Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DWG on September 24, 2003, 06:46:28 PM
-
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. :confused:
-
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.
-
that's why there are public phones!
-
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.
-
you're on probation...neah neah neah neah:rofl
-
Seems that judges are legislators lately.
-
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.
-
Wouldn't this thread and anyone from it who called be considered conspiricy?
-
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...
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.......;)
-
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
-
Originally posted by DWG
So I think the FTC is within it rights to set up the "Do Not Call" registry.
You got all that from one quote on their website? Outstanding! If only the judge had read that.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Sorry, I have to rant some more :mad:
I do think it's important to let this judge know that he was completely wrong. How else can people improve their reasoning skills unless they get feedback, both positive and negative? The FTC would appear to have the right to protect consumers from unwanted sales calls, per the Telemarketing Sales Rule I mentioned above. If not, then it's now okay for telemarketers to call you at any hour of the day!
MRPLUTO
-
That's what lawyers are for: to present both sides of the case in an adversarial manner. If they wanted your opinion, they'd call you as an expert witness.
If you give your unsolicited opinion in a courtroom, it would probably get you hauled off in contempt. So they probably don't want it now either.
This judge isn't elected, so he doesn't care who he pisses off as long as he's interpreting the laws written by your elected officials correctly. If you don't like the way he interprets the law, have your representative amend it.
-
More Ranting!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
More Quotes!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Title 15, Chapter 87, Sec. 6102.-Telemarketing rules a (3)(A)
"The commission shall include in such rules...a requirement that telemarketers may not undertake a pattern of unsolicited telephone calls which the reasonable consumer would consider coercive or abusive of such consumer's right to privacy."
*******
What the judge is objecting to is not that the FTC is prohibiting unwanted sales calls, but that the FTC compiled a list of people who didn't want to be called so that the telemarketers could easily comply with the regulations! :rolleyes:
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by DWG
I do think it's important to let this judge know that he was completely wrong.
[/B]
And I'm sure he'll take the lesson to heart when it comes in a childish, misinformed faux-telemarketing manner. Or, alternatively, perhaps he ruled correctly on this case. Hell, maybe he ruled incorrectly. I (and you too, I'm certain) don't know enough about the merits of the ruling. I think it was Justice Black who once wrote that while it killed him inside to do it, sometimes it was his duty to strike down well-meaning laws that weren't constitutional. They were bad laws for good reasons, but they were bad laws nonetheless.
In this situation, if there's a proper way and an improper way to achieve the same end (regulating telemarketing), then I hope you'd see that we, as a legalistic society, embrace the proper and reject the improper. Either an appeals court will vacate this judge's opinion, or Congress will step in and take the actions necessary to ensure legality.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I think the faux-telephone marketing aspect of the response is appropriate, but in fact there's nothing childish at all with calling a public official to let him or her know what is on a citizen's mind.
*******
Will the judge listen to people's comments?
Probably depends on what you say and how you say it.
Do you think it will change his thinking?
No.
Then why waste time voicing your opinion?
Because, it's important not to remain silent in the face of bad things.
Is this monologue beginning to sound too much like a Donald Rumsfeld press conference?
You bet it is! :D
*******
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by DWG
I think the faux-telephone marketing aspect of the response is appropriate
[/B]
I don't. It's tantamount to punishing the judge for his decision even if that decision was correct on the legal merits. Even if it wasn't, it's an immature knee-jerk reaction.
but in fact there's nothing childish at all with calling a public official to let him or her know what is on a citizen's mind.
[/B]
It's not the what, it's the how.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I'm not interested. I'm busy right now. Click.
That's all you have to do.
Or now, that the "do not call" registry has been nulled, you don't even have to be civil anymore. Just hang up without saying anything. You can identify then by the, "I'd like to speak with (your name.)"
Any legitimate business caller always identifies themself before asking to speak with someone.
Les
-
someone recently published the private number of a guy that owns a telemarketing/spamming business
Needless to say what happened next ;)
-
Leslie, there is more to it than just hanging up. The calls are disruptive, annoying, and sadly, even many established legitimate companies use insincere methods. For example, I've answered the phone many times to have a stranger ask:
"May I speak to the owner of the house?", to which I respond, "Who are you, and why do you want to speak with the owner of the house?"
"Are you the owner of the house, sir? I need to speak to the owner."
"I'm sorry, but who are you to call and start asking these questions? And you do not 'need' to speak to the owner."
By the way, this conversation is real.
Then there's the "courtesy call" excuse for making unsolicited sales calls. American Airlines has used that one on me.
******
Let me guess, Vulcan...the guy got a new number?
MRPLUTO
-
DeadManFlying,
"It's not the what, it's the how", you said. Is it wrong to call and voice one's disapproval? But would it be okay to call and say, "Way to go! Good decision, Judge West!"?
