Articles
<<
Return to Index (start
reading from the first bottom email)
Victor
Zammit's last email to Randi March 7th 08, responding:
(
To Randi )You've got to be extremely careful what you put
down on paper. Why? You stated "... unlike
you, I have real
business to attend to."
Clearly
and objectively, you are demonstrating inferior logic and
using a low level of rationale to come to conclusions -
and if this logic has been used to investigate the paranormal
the logic you use is highly defective, inferior and below
standard.
Why?
You
are not in a position to know how much work I do!
Whilst
I retired from the legal profession (not quite completely)
I work some 12 to 14 hours a day - sometimes seven days
a week on very serious business and other empirical matters-
and you conclude that only you have real business
to attend to?
By stating that, you are making assumptions - Again, making
assumptions without any evidence is low level of rationale.
Victor
Zammit
***************
Randi
(to Victor Zammit) :
Be assured
that I am sutiably impressed with your attention to detail
re the legal ethics involved, and your need for total assurance
that the JREF price is secured and available. In response:
1. I am asking
one of our lawyers to "expressly and specifically"
supply you with the essential references to "which
statutory law the sworn statement is subject to and what
is the maximum prison penalty sentence for any violation."
This will provide you with the means to relegate me to durance
vile – which you obviously expect to be my fate. I
shudder in anticipation of this outcome.
2. I will also
ask one of our lawyers to assure you that "that any
available funding is unencumbered and allocated specifically
for the challenge and not subject to any prior liens or
claims that could or would significantly reduce if not negate
all the funding [we] claim to have." I know that you
will be immensely assured by this inclusion, though I'm
equaly sure that you will have many further requirements
to impose on me, being that you are who you are.
(The objectionable
comment in your number 4 was made without my knowledge by
an employee who – for this very reason – is
no longer with the JREF. I apologize for this.)
Zammit, you have
devoted most of your response to matters which do not refer
to the legal document you are demanding from me, and I demand
that in future responses you confine yourself solely to
the matter at hand. I will not waste my valuable time arguing
with you about other matters; unlike you, I have real
business to attend to.
Be assured that
this entire discussion will be published, so that others
may see the lengths to which you will go to obfuscate and
drag out this matter in order to satisfy your need for attention,
and my own saintly patience will become even more evident.
I will respond
with the data required to satisfy points 1 and 2, above,
as soon as that material is available James Randi
James Randi Educational
Foundation
FL 33316-1815
USA
e-mail:
randi@randi.org
***************************
From:
Victor J Zammit [mailto:victorzammit@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:09 AM
To: 'James Randi'
Subject: RE: How we stopped Randi's MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL
CHALLENGE
Essential
rebuttals and suggestions:
I will
first start with my comment in relation to the last paragraph
of your preamble:
I’m
pleased to hear that you intend to have a document such
as I have suggested printed, signed, and witnessed under
oath, then mailed to me by post. Please note that I never
agreed to draft such a document for you…see below.
CRITICAL:
It is not a matter of my not ‘wanting to draft a definitive
statement’ for you. Procedure has it that it would
be prudent and ethical for you to hire your own lawyer to
do the drafting for you. I do not have any power to approve
or disapprove anything drafted in your State. What is required
is that anything properly drafted has to be strictly enforceable
in the State in which you reside and in other States as
well. Your lawyer has to expressly and specifically state
in the declaration which statutory law the sworn statement
is subject to and what is the maximum prison penalty sentence
for any violation. Anything else would just be rhetoric.
As to
the contents in your last email:
1. You
are projecting your own rudeness again. Why do you have
to call the good, decent person honestly seeking clarification
a ‘grubbie’? You make accusations stating ‘rude
and nasty’ without evidence – you did not mention
anything any aspect of my last email that would be construed
to be rude. I used legitimate expression to describe your
conduct.
2. “Grow
up little man’”- I never asked you to be ‘nice’
to me – I stated that using the negative adjective
‘dammit’ was an attempt by you to be willfully
condescending, highly unreasonable and to score cheap points.
3. ‘Projection’
is a very well established defence mechanism in Psychology
for those who consistently use negative adjectives as you
do – attributing to others their own attributes. Psychologists
can read you very easily.
4. Re:
‘objective evidence’ issue: the way things stand
it is not 100% certain that anyone could sue you successfully
or that there could be a police prosecution if you gave
a different interpretation to the wording of your offer.
It is on record that there were those who tried to seek
clarification about your funding who after researching the
matter, ended up stating that they had enormous difficulty
getting any response, received inconsistent information
and ended up stating the alleged bonds you have may not
be worth anything – see http://psipog.net/print-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html
This decent person was innocently asking for clarification
about how genuine the funding for the challenge is. The
response to this decent enquirer:
"So far, you're just full of shit. That's OUR perspective.
Apply or go away. We don't have to prove anything to you."
Now that’s not very nice is it to someone who was
innocently asking for a simple clarification.
5. You
also have to show that any available funding is unencumbered
and allocated specifically for the challenge and not subject
to any prior liens or claims that could or would significantly
reduce if not negate all the funding you claim to have.
6. Regarding
Professor Rawlins – any reasonable person would accept
that you were referring to your challenge – that you
will always have a way out … of paying anything. If
you stated “I’m right” that would be totally
irrelevant, out of context and subjectively self serving.
Translated, to the innocent enquirer it means you have no
intention of paying a cent regarding the challenge –
that’s one of the reasons why you have no credibility
in this regard.
7. Regarding
The You Tube video of Don Lane and you – I spoke to
him recently and he contradicts you of course. But any viewer
not committed either way to the paranormal will see that
you were trying to bend a key with your hand … to
such a person it would be ‘cheating’ …
ask any lawyer.
Victor
Zammit
Lawyer
On The Unrebuttable Evidence For The Afterlife www.victorzammit.com
****************************
From: James Randi
[mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, 2 March 2008 8:10 AM
To: 'Victor J Zammit'
Subject: RE: How we stopped Randi's MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL
CHALLENGE
Importance: High
Re your #1: You
are a rude, nasty person, Zammit. I have no intention of
being “nice” with you. That has nothing to do
with my issuance of a definitive legal statement, which
is the matter at hand. Try to stay focused on that, and
spare me the “projection” fantasies…
Re your #2: The
“objective evidence” was prominently published
at www.randi.org/joom/content/view/151/27/#i5 for all to
see – including you. If I were to publish such a document
and it were shown to be fraudulent or altered in any way,
I would be subject to both federal and state prosecution
for fraud. Any person inquiring of Goldman/Sachs can obtain
detailed information concerning that account, which is always
maintained, by contract, with Goldman/Sachs, at a minimum
of one million dollars, and we send out updated statements
every two months. This is PROOF, Zammit, and you have had
this available to you for years now, for the asking. The
account is backed by US Treasury bonds, not by junk bonds,
as some of the other grubbies have surmised…
Re “d”
– as you know, that statement by Mr. Rawlins was incomplete.
It was, “I always have an ‘out’ –
I’m right!” This has been published many times,
but you’ve chosen to believe a popular woo-woo magazine
rather than the facts. The statement is not “on record,”
as you claim, when it’s only published by “Fate”
magazine, believe me.
Re the “cheating”
episode – grow up, Zammit. Lane insisted that I’d
called Stokes and Geller “fakes” – a term
I’ve never used when referring to either of them –
and he shouted me down. He lost, big time, and Australia
agreed with me on that. You’re clutching at straws,
little man, and you’re not staying afloat, or didn’t
you notice?
But I digress.
Since you refuse to draft a definitive statement for me
to sign, despite your agreement to do so, I will submit
the following for your approval, a document that I will
print, sign, and have witnessed under oath, then mailed
to you by post, if you so agree – which I very much
doubt you will do:
……………………………………
Declaration Made
this 1st day of March, 2008:
KNOW ALL MEN
BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT I, JAMES RANDI, maintaining as my
present address, 12000 NW 8th Street, Plantation, Florida
33325, USA, do hereby make the following statement, doing
so of my own free will, swearing under oath that each and
every word of this statement is true to the best of my knowledge,
that no facts nor details have been omitted, and that the
statement binds me legally. I further acknowledge that this
affirmation will subject me, James Randi, to a fine and/or
imprisonment if any facts here are mis-stated, or if the
agreements I make here are willfully violated.
I further state
that any person shall have the automatic right to freely
cite this document, and to receive a written copy of it
by mail, if so desired, upon the submission of a written
request and a stamped, self-addressed envelope sent to the
address contained ahead in the next paragraph of this statement.
My sworn statement follows:
The James Randi
Educational Foundation is registered as a 501(c)3 charitable
organization under FEID #65-0649443, and does business at
our office at 201 S.E. 12th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
33316, USA. The Foundation is here referred to as “JREF.”
The office building is entirely owned and operated by the
JREF. I, James Randi, am the president of the JREF.
Since March
6th, 1998, the JREF has maintained a special investment
account with the investment firm of Goldman Sachs, with
headquarters at the Mellon Bank Center, 1735 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103, USA, to serve as the
source of the prize offered by the JREF as outlined at www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/.
This account is titled, “James Randi Prize Account,”
and bears portfolio number 030-11408-6.
Since its inception
ten years ago, the James Randi Prize Account has maintained
a balance of at least one million dollars (US), with one
exception, when the balance dropped just below one million
dollars during a stock-market depression. Promptly notified
– as instructed – by Goldman Sachs of this discrepancy,
I transferredU$20,000 from my personal account to the Prize
Account in order to maintain the minimum balance. The discrepancy
lasted less than 48 hours, and that situation has not occurred
again.
The JREF occasionally
takes funding from the interest generated by the Prize Account
to finance its activities, but a minimum balance of one
million dollars (US) has always been maintained, since March
6th, 1998. As of January 31st, 2008, the current balance
of the Prize Account IS US$1,100,055.36.
The Prize Account
portfolio consists entirely of US Government Grade Fixed
Income investments. These are U.S. Treasury Notesand FHLB
California (Federal Home Loan Bank) Notes, all immediately
convertible to cash upon demand.
Regardless,
the JREF has assets – cash, property, equity –
well in excess of two million dollars to cover the prize
amount, in case the United States of America should go bankrupt.
This statement
was prepared, signed, and notarized at the demand of one
Victor James Zammit, a lawyer in New South Wales, Australia.
Mr. Zammit has demanded proof that the JREF prize exists.
The statement was drawn up to satisfy that need. James Randi
agrees to be subject to any and all penalties – for
perjury, breach of contract – in any country in the
world, should any part of this statement be untrue or incomplete
in such a way that it presents anything as fact that is
not of that nature.
This document
is signed and notarized below.
James Randi.
****************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From:
Victor J Zammit [mailto:victorzammit@optusnet.com.au] Sent:
Saturday, March 01, 2008 5:59 AM
To: 'James Randi'
Cc: jeff@randi.org; 'Linda Shallenberger'; 'Alison Smith';
'Hal Bidlack'
Subject: RE: How we stopped Randi's MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL
CHALLENGE
WHO
is misinformed?
(1) a)
Let me remind you that it was you who started to change
names not me. You ought to remember some years ago that
without provocation, you were the first to call me ‘Dammit
Zammit’. That was not very nice was it?
Now you
complain because I called you by one of the original names
you had? Accordingly, again you mislead the public by trying
to be denigrating using ‘desperate’ –
projecting your own real negative attribute. Further, using
‘delusion’ is another projection about your
own alleged challenge – it’s a ‘delusion’.
b) I
proved that you have miserably failed to give objective
evidence to the public that you have the necessary funding
to support your alleged challenge. People who make claims
they have a million dollars to support their challenge have
an ethical, moral and an equitable duty to produce evidence
beyond reasonable doubt that the funding is available. That
you do NOT have and never have produced. Getting a piece
of paper that you have a million dollars in bonds is absolutely
meaningless. But if you put it on record where you have
something to lose – like going to prison for several
years if you lie if don’t have the funding –
will be far more credible, far more effective and far more
acceptable to the public.
c) The
fact that no credible highly gifted medium or gifted psychic
– especially those who passed the most stringent scientific
tests of their paranormal skills – applied for your
challenge shows in absolute terms that these highly gifted
mediums do not have confidence in the legitimacy of your
challenge. This is because you do not have credibility about
the challenge
d) Further,
I remind you that it is on record – and something
that you not only did not deny but you tried to rationalize:
Professor Dennis Rawlins, spilling the beans, stated that
you told him, "I always have an out"! (Fate, October
1981) – regarding your $1m challenge. Translated that
means no amount of paranormal evidence will be sufficient
to pass any of your tests. This means your challenge does
not have credibility at all and that you are knowingly and
deliberately deluding the public about your challenge.
There
is more evidence as to why mediums, psychics, healers and
the average good decent person do not regard you as having
credibility in relation to your challenge: the issue of
cheating by you on television http://snipurl.com/t5k3
(2) It
would not be prudent for me to meddle in American Federal
or State laws to draft any document to be enforceable in
the U.S. – as much as it would not be prudent for
an American lawyer to be meddling in Australian law.
Our laws in Australia are not the same as your laws. Whatever
I draft here because of jurisdictional restrictions would
not be transferable to the State you live. We have statutory
Federal and State laws in the State of New South Wales where
I live and a statement on oath/affirmation is relative to
the specific law of the State of N.S.W and Australia. If
you are serious about the matter, choose your own lawyer
to draft an appropriate enforceable statement as stated
to you and others. If you give the correct instructions
to your lawyer, the document to be signed on affirmation
will be enforceable where you live.
(3) Agreed.
(4) I
am so glad that you claim to have the necessary courage
to pursue the matter. Accordingly, I shall be waiting for
a copy of the properly worded document to show that you
do have the necessary funding to support the subject challenge.
Incidentally, you will have to make a proviso, on affirmation
, that in the event the cash bonds you mentioned are worthless,
(as it has been claimed see http://psipog.net/print-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html
) or of insufficient value to pay out the claim, that you
do have other cash or equity to equal to the amount you
claim you have to support the challenge.
Accordingly
I await from you confirmation that you have fulfilled your
public duty showing in clear terms by way of an affirmation
subject to imprisonment if willfully violated, that you
do have the funding for your alleged challenge.
Victor
Zammit
Email:
victor@victorzammit
Lawyer
On The Unrebuttable Evidence For The Afterlife www.victorzammit.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Randi
[mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2008 2:03 AM
To: 'Victor J Zammit'
Cc: jeff@randi.org; 'Linda Shallenberger'; 'Alison Smith';
'Hal Bidlack'
Subject: RE: How we stopped Randi's MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL
CHALLENGE
Importance: High
February 25th,
2008, at 10;03 hr. An open message to the obviously misinformed
and rather desperate Mr. Zammit:
(1) My name is
not “Zwinge Randi,” and it never has been. My
name is James Randi, legally and properly. You seem to think
that you are privy to some deep, dark, secret information
about me that is being concealed; in this, as in so many
other delusions you exhibit, you are wrong.
(2) Please –
summoning up your highly expert legal abilities –
draft a formal statement for me to sign, clearly stating
that the million-dollar prize exists, is specifically held
for that purpose, and exists as immediately-negotiable bonds
which can be converted to cash by anyone to whom it is awarded.
Upon receipt of that document, I will sign it and have it
notarized (in your vast experience, you may be familiar
with this legal procedure?) and I will both mail you a copy
by post and exhibit it as a scanned document on the JREF
web page, within 24 hours. I agree to risk the possible
seven years imprisonment, and I volunteer to travel to Australia
if and when I am charged and convicted of fraud in this
respect.
(3) I generously
agree that “any applicant will have the automatic
right to cite” this document, and to receive a copy
of it by mail, if so desired.
(4) In response
to your inquiry, yes, I am able to summon up the “courage”
and the “stomach” that you require, Mr. Zammit.
Are you similarly able? We all await your response with
great interest…!
James Randi
James Randi Educational
Foundation
FL 33316-1815
USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Victor
J Zammit [mailto:victorzammit@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:20 AM
Subject: RE: How we stopped Randi's MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL
CHALLENGE
Starts
here - from an item on my Friday Report
THIRD
NOTICE of CHALLENGE:
to Zwinge Randi: do what Victor Zammit did: formally - make
out a legal written statement on oath (subject to up to
seven years in prison if caught lying - perjury): that you,
Zwinge do in fact have the one million dollars in currency
cash or it’s confirmed equivalent in equity - you
claim you have regarding your alleged challenge. A proviso
should be that any applicant will have the automatic right
to cite this very important document. If Zwinge does not
have the million dollars, he MUST withdraw the challenge
- many claim his challenge is the most fraudulent challenge
in human history. Have the courage? Have the dough? Have
the stomach for this challenge?
(From Victor Zammit’s own ONE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE
www.victorzammit.com ) first put on the Net Friday 25th
January 08)
| 