Below is all the email that I (Al Petrofsky) have sent to Jeff Merkey or received from him, through 2009. Also included is a June 23, 2005 email from law clerk Susie Hindley (which is addressed only to me, but is in reply to an email for which I had included Merkey on the CC list).
For more information see http://scofacts.org/merkey.

Technical Notes: In most instances in which an email included the entire text of another email, that has been excised. Also, I believe that the emails appear here in the order that they were sent, even though there are some cases of a Merkey email dated a little earlier than the email that precedes it. For example, his first email titled "Re: Belatedly sealed document in Merkey v. Perens" is a reply to the email that precedes it, and thus could not possibly have been sent before the preceding email, even though this reply is dated June 23 09:41 -0600 (= 15:41 UTC), which is ten minutes before the preceding email's Date, 08:51 -0700 (= 15:51 UTC). It appears that his clock was an hour behind.

------

   Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:01:49 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: al@scofacts.org
   Subject: Criminal Contempt
   Message-ID: <42B9EDDD.7060302@utah-nac.org>

   Hey Al,

   You have copies of the Novell settlement agreement posted on your
   site.  I have downloaded an forwarded links and hosting information
   to Judge Kimball's Clerks.  There is an order sealing these
   documents (the complaint is OK).  I have notified the Court you are
   distributing copies in violation of Judge Kimballs order.  Go check
   PACER.

   I advise you to take down the documents immediately.

   Jeff

------

   Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:51:39 -0700
   From: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   To: Susie Hindley <Susie_Hindley@utd.uscourts.gov>
   CC: Jeff Merkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>, 
       Jim F Lundberg <jflundberg@novell.com>
   Subject: Belatedly sealed document in Merkey v. Perens
   Message-Id: <200506231551.IAA15945@radish.petrofsky.org>

   Dear Ms. Hindley:

   I understand you are the law clerk assigned to Judge Kimball's
   odd-numbered cases.  One of those cases is Merkey v. Perens et al.,
   2:05-cv-00521-DAK, which was filed late on Tuesday (June 21).

   The second exhibit to the complaint is a copy of a 1998 settlement
   agreement between Merkey, Novell, Inc., and some other parties.

   I am not a party to the settlement agreement nor to the Merkey
   v. Perens action.  I am, however, in the habit of collecting some
   documents of interest to people following the litigation efforts of
   the SCO Group, Inc..  I make such documents publicly available on the
   scofacts.org internet website.  (The SCO Group is also not a party to
   the Merkey case, but it is connected to the case by, among other
   things, the plaintiff's allegations on pages 18-22 of the complaint.)

   On Wednesday morning, I obtained copies of the Merkey complaint and
   its exhibits from the court's ECF system.  I then placed them at the
   following locations:

     http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-1.pdf        (the complaint)
     http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-1_1.pdf      (exhibits 1 and 2)

   I mentioned their locations on two public message systems, and the
   exhibits have subsequently been downloaded by visitors from over a
   hundred different internet addresses around the world.

   I notice that on Wednesday afternoon, Judge Kimball entered an order
   that reads:

     Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint in this matter on June 21,
     2005, including a confidential settlement agreement as Exhibit 2 to
     the Verified Complaint.  Plaintiff notified the court that he
     intended to file this exhibit under seal.  However, because it was
     not filed according to the court's rules regarding sealed documents,
     the exhibit was scanned into the court's public electronic docket.
     Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement, the parties
     agreed that the settlement agreement was confidential.  Therefore,
     the court hereby seals Exhibit 2 of the Verified Complaint in this
     matter and directs the Clerk of Court to remove the exhibit from the
     court's electronic docket.

   I have received, apparently from Jeff Merkey, an email titled
   "Criminal Contempt", which states that "I have notified the Court you
   are distributing copies in violation of Judge Kimballs order".  (The
   full text of the email is below.)

   I notice, however, that the order, as written, is directed solely at
   the Clerk of Court, and not at me.

