Legal questions about PM's etc

dbldie55

What I really want to know about is the email that seemed to start the whole ACG action. Is an email like a phone call, that cannot be tapped (and thus used) unless both parties agree?

It would seem that someone sent ACG the email to get in on their reward system without Barry's permission. I am sure he was fine with it being used as he wanted to expose ACG for what they are. But would he have had a legal footing based on its usage?

So you legal wizards, how do these types of conversations, including PMs, fall within the law?

Blade

I think once it shoots over the internet it is fair game. Companies are subpoenaed all the time to get access to their e-mail correspondence.

coinguy1

Without giving a legal opinion, I will say this:

I was at part of the hearing as a witness. If I recall correctly, Mrs. Hagar stated that the person who had received the email from Mr. Stuppler was an acquaintance of Mr. Hagar's and it didn't sound as if a reward had anything to do with making Mr. Hagar aware of the contents.

Ok, now for my "legal" opinion - as I understand it, in this particular case, at least, there was nothing to prevent the recipient of Mr. Stuppler's email from making the contents known to someone else.

ClarkOfKent

I've often wondered about that. Don't you have to subpoena the email from the isp, so you can prove it's for real?

The reason I mention this is because I had to testify in someone's divorce case once. I was presented with a printout of an email and asked if I had sent it. I answered, "No." The attorney got all pissy and asked if that was my email address, I told her that anyone with a computer and a printer could have produced that printout. The judge got a real kick out of it.

RKKay

Without going into that area of law, which is in no way my forte, it seems the email cannot be a protected transmission, as it forms the very basis for the allegations. For example, if Mark emailed Boiler78 and told him I had ripped off some poor old lady, and he gave "supporting facts," which were actually false, the basis of my cause of action could not be established if Boiler weren't allowed to reveal the email's contents to me.

Max

With the new Patriot Act [if you don't know what that is do a Google search and read, fascinating!] everything about a person is open to scrutiny. From ATM usage, grocery store affinity swipe card usage [once used to convince a man was an alcoholic and lose child custody], driving habits [tacked by cell phone usage while in car], etc. Of course the more mundane stuff like credit cards, phone call, etc. is all collected activity just waiting to be used against you.

Sadly, many have signed away their rights under the guise of national security. Who for a second thinks all this data will be discarded one day?

Nine times out of ten I see such information used to entrap people. I know, if you aint done nothing wrong why worry? Did Barry do anythign wrong but express his opinion? Did Mr. Barry get screwed by the ANA? You be the judge.

K6AZ

In this case, the recipient of the email forwarded it to the Hagers. Legally, there is no problem with this. Contrary to popular internet belief, a recipient can do with an email what he pleases, especially if it was unsolicited.

Just for the record, for those who do not know, I strongly support Barry's efforts. And, if you would like to see the email in question, it is posted on my site. Click on the ACG vs Barry Stuppler link.

Conder101

K6AZ has it right. Before the Patriot Act you couldn't be forced to hand over you emails without a subpoena, but either the sender or the receiver could volentarily distribute them to anyone they wanted. An exception to that was if you used someone elses system to send or receive you email. In that case the owner of the system has the right to go in and read, copy, and distribute your e-mails as well. Since the Patriot Act through all of this is wide open to any government agency even without a court order. If they do want to do it "Nicely" to make sure you can't object to it they can get a cort order, but they no longer have to present evidence to justify it, just request it. The Patriot Act has given the authorities more power to spy on the citizens than even the Gestopo or KGB had. Feel safer? I don't. We have exchanged one group of terrorists for a much bigger group.

ClarkOfKent

<< <i>We have exchanged one group of terrorists for a much bigger group. >>

Do you mean "for a much bigger group of" terrorists? Are you actually calling our government terrorists? Could you please clarify your statement for me?

VonZipper

Conder--- sshhh patriot act watching.

Max

Are you actually calling our government terrorists? Could you please clarify your statement for me?

I'll clarify for Conder101, he is currently being detained for unspecified reasons. ==> Economic Terrorists.

Anyone know history? McCarthyism? Red Scare? Hollywood commie witchhunts? Fascinating stuff!

csw

I hate the USA PATRIOT Act as much as anyone -- and for many of the same reasons -- but you guys are mischaracterizing its content as it relates to the type disclosures you're discussing. Investigators still generally need a warrant based upon probably cause. (There are many new exceptions (in particular, relating to "terrorist activities"), but few, if any, would ever apply to the type of situations you're discussing.)

(And purely as an aside, I know all this because I just ghost-wrote a chapter on this general subject for the federal judge I work for.)

All that to one side, parties in civil litigation have always had the ability to obtain the type of information you're talking about, even without a subpoena, provided the information sought (such as email) was not privileged (and in some instances the privilege can be defeated -- it's rarely absolute), and the information sought is 'reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (That is, it by itself need not be 'relevant'--only likely to lead to the discovery of relevant info.) Information from computers is routinely collected through the discovery process in civil suits these days, and there's precious little an opposing party can do about it. FYI.

Condor101's right about employees not having privacy rights in the emails they send and receive. Beware.

--chris