Diebold in CA: Who's Responsible? Huge legal and financial risks...

[Amaryllis]

For the whole article:
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=949&Itemid=113

Diebold in California: Who's Responsible?
By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA
February 18, 2006

To the astonishment and disappointment of many, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has chosen to re-certify both the Diebold AccuVote-OS optical scan and AccuVote-TSx touchscreen machines for use in California's election this year. This in spite of the fact that computer scientists commissioned to do a proscribed but nevertheless revealing report on Diebold's AccuBasic Intepreter determined that aspects of the software that runs both systems is prohibited under federal standards. According to the report the computer scientists, David Wagner, David Jefferson, and Matt Bishop, all members of California's Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB), advised McPherson that the risks posed by the presence of prohibited "interpreted code" were "manageable" and could be "mitigated" by tightening security around Diebold's voting machines.

In December, McPherson, in response to the revelation that AccuBasic could be used to mask pre-stuffed memory cards as demonstrated in a test election in Leon County Florida, denied certification to Diebold's equipment pending a review the Independent Testing Authority (ITA) laboratory Ciber, Inc. - the same laboratory that had certified the systems in the first place. In a published statement McPherson said "uring a thorough review of the application for the Diebold system currently pending certification, we have determined that there is sufficient cause for additional federal evaluation." In a letter to Diebold dated December 20, McPherson noted that "it is the Secretary of State’s position that the source code for the AccuBasic code on these cards, as well as for the AccuBasic interpreter that interprets this code, should have been federally reviewed," and requested that Diebold submit the source code relating to the AccuBasic code on the memory cards and the AccuBasic interpreter to the ITA for immediate evaluation and required this additional review before proceeding with further consideration of your application for certification in California. He concluded that "nce we have received a report from the federal ITA adequately analyzing this source code, in addition to the technical and operational specifications relating to the memory card and interpreter, we will expeditiously proceed with our comprehensive review of your application."

In the end the ITA apparently wasn't expeditious enough for McPherson. In a letter to Diebold dated February 17, McPherson admitted that "o date, we have not recieved a report from the federal ITA, nor have we received any information regarding the status of its review from the federal ITA." Apparently the "resource constraints at the ITA" precluded the review of the AccuBasic source that was somehow overlooked during the original certification process. No problem - the Secretary of State certified them anyway. After all, no one seriously thought the "Independent" Testing Authority would act in any way that was detrimental to a valued client like Diebold. This way they are spared the uncomfortable and onerous job of explaining why it doesn't matter that Diebold's software is in violation of federal standards.

While McPherson's decision to side with Diebold will no doubt have significant and well-deserved fallout in November, it seems that, in the short term, he made the politically expedient decision. With a special election for Duke Cunningham's seat scheduled for April and statewide primaries in June, McPherson chose to bow to pressure from county clerks eager to buy Diebold. As Ian Hoffman notes in an Oakland Tribune aritcle this morning:

The decision is likely to set off a buying spree for as many as 21 counties, more than a third of the state, as local elections officials rush to acquire one of only two voting systems approved for use in the 2006 elections. Registrars and clerks prefer having voting systems for at least six months before conducting a statewide primary like the one in June, partly because it is California's most complicated and error-prone type of election.

More
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=949&Itemid=113

[cdsilv]

1. Time to put a call out to all the Democrat hackers & crackers....

...time to get busy....

The ones I've heard of are motivated by $$$$


If a system can be hacked/cracked by a rethug, it can equally be hacked/cracked by someone else....

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. You need physical access to crack the system

And that's what's being tightened in California. The approval was conditional, so there'll be other changes as well.

I don't trust any DREs, but Diebold is no worse - nor better - than the rest.

[kster]

3. Tightened so only these guys will have access

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/7161565/detail.html

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. Your article makes my point for me

None of these manufacturers are better - or worst than the rest, so picking on Diebold is missing the point.

As for tightening security, computer scientists reported the obvious - that you need privileged access to hack the Diebold system - which is something the company has always divulged.

Protest against DREs, by all means - they're notoriously unreliable. But your message will be more effective if it is informed.

[Amaryllis]

5. Fredda is right. If CA gets rid of Diebold and goes with another vendor,

nothing has been accomplished. None are secure. Diebold is just fallling under the greatest scrutiny.

[nicknameless]

6. Kster is right about who will have access though.

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. Election officials - that's who

And one of the recommendations is that they should always work in pairs.

You can't eliminate fraud or abuse, even with paper ballots. Those with privileged access, who can physically manipulate the system, can defeat almost any audit process.

Knowing vulnerabilities is key and Diebold, in that sense, is the safest choice right now.

Protest, please ... but focus on legitimate complaints that can be made against all DREs - by parroting inaccurate accusations, you weaken those who are trying to improve the situation.

[nicknameless]

12. Fraudsters working in pairs. What a comfort. And a promotion of Diebold?

Good to know who the enemies are.

:eyes:

[Fredda Weinberg]

16. If elections officials are fraudsters, paper isn't safe either

For the umpteenth time, I don't support any DREs ... and have no interest in "promotion" of Diebold. But I've watched for years while they've been accused of deliberate fraud without proof - and that's done nothing to stop the popularity of touch-screen voting.

If you're looking for enemies here, then perhaps rational debate isn't possible. Good night and good luck.

[nicknameless]

17. Paper is safer because far too many election officials are fraudsters.

Massive vote flips are more difficult when there is paper available for recounting.

You wrote about Diebold:

"But I've watched for years while they've been accused of deliberate fraud without proof - and that's done nothing to stop the popularity of touch-screen voting."

1) There is plenty of proof of fraud by Diebold.

2) Touch-screen voting is only "popular" with those who are opposed to clean elections and/or those on the take from the e-voting vendors (many of those aforementioned election officials).

Rational debate *is* impossible with a Diebold defender. Good night.

[Fredda Weinberg]

18. You're simply wrong about touch-screen popularity

The touch-screen machines are so popular within the disabled community, in fact, that last Monday, several disability advocacy and assistance organizations, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the California Council of the Blind, the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund of Berkeley, filed suit against four California counties and California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley for failure to provide such machines to completely service every disabled voter casting ballots in California

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-19-04&storyID=18493

Voters who have used the system agree that it has made voting much easier.

"I've used it three or four times, and I like it, it's fast," said Lee from Hayward. "My opinion is that it works."

"Absolutely, it's easier to use," said Newell Erwin of Oakland. "Its worked fine for me, but other people have reservations about it."

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/ngno/stories/003170.html

The November 2003 Peach State Poll asked the public to compare the current touchscreen system with former methods of voting. More than four in five Georgians believe that electronic voting is an improvement over punch card ballots (84 percent) and over paper ballots marked by pen (82 percent). In fact, Georgians in all age groups, all levels of education and income, all racial and ethnic groups, all regions of the state believe electronic voting machines to be an improvement over other methods

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/peachpoll/2004-01-23.pdf

And the fraud to which you refer is not evidence that the code was maliciously designed - it's that Diebold falsely represented that the latest version of their software had been certified or that they applied updates. If you've got any proof that Diebold code has been designed to miscount ballots - please present it, because the professionals haven't seen it.

[kster]

19. Thats because nobody is telling the disabled people

that the touch screen is "notoriously unreliable".

[Fredda Weinberg]

22. How 'bout sticking to that message

and stop defeating yourself by parroting discredited nonsense?

[nicknameless]

20. That's hilarious. For starters, Shelley's been gone since last March.

(The first article you cited was from 03-19-04) So the "last Monday" in that article was nearly two years ago.

Secondly, the disabled community has figured out how they've been the pawn in this vote-stealing set-up and aren't willing to play along anymore.
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5701

Thirdly, You've quoted some guy saying that Diebold's touch-screen is "easier to use"?!! What a pinhead. Wonder if he cares that his vote probably wasn't be counted .. if he's a Dem.
California's test of Diebold's TSx machines last summer revealed about a 30% failure rate. And what about the hundreds of thousands of lost and flipped votes? Well, that can't matter as long as touch-screens are "easier to use". :eyes:

Your Peach State Poll was also extremely dated. Wonder how many of those Georgians knew about the "Rob Georgia" file? How much worse has life become for them since their votes were flipped to Saxby Chamblis from Max Cleland?

