"do Not Call" List Judge's Phone Number: 405/609-5000

[DWG]

I urge you to call his office every 20 minutes and tell you what you think of his decision to stop the "Do Not Call" list.

MRPLUTO, who for some reason can't log in so had to open a new user account.  

[Chairboy]

Heads up, there are some strong protections in place on the subject of harrassing judges.  Y'all might want to be careful about calling too much.

[udet]

that's why there are public phones!

[Erlkonig]

What do you suppose would be accomplished by tying up the judge's phone line?  If you are serious about fighting the spammers and phone solicitors, you'd use your time to call your representatives in Congress.

[udet]

you're on probation...neah neah neah neah:rofl

[Lazerus]

Seems that judges are legislators lately.

[Dinger]

Bah. Just becuase a judge bars it doesn't necessarily mean the judge is opposed to the law.  Heck, it's often the case that they'll do that just to ensure the SCOTUS deals with it in a relatively final fashion.

[rpm]

Wouldn't this thread and anyone from it who called be considered conspiricy?

[Gunthr]

I encourage anyone to express themselves and call any phone number or go to the website of any public official they choose to contact. That is what they are supposedly here for.    If you have any problems, feel free to contact your..... local official...

[Dead Man Flying]

My understanding is that the judge stopped implementation of the "Do Not Call" list because, by his reading, the Federal Trade Commission did not possess the legal authority to enact regulations governing the telemarketing industry.  Rather, the Federal Communications Commission wields that authority, but it had not exercised it.

If the judge's understanding of the FTC's jurisdiction proves correct, we should applaud him for halting the unauthorized expansion of government authority by the FTC.  So those decrying judicial activism might want to consider that, as a society governed by laws, we must follow those laws despite the occasional setback to our legislative preferences.

In any event, Congress and the Bush administration can easily overcome a technicality like this by either granting the FTC truly legal jurisdiction over telemarketing or by tasking the FCC to implement identical "Do Not Call" standards.  It seems to me a temporary setback at best.  If the judge's reading proves inaccurate, then an appeals court should overrule the decision.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[DWG]

The Federal Trade Commission does have authority over the telemarketing industry.  The FTC is there to protect citizens from misleading or dishonest marketing of all kinds.  Just not harassment, apparently.

The good news is that Congress & the Senate won't have to be prodded to get this taken care of 'cause people are so angry.

By all means, do let the judge how you feel...pro or con.

  MRPLUTO

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by DWG
The Federal Trade Commission does have authority over the telemarketing industry.  The FTC is there to protect citizens from misleading or dishonest marketing of all kinds.  Just not harassment, apparently.

[/B]

What you just described clarifies in my mind exactly why the judge ruled the way he did.  To paint the entire telemarketing industry as misleading or dishonest is a huge stretch.  If you're accurately describing their jurisdiction, then they should not have been the ones attempting to regulate an entire industry rather than just the unsavory elements within it.

The good news is that Congress & the Senate won't have to be prodded to get this taken care of 'cause people are so angry.

[/B]

I imagine any sort of political action on this will occur quickly.  Like I said, the ruling is merely a temporary setback.

By all means, do let the judge how you feel...pro or con.

I'd really rather not participate in a childish exercise toward a judge who may have actually ruled correctly, if not unpopularly.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[FUNKED1]

That number is just the clerk of the court anyways.  You're just going to piss off some middle aged minority woman who had nothing to do with the decision.  Now if you can get the judge's direct line or home number, NOW we are talking.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
My understanding is that the judge stopped implementation of the "Do Not Call" list because, by his reading, the Federal Trade Commission did not possess the legal authority to enact regulations governing the telemarketing industry.  Rather, the Federal Communications Commission wields that authority, but it had not exercised it.

If the judge's understanding of the FTC's jurisdiction proves correct, we should applaud him for halting the unauthorized expansion of government authority by the FTC.  So those decrying judicial activism might want to consider that, as a society governed by laws, we must follow those laws despite the occasional setback to our legislative preferences.

In any event, Congress and the Bush administration can easily overcome a technicality like this by either granting the FTC truly legal jurisdiction over telemarketing or by tasking the FCC to implement identical "Do Not Call" standards.  It seems to me a temporary setback at best.  If the judge's reading proves inaccurate, then an appeals court should overrule the decision.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Your understanding is correct. I was just saying.......

[DWG]

I went to the FTC website and it does more than protect consumers from fraud.  The website says:

"The Telemarking Sales Rule prohibits deceptive sales pitches and protects consumers from abusive, unwanted, or late-night sales calls." [emphasis mine]

For more:  http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/general/guidetoftc.htm

So I think the FTC is within it rights to set up the "Do Not Call" registry.



MRPLUTO