From FOX 40

Toilet troubles caused a United Airlines flight from Denver to Hawaii to divert back to land when they were halfway over the Pacific Ocean.

The issue doubled the flight time and cut passengers’ vacations short.

“Everyone was disgusted,” passenger Rich Anderson told KDVR.

United Flight 1219 departed Denver at 11:40 a.m. Sunday. It was scheduled to be a direct flight to Hawaii.

Rich and Kristin Anderson were heading to Kauai to celebrate their wedding anniversary, but when they were halfway over the Pacific Ocean, there was a disturbing announcement.

“We were probably three hours from Hawaii and they announced that the toilets were all full,” Kristin Anderson said.

The pilot told passengers the toilets had not been serviced in Denver.

“The pilots failed. They didn’t do their job. This should not have happened. This was human error. There was no act of God. There was no weather. This was just human error.”

They were forced to double back and land in San Francisco to fix the problem. The situation meant the scheduled flight time went from eight hours to more than 16 hours.

“The pilots failed. They didn’t do their job. This should not have happened. This was human error. There was no act of God. There was no weather. This was just human error,” Rich Anderson said.

Earlier in the flight, Anderson tried to use one of the bathrooms, but it was locked.

“They had locked them. I had gone back partway through to the bathroom and one of them was locked. The flight attendant said that one is not working. I think they were locking them as they were filling up,” Anderson said.

“I am very sorry that our lavatories had reached capacity while Flight 1219 was en route to Lihue,” the airline said in a letter to passengers. “A decision was made to turn back and land in San Francisco where arrangements were made to change planes. I can appreciate that this experience was disappointing and unpleasant.

“We regret the unexpected delay and inconvenience this caused you. Your satisfaction is important to us so I hope you will accept our offer of apology on the next screen.

“We welcome the opportunity to provide better service for you the next time you fly with United.”

United is offering 10,000 bonus miles or a $200 travel voucher to affected passengers. But the Andersons said that is not fair compensation, given everything they went through.

“Bottom line is they ruined a lot of people’s vacations yesterday. They gave us a really crummy start. There were a lot of elderly people and people with little tiny kids,” Rich Anderson said.


Why is California the poverty capital of America?


From the Los Angeles Times

The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states — principally Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia — initiated welfare reform, as did the federal government under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. Tied together by a common thread of strong work requirements, these overhauls were a big success: Welfare rolls plummeted, and millions of former aid recipients entered the labor force.

The state and local bureaucracies that implement California’s antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.

Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls.

Further contributing to the poverty problem is California’s housing crisis. More than four in 10 households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2015. A shortage of available units has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies.

“Counties and local governments have imposed restrictive land-use regulations that drove up the price of land and dwellings,” explains analyst Wendell Cox. “Middle-income households have been forced to accept lower standards of living while the less fortunate have been driven into poverty by the high cost of housing.” The California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1971, is one example; it can add $1 million to the cost of completing a housing development, says Todd Williams, an Oakland attorney who chairs the Wendel Rosen Black & Dean land-use group. CEQA costs have been known to shut down entire homebuilding projects. CEQA reform would help increase housing supply, but there’s no real movement to change the law.

Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, “Less Carbon, Higher Prices,” found that “in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced … energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15% of all households.” A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17% of median income in some areas.

Looking to help poor and low-income residents, California lawmakers recently passed a measure raising the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour by 2022 — but a higher minimum wage will do nothing for the 60% of Californians who live in poverty and don’t have jobs. And research indicates that it could cause many who do have jobs to lose them. A Harvard University study found evidence that “higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants” in the Bay Area, where more than a dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have changed their minimum-wage ordinances in the last five years. “Estimates suggest that a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating),” the report says. These restaurants are a significant source of employment for low-skilled and entry-level workers.

Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes as a fixation on “remaking the world.” The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail system; talks of secession from a United States presided over by Donald Trump; hired former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. to “resist” Trump’s agenda; enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime; established California as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants; banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved in their manufacture; and is consumed by its dedication to “California values.” All this only reinforces the rest of America’s perception of an out-of-touch Left Coast, to the disservice of millions of Californians whose values are more traditional, including many of the state’s poor residents.

With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years.

New California declares “independence” from rest of state


With the reading of their own version of a Declaration of Independence, founders of the state of New California took the first steps to what they hope will eventually lead to statehood. CBS Sacramento reports they don’t want to leave the United States, just California.

“Well, it’s been ungovernable for a long time. High taxes, education, you name it, and we’re rated around 48th or 50th from a business climate and standpoint in California,” said founder Robert Paul Preston.

The state of New California would incorporate most of the state’s rural counties, leaving the urban coastal counties to the current state of California.

“There’s something wrong when you have a rural county such as this one, and you go down to Orange County which is mostly urban, and it has the same set of problems, and it happens because of how the state is being governed and taxed,” Preston said.

Cal-exit? Meet the movement for California secession

But unlike other separation movements in the past, the state of New California wants to do things by the book, citing Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and working with the state legislature to get it done, similar to the way West Virginia was formed.

“Yes. We have to demonstrate that we can govern ourselves before we are allowed to govern,” said founder Tom Reed.

And despite obstacles, doubters, and obvious long odds, the group stands united in their statehood dream.

The group is organized with committees and a council of county representatives, but say it will take 10 to 18 months before they are ready to fully engage with the state legislature.

This is not the first effort to split up California. In 2014, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper submitted signatures to put a measure that would split California in six separate states.






From SF Gate

State lawmakers across the country have been accused of sexual harassment or misconduct over the past year as part of a national reckoning on the topic. A look at those who have resigned or faced other consequences:


1. Alaska: Rep. Dean Westlake, submitted resignation letter Dec. 15 after being accused by several women of inappropriate behavior.

2. California: Assemblyman Matt Dababneh, resigned effective Jan. 1 after a lobbyist said he pushed her into a bathroom during a Las Vegas social event and engaged in lewd behavior in front of her.

3. California: Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, resigned in November after allegations that he had kissed or groped multiple women without their consent.

4. Florida: Sen. Jack Latvala, resigned effective Jan. 5 following allegations of sexual misconduct raised by multiple women.

5. Minnesota: Sen. Dan Schoen, resigned effective Dec. 15 following several allegations from women.

6. Minnesota: Rep. Tony Cornish, resigned effective Nov. 30 following several allegations, including from a lobbyist who said he repeatedly propositioned her for sex.

7. Mississippi: Rep. John Moore, resigned in December after multiple women made complaints against him; the House speaker’s office said he had been facing an investigation led by an outside lawyer.

8. Nevada: Sen. Mark Manendo, resigned in July after a law firm concluded that he violated the Legislature’s anti-harassment policy and behaved inappropriately toward female staffers and lobbyists.

9. Ohio: Sen. Clifford Hite, resigned in October after being accused of sexually harassing a female state employee.

10. Oklahoma: Rep. Dan Kirby, resigned in February after two former assistants alleged he sexually harassed them, including one with whom he had reached a confidential wrongful-termination settlement that included a $44,500 payment from House funds.

11. Oklahoma: Sen. Ralph Shortey, resigned in March and later pleaded guilty to a federal charge of child sex trafficking after being accused of hiring a 17-year-old boy for sex.

12. Oklahoma: Sen. Bryce Marlatt, resigned in September after being charged with sexual battery for allegedly groping an Uber driver who picked him up from a restaurant in the capital city.

13. South Dakota: Rep. Mathew Wollmann, resigned in January 2017 after admitting to sexual contact with two interns, which a legislative panel said was a violation of rules.

14. Tennessee: Rep. Mark Lovell, resigned in February as a House ethics panel concluded that he had violated the Legislature’s sexual harassment policy.



1. Arizona: Rep. Don Shooter, suspended in November as chairman of the appropriations committee pending an external investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed a female colleague.

2. California: Sen. Tony Mendoza, agreed Jan. 3 to take a one-month paid leave of absence during an investigation into allegations that he behaved inappropriately with three young women who worked for him.

3. Colorado: Rep. Steve Lebsock, replaced Jan. 9 as chairman of the House Local Government Committee after allegations he sexually harassed a female lawmaker.

4. Illinois: Sen. Ira Silverstein, resigned in November as majority caucus chairman after a victims rights advocate publicly accused him of sending inappropriate messages to her.

5. Kentucky: House Speaker Jeff Hoover, resigned from his leadership post Jan. 8 after secretly settling a sexual harassment complaint with a female legislative aide and acknowledging he sent inappropriate text messages to her.

6. Kentucky: Rep. Jim DeCesare, removed from a legislative committee chairmanship in November after signing a secret sexual harassment settlement.

7. Kentucky: Rep. Brian Linder, removed from a legislative committee chairmanship in November after signing a secret sexual harassment settlement.

8. Kentucky: Rep. Michael Meredith, removed from a legislative committee chairmanship in November after signing a secret sexual harassment settlement.

9. Massachusetts: Senate President Stan Rosenberg, stepped aside in December from his leadership position pending an investigation by an independent law firm. The firm is looking into whether he violated any rules following a media report alleging that his husband sexually abused several men, including some who had dealings with the Legislature.

10. New Mexico: Sen. Michael Padilla, ousted in December as Democratic majority whip by the caucus after decade-old allegations that he had sexually harassed women in a prior job. Padilla also dropped out of the lieutenant governor’s race.

11. New York: Assemblyman Steven McLaughlin, formally sanctioned in November by a legislative ethics panel after allegations that he asked a female legislative staffer for nude photos and leaked her name when she filed a harassment complaint.

12. Oklahoma: Rep. Will Fourkiller, advised in February to get sensitivity training and blocked from interacting with the Legislature’s page program for a year after being accused of making inappropriate comments to a high school page in 2015.

13. Oregon: Sen. Jeff Kruse, removed from committees in October and told in a letter from the Senate president not to touch women after new accusations that he had inappropriately touched female colleagues. He faces an ongoing Senate investigation.

14. Pennsylvania: Sen. Daylin Leach, announced in December that he will “step back” from his campaign for a congressional seat after allegations that he behaved inappropriately toward female employees and campaign aides. Also facing a call from Gov. Tom Wolf to resign.

15. Washington: Rep. Matt Manweller, resigned as assistant floor leader and was removed as ranking member of a House committee in December. Manweller also was placed on paid leave from his job as a political science professor at Central Washington University and barred from contacting past and present students while the university investigates allegations of sexual harassment against him.

16. Wisconsin: Rep. Josh Zepnick, removed from legislative committees in December after being accused of kissing two women against their will at political events several years ago.



1. Idaho: Rep. James Holtzclaw, accused in a complaint of making inappropriate comments to at least two people during the 2017 session.

2. Pennsylvania: Rep. Tom Caltagirone, facing calls by Gov. Tom Wolf to resign after reports that House Democrats authorized paying about $250,000 to settle a sexual harassment claim from a legislative assistant against Caltagirone in 2015.

3. Rhode Island: Rep. Teresa Tanzi, publicly alleged in October that a more senior legislator had suggested that sexual favors would allow her bills to go further, but Tanzi has not publicly identified the lawmaker.

4. Florida: Sen. Jeff Clemens, resigned in October after an extramarital affair with a lobbyist. The House speaker had said that because a lobbyist is dependent on legislators, “the facts here raise a very real question of sexual harassment.”

5. Kentucky: Rep. Dan Johnson killed himself in December, just days after being publicly accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in 2013.




By Warren Yates

This will be an article with a series of “S” Storms!

“S” Storm #1 is hitting on January 15, 2018

“Cockroach On Board”

This series of “S” Storms will certainly anger certain people. But prior to being ticked off about what is being said, realize it is what you brought on yourself. This disclaimer goes to all of the people mentioned in these series of “S” Storms. Don’t kill the messenger.

It has been traditional that our law enforcement personnel including the beat cop, the sergeants, investigators, Chiefs of police, Deputy Dist. Atty.’s, chief Deputy Dist. Atty.’s, assistant district attorneys and district attorneys are honest, dedicated, trustworthy, law-abiding, faithfully fulfill their sworn oath and present themselves as examples to follow the law by.

What the He** has happened in Stanislaus County? For the last several years, Stanislaus County has taken on the appearance of some small Alabama (No offense Alabama, I spent some time in Mobile) backwoods “good ole boy” shameful hick bunch of badge bandits.

This first “S” Storm is about a very prominent and high-ranking member of the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office. This person is Dave Harris. We’re not sure what his title is but it may be something like Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. or possibly assistant district attorney but we’re not sure. Now old Dave may be a great guy personally and not a bad guy to go out and have a beer and a few laughs with.

But this Storm is about the professional image he projects. Now recall that law enforcement personnel are people who are to set a good example for the general public. Because some prominent law enforcement people are not sure what the meaning of a subpoena is I am going to print the definition as follows:

“A subpoena (pronounced “suh-pee-nuh”) is a request for the production of documents, or a request to appear in court or other legal proceeding. It is court-ordered command that essentially requires you to do something, such as testify or present information that may help support the facts that are at issue in a pending case. The term “subpoena” literally means “under penalty”. A person who receives a subpoena but does not comply with its terms may be subject to civil or criminal penalties, such as fines, jail time, or both.

There are two types of subpoenas. The first, called subpoena ad testificandum (pronounced “ad test- te-fi-kan-dum”), requires you to testify before a court, or other legal authority. The second, called subpoena duces tecum (pronounced “doo-seez tee-kum”), requires you to produce documents, materials, or other tangible evidence. A subpoena may be requested in any kind of matter, …”

That is the legal definition of subpoenas including subpoena duces tecum. Now the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office in the myriad of cases that they pursue, serve many thousands of subpoenas each year to people which compel their appearance into a court of law after being served. If they do not appear and ignore the subpoena they are met with severe penalties up to and including going to jail for contempt of court.

Why am I talking about the responsibilities of law enforcement personnel to be good examples for the citizens they are paid to protect? Why give you the definition of a subpoena you ask? Well buckle up cuz here we go.

Although it does not always ring true in Stanislaus County, I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That being the case, I will tell you about a federal court case in Fresno California, Eugene Forte v. Stanislaus County Deputy Luke Schwartz, 1:13-01980-LJO. It alleges police brutality against a senior citizen, Forte by a Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriff, Schwartz. I will tell you that I have seen the video of the assault by the deputy. It is uncontroverted that while Forte was on the ground facedown and not resisting, the deputy sheriff Schwartz drove his elbow into the back of Forte’s head.

To see that all the facts are brought to the court, Forte needs certain documents that are in the possession of the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office. Dave Harris chose not to file any charges against Forte for the alleged felony of threatening to shoot a police officer (Which Forte did not do as the video shows). It’s like the District Attorney’s Office is saying it never really happened so King’s “X”, “fa gedda bout it”. That ain’t going to happen fladager.

So, in order to make sure all of the evidence is presented to the court, Forte takes all the legal steps required and obtained a subpoena duces tecum for Dave Harris and the custodian of records for the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office. Forte attached the required checks to the subpoenas and a process server went to the district attorney’s palatial tower with them.

The process server called from the lobby phone and explained to the clerk that she needed to see the person who accepts service for the District Attorney’s Office Custodian of records and Chief Investigator or whatever his current title is, Dave Harris. The process server was told they had to double check the rules and a few minutes after being on hold, was told that provided the check for the witness fees were attached that the Legal Clerk, Jeanette, would accept service for the District Attorney’s Office.

The server was then granted access to the third floor (They have never let me get to the third floor of the palace. ;0(
) where she went to the bullet proof glass reception window, asked for Jeanette, the legal clerk (who was waiting at the window), and gave her the subpoenas which Jeanette accepted.

Prior to Fortes getting home approximately 25 minutes later, a message had been left on Fortes answering machine from someone who identified himself as: Douglas K. Raynaud, Chief Deputy District Attorney. (Dang. Here’s another one of them Chief Deputy Dist. Atty.’s) By the way, Raynaud is also going to face a “S” Storm in this series which may impact the district attorney’s election race. More on that later.

The message Raynaud left on Forte’s landline answering machine (that I listened to) said that even though the process server was granted access to the third floor and gave the subpoenas (with checks) to the legal clerk Jeanette, who the process server was told accepts service of process for the District Attorney’s Office, Legal Clerk Jeanette, wasn’t really the right person and had no authority to take the subpoenas…because, Jeanette did ask for permission to do so from some other unnamed person or supervisor in the office.

Raynaud stated that Dave Harris was not in the office and Raynaud didn’t know if Harris would be “amendable” to accept the subpoena. Now, there is a really dumb B.S. statement….by law Harris does not to have to be “amenable”

I have served many subpoenas in my law enforcement career and also as a private investigator. Public agencies such as law enforcement and all other law enforcement agencies such as the sheriff’s department and the district attorney’s office always have a designated person (Legal Clerk) to accept service of process for members of that agency.

Why would this be an issue? Dave Harris is a public servant being paid big bucks. What makes him better than any of us lowly citizens when served a subpoena? Why would he be exempt from appearing in court and bringing the required documents? What and why is he trying to hide? Is he trying to subvert justice? What document/s is he trying to conceal? Doesn’t sound like a very transparent District Attorney’s Office now does it? Maybe they will come out with a memo to all of us lowly commoners to explain why they don’t have to adhere to the law the same way we have to. But don’t hold your breath!!


Thus the sub, sub-title for this Storm. The manner in which Dave Harris or his minions are trying to help him avoid his appearance in a federal court remind me of a room full of cockroaches. While the room is dark they come out foraging around for some nefarious purposes. But when the light is flipped on in the room, they scurry around like cockroaches seeking a place to hide in or UNDER away from the light.

John 3:20 : All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. “New Living Translation”

Many more “S” Storms to come as the persecution of the Carson 8 commences.




From The Washington Post

On the morning of Oct. 1, 2015, a middle-aged telemarketer arrived at the Washington headquarters of the Federal Trade Commission. His name was Aaron Michael Jones, or possibly Michael Aaron Jones, and in any case, he went by Mike. According to court documents, Mike was a father and widower. He lived well, paying $25,000 a month for a Spanish Colonial Revival in a gated community near Laguna Beach, Calif. He also employed a personal chef, drove a couple of Mercedes, and maintained a gambling account at the Bellagio in Las Vegas.

Jones sustained his lifestyle by spamming people with robo-calls. He worked with a revolving cast of co-workers under the auspices of about a dozen corporations. At the core of his enterprise was a computer program capable of blasting out irritating, prerecorded phone messages to just about anyone in the country. Jones allegedly paid for exclusive access to the program, which he then rented out to other robo-callers. He and his associates also used it to peddle their own off-brand products, including auto warranties, home security systems and search-engine optimization tools. Anyone curious or lonely enough to listen to one of Jones’s robo-calls, then press “1,” would be directed to a call center, which often meant one or two of Jones’s underlings sitting in a room in Irvine, Calif.

The FTC was investigating Jones’s empire and had called him to Washington to testify under oath. The companies affiliated with Jones may have been dubious — two weeks earlier, Google had filed suit against one called Local Lighthouse for trademark infringement and false advertisement — but the feds were more concerned with the robo-calls themselves. Virtually all robo-calls, whatever they’re selling, are illegal. And Jones had made a staggering number of them. According to the FTC, he was facilitating roughly a billion a year, more than any individual it had ever identified.

At 9:50 a.m., Jones and his attorney arrived at a fifth-floor FTC conference room, where two of the commission’s lawyers, James Evans and Ian Barlow, would confront him. But a curious thing happened as they began asking questions: Jones didn’t deny much of anything. When Evans tried to pin down the volume of calls he was capable of placing, he answered, “I did a lot,” then punched out an estimate on his phone’s calculator. Jones eventually grew restless and tried to move the interview along: “Obviously, the underlying issue is the calls are illegal. We know that already.” Afterward, he returned to California and resumed robo-calling. In January 2017, the FTC sued him. Five months later, a federal judge banned him from telemarketing and hit him with a $2.7 million penalty. He didn’t bother contesting the judgment. (Jones emailed me that he’d “love to discuss” the matter, then stopped responding to messages.)

Jones, it appears, didn’t really care about getting caught. The same goes for the rest of the robo-calling industry. The financial rewards of bothering people on the telephone are clearly greater than the risks. “We continue to bring cases and shut down as many folks as we can,” says Janice Kopec, the FTC’s point person on robo-calls. “What we recognized, though, was we shut down an operation and another one springs up behind it almost instantaneously.” Hence our modern scourge. In 2015, the call-blocking app YouMail estimated that close to a billion robo-calls were being placed every month. Two years later, that number has leapt to 2.5 billion. At best, these calls annoy. At worst, they defraud. By far, they constitute the top consumer complaint received by the FTC.

In theory, there is a fix: the National Do Not Call Registry, created in 2003. Today, 230 million numbers are on it. The point, obviously, is to not be called. And yet the FTC receives 19,000 complaints every day from list members who have, in fact, been called. There is a battle being waged over the inviolability of our telephone numbers — over the right to not be bothered. On one side there is Mike Jones and his robot army. On the other side, there is the federal government and its list. It is clear who’s winning. But why?

“The educated criminal skims the cream from every new invention, if he can make use of it.” So said a Chicago police inspector in 1888, describing an early telephone scam. A wealthy trader had installed a telephone line between his home and office, one of the first in the city. One weekday, according to a 19th-century newspaper called the Electrical Review, a smartly dressed man identifying himself as Thomas Jefferson Odell knocked on the trader’s door and asked his butler for use of the house phone. The butler obliged. Odell called the trader at his office. “The cook, the chambermaid, and your wife are lying here bound and gagged,” he told him, asking for $20,000 in ransom. The trader delivered the cash to one of Odell’s accomplices, then rushed home to find his wife in fine shape and none the wiser.

Over the next half-century, telephone scams became problematic enough that MGM produced a short film to warn of their dangers. It ran 19 minutes and featured a gang of swindlers who compiled telephone numbers of financially distressed people, then got them to invest what they had left in a bogus horse-racing scheme. The movie was called “Sucker List.”

A few decades later, nuisance calls evolved to include legitimate sales pitches. In the 1960s, door-to-door salesmen were suffering. The rise of two-income families meant fewer women were home during the day to buy their products. In 1967, a public-relations consultant named Murray Roman saw a business opportunity, creating a telephone sales operation that could reach customers well into the evening. In his first major campaign, he hired 15,000 women to place a collective million calls a day from their homes on behalf of the Ford Motor Co. The idea wasn’t to sell cars — at least not yet — but to gauge consumer interest. This was called lead generation, and it professionalized the sucker list. Roman’s success rate was low, but his call volume was high enough to make up for it. Of 20 million people reached, 187,000 turned out to be decent leads. Of those, 40,000 bought cars. Ford, according to a 1976 article in the Harvard Business Review, made $24 million on the gambit. Telemarketing was born.

Murray Roman died in 1984, just before people would have started blaming him for ruining their lives. Two years later, a Virginia telecom analyst named Douglas Samuelson invented something called predictive dialing. The technology allowed department stores and politicians and scammers to dial widely and quickly, while weeding out phone lines that were busy or unresponsive. The industry grew exponentially; aggravated customers began to wail to their government representatives. In 1991, Congress passed a law that curtailed some telemarketing activities and created the first Do Not Call registries. Unfortunately, the registries weren’t maintained by the government but by companies doing the telemarketing, and the only way to get on them was to call the companies themselves. Nothing changed.

By 2003, the national telemarketing crisis had grown acute enough to warrant bipartisanship. A nationwide Do Not Call Registry would be established and the FTC would administer it. The House bill to create it passed 412 to 8. Only Ron Paul, Jeff Flake and a handful of other shrink-the-state types dissented. George W. Bush marked the occasion with a Rose Garden announcement. “When Americans are sitting down for dinner, or a parent is reading to his or her child,” he said, in dad-voice, “the last thing they need is a call from a stranger with a sales pitch.” Telemarketing groups would have to pay to download lists of numbers on the registry, organized by area code. If they were later found to have called any of those numbers, intentionally or not, they could be fined up to $11,000 per call.

All but telemarketers were elated. In three months, 50 million people signed up. Syndicated columnist Dave Barry called it the most popular government program since the Elvis stamp. The industry, meanwhile, filed several lawsuits against the FTC, arguing its new toy violated their First Amendment rights. “It will be like an asteroid hitting the Earth,” predicted Tim Searcy, then the chief executive of the American Teleservices Association. “Two million people will lose their jobs.” Barry, capturing the national mood, responded by printing the ATA’s phone number in a column and suggesting his readers flood it with calls. The lawsuits failed, the Do Not Call list became a permanent fixture, and telemarketing never recovered.

“It changed the industry dramatically,” says Stuart Discount, CEO of the Professional Association for Customer Engagement, which is just the new name of the beleaguered American Teleservices Association. “A lot of the outbound calling became calling your own customers, trying to increase their value. Cold-calling or trying to sell something really took a hit.” Set aside that it was now verboten to dial a wide swath of the country. Would someone on a Do Not Call list really be receptive to an unsolicited sales pitch? The registry, says the FTC’s Kopec, was “the nail in the coffin for outbound telemarketing.”

It was an era of good feelings and uninterrupted square meals. And it ended almost as soon as it began.

   Ami Dziekan, 41, has worked for the Federal Trade Commission since she graduated from Georgetown Law in 2004. She began her career as a staff attorney before being named program manager of the Do Not Call Registry in 2010. Kopec and her boss Lois Greisman oversee the FTC’s big-picture robo-call strategy, while Dziekan manages the list’s day-to-day operation. (The registry’s customer service people — the human beings fielding calls from dissatisfied list members — are employed by a contractor with offices in Indianapolis and Albuquerque.)

“I have a reputation of having an office full of plants and pictures of family,” Dziekan says, glancing around happily. By federal government standards, her L’Enfant Plaza office building is an inviting one: “If I open my door, I get to look out of a window, which is nice.” Dziekan, a redheaded mother of two, lives on Capitol Hill and is active in her church. Her outlook on life is admirably sunny, given that her job entails dealing with two kinds of people: consumers who don’t want to be called, but are; and telemarketers who want to call, but can’t.

In simpler times, this wasn’t a major problem. By downloading the list of numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, and then declining to call them, telemarketers largely policed themselves out of existence. By the late 2000s, though, a new threat had emerged: robo-calls. Instead of live telemarketers, working for recognizable companies, a new breed of humanoid irritants came calling with all manner of crappy sales pitches and outright scams. Robo-calling itself was not new; a robo-call is just another word for a prerecorded phone message. Public schools have been using them forever to announce snow days and two-hour delays. But now, the technology — far more efficient than traditional telemarketing, in that a live human is needed only once a customer decides to engage — was being marshaled for profit and fraud.

Suddenly “Rachel from Cardholder Services,” the ubiquitous fake bank rep, was plotting to take your money. Around tax season, fake Internal Revenue Service agents came calling, too. They left menacing messages like, “This is a final notification call to inform you that there is an arrest warrant issued against your name and your identity.” From there, targets would be directed to call a number where an operator would be waiting to bilk them. In one scheme, victims were commanded to drive to their grocery stores and pay phantom back taxes in the form of iTunes gift cards. For their part, legitimate companies began outsourcing illegal robo-calls to third parties. (Last year, a federal judge hit Dish Network with a $280 million penalty in part for doing that. Dish Network says it’s appealing.) And none of this includes the related problem of spam text messages.

In the quaint era of man-made telemarketing, it was mainly large corporations like Ford that could pay for the infrastructure and manpower to dial thousands of numbers at once. A couple of technological shifts changed that. One was the advent of voice-over-Internet-protocol (VoIP) dialing. This is the technology that makes Skype possible and is now used by a bulk of the country’s telephone landlines. VoIP “allows telemarketers to make lots and lots of calls for less money, from anywhere in the world,” says Will Maxson, an assistant director in the FTC’s consumer protection bureau. “It also allows you to set up shop, tear down, move. All you really need to make a lot of calls is a computer and an Internet connection.” Combine that with an automated dialing platform, plus some co-workers, and you’re Aaron Michael Jones.

Equally important was the rise of call “spoofing,” or faking a telephone number. Back in another quaint era, you may recall, Paris Hilton was accused of hacking into Lindsay Lohan’s voice mail by pretending to call it from Lohan’s phone. All it took was a perfectly legal $10 “SpoofCard.” (SpoofCard terminated Hilton’s account.) Robo-callers were employing more sophisticated tools, but the principle was the same. It allowed them to entice targets by calling from numbers that bore their own area codes, and, simultaneously, throw law enforcement off their scent.

In 2009, the FTC responded by outlawing almost all robo-calls, exempting those from political organizations, schools and other entities not trying to sell you things. Now, it was not only illegal to call a number on the registry, it was illegal to solicit any customers using robo-calls. The ban had no perceptible effect. From 2010 to 2011, the number of annual Do Not Call complaints jumped from 1.6 million to 2.3 million, the largest increase since the list’s inception. The following year, the number rose again by nearly 70 percent. Last year, the FTC received a record 7.2 million complaints, and the calls were as disreputable as ever. The top violations reported were debt-reduction schemes, vacation and timeshare offers, warranties and protection plans, and impostors. (Most of these were robo-calls, though live holdouts remain.)

Meanwhile, a shift occurred in the way people thought about unwanted calls. The Do Not Call Registry had promised tranquility. Now, it couldn’t deliver. This made people angry twice: once at the robo-calls, then again at the impotent gatekeepers letting them through. “We know that there are people who put their faith in the Do Not Call Registry as blocking every single phone call that they do not want,” says Dziekan. “I try to be flattered that they think I can block every single call that they don’t want. Unfortunately, I can’t.”

Here’s a sad anecdote: In 2013, the FTC published a blog post on its website. It was called “10 years of National Do Not Call: Looking back and looking ahead.” The post featured a cute graphic and plucky copy. “To etiquette purists, the 10th anniversary dictates gifts of metal,” it read. “The FTC presents this iron-clad guarantee: You can count on us to continue to take action against companies that violate the Telemarketing Sales Rule.” Later that day, a commenter named Helen wrote, “Awesome!!!” But every year, a dozen or so new comments would appear, and as time went on, they grew darker. “I think you all have done an awful job,” wrote one commenter in 2016. “The Spammers still call with NO fear of our Government.” Added another: “You no longer function at all.”

At the root of this public relations problem is a likely misapprehension about how the Do Not Call Registry works. When you add your number to the list, nothing actually happens. No legal muscle or technological wizardry suddenly prevents a solicitor from calling you. All the list does is provide you with vague recourse in the event you are called, by allowing you to complain that someone has called you. So, you can report the violation by calling a toll-free number or filling out a form on the Do Not Call website. Then, if the number you were called from shows up in enough complaints, the FTC will leap into action and prosecute the offending dialer.

Except, it almost certainly won’t. In the age of live telemarketing, the mere threat of prosecution or penalty was enough to deter companies with shareholders and reputations to protect. In the robo-calling epoch, dialers couldn’t care less. One, nobody knows who they are or where they’re calling from, because they all spoof their numbers. Two, more of them are doing it every year, since it’s cheap and easy to blast out automated calls from anywhere in the world. All this makes it nearly impossible to identify robo-callers, let alone penalize them. At a hearing on robo-calls in October, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she was getting so many of them, she’d disconnected her home phone. “The list,” she said, “doesn’t work.”

When I met with Kopec, the FTC’s de facto robo-czar, she drew a distinction between two eras of the Do Not Call Registry. “Prior to the beginning of the robo-call epidemic, we really approached the problem in two ways: law enforcement and consumer education,” she said. Now, she no longer has the resources to realistically tackle the problem. With an annual budget of $300 million — by contrast, the FBI’s is $9 billion — the FTC is a relatively puny federal agency. There are only 43 employees in the Division of Marketing Practices, which oversees unwanted calls. None of them, including Kopec, work full time on the issue. Ami Dziekan, who works in a different department, is the lone steward of the Do Not Call Registry. Since the robo-call ban went into effect in 2009, the FTC has brought just 33 cases against robo-callers. In those cases, defendants have been ordered to pay nearly $300 million in relief to victims, and nearly $30 million in civil penalties to the government. But even then, the FTC can’t force perpetrators to pay the fine if they argue they’re broke. Which robo-callers often seem to be. So the FTC has only collected on a fraction of those sums: $18 million in relief and less than $1 million in penalties.

(Point of clarification: The FTC is the sheriff here. Its job is to prosecute shady business practices, and robo-calls tend to be shady. But various other state and federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, also police nuisance calls. In theory, there are legal distinctions between which kinds of cases the FCC and FTC can bring, though neither agency could explain these to me clearly. As a practical matter, an FTC spokesman figures, it doesn’t matter: “There are enough violators in this space to keep us both busy.”)

The bottom line is that the problem has become too sprawling to litigate. The FTC is like a commercial fisherman trying to use his bare hands. “What the robo-call problem prodded us to do,” Kopec says, “was to recognize that there has to be a technical piece to this solution as well.” Less reactive policing, more proactive call-blocking. Unfortunately, it couldn’t do that either. “The FTC is largely a civil law enforcement agency. We have a whole lot of attorneys, and a whole lot of economists, and a few technologists,” Kopec explains. “We don’t have the expertise.”

For a while, neither did anyone else. In fall 2012, as the nation’s robo-call affliction grew more severe, the FTC created a contest, offering a $50,000 prize for the most promising call-blocking proposals. Eight hundred entries were submitted; A-list tech journalist Kara Swisher served as a judge. The following spring, two winners split the reward. The more auspicious of the two was called Nomorobo, devised by a Long Island programmer named Aaron Foss.

Foss, now 39, was working as a freelance software developer in Port Jefferson, on the island’s north shore. “I didn’t even know what robo-calls were,” he says. “Even back then, [the FTC] was like, ‘We’ve done everything we can. Can anybody else do something?’ ” Foss started by piggybacking off technology called “simultaneous ring,” which allowed an inbound call to travel to multiple destinations at once. So when someone called your number, they were also calling Nomorobo. At the same time, he began compiling a blacklist of likely robo-call numbers. By marrying simultaneous ring with the blacklists, Nomorobo picked up inbound calls before its subscribers did, then blocked the bad ones from going through.

The call-blocking field soon grew crowded. Truecaller. RoboKiller. Hiya. The FTC hosted another $50,000 contest called “Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back.” Yet another was called “Zapping Rachel,” in honor of the “Cardholder Services” menace. Cute names both, but the fight had already become a technological arms race — App Store Autobots against boiler-room Decepticons, basically. And the bad guys were winning. The apps grew more sophisticated — Nomorobo now says it blocks 27 million calls a month — but consumers were receiving more robo-calls than ever. “The robo-call problem is getting worse,” Foss says, “even though there are all these technological answers to it.”

I tracked down several hypotheses as to why. For one, it’s very hard to identify a robo-call from its phone number alone, which in turn makes it difficult to compile comprehensive blacklists. A decade ago, the future of email was clouded by a massive spam problem. By cataloguing bad actors by text keywords and IP addresses, Google and others were able to all but eradicate the problem. Gmail now claims that less than 0.1 percent of the emails its users receive are spam. By contrast, a spoofed phone number — which can be hastily abandoned or belong to a legitimate entity — tells us little about the content of the call itself. This is why we know roughly how many robo-calls are being made but not how many human beings are behind them. “Maybe 1,000 scammers could be generating most of the problems,” says Alex Quilici, the CEO of YouMail. Or more. Or less. Nobody knows.

Two, there’s a square-peg-round-hole problem plaguing the call-blocking start-ups. Different call-blocking technology works for different kinds of telephones — Nomorobo focuses on landlines, others on smartphones — and all of them use different blacklists. Which means robo-calls will find a way to slip through. Meanwhile, the population most vulnerable to telephone scams — the elderly — are also the most likely to have old-school copper-line phones. According to the FCC, there are 54 million of these in the country, and they can hardly block spam calls at all. The only technology available for them are hopeless little analog boxes that require users to enter unwanted numbers by hand.

Three, good luck firewalling a tool as central to modern life as a telephone. “It’s really hard to get a consumer not to answer calls,” says Quilici. “If you’re a plumber, it could be a customer. You need to answer.” Email spam filters have made it harder for intruders to impinge on our digital lives, but people like to keep their phone lines open. And this openness means we’re vulnerable not just to receiving phony calls, but to being manipulated once we answer. “The easiest way to compromise an entity is social engineering. Sort of appealing to people’s emotions,” says David Dewey, director of research at Pindrop, a cybersecurity firm. “We’ve seen instances of fraudsters that will call in to our customers, and they’ll pretend to be super angry. Or super polite and friendly — ‘You sound like you’re having a bad day today; I’ll ask you real simple, what’s your Social Security number on file?’ ”

Finally, there’s the problem of the telecom giants that do nothing. As the FTC pushed its boulder and the start-ups chipped away at it, major telephone carriers stood and watched, claiming they didn’t have the authority to address the problem. For good reason, Washington has been loath to tell phone companies to censor calls. Still, if carriers weren’t going to block the illegal calls plaguing their own customers, the problem seemed likely to persist.

In 2014, Foss protested by lugging 25 boxes of printouts, representing the millions of calls Nomorobo had blocked, to the headquarters of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates phone companies. A year later, the FCC woke up and voted to allow carriers to offer their customers external call-blocking apps like Nomorobo on their landlines. Next, in 2016, the FCC convened a group called the Robocall Strike Force, a sort of industry Knights of the Round Table in which telecom executives periodically sat in a room and brainstormed. Finally, in November 2017, the FCC gave carriers the power to block certain illegal robo-calls directly. Now, on the horizon — perhaps — is a moonshot called Caller ID authentication, which would function like the blue Twitter check mark that verifies a user’s identity. Developed by a consortium of telecom providers, it’s being tested by AT&T, Comcast and others. It may or may not see the light of day in 2018.

All this activity appears to be having a positive effect. We know this because the hobbled telemarketing lobby is angry again. “Our contact rates have plummeted about 20 percent” recently, says PACE’s Stuart Discount. His theory (though he doesn’t have data to prove this): Newly zealous carriers are accidentally blocking legitimate calls from companies innocently trying to reach their customers.

Still, the last of the human, legal telemarketers have more to fear from robo-callers than from the robo-call police. Says poor Discount: “They created the atmosphere of these billions of calls made each year that interrupt legitimate contact between companies and customers, because people won’t answer the phone.” In other words, we’ve lost trust in our own telephones. “It’s very difficult and obviously we recognize the problem,” he continues. “Look, we’re all consumers, too. I don’t want to get these calls.”

A few months ago, I told a friend in Boston I was writing about the robo-call epidemic. He was pleased to inform me that an app had slowed the deluge of spam calls he was used to receiving on his iPhone. But it wasn’t perfect; the version he was using couldn’t block robo-texts.

I decided to spam him. There is a software platform called Twilio that allows companies, or anyone, really, to send out phone calls and text messages from a random number. This is a legal and legitimate business practice, so long as it is not being done with the intent to defraud or harm a recipient. Indeed, there are good, privacy-related reasons for spoofing a call; imagine that a women’s shelter is trying to contact a domestic abuse victim at home without her abuser knowing. In any event, for the price of $1, I bought one of Twilio’s countless 202 (D.C.) area code numbers. Then, over the course of an afternoon, I followed a tutorial on how to program and send out a text message from that number. Programming a phone call would have been more difficult, but an adept coder could have done either in a few minutes.

I embedded my bogus 202 number, then his real number, then the body of my text, into Twilio’s open-source software. I sent him this:

“This is a message from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Our records indicate your phone number is registered on the federal Do Not Call registry. This is a routine list-maintenance message. To confirm, write YES. To remove your name, write REMOVE.”

Giddy with mischief, I held out for like a minute, then asked him if he had received a text from a 202 number. He had. “Looked legit to me,” he said.

Mark Zuckerberg’s just lost $2.9 billion…….

The co-founder of the world’s largest social-media business saw his fortune fall $2.9 billion Friday after he posted plans to shift users’ news feeds toward content from family and friends at the expense of material from media outlets and businesses.

Shares of Facebook tumbled 4.5 percent Friday, cutting Zuckerberg’s fortune to $74.4 billion on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, costing him his place as the world’s fourth-richest person.

The drop wipes out much of the $4.5 billion Zuckerberg, 33, has added so far this year. The world’s 500 richest people gained $1 trillion in 2017 and an additional $17 billion in the first two weeks of 2018, according to the Bloomberg index.