>>> Part 1 of 2...
 DR> What you fail to take into consideration is a federal law which 
 DR> prohibits you sending unsolicited fax's.
Dick, care to comment on how the Law treats unsolicited faxing across
international borders ? Is the onus on the "originating" side to
prosecute complaints or on the "receiving" side ? I can understand how
things might work if both sides have similar laws regulating this
aspect, but how do things get done if one side hasn't anything to match
? Ahhhhh, but here I see that we get into the "political" aspects...and
everybody knows that not even politics can stand up to the Law...or can
it ? Any case law you can relate ?
 DR> Federal courts in two jurisdictions have heard cases revolving 
 DR> around this law.  The end results were not the same.  Nor was it 
 DR> firmly established that Congress had any jurisdiction whatsoever in 
 DR> this regard concerning strictly intrastate (vs interstate) faxing.
An interesting aspect: jurisdiction. About as confusing as anything that
your Congress (and my Parliament) can drum-up. Too remiscient of the old
"pass-the-buck" game that kids play !  And perhaps twice as convoluting
where/when Technology is concerned these days.
 DR> Either way, you take up a valuable resource of another w/o 
 DR> permission.  And to do so just may push someone over the edge to file 
 DR> suit against you - both civilly and criminally.
Criminally ? Civilly, I can understand, but unless such electronic
communications contained a message of a treasonous nature urging civil
disobedience or other insurrection then there is not much consideration
for criminal litigations. Oh wait a min: wire fraud ! Yes, that would be
a situation to launch criminal proceedings...
 DR> Since I do a lot of pro se / pro per work (when time allows) do you
 DR> want to face someone like me inside of a federal courtroom for your 
 DR> unlawful actions?  Your atty costs will be guaranteed to be in the 
 DR> neighborhood of $10,000.00.  It could be even hairier if the plaintiff
 DR> was represented by competent counsel.  How much direct mail could you 
 DR> have gotten for that amt. of cash?
You're talking REALLY EXPENSIVE ! 10-Grand could net a lot better use in
* my * hands than in the bank account of some Legal Beagle...anytime ! I
pay my Counsel _enough_ already...
 DR> And I am truly surprised that no one has filed a complaint against 
 DR> you with whatever regulatory agency that has oversight of your 
 DR> profession.  That includes your competition ratting you out.
Sometimes the competition is about as friendly as a mountain cat...
"unfair competition" and all the rest...
 DR> Sometimes going "on the cheap" may be far more expensive than you 
 DR> could contemplate.
TOO TRUE !
 DR> The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 makes it unlawful to 
 DR> not identify yourself and your calling number on a fax.
Now here's something I've never given much thought towards. There have
been times when I've sent faxes without any source identifications: most
had been solicited, and therefore expected by receiving parties. I've
always looked at such identifiers as simply being a means to discern a
general locale from which a message had originated. This would mean that
if I were visiting down Stateside and sent faxes from my notebook/laptopper
that I would _have_ to change the identification/origin headers to
reflect the hotel/motel (or phone booth) number that I was staying at
for whatever short duration of time might be involved. (Easier to send
email and let a central communications system send-out an appropriate
fax message...) With the available software, it's an easy act to install
a false (source) number and originator's name.
 DR> What some of us do (for revenge) is to completely color several 
 DR> pieces of paper and tape them together and "return" the fax.  That way
 DR> we strip you out of toner and paper by sending a "loop" fax to 
 DR> you...esp. in the middle of the night.   The gist of that is hoping
 DR> we get a message across that we do not welcome intrusive faxes.
Though I commiserate with you here, I do find that this is NOT necessarily
the "best way" to fight back. There is, somehow, something "criminal" in
that action... Unusual to find an attorney advocating the "taking of the
law into one's own hands", I think.
 DR> Good luck with your endeavors and PLEASE, do not take what I say as
 DR> a put down of your business practices.  Each of us has to make that 
 DR> personal decision as to how we solicit.  They are merely a commentary 
 DR> on your post and a warning of [possible] future events for which you 
 DR> may not be prepared or even aware of.
Mind if I "borrow" that CYA ? It's good, really good, Dick ! I'd hate to
see it encoded in legalese...... !
 DR> A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.-- T.Jefferson
In Thomas Jefferson's time it was fine. I dunno if it applies today,
 >>> Continued to next message...
---
---------------