[bwna] URGENT: Re: Here is some info on the Secretary of the BWNA

[Jim Karlock]

Mr Kaufman,

You have spread libelous information about me by your posting 
information (attached below) to the BWNA mailing list.

As anyone who knows me should know, I would not make a number of the 
statements found there, especially the racist statement found on that 
blog. I am surprised that you believed it was a genuine site, 
especially in view of the racist statement.

To repeat:
This is NOT MY WEB SITE --  I had no part what so ever in the 
creation or posating of this web site.

I have asked the host to remove this site. If it is not removed soon, 
I will be taking legal action. Hopefully such action will not need to 
include you.

To be clear:

THIS IS A DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY cease spreading the lies found 
on that site, including its existence in any context that implies it 
has any legitimate connection to me.

Further I demand that you immediately contact anyone that you have 
previously contacted about that site and make it clear that I have NO 
CONNECTION WHAT SO EVER with this site.

The very fact that you included a racist quote in your posting to 
BWNA indicates some intent to defame me. Don't make it worse by continuing.

I should mention that few things on the Internet are really anonymous 
and the person behind this fraud will soon be discovered and forced 
to pay a price through the legal system.

Thanks
JK




At 11:02 AM 12/23/2009, Albert Kaufman wrote:
>I just came across this via a Blueoregon post, and found out that 
>Jim is running for office.  Here's your secretary.
>
><http://karlockformetro.blogspot.com/>http://karlockformetro.blogspot.com/
>
>Thursday, 19 November 2009
>Some Policy Talking Points
>Neighborhood Density
>
>We should stop encouraging density with our laws and tax money. (And 
>quit zoning farms for housing!) There's a reason that whites flee 
>areas infest with negroes, illegals and, of course, crime.
>
>My opponent said that it is necessary to have more density (Mercury 
>candidate interview)
>Cap & Trade Tax on Fossil Fuels
>(The price will be MADE TO RISE, WITHOUT LIMIT, UNTIL PEOPLE ARE 
>FORCED TO CUT BACK USAGE BY 44% )
>
>I oppose. It will increase YOUR gasoline cost.
>I oppose. It will increase YOUR heating cost
>I oppose. It will increase YOUR electric bill
>
>
>My opponent favors taxs
>(Statement to the LWV in spring 2008 and WW interview)
>He knows it will increase your cost of energy!
>A new tax on energy
>
>I oppose. Energy is already too expensive. Drill away. I will not 
>live long enough to live with the consequences. Most won't. Screw 
>it. Not our problem.
>
>My opponent favors this tax. (WW interview)
>Real Estate Sales Tax
>
>I oppose. This will make housing cost and rents go up. Over 25s 
>without children should not vote. It is a duty. What else will hold 
>up real estate values? "Be fruitful and multiply" God has commanded it.
>
>My opponent favors this tax. (Mercury interview)
>Surcharge on income tax
>
>I oppose. We are already taxed enough.
>
>My opponent favors this tax (if minor and temporary!)
>Energy Cost
>
>I favor lower energy costs the only way that costs have 2ever fallen 
>- by increasing supply.
>Without access to affordable energy, Americans ... cannot afford to 
>climb that ladder to success. N. Innis, CORE. Drill downtown 
>Portland, idiots! Get a clue.
>
>My opponent favors Energy Tax and Cap & Trade which will INCREASE energy cost
>Policies that hurt me and my friends.
>
>I oppose. We need to protect the vulnerable in our community. They 
>cannot vote their own interests. That's why we have an education.
>
>My opponent's Energy cost increases, housing cost increase hurt the 
>poor more than they hurt upper income people. He favors these policies.
>Secret ballot in union elections
>
>Of course elections should be secret ballot! Now, if we could make 
>the unions have to go secret as well!
>
>My opponent opposes the secret ballot.
>
>Smart Growth
>(tax subsidies to high density, forcing you out of your car by 
>making driving more expensive and more difficult and , laws to force 
>much higher neighborhood densities, very dense apartment/condos 
>complexes on bus and light rail streets.)
>
>I oppose. We already have too many skinny houses squeezed in our 
>neighborhood degrading our neighborhood's livability. All growth is smart.
>
>My opponent favors "smart growth" policies that require tax 
>subsidies, increased density and making it difficult to drive a car. 
>Cars first, and people will follow. That's common sense.
>
>Diverting School Money to Real Estate Developers
>
>I oppose. We must quit diverting any basic services money to developers.
>
>My opponent favors smart growth & high density - Taking money from 
>basic services is the key funding mechanism that makes these schemes 
>work Gentrification - high housing costs. I am opposed to all "smart growth".
>
>I oppose. Government policies that encourage high density and gentrification.
>
>My opponent favors smart growth & high density - which cause a large 
>part of gentrification and high housing costs.
>Posted by James Karlock at 10:51
>1 comments:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bwna.us/pipermail/bwna_bwna.us/attachments/20091223/98f791c3/attachment-0001.html>