There are two key opportunities to bird-dog Rep. Nadler this coming weekend, but before I go into details, I would like to let you know that an open letter, written by a group of concerned citizens working under the banner AskNadler2Impeach.org to Rep. Nadler urging him to support Rep. Wexler’s call for impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee was sent yesterday.  We wanted it to reach him this week while he is still in the city on recess and chose to send it yesterday with 133 signers although it is clear that there are many others who would still like to cosign.  AskNadler2Impeach.org is currently being constructed and as soon as it is up and running the site will host the letter and a petition to Rep. Nadler asking him to support impeachment.  You will be first to know when it is operational (hopefully next week).

And now on to bird-dogging…

For those who are not familiar with the term bird-dogging, the PDA website Progressive Challenge 2008 offers a link to What is “Bird-Dogging” and How to Do It.  Bird-dogging is defined as:

   bird-dog also bird·dog (bûrddôg, -dg)

   v. bird-dogged, bird-dog·ging, bird-dogs Informal  v.intr.

   To follow a subject of interest, such as a person or trend, with persistent attention.

Bird-dogging is one of PDA’s Progressive Challenge 2008 recommended courses of activism and a special blog page has been set up for PDAers across the country to share their experiences bird-dogging.  Back in November a group organized to bird-dog Rep. Nadler at a Citizens Action New York event.  Bob Fertik from Democrats.com joined us that evening on the “inside” while we flyered on the outside.  Bob wrote about his conversation with Congressman Nadler on impeachment in Jerrold Nadler Whistles Past the Impeachment Graveyard.

Bird-dogging is best practiced at a Town Hall meeting or other forum where an elected official will be appearing.  Specific tips and techniques from the PDA link are:

1. Do your homework.

a. Find out from the local office when and where your representative or senator will be speaking or holding a candidate forum.

2. Prepare questions ahead of time. Rehearse reading the question or comment.

a. Use the EPIC format (engage them, state the problem, illustrate the solution, call them to action) to craft your questions.

b. Be confident, considerate and persistent about getting an answer to your question.

3. Get familiar with your Congressman.

a. Here is where you can find info on current representatives and senators.

4. Work in teams.

a. Sit in different areas of the room to maximize your impact.

b. Designate a note taker to jot down all info and promises made by the Congressperson.

c. Designate a videographer, as You-Tube, Google video and other methods are an excellent way to amplify your message.

d. Seek out media after the meeting to talk about our issues if they were not covered.

e. Seek out the speakers after the meeting to introduce yourself and follow up on your question, or ask it if you were not able to ask the question during the meeting.

f. Leave the event with a clear plan to follow up with their staff.

5. Stay on message.

a. Don’t get distracted or angry if your question is blown over. Be forceful in repeating the question and asking for an appropriate response.

Item #5 is key:  Don’t get angry – it is critically important that we remain respectful if we are to be considered credible in our questions.

In this case, we have the answer to #1 – the venues where Rep. Nadler will be speaking –  however, in the future, if you know that the Congressman will be speaking at a Democratic Club meeting or elsewhere in the city, please pass on the info and we will help to organize it into a bird-dogging opportunity.  

This Sunday Rep. Nadler will be participating in two events.  The first is in Chelsea, a Presidential Candidates Forum hosted by the Chelsea Reform Democrats:

Decision 08:

The Hon Ronnie Eldridge, Moderator

The Hon Jerrold Nadler (for Hillary Clinton)

The Hon Bill Perkins (for Barack Obama)

Representatives of the campaigns of:

 John Edwards

 Dennis Kucinich

 Mike Gravel

Sunday, January 13, 2008, 1 – 3 pm

Hudson Guild Fulton Center

119 Ninth Avenue (btw 17th and 18th Streets)

Free Admission

Later in the day, he will participate in a NOW-NYC event on

How Critical is the Women’s Vote?

Featuring

Jerrold Nadler, Congressman

Elizabeth Holtzman,

Former Congresswoman and Bklyn D.A.  & NYC Comptroller, and

Sheryl McCarthy,

USA Today & Newsday Columnist, Distinguished Lecturer in Journalism at CUNY

National Arts Club

15 Gramercy Park South

Sunday, January 13, 2008, 4 PM to 6 PM

Wine & Cheese Served   Sponsored by NOW-New York City Chapter

Space is limited. Please reserve with a $10 contribution/$5 for NOW-NYC members.

Charge to credit card by phone, 212.627.9895 or online at www.nownyc.org by clicking “Buy Ticket” or “Donate.”

You may also send check payable to: NOW-NYC, 150 W.28th St. #304, NYC 10001.

Both events look like excellent opportunities to become better informed and to bird-dog Rep. Nadler.  I haven’t decided which I will attend yet, but am leaning towards the NOW event if only because I am a great admirer of Elizabeth Holtzman, have deeply appreciated her advocacy of impeachment, and have long wondered what would happen if she and Rep. Nadler were asked together publicly about impeachment.  If you are interested in attending either as part of a team effort please email me and I will put you in touch with people who are planning to attend  – to both learn and to bird-dog.

A final and most important suggestion:  the groups sponsoring these events have gone to considerable trouble to make them happen.  Please respect their efforts and do not disrupt the events.  Our goal is to work together to ask questions and get answers not to disrupt or be disrespectful and interfere with the participation of others in these events.

Hope to see you this weekend.  If you can’t make it to either event, please

Call Rep. Nadler’s office

Ask/Urge/Demand that he support hearings on impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee

New York:  212-367-7350

Washington, DC:  202-225-5635

You might also tell Rep. Nadler what you think about him having four women arrested and put in jail overnight for engaging in a sit in at his Brooklyn office.  I heard from one of the women this week, Elaine Brower, and in her words: “we spent the entire night in jail, no food, no water, terrible conditions, just to make sure the Congressman and the media knew we meant business.”  Elaine was also part of the group that was arrested with Cindy Sheehan during the sit in at his office this summer.  In that case, the grassroots activists spent only five hours in jail.  Shame on Congressman Nadler for forcing four women to spend a full night in jail for engaging in a sit in at his office.

If you haven’t yet signed Rep. Wexler’s petition callling for impeachment hearings in the HJC, please sign it now and pass it on to colleagues, friends, and family.  Thanks for all you do.

(Thank you, Meteor Blades – promoted by buhdydharma )

It was six years ago, January 11, 2002. Shackled, handcuffed, goggled and hooded, the men came shuffling off the big gray C-141 Starlifter cargo jet that had sped them from Afghanistan to the southeastern coast of Cuba, to Guantánamo Bay. Only 20 arrived that first day, but, eventually, some 800 prisoners wound up behind the razor wire at Camp X-Ray, Camp Delta, Camp Iguana, Camp Echo. They included gnarled old men with no teeth whose beards their captors had forcibly shaved. And boys too young for whiskers.

Designated “unlawful enemy combatants,” they were delivered to a bit of land permanently pried from Cuba a century earlier specifically because the Cheney-Bush administration wanted them held beyond the rule of law, confined incommunicado in a jurisdictionless no-man’s land and subject to the whims of a single person, the president of the United States of America. Out of reach of the Geneva Conventions, of the U.S. Constitution, of civilization itself, they were held in a military prison perched on the stolen land of a country that this same irony-challenged president would soon list as part of his “axis of evil.”

More than four years would pass before Washington officially made 558 of the prisoners’ names public. Not a single one was innocent, the camp boss, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, would tell ABC News in 2006.  

Easy to say when you don’t hold trials. Only one person has been convicted at Guantánamo, and he only because of a plea agreement. Officials admit that more a hundred prisoners have gone on hunger strikes and been force-fed, dozens have attempted suicide, and four have succeeded in committing suicide, although their kin is suspicious of that claim for their deaths.

Prisoners have been dehumanized, brutalized and tortured. All of it excused as necessitated by the war on terror, all of it justified by tortuous legalistic rigamarole.

While Guantánamo has been transformed from a camp with buckets for toilets and mats for beds to one of the most high-tech prisons on the planet, several hundred of its captives have been released, in most cases after years of arbitrary detention. But many who have been cleared for release still haven’t been repatriated. In some cases, that’s because their home country doesn’t want them back, a situation exacerbated because U.S. officials repeatedly called the Guantánamo prisoners the “worst of the worst” and never admitted to mistaken detentions.

Some prisoners cannot be released because it is prohibited to send them to places – like China – where they might be tortured or otherwise abused. Yet some have been repatriated to countries such as Libya, where torture occurs frequently. The most recent release was of 10 Saudi nationals repatriated in late December. Another 13 Saudis could be released soon. As of today, about 275 prisoners remain at Guantánamo.

Meanwhile, Washington has doubled the number of “unlawful enemy combatants” held at Bagram military base in Afghanistan to about 630 detainees, with at least 32 of them having been released from Guantánamo last year. The Independent says Bagram is subject to the same complaints about prisoners being “held incommunicado for weeks or months, the lack of recourse to any system of legal redress, and persistent reports of prisoner mistreatment that many human rights campaigners have characterised as torture.” Among the critics has been the International Red Cross, which says it has been barred from inspections or visits for months at a time.

Tomorrow, from Boston to Waikiki, protesters in 19 U.S. cities, in England and elsewhere will call for the closing of this affront to the justice for all that our nation claims to stand for. You can find out about those protests here.

You can sign a pledge that already has 550,000 names on it here to …

affirm my commitment to the American values of justice and liberty for all. I believe in the core values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – that no person should be subjected to the use of torture, orcruel treatment, or indefinite and arbitrary detention. I call for the U.S. government to CLOSE GUANTÁNAMO.

From the beginning, lawyers, human rights and civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have fought the constitutionality of detaining “illegal combatants,” with some limited successes. The first came in June 2004 when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Rasul v. Bush that the federal courts had habeas jurisdiction over Guantánamo.

There was also the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was formerly a driver for Osama bin Laden. His first prosecution was halted in November 2004 after a federal district court judge ruled military commission proceedings against him were outside the law. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in June 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the district court decision 5-3. Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself even though he had said prior to oral arguments, “I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy.”

Cheney-Bush officials have done their best to get around the rulings in these cases, and Congress has done a fine job of enabling them with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The first keeps Guantánamo prisoners from seeking any new statutory habeas claims. Under the second, any non-citizen whom the president labels an “unlawful enemy combatant” cannot seek release from detention with a habeas corpus challenge. That means any of the estimated 12 million legal resident aliens in the United States is barred from challenging his or her detention. According to a few critics, including Oregon Rep. David Wu and Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the wording of the law might even be construed to apply to U.S. citizens.

The supposed remedy for prisoners is federal review of the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, which determine whether a detainee is actually an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Weak medicine, indeed, since, as Human Rights Watch points out, “the CSRTs are under the chain of command of the president, who has already publicly announced that all Guantánamo detainees are enemy combatants.”

In an Op-Ed in July 2007, James Ross, Legal Director of Human Rights Watch wrote:  

It’s not every day that a 26-year veteran in U.S. military intelligence puts his career on the line by publicly criticizing a high-profile operation. But Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, an Army reservist and lawyer, did just that last week in a Supreme Court affidavit that challenges the court’s refusal to hear the claims of Guantánamo Bay detainees.  

Abraham spent six months in 2004-2005 as a panelist on the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, or CSRTs, at Guantánamo, which were created to determine whether individual detainees were ”enemy combatants.” His statement, claiming that determinations were based on outdated, generic intelligence that was rarely case specific, captures the extent to which the Bush administration has been willing to ignore if not manipulate the facts in pursuing the ”global war on terror” — even if it undermines those very efforts. …

To date three-member military tribunals at Guantánamo have processed the cases of 572 detainees. Only 38 were found not to be enemy combatants. Unlike habeas proceeding, where the burden is on the government to show that the detention is lawful, the CSRTs required the detainee prove he was not an enemy combatant. And the CSRT rules prohibited the detainee from having the assistance of a lawyer or seeing most of the evidence against him.  

But it turns out that the military panelists had not much more access to the evidence than did the detainees. Abraham says his repeated requests for information that would shed light on specific cases were routinely rejected. ”What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence,” he stated.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two related cases, Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. the United States. At issue once again is whether the detainees can bring habeas challenges.

Only 10 of the remaining men at Guantánamo have been charged with anything. Only three are pending trial, the first of which starts in May. David Hicks, the only person convicted so far – of “providing material support for terrorism” – was shipped home to Australia last April after a plea bargain and served nine months at Yatala Labour Prison. He was released December 29, nearly six years after arriving at Guantánamo.

The so-called Seton Hall University School of Law study, A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data by Professor Mark Denbeaux and Attorney Joshua Denbeaux found that:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% — are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

This past May Sen. Tom Harkin introduced the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Closure Act of 2007 and was joined by six Democrats, including Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. On June 29, 2007, 145 members of the House of Reps sent a letter to Mister Bush urging him to close Guantánamo. Only one Republican signed that letter, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina.

Every one of the Democratic presidential candidates has called for the closing of Guantánamo. So has Republican Senator John McCain, and, no surprise, Representative Ron Paul. Governor Mitt Romney, on the other hand, says: “My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo,” and “The food down there is unbelievable.” Governor Mike Huckabee says, “If anything, it’s too nice.”

The remaining prisoners at Guantánamo ought to be released or given fair trials. That includes the 15 “high value” detainees who are considered the greatest security risks. Needed now is a narrowly focused, carefully crafted, wise means of dealing with the growing number of terrorists – some of them recruited in part because of disgraces like Guantánamo.

But closing one prison goes only part way to what is really required. For six years, the Cheney-Bush administration has operated ghost planes and ghost prisons, engaged in torture and watched over foreign surrogates so engaged, dismantled some of our most precious Constitutional protections, accumulated as much power as a flaccid Congress would allow, and generally behaved like warlords. While they took this farther than ever before, the American exceptionalism and imperial arrogance that have characterized their reign originated long before the September 11 event they have used to justify their actions. Renouncing and uprooting both is essential to our future well-being and of everyone else around the planet.

The New York Times story is getting the buzz:

The helicopter was hovering over a Baghdad checkpoint into the Green Zone, one typically crowded with cars, Iraqi civilians and United States military personnel.

Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a riot-control substance the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint.

“This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous,” Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. “It’s not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness.”

Both the helicopter and the vehicle involved in the incident at the Assassins’ Gate checkpoint were not from the United States military, but were part of a convoy operated by Blackwater Worldwide, the private security contractor that is under scrutiny for its role in a series of violent episodes in Iraq, including a September shooting in downtown Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead.

Scott L. Silliman, the executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at the Duke University School of Law, points out that this once again gets into Blackwater’s legal gray areas, what I like to refer to as legal mud. As I’ve previously written, that legal mud may even get Blackwater off the hook for last year’s massacre of seventeen Iraqi civilians. As the Washington Post reported, in November:

FBI investigators have reportedly concluded that the killing of 14 of the 17 civilians was unjustified under State Department rules on the use of force. But the case is muddied by the question of what laws, if any, apply to security contractors operating under military, State Department and civilian contracts.

If massacring civilians is one of those areas of legal mud, don’t expect any legal clarity for gassing American soldiers. The question, then, was whether laws applying to private contractors working for the Defense Department also apply to contractors working for the State Department. And although the military has brought charges against numerous official service personnel, they have brought none against private security contractors. Because whether or not mass murder is legal depends on who is doing the mass murdering, and for whom they work.  

That Post article continued:

The Iraqi government has said it knows of at least 20 shooting incidents involving security contractors, with more than half a dozen linked to Blackwater.

The problem, again, being that legal mud. And here’s the best part:

For instance, contractors were immunized from Iraqi laws under a June 2004 order signed by the U.S. occupation authority. That ruling remains in effect.

Because the U.S. occupation authority believed what everyone working for the Bush Administration believes: some people are above the law. And that belief apparently remains. That ruling remains in effect?

You would expect someone would want to do something about that ruling. Maybe Congress? Well, Blackwater is working hard to make sure the mud stays muddy. According to the Associated Press:

Private-security contractor Blackwater Worldwide, which protects U.S. government officials in Iraq and faces scrutiny over its role in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians, has ramped up its lobbying representation on Capitol Hill.

Law firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice was tapped by the company to lobby the government on contracting and other issues, according to the form posted online Tuesday by the Senate’s public records office.

Womble Carlyle is the third lobbying firm to be hired by Moyock, N.C.-based Blackwater since October.

The company has attracted considerable congressional scrutiny and criticism from the Iraqi government and human rights groups for its involvement in several dozen shooting incidents. Federal prosecutors are investigating the Sept. 16 shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians involving several Blackwater security guards. The company has maintained that its guards have always acted appropriately.

And that legal mud allows them to make that claim. Because as long as they are immunized against being held accountable for such minor transgressions as the mass murder of Iraqi civilians or the gassing of Iraqi civilians and American troops, they can legitimately claim that they have acted within the legal definition of what is appropriate. And that beefed up lobbying power will undoubtedly be working very hard to keep that definition of “appropriate” as expansive as possible. As in there is literally nothing that falls outside its parameters.

As the AP explains:

Blackwater chairman Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL, is a Holland, Mich., native whose family fortune was made in the auto parts industry. His sister, Betsy DeVos, a former chairwoman of the Michigan GOP, is married to Dick DeVos, a Republican and Amway Corp. heir who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2006.

As the Republican presidential candidates now move into Michigan, it would seem a good time for someone to ask them about those partisan connections, that legal mud, and the lives and well-being of American troops and Iraqi civilians. We all know the campaign correspondents will be right on it. Right?

Saturday Jan. 12th Radio Tribute to Dave Cline

RADIO ON SATURDAY

Tune in to the radio tribute to David Cline on WBAI 99.5 FM in New York on Saturday, January 12, Noon – 3 PM EST {WBAI is streamed live over the Internet in multiple formats:

MP3: 24K or 64K or .ram

OGG: 24K or 64K

See WBAI Stream

Expected guests: Paul Zulkowitz, Michael McPhearson, Thomas Brinson, Ken Dalton, Jerry Hassett, Steve Hayes, Stephan Smith, Bryan-David Kee, Marcy J. Gordon, Sue Schnall, Jesse Myerson, Jose Vasquez, Joe Cross, Cindy Sheehan, Eric Laursen, Clark Kissinger, Lori Purdue, Medea Benjamin, David Swanson

And if in New York City on Sunday

IN PERSON ON SUNDAY

A Tribue to Dave Cline

(January 8, 1947 – September 15, 2007)

Antiwar Activist, Labor Organizer, Humanitarian, Vietnam Veteran Against the War, Veteran For Peace

Medal “For Peace and Friendship between Nations” awarded to David Cline by Vietnam Union of Friendship Association

SUNDAY, January 13, 2 – 6 PM

Featuring: STEPHAN SAID aka SMITH, RANDY CREDICO, BRYAN & MARCY, PAT SCANLON, BRIAN JONES as ‘Dave Cline’, and The Bush Chain Gang; MCs John McDonagh of WBAI & Michael McPhearson of Veterans For Peace; Lori Purdue, Joel Landy, Ron King, Steve Bloom, Jackie Sheeler, Sue Schnall, Sgt. Geoff Millard, Joe Cross, Yonathan Shapira, Video by Andrew Courtney

FREE Refreshments/Cash Bar & Menu Service/Auction & Raffle

CONNOLLY’S

121 West 45 Street, New York NY 10036

(Between Broadway & Sixth Avenue)

SUBWAY: #1, 2, 3, 7, N, Q, R, Shuttle to Times Square Station

PARKING GARAGE: Manhattan Parking, 137 West 45 Street, 212-944-5118

DONATION SUGGESTED

Donations to Veterans For Peace will go toward antiwar events in David Cline’s honor.

RSVP & INFO: zool at [email protected] or 646-549-1615

David Cline was a highly decorated, disabled Vietnam War combat veteran. A leading member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Dave is prominently featured in ‘Sir, No Sir!’ an award-winning documentary about GI resistance. As President of Veterans For Peace, David oversaw tremendous growth in membership and helped found Iraq Veterans Against the War. A true humanitarian, David Cline was a co-founder of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign.

Veterans For Peace, founded in 1985, is a 501(c)3 national membership organization and an official NGO represented at the United Nations.

AUCTION ITEMS STILL NEEDED!

I created a new look for the DharmaZine and it’s coming along nicely.  Any suggestions would be welcomed. Anything related to the site or our goals would be good.

Known issues:

1. it appears slightly different in IE than in Firefox but either way it’s presentable.

2. load time is slightly longer than I’d like but that can’t be fixed until the new script is installed.

I can begin promoting it now and add anything you suggest along the way.  

On the same server there is a small search engine which you can add your sites to.  And there’s an event calendar which I’ll be promoting.  It’s only accepting submissions for politics, art and music.  But if your site(s) or blog(s) fall into those categories please head on over and fill out the form.  You can even skip the email part of the form as I’m not sending out verifications.  Access all of the above here.  No registration is required or even allowed.

Also on the same site is the News Engine.  I’ve been plugging away at the look of that as well.  If you’d like your blog included in the news being served up just comment here or send an email to info [at] howod.com.

Thanks for helping with the development of these projects.  They are meant to push as much traffic to your blogs as possible.

While the campaign pundits frame health care exclusively around the single issue of who pays there are several other unmentionable elephants in the room.

http://www.newstarget.com/0224…

Oh, it had nothing to do with a known neurotoxin.

With the new advances in genetic testing proving “you will get” disease X,Y or Z will insurance comanies deny coverage.  Do you see a marked increase in the promotion of medical screenings?

Marketing study. Pick up any woman’s magazine. Count the ads dedicated to drugs, along with the legal disclaimers in number two font. Can you throw a rock toward the next CVS?

On this next one I’m just going to give you the Google keywords

Bill Frist+immunity for big pharma

And thus begat it’s ugly cousin

http://www.hhs.gov/aspr/barda/…

HIPPA and medical records “privacy”

Does that include those guys over in India who process your denied claims?

http://noteworthyehr.com/pdfs/…

http://www.patientprivacyright…

Now the obvious answer is to require people to buy health insurance just like mAssachusetts did.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news…

I do, I have a 5000 per year policy and they routinely deny claims using a systematic basis. Zero information is available about what is and what is not “covered” beforehand, you don’t get that until the benefit denial statement.

Now are you really scared yet?

http://www.worldprivacyforum.o…

http://www.tetrahedron.org/abo…

Thanks for stopping in….

Hang out and chit chat for awhile… and when you’re done

check out some of the excellent offerings on our recent and rec’d list.

O & Please don’t rec the pony party, another will trot up in a few hours.

(^.^)

This is NOT the version I was looking for. It was the only one I could find.

(it ain’t that bad)

We’re in the country at the farm. Connection is teh sux.