I have dealt with and disparaged PJ for years now (as many others have) and now have the pleasure of knowing that a past employer has finally found that they cannot buy the certificate forever. I feel I have been vindicated, at least in my own mind.


Hi,
I've been browsing through the posts attempting to read all the related comments on Perry Johnson. I hope my post here is welcome. My interest in Perry Johnson started when I noticed we kept on getting, repeatedly, junk faxes from them. Google lead me to the FCC's website where I found that PJR had already been given a citation for violating the TCPA. The faxes continued and in the end, it got sufficiently annoying that my company, Hypertouch, filed a lawsuit against them. By them I mean Perry Johnson, Inc. (PJI) and Perry Johnson Registrar (PJR).

In their response to the FCC's citation, PJI stated that with their junk fax campaign they had set up an Remove Number for those who want to opt-out. They claimed, in writing, that "Once someone contacts the 800 number, PJI’s procedure is to remove the facsimile from the database and actually place the number into a ‘do not fax’ database." Low and behold, after we entered into the lawsuit and sent in a number of subpoenas, it turns out that Perry Johnson does not have, and never did have a 'do not fax' database. Perry Johnson's Director of Systems Operations, Manuel Carrillo, swore in a declaration they do not keep the remove requests. Note I said "Perry Johnson's" rather "PJI's" or "PJR's" because apparently that's the most appropriate label, for Mr. Carrillo -- when he's not discarding documents or sending out hard drives to be wiped -- is the Administrator for both PJI.com and PJR.com.

I am interested in learning more about Perry Johnson's marketing and the problems its been causing because, although we've recently be certified as a class, Perry Johnson managed to convince the trial Judge that their "customer database" used for faxing is a trade secret. This of course will make it difficult for us to identify and contact the other members of the class. I am also curious if any one here gets junk faxes from both PJI or PJR, or if people are primarily contacted by one or the other arm of Perry Johnson.

If anyone is curious, they can find many of the documents filed and observe the unfolding action at: http://www.hypertouch.com/legal/pji.html

Joe

ps Perry Johnson has also decided to use spam in its marketing efforts...but that'll be another battle altogether...

Joe:

The only contact I have had with them are the frequent and annoying phone calls.

Well, that and getting dinged during an audit by one of their certified calibrators who did a truly awful job, and I missed it. Our auditor saw the name on the calibration label and suddenly became very (uncharacteristicly) shark-like. As if he had seen it all before.

Now, when I see a PJ label, I take it as evidence that the company dumb enough to use it is interested only in window dressing.

KICK THEIR BUTT!!!!!

Craig

Now, when I see a PJ label, I take it as evidence that the company dumb enough to use it is interested only in window dressing.

Craig

I'm sure some of the people who have used PJ have innocently chosen them. After all, at least recently, they were the #1 registrar in the US. Is every company who used them only interested in window-dressing, or could there be some who just innocently thought they were choosing someone good based on marketing and #1 ranking and did not know their reputation at that time?

Mike, maybe you are right about the innocents using them, but it seems like every time I see the PJ name it is a sign of impending trouble, or at least undue aggravation.

Since that experience has been so consistent, I chose to throw the curtain of doubt up every time I encounter their name. Unfair, maybe, but is it fair that I have to sort through their messes?

I think not.

Craig

Our company used them for our initial ISO 9001:1994 certificate and a few surveillance audits. I personally don't know why our last Quality Manager picked them. Were looking for JUST registration certificate? At first maybe... (I'm just guessing). We use BSI now and honestly want our Quality/Business system to work for us. Are we 100% there yet? Not entirely but we're making an honest effort to use ISO to make our system better.

Junk Fax Lawsuit... Is it really worth the trouble/money?
Mail and calls we get because we WERE a customer. *shrug*

I'm sure some of the people who have used PJ have innocently chosen them. After all, at least recently, they were the #1 registrar in the US. Is every company who used them only interested in window-dressing, or could there be some who just innocently thought they were choosing someone good based on marketing and #1 ranking and did not know their reputation at that time?

OR did THOSE who INNOCENTLY chose PJR find out tht they were really not as easy as THEY thought.
I used PJR for three years; did I have a bad auditor? I had one auditor out of six that I didn't agree with.
I've also used BVQI, who establishes their own rules, above and beyond,'. They even give (gave) classes on how to meet BVQI requirements. Ive used DNV and LLoyds of London whose auditors would tell you haow to design you product or write your procedures.
ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses.
Personnally, I think PJR is getting a raw deal from a FEW disgruntled businesses that thought they were going to get a free ride.

