I guess "confused elders" only know about dixie cups and strings as new technology, too. As for the "timbre" of someone's voice being a dead giveaway, my mother still gets asked for her mother and she is an 'elder' and a whole lot more savvy with the computer than I am. I, too, sound young and telemarketers have tried to keep me on the phone for longer than 5 minutes. So you assume a lot. By the way, how much is a "dollop" of common sense, because you just insulted a whole lot of people over a certain age. You, too, will be an "elder" one day.
Fraudulent companies are strongly attracted to the weakest among us, the way a cat eyes a limping bird. Starving the crooks through better consumer education and personal intervention is recognized widely as a first line of defense among law enforcers and regulators, who nonetheless file lawsuits and seek penalties because someone has to clean the mess after victims are created. Those points I won't argue. However, I don't think there is harm or waste in testing what private citizens can do in the same courts to drive up the costs of making a dishonest living.
} If I send a certified letter to a caller, how does that guarantee that they bother to read the letter
Your reply was to a comment in which I did not discuss Cert Mail, but sure, let's roll in that grass again.
Let's say that to give notice of revocation, you travel straight to the company generating unwanted calls and you secure a meeting with its CEO or its Chief Compliance Officer or its General Counsel, or maybe all of them and more execs. In tow with you are two trained videographers armed with always-running HD cameras and an audio person with a Nagra deck and a cardioid condenser shotgun mic on a pole. Also in your group is a court reporter carting her special device with a full keyboard and one of those cute portable mounts they use. While everyone's gadgets are redundantly capturing every word and sound with precision, you tell Mister Big to stop calling a given phone number. Then you hand over a steel clipboard and a Faber-Castell pen loaded with waterproof India ink and a document on acid-free 32 lb. paper which says essentially that Mister Big's company was on that date told not to call again. You and Mister Big each get signed original copies. Mister Big and friends are thanked for their time and the meeting ends. Later the company is given copies of the raw video and the steno print.
Some of you will think that little circus should put the fear of god into any company dependent on phone drones to make a dollar. Yet Big Cold Caller, LLC can still make a choice to ignore everything said and signed. *THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES* of legal or desired conduct.
The next week BCC resumes calling the same number you'd set off limits at least five times a day. You blow your stack and sue. Defense counsel could fold early, but then again it may fight. There could be a lucrative business model at stake. They can make a choice to deny, deny, and deny some more. "What phone calls? What meeting? What video? What written observation? What agreement? What autodialer? Our dialer, which we never used like you think, does not meet the FCC definition. We don't know what you mean. We don't think you even own that phone number you say we called, which we didn't." Maybe you can hang them all by the ankles from a tree with your documentation, but it's all your problem to use it.
} What is the legal difference between crumpling up the letter unread and hanging up on a voicemail 4 seconds into the call?
A human caller who abandons before your canned "Beware My Wrath" speech finishes never heard it. A computer-controlled caller is like the "felled tree in the woods" puzzle. Yes, a live caller could hear all of it. Now prove that happened -- preferably before you're taxed the legal fees of your opponent for bringing a "frivolous action". Also prove that as a matter of policy the defendant takes any action based on requests made so indirectly. Also prove that the company is legally required to obey any requests made so indirectly. Also show that you've stated a "claim upon which relief can be granted". Hope you have an attorney who enjoys working two years for nothing.
The CMRR letter is no brick wall; it's a line in the sand. I think we understand that. Here's what that six-and-change buys you: You don't need to prove anyone read or understood your notice. You need only prove that the notice was received. Your mint green card becomes the Wonka Golden Ticket the moment the recipient disobeys whatever your notice demanded. It removes all flimsy excuses, including "we never read the notice", especially if that neglect causes you grief and the request was for something you're entitled to have.
I've already sued and got satisfied based on ignored CMRR notices. In one case I have fairly good reason to believe my letter was never processed by a human, thus the autodialer was never updated, thus I extracted thousands from the offenders' hides. Your damage may vary. But then I had a case with legs. I'm not yet convinced of yours.
If the caller admits to listening to the first 4 seconds of my VM, isn't that the same as admitting receipt of the message? They could argue that they only read the first sentence of a certified letter and threw the rest away unread. What is the distinction between the two?
Proof of delivery. Do you have proof other than their verbal admission to you that they heard the relevant portion of your outgoing message? If you really want a legal answer, do one of two things: 1) research the rules of evidence in court; or 2) consult an attorney who specializes in TCPA violations. If you are serious about taking action against the caller I strongly recommend the latter action. At this point, IMO, you are too inexperienced in this type of litigation not to be at serious risk of having your head handed to you by their defense attorney if you attempt it on your own. Defendants in law suits have the option of demanding reasonable attorney's fees if plaintiff does not prevail. The burden of proof hurdle for plaintiffs is quite high.
Mike I count 7 posts all saying the same thing. The only thing this knucklehead is trying to do is to argue with people that are extremely more intelligent that it will ever think of being. You are not saying the right thing. As soon as you agree with it and tell it that it has an unbeatable case and to go for it, it will leave until it figures out how to start another idiotic thread. Do yourself a favor and save yourself from Carpal Tunnel posting the same correct replies so that its deluded little mind can dispute what you say in order to make itself feel a whole lot better about its miserable existence.
>>> Do you have proof other than their verbal admission to you that they heard the relevant portion of your outgoing message? >>>
I have a letter from their law firm stating that they "could not have been given notice to add my number to their internal DNC list because the caller reached my voice mail & the call was only 4 seconds long". It was e-mailed to me, as an attachment.
In my experience, letters from law firms with claims to facts are admissible in court.
The core question of this case would come down to whether the *act of recording* a voicemail meets the legal requirement of giving notice. I can see the point of view of a telemarketer being "well, we didn't hear it", but how does that differ from "well, we didn't both to read the letter he sent"?
-1
dnc..violations@gmail.com
Sorry> "We didn't bothER to read the letter he sent"
I'm not looking for a "yes, of course, dear" answer. I really am trying to find out more information that would be helpful in filing a case against these jokers. The previous cite was news to me, and quite appreciated.
You've been quite clear that you think I should send them a certified letter urging for calls to cease. Thank you. Do you have anything else to add? Or are your going to try and subtract again?
PO> I don't think he meant to imply that all elders are suckers for these types of predators, but they certainly seem to target those who are not in full control of their facilities. I hope to be like my grandmother when I'm her age (sharp as a tack and likely to keep a few fingers from anyone who tries to reach in her pocket) rather than like my grandfather (after 4 or 5 strokes, he was happy-go-lucky, and always willing to spend money he didn't have to help someone with a sob story).
While the letter is itself admissible and would serve to allow the statements therein to be taken as valid, you would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 4 secs of your outgoing message they admit to listening to were sufficient for them to receive your Do Not Call demand. That gets messy unless the call they made when they heard that portion of your message was recorded and a copy of that recording exists in their system. A defense arguement could be made, and again the burden of proof falls on you to prove otherwise, that the message was altered after they called and so even listening for 4 seconds they never received your demand to stop calling. In addition, as I mentioned in a previous post, you need to check the TCPA and TSR for the permitted window after valid notification during which subsequent calls are not yet illegal.
Failing to read a Certified demand letter has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a defense against claims for violating said demands. The position of the Courts has been the recipient of such letters has a legal duty to read and act accordingly. There is no legal precedent I am aware of making listening to a recorded greeting on a telephone line the same as a Certified demand letter.
-5
DNCPeriodViolationsATGmailcom replies to Mike-in-MD
<<<as I mentioned in a previous post, you need to check the TCPA and TSR for the permitted window after valid notification during which subsequent calls are not yet illegal.>>>
These calls were over a 2.5 year period. I believe the enabling statutes give 30 days for callers to comply by the Federal updates. Not sure how long they have for the internal DNC list updates - anyone else have a number handy?
Don't bother. Nothing you say to this guy is going to sink in. He does not understand that an email can be spoofed. Or how it can be spoofed. Or that you can get email from yourself just like you can get calls from yourself. Or that by law, even if they don't return that itty bitty green slip, as long as you have the proof you sent it (best by first class AND by certified), it is proof of receipt. I have dealt with this long enough to know myself. He is just going to argue and argue ad nauseum. Let him find out for himself. Enough people here have tried to help him.
Reply to topic