I Hit the Data Goldmine Yesterday and Today

  • -3
    BigA replies to Letsgetthem
    hey make sure you spam every forum thread but don't post anything where it belongs -i.e. the number threads.  I did that for you.
  • 0
    Pete replies to FrankFurter
    Again, thank you for your work. You have made a great contribution but don’t hold your breath waiting for the FTC to act on this. The FTC knows who the culprits are. I have given them several of these crooks but as usual it is easier for this agency to earn our tax money by just filing since they have no accountability.
  • +2
    FrankFurter
    | 1 reply
    I got through their system again (they seem to not be able to validate USAA cards immediately, which allows quicker penetration if you play along), more details at that contact number (360) 322-1124. It's "Madison and Company", with some more personnel names: Timothy, Taylor (female), Felicia, Chuck Jacobs, Roy Melendez.
  • +3
    Navajo Jake replies to FrankFurter
    Good job Frank, you done good.
  • +1
    FrankFurter
    | 5 replies
    Both the Siler and Penman operations appear to have been scaled back to the weekdays. I left another message for Thomas Schwartz to call me. Perhaps I can have him threaten to "sue" me again.
  • +1
    Angry as Hell replies to FrankFurter
    Franfurter.. look at the following.. I may have found another scammer with hands in many different things..
    https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-914-662-9349
  • +1
    Mike-in-MD replies to FrankFurter
    | 3 replies
    Per one of your earlier posts where you mention your company supplied cellphone was registered on the DNCR,  I'd just like to point out that business numbers are afforded no protection by the DNCR. It is solely for residential and personal numbers.  Since there is no validation during the registration process, business numbers can be placed on it but you have no legal recourse for calls received.  If a complaint is investigated and it is determined that the number called belonged to a business, the investigation is terminated.  Any attempts at civil action based upon the DNC registration would be dismissed as invalid.  You can verify the ineligibility of business numbers on the DNC website.  The calls may be illegal for other reasons but not as a DNCR violation.
  • +3
    FrankFurter replies to Mike-in-MD
    | 2 replies
    You might be correct to how the line is classified as to ending an "investigation", but the number still is on the DNCR. There are other violations like spoofed numbers. In reality the calls I receive disregard the DCNR anyway, it's just a matter how you split hairs.
  • +4
    Mike-in-MD replies to FrankFurter
    | 1 reply
    If the caller is knowingly calling a business number, then there is no "disregarding the DNCR" involved.  They are not required to check against the DNCR before calling a known business number.  Does not really apply in your case since I doubt the original caller knew they were calling a business number.  I just wanted to make sure you knew that business numbers are not protected by the DNCR.  Many small business owners are not aware of that.
  • +2
    FrankFurter replies to Mike-in-MD
    Thank You for your input. Yes, I am aware that business numbers are not covered by the DCNR. I also concur that they are aware of that status in calling me. Ultimately it is how you split hairs, the phone is provided as it is an easier way than reimbursement to make sure many employees have one.
  • -7
    jc replies to Anonym
    | 1 reply
    Call the 844 number-

    Thomas would love to speak to you

    They represent  themselves as "Wealth Management"
  • +3
    GGMA X13 replies to I have a question?
    Google "mail order preference" and you be able to find the help you need.
  • +4
    FrankFurter replies to jc
    He has my number (I've left two messages), he hasn't called. Do you know him? Are you him?
  • -1
    BTW
    JC or Thomas would not call you because they are scammers . they have your info anyway so what stops them if they were legit? I think you are right that jc might be Thomas himself in disguise!
  • +2
    FrankFurter replies to Anonym
    I had the odd event of Lee Siler wanting to connect with me on LinkedIn today - some eight months after I started this thread - and with no links to what my real identity is. Of course, I haven't responded, and will need to research how he linked me to my profile here, and what he wants to do. I did use LinkedIn to get some of the data I posted, but the last time would have been several months ago - why pursue it now?

    I've actually had telemarking calls to my cell phone drop off dramatically, just an occasional dead air call. Is it going to be threatening? Confessional, that he has moved on? Maybe I need to use this area for a back-channel or advice on how to proceed.

Reply to topic