fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Stanley Kubrick Filmed Fake Moon Footage !! Proof ! Told you so
-
SOURCE: http://nikeinsights.famguardian.org/fagot-nation/
_____________________
Faggot Nation
By Brook Stockton, PHD
June 26,2015, the darkest day in American history!
America, the hope of the world, has now become a nation led by fagot men and homerotic women!
How can any Christian now stand up for the national anthem and honor a nation promoting wickedness?
How can any Christian now say the Pledge of Allegiance? It is no longer a nation under God, but a nation ruled by fagots.
How can any Christian now serve in the military to defend the queer and sapphic marriages?
How can a Christian send his children to public schools where they will be perpetually, and continually indoctrinated in homophilic sex education classes (biology, home economics) and where the public schools must conform to the new orthodoxy?
How can any Christian serve in the public schools along side queers in an institution that will soon be the apparatus for Sodomite, lesbian recruitment and indoctrination?
How can you send your children to P.E. classes where restrooms and showers will now reflect the neutral gender equality standards dictated to schools by the queer elite? Do you really want your daughter person showering next to a lusty penile person? This is where the schools are headed. See what happend in New York the day after queer acceptance where the Jewish liberal leaders produced a bill to provide “gender-neutral” bathrooms (Fox News, June 27, 2015)
How can a Christian honor and respect or trust the Supreme Court and activists judges since they have declared war on marriage, nature, and God’s law order?
How can any Christian every apply for a marriage license to be in a class where “married” now means the union of “two persons?”
How can a Christian vote and pretend this is an honorable constitutional republic? There is no rule of law. Right is wrong, and wrong is now right.
How can a Christian pay taxes to a government hellbent on promoting Sodomy and gender destruction in the name of “equality.”
How can a Christian be a part of a 501 c 3 government organization that will now be required to receive homos and lesbos into the congregation?
How can a Christian feel safe in a country where the government has declared war on Christianity?
How can a Christian be silent in the midst of revolution?
Answer: Only a sweet, carnal, ignorant “Christian” “person.”
-
President Obama Admits People of Faith are foreigners and strangers in their own society
President Obama admits that people of faith and especially Christians are “foreigners ad strangers” in their own society. The legal status this translates to is “nonresidents”. Having that legal status is the FOUNDATION, in fact of “separation of church and state”, keeping in mind that Christians AS INDIVIDUALS, are the church, from a biblical perspective.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituality/ChurchTaxation/WeAreTheChurch.htmHis oratory on this subject derives from Hebrews 11
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=NKJVSee also:
http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/For more legal research on this subject, see:
1. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Thanks to C-CPAN for this footage. The C-SPAN copyright policy permits reuse of their materials:
http://series.c-span.org/About/C-SPAN-Copyright-Policy/ -
For a comparison of domicile with residence, see Weibel v. United States, 244 F. 158 (9th Cir 1957)
-
“Domicile” is, of course, a concept widely used in both federal and state courts for jurisdiction and conflict-of-laws purposes, and its meaning is generally uncontroverted. See generally Restatement §§ 11-23; R. Leflar, L. McDougal, & R. Felix, American Conflicts Law 17-38 (4th ed. 1986); R. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws 12-24 (2d ed. 1980). “Domicile” is not necessarily synonymous with “residence,” Perri v. Kisselbach, 34 N.J. 84, 87, 167 A.2d 377, 379 (1961), and one can reside in one place but be domiciled in another, District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 (1941); In re Estate of Jones, 192 Iowa 78, 80, 182 N.W. 227, 228 (1921). For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there. Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 424 (1939). One acquires a “domicile of origin” at birth, and that domicile continues until a new one (a “domicile of choice”) is acquired. Jones, supra, at 81, 182 N.W., at 228; In re Estate of Moore, 68 Wn.2d 792, 796, 415 P.2d 653, 656 (1966).
[Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989)]“But it has long been settled that residence and citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States; and that a mere averment of residence in a particular State is not an averment of citizenship in that State for the purposes of jurisdiction. Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646; Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U.S. 223; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U.S. 378; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121, 123; Wolfe v. Hartford L. & A. Ins. Co., 148 U.S. 389.”
[Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905)]********
“The terms “resident” and “citizen” are not synonymous, but a general taxing scheme of a State which discriminates against all non-residents necessarily includes in the discrimination those who are citizens of other States.”
[Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60, 78 (1920)]********************
“The court thus distinguishes between citizens and residents and decides that it is the purpose of the statute to do so and, by doing so, it avoids discrimination. In other words, it is the effect of the statute that its requirement applies as well to citizens of the State of South Carolina as to citizens of other States, residence and citizenship being different things.”
[La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465, 470 (1919)]********************
“As jurisdiction may exist in more than one government, that is, jurisdiction based on distinct grounds — the citizenship of the owner, his domicile, the source of income, the situs of the property — efforts have been made to preclude multiple taxation through the negotiation of appropriate international conventions. These endeavors, however, have proceeded upon express or implied recognition, and not in denial, of the sovereign taxing power as exerted by governments in the exercise of jurisdiction upon any one of these grounds.”
[Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 399 (1933)]“*his domicile*”
-
EDITORIAL: Article that the above article references:
_______________________
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/04/microsoft-disk-encryption/ -
Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years … vs Article III court
OK, SO APPLYING THE ATTACHED 28 U.S. Code § 2284 – Three-judge court; when required; composition; procedure DOES CONVERT YOUR COURT INTO Article III court ?
THEN, HOW DOES THIS CORRELATE WITH THIS: update onTax Case: Supreme Court No. 14-1305 https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com :
“There are two kinds of federal trial courts: those of general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction) and those of limited jurisdiction (subject-matter jurisdiction only). …
The only federal courts authorized by the Constitution to hear civil or criminal matters brought against individual Americans for alleged violation of federal rules or regulations are courts of general jurisdiction.
Today, every federal court located within the respective exterior limits of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union, e.g., Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, etc., is a court of general jurisdiction.
The problem is that the only geographic area in which federal courts of general jurisdiction are authorized by the Constitution to exercise jurisdiction is federal territory;e.g., District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.
There is no constitutional authority for a federal court of general jurisdiction to hear a civil or criminal matter against any American who resides and is domiciled in geographic area occupied by one of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union—and no one can produce any such authority. “
SO, WHICH COURT ARE WE TRYING TO CONVERT INTO Article III court ?
Original Message
From: Dick <mailto:armlaw@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:44
PMSubject: RE: FEEDBACKJudge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After
81 YearsThat is because the most attorney’s are unaware of the FACT that you must ASK for an Article III court. Please see attachment…. Dick
_____
Subject: FEEDBACKJudge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:29:39 -0400WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME ANYBODY HAS SEEN GENUINE PROCEEDINGS IN THE VENUE OF
“the [BONA FIDE] courts under Article III ” THOUGH ?
Original Message
From: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com>
Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.comSent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:11 PM
Subject: SAVE: Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years
Paycheck Piracy does not accept any liability or responsibility for the information provided by others. It is your duty to verify the accuracy and the legality of any information accessed via the Internet.
Please note: This message was sent from an auto-notification system that cannot accept incoming e-mails. Please do not reply to this message.
[Paycheck Piracy NOTE: is a federal or state tax agency employee or officer trying to force you to appear at an administrative hearing (tribunal) in front of an Administrative Law “judge” who probably is not a lawyer, and not held in a judicial venue?Appointments Clause Law & Legal Definition
Pursuant to section 2 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President shall have powers to appoint the federal judges and other officials. This clause empowers the President to nominate certain public officials with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. However, appointment clause allows appointment of lower-level officials by the President without such advice and consent.
<http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/appointments-clause/>Learn more about how to challenge those kangaroo tribunals where those federal and state tax agency employees and officers have no jurisdiction, authority and no bona fide security interest in their invalid claim over you; in addition to violating the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
—-SAVE: Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years
Well it has been a long time coming, but all along there have been discussions behind closed doors (never in public) that the Administrative Law Courts established with the New Deal were totally unfounded and unconstitutional. With the anniversary of Magna Carta and the right to a jury trial coming up on June 15 after 800 years, the era of Roosevelt’s big government is quietly unraveling.
In a 45-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta issued an injunction halting Administrative Law proceedings against Charles Hill, a businessman who the SEC accused of reaping an illegal $744,000 profit trading in
Radian Systems stock. This is typical. The legal fees involved will exceed the amount of money he is alleged to have made, the typical result is to just pay the fine and they go away, it is cheaper.The judge ruled that the SEC agency violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by subjecting Hill to proceedings before an Administrative Law judge, who isn’t directly accountable to the president, officials in charge of the SEC,
or the courts under Article III. The ruling is 81 years overdue. The entire structure of administrative agencies blackmailing people has been outrageous.Not discussed in the coverage of this story is that the Administrative Law Courts are a fiefdom, to put it mildly. They have long been corrupt and traditionally rule in favor of their agencies, making it very costly for anyone to even
try to defend themselves. If someone were to attempt this feat, first they have to wear the costs of an Administration proceeding and appeal to an Article III court judge, then they must appeal to the Court of Appeals, and finally plea to the
Supreme Court. The cost of such adventures is well into the millions, and good luck on actually getting justice.Furthermore, Administrative Law Courts cannot sentence you to prison, but they can fine you into bankruptcy. So the lack of a criminal prosecution meant the judges did not have to be lawyers. They could be anyone’s brother-in-law looking for a job where he just rules in favor of the agency not to be bothered with law. Unless the victim has a pile of money, there is no real chance that he or she can afford to defend themselves.
-
EDITORIAL: Follow up from the author of the above.
The “Testament of Sovereignty” to which he refers can be found at:
Testament of Sovereignty, Form #13.001 (OFFSITE LINK)-excellent book
_______________
Sovereign Fellowship was inside by the Lord
EXCITING NEWS
When we all wrote testament of Sovereignty we had concerns about meeting the legal standards of being a “church.” One concern we had was our “meetings” since we didn’t have a building an members were all over the USA.
We decided to put in this section:
MEETINGS
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:21
Meetings will be conducted by this Christian Fellowship in manners deemed expedient by leadership. These meetings may include but are not limited to assemblies and congregations of sovereigns utilizing the rights of freemen to peacefully assemble and enjoy Rights of Speech & Press & Worship & Petition in public or in private. Methods of meetings may include traditional cottage gatherings to grand conventions attended in person or by utilizing modern technology to facilitate gatherings via telephone, radio, televisions, computers, and/or video-teleconferencing.
In United States v Meyers the court describes in section 5 the “Accoutrements of Religion”. One of those is:
c. Gathering Places: Many religions designate
particular structures or places as sacred, holy, or
significant. These sites often serve as gathering places
for believers. They include physical structures, such as
churches, mosques, temples, pyramids, synagogues, or
shrines; and natural places, such as springs, rivers,
forests, plains, or mountains.
file:///Users/christopher/Documents/American%20Sovereign/2015%20AD/RFRA%20research/United%20States%20v.%20Meyers.webarchive <file:///Users/christopher/Documents/American%20Sovereign/2015%20AD/RFRA%20research/United%20States%20v.%20Meyers.webarchive>
We knew we did not have this but we knew how we conducted our meetings was mostly over the internet by and through computers.
In The Swine Principle Danny, as Ian, wrote:
In your quest of knowledge and with the assistance of what almost amounts to a common man’s Urim and Thummim…the INTERNET, you have discovered documents and deeds of our FATHERS that have been hidden in the dark wallows of ignorance.
And my darling wife who never ceases to amaze me with her Spiritual insight wrote this:
There Are No Guarantees
By Dawn Elise Hansen
The past year has been a banner year for those of us in the fight. We have had many successes. Because of the Internet we have access to many other people across this great country who are out in front with their knuckles bloody from battle.
THE GREAT NEWS
Take a look at this article on how Churches cannot get along without the Internet. We were ahead of our time. Don’t tell me that the Fellowship was not created by Inspiration of the God of Liberty.
-
We caution that being naturalized in a foreign country could jeopardize your citizenship. See:
1. 8 U.S.C. 1481
2. Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7119330198900873837&q=338+U.S.+491&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60In the above case, Savorgnan married a French national and moved to France, but did not have the intention of relinquishing nationality or allegiance. Yet the court ruled that she lost her nationality at the time she became an Italian national:
The petitioner was born in Wisconsin in 1915 of native-born parents and resided in the United States until July, 1941. In March, 1940, her intended husband, Alessandro Savorgnan, was an Italian citizen, serving as Italian Vice Consul at St. Louis, Missouri. He informed her that, under Italian law, she would have to become an Italian citizen before he could obtain the necessary royal consent to their marriage. She applied for Italian citizenship. He prepared her application. It was in Italian which he understood, but which she did not understand. In August, the petitioner was granted Italian citizenship. In November, she appeared with Savorgnan at the Italian Consulate in Chicago, Illinois, and, in his presence, signed an instrument which contained an oath, in Italian, expressly renouncing her American citizenship and swearing her allegiance to the King of Italy.[3] No ceremony or formal administration of the oath accompanied her signature and apparently none was required. She and Savorgnan 495*495 understood that her signing of this instrument had to do with her citizenship and with securing the required royal consent for Savorgnan to marry her, but he did not translate the instrument or explain its contents to her. The District Court found as a fact that, at the time of signing each of the documents mentioned, the petitioner, although intending to obtain Italian citizenship, had no intention of endangering her American citizenship or of renouncing her allegiance to the United States.
