Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote

"Michael Yermian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The federal one is $11K.
>
> --
> Michael Y.
>

http://na.iiaa.org/FAQ%20re%20Telema...g%20080703.pdf

page 9

federal penalty is $11k per offense
state penalty $500 (unspecified amount?)
(civil) private suit is $500

but it is still unclear. state attorney general can also file.
gets kinda complicated. feds/state/civil suits all at once.

---

› See More: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote

"Michael Yermian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The federal one is $11K.
>
> --
> Michael Y.
>

http://na.iiaa.org/FAQ%20re%20Telema...g%20080703.pdf

page 9

federal penalty is $11k per offense
state penalty $500 (unspecified amount?)
(civil) private suit is $500

but it is still unclear. state attorney general can also file.
gets kinda complicated. feds/state/civil suits all at once.

"127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> check your state laws for state run DNC policies...
> http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...statelist.html
>
> florida has a state DNC, why can't each state have their own?
>
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...19.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0501->Section%20619
>
> please read penalties for violating florida DNC. if you are on that state
> DNC and a telemarker calls you, you can be awarded up to $10k. isn't that
a
> much better plan than a no reward federal DNC?
>
> unfortunately, not everyone knows about state DNC.
>
>

The a*hole telemarketers sure do. There are only about 20 states out of 50
that even have a DNC, and if a telemarketer calls from outside the state
(which many do), it does NOT apply!

PS, the example you gave was for Florida, I see you didn't mention that
there is a $10 fee for getting your phone number added to it.

"127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> check your state laws for state run DNC policies...
> http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...statelist.html
>
> florida has a state DNC, why can't each state have their own?
>
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...19.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0501->Section%20619
>
> please read penalties for violating florida DNC. if you are on that state
> DNC and a telemarker calls you, you can be awarded up to $10k. isn't that
a
> much better plan than a no reward federal DNC?
>
> unfortunately, not everyone knows about state DNC.
>
>

The a*hole telemarketers sure do. There are only about 20 states out of 50
that even have a DNC, and if a telemarketer calls from outside the state
(which many do), it does NOT apply!

PS, the example you gave was for Florida, I see you didn't mention that
there is a $10 fee for getting your phone number added to it.

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The a*hole telemarketers sure do. There are only about 20 states out of 50
> that even have a DNC, and if a telemarketer calls from outside the state
> (which many do), it does NOT apply!

this list is not up to date, i've seen a few federal websites that say over
half the states have their own DNC.
the most accurate way is to check each state's website for DNC laws.

and you can sue an out of state business if they solicit in your state. dell
is an example (wouldn't you sue them if you never received your purchases?)

> PS, the example you gave was for Florida, I see you didn't mention that
> there is a $10 fee for getting your phone number added to it.

my apology, I've posted that $10 fee on other threads that I'm flamed on
(florida has no state tax)
federal DNC isn't free either and we do pay federal taxes.

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The a*hole telemarketers sure do. There are only about 20 states out of 50
> that even have a DNC, and if a telemarketer calls from outside the state
> (which many do), it does NOT apply!

this list is not up to date, i've seen a few federal websites that say over
half the states have their own DNC.
the most accurate way is to check each state's website for DNC laws.

and you can sue an out of state business if they solicit in your state. dell
is an example (wouldn't you sue them if you never received your purchases?)

> PS, the example you gave was for Florida, I see you didn't mention that
> there is a $10 fee for getting your phone number added to it.

my apology, I've posted that $10 fee on other threads that I'm flamed on
(florida has no state tax)
federal DNC isn't free either and we do pay federal taxes.

