San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts
in [Design]
|
Prev: Barcode Symbologies
Next: sing-a-long
From: John Doe on 29 May 2010 11:40 flipper <flipper fish.net> wrote: > John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote: >> flipper <flipper fish.net> wrote: >>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon .... Waiting for Flippant to provide a link to the same argument somewhere else in the world. Or maybe he thinks that he has a unique argument that is somehow valid. >> Besides, law enforcement prosecutes, it does not adjudicate. > > There's nothing for your "law enforcement [to] prosecute" if you > can't adjudicate. You have semantical problems, Flippant. Law enforcement prosecutes all day long without adjudicating anything. That is why they are known as the "prosecution". The judicial branch adjudicates, Flippant, that is why it has judges. >>>> Have you actually read SB1070, as amended, >> >>> Go back and look at what happened to Prop 187. Prop 187 >>> attempted to bar State services to 'illegals' but the court >>> ruled it unconstitutional and one reason is because the State >>> has no power to decide who's 'illegal' as that's a Federal >>> Power. I.E. The State has no legal basis upon which to deny >>> services because it has no power to 'determine immigration >>> status' >> >> Which court ruled it unconstitutional? Provide a citation. > http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ > > "LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, March 19) -- A U.S. District Court > judge has declared most of California's Proposition 187 > unconstitutional. > In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to > regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's > responsibility. > The American Civil Liberties Union's Southern California chapter > was one of the five groups which sued to stop Proposition 187. > In a statement, ACLU spokesman Mark Rosenbaum said Pfaelzer > correctly denied California's attempt to regulate immigration. So, on Flippant's side is one liberal federal judge and the American Civil Liberties Union. Governor Pete Wilson was probably removed from office before a chance to appeal. And of course an open border advocate California governor would not push to appeal the liberal District Court Judge opinion. Determining the immigration status of a person and enforcing immigration law is not "regulating immigration". The act of regulating occurs at the border, regulating immigration is allowing or stopping immigrants at the border. >>>> or are you just pontificating, or performing "practiced >>>> ignorance"? >> >>> You can try 'shooting the messenger' all you like but it won't >>> change the Court and all I did was tell you why I had come to >>> the conclusion it, at the District level at least, would >>> likely strike down the Arizona statute: mainly because I >>> investigated the IIRIRA and what happened to Prop 187. >> >> Your idea that illegal immigrant status cannot be determined by >> law enforcement is just silly, Flippant, > > I didn't say "law enforcement." I said State and local police State and local police is "law enforcement", Flippant. > not a party to the IIRIRA cooperative agreement, as required by > Federal law. Apparently Flippant is confused about an individual officer making the determination. But in fact, the Arizona law and other states laws being proposed say "The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government". That is, if the individual officer is not empowered to make that determination by himself. -- > Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border1.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!newsfeed1.swip.net!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:15:36 -0500 > From: flipper <flipper fish.net> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad > Subject: Re: San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts > Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:16:10 -0500 > Message-ID: <qhf00699vhdt93gvf0be05de06m2l49q34 4ax.com> > References: <5ci8u59pvjah0frgk0eafp5hqjohdhpf1o 4ax.com> <e1blv5th0jfc8813mvlnjcr3i3dpu7lkek 4ax.com> <5b0mv5915rhmg43817q7uif3di1ukgf55j 4ax.com> <3b4mv5dtvjllfkoftg2p6q5mnn0ndfm3k3 4ax.com> <cn5mv551dp2p7s45b73lfe2ufion04bgm7 4ax.com> <10hqv5dcrmc645j5eqfsn6hp8dpunpsq0b 4ax.com> <o4hrv5tsn1attsp0ma2f3d8btur2i0oe9b 4ax.com> <4cirv55jf3ruma3o3mtqesg9rjvn9e2l5m 4ax.com> <n2orv5liebfq1p4mqa5deh0n51n9he77ee 4ax.com> <4bff60c0$0$28333$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.2/32.830 > X-No-Archive: yes > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100528-0, 05/28/2010), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > Lines: 125 > X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com > NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.230.238.182 > X-Trace: sv3-hLnkrX30L+javZkOJALetiHe0MUYZz3PNsT6sA27pPeoSxmjuUWlGfGlK+soroXIxdwjfD6S5YB4Vsd!wMDmZ6teNiqqk4SMX+GoTF/lOAxG3gP/uAs11FgNvdm/uxt5HvSeJxMqhSFIpuPQSgMAdSJaG1OA!nvfqnc0bF5DZyAXkmaoGPo75orMgxH6k > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly > X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 > Bytes: 6489 >