The existence of interpreted code in Diebold's software is illegal and evidence of fraud.
In California's 2004 audit of Diebold machines used in previous elections -- not even ONE single machine was found to have certified software. That too is fraud.

Interpreted code is illegal for a reason. Even the vendor-hired ITAs are avoiding this topic. And Diebold has been hiding behind claims of "proprietary" code for a reason. They have plenty to hide.

Are you sure you meant to be posting on Democratic Underground?

[Fredda Weinberg]

21. Here's a 2006 poll

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the respondents expressed positive trust ratings for DREs, while sixteen (16%) expressed negative trust ratings for DREs. Among the four voting technologies available, DREs and precinct optical scan devices are the clear favorite across the country.

http://www.aapd.com/News/votingissues/votingtech.htm

As for your personal accusation, which is pretty limp coming from an anonymous source - go look up my record online ... see what I've done as [e-mail] to bring the public's attention to this serious issue.

I volunteered to help VerifiedVoting.org before you probably heard of it - and inspected the Diebold files before anyone else. Unfortunately, some "activists" are more interested in their personal enrichment than the public welfare ... so I've spent the last couple of years observing them diminish their own reputations while quietly supporting those who are making a positive impact. If you think the Rob Georgia file contained anything nefarious - you've been had.

You're quick to insult those who disagree with you - a tendency which unfortunately, is not limited to our political opponents. You're also dismissive of the hard work that remains to inform public opinion ... and this misguided campaign against a single voting system vendor doesn't help - that's why David Dill, whose website you just referenced, repeats over and over, "Diebold is no worse than any of the others".

[nicknameless]

24. The guy on the take from Diebold is the one to believe?

AAPD is the American Association of People with Disabilities. Their spokesperson and cheerleader for DREs is Jim Dickson, who is known to have been given at least $26,000 by Diebold. So that poll is hardly trustworthy.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002261.htm

What is rarely reported, when folks such as the AAPD's Jim Dickson inevitably show up at these hearings to testify, is that the NFB received a contribution of one million dollars from Diebold and Dickson's AAPD has received at least $26,000 from them as well, as reported by the NY Times and others.

(NOTE: Those spokespeople from disabilities groups not on the Diebold payroll, who don't buy into the tortured notion that they must have paperless touch-screen voting machines in order to protect their civil-rights -- folks like David Dixon of Florida's Handicapped Adults of Volusia County (HAVOC) -- are rarely called to testify at such hearings as those trumped-up by Bob Ney and friends.)

<snip>

I made a personal observation you are a defender of the indefensible Diebold. Why should I or anyone else care about the “record” of someone who supports that democracy-busting company?

If you think that Saxby Chamblis honestly defeated Max Cleland, then “you’ve been had”.

You note that David Dill states repeatedly that "Diebold is no worse than any of the others", but you want us to believe that means Diebold is safe to use?

You just posted in reply #22, that Diebold being labeled "notoriously unreliable" is "nonsense".

By “insult”, you mean posting refuting information?
Your “parroting” slur -- made both to me and to kster -- is what’s insulting.
Everyone here but you is misinformed, is that right? ... the Diebold defender. :eyes:

[Fredda Weinberg]

25. I'm the one who says all DREs are notoriously unreliable

You can't keep this conversation straight, can you?

I'll dumb it down for you ... by attacking Diebold repeatedly with blanks, you complicate the debate.

I'll assume you haven't examined the Diebold code - Bev Harris offered it to me before anyone else heard about it because I had already demonstrated that we possess the capability to penetrate mainstream media with a clear and focused message. I walked away from the debacle she was creating because her accusations proved to be baseless.

So yeah, I know more about this subject than you do - here's a report I wrote years ago

http://www.wordsunltd.com/voting_machine_fiasco.htm

And I happen to be the one who analyzed the Florida voter scrub file. That kept the debacle from being repeated in 2004.

Get the picture?

[nicknameless]

26. You just posted to kster that the assertion of Diebold being

"notoriously unreliable" is "discredited nonsense".
As far as I'm concerned, you have completely discredited yourself with that comment and your other posts here.

I couldn't be more unimpressed with what you have to offer.

Again, are you sure you meant to be posting on Democratic Underground?

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. I dare you to find where I put those two phrases together

Of course, you can't - because I've consistently argued that Diebold is a distraction and that DREs are the real threat.

[nicknameless]

28. DREs in CA *ARE* Diebolds.

How can you claim that there’s no proof of fraud by Diebold, and that concerns about the company are “just a distraction”?

They have a glaring track record of fraud. Eliminating ALL of their voting machines in CA –- not just the DREs -- is critical for clean elections.

You also apparently believe that tightening security so that only election officials will have access is some kind of solution. Many CA election officials are tied to Diebold and other vendors, and have opposed election reform in the state.

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/templates/SDCTemplate.asp?a=4269&z=69&cp=PressRelease&pg=article&fpg=senpressreleases&sln=Bowen&sdn=28

The California Association of Clerks & Elections Officials opposed SB 370 even though it noted that the “. . . the possibility exists that the internal audit trail . . . could be programmed to print different results.”

Here’s some background on a few of these inside operators:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408960

[Fredda Weinberg]

29. You're shooting blanks at the wrong target

I've examined the Diebold source code - have you? No? Then one of us knows what we're talking about.

The fraud to which you refer is marketing BS ... older versions of the same software were properly certified and it was just the upgrades from .18 to .19. Shout all you want, but you won't get far with that argument in the real world. Diebold paid a fine and that was it.

What's even dumber is the idea that eliminating Diebold machines is "critical" for clean elections - it won't do you much good if all you get are other DREs that have withstood less scrutiny.

And it wasn't my suggestion that tightening security was enough to close the vulnerability "exposed" in the hack test - that came from other computer engineers. You can delude yourself into thinking you know more about this than I do - but professionals are going to listen to academics, PhDs in this field.

Look, I took a topic and got the mainstream media to shut down the 2004 Florida voter purge before it could be applied - you've been shouting for years and got nowhere. You're doing something wrong and if you don't listen to reason, you're part of the problem.

[nicknameless]

36. No, I haven’t inspected Diebold's source code. I rely on the word

of those who clearly know what they’re talking about ... Parenthetically, not to you.

I've read some remarkable posts on DU before, but none that have been so astonishingly erroneous and reeking of conceit.

The fraud to which you refer is marketing BS ... older versions of the same software were properly certified and it was just the upgrades from .18 to .19. Shout all you want, but you won't get far with that argument in the real world. Diebold paid a fine and that was it.

The truth:

In California, the discovery of illegally installed, uncertified equipment in all 17 counties
using Diebold resulted in not only the $2.6 million settlement but an historic ban and decertification of Diebold equipment in the state. Three of the 17 counties (Los Angeles being one) were found to be using equipment that was uncertified at both State and Federal levels. The most serious violations revolved around the GEMS software, as none of the versions being used had been qualified by the ITA’s (Independent Testing Authorities).

http://www.whoscounting.net/TheCompanies.htm#DIEBOLD

How you can continue to defend this indefensible company is beyond comprehension.

[Fredda Weinberg]

40. You can't see the forest for the tree, can you?

Go ahead ... shout all you want - but don't be surprised when time after time, you get nowhere. You'll have no one to blame but yourself.

I'll continue to focus my efforts where they make a difference.

[nicknameless]

37. I ventured over to BartCopNation.com

and read about some others’ experiences with you. Good to know I’m not alone in my observations.

Here are just a few snippets from three posters:

Well Fredda Weinberg, or somebody who went by that name and claimed to have Greg Palast's ear, was the ultimate troll on that thread. I mean, just a mean, nasty, unreasonable boor. Just insisted that there was nothing to the Klausitis story and went to great lengths to disrupt the thread and make sure nobody made any progress in establishing whether there was a story there or not. It made no sense. I had read Palast and respected him, and knew about his own troubles with the BFEE over the Barrick Gold story -- why would someone as seemingly credible as he have any association with this nutcase?

<snip>

I haven't yet put her in my ignore list, but she's right on the lip of it. She's been posting wacky stuff and has no cred with me at all.

<snip>

I would submit that Fredda was the one in hysterics over the Klausitis case. She doesn't want to go for a conspiracy? Whatever. Why then was she so incredibly committed to preventing anybody else from even investigating it, to the point of shotgun posting insults to every other person participating in that thread? In the two years since then I haven't seen many examples of people going as overboard as she did. I don't raise a lot of stink around here, but that is one individual that I feel no compunction whatsoever raising the alarms over. I don't trust Fredda Weinberg, and never will.

http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=222466#222642

[Fredda Weinberg]

39. Talk about shooting blanks!

They, those "investigators" really got to Joe Scarborough ... got him his own TV show!

"Claimed" to have Palast's ear? Go search [e-mail] and see what I did for progressive causes.

[Kelvin Mace]

31. This is the argument made by most

reputable computer scientists.

Diebold has managed through its ineptitude, arrogance, greed and dishonesty to make itself the poster boy for the anti-BBV movement. Concern over Diebold should not blind people to the fact that the threat is the improper use of technology, not just one company's use of that technology.

The point some people miss in all the excitement to pile on Diebold is that other companies have the same problems and cannot be allowed to procede.

One must always keep in mind:

- Our voting systems should not be controlled by ANY private corporations, whether it is Diebold or Ben & Jerry.

- No system that stores votes in an intangible format can ever be trusted to be free of error or tampering.

- In the absence of a paper ballot that the voter can see and touch, he who writes the software actually counts the votes.

- No system is error-proof or tamper-proof.

- ANY system that is implemented without proper auditing and security procedures is worthless.

- Any system people are not properly trained to use is worthless.

- Training and a proper, secure and accurate system cost money, and as long as our government remains miserly about spending the money, we will have a sucky system.

- We need to watch our election officials like a hawk because quite a few of them are lazy/conniving bastards who are perfectly happy in bed with the vendors.

Just my two cents.

[Wilms]

32. Oh, boy. Now you've done it.

FWIW, I prefer Cherry Garcia to Diebold's Lemon Rigged Sorbet Surprise.

[Kelvin Mace]

33. *snort*

Do you know how painful it is to bring Cherry Garcia up through your mose like I just did?

[Amaryllis]

34. agree wtih all your points except this one:

"- Training and a proper, secure and accurate system cost money, and as long as our government remains miserly about spending the money, we will have a sucky system."

Paper ballots are far less expensive than DRE's. the gov seems only too happy to spend excessive amounts on DRE's.

the rest of your points are right on.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Good point

bur even with the ridiculous sums we are spending, it is still pretty insignificant compared to the importance of the task. I consider voting equal to national security and we should spend accordingly on staff, training, get out the vote programs, free bus service, voter education (not on issues, but on civic responsibility), etc.

[Amaryllis]

42. With you on that. NOthing is more important than honest electiions becasue

it is the foundation for everything that follows.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. I keep making this point

Vote counting is where the rubber meets the road in a democracy. Unless our votes are recorded AND counted accurately, everything else is a waste of time.

[nicknameless]

35. I look at this issue like Whack-a-Mole.

If there is evidence of election-compromising insecurity or fraud with ANY of these e-voting vendors and their machines, they must be whacked down.

We know enough about Diebold's flaws and frauds that they should remain decertified.

What ever damning evidence we get on the others must be used against them too. McPherson had something on ES&S but has refused to turn the information over to Senator Bowen.

[eomer]

45. Hey, that's the perfect metaphor.

We can't proudly walk away from the Whack-a-Mole machine just because we destroyed that last one -- they're going to just keep on coming and we've got to be always waiting for the next one with our club.

[kster]

14. Picking on Diebold, For what its worth

if my company was being sued by the shareholders, I would stop selling the product which even you said is "notoriously unreliable" has Diebold done that yet. If not why do they keep selling products that are "notoriously unreliable".

[nicknameless]

7. McPherson should be personally sued for breaking state and fed laws.

He's expecting political favors from the right. He needs to be hammered by everyone else.

[kster]

11. After reading around the DU and other

sites, I think McPherson energized a whole lot of people. He is going to get an earful tuesday. He will have to smuggle them machines in from what I'm reading,

[nicknameless]

13. I can't figure him out at all.

Even the ITAs steered clear of the software issue.
I hope the whole state piles on that creep. What astonishing nerve!

[flyarm]

41. i wish someone out there would file suit...i have an internet group

and a lady in my group is from northern Calif she sent the petition (by the state senator of calif) i sent her to her local supervisor of election and the democratic supervior of elections went off on her..big time saying she was a conspiracy nut...and the supervisor was furious with her..the lady i sent it to was a DEC Chairwoman...

and i have run into this in my county with DEC and SEC chairs in florida..whats the deal with all these local dems we are dealing with????????

fly

[Wilms]

43. No one should assume, of course, that Dems get it.

Witness MD.

But having said that, I'd also add that, while I'm not sure, I suspect that some of the efforts of some of the election reform activists in this state may have come with some unintended consequences.

Your post is adding to that suspicion.

[nicknameless]

44. Those in charge of elections in CA are becoming notorious

in their efforts to thwart clean elections. MANY are DINOS.

I checked out a few of them and posted their info on a previous thread.

Deborah Seiler, who was Diebold's chief sales representative in California, is now Elections Manager of Solano County.
More info about her:
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65120,00.html
http://votersunite.org/article.asp?id=2990

Deborah Hench, Registrar of Voters, San Joaquin County and defender of Diebold:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=408960&mesg_id=409148

And the infamous Conny McCormack, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Los Angeles County:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=408960&mesg_id=409161
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x400648

The ones who aren't simply rethugs in Dem clothing, would appear to be on the take from the e-voting vendors. They were lavishly (obscenely) wined and dined last summer in Hollywood and Beverly Hills:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340



When CA State Senator Debra Bowen works to clean up our electoral process, she has to fight against the rethug SoS McPherson AND the California Association of Clerks & Elections Officials

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/templates/SDCTemplate.asp?a=4269&z=69&cp=PressRelease&pg=article&fpg=senpressreleases&sln=Bowen&sdn=28

The California Association of Clerks & Elections Officials opposed SB 370 even though it noted that the “. . . the possibility exists that the internal audit trail . . . could be programmed to print different results.”

If they’re really Democrats, how is it that their efforts are designed to only benefit rethugs?

This tactic of right-wingers registering as Dems is becoming very popular. I was told by an Ohio activist that rethugs in 2004 were requiring those who wanted to work for them to register as Dems. And according to Bob Fitrakis, the Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party in 2004, Denny White, had been a life-long republican.

I believe that we not only need to work *around* rather than with these people, we must also hold them accountable. DU's GuvWurld has the right idea. There was one great DU thread that I looked for, but couldn't find about GuvWurld's plan of action. Below are two links to the information.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00246.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x406538

[Ecumenist]

8. I'm here in the Golden State...

A native daughter and before I allow my vote to be hijacked by these crooks, I'll vote absentee until kingdom come, so help me God.:hi:

[Ecumenist]

9. AND

Encourage everyone I know to do the same...

[Amaryllis]

15. You can vote absentee but it doens't mattter. The votes are still counted

on vendor computers so even paper ballots are not safe. Voting machines are just the first problem. Then it's the scanners and tabulators that count nearly 100% of the votes in America.

[flyarm]

30. DOESN'T MATTER..EVEN ABSENTEE GO THROUGH TABULATORS!!

JUST ASK US HERE IN FLA...warning get off your asses and do something now..start calling your reps and get mad as hell!

fly

[kster]

23. kick.nt