If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
federal government? Same issues.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:51:14 GMT, "127.0.0.1"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:47:24 -0400, "John" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There's a distinction that I think you're missing. *You* have every
>right
>> >to put up a "no calling" sign on your home phone, just like a "no
>> >soliciting" sign. You can also put up a "no calling if you sell stuff
>minus
>> >X exceptions" sign if you want. That's all fine.
>>
>> Please explain how to do that.
>>
>> ---
>> Bob
>
>check your state laws for state run DNC policies...
>http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...statelist.html
>
>florida has a state DNC, why can't each state have their own?
>http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...19.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0501->Section%20619
>
>please read penalties for violating florida DNC. if you are on that state
>DNC and a telemarker calls you, you can be awarded up to $10k. isn't that a
>much better plan than a no reward federal DNC?
>
>unfortunately, not everyone knows about state DNC.
>

If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
federal government? Same issues.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:51:14 GMT, "127.0.0.1"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:47:24 -0400, "John" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There's a distinction that I think you're missing. *You* have every
>right
>> >to put up a "no calling" sign on your home phone, just like a "no
>> >soliciting" sign. You can also put up a "no calling if you sell stuff
>minus
>> >X exceptions" sign if you want. That's all fine.
>>
>> Please explain how to do that.
>>
>> ---
>> Bob
>
>check your state laws for state run DNC policies...
>http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...statelist.html
>
>florida has a state DNC, why can't each state have their own?
>http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...19.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0501->Section%20619
>
>please read penalties for violating florida DNC. if you are on that state
>DNC and a telemarker calls you, you can be awarded up to $10k. isn't that a
>much better plan than a no reward federal DNC?
>
>unfortunately, not everyone knows about state DNC.
>

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:52:04 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

> If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
> federal government? Same issues.

States must generally honor Federal Constitutional protections, by the
14th Amendment:

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States;"

However, with respect to free speech, the Constitution does not guarantee
a right to citizens, it specifically proscribes the Federal government:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press;"

Note that this is significantly different that saying "The right of the
people to
freedom of speech shall not be abridged..."

Likewise with the establishment of religion, hence the argument given by
the
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, recently in the news. There is
nothing in the
US Constitution which prevents States from curtailing free speech or
establishing
religion. (Many States have their own Constitutional proscriptions,
however)
Federal Courts have, however, often produced rulings which say that
"red is blue," so in a pragmatic sense, the plain language of the
Constitution
is often ignored, and indeed violated. The 2nd Amendment is a particularly
egregious example, as is the frequent abuse of the commerce clause to
justify
Federal interventions in myriad areas not otherwise allowed by the
Constitution.

--
Mark

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:52:04 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

> If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
> federal government? Same issues.

States must generally honor Federal Constitutional protections, by the
14th Amendment:

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States;"

However, with respect to free speech, the Constitution does not guarantee
a right to citizens, it specifically proscribes the Federal government:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press;"

Note that this is significantly different that saying "The right of the
people to
freedom of speech shall not be abridged..."

Likewise with the establishment of religion, hence the argument given by
the
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, recently in the news. There is
nothing in the
US Constitution which prevents States from curtailing free speech or
establishing
religion. (Many States have their own Constitutional proscriptions,
however)
Federal Courts have, however, often produced rulings which say that
"red is blue," so in a pragmatic sense, the plain language of the
Constitution
is often ignored, and indeed violated. The 2nd Amendment is a particularly
egregious example, as is the frequent abuse of the commerce clause to
justify
Federal interventions in myriad areas not otherwise allowed by the
Constitution.

--
Mark

"127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> i'm glad to see a few people understand the DNC problem.
> do you want to put the no soliciting sign on your door, or do you want the
> government to do it for you?

Sorry, I don't see your argument- the government isn't putting up the sign,
they're maintaining the list of "signed" phones, since phones themselves
can't be signed. Sure, the government is also acting as the enforcer, but
that's their job- if a door-to-door salesman knocks on your door despire
your "no solicitors" sign, you call the "government" (i.e. the police) to
enforce the law.

Arguably I supose you could make the phone companies "keepers" of the
list insteead of the states/feds, but one cenralized database will be easier
for telemarketers to comply with.

