California Judge Routes Campaign Robocalls Through Colorado

Thomas Hawk writes "Victoria Kolakowski, a current sitting law judge at the California PUC, is running for Alameda Superior Court judge in California. As part of her campaign she is robodialing people in California with a pre-recorded message. The only problem is that in Califorina robodials are actually illegal unless first introduced by a non-recorded natural person who gains consent to play the call. Ironically, the agency set up to protect our privacy and enforce this law, the California PUC, is the very agency where Kolakowski works today. Kolakowski originally apologized for the calls but then later deleted messages on her Facebook account from people objecting to her use of these calls. Now Kolakowski is trying to argue that because 'technically' she is routing her calls through Colorado from outside the state that her robodials are actually legal."

Comments

go figure.

[Sir_Lewk]

Politician thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Re:go figure.

[DigiShaman]

Oh ya, without question. This level of hypocrisy is as old as civilization itself. My only question is this. Just how much more of this BS are people willing to take. People, cities, states, nations. You would think there would be an eventual breaking point, yes? It couldn't come sooner to spank these bastards out of office!

Re:go figure.

[msobkow]

Call centers are our main customers at my current job. You wouldn't believe how creative people get, trying to bypass the laws that restrict use of certain dialing technologies (robo-dialers, predictive dialers, progressive dialers, etc.) As a software provider we have to implement options that support those legal restrictions, but a huge number of clients want to know how to disable those features because they've come up with a creative reason why the law doesn't apply to them. We advise them not to do it, but in the end, it's the call center that's in control.

Re:go figure.

[BattleApple]

The use of such a device by any person, either individually or acting as an officer, agent, or employee of a person or corporation operating automatic dialing-announcing devices, is subject to this article.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=85394713794+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

2872(d) lists exemptions.. I don't see anything regarding political messages

Re:go figure.

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Her later actions make it appear she is unable to admit when she has made an error. Just the kind of person you don't want sitting on the bench.

Re:go figure.

[ultranova]

You would think there would be an eventual breaking point, yes?

And when that is reached, you get a revolution, which usually ends up putting even nastier people in power, since a revolution temporarily suspends the rule of law, giving the advantage to ruthless people since there's no longer anyone capable of reining them in.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't stop playing. The game is stacked against you from the very laws of thermodynamics to the notion of "corporate personhood".

Re:go figure.

[green1]

Politician thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Where I live, they're right. All telemarketing and Robo-calling laws in Canada have specific exceptions for political campaigns...

Of course as soon as I get one from a candidate I immediately remove them from my list of parties to vote for in that election...

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Full law shows lots of wiggle room - go figure:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=02001-03000&file=2871-2876 (parent link is blank)

Jurisdiction opening:

"2872. (a) The connection of automatic dialing-announcing devices to a telephone line is subject to this article and to the jurisdiction, control, and regulation of the commission."

Allowance for calling an organization's members (political parties?):

"2872. (d) This article does not prohibit the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device by any person exclusively on behalf of any of the following: (2) An exempt organization under the Bank and Corporation Tax Law (Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) for purposes of contacting its members."

This looks like the biggest exception:

"2872. (f) This article does not apply to any automatic dialing-announcing device that is not used to randomly or sequentially dial telephone numbers but that is used solely to transmit a message to an established business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with the person using the automatic dialing-announcing device to transmit the message, or to any call generated at the request of the recipient."

Re:go figure.

[Thomas Hawk]

I was the one that Kolakowski robodialed. I am not an "established business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with" her, therefore this exception would not apply to her. If you want to try and argue that the same political party would constitute an "established" relationship (which is a total stretch) then in order to be of my same party, Kolakowski would have to be a registered Libertarian like I am. I doubt she is. But here again, if political party affiliation was enough, then couldn't someone who was a Democrat simply robodial all of the Democrats in California with an unsavory auto warranty scam phone call? As I read this law there is no wiggle room at all. She is breaking the law and she should admit it, apologize and pledge not to use robodialers in the state of California in the future. If she'd like to use them then she needs to work to change the laws in the State to allow them, rather then simply ignore a law that she doesn't like or that is inconvenient for her. But even if she can find some wiggle room or some minor technicality to skate by the intent of this law, certainly the ethical thing for a candidate for judge to do would be to abide by the spirit of the law which is to stop these annoying and harassing cals in the State of California.

Re:go figure.

[faedle]

Interesting.

Isn't the stance of the Libertarian party that such laws are a violation of people's freedom of speech and "robocalls" should be legal?

Re:go figure.

[realityimpaired]

You're too generous. I remove them from my list of parties to vote for ever again.... Mr. Harper and his cronies have been the only ones stupid enough to try it, though....

here's a clue, politicos: if my vote is worth courting, then it's worth having a human do it. it's patently insulting that you think it's ok to have a computer dial my phone number. more than that: it's illegal. I only have one phone number, and it's a cellular phone. exemptions for political and charity organizations don't include cellular phones.

Re:go figure.

[berzerke]

I do this too. The problem is when all the candidates in a particular race have called me, and this happens quite often. I can't do a write in. The best I can do is not vote for anyone in that race, which doesn't really send any message. Ugggh!!!

Re:go figure.

[MillionthMonkey]

Are you trying to imply that being a voter would have any relevance here?

Re:go figure.

[Imrik]

Just make sure the call is from the candidate they're advocating and not their opponent. I don't know about Canadian law but US political campaign calls are required to state who sponsored it. Unfortunately that notice is at the very end meaning you have to listen to the whole thing.

Re:go figure.

[erroneus]

Politics may be "business" for politicians, but constituents will likely disagree with that position as would nearly any court of law... unless, of course, she gets elected and that particular court of law would likely agree with that perspective.

In the end, she is charged not with interpreting the law, but enforcing it. She broke the very law she was charged with enforcing. She should be removed from her current position by firing and not allowed to step down or resign. As to whether or not she should be elected? That's up to the people, but I think she should be tarred and feathered.

Re:go figure.

[Thomas Hawk]

could I robodial all California voters with a warranty scam? Would that be legal under the California law?

Re:go figure.

[Thomas Hawk]

I have no idea how the Libertarian party feels about robo calls. But me personally, I hate them. The Libertarian party best represents most of my major politica views though.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

But even if she can find some wiggle room or some minor technicality to skate by the intent of this law,

Like acquiting herself? Having not redacted herself from the case, obviously.

Re:go figure.

[micheas]

...or other person having an established relationship with the person...

The established relationship is voter, candidate.

The biggest problem is that she couldn't figure this out, and made up some BS about it being out of state having something to do with anything.

So, the call was a) unethical, b) legal, c) the judge is an idiot that doesn't know the law so should not be returned to the bench.

Re:go figure.

[pipedwho]

The established relationship is voter, candidate.

That would be like saying that a spammer/customer relationship is satisfied by the fact that the spammer was selling toilet paper and the recipient was a user of toilet paper.

As a vendor of toilet paper, I may be free to spam my existing customer base, but I'm not free to spam yours (or any other potential customers that aren't already engaging me an existing and ongoing relationship).

With that in mind, even if we could assume that just by the fact that a voter voting for her automatically satisfies the requisite relationship criteria, there is still no way for her to know who voted for her and who voted for another candidate.

Re:go figure.

[bigstrat2003]

I'm guessing (based upon general libertarian principles, not knowledge of the Libertarian party's stance) that they would be opposed to a blanket ban on robocalls on the grounds you state. I would also guess that they would very much support the do-not-call list applying to all unsolicited calls (correct me if I'm wrong, but right now political calling is exempt), as people should have the right to be free of harassment if they choose.

So I would guess that technically you're right that they think such calls should be legal, but in practice their ideal rules would make them illegal anyway, just via different means.

Re:go figure.

[micheas]

The established relationship is voter, candidate.

That would be like saying that a spammer/customer relationship is satisfied by the fact that the spammer was selling toilet paper and the recipient was a user of toilet paper.

As a vendor of toilet paper, I may be free to spam my existing customer base, but I'm not free to spam yours (or any other potential customers that aren't already engaging me an existing and ongoing relationship).

With that in mind, even if we could assume that just by the fact that a voter voting for her automatically satisfies the requisite relationship criteria, there is still no way for her to know who voted for her and who voted for another candidate.

The judge is going to be hired or not hired based in part on Thomas Hawks vote.

If someone has the ability to fire you, you have a relationship with them.

Unfortunately for the judge, this was like someone calling when the application page says do not call about this job.

You can do it, you are not going to get hired.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to think an enterprising telco would stand up as the "spam free" carrier, and block calls similar to how gmail filters email. If it truly was what people wanted then there would be demand, and other telco's would follow suit.

Re:go figure.

[KiloByte]

No, this is where the bastard's right to swing their fists (or spew spam) meets your face. Robocalls do infringe on your freedom as they force you to do something you don't want (listen to drivel). Free speech is good only as long as no one is forced to listen to you.

Any person should be able to make a public speech. No one should be able to make a speech ON YOUR PROPERTY without your consent.

Re:go figure.

[mcgrew]

She is breaking the law and she should admit it, apologize and pledge not to use robodialers in the state of California in the future.

No, she shoud be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't get out of a traffic ticket by apologizing and promising not to do it again. And the people of your state should vote this person out of office. Judges and police officers should be held to a stricter standard than civilians.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect this would fall into a gray area for most Libertarians (like me). While natural law rights (free speech for example) are very important, so are property rights, so someone hijacking my phone with voice-spam could go either way. It would be logical for a Libertarian to assert that voice-spam is "an initiation of force" against me and my property (my phone), so I don't think there's any inconsistency.

Re:go figure.

[Thomas Hawk]

If my warranty scam was not perpetrating fraud and was just a simple auto warranty robocall, exemplitying neither force nor fraud could I as a California business blast the hell out of millions of California homes with a robodial?

Re:go figure.

[superdave80]

You think the robocaller will get offend if we revoke its freedom of speech?

Re:go figure.

[plawson]

Judges should not be forced to be politicians. If judges were appointed rather than elected they would be less influenced by big money and the judicial system would be more fair.