[. . .]
I. What was the effect upon the petitioners American citizenship of her applying for and obtaining Italian citizenship? The Government contends that she thereby was naturalized in a foreign state in conformity with its laws within the meaning of either § 2 of the Act of 1907 or § 401 (a) of the Act of 1940.[4] It contends further that § 2 of the Act of 1907 did not require residence abroad as a condition of expatriation, and that she, therefore, was, then and there, effectively expatriated under that Act, merely upon becoming naturalized as an Italian citizen while still remaining in the United States. We agree that she was thus naturalized, but we do not find it necessary to pass upon the further contention that, by obtaining such naturalization in 1940, she then and there expatriated herself, and lost her American citizenship without taking up residence abroad.[5]
[. . .]
B. The petitioner’s principal contention is that she did not intend to give up her American citizenship, although she applied for and accepted Italian citizenship, and that her intent should prevail. However, the acts upon which the statutes expressly condition the consent of our Government to the expatriation of its citizens are stated objectively.[15] There is no suggestion in the statutory language that the effect of the specified overt 500*500 acts, when voluntarily done, is conditioned upon the undisclosed intent of the person doing them.
The United States has long recognized the general undesirability of dual allegiances. Since 1795, Congress has required any alien seeking American citizenship to declare “that he both absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; . . . .” 1 Stat. 414, see 8 U. S. C. § 735 (a).[16] Temporary or limited duality of citizenship has arisen inevitably from differences in the laws of the respective nations as to when naturalization and expatriation shall become effective. There is nothing, however, in the Act of 1907 that implies a congressional intent that, after an American citizen has performed an overt act which spells expatriation under the wording of the statute, he, nevertheless, can preserve for himself a duality of citizenship by showing his intent or understanding to have been contrary to the usual legal consequences of such an act.[17]
[Savorgnan v. United States, 338 US 491 – Supreme Court 1950]
-
See also:
Tim Cook slams rivals over privacy
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/37912-tim-cook-slams-rivals-over-privacy
-
Mcwolf,
Thanks for sharing. We agree with you on the commercial use of UCC for private benefit. So does SEDM:
Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/UCC.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
However, we do think the UCC is useful in negotiating contracts and establishing court admissible evidence when interacting with de facto government actors for self defense purposes. This is the very tactic used in the following form:
Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201, p. 2
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
Those on this site are not allowed to file the W-4. If they are compelled, they should consider:
1. Attaching the following:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/02-Affidavits/AffCitDomTax.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Writing on the W-4 “Not valid, false, and fraudulent without attached Tax Form Attachment”.
3. Note the duress statement in section 3 of form #02.001 and also the warning NOT to withhold OR report in section 17.
If one does NOT do the above, then they will either stop withholding but do FALSE reporting, or treat the applicant as an ordinary STATUTORY federal “employee” under 5 USC 2105. This will create LOTS of problems later, if there is not withholding but reporting continues. The payroll clerk should be sternly and verbally confronted to ensure that they DON’T do reporting, and the interchange should be videod on a smart phone for legal evidence purposes. This is covered in:
Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employers
http://famguardian.org/Publications/FedStateWHOptions/FedStateWHOptions.pdf
Please read and heed the above, and before considering stopping withholding using anything on this or the sedm site, you should consent to and be in compliance with the following:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
Member Agreement, Form #01.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Any attempt to circumvent compliance or consent is an abuse of the materials that will discredit both us and our materials.
-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Commerce Twp., Michigan, April 22, 2015
A Michigan woman is calling on Governor Rick Snyder to intervene and protect her from being put in a federal prison after what she calls a crudely engineered criminal conviction for her refusal to comply with unlawful orders of a federal court—orders commanding her not just that she must testify, but what she must say.
Doreen Hendrickson was charged two years ago with criminal contempt of court for refusing to comply with DOJ- and IRS-requested orders from a federal court in 2007. The court commanded Hendrickson to amend her freely-made tax returns for 2002 and 2003 with content dictated by the tax agency, by which she would be made to declare that all her earnings for those years are subject to the income tax. She eventually did submit the amended returns, but with a declaration that she had been coerced. The DOJ told the judge that the IRS could not process her
returns under those circumstances.The judge then ordered Mrs. Hendrickson to sign the dictated-content forms declaring under oath that she personally believes what she has been ordered to say, and to conceal the fact that the words are not her own. Such orders have never been made to an American before in history, whether in regard to a tax return or any other kind of document or testimony. “This is not a tax case. This is about my right to be in charge of my own testimony, to speak my conscience, and to protect my own property interests in a legal contest, even when that contest is with my government,” Hendrickson says. “If the court can force me to amend my return, put numbers on it dictated by the IRS that I know aren’t correct, and make me hide the fact that I was coerced, then you might as well set fire to the Bill of Rights.”
Mrs. Hendrickson has consistently said she doesn’t believe that all of her earnings are, in fact, taxable– a view the IRS itself took when first presented with her original returns, and which it has never contradicted over any agency official’s signature. In fact, even now, many years since those original returns were filed and many years since Mrs. Hendrickson was ordered to change them, the United States Department of Treasury records continue to agree with Hendrickson’s original
figures.Mrs. Hendrickson has testified to her actual beliefs on affidavits and in live testimony under oath in every hearing and trial that has been held concerning the matter. The government has never produced any evidence to the contrary, always simply arguing that she ought to believe differently because the IRS wants her to, and because the judge appears to believe what Hendrickson is being ordered to say.
Mrs. Hendrickson views the orders made to her to be violations of her right to control the content of her own speech, and of her right to due process, since the orders demand that she declare agreement with her adversary’s position on the taxable character of certain kinds of earnings– a matter which otherwise would likely be in dispute in future litigations between her and the United States.
Mrs. Hendrickson also views the orders as a violation of her right to refuse to be a witness against herself, since being forced to declare something contradicting her prior-filed returns now would not only compel her to commit perjury today, but would amount to a declaration that her previously-made testimony was false.
Mrs. Hendrickson strenuously argues that the orders she is accused of disobeying are unlawful, and therefore her refusal cannot be criminal contempt. After all, the statute she is accused of violating, specifically qualifies that it is disobedience of a lawful order that is punishable.
The government attorneys and the judge that presided over her trials apparently agree. At the government’s urging the judge instructed Mrs. Hendrickson’s jury that it must disregard the unlawfulness or unconstitutionality of the orders when deciding whether she was guilty of criminal contempt for resisting them.
The judge also instructed the jury that it need not unanimously find that Hendrickson actually did either of the two distinct alleged acts of contempt with which she was charged—another unprecedented feature of her trial. The trial ended in November, 2013 in a hung jury, and the government then tried again in July of 2014. At the close of the second trial, her jury, thus instructed, declared Mrs. Hendrickson to be guilty.
On April 9, 2015, Judge Victoria Roberts of the U.S. District Court in Detroit sentenced Mrs. Hendrickson to 18 months in prison. Mrs. Hendrickson was ordered to surrender herself into federal custody within 60 days—IF she submitted new amended returns with the government’s numbers and without any hint that they were coerced or disclaimed—otherwise, she would be forced to surrender within 30 days. Thus, the court continues to pressure Mrs. Hendrickson not only to give up her civil rights, but to commit a felony by filing false tax returns.
“This case is unprecedented. Mrs. Hendrickson is appealing, and we are confident that the Sixth Circuit will do the right thing and see this trial and conviction as unsupportable in a free society,” said her attorney, Mark Cedrone of Philadelphia. Fearing, however, that she will
be made to suffer this penalty even while waiting for her appeal to be heard, Mrs. Hendrickson has asked Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette to stand in vindication of her Constitutionally-secured rights between her and the federal officials.Governor Snyder and AG Schuette have not yet responded to Mrs.
Hendrickson’s request.Contact information:
Pete Hendrickson
newsman “at” losthorizons.com
Questions concerning the ongoing federal proceedings should be directed
to Mrs. Hendrickson’s counsel at mec “at”cedrone-mancano.comA .pdf of this press release can be found at [1]http://losthorizons.com/4-22PressRelease.pdf