Drowning in Junk Mail – How to Stop Scam Junk Mail Using a Prohibitory Order

If you have gotten any of the letters in this post TOSS THEM IN THE GARBAGE!! They will bring nothing but heartache and an empty wallet. If you get a lot of this type of mail I am going to show you how to stop it.

Scams from St. Louis MO

Everyone of these letters is called a 419 scam. It is named after the law code in Nigeria where the scam is prevalent. It is also called advanced fee fraud. The scam is they promise you something (money, a mystery box, I have an example with a car) But in order for you to get the whatever it is you must give them some money first. It usually hovers around $20. It is a lie, you won’t be getting whatever it is they have promised you. This mail will be the most beautiful, look the most official, and scream OPEN ME!

American Fiduciary Disbursements, Bellevill, NJ

DON’T! If you give money to one of them in hopes of getting the prize, you will be put on a mailing list of the worst kind, and you will get a blizzard of scam junk mail.

30 junk mail scams

Every week I receive about 30 scam letters. Well not me, my family has redirected a relative’s mail to me. She has dementia and can no longer care for herself. While going through her papers we found that about 3 years ago she started sending money to these people. She would very carefully photocopy the letter, send it off with a check, and then file the photocopy away, all in hopes of getting the prize. Now I get 30 scam letters a week, and her phone gets upwards of 20 calls a day from Jamaica and other far off lands, all asking for money.

American Claims & Reporting Center (ARC) Daniel P. Kennedy

Let’s tune into a special report from KTVN channel 2 Reno/Tahoe. See the National Consumers League doesn’t want you to send them in either. The only problem with that report is that they don’t tell you how to make the scam mail go away. Today I am going to teach you how.


First sign up for DMA Choice (If you want to do more you can Opt-out of Big Data). Then wait, the junk mail should stop in about 90 days (It didn’t for me, but that is why I am writing a blog isn’t it). If you are still getting scam junk mail after that, it is time to bring out the big guns: USPS From 1500. It’s original purpose was to stop pornography, but now it can be used to stop any mail  that is selling something. Good thing that asking for $20 to get $10 million is considered selling something. It only works on mail based in the USA. Scammers share their “suckers list” often. Word will spread across the pond quickly enough. It does not work on 501c(3) charities or 501c(4) PACs unless they are selling something, just asking for a donation or giving away free tote bags don’t count. But having a sweepstakes does.


Project suplies
For this project you will need: A pen, a stapler, envelopes, stamps, cheap copy paper, a printer, and scam junk mail. Optional: The free return address labels that came in other junk mail, and Avery address labels.

I would also recommend picking the smallest mailpiece a scammer sends to you, it will cost the least postage. But if they only send a full sized newspapers as ads, break out a giant manila envelope and send away.

Prohibitory Order From 1500
Next download USPS form 1500 (PDF) also called a  Prohibitory Order. This is an excellent walk through of the process from Knowmore.org (the web site seems to be down, so I am linking to the Wayback Machine version)

I bought the cheapest copy paper I could find, and set my printer to the lightest setting. I didn’t want to waste good paper and toner on these scammers. I have highlighted all the boxes you need to fill in.

From 1500
The form is overly complicated. Mostly because we aren’t using it the way it was originally intended to be used. Just remember to initial box 1 and 1a and you are golden.

Staple it all togeather
After you fill out the form, staple the entire contents of the letter to the form. This includes the outer envelope.

Stuff to stick to the envelope
This is where all that other junk mail comes in handy. It seems like every other charity has sent me return address labels. This sheet is from the National Park Foundation. It had about 40 labels. For most people that should be enough for a year. For me? 2 weeks. Good thing other charities sent me more.

Putting a form 1500 into an envelope
Slap the return address label, the Avery label and a stamp on the envelope. Then fold the stapled junk mail into the envelope.

14 form 1500's going to the Pricing Classification Service Center
Sent it off to Pricing and Classification Service Center PO Box 1500 New York, NY 10008-1500.

Form 1500 recipts
You should get a reply back in 2 weeks. I am probably the only person who has ever sent over 70 of these out.

Form 1500 recipts
If you fill it out right, you will get a conformation letter that they have stopped the mail from coming to your house. The Prohibitory Order will last 5 years, and will take effect 30 days after the scammer gets the order from the post office.

With this batch I also got the letter that goes to the scammer. They are ordered to:
1. To refrain from any mailing to the addressee, effective on the 30th calendar day after the receipt of this order.
2. To delete immediately the addressee from all mailing lists controlled by you or your agents or assigns.
3. To abstain immediately from the sale, rental, exchange, or other transaction mailing lists bearing the name of the addressee.