Although I can see why TM companies are panicking, I really think they
blew it- "we the people" want this DNC list to happen, and it will. It
would've happened with the exemptions, allowing TMs to keep 20% of
their market (the estimate was that the law would block 80% of TM calls.)
Now, this last ruling will likely force lawmakers to kill all exemptions, virtually
gutting the TM market entirely. Instead of settling for a small piece of the
pie, they're going to force Congress to ban pie!

"127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> i'm glad to see a few people understand the DNC problem.
> do you want to put the no soliciting sign on your door, or do you want the
> government to do it for you?

Sorry, I don't see your argument- the government isn't putting up the sign,
they're maintaining the list of "signed" phones, since phones themselves
can't be signed. Sure, the government is also acting as the enforcer, but
that's their job- if a door-to-door salesman knocks on your door despire
your "no solicitors" sign, you call the "government" (i.e. the police) to
enforce the law.

Arguably I supose you could make the phone companies "keepers" of the
list insteead of the states/feds, but one cenralized database will be easier
for telemarketers to comply with.

Although I can see why TM companies are panicking, I really think they
blew it- "we the people" want this DNC list to happen, and it will. It
would've happened with the exemptions, allowing TMs to keep 20% of
their market (the estimate was that the law would block 80% of TM calls.)
Now, this last ruling will likely force lawmakers to kill all exemptions, virtually
gutting the TM market entirely. Instead of settling for a small piece of the
pie, they're going to force Congress to ban pie!

Mark Allread <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:52:04 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
> > federal government? Same issues.
>
> States must generally honor Federal Constitutional protections, by the
> 14th Amendment:
>
> " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
> privileges or
> immunities of citizens of the United States;"
>
> However, with respect to free speech, the Constitution does not guarantee
> a right to citizens, it specifically proscribes the Federal government:
>
> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
> press;"
>
> Note that this is significantly different that saying "The right of the
> people to
> freedom of speech shall not be abridged..."
>
> Likewise with the establishment of religion, hence the argument given by
> the
> Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, recently in the news. There is
> nothing in the
> US Constitution which prevents States from curtailing free speech or
> establishing
> religion. (Many States have their own Constitutional proscriptions,
> however)
> Federal Courts have, however, often produced rulings which say that
> "red is blue," so in a pragmatic sense, the plain language of the
> Constitution
> is often ignored, and indeed violated. The 2nd Amendment is a particularly
> egregious example, as is the frequent abuse of the commerce clause to
> justify
> Federal interventions in myriad areas not otherwise allowed by the
> Constitution.


I believe that your interpretation is too narrow. The sole purpose of
the constitution is to limit government not to grant priviledges.
Priviledges are impied in the constitution. Your srtict
interpretation makes the 14th admendment meaningless. Why would they
add an admendment that was intentionally meaningless?

Mark Allread <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:52:04 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If the states can have do not call policies, then why can't the
> > federal government? Same issues.
>
> States must generally honor Federal Constitutional protections, by the
> 14th Amendment:
>
> " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
> privileges or
> immunities of citizens of the United States;"
>
> However, with respect to free speech, the Constitution does not guarantee
> a right to citizens, it specifically proscribes the Federal government:
>
> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
> press;"
>
> Note that this is significantly different that saying "The right of the
> people to
> freedom of speech shall not be abridged..."
>
> Likewise with the establishment of religion, hence the argument given by
> the
> Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, recently in the news. There is
> nothing in the
> US Constitution which prevents States from curtailing free speech or
> establishing
> religion. (Many States have their own Constitutional proscriptions,
> however)
> Federal Courts have, however, often produced rulings which say that
> "red is blue," so in a pragmatic sense, the plain language of the
> Constitution
> is often ignored, and indeed violated. The 2nd Amendment is a particularly
> egregious example, as is the frequent abuse of the commerce clause to
> justify
> Federal interventions in myriad areas not otherwise allowed by the
> Constitution.


I believe that your interpretation is too narrow. The sole purpose of
the constitution is to limit government not to grant priviledges.
Priviledges are impied in the constitution. Your srtict
interpretation makes the 14th admendment meaningless. Why would they
add an admendment that was intentionally meaningless?