Does the phone have a password, pass-code, or fingerprint authentication? Then there4 is an expectation of privacy and the claim to the contrary is self-serving and absurd.
This should be treated as what it is, and "qualified immunity"
be damned: a RICO offense involving both extortion under color of office, and armed robbery.
FWIW
If it was indeed an illegal warrant, then someone purjured himself to do it -- a felony.
One of the owners died because of the stress of those illegal searches.
That purjurer ought to be charged with felony murder (death consequent to the performance of a felony.
FWIW
I think that the Federal "Do Not Call Act" needs to be amended
substantially to deal with this situation:
1) Penalties need to be adjusted for the inflation that has occurred
since the 1991 passage of the Act. I suggest they should be
adjusted annually by the greater of the annual Consumer Price Index
inflation rate and the annual Producer Consumer Price Index
inflatioin rate.
2) Presently, the Act lists several "aggravating factors", which
increase the statutory penalties from $500 to $1500. Even if
multiple aggravating factors are present, the penalty does not
increase beyond the $1000 penalty for a single aggravating factor,
Instead, the penalties should have a 19901_$ 1000.00 increment
for each aggravating factor -- so that, for example, if three
aggravating factors are present, the statutory damages should be
1991_$ 3500.00 In particular, each request by the callee never
to be called again should also be regarded as a separate
aggravation, so in the case of a caller having been told by the
callee 100 times never to call again, the damages should be 1991_$
100,500.00.
3) Robo-calls are especially disruptive. The statutory
damage-increment for robo-calls should be 1991_$ 3000.00
instead of 1991_$ 1000.00. Moreover, the callee should
be reimbursed for attorney and court costs.
4) Spoofed-number calls are inherently deceptive, and should be
considered deliberately fraudulent. The statutory damage-increment
for spoofed-number calls should be 1991_$ 5000.00. Moreover, the
callee should be reimbursed for attorney and court costs.
Spoofing either a government or medical-provider number should be
a felony (just as impersonating a police officer is); the statutory
damage increment in that case should be at least 1991_$ 20000.00.
5) As noted above, currently telecommunications vendors have no
incentive to cooperate with callees, making spoofed-number calls
almost impossible to track and penalize. Instead, they need an
incentive. Telecommunications vendors should be reimbursed by the
court at a rate of 3x their costs, for helping to establish the
identities of guilty parties. That way, helping to solve this
situation would be a profit-center instead of a loss-center for
them.
6) When foreign call centers are found responsible for violating
the Act, they should be cut off from telecommunications-contact
with the US, by whatever means (diplomatic or otherwise) are
necessary. Note that in this case, the NSA almost certainly knows
exactly who is responsible. They should do whatever is necessary
to stop this invasion of my home.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both...
Many of these calls are also violations of the Federal Do Not Call Act -- but use the spoofed numbers to evade enforcement.
That Act should be amended as follows:
1) Penalties need to be adjusted for the inflation that has occurred
since the 1991 passage of the Act. I suggest they should be
adjusted for each interim year, and then annually, by the greater of the annual Consumer Price Index
inflation rate and the annual Producer Consumer Price Index
inflation rate.
Moreover, interest at a rate of 1% per month should be applied
to penalties, from the date of infraction to the date of payment.
2) Presently, the Act lists several "aggravating factors", which
increase the statutory penalties from $500 to $1500. Even if
multiple aggravating factors are present, the penalty does not
increase beyond the $1000 penalty for a single aggravating factor,
Instead, the penalties should have a 19901_$ 1000.00 increment
for each aggravating factor -- so that, for example, if three
aggravating factors are present, the statutory damages should be
1991_$ 3500.00 In particular, each request by the callee never to
be called again should be regarded as a separate aggravation, so in
the case of a caller having been told by the callee 100 times never
to call again, the damages should be 1991_$ 100,500.00.
3) Robo-calls are iespecially disruptive. The statutory
damage-increment for robo-calls should be 1991_$ 3000.00
instead of 1991_$ 1000.00. Moreover, the callee should
be reimbursed for attorney and court costs.
4) Spoofed-number calls are inherently deceptive, and should be
considered deliberately fraudulent. The statutory damage-increment
for spoofed-number calls should be 1991_$ 5000.00. Moreover, the
callee should be reimbursed for attorney and court costs.
