--- Sam Bouman wrote:
Subject: re: ombIRS 1040 found not legal in Court Once and for all the truth
in court has prevailed regarding the infamous 1040 form. As the email below
this article will state, the 1040 form was never validated by congress by
correctly formatting or creating statutes or any other regulations to validate
the 1040 form as the absolute correct form for us as citizens of the United
States of America to have to mandatorily use. Our government has let the IRS
get away with this violation of law for decades. WHY??? What else the almighty
TAX DOLLAR.!!!! (Pull up Grace Commission Report on internet to validate no
taxes we pay goes to the US Treasury, it all goes to the Federal Reserve Bank,
a private bank). If the truth as it has finally been brought to light had been
known by our forefathers as well as ourselves, we would of course refused to
use an illegal document that requires us to sign under duress because of the
penalty of perjury signature. Now that this has been put on Public
Record we all can use it to better our position of validating that we as
Citizens of the States, living in the United States of America, are not
required to file using the 1040 form. So, since this is true and if we really
are required to file, what form are we to use???????? The simple secret is we
are not required to use any form because our source of income is not a taxable
source, if it is, then what form are we to use since the 1040 form is not a
legal form for us to use??? Can we be compensated for the illegal use of this
form forced upon us by the strong-arming of the IRS with the permission of our
own government?? Yes, we can. Please see Title 26 sections 7214 and 7433 of the
Internal Revenue Code. Of course by using these codes we would be required to
have to go to court so the big question is, is there an administrative remedy
that can get us our just compensation for the illegal actions of the IRS??? YES
THERE IS !!!!!!!!!!!! Since the IRS is a foreign corporation from
Puerto Rico and by forcing us to pay taxes by illegal liens, levies, and
garnishments and the now illegal 1040 form, according to the Supreme Court Case
of Cleopatra Haslipetal. v Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Inc,(See attachment)
compensatory damages and Punitive damages can be acquired. For further
information call 480-558-3346. There is one statement I have always adhered to
and now with this new case coming to the forefront ha been confirmed " THE
TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE". It is truly wonderful that by the true due
diligence of the fine people in the article below, this statement has magnified
itself. Always the true truth can and does provide you with the freedom we all
deserve. May the Lord continue to allow the truth to be resurrected and
discovered so that the creators of our governments wonderful Constitution of
our Rights can continue to validate that government is to be used to help the
people not to rule and destroy them. Les H/ Father of 10 .Date: Mon, 23 May
2005
17:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 10:37 PM Subject: [citizens
of the USofA] In case you've not seen it. Add Yourself to Our e-Mail List!
May 21, 2005 Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has NO Legal Basis In Law IRS
Withdraws Criminal Allegation, Tax Convict Walks Free Although the People's
war against the income tax fraud and IRS abuse has been lengthy and daunting
and has left many freedom fighters across our nation battered and bankrupt,
there are continuing signs that the tide of tyranny may finally be meeting
effective resistance. On April 12th 2005, William Wallace Lear of Muskegon
Michigan appeared in federal District Court in Grand Rapids to face IRS charges
claiming Lear had violated the terms of his probation. William Lear had served
one year in a federal detention facility in Minnesota following his conviction
in 2002 for Willful Failure to File income tax returns (a misdemeanor). His
probation began in March, 2004. The basis for the probation violation
hearing was an IRS claim that Lear failed to abide by the strict terms of his
probation which included the requirement that he file all his delinquent tax
returns and pay all back taxes and penalties owed. Just as the hearing before
Judge Gordon Quist began, the DOJ attorneys moved to dismiss the IRS's
probation violation claim against Lear that would have sent him back to prison.
Although Lear had filed his missing returns signing them "under duress" (which
IRS does not allow) and failed to pay the taxes owing on those returns, Judge
Quist signed an order, completely releasing Lear from federal custody. As of
April 12th, Lear has been a free man. An important question remains: Why? Why
would the IRS and DOJ walk away from a golden opportunity to make headlines and
send a convicted tax protester back to prison? Before answering the question,
let's review some of the key developments leading up to the April 12, 2005
probation violation hearing. After serving his 1-year sentence
and after his return to his home in Michigan to fulfill his probation, Bill
Lear and his wife Rose "dug back in" and continued to review the extensive body
of legal research that had originally caused Bill Lear not to file. During the
summer of 2004, they constructed a "Challenge of Authority" document relying on
legal material from various sources including comprehensive research posted by
WTP in May 2004 and that has since been sent repeatedly by the Foundation (and
others) to various officials of the U.S. government, including the President's
current Advisory Panel on Federal Tax reform. This research conclusively
documents that IRS has no legal authority to impose taxes on the wages and
salaries of ordinary Americans. Particularly damaging in the challenge was
recently archived documentation from the government itself clearly showing that
IRS Form 1040 is a "proposed" information form and that there is no legal
authority cited for its use. On October 4, 2004, during a meeting
in the offices of their Congressional Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Lears
formally served their Challenge of Authority on three IRS agents and engaged in
a significant discussion about the limits of their authority. The IRS agents
refused to respond to the challenge document simply stating that it is not the
"practice" of IRS to respond to such requests. What the agents did not know,
however, was that two weeks earlier, on September 24th, the Lears had also
filed the same document as a formal public legal record in their local county
courthouse at the Registrar of Deeds. On February 28, 2005, after additional
contacts with IRS officials in which Bill Lear repeatedly asked for IRS to
provide specific legal guidance to him so he could know which tax form the law
required him to fill out, and thereby comply with the terms of his probation,
the Lears again confronted the IRS agents in a meeting in Rep. Hoekstra's
office. At that meeting, and after a heated discussion with IRS
agents, confronting them with government documents and evidence clearly
showing Form 1040 has no authority in law, IRS ended the discussion and told
Lear that the law required him to use "Form 1040" to file his returns.
Frustrated into agitation with the exchange, IRS Agent J. McWilliams finally
stated that Lear "wasn't cooperating with the IRS", and that Lear was "going
back to prison." On March 2, and just days before Lear's probation was due to
expire, IRS filed a probation violation complaint with the federal probation
office. Lear was promptly served Notice of the hearing that could send him back
to prison. On March 4, the Lears filed a Habeas Corpus regarding the original
conviction. On March 9, Lear filed a pleading answering the alleged violation
of probation. On March 10, Lear also decided to "hedge his bet" and filed the
delinquent tax returns, but signed the tax forms "under duress." On March 14,
2005 - Lear appeared before Magistrate Joseph G. Scoville who found
cause for the violation and sent the case to Judge Quist for a formal hearing.
It should be noted that IRS routinely rejects tax returns signed "under
duress" due to the obvious due process implications related to the use of
force, threat of force, or other intimidation to coerce an individual to swear
to a statement made under "penalties of perjury." It should be further noted
that although required by the terms of his probation, Lear did not make any
payment toward the alleged taxes or penalties due for the returns he was
convicted for willfully failing to file. Finally, on March 21st, the Lears
filed a Motion to Quash the Release Revocation Hearing. Contained within this
motion was the formal "Challenge of Authority" document that had been
previously recorded in their local county courthouse as a legal public record.
On April 12, Lear and his wife Rose appeared in court for Bill's probation
violation hearing. Instead of publicly confronting the merits of the alleged
probation
violation and asking the court to send a "recalcitrant tax convict" back to
prison, attorneys for the DOJ and IRS withdraw their complaint alleging the
probation violation. WHY? Because under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, a court cannot deny the admissibility of relevant evidence consisting
of certified copies of public legal records as they are presumed to be
self-authenticating and valid as evidence. Here is the text of Rule 902,
sub-paragraph (4): Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent
to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: (4). Certified
copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry
therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and
actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in
any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to
make the certification. In other words, in facing a public criminal hearing
where
the contents of Lear's "Challenge of Authority" were, without argument,
directly relevant to Lear's alleged violation, and knowing the District Court
could not deny their admittance as evidence, the DOJ was faced with two
unpleasant alternatives: either A) produce IRS witnesses to explain away
government documentation clearly showing IRS Form 1040 is not a legally
authorized form, or B) walk away from the probation violation hearing. IRS
walked. Rather than take a potential headline-making opportunity to publicly
chastise and send a convicted tax protester who had dared - even after
conviction -- to continue questioning the legal authority of the government
back to prison, the IRS and DOJ instead withdrew their criminal complaint,
thereby avoiding having to confront - on the record - the damning evidence
contained in Lear's formal "Challenge of Authority" document. By withdrawing
the IRS complaint against Lear, DOJ avoided having to publicly rebut Lear's
legal research and
avoided being forced to cite the government's legal authority to enforce the
federal income tax. On April 25th, despite the facts that Lear had filed
defective returns signed "under duress" and also failed to pay the taxes and
penalties owed for the returns he was convicted for failing to file, Judge
Quist signed a formal order completely freeing Bill Lear from the terms of his
probation. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio is currently
considering whether to certify Lear's most recent Habeas Corpus motion to
vacate his conviction. That motion is also based upon the new legal research
contained in his "Challenge of Authority." The Hard Evidence That Form 1040
Has No Legal Authority In their "Challenge of Authority" document, the Lears
provide hard documentary evidence that IRS Form 1040 has NO legal authority.
This evidence was presented by contrasting archived government documents that
have been filed pursuant to the federal Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Under the PRA, each and every
government form that is used to collect information from the general public
under law must be linked to its authorizing statutes and implementing
regulations and have a valid Office of Management and Budget "OMB" Form number.
This requirement of law provides an orderly means to identify which statutes,
regulations and forms are related. As one item of evidence, the Lears produced
a stamped copy of a 1987 Treasury Department document entitled, "Request for
OMB Review" which is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The request was
for IRS Form "1040-NR", the tax form used by Non-Resident Aliens to report
their "income". Several things about this document are noteworthy: The form
used for the request is OMB Form "83" On line 5 of Form 83; the administrative
requester is required to cite the statutes actually authorizing the collection
of the information. The authorizing statutes are, in fact, cited. On line
27 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to cite the
regulations actually authorizing the collection of the information. The
authorizing regulations are, in fact, cited. Click Here to See the "OMB Form
83" Treasury request for IRS Form 1040-NR for use by Non-Resident Aliens Here's
where it gets very interesting: The "Challenge of Authority" document also
contains a similar Treasury PRA request from 1996, but this one is for the
"regular" IRS Individual Form 1040 that millions of Americans file each year.
This Treasury administrative request is not made on OMB "Form 83" ---- but
rather using an alternate OMB form, "83-1" titled, "Paperwork Reduction Act
Submission". Several very important differences between the OMB request forms
need to be noted: OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of
statutory authority. OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of
regulatory authority. In the "Certification" box found on page 2 of Form 83-1,
there
are specific references to both PRA Regulations "5 CFR 1320.9" and "5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3)." The attachments to this OMB Form 83-1 request consist primarily
of a list of Title 26 (Income Tax) regulations and statutes that are merely
(quoting) "associated" with IRS Form 1040. Click here to see the Treasury
request using OMB Form 83-1 for the IRS Individual "Form 1040" Here's the
punch line: IRS Form 1040-NR (for Non-Resident Aliens) is certified as
complying with the requirements of the PRA found at regulation 5 CFR 1320.8. In
its request to the OMB for IRS Form "1040-NR", the Department of Treasury (IRS)
clearly cites both the statutory and regulatory authorities authorizing the use
of the form to collect information and certifies its request as such. Click
Here to read the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) form disclosure requirements
found at 5 CFR 1320.8. Please specifically note that for the Treasury's
request using alternative OMB Form 83-1 for IRS Individual Form 1040, the
Treasury has formally certified the request under regulation 5 CFR 1320.9,
which is explicitly reserved for "PROPOSED" government forms. Printed just
below is the title header for federal regulation "5 CFR 1320.9": [Code of
Federal Regulations] [Title 5, Volume 3] [Revised as of January 1, 2005] From
the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 5 CFR 1320.9] [Page
155] TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL CHAPTER III--OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET PART 1320_CONTROLLING PAPERWORK BURDENS ON THE PUBLIC--Table of
Contents Sec. 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed collections of
information. As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection
of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior
Official, or their designee) shall certify and provide a record supporting such
certification) that the proposed collection of information [...] In short, if
IRS Individual Form 1040 were actually authorized under U.S. law, the Department
of Treasury would have submitted it for OMB certification using OMB "Form 83"
which requires explicit citation of the form's authorizing statutes and
regulations. Instead, the IRS used alternative OMB Form "83-1" -- which is
designated ONLY for "proposed" government forms - and which does NOT require
any formal citation of legal authority allowing its use. Furthermore, even
though an attachment to the Treasury's request for IRS Form 1040 (on OMB Form
83-1) contains a lengthy list of statutes and regulations, and "Box 12" on the
form is marked indicating the form is "mandatory", a careful reading of the
submission to OMB will make it clear that the Department of Treasury is ONLY
certifying that: Form 1040 is a "proposed form" and that, IF authorized, it
would meet the collection criteria established by regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, and
That Form 1040 is only "associated" with the statutes and regulations cited in
the 1040 request, and If Form 1040 were actually authorized by law, it
would be "mandatory". As a final observation, it should be noted that both
the 1987 Form 1040-NR request as well as the 1996 Form 1040 request were signed
by the same IRS officials, one Garrick R. Shear, the IRS Reports Clearance
Officer and one Lois K. Holland as/for the Departmental Reports Management
Officer. Lear's pleadings contain additional OMB certifications, also signed by
Shear & Holland. In short, the Department of Treasury's clear and willful
intent to use OMB Form 83-1 (rather than OMB Form 83) to legally certify IRS
Individual Form 1040 as a valid government document, is compelling proof
establishing that IRS Form 1040 is merely a PROPOSED tax form, and that there
is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY that authorizes its use. A Nation of Law? Who is going
to Police the federal judges to see that they do their duty? Do you think that
'JAIL' (Judicial Accountability, etc.) will ever pass? Subject: FW: States &
Agents NOT Immune To Suit...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: edj To: Allen Metzger Subject: States & Agents NOT Immune To Suit...
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:43:05 -0400 Message: 2 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005
> 18:44:55 -0000 From: "John Hughes" NOT Immune To Suit I found the following
> on www.landrights.com Normally, a state asserts the "11th Amendment" immunity
> privilege against lawsuits, and walks away from almost every conceivable type
> of action for violating common sense and people's rights, there by continuing
> the myth that there's really not much that can be done about the horrors of
> social injustice, except lobbying, petitioning, and other types of slow,
> lame, and tame methods that account forvery little change, if at all...
> NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE *REAL* TRUTH OF WRITTEN FEDERALLAW! Here's
> the gist of the real truth: States ARE typically immune from suit, but they
> are expressly NOT immune from suits involving situations related to incidents
involving ANY program that receive sassistance in federal funding!!! (In other
words, virtually everything associated with "family courts", including judges,
social workers, agencies, and the entire processes themselves...)See the first
paragraph of 42 USC 2000d to learn the TRUTH! Below is a large list of federal
laws that specifically WAIVE state immunity whenever there is discrimination on
race, color, religion, age, sex, handicap, national origin, and other forms,
and/or violations of civil and/or constitutional rights, and/or violations
against their own duties under law... and still, there are even more such
"exceptions". The below is only a sampling... These laws provide TWO things:
(1) they establish a federal *right*,and (2) they open a door for suit.The
wide-open definition of what state "programs or activities" are open to suit is
42 USC 2000d-4a (Note: all of the following hyperlinked constitutional
amendments, laws, and US Supreme Court case decisions come
from:http://www.law.cornell.edu and http://www.findlaw.com When state
officials, officers, and/or employees have violated your civil rights, they
have committed a breach of 18 USC 242 (the individual criminal act against
civil rights); If they acted together in any way, then it has become a breach
of 18 USC 241 (the criminal conspiracy...); Violation of 242 is punishable by
up to ONEYEAR in fed prison, while violation of 241 is punishable by up to TEN
YEARS in fed prison... (i.e., it really IS a *federal crime* to violate,
deprive, or interfere with ANY civil rights, ORany "regular" rights secured by
ANY federal law) This includes violating not only your more commonly known
"Constitutional Rights", but also the various civil rights and "regular"
statutory rights that are sampled below for you...(AGAIN, there are MORE of
them, and they were meant to protectyou!). See also 28 USC 1652 IMPORTANT TO
KNOW!: Since WE are not official government prosecutors, WE cannot directly
file charges
against those way ward government officers ourselves... BUT, under federal
law, we COULD force federal judges to have them arrested and prosecuted! After
anyone violates any of your civil rights (see 18 USC 241 and 242above, and this
entire page...), YOU do your duty to report the crime directly to (any) federal
judge, under 18 USC 4, then the federal statute 42 USC 1987 legally forces the
federal judge to ensure criminal prosecutions. Note: this federal statute has
been revised several times over the years, so to the average layman there would
not readily appear to be any so-called "right" to actually enforce such
prosecution, but click on the "Notes" link to the right of the main statute
body, and see the (last sentence of the) "References in Text", which confirms
that the "Revised Statutes" discussed in the main statute do INDEED mean
guaranteed prosecution for crimes under 18 USC 241 and 242 - i.e., for ALL
crimes against (i.e., ANY deprivations of) our various rights!!! But,
seeking criminal prosecutions are remedies that are in addition to the option
of personally suing for monetary damages under any and/or all of the following
civil laws (and - again - there are others...): 42 USC 1981 Equal rights under
the law 42 USC 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights (the typical "1983"
action comes from this statute) 42 USC 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights 42 USC 1986 Action for neglect to prevent (i.e., to prevent interference
with civil rights) 42 USC 1988 Proceedings in vindication of civil rights 42
USC 2000b-2 Personal suits for relief against discrimination in public
facilities (like state courts!!!) 42 USC 2000d Prohibition against exclusion
from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under
federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin (NOTE:
the US Supreme Court has added "sex" [gender] to the list of discrimination
types this law prohibits... NOTE: "federally assisted programs" are all
over the place within every state's systems, with matching funds being paid to
the states for all kinds of things for courts, prosecutors, and virtually all
state agencies!!! Get the picture? Legally, they're ALL on the hook!) 42 USC
2000d-7 Civil rights remedies equalization this is what is quoted at top...
NOTICE the "all-encompassing" part that says: "or the provisions of any other
Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial
assistance." of course, the rights to press criminal charges, and the rights to
file suit for damages, also includes ALL of your rights guaranteed under the US
Const, especially: the 1st through 10th Amendments plus the 14th Amendment the
5th Amend and adds more, [i.e., Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal
Protection] plus - ANY and ALL rights existing just under federal law (US
Code),including, but not limited to just the various rights sampled for you
below (again, and again - there's a LOT more...!), regarding
your rightful treatment by, and lawful behavior by, a state court, virtually
ANY state agency, CPS and other forms of caseworkers/social workers,
prosecutors, and just about every other state employee of the types that we
don't especially care for... All that is required is to determine which TWO
federal statutes apply to particular situations (our arguments) - the
statute(s) that provide federal funding for the questioned "program or
activity", and the related statute that prohibits discrimination in that
"program or activity"... Part of our complaints are "global" actions for,
essentially, instant removal of all state family court cases to the
jurisdiction of federal courts (based on the numerous common civil rights
violations), under 28 USC §§ 1441 and 1443, while another large partof our
complaints are our solid constitutional arguments regarding all "fit" parents'
natural, and equal, fundamental rights to the "care, custody, and management"
of their children. Here are some
examples of the various rights that we all have under federal law (US Code) -
again, this does NOT include all of the various Constitutional Rights, which
will also be used, of course:1. Petitioner's Class have inherent federal
question rights, under the guarantees of 42 USC § 2000a, to full and equal
lawful treatment in a state court of law, and according to the various
protections under the U.S. Constitution.2. Petitioner's Class have inherent
federal question rights, under the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 USC §2000d, et seq., and as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include
prohibitions against discrimination based on sex or gender, to now remove all
suspect instant state proceedings, under 28 USC §§1441 and 1443, in order to be
free from the denial of such equal civil rights and treatment established by
the above allegations. See also 42 USC § 2000d-7.3. Petitioner's Class have
inherent federal question rights, under the protections of 42 USC §§ 3617
and 3631, which include prohibitions against discrimination based on sex or
gender, to remove all suspect instant state proceedings, under 28 USC §§
1441and 1443, in order to be free from the denial of such equal civil rights
and treatment established by the above allegations. See also42 USC § 2000d-7.4.
Petitioner's Class have further inherent federal question rights, under the
protections of 42 USC § 5891, which include prohibitions against discrimination
based on sex or gender regarding other matters and allegations expressed supra,
to remove all suspect instant state proceedings, under 28 USC §§ 1441 and 1443,
in order to be free from the denial of such equal civil rights and treatment
established by the above allegations. See also 42 USC §§ 5106a(Grants to States
for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs), 5106c (Grants
to States for programs relating to investigation and prosecution of child abuse
and neglect cases),10406 (Discrimination prohibited in
Family Violence Prevention and Services), 10420 (Safe havens for children
pilot program), 10701(Definitions - regarding state activity in domestic
violence, false imprisonment, and abuse of a minor), and etc.5. Petitioner's
Class have further inherent federal question rights not to be discriminated as
articulated according to the above allegations, and against the expressed
public policy of the United States of America, by and through certain Acts of
Congress strictly specifying the critical value of protecting children, youth,
and family bonds, and the joint responsibilities of federal courts therein. See
42 USC §§ 12301, 12351, 12352, 12371, 12635, and etc.6. Petitioner's Class have
further inherent federal question rights to ensure that their minor children
are free from experiencing abuse and/or neglect, due to unlawful sex or gender
discrimination in awards of child custody, and to ensure that any involved
state judicial systems have met or exceeded their required corresponding
duties under 42 USC §§ 13001, 13003, 13021, 13031, andetc.7. Petitioner's
Class have further inherent federal question rights, under 42 USC § 14141, to
be free from unlawful violations of civil rights committed by any parties,
government or otherwise, involved in such state proceedings. The common result
?There are many wide-open doors to sue the states for violating their duties
and our rights, and there is absolutely NO immunity for the states, in ANY way,
shape, or form...
Thomas "Rocky" Costanzo
888-848-8781 Voice / 561-450-5546 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1.95% fixed payment loan that pays off in 25 years. DROP your payments, get
CASH out and REDUCE the term!
"Predicting the future is easy to do, Tom...it's the WHEN that's the hard
part" Larry V. Thomason
"One Idea 10% better is worth a Million Dollars" Brian Tracy
Politics: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking
creatures'.
"Those that seek the truth are more than friends. They are brothers."
WHO IS JOHN GALT?
"In order to be a great man first you got to be...a MAN"
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
