Images blurred to protect their identity!

How the placement of a Comma screwed us! And, why we'll be getting more Robo Calls. ??

?You have to wonder how a case that impacts more Americans than most before the High Court recently, slipped by all the way to its ultimate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court without much media coverage or other fanfare.

Who wants more Robo Calls?

Well, if you do, you can thank Facebook’s “influen$e” on how the U.S. Supreme Court now bases its decisions.

I have to admit, I was taken aback at how the U.S. Supreme Court’s overly narrowed focus on the actions of a comma in the verbiage of the legislation which was clearly meant to stop these intrusions from happening, was used to defeat the purpose of the law.?You heard me right. Apparently, the comma’s positioning enabled an interpretation that completely flouts the purpose of a law!?

?Yes, things have become that corrupted here in the United States!

Maybe we should re-title this article as: “Comma Suit-ra,” as the clever orchestration of a series of lawsuits passed quickly with little notice through the lower courts, only to screw us in the Highest Court, where legislative intent was forgotten and the positioning of the comma was the focus of a unanimous Justices’ opinion.

Whatever happened to legislative intent? Isn’t that why we carefully select Justices to the Supreme Court for life-long terms??Our Justices are supposed to decide matters without the tug of politics or moneyed interests.

They’re supposed to rely on the Wisdom of Precedent and carry the Gavel of Justice, not be punctuation nitpickers who ignore legislative intent so they can justify wrong-headed outcomes that forestall justice!,?

Now, “We the People” will have to wait, endure more abuse and see whether the more financially compromised and politicized branches of government will ever have the political will to hammer this out at some later date.

I began to lose some confidence in America’s jurisprudence back in 2011 when the Justice Department tolerated blatant violations in the law and allowed politicians and bankers to skirt the law. Investigations that were purposefully too narrowly focused on the potential for violations of cybersecurity allowed political pals to be exonerated for security violations when focusing on violations of the Securities Law would have caused many politicians to face the prospect of serving prison time.

?As a result of these manipulations Insider Trading, Conflicts of Interest, Unfair Business Practices, and other issues involving Pay-For-Play went undeterred by the law.

Last week was the frosting on the (let them eat) cake.?In a matter called Facebook vs. Duguid, “the Supremes” voted unanimously to forget the purpose of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which bans most unsolicited robocalls and provides for up to $1,500 per violation.

The Court in its apparent fascination with the punctuation of the legislation seemingly forgot the legislation’s purpose and decided the matter based on grammar instead of legislative intent.

It also appears that Duguid wasn’t the best plaintiff to use in the matter against Facebook. And, this matter would have been better prosecuted by the FTC.?So, why did Duguid sue Facebook??And, why was he “chosen” to be the representative of a Class Action??I can’t help but think that he might have been purposefully chosen as a “straw man” plaintiff!

A straw man plaintiff is one that’s financed to fail, to get a legal action before an appellate or Supreme Court to get something “decided” as a manner of precedent.

?Okay! Okay! Before you start accusing me of promoting a conspiracy theory, hear me out!?Recently it’s become “a thing” to have cases purposefully lost so that they can be appealed to get a chance at being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

?Consider this, also:?Noah Duguid has never had a Facebook account, but he kept getting unsolicited text messages from Facebook telling him that someone had tried to log in to his (nonexistent) account. So, Duguid sued Facebook under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. He also sought to certify his case as a class action.

Facebook’s defense was that its texts were an excusable error, as somebody else who had Duguid’s phone number before he had opted-in with Facebook. Facebook contended that meant there was no way for Facebook to know Duguid now had the number.

Of course, Duguid could have “done better,” if he had contacted Facebook and requested to be opted out. He might have had to escalate the matter, to finally get some results, but there was no discussion about any failed attempts to work with Facebook to resolve this matter.

That, plus the fact that this case is upon appeal under the name Facebook vs. Duguid, instead of Duguid vs. Facebook, is a “good indicator” as to who was doing good for whom.?If you catch my drift.

The U.S. Supreme Court strangely focused on the technicalities of this older law, and sought to differentiate it from today’s technology to exonerate newer technology which did the same outlawed deeds, but in a technically different manner.?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor found in favor of Facebook, claiming that Congress had meant to “target a unique type of telemarketing equipment (back in 1991) that risks dialing emergency lines randomly or tying up all the sequentially numbered lines at a single entity... Expanding the definition of an auto-dialer to encompass any equipment that merely stores and dials telephone numbers would take a chain saw to these nuanced problems when Congress meant to use a scalpel.”?

Looks like it’s going to be up to Congress (and the states) to update some laws.?In the meantime, shallow thinkers will see a win for Facebook and autodialers (but not to be confused with Robocalls)… LOL.

In the short term, be prepared to be bombarded with Robo Calls.

Note: A better action would be to outlaw the equipment that doesn’t automatically comply with existing laws that make it a crime to not honor a recipient’s request not to call back.

Note: Some states have laws that also make it actionable to call people who are on a “Do Not Call Registry.”?Unfortunately, those laws could use a Supreme Court decision to give them some teeth. A plaintiff from those states would have been a better plaintiff in a class action. (Hint, Hint)?Do we have any takers in the Republic of California?

It looks like we’re going to need to press the FTC to put some sharper teeth into a “New and Improved Digital Consumer Protection Act,” if we want anything to be done to Stop the Spam Scams.

Net result? We’re all going to get a tsunami of unwanted texts and calls.

So, don't be surprised when you get a Robo Call that says: “This is the Social Security Administration and your Social Security Number has been suspended, because you owe money to the IRS…”???