From: WEWoodsMPH Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:12:44 EDT Subject: Hawaii Investigation - Net Communications being questioned - ALERT!!!!!!!!!! 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: rborreca@pixi.com (Richard Borreca) To: WEWoodsMPH@AOL.COM 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 rborreca@pixi.com (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 WEWoodsMPH@AOL.COM. 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