REDACTED: Samizdat- Hunter - Price of Liberty

09/08/08

REDACTED:
Verizon pressured Hunter to have this site censored!

By Carl Bussjaeger

Mission Statement

Editorial Policy

Submissions

Letters to the Editor

Feedback

Discussion Forum

April 08, 2004

(Republished from North American Samizdat, Carl's website.)

Allow me to explain all those "<REDACTED>" facts. <REDACTED> at Verizon Communications didn't like the fact that I gave names, dates, and specifics of what they are doing to Hunter. So <REDACTED> pressured his union local to make him stop it.

Clearly someone at Verizon isn't real bright. Hunter doesn't own and operate this site; I, Carl Bussjaeger, own it. So in one sense, <REDACTED> is pressuring the wrong guy. But I guessed that from the lettter dated <REDACTED> from <REDACTED> firing Hunter without cause.

But Hunter is my friend, and when he contacted me about this, I agreed to play along. In my own twisted way. <REDACTED>, if you had left it alone, it would have drawn less attention that it is now.

As I understand it, but Hunter wasn't exactly specific (which suggests my understanding is correct), <REDACTED> thinks Hunter is posting this stuff himself, or passing company data to me in violation of their policies. I've already addressed the first possibility, but let me put it terms even a Verizon manager can understand:

Hunter doesn't post anything on this site.

As for the second possibility...

Have you noticed that many things I say about the situation with Verizon are a bit vague? That's because Hunter has not been feeding me information. I had to get it in other ways that don't flow through Hunter.

I drove back to New Hampshire from Ohio with Hunter, so I happened to be sitting in his dining room when he unsuspectingly played his answering machine messages and heard <REDACTED> indefinitely suspend him. If <REDACTED> didn't want that to get around, she should not have left the message on the man's private machine in his home. But then, <REDACTED> shouldn't have suspended him without a hearing either.
Hunter didn't give me the termination letter written by <REDACTED> either. We're friends; I'm at his place a lot. And I was there when the letter arrived. I even answered the door when the mail carrier knocked. Lessee... registered, return receipt letter from the company which improperly suspended him... Yeah, I was curious. And when Hunter set the letter down, I looked at it.
And <REDACTED> apparently doesn't like the fact that I saw it. Bummer. Once <REDACTED> wrote that letter and fired him, he was no longer bound to keep the company's dirty little secrets (like the fact that he was fired?!). If <REDACTED> wanted him to remain bound by the Verizon Code of Business Conduct, <REDACTED> shouldn't have fired him.
And, no, there was no protective "proprietary data" notice on the letter, and the courts have long maintained that such unprotected correspondence are the property of the intended recipient. So if Hunter had been inclined to pass it on, it was his right. Don't put your mistakes in writing if you don't want them read, <REDACTED>.
Could be that <REDACTED> and <REDACTED> are also displeased that I posted the Code of Business Conduct (see the WayBackMachine Archive copy of the Code of Business Conduct in case Verizon removes it from their server). Well, I didn't; I just linked to Verizon's very own copy on its very own public website.
But maybe Hunter told me where to find it? Nope. What <REDACTED> doesn't get is that Hunter is a well-known and well-respected liberty activist. Other people dig this stuff up and tell me to help. That particular tidbit came from the Claire Files Discussion Board, in a section created by that site's webmistress (another Hunter supporter) where yet another Hunter supporter posted the link she found. <REDACTED>, are you seeing a trend yet? Hunter has many supporters, folks neither he nor I have even met.
And in case <REDACTED> gets upset about that customer service reply I posted... Still another boycotter forwarded that one; with no involvement from Hunter whatsoever.

So, <REDACTED>, taking it out on Hunter, when it's the rest of the pro-Hunter and pro-gun world publicizing your mistakes, is unappreciated. He didn't even announce who his employer was when this hit the fan; I've simply known him, and who he worked for, for years. Pardon me for having friends. Maybe you'd like to discuss that employement disclosure with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, the Mansfield News-Journal, and Nashua Telegraph, all of which also publicized the fact that Hunter worked for you?

If you don't want your mistakes brought into the light, don't make them in the first place.

If <REDACTED> and <REDACTED> had simply kept Hunter on the payroll until the basic question of his innocence was resolved in court, none of this would have happened. I wouldn't have seen unfair treatment to write about. Hunter's supporters wouldn't have had a reason to dig into Verizon corporate policy to discover that you demand helpless employees. We wouldn't have known that we should boycott you. And I wouldn't be getting email from boycotters letting me know they dropped their Verizon services.

Depending on whose numbers you believe, there are somewhere from sixty to one hundred million gun owners in America. If <REDACTED> and <REDACTED> had simply treated Hunter correctly and fairly, all those gunnies would never have learned that they had a good reason to stop doing business with Verizon. This time, I censored my site for Hunter's benefit. Next time that <REDACTED> and <REDACTED> want to sweep their mistakes under the rug, they should contact me. I've sent enough letters and emails to the company that someone around there should have my addresses.

Of course, then <REDACTED> and <REDACTED> will have all the First Amendment free speech activists to deal with. Live and learn.

(I wonder if it has yet occurred to <REDACTED> and <REDACTED> that other sites may have picked up their names already, or that the WayBackMachine may have archived the incriminating pages. Ladies, I only control my website, not the rest of the Internet. I think it's a safe bet hat your cat is out of the bag.)

Free Hunter!

More will be posted as often as possible. Save this Liberty Round Table page as a source of ongoing updates.

Your "letters to the editor" are welcome t00. Please send them to editor@thepriceofliberty.org

Information Resources

North American Samizdat

Doing Freedom

A Knight of Non-Aggression is a person committed to fighting institutionalized aggression, who has taken the following oath:

"I swear, by my life and my love of It, to fight against all forms of tyranny. I recognize that the enabling idea that underlies and sustains tyranny is the idea that the socially organized and institutionalized initiation of the use of force against non-consenting and unwilling people can be justified, is desirable, and must be given sanction in order to avoid chaos. I further recognize that no lasting liberty can be achieved until the falsehood of this idea is widely known and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to exposing this falsehood.

"To this battle I will turn my creative energy, I will give my time and I will devote my very being, while never allowing my self, my efforts or my cause to become the aggressor, never conceding the premise of the enemy by becoming the enemy."

50 Ways to Leave Leviathan