My Lead Auditor Training was through Perry Johnson. I already knew of their reputation, but found them to be quite professional (although they spelled my name wrong on the certificate of completion).

I have several customers that use them as their registrar. These are not just companies that are looking for "an easy ISO", but organizations that are trying to make their QMS work. The largest complaint I hear is that the auditor can be slow at responding to inquiries. Every registrar I know has had similar complaints, except for PRO (it seems to be their strong point).

PJ's sales and marketing seems to be close to those MLM schemes, but I do not know of a single company that has dropped them because they felt they were being cheated. Although, I know one company that submitted the check with the QM for the doc review, and got a good report back, and a request for payment. They got the QM back, and it was still in the shrinkwrap they submitted it with. Now, was that PJ's fault, or a lazy LA?

db says,
"(although they spelled my name wrong on the certificate of completion)."

But they do give you an opportunity to make corrections before the final release.

OR did THOSE who INNOCENTLY chose PJR find out tht they were really not as easy as THEY thought.
I used PJR for three years; did I have a bad auditor? I had one auditor out of six that I didn't agree with.
I've also used BVQI, who establishes their own rules, above and beyond,'. They even give (gave) classes on how to meet BVQI requirements. Ive used DNV and LLoyds of London whose auditors would tell you haow to design you product or write your procedures.
ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses.
Personnally, I think PJR is getting a raw deal from a FEW disgruntled businesses that thought they were going to get a free ride.

No, Sam not ALL Registrars!

If your Registrar is TELLING you how to do anything that is called consulting.

db says,
"(although they spelled my name wrong on the certificate of completion)."

But they do give you an opportunity to make corrections before the final release.

Yeah, it was just a typo, and I got a sincere apology from the administrative assistant.

......Ive used DNV and LLoyds of London whose auditors would tell you haow to design you product or write your procedures. .....


Small point....It's not Lloyds of London. That's an insurance syndicate.

I'm sure you mean Lloyds Register Quality Assurance. :) Different company entirely.

Sorry, couldn't help it. I worked for them for 4 years and encountered this many, many times.

'Cinda dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where have you been? We don't see much of you around here anymore.

p.s. looks like Houston 19-24 October. Ready for chicken wings ;)

Small point....It's not Lloyds of London. That's an insurance syndicate.

I'm sure you mean Lloyds Register Quality Assurance. Different company entirely.

Sorry, couldn't help it. I worked for them for 4 years and encountered this many, many times.

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuse us! :vfunny: We miss you, Cinda! :agree:

Small point....It's not Lloyds of London. That's an insurance syndicate.

I'm sure you mean Lloyds Register Quality Assurance. :) Different company entirely.

Sorry, couldn't help it. I worked for them for 4 years and encountered this many, many times.

I'm sure you are correct, but back in the day (1982) the auditor simply called themselves "Lloyds of London". Of course now that I think about it; we were doingoilfield equipment, so it could have been related to insurance.

1982. BS5750 Parts 1,2 and 3. 5 years before the first edition of the ISO 9000 family of documents. No truly established international auditor certification process. Wow, some people really hold a grudge for a loooooong time.

DNV auditors telling you how to design a product or write a procedure? If true, it is simply wrong. 3rd party auditors must not find themselves in that role. We all know well. I just wonder if this is true or just Sam's perception?

". . .ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses. . ."

What exactly does that mean? I can tell you that the Organization that I work for, DNV Certification, does not do that.

Do you have any objective evidence that ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses?

Or is just another disparaging comment without facts to support it?

1982. BS5750 Parts 1,2 and 3. 5 years before the first edition of the ISO 9000 family of documents. No truly established international auditor certification process. Wow, some people really hold a grudge for a loooooong time.

DNV auditors telling you how to design a product or write a procedure? If true, it is simply wrong. 3rd party auditors must not find themselves in that role. We all know well. I just wonder if this is true or just Sam's perception?

". . .ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses. . ."

What exactly does that mean? I can tell you that the Organization that I work for, DNV Certification, does not do that.

Do you have any objective evidence that ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses?

Or is just another disparaging comment without facts to support it?
Apparently we must now provide hard facts on everything we say. We must also think about if our statements are true or just our own "perception".

Perhaps when discussing registrars from now on we should use a disclaimer that our statements do not apply to DNV, unless of course we can supply a 30 page document to back it up.

Apparently we must now provide hard facts on everything we say. We must also think about if our statements are true or just our own "perception".

Perhaps when discussing registrars from now on we should use a disclaimer that our statements do not apply to DNV, unless of course we can supply a 30 page document to back it up.
I have seen this before in Sidney's posts regarding Registrars. In her defense, I'm sure she is very loyal to her organization and a conscientious(sp)? representative. But, perception by others is just as important. We don't need documentation to "prove" perception. That's a feeling. Why does somebody think this or that about us? Cuz we do. It could be one incident. Doesn't matter. When I'm bothered by repeated phone calls, don't even show up at the office in person. My perception of this person and the company he/she represents has already put this image in my mind and there's the door. I think all our employees are outstanding and our work is second to none. When one of them is seen taking a leak on the customer's property, what is the perception of my company? I agree, Richard. The truth and perception don't always agree. But, we do. See? :agree:

I realize that my reply may have been harsh, but I too have seen these types of responses from Sidney previously, while at the same time he will not hesitate to point out flaws in other registrars. It's one thing to be loyal and defend your company, but there are better ways to do it. :truce:

I realize that my reply may have been harsh, but I too have seen these types of responses from Sidney previously, while at the same time he will not hesitate to point out flaws in other registrars. It's one thing to be loyal and defend your company, but there are better ways to do it. :truce:

She. I made that mistake, ONCE. :vfunny:

She. I made that mistake, ONCE. :vfunny:Huh?

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=52127&postcount=29

I'm all confused now :confused: :p

In Sidneys defense I took offense to the comment that ALL Registrars use the same bait and switch tactics. To me it sounded like Sam was the one that has a problem with Registrars, with the exception of PJ??? Just my perception! :truce:

By the way Richard Sidney is not a she not a he I think is what Energy was trying to tell you.

Huh?

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=52127&postcount=29

I'm all confused now :confused: :p

I'll have to get back to you! :o

In Sidneys defense I took offense to the comment that ALL Registrars use the same bait and switch tactics. To me it sounded like Sam was the one that has a problem with Registrars, with the exception of PJ??? Just my perception! :truce:

By the way Richard Sidney is not a she not a he I think is what Energy was trying to tell you.

Never drink and drive. Richard nailed me good. Look at what I said at the time and ask me where my head is! :vfunny:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=52148&postcount=32

I have seen this before in Sidney's posts regarding Registrars. In her defense, I'm sure she is very loyal to her organization and a conscientious(sp)? representative. But, perception by others is just as important. We don't need documentation to "prove" perception. That's a feeling. Why does somebody think this or that about us? Cuz we do. It could be one incident. Doesn't matter. When I'm bothered by repeated phone calls, don't even show up at the office in person. My perception of this person and the company he/she represents has already put this image in my mind and there's the door. I think all our employees are outstanding and our work is second to none. When one of them is seen taking a leak on the customer's property, what is the perception of my company? I agree, Richard. The truth and perception don't always agree. But, we do. See? :agree:
Sidney = not a she
energy made this mistake because of an incorrect perception.

CX

Never drink and drive. Richard nailed me good. Look at what I said at the time and ask me where my head is! :vfunny:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=52148&postcount=32

Never drink and drive umm ok. But now I am confused.

Never drink and drive umm ok. But now I am confused.
I think we're all confused at this point :confused::vfunny:

Sidney = not a she
energy made this mistake because of an incorrect perception.

CX

Attached is a perception of beauty. As for the drink & drive, it's just an excuse for a brain f**t! :p

'Cinda dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where have you been? We don't see much of you around here anymore.

p.s. looks like Houston 19-24 October. Ready for chicken wings ;)


Randy honey! I'm out in Bakersfield and Taft, CA that week giving some training classes. Of all the weeks!

Randy honey! I'm out in Bakersfield and Taft, CA that week giving some training classes. Of all the weeks!

You realize of course the types of responses your last post may generate in this looney bin? :eek:


You'll be near my old stompin' grounds, enjoy it.

If i have offended you ( Sidney and others) or the company you work for then I apoligize. I am only stating the facts as they pertained to me. I will address each of your points.

1982. BS5750 Parts 1,2 and 3. 5 years before the first edition of the ISO 9000 family of documents. No truly established international auditor certification process. Wow, some people really hold a grudge for a loooooong time.

No grudge. Just explainung my dealings with previous registrars.

DNV auditors telling you how to design a product or write a procedure? If true, it is simply wrong. 3rd party auditors must not find themselves in that role. We all know well. I just wonder if this is true or just Sam's perception?

I agree, however, ask your self this question; how many times have you rejected a procedure or work instruction or drawing because it may, in your opinion, need something else?

". . .ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses. . ."

What exactly does that mean? I can tell you that the Organization that I work for, DNV Certification, does not do that.

Do you have any objective evidence that ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses?

