Re: Your letter of March 17, 1998

Dear Ms. Shostak:

This letter is in reply to your letter to me dated March 17, 1998.  In that letter you demanded that I cease and desist certain actions that you have alleged that I have been conducting.  Addressing your first question; Is Face-Intel represented by legal counsel? The answer is no. Nor do I anticipate having the financial means to obtain legal counsel. I suspect it will be just me against the second largest law firm on the planet.   Your letter claims that I have in my possession e-mail lists that are the proprietary information of Intel. This allegation is incorrect.  Any lists that I or any other FACE Intel member may have, we compiled with our own labor and I do not see why I or any other FACE Intel member should provide them to Intel based on your assertion that they somehow belong to Intel.  I am no lawyer, but my reading of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, codified in California Civil Code Sections 3426-3426.11, does not indicate the basis upon which you base your allegation that our e-mail lists fall within that statute. Perhaps you could provide some basis for your allegations.

Secondly, you allege that we are improperly intruding upon Intel's proprietary computer equipment and we are "spamming" Intel employees. I categorically deny both allegations. We are not intruding upon any proprietary computer equipment. We are merely exercising our free speech rights under the U.S Constitution, regarding non-commercial matters, upon the Internet.  Nor are we "spamming", as I understand the term to be commonly used.  We are not sending unsolicited commercial advertisements or proposals. In fact, we inform all recipients that they can be permanently removed from our e-mail lists by merely informing me of their desire to do so.  We provide simple instructions as to how to notify us to be taken off our list. Thus far, we have promptly removed the name of all people who indicated that they did not wish to receive our messages.

I read the case that you have cited, America Online v Cyber Promotions, 948 F. Supp. 436 and I must take issue with your interpretation of that case and its applicability to me. Again, I am no lawyer but that case seemed to deal with a commercial defendant who sought to be able to send commercial messages to customers via AOL's accounts. Cyber did not want AOL to be able to block Cyber's access to the AOL accounts. Unlike that defendant, we are not sending commercial messages or advertisements. Secondly, we are not insisting that Intel provide us with access to anything.  If Intel seeks to block our efforts at exercising our first amendment rights, then Intel can do so, and let them also proclaim their position in this matter.  Our position is that the rights of the U.S. Constitution should be protected for the benefit of all citizens.  Does Intel take issue with this position? If so, they are free to state their position for the record. We will not block their efforts, nor have we ever attempted to do so.

P.O. Box 1360, Citrus Heights, CA 95611 - Phone: (916) 729-6992 - Fax: (916) 729-3097 - Internet: face@quiknet.com

After all is said and done, I have lost my house, my career, even my little car and because you have already taken everything from me-I will never lay down and die for you. Neither Intel, nor you, nor any other bully-for-hire will take my freedom from me. Everything else has already been taken.  I have nothing more I fear to lose. So, voice your threats, intimidations, and bullying tactics. I don't care. I have grown deaf.
 
 

Very truly yours.

(signature of Ken Hamidi)

Ken Hamidi

FACE Intel Spokesperson
 
 

cc: Andy Grove, Craig Barrette, Tom Dunlap
 
 

P.O. Box 1360, Citrus Heights, CA 95611 - Phone: (916) 729-6992 - Fax: (916) 729-3097 - Internet: face@quiknet.com