Calls after I warned of legal action

I've gotten a handful of calls from a self-described "charity" (based on my research, they've raised $44M for a cause yet only devoted $300k to their supposed good works), and I decided to take them to task. The voicemail on my phone has a clear request directed at charities, religions, and politicians to add me to their internal DNC list, along with a warning to all businesses that they're calling a DNC registered number.

Here's the thing - I notified the CINO that they were in violation of my request to be placed on their internal DNC list, and specifically requested all communication be in writing. Their law firm (Copilevitz & Canter LLC) countered by claiming that there's no way I could have requested to be added to an internal list, because their first call was 4 seconds long and "only caught my answering machine". I asked for phone records and was told no recording of that call existed.

I told them of the contents of my answering machine message, then got 3 calls from unknown numbers (972-342-3832: CID "GLAMOUR SERVICE" / 612-558-9850 CID "LARSON PAUL" / 216-912-4281 "BELL CANADA"). In response, they told me exactly how long my VM message is & then quoted the first 4 seconds of my VM to me.

Is there any explanation for this knowledge other than evidence that they knowingly & willfully violated the DNC list? That is, they essentially boasted of placing a call (or calls) to my number *after* I told them to conduct all communication in writing so that they could find out what my VM says?

On a related note, I had just read a news story about this law firm the day before (it came up while I was researching the limits of the TCPA exemption for charities):
http://cironline.org/reports/meet-lawyer-who- ... s-business-4606

Just another scumbag lawyer.  Just like all of them.  But in any case, I still say that nothing gets their attention like a good old piece of paper stating your requirements and sent certified, return receipt.  Even if they refuse to sign for it, you have a record of attempted delivery.  In addition, I always send one first class mail at the same time.  Then they can't say that they didn't receive your request.  It is then up to you to sue them under the TCPA and possibly the truth in caller ID act.
While there is a cost to soliciting money for charity, I sincerely doubt they could justify that it costs that much.

Why would you send a certified letter? If they're already acknowledged receipt of your request not to be called (via their initial e-mail), what purposes does sending a certified letter serve?

I was able to track down the registered agent information through the TX SoS, and have what I need to file a TCPA lawsuit.

Then why are you posting here?  You asked a question, I suggested what to do, you don't like my suggestion, then fine.  Go file your lawsuit and don;'t ask questions here anymore.  Simple, problem solved all the way around.  Sorry I intruded on your personal party.  Have a nice life.

The certified letter with signed receipt is clear proof of delivery of your request, assuming you kept a notarized copy of the letter that was sent, and almost impossible to defend against in court. E-mails are much easier to defend against since the contents can be altered and are often considered hearsay evidence and discounted. You will need to subpoena both your ISPs mailserver records and that of the company the sent you the email and show they are the same.  If you want to win, you need to present the strongest possible case to the judge.

I didn't mean to offend you. Was simply asking a question for clarification.

} 3 calls from unknown numbers

Those seem irrelevant. A fast look at associated number threads shows, in order, an illegal sales caller, no complaints, and someone mining for data from small businesses. You would have to demonstrate that the charity or its commercial fundraiser is spoofing numbers used by suspect and fraudulent callers. I find this implausible since charities dialing for dollars go out of their way to appear legitimate, beneficial, and legally compliant.

} The voicemail on my phone has a clear request [to non-sales callers] to add me to their internal DNC list

You cannot assume a human is hearing that request or that an unwanted caller will stick around long enough to hear it. Even assuming a call center rep listens to your entire greeting, the company will likely claim that the request cannot be fulfilled unless the called party's phone number is provided, and it might insist that the revocation is made *directly* by voice or in print. As a business owner, I might insist the same simply to remove all ambiguity.

} evidence that they knowingly & willfully violated the DNC list

But that's not what happened. Charities are incapable of violating the law simply for ignoring the federal DNCR. At best you've caught a Telemarketing Sales Rule violation, which again is in doubt because your no-call request was indirect and too likely not to be received.

Speaking to that point, corporate defense lawyers were crowing in April 2014 about the outcome of Andersen v. Harris & Harris. (in Wisconsin, 13-cv-867, 2014 WL 1600575) The plaintiff relied on his voice mail greeting, which broadcast a blanket revocation of consent at all comers with autodialers, for TCPA claims which failed. The decision was that even if one is able to revoke call permission, a phone message system greeting is not how the job gets done.

Press the charity or its call center as a defendant, and they will "lose" that email to you as quickly as they "lost" internal phone records. Their brief will claim, "Defendant never called you, defendant never got your no-call request, you can't prove otherwise". You haven't been litigating very long if you're not entirely comfortable with the benefits of USPS Certified. It's much less without realizing the intense difficulty you will have dragging a charity call under the TCPA unless you can paint arrows toward a commercial offer to you.

Thanks for that cite. I'll research the case.

It's probable that the same argument would fare differently based on the judge involved. Since the law merely requires that the phone subscriber make a request to be added to an internal DNC list, it does not require that anyone make such a request in writing via certified mail. Recording a message on voicemail surely fulfills the onus of making a request just as readily as sending a letter via certified mail or hiring a singing telegram to visit the violator's office.

I haven't read the case transcripts, but if I'm researching correctly, it looks like Andersen v. Harris & Harris (Wisconsin, 13-cv-867, 2014 WL 1600575) was a case where someone had an existing business relationship where they had given consent to be contacted, and then recorded a generalized VM to try and stop 190+ unwanted calls.

