Sunday, January 28, 2007

Hate mail from a defender of telemarketing

Today I received the following email from John Martin of Phoenix (whose email address begins with "satguys01"), who was apparently set off by my web page reporting my record of lawsuits against telemarketers, which he came across about 30 minutes earlier while doing a Google search for "arizona telemarketing attorney" (could he be in need of one?):

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:12:22 -0800 (PST)
From: John Martin
Subject: Get a life

You are just as bad as the telemarketers that call you.
Just like a scummy attorney that profits from filing
frivolous lawsuits. You raise the cost of doing business
for companies, raise taxes by overburdening the courts,
and therefore raise the cost of goods for consumers in the
marketplace.

What do you care? You made a dollar.

Telemarketing is critical for the economy to function. The
wheels would stop turning if there were no phones or business
conducted on them.

The Federal and State do no call list is just another angle
for the Fed and State to make a buck.

Just ask yourself, why is it legal for politicians to contact
and harass millions of citizens with automated messages and
call people on the so called do not call list? So its OK for
them to fund raise and get re elected (profit) using
unscrupulous methods. But a legitimate business offering
legit goods or services is restricted.

Are there Marketers that take advantage of people yes. Like
any other business there are bad apples. But most offer legit
goods and services.

Does your mailbox get full of junk mail? Do you watch
commercials on TV? or even now at the movies? Why not sue
them? Junk Mail does more damage to the environment than
anything else. But the US post service make money on it so
that will never stop.

Screen you calls, that's what caller id is for, hangup on
automated messages and telemarketers. And stop with the lame
lawsuits. Do you really suffer any damages by listening to a
message or having a dialer hang up on you? Or are you just an
other greedy opportunist like you EVIL telemarketing
counterparts just out for a quick buck?
I sent the following reply:
From: "James J. Lippard" [my email addr]
To: John Martin
Subject: Re: Get a life
In-Reply-To: <400549.50780.qm@web62015.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

The difference, John, is that they are knowingly violating
the law, and I'm not. None of my lawsuits have been
frivolous, which is why I have a 100% record of success.
I'm only raising the cost of business for companies that are
blatantly breaking the law; my impact on the courts is
negligible--I always offer to settle out of court for the
minimum statutory amounts before filing a lawsuit, and I
always file in small claims which minimizes the paperwork.
The money I collect is specified as damages in the statutes,
and serves not only to compensate me for the violations but
to act as a deterrent to further violations. It has worked
pretty well--I don't get many such calls any more.

If you think the law is wrong, petition to have it changed.
But if you violate it, be prepared to get sued and to lose.

What's your interest that motivates you to send a nasty email
to someone you don't know? From your email address, I would
guess that you're in the satellite dish resale business,
which is well known for its sleazy violations of
telemarketing law.

Are you a regular violator of the TCPA, John?

BTW, I have a nice life. What kind of life do you have that
you seek enjoyment out of sending such an email as this?
For the record, I don't watch television commercials (thanks, TiVo!) and I'm also very opposed to spam (and much of my professional life in the Internet industry has been devoted to combatting it). We also don't go to see movies in the theater anymore except on rare occasion; we rent DVDs. I'm an advocate of permission-based marketing to individuals, not indiscriminate broadcast advertising.

2 comments:

Jenya said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pierre Stromberg said...

Now that's strange. John Martin forgot to include his phone number in his email. Must have been an oversight.