You're on the "Do Not Call List", and a Telemarketer Calls. Is it Blackmail...

[MRPLUTO]

...if you tell him, "This call is illegal, and you can be fined $10, 000 for making it.  But I won't report you to the Feds if you agree to send me a check for only $5,000."

My guess is that it would be completely legal to suggest such a deal, but would a company actually take it?  I doubt it, but who knows.  I guess it depends on whether the Feds are serious about enforcing the law.  They cerainly were the other day when they fined AT&T $780,000 for only 78 calls.  Ouch.

There have been people who were able to collect about $1,000 per illegal call after specifically telling the company not to call.  They kept very careful records of with whom they spoke, when, and what was said.

 

MRPLUTO

[Dinger]

Sounds more like extortion.
And yeah, it's illegal.  As a telemarketer, I'd take the $10,000 bath just to nail you for that.
And they will have the call on tape.

[NUKE]

Dinger is a telemarketer? Shame shame shame.

[NUKE]

Not that it is related to this thread, but I'm listening to John Lennon singing "Julia" right now.

What a voice....much better than some telemarketer

[Dinger]

"Howdy NUKE, this is Buck from Rebel Yell Credit Services. Y'all have been preselected for a Rebel Yell Visa with a one-time introductry APR of 1.9%. The card comes with your choice of background -- either a bald eagle with a tear in its eye, or the more traditional stars and bars of the Confederacy. Give me a call at 1-888-867-5309 right away!"

Yeah, that's my voice.  The secret is out.

[NUKE]

"I don't mind you coming here and wasting all my time"

Cars.

Hehe

[mrblack]

I love this new LAW
butterIN Tele terroist:D

[ra]

I don't think it is illegal to use a threat of a lawsuit to get money out of someone.   It is the equivalent of settling out of court.   It wouild have to be written up in a contract to be enforceable though.  In fact if you did sue, and if you had the facts on your side, they would probably just offer you a quick payoff, less than $10,000.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by ra
I don't think it is illegal to use a threat of a lawsuit to get money out of someone.   It is the equivalent of settling out of court.   It wouild have to be written up in a contract to be enforceable though.  In fact if you did sue, and if you had the facts on your side, they would probably just offer you a quick payoff, less than $10,000.

Using the threat of a lawsuit to get money out of someone is extortion.  The person filing a lawsuit never offers the deal.  The only time the plaintiff pitches a settlement is when the plaintiff is a prosecutor in a criminal court trying to build a bigger case against another party.  If the plaintiff wanted money, then he would file a legal claim for the amount he wanted.  If he wanted to accept a lesser amount, then he would change his claim.

Its the defendant that offers the deal, and the plaintiff that accepts it or not.  If he accepts the deal, he drops his claim against the defendant.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by MRPLUTO
...if you tell him, "This call is illegal, and you can be fined $10, 000 for making it.  But I won't report you to the Feds if you agree to send me a check for only $5,000."

Not only extortion, but might also be an accomplice in the cover-up of a crime.

Actually, I think the term is "accessory".

[Manedew]

remember ignorance is no excuse.....

and the Law is as logical as Programming

[ra]

Originally posted by gofaster
Using the threat of a lawsuit to get money out of someone is extortion.  The person filing a lawsuit never offers the deal.  The only time the plaintiff pitches a settlement is when the plaintiff is a prosecutor in a criminal court trying to build a bigger case against another party.  If the plaintiff wanted money, then he would file a legal claim for the amount he wanted.  If he wanted to accept a lesser amount, then he would change his claim.

Its the defendant that offers the deal, and the plaintiff that accepts it or not.  If he accepts the deal, he drops his claim against the defendant.

Perhaps it's a state by state thing.  Here is how it works in PA (look at paragraph (b)):

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18)
CHAPTER 39. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 3923. Theft by extortion.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or withholds property of another by threatening to:

commit another criminal offense;
accuse anyone of a criminal offense;
expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;
take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action;
bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective unofficial action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;
testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to the legal claim or defense of another; or
inflict any other harm which would not benefit the actor.

(b) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution based on paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section that the property obtained by threat of accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other invocation of official action was honestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done in the circumstances to which such accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other official action relates, or as compensation for property or lawful services.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by ra
...was honestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done ...

A telephone solicitation ain't gonna be worth $5,000.00  You may get your local toll call paid back to you (actually, I think its the caller that pays for the call rather than the receiver), but there won't be any other material damage to you.  Lack of a civil claim = extortion if you go for the hush money pay out.

[MRPLUTO]

Thanks for your interesting comments, everyone.  ra's suggestion that it would be like settling out of court seems like how a lawyer would look at it.

I think the wording to use would be something like, "You have called me in violation of the 'Do Not Call' law...would you like to settle this matter out of court, or should I register a complaint with the Feds?"

*******

Years ago my friend Scott bought a used car from a guy who had advertised in the classifieds.  After he got it home, Scott found an old repair receipt in the trunk which showed the mileage about a year earlier had been 10's of thousands of miles higher than what was now on the odometer.  The seller was probably buying up used cars and turning back odometers.  The car was worth several thousand dollars less than what Scott had paid for it.

So Scott called up the seller, told him what he'd found and said he wanted a refund of, I don't remember...maybe 3 grand...and the guy said no.  Scott told him he'd have to call the police.  [Remember: this is a felony.]  Then he hung up and waited for the phone to ring.  It did, about 30 seconds later, and the guy offered maybe $2,000.  "No, $3,000," said Scott, and hung up.  The phone rang again almost immediately and the guy agreed to $3,000.


 MRPLUTO

[Dinger]

violation of the Do Not Call list strikes me as a criminal offense, not a civil one.  That is, it's an issue between the state and the offender, not between the two parties.  If it's a civil offense, you can "settle out of court".  If it's a criminal offense, technically you can't, but it happens all the time (like Jacko's child abuse cases).