ROBERT LAUER spoke thusly to: LAURIE CAMPBELL
RL>I have been monitoring all the comments about Fax Advertising.  I
RL>am a person who does Fax Advertising.  Why?  To make a living.
   And it is folks like you who I am going to make a few bucks off of 
in the very near future. 
   I hope you have an adequate income to pay for attorneys fees, court 
costs fines and other judgements that may be levied against you.  If 
not, start shopping for a good bankruptcy atty. now.
RL> I called the FCC to get the rules on fax advertising and either 
RL>I did not understand them or their is some basic misunderstandings 
RL>on penalties for violation there of.
   Bad move.  Start by calling your Congresscritter and getting a copy 
of the EXACT law covering same.  All any agency can do is give you two 
things:  1) their interpretation of the law.  2) Supply you with their 
promulgated rules to enforce same.
   Unfortunately, the court(s) may have have a completely different 
interpretation of the federal (and any state) law(s) which address the 
subject.  It is only the court interpretation which has any meaning.  
Witness the disparity of the various districts in the above matter.
RL> The receiver of the fax has to notify the sender who has to 
RL>have his name and telephone number on the fax that he no longer 
RL>wants to receive the fax. 
   And what is your interpretation of the federal statutes in this 
regard?  If you are faxing on the behalf of another does your name and 
number also have to appear?  Or will your client's info be enough? If 
so why do you think so?
RL> The sender is then required by the FCC to keep a log of those 
RL>people requesting not to be faxed to. 
   An example of a promulgated rule as this does _NOT_ appear in the 
law, per se.
RL> If the sender violates that FCC rule, the receiver of the 
RL>unwanted fax came sue for his damages. Not $500 dollars. The 
RL>$500 is a penalty levied by the FCC as I understand it. 
   Without trying to sound contrite or condescending...read the law.  
It is VERY specific.  Under "Private Right of Action" it clearly reads 
that "an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a 
violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, 
whichever is greater, or" ....
   Nowhere does said law give the appropriate fine to the gvt agency.  
It puts the minimum amt ($500) in the hands of the plaintiff - no one 
else! 
   Your "understanding" is severely flawed.  Another good reason to 
NOT trust the gvt. interpretation.  We all know how good the IRS is at 
interpreting their own codes as well as laws of the Republic.  Enough 
said.
RL>I have never sent a fax to anyone who has requested that I not 
RL>do so. 
   You severely miss the point.  The WHOLE reason Congress had to get 
involved in this matter is because of folks like you.  We don't want 
your faxes unless you ask for PRIOR permission.  Taking names off your 
list only after a complaint has been lodged is like closing the barn 
door after the horse has escaped.  You will only cause more rules and 
regs to be passed (by the feds) along with higher fines and possible 
criminal penalties attached.  That is cutting your own throat.
RL>I was doing this before the FCC ruling.
   What ruling?  Your lack of history is sorely apparent.
   Congress got involved because of the severe burden (and extreme 
annoyance) unsolicited faxes cause.  The FCC (or any gvt agency 
charged with enforcing any law) makes no "ruling" except on their own 
promulgated rules.  They may well mis-interpret/factually interpret 
the law.  Either way, only a court of competent jurisdiction may make 
a ruling with any surety.
RL> I did not want to cause any ill will that could cause my faxing 
RL>client any ill will. 
   We have a local company who has caused nothing but grief to their 
clients for indiscriminate faxing.  I talked to two companies that 
engaged them and between the two only one sale was made.  All other 
calls were complaints about the faxes or demands to be removed from 
the list.
RL> If a fax number is listed the Yellow Pages, it is, in my 
RL>opinion, okay to fax to that number until tolf not to do so. 
   I would have to agree with you at this point in time on the above 
statement.
   But that said, would not a business who advertises their fax number 
assume that said number would be used for legitimate business 
inquiries (such as requests for quotes or actual orders) rather than a 
solicitation?  Should they have a legitimate expectation to assume 
same?
RL> Fax advertising is a business with a limited life. People who 
RL>hate fax advertising so much should buy a computer. That will 
RL>give the ability to stop the expense of fax paper and never miss 
RL>a fax again because the machine was out of paper.
   Hey FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (sorry moderator)
   I should BUY such a machine???  No butthead, YOU BUY ALL OF US 
ONE!!!
   We are not here on this earth to make you a sleazy living.  You are 
a leech of the first order!  You steal our time, our resources, our 
supplies and you think if we don't like your slimy business practices 
that _WE_ should be the ones to spend our hard-earned money upgrading 
equipment to keep _YOU_ from annoying us?  Think again!
   
RL> Chill out and let people make a legitimate living. 
   What a crock!  "Legitimate living?"  Do you even know the meaning 
of such a phrase?  You and you cohorts are skating on the periphery of 
the law.  Your only salvation is that so far no two federal courts 
have fully agreed with each other on the interpretation of the Public 
Law.  That may soon come to an end.  Then you will have to get a real 
job like the rest of us who slave 12-16 hours a day to feed our 
families and pay our employees.
   Dick
   TheMerc@Juno.com
When everyone thinks alike, nobody thinks very much.
* CMPQwk 1.42 84 *
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
1:3603/20010.0)
---------------