Re:go figure.

[OrangeTide]

And in a Libertarian utopia I could start a phone company where robodialing violated the terms of service and refuse to accept or route such calls. Then customers would flock to my robo-unfriendly business. And because I'm a private company, I would not be forced to comply with rights to free speech.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

yes, yes I was. I was tired.

Re:go figure.

[Rakarra]

You're too generous. I remove them from my list of parties to vote for ever again.... Mr. Harper and his cronies have been the only ones stupid enough to try it, though....

here's a clue, politicos: if my vote is worth courting, then it's worth having a human do it. it's patently insulting that you think it's ok to have a computer dial my phone number. more than that: it's illegal. I only have one phone number, and it's a cellular phone. exemptions for political and charity organizations don't include cellular phones.

Hmmm. Am I the only person who actually prefers a robo-call? They're far easier to hang up on.

The downside is that they do leave answering machine messages, while a normal charity/political caller usually doesn't.

Re:go figure.

[Sir_Lewk]

They're far easier to hang up on.

How do you figure? Hanging up a phone is hanging up a phone, it's not like you need to ask the other party for their permission.

Vote

[Local ID10T]

Well, now we know who not to vote for...

Re:Vote

[noidentity]

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well

Re:Vote

[couchslug]

"Well, now we know who not to vote for..."

And whose story to forward throughout teh intarwebs so this becomes the only thing the bitch is known for.

Re:Vote

[bugi]

We know her election would benefit those who can afford lawyers to parse the law to the point it is meaningless.

Re:Vote

[TheSpoom]

Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.

Re:Vote

[mysidia]

There are plenty of people left when you rule out scumbags, and lowlifes.

However, the people left have basically no chance of getting elected, and you'd waste your vote.

The vast majority of such people are not running for office.

Who (other than a scumbag/lowlife) would want to get elected and have to work with scumbags and lowlifes, anyways?

Re:Vote

[WillDraven]

However, the people left have basically no chance of getting elected, and you'd waste your vote.

Geez, will everybody stop saying that already? How are you NOT throwing away your vote by voting for a scumbag? Vote for the person you believe will do the job best. We're never going to break the two party duopoly unless we stop throwing our hands up and saying "well what can we do?"

VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY.

Re:Vote

[michaelhood]

Oh well <flips coun>

Poor coun. :(

Re:Vote

[noidentity]

I sure am. Next time I vote, I'll write in "Third Party". Not sure who this is, but they sound good.

Re:Vote

[berzerke]

It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.- E. Debs

Re:Vote

[frdmfghtr]

Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.

It would seem to me that this would be a good use of the Internet. To start: if California voters form a Facebook group calling attention to this, that would start the word spreading. Groups are formed for all sorts of nonsensical things (like the perpetual hoax that Facebook will soon start charging a monthly fee), this robo-calling is something that is real.

A YouTube video clip calling attention to it would be another route. Tweet and re-tweet it via Twitter. Blog about it. Post to other online forums. Heck, email your friends and relative that are affected by this. Contact the candidate directly and confront her about it.

It's a little, but it's a start.

Re:Vote

[selven]

Hey, there's lots of reasonable, honest candidates out there, and you could be among the 927 people voting for one in the next election!

Re:Vote

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Ooh, ooh, I know! We get someone who has access to robodialing equipment who does NOT live in California ...

Re:Vote

[mr_walrus]

in fact, robocall all your friends and contacts about this problem! :)

Re:Vote

[hockeyc]

But look just how much she's into the letter of the law, she'd make a great judge! :/

Re:Vote

[Rakarra]

Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.

Maybe if this was a US congressional election, that might make the case. But this is an alameda county court judge position -- the total number of votes cast for one candidate or the other is extremely small. You don't need that large of a "protest vote" to tip the scales.

Why!?

[91degrees]

How stupid is she?

Honestly, It's not so much about the legality of it. It's the negative publicity. These things are illegal because people find them really really irritating. If you're trying to hawk holidays or something then you probably haven't heard of the company in the first place, so even if you go with someone else they haven't lost anything but for a candidate in an election, a vote for the another party is another vote they have to make up for elsewhere.

Re:Why!?

[v1]

Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.

Re:Why!?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.

It's really no surprise.
Finding loopholes to circumvent the intent of the law is practically the definition of a lawyer.
Most judges are former lawyers.

Re:Why!?

[butlerm]

She is unethical and a bit of a hypocrite at the very least. Clearly the law needs to be amended to eliminate the loophole, but she is violating the intent of the law in spades. For a judge, that is unconscionable.

Re:Why!?

[v1]

I thought judges were rehabilitated lawyers?

Re:Why!?

[xous]

Haha
I got this call from this fuckwit trying to sell a mayor for the local city.
"I'm calling to tell you what is running for Mayor for ... Would you let me know how you plan to vote?"
"Well, thanks to this call I know I certainly will not vote for . And you can go fuck yourself for wasting my time."

Yes, I'm an ass. These fuckers wake me up and I have absolutely no respect for them.

If I'm a good mood they get to "Hi, I'm calling from xxxx..." before I say "go fuck youself" and hang up.

