You are on page 1of 9
Solomon 8. Watson IV The New York Times Company 229 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036 December 5, 2003 Paul T. Cappuccio AOL Time Warner Inc 75 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10019 Mary Ann Werner, Peter G. Skinner, The Washington Post Company Dow Jones & Company 1150 15th Street, NW 200 Liberty Street Washington, DC 20071 New York, N.Y. 10281 RE: Corruption Sirs and Madams, ‘The following is a quote from what the Associated Press posted on the Web Monday, March 22, 199912:18 p.m. CT: “Twenty-four news organizations, including The Associated Press, have sided with law enforcement officers in both cases. Ina friend-of-the-court brief, they expressed concern that the media's watchdog role will be cut off if the court decides that ride-alongs violate the Fourth Amendment, Jane E. Kirtley, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, questioned why it is permissible for the police to barge in and wrestle people to the floor but not allow the news media to observe and report those activities. “That's turning the issues upside down," she said. ‘The court needs to balance the public's right to privacy with its need to inform itself of police conduct, said Mary Ann Werner, vice president and counsel for The Washington Post. "Don't let the presence of the media be a trump card that makes every one of those searches unreasonable,” she said. But Felt responded that such media ride-alongs of fer no cure for police misconduct because “the cops won't invite the media when they plan to misbehave.” A very similar event happened to me on April Fools Day of this year. I had just ‘appeared and testified in two courts that day in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. My testimony on the public record has put many powerful people in a very bad light. ‘That night Agents of the Secret Service and the Milton Police Dept. woke me up and were willing to take me away to Cuba under their new authority of the DHS. These men had come from the very same offices as the Treasury Agent Tim Croston had come from one year before investigating similar false allegations made against me by the IRS. After I informed them that I understood Title 42 and that they had best do their homework then act within the scope of their employment they went away. Many months later a couple of SEC lawyers finally got around to asking me what I knew about Putnam Investments. The funny part is that I had informed the Wall Street Journal and Putnam investments that I was going to the Shareholders Meeting of the Brookline Savings Bank to spill the beans in Beantown two weeks after the Secret Service had refused to investigate Bank Fraud. I invited them to view my evidence and ask the Bankers some questions. Everyone ignored me and even laughed at me including many members of the press employed by your various organizations. If you doubt me check the website within the enclosed documents to see how easily I can prove that had made your people well aware of my battle with the Justice System beginning in early 2002. Now check to see how much money the banker, Mr. Chapman, and the many other shareholders have made off their investments in that bank since that time. Within days of my talking to the SEC lawyers, Philip Koski and Louis Randazo, the SEC quickly made a settlement with Putnam Investments. I know why and now so do you. Iwas not surprised to read that Robert Bartley, editor emeritus of the Wall Street ‘Journal, has been chosen to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civil honor. All of Wall Street is in bed with Bush. Peter G. Skinner should never deny that he does not know William H. Webster. I am well aware that he co chairs the DHS after his stint with the SEC. I strongly suspect that he was behind the sending of ‘the Men in Black to protect the interests of his many friends including George W. Bush. What is hilarious is that both Mr. Skinner and Mr. Webster both sit on the Board Of Directors of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest that’s mission is to foster knowledge about law and the administration of justice in a society committed to the rights of individuals. limited government, and a fair and efficient judiciary. Is there any wonder why I find lawyers, bankers, priests and reporters contemptible? ‘Mr. Cappuccio is a 1986 graduate of Harvard Law Schoo! and Mr. Watson earned a J.D. degree from Harvard in 1971. They must have some idea as to who my wife's evil cousin Chucky is and at least some knowledge of his many BUDDYS. As I state in the attached letters, I do recognize the Freedom of the Press to print what they wish. However I demand that all lawyers conduct themselves professionally by the rules as officers of the court. Otherwise I will challenge their ethics in a heartbeat in a lawsuit. T have made you all witnesses to my pursuit of justice, byway of this confirmed U.S. ‘Mail. Please find enclosed an exact copy with all enclosures of a letter recently sent to K Rupert Murdoch c/o Arthur M. Siskind his General Counsel. The copy of wiretap tape numbered 139 is served upon you in confidence as officers of the court in order that it moy be properly investigated. Please feel free to surprise me with a fine display of ethical behavior. I am just an alien. It is your rights that I am, profecti Ay, yo yall in court 7 oe \il lo David R. Amos P.O. Box 2 ‘South Acworth, NH. 03607 Speaking with one voice: Does media cross-ownership stifle diversity? Page | of 3 Back to document Speaking with one voice: Does media cross-ownership stifle diversity? Special to ‘The Freedom Forum Ontine 12.15.00 NEW YORK — On the same day that America Online and Time Warner won their merger bi become the largest media company in the world, media experts disayreed yesterday about the impact of media cross-ownership on quality journalism and the First Amendment “this generally understood that the rise of media monopolies led to a shift in editorial content, city by city, to a far-less confrontational, far-less controversial, far-less skeptical and challenging press,” said Reed Hundt, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, at a panel on "Speaking With One Voice? Cross-Ownership of the Press.” Arthur Siskind, group general counsel of News Corporation, Ltd. — one of the largest media companies in the world and the parent operator of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets — strongly disagreed. "We as a company have acquired more and more TV stations around the country,” he said, "But we have introduced local and national news where news programs never existed before because of our ability to subsidize those programs.” Hundt and Siskind were joined by Michael Wolff, New York magazine's media columnist, and Nancy Hicks Maynard, president of Maynard Partners, for the First Amendment Breakfast Series held at the First Amendment Center, which co-sponsored the event with Columbia University's Journalism School. ‘The panel debated the relationship between cross-ownership of the press and the First Amendment and how the sale of media outlets impacts the diversity of free expression Siskind and Wolff viewed cross-ownership as primarily about business competition and the forces of the free market, while Hundt and Maynard were more concemed with the free exchange of ideas. Cross-ownership of the media raises the question of whether structures of power in the media industry can “dictate and shape the actual significance and utility of the First Amendment,” said Hundt, now a senior advisor at the global financial consulting management firm, Mackenzie & Co. Likening the election battle in Florida to the increasing consolidation of media ownership, Hundt added, "The decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court because of the cateyorical imperative of DNA — the court wished to replicate itself." ‘That's the same reason blue-chip companies buy up small media outlets, he added Almost 60% of all radio stations in the country, Hundt pointed out, changed hands when the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed by the Republican majority in Congress. This erased the diversity of the radio industry, he said.