tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post7567173876973225639..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Denedo argument recap Pt IIDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-71556084094161322032009-03-30T23:45:00.000-04:002009-03-30T23:45:00.000-04:00Great Stuff.I see you mirrored my arguement I made...Great Stuff.<BR/><BR/>I see you mirrored my arguement I made against Scalia's remarks and expanded it:<BR/><BR/><I>The fact that no court in a 21st century America, including the military courts, wouldn't have jurisdiction to redress a grievance is disturbing. Send troops off to fight wars, protect and defend America but shut them out of all courts was a study trend in the Bush administration. The First Amendment guarantees a right to redress. Reading the oral argument transcript of Denedo, apparently two justices -- Justices Breyer and Ginsburg -- also seemed to find the no remedy situation an awful result. But Justice Scalia noted that error coram nobis (a common law writ used to correct fundamental errors not known during the original trial) wasn't available to a military servicemember for 200 years - implying that because it's always been that way makes it okay. No, it's not okay! Was denying woman the right to vote okay for 144 years? No! Was segregation of African-Americans for approximately 180 plus years okay? No! So keeping our servicemembers or ex-servicemembers from redress of grievances is also plainly not okay - and it's unconstitutional. Had that line of thinking -- it's okay because it's always been that way -- prevailed in 1920 women wouldn't have had the right to vote. Likewise the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wouldn't have been enacted. I shudder to think of what kind of America, in the 21st century, would have resulted from that line of thinking.</I><BR/><BR/>It bothers me that so-called constitutionist like Scalia and Roberts are the ones batting this issue away.The Convict Formally Known as Airman Cossionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-60358964923775553172009-03-30T22:05:00.000-04:002009-03-30T22:05:00.000-04:00Back on topic. A post on the Equal Justice for Tro...Back on topic. <BR/><BR/>A post on the <A HREF="http://justice4troops.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Equal Justice for Troops blog</A> (published by me) calls on Congress to repeal section 1552(f) and gives several reasons for a repeal. Here's a <A HREF="http://justice4troops.blogspot.com/2009/03/ex-servicemembers-deserve-redress.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-71681614694147184212009-03-30T16:50:00.000-04:002009-03-30T16:50:00.000-04:00OOPS....Big typo, I meant Computer Fraud and Abuse...OOPS....Big typo, I meant Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Not Computer Crimes and Abuse Act. Silly me, I was getting my State's Law confused with Federal law.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Oh well. I'll just wait here until the Cyber-Gestapo comes to arrest me, I am shaking in my boots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-57728224028284963382009-03-30T16:45:00.000-04:002009-03-30T16:45:00.000-04:00At the federal level there is the CFAA (Computer C...At the federal level there is the CFAA (Computer Crime and Abuse Act).<BR/><BR/>You have to cause an "interruption" and a "loss".<BR/><BR/>The States have far better laws, I have done extensive research in the area. The following link is a great resource on such crimes:<BR/><BR/>Richmond Journal of Law and Tech.<BR/><BR/>Volume VI, Issue 5, Spring 2000<BR/><BR/>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v6i5/article2.html" REL="nofollow">The Crime of "Interruption of Computer Services to Authorized Users"<BR/>Have You Ever Heard of It?</A><BR/><BR/>Ohh....are you insinuating that I am "unlawfully threatning" someone by "hacking into" their computer?<BR/><BR/>Good luck with that one.<BR/><BR/>TCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-70675747856628152842009-03-30T12:37:00.000-04:002009-03-30T12:37:00.000-04:00Isn't there a rule on this blog about posting unla...Isn't there a rule on this blog about posting unlawful threats against people who disagree with you?<BR/><BR/>But, now that I think about it, I think there are a few Federal and State laws against computer hacking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-41716410983127483302009-03-30T10:29:00.000-04:002009-03-30T10:29:00.000-04:00The second one delt with me obtaining emails (from...The second one delt with me obtaining emails (from these witnesses and their friends). The emails contained refrences about the theft that SrA MHT made including other crimes.<BR/><BR/>A network guy claimed to find my fake website (used to phish emails) thru google and claimed to do a check and determine that others accessed my site....Baloney.<BR/><BR/>My website would not have appeared on a search engine in a matter of days (this was in 2005). The man obviously was going thru the network himself for his own purposes and saw me there and decided to be the "hero" but that's another story.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, the case was dismissed due to a speedy trial violation (article 10) were it took the government 2 months to charge me. 5 out of 6 Jags testified that they were waiting on DCFL so they can pile on more charges.<BR/><BR/>However, the judge's decision was reversed. By that time over a year had passed, nobody really wanted to try the case (still had half a dozen of other motions on the table), so they offered a no-bcd, time served PTA and to plea guilty to made-up 134 offenses. Which I happily took.<BR/><BR/>I was going to plead guilty the first time, but the Judge wouldn't let me because we raised a constitutional issue.<BR/><BR/>I ran his name in Lexis and found out that when he was a young defense counsel he got burned when a UIC issue was brought up on behalf of his client he entered a sub rosa agreement for him to plead guilty - A Bozo No No.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, about that time we filed a writ of error coram vobis which was denied. The court apparently found my guilt to be overwhelming, disregarding the threat charge which was pure hearsay.<BR/><BR/>After the denial I took the MySpace emails I collected and faxed them to OSI. Again, the SJA would not let OSI investigate. But this time I emailed their HQ using the crimebusters email hotline.....<BR/><BR/>They went ahead and conducted the investigation. I am waiting for the results.<BR/><BR/>SEE:<BR/><BR/>http://afcca.law.af.mil/content/afcca_opinions/cp/cossio-36206.pet.pdf<BR/><BR/>http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2007Term/06-6005.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-27592555545037618322009-03-30T09:58:00.000-04:002009-03-30T09:58:00.000-04:00I thought you went to 2 different courts-martial? ...I thought you went to 2 different courts-martial? No?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-979651113335505992009-03-30T09:27:00.000-04:002009-03-30T09:27:00.000-04:00...an implied thraet?Yes, the case was contested, ......an implied thraet?<BR/><BR/>Yes, the case was contested, pled not guilty on all offenses.<BR/><BR/>The first three charges were based on whether diverting (thru MyPay) another's direct deposit to a charity was legally larceny....or larceny of a debt. The three charges were larceny, wrongful use of a computer to commit larceny, and finally exceeding authorized access of a computer. Those charges hinged on the definition of larceny.<BR/><BR/>The final two charges (I was aquitted of one) delt with threats. Obviously if the Judge (it was a bench trial) found one threat charge lacking other facts could have pushed the other one out as well.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, I hardly post on this blog although I come here often. But this Denedo case is important to me. Its outcome will effect my decisions in the near future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-4485148115010314702009-03-30T09:17:00.000-04:002009-03-30T09:17:00.000-04:00OK Tony and Anon,You have me confused. Was the ca...OK Tony and Anon,<BR/><BR/>You have me confused. Was the case a guilty plea case? I take it the threat offense was contested. Not to throw fuel on the fire, but the below post by Tony could be argued as an implied . . .<BR/><BR/>"But unlike you, I don’t like to make assumptions. So I’ll just take a look at the IP address used to post your inane comments, I take it you were using your personal computer, it is Sunday after all.…Hope you’re using XP because Vista has security holes."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-74640711801875308482009-03-30T00:49:00.000-04:002009-03-30T00:49:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, I think we have gotten off the wrong fo...I'm sorry, I think we have gotten off the wrong foot.<BR/><BR/>So if I understand what you are saying, I should admit I was justly punished for commiting the crimes (even though I am innocent of the communicating a threat charge) and accept the life long federal conviction and sentence of 10 plus months because at least the Government got 3 out of four right.<BR/><BR/>I should then not be bothered that the "victim" testified falsely that I caused him an economic stress when he was writing bad checks before I did anything to him. And that his story about comming clean, and the tc's similar remarks about "coming clean {about the theft]...he's an honest guy" was based of perjured and false testimony.<BR/><BR/>How about NO. I will never accept responibilty for a crime that I did not commit, or a sentence predicated on lies. Having said and admitted that I am guilty of the other offenses.<BR/><BR/>However, when the Government overcharges like this (they really didn't have to bring the "threat" charge) they need to be held accountable when new evidence surfaces 5, 10, 20 years later.<BR/><BR/>v/r<BR/><BR/>TCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-9133976598142262772009-03-30T00:25:00.000-04:002009-03-30T00:25:00.000-04:00I have a better Idea, why don't you man up and pos...I have a better Idea, why don't you man up and post your name instead of Anon.<BR/><BR/>"Once and for all, why don't you just "man-up" and accept that you were justly punished for the offense that you committed and stop looking for a way to justify it by crying the poor victim."<BR/><BR/>Excuse me. You obviously know nothing about my case. Or you would know that one of the offenses I was charged with was:<BR/><BR/>Article 134<BR/><BR/>Communicating a Threat, by saying "I could put you in a coma" or words to that effect.<BR/><BR/>Never happened. No evidence except for the words of SrA MHT. A man who stole $1,000 plus dollars over multiple times and LIED ABOUT IT in court along with his then girlfriend who repeated the same lies during a motion in limine. I even took a polygraph afterwards (even knowing it wasn't admissible).<BR/><BR/>During sentencing he again stated tha-----<BR/><BR/>You know what, I don't need to justify my actions to you. The fact is I was wrongfully convicted of communicating a threat, in addition there was an Article 15 and numerous LORs "made-up" right before my court-martial, which, as I have come to know now, is standard procedure.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I have other evidence over the years to refute that, it took me a long time to collect, and even risked a second-third court-martial.<BR/><BR/>Not to mention that the prosecution never fulfilled our discovery request (they would have found 4 convictions of bad checks from SrA MHT). Or maybe they did, they just didn't tell us.<BR/><BR/>And no, these aren't "dreamed up issues". I have, from day one after my court-martial, have made repeated request, raising the same issues of perjury/false statements as I did on 17 Dec 2004. Nothing has changed.<BR/><BR/>When I get the OSI report of investigation (the FOIA request was c/w 3 Dec 08....Needs legal review)I will see what conclusions were made - and see if I will file one last appeal.<BR/><BR/>And another thing, I was just joking about telling me who you are...If I guess correctly, you have referred to me as "TC" before...And at least I am man enough to use my name. Now go hide behind your desk and books.<BR/>But unlike you, I don’t like to make assumptions. So I’ll just take a look at the IP address used to post your inane comments, I take it you were using your personal computer, it is Sunday after all.…Hope you’re using XP because Vista has security holes.<BR/><BR/>As far as your comments alluding to convicts not being able to give their input….Who made you boss of the free world, and censure to the 1st Amendment? <BR/><BR/>And 2 + 2 equals 4 no matter who says it. Or are you saying my logic is flawed? Then why don't you attack the arguement, not the person---<BR/><BR/>--That's right. You said that Military Convictions were treated as "Federal Convictions" pre 9/11.<BR/><BR/>Sure. There has been no change in how Military Convictions are processed as Federal Convictions post 9/11 in FBI databases [NSOR/NCIC]....Sure.Tony Cossionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-14787971658477129492009-03-29T23:14:00.000-04:002009-03-29T23:14:00.000-04:00TC,Once and for all, why don't you just "man-up" a...TC,<BR/><BR/>Once and for all, why don't you just "man-up" and accept that you were justly punished for the offense that you committed and stop looking for a way to justify it by crying the poor victim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-1868118705912236502009-03-29T20:19:00.000-04:002009-03-29T20:19:00.000-04:00TC,Here is the problem. Convicts like you, promot...TC,<BR/><BR/>Here is the problem. Convicts like you, promoting anything. You obviously have an angle and therefore I think your input is of little value. And BTW, pre-9/11 military courts-martial convictions were treated like federal convictions, because they were, and are. Stop posting because when you do, you hurt those advocating legitimate points from the defense oriented sideAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-62803229831071261012009-03-29T08:49:00.000-04:002009-03-29T08:49:00.000-04:00What has happened? That the service went fine wit...What has happened? That the service went fine without Corum Nobis for 200 years?<BR/><BR/>The problem, as alluded to by earlier posts is that POST 9/11 military convictions are treated like federal convictions. Therefore you have cases like Denedo where there are serious consequences outside the military scope of justice.<BR/><BR/>Therefore it was the Government that caused this mess by increasing the consequences of an appellant post-conviction. Now it is the Government that will be held responsible for giving an appellant an avenue for redress.<BR/><BR/>The MCM's preamble explains that the purpose of military law "is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States."<BR/><BR/>LET'S TRY TO GET THE FIRST ONE (PROMOTING JUSTICE) RIGHT.Tony Cossionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-6993436474629312632009-03-29T08:03:00.000-04:002009-03-29T08:03:00.000-04:00But Ton it has happened and the appellant admitted...But Ton it has happened and the appellant admitted as much in argumentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-5126660682198173562009-03-28T23:06:00.000-04:002009-03-28T23:06:00.000-04:00Scalia's remarks about the Military Justice going ...Scalia's remarks about the Military Justice going fine without Corum Nobis for 200 years irked me.<BR/><BR/>Let's take the most fundemental right, the right to counsel.<BR/><BR/>I seem to remember stories of individuals being court-martialed and not being supplied a lawyer (pre UCMJ).<BR/><BR/>No one would argue that the Military Justice system "got along fine" without legal representation for 150 years.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me the point is it is a fundemental right to be able to challenge a conviction when new matters warrants it.<BR/><BR/>Chief Justice Roberts comments about someone being able to knock on the door some 20 years later was also way out of bounds.<BR/><BR/>When my writ was denied, the excuse according to afcca was because it "probably" wouldn't have mattered.<BR/><BR/>I seriously doubt a ruling in favor of Denedo will cause many accused from comming out of the wood-work and challenging their convictions 20 years later. I think this will only favor a small number of people.Tony Cossionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-85848755495248740882009-03-28T21:06:00.000-04:002009-03-28T21:06:00.000-04:00aaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-88626903075631280532009-03-28T17:35:00.000-04:002009-03-28T17:35:00.000-04:00anon 2043 - Read any of the Supremes military abs...anon 2043 - Read any of the Supremes military abstention cases and you know what DP was referring to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-30175993728516217712009-03-27T23:02:00.000-04:002009-03-27T23:02:00.000-04:00Anon 2200 on 27 Mar: “you don't like it, don't joi...Anon 2200 on 27 Mar: <BR/><BR/>“you don't like it, don't join”<BR/><BR/>Last time I checked the U.S. still had the draft on the books. Granted we haven’t used the draft since the Vietnam War but what’s to stop the draft from being used in the future? And if that happens your “you don’t like it, don’t join” argument completely lacks merit. <BR/><BR/>Care to enlighten me on why a military member who may be charged with UA (or an Article 134 offense), convicted and given a BCD of DD should be subjected to a life time of collateral consequences (e.g., in certain states he cannot vote, loss or right to bear arms, etc.) to some civilian who does not show up for work (in which case, not showing up, is not criminal)? How do you justify that? Now I agree that military justice is intended to preserve good order and discipline but in these instances shouldn’t it be confined just to the military world and not spill over as a lifetime of civil disabilities? Have you considered the post 9/11 modern day trends in how civilians now view courts-martial convictions?<BR/><BR/>Still yet if you believe all this is okay how do you reconcile the following: "Criminal defendants in the Article III judicial system have an automatic right to appeal to federal courts of appeal and then a right to petition the Supreme Court for final review. In contrast, defendants in military cases typically may not appeal their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court unless the highest military court, the CAAF, had also granted discretionary review in the case." See CRS report "Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Over Military Court Cases" dated 30 Jan 2009. Here is a link: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34697_20090130.pdfNBM3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-67696081025340156032009-03-27T22:00:00.000-04:002009-03-27T22:00:00.000-04:00As I said before, the military society has discree...As I said before, the military society has discreet boundaries, therefore it should also have definate limitations on appeals.<BR/><BR/>1) you don't like it, don't join; and 2) there is no reason why a military member who commits the same offense as a civilian shouldn't face the same collateral consequences. Denedo is not the right poster child for an argument that there is a need for coram nobis relief ( and neither is NBM3by the way).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-84559751712435501662009-03-27T20:43:00.000-04:002009-03-27T20:43:00.000-04:00Dew,Ummm, the "complexities of military practice"?...Dew,<BR/><BR/>Ummm, the "complexities of military practice"? Really? Please enlighten us as to what this means...I'm sorry, but there ain't nothing complex about the UCMJ or the caselaw interpreting it. Hell, the amount of "law" involved is minute compared to federal law as a whole. I'm sorry, pal, but you've bitten off more than you can chew on this one...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-50852330989285421342009-03-27T19:10:00.000-04:002009-03-27T19:10:00.000-04:00There is a reason it's referred to as the "Militar...There is a reason it's referred to as the "Military Justice System." Congress, in its lengthy hearings in 1949-50, wanted to create a uniform and comprehensive "system" of military justice. There are repeated references to the then CMA as being the "Supreme Court of the Military."<BR/><BR/>And as SCOTUS has repeatedly reminded us, Article III courts just aren't equipped to deal with the complexities of military practice.<BR/><BR/>So, if one looks to Congressional "intent" [for what it's worth], Congress intended that CMA/CAAF be the "end-all" court for military justice matters.<BR/><BR/>I also totally agree with NBM3 regarding 10 USC § 1552(f). When Congress created the BCMR's, the argument certainly could be made, that they had to be aware of the problem vis-a-vis Article 76's purported limitations. But, when they shut down that avenue of relief, they created the problem Denedo exemplifies.<BR/><BR/>Either repeal 1552(f), or amend Art. 66, to include coram nobis actions.Dew_Processhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952551772411097184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-83886237524182650032009-03-26T23:22:00.000-04:002009-03-26T23:22:00.000-04:00Anon and J.C.,I agree 5-4, or that it could go 4-5...Anon and J.C.,<BR/><BR/>I agree 5-4, or that it could go 4-5, eitherway it'll be close.<BR/><BR/>7-0-2 is ridiculous, anyone want to do squares on the outcome?<BR/><BR/>Well, hope Denedo goes Denedo's way, because who-know-who (me) will be waiting on submitting his new petition...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-12307277241372714002009-03-26T23:00:00.000-04:002009-03-26T23:00:00.000-04:00Repeal 10 USC § 1552(f) - problem fixed.My underst...Repeal 10 USC § 1552(f) - problem fixed.<BR/><BR/>My understanding (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that in the 1940s Congress was fed up with petitions to correct military or naval records of court-martial convictions via private relief bills. As such, when Congress passed the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, section 131 of the Act, banned four types of private bills which included a correction of a military or naval record. (See also House Rule XII, Clause 4) However, in the same Act, Congress provided for individual military service boards of corrections to correct the military or naval record. Essentially closing one door for redress of grievance but opening a window for another at the same time. However, in 1984 Congress shut that window when it took the correction boards jurisdiction away to take corrective action on a court-martial by passing the Miltiary Justice Act of 1983 and creating 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f). Had Congress not done this Denedo would have had an avenue to redress the grievance he now complains.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-47848368859606875972009-03-26T22:26:00.000-04:002009-03-26T22:26:00.000-04:00Cloudesley,I have been thinking about your proposa...Cloudesley,<BR/><BR/>I have been thinking about your proposal to limit collateral consequences to the term of military service and seek Art. III court jurisdiction if the case is serious enough to warrant consequences beyond the term of service. <BR/><BR/>That proposal could have some serious limitations. First, as the military often travels beyond state and federal jurisdiction, the UCMJ may provide the only jurisdiction over offenses happening abroad. Understand that a MEJA like fix could rectify that, but at present I don’t see Congress trying to extend jurisdiction for all federal offenses for military personnel regardless of location. Assuming that Congress does so enact a law and an incident arises where the military believes it serious enough to warrant future limitations on civil liberties, isn’t it up to the US Atty to proceed forward? I don’t really see those guys getting overly juiced-up for a case where a soldier stabs and robs another soldier at FOB Armpit near Kandahar, Stan. Does it become a matter of the military persuading DoJ to move a case forward to a result the military perceives as just? I understand a US Atty who feels that a case within his AOR of similar conduct with a US citizen perp and victim may cause him to proceed forward, but his interests lessen in the factual scenario provided.<BR/><BR/>I still think that providing some avenue for relief, for the very small percentage of cases that may warrant coram nobis review, outside of the military justice system would be the answer.<BR/><BR/>To that end I proposed a hypo regarding what would happen if Denedo had the right to seek coram nobis relief in an Art. III court. Although this is real rough, this is one way it may play out:<BR/><BR/>Denedo: I want to have my guilty plea set aside because my TDC committed IAC because I did not know I could be deported for the conviction.<BR/><BR/>Court: I understand you have the right to effective counsel and the right to a trial with the presumption on innocence, but we have a record before us that indicates that you did, in fact, commit the offenses which are the basis for deportation.<BR/><BR/>Denedo: But had I known the collateral consequences, I would have elected my constitutional rights to plead not guilty, have a jury trial, enjoy the presumption of innocence, and require the Govt to prove, by competent evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that I committed the offenses.<BR/><BR/>Court: Assuming that the Govt, as in most cases when it decides to prefer charges, has competent evidence to prove you guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, wasn’t your counsel’s possible IAC harmless as you would have still been convicted?<BR/><BR/>Denedo: Only if you assume they had the evidence.<BR/><BR/>Court: Well something caused you to cut a deal, or was the TDC ineffective there as well?<BR/><BR/>Denedo: My TDC was a buffoon.<BR/><BR/>Court: And he had a criminal for a client, but that is beside the point. Regardless of the collateral consequences, you entered a pretrial agreement because, at the time, you believed it advantageous to you. That must be premised upon your belief that the Govt would probably had proven your guilt if you did not enter into a PTA. Thus, even disregarding the substantial evidence of your guilt that the Govt has provided this court, your decision to plead guilty suggests your guilt (disregarding your sworn testimony that you are in fact guilty) and therefore tells us any IAC was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. You lose, case closed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com