where I live ... or anywhere I've lived. They burn ... logs.

The relevance of your post is...?

Re:Is this guy for real?

[marsu_k]

The fact that you can burn wood and make it both economically and environmentally feasible. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

I never said it can't be done, kid. I just said it isn't currently being done, and my air is suffering because of it, and people make more noise over the significantly-less pollution of corporations than the wood burning currently being done, and I can't ascertain why.

Now, where does this bit about wood pellets play into that?

No -- YOU are clueless.

[ClioCJS]

Don't claim legal facts if you don't know them, asshole.

State Phone laws regarding taping a conversation:
http://del.icio.us/ClintJCL/phones%2Btaping

Unpublished phone number = PEACE

[AnalogDiehard]

Starting back in 2002 I started using unpublished phone numbers for my land line (not unlisted, there's a difference).

Unpublished numbers add teeth to keeping you off telemarketer lists, even those that are exempt from the DNC registry. I make a point of informing the caller that they have reached an unpublished number and I wanted it taken off their list. Even AOL promptly took me off their autodialer list when I was given a number that belonged to someone else.

They don't cost much more per month and they're a lot less hassle and money then filing a lawsuit.

I get loads of these recorded messages...

[rHBa]

I work from home and get on average 5-6 telesales calls per day. About 1 in every 10 is a recorded message. Another thing they like to do is call you and hang up when you answer. If you have CLI (caller line identification) or you dial 1471 (In the UK) you will see that you have been called by an 0800 freephone number and if you call the freephone number back you can listen to them try to sell you stuff.

Anyone know what the law is in the UK regarding recorded message telesales calls? They are a right pain and although I probably wouldn't follow up with anything it would be nice to phone them back and give them some abuse, threaten to sue etc.

Telesales people don't do to well at my house, 99 time out of 100 the calls go like this:

Me: Hello...
Me: Hello, is there anyone there?
Salesman (gets connected by auto dialing): Hello, could I speak to Mr Jones please?
Me: There are two Mr Jones who live here, which one do you want to speak to?
Salesman: Mr A. Jones?
Me: Yes, which one?
Salesman: Uhm, the home owner?
Me: Seeing as you don't know the home owners first name you must be selling something so no, you can't speak to him...

Re:I get loads of these recorded messages...

[jonbryce]

In the UK, they are illegal unless you have previously given permission to the spammer to make these calls. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992093.htm#22

Re:Is this guy for real?

[American AC in Paris]

Why is the "money" motive so much more a target of approbation, even if, the wrong commited to that end isn't as bad as that committed to other ends?

Honestly, I don't agree that it is more of a target of approbation than religious conversion, anti-industry forces, or sending blacks to Africa. Certainly to some people it is, but it's just that: some people. Generally speaking, the topic that most pushes your buttons is going to be a topic that hits home. For some people, that topic is corporations. For others, it's religious fundamentalism. For yet others, it's political ideology.

The issue with corporations goes beyond money, however. The real root of the issue is power. Today, large multinationals tend to have more power than most sovereign nations. This is something new in the course of human history; never before have corporations, in general, been so effective at clashing with and influencing governments. A corporation in todays world can wield the power of a nation. The key difference between corporations and nations in this respect is that a nation is charged with protecting the interests of its citizens, whereas a corporation is charged with protecting the interests of its shareholders. At the very least, this should give you pause; what does it portend for society when the strength of the corporation waxes as the strength of the nation wanes?

But I'll always run into the wall: people have more relaxed standards for those polluting to "create the mood" than for those polluting to "earn money". My question here is: why?

Because most people act in their own self-interest. It takes a concerted effort, thoughtful examination of the world we share, and serious introspection not to automatically act in your own self-interest, which is part of why it's so hard to convince others of the importance of the greater good--regardless whether you're addressing a corporate officer or your next-door neighbor.

Corporations are in a special position: they're exponentially larger and more powerful than any given individual. If more corporations can demonstrate moral leadership, they'll set a good example for the rest of us to follow. If they set an example of putting the bottom line first, then how can we not expect others to do the same?

Re:Is this guy for real?

[marsu_k]

*sigh* You originally said: "If even one person burns wood, that signficantly affects my personal air quality, more than any corporation, or all the autos in my city ever have". (I personally find this very unbelievable...) Notice that you didn't say anything about the method of burning wood, or the form of the wood. I merely stated that burning wood, as in wood pellets, is actually environmentally friendly. And yes, it's being done, at least here on the other side of the pond.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[gunnk]

Aside from that, a big corporaton isn't entitled to the same rights a regular person is. Corporations don't need the same kind of protection a person needs, or even a small organization.

Actually, corporations do enjoy the same rights as a regular person because in the eyes of the law they really are people: read up on the Supreme Court case Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad (1886)

Also, a small organization can enjoy many or all the benefits of a corporation. My wife and I are in the start-up phase of creating an S-Corporation. It costs us more to join the Chamber of Commerce than to create the corporation! What benefits are there of working via a corporation?

As an individual, you pay tax on what you make and then spend what's left over. A corporation spends from it's income and is then taxed on what's left over. That's a huge difference in terms of how much money you have to work with!

Second, a corporation allows you to protect yourself from liability in most cases. The assets of the company are exposed by your business endeavor, not your house and car!

Yes, corporations do have HUGE advantages over individuals -- but incorporating is much less difficult than you think. It's not just for the rich -- it's for anyone that wants to run their own business.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

Oh, then I guess my question is why you don't understand the concept of "context". Obviously, I was referring to one person burning wood as woodburning is done in my area.

You should study journalism when you get into college -- you seem to have the "take quotes out of context" thing down pat. Or "spot on", I should say? "Smashing"? "Tip top"?

Washington Small Claims experience

[grgyle]

I went to WA small claims court to ask for payment from a property agency that had promised repayment. The apartment I was moving into needed repainting, and I painted it on my dime after an agreement with the agency that they would repay me. The property agency not only never paid me back, but claimed that I had never even painted it at all and billed me for additional repainting after I moved out! All told, it was about $3000.00 dollars (my expense, plus the extra that I got billed).

In court, the agency rep claimed there was never any correspondence, and she said that she would be fired by the agency and made to pay it out of her own paycheck if the judgement was lost. A very silly play for sympathy.

I won the full judgement since I had a certified receipt for the summons, still had the Home Depot receipts for materials, as well as an email from a guy at the agency saying they'd pay me back. The judge very severely berated the agency rep for lying, recorded it in the court transcript, and awarded us not only the money that I had spent for painting, but an additional award for the amount that I had been billed by the agency, and bid us a nice day. I came out of there with a tidy $2000 profit.

I sat through three other cases before mine, all landlord/tenant disputes, and the tenants won every judgement. Judges hate slumlords :-)

Anyway, I highly recommend the small claims experience. In Washington small claims, your defendant can't counter-sue (they have to file a separate claim), so you have nothing to lose except a few bucks for the claim and summons fees and a day from work.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Enigma2175]

Reality has proved you wrong. Even small companies dumping toxic waste has a large impact on a large amount of people. Love Canal wasn't created by some huge multi-national. According to wikipedia:

n 1942, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum)

Yeah, Occidental Petroleum only has revenues of $11.3 billion and 7200 employees. From OPC's website:

Occidental's oil and gas operations are consolidated in three core areas -
the United States, the Middle East and Latin America.

Hmmm, seems like this company is huge and multi-national. So Love Canal WAS caused by a huge multi-national corporation. Your point is (kind of) valid, but you picked a terrible example.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[marsu_k]

This is getting so offtopic that this will be my last post on this subject but here goes. How am I supposed to know beforehand a) where you live, and b) how people usually burn wood there? In my area wood burning means more than often pellets nowadays.

And FYI I'm a CS undergrad and Finnish.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[DragonWriter]

Follow the rules, and you can't be sued.

"Follow the rules, and those suing you are more likely to lose than they would be if you broke them" is more accurate. The idea that lawsuits can only happen to people when they've actually broken the law is, to say the least, wrong.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, here goes: I mentioned how woodburning in my area bothers me. I then referred to an instance of woodburning bothering me (e.g., someone burning deciding to burn wood). That should have alerted you that I wasn't talking about the wood pellets, that supposedly don't pollute. The mere fact that I was talking about woodburning bothering me in the first place should have showed that you didn't need to inform me that it's possible for wood not to pollute, because that obviously wasn't happening here.

So, you had quite enough to realize your comment that it's possible for wood not to pollute, which clearly was not the case here, was irrelevant.

Next time, you can do your own reasoning.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Reapman]

Ugh read up... yesh sorry for my example. I don't care if it's big or small, non profit or not. If your auto dialing me I'm not going to sue. Likewise, if a non profit that feeds starving children is dumping waste in my backyard I would sue them too. It's not big corp vs small guy, its out of everything wrong in this world that I could go through the effort of doing a lawsuit for, AUTO DIALING IS NOT IT.

There are lots of other telemarketers

[billstewart]

If you're *not* on the list (which for reasons that will go unexplored at this juncture I'm not), you'll find that there are *lots* of other telemarketers. Most of the ones that call me want to sell mortgages or credit cards or other kinds of loans, or the occasional real estate agent, plus a few have vacation scams of various sorts.

One catch is that the laws are US laws, so they don't really apply to telemarketers in India, unless they're sufficiently connected to their real customers in the US.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[woztheproblem]

As an individual, you pay tax on what you make and then spend what's left over. A corporation spends from it's income and is then taxed on what's left over. That's a huge difference in terms of how much money you have to work with!

Are you referring to individuals with non-corporation businesses here? If so, sole proprietorships can deduct business expenses just like a corporation. See IRS form 1040-C. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf

There are tax differences between sole proprietorships and corporations, but this isn't one of them. Individuals, of course, are taxed on everything they make, but whether the business they own is a corporation or a sole proprietorship doesn't change that.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[DragonWriter]

If you really find Bennett Haselton's behavior offensive, try to get the law changed, because he isn't doing anything wrong.

1) Not all wrong things are, or should be, illegal.

2) I can see that an action bothers me, and still believe that it would be socially undesirable to try to address it through legislation.

3) I, therefore, there think its perfectly acceptable to complain about behavior without seeking to outlaw it.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[SvetBeard]

Can you think of a better venue for stopping these scumbags than a court of law?

The gas chamber?

Unintelligible phone calls

[udoschuermann]

Nice article. Thanks.

Unfortunately I've been getting unsolicited phone calls via machine on my cell phone recently and they're all in Spanish, which I neither speak nor understand. Other than improving my skill of shouting vile curses and heinous threats into the phone, is there anything I can do?

Re:Unintelligible phone calls

[rfc1394]

Unfortunately I've been getting unsolicited phone calls via machine on my cell phone recently and they're all in Spanish, which I neither speak nor understand. Other than improving my skill of shouting vile curses and heinous threats into the phone, is there anything I can do?

I get those on occasion on my cell phone too. Now, with that (or with a home phone, if you have caller id and there is a return number), see if you can look up the number (if it is valid; sometimes I get calls from places where the return number is "800-000-0000"). Once you have the number you file a "John Doe" lawsuit (as explained below), subpoena the local telephone company serving the area where that number originates, then substitute the owner of that number for John Doe Corporation.

If you can't find the number, it's a little more complicated, but here's how you can go about it.

File a lawsuit in state court, with the defendant being "John Doe" (in case it is a person such as an unincorporated business) and "John Doe Corporation" and get a subpoena for your local telephone company to identify the name and telephone number of the calling party who placed a call to your number on the date and time in question. You have that subpoena served on the phone company, and either it came in locally or it came in from a long distance company. If it came in from a long distance company, the local phone company can tell you which one. You now do the same thing over, subpoena that long distance company to find out where the call at that time originated from. And if you have to, you subpoena the originating telephone company.

Once you get the actual name of the party, you substitute that for "John Doe Corporation." This is how the RIAA gets the names of file sharers to sue them; first they file a "John Doe" lawsuit, use the suit to get a subpoena, then once they get the identity they substitute the actual name. The only thing dishonorable with the RIAA is that they are trying to file one lawsuit and bulk-sue hundreds or thousands of people in a single lawsuit as opposed to filing each separate lawsuit.

Now, maybe it isn't worth it if the company isn't local but you could conceivably ask the court for an order for them not to call you, and that can then be enforced with the potential for jail time. But if they're calling you it's probably likely that they are trying to sell something to you or are trying to get money from you, or something else of value (like your vote) and thus it is very likely that they have some local assets to attach if they don't pay.

If the judge throws your case out despite proper preparation you usually can appeal.

Hanging up on auto dial

[benhocking]

wow, hanging up on auto dial takes up HOURS A DAY for me

However, before you can hang up, you first have to halt whatever you're doing (perhaps destroying a productive train of thought), go over to your phone, and answer it.

That said, I agree with you that I personally wouldn't sue anyone over this. However, kudos to those who do because it might mean that I have to endure this hassle less often. And, yes, I'm on the "do not call" list.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[dctoastman]

I know. That was just an example of a labor law. There is a labyrinthine network of them, all of which I have to comply with... but only if I'm a big evil corporation.

And to which I said that the fact that plumbers aren't cheap is irrelevant. All businesses must comply to labor laws. Size is rarely a factor.

Money does the same thing. These are "offered" either because laws require benefits to be paid when "full time" status is reached, or because the corporation is given favorable tax treatment when buying them for employees. The ones that don't have time to figure out this loophole -- well, who cares about them?

Money does not do the same thing. Businesses are not required to provide insurance of any kind. That they do is a benefit. Just like the free drinks for working at Microsoft, totally optional. There are some "benefits" that are mandated (like the Family Medical Leave Act), but for the most part they vary wildly between companies. If two companies were offering the same salary, but one had paid health insurance and the other didn't, which would you take?

??? Yes, they do. Get a clue, kid. The employer pays a tax that matches the amount shown on your paystub. It is in addition to your deduction. Now, there's an important point to make here, which is that the *economic incidence* of BOTH parts falls on the worker. That is, if corporations weren't made to match it, market wages would rise by that amount. But the point is, the corporation has to go through the hassle of properly registering you and making sure that portion goes to that tax, while you don't have to do the same thing for a one-time plumbing job.

By the way, nice ad hominem. Implying that I am young, and therefore ignorant of the world and need to be taught by such wise, savvy souls as yourself is a great debating tactic. And yes, looking into it, an employer does an equal contribution (up to some $ amount that escapes me). But the self-employed SS tax is 15.3%, while the businesses and employees pony up 6.2% each. So if businesses weren't required to pay SS tax, the burden would fall squarely on the employee. And probably with no increase in pay. And yes, you do have to do the same for a one-time plumbing job, because you have to file taxes every year. Self-employment does not mean you don't pay taxes, junior. Businesses in this regard become the government's tool to enforce its policies.

Uh huh. The point is, those laws only attach when it's a "big evil corporation". If you personally wanted to turn away every plumber when you found out he was black, you wouldn't have to worry about being sued. Corproations, on the other hand, have their hiring patterns monitored. Fair, eh?

Well, do you think business should have non-discriminatory business practices? Because if you don't, then it is a non-issue. Plus, in your plumber scenario, you are dealing with private property laws, and that is a whole other ball of wax.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Vellmont]

Of course, I don't even need to rely on this, like I said last time. In the argument I made that you ignored, I pointed out that one person DOES make a difference TO ME. If ONE person burns wood, I can tell

Well I simply think your claim is ridiculous. One person burning wood with a fireplace and chimney doesn't significantly impact your health. If there's smoking coming into your house that's a different issue, and there ARE laws to control that. What's your issue here?

I can imagine your reaction to "Ford's vehicles shutting down forever would make no difference in global warming, so Ford should be exempt from any carbon emissions standards."

Huh? You seem to think that individuals are the same as corporations. How are you possibly going to control and regulate the carbon emissions of 300 million people? Obviously you can't. But you can require car companies to raise average mileage standards. You can put regulations on emissions from power plants. The differences between an individual and a corporation are MANY, but the relevant one here is the ability to control them, and the impact each has on society.

Any large collection of power is going to be easier to control than a large number of individuals. If you want to control carbon emissions you go after the people who produce most of it, power plants, and cars. You can't make people buy more efficient cars, but you can make the companies that produce make more efficient cars. I suppose you could ban people from burning wood for pleasure fires, but the impact of that is minimal and rather pointless.

They still have free reign to burn logs. That was my point.

Right, because the pollution from people burning logs doesn't impact anyones health in a significant manner. Thousands of people burning leaves every fall/spring does. If suddenly everyone and their dog started burning logs again to heat their homes you can bet there'd be laws designed to control this activity. What real benefit do you hope to gain by preventing people from burning logs?

Right, because juries NEVER ignore the evidence and vote on envy, esp. with wealth corporations.

Well duh. Judges are then free to throw out these judgements. No system is perfect. What's your perfect alternative to the current system?

Because of your childish envy -- the kind the rest of us grew out of at about six. Oh, I know, you cloak in terms of "power", but we all know what you're talking about.

Huh? Anyone with power needs checks and balances on that power. Anyone with more power needs more checks and balances. Why is that so hard to understand? Equality doesn't mean all actors in a society are the same.

What are the OP's results?

[owlmon]

I have read similar articles on the web. In most articles, the author does not disclose what kind of success he had with his methods. So I have a problem with this Slashdot post. How many times did the author sue a caller? How much money did the court award? How much of that amount did he recover? Did he suffer any negative consequences, such as a counter suit? Without this information, it is not possible to assign a value to the methods that this article recommends.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[gunnk]

True -- a sole proprietor does benefit from some of the tax advantages of a business, but the list of allowable deductions is much smaller. Also, the sole proprietor lacks all the liability limitations of a corporations.

An S-Corp also gets to pay you back in two ways: salary and dividends. Everything from a sole proprietorship is taxed as self-employment and gives 15.3% via self-employment tax and medicare payments. You then pay income tax on what's left over. With an S-Corp, salary is treated much the same way as with a sole proprietorship, but you can also take dividends. Dividends pass through to you as income without the self-employment tax.

Of course, these benefits vary in applicability from one situation to the next, and I am not a tax adviser, so whether or not it applies to a specific case is not for me to say!

Re:How ironic... I just received another this morn

[WalksOnDirt]

We've been on the Do Not Call list for about 3 years (or however long its been in service).

There was an article here recently explaining that if you got on the Do Not Call list when it first came out your listing has now expired. Rather than checking it out I just signed up again. This won't help if your NRCC is the National Republican Congressional Committee but might if it's the National Resource Center for Cephalopods (I'm unsure if they qualify for the non-profit exemption).

In California the CHP will serve the papers

[RKBA]

In California the state Highway Patrol will serve the papers for a small fee. As I recall, thirty years ago it was $15 to have the CHP serve the papers when I sued a dishonest landlord whose security deposit refund check bounced. Having a cop serve the court papers gave me a lot of satisfaction in itself, apart from the fact that I won the case and recovered my security deposit. Small claims court is surprisingly easy to file a claim in, and in my experience the judge is actually interested in fairness but you do need evidence of wrongdoing (in my case, the landlord's bounced check was sufficient).

About political campaigns

[WebCowboy]

This is basically how it works in Canada--though the US may be different...

Election rules permit political candidates to make phonecalls without restriction DURING A CAMPAIGN (from the day the writ is dropped until election day). These calls MUST be from the candidate directly or on behalf of the candidate by a campaign worker. These calls CANNOT come from a third party--they'd have to respect do-not-call lists and beyond that they are effectively banned from doing so because of "election gag laws" prohibiting any sort of campaign spending by third parties. For example, not only can a lobby group, say for illustrative purposes "Gigantic SUV Owners of Canada" not make phonecalls urging people not to vote for the Green party, they are prohibited from campaigning for or against any party or candidate, in any way (from radio and tv to the internet to billboards etc.) during an election.

Such a "gag law" would be clearly against the US constitution, and it has been contested several times in Canada but the restriction in free speech has been ruled as justifiable by judges in the interest of leveling the electoral playing field. So, if you were in Canada and got a call from ANYONE who does not directly represent a candidate they aren't just being annoying or breaking CRTC rules (CRTC is the Canadian version of FCC), they are also breaking election rules.

The same applies to junk mail. In Canada, postal workers are obligated to deliver everything with an address on it that is not a restricted material (so infectious/biohazardous materials, flammable substances, perishable goods, etc. aren't deliverable, but any addressed letters and such must be delivered). Junk mail without addresses are called "unadressed admail" and you can request that it not be delivered. There is one exception and that is political campaign literature. As with "junk voicemail" you cannot block delivery of political campaign pamphlets even if they are not addressed, and third parties are prohibited from mailing out campaign literature entirely.

I know the US doesn't have "gag laws" but it is probably the case that third parties/lobbyists like "the friends of proposition X" must respect the same do-not-call list that businesses and charities must. As in Canada, I'm betting there is some provision protecting the right of candidates to use dialers as a campaign tool. Of course, if you phone hundreds of people reminding them to "vote for Mr. Smith" during dinner hour you risk turning those portential voters against you for being annoying.

Now that we can sue...

[the_real_tigga]

...fraudulent Auto Dialers, how long til we can sue the fraudulent Car Dealers as well?

Right, whatever ...

[Chran]

I'm sorry - "When the judge stopped berating me long enough for me to continue ..."

I've read the court transcript, and all I saw was a smart-mouth trying to tell a judge how the law works! She kept telling you that yes, she DID know the law, and was trying to get you to stick to the proper procedure, so you didn't waste the court's time with irrelevant issues.

And you want to teach others? Ha! That's rich!

Damn!

[drew]

I thought it said auto dealers. Here I got all excited only to find out that it doesn't even apply to me, because I only have a cell phone...

Re:Is this guy for real?

[91degrees]

I'm not sure if this would still be effective. Do all fax machines still use paper? I'd have thought that any system that's getting a lot and doesn't need a hardcopy will be using a computer based system

Useful info...

[twenex]

I get quite a few calls from collection agencies trying to collect on the (evidently) deadbeats who had my phone number before I did.

Most of the time these calls are: "We have a very important message for you. Please call us back at 800whatever". These are clearly illegal per the original post.

Now, if I sue these guys and win, how hard do you think it is to get a collection agency to pay?

lawsuit-happy

[headonfire]

I keep seeing these comments (particularly by Canadians?) about the lawsuit-happy Americans.

We live under the rule of law for a reason, both in the states and abroad. Laws are there (ostensibly) for the protection of the people; by enforcing them, even the minor ones, a message is sent that it's not OK to break the law - thus strengthening the rule of law and providing justification for itself, an extremely important step. Words on paper are ultimately just that - words on paper. When the law stops justifying itself, people start ignoring it, and open warfare(figuratively speaking, at least at first) begins. Consumer protection, workplace safeties and protection, and even criminal law start to go out the door. We place our moral and ethical faith in the laws written for us by other people; when it breaks down, we are left with nothing to hold on to.

I wonder if this is why theologically-based societies get a good head start - when your rules are (claimed to be and taken as) dictated by a "higher authority", they may be viewed as more infallible than laws made by, say, Ted Stevens (R) Alaska, or George Douchebag Bush. Of course, a government builds up around it, which involves the mind of man fiddling with the hand of god, and people eventually lose faith... First in the rule of god, then later in the rule of law. Lather, rinse and repeat for a quick summary of human history.

As an aside, debating whether or not we have too many laws is another discussion entirely, but completely worth thinking about. Not to mention the question of how the rulemakers, in a quest for greater control, eventually (and inevitably) cross the line of "lawmaking in good faith" and the corruption that causes loss of faith in the rule of law and the eventual decline of society.

How much do you settle for?

[lilmouse]

How much would you settle for?

--LWM

Urban Legend

[/dev/trash]

That doesn't work.

Re:Urban Legend

[SCHecklerX]

It's worked fine for me. That + being on the do not call list and I don't get pestered any more. An automatic dialler hit me today. No message was left. No followup call.

Good advice.

[elronxenu]

But first, do you want to become a professional litigant? Sure, telemarketers are annoying scum, but it's not so honourable to make a big habit out of suing people, either.

That said, I've sued people and been sued, in the NSW Residential Tribunal, which is like a local court except all the rules and procedures are dumbed down, and the Magistrate has much less power. I have to say it was an awesomely fun experience, but it does take a lot of time. The time spent in court is the least of it - I can understand the people in long court cases where the court case basically becomes their whole life. So, a caveat: don't let it rule you.

My advice is:

• Be in the right. Don't litigate stuff where you are in the wrong, instead work toward a settlement.
• Develop a legal strategy. This is basically the algorithm for your victory.
• Read the law. Lots of it. It's not that hard. Find the law which backs up your argument, and cases where the facts were similar and the judgement was what you wanted, and remember them. Use them to refine your argument. Quote them in court as needed.
• Also read the law which doesn't back up your argument. Does it defeat your argument? Are you going to lose? Don't go into court on a losing proposition.

When I won, the other party didn't pay up. So I learned all about how to have a court's judgement enforced. I got the bulk of the money owed, and eventually settled on the remainder.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[db32]

Hmm, not sure, but I imagine you could still fill up hard drive storage on the systems that accept faxes directly to file.

Is it me...

[binarysins]

Or does this guy really suck in court? I mean, I can understand reading through one of the cases why he lost.

Disposable Phone Numbers

[MarsGov]

I'm in the middle of an open-source project to implement Disposable Phone Numbers to complement my current long list of disposable email addresses. Just like the email addresses, all the phone numbers will point to the same destination, but I can turn them on and off as desired. There are also some commercial services that offer this capability.

I'm also implementing Stop Rude Calls to act as a captcha for incoming calls, but that's a longer-term project.

what PMB's really are

[funkybiggorilla]

"PMB 341" (short for Postal Mail Box).

No PMB stands for Private Mail Box. Postal regulations state that you can no longer claim "341" is a Suite, room, apartment, only a Private Mail Box.

Oh the irony

[farker haiku]

Imagine my surprise when I'm just halfway through the article and I get a call from Bill Clinton asking me to vote tomorrow for the dem running for senate.

Re:Is this guy for real?

[Steve Cowan]

-Pollution is evil if corporations do it, but if you're burning wood in your fireplace, and impacting my life much more, that's okay.

I burn wood in my fireplace to be warm. Big corporations spew filth into the sky to further their financial gains.

-If you kill someone wtih your car, you're on the hook for, what, $200,000? If a UPS driver does it, bump that up to a million.

Um, the liability's the same. What kind of price can you put on a human life? I'd rather keep my loved one than be entitled to a million. But if YOU kill my loved one, and you don't have a million, I don't want to destroy your life too -- so maybe I'll take $200,000. After all, maybe you were just driving to work to keep yourself fed. Maybe you were going to visit a loved one yourself. Maybe UPS could have searched a little harder for better drivers and trained them a bit better, and maybe they could have bought safer vehicles, but that would impact their bottom line.

-If a doctor botches an operation and kills someone, yep, $200,000. But if he has a big evil insurance corporation backing him, meh, they can afford a million or so, right?

Yes.

-If you want to hire someone to fix your toilet, you pay whatever they agree to. But if you're a corporation that wants to hire someoen to regularly fix toilets, well, that's just evil. You're going to have to pay his medical and dental, pay minimum wage, contribute to his social security account, be on the hook for discriminatory lawsuits, etc.

I would hope no plumber would fix my toilet for less than what it costs him to pay his own "minimum wage" and keep his teeth fixed. If he charges me less, I'm getting a bargain, and he's an idiot. Now if I'm a big corporation, how is it any different? It would still cost me less to keep a plumber on my payroll and pay all the aforementioned benefits than it would cost me to hire an independent plumbing contractor for every problem with every pipe.

-If a corporation annoys you to no end with autodialing, SHUT EM DOWN. But if it's "just" a non-profit organization doing the exact same thing, nah, let it slip.

A charitable organization shouldn't waste donation money paying for a call centre full of telemarketers. But using a machine to do the dirty work of calling thousands of people to sell them magazine subscriptions is deplorable.