Hope this doesn't rain on too many parades, but I found out yesterday that the Texas Do Not Call List is still in force - We were one of, if not the only, state that went ahead and passed its own law - not relying on just the Feds to take care of things -good thing, huh? At least there's one bright spot to this Texas legislative nightmare we have been calling 2003 (eg - the Texas 11, etc)

Best response so far: "Can I have YOUR home phone number. I don't have time to talk right now but I can call you back." I have a hard time distingushing between the hard working poorly paid individuals calling me and the companies they represent. I have had my share of lousy jobs in my younger days. If the telecommunications industry does not realize how destructive these practices are to them, I may have to give up being "wired" altogether.

I wonder if that dear judge failed to read this act passed by Congress:

An Act

To authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees for the implementation and enforcement of a `do -not-call' registry, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

You may find it
here .

OR did he construe this to state that they were only allowed to collect fees and not actually implement or enforce the DNC list?

The House passed, by an overwhelming majority, HR 3161 authorizing the FTC to implement and enforce a National DNC registry. The bill can be found here . This was on the news at lunch today. Apparently, only 8 representatives voted against it. HMmmmmm, wonder who they were? CNN reported that they expected it to fast track thru the Senate and that the President would sign off on it before October 1.

Indiana has a "do not call list" enforce as well and I love it. No more calls during dinner. We need to rein in these judges. I wonder who appointed this judge?

I love it also. I haven't had a call in a couple of years now - except for people doing 'surveys'. I refuse to answer them now.

Something occurred to me this morning. Is it possible the judge's decision was part of a plan to require Congress to quickly and effectively step in which would, in effect, make it even tougher for the telemarketing companies to continue their countersuits?????

Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the judge is doing his or her job properly by pointing out that a law is contrary to existing statutes, or poorly drafted, or not legally enforceable, or contains some other defect that must or should be rectified. Believe it or not, sometimes the problem is with the legislative body that passed the law.

Hard to believe, huh?

I wish some judge would find some type of problem with the GMI data collection for HMDA apps/loans... BETTER YET some type of unenforceability for HMDA!

... huh, I'm waking up now...

Yippeeeee!

Don't celebrate yet...unfortunately, a Denver federal court just found that the DNC list is unconstitutional. Seems like its not okay be selective about who can and can't call (business can't call but charities can) or you encounter a free speech issue. I wonder if the court appeals process will move as quickly as Congress.

While I know and agree that telemarketing calls are a pain, I can't help but sympathize with the people who will lose their jobs when the DNC rule goes into effect -- especially with Christmas just around the corner and the job market so tight.

Don't yippee too soon. Read this morning's news. A second court has struck it down, this time on constitutional grounds. If there is a problem with the regulation constitutionally, it won't matter that Congress passes these acts now - the Supreme Court will still have to decide if it's constitutionally allowed.

So now its a free speech issue. Partly because politicians exempted themselves and charities. Someone enlighten me, does this mean if politicians included themselves and charities, and no one was exempt, its no longer a free speech issue?

What is the chance politicians will exempt themselves?

So it's continuing to pay the phone company for "Call Manager", Call Blockimg" and "Caller ID" I will say it does work

Here is part of an editorial from the Washington Times:

Rejecting the Do Not Call registry is the same sordid brand of judicial activism that motivated the recently reversed decision to stop the California recall vote. The judge's ruling was a brazen example of judicial arrogance in repudiating the clearly expressed will of the people and their elected representatives. The popularity of the Do Not Call list — and the consociated annoyance at intrusive telemarketing practices — is overwhelming. As of November 2002, 104 million households had telephone service. To date, 50 million numbers have been put on the Do Not Call list — and it isn't even planned to be active until October. If there has ever been a more clear mandate from the people, we can't think of it.

From removing the Ten Commandments in courthouses to attempting to invalidate the California recall, it is clear that the federal bench needs a lesson in humility. Overbearing judges got one from Congress yesterday. Perhaps this will teach the courts not to mess with 50 million fed-up Americans. The arrogance of the judiciary and the regular disregard for the desires of the public are perversions of the democratic system of government. The country would be better off if judges were slapped around more often. Readers who want to share their opinions about unwanted phone calls with Judge West can contact his chambers at: (phone) 405-609-5140; (fax) 405-609-5151.

$600 billion in sales from telemarketing per year does not indicate to me that anyone will lose his/her job by not calling my home where NOTHING is ever bought from a telemarketer. Unfortunately, that $600 billion is a lump sum figure that includes business sales. It isn't broken out by consumer sales and business sales. It would be interesting to know if the bulk of that sales figure was from business sales. Since the rule does not prohibit business to business calls and only serves to protect consumers from unwanted calls, I doubt it will have as much impact on jobs as the telemarketing associations want us to believe it will.

Anonymous said (sorry, I don't know how to make the box)
"From removing the Ten Commandments in courthouses to attempting to invalidate the California recall, it is clear that the federal bench needs a lesson in humility. Overbearing judges got one from Congress yesterday. Perhaps this will teach the courts not to mess with 50 million fed-up Americans. The arrogance of the judiciary and the regular disregard for the desires of the public are perversions of the democratic system of government. The country would be better off if judges were slapped around more often. Readers who want to share their opinions about unwanted phone calls with Judge West can contact his chambers at: (phone) 405-609-5140; (fax) 405-609-5151. "


It isn't whether the judiciary is humble or pompous that should be at stake - but whether they are accurately applying existing law. The fact that lots of people don't want telemarketing calls doesn't change the fact that laws aimed to address this still need to be crafted within our constitutional framework. IF the law is unconstitutional (I'm not saying it is or isn't) it should be stopped, and Congress can rework it until they get it right. I want a judiciary that has the guts to make the RIGHT decision, whether popular or not.

Here is the First Amendment:

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Now, tell me how the FCC is abridging free speech. Calling my house is NOT a free speech issue, period! These telemarketers are welcome to walk outside and yell their sales spiel to the heavens if they want--the FCC is not abridging that. There is nothing in the First Amendment guaranteeing them a listener or a method of delivering their free speech. There is nothing that says that the government can't pass a law that protects those who do not want to hear your "free speech." So, tell me, how did we get here judicially. How is a law like this is unconstitutional. I'll tell you: Our appointed judges have stretched the constitution beyond recognition!

OK now, Zaibatsu, slowly, back away from your soap box.

Way to go Z...get back on the soap box and throw a few bars of soap to the judiciary!

Ruling or not, any telemarketer who calls me after Oct. 1st is going to get a little of my own "free speech".