News-Record.com

"We don't know the facts but the rumors are serious," * Mark

Oh they are true. I guess it is time to release his e-mails to me from the past year. Almond Nuts! Totaly out of control.......

Oh Mark! Ask fearless leader Brother Paul about Almond state own computer and what is on it and his outstanding e-mail service to the public....hint,,,,hint.....It's white jacket time my friend...And we thought Black had mental issues?

1 st sign of Almond Nuts?

NORTH CAROLINA'S GOP'S
MOST ARROGANT POPE WHINER

May 8 th 2006
Release
4-08-2006

Dear Friends and Voters,
I am treated, like most of you, to a daily dose of email advising me how I can get home loans with no or bad credit, enlarging my penis or breasts or advertising drugs to increase my sexual performance. Do I demand that the sender take me off their email list? Do I complain to authorities? Do I threaten to sue? No to all of them. I simply hit the "delete" key on my computer and the mildly annoying spam is gone in a flash

Not so with one of our legislative leaders, David Almond in House District 67, David Almond in House District 67, of Stanly County. ...He is not busy doing things for the benefit of his constituents. His business evidently is not doing very well either as Mr. Almond has much too much time on his hands.

What to do? Why he solves the problem by complaining to our state attorney general about me and my emails.

From his actions, I have concluded that he must be either legally blind, illiterate or incompetent.

Had Mr. Almond actually read my email or had it read to him, he would have learned that there is a button at the bottom called "Manage your subscription."

Others have found it and have managed to remove themselves from the list.

But not Mr. Almond. He instead complains that I must cease this "crap" as he terms it.

Mr. Almond seems to suffer from the same disease that affects many of our leaders at the national or state level - it's the "don't you know who I am" syndrome.

Mr. Almond seems to think that he is infinitely better than people like you or I who find that we must actually work for a living.

No, Mr. Almond is someone TOO IMPORTANT that we must drop whatever we are doing and tell him "how much and what color" whenever he barks a command.

And so Mr. Almond demands that I, an attorney trying to work and run a campaign and battling a brain tumor, have to take him off my email list and take him off immediately!

Some conservative values - why do for yourself what you can command others to do for you?

Newsflash to Mr. Almond.
I do not know you and have never met you. But I do know that you are not royalty and that you are entitled to the same treatment that I accord others. Unlike you, I do not find my writing to be "crap" but I will let the voters make the ultimate decision. And God may command me, but you certainly wield no power over me regardless of how many state agencies you contact about me. I do not jump at your command. I am not your slave and I have neither the time nor inclination to remove you.

Remover yourself or find someone with more intelligence or competence or literacy to manage your subscription and remove you.

I observed that Mr. Almond ran in the primary and that he won. Even worse, he is unopposed so the voters will be subjected to him for another two years.

Regardless of whether you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitution Party or independent voter, you deserve infinitely better.

Best Wishes
Rachel Lea Hunter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO: Roy A. Cooper III
Attorney General
Old Education Building
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC 27602

Dear Atttorney General Cooper,
I am writing to ask your advice. Rachel Lea Hunter continues to send material that I find offensive to my business e-mail address, depite my requests to be deleted from her mailing lists. I enclosed an example. My irritation has nothing to do with my party affiliation, let me say. It is rather her, or her campaign's cynical, high-handed refusal to honor my wishes that have prompted me ask for your attention. Do you know of naything further I can do that might be effective?????

Sincerely,
Representative David Almond
House District 67
Encl.

I have to agree with Mr. Mack. NC newspapers print rumors that are far less substantiated than this almost every day.

You guys are giving the NC GOP cover.

Anglico: Horsehockey. This isn't a partisan issue, it's a legal and ethical one.

The legal, for me anyway, is you can't accuse someone of what could be a crime and is definitely considered untoward without some sort of first-hand account or documentation.

The ethical, again for me, is I have a great deal of experience with rumors that turn out to be crud-ola around the General Assembly, and am not going to hang someone based on the gossip.

My best guess is it will be less than 48 hours before someone has enough to print what has been alledged.

Anglico: Horsehockey. This isn't a partisan issue, it's a legal and ethical one.

The legal, for me anyway, is you can't accuse someone of what could be a crime and is definitely considered untoward without some sort of first-hand account or documentation. * Mark

Giant Texas Bush BS Mark!

That is same defense we heard about Black and Nifong! What do you want? A instant cam picture of a sick dude wacking himself on State property?

Always delightful to have your tact and wisdome around Connie.

No, but there are some basic things that you do want to have in a situation like this. And the fact that "everyone knows" something is not a defense to libel or slander. And without something approaching a first-hand source, there's no way for me to evaluate the varacity of this claim...which has circulated quickly based on its salaciousness, not on the strength of its sourcing.

I understand your argument but respectfully disagree with it. From out here, this looks a lot like cover. Maybe you'd do the same for a Dem, in which case it might be non-partisan . . . I'll grant you that possibility.

To accept your position, you'd have to conclude that a Republican state representative has resigned over an unsubstantiated rumor. And while miracles do happen, that doesn't seem likely in this case.

Are you saying that the press corps is digging as hard as it can to get to the truth - and is just getting stonewalled?

........

"first-hand source" might be a freudian slip.

***"Maybe you'd do the same for a Dem, in which case it might be non-partisan..."***

Anglico: It's not a matter of doing anything "for" anyone. It frankly wouldn't matter if the guy was a Democrat, libertarian, or whatnot.

This crosses the line out of political reporting and into legal/courts/crime reporting. So if you want to blame anything, blame the fact that we scruffy media types work for corporations who don't like getting sued and therefore have very clear rules about when we can write something that accuses someone of a criminal or infamous act.

Simply put: I haven't and it doesn't, as of right now, appear that my colleagues have crossed that threshold. There ain't a one of us who wouldn't very much like to be more straightforward on the facts of this case.

As to the other part of your comment, I don't know that the press corps ever does anything in an organized fashion, other than maybe searching for cheap beer after a long night.

But I do know several individual reporters have been doing things like requesting e-mails, lookings for magistrates' records, etc...

It's not a matter of knowing what the rumor is. It's getting the rumor in a way - either by way of someone who was in the room or a document of some sort - that makes it publishable.

As I said before, saying "everybody knows" something is not a defense to libel. That's the legal argument. If you think about the ethical side, think about our ability/responsibility as reporters to cross-examine the facts in this case. So far no one I know has been able to interview the accuser in this case, nor the accused, nor speak on-the-record to anyone who has done so and is willing to reveal the facts of the case.

Now, if are you asking whether I believe Rep. Almond resigned simply to lessen the impact of the scandal on himself and his family and in order to better fight the charges better - the answer is no, I don't. I think one possible - POSSIBLE - intepretation when Speaker Hackney said that "the matter had been handled to the satisfaction of the complantant," is that he may have been implying that the person in question wanted Rep. Almond to resign.

Hackney also made it very, very clear that the person who had complained had gone out of his/her way not to be identified in an official context.

Always delightful to have your tact and wisdome around Connie.* Mark

Thanks! Most Republicans hate it. Some Democrats accept it on a good day for them.

No, but there are some basic things that you do want to have in a situation like this. And the fact that "everyone knows" something is not a defense to libel or slander. And without something approaching a first-hand source, there's no way for me to evaluate the varacity of this claim...which has circulated quickly based on its salaciousness, not on the strength of its sourcing.* Mark Binker

I understand the Corporate libel asspect it without a problem. But than there is the Net and Tigers like Anglico who will not let it go away. Fair enough?

Personally knowning Mr Almond from his past and hi s own written words, I don't think he could afford a lawyer to take any case in his defense at this point. Anglico is right about one thing! If it had been democrat, the religious right would have been marching outside Mr Almond office with a rope and bible claiming they were there to do God duty.