Re:Why!?

[X0563511]

Imagine if you sounded just like that. That would be hell.

Hi, I'm calling from... the hospital, your mother is sick. Shit.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[meerling]

So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

I guess

[DaMattster]

Pfffffttt, Judges are above the law. I hate that!

Re:I guess

[AnonymousClown]

Pfffffttt, Judges are above the law. I hate that!

If you''re not Judge, Cop, member of Congress, or the President; you're little people. Unless, you're the big shot that's funds their campaigns then you own their ass. So I guess that makes members of my list slightly larger people or something.

Re:I guess

[bky1701]

Come on! Everyone knows that isn't true.

You forgot the governors, CEOs, religious leaders, military, and people from countries we like (not our own).

Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not in California, start your robodialers!

Contact:

Kolakowski for Judge 2010 (FPPC No. 1324175)

285 Hanover Avenue, #1

Oakland, California 94606-1260

(510) 465-2988

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[AnonymousClown]

As a revenge fantasy (I'm afraid that I'd get in trouble because I'm not a big shot businessman or politician), I thought of writing a Python script that would use the modem and call and leave a message.

The logic would be:

1. Wait for dial tone.
2. Dial.
3. Wait so many seconds for answering machine
4. Play wave file. - repeatedly until hang up.
5. Go to 1.

And just let it run.

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[sponga]

I believe we had those things called 'wardialers' back in the AOL kiddie days when progs were coming out left and right to do stupid mischievous behavior , I probably got them sitting on a floppy somewhere deep in a drawer and they probably are still compatible today.

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[biryokumaru]

Drop the modem and implement it as a Skype plug in...

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[michaelhood]

I'll just leave this here: http://public.ifbyphone.com/services/voice-broadcasting

Elected judges = bad idea

[OnePumpChump]

That's the source of zero tolerance for (not really a problem) and tough on (convenient scapegoat). You also get judges becoming corrupt and unethical in ways that would otherwise only apply to legislators and executives. Like this.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Because our federal court system is a paradigm of integrity and obedience to the rule of law.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[dkleinsc]

Yes and no.

Elected judges do run into these sorts of problems, because they're elected officials with all the baggage that carries. On the other hand, appointed judges for life are accountable to practically nobody, and in areas that have them tend to be the appointer's law partner (or other associate).

In short, they both suck, and for different reasons. And no one's figured out a good alternative to one of the two methods.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[Haeleth]

That's a false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to have unelected judges who can still get fired.

You're also making the assumption that being appointed for life inevitably leads to corruption. You provide no evidence to support this. Indeed, there are plenty of counterexamples, such as the Supreme Court, where justices are appointed for life precisely to reduce the risk of corruption -- and it appears to work pretty well.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[shentino]

They can get fired, it's called impeachment.

Problem is they can only be fired by the same corporate shills we supposedly DO elect.

Where is the FCC and DOJ on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.

Can we get a lawyer in here?

Re:Where is the FCC and DOJ on this?

[im_thatoneguy]

Can we get a lawyer in here?

Hi, my name is Victoria Kolakowski, I used to be an attorney but am now a Judge in the state of CA. After thoroughly reviewing your claims I am confident in saying this person has broken no crimes.

Re:Where is the FCC and DOJ on this?

[micheas]

Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.

Can we get a lawyer in here?

IIANAL but the CA elections code only bans taking the voter roles out of the country, a wobbler carrying a three year sentence.

if you ever want to be a politician

[circletimessquare]

you first need the character attribute of massively blind hypocrisy

this applies to the right, and the left

"do as i say, not as i do" must be your highest credo

then you are a guaranteed success

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[MightyMartian]

They'd get you on Interstate commerce laws. You were part of a conspiracy to transport the bullet across state lines.

FTFY

[copponex]

Person thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Hypocrisy isn't restricted to politics. It's just easier to see in people other than yourself.

Re:FTFY

[obarthelemy]

Indeed, but seeing a politician break the law is like seeing a doctor smoke, a priest rape a kid, my parents doing it, a cop assaulting someone... it just hurts more.

Re:FTFY

[knarf]

a priest rape a kid, my parents doing it, a cop assaulting someone

Something is not right with our society's morals... This line should be part of a psychological test, 'which of these does not belong'.

Did your parents truly commit a crime in conceiving you? I can understand that you do not relish the prospect of observing them in the act but to compare it to the actions of the pope's minions or police violence is a bit overboard.

AZ judicial nominating commissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in AZ, one thing they got right was to appoint judges, which cuts out most of this type of campaigning crap. The list of appointees from which the governor chooses is drawn up by the judicial nominating commission, a bipartisan body that consists of lawyers AND nonlawyers. This allows a consensus to be reached as to who is at least _competent_ enough to be appointed. After 2 years of serving on the bench, judges face a retention election, and every 6 years thereafter they are up for another retention election. Usually, the only time the retention elections receive much public attention is when a judge has gone off the deep end in some respect and faces being dumped by the voters. IANAL, but many law professionals around the country hold the AZ judicial appointment process in very high regard, as it produces quality appointments without most of the partisan garbage present in judicial elections.

Disbar that spamming bitch.

[jcr]

We do not need weasels on the bench, or acting as officers of the court in any capacity. This woman is a disgrace to her profession.

-jcr

I'm in California

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

For the last week or two I've frequently received three robocalls a day. I'd say this law's effectiveness is on par with the hands-free laws.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[AnonymousClown]

So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

Only if the bullet passes through yet another state.

I saw it on a documentary on Hulu. Funny this is, it's a cartoon so I think it's a legal thing for kids.

Re:I thought this was legal for political messages

[gyrogeerloose]

I never knew this was illegal. My phone has been ringing non-stop for three weeks in the evenings.. And I'm in California.

Same here--I'm also a Californian and I get a boatload (bot-load?) of robocalls from candidates and advocates on all sides of every issue before each election. I had no idea that they were illegal here.

I'm not defending Kolakwski by any means, I hate robocalls and hang up immediately whenever I get one, but she's not really doing anything that a lot of other people are doing.

Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[QuietLagoon]

I am still trying to understand why anyone seems to think that annoying people with robocalls is the way to garner support from those people.

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[rtfa-troll]

Because. It. Works. .

(unfortunately the use of my Slashdot signature is suspended for this posting; )

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[QuietLagoon]

Because. It. Works. .

.
I think there are multiple reasons:

1. candidates, due to their egos, think that any contact with potential voters is always positive, i.e., they think that people want to hear from the candidates via robo-calling.
2. robo-calling is cheap to do
3. there is no evidence that it really works or does not work, so items (1) and (2) are operative.

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[Blakey Rat]

4. The only people with (plugged-in) landline phones are elderly, lonely people. They appreciate someone "to talk to," even if they are just a tape recorder.

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[Thomas Hawk]

except that she called me on my cell phone. on a Sunday afternoon during my son's baseball game.

Wipe em off the fucking ballot already

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't even obey the rules of the campaigns, then revoke their right to even run!

Oath breakers SUCK

Republicans fascists!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

Wait a second........she's a Democrat. Never mind.

http://california.evoter.com/kolakowski

Politicians

[DrugCheese]

You can't live with them ... ... what do we do with them?

Re:Politicians

[sjames]

Chain them up in parks so the pigeons don't soil the statues...

Elected judged

[quacking duck]

Judges and law enforcement officials in Canada aren't elected. They're appointed by our elected officials, and I'm more than happy they're focused on their actual jobs and not wasting months every few years shilling for votes based on overblown high profile cases.

Judges cannot be counted on to do there jobs properly if they're worried a controversial decision which upholds the current laws, but is hugely unpopular with the voting public, will cost them their job.
     

Re:Elected judged

[sycorob]

Do you guys not have issues with judges/sheriffs/etc being the buddies of the elected officials? The supposed advantage of having these officials elected is that you can boot them if they're not doing their job.

John "Heckuva job" Brown was appointed by Bush, and that didn't work out great.

Re:Elected judged

[Fantastic Lad]

One way of dealing with such problems in smaller towns is to let the Federal police do the work; that is, RCMP officers, when they get the job, are shipped off across country to another province where they serve a term. This way, they don't know anybody and are able to do their job without bias.

It's not an ideal solution, but it certainly serves to cut down on small town corruption. I've had my share of encounters with RCMP officers, and I always come away really impressed by their behavior. I knew a girl once who had gotten into in some trouble; it wasn't her fault, but she was a foreigner and was terrified; in her home country dealing with the cops meant you were basically going to be shaken down by a state-funded gang. I assured her that this wasn't the case in Canada, at least not that I'd ever seen. The officer came, was really supportive and calm and everything was taken care of in a really professional and competent manner. After the officer left, she turned to me with tears in her eyes and she said "I love Canada." That was a good example, and I warned her that Canada wasn't perfect; we have plenty of stupid here as well, but we certainly did have some good law enforcement and emergency workers. Part of it is that they are quite well paid. Starting salaries at the RCMP are pretty big.

Larger cities, by contrast, employ local law enforcement and hire from the resident populations, but cities being bigger entities have a lot more anonymity simply due to their size. There is, of course, still the danger of corruption and bad apples. And 9-11 left its mark of stupid paranoia here as well, but on the whole we seem to do pretty well compared to other places.

-FL

Re:Elected judged

[quacking duck]

I believe you mean Michael Brown, and he was removed from his post far faster than if he had been elected to it.

While appointments can be abused (there is a debate over our unelected senate, which is a room full of patronage appointments from whichever party's in power when a position is filled), my take is that those positions should not be elected posts because they do not represent you, they (judges, attourney generals, etc) represent the state. In Canada, this means the only positions up for election are municipal, provincial or federal representatives, as well as local school board trustees (since they *do* represent your ward in matters of public education).

It's supposed to be the elected officials' jobs to determine the best candidate for a position. You do not elect the US military commander in Iraq, for instance; that's the president or congress' job, iirc. And while there will be ambitions to advance the ranks internally (as there will anywhere else), we won't have things like the Duke rape case, where the DA was making an obvious election play that thankfully backfired on him

Don't get me wrong, our system's not perfect either, but in this particular area I think the US system is more flawed than ours.

Re:Elected judged

[mcgrew]

John "Heckuva job" Brown was appointed by Bush, and that didn't work out great.

Bush was elected by the voters, and that didn't work out too great, either.

Not really true that...

[denzacar]

And no one's figured out a good alternative to one of the two methods.

A good alternative was figured out long ago. Genetically engineered and cloned judges.
It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Not really true that...

[biryokumaru]

I'd vote for JFK's clone.

Re:Not really true that...

[denzacar]

I'd vote to have Marilyn Monroe cloned.

Re:Not really true that...

[meerling]

Judge Dredd, he's tough but completely fair and unprejudiced.

And in the other direction...

[msauve]

in my past life, I worked for a company responsible for the stuff used to create/implement "touch-tone hell."

When will organizations get a clue - if people don't want to be called, you're only going to piss them off by calling them, and the results will be counter-productive. If you piss me off by making me spend my valuable time going though some poorly designed menu system, only to run into a dead end/disconnect, you can bet that when I do get in touch with a human, I'm going to make sure they get to spend lots of their paid time handling my call.

Re:And in the other direction...

[sumdumass]

I guess they will get the hint when people stop automatically hanging up on them and start burning resources by keeping the person on line for hours then declaring they aren't interested.

For instance, I received a third call from an organization soliciting charitable donation. I have already told this organization to take me off the calling list and any other lists they have with my name or number on it two times (I don't do phone donations). After telling this third guy about being order to remove me from the lists, he promptly explained that he wasn't subject to the do not call registry because they were a charity. Of course the the laws concerning removal from calling lists upon request supersede the DNC registry and are a combination of state an federal laws. Well, after this authoritative answer detailing how the laws don't apply to him, I said "Oh, I didn't know that, then asked him to explain what he was representing. I then asked a crap load of stupid questions to drag out his time on the phone. I think I tied him up for about 20 minutes before he started getting anxious about a large donation. I asked if a manager was available to sit in on the call as I wanted to make sure they understood why I was making the donation. Sure enough, after another 10 minutes or so, I got someone on the phone claiming to be a supervisor. I then explained that because I requested to be taken off the list and all lists they were associated with, their call allowed me to file a formal complain with the public utilities commission of the state and I would be entitled to a $500 award for each of their violations of state law. This happened twice so it would be $1000 total and in lieu of collecting, I am donating this $1000 in spirit by not filing the complaint at that time under the provision that I never be contacted by them or their call center again. The manager attempted to asset they weren't subject to the DNC registry again and I explained that the provisions I am speaking of is under state law and existed long before the Do Not Call registry ever has and referred them to the Ohio public utilities commission and the Ohio office of consumer counsil for further explanation. Little was I aware of at the time that Ohio law allows for $2000 fines to be awarded to the person now.

I never received a call from them again. All in all, I took up about 40 minutes of their time in order to tell them not to call me again or I would take legal action. If everyone, or even 10% of the people did this, it would become economically unfeasible to continue calling people who do not want to be called. And that's without resorting to court or legal actions.

Re:And in the other direction...

[zippthorne]

I'd have been more satisfied if you'd taken the legal action. Also, the laws need to be set up to ding the call center *and* the groups that hire them. It's not enough to just punish the companies using call centers: those specific companies will stop, but the call centers themselves will find someone else to scam into thinking it's a good idea.

Re:And in the other direction...

[xero314]

It would be far more "economically unfeasible" if everyone would just "automatically [hang] up on them." My time is far more valuable than that of the agent on the other end of the phone. If I just hang up on them then I have no time lost and they still have to pay for their dialer (which is often a per call cost). Luckily none of that really matters to me because I only use a cell phone, and since it's still a receiver pays economic system, solicitors are in violation of the law if they call me. I haven't received a legal marketing call in over 5 years (I have received a few scam calls but your not going to stop them until people are smart enough to stop falling for it).

Re:And in the other direction...

[djradon]

good for you.

now if only we had super-smooth AI agents to adopt your technique for us!

Re:And in the other direction...

[sumdumass]

My time is far more valuable than that of the agent on the other end of the phone.

Your time may be valuable to you but it's not as valuable to them unless you make it expensive for them. They already work the costs of the hangup and auto dialer into the fees so you are not making a dent in their bottom line. However, take an employee and put him in a position that he can only make one or two calls an hour with little to no effectiveness and you have essentially changed their entire business model and it will require them to either stop robocalling, take you off the list, or hire more employees and up the costs of the service- most likely to the point it won't be used because of the costs.

Sure, your American Idol is important to you. But do the world a favor and skip a couple hours of TV and make a telemarketing firm's life hell. You will be doing yourself and the country/world a huge favor. And I will be thinking good things about you the next time a telemarketer doesn't call me.

Re:And in the other direction...

[mcgrew]

My dad listens for ten seconds, the quietly lays the phone down. As I don't have a landline, I never get robocalls at home; at work I just hang up.

Re:And in the other direction...

[kimvette]

Here's a solution for the human-made calls: when they call and you see it's a telemarketer, just greet the caller with "Hello, I'd like to speak to you about life insurance. Are you currently covered?" or "Hello, I would like to speak to you about your eternal salvation. Have you received Jesus as your personal savior? They invariably hang up before you finish either question, although one time the telemarketer did stay on the phone for a few seconds after I finished (and didn't say a word), and I could hear typical call center babble in the background.

For the robot calls, listen to the shleil, then if you can select a number to speak to a human, do it and follow through with the above - otherwise, if you can get a real phone number for the assholes, set up asterisk to repeatedly call them to waste their CSRs' time by playing back a message thanking them for the automated calls, and how do they like it? (bonus points for spoofing caller ID like they do)

Sometimes you need to fight fire with fire.

Re:And in the other direction...

[Uncle Rummy]

do the world a favor and skip a couple hours of TV and make a telemarketing firm's life hell.

You know what would be awesome? If somebody were to set up a phone bank to which we could forward telemarketing calls to tie up the agents' time without having to actually stay on the phone feigning interest. It wouldn't have to be too fancy - just a basic IVR that did something like this:

Joe Blow: Hello?
Telemarketer: Hello! My name is Jim and I'm...
Joe Blow: Oh, hi Jim. Can you hold on a sec? I want to forward you to my other phone because I don't like to keep this line tied up. It'll just take a sec.
Telemarketer: Uh, sure, no problem.
[forward to 555-whatever]
[ring ring]
IVR: Thanks for waiting - I really need to keep that other line open. So what can I do for you?
Telemarketer: Oh, uh, as I was saying, my name is Jim and I'm calling on behalf of...
IVR: Oh, oops - can you hold on a second? Somebody's at the door. Be right back, thanks!
Telemarketer: Oh, um... ok
...[random delay between 1 and 5 minutes]...
IVR: Sorry, I'm back. My neighbor Shirley is looking for her dogs again. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Telemarketer: Oh, no problem sir. So, as I was saying, I'm calling on behalf of The Human Fund. We see that you donated...
IVR: Oh, crap. I have to get the roast out of the oven. Can you hold on a sec again? Sorry - thanks!
Telemarketer: Uhhh, ok I guess...
...[random delay]...

...and so on. Surely such a service wouldn't be too terribly expensive or difficult to run these days, would it?

Re:And in the other direction...

[mhajicek]

Great idea. Hey, I have an idea how to market it...

Re:And in the other direction...

[Rakarra]

For God's sake, mod this one up to 11!

I could totally see a service like this being successful.

If nothing else, it would make a classic SNL routine. >_>

Not the only one == Meg Whitman also doing this.

[whoever57]

I just got a robocall that was not compliant with the law (incoming caller-id blocked, no human intro, no phone number given) "by" Mitt Romney on behalf of Meg Whitman.

Who not to vote for: Meg Whitman: also robocalling

[whoever57]

I just received a robocall (no human, no incoming caller-id) in support of Meg Whitman.

And you finally got a woman to call you!

[GravitonMan]

Now your complaining that you finally got a woman to call you? Everyone here keeps talking about how terrible robocalls are. For most of you/us, its the only female who would leave a message on your answering machine.

Especially if the robocall is a "Phonesex Robocall"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlZQ4XZisSk

It's not just this judge

[laing]

I live in California and my phone has been ringing with robocalls about 4 times a day for the past 2 weeks. (There's an election on Tuesday.) I've answered a few of them and listened to the messages left by the rest. NONE of them were introduced by a person. Most of the calls had a caller ID originating in California. A few of them were blocked.

The most annoying feature of these political calls is that there is no way to opt out. The DMA/FTC lists are exempted from political calls and these calls do not even give you a way to tell them not to call you again.

bad publicity .. not

[gearloos]

Unfortunatly, the only people who will care about this(or actually understand the implications of putting a person with such blatant disregard for current laws on the bench) are the ./ popluace. Joe citizen actually doesn't give a rats ass about judges and just clicks off names...usually incumbents, at election time. Sad but true. What we really need is a DA with balls enough to go after this and media (we all know media really owns the government right?) that doesn't have any monetary reason for protecting her. Yes, Media chooses who to ruin... grow up if you don't believe that.

Re:bad publicity .. not

[Eskarel]

If you were talking about some obscure tax law, or privacy law, or election regulation, you'd probably be right. However I think you underestimate how much people hate cold calling and robodialers in particular.

The news media will be perfectly happy to call the judge on this since they know it'll get ratings.

Re: The ultimate solution

[symbolic]

No amount of creativity can defeat my choice to ignore the call.

Hmm...

[sootman]

Now Kolakowski is trying to argue that because 'technically' she is routing her calls through Colorado from outside the state that her robodials are actually legal.

I guess she skipped the day in law school when they covered "the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law."

Re:Hmm...

[stinerman]

She might be on decent legal footing. If robodials are legal in Colorado and illegal in California, whose law is controlling? I'm willing to bet federal law is controlling here.

Now she's got a tougher case because she is commissioning the calls, and she's a California citizen, but if she wasn't this could be a more interesting case.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[magarity]

cali pays $18 billion dollars more in fed taxes than the state receives in federal funds
 
Nope; Let me fix that for you:
 
State governments don't pay a penny in federal income taxes. Citizens within the states pay federal income taxes and then the federal government gives kickbacks to the state governments at non-uniform per-capita rates. California's local politicians just aren't as good at demanding per-capita kickback rates as some of the other states.
 
That whole system is a giant scam on ALL the citizens if you ask me; underperforming state fiscal behavior is rewarded and performance is penalized. The states whose citizens pay more than their state government gets need to send better representatives to the federal government.

Oh Really?

[Greyfox]

In that case all her phone numbers should be robo-dialed 24x7. I'm sure there's somewhere in the world where that's legal...

Ok folks... here's the plan

[corndogg]

I've pretty much given up on incoming calls on the land line at this point and don't give the number out to anyone.

What I need is some sort of small mac based program that answers my land line on the second ring and then plays a random series of chat-bot style queries and responses that I will record in my own voice.

Bonus points if the software can detect pauses from the other caller before playing it's responses. Extra bonus points if the software can detect the asking of a question by the caller. Extra extra bonus points if the software can also record both sides of the call so I can listen to the hilarity later.

Re:Ok folks... here's the plan

[Locke2005]

Isn't it nice that every phone company charges you a couple bucks extra every month for the privilege of NOT having your number listed?

Your chat-bot could backfire when it says "yes" in the wrong place and signs you up for some new service.

Re:Ok folks... here's the plan

[corndogg]

Good Point! No absolute positives in the responses.

Re: The ultimate solution

[X0563511]

My phone has a nice patch available - a whitelist. If you aren't on my contacts list, it automatically goes to voicemail. This can be temporarily disabled.

I have a similar patch installed, and that's simply a blocker-contact (add a number, and it never rings or notifies about calls from that number) as too many unknown contacts legitimately call me.

Or the reverse...

[Mad-Bassist]

If I were running for office, my temptation would be to hire someone to make the most annoying and newsworthy robocalls for my opponents.

So the law only applies to some of us?

[morphotomy]

So Tommy Chong got put in jail because he shipped a bong from somewhere where they are legal to somewhere they are not, and a judge is trying to win reelection by making robocalls from somewhere they are legal to somewhere they are not. Welcome to crazytown.

Is it me?

[JustNiz]

Am I the only one that expects judges to have better moral scruples than this, regardless of the mechanism they use to attain technical legality for illegal actions?

Her continued use of robodial must have done her campaign net damage. Thankfully she outed herself before the vote, proving that she is not only a clueless judge of human character but a corrupt one, in that she will bend the law when it benefits her. A singularly undesireable trait in a judge.

She should be disbarred.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[Locke2005]

If you are in a state that allows firing missiles, then where the missile lands is of no consequence... If you can find a state to stand in where firing guns at people is legal, then according to Kolakowski, you're home free.

In defense of robocalls.

[QuincyDurant]

This judge is a moron. She will lose and deservedly so. But robocalls have both utility and constitutional protection.1. The consumer has a devastatingly powerful remedy--voting against the caller's campaign. 2. James Madison et al did not want the government to suppress speech, which leads to remedy #2--citizens may attempt to repeal the first amendment. 3. The courts have ruled that corporations and billionaires can spend as much as they like in the name of free expression of political opinion. Robocalls are the cheapest possible way to get a political message to voters and therefore grassroots campaigns should not be silenced. 4. Do you think a fine is going to stop Meg Whitman's campaign? Since she has the money and the willingness to buy saturation television throughout the entire state of California not only through election day but for months, even years after the election is over, she is very likely to act first and beg forgiveness later.

Strongest argument against robocalls: The California PUC has banned their use even by politicians without introduction by a live operator. In other words, you may think they are constitutionally protected, but you are not the Supreme Court and might do well to obey current law.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[Rakarra]

cali pays $18 billion dollars more in fed taxes than the state receives in federal funds

Nope; Let me fix that for you:

State governments don't pay a penny in federal income taxes. Citizens within the states pay federal income taxes and then the federal government gives kickbacks to the state governments at non-uniform per-capita rates. California's local politicians just aren't as good at demanding per-capita kickback rates as some of the other states.

It's part of one of the negative side-effects of non-proportional representation. The US Senate, the electoral college, all of these systems designed to give smaller states, or at least states with lower population, more power and more say. That of course means they'll get more money, more influence.. which means that the more populous states will get less money per person in services given.

I still think it's the best system available to us, but sure it has its drawbacks.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[Rakarra]

I say: Fuck you, California, fuck you and your half-cocked, dimwitted and/or corrupted robo-calling judges, and stay the fuck away from OUR state. Go invade Utah or somewhere else.

You seemed to have totally missed the point of the article. The reason why this was done in the first place is that YOUR state allows for these disruptive practices.

Re:Who not to vote for: Meg Whitman: also robocall

[Rakarra]

Even for $80 million, no human would be caught dead making calls for Meg Whitman.

Have you seen her Republican opposition?