Firm involved in DNC lawsuit got ‘voice changer’ call from Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ office

Hot Air.com ^ | June 2, 2017 | JOHN SEXTON

[Kaslin]

This is a very strange story. A law firm which represents Bernie Sanders supporters in a class-action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (and against former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz) received a call asking about the case. The caller’s voice was disguised, but when the firm checked the number on caller ID, it came up as one of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ offices. From the court filing:

At 4:54 p.m. today, an individual called our law office from “305-936-5724.” See attached photo of the caller I.D.

The caller refused to identify himself/herself, but asked my secretary about the Wilding et al. v. DNC et al. lawsuit. My secretary stated that it sounded like the caller was using a voice changer, because the voice sounded robotic and genderless — along the lines of the voice changers used when television show interviews are kept anonymous. The caller concluded with “Okey dokey,” after my secretary gave the caller public information about the case.

After the call ended, a simple Google search of the phone number “305-936-5724” shows that it is the phone number for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Aventura office….

The filing contains an image of the caller ID showing the phone number and a link to a contact page for Wasserman Schultz’ office with the same number. So, at least at first glance, it appears the call did come from her office.

An attorney for the firm told the Observer, “I’ve never encountered a situation quite like this in my practice, but I have seen situations where one party has made unsolicited contact with lawyers on the other side.” He continued, “In such situation, I believe it is a lawyer’s responsibility, as officer of the court, to make prompt notification to the court of any unsolicited communications received, which is what we did in this case.” The Observer story goes on to note that Wasserman Schulz has denied responsibility for the call in a response by her attorneys:

On June 2, attorneys representing Wasseman Schultz filed a response, denying the call was made from Wasserman Schultz’s office and that they have referred the U.S. Capitol Police to investigate possible fraud in someone trying to impersonate Wasserman Schultz’s office.

I don’t know anything about spoofing phone numbers but it does strike me as odd that someone would make the effort to disguise their voice electronically and then apparently forget about the caller ID. If you wanted to make an anonymous call, wouldn’t it be better to hide the phone number and talk like a normal person? In this case, the voice changer just seems to draw attention to the call. Also, if you’re trying to pump the law firm receptionist for inside information, the voice changer seems like a bad choice.

Then again, it never pays to overlook gross incompetence as an explanation. If someone from Wasserman Schulz’ office was going to make an inappropriate call about a lawsuit, this seems about how I would expect it to go.

[DoughtyOne]

FReepers, it's time to get serious about retiring this FReep-a-thon.


President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America

Ramirez political cartoon: the Price of Freedom LARGE VERSION 05/28/2017: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).

Please join the monthlies, an automated way to help support Free Republic.

If you are not opting to join the automated monthly support program, please consider joining the One One Done project.  LINK

FReepers, 67.88% of the Second Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $104.00 to 68.00%

[rfp1234]

Now that it’s out, that number will get more calls than God’s phone in “Bruce Almighty”. And yeah, FU Jim Carrey.

[bicyclerepair]

D-rats can’t see passed the nose on their face.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Her face is what needs changing.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Is there anyone in American public life more totally f’ed up than DWS? What a maroon.

[polymuser]

I gotta believe Little Debbie’s IQ hovers around 70.

[CivilWarBrewing]

"Her face is what needs changing."

Post of the day!

[grey_whiskers]

Given the egos of the Democrats involved I can just hear the conversation now:

Phone: RRRRRINNG

Receptionist (picking up the line): "Good morning, you have reached the Law Offices of Dewey Cheatem and Howe. This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes. How may I direct your call?"

(Muffled voice) : "Don't you think you'd better return that laptop if you know what's good for you?"

Receptionist: "I'm sorry, we cannot discuss pending cases. Would you like to be connected to one of our attorneys?"

(Muffed voice, rising in tone to an angry anguished shriek): "What? DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM!!??"

Receptionist: (in an undertone) : "I do *now*."

[clee1]

The DNC ought to be up on RICO charges.

[Fedora]

On June 2, attorneys representing Wasseman Schultz filed a response, denying the call was made from Wasserman Schultz’s office and that they have referred the U.S. Capitol Police to investigate possible fraud in someone trying to impersonate Wasserman Schultz’s office.

This seems like a suspect denial. How do her lawyers know the call wasn't made from her office? Do they keep records of all calls made from the office, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? If so, have they turned those records over to police? If not, how do they know?

[pepsionice]

It would take 2 minutes to examine the phone-records and ID the call (if it occurred from that office). I used to be the monthly phone audit guy for a Pentagon agency, and I’d get a listing each month of all calls going outside of the building. You knew the phone number from inside the office, and the time-stamp on the call. So unless, they’ve reviewed this document (I seriously doubt it), they can’t say for sure that the call occurred or not.

But for this robo-sounding voice mixer, this is an odd part on the story. Why use this?

[Fedora]

Thanks for the info. As for why they’d use the robo-sounding voice mixer, maybe they didn’t realize it was that easy to spot on the other end, since some phone voice changer products have ads purporting to sound “professional”, and since they couldn’t hear themselves on the other end.

[cynwoody]

Poodlehead is not the brightest bulb on the tree.

[Former Proud Canadian]

Is there anyone in American public life more totally f’ed up than DWS?

Yes. Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi. Is there a pattern here?