Shawn (a.k.a. Shimon Sason) Calls and Threatens Lawsuit

I just got off the phone with Shawn. Shawn actually called me for a change this time. He asked how I was and I responded that I had tried to contact Erick about my missing (brand new in the box) HP Officejet 4500 printer (serial number: CN09AF10JN). Apparently that’s not what wanted to talk to me about.

He said that this is a very nice website and it looks really good.

He told me that I did not have permission to record his phone call, which is a lie. As you can clearly hear in the recording, he even noted that the call was being recorded. My wife and his driver also heard me tell him that I was going to record the call. Unfortunately, since I didn’t actually record him saying that it was OK to record the call, I’m going to remove it just to be on the safe side, but I’ll add a summary of the phone call in it’s place later. Update 3/16/2011: I’ve put this recording back online because it is made clear in the call that the recording is acceptable.

He also said that Mainline Moving and Transportation and ZooZ Transportation are not the same company.

He then said I had 24 hours to take this website down or he was going to “sue me big time.”

When I asked for clarification on the Mainline Moving and Transportation relationship, it was too late. He had already hung up.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Shawn (a.k.a. Shimon Sason) Calls and Threatens Lawsuit

  1. Comrade in Arms says:

    nder United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However, several states (i.e., California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation. Many businesses and other organizations record their telephone calls so that they can prove what was said, train their staff, or monitor performance. This activity may not be considered telephone tapping in some, but not all, jurisdictions because it is done with the knowledge of at least one of the parties to the telephone conversation. The Telephone recording laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while other states require both parties to be aware. It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that the conversation is being recorded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>