Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Second Federal Judge Blocks Do-Not-Call Registry

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 07:36 PM
Original message
Second Federal Judge Blocks Do-Not-Call Registry
DENVER (Reuters) - A second federal judge on Thursday blocked the popular ``do not call'' program that would declare 50 million telephone numbers off limits for telemarketers, saying it violated constitutional protections for free speech.

News of the judge's decision came less than an hour after Congress overrode another legal hurdle to the Federal Trade Commission-run list thrown up by a federal judge in Oklahoma City early this week.

The latest legal ruling could prove more difficult to overcome as it cannot be remedied in Congress and must be decided in the courts.

U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham in Denver said, ``The Federal Trade Commission has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumers' decision by manipulating consumer choice and favoring speech by charitable (organizations) over commercial speech.''

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-teleco...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. funny how it's 'free speech' when they want to sell you something
Edited on Thu Sep-25-03 07:41 PM by ixion
but when it's political, spiritual or artistic, it's called dissent and labeled unpatriotic or demonized in some fashion. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LastDemInIdaho Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Who appointed these spam judges?
Any ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. This one is was appointed by King George I.
Hence the way his heart bleeds for the poor businesspeople who have been denied their right to call you during dinner and try to sell you shit you don't want or need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LastDemInIdaho Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Figures
When they call here I tell them I'll get whomever they are calling for and just leave the phone off the hook. Idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purrfessor Donating Member (463 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Judge Lee West was appointed by Carter
He was the first to rule on this case.

http://www.okcu.edu/law/press/nrl03020.asp

<snip> In 1965, Judge West was appointed by Governor Henry Bellmon to serve as District Judge for the 22nd Judicial District of Oklahoma, serving also as Special Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals until 1973. During this time, Judge West graduated from the National College of State Trial Judges.

President Richard Nixon appointed Judge West to the Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C., in 1973. He was designated the board's Acting Chairman by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.


Judge West was appointed U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. The first ruling was technical and easily disposed of - this one...
will require some court time - and it may impact states (like mine - PA) that have their own "DO NOT CALL" lists. The calls stopped about a year ago here - if they start again a whole lot of people will be pissed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hyphenate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. I Guess I Don't Get It
Both Democrats and Republicans want the "no-call" law to go through. Are these freaking judges in the telemarketers pockets? It's insulting to US to have these people call us. We're the ones who have to tell them to f**k off when they call, invading our privacy. I am frankly stymied. I don't consider this a "free speech" issue--I call it an issue of privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
36. Almost:
Edited on Fri Sep-26-03 04:42 PM by Robb
Both Democrats and Republicans know their consituents want the "no-call" law to go through. They're in a bind; the judges, however, have no such problems. They can freely pander to the industries that will keep them gainfully employed when they retire.

(Edited to add): My response lately has been to wait for their pause in speech (which we all know takes some patience), then say "Yeah, go f*ck yourself." And hang up.

So far so good. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. What's wrong with this country?
The RIAA is free to sue 12 year old girls for downloading music that the music industry makes too expensive for working people to buy, yet telemarketers are free to disrupt working people in the sanctuary of their homes with too good to be true sales pitches, bullshit recorded messages, and paid hucksters calling from India.

So help me God, if I'm in a bad mood when one of these little turds call I will respond with a wrath that will scare them shitless!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. I've been googling "Judge Edward Nottingham" and so far all I've found...
is that he surprised a number of people by ruling against the Anti Defamation League. Which ever party appointed him is going to get a black eye over this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Wish we could find his home phone number.
Would be very edifying for a few thousand people to call him at home to engage him in some protected speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I verified your post: a Bush Sr. appointee.
During February, two different federal courts came to different conclusions on the question of who may circulate an initiative petition. On February 8, a U.S. District Court in Colorado ruled that it is unconstitutional for a city to provide that only city residents may circulate an initiative petition to change a city ordnance. Chandler v City of Arvada, 00N 342. The decision is by Judge Edward Nottingham, a Bush Sr. appointee.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2001/0301.html

Democrats have got to push this one into George I's face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. If you Google edward nottingham colorado
You come up with the address and phone number of Edward U. Nottingham in Denver. I don't know if it's the same guy, and I'm not going to post the information here, but someone else might like to try it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
35. Try his office number
Edited on Fri Sep-26-03 04:15 PM by HawkeyeX
Edward U Nottingham, (303) 844-5018, 1929 Stout St, Denver, CO 80294

This is his office number. It's Googlable and public.

(I know the area -- that's the U.S. District Court of Colorado)

Hawkeye-X
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harpboy_ak Donating Member (437 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-27-03 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
41. judge's home phone
Would be very edifying for a few thousand people to call him at home to engage him in some protected speech.

from a post in misc.consumers.frugal-living:

The Honorable Judge Edward Nottingham
1929 Stout Denver CO 80294 (303) 844-5018

Jay Leno suggested Wednesday night that these judges should get a lot of dinnertime phone calls....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Here's a bunch more -- the guy looks like a libertarian
http://www.ballot-access.org/1999/0306.html

On February 18, {1999} a U.S. District Court Judge in Colorado struck down the federal law which limits how much money parties can spend on the campaigns of their congressional candidates. Federal Election Commission v Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, no. cv-89-N-1159. The decision is by Edward Nottingham, a Bush appointee. The FEC is appealing.