At the beginning of the year I requested and received quotes from five registrars. All five were different. So different it took two weeks to read and catagorize the data so that I could make a determination based on price. This price varied from $31000 to $52000 for a three year contract.

Or is just another disparaging comment without facts to support it?

Someone said "one bad apple spoils the barrel". In this case the barrel may not be spoiled, but it sur is tainted.

I realize that my reply may have been harsh, but I too have seen these types of responses from Sidney previously, while at the same time he will not hesitate to point out flaws in other registrars. It's one thing to be loyal and defend your company, but there are better ways to do it.

I think Sidney's comments (questions) are valid. Sam's point that: "ALL registrars use the same basic bait and switch tactics to elicit money from the masses." (Notice that ALL is in caps) is undoubtedly not true and is inflamatory. Sidney was taking exception to it. I work with NSF, Smithers, CRS, Entella, Pro, PJ, DNV and a host of others. My work with them is through my consulting clients who use registrars. I receive no money from the registrar, so I have nothing to gain (or lose). Here is what I've found. Almost every complaint that I have had in the last five years dealt with two things:

1) Auditor's requiring things that aren't in the standard.

2) Auditors/Registrars slow to return calls/inquiries (the noted exception to this is PRO)

Sam, I would venture to say has some personal experiences that has left him with the idea he posted. Perhaps this is a regional thing. Perhaps the hundreds of companies I've worked with don't tell me the whole story because they think I'm in cahoots with the "evil" registrar. I don't know. But I do know, it has been probably 8 years since I've heard of a "bait and switch" story.

Posted by Sam
At the beginning of the year I requested and received quotes from five registrars. All five were different. So different it took two weeks to read and catagorize the data so that I could make a determination based on price. This price varied from $31000 to $52000 for a three year contract.


Gee that is strange your requested a quote from FIVE DIFFERENT COMPANIES and they were all different. What do you find odd about that? Not all registrars charge the same, some charge for final reports, travel time, etc.. some do not, some even charge more based on the fact that their services are requested more frequently than others (reputation). From what I gather Sam s that when your company sends a quote it is exactly the same as your competitors?

Posted by SAM
DNV auditors telling you how to design a product or write a procedure? If true, it is simply wrong. 3rd party auditors must not find themselves in that role. We all know well. I just wonder if this is true or just Sam's perception?

I agree, however, ask your self this question; how many times have you rejected a procedure or work instruction or drawing because it may, in your opinion, need something else?

I can tell you I have never rejected a procedure/product design becuase in my opinion it needed something else, as long as it is meeting the requirments/intent that is fine with me.

I feel compelled to step in and somewhat defend Sam. Granted he made some statements that could anger some people, but you have to consider that the statements were generalizations based on his experience. Everyone makes generalizations all the time, and people realize that they are generalizations and don't apply to everything. I think it's best to take generaliztions with a grain of salt and not focus in on them too much.

Take me for example, it would be easy for me to get mad at people who say all rednecks are dumb and ignorant :vfunny: (why do I get the feeling I'll get some interesting responses on that:eek: )

Posted by ISO GUY
"Gee that is strange your requested a quote from FIVE DIFFERENT COMPANIES and they were all different. What do you find odd about that? Not all registrars charge the same, some charge for final reports, travel time, etc.. some do not, some even charge more based on the fact that their services are requested more frequently than others (reputation). From what I gather Sam s that when your company sends a quote it is exactly the same as your competitors?"

I do expect it to be in format such that I don't have to be fearful of missing a sentence or word buried somewhere in the fine print.

"I can tell you I have never rejected a procedure/product design becuase in my opinion it needed something else, as long as it is meeting the requirments/intent that is fine with me."

Good for you. However what is your definition for meeting the requirement of "intent". Your's. Mine. Your registrar.

I looked at 63 registrars and I think what Sam was saying is that they all quote in different ways and use differant verbiage, which makes it very hard to understand and compare apples to apples.

I looked at 63 registrars and I think what Sam was saying is that they all quote in different ways and use differant verbiage, which makes it very hard to understand and compare apples to apples.

Agreed, it is also quite frustrating. Perhaps we can get an ISO standard on pricing. :eek:

yeah, I know how frustrating that quote comparison can be. We (should I say "they" now?) had no added fees in the contract. Not for reports, nada. Travel expenses were charged at cost (not cost +10%), manday rate was fixed for the 3 year period. No additional fees. I should know, I wrote many many of those contracts! We kept a competitor comparison chart that listed all the different add ons that the other registrars charged and even if they charged a lower manday rate they could be more expensive once you added in the rest of the stuff. Amazing. Yet companies could be swayed by that lower manday rate..... :bonk:

I am interested in learning more about Perry Johnson's marketing and the problems its been causing because, although we've recently be certified as a class, Perry Johnson managed to convince the trial Judge that their "customer database" used for faxing is a trade secret. [...]

If anyone is curious, they can find many of the documents filed and observe the unfolding action at: http://www.hypertouch.com/legal/pji.html

Hi Folks,
I just wanted to post a follow-up and thank everyone who replied to my post. Since we were stymied by Perry Johnson withholding the database of the folks they sent junk faxes to, we subpoenaed the records of the phone companies for all the calls made to their toll free "Removal" number on Perry Johnson's junk faxes. Perry Johnson filed a motion to quash a subpoena to Global Crossing and Qwest Inc. On November 5, the court ruled against their motion calling it "specious.": <blockquote> The subpoenas <u>duces tecum</u> are directed to California addresses. Moreover, movants produce no case law that the identity of a person who telephones a toll-free number to designate his/her telephone number as one not to telephone intends to be protected by some privacy right and movants’ citation of a United States Supreme Court <u>dissent</u> speaks for itself. Movants’ motion based on the right of privacy of unsolicited telephone contact of potential class action members is denied as specious. </blockquote>
A subpoena to another phone company who also provided service for Perry Johnson's toll-free "Remove" number has provided documentation of another large number of phone calls. That could bring the size of the class to well over 100,000 identified members, just from those companies and individuals who took the time and effort to ask to be placed in Perry Johnson's (nonexistent) "Do Not Call" database.


Junk Fax Lawsuit... Is it really worth the trouble/money?
Mail and calls we get because we WERE a customer. *shrug*
That's an interesting question. I know of others who took Perry Johnson to court and settled out of court with them for their junk faxing. It would appear that such distractions and even citations by the FTC have just been figured by Perry Johnson as the cost of doing business. This case has now gone on for over two years. Class actions don't net the class representative more money. Yet I believe a more civically responsible approach for a problem that is afflicting everyone, is to attempt to resolve it <b>for everyone</b> and not just settle only for one's own interest. If possible, end such bad behavior that is plaguing one and all.

There are some side benefits though. Shortly after we filed the class action against Perry Johnson, the number of junk faxes we received rapidly dropped from two or more a day, to just one junk fax a month. :-)

In mid-October, we settled with a spammer for violating California's anti-spam laws. (see http://legal.hypertouch.com/) That suit we also filed as a class action. When we settled with Link It Software, we had not yet be certified as a class. However, we made the company agree that the terms and restrictions of our settlement will applied to any email that they send in the future to anyone, not just ourselves or our clients. Sadly, this differs from the settlements that Verizon, AOL, or other the major ISPs make with the spammers they bring to court. Perhaps this will change in the future, but I am not optimistic. The new "I CAN-SPAM" act that Congress is passing in the next few days legalizes spam and removes nearly all state laws banning spam. It would have been nice if the settlements that Verizon, et al have had the major spammers sign over the years would protect the rest of us, not just themselves, but perhaps those large companies got that way by looking out only for their own interests.

Sorry, drifted off topic... I've a final question if anyone has the time in this busy end of the year season. Has anyone ever requested the "information and free video" that Perry Johnson advertises in their junk faxes? Do they promote both PJI and PJR, or primarily just PJI?

Thanks again for all the responses to this thread.

Joe

I have the video and if I remember correctly it mainly promoted PJI. It was basically an intro to ISO and I must say not too bad.

I obtained a copy of the ISO 14001 tape a while back....it was pretty good (except for having to look at Perry all the time). It mainly focused around their training and consulting services.

I guess if I looked hard enough I could probably find a couple dozen of those old tapes. I used to be able to count on at least a couple of faxes a week and I still get a "courtesy call" once a month or so to see if I need any training help. I don't know how effective the advertising method is but I know we have never bought anything from them.

Dave

this may be old news, but I recently went onto the RAB website and low and behold. . . PJR was decertified for AS-9000.

Not surprised. :vfunny:

I guess if I looked hard enough I could probably find a couple dozen of those old tapes. I used to be able to count on at least a couple of faxes a week and I still get a "courtesy call" once a month or so to see if I need any training help. I don't know how effective the advertising method is but I know we have never bought anything from them.

With dozens of tapes does that mean someone at your company have asked for them, or are you guys obvious candidates for higher end sales pitches? We just received Perry Johnson's faxes but nothing in the mail. You wouldn't have kept copies of the faxes you were sent by any chance? We'd like to track down those folk who received them, and knowing as many dates/times that they did advertising runs might be helpful. Perry Johnson's "Remove" number appears to be getting a couple hundred calls a day so they must be faxing an unbelievable number of people.

