**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No. EB-03-TC-100        |
|                                  | * |                              |
| **DYNASTY MORTGAGE, L.L.C.**     | ) | NAL/Acct. No. 200432170005   |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * | FRN: 0012612156              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER OF FORFEITURE**

**Adopted: April 24, 2007 Released: May 14, 2007**

By the Commission:

# Introduction

1.  In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of
    \$748,000 against Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C.[^1] ("Dynasty") for
    willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the
    Commission's rules by making telephone calls for the purpose of
    delivering telephone solicitations to residential telephone
    consumers who registered their telephone numbers on the National
    Do-Not-Call Registry. This order imposes the maximum forfeiture
    amount of \$11,000 for each of 68 calls made by Dynasty to 50
    residential telephone consumers in Arizona and California between
    March 2, 2004 and January 20, 2005.

# Background

2.  The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in
    the Commission's Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in this
    matter[^2] and need not be reiterated at length. Dynasty offers
    mortgage financing services, and uses telephone solicitation as a
    means of advertising those services. Like other entities that employ
    telephone solicitations to promote commercially-available property,
    goods, or services, Dynasty is subject to do-not-call provisions
    contained in section 64.1200 of the Commission's rules.[^3] Section
    64.1200 incorporates two options for residential telephone consumers
    who wish to limit unwanted telephone solicitations: an opportunity
    to opt out of most telemarketing by signing on to the National
    Do-Not-Call Registry and an opportunity to direct particular
    entities to refrain from telemarketing by making a company-specific
    do-not-call request.[^4] Dynasty's calls that are subject to
    forfeiture herein relate exclusively to provisions governing the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry.

3.  Section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules requires that "no
    person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation . . . to
    . . . a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or
    her telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry of persons
    who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is
    maintained by the federal government."[^5] Not every promotional
    call, however, constitutes a prohibited telephone solicitation under
    this rule. As established by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
    the term "telephone solicitation" does not include calls (1) to any
    person with that person's prior express invitation or
    permission;[^6] (2) to any person with whom the caller has an
    established business relationship;[^7] or (3) by or on behalf of a
    tax-exempt nonprofit organization.[^8] Accordingly, an advertising
    call that falls within one of these statutory exclusions does not
    violate section 64.1200(c)(2). In addition to the statutory
    exemptions, section 64.1200(c)(2)(iii) also permits delivery of
    telephone solicitations to National Do-Not-Call registrants in the
    limited situation in which the caller has a personal relationship
    with the called party.[^9] Moreover, religious and political
    messages are not considered to be "telephone solicitations" and are,
    therefore, exempt from the Commission's National Do-Not-Call
    rules.[^10]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  To protect against prohibited telemarketing calls, entities that
    advertise through telephone solicitations are required to pay fees
    to access the National Do-Not-Call Registry and must "scrub" their
    call lists of non-exempt residential telephone numbers contained in
    the Registry.[^11] Recognizing that parties who have made good faith
    efforts to comply with the national do-not-call rules may,
    nonetheless, occasionally make some calls in error to registered
    telephone lines, the Commission established standards for a safe
    harbor exemption from liability.[^12]

5.  To qualify for safe harbor protection, a seller must first
    demonstrate that, as part of its routine business practice, it
    has: (1) established and implemented written procedures to comply
    with the do-not-call rules; (2) trained its personnel, and any
    entity assisting in its compliance, in the procedures established
    pursuant to the do-not-call rules; (3) maintained and recorded a
    list of telephone numbers the seller may not contact; (4) used a
    process to prevent telemarketing to any telephone number on any list
    established pursuant to the do-not-call rules, employing a version
    of the National Do-Not-Call Registry obtained from the administrator
    of the Registry within a designated time frame,[^13] and has
    maintained records documenting this process; and (5) used a process
    to ensure that it does not sell, rent, lease, purchase, or use the
    Registry for any purpose except national do-not-call compliance, and
    that it has purchased access to the Registry from the Registry
    administrator without participating in any cost sharing arrangement
    with any other entity. Finally, the safe harbor only applies if the
    seller is able to show that the unlawful calls were the result of
    identifiable error and made in spite of adherence to the enumerated
    do-not-call procedures.[^14]

6.  The Telecommunications Consumers Division ("Division") of the
    Commission's Enforcement Bureau began investigating Dynasty in
    October 2003 in conjunction with its review of consumer complaint
    data involving calls made to telephone numbers contained in the
    then-new National Do-Not-Call Registry.[^15] The Division found a
    significant volume of complaints involving Dynasty, and in October
    and November 2003, sent letters to Dynasty seeking information both
    about its telemarketing practices generally and about specific
    complaints from consumers who allegedly received calls from Dynasty
    despite their registration on the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry.[^16] After Dynasty failed to respond, the Division issued
    a citation[^17] against Dynasty on December 22, 2003.[^18] The
    citation warned Dynasty that future delivery of telephone
    solicitations to residential consumers registered on the National
    Do-Not-Call Registry could subject it to monetary forfeitures of up
    to \$11,000 per call. In addition, the citation informed Dynasty
    that it could, within 30 days of the citation, either have a
    personal interview at a Commission field office or submit a written
    response to the citation.

7.  Dynasty representatives contacted the Division by telephone in early
    January 2004. Initially, a Dynasty representative claimed that
    Dynasty was exempt from federal do-not-call regulations.[^19] Later,
    after Dynasty apparently terminated that representative's
    employment, Dynasty acknowledged its obligation to comply with the
    Commission's do-not-call rules during telephone conversations with
    the Division.[^20] Finally, by letter dated February 20, 2004,
    Dynasty responded in writing to the citation, reiterating the
    information provided orally: that Dynasty's failure to honor its
    do-not-call obligations and to respond timely to the Division's
    citation was attributable to incorrect advice from its terminated
    contract-employee, and that do-not-call compliance was now a
    priority for Dynasty.[^21]

8.  Despite Dynasty's assurances, consumers whose residential telephone
    numbers are registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
    continued to complain about telephone solicitations made by Dynasty.
    Accordingly, on July 6, 2004, the Division sent to Dynasty a Letter
    of Inquiry ("LOI") seeking information about consumer complaints
    received after issuance of the citation, 45 of which were filed
    after Dynasty's February 20 letter. The LOI directed Dynasty to
    provide information regarding each complaint including, *inter
    alia*, whether and why it called the complainants. In addition, the
    LOI sought information regarding Dynasty's internal procedures to
    ensure compliance with the National Do-Not-Call Registry and its own
    company-specific do-not-call list.

9.  Dynasty responded to the LOI on July 28, 2004. Dynasty provided some
    information regarding its do-not-call efforts but did not fully
    answer the LOI. In particular, Dynasty did not address the
    complaints individually; instead it provided a broad general
    response regarding the purpose of its telephone solicitations.
    Dynasty did not deny making the calls in question but appeared to
    invoke the safe harbor defense, claiming to have routine business
    practices largely consistent with the safe harbor standards set
    forth in section 64.1200(c)(2)(i). As consumers continued to
    complain about Dynasty's telemarketing calls, the Division pursued
    its investigation, reviewing Dynasty's submission and contacting
    complaining consumers to obtain more information about the calls
    they had received.

10. On March 1, 2005, the Commission issued the *Dynasty NAL* to propose
    a forfeiture penalty against Dynasty for 70 telephone solicitations
    allegedly made to residential telephone subscribers who had placed
    their numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.[^22] On the
    basis of information provided by call recipients and Dynasty itself,
    along with review of FTC National Registry documentation, the *NAL*
    concludes that (1) Dynasty's calls were telephone solicitations made
    in violation of the Commission's national do-not-call
    requirements; (2) Dynasty had failed to demonstrate that it
    qualified for the safe harbor from liability; and (3) the maximum
    forfeiture should be applied given Dynasty's failure to implement
    effective national do-not-call procedures and its handling of the
    calls. Supporting these findings are sworn declarations from each
    consumer that outline the receipt of Dynasty's call(s) and attest to
    the lack of any mitigating factors that might justify a telephone
    solicitation, such as a transaction with or inquiry to Dynasty or
    explicit permission for Dynasty to solicit.[^23]

11. Responding to the *NAL*, Dynasty initially submitted a brief letter
    challenging the proposed forfeiture. Subsequently, it filed a
    voluminous submission to explain and document its assertion that it
    should not be held liable for the calls at issue.[^24] In short,
    Dynasty contends that it has implemented comprehensive procedures to
    prevent telephone solicitations to consumers on the National
    Do-Not-Call Registry, and that any calls reaching registered
    consumers were made unintentionally and constitute a miniscule
    percentage of its total telemarketing calls. Further, although
    Dynasty concedes that it placed 21 of the calls subject to
    forfeiture herein, it disputes the remaining 47 calls[^25] for
    various reasons including that some calls could not or may not have
    been made and that some consumers actually were not on the
    Do-Not-Call Registry. Finally, Dynasty also argues that "imposing
    any forfeiture would ultimately bankrupt this company."[^26]

12. With respect to Dynasty's claim of financial hardship, the Division
    urged Dynasty to provide a more thorough explanation of its
    financial status and to fully document and authenticate its
    financial claims.[^27] To date, Dynasty has not provided this
    information or responded to the Division's request.

# discussion

13. At the outset, we have carefully reviewed records pertaining to each
    of the 70 telephone solicitations addressed in the *Dynasty NAL*. We
    have considered Dynasty's NAL Response and conclude that with
    respect to 68 of the calls, Dynasty has failed to present evidence
    to warrant rescinding or reducing the proposed forfeiture for these
    violations. Dynasty's arguments against forfeiture are rooted in
    three assertions: (1) that some of the calls subject to forfeiture
    either were not made or cannot be proven to have been made; (2) that
    Dynasty has comprehensive procedures to prevent telemarketing to
    consumers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and that any calls
    made in spite of these procedures are excusable error, falling
    within the safe harbor from liability; and (3) that any forfeiture
    threatens Dynasty's financial solvency. We address these contentions
    below. Finally, we are rescinding the proposed forfeiture with
    respect to two calls because they were made one day before the
    recipient's Do-Not-Call registration became effective and, thus, do
    not constitute violations.[^28]

## Dynasty Has Not Rebutted Evidence of Unlawful Telemarketing Calls

14. Based upon review of its telemarketing records, Dynasty claims that
    45 of the 68 calls subject to forfeiture here either were not made
    or cannot conclusively be confirmed to have been made.[^29]
    Specifically, Dynasty denies making nine calls and notes that it
    either does not have records, or its records are inconclusive with
    respect to 36 of the disputed calls.[^30] In summary, Dynasty (1)
    admits making 21 unlawful calls, (2) is unable to confirm or deny
    making 36 calls,[^31] (3) denies making nine calls, and (4) alleges
    that two calls went to telephone numbers that were not on the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry.

15. We find Dynasty's claims unpersuasive. With respect to the 45 calls
    that Dynasty either denies or is unable to confirm, we note again
    that each of the 50 consumers who filed a complaint about receiving
    calls from Dynasty has signed, under penalty of perjury, a
    declaration that details the circumstances surrounding the call or
    calls that each claims to have received.[^32] The fact that Dynasty
    cannot independently confirm each of the 45 disputed calls at issue
    does not establish that the calls were not made. First, as Dynasty
    admits, 21 of these calls were made prior to full implantation of
    its automated calling system, and it retained no records that would
    indicate whether or not it placed the calls.[^33] Second, given that
    the record indicates that Dynasty's attention to its telemarketing
    obligations during the time period at issue was incomplete at
    best,[^34] we believe that the sworn statements provided by
    consumers are more reliable than Dynasty's records, even over those
    generated by Dynasty's automated telemarketing operations.[^35] In
    this regard, we also note that Dynasty's automated telemarketing
    system is not the only means by which Dynasty's telemarketing calls
    could be made. In fact, Dynasty itself raises questions about the
    reliability of its telemarketing workforce, specifically suggesting
    that personnel eager to meet or exceed sales goals may have made
    unauthorized calls not permitted under Dynasty's own national
    do-not-call policies.[^36]

16. We also reject Dynasty's more specific claims regarding particular
    calls. Dynasty is incorrect in claiming that two consumers who
    reported receiving a total of six calls[^37] were not on the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry at the time they were called. The
    telephone numbers that Dynasty associates with the consumers at
    issue, however, are not the telephone numbers reported by the
    complainants.[^38] The residential numbers provided by the two
    consumers were indeed registered on the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry for the required time as of the date of the calls.[^39]

17. We are also unpersuaded by Dynasty's assertion that three calls
    cannot have occurred because the originating telephone number
    obtained by the complainants through caller ID cannot be used to
    make outgoing telephone calls. [^40] It is unclear whether Dynasty
    is asserting that it is actually physically impossible to make
    outgoing telephone calls from the number in question, which is the
    main telephone number for Dynasty's San Diego office, or that
    placing such calls violates company policy because it could tie up
    the office telephone system.[^41] We also note that telemarketers
    may lawfully transmit through caller ID any telephone number
    associated with the telemarketer or party on whose behalf a call is
    made, as long as the transmitted number allows the consumer to
    identify the caller.[^42] A telemarketer or seller such as Dynasty
    could, therefore, transmit the main office or customer service
    telephone number in lieu of the actual telephone numbers from which
    calls were placed. Again, given Dynasty's uncertain support for its
    assertion, we believe that the complainants' sworn declarations are
    the more reliable source.

18. In short, Dynasty has failed to demonstrate that it did not make any
    of the 68 calls subject to forfeiture and detailed in complainants'
    sworn declarations. We turn next to whether these calls fall within
    the safe harbor from liability.

## Dynasty's Practices during the Period March 2004 -- January 2005 Do Not Satisfy All Safe Harbor Criteria

19. The safe harbor from liability for unlawful telemarketing calls
    applies only when a seller meets each of five separate operational
    criteria and also demonstrates that any unlawful calls were made as
    a result of identifiable error. The *Dynasty NAL* discusses in
    detail various aspects of Dynasty's operations that preclude
    application of the safe harbor defense to the 68 calls at issue. In
    determining whether those calls fall within the safe harbor from
    liability, the *NAL* examined information supplied by Dynasty in
    response to the LOI; the complainants' declarations; and data
    maintained by the FTC in connection with the National Registry. We
    need not repeat the *NAL'*s detailed analysis of how that
    information, available to the Commission as of March 2005, was
    inconsistent with safe harbor standards.[^43] Instead, we focus our
    discussion now on the new information provided by Dynasty in its NAL
    Response to determine whether that information alters our previous
    conclusions regarding Dynasty's failure to demonstrate applicability
    of the safe harbor defense.

20. As set forth below, and reflected in Appendix A, we find that 51 of
    Dynasty's calls do not fall within the safe harbor because they were
    made during a period that Dynasty either had not accessed relevant
    portions of the National Do-Not-Call Registry at all or had not
    obtained updated versions of the Registry. The remaining 17 calls
    were made at times when Dynasty had obtained relevant portions of
    the Registry within required time frames. We find, nonetheless, that
    Dynasty has failed to demonstrate that the safe harbor applies to
    those 17 calls. The evidence before us does not show that Dynasty
    conducted the required scrubs of its call lists or fully implemented
    an accurate and effective written national do-not-call policy during
    any part of the forfeiture period. Because Dynasty failed to meet
    these safe harbor criteria, it is liable for the calls at issue.

### Accessing the National Do-Not-Call Database -- Section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D)

21. Under section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D), the safe harbor defense reflects
    the linchpin of sellers' national do-not-call obligations: the
    requirement to refrain from calling residential telephone consumers
    who have placed their numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
    Accordingly, section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D) limits the safe harbor
    defense to an entity that can demonstrate, *inter alia*, that as
    part of its routine business practices, it "use\[s\] a process to
    prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone number on any list
    established pursuant to the do-not-call rules, employing a version
    of the national do-not-call registry obtained from the administrator
    of the registry . . . \[within a specified timeframe\],[^44] and
    maintains records documenting this process."[^45]

22. This safe harbor provision thus contains three distinct
    elements: (1) the requirement to access the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry at appointed times to obtain numbers that may not be
    called; (2) the requirement to have a routine process for using that
    information to prevent delivery of unlawful telephone solicitations,
    *i.e.*, scrubbing telemarketing lists; and (3) the requirement to
    maintain records that document such access to and use of the
    Registry.

23. To facilitate access to the Registry, the FTC assigns a unique
    subscription account number ("SAN") to each entity that purchases
    the right to access the Registry. The FTC maintains a database,
    which is available to law enforcement entities such as this
    Commission, that records each time that a particular SAN is used to
    obtain the Registry and what portion (*i.e.*, area codes) of the
    Registry is accessed. The FTC thus maintains records that document
    whether a seller has complied with requirements governing the means
    and timing of accessing the Registry. [^46] For 62 of the calls at
    issue here, Dynasty was required to use a version of the Do-Not-Call
    Registry obtained no more than three months prior to the date it
    made any telemarketing call. Six calls made by Dynasty after January
    1, 2005 are subject to a rule amendment that requires use of a
    version of the Registry obtained no more than 31 days before any
    telemarketing call.[^47]

#### Dynasty Has Failed to Access the National Do-Not-Call Registry at Appointed Times to Obtain Numbers That May Not Be Called

24. As emphasized in the *Dynasty NAL*, Dynasty did not access the
    Registry at all between March 15, 2004 and January 6, 2005.[^48]
    During this almost ten month period, Dynasty missed three deadlines
    -- June 8-15, 2004; September 8-15, 2004; and December 8-15, 2004 --
    to obtain relevant portions of the Registry in order to scrub its
    telemarketing lists within the three-month period then in effect.
    Dynasty made 45 calls that are subject to forfeiture herein during
    the lapsed period from June 8-15, 2004 until January 5, 2005. In
    addition, six of the calls at issue herein were made between March 2
    and March 9, 2004 before Dynasty even accessed appropriate portions
    of the Registry for the first time. Dynasty made 51 calls,
    therefore, either using outdated Registry information or no
    information at all.

25. Dynasty's 2004 telemarketing plan appears to have called for Dynasty
    to access the National Do-Not-Call Registry through third party lead
    generators that it hired to obtain relevant portions of the Registry
    on its behalf, using its SAN, and then providing scrubbed call
    lists.[^49] Dynasty does not allege that any of its lead generators
    either failed to obtain the Registry as ordered by Dynasty or to
    properly scrub call lists; instead Dynasty briefly addresses the
    lapse in accessing the Registry by referring to "stretching call
    lists usage."[^50] It appears, therefore, that Dynasty consciously
    used outdated call lists for over five months. Moreover, in March
    2004 -- more than a month after a Dynasty representative orally
    admitted to Division staff the company's obligation to comply with
    the Commission's national do-not-call requirements and more than two
    weeks after Dynasty's president committed, in writing, to prompt and
    rigorous compliance[^51] -- Dynasty made calls without ever having
    accessed relevant portions of the Registry.[^52] For the 51 calls
    made using either outdated National Registry data or no data at all,
    Dynasty's safe harbor defense fails on these facts alone. While
    acceptable written do-not-call policies, training techniques, manner
    of recording company-specific do-not-call requests, and actual
    scrubbing of call lists may differ from seller to seller, the safe
    harbor affords no discretion or variation as to a seller's
    obligation to access the National Do-Not-Call Registry at the
    required time.

#### Dynasty Has Failed to Demonstrate That It Implemented a Routine Process to Use Information from the National Do-Not-Call Registry to Prevent Delivery of Unlawful Telephone Solicitations 

26. It is clear that Dynasty could not have properly scrubbed any call
    list during the period June 8-15, 2004 through January 5, 2005; its
    failure to access the National Do-Not-Call Registry during this
    period precludes any acceptable scrub. Further, even apart from this
    period, evidence suggests that Dynasty never completely scrubbed all
    its call lists.

27. Either Dynasty or its third party lead generators accessed the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry on March 8-15, 2004 and January
    6, 2005. Evidence does not establish, however, that Dynasty actually
    *used* the Registry data accessed at these times to implement "a
    process to prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone number"
    on the Registry as required by section 64.1200(c)(2)(1)(D). Despite
    its obligation to maintain records documenting its actions,[^53]
    Dynasty does not present evidence that either the company itself or
    its third party lead generators successfully scrubbed all of
    Dynasty's call lists. Dynasty provides invoices from five lead
    generators relating to its purchase of lead lists intermittently
    over the period December 2003 through February 2005.[^54] These
    records do not demonstrate that Dynasty consistently purchased
    scrubbed call lists, much less that it took steps to ensure that it
    actually used only scrubbed call lists. Of the 16 invoices provided
    by Dynasty, only one lists Dynasty's SAN that must be used to access
    the National Do-Not-Call Registry on Dynasty's behalf;[^55] 12
    invoices, on the other hand, contain no entry in the space on the
    form marked "SAN." One invoice contains the entry "Scrubbed Against
    the National Do Not Call List."[^56] Some invoices specify area
    codes for which Dynasty purchased leads while others contain generic
    descriptions such as "homeowners." These scattered and vague records
    do not establish that Dynasty consistently purchased scrubbed call
    lists or that it took steps to ensure that every call list it used
    was properly scrubbed. The mere fact that on occasion Dynasty
    accessed the Registry itself or obtained scrubbed call lists does
    not mean that it actually used such lists properly.

28. The lack of documentation in the record to prove that Dynasty
    actually purchased scrubbed call lists or produced them on its own
    is not the only factor that raises questions as to whether Dynasty
    properly used information from the National Do-Not-Call Registry
    after its March 2004 and January 2005 access. Dynasty suggests that
    its failure to obtain updated versions of the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry may have resulted in calls to newly-registered
    consumers.[^57] The record, however, indicates that 23 of the 32
    complainants that Dynasty called between June 8, 2004 and January 5,
    2005 -- the period during which it failed to obtain updated versions
    of the Registry -- had, in fact, been registered on the version of
    the Registry obtained by Dynasty or by its lead generators in
    March 2004. In short, even though Dynasty failed to obtain updated
    Registry information, it could have prevented 29 of the 45 unlawful
    telemarketing calls made during the lapsed period simply by using
    the March 2004 versions of the Registry, which it possessed at the
    time it made the calls.

29. Finally, although Dynasty accessed the Registry for a second time on
    January 6, 2005, it did not access the Registry again until March 2,
    2005, one day after the *Dynasty NAL* was released and served upon
    Dynasty via fax.[^58] Dynasty thus failed to access the Registry in
    February 2005 as required. Although, the *NAL* does not include any
    calls made in February or March 2005 after Dynasty's January 6
    access expired, Dynasty's continued failure to timely access the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry is yet further support for our finding
    that it failed to fully implement a process whereby it used the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry to prevent delivery of telephone
    solicitations to registered numbers.

#### Dynasty Has Failed to Demonstrate That It Has Maintained Records Documenting Access to and Use of the National Do-Not-Call Registry

30. Section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D) conditions a safe harbor defense upon a
    seller's maintenance of records documenting access to and use of the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry. As provided in Dynasty's April 12 NAL
    Response, documentation for the period March 2, 2004 through January
    20, 2005 is incomplete and inconclusive. The only documentation
    submitted by Dynasty related to its access to the Registry or scrubs
    of its call lists are the 16 invoices described above, which fail to
    demonstrate that Dynasty properly or completely scrubbed its call
    lists during the forfeiture period.[^59] In fact, Dynasty does not
    provide any records that document its March 2004 and January 2005
    access to the National Do-Not-Call Registry; were it not for the FTC
    records regarding these access dates, which Commission staff
    acquired, there would be no clear and conclusive documentation that
    Dynasty's SAN was ever used to obtain the Registry.

> **2. *Written Procedures* -- Section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A)**

31. To qualify for the safe harbor exemption, a seller must demonstrate
    that as part of its routine business practice, "it has established
    and implemented written procedures to comply with the national
    do-not-call rules."[^60] In its NAL Response, Dynasty describes at
    length the procedures that it has adopted to prevent telemarketing
    calls to consumers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and to
    others who have told Dynasty that they do not wish to receive its
    telephone solicitations. We emphasize, however, that Dynasty's
    current compliance plan and telemarketing operations are not at
    issue here.

32. According to Dynasty, it immediately took steps to implement
    effective national do-not-call procedures when it realized in late
    January 2004 that it must honor the National Do-Not-Call Registry,
    contrary to its contractor's advice.[^61] Dynasty states that it
    made significant and immediate changes to its telemarketing
    operations while it worked to develop an automated calling system,
    which it introduced on June 1, 2004 to replace its paper-based
    system for maintaining both telemarketing "leads" and the
    company-specific do-not-call list.[^62] In its NAL Response, Dynasty
    provides detailed descriptions of both its automated and paper-based
    systems for complying with both national and company-specific
    do-not-call requirements along with its training materials and its
    formal do-not-call policy. These materials stand in stark contrast
    to the summary responses and scant documentation that Dynasty
    provided in July 2004 in response to the Division's LOI, and it is
    difficult to understand why Dynasty would not have provided the
    Division with complete descriptions and internal company records in
    response to the LOI, which explicitly directed their submission.
    Even assuming, however, that the detailed telemarketing handbook,
    training materials, and other written procedures set forth in
    Dynasty's April 12 NAL Response existed during the forfeiture
    period, Dynasty does not meet the criteria established by section
    64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A).

33. A compliance plan, however well-conceived and expressed, is
    meaningless if it is not fully implemented. Dynasty clearly failed
    multiple times to implement a critical element. Dynasty's Telephone
    Solicitation Policy calls for the company to access the National
    Do-Not-Call Registry every eight to ten weeks until January 1,
    2005[^63] when access was required every month.[^64] As detailed
    above and in the *NAL*, Dynasty missed three deadlines for accessing
    the Registry during the period June 15, 2004 to January 5, 2005. In
    addition, when Dynasty actually did access the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry (March 8-15, 2004 and January 6, 2005), evidence does not
    establish that Dynasty effectively used the Registry in the manner
    described in its April 12 NAL Response narrative and accompanying
    internal documents. These failures to follow its own procedures to
    both access the National Do-Not-Call Registry at required intervals
    and use such information to prevent unlawful telephone solicitations
    not only fall short of the safe harbor standard to properly access
    and use the National Do-Not-Call Registry but also separately
    indicate that Dynasty did not effectively or fully implement its
    written procedures. On this basis, Dynasty does not meet the safe
    harbor standard contained in section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A).

34. The evidence in the record makes it difficult to avoid the
    conclusion that careful implementation of a national do-not-call
    compliance plan did not become a priority for Dynasty until after
    issuance of the *Dynasty NAL*. Dynasty provided detailed written
    materials concerning such a plan to the Commission only in response
    to the *NAL*, despite the fact that the staff specifically requested
    such records in the July 2004 LOI. This conclusion is further
    supported by evidence establishing that Dynasty only began regularly
    accessing the National Do-Not-Call Registry within the required time
    interval after the *Dynasty NAL*.[^65] Such a record cannot support
    a finding that Dynasty properly implemented its written compliance
    plan during the forfeiture period.[^66]

> **3. *Training of Personnel* -- Section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(B)**

35. Section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(B) of the safe harbor defense requires a
    seller to demonstrate that as part of its routine business practice,
    "it has trained its personnel, and any entity assisting in its
    compliance, in procedures established pursuant to the national
    do-not-call rules."[^67] In the *Dynasty NAL*, we found that
    Dynasty's LOI response did not reasonably demonstrate the existence
    of an adequate training program to meet this safe harbor
    requirement. By contrast, the materials provided by Dynasty in its
    NAL Response detail a rigorous telemarketing training program that
    includes, as a primary component, Dynasty's obligations with respect
    to both national and company-specific do-not-call requirements. We
    have no information, however, to verify that such training was
    conducted during the time frame in question or in the manner
    described in Dynasty's most recent pleading. Further, claims made by
    Dynasty telemarketers to consumers who questioned or challenged
    Dynasty's calls raise questions as to whether Dynasty accurately and
    effectively educated its personnel.[^68] Nonetheless, because we
    have determined above that Dynasty has not met other safe harbor
    criteria, we need not rule here on the adequacy of its training
    program during the forfeiture period.

> **4. *Purchasing the Registry* -- Section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(E)**

36. The safe harbor requires a telephone solicitor to demonstrate that
    it "uses a process to ensure that it does not sell, rent, lease,
    purchase, or use the national do-not-call database, or any part
    thereof, for any purpose except compliance with \[the do-not-call
    rules\] and any such state or federal law to prevent telephone
    solicitations to telephone number registered on the national
    database."[^69] It must demonstrate that it "purchases access to the
    relevant do-not-call data from the administrator of the national
    database and does not participate in any arrangement to share the
    cost of accessing the national database, including any arrangement
    with telemarketers who may not divide the cost to access the
    national database among various client sellers."[^70] Dynasty's LOI
    response failed to provide any information or statement regarding
    this aspect of the safe harbor, and the *NAL* so noted this
    deficiency. In its April 122 NAL Response, however, Dynasty states
    that it (1) purchases the National Do-Not-Call Registry from the
    administrator; (2) uses the National Do-Not-Call Registry solely for
    compliance with do-not-call requirements; and (3) does not
    participate in any arrangement to share costs of accessing the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry.[^71] We have no reason to question
    Dynasty's assertions in this regard. Compliance with a single safe
    harbor requirement, however, does not remove liability for unlawful
    calls.

> **5. *Error* -- Section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)**

37. The error aspect of the safe harbor defense exempts from liability
    telephone solicitations that are the result of specific identifiable
    errors that occurred during telemarketing conducted in compliance
    with each do-not-call safe harbor provision contained in section
    64.1200(c)(2)(i). Accordingly, failure to meet a single safe harbor
    standard renders error irrelevant. Moreover, as emphasized in the
    *Dynasty NAL*, the error defense does not apply simply because an
    entity meets all other safe harbor criteria.[^72] Instead, once an
    entity has demonstrated compliance with each safe harbor
    standard,[^73] it may then invoke an error claim by showing that
    unlawful telephone solicitation occurred as a result of a specific
    error. As explained above, we conclude that Dynasty has failed to
    demonstrate compliance with at least two safe harbor standards for
    the time frame at issue, and thus cannot claim the safe harbor
    defense even if it were able to demonstrate that particular calls
    are attributable to identifiable errors.

38. Dynasty's NAL Response claims stringent procedures to ensure
    compliance with National Do-Not-Call rules and appears to suggest
    that any unlawful calls should be found to have been made in error.
    In this regard, Dynasty compares the total number of telemarketing
    calls that it has made during various periods between February 2004
    and March 2005 against the number of national do-not-complaints
    lodged against it during those time frames, yielding claimed
    complaint rates between .00014 and .00129 percent.[^74] According to
    Dynasty, these miniscule complaint levels attest to the efficacy of
    its do-not-call practices and demonstrate that any unlawful calls
    are the result of error.

39. Further, although Dynasty does not indicate that it has discovered
    specific events or oversights that may have caused such alleged
    errors,[^75] it outlines possible breakdowns that could lead to
    unlawful calls being made outside its normal do-not-call
    procedures.[^76]

40. Dynasty's arguments about complaint levels and possible glitches in
    national do-not-call compliance might be credible if it had fully
    implemented its compliance plan and accessed the National
    Do-Not-Call Registry as required, but it did not. In addition, some
    of the possible breakdowns to national do-not-call compliance that
    Dynasty posits are more indicative of an inherently flawed
    compliance program than error.[^77]

41. Finally, Dynasty appears to misunderstand the interplay between
    error and intent. While intent is relevant in assessing whether an
    unlawful telephone solicitation made by an otherwise compliant
    telemarketer constitutes error, [^78] a call is not made in error
    simply because a telemarketer did not intend to violate national
    do-not-call requirements or did not intend to call numbers on the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry. Whatever a seller's specific intent
    in making a particular telemarketing call, calling a number on the
    National Registry cannot be deemed unintentional when a seller has
    failed to implement basic threshold procedures to guard against
    making such calls. Further, it does not matter whether or not a
    seller's failure to implement is intentional when such failure is
    substantial, pervasive, and recurring. The safe harbor in our rules
    thus recognizes that a telemarketer's intent to avoid unlawful calls
    is best evidenced by detailed compliance procedures and adherence to
    basic requirements such as timely access to the Registry. In short,
    the error defense only applies to unlawful actions that occur
    despite comprehensive policies and procedures to prevent them.
    Dynasty clearly did not adhere to such procedures during the
    forfeiture period.

## Dynasty Has Failed to Show that the Proposed Forfeiture for 68 Calls Should Be Reduced or Canceled

42. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
    forfeiture of up to \$11,000 for each violation of the Act or of any
    rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act,
    by a non-common carrier or other entity not specifically designated
    in section 503 of the Act.[^79] In exercising such authority, we are
    to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
    other matters as justice may require."[^80]

43. The *Dynasty NAL* proposes the maximum forfeiture of \$11,000 for
    each alleged violation of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's
    rules. Although the *Dynasty NAL* is the Commission's first proposed
    forfeiture for violations of the national do-not-call rules, we
    determined that a national do-not-call violation implicates the same
    concern as a violation of the company-specific do-not-call rules
    and, accordingly, applied the \$10,000 base amount that the
    Commission had previously proposed for company-specific do-not-call
    violations.[^81] In Dynasty's case, we adjusted the base amount
    upward to the \$11,000 maximum to reflect that (1) Dynasty's
    practices were "wholly inadequate" to promote compliance with
    national do-not-call rules; (2) Dynasty's violations continued
    despite being informed by the Commission's staff that it was relying
    upon a non-existent exemption to justify its calls; and (3) Dynasty
    continued to misinform consumers that it is exempt from national
    do-not-call rules even after admitting, in correspondence to the
    Commission, that it is subject to these rules.[^82]

44. In the NAL Response, Dynasty seeks cancellation of the forfeiture
    claiming that it has implemented a rigorous and costly national
    do-not-call plan on short notice and that it did not willfully make
    telephone solicitations to consumers on the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry.[^83] Finally, Dynasty contends that imposition of any
    forfeiture threatens its financial solvency. For the reasons set
    forth below, we find that Dynasty has failed to present evidence
    justifying reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture with
    respect to the 68 calls at issue here.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **Dynasty's Conduct**

    45. Dynasty failed to meet critical elements of its obligations
        under the Commission's national do-not-call rules, most notably
        the threshold duties to timely access the National Do-Not-Call
        Registry and scrub its telemarketing lists to ensure that calls
        are not made to registered numbers.[^84] Dynasty's record thus
        belies its claim to have implemented an effective national
        do-not-call compliance plan during the forfeiture period.
        Dynasty chose to engage in telemarketing without ensuring
        compliance with the most basic do-not-call requirements mandated
        by section 64.1200(c)(2), resulting in multiple calls to
        consumers registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.[^85]
        Regardless of Dynasty's intentions, its violations are,
        therefore, both willful and repeated.[^86]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
46. Dynasty's NAL Response provides detailed information about the steps
    it has taken to comply with national do-not-call rules.[^87]
    Whatever Dynasty's current procedures may be, however, we must
    consider here the state of Dynasty's compliance at the time it made
    the calls currently at issue. Even if Dynasty ultimately brought its
    telemarketing activities into full and consistent compliance with
    national do-not-call rules,[^88] that fact alone would not militate
    against forfeiture.[^89] Consumers should be able to expect that
    sellers who choose to use telemarketing to advertise their property,
    goods, or services will comply with do-not-call requirements without
    the necessity of costly and time-consuming enforcement actions.

47. As emphasized in the *NAL*, our initial goal in this case was to
    seek Dynasty's compliance with the law; not to seek a
    forfeiture.[^90] First, as required by the Act, we issued a citation
    to Dynasty, warning it specifically about its non-compliance and
    requesting that it take corrective action immediately. Next, after
    the citation was issued, we took into consideration its assertion
    regarding the basis for its initial noncompliance and its claim of
    immediate remedial actions, and we then monitored complaints filed
    against Dynasty rather than beginning a forfeiture action
    immediately. We commenced our forfeiture action only after complaint
    levels indicated that Dynasty was still making unlawful telephone
    solicitations and Dynasty's response to our LOI revealed the
    insufficiency of Dynasty's national do-not-call compliance program.
    Nonetheless, we did not impose a forfeiture for any calls made by
    Dynasty before its February 20, 2004 letter to the Division, which
    formally acknowledged its do-not-call obligations and pledged
    effective enforcement. Dynasty has not met even minimal compliance
    standards. Its conduct, therefore, does not merit reduction or
    cancellation of the proposed forfeiture for the 68 unlawful calls.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **Financial Hardship**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
48. Dynasty details its financial challenges and submits numerous
    financial documents to support its claim that any forfeiture would
    threaten its financial solvency, jeopardizing the continued
    operation of both the Arizona and California entities.[^91] As
    explained in the *Dynasty NAL*, the Commission will not consider
    reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of
    inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax
    returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial
    statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting
    practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and objective
    documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
    financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
    identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
    documentation submitted.[^92] Despite these clear requirements,
    Dynasty does not include a succinct statement of its financial
    status beyond a summary assertion regarding its liabilities. More
    critically, Dynasty fails to provide the documentation necessary to
    justify reducing or canceling the forfeiture based on financial
    hardship. Dynasty has not provided any federal tax returns to
    support its hardship claim. Further, although Dynasty has submitted
    over 30 pages of financial records pertaining to its Arizona and
    California companies, crucial information is missing. Dynasty
    provides various bank account records, profit and loss statements,
    and balance sheets along with copies of sworn statements from its
    president and chief operating officer attesting to the accuracy of
    unidentified financial records. We cannot be certain, however, as to
    which records the sworn statements pertain because these statements
    actually predate some of Dynasty's financial documentation. In
    addition, the documentation does not include 2004 financial data for
    Dynasty's California operations despite indication to the contrary
    in the NAL Response. This omission prevents our consideration of a
    key factor necessary to assess Dynasty's financial status and
    hardship claim: its total gross revenues. Commission staff urged
    Dynasty to provide a more complete and clear financial showing,
    including copies of its federal tax returns, yet Dynasty has not to
    date responded.[^93] Dynasty's incomplete showing fails to reliably
    and objectively document the company's financial status and, thus,
    does not justify reducing or canceling the forfeiture.

#  Conclusion and Ordering Clauses

49. After reviewing the information and documentation filed by Dynasty
    in its NAL Response, we find that Dynasty has failed to identify
    facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is a reasonable
    basis for modifying the forfeiture proposed in the *Dynasty NAL*
    with respect to the 68 telephone solicitations listed in Appendix A.
    As discussed above, Dynasty has failed to show any mitigating
    circumstances or demonstrate financial hardship sufficient to
    warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. We are, however,
    canceling the proposed forfeiture with respect two calls that were
    made one day before effectuation of the call recipient's national
    do-not-call registration.

50. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and
    section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    1.80(f)(4), that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. SHALL FORFEIT to the
    United States Government the sum of \$748,000 for willfully and
    repeatedly violating of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's
    rules, as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in
    Appendix A. We find that Dynasty's Arizona and California companies
    are jointly and severally liable for this forfeiture because of
    their common ownership and operations, and the fact that they have
    acted in concert to deliver telephone solicitations.

51. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for
    in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the
    release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of
    Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.[^94]
    Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar
    instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No.
    referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to
    Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA
    15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon Bank /LB
    358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment
    by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank
    Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106. Requests for full payment
    under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and
    Receivables Operations Group, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington,
    D.C., 20554.[^95]

52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
    first class mail and certified mail return receipt to Dynasty
    Mortgage, L.L.C. at: (1) 2633 E. Indian School Rd., Suite 370,
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016; (2) 5701 W. Talavi Blvd., Suite 110,
    Glendale, Arizona 85306; and (3) 4660 E. LaJolla Village Dr., Suite
    400, San Diego, California 92122.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**Appendix A**

**DYNASTY MORTGAGE, L.L.C.**

**NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL VIOLATIONS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Telephone Solicitation Recipient</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Call Recipient’s Area Code</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Call Recipient’s</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C- Registration</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="5"><strong>Dynasty’s Telephone Solicitation</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Caller ID Displayed</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Registration Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Effectuation Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Date of Call</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Date of Dynasty’s Access to</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C Registry</strong> <a href="#fn1" class="footnote-ref"
id="fnref1" role="doc-noteref"><sup>1</sup></a></p></td>
<td><strong>Timely Access to D-N-C Registry</strong></td>
<td><strong>Expired Access to D-N-C Registry</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>No Access to</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C Registry</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td>Adams, Robert</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>8/13/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/3/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td>Atkinson, Nigel</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>6/28/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/31/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td>Berens, Barbara</td>
<td>602 (AZ)</td>
<td>8/18/04</td>
<td>11/18/04</td>
<td>12/27/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>602-218-9221</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td>Bonomo, Robert</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>7/23/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/3/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td>Carlson, Jay E.</td>
<td>623 (AZ)</td>
<td>6/28/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>3/9/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>602-445-9276</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>6</strong></td>
<td>Chute, William P.</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>6/28/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/14/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Dynasty Mortgage</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>7</strong></td>
<td>Demchak, Barry</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>7/26/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>3/26/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>858/362-8695</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>8</strong></td>
<td>Denisac, Frank</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>6/28/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>3/2/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>858-362-8695</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>9</strong></p>
<p><strong>10</strong></p>
<p><strong>11</strong></p></td>
<td>Epps, John</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>6/28/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td><p>7/13/04</p>
<p>8/2/04</p>
<p>8/11/04</p></td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>12</strong></td>
<td>Ferguson, Bruce</td>
<td>760 (CA)</td>
<td>6/27/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/14/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>602-218-9221</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>13</strong></td>
<td>Fernando, E. Joe A. IV</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>7/26/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>4/13/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>14</strong></td>
<td>Finnegan, Philip (Jay)</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>7/26/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>4/12/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Telephone Solicitation Recipient</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Call Recipient’s Area Code</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Call Recipient’s</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C- Registration</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="5"><strong>Dynasty’s Telephone Solicitation</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Caller ID Displayed</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Registration Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Effectuation Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Date of Call</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Date of Dynasty’s Access to</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C Registry</strong> <a href="#fn2" class="footnote-ref"
id="fnref2" role="doc-noteref"><sup>2</sup></a></p></td>
<td><strong>Timely Access to D-N-C Registry</strong></td>
<td><strong>Expired Access to D-N-C Registry</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>No Access to</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C Registry</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>15</strong></td>
<td>Frank, Kevin</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>1/22/04</td>
<td>4/22/04</td>
<td>11/30/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>888-508-5592</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>16</strong></td>
<td>Gittus, Michael</td>
<td>623 (AZ)</td>
<td>7/6/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>6/7/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>602-445-9277</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>17</strong></p>
<p><strong>18</strong></p></td>
<td>Grimes, Larry A.</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>6/28/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td><p>5/10/04</p>
<p>5/11/04</p></td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>858-362-8468</p>
<p>858-362-8598</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>19</strong></td>
<td>Hansen, Patricia</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>6/29/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/7/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>602-218-9221</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>20</strong></td>
<td>Holland, Christopher J.</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>8/6/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>3/5/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td>Holmes, Mark</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>9/22/03</td>
<td>12/22/03</td>
<td>11/22/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>888-508-5592</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>22</strong></td>
<td>Jaycox, Antoinette</td>
<td>480 (AZ)</td>
<td>10/13/03</td>
<td>1/13/04</td>
<td>8/2/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>23</strong></td>
<td>Johnson, Todd</td>
<td>602 (AZ)</td>
<td>4/14/04</td>
<td>7/14/04</td>
<td>10/26/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>24</strong></td>
<td>Kertesz, Joe</td>
<td>480 (AZ)</td>
<td>4/25/04</td>
<td>7/25/04</td>
<td>8/16/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>602-218-9221</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>25</strong></p>
<p><strong>26</strong></p>
<p><strong>27</strong></p></td>
<td>Koepke, Kevin</td>
<td>480 (AZ)</td>
<td>8/2/04</td>
<td>11/2/04</td>
<td><p>1/6/05</p>
<p>1/19/05</p>
<p>1/20/05</p></td>
<td>1/06/05</td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>28</strong></td>
<td>Langevin, Edwin</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>7/26/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>9/27/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Dynasty Mortgage</p>
<p>888-508-5592</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>29</strong></p>
<p><strong>30</strong></p></td>
<td>Lauterbach, Lynette</td>
<td>480 (AZ)</td>
<td>8/16/04</td>
<td>11/16/04</td>
<td><p>12/13/04</p>
<p>12/13/04</p></td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>31</strong></td>
<td>Lewis, Jeffrey</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>6/30/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>7/10/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>32</strong></p>
<p><strong>33</strong></p>
<p><strong>34</strong></p>
<p><strong>35</strong></p></td>
<td>Logan, Michelle</td>
<td>623 (AZ)</td>
<td>5/15/04</td>
<td>8/15/04</td>
<td><p>11/30/04</p>
<p>12/1/04</p>
<p>12/6/04</p>
<p>12/18/04</p></td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p>
<p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Telephone Solicitation Recipient</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Call Recipient’s Area Code</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Call Recipient’s</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C- Registration</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="5"><strong>Dynasty’s Telephone Solicitation</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Caller ID Displayed</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Registration Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Effectuation Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Date of Call</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Date of Dynasty’s Access to</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C Registry</strong> <a href="#fn3" class="footnote-ref"
id="fnref3" role="doc-noteref"><sup>3</sup></a></p></td>
<td><strong>Timely Access to D-N-C Registry</strong></td>
<td><strong>Expired Access to D-N-C Registry</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>No Access to</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C Registry</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>35</strong></td>
<td>Logan, Michelle (cont.)</td>
<td>623 (AZ)</td>
<td>5/15/04</td>
<td>8/15/04</td>
<td>12/19/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>602-218-9221</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>37</strong></p>
<p><strong>38</strong></p>
<p><strong>39</strong></p>
<p><strong>40</strong></p></td>
<td>Madden, William</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>7/26/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td><p>7/8/04</p>
<p>7/19/04</p>
<p>8/11/04</p>
<p>8/18/04</p></td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p>
<p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>41</strong></td>
<td>Marler, James</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>6/29/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>7/19/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>42</strong></td>
<td>McKenzie, James</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>7/1/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>12/7/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>43</strong></td>
<td>McKenzie, Thomas</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>7/1/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>7/8/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>44</strong></td>
<td>Mitchell, Kelly</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>7/18/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>4/6/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>45</strong></td>
<td>Neuberg, Karen</td>
<td>480 (AZ)</td>
<td>7/10/04</td>
<td>10/10/04</td>
<td>12/20/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>602-445-0070</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>46</strong></td>
<td>Novitz, Stuart</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>6/27/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>7/20/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Dynasty Mortgage</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>47</strong></td>
<td>Oleska, Myron</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>7/13/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/18/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>48</strong></td>
<td>Pickwell, Sheila</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>6/30/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>3/2/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>49</strong></td>
<td>Ramsey, Marian</td>
<td>480 (AZ)</td>
<td>7/1/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>5/8/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Dynasty Mortgage</p>
<p>602-445-9256</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>50</strong></td>
<td>Recker, Irene</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>6/29/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>7/12/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>51</strong></p>
<p><strong>52</strong></p></td>
<td>Rice, Marilyn</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>6/29/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td><p>Sometime between 10/27/04 and11/8/04</p>
<p>11/8/04</p></td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td></td>
<td>602-218-9221</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2"></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Telephone Solicitation Recipient</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Call Recipient’s Area Code</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Call Recipient’s</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C- Registration</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="5"><strong>Dynasty’s Telephone Solicitation</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Caller ID Displayed</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Registration Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Effectuation Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Date of Call</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Date of Dynasty’s Access to</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C Registry</strong> <a href="#fn4" class="footnote-ref"
id="fnref4" role="doc-noteref"><sup>4</sup></a></p></td>
<td><strong>Timely Access to D-N-C Registry</strong></td>
<td><strong>Expired Access to D-N-C Registry</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>No Access to</strong></p>
<p><strong>D-N-C Registry</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>53</strong></td>
<td>Rippetoe, Patrick</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>6/27/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/9/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>54</strong></td>
<td>Rumsey, Eric</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>6/27/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>4/10/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>55</strong></p>
<p><strong>56</strong></p>
<p><strong>57</strong></p>
<p><strong>58</strong></p></td>
<td>Scotti, Diane</td>
<td>623 (AZ)</td>
<td>9/25/04</td>
<td>12/25/04</td>
<td><p>12/30/04</p>
<p>1/4/05</p>
<p>1/6/05</p>
<p>1/13/05</p></td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>602-218-9221</p>
<p>602-218-9221</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>59</strong></td>
<td>Stewart, Hal</td>
<td>480 (AZ)</td>
<td>9/23/04</td>
<td>12/23/04</td>
<td>12/29/04</td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>602-445-0070</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>60</strong></td>
<td>Taub, Charles</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>7/10/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>3/9/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>61</strong></td>
<td>Torkington, Adrian</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>8/29/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>5/13/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>858-362-8585</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>62</strong></p>
<p><strong>63</strong></p></td>
<td>Van Hoven, Lynn</td>
<td>480 (AZ)</td>
<td>6/28/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td><p>3/8/04</p>
<p>3/8/04</p></td>
<td>3/15/04</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p>X</p></td>
<td><p>602-445-9276</p>
<p>602-445-9276</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>64</strong></td>
<td>Vizcarra, Victor</td>
<td>760 (CA)</td>
<td>7/26/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>7/13/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>602-218-9221</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>65</strong></td>
<td>Walker, Claire</td>
<td>619 (CA)</td>
<td>4/9/04</td>
<td>7/9/04</td>
<td>9/23/04</td>
<td>3/13/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>888-508-5592</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>66</strong></td>
<td>Wassel, Theodore A.</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>7/26/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>6/1/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Dynasty Mortgage</p>
<p>858-362-8585</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>67</strong></td>
<td>Worthington, Mary</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>6/28/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/25/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>68</strong></td>
<td>Zanelli, Elizabeth</td>
<td>858 (CA)</td>
<td>7/26/03</td>
<td>10/1/03</td>
<td>8/6/04</td>
<td>3/8/04</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<aside id="footnotes" class="footnotes footnotes-end-of-document"
role="doc-endnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1"><p>Shows Dynasty’s most recent access to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry prior to the date of its telephone solicitation.
When Dynasty failed to access the Registry before making a telephone
solicitation, the date provided is the access date closest to the date
of the telephone solicitation.<a href="#fnref1" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
<li id="fn2"><p>Shows Dynasty’s most recent access to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry prior to the date of its telephone solicitation.
When Dynasty failed to access the Registry before making a telephone
solicitation, the date provided is the access date closest to the date
of the telephone solicitation.<a href="#fnref2" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
<li id="fn3"><p>Shows Dynasty’s most recent access to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry prior to the date of its telephone solicitation.
When Dynasty failed to access the Registry before making a telephone
solicitation, the date provided is the access date closest to the date
of the telephone solicitation.<a href="#fnref3" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
<li id="fn4"><p>Shows Dynasty’s most recent access to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry prior to the date of its telephone solicitation.
When Dynasty failed to access the Registry before making a telephone
solicitation, the date provided is the access date closest to the date
of the telephone solicitation.<a href="#fnref4" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
</ol>
</aside>

[^1]: According to Dynasty, "Dynasty Mortgage" refers to two separate
    companies owned by Curtis L. White who serves both as President and
    Chief Executive Officer. *See* Dynasty Response to Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, dated April 12, 2005. The entities, both
    named Dynasty Mortgage L.L.C., were organized separately in Arizona
    and California in 2000 and 2002, respectively, although Dynasty's
    own website and internal documents have represented the companies as
    a single entity. Because of their common ownership and operations,
    and the fact that the Arizona and California companies have acted in
    concert to deliver telephone solicitations, we find both Dynasty
    entities jointly and severally liable for the forfeiture imposed
    herein. We have obtained information indicating that Dynasty may
    have ceased operations. *See* Better Business Bureau of Central and
    Northern Arizona, Reliability Report, Jan. 16, 2007 ("According to
    information in the Bureau files, it appears that the company is no
    longer in business. The numbers the Bureau had for this company are
    disconnected, and directory assistance does not have a listing for
    this company. The Bureau's mail to this company has been returned as
    undeliverable."). In addition, Dynasty's California telephone number
    is not in service, and the website that served both Dynasty's
    Arizona and California businesses is no longer operating. Further,
    the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions reports that on
    April 27, 2006, Dynasty's license as a mortgage broker was revoked.
    *See* Arizona Department of Financial Institutions, Summary of
    Actions Report at 42 (April 2006),
    [[http://azdfi.gov/Forms/SAR_2006_04.pdf]{.underline}](http://azdfi.gov/Forms/SAR_2006_04.pdf).
    Records of the Arizona Corporation Commission show that in April
    2006, an individual named Curtis White accepted appointment as the
    statutory agent for Preferred Mortgage Services, Inc., a company
    incorporated in the state of California in 1991 and seeking to do
    business in Arizona. *See* Preferred Financial Group, Inc. d/b/a
    Preferred Mortgage Services, Inc., Application for Authority to
    Transact Business in Arizona (Apr. 19, 2006). At the time of the
    telemarketing violations addressed herein, Dynasty operated out of
    two offices in Arizona and one in California: (1) 2633 E. Indian
    School Rd., Suite 370, Phoenix, Arizona 85016; (2) 5701 W. Talavi
    Blvd., Suite 110, Glendale, Arizona 85306; and (3) 4660 E. LaJolla
    Village Dr., Suite 400, San Diego, California 92122.

[^2]: *Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 4901 (2005) ("*Dynasty NAL*" or "*NAL*"). The
    *Dynasty NAL* was issued pursuant to section 503 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which gives the Commission
    authority to assess a forfeiture against any person who has
    "willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provision
    of this Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
    Commission under this Act. . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). Section 503
    provides that the Commission must assess such penalties through the
    use of a written notice of apparent liability or notice of
    opportunity for hearing. *Id.* at § 503(b)(3), (4).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), (d).

[^4]: *Id*. The Commission's do-not-call rules closely correspond to
    those of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), which shares federal
    enforcement responsibilities with this Commission and also maintains
    and manages the National Do-Not-Call Registry. As provided in the
    Commission's 2003 order that incorporated the Registry in section
    64.1200, we have focused our enforcement efforts in this area on
    entities that fall outside the FTC's jurisdiction: communications
    common carriers, airlines, insurance companies, banks, credit
    unions, savings and loans, and intrastate calls by any entity. *See
    Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection
    Act of 1991*, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14138-39 (2003)
    ("*2003 TCPA Order*").

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).

[^6]: Section 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) of our rules requires that prior express
    invitation or permission to call a residential telephone consumer
    who has signed on to the National Do-Not-Call Registry "must be
    evidenced by a signed, written agreement between the consumer and
    seller which states that the consumer agrees to be contacted by this
    seller and includes the telephone number to which the calls may be
    placed." 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii).

[^7]: For do-not-call purposes, the term "established business
    relationship" means "a prior or existing relationship formed by a
    voluntary two-way communication between a person or entity and a
    residential subscriber with or without an exchange of consideration,
    on the basis of the subscriber's purchase or transaction with the
    entity within the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the
    date of the telephone call or on the basis of the subscriber's
    inquiry or application regarding products or services offered by the
    entity within the three months immediately preceding the date of the
    call, which relationship has not been previously terminated by
    either party." 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(3).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C § 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9).

[^9]: The term "personal relationship" means "any family member, friend,
    or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call." 47 C.F.R. §
    64.1200(f)(11).

[^10]: *2003 TCPA Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 14040. A call containing such
    speech, however, may not be exempt if it merely "serve\[s\] as a
    pretext to an otherwise prohibited advertisement." *Id.* at 14040 n.
    141.

[^11]: "Scrubbing" refers to comparing a company's call list to the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry and eliminating from the call list all
    non-exempt numbers contained in the National Registry that are not
    covered by an exemption. *2003 TCPA Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 14023 n.
    37.

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i); *2003 TCPA Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at
    14040.

[^13]: Since January 1, 2005, telemarketers are required to use a
    version of the Registry that is no more than 31 days old. In other
    words, telephone solicitors are, in effect, required to scrub their
    call lists against the National Do-Not-Call Registry no more than 31
    days before making any call. Consequently, unlawful calls may be
    prosecuted no sooner than 31 days after a consumer has signed on to
    the National Do-Not-Call Registry. *See* *Rules and Regulations
    Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991*, Order,
    19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004) (amending section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D)).
    Prior to January 1, 2005, and during the time period relevant to
    most of the calls at issue here, telemarketers were permitted to use
    a version of the Registry that was no more than three months old.
    *See* para. 23, *infra*.

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i).

[^15]: Division staff reviewed do-not-call complaints received by both
    this Commission and the FTC.

[^16]: Letters from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
    Consumers Division, to Dynasty Mortgage, dated Oct. 6, 2003 and Nov.
    18, 2003.

[^17]: If, as here, an alleged violator does not hold a Commission
    license, permit, certificate, or authorization, the Commission may
    not initiate a forfeiture proceeding without first issuing a warning
    citation. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5). If the citation recipient continues
    the unlawful behavior after receiving the citation, the Commission
    may propose monetary penalties, but only for those violations that
    occur after issuance of the citation.

[^18]: Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
    Consumers Division, to Dynasty Mortgage, dated Dec. 22, 2003.

[^19]: Commission staff disputed this claim and urged the Dynasty
    representative to respond to the citation in writing to fully
    explain the basis for its position. *Dynasty NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at
    4905.

[^20]: *See id.* (reporting January 30, 2004 and February 19, 2004
    telephone conversations).

[^21]: Letter from Curtis L. White, President, Dynasty Mortgage, to Kurt
    A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division,
    dated Feb. 20, 2004.

[^22]: As explained below, we are canceling the proposed forfeiture for
    two calls that were made prior to effectuation of the call
    recipient's do-not-call registration. *See* para. 13, *infra*.

[^23]: Each complainant has signed a declaration, under penalty of
    perjury, asserting that (1) receipt of a telephone call or calls
    from Dynasty Mortgage on the complainant's residential telephone
    line despite registration of that number on the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry; (2) absence of prior express permission or invitation for
    the call(s); and (3) absence of a transaction with Dynasty or any of
    its affiliated companies within the 18 months immediately preceding
    the call(s), or an inquiry or application to any of these entities
    within the three months immediately preceding the call(s). In
    addition, three complainants who recorded the name of the individual
    calling on behalf of Dynasty attest that they do not, to the best of
    their knowledge, have a personal relationship with the caller.
    Finally, 29 complainants also attest to receipt of caller ID
    information, which either explicitly identified Dynasty or displayed
    a telephone number traceable to Dynasty in the case of 44 calls.

[^24]: Letter from Curtis L. White, President, Dynasty Mortgage, to Kurt
    Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division,
    dated Mar. 31, 2005 ("March 31 NAL Response"); Response to Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, dated Apr. 14, 2005 ("April 14 NAL
    Response") (collectively "NAL Response").

[^25]: This figure does not include the two calls for which we are
    canceling the proposed forfeiture. *See* n. 22, *supra*, and para.
    13, *infra.*

[^26]: March 31 NAL Response.

[^27]: Letter from Kurt Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
    Consumers Division, to Curtis L. White, President, Dynasty Mortgage,
    dated Dec. 22, 2005.

[^28]: The two calls at issue were received by Hal Stewart on December
    22, 2004. Mr. Stewart's residential telephone number was registered
    on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on September 23, 2004 and that
    registration became effective on December 23, 2004. The December
    22^nd^ calls, therefore, are not violations. Mr. Stewart received
    another call from Dynasty on December 29, 2004, which is a violation
    and subject to forfeiture herein. *See* Appendix A, *infra*.

[^29]: Dynasty concedes making 21 calls but claims without elaboration
    that 10 of those calls were never actually completed ("21 prohibited
    calls . . . are confirmed to have been dialed of these 10 only were
    connected"). April 12 NAL Response at 20.

[^30]: Dynasty notes that its review is complicated by the fact that its
    original paper-based telemarketing system did not generate records
    that can be reviewed now to determine whether particular calls were
    made.

[^31]: Dynasty makes this claim with respect to 38 of the 70 calls
    specified in the *Dynasty NAL*. As indicated above, however, we are
    rescinding the proposed forfeiture for two of these calls. *See*
    para. 13, *supra*. Dynasty's position with respect to these calls is
    not entirely clear: Dynasty both states that the identified
    complainants "are assumed to have been called" and that the calls to
    those individuals "can not be confirmed nor denied." April 12 NAL
    Response at 18, 20.

[^32]: *See* n. 23, *supra.*

[^33]: Dynasty's position with respect to these calls is not entirely
    clear: Dynasty both states that the identified complainants "are
    assumed to have been called" and that the calls to those individuals
    "can not be confirmed nor denied." April 12 NAL Response at 18, 20.

[^34]: *See* paras. 19-34, *infra*.

[^35]: Dynasty reports that its automated records are "inconclusive"
    with respect to 17 calls that complainants claim to have received
    after Dynasty's new automated telemarketing system was introduced in
    June 2004. April 12 NAL Response at 20.

[^36]: *Id.* at 20, 23.

[^37]: Dynasty admits two of the calls but maintains that its automated
    records do not show that the remaining four calls were made. April
    12 NAL Response at 19.

[^38]: The residential telephone numbers provided in the consumers'
    sworn declarations are different from those that Dynasty attributes
    to its calls. In one case, Dynasty indicates that it called a
    consumer, Michelle Logan, at a California telephone number that was
    supposedly not on the National Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of
    the call. The *NAL*, however, applies to calls made to an individual
    named Michelle Logan at an Arizona telephone number. Ms. Logan
    reports receiving a total of five calls within less than one month.
    In the other case, involving a call received by Antoinette Jaycox,
    two online telephone directories confirm that the telephone number
    provided in Ms. Jaycox 's declaration is listed under the name
    "Antoinette Jaycox" while the number that Dynasty claims to have
    used to call Ms. Jaycox is listed under another name. Dynasty's
    errors in this regard may stem from the fact that it apparently
    reviewed its telemarketing records by call recipients' name, and did
    not request from the Division the consumer declarations, each of
    which lists the telephone number at which the consumer received
    Dynasty's call(s). For privacy reasons, the declarations are not
    routinely-available Commission records like the *NAL* itself. The
    Division, however, makes such materials available to NAL recipients
    upon request.

[^39]: As shown in Appendix A, we have confirmed that each residential
    telephone number provided by the 50 complainants in this case was
    timely and properly registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
    at the time the 68 calls subject to forfeiture were made.

[^40]: Appendix A of the *NAL* incorrectly noted that one consumer, Joe
    Fernando, had provided caller ID information. Instead, as indicated
    in Mr. Fernando's declaration, the listed telephone number was
    provided orally by Dynasty's telemarketer.

[^41]: "This phone line is not used for outbound calls; doing so would
    occupy the main incoming line preventing incoming calls. The phone
    system at 4660 E. La Jolla Village Dr. Ste. 400 San Diego, CA 92122
    does not allow outbound calls using the phone line 858-362-8585."
    Dynasty April 12 NAL Response at 20.

[^42]: 47 U.S.C. § 64.1601(e); *2003 TCPA Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 14122.

[^43]: The *Dynasty NAL* does not address Dynasty's compliance with the
    safe harbor requirement to record company-specific do-not-call
    requests, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(C). Likewise, we do not
    address this safe harbor aspect here although we note that we have
    not received complaints that Dynasty has failed to honor
    company-specific do-not-call requests within the required 31-day
    period.

[^44]: *See* n. 13, *supra.*

[^45]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D)

[^46]: In addition, the FTC's Internet do-not-call complaint system
    automatically checks the complainant's telephone number to determine
    whether and when that number was added to the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry. The system then compares the registration date against the
    date of the alleged telemarketing call, and only accepts complaints
    in which the complainant's telephone number was timely registered at
    the time of the alleged call. In this case, our staff has
    independently confirmed that each complainant's telephone number was
    registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for the required
    three months or 31 days before the alleged call was made. As
    indicated above, we have discovered that two calls for which we
    proposed a forfeiture penalty were made one day prior to
    effectuation of the call recipient's do-not-call registration. *See*
    para 13, *supra.* This complainant also received a call from Dynasty
    after effectuation of his do-not-call registration, which was
    accepted by the FTC's automated complaint system.

[^47]: *See* n. 13, *supra*.

[^48]: *Dynasty NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 4912. As indicated in the *NAL*, our
    staff obtained FTC do-not-call records that show that Dynasty's SAN
    was used to access portions of the National Registry twice during
    the forfeiture period: first, over the course of one week in March
    2004, and second, on January 6, 2005. Between March 8 and March 15,
    2004, Dynasty accessed portions of the Do-Not-Call Registry for
    three Arizona and three California area codes. On January 6, 2005,
    Dynasty accessed these same portions of the Registry and, in
    addition, portions for two new Arizona area codes, one new
    California area code, and one Nevada area code.

[^49]: April 12 NAL Response at 16-17, Exhibit A (5-16). Dynasty notes
    that beginning on January 6, 2005, it also "began accessing the
    National Registry directly and appending the change list to its
    company specific internal do not call list." April 12 NAL Response
    at 17.

[^50]: April 12 NAL Response at 27.

[^51]: *See* para. 7, *supra*.

[^52]: Dynasty states that it began an interim "lead database" system of
    managing its do-not-call obligations in February 2004. April 12 NAL
    Response at 3. Yet it did not access the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry until March 8-15, 2004.

[^53]: *See* para. 30, *infra*.

[^54]: April 12 NAL Response at Exhibit C.

[^55]: The FTC's National Registry documentation does not indicate that
    Dynasty's SAN was used to access the Registry around the time
    specified in the invoice, January 2004.

[^56]: Again, however, FTC records do not show that Dynasty's SAN was
    used to access the Registry around the time of this invoice,
    November 2004.

[^57]: Dynasty April 12 NAL Response at 22.

[^58]: A December 2004 amendment to Dynasty's June 2004 Telephone
    Solicitation Policy explicitly recognizes that, beginning January 1,
    2005, Dynasty must access the Registry no less than every 31 days
    rather than every three months. Dynasty April 12 NAL Response at
    Exhibit A (Amendment).

[^59]: *See* para. 27, *supra*.

[^60]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A).

[^61]: April 12 NAL Response at 2-8.

[^62]: *Id*.

[^63]: We note that accessing the Registry every 8-10 weeks goes beyond
    the requirements in effect for most of the forfeiture period: that
    call lists had to be scrubbed against a version of the National
    Do-Not-Call Registry no more than three months old. *See* n. 13,
    *supra*.

[^64]: April 12 NAL Response, Exhibit A.

[^65]: Between March 2, 2005 and September 27, 2005 Dynasty accessed the
    Registry on ten different dates. During this time, Dynasty twice
    briefly exceeded the 31-day maximum; the interval between access was
    33 days between April and May and 36 days between August and
    September.

[^66]: Although Dynasty's current conduct is not subject to forfeiture
    herein, FTC records show that Dynasty's last access to the Registry
    occurred on September 27, 2005.

[^67]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(B).

[^68]: Despite Dynasty's February 20, 2004 written assurance that it
    would abandon its previous claim that it was exempt from national
    do-not-call rules, two complainants report telephone solicitations
    they received in June and July 2004 during which they were told --
    once by an individual identified as a Dynasty supervisor -- that
    Dynasty was exempt from national do-not-call requirements.
    Declaration of Theodore A. Wassel (during June 1, 2004 call, Dynasty
    manager stated Dynasty is exempt from the National Do-Not-Call
    Registry); declaration of Stuart Novitz (during July 20, 2004 call,
    Dynasty claimed to be a "federally exempt company for telemarketing
    purposes"). We expect that effective training of Dynasty's
    telemarketers would preclude such claims, especially by supervisory
    personnel.

[^69]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(E).

[^70]: *Id.*

[^71]: April 12 NAL Response at 16.

[^72]: 20 FCC Rcd at 4909.

[^73]: *See* para. 5, *supra*.

[^74]: April 12 NAL Response at 12-14.

[^75]: Dynasty briefly acknowledges its lapse in accessing the National
    Do-Not-Call Registry. *See* April 12 NAL Response at 21, 27*.*
    Dynasty appears to believe that it unlawfully failed to access the
    Registry in March, August, and December 2004. *Id.* at 21. However,
    as indicated above, Dynasty's three missed deadlines to access the
    Registry occurred in June, September, and December 2004. *See* para.
    24, *supra*.

[^76]: April 12 NAL Response at 21-23 (describing various possible
    technical and human errors).

[^77]: April 12 NAL Response at 23 ("A telemarketer will often deviate
    from established scripts or training in an attempt to entice a sale.
    . . . Telemarketers have been found to have created and utilized
    their own call lists not in accordance with Dynasty's established
    procedures for obtaining current call lists.") *Id.* at 21 ("If data
    in call lists or do not call lists are not formatted correctly
    information can pass through. A phone number in a call list
    formatted as (123) 456-7890 will not be scrubbed if the same number
    is in the do not call list as 1234567890.").

[^78]: The *NAL* notes that "an error claim should be supported by
    evidence showing that otherwise unlawful telephone solicitations
    were made unintentionally and detailing any procedural breakdowns
    that led to such calls, as well as the steps that the seller has
    taken to minimize future errors." *See Dynasty NAL,* 20 FCC Rcd at
    4909.

[^79]: Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures up to \$10,000 for
    each violation in cases not covered by subparagraphs (A) or (B),
    which address forfeitures for violations by licensees and common
    carriers, among others. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). Pursuant to the
    Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat.
    1321-358, the statutory maximum amount for a forfeiture penalty
    shall be adjusted for inflation at least once every four years.
    Accordingly, the \$10,000 forfeiture ceiling has been adjusted to
    \$11,000. 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(5). *Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
    Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
    Inflation*, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000); *Amendment of Section 1.80 of
    the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to
    Reflect Inflation*, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004).

[^80]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).

[^81]: *Dynasty NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 4913 (citing *AT&T Corporation*,
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 23398
    (2003)).

[^82]: *Id*. at 4914.

[^83]: As a related matter, Dynasty contends that it did not misinform
    consumers, arguing that reported conversations between Dynasty
    telemarketers and complainants are of questionable accuracy or
    isolated and ambiguous. April 12 NAL Response at 25 We note that
    each of these complainants signed a sworn declaration attesting to
    statements made by Dynasty telemarketers, including supervisory
    personnel. Moreover, our forfeiture, including the upward
    adjustment, is rooted in the totality of Dynasty's noncompliant
    conduct, not simply its reported conversations with call recipients.
    *Dynasty NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 4014.

[^84]: *See* paras.

[^85]: When Dynasty discovered in January 2004 that its telemarketing
    operations were unlawful, it could have chosen to suspend
    telemarketing operations briefly until it was able to ensure
    compliance. As discussed below, we have not imposed a forfeiture
    penalty for any of Dynasty's unlawful telephone solicitations
    delivered before March 2, 2004. *See* Appendix A, para. 47, *infra.*

[^86]: "Willful" in this context means that the violator knew that he
    was doing the act in question, in this case, initiating a telephone
    solicitation. *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd
    4387, 4388 (1991) ("*Southern California*"). A violator need not
    know that his action or inaction constitutes a violation; ignorance
    of the law is not a defense or mitigating circumstance. *Id.*
    (citing *Vernon Broadcasting, Inc.*, 60 RR 2d 1275, 1277 (1986);
    *Fay Neel Eggleston*, 19 FCC 2d 829 (1969)). The Commission may also
    assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not
    willful. *See,* *e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc.*, 16 FCC Rcd 1359
    (2001) ("*Callais Cablevision*") (issuing a notice of apparent
    liability for forfeiture for, *inter alia*, a cable television
    operator's repeated signal leakage). The term "repeated" means that
    the act was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than
    one day. *Callais Cablevision*, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362; *Southern
    California*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.

[^87]: *See* para. 32, *supra*.

[^88]: As noted above, Dynasty again has neglected to access the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry within the required time frame. *See*
    n. 65*, supra*. Assuming that Dynasty is continuing its
    telemarketing activities, the most recent lapse -- failure to access
    the Registry since September 27, 2005 -- is another indication that
    Dynasty's do-not-call compliance remains haphazard.

[^89]: *Seawest Yacht Brokers*, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994) ("Corrective
    action taken to come into compliance with Commission rules or policy
    is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures
    or violations."\').

[^90]: *Dynasty NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 4914.

[^91]: Dynasty lists various factors that it claims threaten the
    companies' financial viability ranging from losses from embezzlement
    and failed business ventures, to expenditures associated with its
    national do-not-call compliance program, to increased competition
    and cyclical downswings, to negative publicity associated with our
    warning citation and *NAL*. *See* NAL Response at 27-28. We note
    here that national do-not-call compliance costs do not appropriately
    factor into a financial hardship analysis; entities that cannot
    afford full do-not-call compliance should not be engaged in
    telemarketing.

[^92]: 20 FCC Rcd at 4914, n. 58.

[^93]: *See* para. 12, *supra*.

[^94]: 47 U.S.C § 504(a).

[^95]: *See* 47 U.S.C § 1.1914.