|
 |
 |
|
| |
STRAIGHT TRACK
 |
Thursday, January 29, 2004 |
January 23, 2004
John Yembrick
P. O. Box 61129 Houston, TX 77208
Phone: 713/567-9388 Fax: 713/718-3389
E-Mail: usatty.txs@usdoj.gov
FORMER INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT OF UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION PLEADS GUILTY TO LABOR RACKETEERING
CONTACT AUSA: Edward F. Gallagher
PHONE: (713) 567-9343
(HOUSTON, TX) United States Attorney Michael Shelby announced that Charles Little, 69, of Leander, Texas, the former International President of the United Transportation Union, pled guilty today to labor racketeering conspiracy. Little is the highest ranking union official ever convicted in the Southern District of Texas. Little now becomes disqualified by law from employment with labor organizations or employee benefit plans or from service as a labor relations consultant for a period of 13 years after the completion of any term of imprisonment resulting from this conviction. Little will forfeit to the United States $100,000, representing proceeds of the racketeering activity.
During today's rearraignment hearing before U. S. District Judge Sim Lake, Little admitted to using his position as international president from 1995 to 2001 to solicit and collect cash payments and other things of value, and direct other union officials to do the same, from attorneys doing business with the union beginning with his campaign for international president in 1994, and ending with his retirement from the union in February 2001. Little used the money to fund his campaigns and for his personal use.
"This conviction is a significant step toward seeking justice for the many honest and hard working members of the UTU. Union officials who abuse their authority through bribery and greed will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law", said U. S. Attorney Shelby.
Little was indicted by a grand jury on September 12, along with current UTU international president, Byron Alford Boyd, Jr., 57, Seattle, Washington; former UTU
Director of Insurance Ralph Dennis, 51, Boone, Iowa; and special assistant to Boyd, John Russell Rookard, 57, Olalla, Washington. All four were charged with conspiring to violate federal mail and wire fraud statutes, and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering through commercial state bribery, by using their positions of authority to solicit and collect cash payments and other things of value from attorneys doing business with the union. Boyd served as Little's assistant president and took over the position as international president following Little's February 2001 retirement.
Little told U.S. District Judge Sim Lake that he and current International President Byron Boyd collected thousands of dollars in cash from attorneys seeking to become designated by the union and designated attorneys seeking to keep to their designation. Little also admitted that he and Boyd caused Ralph Dennis and John Rookard to travel at union expense around the United States to personally solicit cash from designated legal counsel (DLC) to be used for Little's 1995 and 1999 campaigns and unspecified special projects. During the conspiracy, Little personally benefitted approximately $100,000 and has agreed to forfeit an equal amount to the Government.
Little acknowledged that the racketeering acts involved a scheme to dominate and control the UTU and the designated legal counsel (DLC) program of the UTU through the commission of mail fraud, wire fraud, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, state commercial bribery, and union embezzlement. The scheme was used to generate illegal income for himself, his co-defendants, and others. Little admitted that the cash he received either directly or indirectly from DLC was tendered by DLC with an understanding and belief by Little and the DLC that Little's official conduct as an officer of the UTU would be influenced.
Little caused the use of the United States mail by sending letters from the UTU signed by him in his capacity as International President to the DLC, and to Chairpersons, U.S. Local Chairpersons, and State legislative Directors of the UTU in furtherance of the scheme. Among the many mailings was a mass mailing to all DLC in December 1995 requiring the DLC to submit letters of resignation; specific letters sent to attorneys awarding them a designation with the UTU as DLC where the attorneys paid thousands of dollars cash to Little either before or after receiving their designation; and mass mailings to DLC and union officials identifying a list of DLC and the rules of conduct that governed the DLC, including a prohibition against becoming involved in union politics.
Little told the court that he and his Assistant President, Byron Boyd, directed Ralph Dennis and John Rookard to expend union funds to travel in interstate commerce to various cities in the United States for the purpose of soliciting and collecting cash payments from various DLC. Little resigned his position as international president in February 2001, well before the July 2003 elections, after securing an agreement from Boyd to pay Little $100,000.00 cash and a new pickup truck as a retirement gift.
Little faces a maximum of twenty years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 at his sentencing which is scheduled for April 09, 2004.
