10 3 03  5:07 from Sugg re Citizens fund


Steve, Thanks.  

However, I note that you say that the redeposit of the $5,000 was on Nov. 8, 1999. The date of the 
deposition was Oct. 19, 1999. Thus, any bank records you supplied for the deposition would have been
 for dates prior to when you said you redeposited the money. The testimony you gave (page 17) only deals 
with the use of the money up to that point, and only speculates as to what you might do with the money in
 the future. And, at that time, they money was still in an "unconventional" location. I had asked WTVT 
attorneys if they had received bank records after that date (Oct. 19, 1999) that showed the eventual redeposit, and they said they hadn't. So, there is no documentation, other than what you hold, that records the ultimate disposition of the funds.

 On the whole issue of fundraising, the core question is how much information did you owe potential contributors. Even if every dime from the Citizens' Fund went to legal expenses, those contributions helped you to maintain a luxury lifestyle you didn't disclose to supporters. As the cops are fond of saying, money is fungible. You didn't have to spend your own money on your lawsuit (or as much of your own money) if people contributed.

Any response to the above is welcome.  

Wilson Statement
Oct 4   10:22 pm 
Sent to Sugg, Edelstein, Skene
After Steve sent him the bank form with the 5K redeposited!!\

John, your latest response identifies the problem and why there is no acceptable 
answer to you, short of baring my family's personal records for you to peruse and 
interpret as you wish, which we will not do.
Why don't you just report this:
I testified under oath that I withdrew $5,000 to safeguard the money fearing Fox
 would alert the IRS to my candid admission that I was late in filing tax returns and 
the agency could freeze our accounts making it difficult not only to pay our bills but to 
continue to finance our lawsuit.
Also under oath, I swore the cashier's check for the funds would never be cashed until
 re-deposited after the IRS filing was done. I did exactly that and re-deposited the check
 not long after my deposition.  I offered to provide proof by voluntarily producing the bank
 statement that confirms the re-deposit but that apparently is not sufficient.
Nobody but John Sugg has raised a concern.  If and when a single supporter of record before
you implied we stole and/or misappropriated money has a concern, we'll deal with them directly, 
openly and honestly as we always have.
With regard to the suggestion that support from the public allowed us to finance a lavish 
lifestyle instead of paying lawyers:
Our new home was not financed with a penny given to pay legal expenses, nor did those
contributions help make that purchase possible.  I have been gainfully employed for more 
than two years now at well above the minimum wage.  I have other business interests that
generate income.  And frankly you don't have a clue what share of our down payment on the 
property might have been financed with a recent windfall inheritance, a lucky lottery
ticket, or any number of other ways we could have legally acquired money.
Furthermore, to be blunt, it's none of your business.  I can't believe readers in Atlanta
have any interest in the personal affairs of Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, in any event.
Filing a lawsuit and accepting support freely given does not, in our view, require one to
lose all rights to personal privacy.
.John Sugg wrote:> This mail is probably spam.  The original message has been attached
> along with this report, so you can recognize or block similar unwanted
> mail in future.
> Content preview:  Steve, I'd welcome seeing a bank statement showing the
>   deposit. But, of course, the real issue is how you ultimately spent the
>   funds. The other records you seem not to want to reveal are the ones
>   that probably show how you spent the money. I will certainly include in
>   whatever I write your statements that you have spent the money only for
>   appropriate (i.e. legal) expenses. But supplying the records in
>   question would certainly enhance the credibility of your statement. In
>   other words, the redeposit doesn't show the eventual disposition of the
>   funds. [...]
> Content analysis details:   (6.40 points, 5 required)

> HTML_10_20         (1.0 points)  BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML
> HTML_MESSAGE       (0.1 points)  BODY: HTML included in message
> HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE (0.1 points)  BODY: HTML font color is blue
> ASCII_FORM_ENTRY   (1.0 points)  BODY: Contains an ASCII-formatted form
> RCVD_IN_NJABL      (1.0 points)  RBL: Received via a relay in dnsbl.njabl.org
>                    [RBL check: found, type:]
> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET (3.0 points)  RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
>                    [RBL check: found]
> X_NJABL_DIALUP     (0.2 points)  RBL: NJABL: sender is on dialup/dynamic IP
> The original message did not contain plain text, and may be unsafe to
> open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
> or confirm that your address can receive spam.  If you wish to view
> it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                Type: Outlook Express Mail Message (message/rfc822)
>                            Part 1.2   Encoding: 8bit
>            Description: original message before SpamAssassin