You would think that after this much time... again, I INTEND NO HARM TO ANYONE HERE. As Ed Attanasio wrote, unfortunately, when they're in the spotlight they're subject to the brightest lights. You may not like my exposes, which is your right. You may THINK it's not your or anyone else’s business, which is your right. If I find that it is MY business, I can read about it and write about it. That's my constitutional right and my freedom. Bullying, perjury, bigamy, insurance fraud, and especially mortgage fraud (my position is clear in the articles) is so shabby and sick that I think it's important. So, you're saying that ANYONE bullying, perjury, bigamy, insurance fraud, and especially mortgage fraud is taboo to report for ANYONE? Thanks for weighing in.

I do not ask for permission or forgiveness for my audacity here. In writing my Among Us exposes, my intent is not simply to chronicle these events. Have we not learned lessons from bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, corportists, and judges? I have explored tributaries to the river of events. My exposes are stepping stones out into muddied, often very deep, water, complete with rough edges and breaking waves. As any bureaucrat, lawyer, politician, corportist, and judge know, sometimes the truth is complicated. Deftly handled, stories and tales can become tools or weapons while facts are just . . . facts. One does not need to participate in history to create history. Lawyers, propagandists, corportists, and deluded religious followers remain blithely unaware of the blinders they wear, of the dark forms they refuse to see. I state plights and needs.

Everyday consumers of goods and services now have the Internet to describe their experiences with businesses and those businesses’ employees. Government executives, administrators and all government employees, businesses, both non-profit and profit, legal and not legal, and every single one of their owners and employees, and all religious participants are ever increasingly more vulnerable to exposure, and accountability.

Consumers have become bolder that their payment means total accountability for what consumers paid for. Consumers are less likely to keep to their place, do as they’re told and keep their opinions to themselves.

Today’s governments, businesses or religions that dismiss or ignore consumers do so at their own risk. The Internet is free at public libraries, free at many businesses and free to anyone that wants to crawl on to it from a nearby wireless connection. Consumers of these goods and services more often than not relate bad experiences over good experiences. Exercising their freedom of speech rights where legal and illegal in other countries, they not only spell out and link the offending business’ name and location, but also the offending employees and/or owner’s names and locations. They spell out in great detail, and link with supporting documentation, their complaints.

I am glad to see “Gone are the days where settings from Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib contaminated in isolation both superiors and subordinates.” I am glad “the Internet is real-time exposure forcing attention, and repercussions.” I am glad “The result has been an increase in holding others accountable, just saying no and exposes.”

Governments, schools, teachers, businesses, attorneys, judges, Realtors, home loan lenders, doctors, mechanics, hospitals, religions, etc. should be “relentlessly interviewed, closely monitored, increasingly resisted, and constantly scrutinized.” “Online exposes and nastiness” happen for a reason.

Reasons like bad customer service or injustice. “As the realization sinks in that the Internet is also a real time conduit of ones’ reputation,” customer service will be deliberately forced to get only better.

I have come to the recent conclusion that the Internet has made the Better Business Bureau a dinosaur. The BBB does not publish what the complaint is, and without that, the complaint is useless. Complaints made to the BBB about businesses not providing goods and services as advertised or legally required, bar associations about lawyers lying and taking client’s money but not doing what they were paid to do, Realtor associations about Realtors clearly violating written ethics rules, ethics committees, commissions, etc. should not be private. Instead, all should be public.

That’s another reason why there is an increase on the Internet of complaints and exposes. Too often, ranks have closed in around an offending member and protected them rather than hold them accountable. Or worse, the accused makes threats against the complaintant and witnesses, or bribes are offered by the accused and accepted by the investigator(s), prosecutors and/or judges.

The Internet is the medium to not only expose the offending member, but also these cover ups by those paid to investigate, judge and punish offenders.

Public records are public to protect the public. That’s why our publicly elected officials voting records are public. That’s why publicly elected officials can only have public meetings “putting their opinions and conclusions easily available to everyone.” That’s why all complaints, investigations and outcomes should be public.

As MadMax wrote, “Remember, we have a legal system, not a justice system.”

HOWEVER, "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

John Adams, (2nd President of the United States of America), 1776 (Thoughts on Government)

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ANONYMOUS FREE SPEECH

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.

These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."

On December 21, 2007, Superior Court Judge Terence Flynn granted EFF's motion to quash the Township's September 26th subpoena seeking the identity of datruthsquad and denied a motion by the township to authorize future subpoenas, finding that the subpoena amounted to "an unjust infringement on the blogger's First Amendment rights" and that the blogger "has a right not to be drawn into the litigation." Judge Flynn denied the motion for a protective order, finding that it was unnecessary at this time.

More from Judge Flynn's ruling from the bench:

"And I [...] recognize that there are First Amendment issues with regard to disputes with the past administration. And that anyone [...] has a right to make their feelings clear. And they have a right not to be intimidated by the issuance of discovery requests in order to shut them down. For that reason, in many ways, the authority cited by the intervenor is correct and accurate. And first of all the [...] blogger, if in fact it’s an individual person, and I’m assuming absent any evidence that it is another individual person, has a right not to be drawn into the litigation and forced to reveal identity or to impede on his or her First Amendment rights simply on a suspicion, however founded or unfounded, and I don’t believe that this suspicion is sufficiently founded at this point to determine that it is Mr. Moskovitz. That person should not be drawn into the litigation and forced to abide by the rules with regard to exchange of information that the parties have, as opposed to a third party. So the Court is satisfied that there is no authority under law for this particular subpoena to obtain this private information. To allow the subpoena would be undue and unjust infringement on the blogger’s First Amendment rights. There’s no factual basis at this point, other than a mere suspicion for the justification. And ultimately that even if the information were obtained, it would be so remote to the actual elements of this litigation that it would not be admissible under any circumstances."

• First Cash v. John Doe
• Manalapan v. Moskovitz
New Jersey Township tries to unmask anonymous online critic.
• Dominick v. MySpace
• Fix Wilson Yard v. City of Chicago
• E. Van Cullens v. John Doe
• RIAA v. Verizon Case Archive
• Doe v. Cahill
• Merkey v. Yahoo SCOX, Groklaw et. al.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

I Write My Stories To Have a Positive Impact On My Community

D. Brian Burghart (brianb@newsreview.com) is as good as they get for an editor. Brian, who has many awards, wrote in the April 30, 2009 Reno News & Review:

“Let me say this clearly: There are all kinds of newspapers, pamphlets and magazines in this area that posture their advertising as articles and stories. We don’t do that. It is never my job, other editors’ jobs or freelance writers’ jobs to promote any business, be it local, big or small. It’s not our job to pretend objectivity or balance or that we can be absolutely comprehensive. It is our job to write about our experiences from our idiosyncratic and independent points of view and to be honest as possible. If we have conflicts of interest, we avoid or disclose them. We write for our readers and nobody else. I don’t know how else to say this: We put out the best newspaper we can with the knowledge and resources we have.”

That position, which I agree with, echoes the Mission Statement of the News & Review, a paper in Sacramento and Chico, California and Reno, Nevada that is highly respected, popular and the recipient of many industry awards. That Mission Statement is:

“To publish great newspapers that are successful and enduring. To create a quality work environment that encourages employees to grow professionally while respecting personal welfare. To have a positive impact on our communities and make them better places to live.”

I’ve modeled my writings on Brian Burghart and what I’ve read in the Reno News & Review.

So, I’m gonna paraphrase Brian and the News & Review’s Mission Statement here:

Let me say this clearly: I write my stories to have a positive impact on my community and make it a better place to live. There are all kinds of blogs, citizens journals, newspapers, pamphlets and magazines that posture their advertising as articles and stories. I don’t do that.

I want to publish in great newspapers and blogs that are successful and enduring that create and have a quality work environment that encourages employees and their freelance writers like me to grow professionally while respecting personal welfare and all my constitutional rights.

It is never my job, editors’ jobs or other freelance writers’ jobs to promote any business or individual, be it or they local, big or small. It’s not my job to pretend objectivity or balance or that I can be absolutely comprehensive. It is my job to write about my experiences from my idiosyncratic and independent point of view and to be honest as possible. If I have a conflict of interest, I avoid or disclose them. I write for my readers and nobody else. I don’t know how else to say this: I put out the best stories I can with the knowledge, that I have verified, and resources I have.

An only child, I was born in San Francisco in 1950, third-generation on my mother's side, second-generation on my father's side. For more about me read I Miss Groovy Berkeley @ http://renomortgagefraudexposes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/i-miss-groovy-berkeley and The Poet Robert Frost @ http://renomortgagefraudexposes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-poet-robert-frost.