Subject: Hawaii Investigation - Net Communications being questioned - ALERT!!!!!!!!!!
From: WEWoodsMPH <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:12:44 EDT

Hawaii Investigation - Net Communications being questioned - ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

Aloha Folks,

If you are interested in the net remaining a communication force without
limitation, please read the two messages below. The first is from Richard
Borreca a reporter of the Honolulu Star Bulleting supposedly doing a story
about using the net to promulgate public information and reviewing public
documents such that I am doing regarding the campaign spending commission
reports from Save traditional Marriage 98.

What I read into this question is that it is not merely about using the net to
get ideas and share information, but to have the reporter become a mediary to
the complaint process.  I believe I was told one thing when I first discussed
this with the reporter, but believe it is different with the making of this
new question posed from the attorney of STM98.

What do you think????   I feel a threat to my being open and discussing and
reviewing information with whomever is at the end of a net address.  I see and
attack on my or my net communications coming -

I have answered this particular question and ended it with a question to the
reporter.  Will we see the reporter asking this question to the attorney???

do good

William E. Woods, MPH

In a message dated 98-04-14 21:38:16 EDT, you write:

<< Subj:	 e-mail story
 Date:	98-04-14 21:38:16 EDT
 From:	[email-masked] (Richard Borreca)
 To:	[email-masked]
 
 Bill,
 I've got one more question. I talked to Gary Grimmer, attorney for Save
 Traditional Marriage'98, who says he's concerned with the resulting use
 of the names from the campaign spending commission.
 Specifically, he worries not about using the list as a resource for
 advocates  to present their side of the question, but if some use it to
 demand to know why someone contributed to the STM campaign.
 In other words, he says, it is okay to use the list to express an
 opinion, but to get people to write to people and demand to know why
 they are supporting a certain viewpoint appears to him to be limiting
 free speech.
 What's your response?
 thanks in advance.
 
 --
 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
```````````````````````````````
 
 Cheers,
 Richard Borreca         Honolulu Star-Bulletin  PO Box 3080
 Honolulu, HI  96802
 [email-masked]       (808)525-8682 office    (808)523-8509 fax
 http://starbulletin.com
 ************************************************************************
  >>
Aloha Richard,

First of all, in the previous conversation with you I specifically asked if
your article was going to be about complaints and you said that it was going
to be about the net system and not about any specifics of the complaints I am
involved.

Focusing on the statements and complaints of paid attorneys for parties in the
complaints seem quite inappropriate.

I would request that you use the statements I made at the CSC meeting 4-7-98
as my statements directed to this question.  I clearly stated how the public
information was used and the communications I promoted with "ALLEGED POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTORS OF STM98".  It has been published before and after complaints
were filed that some of the contributors denied making any contribution to
this organization nor intended any support of the political activities of the
organization. 

Mr. Grimmer's statement in response to CSC of this effort by Complainant Woods
is based on his disingenuous assumption that the people that wrote checks to
STM98 to attend the November 1997 Covey seminar were duped into their
contributions."  The fact is that I absolutely believe that SOME of the
contributions to STM98 based on communications to me personally from people
listed in that report, published articles and statements from ALLEGED
CONTRIBUTORS, and my being promoted to asked further questions through a
personal investigation.

The public right to know and the public right to have accurate reporting to
CSC means that the public should have to tools to see if the political system
has been jeopardized.  First view of this campaign spending showed absolutely
clear violations of law.  Those clear violations lead to the indentification
of other alleged violations.  As more and more questions are reasonably asked
more and more alleged violations are being found.

I truly believe that the extensive list of apparent violations of laws
warrants a legal and criminal investigation as some of the facts cannot be
ascertained with proper investigative tools such as subpeona powers.

For this investigation is use the address [email-masked].  I have tried to
make sure the information and discussion has stayed on target with the issues
of campaign spending and related issues identified by further identification
of alleged violations.

Will Mr. Grimmer or anyone he represents provide you a sworn statement that
all people and organizations listed as political contributors on their
campaign spending report knew they making a political contribution?

do good

William E. Woods, MPH