<snip>

Nottingham's decision reads like a political science journal article about the role that political parties ought to play. He wrote, "The FEC seeks to broaden the definition of corruption to the point that it intersects with the very framework of representative government. Corruption cannot be defined so broadly. Nor can corruption be defined to include whatever it is that political parties and candidates do which the FEC does not like... Political parties, and the central activities in which they engage, are a paradigm of the right to freedom of association as guaranteed by the First Amendment...



http://www.majorbates.com/news/20may00_cosprings.htm

May 20, 2000
The Army on Friday halted the discharge of a Fort Carson soldier who refused to take the anthrax vaccination and then sued in federal court.On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham refused to hear Pfc. Jemekia Barber's case, which claims the shots meant to protect soldiers against biological or chemical attacks are unsafe. But Nottingham set a June 1 hearing to consider an injunction against the Army.



http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1...

*Denver, Colorado* U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham permanently blocked enforcement of a 1984 state amendment barring the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion except when the woman's life is in danger. The ruling quoted the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal laws are binding even if they conflict with state laws.


http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2003/01/09/new...

Crews will continue to cut trees in and around the Beaver Park area south of Sturgis to try to reduce wildfire danger, despite another legal attempt by an environmental group to stop the wor

<snip>

Biodiversity and Brademeyer filed suit, asking U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham to declare the new law unconstitutional and halt timber cutting in Beaver Park.

Nottingham on Nov. 26 denied their requests.



http://www.citypages.com/databank/22/1050/article9297.a...

The lead counsel on the Jarvis lawsuit, Denver-based attorney Curtis Kennedy, was no stranger to U S West. In all, Kennedy has been the attorney of record in 45 suits filed against the company. He won all of his cases, until he took on the Jarvis suit. In Denver in August 1999 U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham ruled in favor of U S West. In Kennedy's view, the judge interpreted federal laws as allowing companies to change pension-plan policies on a whim. "Judge Nottingham ruled that U S West could modify the pension plan, take out language prohibiting monies to be used on medical costs," Kennedy explained in a retirees' association newsletter in August 1999. "Last year the company took out $60 million to pay retiree medical costs. No doubt the company will take the same action in 1999 and future years....

"Considering how the company has ignored the needs of its retirees during the 1990s," the attorney continued, "I have long suspected that the U S West plan is to hoard the pension plan surplus--without regard to past practices of regular pension increases--and let the surplus build up to a massive amount that could be used by the company for non-pension purposes."



http://abacus.oxy.edu/pub/queerlaw/digests/v01.n251

But U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham ruled that the College Republicans were asking the court to interpret the policies in a "factual vaccuum" because the Colorado State chapter had not barred people from joining only because they were homosexuals.

The colleges' policies, Judge Nottingham wrote, prevented the College Republicans from excluding homosexuals solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, but the rules did not preclude the organzation from rejecting homosexuals who espouse a gay-rights philosophy "in such a manner as to attribute the message to the College Republicans."

The non-discrimination policies, Judge Nottingham continued, did not impede the College Republican group's ability to "further its purposes." He also cited the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, which overturned a Colorado state law that had prohibited certain protections for homosexuals.


http://www.praxagora.com/sierra/flum/9410.htm

Colorado federal prison inmate James Howard, who is serving a 10-year sentence for car theft, has brought a lawsuit against the prison for not allowing him to practice his "religion," which is Satanism.

A federal court agreed, with U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham ruling that ``we ought to give the devil his due,'' quoting from another case dealing with Satanism. Prison officials had warned that the materials which Howard said he needed for his devotions---candles, incense, a gong, a black robe, a chalice, and a wooden staff---could threaten prison security, but the judge said the inmate's religious rights had to take precedence.

Howard said he plans to practice "destruction rituals," which he described as a way to visualize people's death, purging anger towards them without doing them any harm. However, Dr. Carl Raschke, an author of a book on Satanism and teacher of religious studies at the University of Denver, said that such rituals are commonly intended to kill people, and he called the judge's decision "reprehensible."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
30. google "corporate personhood" instead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. One question, Mr. Justice Nottingham....
How can a shopping mall keep me from passing out leaflets promoting my home business in their 'house', but one of their telemarketers can call me in mine, on a phone line I pay for, to tell me what their specials are this week?

