Editorial

Once again Rustikat Internet Services has found it necessary to set the record straight. Late last month the State Board of Elections initiated an investigation into the website www.vanbraxton.com, which is hosted on a Rustikat server.

More than a week ago local message board posts indicated that papers were served on "someone" Saturday, Aug. 26 in this matter - that did not happen.

According to an Aug. 29, 2006 article by Bob Shiles in the Free Press the complaint filed at the SBOE came from a "very concerned citizen."

On that same afternoon (Aug. 29, 2006) Fred Riggs of Rustikat Internet Services was served a subpoena requiring him to appear in person and produce all documents, papers and books relating to the matter in question to the State Board of Elections by 5 p.m. Friday, Sept. 1.

Riggs complied fully with the subpoena. He delivered the papers to Don Wright, general counsel to the SBOE at approximately 4:15 p.m. Friday. Wright disclosed to Riggs that Van Braxton verbally made the complaint by telephone.

Riggs complied with the subpoena "in protest" due to the rulings of various Supreme Court cases, the United States Code and internet policies regarding the privacy of his customers.

At present no decision has been rendered as to whether the site, owned by a private citizen and not an organization or PAC, is in violation of any law. Riggs questions why the SBOE cannot decide if the site violates any law without knowing the identity of the owner.

Kinston Press wonders if Candidate Braxton is so rattled by the site - that had, until the investigation began, only 116 unique visitors - how will he handle the big leagues if he is elected to represent the 10th State House District? Coverage in newspapers such as the News & Observer and the Charlotte Observer will expose Mr. Braxton to many more citizens than those who have viewed the vanbraxton.com site. Also, any Legislator, in order to be effective for his/her district, must have skin thick enough not to be pierced by the ammunition of such organizations as the John Locke Foundation, NC Spin and 527 committees such as the ones bankrolled by Raleigh businessman Art Pope.

Kinston Press encourages its readers to follow this investigation. The story has not ended. There may be shocking developments.

As an exclusive to Kinston Press, Riggs has granted permission to print his statement as presented to the SBOE.

TO:     North Carolina State Board of Elections
In Re: Investigation of Vanbraxton.com,
          Rustikat.com, Rustikat.net,
          Rustikat Internet Service and
          Clen Frederick Riggs as to possible
          Violation of GS 163-274(8) and other
          Provisions of GS 163

I, Clen Frederick Riggs, present the following information and attachments in regard to the above matter in protest.

By being compelled to reveal this information I believe that I am in violation of Title 18 Part One Chapter 121 # 270, the Electronic Privacy Act of the U.S. Code (USC).

Furthermore, I have not been provided the name of the person or persons filing this complaint.

Also, I question why any decision regarding violations by www.vanbraxton.com cannot be rendered without knowing the name of the site's owner.

I wish to point out that nowhere in "GS163-274(8) and other provisions of GS163" is the internet addressed.

Finally, if GS 163-274(8) and other provisions of GS 163 are constitutional, why would the United States Supreme Court have issued the 1995 decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission that the "prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment."? (see attachment)

The owner of www.vanbraxton.com has asked to remain anonymous for reasons stated in the attached letter.

At no time have I received a complaint of any nature about www.vanbraxton.com

Clients purchasing internet services from Rustikat must agree to the company's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) which is found on the Rustikat home page. (See attachment) I have reviewed the site and have determined it is not in violation of the AUP.

If you can burn the American Flag and be protected by the First Amendment, why can't an individual speak out anonymously about a political candidate?