• Scam Diego alerts

James M. Kinder made money suing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act those who called his voicemail. Since the late 1970s, he had been involved in more than 600 lawsuits in superior and small claims court -- overwhelmingly as the plaintiff. Many companies settled with him. In 2003, he was declared a vexatious litigant, or a chronic court abuser. Then he hired two lawyers to file his suits. As I related in my column of Jan. 16, 2008, 75 companies that Kinder had sued banded together to defend themselves in his suits. Among other things, he claimed he was not a vexatious litigant, but the trial court disagreed and said there was no reasonable probability he would prevail at trial. Now, he has also lost in the fourth appellate district. Said the court, "the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act] is not intended to apply to circumstances presented in this case where the plaintiff INTENTIONALLY subjects himself to unwanted telephone calls and disconnects the number from his pager device, connects the number to a voice mail tape-recording system and employs a staff to listen to the voice mail messages and catalog the calls for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits."

  • Scam Diego alerts


Burwell Oct. 19, 2010 @ 8:23 p.m.

It's not clear to me how Kinder was intentionally subjecting himself to unwanted telephone calls. I believe that his actions in suing these companies for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was within the law. The legal system should not deny him his day in court merely because he asserted his legal rights in an organized and systematic manner. Kinder was certainly entitled to tape record the illegal calls and engage witnesses to help him defend his rights against telephone solicitors who were systematically thumbing their noses at the law. I receive an illegal telephone soliciation at least once a night. I am going to starting suing these businesses in small claims court. The guy in the link below made $6,000 suing telemarketers in small claims court.



Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2010 @ 10:20 p.m.

Response to post #1: I doubt that anybody in San Diego has written more nasty stuff about telemarketers than I have. But in this case, I think the trial and appeals courts were right: he intentionally set up a system to attract calls solely for the purpose of taking the caller to court. That is neither the letter nor the spirit of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Best, Don Bauder


SurfPuppy619 Oct. 20, 2010 @ 4:18 p.m.

B is correct, the court made up the law to get a muzzle on this clown.

But he did not "intentionally" subject himself to anything-they called him.

The court needed to shut the guy down and they did, unlawfully.


Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2010 @ 9:11 p.m.

Response to post #3: I disagree. It might be helpful to go to the Reader search box and find the date of my major column on Kinder, and read it. Best, Don Bauder


ami2much July 27, 2012 @ 6:27 p.m.

bs; because if the court wants to they can set you up to be a vexatious litigant to get rid of you; which means nothing about the merits of your claim!
as me, i complained about human rights and human rights now saying there has been a complaint re vexatious...excuse me; file a complaint re harassment and you are harassing someone???


ami2much July 27, 2012 @ 6:29 p.m.

i told the canadian human rights commission that is a joke right? but honestly a fkn slap in the face!!


ami2much July 27, 2012 @ 6:31 p.m.

I am a totally broke ass bumbaclut but just the same; I am deserving of respect...?


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!