A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife



<< 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.


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


From: Victor J Zammit []
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:09 AM
To: 'James Randi'

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 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


From: James Randi []
Sent: Sunday, 2 March 2008 8:10 AM
To: 'Victor J Zammit'
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 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 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 [] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 5:59 AM
To: 'James Randi'
Cc:; 'Linda Shallenberger'; 'Alison Smith'; 'Hal Bidlack'

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

(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 ) 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


From: James Randi []
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2008 2:03 AM
To: 'Victor J Zammit'
Cc:; 'Linda Shallenberger'; 'Alison Smith'; 'Hal Bidlack'
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


From: Victor J Zammit []
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:20 AM

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 ) first put on the Net Friday 25th January 08)