Please Scroll Down
Contact Us Click HERE
this site? Consider reading this page from the bottom, information is
added to the top as it becomes available.
Links added Congressional
- Case Law Info - TCPA
The man who calls himself the "Troubleshooter" is in financial trouble himself.
Tom Martino Bankruptcy.
Martino's September 2, 2011 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Denver lists 47 creditors. Those include New Frontier Bank, which failed in 2008, and several other banks that made real estate loans to Martino.
The filing shows Martino has assets of about $1.37 million and owes $78.6 million.
What happened to his watch? What about his elegant jewelry?
Where is all the high dollar toys he had pictured on his web site
Last year, Martino had an income of $2.15 million from three sources -- the Troubleshooter Network, Tom Martino Consulting LLC, and Denver TV station KDVR.
Martino had an hour-long show on Fox 31 called "Martino TV" and a three-hour talk-radio show on 630-KHOW.
The TV show has since been canceled.
Tom Martino's lives in a house (PICTURE
HERE) that is in his wife's name. (purchased 7/24/09). View
Info HERE. If he married prior to the purchase, would a
portion of the equity be an asset? Did he use his money to
purchase the home? If he used his money, it would be likely
that it was placed in her name as a way to protect this asset from
any possible litigation. It's been said that Tom met his wife
as an employee of his Trouble Shooter business. If that's
true, she likely did not have access to large sums of money that Tom
has enjoyed prior to meeting Tom.
His business known as the "Trouble Shooter
Network" owns a helicopter and an airplane that his attorneys
are trying to protect from his creditors. Interesting!
On his TroubleShooter.com website within the about us page under
"personal" he states he
is an "avid airplane and helicopter pilot". One
would assume that his intent on owning an airplane and helicopter
are for personal use. Clearly not a "tool of his
trade" that may have been an exempt item in his BK. View
Screen Shot HERE The link at the time of this
writing to his about us page HERE.
Local TV Station News Article CLICK
Well written article in the Denver Business Journal CLICK
Interesting observation... Tom's attorney is number five on his referral
list, however the Better Business Bureau lists his firm as "Not BBB
It will be interesting to see how his bankruptcy plays
out. I'm confident there will detailed scrutiny by all
concerned. Perhaps they will force Tom to take a Chapter
13 bankruptcy. Being the high profile consumer that Tom is,
they will likely dig deep in an effort to prevent him from
protecting and hiding assets from his BK filing. It has been
openly stated in the media that they are trying to protect his
aircraft from being considered assets of the BK
Something to think about... When is the deadline for
the yellow pages ad copy? How many advertisers will be
removing their "proud sponsor of the Trouble Shooter" from
their ad copy? If you're a sponsoring advertiser, this
just gave you something to think about.
On another topic... I'm aware of businesses that Tom
has cut deals with, rather then charging them $3,000 yearly to be on
his referral list. Is this deal cutting fair to those that a
Stay tuned... This site gets a ton of traffic from searches
on "Tom Martino" and other related keyword phrases.
Thus the main reason I have made this recent news worthy
update. As you can see below, it's been three and a half years
sense I made updates to this site.
As anticipated, things are heating up for
Tommy. Great article
in the Denver Business Journal. VIEW
HERE. Excerpts from the
Denver Business Journal article below.
"Martino “has not provided income tax
returns, audited financial statements, appraisals, or even a
complete list of assets and liabilities for these entities..."
"The International Bank objection alleges that Martino and his
wife made “certain fraudulent transfers” in violation of
Colorado state statutes..."
"International Bank also claims to possess financial statements
from Martino and his wife “that may indicate the debtor
transferred other assets prior to the petition date.” END
TroubleShooter.com website he clearly states under
"Personal" that he is an avid aviation enthusiast.
Clearly these expensive toys (airplanes and a helicopter) are not
for his business and should not be sheltered as he claims his
business is worth nothing without him. If his business is
worth nothing as he contends, there should be no assets of value
that would give the business value. Looks like an oxymoron
to me. Sure looks
like Tom is trying to commit bankruptcy fraud by sheltering his high
dollar belongings within his business that he contends has no
Oxymoron: Noun: A
figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in
conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely
If his business truly has no value, all assets should be liquidated
from the business. Clearly the high dollar items within his
business are not "tools of the trade" which may be
protected from liquidation by the bankruptcy.
Example: A plumber filing BK would be allowed to exempt his
plumbing tools from the BK so he could continue working to produce
an income during and after the BK.
Victory for the Defense
Andrew Quiat's TCPA Treasure Ship
gets sucked into the Bermuda Triangle. The
Colorado Supreme Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment that
the court had subject matter jurisdiction over over Respondent
Douglas M. McKenna's claim for violation of the facsimile
solicitation provisions of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. 227 (2003), and holds
that Mckenna lacks standing to assert the TCPA claims that were
assigned to him. The court holds that a claim for liquidated
damages under the TCPA is a claim for a penalty, which cannot be
assigned under Colorado law. "CONCLUSION... We
conclude that McKenna lacks standing to assert his claims under the
TCPA, because he obtained them through void assignments. We
therefore reverse the court of appeals, and remand for reinstatement
of the trial court's dismissal of the action with
Martino... What do you think now? On your web site
you say "I simply state my opinion and then back it up with facts. If I believe someone is a liar, cheat, rip-off or unethical in some way...
I say it. Then I reveal facts." All the things you
were as it relates to the faxing controversy. Why did
you disassociated yourself with the fax controversy and
litigation, including taking down your faxwars.com
web site after boosting about it for numerous months on your
radio show? ( Go
HERE to see what faxwars.com
looked like prior to removal.) You must have decided to stop playing
attorney, giving people legal advise? You were not above board
about the facts
along with your association with
Consumer Crusade and disbarred
Remember Tommy... you said "I'm going to sue your ass for
faxing" several times on your show? You would have
lost. Remember how you would tell people on your radio show to call
someone all at the same time to harass them? Do you
think that is an ethical thing to do? Regarding your
questionable statements about faxwars.com,
has an article HERE
from May of 2005 that covers that. Here's
registration info for faxwars.com
Clearly shows who the site belongs to, even has ties to your
Liberty Bill Telcom company. Did you ever get that jet you
were looking for? (Noted on your website.) For numerous years
(long before June of 2005) you repeatedly indicated on your
radio show that you had a pilot license. (Airmen
Certification) Appears to have been false statements prior to
June of '05. According to the FAA
you obtained your Airmen Certification for (private pilot
single engine land) on 6/3/2005 in the name of Thomas Gerard
Martino. In September of 2007 a corrective lenses
restriction was added to your Airmen Certificate. How
are things going with the controversy of you charging businesses to have you
sponsor them? (Firms on Troubleshooter.com pay yearly fees as high as $4,000 to receive Martino's de facto
endorsement. (Quoted from Westword article.)
Time for the Westword to run another story on Tommy. By the
way Tom, your help may be needed to find your buddy Attorney Jim
Demirali, head counsel for Consumer Crusade. Please see the next segment dated 1-15-2008 below. (FTA &
articles in the Business Journal HERE
covering Consumer Crusade and Martino. This
provides more reading on Consumer Crusade and Martino.
the hearing on Jan 18,2008, both Consumer Crusade and its counsel failed
to appear and failed to present any argument, objection or evidence that
would explain why it failed to answer the interrogatories to Judgment Debtor
directed toward it. Mr. Demirali failed to appear at the scheduled
deposition and to produce records. Thereafter, he failed to appear
in Court on Clarion's motion for contempt citation. Accordingly, the
court hereby enters this Order Regarding Contempt Citation. Clarion
is to call the Court's staff to schedule the matter for a hearing at which
Demirali must appear to explain why he should not be held in contempt of
Court. Clarion shall give notice of the hearing to Mr.
Demirali through LexisNexis. To
Another Victory for the Defense COLORADO
COURT OF APPEALS 06CA0432 Judgment and Order
Affirmed. Opinion by: Judge Vogt. Announced:
December 13, 2007. "Plaintiff contends on appeal that
the trial court erred in dismissing its TCPA and CCPA claims.
We disagree." "We agree with the conclusion of the
Tenth Circuit in iHire IV that the emphasized statutory language
encompasses the matter of assignability..." "We
conclude that, under Colorado law, the TCPA claims plaintiff
asserted against these defendants are not
assignable." "Rather, it concluded that the
TCPA claims in this case were penal in nature under Colorado law and
therefore not assignable for that reason. Because we agree
with that conclusion..." "I conclude that the TCPA
is penal in nature. This is a distinct reason why the TCPA
claims cannot be assigned. 362 F. Supp. 2d at
1253." "...we agree with the trial court
that the sums sought by plaintiff in this action were penalties and,
as such, were not assignable." To
View 06CA0432 Click
HERE See similar order below...
They just will not give up...
Another Victory for the Defense COLORADO
COURT OF APPEALS 06CA0433 Judgment and Order
Affirmed. Opinion by: Judge Furman. Announced: December
20, 2007. "... we conclude the district court
correctly dismissed the TCPA claims asserted by the Center because they
could not be assigned, and therefore the Center did not have standing to
bring those claims as an assignee." "The judgment
and the order are affirmed. Judge Rothenberg and Judge J. Jones
View 06CA0433 Click
Martino's Troubleshooter Network www.faxwarS.com
Down or Up? More
Not Just DOWN -
It's GONE... 11/2/2006
View Screen Shot
Domain is still registered to Thomas Martino, email email@example.com
Pointed to his servers. Yet Tom claims to not have anything to do
with Consumer Crusade ! What kind of Consumer Advocate is Tom
anyway? Everyone knows he was instrumental in creating
Consumer Crusade and Faxwars.com,
he announced it on his radio show.
Info searched on 3/4/2007.
Two More Victories for the Defense. Tom
Martino's Consumer Crusade operated by the Demirali Law Firm
looses two more. "Short and Sweet". (3
claims are not assignable under Colorado law. Order
affirmed." JUDGE ROTHENBERG and JUDGE LOEB concur.
Colorado Court of Appeals. Demirali,
why don't you stop wasting our court's resources, here in Colorado
and in other States?
Colorado Court of
Appeals Case 05CA2240 and 05CA2241
To View 2240 Click
Reliable Source informs us that...
"The Demirali Firm has stated that it intends and is currently finding counsel in other states to take the TCPA claims."
A Query for Attorney Demirali: If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there, does it make a sound? And if a Colorado entity assigns an assignment that is
unassignable in Colorado, is the assignment valid?
Victory for the Defense... Colorado
court of of Appeals affirms dismissal on 9/28/06 (see
below by date)
Colorado Court of Appeals Case No.
04CA2366 - District Court, Denver County Case No. 04CV4841.
Consumer Crusade, Inc., v. MBA Financial
Group Inc. and Dale Finney. Demirali files a petition for Writ
of Certiorari... See yellow box below...
like a bulldog and just will not give it up... He
files a Petition For Writ of Certiorari on the last allowable day, January 30,
withstanding that MBA is out of business and Finney has been
Discharged from Bankruptcy.
Victory for the Defense...
Colorado Court of Appeals affirms lower courts decision. "Thus,
we conclude that the claim relating to receipt of unsolicited telephone facsimiles
under 47 U.S.C. 227 is, at its core, a breach of the right of privacy tort
and, as such, cannot be assigned." . . . "We
conclude, along with the other divisions of this court that the federal
district court's reasoning in iHire I, supra, is persuasive as applied to
the facts of this case. Accordingly, we hold that an action based
upon the receipt of unsolicited telephone facsimile advertisements by
individuals in violation of the TCPA is not assignable because such an
action is in the nature of a violation of the right to privacy.
| Because the Center is an assignee, the Center lacks standing to bring
these federal claims. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed the
Center's claims based on lack of standing. Given our conclusion, we
need not address weather TCPA claims are not assignable because they are
penal in nature. The JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. JUDGE LOEB and
JUDGE ROMAN concur."
(Court of Appeals No. 05CA1671 - Arapahoe
County District Court No. 04CV91) USA Tax Law Center, Inc d/b/a US
Fax Law Center, Inc. v. MBA Financial Group Inc.
VIEW OPINION Click
huge news, however very note worthy.
Attorney Jim Demirali
is suspended for 6 months from practice of law, however stayed, thus not
really suspended and is placed on probation with the Attorney
for a one-year period. Action did not stem from a TCPA
VIEW PDF for printing Click
DEMIRALI, 06PDJ099 (Colo. 12-8-2006) 06PDJ099. December 8, 2006.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a Conditional Admission of
Misconduct submitted by the parties and suspended Agim Demirali
(Attorney Registration No. 10889) from the practice of law for a
period of six months, all stayed upon the successful
completion of a one-year period of probation, effective December 8,
2006. Respondent's paralegal developed an idea for the law firm to
provide a service to prison inmates whereby they would prepare
portfolios, which inmates could present to parole and community
corrections boards. Respondent agreed to allow his paralegal to take
on this project, accepted funds without depositing them into his
trust account, and thereafter terminated the project without notice
to his clients who believed they had hired an attorney. Respondent's
misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5 and violated Colo. RPC 1.15(a), 1.15(g),
1.16 (d), 5.3(b), and 5.5(b).
Interesting timing as I was
considering filing a complaint with the attorney disciplinary counsel as
Jim Demirali just will not give it up. Just recently, he filed an
appeal on case 04CV4841 many months after my Bankruptcy Discharge causing
my attorneys to address the issue with him. They advised Jim in
writing to dismiss me (Mr. Finney) from the appeal (04CA2366) clearly
pointing out to Jim Demirali what he already knew. "Upon entry
of discharge, the automatic stay is lifted and an injunction enters
prohibiting you or your client from taking any further action to collect
on these claims. Violations of the injunction may result in an award of
attorneys' fees." All this in light of Jim knowing that the
corporation is dissolved.
End is nearing for the Fax Litigation Bottom Feeders. (Gosh...
Could not have happened to a nicer bunch of guys... LOL)
We have heard from
reliable sources that the Ball Law Firm is leaving the sinking TCPA
(Withdrawing from numerous cases involving US Fax Law Center /
Attorney Andrew Quiat)
Added here on 10/17/2006
September 13, 2006 Audio
Recording from Colorado Court of Appeals Oral Arguments in the case of US
Fax Law vs. Myron. This case
has been litigated all along by Attorney Andrew Quiat. Now for
reasons unknown Attorney Jim Demirali argued this case.
to Audio Click
HERE Colorado Court of
Appeals Case #05CA1426
To VIEW Supplemental
Brief of Plantiff-Appellant Click
HERE US FAX Law
Center, Inc v. Myron Corporation 04CV0684
Another WIN for the "Good Guys". On the heals of the last
one. Announced on
September 28th... "MBA Contends, for the first time on appeal,
that Consumer lacked standing to bring this action because TCPA claims
are not assignable under Colorado law. We agree." The
new owner of MBA may want to go back and sue the assigners. Finney
sold MBA in early April of 2005. Six months later Finney filed
Bankruptcy on October 5th 2005.
View News Article from Denver Business Journal Click
fighting a legal battle out side of his TCPA collection scheme Perhaps
these ex-employees should consider reporting Demirali to the Trouble
Shooter, Tom Martino. Martino can call him a 'rip off" and
"scum bag" on his radio show coercing him to pay up?
See story from Denver Business Journal by
Scroll down when document opens.
We were told a few days ago that the case
below dated 9/9/2006 originally litigated by attorney Andrew Quiet is now
under the hand of attorney Jim Demirali (Attorney for Tom Martino's Consumer
Crusade) asking the Colorado Court of Appeals to re-consider. Looks
like that's a long shot with two decisions stacked against them.
Time will tell.
VIEW OPINION Click
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS,
Court of Appeals No. 04CV4841, Honorable Lawrence a Manzanares,
win for the "Good Guys". This may put the TCPA Litigation
Mills out of the "Legal Extortion Business".
The Colorado Court of Appeals finds that violations of the TCPA is NOT
ASSIGNABLE. Announced on
September 7th 2006 the Colorado Court of Appeals concludes that the trial
court reached the correct result... in Division II, Judge Rothenberg Roy
and Hawthorne, JJ., concur with the lower count stating that "causes
of action for invasion of privacy are NOT Assignable."
"Accordingly, we hold that an action based upon the receipt of
unsolicited faxes by individuals in violation of the TCPA is not
assignable because such an action is in the nature of a violation of the
right of privacy."
VIEW OPINION Click
HERE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS,
Court of Appeals No. 05CA0298, Boulder County District Court No. 03CV2099,
Honorable D.D. Mallard, Judge.
Should defendants sue to recover from the assigners and attorneys that
have litigated these cases in Colorado?
March 30th 2006 - Another
WIN against Consumer Crusade Attorney Jim Demirali (original King Pin of Tom Martino's
Published pursuant to C.A.R 35f."
HERE Consumer Crusade v. Construction
News (04CV2709) Court of Appeals Number 04CA2313
Policy of the Court concerning citation of unpublished opinions:
Citation of unpublished opinions is
forbidden, with the following exceptions:
(1) Unpublished opinions may be cited to explain the case history or to
establish the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral
(2) This policy shall not apply to opinions that were designated as
"Not Selected for Official Publication" and were announced
between January 1, 1970 and November 1, 1975, but nevertheless were
published in the Pacific Second Reporter. (Policy adopted April 28, 1994)
an eMail with attachment from an attorney apparently defending cases
against Consumer Crusade. They
This may or may not be interesting/useful to you but this
letter from General Counsel of the American Bankers Association to the FCC
brings up some interesting points. They were apparently sued by CC.
VIEW Letter Click
in the Denver Business Journal by Paula Moore 2/20/06
"Crusaders against junk faxes suffer legal setback"
VIEW FULL ARTICLE Click
|"Another hitch has
developed in the effort to collect money from alleged "junk
faxers" by the local Tom
Martino affiliated company Consumer
Crusade Inc. ..."|
|"Bayless said in his
rulings those documents aren't enough -- it has to produce the
actual recipient at trial..."|
|"Based in Englewood and
affiliated with local consumer radio talk show host Martino,
Consumer Crusade seeks out recipients..."|
|"Bayless said Consumer
Crusade had more than enough time to prepare its case and was
given the opportunity to present evidence, but "failed to
|"Profits from collected
damages go to Martino's nonprofit Troubleshooter Foundation,
which helps the needy, according to Martino. Consumer Crusade's
owner, Francis R. Salazar -- an acquaintance of Martino's -- has
said in a recent deposition related to a Consumer Crusade case
that the company hasn't "made any money," according to
|"Salazar started Consumer
Crusade in 2003 with Martino's help. The consumer advocate
promoted the company on his radio show and Web site..."|
|"Salazar was disbarred
because of his 1971 conviction in Colorado federal court for
illegally profiting from loans made by Rocky Mountain Bank of
Lakewood while he was a director and attorney for the
|"When recently asked by
phone to comment about his dealings with the bank and his
disbarment, Salazar hung up on the Business Journal..."VIEW FULL ARTICLE
2/24/2006 Consumer Crusade Attorney Jim Demirali (original King Pin of Tom Martino's
Filed a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus in Denver District Court trying to get court to order
County court judges to rule on a bunch of pending cases that the county
judges said they won't process until 10th Circuit appeal from Judge
Babcock's order on assignability is decided.
VIEW Writ of Mandamus Click
Consumer Crusade v. JD&T Enterprises
Inc. - US District Judge Edward Nottingham rules that records
cannot constitute business records. Monition to dismiss id
Consumer Crusade v. New York Deli -
Consumer Crusade Attorney Jim Demirali
(original King Pin of Tom Martino's Consumer Crusade &
TCPA piggybank may be at risk.
Jim suffers an interception and fumbles the ball several times on this
one. Way to go Jim!
(2004CV5151) Denver District,
Honorable Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless in his ORDER, has concluded that
"the action is groundless". "The court then turns to
the request for attorneys fees. Attorney fees certainly may be
allowed... " (All this on the heals of a reaffirmed dismissal.)
"Accordingly the court orders that a hearing be set by the
defendants on notice to plaintiff for consideration of attorney
"The hearing shall not included any further discussion or argument on
plaintiff's motion to reconsider..."
note from the author, Dale Finney)
Happy Halloween... Been busy working on my Bankruptcy.
(Thanks in part to Andrew Quiat, Tom Martino, Consumer Crusade and the
other TCPA Litigation "Bottom Feeders".) Just in case any
one is wondering, this site has not produced income for me or my
company. My motive is simply to help fight the war against the
bottom feeding collection attorneys. Nothing more than ambulance chasers
on the fax highway using highly calculated tactics to obtain settlement
from the defendants that they litigate against. I want to thank all
the attorneys and defendant's that have provided information and documents
for this site, even though the documents are public record. I have
been tagged as the "Anti TCPA Bar" . (see posting
6-15-2005 below, scroll down) Andrew Quiat has been making the same reference
to me, thanks Andrew.
10/31/2005 Consumer Crusade Attorney Jim Demirali
stubs his toe at the front door of the Federal Courthouse. Threshold of Federal Courthouse proves
too high for Mr. Demirali to step over; Demirali expected to recover, and
be back in action after the holidays.
Federal District Court Judge Edward Nottingham, on October 14th 2005,
granted MOTION TO DISMISS in favor of defendants (Civil
Action 05-CV-00211), JD&T Enterprises, Inc. a California travel
discounter. "JD&T" had enlisted fax.com, resulting in
the assignment of 735 fax's to Consumer Crusade, and incurring
the vigorous pursuit of Tom Martino's favorite TCPA "bulldog,"
attorney Jim Demirali. Mr Demirali expected to litigate this
"million dollar baby", and challenge Chief District Judge
Babcock's ruling against assignability (See iHire
ruling). In the
alternative, Mr. Demirali is always happy to use the forces at his
disposal to extort a settlement from his adversary. Unfortunately
for his client (Consumer Crusade Inc.) Mr. Demirali will not be
arguing such esoteric matters quite yet, nor leveraging a hefty
settlement, since the affidavit of Francis Salazar did not pass muster to
establish a prima facie case.
Judge Nottingham concludes:
"I decline to accept Salazar's affidavit." Now, one might
think that Judge Nottingham is looking back at Mr. Salazar's Federal
felony conviction, and doubting his veracity. Then again, one might
think that the federal judges occasionally have lunch with the Colorado
Supreme Court judges, who doubt Mr. Salazar's fitness to practice law
within the confines of Colorado. No ... That's not why Mr. Salazar's
affidavit was denied.
One would expect that the
affidavit of the "litigation director" of Consumer Crusade
would be a carefully crafted document, prepared, signed and sworn in
support of a million dollar case, However Judge Nottingham finds
that it is based not on the personal knowledge of Mr. Salazar, but upon
hearsay statements and documents. Judge Nottingham, like many
lawyers defending these TCPA cases, finds that the actual recipients have
the personal knowledge to establish these jurisdictional issues.
Until Mr. Demirali can satisfy the Federal judiciary concerning the
threshold issue of "long-arm" jurisdiction, and get the
real parties in interest before the Judges, he just doesn't have a ticket
to the game. Incidentally, Mr. Demirali's client has been
ordered to pay the costs of Defendants.
HERE (Order Provided is from an
online resource that provided all the text from the order. An actual
copy of the order may be obtained from the Federal Court
Last but not
Edward Nottingham noted that assignments cannot constitute "Business Records"
of the Plaintiff... Bottom of page 8 of the order provided
herein. "Contrary to
Plaintiff's position, these facsimiles cannot constitute business records
of Plaintiff, and thus, cannot constitute an exception to the hearsay
The underlined items above that
are not brown in color are Hot Links to documents. Click on the
links to view.
Quiat at it again... Joining numerous defendants within one
2005CV7967 assigned to Judge Ronald M. Mollins)
did not work in the past, why would it work now? Upon Information
and Belief many of the defendants may band together, forming another TCPA
Time will tell... This may be perfect setting for "abuse of
process". All but one of the parties named have 1 fax assigned by Lion
Capital, believed to be a shell corporation set up to assign faxes.
In this case assignments are 2 and 3 times removed from the true party.
The shell Corporation: Documentation shows that a phone
number connecting to Andrew is owned by Katie Irvine, the registered agent
and sole stock holder of new Lion Capitol Corporation. Lion
Capital corporation was dissolved on October 1st 2000. Viewing
the prior corporation filings shows Edward J. Ott as part of the
corporation. Ott is currently a close associate of Andrew Quiat
along with Katie Irvine.
Not sure what Quiat is up to here? He filed a complaint
against 43 defendants with the Denver District Court on 9/29/2005, then
dismissed it the next day. (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Pursuant to CRCP 41a1) (Case
2005CV7707 assigned to Judge Catherine A. Lemmon)
Then on 10/3/2005 he filed the same complaint
with the same defendants in the same court.??? For those
interested you may view the dismissed case using these links: Print
and compare, I did not see any difference between them.
Could it be
he did not like the Judge assigned to the case due to a prior
decision? Perhaps he was having second thoughts about filing the
case in this posture, and then decided to "go for it any way." I know of numerous defendants that settled with him and
are now having regrets, hoping to someday recover their
losses. (Anyone having information to support these or other
ideas, please contact me at This
Complaint Filed 9/29/2005 with Voluntary Dismissal
3 (Part 3 is the Dismissal)
Consumer Crusade Attorney Jim Demirali,
original King Pin of Tom Martino's Consumer Crusade & www.faxwarS.com
is placed on hold by Denver County Court
until the Tenth Circuit determines standing and assignability.
Demirali has nearly 50 cases in Denver Count Court. This should keep
him and others out of county court until a decision is handed down.
Way to go Denver County Court judges! VIEW
Colorado Court of Appeals reverses
Judge Egelehoff's decision. Judgment reversed and case remanded
with directions. Posted
8/15/05 - Roasted
Goose may be new Menu Item At
MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED! Boston
Market Corporation, a
purveyor of "comfort food," may have the opportunity to expand
their menu. It seems that their "goose" is getting slow-cooked in
Jefferson County District Court.
add a few side
dishes, and you have a feast for the whole family!
Market was apparently aggravated to receive "junk" fax traffic, and
entered into an alliance with collection attorney Andrew Quiat, whose U.S.
Fax Law Center, Inc. has sued a large number of businesses alleging
violations of the "TCPA."
case could cost Boston Market hundreds of thousands of dollars even though
they stood to gain only a couple of thousand dollars by assigning the
iHire faxes. This
could be the wake-up call needed to warn those that assign faxes to the
junk fax litigation mills.
(Defending Attorneys "Take Note") TCPA
Defense attorneys should carefully follow the developments in this case,
which could establish precedent for recovery of the massive legal defense
fees that have been incurred.
iHire was the defendant at the center of Federal Judge Babcock's ruling
that faxes are not assignable in Colorado.
iHire has sued Boston Market, as the assignor of faxes in that
case, for negligence. Boston
Market's motion to dismiss the suit was denied in a well-reasoned
decision by District Court Judge Leland P. Anderson.
IHire is now free to litigate with Boston Market Corporation for
iHire's legal fees and costs, which amount to almost a half million
Ball is representing Boston Market, this may prove to be very
interesting.) Those who know the history are well aware!
View History of Documents HERE
Colorado Court of Appeals AFFIRMS
DENIAL of Class Action Court of Appeals NO. : 03CA2041
Arapahoe County district Court No. 02CV3159, Honorable Timothy L. Fasing,
Judge. ORDER AFFIRMED
Division V, Opinion by JUDGE NIETO, Roy and Criswell, JJ., concur.
Announced: May 26, 2005
View History of Documents HERE
The following info was received by email from
a concerned attorney defending one of the many TCPA cases... We are
attempting to get further information from the provider. Please check back
for updates on this posting... We are currently playing "Phone
Tag" with the provider, (A VERY High Profile Attorney in the Denver
area) in an attempt to obtain further details. "I
have something new that should be posted to your website. These
plaintiffs complain about my discovery that you have previously posted,
saying that it is unnecessary and oppressive to require that they produce
names, phone line proof, fax machine ownership, etc., because they have a
"verified" assignment! In a recent new case, I discovered that
out of approximately 36 faxes at issue, 30 were assigned to CC by a
sub-tenant in the suite that only had permission to use the fax machine,
but did not own the fax machine or the telephone line. In addition, the
owner of the line and machine actually wanted to get those 30 faxes.....
as he was a member of the organization that sent the faxes.
Thus, a bogus assignee, who had no rights or ownership, and was not a
"victim", "assigned" most of the faxes at issue in the
case to CC. This should surely justify any Defendant being entitled to
force CC to answer all the "unfair" questions asked regarding
ownership proof for the phone line and fax machine."
Admiral Quiat's, Esq, COLLECTION
ATTORNEY Calls in deep sea divers to save his sinking "TCPA Treasure
District Judge Timothy L. Fasing, GRANTS Motion to
Dismiss. "THE COURT having
examined the pleadings and documents of record, and being sufficiently
advised in the premises, FINDS AND ORDERS:"
|"Further, as a general rule,
statutory penalties may not be assigned.|
|"In determining whether a statute
is penal in nature, the Court must examine whether the statute
creates a new cause of action and whether the statute requires
proof of actual damages."|
|"The Court must also examine
whether the penalty imposed is greater than the actual
|"Although the holding in US Fax Law
Center, Inc., is not binding authority, the Court finds the
reasoning to be persuasive and agrees that the TCPA creates a
new cause of action which does not require proof of actual
damages and, in fact, imposes a penalty in excess of the actual
damages. US Fax Law Center, Inc. v. iHire, Inc..."|
|"Accordingly, the Motion to dismiss
Admiral Quiat's, Esq, COLLECTION
ATTORNEY "TCPA TREASURE SHIP" begins to collapse under the pressure.
Denver District Judge John N.
McMullen, GRANTS Motion to Dismiss.
|In summary, the court concludes that
plaintiff's TCPA claims are penal in nature and thus not
assignable. Since plaintiff asserts these claims only in
the capacity of assignee, plaintiff lacks standing to assert its
TCPA claims. Therefore, the court GRANTS the motion to
|The court has thoroughly considered the
arguments in plaintiff's self described "ponderous"
(53 page) Response and has read and considered the voluminous
attachments to the Response. Plaintiff is advised that the
court does not intend to reconsider this order absent the
presentation of previously not cited, reported authority
directly on point.|
RELEASE - FAX BILL SIGNED BY PRESIDENT - Junk
Fax Prevention Act becomes law
NEW YORK, July 11, 2005
- On Saturday, July 9, 2005, the President signed the following bill into
law: S. 714, theJunk Fax Prevention Act of 2005," relating to
unsolicited advertisements via telephone facsimile machines.
significance is that, as of two days ago, people can send unsolicited
advertising faxes where there's an EBR, as long as they comply with
the new law's opt-out and other requirements, without the fear of
getting sued. Companies must be vigilant to watch out for future state
laws permitting suits, however, since--unlike the CAN-SPAM Act--this
one does not preempt state laws.|
|Opt-out rules - You
need not provide an opt-out opportunity for any faxes other than
advertising" faxes, so, unless you have a business reason for
offering to stop sending more faxes, you should word your opt-out
notice accordingly. We are still waiting for an FCC response to our(
now rather old) request that it clarify that renewal notices for
no-charge subscriptions are not ads, and other content--such as order
confirmations, surveys, etc.--are certainly not ads. If you decide
that you want to be able to send such faxes, it's not a good idea to
word your opt-out notice too broadly.|
Admiral Quiat's, Esq, COLLECTION
ATTORNEY "TCPA TREASURE SHIP" slipping deeper again...
Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock of the Federal
District Court of Colorado finds:
RELEASE FAX BILL PASSED BY SENATE Junk
Fax Prevention Act moves from Senate to House of Representatives.
NEW YORK, June 24, 2005 - The United States Senate
passed the Junk Fax Prevention Act, S. 714, by unanimous consent at noon
today, sending the legislation to the House of Representatives for
consideration... the bill is expected to pass the House quickly and
|a statutory "established
business relationship" (EBR) exception to the ban on
unsolicited commercial faxes;|
|there is no time-limit
definition to that EBR;|
|unsolicited commercial faxes
will now have to include an opt-out provision on the first page
of the fax, providing a cost-free, 24/7 means for the recipient
to request removal from the fax distribution list;|
|after the date of enactment,
fax numbers to which unsolicited advertising will be sent must
be obtained either directly from the recipient or from a public
source to which the recipient gave the number for publication
(i.e., a website, advertisement or directory);|
|fax numbers in the possession
of the sender at the time of enactment are "grandfathered"
as to the means by which the number was obtained;|
|in the case of an EBR that
exists at the time of enactment of this legislation for which
the sender does not possess the fax number, that fax number
would have to be obtained in the same manner as if it were a new
relationship being established, in other words from the
recipient or a public source;|
|after not less than three
months from enactment, the FCC is authorized to review this
matter, and if it determines that there are significant abuses
of faxes sent under the EBR exception, it may reconsider
imposing limitations on the EBR.|
TO VIEW FULL
Consumer Crusade Attorney Jim Demirali,
original King Pin of Tom Martino's www.faxwarS.com
placed into public record today (Denver
District Court Case No. 04CV5151), stating:
"Finney, his attorney, and the other members of the Anti-TCPA
Bar, any and all tactics admittedly
are fair game in attempting to sidetrack or obstruct plaintiff's TCPA
actions." also claiming that this web
sites sole purpose is for "attacking plaintiff,
other TCPA plaintiffs and their counsel." Demirali
further tries to sway the court into thinking that the following verbiage
from this site is a "new strategy" employed by TCPA
"The issue of assigning
CCPA claims now comes into play. Reviewing the statute may impact the current attorney enrichment scheme used by TCPA
Litigation firms. The whole scheme currently utilized by
these collection firms was clearly NOT the intent of the CCPA.
This whole scheme may raise the question of "Champerty"."
(Originally posted 1/3/2005 see below - scroll down) (Champerty
was raised at the onset by many TCPA defendants.)
I call the above freedom of speech!
Post your thoughts on the public forum HERE
This site was originally erected to
defend MBA Financial and Finney from Martino's ON AIR and WEB SITE
comments: "Scum Bag", "Sue Your Ass", "Consumer
Rip Off", etc. See MBA's
The site has evolved into a general TCPA knowledge base for use by anyone
involved in TCPA litigation. MBA and Finney were originally scammed
by eLoanSite.com and Fax.com into believing that sponsoring their service
was supporting the Missing and Exploited children's network. Similar
to the Amber Alert System used on the nations highways today.
Yes I admit, that it is my feeling that these litigation collection
attorneys are nothing more than ambulance chasers on the Fax
Highway. Many publications have referred to them as "bottom
Jim Demirali... you have no idea...
Stay tuned to your Bannock inbox and the local media. By The Way,
why is your FawWars.com
site DOWN? Original copies of
the site are available by Clicking HERE.
It has been noted by several, that
Attorney Jim Demirali has a temper that has been displayed in the
professional surroundings of our court houses. Keep your cool Jim...
people are watching and talking...
To ALL, Please post your reaction to
this on the Public OPEN Forum
by Clicking HERE
6/14/2005 - Andrew Quiat's COLLECTION
ATTORNEY "TCPA TREASURE SHIP" Slips deeper with
recent 7.0 quake. Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock of the Federal
District Court of Colorado, responded to US Fax Law Centers MOTION
to REVISE or WITHDRAW his order of March 28th. (See
Below) "In the final
analysis, what is at work here is an effort to utilize this Court to
turn a sow's ear into a silk purse." "Plaintiff
US Fax Law Center's motion for "revision" or for "withdrawal"
is DENIED" VIEW
See related Decision and Order
(below) dated March 29, 2005 (Click
5/29/2005 - Court of Appeals decision to allow class certification has been overturned by
the Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided
3/15/2005 - Class certification has been denied! This decision
has far-reaching consequences. (Consumer
Crusade's Attorney Jim Demirali recently boasts about "focusing
on class-actions in the near future". Click
HERE and HERE.
How will this Supreme Court decision effect his class-action
goals? Martino has boasted on many occasions about doing
class-action against fax blasters on his radio show.) VIEW
This Supreme Court of Georgia
decision should be the death knell for the majority of class-action
Frank M. Eldridge and Charles B. Mikell Jr., whom Barnes appointed
to the court in 2002, also sat on the panel. Barnes
didn't originally file this suit, however... he was brought in for
the appeal by his former law clerk, Marc B. Hershovitz, who
coincidentally had researched the consumer act for Barnes in the
summer of 1993." See Article here:
COLLECTION ATTORNEYS' "TCPA TREASURE SHIP" FOUNDERS UPON THE
ROCKS OF ASSIGNABILITY:
Admiral Quiat, Esq., Captain Ball, Esq. and First Officer Demirali,
Esq. washed over board; may join actual "bottom feeders"
near wreck site. Those who assigned TCPA claims may face rough
seas without life jackets.
Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock of the Federal
District Court of Colorado, on March 28th 2005, issued an
"outcome-determinative" ruling in the diversity
jurisdiction case of US FAX LAW CENTER, INC v. IHIRE, INC. (Civil
Case No. 04-B-344). Judge Babcock finds that "Junk
Faxes" are NOT ASSIGNABLE... Click the link below for
related Memorandum Opinion and Order (above) dated June 14, 2005 (Click
Visit Defendants TCPA Forum
Public OPEN Forum related to TCPA cases
TCPA Private Forum PRIVATE Forum related
to TCPA cases
Should you desire Access to this
Private Forum, please complete our Member
|Attention Defending Attorneys:
We strongly suggest that you deposition the assignors
and the person that notarized the assignments on ALL faxes. Remember
Machol, III and Andrew Quait
are KING Pins of TCPA Litigatrion Bottom Feeders. Machol and Quait and their firms
specialize in prosecuting bulk TCPA claims. More...
exemptions in unwanted-faxes law - By
Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News
March 1, 2005 View
Crusade loses another one. This
one in Denver County Court. Case 04C29922. Jim
Demirali's first error was to seek damages in excess of
the courts jurisdiction. Regardless, County Court Judge
Melvin Okamoto GRANTS Motion to Dismiss,
also citing Judge
Egelhoff's decision. View
2-18-2005 Consumer Crusade Attorney Jim
original King Pin of Tom Martino's www.faxwarS.com
loses case in Arapahoe County. Defendants
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. View
Order HERE District
Court Judge William Sylvester finds "Colorado Courts did
not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction to hear private right of
action for violation of TCPA prior
to 2004". Case
Denver Business Journal's
Paula More writes article "Consumer Crusade files 25
suites". Feb 11-17, 2005 Edition. We
could not find article on www.BizJournals.com
at time of this update. Click
HERE to view excerpts from article.
Colorado Bar Association & Find Law information on
attorney Andrew L. Quiat
District Court cases by Andrew L. Quiat Posted
District Court cases by Frank J. Ball
(A close associate of Quiat)
Another one of attorney Andrew Quiat's prime targets case is
dismissed by District Judge D.D. Mallard. McKenna v. MBA
Financial Group Inc. Case 04CV992. COURT FINDS: "No
Subject Matter Jurisdiction to hear TCPA claims brought prior
to August 2004". View
TCPA Litigation King Pin attorney Andrew Quiat's Boulder
Colorado case 04CV997 (Plaintiff: Douglas M. McKenna) is ruled
on by District Judge D.D. Mallard.
|COURT FINDS: "No
Subject Matter Jurisdiction to hear TCPA claims brought prior
to August 2004". CCPA Claims remain if a CCPA
violation exists. View
Size 1 Meg)
|The issue of assigning
CCPA claims now comes into play. Reviewing the statue
may impact the current attorney enrichment scheme used by TCPA
Litigation firms. The whole scheme currently utilized by
these collection firms was clearly NOT the intent of the CCPA.
This whole scheme may raise the question of "Champerty"
|In law, champerty
is the practice of participating in a lawsuit in order to
share in the proceeds by a person not naturally a party to the
lawsuit, that is, buying in to someone else's lawsuit. This
practice is prohibited in some jurisdictions; in others,
judges are considered to have the responsibility for policing
Consumer Crusade Attorney Jim
original King Pin of www.faxwarS.com
web site FINALLY responds to Fax Wars in an update
on Martino's TroubleShooter.com web site. In his article he shows
little to no respect towards Denver District Court Judge Martin Egelhoff.
He writes about an updated
website, what happened to www.faxwarS.com
why is it gone? He does not address that!
HERE for more info.
sometime in December 2004 www.faxwarS.com
was updated with the same information that was posted on www.TroubleShooter.com
site previously. More... Click HERE
Up to Defending Attorneys requesting discovery with little success
MOTION TO COMPEL against US Fax Law Center
Arapahoe County District Judge Marilyn Leonard awards $2,260 in
As an example:
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants First Set Of Interrogatories on
a case we are fighting in Boulder - A
clear opportunity to file Motion To Compel with Attorneys Fees
TROUBLE FOR "THE TROUBLE
SHOOTER" October 15,
District Court Judge Lawrence A. Manzanares adopts
Martin Egelhoff's reasoning, DISMISSING Martino's
Consumer Crusade, Inc.
v. MBA Financial Group Inc. and Dale
CLICK HERE to view order
View Document History
District Court Judge D.D. Mallard adopts Denver District
Judge Martin Egelhoff's
reasoning dismissing plaintiff's TCPA claims
M. McKenna v. Stephen C. Oliver September
Documents that may be useful in fighting
Case Law Info
The True Income
Calculation for the Demirali Law Firm
|House votes to relax junk fax
A greener light for "junk" faxes. The House has voted to relax regulations on unsolicited commercial faxes. The bill would overturn FCC rules requiring senders of commercial faxes to get prior written approval from recipients. The rules, which were set to take effect last August, have been delayed until January. The House bill would rewrite the rules so that senders of commercial faxes would be required to prominently include "opt-out" instructions for recipients who no longer wish to receive them.
(This would put ambulance chasing, "Bottom Feeding"
law firms back on the streets of America) Click
have REMOVED an article entitled "Martino
Leading Crusade Against Junk Faxes"
On or about November 15th we
received a registered letter from the publisher American City
Business Journals asking that we remove the article and links as it
is viewed by them as copyright infringement. The letter
stated in part, "As you may or may not be aware, American City
Business Journals, Inc. owns exclusive copyright rights in this
material. This unauthorized use of this material is copyright
infringement and is unacceptable to us. Please remove the material
from your site immediately."
If you would like to view the article, please visit www.Google.com
and do a search on "martino leading crusade against junk faxes".
You will find links to the article that was published in the Denver
Business Journal on July 30th, 2004, along with 38 other related
links produced by this search.
|Qwest critic Martino becomes firm's rival...
Qwest's competitor led Martino to ease up on the Baby Bell, however.
Listeners with bad things to say about Qwest now have their calls
taken off the air. FULL
Article written by
Mike Taylor, Managing Editor of Colorado Biz Magazine,
Referring to Tom Martino... "Trouble
Shooter or Trouble Maker?"
"That's why it's hard to see how Tom
Martino, consumer advocate that he is, can believe he is helping the
"It's disturbing to think we might need a
new Tom Martino just to troubleshoot the current Tom Martino"
|"Curiously, much of the late-night
infomercial bluster from two months earlier had disappeared, kind of like
Martino's trademark mustache."
||"I personally love being a lawyer. I've
been doing it for 35 years. And it bothers me when people make jokes
but this gives lawyers a bad name. I mean, it really
does. This is the bottom-feeder."
DEFENDANTS MBA and FINNEY'S
First Set of Interrogatories,
First Request for Production of
Documents, and First Request for Admissions
Capitol v MBA - Not related to Demirali's Case September 4, 2004
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
current District Court cases filed as of
7/30/2004, by Fax Wars - Consumer Crusade
c/o Demirali Law Firm,
875 South Colorado Blvd, Box #662, Denver, CO
80246, PH: 303-832-5900
Filed after 7/30/2004 Click
filed by Consumer Crusade as
of 8/15/2004 File
Size about 1 Meg
court Judge Kim Goldberger dismisses TCPA claim finding that
"Private Right of action created under TCPA is NOT
ORDER Click HERE
NOTE: This case was overturned, don't use as case law...
Motion to Dismiss
Filed by counsel on behalf of MBA Financial
Group Inc. July
in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Crusade's Response to MBA's Motion To Dismiss
to Consumer Crusade's Response to Motion To Dismiss
View Document History
Documents that may be useful in fighting
MBA's response to
Martino's attack of June 26, 2003
September 26, 2004 we tried to access FaxWars.com
(Tom Martino's Site)
We got an "Under
To see what we saw, Click
For those who would like to see what the site looked like prior to
| The Parties and lawyers to the
litigation in Colorado were stunned by a ruling on Monday, July 26,
which may change the complexion of this widespread controversy.
The ruling was issued by Denver District Court Judge Martin
Egelhoff. Order states "Federal Law Pre-Empted by State
ruling may be the subject of an appeal, because it dismisses with
prejudice the claims of one of the high-profile TCPA Plaintiffs, Consumer
Crusade, organized by "Troubleshooter" Tom Martino. (Currently ten plus suits) There has been no comment by Martino, nor any apology for his
mistaken allegations against local businessman, Dale Finney.
To View Full Story Click HERE
Martino's "Legal Advice"
website contains the following language: As
complete site PRIOR
to 9-26-2004 Click
|"Now you can simply
assign your faxes and the collection rights to Consumer
Crusade and they will pay you $25.00 for each junk fax on
which collection is made. "There is absolutely no expense to
you." All claims, demands, suits and legal action
will be brought in their name and not yours. "You will never
be involved in any way in these matters." "http://www.faxwars.com/turning.htm
See Screen Shot HERE
| Mr. Martino does not cite any legal
authority for this viewpoint, though Collection Attorney Demirali's
name, address and phone number are prominently featured on that
website. Martino asserts that "There
is absolutely no expense to you." If
you have given up a statutory entitlement to $500 to $1,500 in
return for a possible recovery of $25.00, is it true for Martino to
say that there is "...absolutely no expense to
will never be involved in any way in these matters." Did
you know that defendants are entitled to confront the true plaintiff?
the Defendants serve a SUBPOENA for your phone bills, or for you to
appear and testify, you will incur expenses! Is Mr. Martino
going to pay for your time to appear? Have you ever had
to appear for a deposition without being "involved in any
way" Next time you need legal advise, be sure to
check with Mr. Martino.
|What is the site about?
This site is a resource for faxing and spamming issues. It is
not intended to be one-sided or slanted in any way. It does not just provide a small
snippet about fax blasting laws; it covers a massive wealth of information. Use
the navigation buttons at the top and bottom of this site to access the wealth of
information provided. Also please see MBA's response to Martino's "on air" attack of
June 26, 2003.
Why is this site here?
We suspect that a ton of visitors will come to this
site because of Tom Martino's efforts to get people to visit www.faxwarS.com Thus we are providing this resource for those whom want to
have access to the growing body of information and judicial rulings addressing the
subjects of "fax blasting" and "spamming". As noted at the top
of this page, if you are looking for Tom Martino's site on faxing issues, visit www.faxwarS.com
Who placed this site here?
Dale Finney, former owner of MBA Financial Group Inc.
Located in Denver Colorado, MBA Financial Group Inc. is one of the many companies
that Tom Martino has pilloried on his radio show for Fax Advertising. In fact he
continues to mention MBA Financial Group Inc. on the air, saying he has 4 faxes from us
(which, if true, is arguably the result of his failure to "opt out" or utilize
the Colorado No Call List).
Yes I sent faxes many months ago, believing it was lawful. I was led to believe this
by www.eloansites.com and www.fax.com (two of the vendors I had used). I
was told that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children was a principal
beneficiary of The Internet Emergency Response Network. The commercial sponsors, including
MBA Financial Group Inc., were funding the efforts of The Internet Emergency Response
Network, and receiving the ancillary benefit of having their commercial message
transmitted as part of the campaign. I was led to believe that all recipients of the
subject fax's would have consented to such fax traffic, in support of the goals of that
emergency response network. It is the electronic parallel to the "Amber
Alert" system which now publishes emergency information about recent child abductions
to travelers on the interstate highways. I was further led to believe that such
transmissions were lawful in Colorado under the State Statute C.R.S. 6-1-702 (b)(I) that
precludes unsolicited fax advertisements "unless the fax contains a statement
informing the recipients of a toll-free number they can use to stop future
faxes". All my faxes had a toll-free number for removal. All of this fax
traffic was conducted in good faith with due regard to the Colorado No Call List and in
arguable compliance with the State laws as explained by the vendors of such
services. The most recent interpretations of the TCPA by the federal courts have
imposed a more restrictive scheme, which governs this area of speech pending rulings by
While fax advertising generated lots of business and I felt that the faxing was within the
scope of the law, I terminated fax advertising services.
Having accumulated about 2 hours of audio telephone recordings and traced calls (provided
by www.WhosCalling.com) from Tom Martino and his
staff harassing me and my employees, I revisited whether or not I wanted to continue
fax advertising. As noted above I stopped.
you will find on this site?
A wealth of links leading you to almost every facet
of faxing and spamming. Also links to companies that are currently providing faxing
services, just to show that there are still people using fax advertising. I am not
the arbiter of whether it is legal or not. It will be very helpful when our
legislature enacts a law that is judicially interpreted to provide clarity on the faxing
and spamming issues. You will find numerous articles detailing the progress toward a
clear cut solution.
Are you tired of spam email?
I currently get about 300 to 500 spam emails per
day. This is another instance where a clearly defined law would help minimize spam
mailing. In the mean time I have found a program that help manage spam email
before it gets into your inbox. Visit www.MailWasher.net
A thought on self protection, we all do it
I placed all of my office phone numbers (including fax) on the
Colorado No Call list, virtually stopping ALL telemarketing and FAX calls. (Visit www.ColoradoNoCall.com) I also added
my home phone and fax numbers to the Colorado No Call list, successfully stopping
telemarketing and fax calls. It is clear that using the Colorado No Call services is a
simple and effective way to stop unwanted telemarketing and fax calls. Just one
simple step, similar to taking your car keys with you when you park your car to go
shopping. Many people refuse to use the tools available to them thinking they should
not have to take that extra step.
Yes it works! Just like taking your keys with you (and setting the alarm) when you go
shopping. Why not take 3 minutes to add your number(s) to the Colorado No Call list
to stop unwanted calls for ever?
Tom Martino and others say "I should not have to do that". People
shouldn't have to call Tom Martino, either. Enough said... Do what works for
Please enjoy the site. Check back often for updates on this fast-developing legal
|To obtain a recording of
Martino's radios shows, call: Video Monitoring Services, 303-733-8000