If people want to write him instead of calling, Judge West's address is:
The Honorable Lee R. West
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
MRPLUTO (aka DWG)
-
Does the telemarketers pay for my phonebill? No.
They act like they have a right to call me..They do not
the do not call likst was a excelent idea and it should stay intact..bottom line is..you pay for your own phone and if you dont want to hear someone trying to sell you something thats your right.
Someone give me your address ill get something to sell and come knocking on your door..dont answer..ill stay there and keep knocking till you do and hear my sales pitch..samething with phones...
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Leslie, there is more to it than just hanging up. The calls are disruptive, annoying, and sadly, even many established legitimate companies use insincere methods. For example, I've answered the phone many times to have a stranger ask:
"May I speak to the owner of the house?", to which I respond, "Who are you, and why do you want to speak with the owner of the house?"
"Are you the owner of the house, sir? I need to speak to the owner."
"I'm sorry, but who are you to call and start asking these questions? And you do not 'need' to speak to the owner."
By the way, this conversation is real.
Then there's the "courtesy call" excuse for making unsolicited sales calls. American Airlines has used that one on me.
******
Let me guess, Vulcan...the guy got a new number?
MRPLUTO
Don't be intimidated by these folks. Whether you are the owner of the house is none of their business. It can't be an official call from any authority, such as the police or bank or such. They don't operate that way, to the best of my knowledge.
Who ever said you have to answer personal questions from complete strangers who call you over the telephone? Just say no.
Les
-
Sometimes it pays off to hear them out though. One time I received a call from a man who wanted to speak with my Dad...said he had 10k coming to him. I thought it was another one of those promotional sweepstakes things.
Turned out the caller was passing along news of some sort of will bequest...one of my Dad's friends had left him 10k in his will.
My Dad could hardly believe it, and he was happy at the news of the money and all. And you gotta admit, such things are rare. I didn't know anything about it, and it seemed to be a surprise to my Dad also.
Maybe they were participating in a tontien . Who knows?
Les
-
Erlkonig: What do you suppose would be accomplished by tying up the judge's phone line?
He would force the judge to fall in line or at least make him and his family suffer.
That judge is behaving anti-american. All the other judges have openly discarded the Constitution in favor of political expediency. Why does that one have to stick to it?
miko
-
....amazing
Last night, while waiting for a friend to arrive, I was killing time watching Dan Rather butcher the evening news. Instead of everyone being outraged that we'll still have telemarketers hassling us...CBS News went to great pains to get the boohoo effect...interviewing [grossly] overweight telemarketers who would be out a job if the no call list went into effect.
Leave it to Dan Rather to completely miss the point of view we and others have about telemarketers. I could care less about their emplyment...stop calling us! Respect our wishes!
I mean...ugh...this is just *stooppppid* !
-
anyone find his email address?
-
Whoa, miko! Hold on there!
I don't think calls will "force the judge to fall in line"; I hope they will make him reconsider his ruling and stay it. Also, the number I gave is the main number at the courthouse, not his home number. I have no intention of making his family suffer any more than they already are by having 50,000,000 fellow citizens being really pissed off at their dad/husband! :eek:
MRPLUTO
-
Leslie,
You're right, sometimes it does pay to listen. That's why one can't just hang up at first--you have to make sure it's not a legit call. I'll admit one time I started to get angry at someone who called because the way the call started it sounded like another annoying telemarketer. But the call turned out to be wanted, and I had to apologize.
MRPLUTO
-
So did any of you actually call him? :confused:
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
"It's not the what, it's the how", you said. Is it wrong to call and voice one's disapproval? But would it be okay to call and say, "Way to go! Good decision, Judge West!"?
Stop being obtuse. It's painfully obvious that the point of this thread was to generate overwhelming call volumes to the judge for the purposes of giving him a taste of his own medicine. Why else would you urge that everyone call "every 20 minutes" when just once would suffice?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by SaRCaP
Does the telemarketers pay for my phonebill? No.
They act like they have a right to call me..They do not
the do not call likst was a excelent idea and it should stay intact..bottom line is..you pay for your own phone and if you dont want to hear someone trying to sell you something thats your right.
Someone give me your address ill get something to sell and come knocking on your door..dont answer..ill stay there and keep knocking till you do and hear my sales pitch..samething with phones...
lol
well i pay for my cable
I DONT WANT TO SEE A SINGLE AD ON TV!!!
Now tell me just how much money is it costing you to recieve these calls?
(btw i do think that cell phones should be banded from getting advertising calls. but only becasue it costs you money to answer.)
-
Your comparison between your telephone and your cable service doesn't wash. Last I checked your TV doesn't turn on randomly and start trying to sell you stuff. If some loose their jobs because they are no longer allowed to make unwanted calls to someone's home, then boo hoo. Why do you feel the telemarketers should have the right to bother someone at their home when they don't want to be bothered?
In regard to mobile phones...I don't know if it's because of restraint by telemarketing companies (i doubt it, some couldn't care less about you) or because your mobile # isn't published in any directory, but since I dropped landline service in 2001, I haven't had one unsolicited telemarketing call.
-
I want the government to protect me from these bad folks.
BTW, that hangin up when they call thingie wouldn't be polite.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I want the government to protect me from these bad folks.
Whatever happened to the heady days where government was the problem and not the solution? :(
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
MRPLUTO: I don't think calls will "force the judge to fall in line"; I hope they will make him reconsider his ruling and stay it.
A judge/court is not supposed to to create a policy, solve a problem or make anyone happy. The only function of a judge is to interpret the existing law.
According to his (and mine) understanding of the US Constitution, a federal agency (or even the Congress) just does not have the power to outlaw telemarketing.
If he is right, the regulation is illegal. "Reconsidering his ruling" would be a violation of his duty.
Also, the number I gave is the main number at the courthouse, not his home number.
That was not clear from your post. I guess his family life would not be disrupted. It's the employees of the courthouse and especially the people trying to use the services of the courthouse who will suffer because one of their phone lines is disabled.
It makes as much sense as punishing NYC mayor by blocking the street or brige that I use to drive to work, so thousands of innocent people suffer hours in traffic.
having 50,000,000 fellow citizens being really pissed off...
Half of US citizens are always pissed off about the other half and would like to shut them up. Does not mean a judge should validate a law that violates the Constitutional freedom of speech of the freedom of the press, etc.
Believe me, once the last vestiges of the Constitution are abandoned in US, you will have much bigger problems to worry about than telemarketers calls.
I did not have any problems with telemarketers or intrusive advertising in the Soviet Union.
By the way - the "Do not call" list will work almost as well without the government unconstitutional enforcement as with it. The telemarketers are not trying to harass you. They are trying to make a living by selling you stuff. Unlike e-mail, a phone call and human time are not free.
Instead of "Do not call" list, just treat it as "The list of people who will buy absolutely nothing over the phone".
Trell: Now tell me just how much money is it costing you to recieve these calls?
Not a valid argument. Time is valuable. The fact that he engages in leisure time rather than work means he values it higher than the reward he gets for working - that is if the call does not distract him from actual work. He is loosing value at least equal to his after-tax wage rate. So the loss is quite real.
Does not mean the government has the right to protect us from it but ignoring it is not correct either.
miko
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Whatever happened to the heady days where government was the problem and not the solution? :(
-- Todd/Leviathn
You're supposed to recognize my sharp witted sarcasm...maybe I should start using those cute little smiley thingies.:)
Trust me...I read these boards and wonder what in the world some of these people are thinking and what in thier lives brought them to that same place.
Nothing in my life that was worthwhile or that was the right thing to do, came easy. A large part of the reward, is in the sacrifice. IMO, the goverment should protect our nation from foreign threat and provide an enviroment where all Americans have an opportunity to prosper in relation to the personal effort expended by the same....not prop us up at the cost of destroying drive and ambition along with the hard work necessary to achieve success.
As far as I'm concerned, if I get solicited at home, I'll just hang up or use this wonderful feature my local phone company provides....call blocker.
I have a fairly large tenant who is a call center....this legislation has hurt them and in turn will hurt my cashflow....all because some folks can't deal with a phone call....kinda silly me thinks.:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
You're supposed to recognize my sharp witted sarcasm...maybe I should start using those cute little smiley thingies.:)
[/b]
I know... I was complementing your post, not attacking it. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by miko2d
According to his (and mine) understanding of the US Constitution, a federal agency (or even the Congress) just does not have the power to outlaw telemarketing.
[/B]
If telemarketers call you from out of state, the chances are very good that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution empowers Congress to regulate. My understanding is that the judge's ruling was much more narrow than what you're indicating here, arguing that the FTC's administrative mandate did not include jurisdiction over telemarketing. Instead, such jurisdiction fell under the FCC which had not issued "Do Not Call" regulations.
So really it's a technicality rather than a constitutional crisis. Few seem to doubt that Congress can regulate telemarketing (whether or not you normatively agree with that fact), but Congress must pass technically correct legislation in order pass muster in the courts.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Lately, one of the telemarketers' techniques has been to ask me which credit card I want to use to activate my account..when I haven't gotten a word in edgewise. I tell them to mail me the information, and I will think about their proposal. They won't do that. They say, to get mailed info, I have to be signed up first.
They actually expect me to give my credit card number over the phone to someone who calls out of the blue, wanting to sell me something I already told them I wasn't interested in.
What the hell is this? I was thinking about posting something about it a while back, but said, nawwww. In your opinion, since we're talking about the subject, is this something that should be reported to the bunko squad? Or is it sop nowadays, for telemarketing companies to be this agressive?
Les
-
DeadManFlying,
Sorry to be obtuse; I hate that too. I didn't think that I was concealing my intent to send lots of disapproving calls the judge's way. I suppose I could have said, "Everyone one of you 50,000,000 who signed up should call Judge West". The intent and result would have been the same.
And about "giving him a taste of his own medicine", well yes, there is a certain perverse glee in being able to call him to complain about annoying phonecalls.
*******
I think the government is simultaneously the problem & solution. It's a yin-yang thing.
*******
miko,
Guess what? Commercial speech is not protected speech under the first amendment! The government does have the right to prohibit, limit, and regulate telemarketing.
Reconsidering his ruling is not a "violation of his duty". He can, and is being encouraged to, put a hold or "stay" on it.
MRPLUTO (aka DWG)
-
Dead Man Flying: ...the chances are very good that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution empowers Congress to regulate.
Which for the writers of Constitution ment "make regular, remove obstacles". How do you regulate something that is banned?
My understanding is that the judge's ruling was much more narrow than what you're indicating here,
May well be true. Anyway, his ruling was made based on his interpretation of laws - whichever ones. He does not have a power to ignore the laws because some people want to. If people have problems with the laws, they should press the Congress to change, create or revoke them - in accordance with the Constitution, of course.
arguing that the FTC's administrative mandate did not include jurisdiction over telemarketing. Instead, such jurisdiction fell under the FCC which had not issued "Do Not Call" regulations.
It is not related to the current discussion, but I dare you to show me where in the Constitution does the Congress is granted power to delagate law-making (or taxing) to agencies and unelected officials?
Only congress has the power to tax and to create laws. Any agency's regulaton that was not voted on on the floor of Congress is unconstitutional. Any judicial order mandating a localty to provide some services (public education) for which taxes should be collected is also unconstitutional.
Not that anyone seem to care...
miko
-
Miko, these regulations were voted on by Congress and passed.
In January of 2001 Congress enacted the "Do Not Call Implementation Act", authorizing funding for the FTC's "Do Not Call" registry. (AdAge.com)
Previously, in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Congress had authorized establishment of a national "Do Not Call" registry.
Just type "Congress Do Not Call List" into a Google search and you'll find a bunch of links confirming this.
MRPLUTO
-
Leslie--Those people who start talking about your credit card right away are most certainly crooks! :(
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Which for the writers of Constitution ment "make regular, remove obstacles". How do you regulate something that is banned?
[/B]
Like it or not, the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause has grown substantially since the 18th century. The New Deal Supreme Court cases which culminated in the "Switch in Time That Saved Nine" (a misnomer IMO, but whatever) granted sweeping congressional authority over interstate commerce.
Clearly one aspect of regulation includes banning (e.g. banning unsafe meat packing practices), and the telemarketing regulations do not represent an outright ban in any event. Telemarketing firms may still cold call consumers so long as they have received compliance. Lately that has meant offering free promotions through the mail (like a free music CD or picnic basket), the acceptance of which then authorizes telemarketing firms to contact that household regardless of its presence on the "Do Not Call" registry.
May well be true. Anyway, his ruling was made based on his interpretation of laws - whichever ones. He does not have a power to ignore the laws because some people want to. If people have problems with the laws, they should press the Congress to change, create or revoke them - in accordance with the Constitution, of course.
[/B]
I agree completely, and this has been the crux of my entire argument in this thread.
Only congress has the power to tax and to create laws. Any agency's regulaton that was not voted on on the floor of Congress is unconstitutional. Any judicial order mandating a localty to provide some services (public education) for which taxes should be collected is also unconstitutional.
Not that anyone seem to care...
You do realize that Congress voted on and passed "Do Not Call" legislation, right? Basically, the House and the Senate passed legislation authorizing the FTC to draw up "Do Not Call" guidelines, and then they later passed legislation accepting the FTC's authority to implement such legislation once the guidelines were presented to them.
Go to THOMAS Legislative Information on the Internet (http://thomas.loc.gov) for more information on the legislation dealing with the "Do Not Call" registry. Specifically look up H.R. 395, S. 1654, and H.R. 3161.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Breaking News:
The House of Representatives has just voted 412 - 8 in favor of some bill making it clear to everyone that they approve of the FTC's "Do Not Call" registry.
MRPLUTO
-
You are right, guys, I was speaking speculatively. I did not know the details of the case - which particular law the judge found in conflict with the new one and whether he was honest or influenced or whatever.
I just wanted to point out that whatever his decision, a judge is not supposed to change it based on public reaction or perceived public welfare.
The only recourse is to write a better law or appeal his decision in a higher court.
miko
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I know... I was complementing your post, not attacking it. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]
and I was only ribbing you because you steeeel my kills in the MA:)