• 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

~enigma~

Banned
E
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
7,923
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.
Click to expand...
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.p...m/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3043
 
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.
 
Gravy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
~enigma~ said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't realize that was a proxy link. I got through on my own.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
killtown@LC said:
And where is the "video showing her plume drifting" not been released to the public after 5 fricken years???
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
yeah.. remember with these tools, the law doesn't matter...as long as they can harass, libel, slander someone in the process.
 
alex@lc said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
well, pdoh shows his condoning of illegal acts

pdoh@lc said:
Who gives a toss what ridiculous little by-law he broke?
Click to expand...

[sarcasm]Yes, pdoh....who really cares?[/sarcasm]
 
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.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are twelve states that require all party consent. They are:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]California[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Connecticut[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Delaware[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Florida[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Illinois[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Maryland[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Massachusetts [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Michigan[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Montana[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Hampshire[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pennsylvania[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Washington[/FONT]​
Click to expand...

(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:
  1. 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.
  2. Punitive damages.
  3. A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alex@lc
alex@lc said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:(
 
T.A.M. said:
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:(
Click to expand...

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.
 
LashL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Calcas said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
A W Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, his details are publicly available from a whois lookup 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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70134

The link was: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/dec_07_2006.mp3 but this isn't working at the moment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom