Help lay out the case: DNA by warrant only.

[GunnyFreedom]

Please, start the conversation.

arguing from the Constitution and Bill of Rights

[nobody's_hero]

???

Without knowing anything about it:

If it's the government's idea, it probably sucks. I don't like it.

EDIT: Redirect here if you're like me and you want to know what Gunny is talking about:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?289662-Collecting-DNA-upon-arrest

Okay, thinking about it, I probably fall into the 'no DNA without a proper conviction.'

Too many people associate arrest with guilt. It's easy to be wrongfully arrested, and starting DNA on everyone who is simply arrested should be a precedent worth avoiding.

[nayjevin]

I'll do my best, but I don't know all the legal definitions here.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4


Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Show ... secure in their persons ... includes DNA
Show ... probable cause ... does not include 'might commit a crime/likely to commit a crime'
Explain 'warrants' are a line of defense of the individual against unreasonable search and seizures. Judges, ideally, will rule with a proper understanding of 'probable cause.'

If the system works as it was intended, folks won't be subject to search or seizure unless (a) there is evidence linking them to a known crime (2) search or seizure is necessary to secure further evidence or exonerate the individual of wrongdoing.

In the case of the DNA collection in question, there is no evidentiary necessity. It's pre-crime, there is no crime to which further DNA evidence will establish guilt or innocence.

It is therefore 'unreasonable.'

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
Looks like the courts have not upheld my idea of probable cause. Apparently it's been loosened by precedent over time, to the point it's whether the official thought he ought to.


Related cases

The Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983)[11] lowered the threshold of probable cause by ruling that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause. A better-than-even chance is not required.
The decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)[12] established that "stop and frisks" (seizures) may be made under reasonable suspicion if the officer believes a crime has been committed, is, or soon will be committed with a weapon concealed on such person.

Also I see:


In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)"

[Anti Federalist]

Please, start the conversation.

arguing from the Constitution and Bill of Rights

The default argument will be "It's just like fingerprints, and those are taken as a matter of course during an arrest, so what's your issue?"

So that is what will have to be defused.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'll do my best, but I don't know all the legal definitions here.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4



Show ... secure in their persons ... includes DNA
Show ... probable cause ... does not include 'might commit a crime/likely to commit a crime'
Explain 'warrants' are a line of defense of the individual against unreasonable search and seizures. Judges, ideally, will rule with a proper understanding of 'probable cause.'

If the system works as it was intended, folks won't be subject to search or seizure unless (a) there is evidence linking them to a known crime (2) search or seizure is necessary to secure further evidence or exonerate the individual of wrongdoing.

In the case of the DNA collection in question, there is no evidentiary necessity. It's pre-crime, there is no crime to which further DNA evidence will establish guilt or innocence.

It is therefore 'unreasonable.'

and secure in their possessions. are live cells still in your cheek defined as your possession?

[GunnyFreedom]

The default argument will be "It's just like fingerprints, and those are taken as a matter of course during an arrest, so what's your issue?"

So that is what will have to be defused.

Who says I agree with fingerprints? but I will leave that alone for now as we don't know how to function otherwise as of yet.

[Anti Federalist]

Who says I agree with fingerprints? but I will leave that alone for now as we don't know how to function otherwise as of yet.

I agree and that's where I'm starting my research, to find out just how constitutionally legitimate fingerprinting is.

Call that into question and then fingerprint's evil brother, DNA databasing, becomes a little more easy to shoot down.

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure what the constitutional way around the 5th amendment is for DNA, I know there was a case, but I'm going to have to look into it.

[Teaser Rate]

The default argument will be "It's just like fingerprints, and those are taken as a matter of course during an arrest, so what's your issue?"

So that is what will have to be defused.

I don't want to sound crass, but what is your issue?

[Anti Federalist]

I don't want to sound crass, but what is your issue?

Please don't derail Gunny's thread.

Since you have picked at me about this before, go start a thread of your own:

"Why is AF an anti-authority jerk?" and I'll be happy to respond.

[Anti Federalist]

Glen, read this article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20101110.html

Here's the money quote:

Is DNA Different?

What makes this case special may ultimately have less to do with the presumption of innocence than with the treasure trove of information that is contained in a small sample of DNA. Unlike ordinary searches, in which the main intrusion occurs at the time of initial surveillance, a DNA sampling -- as Judge Cercone correctly observes -- has the potential to make large quantities of personal information about someone available to the government long after the sampling takes place.

In this sense, DNA squarely raises the issue of informational privacy, rather than spatial privacy, precisely because the physical taking of DNA is not very different from the physical taking of fingerprints (and may indeed be, or shortly become, an entirely nonintrusive collection of discarded biological material).

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decides this case, it will accordingly have the opportunity to consider the relatively undeveloped and critical issue of whether, sometimes, the mining of information from materials already in the government's possession might constitute the invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[nayjevin]

The default argument will be "It's just like fingerprints, and those are taken as a matter of course during an arrest, so what's your issue?"

So that is what will have to be defused.

Cataloguing identifying information causes more harm than good. Any enforcement agency should collect the minimum necessary and adequate to perform their function. One might argue fingerprints are necessary and DNA is too, but I don't see a winning argument that fingerprints are not adequate enough.

[nayjevin]

and secure in their possessions. are live cells still in your cheek defined as your possession?

I think it falls under 'persons.'

[GunnyFreedom]

I think it falls under 'persons.'

LOL yeah, I'm sure a strong argument can be made that tissue is a component of one's person.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't want to sound crass, but what is your issue?

the point of the thread is to argue the issue, in order to perfect the floor debate. We already lack enough devil's advocates as it is without you sniping at them.

[GunnyFreedom]

hmm leg 2 of a 3 legged stool...



Glen, read this article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20101110.html

Here's the money quote:

Is DNA Different?

What makes this case special may ultimately have less to do with the presumption of innocence than with the treasure trove of information that is contained in a small sample of DNA. Unlike ordinary searches, in which the main intrusion occurs at the time of initial surveillance, a DNA sampling -- as Judge Cercone correctly observes -- has the potential to make large quantities of personal information about someone available to the government long after the sampling takes place.

In this sense, DNA squarely raises the issue of informational privacy, rather than spatial privacy, precisely because the physical taking of DNA is not very different from the physical taking of fingerprints (and may indeed be, or shortly become, an entirely nonintrusive collection of discarded biological material).

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decides this case, it will accordingly have the opportunity to consider the relatively undeveloped and critical issue of whether, sometimes, the mining of information from materials already in the government's possession might constitute the invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree and that's where I'm starting my research, to find out just how constitutionally legitimate fingerprinting is.

Call that into question and then fingerprint's evil brother, DNA databasing, becomes a little more easy to shoot down.

I knew you agreed, I was just responding to the argument. :D

[iprice81]

I think you could argue the 5th. Not having to bear witness against yourself.

[GunnyFreedom]

Cataloguing identifying information causes more harm than good. Any enforcement agency should collect the minimum necessary and adequate to perform their function. One might argue fingerprints are necessary and DNA is too, but I don't see a winning argument that fingerprints are not adequate enough.

When do we get to crossover again? No, not over to the Senate - I mean to the crossover of Federal RealID biometrics and the 50? State DNA databases. Will we route that stuff through the fusion centers, to be checked against terrorists? who is a terrorist again? This is chilling. As for me, my DNA is registered with the Marine Corps. It shows up first on any search.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think you could argue the 5th. Not having to bear witness against yourself.

That too. the 3rd leg of the stool

[GunnyFreedom]

I'll do my best, but I don't know all the legal definitions here.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4



Show ... secure in their persons ... includes DNA
Show ... probable cause ... does not include 'might commit a crime/likely to commit a crime'
Explain 'warrants' are a line of defense of the individual against unreasonable search and seizures. Judges, ideally, will rule with a proper understanding of 'probable cause.'

If the system works as it was intended, folks won't be subject to search or seizure unless (a) there is evidence linking them to a known crime (2) search or seizure is necessary to secure further evidence or exonerate the individual of wrongdoing.

In the case of the DNA collection in question, there is no evidentiary necessity. It's pre-crime, there is no crime to which further DNA evidence will establish guilt or innocence.

It is therefore 'unreasonable.'

By requiring a warrant, (which requires a Judge) it places a human into the process, who can discern what is actually reasonable. It is a Constitutional requirement that DNA be named in a search warrant if it is required to be taken.


ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
Looks like the courts have not upheld my idea of probable cause. Apparently it's been loosened by precedent over time, to the point it's whether the official thought he ought to.



Also I see:


In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)" [quote/]evidence of crime to be found is sufficient for a judicial warrant to search for DNA is exactly the kind of warrant to use when pursuing certain kinds of sexual crimes murder abduction etc. There is no need to extend the unthinking arm of regulation into the systemic automatic cataloging and databasing of identities statewide and potentially nationwide, without regard to privacy in the 4th, or due process in the 5th Amendments.

[Teaser Rate]

the point of the thread is to argue the issue, in order to perfect the floor debate. We already lack enough devil's advocates as it is without you sniping at them.

I don’t mean to sound crass (again) but I'm not sure you should be at the stage of constructing a constitutional argument if you’re not able to articulate your position in a short, calm and concise response yet.

The way I see it, there are three ways you can approach this:

A-This proposal is wrong because it infringes of a libertarian definition of human rights.
B-This proposal is wrong because it infringes on a literal interpretation of the Constitution.
C-This proposal is wrong because it doesn’t work.

My advice is to focus on the third option because you’re probably going to have a really hard time convincing anyone with the first two arguments. Try to see where the measure has been implemented before and what its results were, try to find cases where DNA evidence was misleading or where the police abused its authority, conduct a cost-benefit analysis (if you can produce numbers and charts which demonstrate that the measure will waste money and make the State less safe that would be great), find testimonials of police officers or forensic investigators who are against the measure, etc.

Anyways, this was my last post in the thread, good luck with your quest.

[Anti Federalist]

I don’t mean to sound crass (again) but I'm not sure you should be at the stage of constructing a constitutional argument if you’re not able to articulate your position in a short, calm and concise response yet.

The way I see it, there are three ways you can approach this:

A-This proposal is wrong because it infringes of a libertarian definition of human rights.
B-This proposal is wrong because it infringes on a literal interpretation of the Constitution.
C-This proposal is wrong because it doesn’t work.

My advice is to focus on the third option because you’re probably going to have a really hard time convincing anyone with the first two arguments. Try to see where the measure has been implemented before and what its results were, try to find cases where DNA evidence was misleading or where the police abused its authority, conduct a cost-benefit analysis (if you can produce numbers and charts which demonstrate that the measure will waste money and make the State less safe that would be great), find testimonials of police officers or forensic investigators who are against the measure, etc.

Anyways, this was my last post in the thread, good luck with your quest.

Now, was that so hard?

You could have done that right from the get go, instead of trying to score a cheap shot off me.

[fisharmor]

1. Jurors are generally intellectually incapable of seeing that a DNA or fingerprint match does not necessarily imply guilt.
2. Public defenders have no economic motive to explain this to jurors.
3. Since these tools are prosecution argument silver bullets, it behooves a free society either to change the legal system, or prohibit access to these.
4. As the legal system will not change outside of revolution, the only way to do this is to put extra burdens of proof on the enforcers, and make them do the job of the jury: to find the facts of the case prior to sealing it up with this damning evidence.

[sailingaway]

found this but not yet the ruling
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11055/1127563-454.stm

[sailingaway]

found this but not yet the ruling
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11055/1127563-454.stm

Here's a discussion of DNA and privacy but it doesn't include the ruling in the article above http://academic.udayton.edu/health/05bioethics/00rooker.htm

[GunnyFreedom]

this much data can come up with a way to rewrite the law to make it an "advice to judges" for issuing judicial warrants as-needed to establish the facts of the charges. Then the statists can have fun trying to detail it correctly, it will be in the form of advise to judges who will still rule and issue warrants, so theoretically the advice can't hurt anything worse, just add efficiency to the process, and the people who do rate having DNA compelled do still have their DNA compelled from them, and all the horrifying outlier toddler children are properly avenged.

[nayjevin]

Are there any government contracts for housing the mined DNA data or 3rd parties involved? The chain of custody here could be a nightmare in privacy. In a quick search I'm seeing calls for DNA banking to fight a War on Babydumping.

Might be a compelling argument that the DNA collection proposal is ripe for corruption if it can be found out who exactly is pushing for the relevant contracts.

Many states house infant DNA data for months to years, I'm having trouble finding the chart. But here's ACLU on infant DNA and informed consent. (http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/your-babys-dna-and-informed-consent)

[DamianTV]

How is DNA any different from Fingerprints?

(I really really hope you'll be able to overcome my Devil's Advocate response...)

[Noob]

How about using this as an example?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-565047/Man-spends-18-hours-police-cell-DNA-taken-dropping-apple-core.html

[nayjevin]

How is DNA any different from Fingerprints?

(I really really hope you'll be able to overcome my Devil's Advocate response...)

A fingerprint is only identifying information. Still a violation, in my opinion, but less downside.

The usage might be the same, if the only information taken from the DNA is what is necessary to identify the accused. But if that is the only function, fingerprints ought to suffice. DNA holds much more information than that. I don't know how much or what, but would assume the more one learns about what can be done with a DNA sample, the scarier it would be in corrupt hands.

[Indy Vidual]

...DNA holds much more information than that. I don't know how much...

"...a single cubic centimeter of DNA holds more information than a trillion CDs" :eek:
~Source (http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4041264/Time-to-Engineer-DNA-Computers)

[GuerrillaXXI]

If clandestine resistance against a tyrannical government becomes necessary, databases containing citizen DNA will make such resistance much more difficult and dangerous. That's by far the main reason I'm opposed to government DNA collection unless there's a darned good reason for it (e.g., investigating a rape). When the government has your DNA in its possession, it has a LOT of power over you.

I realize that this is hardly a legal argument and it won't sway those who have the typical authoritarian attitude ("If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care if they can monitor you?"). But there it is.

[GunnyFreedom]

Here we go again. DNA bill on the calendar for voting tonight in about 60-90 minutes

[GunnyFreedom]

Nightmare on a local bill, all kinds of time spent on honorary resolutions, three quickies after this to the DNA bill.

[GunnyFreedom]

Two more non roll call third readings, and then HB483 DNA

[GunnyFreedom]

DNA bill up in literally 90-120 secs

[GunnyFreedom]

Speaking now

[GunnyFreedom]

Done. We'll see if it helps

[Anti Federalist]

Done. We'll see if it helps

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

It's a damn shame I missed a meeting with you passing through NC a couple of weeks ago.

Keep up the good work.

[Anti Federalist]

How is DNA any different from Fingerprints?

(I really really hope you'll be able to overcome my Devil's Advocate response...)

Post number 11

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks AF. Looks like it will pass but by a smaller margin than the original law. The original was something like 83 to 35. We will see shortly

[DamianTV]

How did it go?

I've always been a privacy advocate, which has not always been beneficial to my Rep around here. It also seems there are a lot of misconceptions. Such as the 4th Amendment ending at ones front door. And although Privacy is not specified, the US Supreme Court interprets the Right to Privacy as a Penumbra Right of the 4th Amendment.


Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

For some reason, people appear to think that because there are specific words, such as "Houses" is listed, it is misinterpreted as that particular Right ends when you leave your "House". It doesnt. I also believe that Government Tracking of people everywhere they go is about as serious of a violation in their Rights as one can get. If they didnt get a Warrant, they have no legal recourse to use Traffic License Plate Cams to track everything a person does. I also do not believe that leaving your house properly establishes Probable Cause.

We have the Right to Privacy In Public as much as we do In Private.

I also fully believe that DNA Warrants need to be handled on a case by case basis, and in no way should ever be globalized for one type of particular crime. Once they start going for a specific type of people, they will end up with everyone. First they started with the Jews, but I did not stick up for them, then they went after the smokers, I didnt stick up for them either, then they went for the fatties, I didnt stick up for them either because Im not fat, now they are coming after me, and there is no one left to stick up for me. I believe that for a warrant to be issued for DNA, I believe that DNA should not be admissable as evidence in other unrelated cases against the individual.

DNA Databases and Tracking is one step short of required biometric implants. If we allow the DNA Door to be opened, it wont be long before the Implanted Tracking Chips will follow.

Then we get the people who think that its no big deal to let anyone track you (that includes government, corporations, and crooks, even if the line between them is getting blurred). If they can track you anywhere and everywhere, they WILL find something they can make money off of you. Got your DNA? Well, there goes your Medical Insurance because your DNA shows a higher risk of some type of made up disease, or an actual one that is not genetic based.

---

What I am more concerned about right now at the moment is how well Gunny did...

[GunnyFreedom]

Still debating. Dems arguing it costs too much. Police arguing we need this big government for the children of course.

[GunnyFreedom]

Voting now. 73 - 44 passed.

[Anti Federalist]

Voting now. 73 - 44 passed.

Ugh...and the noose tightens a little more.

Be proud you did what you could.

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks again AF. what was even more sick than the bill itself was listening to all those Republicans argue, "we need this big government program for the children. It's for the children so vote for it. You do care about children don't you?"

[GunnyFreedom]

OK, it was 83-21 in 2009-2010 under a Dem House, now it's 73-44 in 2011-2012 in a GOP House. Lost 10 yes, and gained 23 no.

[DamianTV]

Voting now. 73 - 44 passed.

Terrorists and Politicians take children hostage and hide behind them.

[GunnyFreedom]

OK, it was 83-21 in 2009-2010 under a Dem House, now it's 73-44 in 2011-2012 in a GOP House. Lost 10 yes, and gained 23 no.

We had 20% "no" in 2010, 38% "no" in 2011. In one year, the 'no' vote grew by 18%. There were other contributing factors, but if we can make that 51% "no" by 2013, we can kill this DNA on Arrest nonsense in NC and demand a proper warrant for DNA, which is all of our right as Americans.

[tpreitzel]

Terrorists and Politicians take children hostage and hide behind them.

Yep, so both groups must be related cowards .... ;)

[tpreitzel]

We had 20% "no" in 2010, 38% "no" in 2011. In one year, the 'no' vote grew by 18%. There were other contributing factors, but if we can make that 51% "no" by 2013, we can kill this DNA on Arrest nonsense in NC and demand a proper warrant for DNA, which is all of our right as Americans.

IF political trends remain relatively consistent, but events can change rather quickly ... unfortunately. Your work is not only directly beneficial for the great folks in NC, but also indirectly beneficial for the rest of the country. Thanks

[Anti Federalist]

Terrorists and Politicians take children hostage and hide behind them.


Yep, so both groups must be related cowards .... ;)

And both hate us for our freedoms.

[GunnyFreedom]

I have two mp3 files that contain last night's and last week's sessions, with the exact time stamps when debate begins and when I speak and stop speaking. Without turning it into a YouTube, what's the easiest way to chop out the good bits and share them?

[GunnyFreedom]

IF political trends remain relatively consistent, but events can change rather quickly ... unfortunately. Your work is not only directly beneficial for the great folks in NC, but also indirectly beneficial for the rest of the country. Thanks

I know, I know, it's a shoulder shoving the giant ship kinda "it's moving guys! keep pushing" yell

[GunnyFreedom]

For those who want to download 7 and a half hours of mind-popping numbskullery just to get at the good bits, the NCGA audio archive is here:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/DocumentSites/browseDocSite.asp?nID=9&sFolderName=/2011-2012%20Session/Audio%20Archives

Last week Thursday's session is here:

http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/HouseDocuments/2011-2012%20Session/Audio%20Archives/04-28-2011.mp3

Last night's session (Monday) is here:

http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/HouseDocuments/2011-2012%20Session/Audio%20Archives/05-02-2011.mp3

on Thursday debate started at 2:53:50 and I started at 2:55:35 and went to 2:58:01 (not my finest hour)
on Monday I started at 1:24:06 and went to 1:26:00 (a bit better)

Those are pretty big files so don't tax the NCGA server too much heh. Hopefully I can get a simple solution for cutting the good bits out of that MP3 and just sharing it in an easy fashion without making YouTubes, or if it has to be a YouTube, I just don't have the time or the graphics library anymore to do it right. :(

[Anti Federalist]

One should never watch sausage or laws being made. LoL


For those who want to download 7 and a half hours of mind-popping numbskullery just to get at the good bits, the NCGA audio archive is here:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/DocumentSites/browseDocSite.asp?nID=9&sFolderName=/2011-2012%20Session/Audio%20Archives

Last week Thursday's session is here:

http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/HouseDocuments/2011-2012%20Session/Audio%20Archives/04-28-2011.mp3

Last night's session (Monday) is here:

http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/HouseDocuments/2011-2012%20Session/Audio%20Archives/05-02-2011.mp3

on Thursday debate started at 2:53:50 and I started at 2:55:35 and went to 2:58:01 (not my finest hour)
on Monday I started at 1:24:06 and went to 1:26:00 (a bit better)

Those are pretty big files so don't tax the NCGA server too much heh. Hopefully I can get a simple solution for cutting the good bits out of that MP3 and just sharing it in an easy fashion without making YouTubes, or if it has to be a YouTube, I just don't have the time or the graphics library anymore to do it right. :(

[Bman]

Gunny, if you can tell me what minute marks from the audio file you want edited I could always do that for you. As far as posting I'm not sure the best place, but you could always throw up a youtube with a simple background.

Here, something like this.

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/GOLDSTANDARD-031611_GBF2EE9K4.1+Bradley.embedded.prod_affiliate .156.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, if you can tell me what minute marks from the audio file you want edited I could always do that for you. As far as posting I'm not sure the best place, but you could always throw up a youtube with a simple background.

Here, something like this.

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/GOLDSTANDARD-031611_GBF2EE9K4.1+Bradley.embedded.prod_affiliate .156.jpg

Thanks, I'll come up with something to YouTube it. Stock imagery with DNA, maybe a palm-scanner and a riot cop hinting at where this could go. Shots of James Madison on the Constitutional arguments.. argh. I need 2 of me.

04-28-2011.mp3 debate started at 2:53:50 and I started at 2:55:35 and went to 2:58:01 (not my finest hour)
05-02-2011.mp3 I started at 1:24:06 and went to 1:26:00 (a bit better)

and you can email me at glen@nc49.org

[Bman]

Thanks, I'll come up with something to YouTube it. Stock imagery with DNA, maybe a palm-scanner and a riot cop hinting at where this could go. Shots of James Madison on the Constitutional arguments.. argh. I need 2 of me.

04-28-2011.mp3 debate started at 2:53:50 and I started at 2:55:35 and went to 2:58:01 (not my finest hour)
05-02-2011.mp3 I started at 1:24:06 and went to 1:26:00 (a bit better)

and you can email me at glen@nc49.org

lol. Just put up your pic, maybe with your designation.

[Bman]

done and sent you should get it soon.

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks man, if I didn't have 12hr of session starting at 9AM I'da tubed it overnight. had to get some rest.