Not only does it seem that the court dropped the ball there, but the situation is completely different. I never consented to receive these "charity" calls.

Burden of proof falls to you to positively show that the caller received and failed to act upon your demand to cease calling.  With plausible deniability on their side, your voice mail greeting would not win the day.  A very large number of charity callers hang up as soon as a voice mail or answering machine response is identified and do not listen to the message. All the company would need to say is that we instruct all agents to hang up immediately if voice mail or an answering machine picks up. You will also need to research the section of the Telephone Sales Rule dealing with the requirements for an internal DNC. There is a window of 30 days, if I recall correctly, after receipt of your request to be placed on their internal DNC list before action can be taken against them for the TSR violation.  A Certified letter servers two purposes for you: 1) undeniable proof of a request to not call; and 2) the start date for the time they have to implement your request.

} it does not require that anyone make such a request in writing via certified mail

True, and there is adequate case law supporting verbal revocation. But Andersen did not submit his request *directly* to call sources. He took a big gamble on a message "broadcast" to no one in particular being the same as a message "received" by a specific party relying on automated calls, likely of the sort subject to abandonment by a predictive dialer. He lost that bet, and so I reckon would anyone else.

} someone had an existing business relationship

Somewhat true, but a misnomer. The defendant is a debt collector. Andersen had provided the same mobile number being called to the creditor, from which third party collectors would inherit consent to call. That's not too critical a point, given that debt collectors don't need anyone's prior consent to place calls, and neither do commercial fundraisers. Consent for non-sales callers is only a possible issue *after* the first call.

Thus the issue raised in Andersen is not "completely different". I cited because it speaks to your problem with reliance on indirect revocation. Making proclamations in a phone recorder greeting does not "surely" accomplish anything since you've no control or knowledge of who or what is listening, if at all, or for how long, and no confirmation of what took place at the receiving end. That leaves an expansive field of doubt between what you think is revocation and the nuisance caller's duty to obey. The defense lawyer has the high ground and you have no cover to dive behind, to my comprehension.

If I send a certified letter to a caller, how does that guarantee that they bother to read the letter any more than making the request via my voicemail message?

What is the legal difference between crumpling up the letter unread and hanging up on a voicemail 4 seconds into the call?

"Is there any explanation for this knowledge other than evidence that they knowingly & willfully violated the DNC list? That is, they essentially boasted of placing a call (or calls) to my number *after* I told them to conduct all communication in writing so that they could find out what my VM says? "  Do you remember asking that question?  So you came here looking for advice.  If you had known the answer to the question, you shouldn't have asked it.  If you didn't want to take the advice, again you should not have asked the question.  Perhaps the problem is that no one here is giving you the answer you want to hear.  Sorry, but that is just simply how life goes.  You have several very knowledgeable people telling you the facts.  What do you do?  You argue with them.  You go on and on about how you are right and how they are wrong.  So i have one thing and one thing only that I would like to say to you.  YOU ARE AN IDIOT! See ya, certainly wouldn't want to be ya.

The certified letter provides proof of receipt which is all that matters. You cannot easily, if at all, prove receipt of your outgoing message.

I too have received calls from these types of bottom feeders, this particular one today in fact.  Knowledge is power and this website has been of great help to me in sorting out sheep from wolf.

It is admirable that you believe there are laws to protect against such shenanigans and you wish to uphold American values of truth and fairness through the righteous use of our legal system.

But nobody in this thread has addressed the obvious.

Charity telemarketers are not trolling for people who understand the finer legal points of DNC or have a dollop of common sense.  My apologies to you in advance if I bruise your ego, but they really could care less about us (working folks who deal with them on what seems like a daily basis) or our silly little DNC rule.  We(you and I) constitute the gristle they(TMs) have to work through to get to the gravy.  What they REALLY seek is an audience with the elderly and mentally infirm.  They go way beyond being conniving scumbags.  They are predators.  Do you think it an accident your conversation with them is short lived?  All they want to hear is your voice; if not a  "little old lady"  or lonely old man (especially widowers) or confused, they instantly move on to a new prospect.  Click.

Sound far fetched?  Think of the last conversation you had with an elder, and envision what that conversation sounded like on the telephone.  The timbre of their voices is usually distinctive.  Age does not respect the mentally confused and a person in this state, even in their youth, are not difficult to identity by speech patterns. Now imagine how vulnerable those people might be in the clutch of a seasoned telemarketer on the other end of that phone.  And remember, the elderly do not embrace the computer in ways that we all take for granted.  For most of them, the telephone IS modern technology and other than direct F2F contact the most direct pipeline into their world.  It is no wonder telemarketing is so pervasive in our society today, given that abuse of the elderly is rarely made visible, and only after the fact.

I, too, used to get all pissy about the barrage of these calls.  But lawyers will never solve this problem.  Politicians even less so.  Instead, I keep a closer eye out for the goings-on of the elders in my own family, and when appropriate inquire about seniors in families that we are close to.  They are the prey, and I feel better about that effort more than any attempt to corral the TM industry.  The TMs will never go away as long as there is opportunity to compromise our most vulnerable citizens in pursuit of easy and often riches.

So endth the sermon.