http://www.msnbc.com/news/971221.asp?vts=092420031005
I apologize in advance if this was already posted.
I apologize in advance if this was already posted.
Court Blocks Do Not Call Registry
- Thread starter Blondie76
- Start date
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
I think that whole thing was some bung telemarketers idea to get 50 million phone numbers to call.
Let this be a warning to telemarketers: I don't want you to call me and if you do, I will hunt your personal information down and I will call YOU at all hours of the night and try to sell you the same line of shiznit you try to sell me.
Let this be a warning to telemarketers: I don't want you to call me and if you do, I will hunt your personal information down and I will call YOU at all hours of the night and try to sell you the same line of shiznit you try to sell me.
K
Kain99
Guest
Oh well... Back to cold calling! Dayum! Geez, Crab I had you first on my list.....Originally posted by crabcake
Let this be a warning to telemarketers: I don't want you to call me and if you do, I will hunt your personal information down and I will call YOU at all hours of the night and try to sell you the same line of shiznit you try to sell me.
K
Kizzy
Guest
I think somehow, someway the 50 million people on that list WILL get what we want, which is not to be bothered or annoyed by telemarketers. I want that idiot judge's phone number so I can call and sell him a clue.
Here you go.
Information for US District Court Judge Lee R. West
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151
Couldn’t break it down to a home phone number as there are several by that name in the immediate area, but you should be able to get your point across via the numbers above.
K
Kizzy
Guest
Darn, I wanted to call him while he was eating dinner, not at work.
I found two, this guyOriginally posted by IM4Change
West, Lee R
EDMOND, OK 73034
405-348-0818
and
Another one in Oklahoma City, but I am not paying for the information.
http://www.knowx.com/pf/landing.jsp...elcome&lastname=West&firstname=Lee R&state=OK
Edmond is 25 to 30 miles north of OK City, so it’s a possible.
I think I’ll send daily faxes from work for a while.
To catch him at dinner don't forget about time zones.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Doesn't the whole argument for blocking it sound STUPID?
These people went out of their way to intentionally sign up for the Do Not Call list. What do you suppose that says about the likelihood of successfully selling something to them? Similarly, what does it say about the telemarketer who insists that his livelihood depends on calling people who obviously DON'T want to be called?
If I were to go into a neighborhood selling door to door, and I knew ahead of time which doors would never buy anything from me, this would IMPROVE my chances of selling, and not the other way around.
Plus I can't believe the First Amendment is appearing in this. These guys believe they have a constitutiionally protected *right* to call me ten times a day trying to sell me stuff. That's not a right, that's harassment, and I'm damned glad the government finally tried to put an end to it.
These people went out of their way to intentionally sign up for the Do Not Call list. What do you suppose that says about the likelihood of successfully selling something to them? Similarly, what does it say about the telemarketer who insists that his livelihood depends on calling people who obviously DON'T want to be called?
If I were to go into a neighborhood selling door to door, and I knew ahead of time which doors would never buy anything from me, this would IMPROVE my chances of selling, and not the other way around.
Plus I can't believe the First Amendment is appearing in this. These guys believe they have a constitutiionally protected *right* to call me ten times a day trying to sell me stuff. That's not a right, that's harassment, and I'm damned glad the government finally tried to put an end to it.
House votes to reinstate ‘do not call’
Update
THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/971734.asp?cp1=1
Update
THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/971734.asp?cp1=1
Judge Who Backed Telemarketers Is Deluged
OKLAHOMA CITY - U.S. District Judge Lee R. West's telephone has not stopped ringing since he sided with telemarketers seeking to block a popular national do-not-call list.
Egged on by talk show hosts and angry Web sites, people have flooded West's office and home with calls and faxes, apparently trying to show him why they wanted to ban unsolicited sales calls.
"They are just calling to tie up our lines," said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office. "They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess."
The phones at the federal courthouse were jammed Thursday morning and voicemail boxes were stuffed with messages blasting West's ruling that the Federal Trade Commission lacked authority to create and operate the registry.
West's home and office telephone numbers were posted on the Internet, and consumers angry with the ruling were encouraged to call. Calls by The Associated Press to West's home seeking comment were blocked by busy signals.
The ruling even made late-night television talk show host Jay Leno's monologue Wednesday night.
"The judge says the telemarketers can call you whenever they want," Leno said. "You know what we should do? Let's all call this judge tonight at home during dinner."
West did please some businesses with his ruling Tuesday. Telemarketers say the list would devastate their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.
Rick Ratliff, president of U.S. Security, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the list, said his company laid off half of its 600 employees because of restrictions on telemarketing.
