Saturday, November 10, 2007


Telemarketer Guardian Communications shut down by FTC

Posted at Quad City Times

Telemarketing companies face federal lawsuit

By Dustin Lemmon
Thursday, November 08, 2007

A federal lawsuit has been filed against two telemarketing companies based in Moline that have allegedly violated laws related to the national do-not-call registry and use of automated dialers.

According to the suit filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office in U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, the companies have abandoned calls, failed to transmit caller identification information and placed calls on behalf of sellers who had not paid National Do Not Call Registry fees.

The defendants include Guardian Communications, in the 1600 block of 7th Street, United States Voice Broadcasting Inc., in the 1900 block of 7th Street, and Kevin Baker, owner and president of Guardian Communications.
Efforts to reach the defendants for comment Wednesday were unsuccessful. A phone number for Guardian Enterprises, which has the same address as Guardian Communications, was disconnected.

The Federal Trade Commission issued a news release Wednesday saying the suit is one of five nationwide filed this week against companies that have violated various telemarketing laws.
The FTC said a stipulated final order was filed with the suit and the two companies will pay $150,000 to settle the case with a remaining $7.8 million judgment suspended because they’re unable to pay.

According to the suit, since 2004 the companies through a joint venture have sold a voice message delivery service that can be used to deliver pre-recorded messages to consumers and their answering machines through a service described as “voice broadcasting.”
The sellers record a message, and the companies use an automated dialer to place calls to a database of telephone numbers either provided by the companies or the seller, the suit states, adding the companies can place up to 20 million phone calls a day.

The defendants have violated federal laws by “abandoning” or not connecting calls to a live representative within two seconds of the consumer answering the phone, the suit states.
According to the suit, the defendants have programmed their equipment to either play a recorded message to the person answering the phone or cancel the call after determining that the phone was not answered by an answering machine or voice-mail system.
“Guardian blasted phone numbers with pre-recorded telemarketing pitches, immediately terminating calls when a live consumer answered,” the FTC said in its news release.
The companies also violated laws requiring that either the name of the telemarketer or seller be displayed to the consumer’s caller ID service, the suit states, adding the calls would say “Cust Service,” “Services, Inc.,” “Card Services,” “LTR” or “DWC.”

The suit further claims that the companies since October 2003 have called numerous numbers in various area codes without their sellers having paid an annual fee for access to telephone numbers included in the National Do Not Call Registry.
The suit claims the defendants could be fined $11,000 for each violation of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule. The suit also asks for a court order permanently enjoining the defendants from further violations.

Dustin Lemmon can be contacted at
(563) 383-2493 or

Thanks to everybody who helped shut down this illegal telemarketer. It took over two years, but stopping 20 million calls a day should allow a few people to enjoy a peaceful dinner. Visit anti206thread to see the history of this fight.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007


Telemarketer CTC Marketing takes over where Guardian Communications left off

231 224 2054 (CTC Marketing) illegal survey from
United Public Opinion Group.
Robert Johnson pres.
110 West 9th. Street Room 934
Wilmington, DE 19801.
302 661 1390 (Disc)
Call offers two free cruise tickets for answering ten questions. Many calls in violation of DNC laws in US and Canada.

231 224 2050 (Fremont MI / CTC Marketing) Pre-recorded calls about saving money on credit card interest rates. The operator would only say Accounts Management when I asked the name of the company. He said it was in the "DSW Area" Texas. He hung up when I asked for an address.

Still looking for information on CTC Marketing. It may be a fake name. It is definitely not the CTC marketing (Coast To Coast) that sells insurance in Michigan. If you have any info. on this company please post.

They also use 231 224 2056, 231 224 2058, 231 224 2057, 231 224 2053, 231 224 2051, 616 980 2196, 616 980 2188, 231 224 2055, 616 980 2191, 702 481 0998, 803 477 0543, 302 290 5165

Report all illegal calls to your Attorney General and the FTC.

Saturday, September 02, 2006


Telemarketer Guardian Communications cited by FCC

*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 59360.doc*
Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1726
August 30, 2006
Guardian Communications, Inc.
Attn: Kevin Baker, President
3322 38 th Avenue Moline, IL 61625
RE: EB- 06- TC- 157
Dear Mr. Baker: This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to section 503( b)( 5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U. S. C. § 503( b)( 5), for violations of the Act and the Federal Communications Commission’s rules that govern telephone solicitations and unsolicited advertisements. 1 As explained below, future violations of the Act or Commission’s rules in this regard may subject you and your company to monetary forfeitures. It has come to our attention that your company, acting under your direction, has delivered one or more prerecorded messages to a residential telephone line or lines in violation of section 227( b)( 1)( B) of the Act and section 64.1200( a)( 2) of the Commission’s rules, as described in the attached complaint( s). 2 Under Section 227( b)( 1)( B) of the Act and section 64.1200( a)( 2) of the Commission’s rules, it is unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States . . . to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call 1 47 U. S. C. § 227; 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1200. A copy of these provisions is enclosed for your convenience. Section 227 was added to the Communications Act by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and is most commonly known as the TCPA. The TCPA and the Commission’s parallel rules restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We refer in this citation to the Commission’s rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter. Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. 2 We have attached the 3 complaints at issue in this citation. At least 12 additional similar complaints are not attached but are available from the FCC’s complaint database.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20554 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1726 2 (i) Is made for emergency purposes, 3 (ii) Is not made for a commercial purpose, (iii) Is made for a commercial purpose but does not include or introduce an unsolicited advertisement 4 or constitute a telephone solicitation, 5 (iv) Is made to any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship 6 at the time the call is made, or (v) Is made by or on behalf of a tax- exempt nonprofit organization. Accordingly, it is generally unlawful to use an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver an advertisement or telephone solicitation to a residential telephone line unless the call is made: (1) by or on behalf of a tax- exempt nonprofit organization; (2) with the prior express consent of the called party; or (3) to a person who has an established business relationship with the caller. The attached information indicates that your company, acting under your direction, delivered an unsolicited advertisement or telephone solicitation, through a prerecorded message, to one or more residential telephone subscribers who either (1) had not expressly invited or 3 The term “emergency purposes” means calls made necessary in any situation affecting the health and safety of consumers.” 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1200( f)( 2). 4 The term “unsolicited advertisement” means “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission.” 47 U. S. C.§ 227( a)( 4); 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1200( f)( 10). 5 The term “telephone solicitation” means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message: (i) To any person with that person's prior express invitation or permission; (ii) To any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship; or (iii) By or on behalf of a tax- exempt nonprofit organization. 47 U. S. C. § 227( a)( 3); 47 C. F. R.§ 64. 1200( f)( 9). 6 The term “established business relationship” means a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two- way communication between a person or entity and a residential subscriber with or without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of the subscriber's purchase or transaction with the entity within the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the date of the telephone call or on the basis of the subscriber's inquiry or application regarding products or services offered by the entity within the three months immediately preceding the date of the call, which relationship has not been previously terminated by either party. (i) The subscriber's seller- specific do- not- call request, as set forth in paragraph (d)( 3) of this section, terminates an established business relationship for purposes of telemarketing and telephone solicitation even if the subscriber continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1200( f)( 3) 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1726 3 authorized the call( s) or (2) did not have an established business relationship with you or your company (a transaction within 18 months prior to the call( s), or an inquiry or application within 3 months prior to the call( s)).
As explained above, this action violates section 227( b)( 1)( B) of the Communications Act and section 64.1200( a)( 2) of the Commission’s rules. Separately, it appears that you and your company have also violated other Commission rules that govern all prerecorded messages. Under section 64.1200( b), prerecorded messages must, at the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business (the name under which the business is registered to conduct business with the State Corporation Commission or comparable regulatory authority), individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call. In addition, the telephone number 7 or address of such business, or individual, or other entity must be provided either during or after the prerecorded message. According to the attached information received by the Commission, it appears that your telephone solicitation( s) did not contain all of the required information.
If, after receipt of this citation, you or your company violate the Communications Act or the Commission’s rules in any manner described herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. 8 You may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission’s Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a written statement. Your response should specify the actions that you are taking to ensure that you do not violate the Commission’s rules governing telephone solicitation and unsolicited advertisements, as described above. The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Chicago Office in Park Ridge, IL, 60068- 1460; please contact Al McCloud at (202) 418- 2499 if you wish to schedule a personal interview. You should schedule any interview to take place within 30 days of the date of this letter. You should send any written statement within 30 days of the date of this letter to: 7 Any telephone number so provided may not be for (1) an autodialer or prerecorded message player that placed the call, (2) a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with prerecorded sales message to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do- not- call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 8 See 47 C. F. R. § 1.80( b)( 3). 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1726 4
Kurt A. Schroeder
Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission
445- 12 th Street, S. W. Rm. 4- C222 Washington, D. C. 20554
Reference EB- 06- TC- 157 when corresponding with the Commission. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need including as much detail as you can. Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Please allow at least 5 days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to fcc504@ fcc. gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau: For sign language interpreters, CART, and other reasonable accommodations: 202- 418- 0530 (voice), 202- 418- 0432 (tty); For accessible format materials (braille, large print, electronic files, and audio format): 202- 418- 0531 (voice), 202- 418- 7365 (tty). Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. § 552( a)( e)( 3), we are informing you that the Commission’s staff will use all relevant material information before it, including information that you disclose in your interview or written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U. S. C. § 1001.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder
Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau

Tuesday, June 13, 2006


Marathon Communications (800 919 1000) continues to provide numbers for illegal telemarketers

Posted at Pay Phone site.

TOPIC - 206-415-9126
DATE - 06/12/06 13:46:48
FROM - dirty PA

I saw there were several other complaints regarding this number so I figured I'd share my fun afternoon with the rest of you.

I received a call from "Health Care" this afternoon. The only reason I've been answering these types of calls lately is because we recently changed our phone number due to a lovely stalking incident. The number change was long enough ago for our registration with the national DNC list to take effect but not quite long enough for the PA list to go into effect. Since we are registered on the national DNC list I have already filed a complaint about "Health Care." Hopefully there are enough others that do the same so that some action is taken.

Anyhow, when I answered I pressed "1" as instructed because I figured maybe they were looking for the old guy who used to have our number....... I asked that they remove us from their database to which I got a quick, "yeah sure" from Mr. Intelligent. I then asked the name of the company. This was received with a "Hello? Hello?" and then a dial tone... as if that fucker didn't hear me lol. I then tried calling back but all you get is a pre-recorded message asking you to put your phone number in so they can remove you. Yeah right... more like sell your good number to some other scammers. I opted instead to start pushing random numbers in and then confirming that it was "correct."

Since I was bored I continued to do this for the next hour as I surfed the net. I really had nothing better to do this afternoon so it was a great way to pass the time :D

I googled the number and found this place which was quite helpful since someone was nice enough to post the 800# for the company that sells these scammers service. I called the company up and pressed "0" for the operator. Of course she wasn't available though. I called back and pressed "7" for info about their auto-dialer service (!!!) and spoke to a "wonderful representative. When I asked her if she could give me the name of the company that this 206# belonged to she informed me that it would be illegal for her to give me that information. I guess it isn't illegal for said company to harass someone registered on the DNC list though.

Well, I'm sure you can imagine how happy she was to hear that. I let her know that her "privacy only matters to us" company has been reported. She asked for my phone number so that she could place us on her DNC list. Yeah, sure. I'll get right on that one. I told her no because I really didn't feel like being harassed even more when she sold our number to even more scammers. She really didn't care for that either....

You know, I really hate fuckers like this. It's okay for them to call us but god forbid they identify themselves. I hope hell has a special place where they are repeatedly anally raped by rotary phones. Seems only right...

Thursday, May 11, 2006


Telemarketer Guardian Communications pays fine for making illegal "homosexual agenda" calls

Posted at KOTV-The News on 6
Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson Reaches Agreement With Telemarketing Company

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson has reached an agreement with an Illinois telemarketing company as part of his investigation of a political consultant.Officials say Guardian Communications Incorporated will pay a $3,000 civil penalty and won't face any legal action.Edmondson filed a civil lawsuit last week accusing consultant Tim Pope of violating provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.The act requires all prerecorded telephone messages to identify who is responsible for the call.Pope acknowledged in The Oklahoman in January he paid for 20,000 calls accusing Oklahoma County Commissioner Jim Roth of "advancing the homosexual agenda in Oklahoma County."The lawsuit seeks a $500 fine for each call, meaning Pope could be ordered to pay $10-million.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006


Marathon Communcations continues to provide numbers for illegal surveys

Posted at TelemarketingFAQ

I Live in Seattle
Junior Member

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1

206 - Marathon - Markata -Manor House - 42 Holdings update

I guess I should have registered before making my previous post.I paid a visit to Marathon Communications today, about 20 minutes away. I served them a cease and desist letter and they were happy to oblige and give me the information I was seeking.Paul Revere Marketing is directly reposible for the following "companies"
206-278-8878 -- 42 HOLDINGS
206-278-8980 -- MARKATA
206-278-9544 -- AZ SURVEY
253-218-3412 -- K AND V SURVEYS
425-256-3739 -- MANOR HOUSE
425-256-3737 -- MHWC
253-218-3406 -- MY FIRST SURVEY
425-256-3738 -- DOUBLE EAGLE D
206-415-8733 -- AGUAYO CONSULT
360-362-5413 -- AZ SURVEY
360-362-5395 -- MUSTANG HOLDING

Paul Revere Marketing can be found at
Paul Revere Marketing, LLC
14362 N. Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd Suite 1000 Scottsdale, AZ 85260
602 692 1131
I spoke with Greg Garbero who is the agent registered with Marathon for Paul Revere.Greg can be reached at 602-692-1131 or fax at 1-866-473-4439 or EMAIL AT
Anyone want to see pictures of my visit to Marathon?

Wednesday, March 22, 2006


Debt Solutions sued again (208 629 5001) Prerecorded message:" Hi, this is Karen McCarthy with Debt Solutions."

'Debt Elimination Program' Fails to Deliver Guaranteed Lower Interest Rates

Telemarketers Also Violate Do Not Call Rule

The Federal Trade Commission and the Washington State Attorney General have asked a federal judge to order Debt Solutions Inc. and three other telemarketers in Washington and Florida to stop charging consumers hundreds of dollars for a “debt elimination program” that offers a false promise of substantially reduced interest rates and thousands of dollars in savings. The agencies jointly filed the action in U. S. District Court in Seattle, seeking an injunction against them and refund of monies paid for violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.
“The defendants’ so-called ‘debt elimination program’ was not the answer for consumers who found themselves in financial hot water,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “There are a variety of legitimate options to reduce debt, including more realistic budgeting, credit counseling from reputable organizations, debt consolidation programs, and, if need be, filing for bankruptcy. In every case, though, people should be wary of any business that claims it can negotiate substantially lower interest rates on credit cards and loans.”
According to the FTC and the State of Washington’s complaint, since at least 2002, Debt Solutions Inc., DSI Financial Inc., DSI Direct Inc., Pacific Consolidation Services Inc., Kenneth Schwartz, Jennifer Ruth Whalen, David C. Schwartz, and Greg Moses have telemarketed and sold what they call a debt elimination program by making unsolicited phone calls to consumers nationwide, and by marketing the program on several Internet Web sites, including and The complaint alleges that the defendants falsely represented to consumers that they would be assigned a financial consultant whose special relationships with creditors will enable the consultant to negotiate substantially lower interest rates, saving consumers thousands of dollars, reducing their monthly payments, and paying off their debts three to five times faster–all without higher monthly payments. In fact,according to the complaint, consumers who purchase the program typically do not have theirinterest rates lowered at all, and, if they do, the reductions are rarely more than one percentage point.
Consumers are promised a full refund if they do not save at least $2,500, but few consumers have received the guaranteed refund, according to the agencies’ complaint. Before buying the program for $399 to $629, the complaint alleges, consumers are not told that the promised savings may take decades to achieve, or that most of the savings will result from simply paying more money every month, not from reduced interest rates. The defendants also claim the program is endorsed by the Financial Standards Council in Canada and the Registered Financial Planners Institute of North America, but both claims are false, according to the complaint.
The FTC and the State of Washington’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by falsely representing that purchasers will (1) save thousands of dollars in a short time; (2) have credit card and loan interest rates reduced substantially; (3) pay off their debt much faster without higher monthly payments; and (4) reduce their monthly credit card and loan payments. The complaint also alleges that they falsely represent that they have special relationships with credit card companies and lenders, and that their program is endorsed by the two organizations mentioned above. It also alleges that they misrepresented their money-back guarantee.
The complaint further alleges that the defendants violated the TSR and Washington state law by misrepresenting projected savings, failing to disclose the limits of their money-back guarantee, calling phone numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry, failing to pay the required annual fee for access to DNC-listed numbers, and calling persons who had asked them to stop calling. The defendants also violated Washington state law by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?