Resolved: Scam telemarketer
Update by user Jan 24, 2019
The matter was resolved in a professional manner.
Original review posted by user Dec 25, 2018John Buchmiller is being sued in New Mexico and California for illegal telemarketing in violation of 47 USC §227 of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 18-cv-2845 LAB JLB is the case number in the Southern District of California. My opinion is that Buchmiller is a mean and nasty person. I had a horrible experience with John Buchmiller. Buchmiller hired this person to run a boiler-room full of telemarketers for him and his Attorneys Tax Relief, LLC. They used robo-dialers to call many, many people. Ron Taylor, Jr.Founder and CEO of BuyLow, Inc.322 Mall Blvd suite 239Monroeville, Pa. 15146 BuyLowInc.comDirect Phone: 412-53*-340 In 2014, the 9th Circuit in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co. (9th Cir. 201*) 768 F.3d 871, 878, regarding TCPA vicarious liability held: “[t]his interpretation is consistent with that of the statute's implementing agency, which has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of vicarious liability under the TCPA. The Federal Communications Commission is expressly imbued with authority to "prescribe regulations to implement the requirements" of the TCPA. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2). As early as 1995, the FCC stated that "[c]alls placed by an agent of the telemarketer are treated as if the telemarketer itself placed the call." In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, 10 FCC Rcd. 12391, 12397 (****). More recently, the FCC has clarified that vicarious liability is imposed "under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers." In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574, 6574 (****). Because Congress has not spoken directly to this issue and because the FCC's interpretation was included in a fully adjudicated declaratory ruling, the interpretation must be afforded Chevron deference. Metrophones Telecomm., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc., 423 F.3d 1056, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. a*s'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980-85, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 162 L. Ed. 2d 820 (****)) (other citations omitted), aff'd, 550 U.S. 45, 127 S. Ct. 1513, 167 L. Ed. 2d 422 (****)” See alsoRestatement (Third) of Agency (2006) §§ 2.01, 2.03, 4.01 (explaining that agency may be established by express authorization, implicit authorization, or ratification)."Lawyer Ethics As Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit recently explained in a TCPA case regarding calls to a non-debtor similar to this one: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act...is well known for its provisions limiting junk-fax transmissions. A less-litigated part of the Act curtails the use of automated dialers and prerecorded messages to cell phones, whose subscribers often are billed by the minute as soon as the call is answered--and routing a call to voicemail counts as answering the call. An automated call to a landline phone can be an annoyance; an automated call to a cell phone adds expense to annoyance. Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012).Craig v. County of Los Angeles (1990) The FCC also recognized that “wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used.” In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014, 14115 ¶ 165 (****). Standing is proper under Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America because Plaintiff’s claims state: A valid injury in fact; which is traceable to the conduct of Defendants; and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. See, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S.____(2016) at 6, and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 at 560. In order to meet the standard laid out in Spokeo and Lujan, Plaintiffs must clearly allege facts demonstrating all three prongs above.
- Being harassed repeatedly with robo calls
Reason of review
stop telemarketing with robo dialers to DNC phones
Attorney Tax Relief Lawyers, LLC Rip Off
This outfit was supposed to file an Offer and Compromise for me. They required payment from me upfront before filing with the IRS. Julie, tax preparer Brian, Max and Michael Chasen were people who contacted me during the supposed "Offer and Compromise process." I called the IRS and Attorney Tax Relief had never even contacted the IRS. They made promises that were totally false and ended up costing me a lot of money, plus the IRS filed a lien on my Social Security payments. I didn't realize what was happening until a year and a half later. AS SAID BEFORE BY ANOTHER UNHAPPY CUSTOMER, DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY. They are a complete rip-off, making promises they never intent to fulfill. There was never any offer and compromise made with the IRS. They still have not finalized any filings with the IRS.
Attorneys Tax Relief Tax Preparation
- False promises regarding irs offer and compromise
Reason of review
Not as described/ advertised
Companies Similar to Attorneys Tax Relief
Thank You for Your Reply!
Thank You for Your Reply! We are processing your message.
11Thank You for Your Submission
Your comment is successfully posted.