• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Crazy Canadian

LashL said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks LashL but I really can't see how there would be more lenient rules for individuals.
 
LashL said:
I can.

;)
Click to expand...
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
if it "disappears" a lot of us have saved the audio for posterity.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
I would gladly donate something to help Val put a stop to the Canadian woowoo Jeff.
 
gumboot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Brainache said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom