10 3 03 5:07 from Sugg re Citizens fund
I note that you say that the redeposit of the $5,000 was on Nov. 8, 1999. The
date of the
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.
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: 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 126.96.36.199.dnsbl.njabl.org., type: 127.0.0.3] RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET (3.0 points) RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [RBL check: found 188.8.131.52.bl.spamcop.net.] 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 SpamAssassinThis mail is probably spam.