"U.S. Security does not sell anything over the phone," he said. "We simply ask for the opportunity to tell someone about the lifesaving benefits of our security and fire systems in a face-to-face meeting."
The do-not-call registry appears that it will go forward after all. The House approved legislation Thursday intended to ensure the list goes into effect next week. After less than an hour of debate, which included potshots at West from both parties, House members voted 412-8 to approve the bill.
OKLAHOMA CITY - U.S. District Judge Lee R. West's telephone has not stopped ringing since he sided with telemarketers seeking to block a popular national do-not-call list.
Egged on by talk show hosts and angry Web sites, people have flooded West's office and home with calls and faxes, apparently trying to show him why they wanted to ban unsolicited sales calls.
"They are just calling to tie up our lines," said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office. "They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess."
The phones at the federal courthouse were jammed Thursday morning and voicemail boxes were stuffed with messages blasting West's ruling that the Federal Trade Commission lacked authority to create and operate the registry.
West's home and office telephone numbers were posted on the Internet, and consumers angry with the ruling were encouraged to call. Calls by The Associated Press to West's home seeking comment were blocked by busy signals.
The ruling even made late-night television talk show host Jay Leno's monologue Wednesday night.
"The judge says the telemarketers can call you whenever they want," Leno said. "You know what we should do? Let's all call this judge tonight at home during dinner."
West did please some businesses with his ruling Tuesday. Telemarketers say the list would devastate their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.
Rick Ratliff, president of U.S. Security, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the list, said his company laid off half of its 600 employees because of restrictions on telemarketing.
"U.S. Security does not sell anything over the phone," he said. "We simply ask for the opportunity to tell someone about the lifesaving benefits of our security and fire systems in a face-to-face meeting."
The do-not-call registry appears that it will go forward after all. The House approved legislation Thursday intended to ensure the list goes into effect next week. After less than an hour of debate, which included potshots at West from both parties, House members voted 412-8 to approve the bill.
K
Kizzy
Guest
I wonder if anyone tried to sell him anything. 
412-8You've could to be kidding me....
...this is ridiculous
http://www.msnbc.com/news/971734.asp
Does anyone have District Judge Edward Nottingham's phone number?
...this is ridiculous
http://www.msnbc.com/news/971734.asp
Does anyone have District Judge Edward Nottingham's phone number?
K
Kizzy
Guest
I worked shift work for 11 years and my husband currently works shift work. Those bastards would call during the middle of the day and always wake us up. One could say that we could just turn our phone off, but we pay for the phone. We have a right to keep telemarketers from calling us. We have valid reasons to keep the phone ON during the day incase there is an emergency with the children or another family member. If I wanted to buy something, I’ll go online or to the store, but when we are home, we’ve earned that right to not be bothered.
The judges only blocked this list for the publicity. We will get what we want. It will just take a little longer that’s all.
The judges only blocked this list for the publicity. We will get what we want. It will just take a little longer that’s all.
K
Kizzy
Guest
Group to Members: Observe Don't-Call List
By DAVID HO
WASHINGTON (AP) - The largest telemarketing industry group says it wants its members to abide by the national ``do-not-call'' list next week despite two court rulings that have thrown the program's future into legal limbo.
``We are telling our members, yes indeed, we don't want you calling people who have told anyone they don't want any calls,'' Direct Marketing Association President H. Robert Wientzen said Friday. He said he hasn't had time to arrange agreements making that request binding, but ``up to the moment I have had nobody disagree.''
The list of nearly 51 million phone numbers is scheduled to go into effect Wednesday, but rulings by two federal courts have made that plan unlikely.
U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver issued a ruling late Thursday saying the list violates telemarketers' free speech rights.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris said Friday the agency will fight the decision.
``I do not believe that our Constitution dictates such an illogical result,'' Muris said. ``To the contrary, our Constitution allows consumers to choose not to receive commercial telemarketing calls.''
Muris said that if Nottingham's reasoning were applied elsewhere, it would cripple the more than two dozen state do-not-call lists.
The FTC is still allowing people to sign up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222.
However, the latest court ruling means the agency can't penalize telemarketers for violating the registry, said Walter Janowski, a director with research firm Gartner Inc.
``This likely precludes a quick fix such as Congress' attempt yesterday,'' he said. ``We can expect multiple appeals potentially as high as the Supreme Court.''
Janowski said the voluntary efforts of some telemarketers to obey the list will have mixed results for consumers. ``Legitimate telemarketers will listen. It's the ones that are less legitimate or somewhat sleazy that are the ones we have the problems with to begin with,'' he said.