5) As noted above, currently telecommunications vendors have no
incentive to cooperate with callees, making spoofed-number calls
almost impossible to track and penalize. Instead, they need an
incentive. Telecommunications vendors should be reimbursed by the
court at a rate of 3x their costs, for helping to establish the
identities of guilty parties. That way, helping to solve this
situation would be a profit-center instead of a loss-center for
them.
And Spectrum.
And AT&T
Make it $5000 damages per spoofed-number call, together with court costs and triple-time payment to the telecom provider their costs for helping to track down the offender.
And that's the reason I have completely avoided even considering ANY Sony product (much less buying it) for the last twenty years. And I expect to continue that for the rest of my life.
Turning off the camera should be considered as spoliation of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence: Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding... a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. )
After which, Stryker's case should be allowed to succeed on summary judgement.
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States..." (U.S. Constitution Clause VIII).
In the context of the times, "Titles of Nobility" constituted immunity to various aspects of the law. This clause should be interpreted in modern language as saying, "No class of persons shall be above the law."
In imposing their qualified immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court imposed a Constitutional abomination, and severely violated their oaths of office.
Subject says it: the "reaching out to the company we work with to manage the ad flow on our website" with such falsehoods is almost certainly libel per se.
As a matter of logic, I still don't see how the DMCA passes Constitutional muster: The Constitutional requirement is "for a limited time", and if those "technological measures" do not disable themselves after a limited time, then they are Constitutionally illegal.
And the legislators who enacted this have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and so are oathbreakers.
Speaking of penalties: fraudulent claim of copyright is also theft -- theft from the public -- and so should be punished just as severely as copyright infringement.
And "a separate class of people but a superior class, one for whom the rules, if they apply at all, are markedly different" is exactly what Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution forbids:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...
password?
Does the phone have a password, pass-code, or fingerprint authentication? Then there4 is an expectation of privacy and the claim to the contrary is self-serving and absurd.
False claim of copyright
False claim of copyright should be punishable at least as stringently as copyright infringement: after all, they are equally theft from the public.
It is what it is...
This should be treated as what it is, and "qualified immunity" be damned: a RICO offense involving both extortion under color of office, and armed robbery. FWIW
I was proposing an employment program for under-employed lawyers: make it lucrative enough that the lawyers can get rich suing the scammers.
illegal warrant?
If it was indeed an illegal warrant, then someone purjured himself to do it -- a felony. One of the owners died because of the stress of those illegal searches. That purjurer ought to be charged with felony murder (death consequent to the performance of a felony. FWIW
Amend the Do Not Call Act
I think that the Federal "Do Not Call Act" needs to be amended substantially to deal with this situation: 1) Penalties need to be adjusted for the inflation that has occurred since the 1991 passage of the Act. I suggest they should be adjusted annually by the greater of the annual Consumer Price Index inflation rate and the annual Producer Consumer Price Index inflatioin rate. 2) Presently, the Act lists several "aggravating factors", which increase the statutory penalties from $500 to $1500. Even if multiple aggravating factors are present, the penalty does not increase beyond the $1000 penalty for a single aggravating factor, Instead, the penalties should have a 19901_$ 1000.00 increment for each aggravating factor -- so that, for example, if three aggravating factors are present, the statutory damages should be 1991_$ 3500.00 In particular, each request by the callee never to be called again should also be regarded as a separate aggravation, so in the case of a caller having been told by the callee 100 times never to call again, the damages should be 1991_$ 100,500.00. 3) Robo-calls are especially disruptive. The statutory damage-increment for robo-calls should be 1991_$ 3000.00 instead of 1991_$ 1000.00. Moreover, the callee should be reimbursed for attorney and court costs. 4) Spoofed-number calls are inherently deceptive, and should be considered deliberately fraudulent. The statutory damage-increment for spoofed-number calls should be 1991_$ 5000.00. Moreover, the callee should be reimbursed for attorney and court costs. Spoofing either a government or medical-provider number should be a felony (just as impersonating a police officer is); the statutory damage increment in that case should be at least 1991_$ 20000.00. 5) As noted above, currently telecommunications vendors have no incentive to cooperate with callees, making spoofed-number calls almost impossible to track and penalize. Instead, they need an incentive. Telecommunications vendors should be reimbursed by the court at a rate of 3x their costs, for helping to establish the identities of guilty parties. That way, helping to solve this situation would be a profit-center instead of a loss-center for them. 6) When foreign call centers are found responsible for violating the Act, they should be cut off from telecommunications-contact with the US, by whatever means (diplomatic or otherwise) are necessary. Note that in this case, the NSA almost certainly knows exactly who is responsible. They should do whatever is necessary to stop this invasion of my home.
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of LawMcLaughl
McLaughlin should be charged under US Code TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242: see https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law:
telecom providers
Many of these calls are also violations of the Federal Do Not Call Act -- but use the spoofed numbers to evade enforcement. That Act should be amended as follows: 1) Penalties need to be adjusted for the inflation that has occurred since the 1991 passage of the Act. I suggest they should be adjusted for each interim year, and then annually, by the greater of the annual Consumer Price Index inflation rate and the annual Producer Consumer Price Index inflation rate. Moreover, interest at a rate of 1% per month should be applied to penalties, from the date of infraction to the date of payment. 2) Presently, the Act lists several "aggravating factors", which increase the statutory penalties from $500 to $1500. Even if multiple aggravating factors are present, the penalty does not increase beyond the $1000 penalty for a single aggravating factor, Instead, the penalties should have a 19901_$ 1000.00 increment for each aggravating factor -- so that, for example, if three aggravating factors are present, the statutory damages should be 1991_$ 3500.00 In particular, each request by the callee never to be called again should be regarded as a separate aggravation, so in the case of a caller having been told by the callee 100 times never to call again, the damages should be 1991_$ 100,500.00. 3) Robo-calls are iespecially disruptive. The statutory damage-increment for robo-calls should be 1991_$ 3000.00 instead of 1991_$ 1000.00. Moreover, the callee should be reimbursed for attorney and court costs. 4) Spoofed-number calls are inherently deceptive, and should be considered deliberately fraudulent. The statutory damage-increment for spoofed-number calls should be 1991_$ 5000.00. Moreover, the callee should be reimbursed for attorney and court costs. 5) As noted above, currently telecommunications vendors have no incentive to cooperate with callees, making spoofed-number calls almost impossible to track and penalize. Instead, they need an incentive. Telecommunications vendors should be reimbursed by the court at a rate of 3x their costs, for helping to establish the identities of guilty parties. That way, helping to solve this situation would be a profit-center instead of a loss-center for them.
Re:
And Spectrum. And AT&T Make it $5000 damages per spoofed-number call, together with court costs and triple-time payment to the telecom provider their costs for helping to track down the offender.
When you do "takedowns"
in court, it is called "spoliation" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence#Spoliation"
"the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator...."
When you do
Re: Re:
And that's the reason I have completely avoided even considering ANY Sony product (much less buying it) for the last twenty years. And I expect to continue that for the rest of my life.
Turning off the camera should be considered as spoliation of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence: Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding... a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. )
After which, Stryker's case should be allowed to succeed on summary judgement.
The Constitution itself
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States..." (U.S. Constitution Clause VIII).
In the context of the times, "Titles of Nobility" constituted immunity to various aspects of the law. This clause should be interpreted in modern language as saying, "No class of persons shall be above the law."
In imposing their qualified immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court imposed a Constitutional abomination, and severely violated their oaths of office.
Re: Re: This ought to be libel
Libel requires statements to third parties. Which happened. And I listed them.
This ought to be libel
Subject says it: the "reaching out to the company we work with to manage the ad flow on our website" with such falsehoods is almost certainly libel per se.
Ditto the "phishing attempt" and "spam" messages.
DMCA and Constitution
As a matter of logic, I still don't see how the DMCA passes Constitutional muster: The Constitutional requirement is "for a limited time", and if those "technological measures" do not disable themselves after a limited time, then they are Constitutionally illegal.
And the legislators who enacted this have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and so are oathbreakers.
copyright abuse
Abuse of copyright should be punishable just as severely as copyright infringement.
And in this case, since it is abuse for commercial gain, it should be punished just like felony infringement.
FWIW
Copyright violation as theft
Speaking of penalties: fraudulent claim of copyright is also theft -- theft from the public -- and so should be punished just as severely as copyright infringement.
Re: Back to the days of nobility and peasantry
And "a separate class of people but a superior class, one for whom the rules, if they apply at all, are markedly different" is exactly what Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution forbids: