Does any 1 know how 2 get rid of collection calls?

I wouldn't send them a full cease and desist. Doing that leaves them no opportunity to try to collect. Which leaves either selling the debt or suing (more than likely suing)

Send them a debt validation letter, at the bottom of the letter include the mini cease and desist:
It is inconvenient for me to receive telephone calls to my place of imployment or my home. Any further contact by you should be done by the USPS.

Send your debt validation letter certified mail return receipt. After receiving that, they will violate your rights if they contact you by phone.

edited to add additional info per Studly's request.

After reading many of Studly's answers to the questions on here, I feel he is quite knowledgeable in his answers and I have alot of respect for his opinions. So, I don't mind responding to his request.

Studly is correct, if this is the original creditor (OC), they are not bound to the FDCPA. But, there may be something in the original posters (OP's) states statutes that covers OC's and halting phone calls.

Even if the OP is dealing with an OC, they still can try to use the mini C&D. Even though the FDCPA doesn't cover OC's and there is nothing in the state statutes about it, sometimes it works. And the OC may continue collection by mail instead of by phone.

As far as sending a debt validation, if the OP is dealing with a collection agency (CA), that should be done for many reasons. A few examples - To make sure that the debt the CA is collecting hasn't been inflated by the CA. To know if the debt is out of the statute of limitations (SOL) and if the CA has re-aged it. If the CA is already reporting on the credit reports, to make sure the CA is reports correctly. It the OP is planning to pay for delete with the CA, it is best to send a debt validation before sending a pay for delete. Or, if the debt is past the SOL for legally collecting it, the OP has every right to send a SOL letter and a legal right not to pay.
Many times, if debt validations are sent, the CA's will violate or violations that they have already done will be uncovered. Which will give a person counterclaims to file should they sue,

If it is with the OC, they are not bound to answer a debt validation letter. But they are bound to answering a debt verification letter. Again, it's in the OP's best interest, if they are planning to do a pay for delete, to send a debt verification letter.

When sending a C&D, they are allowed to make "one" phone call after receiving it. But, they cannot "collect" in that call. The call is only to inform the debtor of what will be done with the account. If the account will continued to be collected, sold, dropped etc.

A full C&D should only be sent in certain circumstances. A few examples - The debt is not yours, the debt is past SOL for collecting, the debt "had" previously been paid etc. AND even then, before a full C&D is sent, the reasons why the debt is uncollectable should be sent (always create a paper trail).

Now, on to the FDCPA:

FDCPA about full C&D
Â§ 1692 cÂ© CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

FDCPA about limited C&D
Â§ 1692 c(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt --
(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location;

Note in Â§ 1692 c(a)(1) the use of the word "inconvenient". The CA does not have to know "why" it is incovenient.

Yes, it is skating the edge of that statute. As far as filing a suit against a CA for calling after it is requested in writing that they not call, if that is "the only" violation it probably won't fly in court (no case law on it)
But, if one should have 5, 10 or 20 (or more) other violations on the CA, it wouldn't hurt to add that one in the lot.
There is no way of telling, because of confidentiality agreements, how many CA's that have settled before trial, have actually paid on that accusation.

A good list of what constitues FDCPA violations can be found under Â§ 1692
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm

*whew* I usually don't get this chatty in answering questions lol.