From: Jim Thompson on 29 May 2010 19:37 A copy of an E-mail, giving a legal opinion about Arizona's possibly-to-be law, SB1070, as amended... "Hey [Addressee]. The easiest way to understand a statute is to divorce yourself from personal political convictions and just go through the statute line by line. Subsection A of the proposed law prohibits political subdivisions of the state from adopting policy contrary to the State's policy of both enforcing federal immigration law and its own criminal law. Reasonable people can disagree on what the State's policy should be but that is why we have elections. It is undisputed that inferior political subdivisions of the state must abide by decisions of the superior legislative bodies. It is hard to argue cogently that the state legislature can not propose legislation and if passed require that it actually be enforced. Subsection B of the proposed law creates two threshold requirements before an immigration inquiry can be conducted by law enforcement. First the initial contact between law enforcement and the individual must be lawful. This does away with concerns of random roadblocks or traffic stops. Such stops are illegal. This law has not created any new rights in law enforcement to initiate contact with individuals. Secondly before any inquiry is made as to an individual's immigration status law enforcement needs reasonable suspicion to believe the person is illegally in the United States. How can requiring law enforcement to investigate criminality when they have a reasonable basis to believe criminality is afoot be considered draconian or somehow unfair. That is actually a higher standard than they have in initiating other criminal investigations. For instance law enforcement officers while in legal contact with an individual can ask questions regarding drug or alcohol use on nothing better than a desire to question an individual. Enforcing the law is what they are paid to do. The rule of law is not enhanced when law enforcement is given discretion to ignore the law based solely on political considerations. Law enforcement officers are executive branch government officials. It's a pretty scary thing in a free society when college students are arguing that the branch of government that enforces the laws should also be free to make them up to suit their own political tastes. Subsection E allows arrest of an individual when probable cause exists to believe he has violated an immigration law. This is no different than any other crime. Why should it be? Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a specific crime has been committed by a specific individual. Furthermore the bill does not require arrest. It allows it. In a statute the words "may or "shall" are very important. The word "may" is used here. This law clearly allows officers to choose to summons an individual to court rather than take him/her into custody. Being Hispanic is not probable cause to believe someone has committed an immigration offense. Nor does the law require an individual to prove his/her citizenship. The burden of proof is always on the state. Any requirement to carry identification documents come from the feds. There is absolutely nothing in this proposed law requiring anyone to carry documentation with them. That is just silly posturing by someone who apparently doesn't trust his rational argument to persuade and has to rely on emotional appeals and rhetoric. The last thing this bill does is to create some penalties under Arizona criminal law. Have we strayed so far from federalism that we no longer believe individual states have the right to establish their own criminal code? By the way this was rather clever of the Arizona lawmakers as it removes the, weak but possible, federal supremacy challenge. I find it odd that your friend had a copy of the bill but apparently chose to rely on, of all things, a USA Today article for analysis of the bill. Is that the state of a college education these days? [Addressee] as you go through life I urge you not to use pie chart rags as your go-to source for reliable information. Love Dad" =============== Of course, "Addressee" is our oldest granddaughter, graduating a semester early, with honors, from U of A. And "Dad" is our son-in-law, Chief Prosecuting Attorney for Yuma County, Arizona. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: John Doe on 29 May 2010 21:08 flipper <flipper fish.net> wrote: > John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote: > >> flipper <flipper fish.net> wrote: .... >> Waiting for Flippant to provide a link to his argument >> somewhere else in the world. Or maybe he thinks that he has a >> unique argument that is somehow valid. > > Already did Did not! >> You have semantical problems, Flippant. Law enforcement >> prosecutes all day long without adjudicating anything. That is >> why they are known as the "prosecution". The judicial branch >> adjudicates, Flippant, that is why it has judges. > Think you can now figure out the mysterious "semantical > problems" of "there's nothing for your "law enforcement [to] > prosecute" if you can't adjudicate"? The State has no power to > adjudicate immigration law so the police have nothing to > 'prosecute'. If that argument were true, local officers could not arrest anyone for breaking federal law... Silly. >>> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ >>> The American Civil Liberties Union's Southern California >>> chapter was one of the five groups which sued to stop >>> Proposition 187. In a statement, ACLU spokesman Mark Rosenbaum >>> said Pfaelzer correctly denied California's attempt to >>> regulate immigration. >> >> So, on Flippant's side is one liberal federal judge and the >> American Civil Liberties Union. Governor Pete Wilson was >> probably removed from office before a chance to appeal. > > Wrong. The case was, by agreement, mediated. > > But then, your google ineptitude limits you to fabrications. As a grown-up, I do not "google", Flippant, I research. My intuition was exactly right, the appeal was dropped by an open border liberal governor, a successor to Pete Wilson. "In the near future, people will look upon California and Mexico as one magnificent region....." -- Governor Gray Davis Difficult to believe, but that is a real quote. >> And of course an open border advocate California governor would >> not push to appeal the liberal District Court Judge opinion. >> >> Determining the immigration status of a person and enforcing >> immigration law is not "regulating immigration". The act of >> regulating occurs at the border, regulating immigration is >> allowing or stopping immigrants at the border. >> Apparently Flippant is confused about an individual officer >> making the determination. > > Not I, the Federal government as specifically spelled out in > Federal law: the IIRIRA. Provide a quotation, Flippant. The only similar argument that I have heard is that guy in the fed saying that he would not process illegal immigrants handed over to him by the state. >> But in fact, the Arizona law and other states laws being >> proposed say "The person's immigration status shall be verified >> with the federal government". That is, if the individual >> officer is not empowered to make that determination by himself. > > Unless a party to an IIRIRA cooperative agreement the individual > officer is not empowered to do anything regarding immigration > status, and that includes 'asking'. Provide a quotation, Flippant. The only similar argument that I have heard is that guy in the fed saying that he would not process illegal immigrants handed over to him by the state. -- > Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 18:29:58 -0500 > From: flipper <flipper fish.net> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad > Subject: Re: San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts > Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 18:30:38 -0500 > Message-ID: <454306159dlhbh5nef0rd5k1emuupikkku 4ax.com> > References: <5b0mv5915rhmg43817q7uif3di1ukgf55j 4ax.com> <3b4mv5dtvjllfkoftg2p6q5mnn0ndfm3k3 4ax.com> <cn5mv551dp2p7s45b73lfe2ufion04bgm7 4ax.com> <10hqv5dcrmc645j5eqfsn6hp8dpunpsq0b 4ax.com> <o4hrv5tsn1attsp0ma2f3d8btur2i0oe9b 4ax.com> <4cirv55jf3ruma3o3mtqesg9rjvn9e2l5m 4ax.com> <n2orv5liebfq1p4mqa5deh0n51n9he77ee 4ax.com> <4bff60c0$0$28333$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <qhf00699vhdt93gvf0be05de06m2l49q34 4ax.com> <4c01355f$0$15685$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.2/32.830 > X-No-Archive: yes > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100529-0, 05/29/2010), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > Lines: 151 > X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com > NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.230.238.182 > X-Trace: sv3-bUia9FevSSxx3eGYpMQoZnBGMoVfVk1nieNMdwAzQn8oibBZmlRUmwA4uXlqmiofEjkTYyWeUEwWlV3!9oWB+yC9RmAhfJkmO9AQV78mytkJxp6CdCda7Z4HEo4JS/cvhJYuHbHbBC4aNQ7uUWtfcndGV4W+!ZWxNliH6pAwdgD667RmAxOpGDaYP1Gxa > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly > X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 > Bytes: 7480 > X-Original-Bytes: 7416 >
From: John Doe on 29 May 2010 21:29 Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote: > flipper wrote: .... > If I didn't know any better, It seems like you are trying to > protect them ? It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were some > how involve with these illegals more so than you are telling us. > Personally i'm getting tired and I am sure others are of you > spitting legal documents over this system I am looking for one more... A quotation that supports Flippant's argument that (during a lawful encounter) a local police officer cannot suspect that someone is here in the United States illegally and then consult with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) about the subject. Even a reference to someone else arguing the same point would be useful. > You are a disgrace as an American. That is, if you really are > one? Maybe not. In my opinion, Flippant's partisanship will be proved if he cannot produce the quotation asked for above, or if he does not relent if unable to do so. He will probably just increase the name-calling :D > People like you are one of the major reasons Not likely a major reason for anything, really. Apparently Flippant is just a nym-shifting troll who uses the no- archive switch to help hide the fact.
From: John Doe on 30 May 2010 07:41
flipper <flipper fish.net> wrote: > Jim Thompson wrote: >> A copy of an E-mail, giving a legal opinion about Arizona's >> possibly-to-be law, SB1070, as amended... >> >> "Hey [Addressee]. The easiest way to understand a statute is to >> divorce yourself from personal political convictions and just >> go through the statute line by line. > > I agree. You are as partisan blind as it gets. > Interesting to note that's how I came up with an opinion about > the likelihood of the Court ruling contrary to what I had > thought before investigating it. It isn't that I 'like it' or > 'happy' with illegal immigration and the Federal government's > failure to properly fulfill it's Constitutional duties. Apparently you are a "greed is good, jobs Americans won't do, let's give illegal immigrants amnesty and open the border so we can further impoverish our workforce, I could not care less about anybody except myself" George Bush Junior style libertarian Bozo. Difficult to tell since you are a nym-shifting troll who hides your posts, but I bet you did not see it coming... That someday unemployment would rise and open border types would be thrown under the bus. You have argued for comprehensive immigration reform, Bozo, haven't you? Fess up. I heard someone aptly call so-called comprehensive immigration reform a third rail of politics. The vast majority of Democrats (or Republicans) won't touch the subject nowadays. The subject is so toxic, the oil spill looks like a pastime. >> Subsection A of the proposed law prohibits political >> subdivisions of the state from adopting policy contrary to the >> State's policy of both enforcing federal immigration law and >> its own criminal law. >> >> Reasonable people can disagree on what the State's policy >> should be but that is why we have elections. >> >> It is undisputed that inferior political subdivisions of the >> state must abide by decisions of the superior legislative >> bodies. It is hard to argue cogently that the state legislature >> can not propose legislation and if passed require that it >> actually be enforced. >> >> Subsection B of the proposed law creates two threshold >> requirements before an immigration inquiry can be conducted by >> law enforcement. First the initial contact between law >> enforcement and the individual must be lawful. This does away >> with concerns of random roadblocks or traffic stops. Such stops >> are illegal. This law has not created any new rights in law >> enforcement to initiate contact with individuals. >> >> Secondly before any inquiry is made as to an individual's >> immigration status law enforcement needs reasonable suspicion >> to believe the person is illegally in the United States. How >> can requiring law enforcement to investigate criminality when >> they have a reasonable basis to believe criminality is afoot be >> considered draconian or somehow unfair. That is actually a >> higher standard than they have in initiating other criminal >> investigations. For instance law enforcement officers while in >> legal contact with an individual can ask questions regarding >> drug or alcohol use on nothing better than a desire to question >> an individual. > > No argument (and I never once argued any 'discrimination' case) > as long as the 'law' is Constitutional and, as I've explained > before, the Court's ruling on prop 187 suggests to me they will > not consider it so because immigration law is a Federal, not > State, power. Law enforcement is a police officer's job. Local police officers can arrest you for violating a federal law. And if you do not believe that, Bozo, you are more of an idiot than your buddy George Bush Junior who actually did know that, and he too was gung ho for open borders. Search for... arrest illegal immigrants memo 2002 http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm >> Enforcing the law is what they are paid to do. The rule of law >> is not enhanced when law enforcement is given discretion to >> ignore the law based solely on political considerations. >> >> Law enforcement officers are executive branch government >> officials. It's a pretty scary thing in a free society when >> college students are arguing that the branch of government that >> enforces the laws should also be free to make them up to suit >> their own political tastes. > > The same 'scariness' applies to 'free to make up' Constitutional > law. Arizona is not making up constitutional law, it is just telling its officers (after a lawful contact) to arrest anyone who appears to be violating immigration law. >> Subsection E allows arrest of an individual when probable cause >> exists to believe he has violated an immigration law. This is >> no different than any other crime. Why should it be? Probable >> cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a specific crime >> has been committed by a specific individual. Furthermore the >> bill does not require arrest. It allows it. In a statute the >> words "may or "shall" are very important. The word "may" is >> used here. This law clearly allows officers to choose to >> summons an individual to court rather than take him/her into >> custody. >> >> Being Hispanic is not probable cause to believe someone has >> committed an immigration offense. Nor does the law require an >> individual to prove his/her citizenship. The burden of proof is >> always on the state. Any requirement to carry identification >> documents come from the feds. There is absolutely nothing in >> this proposed law requiring anyone to carry documentation with >> them. That is just silly posturing by someone who apparently >> doesn't trust his rational argument to persuade and has to rely >> on emotional appeals and rhetoric. > > The IIRIRA specifically states 'who' is authorized to > investigate immigration status There is nothing exclusive about it, and it clearly does not prohibit a local police officer from attempting to verify immigration status. A local police officer can arrest someone for violating federal law. Denying obvious stuff like that is a good reason to continue nym-shifting and using the no-archive switch, Bozo, so a few months from now no one will easily tell what an idiot you are. Nah. >> The last thing this bill does is to create some penalties under >> Arizona criminal law. Have we strayed so far from federalism >> that we no longer believe individual states have the right to >> establish their own criminal code? > As I explained before, another potential 'problem' I see with > writing a State law 'criminalizing' immigration status is that ....it violates his ideal of cheap illegal immigrant labor "to do jobs Americans won't do". >> By the way this was rather clever of the Arizona lawmakers as >> it removes the, weak but possible, federal supremacy challenge. > the seeming populist practicality of "if you won't do it then we > will" It is not "if you won't do it", it is "because you have simply refused to do it". Our executive is holding hostage immigration law enforcement until we agree to so-called comprehensive immigration reform. > but I don't see any such exception mentioned in the Supremacy > Clause. Stop acting like a law expert, Bozo... If you actually knew something about anything important as our law, you would not try to hide your previous posts by using the no-archive switch. -- >> I find it odd that your friend had a copy of the bill but >> apparently chose to rely on, of all things, a USA Today article >> for analysis of the bill. Is that the state of a college >> education these days? >> >> [Addressee] as you go through life I urge you not to use pie >> chart rags as your go-to source for reliable information. >> >> Love Dad" >> >> =============== >> >> Of course, "Addressee" is our oldest granddaughter, graduating a >> semester early, with honors, from U of A. And "Dad" is our >> son-in-law, Chief Prosecuting Attorney for Yuma County, Arizona. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > > Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-04.inet.qwest.net!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed1.swip.net!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 02:37:08 -0500 > From: flipper <flipper fish.net> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad > Subject: Re: San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts > Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 02:37:48 -0500 > Message-ID: <cdt306tps82t110j5s3m0lduccmavuidoh 4ax.com> > References: <cn5mv551dp2p7s45b73lfe2ufion04bgm7 4ax.com> <10hqv5dcrmc645j5eqfsn6hp8dpunpsq0b 4ax.com> <o4hrv5tsn1attsp0ma2f3d8btur2i0oe9b 4ax.com> <4cirv55jf3ruma3o3mtqesg9rjvn9e2l5m 4ax.com> <n2orv5liebfq1p4mqa5deh0n51n9he77ee 4ax.com> <4bff60c0$0$28333$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <qhf00699vhdt93gvf0be05de06m2l49q34 4ax.com> <7do0069pr8qu1hl5g7meuok7u07lh3g1dk 4ax.com> <lil1061u4adk9ups77dhj5rvjoc1np66im 4ax.com> <1u8306tds5juvsonddrbl4uv4pu0ns3oa5 4ax.com> > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.2/32.830 > X-No-Archive: yes > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100529-1, 05/29/2010), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > Lines: 171 > X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com > NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.230.238.182 > X-Trace: sv3-fnhVLYlAVAMVH43JMQBdUy67cLiOfTuXNRVRY83p86dXjJsI8QHU+jq6EFvpBUyodpSnIqateVkpwfp!qcNS90QgOFmKhu8a4rWmCr2cTH7BfaDdWMR+9pjiAoRDa6anP7b+IK9XUCJb3od9DXU28o5CX0mE!Gd+bQIFLfJFr0Ny7smtXGYamOikpeWjE > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly > X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 > |