Many telemarketers already have obtained the do-not-call list to compare with their own calling lists.
Wientzen said that despite telling members to obey the wishes of people who don't want to be called, the telemarketing industry still opposes the do-not-call list.
``We don't think this is an appropriate role for government,'' Wientzen said in a telephone interview. ``These cases are simply making that point.''
Nottingham's ruling capped a frantic day in which Congress moved with nearly unprecedented speed and unanimity in an attempt to counter an earlier court ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City. West's ruling on Tuesday said the FTC lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill. President Bush said he looked forward to signing it Monday. ``Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive, annoying and all too common,'' he said in a statement.
Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win in court for the list to move forward.
Nottingham's ruling said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities.
West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
Lawmakers responded with remarkable speed to West's order. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but this bill was drafted and approved in both chambers in little more than 24 hours.
Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and people were encouraged to call. Nottingham's phone numbers are online as well.
The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers, including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.
The national registry is intended to block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls
The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to an automated phone or online system.
Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf of politicians.
On the Net:
National Do Not Call Registry: http://www.donotcall.gov
Judge West's order rejecting request to block earlier ruling: http://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/files/03-cv-122order2.pdf
U.S. District Court in Denver: http://www.co.uscourts.gov
09/26/03 13:56
© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
By DAVID HO
WASHINGTON (AP) - The largest telemarketing industry group says it wants its members to abide by the national ``do-not-call'' list next week despite two court rulings that have thrown the program's future into legal limbo.
``We are telling our members, yes indeed, we don't want you calling people who have told anyone they don't want any calls,'' Direct Marketing Association President H. Robert Wientzen said Friday. He said he hasn't had time to arrange agreements making that request binding, but ``up to the moment I have had nobody disagree.''
The list of nearly 51 million phone numbers is scheduled to go into effect Wednesday, but rulings by two federal courts have made that plan unlikely.
U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver issued a ruling late Thursday saying the list violates telemarketers' free speech rights.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris said Friday the agency will fight the decision.
``I do not believe that our Constitution dictates such an illogical result,'' Muris said. ``To the contrary, our Constitution allows consumers to choose not to receive commercial telemarketing calls.''
Muris said that if Nottingham's reasoning were applied elsewhere, it would cripple the more than two dozen state do-not-call lists.
The FTC is still allowing people to sign up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222.
However, the latest court ruling means the agency can't penalize telemarketers for violating the registry, said Walter Janowski, a director with research firm Gartner Inc.
``This likely precludes a quick fix such as Congress' attempt yesterday,'' he said. ``We can expect multiple appeals potentially as high as the Supreme Court.''
Janowski said the voluntary efforts of some telemarketers to obey the list will have mixed results for consumers. ``Legitimate telemarketers will listen. It's the ones that are less legitimate or somewhat sleazy that are the ones we have the problems with to begin with,'' he said.
Many telemarketers already have obtained the do-not-call list to compare with their own calling lists.
Wientzen said that despite telling members to obey the wishes of people who don't want to be called, the telemarketing industry still opposes the do-not-call list.
``We don't think this is an appropriate role for government,'' Wientzen said in a telephone interview. ``These cases are simply making that point.''
Nottingham's ruling capped a frantic day in which Congress moved with nearly unprecedented speed and unanimity in an attempt to counter an earlier court ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City. West's ruling on Tuesday said the FTC lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill. President Bush said he looked forward to signing it Monday. ``Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive, annoying and all too common,'' he said in a statement.
Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win in court for the list to move forward.
Nottingham's ruling said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities.
West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
Lawmakers responded with remarkable speed to West's order. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but this bill was drafted and approved in both chambers in little more than 24 hours.
Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and people were encouraged to call. Nottingham's phone numbers are online as well.
The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers, including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.
The national registry is intended to block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls
The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to an automated phone or online system.
Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf of politicians.
On the Net:
National Do Not Call Registry: http://www.donotcall.gov
Judge West's order rejecting request to block earlier ruling: http://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/files/03-cv-122order2.pdf
U.S. District Court in Denver: http://www.co.uscourts.gov
09/26/03 13:56
© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
No call ------Cell phone
I got a cell phone for the area of SOMD that we will live in. From what I have heard, cell phone numbers do not usually get the telemarketers calls. I don't know if I will have regular service installed, maybe just use the cell phone. What are the pros and cons?
I got a cell phone for the area of SOMD that we will live in. From what I have heard, cell phone numbers do not usually get the telemarketers calls. I don't know if I will have regular service installed, maybe just use the cell phone. What are the pros and cons?