Crazy Canadian

[~enigma~]

Guys, the crazy canadian prank phone caller has gone too far this time and has actually called Val McClatchy. Then he had the nerve to post it on the internet WITHOUT obtaining Val's permission. The applicable law...


18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5703, 5704: It is a felony to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication without the consent of all participants. It also is a felony to disclose or use the contents of a communication when there is reason to know those contents were obtained through an illegal interception.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702.
A trial court has held that a communication protected by the legislation is one in which there is an expectation that it will not be recorded by any electronic device, rather than one in which there is a general expectation of privacy. Thus, the fact that a participant may believe he will have to reveal the contents of a communication, or that other parties may repeat the contents, does not necessarily mean that he would have expected that it would be recorded, and it is the expectation that the communication would not be recorded that triggers the wiretapping law's protections. Pennsylvania v. McIvor, 670 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996), petition for appeal denied, 692 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1997).
Anyone whose communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages in the amount of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, and also can recover punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. 18 Pa. Const. Stat.§ 5725.
A person commits a misdemeanor if he views, photographs or films another person in a state of full or partial nudity without consent, under circumstances where the nude person has an expectation of privacy.18 Pa. Const. Stat.§ 7507.1.


Do you think this is something that should be brought to Val's attention so she can pursue legal recourse?

The thread at LCF (until it gets deleted) is

http://www.csproxy.info/nph-index.pl/111110A/http/z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3043

[Gravy]

Suddenly I'm being blocked from posting there. Don't know if I'm suspended, banned, or what.

Will someone who can post there tell that idiot Killtown that the helicopter flyover Val McClatchey was expecting was not to be on September 11th? Tell him that information comes from me.

[~enigma~]

Suddenly I'm being blocked from posting there. Don't know if I'm suspended, banned, or what.

Will someone who can post there tell that idiot Killtown that the helicopter flyover Val McClatchey was expecting was not to be on September 11th? Tell him that information comes from me.Mark. Use the link I posted and form there try to log in. i had problems right after I made this post but thet cleared up.

[Gravy]

Mark. Use the link I posted and form there try to log in. i had problems right after I made this post but thet cleared up.
Oh, I didn't realize that was a proxy link. I got through on my own.

[Horatius]

I love how they don't even bother to listen to what she says:

Let's caculate the odds of her alleged story. I'm going to guess that this alleged helicopter was the FIRST time a helicopter was supposedly going to flyover her house in all of Val's life.

INSTEAD, a rarest of rare "hijacked plane crash" flys over her house instead and crashes which, I'm sure, has never happened to her before.

But if you listen to the call, she makes a point that this guy used to make flyovers whenever he had the helicopter in the area. This planned flyover was just one of many, but probably the first after she had bought the camera, as we know it was a recent purchase.

These bozos can't even get their own evidence right!

[Alt+F4]

Yikes, Killtown seems to think that planes don't crash that often and that when they do crash it's always part of some grand conspiracy. He lives in a dream world where people don't suffer.

In 2001 a plane crashed one block from my parent's home. 265 people died.

[Arus808]

Thread and wav file saved for posterity.

[Arus808]

And where is the "video showing her plume drifting" not been released to the public after 5 fricken years???


Um...I dont know about you KT< but maybe just maybe, there isn't any because people were concerned over hearing a massive explosion and wanted to know wtf happened; instead of pulling out their video cameras to film a plume of smoke?

The more you post KT< the more you show that you are clueless and insensitive jerk.

[JAStewart]

Reading that thread.

Science be damned, Killtown is a big idiot.

The most frustrating human being alive. Period.


And this Gem:

QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Jan 26 2007, 10:13 PM)

"Wow dude, you have like no life at all :rolleyes:" - to Enigma for posting a Law regarding how this is illegal.

[Arus808]

yeah.. remember with these tools, the law doesn't matter...as long as they can harass, libel, slander someone in the process.

[Arus808]

Val: "And there's actually, to be honest with you... there's... I'm not the only one who has any proof of it. There's actually a video out there. I know that it's been released".

Jeff: "There's a video of the plane?"

Val: "Not the plane, but of the smoke and so forth afterwards".

Notice that she didn't give a time frame of how "soon" after , if any, of when such video was taken? And they are "taking" this statement and running with it.

[Arus808]

well, pdoh shows his condoning of illegal acts



Who gives a toss what ridiculous little by-law he broke?

Yes, pdoh....who really cares?

[A W Smith]

Val had the camera set no more than two feet from her doorway for a full three weeks before 9/11 in anticipation of a flyover by her neighbor. Maybe someone should write Val and inform her someone recorded her conversation without her consent. I am sure she can recall the date and approximate time the call was made and investigate phone records for legal action if she so desires.


The federal law makes it unlawful to record telephone conversations except in one party consent cases which permit one party consent recording by state law. What that means is a person can record their own telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party in those states that allow one party consent.
It's important to understand the difference between what has become known as one party consent and two party or all party consent. One party consent simply means that one party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording. Two party or all party consent means that every party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording.
There are twelve states that require all party consent. They are:

California

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Illinois

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Montana

New Hampshire

Pennsylvania

Washington



(a) Cause of action.--Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:
Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher.
Punitive damages.
A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred

[Triterope]

Actually, recording a phone conversation without one party's consent is legal in most U.S. states. Pennsylvania is actually one of the few where the consent of all parties is required. Though I'm not sure how it works with international calls.

Discussion of recording laws by U.S. state: http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=86432

[LashL]

Originally Posted by alex@lc
Val: "And there's actually, to be honest with you... there's... I'm not the only one who has any proof of it. There's actually a video out there. I know that it's been released".

Jeff: "There's a video of the plane?"

Val: "Not the plane, but of the smoke and so forth afterwards".

I don't think she says "I know that it's been released". It is not very clear because Jeff is talking at the same time, but it does not sound like, "I know" to me.

I can't hear the word "I" in that sentence, and it doesn't sound like "know" but "knows". Obviously, "I knows" would not make any sense, so perhaps it was "who knows" or something else?

Perhaps someone else can listen to it and try to decipher it? It's at 5:14 of the recording.

[T.A.M.]

Please, for gods sake, tell me you are making it up that Killtown is a fellow Cannuck. My god man, do you want me to renounce my Canadian citizenhip saying stuff like that...

TAM:(

[LashL]

Please, for gods sake, tell me you are making it up that Killtown is a fellow Cannuck. My god man, do you want me to renounce my Canadian citizenhip saying stuff like that...

TAM:(

No, no, no!!!! KillClown isn't a Canuck. But Jeff Hill, the guy allegedly making the phone call from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario is allegedly Canadian.

[Calcas]

Originally Posted by alex@lc


I don't think she says "I know that it's been released". It is not very clear because Jeff is talking at the same time, but it does not sound like, "I know" to me.

I can't hear the word "I" in that sentence, and it doesn't sound like "know" but "knows". Obviously, "I knows" would not make any sense, so perhaps it was "who knows" or something else?

Perhaps someone else can listen to it and try to decipher it? It's at 5:14 of the recording.

Personally, I think it's a moot point. Even if she said, "There's actually a video out there. I know that it's been released" what does that really suggest?

Perhaps she "knows" because some other lunatic like this Jeff has mentioned something like that to her in the past.

I just think she sounds completely convincing and 100% believable. She also does not seem that overly interested in what other "documentation" there is out there. It's like if somone said to her, "You know, there is a much better photograph out there than the one you took" I would imagine her saying something like, "that's nice."

[LashL]

Personally, I think it's a moot point. Even if she said, "There's actually a video out there. I know that it's been released" what does that really suggest?

Perhaps she "knows" because some other lunatic like this Jeff has mentioned something like that to her in the past.

I just think she sounds completely convincing and 100% believable. She also does not seem that overly interested in what other "documentation" there is out there. It's like if somone said to her, "You know, there is a much better photograph out there than the one you took" I would imagine her saying something like, "that's nice."

Oh, I agree with you on that, Calcas. My point was meant to illustrate that I suspect that the twoofers got it wrong - again - in their haste to make moot points that mean nothing anyway. I just hadn't elaborated on the rest of my thoughts in that regard yet as I wanted to hear someone else's take on the accuracy of the words first.

Ms. McClatchey sounds entirely believable, entirely credible, and, frankly, far more patient than I would have been with a loser like that on the phone.

[maccy]

Val had the camera set no more than two feet from her doorway for a full three weeks before 9/11 in anticipation of a flyover by her neighbor. Maybe someone should write Val and inform her someone recorded her conversation without her consent. I am sure she can recall the date and approximate time the call was made and investigate phone records for legal action if she so desires.

Actually, his details are publicly available from a whois lookup (http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=pumpitout&tld=com) on his site pumpitout.com:

[whois.netfirms.com]
Registrant:

Hill, Jeff
37 Princeton Drive
Sault Ste Marie, ON P6B5T4
CA

Domain name: pumpitout.com

Administrative Contact:
shure_dj@hotmail.com
Hill, Jeff
37 Princeton Drive
Sault Ste Marie, ON P6B5T4
CA
705-945-0011 Fax:

Technical Contact:
Netfirms Inc. support@netfirms.com
Manager, Domains
5160 Yonge St., 1800
Toronto, ON M2N6L9
CA
4166612100 Fax: 4166610700

He also confirms this address on his montage of calls to various government agencies (including the FBI in NYC). I'd link to it, but his website seems to be having problems. It was discussed in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70134

The link was: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/dec_07_2006.mp3 but this isn't working at the moment.

[~enigma~]

No, no, no!!!! KillClown isn't a Canuck. But Jeff Hill, the guy allegedly making the phone call from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario is allegedly Canadian.Oh my...he is from the Soo?:dl:

[LashL]

Oh my...he is from the Soo?:dl:

Apparently so.

I located the WhoIs info a little while ago that maccy kindly posted just above, and it meshes with what he (Jeff) posted online himself on another forum, either Loose with the Truth or Fake Pilots for Twoof, I can't recall which, a few weeks ago.

;)

[Calcas]

Oh, I agree with you on that, Calcas. My point was meant to illustrate that I suspect that the twoofers got it wrong - again - in their haste to make moot points that mean nothing anyway. I just hadn't elaborated on the rest of my thoughts in that regard yet as I wanted to hear someone else's take on the accuracy of the words first.

Ms. McClatchey sounds entirely believable, entirely credible, and, frankly, far more patient than I would have been with a loser like that on the phone.
Another point that seems to be overlooked is the whole financial angle. She made it clear who to make the check/money order out to and stated that all proceeds went to the 9-11 victims or something to that effect. Didn't killclown used to postulate that she was somehow profiting from all these photo sales?

And his repeated references to her having bought a computer and camera before that day and bringing up her bankrupty (which she twice stated wasn't a personal bankruptcy) just makes me ill.

I would have hung up as soon as he started talking about that crap.

[~enigma~]

Apparently so.

I located the WhoIs info a little while ago that maccy kindly posted just above, and it concurs with what he (Jeff) posted online himself on another forum, either Loose with the Truth or Fake Pilots for Twoof, I can't recall which, a few weeks ago.

;)
I'll be up that way in about 6 months.

[LashL]

Another point that seems to be overlooked is the whole financial angle. She made it clear who to make the check/money order out to and stated that all proceeds went to the 9-11 victims or something to that effect. Didn't killclown used to postulate that she was somehow profiting from all these photo sales?

And his repeated references to her having bought a computer and camera before that day and bringing up her bankrupty (which she twice stated wasn't a personal bankruptcy) just makes me ill.

I would have hung up as soon as he started talking about that crap.

I would have hung up on him, too, but I probably would have blasted him first. Ms. McClatchey was far more polite and far more patient than I would have been with a jerk like him asking those kinds of questions, that's for sure. It is a testament to her commitment to the charities that she is supporting by way of her involuntary involvement in the tragic events of September 11, 2001 that she didn't just tell him off and hang up on him.

She made it abundantly clear that Jeff could purchase the photo and that he even had his choice of which charitable organization to make payment to. She also made it clear that the entire amount was to go to whichever charity he chose.

Is there any indication on the twoofer sites what day that phone call was made? Any indication that Jeff has followed up and sent his money order along?

And yes, it is not at all surprising that none of the twoofers are commenting on the fact that (a) the money is going 100% to charity; (b) that Ms. McClatchey bought the computer months earlier (contrary to KillClown's assertions); (c) that Ms. McClatchey bought the camera in August; (d) that Ms. McClatchey never declared personal bankruptcy; and (e) that it was a Camaro club member who was expected to fly over some time within the span of a few weeks, NOT necessarily that day.

It is no surprise that when twoofers' pet theories are blown to hell, they just ignore the facts and move on to a new, unsubstantiated and baseless accusation. That's what they are doing now in their latest "Val bashing" thread over at Loose with the Truth. They have no morals, no scruples, and no decency. Despicable.

Edit to add: And I'd like to know if Jeff ever sent that money order...

[T.A.M.]

Well thank god he (KT) is not a canadian...that is all I have to say...

[Arus808]

that thread is a goldmine for stupid troofer quotes.

[A W Smith]

if Val is not litigious she could still sue and donate the funds to the Todd Beamer foundation and the 911 victims foundation. The two she mentions in the phone call.

[Calcas]

that thread is a goldmine for stupid troofer quotes.
A genius by the name of chrisfarb chimes in.

"Excuse me for a moment but this is new to me. If there were actually ordnance blasts being done in this area and the smoke plume in her photo appears to be from an ordnance blast, why couldn't this photo have been taken earlier, maybe even years earlier, by Val, of an actual blast?"

[LashL]

A genius by the name of chrisfarb chimes in.

"Excuse me for a moment but this is new to me. If there were actually ordnance blasts being done in this area and the smoke plume in her photo appears to be from an ordnance blast, why couldn't this photo have been taken earlier, maybe even years earlier, by Val, of an actual blast?"

Oh, for crying out loud. "Teh stoopid" is getting so thick over there that it's hard to imagine how they function at all. Do they not even know what a stripmine is? Do they not know the first thing about how blasting in mines takes place? The ignorance is astounding.

[Arus808]

And that is why we let experts do the investigating; not a 18 year old with access to the net do it.

[Arus808]

Omg when Killclown can't post anything more stupid, he goes and outdoes himself

He's comparing this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLM51kNdytA

to Val's Photo

And using this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb5rUZIl86g

to Val's Photo


Suffice to say, a tu154 airplane is smaller than a 757. Its comparable to a boeing 727.

[maccy]

Actually, his details are publicly available from a whois lookup (http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=pumpitout&tld=com) on his site pumpitout.com:

[whois.netfirms.com]
Registrant:

Hill, Jeff
37 Princeton Drive
Sault Ste Marie, ON P6B5T4
CA

Domain name: pumpitout.com

Administrative Contact:
shure_dj@hotmail.com
Hill, Jeff
37 Princeton Drive
Sault Ste Marie, ON P6B5T4
CA
705-945-0011 Fax:

Technical Contact:
Netfirms Inc. support@netfirms.com
Manager, Domains
5160 Yonge St., 1800
Toronto, ON M2N6L9
CA
4166612100 Fax: 4166610700

He also confirms this address on his montage of calls to various government agencies (including the FBI in NYC). I'd link to it, but his website seems to be having problems. It was discussed in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70134

The link was: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/dec_07_2006.mp3 but this isn't working at the moment.

As well as administering his domain, Netfirms also administers the server that his site is running from (its ip address is 66.244.252.89). Their contact page is here:

http://www.netfirms.com/company/contact/

Terms of service are here:

http://www.netfirms.com/features/termsofservice.php

any content on YOUR Web site that is prohibited by the laws of any sovereign state, obscene under the laws of any sovereign state, or otherwise considered by NETFIRMS™, in its sole discretion, to be offensive, disruptive, obscene, inappropriate or otherwise an administrative burden, may be removed or deleted without any compensation to YOU; 8. Web site suspension / termination - if litigation or a similar adjudicative proceeding is commenced against YOU in respect of your SITE, and upon receipt by NETFIRMS™ of a Court-issued copy of such proceeding, YOUR SITE will be temporarily deactivated. The deactivation period will last until YOU have filed an appropriate Defence in respect of such proceeding, and provided NETFIRMS™ with a Court-issued copy of same. If YOU fail to defend any such proceeding, YOUR SITE will remain deactivated, without any compensation to YOU. 14. Termination - both YOU and NETFIRMS™ have the option to terminate this Agreement at any time, upon providing five-business days prior notice to the other. NETFIRMS™ may terminate this Agreement at any time without notice or compensation to YOU if YOU violate any term of this Agreement, engage in illegal conduct, post illegal material, overwhelm NETFIRMS™ servers or central processing units (CPUs), or engage in any conduct NETFIRMS™ deems in its sole discretion to be disruptive or harmful.Netfirms should definitely be copied into any legal action, as should their upstream connectivity supplier:

OrgName: Big Pipe Inc.
OrgID: BGPP
Address: Suite 400
Address: 630 - 3rd Ave. SW
City: Calgary
StateProv: AB
PostalCode: T2P-4L4
Country: CA

OrgAbuseHandle: BPA15-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: BIG PIPE ABUSE
OrgAbusePhone: +1-866-244-7474
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@bigpipeinc.com

http://www.bigpipeinc.com/html/acceptable_use_policy.jsp
http://www.bigpipeinc.com/html/contact_us.jsp

Even if what Jeff did isn't illegal, I'm pretty sure it's a breach of the acceptable use policies of these organisations.

[Arus808]

JTGOB is a hoot. Im sure he's investigated 1000's of airplane crashes, to know what kind of "plume" they'd make when they do crash.

[Arus808]

Even if what Jeff didn't isn't illegal, I'm pretty sure it's a breach of the acceptable use policies of these organisations.

actually, you should get his ISP into the "suit" as well since he is using their connection to post defamatory content and illegal recordings to the net.

same goes with Killclown.

[~enigma~]

If anybody wants some comedic entertainment read this (http://proxoid.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3oxMC5pbnZpc2lvbmZyZWUuY29tL0 xvb3NlX0NoYW5nZV9Gb3J1bS9pbmRleC5waHA%2Fc2hvd3RvcG ljPTMxNzQ%3D) thread where JTGOB is arguing against Roxdogl. about the illegality of Jeff's call to Val.

[Arus808]

there goes roxdog, thinking he's a lawyer now..first he's an engineer, a scientist, a demo expert, a physicist; how many "couch" professions can one person hold?

[~enigma~]

LashL,

Would this (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/recordcalls.html) FCC ruling be applicable?


FCC’s Rules Regarding Telephone Company Recording of Interstate or International Wireline Telephone Conversations
The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate (between different states) or international wireline calls. Interstate or international wireline conversations may not be recorded unless the use of the recording device is:
preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
preceded by verbal notification that is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a “beep tone,” that automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use.Also, a recording device can only be used if it can be physically connected to and disconnected from the telephone line or if it can be switched on and off.

[jaydeehess]

OrgName: Big Pipe Inc.
OrgID: BGPP
Address: Suite 400
Address: 630 - 3rd Ave. SW
City: Calgary
StateProv: AB
PostalCode: T2P-4L4
Country: CA

Big Pipe Inc. is a subsiduary of Shaw Cable Systems who's headquaters are in Calgary. Shaw is the cable TV and cable internet provider in Sault Saint Marie, Ontario so there is a could chance the Jeff Hill's ISP is Shaw cable. If so then he'll have an e-mail address with shaw.ca

ETA
netfirms.ca has a Toronto phone number
"NETFIRMS.CA" is registered.

Domain Name: netfirms.ca (98021)Registered: 2000/11/09
Last Modified: 2005/12/03Expires: 2010/12/01 Registrant: Netfirms, Inc. (34947)Suhan Shan suhan@netfirms.com (50795)416-661-2100 FAX 416-661-0700 Technical: suhan@netfirms.com (50795)
ns1.netfirms.com 216.32.198.6
ns2.netfirms.com 216.32.198.7

[LashL]

LashL,

Would this (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/recordcalls.html) FCC ruling be applicable?

Enigma,

No, it is not directly applicable because it deals with telephone calls being recorded by telephone companies, rather than by individuals.

That aside, I have been following up on the matter and hope to have a complete response to the questions raised soon.

[~enigma~]

Enigma,

No, it is not directly applicable because it deals with telephone calls being recorded by telephone companies, rather than by individuals.

That aside, I have been following up on the matter and hope to have a complete response to the questions raised soon.
Thanks LashL but I really can't see how there would be more lenient rules for individuals.

[LashL]

Thanks LashL but I really can't see how there would be more lenient rules for individuals.

I can.

;)

[~enigma~]

I can.

;)
I don't mean the FCC rules since they have none for individuals, They leave that up to state and federal law. I really don't see much saying anything about international calls except this FCC rule. In an intrastate call where recording is one party consent at one the origin (legal) and two party at the other end, there is precedent where the ruling took the two party consent and declared the recording illegal. If this were an intrastate call, Val's lawyers shouldn't have any trouble with this case. However, since this is international I see no clear law. I wonder, would the obvious attempt to libel Val come into play? Even if it is legal to record the call was it legal to post on the internet?

[jaydeehess]

the proxy link is not working. Looks like LC removed the thread. I also cannot get anything by going to pumpitout and clicking on the 'phone calls' tab.

For the page http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls.html you get the infamous 404 error.

Could it be that ol' Jeff has been visited by a lawyer?

Anyone got a link to the call to Val M that works?

[maccy]

the proxy link is not working. Looks like LC removed the thread. I also cannot get anything by going to pumpitout and clicking on the 'phone calls' tab.

For the page http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls.html you get the infamous 404 error.

Could it be that ol' Jeff has been visited by a lawyer?

Anyone got a link to the call to Val M that works?

That phone calls page stopped working a while back (before he posted tha Val call, I think).

The Val call is still here:

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/val.wav

[jaydeehess]

I'm listening to it right now.

Man the guy is a snake.

[Arus808]

if it "disappears" a lot of us have saved the audio for posterity.

[Dog Town]

That phone calls page stopped working a while back

It was right after the FBI, idiotic calls. They were funny as hell, though!

Anyone know of those archived?

[maccy]

It was right after the FBI, idiotic calls. They were funny as hell, though!

Anyone know of those archived?

bonavada has a copy on his website:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/cozyhill/kooks.html

NB This page has an embedded java media player.

[maccy]

Jeff now has link to an mp3 version of the call on the main page of his website http://www.pumpitout.com/. There's also a picture of Val and a link to Killtown's blog.

The mp3 version of the call is here:
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/Val_McClatchey_01_26_07.mp3

There's an entry on Jeff's forum here:
http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=shanksville&action=display&thread=1170405295

[LashL]

Having consulted several lawyers and done some research on the applicable laws and the acceptable use policies of the relevant internet service providers, etal, the consensus is that Ms. McClatchey could, in fact, sue Jeff in Ontario and that she would likely succeed. However, given that she lives in Pennsylvania, doing so could be prohibitively expensive for her. Moreover, the odds of Jeff having assets sufficient to pay the eventual judgment that she wins are probably slim to none.

It would be far less expensive for her to sue him in Pennsylvania, and she would almost certainly win should she do so.

At minimum, the recording of her telephone conversation without her consent breaches Pennsylvania law, without question. Moreover, the posting of that conversation on the internet is also a clear breach of Pennsylvania law, which entitles her to damages for every day that it remains posted. Again, though, collecting on a judgment may be very difficult considering that he likely has little in the way of assets.

Still, it would not take all that much to have his site removed, if that is the goal.

The posting of the telephone conversation on Jeff's website almost certainly violates the terms of service and the acceptable use policies as well. Most notably, this one:

2. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

Illegal/Criminal Activity

Shaw Business Solutions Services must not be used for any activity that violates any local, provincial, federal, international or any other applicable law or regulation, including the distribution or storage of materials that are contrary to any applicable law or regulation. Prohibited activities include, but are not limited to:
- Infringing copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents or any other type of intellectual property;
- Posting any content that threatens, advocates, promotes or otherwise encourages violence or which provides instruction, information or assistance in causing or carrying out such violence;
- Transmitting offensive materials including obscene, pornographic, indecent, hateful, defamatory or otherwise objectionable material; and
- Violating the personal privacy of another individual.

As has been pointed out above by those who did the digging on the service providers, etc., having the site taken down would not be difficult if Ms. McClatchey started an action against Jeff, either in Pennsylvania or Ontario, particularly in light of the NETFIRMS terms of use that someone kindly dug up and posted above.

On the other hand, I would not blame Ms. McClatchey one bit if she simply ignores this moron from the Soo. The phone call and the obvious dishonesty Jeff engages in throughout the call (and in his follow up posts to it on the now disappeared thread at the LooseWithTheTruth forum) illustrates his lack of integrity and shows him up for the creep that he is, while Ms. McClatchey, in contrast, comes across as completely credible and honest.

Still, in light of Jeff now linking to the thoroughly disgusting and reprehensible KillClown site directly beneath the phone call on his lunatic conspiracy fantasist site, perhaps Ms. McClatchey will choose to proceed. In either event, I certainly wish Ms. McClatchey the very best as I am sure all of the skeptics here do, and should she decide to sue in Ontario, I will gladly offer my services pro bono. Decent people do not deserve this kind of reprehensible treatment at the hands of conspiracy fantasists.

[gumboot]

It's actually irrelevant what US or PA laws might or might not be broken. The call was made in Canada, and the recording was carried out in Canada, therefore Canadian law is applicable, not US law.

As such you would have to press the case in Canadian court, and in my experience most countries don't look too keenly on the US trying to impose its laws on them.

However, even if under Canadian Law, recording someone on a phone without their consent is legal, by publishing the recording without a release contract from Val, he is violating copyright law, which is international.

Plain and simple, you're not allowed to broadcast or publish a recording (images or sound) of a person without the written permission of that person in the form of a personal release.

You can only truly appreciate the importance of this once you've worked on a film set and had to run a mile down a street after some random bystanders who accidently walked into the take the director liked the most. Once you catch up with them, the really fun bit begins as you try convince them they want to sign your form.

Ah, good times.

-Gumboot

[Arus808]

I dont think its an issue of monetary reimbursement; but to penalize those who go unpunished for their actions.

yes, it would be cost prohibitive, but I think that if it were me, that was being called a liar on a daily basis , by anonymous punks on the net; what happens if clients of mines decided to "search' the net under my name and city, and come upon KT's blogs/multiple forum posts, instead of my business?

I wouldnt' be seeking any monetary damage to sue them. I'd seek that they are never to touch a computer for the rest of their lives. That is more than enough redemption in my honest opinion.

these two idiots are allowed to defame someone freely with no fear of punishment; its time that someone just puts them in their place, without worry about how much its going to cost them to do so.

if val would like to pursue this, i honestly can see people donating to help her out, legally.

[~enigma~]

I would gladly donate something to help Val put a stop to the Canadian woowoo Jeff.

[LashL]

It's actually irrelevant what US or PA laws might or might not be broken. The call was made in Canada, and the recording was carried out in Canada, therefore Canadian law is applicable, not US law.

Actually, that is not correct, Gumboot. That is exactly the point that I was researching. It is not as straightforward as you might think. When it comes to cross-border torts involving telephones or the internet, the location of the person who has been wronged tends to take precedence over the location of the person doing the damage, and the person who has been wronged gets the choice of where to initiate proceedings. Within Canada, the same principle applies to inter-provincial torts, by the way. The wronged party gets to choose where to initiate proceedings when there are options because of varying jurisdictions between the location of the plaintiff and the defendant, particularly when the alleged wrongdoing involves telephones or the internet. This is subject to challenge on certain legal grounds, of course, but there is no question that Ms. McClatchey can sue Jeff in PA and have PA law apply there if she chooses.

As such you would have to press the case in Canadian court, and in my experience most countries don't look too keenly on the US trying to impose its laws on them.


Not so. See above. And please note that this is not a matter of "the U.S. trying to impose its laws on" Canadian courts. Because of the proximity of our two countries, and because of the reality of cross-border interaction on all levels, cross-border litigation is also a reality and has been for decades. Thus, the "conflict of laws" body of law, and the "choice of law" body of law are relevant in such matters, in conjunction with bilateral treaties, etc.

However, even if under Canadian Law, recording someone on a phone without their consent is legal, by publishing the recording without a release contract from Val, he is violating copyright law, which is international.


I do not agree that copyright attaches to a telephone conversation in these circumstances, but I'm certainly willing to hear your argument in that regard.

Plain and simple, you're not allowed to broadcast or publish a recording (images or sound) of a person without the written permission of that person in the form of a personal release.


See above.

You can only truly appreciate the importance of this once you've worked on a film set and had to run a mile down a street after some random bystanders who accidently walked into the take the director liked the most. Once you catch up with them, the really fun bit begins as you try convince them they want to sign your form.

I respect your expertise in film making, Gumboot, but I'm afraid that you are wrong about the application of copyright principles in film making to these very different circumstances, in which very different principles of law apply.

[Brainache]

That is very interesting Lash. I hope Ms McClatchey takes them to the cleaners.

Oh BTW If Jeff is broke, is Val entitled to sue the site provider even though Jeff has breached their terms?

[LashL]

That is very interesting Lash. I hope Ms McClatchey takes them to the cleaners.

Oh BTW If Jeff is broke, is Val entitled to sue the site provider even though Jeff has breached their terms?

Well, anyone can sue anyone, of course, but in my view, it is unlikely that the service provider would be deemed liable, Brainache. They should certainly be given notice of any claim against Jeff that arises out of the use of the website which they host, but I do not think that the provider would be held liable for hosting the material, at least not up to the point where there is a complaint about it and a request to remove it. I haven't looked at this aspect in any depth at all, but I doubt that any liability would accrue to them just for hosting content of which they are unaware.

In addition, I am quite sure that there are all kinds of disclaimers and such in the terms of service that place liability for inappropriate content squarely upon the website owner/operator rather than the service provider. While an obligation may arise for a service provider to remove the material after a complaint (depending on the content and depending upon their view of its legality or illegality, appropriateness or impropriety, etc.), I am reasonably certain that there is no obligation upon them to proactively monitor the content on an ongoing basis absent any complaint.