Form 1500 bounce back
If you fill it wrong, you will get the entire letter back, and a copy of form 1500 highlighted with the pink highlighter of doom. It is OK, just fill it out again (check your work this time) and send it back.
One week I messed up an entire batch and they all came back 😦 But the next day free stamps came with the junk mail. I love when the junk mail pays me to stop it. 🙂

The next step is, if they send another piece of junk mail I am supposed to write “I received this mailpiece on (date)” with a copy of the Prohibitory Order and the order number and sent it to the New York office. It hasn’t gotten to that point yet. It will be fun when it does.


 

Update: Going to Step 2

Alternatives going to step 2
It had to happen, after sending out over 70 form 1500’s someone had to slip-up and ignore me. On the Prohibitory Order is the date they sent it to you. The scammer has 30 days from that date to stop sending you mail. On the 31st day you can go to step 2.

This is what it looks like when you go to Step 2. I wrote “I received this on (date)” and signed it, on the on the outside of the mailpiece and again on the return envelope. I photocopied the letters that the postoffice sent to me, put it all into an envelope and sent it off.

This is what I got back a couple of weeks later:

Form 1500 Step 2

This letter is for me:

Based on the evidence you furnished us regarding a possible violation of Prohibitory Order 2080212, we have issued a Complaint (PS form 2153) against the mailer involed. A copy of the Complaint is enclosed for your records.

It has been our experiance that most mailers abide by the provisions of a Prohibitory Order issued against them under 39 USC 3008. However, in some cases, additional steps are necessary. Issuing a Complaint is the first step in the process designed to end violation of a Prohibitory Order.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

This letter is for the scammer:

This concerns violation of Prohibitory Order number 2080212 issued against you and your agents or assigns on behalf of [name]

On 06/30/2014, you received a Prohibitory Order (see copy attached) issued under USC 3008 upon request of the above-named addressee. I have received evidence that the Prohibitory Order has been violated as follows:

BY FAILING TO DELETE IMMEDIATELY THE NAME OF THE ADDRESSEE (AND OF EACH CHILD) LISTED IN THE ORDER FROM MAILING LISTS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY YOU OR YOUR AGENTS OR ASSIGNS.

A copy of the face of the mailpiece is attached.

Any response to the Complaint or petition for a hearing with respect to it must be filed with me, in writing within 15 days after receipt of this Complaint. Attached is a copy of the rules of practice for hearings on such matters. Any petition for a hearing must comply fully with §963.3(a) of these rules.

For those of you that like to read postal law: Title 39 Code OF Federal Regulations Part 963 Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Violations of The Pandering Advertisements Statue, 39 U.S.C. 3008

22 thoughts on “Drowning in Junk Mail – How to Stop Scam Junk Mail Using a Prohibitory Order

  1. Did you ever try this 1500 form with mail that is sent to “Resident” rather than a specifically named person? I cannot get Comcast to stop sending us mail. I’ve tried different methods, but it keeps coming.

    Like

  2. Hi my name Lourds Reyes. I would like to Thank you so much so letting me know that this letter i got in my mail is a scam and i was about to make out a money order to them because i really need a jab at home I am from new you brookyln i have a disabitly that stops me from working outside but that would have make me really upset if i would had mail out the money that i really didn’t have and i have two young boys to take care of. I just wanted to thank you for letting people know out there about whats going on. Thank you and god bless you.

    Like

  3. Hi, thank you for your blog. My grandmother is losing all of her money and assets to Douglas Ramsey and the family is looking for a way to stop him. Will this work if my aunt, who has power of attorney, sends this to USIS on behalf of my grandmother? Thank you so much for all you have done to help protect our seniors.

    Like

  4. Want to thank you for the information regarding ” STOP these bogus sweepstakes letters!” To say that I’m drowning in them would be putting it mildly!!! Although it sounds like a lot of work, it will be worth it if I can stop all that nonsense!!! Thanks again !
    Regards,
    Julia Mann

    Like

  5. What do you do when you get something that doesn’t actually have your address stamped or labeled on it? How do you fight that? I am told that those are just sorted by machine and sent to every single house and that there’s no way to stop the post office for sending one to you. How can this be legal? Does anyone know how we can fight this? Is there a movement to join?

    Like

      • The addressee of postal mail has unreviewable discretion to decide whether to receive further material from a particular sender, and a vendor does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material to an unreceptive addressee. ———Rowan, DBA American Book Service, ET AL. v. United States Post Office Department ET AL., 397 U.S.C. 728; RITCHIE HALLANAN REAL ESTATE, LTD.
        USPS Every Door Direct Mail system [EDDM].
        USPS Extended Carrier Route Walking Sequence Saturation system [ECRWSS]/ Enhanced Carrier Walk Sequence High-Density system [ECRWSH].
        Petition for Hearing under Prohibition of Pandering Advertisements in the Mail.—TITLE 39 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
        Part 963
        Rules of Practice in Proceedings
        Relative to Violations of The Pandering
        Advertisements Statute, 39 U.S.C. 3008.
        Recorder of the Judicial Officer
        United States Postal Service
        2101 Wilson Blvd #600
        Arlington, VA 22201
        P: (703) 812-1900
        F: (703) 812-1901
        E: judicial@usps.gov
        W: http://www.about.usps.com/who-we-are/judicial/welcome.htm
        R: https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb
        1. The Post Office is suppose to be removed from the right to involve itself in any determination of the content and nature of my objectionable materials.
        2. You the addressee, are suppose to have complete and unfettered discretion in electing whether or not you desire to receive further material from a particular sender.
        3. You are being harassed in your mailbox.
        4. You are not being allowed the right “to be left alone”.
        5. You are being held captive in your home.
        6. Individual autonomy is not surviving to permit you to exercise control over unwanted mail.
        7. You are not free from sights, sounds and tangible matter you do not want. A mailer’s right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.
        8. The Court has traditionally respected the right of a householder to bar, by order or notice, solicitors, hawkers and peddlers from his property.
        9. You are being treaded on.
        10. Mailers are trespassing against you.
        11. The ancient concept that “a man’s home is his castle” into which “not even the king may enter” has lost none of its vitality and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another.
        12. The power under §4009 and now §3008 for the householder is final and unlimited.
        13. The householder may prohibit the mailing of a dry goods catalog because he objects to the contents.
        14. Congress provided this sweeping power not only to protect privacy but to avoid possible constitutional questions that might arise from vesting the power to make any discretionary evaluation of the material in a governmental official.
        15. In effect, Congress has erected a wall—or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall—that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence.
        16. No one has the right to press even “good” ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often “captives” outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sounds does not mean we must be captives everywhere.
        Take USPS to Postal Court. Create a Account and put a petition in against USPS under Pandering.
        This is an Administrative process. Exhaust the administrative remedy under the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine before going to a Federal District Court, Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court.
        A court invokes the primary jurisdiction doctrine when it has jurisdiction over a case, but the case requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed in the hands of an administrative agency. See, e.g., Allnet Communication Service, Inc. v. National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., 965 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
        The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a claim can originally be addressed in a court but would be better addressed first by an administrative body[COOLMAN v. SBC COMMUNS., INC., 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 534 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Jan. 20, 2005)]. It is concerned with promoting proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties. It applies to claims that contain some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency. Thus, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, courts, even though they could decide, will in fact not decide a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal until after that tribunal has rendered its decision.
        For instance, in F.P. Corp. v. Tamarkin Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17929 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 1992) Plaintiff carrier brought an action against defendant, a member of a buying cooperative, to recover payments allegedly due and owing under applicable tariffs. Before the court was the member’s motion for referral of the matter to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The carrier alleged that the member owed for undercharges under its common carrier tariff. The member’s defense was that, because of its membership in the cooperative, it was entitled to ship goods at the cooperative’s lower contract rate. At the time the present claim was filed, an action for declaratory relief was pending before the ICC that had been instituted by the cooperative against the carrier regarding the application of the contract rates. Because of the pending action before the ICC, the member asked the court to refer the present matter also to the ICC. The court granted the member’s motion because the member’s arguments for the application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was compelling, even if the primary jurisdiction was not exclusive. The court found that the ICC had specialized knowledge and was in a better position to determine the issues and had already undertaken a matter, which would have a direct impact on the current matter. The court found that the ICC had primary jurisdiction to determine whether the transportation at issue was contract carriage under 49 U.S.C.S. § 10102(15) or was common carriage under 49 U.S.C.S. § 10102(14). The court granted the member’s motion, stayed the proceedings, and referred the matter to the Interstate Commerce Commission.
        No fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. In every case, the question is whether the reasons for the existence of the doctrine are present and whether the purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the particular litigation. One reason for the doctrine is to avoid the possibility that a court’s ruling might disturb or disrupt the regulatory regime of the agency in question. Another is that the goal of national uniformity in the interpretation and application of a federal regulatory regime is furthered by permitting the agency that has primary jurisdiction over the matter in question to have a first look at the problem [American Auto. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Massachusetts Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 163 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. Mass. 1998)].
        The doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires the court to allow for a “referral” to the agency by staying further judicial proceedings so as to give the parties a reasonable opportunity to seek an administrative ruling. The simple fact that the doctrine of primary agency jurisdiction may apply does not necessarily mean that it must be applied. Referral of the issue to the administrative agency does not deprive the court of jurisdiction; it has discretion either to retain jurisdiction or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, to dismiss the case without prejudice [Turedi v. Coca Cola Co., 460 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)].
        However, “Referral” is sometimes loosely described as a process whereby a court refers an issue to an agency. However, most federal statutes contain no mechanism whereby a court can on its own authority demand or request a determination from the agency; this is left to the adversary system, the court merely staying its proceedings while the party files an administrative complaint.
        The court may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction sua sponte, and its invocation cannot be waived by the failure of the parties to argue it, as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties.
        The primary jurisdiction doctrine has no application where only a question of law is involved. Because uniformity may be secured through review by a single Supreme Court, questions of “law” may appropriately be determined in the first instance by courts.
        For instance in Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court of Del., 366 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1961), the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Delaware denying a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent further proceedings before a state superior court in actions by respondent natural gas pipeline company against petitioner natural gas producers involving contracts for the sale of natural gas by the producers to the company. A state corporation commission promulgated an order fixing a minimum price for gas taken from a certain field. The effect of this order was to require the company to pay the producers at a higher rate than those in the parties’ pre-existing contracts. The company filed an action in a superior court in Kansas to obtain judicial review of the order. The company sent a letter to the producers informing them that it would pay for the gas at the higher price in the commission’s order pending the outcome of its state court action. The commission’s order was ultimately reversed by the Court. The company filed actions to recover the overpayments. The producers filed a petition for a writ of prohibition attacking the jurisdiction of the superior court over the actions. The state supreme court denied the writ, holding that the claims were not founded upon any liability in the Natural Gas Act. On review, the Court found that the superior court had jurisdiction over the action. The company asserted no right under the Act and the state court actions did not otherwise involve a federal question. Private contracts were involved. It was irrelevant that a federal defense could have been raised. The Court affirmed the state supreme court’s judgment.
        The primary jurisdiction doctrine does not apply to require prior resort to an administrative agency where the relief sought is not within the jurisdiction of the agency, or the question is one that the agency has no power to decide, even though it may consider the question in reaching a determination that is within its jurisdiction.
        There is no language for the householder under TITLE 39 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
        Part 963
        Rules of Practice in Proceedings
        Relative to Violations of The Pandering
        Advertisements Statute, 39 U.S.C. 3008 to file a petition. But the petition and process is a answer to the Congressional Hearing on Pandering Section 4009 now Section 3008.
        You must go to a Supreme Court law library to get the United States Codes on Rowan v. United States Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970) and read.

        Like

    • Although I haven’t been able to get Comcast to stop sending junk mail, I was able to get one of those places that has your address but no specific name on the mailings to stop mailing. They tried to tell me there was no way to exclude an address, but I insisted it was possible and within my rights to have honored. They dug a littl deeper and were able to fix it.

      Unfortunately, not long after that, the post office began delivering a newer variety junk mail that was addressed to residents within my zip code/town–no street number, no street even–sometimes not even that much, just “postal customer” on the mailing. That type probably can’t be dealt with other than going straight to the recycle. They’re not going to opt out the whole zip code.

      Even when I had one of those repeated mailings with an address but no name (different and much earlier junk mail removal experience), they honored my request, but the post office kept giving my neighbor’s copy of that mail because everyone gets it, and they didn’t bother noticing there wasn’t one for my street number. That company was among the first to switch to the generic postal customer within the zip code (no address) format; so, I get their junk every week any which way.

      Long story short: If your street address is on the mailing, sometimes trying to get off those lists does work, but sometimes, even when it does work, the post office keeps deliverying the mail (erroneously) and/or the company finds a way around it.

      Like

      • File a Informal Complaint with the Federal Communication Commission.
        Federal Communications Commission
        Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
        Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
        445 12th Street, S.W.
        Washington, DC 20554
        The FCC is an Admisitrative Agency. Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine applies.
        Send a blank PS Form 1500 and a copy of the Comcast mail piece to Comcast Headquarters, its Parent company, subsidiary companies and equity investors with this legend on top of page three, typed in a box “Rowan, DBA American Book Service, ET AL. v. United States Post Office Department ET AL., 397 U.S.C. 728 (1970)”.
        File a complaint with:
        NCTA – The Internet & Television Association (formerly the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and commonly known as the NCTA)
        25 Massachusetts Ave NW
        Washington, DC 20001
        Additionally, you could take USPS to Postal Court.
        Your Grounds: The addressee of postal mail has unreviewable discretion to decide whether to receive further material from a particular sender, and a vendor does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material to an unreceptive addressee. “Rowan, DBA American Book Service, ET AL. v. United States Post Office Department ET AL., 397 U.S.C. 728 (1970)”
        File petition under Pandering Hearing.
        Recorder of the Judicial Officer
        United States Postal Service
        2101 Wilson Blvd #600
        Arlington, VA 22201
        P: (703) 812-1900
        F: (703) 812-1901
        E: judicial@usps.gov
        W: http://www.about.usps.com/who-we-are/judicial/welcome.htm
        R: https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb
        USPS is an Administrative Agency. So the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine applies.

        Like

  6. Hi Darthjenni

    In December became clearly aware that our mother has been being scammed for $100.00’s of dollars a month via mail and phone, they got her bank and credit card info and even convinced her to start mailing them cash. That is when the postal inspector stepped in and we were able to confront her directly. We had known for few months that she was likely sending checks out, but she would deny it. She is 82 and beginning to have dementia for sure.
    Her credit cards are a mess. We have closed them, processed several fraudulent charges but I believe over the years she has had many fraudulent charges that she did not keep up with.
    I am going through her pile of mail. She was quite organized. Every scammer had their own file folder. Unfortunately by the time I got to them she had started tearing them up on advise from PI. I am making my way through that and have found many of the same items that I have seen on your blog.
    I have yet to dig through her bank records thoroughly. All of the information is going into spreadsheets – though not sure what to do next with it.

    My big question is how much chance is there of recovering any of the money that she was conned out of? Several of these were out of the country but there are also American addresses not even counting all of the political mailings out of Washington, DC. Because they were from Washington, DC it had to be important!

    Anyway, I am certainly glad to have found your blog. It seems that this is a huge problem for many people. Perhaps ‘there ought to be a law…’.

    Deb O

    Like

    • Following up with:

      Recorder of the Judicial Officer
      United States Postal Service
      2101 Wilson Blvd #600
      Arlington, VA 22201
      P: (703) 812-1900
      F: (703) 812-1901
      E: judicial@usps.gov
      W: http://www.about.usps.com/who-we-are/judicial/welcome.htm

      You must be a Mailer, a business that has been issued a Prohibitory Order and you want to challenge it.

      As a individual, petition the government through White House dot gov. Petition House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the Post Office.

      Like

      • Update. You must fill out a Standard Form 95/ Federal Tort Claims Act form to exhaust all of your administrative remedies for USPS. This form is FOR DAMAGE, INJURY, OR DEATH by USPS, the United States Government to pay money for damages, injuries or deaths. Get form from US Department of Justice website. Mail completed form to: USPS
        CHIEF COUNSEL, TORTS GENERAL LAW SERVICE CENTER 1720 MARKET STREET, ROOM 2400 ST. LOUIS, MO 63155-9948.

        Like

  7. I have sent a blank PS Form 1500 and a copy of the mail piece to a Mailer. On top of the third page I typed in a box “Rowan, DBA American Book Service, ET AL. v. United States Post Office Department ET AL., 397 U.S.C. 728 (1970)”. For example: Crunch Fitness. I sent a blank PS Form 1500 and a copy of their post card marketing to the local Crunch Fitness that is being advertised, that USPS delivered through the mail and into my mailbox by USPS Every Door Direct Mail [EDDM], Extended Carrier Route Walking Sequence Saturation system [ECRWSS] and Enhanced Carrier Walk Sequence High-Density system [ECRWSH].
    I also sent a blank PS Form 1500 and a copy of the Crunch Fitness post card to Muscle Up, the post card printer for Crunch Fitness.
    I also sent a blank PS Form 1500 and a copy of the Crunch Fitness post card to New Evolution Ventures. New Evolution Ventures, LLC operates as a private equity firm. The Company seeks to develops, manages, and operates health, fitness, wellness, media, and sports entities. New Evolution Ventures operates in the United States. New Evolution Ventures funded the start of Crunch Fitness.
    I also sent a blank PS Form 1500 and a copy of the Crunch Fitness post card to Angelo Gordon. Angelo, Gordon & Co. is an employee owned hedge fund sponsor. The firm primarily provides its services to pooled investment vehicles. It also caters to corporations. The firm manages convertible arbitrage, credit arbitrage, distressed securities, leveraged loans, merger arbitrage, power/energy, real estate, real estate securities, and multi-strategy portfolios for its clients. It invests in the public equity, fixed income, real estate, and hedging markets of the United States. For its convertible arbitrage portfolios, the firm employs a fundamental analysis with a relative value analysis to make its investments. For its credit arbitrage portfolios, it typically invests in companies, which are involved in merger and acquisition activities, restructurings, rating agency actions, and improving or deteriorating fundamentals. The firm employs a fundamental analysis with a long/short strategy to create its credit arbitrage portfolios. For its distressed securities portfolios, it typically focuses on financially troubled companies, including those, which are involved in reorganization proceedings. The firm employs a value oriented fundamental analysis to create its distressed securities portfolios. Through its leveraged loans portfolio, it also invests in corporate bank loans of below investment grade issuers bearing floating rates based on the LIBOR Index. For its merger arbitrage portfolios, the firm invests in companies undergoing publicly announced corporate transactions including tenders, mergers, reorganizations, liquidations, and recapitalizations. It invests in value securities employing a long/short strategy to create its merger arbitrage portfolios. For its power/energy portfolios, the firm employs a fundamental analysis to invest in stocks of companies in the electric, gas, and telecommunication sectors. For its real estate portfolios, it employs a top-down approach to select its sectors with a fundamental analysis and a bottom-up approach to select its securities. In addition, the firm also employs an event-driven approach with a long/short strategy to invest in the real estate sector. For its multi-strategy portfolios the firm employs a bottom-up approach with a mix of its various strategies to make its investments. It also makes private equity investments specializing in smaller and middle market transactions and management buyouts, control buyouts, private company recapitalizations, corporate lift-outs, special situations, difficult or non-traditional deal situations. The firm seeks to invest in real estate; specialty financial products and services with a focus on specialty finance, banks, leasing platforms, lending platforms; consumer and retail with a focus on restaurants, energy, consumer packaged goods, food, apparel, footwear, hard goods, and sporting goods; healthcare services, products, distribution; and business services with a focus on compliance services, risk mitigation, and governance services, telecommunication services, consumer staples, consumer services, materials and energy sectors . It prefer to invest in Europe. The firm typically invests between $25 million and $125 million of equity and has a capacity to invest up to $150 million with participation of committed co-investment vehicle and other funds in companies with enterprise value between $50 million and $500 million. The firm has preference for companies with at least $10 million of EBITDA. It invests in companies with track record of high cash flows or demonstrated high ROI growth capital opportunities, recurring revenue streams, scalable businesses with variable cost structures, under-utilized assets (working capital, real estate, intellectual property) and strong long-term industry fundamentals. The firm prefers to make control investments but will review minority investments in certain situations. Angelo, Gordon & Co. was founded in 1988 and is based in New York City with additional offices in San Francisco, California, Los Angeles, California, Chicago, Illinois, Houston, Texas, London, United Kingdom, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Central, Hong Kong, Minato-ku, Japan, and Seoul, South Korea. Angelo Gordon funded the start of Crunch Fitness.
    USPS denied the Prohibitory Order against Crunch Fitness. Nothing was for sale.
    Crunch Fitness has not sent another post card to me.
    Do the above steps for junk mail, post card. Some may only have a fax number, email address or phone number. Get the physical address, mail a blank PS Form 1500 and a copy of the mail piece to the Mailer. On top of the third page type in a box “Rowan, DBA American Book Service, ET AL. v. United States Post Office Department ET AL., 397 U.S.C. 728 (1970)”.

    Like

  8. I opted out of the Credit Bureaus, to receive firm offers of credit cards and insurances. All of this is unwanted solicitation. A opt out form was generated. I printed it out. You can not mail the generated opt out form to yourself to print out later. Your session will be timed out.
    I mailed the opt out form to the opt out department with a blank PS Form 1500, Registered Mail, Return Receipt.
    OPT-OUT Department
    PO Box 2033-A
    Rock Island, IL 61204-2033
    OPT-OUT Department
    PO Box 2033
    Rock Island, IL 61204-2033
    (888) 567-8688
    TransUnion decided to send me another mail piece. I filled out the Prohibitory Order and USPS denied me.
    I then filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is a Federal Agency for Credit Reports.
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    PO Box 2900
    Clinton, IA 52733
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    1625 Eye Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20006
    TransUnion straightened up, acknowledged my opt out and sent me a letter.
    I have also sent the Credit Bureaus opt out form along with a blank PS Form 1500 to:
    e-Oscar
    Online Data Exchange
    12276 San Jose Blvd
    Jacksonville, FL 32223
    Metro 2
    Consumer Data Industry Association
    1090 Vermont Ave, NW Suite 200
    Washington, DC 20005
    Bankers Online
    2541 Flint Ridge Road
    Edmond, OK 73003
    I have not received any credit card or insurance offers since these steps.

    Like

  9. I also combed through “How to opt out of Big Data Part 2”. I sent a blank PS Form 1500, with the legend “Rowan, DBA American Book Service, ET AL. v. United States Post Office Department ET AL., 397 U.S.C. 728 (1970)” on top of page three of the PS Form 1500, along with a copy of my Driver License, photo and license number covered to every data broker. I wrote Total Suppression of Data on my Driver License copy sheet.
    Lexis Nexis had the most pride over controlling your data.
    LexisNexis Individual Requests for Information Suppression Policy (Non-FCRA Opt-out Policy)
    Individuals may request to opt-out of having personal information about themselves made available through certain LexisNexis products and services, in accordance with legal requirements or if permitted by LexisNexis policy. Such requests are referred to as “Information Suppressions.”
    LexisNexis permits individuals to have certain personal information about themselves suppressed from LexisNexis public records that are available to the general public over the Internet.
    Public and elected officials, including law enforcement officers, and private individuals who are facing a substantial risk of physical harm or who are victims of identity theft may request to have personal information about themselves suppressed from LexisNexis products and services available to subscribers of our restricted public records products.
    These products are available to commercial and government entities that meet LexisNexis credentialing requirements and are used to detect and prevent fraud, enforce transactions, perform due diligence, and other critical business and government functions.
    LexisNexis does not suppress personal information from databases used by law enforcement customers.
    LexisNexis also does not suppress personal information from the following products and services: products containing information regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (except as required by law); third party data available through real time gateways; news; and legal documents.
    This policy only applies to personal information that is available through LexisNexis-owned databases. Please note that Information Suppressions applied to LexisNexis databases will not prevent other companies or public records agencies from collecting or disseminating personal information.
    Documentation Required for Suppression Requests
    Requests for suppression from restricted public records products must include documentation substantiating the risk of physical harm or the individual’s status as an identity theft victim. LexisNexis reserves the right to determine, in its sole reasonable discretion, what documentation meets this criteria. If your suppression request is not approved we will promptly inform you about that determination.
    * If you are a victim of identity theft, submit a copy of a police report documenting the identity theft or documentation that verifies the identity theft claim such as a letter from your credit card company, and an Identity Theft Affidavit; or
    * If you are a law enforcement officer or public official, submit a letter from your supervisor stating that your position exposes you to a threat of death or serious bodily harm; or
    * If you are at risk of physical harm but do not work in law enforcement, submit a copy of a court protective order, a copy of a police report or similar documentation such as a letter from a shelter administrator or a health care professional
    All suppression requests may be submitted using the online form at the link below. If the supporting documentation cannot be uploaded, individuals may submit their requests online, but also must email or mail the supporting documents to:
    LexisNexis Individual Requests for Information Suppression
    PO Box 933
    Dayton, OH 45401
    Email: privacy.information.mgr@lexisnexis.com
    CLICK HERE to submit your suppression request as set forth above.
    PLEASE NOTE: Information submitted to LexisNexis as part of a suppression request as set forth in this policy will be used solely in fulfilling the request. Information Suppression requests will be processed within a reasonable time or as required by law. If after implementation of an Information Suppression request, information about you is inadvertently included in a manner inconsistent with the above policy, please contact us promptly by email at privacy.information.mgr@lexisnexis.com.
    I received my Opt Out Request letter from LexisNexis without resistance.

    Like

  10. You could also opt out of unwanted solicitations being placeed on your property, business and home.
    What is the best way to keep solicitors away?
    Unquestionably, the best way to (legally) keep solicitors from knocking on your door is to display “No Soliciting” signs. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that while many local laws that restrict solicitation are unconstitutional, privately posted signs are a legitimate way to tell salespeople to leave you alone. In the words of one Supreme Court opinion, “The Court has traditionally respected the right of a householder to bar, by order or notice, solicitors, hawkers, and peddlers from his property.”, (Daniel Rowan, dba American Book Service, et al., Appellants, v. United States Post Office Department, et al., 397 U.S. 728, 737, 90 S. Ct. 1484; 25 L. Ed. 2d 736; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 44, No. 399). Put differently, by posting a sign that states that you do not want to receive solicitors, you are effectively telling anyone attempting to solicit that they are not welcome on your property. In almost any part of the United States, those who remain on your property against your express instructions are breaking the law.
    Article 26 §397-A of New York State General Business Law, A.K.A. The Lawn Litter Law and which states: “Do Not Place Unsolicited Advertising Materials On This Property”
    My sign is reflective aluminum, 42 inches tall by 42 inches wide (3 and a half feet tall by 3 and a half feet wide), 8 times the minimum height and 6 times the minimum width requirement of NYS General Business Law.
    Upon my residence, I have validly and conspicuously posted a sign in or on the front entrance of my building which is minimum not less than 5 inches tall by 7 inches wide in size, in legible letters at least 1 inch in size.
    If your state and city does not have a Lawn Litter Law like New York State, it’s okay. You are still not powerless.
    Take of digital photo of your sign. Print it out in Photoshop. Increase the Resolution to 600 in Photoshop or the highest resolution that will print. Print a color copy. Type out the words on your sign and print it out also.
    The business cards, menus or flyers left on your fence, make a copy of it at high resolution.
    Make a video of your sign from all angles to show this is separate from the sidewalk.
    Do the video for daytime.
    Do the video for nighttime.
    Create a dvd for the sign showing day and night views.
    Write a letter to the soliciter saying, I have a posted sign about solicitation according to “Article 26 §397-A of New York State General Business Law, A.K.A. The Lawn Litter Law and which states: “Do Not Place Unsolicited Advertising Materials On This Property” if you have such a law in your state and city and it was violated by you the solicitor and your agents. Include a color copy of your sign, text of your sign, dvd of your sign and a copy of their solicitation.
    Then mail your local precinct of this violation by giving them a color copy of your sign, it’s text, your dvd and a copy the solicitation material.
    Here is an example of a letter I wrote to one solicitor:
    Mamun, Metro Reconstruction Inc and their agents has violated Article 26 §397-A of New York State General Business Law, A.K.A. The Lawn Litter Law, which states: “Distributing Unsolicited Advertising On Private Property Prohibited” and which carries fines of $250 for first violation and up to $1,000 for repeat violations.
    ​Mamun, Metro Reconstruction Inc and their agents littered, trespassed, invaded privacy, held Mr. Dane Clayton captive in his home, by placing a business card on his door Wed.5/22/2018, 3:17p without getting prior expressed permission in advance to do so.
    ​Mr. Dane Clayton in his sole discretion has found Mamun, Metro Reconstruction Inc and their agents business card to be obscene, pornographic, explicit and sexually arousing.
    The most interesting solicitor that had pride was:
    St Mary’s Church
    230 Classon Ave
    Brooklyn, NY 11205
    My sign has three lines:
    1. Do Not Place Unsolicited Advertising Materials On This Property”
    2. NO TRESSPASSING, NO MENUS, NO BUSINESS CARDS, NO FLYERS, NO RELIGIOUS PAMPHLETS AND/OR PROSELYTIZING, NO CIRCULARS, NO CANVASSERS, NO ANONYMOUS POLITICAL SPEECH, NO HANDBILLS, NO COMMERCIAL AND/OR NON COMMERCIAL, NO CHARITABLE, NO PEDDLER AND NO TRANSIENT MERCHANT
    3. Article 26 §397-A of New York State General Business Law, A.K.A. The Lawn Litter Law, which states: “Distributing Unsolicited Advertising On Private Property Prohibited” and which carries fines of $250 for first violation and up to $1,000 for repeat violations.
    So St. Mary’s still decided to put a flyer on my door about their clothing drive.
    I sent a letter a St. Mary’s without “St. Mary’s Church and their agents littered, trespassed, invaded privacy, held Mr. Dane Clayton captive in his home, by placing a flyer on his door Tues.1/16/2018, 4:43p without getting prior expressed permission in advance to do so.
    Mr. Dane Clayton in his sole discretion has found St. May’s Church and their agents business card to be obscene, pornographic, explicit and sexually arousing.”
    I thought the color photo of the sign, text of the sign and copy of the solicitation material would have been enough.
    It was not enough. It was mediocre.
    I then decided to send my local precinct this complaint.
    I also sent St. Mary’s Church local precinct this complaint.
    I also learned that St. Mary’s Church was a Federal Landmark. It now has federal protection.
    So, my approach is different.
    I also complained to:
    National Park Service
    1849 C Street NW
    Washington, DC 20240
    New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
    625 Broadway
    Albany, NY 12207
    New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission
    David N. Dinkins Municipal Building
    1 Centre Street, 9th Floor North
    New York, NY 10007
    St. Mary’s Church and their clothing drive do not put any flyers on my fence or door. They put it on my neighbors fences and doors.
    I have gotten several apology letters.
    I reject them all and have the solicitors do it over.
    The do over, revised format is the Federal Law, State Law and City Law. The behavior of the solicitors: littered, trespassed. The feeling you have of your posted sign sign being ignored. Have the solicitors notarize the revised apology letter.
    Monty, Great American General Construction Corp and their agents has violated Article 26 §397-A of New York State General Business Law, A.K.A. The Lawn Litter Law, which states: “Distributing Unsolicited Advertising On Private Property Prohibited” and which carries fines of $250 for first violation and up to $1,000 for repeat violations.
    Monty, Great American General Construction Corp and their agents littered, trespassed, invaded privacy, held Mr. Dane Clayton captive in his home, by placing a business card on his front door without getting prior expressed permission in advance to do so.
    Mr. Dane Clayton in his sole discretion has found Monty, Great American General Construction Corp and their agents business card to be obscene, pornographic, explicit and sexually arousing.
    Monty, Great American General Construction Corp and our agents would like to sincerely apologize for the unsolicited advertising materials placed on your property Wed.2/21/2018 regarding my business of construction (copy of card enclosed). The person delivering the flyers did not notice the sign placed on your property and I truly apologize for that. I assure you this will never happen again.
    If you have any questions, you can contact me at 917-600-7136.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s