![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25155-100x100.png\")
YEAH!!! Talk about giving it to \"the Man\"!!!
YEAH!!! Talk about giving it to \"the Man\"!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-523557-100x100.png\")
Never mind about my first comment. 28 USC 1331 allows for concurrent jurisdiction for federal questions in state and federal courts.
TMYK.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@agnamus:
State courts are generally \"courts of general jurisdiction\" and have jurisdiction over any justiciable claim, which are any claims arising under state or federal law. The various state constitutions create their own court systems, and the scope of these courts' jurisdiction is drawn directly from the state constitution and state statutes implementing them. People routinely bring all kinds of federal claims in state court, and some such federal claims like those under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are usually brought in state court.
28 USC 1331 is the federal question jurisdiction statute for federal courts. They're \"courts of limited jurisdiction\" in the sense that Article III of the Constitution creates the federal court system and pretty narrowly defines the scope of federal jurisdiction. Congress enacted statutes like 28 USC 1331 to implement Article III, as the Constitution doesn't provide all the rules necessary to manage such a complex system.
The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which is what this consumer brought her case under, is a weird statute for reasons that I won't get into, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of courts hold that you can bring TCPA claims in state court, and indeed the legislative history indicates that a sponsoring senator intended for these cases to be easy to bring in small claims court. At least in the 7th Circuit you can also bring these cases in federal court under 28 USC 1331.
For good information on the TCPA have a look at [www.junkfax.org] [www.tcpalaw.com] (a subscription service, but essential to pro se litigants), and [www.panix.com] (collects some good resources).
What was the judgment amount? And what was the claim made in court? I mean, what was the basis for the lawsuit?
So what happened after contacting Mr. Lammé. How did they win the case??
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-186777-100x100.png\")
More importantly: Will Small Claims Attack Dog become a contributing author, much like Tax Cat? In fact, can they maybe fight? Or be friends?
Cliffhanger, indeed.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
That picture is great.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-513539-100x100.png\")
shes hot for an old lady
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-397742-100x100.png\")
California Small Claims is limited to $5,000.00 in damages.
However, under certain circumstances, the Court can (and has) trebled damages up to $15,000.00.
I've an uncle who has been doing this...and routinely getting the trebling of damages for a couple of years now.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-63807-100x100.png\")
Chris, I believe that's supposed to be Small Claims Attack Cat.
But it's OK. I know mistakes happen. Don't get too worked up over it.
@Eric1285: Maybe it would have been clearer if I said \"supposed to be a Small Claims Attack Cat\". You see, the Consumerist is biased towards cats. So you see, I accused Chris of accidentally using a dog instead of a cat! Har har.
Har.
My error...
$7500 is the limit for individuals, $5000 is the limit for businesses/corporations.
Let the trebling begin...
Let's see:
You're gonna believe Alkon, who posts IP addresses of people whose comments she doesn't agree with - Alkon, who actually stalked and called a commenter's place of work and reported the commenter to his boss - and Alkon, who offers none of the specifics about her glorious victory over the telemarketing forces of evil, even though she's meticulous about
You should have looked more closely into both Alkon and her claims. I'm not convinced she did the things she said she did.
But by all means, give this troubled woman more traffic without trying to verify her claims.
Let's see:
You're gonna believe Alkon, who posts IP addresses of people whose comments she doesn't agree with - Alkon, who actually stalked and called a commenter's place of work and reported the commenter to his boss - and Alkon, who offers none of the specifics about her glorious victory over the telemarketing forces of evil, even though she's meticulous about detailing every little transgression by the occasional commenter - people she calls \"little turds\".
Odd that someone who gives out such authoritative advice on so many subjects including parenting, child raising, and polite behavior seems to be one of the most vindictive single, childless people I've read in a long time.
You should have looked more closely into both Alkon and her claims. I'm not convinced she did the things she said she did.
But by all means, give this troubled woman more traffic without trying to verify her claims.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21970-100x100.png\")
@CaliforniaCajun & Shrink_Ray_Bandit:
Wow.
Look, if you're going to make such extreme personal attacks, link to evidence of some sort. Also make sure your accusations are relevant to the material.
I'm not sure if this is what you're referencing re. the \"racist\" label, but I link to it here so other readers can get some perspective and decide for themselves whether that controversy impacts the telemarketing info she provided.
@CaliforniaCajun: I Second that.
She's racist too, just ask her about the person who stole her purse.
Ah, yes. Amy \"black women have litters of babies and can't care for them\" Alkon.
I know this site lives and dies by the quick posting of new stories, but not looking a little deeper into Alkon is foolish. She's a vindictive and petty woman - whether she visits that wrath on a telemarketer or on someone who calls her on her blatant racism.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-333123-100x100.png\")
Okay, but how do I sue those telemarketers who make calls from a center in Bangalore wanting to resolve my unsecured debt or sell me prescription medication? I'd LOVE to drag them into court and win a judgment. But these days, I get calls from overseas which show a spoofed number in my caller ID box. I ask them, \"What is the name of your company?\" and they hang up on me. How do I go after them? I can't even report them to the FCC, because I don't have their name or a legitimate telephone number for them.
I got three such calls today alone from three different spoofed numbers. Most times I don't answer the phone if I don't recognize the number in the caller ID box. Even then, some of these telemarketers (I know it's the same one because the caller ID number is the same) phone eight times in one evening.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-453252-100x100.png\")
Keep a DAMN AIR HORN by the phone if you get eight in an evening.
This sounds good and funny but who has time to sue the telemarkers? I'm just happy the donotcalllist cut our junk calls down by 80%. That's good enough!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469141-100x100.png\")
Just a reminder that attacking the victim isn't allowed, and the nasty attacks in this thread are both irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-94321-100x100.png\")
I spend a lot of time in court... and small claims judgments are completely inconsistent... totally based on the personality of the [pro-tem] commissioner you get on any given day.
Is it possible to register or trademark your name, phone # and address since it is one of a kind and only you have and own it?? This way anyone wanting to use it or sell it must get your approval or risk being sued.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159466-100x100.png\")
IANAL, but maybe someone who is can help me. How can sue over a federal claim (the Telemarketing legislation) in small-claims court which has state claim jurisdiction only?