RE: How ironic: Mr. Disclosure Sam Reed asks the Court to block disclosure - hearing: Fri, 9 am, before Judge Richard Hicks
For months, Secretary Reed and his staff have made numerous claims that are at variance with the facts. The greatest thing about our lawsuit (RE: citizens and their names, signatures, and home addresses on initiative petitions should be protected from harassment, commercial exploitation, and identity theft) -- the greatest benefit is the opportunity to have Secretary Reed answer questions under oath and under penalty of perjury. We have been especially eager to receive the results from discovery: the disclosure of requested documents and the answers to written questions. It would no doubt prove embarrassing for Secretary Reed for his under-penalty-of-perjury-answers to contradict earlier statements, assertions, and claims made earlier when he and his staff were made not under oath.
So it was especially ironic to have Secretary Reed file a motion with Judge Hicks to NOT DISCLOSE DOCUMENTS and to NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS under oath. Given his supposed commitment to disclosure, transparency, and openness, it is truly ironic to have him take such a contradictory stance.
This Friday at 9 am at the Thurston County courthouse, Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks will hopefully order Secretary Reed to comply with discovery. But regardless of the court's ruling, it is important for the public and the press to make note of Secretary Reed's hypocritical position: he's committed to disclosure as long as he's not implicated [in obfuscation].
You see, the leftist mind control NEA (Yes, the National Education Association) spent millions of dollars in advertising to defeat initiative 1033. The NEA also filed for and received a list of all the signatories to the petition. Why would they take such unusual action? Perhaps to harass and intimidate signers? Such prying seems pointless otherwise.
I hope things aren't that far gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment