Civil liberties


Allan to Rachel: even if you’re not human, stop calling me

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

Allan Hillesheim is 62, retired from AT&T, and lives in Minneapolis. He has a busy second career selling vintage postcards on eBay. His life is full enough without Rachel. Still, Rachel calls, usually twice a week, sometimes twice a day. Sometimes she calls when he’s taking a nap. Heather used to call, but he hasn’t heard from her in a while. Rachel won’t let up.

“Hello, this is Rachel from cardholder services,” she always tells him. She wants to lower his interest rate on his credit card balance, even though he doesn’t have one, and she promises that this is the final offer, although it never is.

“You can’t interrupt her,” Hillesheim told me Wednesday morning. You can hit 9 to talk to an operator, but you’ll never find out who she is. The caller ID is spoofed. On the do-not-call list? Rachel doesn’t care.

(more…)

Weekend roundup: guardian reforms now law, a deeper look at credit card overhaul, tougher penalties for swampin’ ATVs

Monday, May 25th, 2009

Lawmakers in St. Paul and Washington have given Whistleblower and my colleagues plenty to consider over the Memorial Day weekend. My Sunday column noted that the reforms to guardianships and conservatorships in Minnesota, passed in the last days of the legislative session, are now law. Meanwhile, closer to the action in Washington, colleague Kevin Diaz offers a deeper look at the new credit card law that I have blogged about, including how it might raise fees on people who pay off their balance each month.

Also this weekend, my colleague David Shaffer described how lawmakers have toughened penalties for ripping up wetlands with ATVs, a practice described in mud-splattering detail in last year’s Renegade Riders series that was produced by Shaffer, Tom Meersman, Brian Peterson and Glenn Howatt.

If you’re that mad, you can sue rogue telemarketers and win $500 per illegal call

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

My column on Sunday obviously hit a nerve, given the volume of calls I’ve gotten from people besieged in their own homes. Tom Maggi called me from his home in Minneapolis to alert me about one little-known remedy. A 1991 federal law called the Telephone Consumer Protection Act gives consumers the right to sue telemarketing scofflaws in small claims court (we call it conciliation court here in Minnesota). It’s hard to know how often that happens. But a California man fed up with mortgage offers and other solicitations got some notoriety two years ago after he sued four companies and won $6,100. He also set up a web site, amusingly titled killthecalls.com, for those who want to follow in his litigious footsteps. His site links to the law, whose relevant portion reads as follows:

A person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State bring in an appropriate court of that State–
(A) an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such
violation, whichever is greater, or
(C) both such actions.

How many lawyers would Voice Touch Inc. and Network Foundations LLC, the two companies the feds say made at least a billion calls, need to handle all the lawsuits that could be filed against them?

Bill tightening oversight of guardians, conservators on its way to governor’s desk

Monday, May 18th, 2009

For the first time, professional guardians and conservators would have to register with the state courts. Wards and protected people would have a “bill of rights” that defines their liberties while under the authority of a court-appointed professional, and they would have more opportunity to speak out against the actions and decisions of those professionals. Those are some of the main features of a bill overwhelmingly approved by the Minnesota Legislature in its waning days. As an example of how little regulation currently exists, the bill for the first time defines a professional guardian and conservator:

“Professional guardian” or “professional conservator” means a person acting as guardian or conservator for three or more individuals not related by blood, adoption, or marriage.

After lobbying hard for the bill, reform advocates hope the changes will bring more professionalism to a lightly regulated activity and help hold guardians and conservators accountable for abuses of vulnerable people that happen under their watch. Read my previous posts on the subject here and here.

The House approved the conference report 127-7 on Sunday. The Senate approved it 56-4 today. Now it goes to Gov. Tim Pawlenty for his signature.