The Susan M. Greene Shakedown Survival Guide

It would seem that my last post on Susan Green’s shakedown business, “Susan M. Greene’s Notary Business is Here to Shake You Down” is by far my most popular blog ever. I guess there’s nothing that motivates a google search like someone threatening to file suit for the egregious crime of dialing a telephone number.

One respondent to my last Susan Green blog was Becca Wahlquest, an actually an attorney here in Southern California whose client had received a shakedown letter. She contacted me, and we exchanged information. She shared with me (and gave me permission to pass it on to you) that Susan Greene will go away and not bother you again once you stand up to her. This has also been my experience.

A few people have asked for the exact response letter which Ms. Wahlquist sent to Ms. Greene. I asked Ms. Wahlquest if her client would be willing to provide the actual response letter she sent, and, unfortunately, the client declined. However, Ms. Wahlquist has seen her way clear to provide to general gist of what her response letter contained. Furthermore, given that the San Diego Small Claims Docket shows that Ms. Greene has only filed four claims in the past year, your chances of actually being sued by her are quite small. Indeed, Ms. Greene indicated that she was going to sue both myself and my mother and nothing has been forthcoming. So know in dealing with her that you are dealing with a toothless lion: her roar may be ferocious, but she really lacks any bite whatsoever.

Personally, my advice is to ignore her. However, if you find yourself in such a position whereby you absolutely MUST interact with her (say you’ve been hired to represent someone who’s receiving her threats) you need to keep in mind the relevant facts and time line. I’ve prepared a nice summary for you below:

  • On Aug. 2, 2010 in the case Kinder v. Allied Interstate, the California Appellate Court ruled that one James Kinder had no legal claim to suit anyone under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because he had an “assumption of risk” in maintaining a number that computers tend to call. Furthermore, the court issued a permanent injunction against Mr. Kinder for ever suing anyone again for calling this number.
  • Exactly two weeks later, on August 16, 2010, James Kinder enters into a rental contract (which you can read HERE) with Susan M Greene to rent her the use of this number. According to Ms. Wahlquist, since she is only a renter on the number, she is not a proper party to make TCPA demands.
  • On September 8th, 2010, roughly three weeks after renting this number, Ms. Greene filed her first two (of only four) small claims against Chrysler Financial and Santander Consumer.
  • On October 20, 2010, roughly six weeks after filing her first two small claims suits, she files two more suits against Sears Home Services and Access Insurance Company.
  • Of the four cases she filed, she loses three of them. Chrysler did not show.
  • On December 20th, 2010, a full two months after filling the last of all of her small claims, Ms. Greene finally decides to actually becomes a notary.
  • If it were not obvious enough that Ms. Greene is renting this number purely to shake people down, know that Ms. Greene made no efforts to advertise her notary business with the number (619)999-9999. After Ms. Wahlquist called her on this in mid may, she created the website to try to legitimize her efforts at maintaining (619)999-9999 for business purposes. Note that according to, this website was created on May 24th, 2011.
  • At any rate, a simple presentation of these facts should be more than sufficient to maker her go away. Of course, in my case I got one of her cronies calling me at home on the telephone telling me “we know where you live,” but I suspect that’s simply because I have such a charming personality. If any of this information was helpful to you, please consider making a financial donation to me using the Amazon button on the right.

One thought on “The Susan M. Greene Shakedown Survival Guide”

  1. re: Susan M Greene and 619 999 9999.
    I have found this number used as the Contact Phone Number by many web sites employed by junk fax sender: Discern Group LLC.

    Interestingly, this same Discern organization uses a purported street address on their junk fax’s as 6320 Lusk Blvd, Suite #202, San Diego, CA 92121. So did Happy Eyeballs LLC, using the same 6320 Lusk address and 619 999 9999 phone number. I drove by, and spent about an hour walking around, talking to business people in the vicinity. There has never been a building at 6320 Lusk Blvd!

    Discern Group LLC
    Registrant Address1: 2885 sanford ave #20744
    Registrant City: granville
    Registrant State/Province: MI
    Registrant Postal Code: 02863
    Registrant Country: United States
    Registrant Country Code: US
    Registrant Phone Number: +1.6199999999
    Registrant Email:

    A couple of recent Discern domains using 619 999 999:, and many others. Happy Eyeballs (associated with Adalizer in Houston) used:,,, and about a dozen others in my archive. I suspect they used for hundreds (thousands???) more. Extended lists may be available upon request.

    I have kept pdf’s of these domains and associated fax’s. I use FAX, as the TCPA prohibits junk fax’s and authorizes persons negatively effected to sue, whereas the CAN-SPAM does not, and I lost a small claims case based on that. I am about to test the TCPA on junk fax’s as the TCPA definition, in my opinion, precisely describes what others call email and SPAM. A rose, is a rose, is a rose by any other name.

    I have called Susan’s 619 999 9999 number twice, first attempting to teach the owners of the harassing domains, then advising that it is being used by Junk-fax’ers. I have never received a call back. Maybe your research indicates why, as she may be in league supporting them.

    Preston – As you are a gambling man, and have expressed a justifiable distaste for shakedowns, I am curious if I would be considered a shaker-downer by you, as I have filed over half a dozen small claims cases against callers and faxers, won about half, After my repeated requests for the unsolicited communications to stop were ignored. I have not even started describing the retaliation resulting after a request to stop!

    The gambling part … what are the odds that if we all started suing these harassers and winning, the harassment would end? I like the website … Good luck .. .. ..

    Oh, and I would appreciate any guidance, too, from you and your followers.

Leave a Reply

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