GA found the applicable statute in NJ State Law regarding delivery of recorded messages to discover that last night's city-wide robocall was illegal.
Which makes the person responsible and any of her/his accomplicess guilty of a crime.
An 'accomplice' in this criminal act may also include the person who knowingly financed the operation.
Here's the Statute:
No wonder the incoming telephone number traced back to an-out-of-service line. That shows the caller was trying to cover her/his tracks.
So what's the penalty for breaking this law?
Well... we're not done YET, folks.
GA ran this by my legal department (a.k.a. Not-Stempler) who had THIS to say:
WOW... you mean EVERY recipient in the City of Hoboken could bring an action against the caller and (ka-ching ka-ching) get at least $300....
OK, peeps. GA is asking for help to find out WHO is behind this phone call. That's what I'm asking for YOUR help with.
Meanwhile...
STAY TUNED because Not-Stempler isn't finished with this one.... MORE to come on GA LATER.
Which makes the person responsible and any of her/his accomplicess guilty of a crime.
An 'accomplice' in this criminal act may also include the person who knowingly financed the operation.
 |
| Look up state law for robocalls here. |
Here's the Statute:
New Jersey Statutes - Title 48 Public Utilities - 48:17-28 Delivery of certain recorded telephone messages prohibited.
48:17-28. Delivery of certain recorded telephone messages prohibited.
2. A caller within the State shall not use a telephone or telephone line to contact a subscriber within the State to deliver a recorded message other than for emergency purposes, unless the recorded message is introduced by an operator who shall obtain the subscriber's consent before playing the recorded message, or unless a prior or current relationship exists between the caller and the subscriber.
No wonder the incoming telephone number traced back to an-out-of-service line. That shows the caller was trying to cover her/his tracks.
So what's the penalty for breaking this law?
Well... we're not done YET, folks.
GA ran this by my legal department (a.k.a. Not-Stempler) who had THIS to say:
Interesting, it seems that any person who received the call could bring an action in Hoboken Municipal Court against the caller, if one can determine who actually was responsible for making the call. While no one can solicit “victims”, there is nothing wrong with publishing the fact that anyone who received the call can sue and get at least $300.00, if, as noted above, the person responsible for the call can be determined.
WOW... you mean EVERY recipient in the City of Hoboken could bring an action against the caller and (ka-ching ka-ching) get at least $300....
OK, peeps. GA is asking for help to find out WHO is behind this phone call. That's what I'm asking for YOUR help with.
Meanwhile...
STAY TUNED because Not-Stempler isn't finished with this one.... MORE to come on GA LATER.
wow, hope we can pull back the curtain on this one and nail the masons. maybe someone can confront beth and ask her during the public portion at the next council meeting.
ReplyDeletemy guess is once nailed, they'll probably claim their "existing relationship" with recipients is they are registered voters.
I thought most of these do not call laws had a loophole that lets politicians and charities call you...
ReplyDeleteJAM, I ran your last point by Not-Stempler. Here's what he said, re the claim of an "existing relationship"- that those called were registered voters:
ReplyDeleteThat would only be the case if those contacted were on a list compiled by a campaign, such as donors or volunteers. And, in any event, those making the call would have to disclose how the numbers were selected and the nature of the relationship. It is highly unlikely that the randomness of those contacted appeared on the same list.
The loophole I think they are using is they are using a push-poll and not just spamming people w/ robo-calls. Politicians aren't allowed to just spam people w/ robo-calls any more which is why they use push-polls and pretend they are doing research.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone notice if the number changed from when the phone was ringing to after you answered the call?
ReplyDeleteIf it did they were using an Orange Box.
taith, the guidelines for live political calls and recorded messages in NJ are dictated by statute. The robocall last night was delivered without consent which violates the above-noted statute.
ReplyDeleteFurther, those making the call did not identify themselves, and the number traces back to a non-working line. I need Not-Stempler to comment on legality but those facts lead one to believe the caller was trying to hide her/his identity. Not something one usually does when obeying the law.
I could only hope that you are right GA.But I think the the poll question is the loophole.
ReplyDeletehate to say it - I've gotten robo calls from the mayor. No announcement, no consent. I've also gotten them from Bill Clinton and other politicians over the years. Maybe you're going a little bit "over the top" on this one. A little bit? who am I kidding?
ReplyDeleteIndie, read the statute.
ReplyDeleteCalls from Bill Clinton or any other luminaries, inc. the mayor, done on behalf of a campaign using voter rolls fall within "the a prior or current relationship exists between the caller and the subscriber", not at all applicable to last night's robocall. And the caller knows it, which is why no polling group was identified and the number used was for a non-working line.
I'll take your word for it that luminaries are deemed to have a prior relationship, I don't see them referred to in the statute (without more than a quick look.) Regardless, I got the stupid hospital call too, thought to myself, 'wow they haven't given up yet' and didn't give it another thought. I guess it's a slow news day...
ReplyDeleteIt's not the luminaries' relationship to the caller that's the "prior relationship", it's the campaigns they represent relationship to the voter- that's the "prior relationship". The voters in the examples you gave are accessed through voter rolls which is kosher.
ReplyDeleteAcross the board, whatever the law, however it's interpreted, it only matters if it's enforced. (Anyone who's in the DNC registry knows how this one goes.)
ReplyDeleteIf someone (like Not-Stempler) has the time/resources to pursue this one....
As for the scuttlebutt that the Masons now cast themselves as victims & the envy of those who covet their wealth & power, that's all consistent with their "Me of the I" approach. Also goes along with all the denial-related intricacies related to their power-addiction. Arrogance, denial, narcissism, perceived victimhood, etc.---classic addict mindset.
The robo-call was also a violation of FCC regulations because it came in AFTER 9pm.
ReplyDeleteMa$on should be very grateful the hospital remains open as their psychiatric ward may be just the ticket for treatment of her narcissistic personality disorder because in addition to having an untreated personality disorder, she's also extremely cheap. Just ask any of the many former nannies, assistants and housekeepers she's hired, abused and fired over the years.