   Please let me know if the court intends to enter an order that would
   forbid my distribution of this document.


   Yours truly,

   Alan P. Petrofsky

------

   Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:41:19 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Cc: Susie Hindley <Susie_Hindley@utd.uscourts.gov>,
       Jim F Lundberg <jflundberg@novell.com>
   Subject: Re: Belatedly sealed document in Merkey v. Perens
   In-Reply-To: <200506231551.IAA15945@radish.petrofsky.org>
   Message-ID: <42BAD81F.6020807@utah-nac.org>

   All,

   After leaving Mr. Petrofsky a message last night, he continued to
   dsitribute these documents and subsequently posted them to a site in
   the counrty of Checkoslovakia.  He and his associates then created
   links on Groklaw and continued to distribute copies.  I have snapshots
   of the text, comments, and downloads from al and others assisting in
   violating the courts order.  I am preparing an ex-parte motion for TRO
   against al, groklaw, and his conspirators for an order requiring that
   they remove this content and asking the court to prohibit these sites
   from using any court pleadings obtained from PACER for any pending
   cases until the cases have been adjudicated.  These internet sites
   have conspired with individuals in communist countries and have
   assisted delberately in the violation of the courts order.

   Al is simply a liar, and I will file the evidence next week with the
   Court detailing his actions and those of his associates.

   Sincerely,

   Jeff

------

   Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:45:50 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   Cc: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>,
       Susie Hindley <Susie_Hindley@utd.uscourts.gov>,
       Jim F Lundberg <jflundberg@novell.com>
   Subject: Re: Belatedly sealed document in Merkey v. Perens
   In-Reply-To: <42BAD81F.6020807@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <42BAD92E.6040403@utah-nac.org>

   These people are roosting like vultures in the trees outside the US
   Courthouse waiting to pounce on any information for dissemination.
   These people are not attorneys, parties to the action, or even have
   any real interest in these cases other than to promote their websites.
   None of these people involved in these actions, inclduing al, are
   legitimate reporters or news agencies.  It should be clear to the
   Court and others that their purpose, as stated in the original
   complaint, is to seize and funnel sensitive information into the hands
   of enemies of the United States and those acting in concert with them
   to violate the rights of American Citizens and companies like Novell.

   Sincerely,

   Jeff

------

   Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:11:06 -0600
   From: Susie_Hindley@utd.uscourts.gov
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Subject: Re: Belatedly sealed document in Merkey v. Perens
   In-Reply-To: <200506231551.IAA15945@radish.petrofsky.org>
   Message-ID: <OF3B904711.3837E7AF-ON87257029.005BE474-87257029.005E969F@uscmail.uscourts.gov>

   Mr Petrofsky:

	   There is no present motion or case before Judge Kimball regarding 
   the use of or dissemination of Exhibit 2 to the Complaint filed in Merkey 
   v. Perens, 2:05cv521DAK.  Procedurally and factually I can't tell you much 
   more than what was contained in the Order issued by Judge Kimball 
   yesterday.  Mr. Merkey did not file Exhibit 2 in accordance with the 
   court's procedures and the Exhibit ended up on the court's electronic 
   docket as you are aware.  However, the document is confidential and 
   clearly states that it is confidential.  Therefore, it has been taken off 
   of the court's electronic docket and is and will remain under seal at the 
   court.  The court cannot opine on the legal consequences of what happened 
   or what you are doing unless there is a motion or case before it.  Such an 
   opinion would go to the substance of a legal issue, which the court cannot 
   address in an ex parte context. 


   Susie Inskeep Hindley
   Law Clerk to the Honorable Dale A. Kimball
   United States District Court, District of Utah
   350 South Main Street, #222
   Salt Lake City, Utah  84101
   (801) 524-6612

------

   Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:35:22 -0700
   From: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   To: Jim F Lundberg <jflundberg@novell.com>, 
       Jeff Merkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   CC: Susie Hindley <Susie_Hindley@utd.uscourts.gov>
   Subject: Re: Belatedly sealed document in Merkey v. Perens
   In-reply-to: <200506231551.IAA15945@radish.petrofsky.org>
   Message-Id: <200506240035.RAA21530@radish.petrofsky.org>

   Gentlemen,

   In consideration of the apparent desire by Novell, Darren Major, and
   Larry Angus that the terms of the agreement not become widely known, I
   have ceased distributing the settlement agreement that was entered
   into between and among them and Jeffrey Merkey and Timpanogas Research
   Group on August 18, 1998, and was attached as Exhibit 2 to the
   Complaint filed on June 21, 2005 in Merkey v. Perens, 2:05-cv-00521 in
   the District of Utah.

   While it was available at http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-1_1.pdf,
   it was retrieved by visitors from approximately 140 different internet
   addresses.  Obviously, any one of those visitors could possibly
   redistribute the document to thousands of other readers.  The same
   goes for all the other people who, as I did, obtained the document
   directly from the court's website before it was sealed.  Like the
   court, all I can do is cease my own distribution.

   Yours truly,

   Alan P. Petrofsky

------

   Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:10:01 -0600
   From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@soleranetworks.com>
   To: al@scofacts.org
   Subject: Posting of Private emails
   Message-ID: <42E50ED9.6010005@soleranetworks.com>

   Al,

   It's a violation of privacy laws to post private emails without the 
   consent of the author.  You are only making matters
   worse by posting this on your site. 

   http://scofacts.org/Merkey-email.txt

   Jeff

------

   Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:23:40 -0700
   From: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   To: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@soleranetworks.com>
   Subject: Re: Posting of Private emails
   In-reply-to: <42E50ED9.6010005@soleranetworks.com>
   Message-Id: <200507260223.TAA32073@radish.petrofsky.org>

   Dear Mr. Merkey:

   I do not believe that my publication of the unsolicited emails that
   you have sent me is in any way illegal or tortious.

   Furthermore, please be explicitly advised that I have no interest in
   engaging in any form of private communication with you, and that I
   will feel free to share with the public any communications I receive
   from you.

   Yours truly,

   Alan P. Petrofsky

------

   Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:39:49 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Subject: Re: Posting of Private emails
   In-Reply-To: <200507260223.TAA32073@radish.petrofsky.org>
   Message-ID: <42E59465.6040204@utah-nac.org>

   The attached communication is priviliged and confidential.

   It is a violation of privacy laws to post private emails.  You also 
   solicited the emails by distributing sealed documents
   and responding to me via email.

   Jeff

------

   Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:43:31 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   Cc: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Subject: Re: Posting of Private emails
   In-Reply-To: <42E59465.6040204@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <42E59543.4020808@utah-nac.org>

   This email is privileged and confidential.

   Copyright 2004, 2005 Al Petrofsky. All parties are granted license to 
   copy, modify, etc., this work according to the terms of the Creative 
   Commons <http://creativecommons.org> Attribution 2.0 Public License 
   <http://scofacts.org/ccl-by-2.0.html>.

   See above.  You are also engaging in conversion by posting my private 
   emails under this license -- you have no rights from me to do so.

   Jeff

------

   Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:38:21 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Subject: So you don't have to wait for it to show up on pacer.
   In-Reply-To: <42BAD81F.6020807@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <42FA81DD.6020500@utah-nac.org>

   Al,

   So you don;t have to wait for it to show up and pacer, and so you
   have the Open Office Template for the lawsuit.  Thanks for filing,
   now I don't have to serve you.

   Jeff

 [attachment: reply-memo-expedite-1.sxw]

------

   Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:44:53 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Subject: Regular Mail is Fine
   In-Reply-To: <42FA81DD.6020500@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <42FBB8C5.4020409@utah-nac.org>

   Al,

   Regarding your pleadings.  You don't have to send them certified
   mail.  You can use regular mail unless you are serving someone.  I
   sent you copies of the pleadings priority mail, BTW.  You just need
   to make certain you have filed the cetificate of service with the
   court, this is the only document that really matters for normal
   pleadings.

   I will be filing a Motion for Summary Judgment against you on
   September 9, 2005.  I can dismiss you out of the Suit if you want to
   agree to a stipulation, or I can move for Summary Judgment, or we
   can take it to trial -- up to you.  There will be issues in the
   State Court and you may have to appear there, but a lot of this is
   still up in the air.  You are free to call and conference with me on
   this case pursuant to Rule 408 (Settlement discussions) at your
   conveniance, or we can let the Court handle the matter -- either way
   works for me.

   Jeff

------

   Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:45:13 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Subject: Rule 4 Notice of Alternate Service
   In-Reply-To: <42FBB8C5.4020409@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <43275679.8060508@utah-nac.org>

   Dear Mr. Petrofsky,

   I received your letter demanding a stamped envelope.  I believe one
   was mailed to you.  If you were unable to find it, you may send mye
   the waiver regular mail, and I will reimburse your .37 stamp for
   you.  You already have my address.

   If you fail to send the waiver as required by Rule 4, I will hire a
   process server and I will have you billed for the process of
   service.  You can also call for my FEDEX account number and send me
   the waiver via FEDEX and have FEDEX call me directly and I will
   provide them either a credit card for billing of the postage or my
   FEDEX account number.  If 30 days elapse, I will have you served and
   sanctioned.

   Jeff

------

   Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:24:53 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Cc: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   Subject: Re: Rule 4 Notice of Alternate Service
   In-Reply-To: <43275679.8060508@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <43276DD5.4010706@utah-nac.org>

   I've been getting a lot of images and strong impressions from you lately 
   and circumstances surrounding you.   That's how I knew.  I don't always
   ask to see a lot of the things I do, then just come to me.  It's time we 
   talked.  Please call me if you get a chance.  I think we understand
   each other a little better know -- at least I understand you a better 
   than I did before.    

   You have my number.   You are not alone in this situation over this 
   lawsuit.  Even the person on the other side has a lot of sympathy.

   Jeff

------

   Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:40:54 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>, pj@groklaw.com
   Subject: Notice of Dismissal
   In-Reply-To: <43275679.8060508@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <43317F06.2070001@utah-nac.org>

   Dear Al and PJ.

   I would recommend that you remove some of the more litigious materials 
   from your sites that would indicate harassment and stalking.  I am now 
   pursuing criminal sanctions.  I have dismissed both of you from the 
   pending Federal Case.

   Sincerely,

   Jeff V. Merkey

------

   Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:38:55 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   Cc: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>, pj@groklaw.com
   Subject: Re: Notice of Dismissal
   In-Reply-To: <43317F06.2070001@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <4334218F.8080509@utah-nac.org>

   Al,

   If you want me to file the dismissal, please remove the word "lunatic" 
   from your site and all private emails and recordings. 

   Thanks

   Jeff

------

   Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:16:58 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
   Subject: Re: Notice of Dismissal
   In-Reply-To: <43317F06.2070001@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <433AFA3A.5080304@utah-nac.org>

   And Al,

   I would suggest taking down the content on your site.  I doubt you would 
   want me posting a site that states you are sperm guzzling faggot to the 
   whole planet, now would you?  BTW, how are those AIDs medications 
   working out for you?   How long do you have left? 

   Jeff

------

   Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:41:55 -0600
   From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   To: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
   Cc: Alan P Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>, pj@groklaw.com
   Subject: Re: Notice of Dismissal
   In-Reply-To: <43317F06.2070001@utah-nac.org>
   Message-ID: <433C5193.6000103@utah-nac.org>

   Al,

   You really need to stop banging on the hornets nest down in Provo.  
   Couple of things:

   1.  Filings in Court are privileged.  There's no breach based on those 
   filings.  The agreement also allowed for it and this language was placed 
   there by Novell in the event THEY wanted to challenge me based on future 
   events in Court.  Filing the agreement under seal and referncingn 
   provisions of the agreement in public filings in a general way is allowed.

   2.  The Court posted the document on PACER, not me.  I filed it with 
   cover sheet, and listed in the complaint as sealed.  I also gave it to 
   the clerk.  I did not scan it on the internet.  Sealed documents get 
   scanned by mistake once in a while, and the Court is well aware of this 
   as is Novell.  That's what sealing orders or for -- to make people take 
   them down and not hand them out. 

   3.  A Federal Judge placed that document under seal.  You are subject to 
   the order because you know about it, and you have received notice of the 
   action via certified mail.  

   4.  You are the only person making threats to distribute the document 
   and pass it out.  What you are really trying to do is rile Novell into 
   coming after me, and this is why you are making the threats.  Everyone 
   on the planet can see this.  They most probably are not going to.  Why?  
   I cannot tell you why because it's none of your business, but they don't 
   want any publicity from this situation nor do they want it busting open 
   publically.  There are reasons for this which you are not privy to. 

   5.  Keep going.  Once you make them mad, they are nasty characters to 
   contend with.  My earlier communications to you were a warning about 
   what these people are capable of doing.  You cna mischaracterize them 
   all you want -- I was trying to help you. 

   Good luck.  

   Jeff

------

   Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:53:01 -0700
   From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>
   To: al@scofacts.org
   Subject: Received Notiication You Were Served
   Message-ID: <439A895D.5060007@wolfmountaingroup.com>

   Al,

   I received confirmation of service this morning.  I trust you found the 
   summons correct this time?  The bill is $135.00 total.

   See you in District Court.   You may want to take the emails, 
   settlement, and libel off your site before we get too far into it,
   a competent attorney will probably advise you to do so in any event.  
   See you in Utah.

   You may call and discuss settlement (less the distribution of the 
   settlement agreement, I cannot do anything about that
   one -- that one's up to the Court).

   Jeff

------

   Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:10:51 -0600
   From: "Jeffrey V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>
   To: al@scofacts.org
   Subject: Compliance with District Court Order
   Message-ID: <4513462B.8060301@wolfmountaingroup.com>

   Dear Mr. Petrofsky,

   You have been served in the matter 2:05cv521 and you have been ORDERED 
   to immediately remove the Novell Settlement Agreement from your website.
   The Court also found the posting to the docket of the Court from which 
   you obtained the agreement was erroneous and released me from any 
   liablity for your actions.  Your arguments were all ruled to be 
   unpersuasive and not founded in law. 

   I am considering an additional lawsuit for damages for distributing the 
   agreement.   Your prompt compliance and removal of all content
   about me on your site will limit these damages and possibly avert me 
   fromtaking these actions.  The Court will be mailing you a copy of the 
   order.  Your compliance must be immediate.

   Sincerely,

   Jeff V. Merkey

------

   Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:18:03 -0700
   From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>
   To: al@scofacts.org
   Subject: Commencement of Action in State Court
   Message-ID: <45D5F55B.5090000@wolfmountaingroup.com>

   Dear Mr. petroksky,

   I ask that you consider removing the defamatory content from the 
   internet posted to scofacts.org.   I am preparing to commence actions in 
   state court, after obtaining documents from various groups which refute 
   your statements as false and libelous.   I will in all probability 
   obtain an order requiring removal of all content regarding me.  This 
   will not be the same of the Federal Case, you stand the chance of 
   getting hit with damages inaddition to your ISP being order to remove 
   the improper content.

   Please consider simply taking down the materials.  You have until Monday 
   to do so or I will seek an order in state court directing your ISP and 
   yourself to remove the materials ex-parte.

   Sincerely,

   Jeff V. Merkey

------

$Id: Merkey-email.html,v 1.6 2010/06/12 00:31:38 al Exp $