Joe

this may be old news, but I recently went onto the RAB website and low and behold. . . PJR was decertified for AS-9000.

Not surprised. :vfunny:

That was discussed in other threads, IIRC. They appear to be recertified, they are relisted at http://www.rabnet.com/rab/searchReg.do?registrarType=QMS

I would love to know the details about it. We are attempting to prove that PJI and PJR are alter-ego of each other with co-mingled marketing efforts. Some of their junk faxes advertise PJR talks and services, but the judge is still not convinced. I do not know the details of their decertification, but I wonder if the lawsuit Perry Johnson filed against RAB had something to do with their recertification:
--
(from the PACER file on that action -- I hope it's not impolite to make such a long post in this forum)

Docket as of March 24, 2003 10:41 pm Web PACER (v2.3)


U.S. District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 03-CV-70904

Perry Johnson v. Registrar

Filed: 03/04/03
Assigned to: Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $25,000
Nature of Suit: 190
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Dkt # in Oakland County : is 03-047514 CK



PERRY JOHNSON REGISTRARS, Edward H. Pappas
INCORPORATED [COR LD NTC ret]
plaintiff Dickinson Wright
38525 Woodward Avenue
Suite 2000
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2970
248-646-4300
Joseph A. Fink
[COR LD NTC ret]
Dickinson Wright
500 Woodward Avenue
Suite 4000
Detroit, MI 48226-3425
313-223-3500
FTS 223-3598
v.
REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION BOARD, Thomas M. J. Hathaway
INCORPORATED [COR LD NTC ret]
defendant Brady, Hathaway,
1330 Buhl Building
Detroit, MI 48226
313-965-3700


DOCKET PROCEEDINGS


DATE # DOCKET ENTRY


3/4/03 1 NOTICE by defendant of removal from Oakland County Circuit Court with exhibits 1-8 and proof of service - Receipt # 483720 - Date Fee Received: 3/4/03 (LS) [Entry date 03/09/03]

3/4/03 1 COPY of complaint filed in Oakland County Circuit Court (LS) [Entry date 03/09/03]

3/5/03 2 MOTION by plaintiff for preliminary injunction with brief, attachments 1-12, notice of hearing with date to be set and proof of service (LS) [Entry date 03/09/03]

3/6/03 -- MOTION hearing adjourned on motion for preliminary injunction by Perry Johnson [2-1] to 8:30 3/21/03 - Judge Nancy G. Edmunds - Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques (ls) [Entry date 03/10/03]

3/6/03 3 ORDER by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, setting hearing on motion for preliminary injunction by Perry Johnson [2-1] 8:30 am on 3/21/03 [EOD Date 3/11/03] (lg) [Entry date 03/11/03]

3/6/03 4 ORDER by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds with stipulation, for temporary restraining order [EOD Date: 3/11/03] (lg) [Entry date 03/11/03]

3/11/03 5 ANSWER by Registrar to complaint [1-1] with proof of mailing (lg) [Entry date 03/13/03]

3/11/03 5 AFFIRMATIVE defenses by Registrar (lg) [Entry date 03/13/03]

3/12/03 6 BRIEF IN RESPONSE by Registrar to motion for preliminary injunction by Perry Johnson [2-1] (lg) [Entry date 03/13/03]

3/12/03 7 APPENDIX by Registrar to motion response by Registrar [6-1] (lg) [Entry date 03/13/03]

3/12/03 8 PROOF of service of [7-1], [6-1] (lg) [Entry date 03/14/03]

3/17/03 9 ORDER by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds with stipulation dissolving order for temporary restraining order [4-1], and dismissing case without prejudice or costs [EOD Date: 3/24/03] (nh) [Entry date 03/24/03]


Case Flags:
CLOSED
TRO
WC

Hi All,

Thank you for all the helpful suggestions. PJR remains in our junk fax action. We ordered copies of some of the documents of last year's PJR lawsuit filed against RAR after their suspension. The documents are at http://legal.hypertouch.com/pji/pjr-rar/ I found the "RAR-MI-response" document the most helpful because it detailed the reasons behind their suspension.

Joe

Hmmm, a very interesting read...

For an interesting approach on how PJ outsources telemarketing activities. check
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/mar/10bpo1.htm
and http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/8128267.htm
and http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0204/25prisonlabor.html
and http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=41849

LOL, another interesting read. :rolleyes:

For an interesting approach on how PJ outsources telemarketing activities. check
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/mar/10bpo1.htm
and http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/8128267.htm
and http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0204/25prisonlabor.html
and http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=41849

Just for the record PJR is not the only organization thet uses the prison inmate system. It's not only used for telemarketing, it's also used as a source for manufacturing.
There is a vast, and believe it or not, skilled industry that is just begging to be used. Oklahoma uses women inmates for telemerketing the tourism industry, as do most states.
This is an excellent way to take the burden off of the taxpayer and I applaud anyone who steps in to help the system.

Am I the only one not sure of what is going on here with respect to a lawsuit against PJI? Perhaps someone can summarize for us (or at least me) in plain English the reason(s) for a lawsuit against PJI i.e. what has PJI done that is illegal, who was damaged and how, and what is being sought in the way of damages. I have no affiliation whatsoever with PJI, I’m just curious.

Perhaps someone can summarize for us (or at least me) in plain English the reason(s) for a lawsuit against PJI i.e. what has PJI done that is illegal, who was damaged and how, and what is being sought in the way of damages.

I believe there may be a number of actions that currently involve PJI. Ours, which is mentioned in this thread, is a class action against PJI and PJR for sending junk faxes advertising PJI and PJR services in violation of federal (and many states') laws. They had been cited by the US FCC in September 2000 for sending junk faxes in violation of the TCPA, but they continued to do so. It appears that they are determined to go to trial, which we believe may likely result in a judgement of US$ 150 million dollar range (i.e. 100,000+ class members at $1500 each). Though not part of this lawsuit, Perry Johnson had also tried its had at advertising via spam (a.k.a. Unsolicited Commercial Email), and even tried to use our mail server to send spam to others.

There is at least one other TCPA class action against Perry Johnson that we know of.

PJR sued the RAB last year after the RAB suspended PJR for violating conflict of interest guidelines. RAB suspended PJR after the Boeing Corporation caught PJR violating conflict of interest rules twice in six months. Rather than work through the normal administrative appeals process, PJR filed suit. The June 03 edition of QSU reports they settled the lawsuit:
At least two QS-9000 certificate holders have received letters in recent weeks from Perry Johnson Registrars Inc. (PJR) stating that their registration certificates were being withdrawn based on the fact that the companies had used its registration services as well as the services of Perry Johnson Inc. (PJI) in apparent violation of conflict-of-interest rules.
...
Robert H. King, Jr., president and chief executive officer of the RAB, declined to comment on the client letters ,though he said that PJR remained in good standing with respect to its QS-9000 accreditation . Facing suspension from the AS9100 and AS9000 aero space certification program earlier this year, PJR filed suit against the RAB but later agreed to accept the suspension and withdraw two registration certificates in an unrelated case, according to court documents obtained by QSU and interviews.

Joepublic,
Since your company is involved in a lawsuit with PJR perhaps you could explain, briefly, what federal or state law they are breaking. If there is a law pertaining to "junk" mail, I'm sure PJR is not the only offender.

I have no affiliation with PJ either but I find this rather amazing. We receive faxes from many quality/business related firms every day (some from PJ). I am wondering what makes them "junk" faxes. If we weren't in business or didn't have a quality system I could readily accept that they were "junk" but if they relate to business why "junk" and not "advertising". I wonder how many faxes I would need to receive in order to qualify for a payment of $150 million. I think if I was on the PJ team I would want to see some documentation from these 100,000 class members who inundated by "junk" mail.

I certainly acknowledge that I don't know all the facts but I would have hoped Mike's question would have resulted in an answer with a little more substance. After all, we are publicly bashing a registrar here. There are some here who may not like certain registrars but in my opinion we need to be very careful we don't use this forum in a way that could come back to hurt the owners or members.

I guess, like Mike, I was expecting to hear some pretty serious problems about PJ that we needed to know in our business. I am disappointed to find what looks like another hot coffee at McDonald's story. It sounds to me like the RAB has no issue with PJ.

Sorry but in my opinion I have seen nothing here that warrants this negativity.

Dave

I have no affiliation with PJ either but I find this rather amazing. We receive faxes from many quality/business related firms every day (some from PJ). I am wondering what makes them "junk" faxes. If we weren't in business or didn't have a quality system I could readily accept that they were "junk" but if they relate to business why "junk" and not "advertising". I wonder how many faxes I would need to receive in order to qualify for a payment of $150 million. I think if I was on the PJ team I would want to see some documentation from these 100,000 class members who inundated by "junk" mail.
If you add your phone # to the "National Do Not Call Registry" it makes it junk.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html

Sam and Dave pose some valid questions, IMO.

I used to receive faxes from PJI but have not gotten any I can recall in the last 6 months or more.

Let me say in advance that I do not in any way condone "spam" (unwanted and unsolicited e-mail or faxes). I hate it, in fact. I get spam e-mail every day and my company gets spam faxes every day. It is a waste of time, paper, and ink, and it is a waste to the internet providers who have to route it. I'd like to see it stopped.

But let's say for agrument's sake that I get one unwanted (spam) fax a week from PJI. How could any reasonable person say the damage done to me was $1500? Maybe $15. Even triple damages or 10x damages do not approach $1500. So why should I get $1500 from them?

How much do the lawyers get out of this?

What proof do I need to supply that I deserve the $1500?

Does the government even get enough to cover all of the costs to the taxpayers of processing this case?

If you add your phone # to the "National Do Not Call Registry" it makes it junk.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html

I saw nothing there that covers commercial interests -- "The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 was created in response to consumer concerns about the growing number of unsolicited telephone marketing calls to their homes and the increasing use of automated and prerecorded messages". They mention calls to your "home" several times -- no mention of business. Is there a similar law covering business?

If you add your phone # to the "National Do Not Call Registry" it makes it junk.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html

Al - the National Do Not Call Registry which went into effect June 26, 2003 is for residential telephones. I don't believe it has anything to do with business faxes.

My point was simply this - If you are in business, you should expect business related advertising to be sent to you. I certainly agree that I don't need Viagra ads sent to my business but if it relates to what I do in my business, then it is simply part of doing business. Throw the unwanted ads away if you don't want them. If you don't want people sending you faxes, don't advertise your fax number. I am no lawyer or judge but I would certainly think that if I put out any sort of advertising or document available to the public that had my phone number or fax number or email address I would be a fool to think people were "violating my rights" to use them. Change your business phone, fax and email address and don't give it to anybody. Then when you get flooded with "junk" advertising you have a right to complain.

Pretty soon we are going to be suing TV stations because they keep broadcasting all those "junk" beer ads and I don't even drink beer.

BTW - if anyone follows Al's link and is interested, the National Do Not Call List is a free service. You don't need to pay $5 to register as the site tells you.

Dave

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061116/sfth094.html?.v=56

A real nice deal for PJR!!!:rolleyes:

that is total cr4p.

class members have to use PJ's services in order to realize the judgement?
(or sell the service to some sucker)
Sounds like an award to PJI/PJR, not to the plaintiffs.

I got a boatload of junk from them between 1998 and 2000 when doing a registrar search and it was enough to turn me off of them forever.

I used to get telephone calls and an occasional fax. I asked to be removed and I was - never heard from them again. The only reason I was getting contacted by them was because I attended (and passed :) )their Lead Auditor 5-day class several years ago.

You can bet your sweet bippy the attorney for the plaintiffs got CASH, not a coupon to spend money with the defendant!

My sympathies go out to all the folks who thought they were getting justice! My congratulations to the attorney for PJ - he earned every dollar of his fee! I'd probably hire him if I had a similar situation to PJ.

The definition of "pyrrhic victory" should include their logo...isn't much in any ISO store I've ever taken the kids to that doesn't cost at least $1250. Use the $425 coupon for some product and get on a call list!

I thought PJI was defunct.

My opening eBay bid is $10. (Want to frame it.)

The Madfox
(lawyer wannabe)

Thank you for the links, Sidney. I read though them again and my admiration for the PJ attorneys is unbounded.

They made less than $300,000 cash payment to plaintiff attorneys and less than $100,000 in expenses and "claimed" to have provided up to $45 million in "discounts" to the PJ plaintiffs - in reality, paying no money to plaintiffs and forcing them to overpay for anything they could conceivably want to buy from the PJ offerings. To put that in perspective, think of McDonald's giving everyone in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan a 25% off coupon on Happy Meals for all they buy in one trip to Mickey D. in one month - big advertising coup if EVERYONE uses the offer (50 million Happy Meals sold in one month!) and the discount is the kind of thing they offer several times a year anyway since the profit margin at full price is more than 25%. If no one takes them up on the offer (98% of ALL coupons for food and restaurant meals are unredeemed), then the settlement cost nothing, but they come out smelling pretty because of the apparently generous offer.


Note PJ charges $1395 for a 3 day training course on !SO 9001
BSI charges $1095 for a similar 3 day course
The Math:
$1395 X 75% = $1046.25 = net cost of PJ after discount.

How big does that 25% discount look?


As I said:
Kudos to the PJ attorneys - they ended up making "Mike's Hard Lemonade" out of some sour lemons.