Skeptic Project

Also why does it remind me of this?
http://baumanletters.ytmnd.com/

hah if you were James Kush, that would mean that you had spent hours replying to yourself on a blog with back and forth questions, points and answers LOL.

Perhaps in the world of vtv and merola that kind of behaviour is normal ?

I could care less about PEter but I will respond to a few things in his e-mail.

Avalon is a public venue and there Jim can e-mail anybody he wants to about how many occupied that particular venue. This does not constitute as harassment of any sort, however I do see this little threat by Peter blowing back in his face.

As far as the electronic communication privacy act, 18,U.S.C. 2510-2521 in Peters signature to my understanding is meant to be used when a individual acquires e-mails that were not directed towards him or her. This means a person can still post e-mail public however if someone receives e-mails not directed towards them, they cannot post post them public without permission from either the recipient/s or sender.

It's a bit odd that the Avalon person forwarded the e-mail to Peter. Can we really trust Peter's numbers? At first he said 550 then said 546. Why couldn't he get it right the first time? I wouldn't bank on Peter's numbers being right and would relie more on actually counting the people in the video for a more accurate attendance count than Peter's numbers.

I find the irony in the fact that Peter's movement believes law and guberment is bad yet he does not shy away from using it or intimidating others that he will use it, though Peter Merola's older brother Eric Merola apparently has the same MO.

As far as the IP number (if that even mattered), google I believe masks the IP number with their IP server, though to my understanding any other e-mail provider does not practice this. At that you have his IP number what of it? No crime was committed...

Peter assumes you are Kush and or Mario without proof and therefore has committed a logical fallacy which he reached his conclusion/evidence by connecting the dots and piecing the puzzle together otherwise known as Peter's conspiratorial mindset.

Worse thing in this e-mail is when he says that SP members are free to poke fun at his crap, which is again he is telling Sp members that we can continue to do that action with Peter's permission. At that towards the end he tells Jim to "keep up the good work", acknowledging that he knows what Jim does and is permitting him to continue to do what he does.

If Peter thinks he has a case he shouldn't of responded to Jim Jesus in this manner, though if Peter has a problem with Jim or anybody else he should contact the person and if nothing comes from it he has the right to take them to court. Based on what I have read it's clear to me Peter does not want to do that and is rather using logical fallacy's and intimidation. Again the irony...


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


To add a bit more onto ECP I googled it. This is what I found.

http://www.volokh.com/2011/10/03/e-mail-confidentiality-statements-and-the-electronic-communications-privacy-act/

E-Mail Confidentiality Statements and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Orin Kerr • October 3, 2011 4:49 pm

It is common for e-mail from lawyers to have a statement at the end indicating that the e-mail is confidential and may be privileged, and that if you have received the e-mail in error you should delete it. Sometimes the statement also includes this line:
This email (including the attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521.
If you're a lawyer and the statement at the end of your e-mail has that line quoted above, please do yourself a favor and remove it. Including that line only shows that you have no idea what the Electronic Communications Privacy Act does, and that you are comfortable repeatedly invoking a law even though you have no idea what is in it. That's a pretty lousy image to present for your legal practice.

For those curious about the details, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 is the federal Wiretap Act. It prohibits the real-time interception of the contents of any communications sent over any communications network without the permission of one of the parties. In 1986, the law was amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to apply to "electronic communications," which basically means all computer communications. Under the 1986 Act, it is a crime to intercept any electronic message between its send and delivery points absent an exception to the statute. Importantly, the Wiretap Act only applies when the communications are in transit. That means the statute doesn't stop anyone from reading any e-mail that lands in their inbox, even if it was misdelivered there. That's true for two reasons. First, If the e-mail has been sent to you, you are a party to it, and you can read it. Plus, once an e-mail has been delivered and it is sitting in your inbox, reading it cannot be an "intercept" because the e-mail in your inbox has already been delivered.

Now that you understand what the statute actually does, you can see why the disclaimer that I quoted above is rather nonsensical. First, the lawyer's e-mail is "protected" by the statute only to the extent that every phone call and every e-mail, Facebook message, text message, IM, and every other electronic communication is protected. Second, by the time the reader actually sees the e-mail, the message has been delivered and the cited statute no longer provides any protection at all. So if you include that line, you're basically saying that you think it's noteworthy that your e-mail has the same protection has all e-mails -- which in this case is none at all.

@Burger King.

550 is about right. Considering bands have the musicians and roadies, and merola had staff and @ or volunteers that could easily account for 350. I just don't buy that those people were all paying atttendees. I could believe 150 people came. Merola said his first ZMF had 600 people there and that seems legit considering there at least was a crowd at that one. Albeit a small crowd.

He did get my IP address, because I sent the inquiry though their website which had a contact form. Merola is a dipshit though. He knows Kush is a Texan, dude couldn't be bothered to geolocate the IP and see I'm in Las Vegas. I really don't have anything to hide. I took on Scientology, I can take on a moronic conspiritard who's in debt from making shitty internet movies.

Merola just isn't too smart. Which explains why he keeps falling for frauds like Jordan Maxwel and Jacque Fresco who kick his ass to the curb once they're done with them. Wonder who the next slick snake oil pitcher is who will snag him next for free publicity.

Looks like even the American Bar even says they're not valid or legally binding.

There is no legal doctrine or theory under which an email confidentiality disclaimer is enforceable in a circumstance like this. There is virtually no scholarly analysis of the impact of email disclaimers and very little analysis by non-scholars. One of the few authors who have commented on the subject suggests that the misconception that email disclaimers have validity may arise from the mistaken belief that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) somehow applies. Michael Santarcangelo, "Do Email Disclaimers Matter?," Sec. Catalyst (Oct. 17, 2007). But, as this author points out, the ECPA prohibits only "intercepting" emails. Emails that arrive at their destination--even if the sender did not intend that destination--are not emails that have been intercepted in transit, and the ECPA is therefore inapplicable. In short, the ECPA is focused on the criminal intent of the interceptor, not the ability of the sender to execute his or her own intentions.

But, who knows? Maybe the ACA is harassing Merola too.