January 12, 2010
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.136/2616 - Release Date: 01/12/10 02:35:00
A message to all members of Independence Caucus
Visit Independence Caucus at: http://icaucus.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
To control which emails you receive on Independence Caucus, click here
|Sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Forward to a Friend|
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.136/2616 - Release Date: 01/12/10 02:35:00
By Chuck Baldwin
January 12, 2010
This column is archived at
I think we need to face it: 2010 is more than a new year; it is also part of
a new era in which all vestiges of normalcy and common sense have been left
behind. In other words, it is a madhouse out there. Let me give you some
examples of what I'm talking about.
Example Number One: In the world of anti-gun elitists, only common people
are not allowed to defend themselves.
According to the Richmond (North Carolina) Times-Dispatch, "A sheriff says a
North Carolina state senator shot one of two intruders at his home and
hospital officials say the man is in fair condition.
"Multiple media outlets reported that Columbus County Sheriff Chris Batten
said that 74-year-old Sen. R.C. Soles of Tabor City shot Kyle Blackburn late
According to the report, "Batten says the shooting occurred when two men
went to the senator's house and tried to kick in his front door. No charges
have been filed."
Now, don't get me wrong. If the fellows were indeed breaking into his home,
I'm glad the senator defended himself with a firearm. The miscreant deserved
to be shot. Chalk up another one for the right to keep and bear arms.
"What's the problem?" you ask. The problem is, the good senator is one of
the most anti-gun politicians in North Carolina. According to gun owners in
NC, Soles has made a career out of opposing lawful gun ownership for the
general public. In other words, in R.C. Soles' world, his life is worth
defending with a firearm, but your life or family (and mine) can go ahead
Soles is typical of Big-Government elitists who will allow themselves the
luxury of all kinds of personal protection, while denying it for the common
man. They hire professional bodyguards (does anyone remember Ted Kennedy's
personal bodyguard who was caught trying to take multiple loaded
weapons--and over 100 rounds of ammunition--into the Capitol Hill building a
few years back?); build exotic security fences and surveillance systems; and
personally obtain firearm permits that are routinely denied the common
person. Then they gladly take millions of dollars from gun control zealots
to finance their Big-Government, anti-freedom agendas.
My question is, how does an elitist gun grabber like R.C. Soles get elected
and reelected in the great State of North Carolina?
Example Number Two: With little notice, President Obama has signed Executive
Order (EO) 12425, which grants complete immunity to foreign police agencies,
thereby allowing them to potentially arrest American citizens on US soil
with no constitutional protections or considerations afforded those
arrested. (This EO also effectively allows INTERPOL to successfully hide any
and all potential information and evidence it has from the American
public--including evidence of Obama's birthplace.)
This action is so draconian and deplorable it is difficult to put in words.
According to the Washington Examiner, "Obama has given an international law
enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority
the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has
freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and
accountability, the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]."
See the story at:
Of course, not only could US citizens be subjected to unconstitutional
treatment at the hands of foreign governments operating freely on American
soil, how do we know that our own federal government would not use foreign
police organizations to do their dirty work for them? The answer is, we
The fact is, this new executive order makes it even more convenient for
already overreaching federal police agencies to bypass and ignore
constitutional protections for the American citizenry. Good grief! Under
this EO, they would not even be required to submit to the Patriot Act,
which, in itself, grants the federal government almost unlimited power to
arrest, interrogate, and incarcerate just about anyone they want--with
almost no constitutional accountability. But, now, this EO removes virtually
every constitutional protection that may yet be intact by authorizing
foreign police organizations to arrest and incarcerate American citizens at
will--with ZERO accountability or oversight.
Of course, all of this is done in the name of fighting terrorism, which
Example Number Three: In order to fly commercially, the American people are
now being required to remove not just their shoes--but also their clothes.
After the failed Christmas Day terrorism attempt on a Delta flight
approaching Detroit, Michigan, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) is planning to spend $25 million of "stimulus" funds to install 150
new full-body scan machines in airports around the country. This is in
addition to the 40 full-body machines that are already in use.
Make no mistake about it: when you step into a full-body scan machine, you
are being undressed in front of the screener. Do you really want TSA agents
gawking at the nude body of your wife and daughters? And speaking of
daughters, will someone please explain to me why these TSA agents are not
guilty of watching child porn? After all, they are spending all day long
looking at nude bodies--including the nude bodies of little children! If you
did this, you would be arrested, incarcerated, and required to register as a
sex-offender for the rest of your life. Yet, TSA agents will now be allowed
to look at the nude bodies of little children and get paid for it!
Furthermore, what is to prevent the agents from storing the naked images
they look at and sharing them with their friends? After all, the peeper
(screener) is housed in a private room, completely removed from the public.
Then there is also the question of the risk of radiation. Any amount of
radiation can increase the likelihood of cancer, which is why most medical
experts advise pregnant women and children to avoid the use of radiation
And as Bill Press asks, "What if it doesn't work? What's next? We already
know. The latest terrorist plan is to plant explosives inside a body cavity
and detonate the bomb with a cell phone. Experts admit that, had Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab done so, no full body-scanner would have picked it up.
"So that scary new greeting at airports . . . could get even worse: 'Welcome
to the Friendly Skies. Now take off all your clothes--and bend over.' A full
search of body cavities may be next on TSA's list of ways to keep us safe.
Still want to fly home for Mom's birthday?"
See Bill's column at:
Think of it: we've spent nearly $100 billion on national security
intelligence gathering, and yet, the federal government allowed this
Abdulmutallab idiot--a foreigner commonly known to be a security risk--to
board an American jetliner. (While at the same time, police agencies are
instructed to be on guard against American citizens who may have voted for
Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin, or returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.)
But that's just par for the course with the powers that be these days. They
routinely allow people to fly into America from countries known to be
sympathetic to terrorist organizations. Furthermore, our national borders
are open sieves for virtually any and all illegal aliens. And just watch: it
won't be long into this new year before Barack Obama and John McCain join
together in another push for amnesty for illegals. But now, you and I are
being required to be electronically strip-searched when we want to board a
Bill Press also makes a good point by comparing the "war on terror" with the
war against drunk driving. He says, "Consider drunk driving. The best way to
stop it would be to station a cop outside every bar to test every customer
leaving the premises. No matter how much we abhor drunk driving, Americans
would never tolerate that--even though drunk drivers killed 11,773 people in
2008. Only 876 people died worldwide in plane crashes.
"Same with airline security. We must accept the fact that there will always
be risks. The idea that we have to choose between safety and privacy is not
only a false choice, it's a dangerous one. For once we give up even the
tiniest slice of our privacy, we'll never get it back." Amen.
Or, as Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
If we were really serious about making airline travel safer, we would
immediately cease and desist from this incessant infatuation with meddling
into the internal affairs of foreign countries, stop invading and occupying
foreign countries, and stop our own State Department and CIA from sticking
their noses where they don't belong--which only serves to agitate the world
against us. We'd stop giving out travel visas to people from countries
sympathetic to terrorists; seal the US border--especially the southern
border; and allow pilots, policemen, and any other citizen lawfully
qualified to carry a firearm to carry those weapons on board the aircraft.
(It was, after all, an American citizen--not an Air Marshal or other federal
agent--that stopped and subdued Abdulmutallab.) But instead, we continue to
push the envelope toward a police state. One could even get the idea that
our federal government may actually want terrorists to enter our country and
board our airplanes so that they might use them as an excuse to exact
greater and greater acts of oppression upon the US citizenry.
"Oh, yeah! I'm way out of line!" (To quote Jay Leno.)
Like I said, it's a madhouse out there. And it appears to me that the
lunatics are running the asylum.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
(c) Chuck Baldwin
NOTE TO THE READER:
This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact email@example.com
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida, 32526. When responding, please
include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all
respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Subject: FW: Update regarding Presidential lawsuit
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:13:06 -0500
I've never commented publicly on this subject before, mostly because straight impeachment seems a lot easier, but this email just went out from Gen. Paul Vallely's group and comes directly from Dr. Taitz office. The arguments are strong. I'll leave it to you whether to share with group or delete the address. Keep fighting my friend!
From: Annie Hamilton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:05 AM
Subject: Update regarding Presidential lawsuit
we received the following email update from Taitz' office earlier today - obviously the case will move foreward on appeal but it will require alot of NOISE.
*social security numbers for himself and his family members but no record of filing for his own
*fraudulent hawaiian bc but kenyan government authenticated his bc (although other authority figures dispute this but a third party then disputes their argument saying he was indeed born in Kenya because she was there....and that would be the grandmother, and that's documented on tape)
*his lies make Bill Clinton look like a choir boy .....his policies and attitude toward America make Carter look like an ass-kicking marine...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078
California State Bar No.: 223433
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §
v. § Civil Action:
Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama, § REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, § MOTION TO TRANSFER;
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, § MOTION FOR LEAVE OF
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § COURT TO FILE QUO
President of the Senate, § WARRANTO
Here come the plaintiffs in this case (aside from Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Gary Kreep ) and concur with the brilliant suggestion by the Department of Justice and move the court to grant the Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto challenging constitutionality of position of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States for following reasons.
(1.) The case at hand has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants' pretrial motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington DC. In their opposition the defendants do not deny making such an argument.
(2.) The defendants twist the truth in their opposition claiming that the court didn't find the jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: "[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, "A Quo warranto may be issued from the United States District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States, civil and military". D.C. Code §§16-35-1-3503. The court h! as denied the plaintiffs request to apply the District of Columbia quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice of law provisions. The court went even further by stating that "[W]hile the Court can apply the law of the other jurisdiction where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. Plaintiff's quo warranto demand is hereby dismissed for improper venue". The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case. At this time the plaintiffs have 3 options: A. App! ealing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the DC statute quoted by the court itself does not state that the venue is exclusive and other district courts cannot apply this statute anywhere else in this country from Anchorage, Alaska to Tucson, Arizona, however an appeal might take a year and a half to get to trial, which means a year and a half of further usurpation of US presidency. B. The plaintiffs can file a new case in DC, however judging by stonewalling techniques of the Department of Justice, there will be another year of pretrial motions, which means another year of usurpation of US presidency. C. Motion for leave of court to file quo warranto to be granted by this court or to be transferred by this court directly to the Chief Judge of the US District of Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case and to include by reference all the pleadings in the current case of B! arnett et al v Obama et al. This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits. It is important for the country and the military.
The plaintiffs have filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Undersigned has already provided the Court with copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received. Hundreds of concerned citizens have called the Department of justice demanding a response to Quo Warranto submission. No response was received for ten months. Letters, e-mails, faxes went unanswered. Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens calling and urging a response, even when those calls came from high ranking officers of US military. The undersigned does not know what was the reason for this t! otal dereliction of duties by Attorney General Holder and DC US attorneys Taylor and Phillips: was it A Laziness? B Lack of guts and spine? C Corruption? Regardless of the reason department of Justice cannot use their own inaction as justification in denying the plaintiffs ex-relators status in filing Quo Warranto. They cannot eat the cake and have it whole. This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys played with the plaintiffs and their counselor is infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of NorthWest 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of how dangerous it is to have a Big Question Mark with numerous stolen and fraudulent social security numbers sitting in the position of the President and Commander in Chief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto as ex-relators in the name of the United States of America against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and to transfer this leave of court or transfer the request for leave of court with the rest of the file as an attachment to the US District court for the District of Columbia to be assigned to Honorable Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge for the US District Court of the District of Columbia, who currently presides over a related case.
Writ of Quo Warranto
I. What is Respondent Obama's standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? - Considering Obama's first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama's birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama's "original" sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
II. Does the State of Hawaii's withholding Respondent's Obama's original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?
III. Does the restrictive qualification for President of "natural born citizen" over "citizen" include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?
IV. Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a "natural born citizen" and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?
V. Having attained one's majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one's minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a "natural born citizen" with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?
VI. Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?
VII. Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?
VIII. Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers' constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?
IX. Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
X. To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People's rights?
Here come the plaintiffs/ ex-relators in the name of the United States of America praying this Honorable Court issue Quo Warranto writ against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief.
Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the "Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military". The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:
The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise "The Law of Nations" by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines "…Natural Born Citizens, are those in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." Book 1, Chapter 19, §212. In his book Dreams From my Father as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a K! enyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen.
In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.
The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital. Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born. Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii. The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of th! e hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.
Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write "…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…" In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency. An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, previously submitted to this court, states t! hat authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.
As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president.
Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels, previously submitted to this court, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth. Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to ! an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old. There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and social security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud, as the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another. The undersigned requests to bar the US attorney's office from representing the respondent in such hearing based on US Code 44 Section 22 and due to obvious inherent conflict of interest.
Wherefore the plaintiffs ex-relators in the name of the United States of America are requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned Orly Taitz, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, 01.06.2010, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs' above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the "STATEMENT OF INTEREST" who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
ROGER E. WEST email@example.com (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
DAVID A. DeJUTTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
AND EXECUTED ON THIS 01.06.2010
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
29839 Santa Margarita PKWY
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
This message was sent by Pedro A Delgado (email@example.com) from League of Conservative Citizens (LCC).
To learn more about Pedro A Delgado, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here
Meetup Inc. PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | firstname.lastname@example.org
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.135/2615 - Release Date: 01/11/10 14:35:00