All you appellate law jockeys, kindly distinguish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evildoer Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. Am I wrong?
Since when does free speech override right to privacy? I dont have the right to call anyone on this forum repeatedly on behalf of free speech. I hope this law goes through in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. honestly...
... anyone thinking they are going to justify this obstruction of the do-not-call list on free speech grounds is a fool.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cprompt Donating Member (165 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. exactly
its a freakin invasion of privacy. i had two of them call my cell phone past 9pm. i have a young child that goes to bed before that. i told the lady i would be glad to talk about it if i could have her home number, she came back real snotty "well sir by law we can call you up to 10:30pm"

look at the damn vote "The House voted 412-8 for the mandate, and the Senate vote was 95-0" wtf is wrong with these judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Hi cprompt!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. C*cksuckers....
Why can't I tell them that I don't want to be disturbed? the Do Not Call registry requires an affirmative action on the part of every person participating.

If I say "I don't want to hear it", why should I be compelled to listen to it?

Their "free speech" eats up MY assets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. 'every person participating'
the registry consists of 50 million phone #'s.
They are not all single. There may be couples, with voting aged children, whole households of voting aged individuals sharing a phone.
The number of people/votes wanting this peace from harassment is huge.

somebody better be listening.
dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. and LOTS more people want it
who for one reason or another are not on the list yet.

I tried, but never got a confirmation. it's LOTS more than 50m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shirlden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
20. Those recordings
that they leave on your answering machine always have an 800 number for you to call. They have to pay for these calls, so I call them.....several times, to tell them to put me on their do not call list.

Think I will start calling more often. May save those numbers and call every day.....just to remind them that I don't want to be called.

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
21. "...manipulating CONSUMER choice..."? Consumer's weren't
Edited on Thu Sep-25-03 10:49 PM by Dover
manipulated into calling in their request to be on the no-call list!

Over 50 million people CHOSE to be on the list, they weren't automatically put on the list.


I'd like a "no knock" law that would apply to Jehovah's Witnesses' door to door proselytizing, but I'm afraid that political campaigners who also go door to door have too much in common with them. Afterall, they are both selling their candidate and their ideological world view.
I know I can always slam down the phone or slam the door but they have no right to invade my private space, and I'm sure they'd feel the same way if I continually called or visited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
22. You'd think telemarketers would welcome this list.
They'd be more likely to reach people who want to listen to their sales spiel and not have to listen to rude assholes like myself who are likely to hang up or give them an earfull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Code_Name_D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
23. When we the people sue the corps
we consider ourselves lucky if we get a rulling inside of 15 years. But when the corps sue the people, we get a rulling over night. What is this, justice by Fed X? (When you absolutly positivly have to oppresse over night.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. Well stated, Code Name D.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
24. Isn't it against the law to FAX sales propaganda to businesses???
Why isn't that a "free speech violation?" Why is it only a free speech violation when it involves the invasion of consumer's paid telephone service and privacy?

I think the 50 million who have signed up for the list need to start calling the telemarketers' 800 numbers. Repeatedly. Relentlessly. Just exercising our free speech, and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hogarth Donating Member (457 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
26. Free Speech?
So, if a vacuum cleaner salesman walks in my front door and starts talking, it's a First Amendment issue? Evangelists can knock on my door even after I've posted a sign politely saying, "We're not interested."?

It sounds to me like we're not to be "left alone."

Free speech is a real stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smb Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
27. Make Congress Patch The Law Again
Edited on Fri Sep-26-03 12:03 PM by smb
The rationale for this ruling is that the DNC list discriminates because it applies to commercial telemarketers but not to charity or political ones.

Get on the horn to your Congresscritter and tell him that 1)you understand this issue, 2)you expect him to fix it PDQ by passing an amended law without these loopholes, and 3)sitting back and waiting for a court appeal is NOT an option if he wants to keep his job.

Congress doesn't want to block THEIR telepestering, but if We The People strike while the iron is hot they may be forced (kicking and screaming behind the scenes) to do it anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
28. Here's what I don't get
You can put a sign on your front lawn, saying "No soliciting" and anybody who does is breaking the law. Why isn't that same protection afforded consumers re telemarketing and spam?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demdave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. It is not breaking the law.
It may be against your rules but I rather doubt you can call the cops in the solicitor.

I think a law can be passed by the legistlature that would remedy this. They just didn't word this one correctly. I see no reason why this would be unconstitutional if an individual asks to be excluded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. Nope, it's illegal...
same as a trespasser who trespasses when the property is posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n0_data Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
29. These guys are idiots
Keep bringing more lawsuits, that'll be good for your business. The longer this is in the papers and on the networks, the more people that find out about the DNC list -- which will result in another wave of sign-ups.

By the time it's finally up and running, there will be 100 million on the list. All thanks to the advertising these guys are doing with their lawsuits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
34. BTW Nottigham is an ass
I've dealt with him personally, and he's an Repuke ass that does not deserve his seat.

The state DNC is still in effect. He has no credibility anyway.


Hawkeye-X
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
38. S'plain...s'plain...how is this free speech? s'plain..s'plain
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
39. The day corporations got "person" status
is the day things started going to hell and what got us to where we're at now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathappened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-03 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
40. funny we got our first call tonite
we get calls from phone companys , but never for marketing , we live way up north and don't have these problems , but wife and i scatched our heads and wonder how and the hell did they come up with our number , it is unlisted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC