The Federal Trade Commission’s work to stop deceptive pre-recorded “robocalls” took another step forward today as a federal court halted a major telemarketing operation that made millions of illegal phone calls pitching worthless extended auto warranties and credit card interest rate-reduction programs. At the request of the FTC, a federal court judge in Chicago has entered an order stopping the operation’s calls, temporarily freezing its assets, and appointing a receiver to take control of the operation.

“Telemarketers need to understand that blasting consumers with ‘robocall’ pitches is no longer legal,” said FTC Midwest Region Director C. Steven Baker. “Unless you have someone’s consent up-front and in writing to receive a robocall, just don’t do it. The rules could not be simpler than that, and we will go after telemarketers who ignore them.”

According to the FTC, SBN Peripherals, Inc., based near Los Angeles, allegedly made more than 370 million calls to consumers nationwide in the past year alone, prompting tens of thousands of complaints to the agency. One telephone service provider told the FTC that during a single day in April 2009 the defendants sent 2.4 million calls to consumers – more than 27 calls per second. The FTC charges the robocalls violated the agency’s Do Not Call Registry Rule.

To make it difficult for consumers to identify the caller, the FTC alleges that SBN’s robocalls often transmitted caller ID information vaguely identifying the caller as “SALES DEPT” and displaying telephone numbers registered to an offshore company it controlled called Asia Pacific Telecom. Asia Pacific, a foreign shell company for SBN, made many of the calls and lists its addresses in locations as disparate as the Northern Mariana Islands, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands, the FTC’s complaint alleges.

According to the FTC, three of Asia Pacific’s telemarketing numbers accounted for more than 25,000 consumer complaints to the agency in the past year. Two of those telephone numbers – 301-882-9986 and 757-990-8981 – generated more complaints to the FTC during the past year than any other robocall number. Many of the calls were made to cell phones, sticking consumers with additional charges.

The operation allegedly used a technology known as “voice broadcasting” to deliver its fraudulent pitches. The FTC charges that the recordings falsely claimed that the caller had urgent information about the consumer’s auto warranty or credit card interest rate. Consumers who pressed “1″ for more information were transferred to live telemarketers at a variety of different locations, who used fraudulent practices to sell inferior extended auto service contracts or worthless debt-reduction services.

The company’s calls may be familiar to consumers who have answered the phone, only to be greeted by a recording from “Stacey at Account Holder Services” or “Rachel at Cardholder Services” pitching a purported service to lower their credit card interest rate.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that defendants violated the FTC’s telemarketing rules by:

- using robocalls to contact consumers. Under the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, since September 1, 2009, nearly all such pre-recorded calls have been illegal, unless the seller first obtains the consumer’s written permission;
- calling consumers whose telephone numbers are on the National Do Not Call Registry;
- “abandoning” pre-recorded calls (not connecting to a live person when a consumer answers) at a higher rate than permitted under law (three percent of all calls made); and
- repeatedly calling consumers who asked to be put on their company-specific do-not-call list.

The FTC alleges SBN delivered robocalls on behalf of at least seven entities that the agency or state attorneys general previously sued for engaging in fraudulent sales practices. SBN also allegedly made illegal “extended auto warranty robocalls” on behalf of another company owned by Fereidoun “Fred” Khalilian, a repeat telemarketing offender against whom the FTC obtained a new court order last week (see press release at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/dolcegroup.shtm).

In addition to the temporary restraining order and asset freeze announced today, the FTC is seeking a court order permanently barring the allegedly illegal conduct and will seek consumer redress as appropriate.

The Commission vote approving the complaint was 5-0. It was filed under seal on May 25, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The court issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants on May 26, 2010.

The FTC filed the complaint announced today against Asia Pacific Telecom, Inc., doing business as (d/b/a) Asia Pacific Networks; Repo B.V.; SBN Peripherals, Inc., d/b/a SBN Dials; Johan Hendrik Smit Duyzentkunst; and Janneke Bakker-Smit Duyzentkunst.

The Commission would like to acknowledge the assistance that telecommunications carriers AT&T and Verizon Wireless provided in the investigation of the case. The FTC reminds consumers that if they get a robocall they did not authorize, they can file a complaint by going to: www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222. The FTC’s Do Not Call Registry for telemarketers accepts both land lines and cell phone numbers.

Source: FTC

For more FTC news (http://uspolitics.einnews.com/news/ftc), visit US Politics Today (http://uspolitics.einnews.com), a service of EIN News.

A Stearns County sheriff’s deputy faces multiple felony charges for criminal sexual conduct. The deputy is accused of sexually abusing three minors between July 2008 and December 2009. The deputy was placed on leave from the Sheriff’s Office on December 10, 2009, the same day the first victims came forward.

Two of the victims were members of the Sheriff’s Department’s Explorer Post, of which the deputy was the leader. A third victim is a relative of the accused.

Penalties in Minnesota

Like many states, Minnesota has sentencing guidelines for those found guilty of sexual offenses. A sentence is proscribed based on the degree of the criminal sexual conduct offense and criminal history.

For instance, the sentencing guidelines for criminal sexual conduct in Minnesota, for someone without a criminal history, are:
- First degree criminal sexual conduct – 144-173 months
- Second degree criminal sexual conduct – 90-108 months
- Third degree criminal sexual conduct – 41-58 months
- Fourth degree criminal sexual conduct – depending on the charge, either 18 or 24 months
- Fifth degree criminal sexual conduct – 15 months

Depending on the charge, a judge has the discretion to stay a prison sentence.

Also, a conviction for most criminal sexual conduct offenses in Minnesota carries mandatory registration as a predatory offender. Registration as a predatory offender requires providing the following information to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA):
- Address – both primary and secondary
- Vehicles owned and operated
- Employment information

Registration is required for the duration of probation or 10 years, whichever is longer. Failure to keep the BCA informed of current information may result in a longer period of registration.

Facing Harsh Consequences? Contact an Attorney.

With the sentencing guidelines available, the deputy is aware of the penalties that are faced if found guilty. Along with many months in prison, the deputy faces having to register as a predatory offender.

Because of the severity of the penalties, it is important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as you are charged with or learn that you are under investigation for criminal sexual conduct.

Article provided by Groshek Law
Visit us at www.christagrosheklaw.com

Sometimes kids do terrible things. This can result in difficulty balancing interests within the criminal justice system. When minors have done truly awful things, what are the limits of punishment? What role should age play when deciding punishments? Recently the Supreme Court of the United States set new restrictions; a state may not sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole for non-homicide offenses.

The Case of Terrance Jamar Graham

When he was 16 years old, Terrance Jamar Graham was charged as an adult for committing armed burglary with assault or battery and attempted armed robbery. Both were felony offenses, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and 15 years in prison, respectively.

Graham pled guilty to both charges under a plea agreement, stating, “[T]his is my first and last time getting into trouble.” The court accepted the plea agreement and withheld adjudication of guilt on both charges. Graham received a sentence of concurrent three-year terms of probation, the first 12 months of which were to be served in county jail, with credit received for the time served awaiting trial.

Less than six months after his release, Graham was arrested for allegedly committing a home invasion robbery and attempting a second robbery, during which one of the two accomplices was shot. After dropping the accomplices at the hospital, a police sergeant signaled for Graham to stop; instead, he continued at high speed, crashed into a telephone pole, tried to flee on foot and was apprehended. Officers found three handguns in his car.

The court found that Graham violated his probation. At the sentence hearing, Graham’s attorney requested the minimum nondeparture sentence of five years; the Florida Department of Corrections recommended that Graham receive four years at most; and the State recommended that Graham receive 30 years on the armed burglary count and 15 years on the attempted robbery count.

The judge found Graham guilty of the earlier charges and sentenced him to the maximum terms of life in prison and 15 years. The judge explained to Graham, “Given your escalating pattern of criminal conduct, it is apparent to the Court that you have decided that this is the way you are going to live your life and that the only thing I can do now is try to protect the community from your activities.”

Florida has abolished its parole system, meaning that only way for Graham to be released would have been by executive clemency.

Graham v. Florida

No one questions that Terrance Graham committed a serious crime, or that some form of punishment was warranted. However, one must question the extent of punishment, given that he was still a juvenile at the time the crime was committed.

The Eighth Amendment dictates that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” The central question at issue in this case, though, was the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. As applied to a minor, does a sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

Agreeing that the sentence of life without parole for a juvenile defendant means a denial of hope, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids the sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide. The Court found a clear and categorical line necessary. Merely considering the offender’s age at the time of the crime provides inadequate protection for juveniles under the Eighth Amendment.

However, the prohibition extends only to making the judgment at the outset that non-homicide juvenile offenders never will be fit to reenter society. Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, cautioned that the states are not required to guarantee eventual freedom but only some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation at some point. Some who commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of incarceration for the duration of their lives.

The judgment was therefore reversed the judgment and Graham will have to be resentenced. What Graham means for other prisoners is uncertain. According to a recent study and the Court’s supplement to those findings, there are 129 juvenile non-homicide offenders serving life without parole sentences. Nothing in the Court’s ruling requires that these offenders be resentenced.

While the standard itself does not change, Eighth Amendment jurisprudence is evolving. Its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided in Roper v. Simmons that the Eighth Amendment prevents execution of those who were under the age of 18 at the time they committed a crime. The Graham decision leaves open for future interpretation what is required under a meaningful opportunity to obtain release.

Juveniles or parents of juveniles who have been charged with serious offenses should contact an attorney promptly. An experienced lawyer can protect important constitutional rights before and during trial.

Article provided by Ahmed & Sukaram, Attorneys at Law
Visit us at www.ahmedandsukaram.com