Dennis pled guilty to racketeering conspiracy last October and agreed to forfeit $25,000 to the United States. Boyd and Rookard are scheduled to go to trial March 22, 2004. Dennis faces up to twenty years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.00.
The United Transportation Union (UTU) is an international labor organization based in Cleveland, Ohio, with over 125,000 members consisting of railroad, bus, airline, and mass transit employees and retirees. Boyd and Rookard will continue in their positions pending the outcome of the criminal charges.
Defendants are presumed innocent unless and until convicted through due process of law.
The investigation of former and current officers of the UTU was initiated in 1999 by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General and Office of Labor Management Standards. The investigation continues. The case will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Edward Gallagher and Richard Magness, Houston Organized Crime Strike Force, and Trial Attorney Vincent Falvo, U.S. Department of Justice, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Labor Unit.
8:37:43 PM 
Google It!
|
|
|
Monday, January 26, 2004 |
UTU Executive Board sets date for trials
By Roger Griffeth, Editor
The UTU Executive Board has decided to proceed with trails against Byron Boyd, UTU International President, and Dan Johnson, General Secretary and Treasurer.
Under corresponded dated January 23, 2004, Jim Huston, UTU Executive Board Chairman, announced that the Executive Board members had reviewed the charges made against Boyd and Johnson, reviewed the responses from both parties, and decided that trials for both Boyd and Johnson were in order.
Johnson’s trial is scheduled to begin on February 23, 2004 at 9:00 am. Boyd’s trial is scheduled to begin on February 24, 2004, at 9:00 am. Both trials will be conducted at UTU headquarters in Cleveland.
The Executive Board decided not to bring charges against Canadian Vice President Scarrow due to Scarrow's retirement.
Review Charges Against Boyd and Johnson
http://www.reformit2004.org/
10:57:06 PM
Google It!
|
|
Judge denies Boyd's motion to continue trial date.
By Roger Griffeth, Editor REFORM IT 2004
January 21, 2004, Houston Texas. The joint motion made by the accused leader of the "UTU Enterprise", Byron A. Boyd and his accused bagman John Rookard, to postpone their trial date, has been denied in an order issued by Judge Sim Lake. The trial date is set for March 22, 2004.
On the UTU Web Site, Boyd, acting quickly to announce Little's guilt, was quoted by his "UTU Editors" as saying:
"Boyd said he is innocent of the charges and has every intention to pursue this matter to a final and full conclusion that completely exonerates me."
Boyd, who also servers as the President of the UTU Insurance Association, has admitted to using the policyholder assets of the Insurance Association to pay his and Rookard's attorney fees.
As a condition of his release, Boyd remains under the restriction of the "20 ft. rule" in conducting his union activities with certain individuals. On January 20, 2004, Boyd was granted an exception from this restriction to attend the final stage of his son's induction into the Order of the Masons in Seattle, Washington.
Of the top three UTU international officers serving between the years 1995 - 1999, all "except one" have been indicted by the federal government for embezzlement, mail fraud, racketeering, and a lot of other criminal activity.
The decision made by Judge Lake brings the "due process" phase of Boyd's criminal rights closer to an end.
Boyd, is the accused leader of the "UTU Enterprise" representing an undetermined number of criminal types, both know and yet to be discovered, in the United States and possibly Canada.
http://www.reformit2004.org/
1:22:18 PM
Google It!
|
|
Former union official pleads guilty to labor racketeering
By The Associated Press - ABC Chanel 13 News
Charles Little, 69, of Leander, Texas, faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 when he is sentenced by U.S. District Judge Sim Lake on April 9. In addition, he will forfeit $100,000, which the government says he received though illegal activity.
Little and three others were indicted by a grand jury last September on charges of conspiring to violate federal mail and wire fraud statutes and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering through commercial state bribery.
Also indicted were union President Byron Boyd Jr., 57, of Seattle; former union director of insurance Ralph Dennis, 51, of Boone, Iowa; and special assistant to Boyd, John Rookard, 57, of Olalla, Wash.
In October, Dennis also pleaded guilty to labor racketeering.
The FBI and the Labor Department began investigating the Cleveland-based union in 1999.
In court on Friday, Little admitted that while president from 1995 to 2001, he and other union officials at his request took cash payments and other things of value from attorneys doing business with the union. Little said he used the money to fund his campaigns and for his personal use.
"This conviction is a significant step toward seeking justice for the many honest and hard working members of the UTU," Shelby said. "Union officials who abuse their authority through bribery and greed will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Boyd and Rookard are scheduled to go to trial March 22.
Officials with the United Transportation Union could not immediately be reached for comment on Saturday.
1:20:18 PM
Google It!
|
|
|
Thursday, January 15, 2004 |
Dear RRESQ Supporters.
Attached for your information is a Bulletin that RRESQ is sending to every "Partner for Railroad Safety". That is every City and County Council member who participated in a Resolution for Remote Control Locomotives. Many people continue to ask why RRESQ is involved with this issue. We want to reiterate that RCL can be directly linked with Railroad Worker Fatigue and many safety issues on the railroad. It all has a domino effect. RCL has caught the public's interest and we will work to bring safety reform through this forum and try to ensure that fatigue does not go unaddressed with this issue.
Secondly. Last year a new player (Charles Nutter) stepped up to the plate and started a petition on fatigue. Many of you signed the petition which is posted out on the internet. After the first couple of weeks of communication between Mr. Nutter and RRESQ, Mr. Nutter dropped out of site. He has not responded to email or phone messages. His website "Railwork.com" has not been attended to for several months. However, RRESQ has pulled all the signatures on this petition off the internet and we will proceed to file this petition in Washington as planned. If anyone has any information on Mr. Nutter, we would be happy to hear from him.
Thanks to all the individuals out there who contributed time to do research for the enclosed bulletin, and those who allowed us to publish printed information. We need help to keep these issues in the public forefront and get the carriers "Back on Track"....
Thank you for your continued support,
RRESQ
www.rresq.com
4:17:16 PM
Google It!
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 |
Roger Griffeth comments on the RLA and its provision for individuals or groups of individuals to promote their claims independently of their assigned labor organization:
|
From the Railway Labor Act:
i) The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of Day, rules, or working conditions, including -cases pending and unadjusted on June 21, 1934, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes.
(j) Parties may be heard either in person, by counsel, or by other representatives, as they may respectively elect, and the several divisions of the Adjustment Board shall give due notice of all hearings to the employee or employees and the carrier or carriers involved in any disputes submitted to them.
(k) Any division of the Adjustment Board shall have authority to empower two or more of its members to conduct hearings and make findings upon disputes, when properly submitted, at any place designated by the division: Provided, however, That except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, final awards as to any such dispute must be made by the entire division as hereinafter provided.
Jeff: This means an individual or a group of individuals may progress claims in their own behalf to the First Division of the Railroad Adjustment Board. However, one must follow the procedures established on the property as definded in the collective bargaining agreement. Such as: filing a claim, appealing the claim with the Superintendent, appealing the claim to Labor Relations, conferencing the claim with the proper designated carrier officer, then filing with the First Division. A conference is mandatory before you can go the First Division. |
11:57:15 AM
Google It!
|
|
|
Monday, January 12, 2004 |
Roger Griffeth responds to Babler's letter on the RCO weight claims:
Babler wrote:
The UTU did not want remote control operations in our Nations rail yards, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who installed RCO equipment on the locomotives, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who lobbied the FRA to authorize and sanction RCO, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who signed the first system-wide RCO Agreement, it was a Carrier and the BLE on Montana Rail Link. It was the UTU who recognized the new technology was now going to be a fact of life in all of the Nations rail yards, and consummated an Agreement to accept the new technology in its present form. The Agreement was approved by the crafts slated to use the new technology.
This is how I would have responded:
The UTU is an organization that of members that pay dues, the operation of which is controlled by elected officers. You are correct, it was not the UTU (members) that wanted remote control operations in our Nations rail yards, it was the International officers that "negotiated" RCO with the carriers and General Chairpersons that "approved" the International's efforts to include RCO in the national agreements.
It was not the UTU who installed RCO equipment on the locomotives, it was the Carriers.
Wrong, it was the agreement that the carriers and the International officers and General Chairpersons approved of, that allowed the Carriers to install RCO on the locomotives.
It was the UTU who recognized the new technology was now going to be a fact of life in all of the Nations rail yards and consummated an Agreement to accept the new technology in its present form.
Wrong, it was the UTU International officers and General Chairpersons who were in a rush to punish the BLE for not following through on the UTU/BLE merger that established the "fact of life" referenced in your letter.
The Agreement was approved by the crafts slated to use the new technology.
The Agreement was ratified because the International and General Chairpersons lobbied in favor of the agreement, and because the members knew that their International officers would turn to "Arbitration" to protect "their" agreement as they did in the past. Mandatory Arbitration is a system that would cause RCO to be "forced" upon them. UTU members have already been educated on the punishment involved with voting down an agreement offered to them by corrupt union officers. While you blame the inclusion of RCO on the "crafts" slated to use the new technology, in fact, it was the International and the General Chairpersons who ultimately decided this issue under Article 91 of the UTU Constitution. To blame the RCO on the "crafts" is easy and a way to deny responsibility, but not realistic.
In closing, this Office is not going to progress claims that clearly lack merit.
It is my understand that when you first took office, you had no problem with submitting expense claims to the International that lacked merit. The difference is your claims were paid, our claims were returned.
In closing, this Office is not going to progress claims that clearly lack merit. Particularly, when any contrived position from this Office, all though I am at a loss what facts would support that position, could have the downstream effect of decimating the trainmen's jobs.
Had you wanted to progress claims under the Radio agreement and support the members efforts to promote a safe working environment, you could have "contrived" a position with sufficient merit, that the agreement was void of any specific definition of a Radio and that the language was sufficient to support an argument that the Radio was in fact a "remote control device" that operated the locomotive from the first time it was used in conjunction with the operation of a locomotive.
This would be in keeping with the Canadian theory that established RCO representation rights for the UTU and not the BLE in the first place. Clearly, taking such a position would not have been in conflict, but directly in-line with the positions already taken by the UTU.
Under the Railway Labor Act we submit claims to "neutrals" that decide the merits of an argument and therefore decide the correct applications of our agreements. Monetary claims are the recongized method of advaning these grievances.
The position I contrived from the Radio agreement is that the union and the carrier understood that radios (an instrument used to operate a locomotive from a remote location) over three pounds were unsafe, as such, could create operational difficulties and long term damage to one's body. The function of the radio (controlling the locomotive) was understood and irrelevant. What was relevant was the weight of the device that caused the contractual provision of restricting weight to be included in the "labor" agreement.
This position would of course have the effect of protecting the safey of a trainman doing his/her job and therby protecting the carrier's requirement under the FELA to provide a safe working environment for its employees.
It is noted that the claims were returned by your office, and I will duly notify the members of your lack of support, and the futility of you progressing future claims.
David, what are you planning do now?
12:36:46 PM
Google It!
|
|
Here is GC Babler's response to the claims submitted for being forced to use a radio transmitting device weighing more than 3 lbs. A brother comments on Babler's argument:
________________________________________________________________
Dear Brothers:
Attached please find Brother Babler's letter to me accompanying his return of all of our penalty claims for excess weight. I intend to respond to the letter shortly. Text of letter is below in case you can't open attachment.
Fraternally,
Dave R
GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
United Transportation Union
Union Pacific Railroad Company (Former C&NW Railway Co.)
307 W. LAYTON AVE.
MILWAUKEE, WI 53207
January 8, 2004
(U-8-04)
Mr. Dave Riehle
Local Chairman, L-650
1063 Albemarle Street
St. Paul, MN 55117
Reference: RCO Transmitter Weight Restriction Claims
Dear Sir and Brother:
Please refer to your files UTU 401211, 401212, 401235, 401236, 401237, 401194, 401195, 401196, 401197, 401198, 401199, 401200, 401201, 401202, 401203, 401204, 401205, 401206, 401207 and 401209, pertaining to claims filed by various Central District trainmen citing a violation of the weight limit restriction for the remote control transmitter.
These types of claims are not valid as the August 20, 2002 National Remote Control Agreement did not place a restriction on the maximum weight of the remote control transmitter.
Your reliance on Side Letter No. 8 of the December 13, 1991 Crew Consist Agreement as support for these claims is misplaced as the Side Letter deals specifically with portable radios (walkie - talkies), we quote therefrom:
- "In connection with our agreement signed today, we agreed that radios will be available for use for all conductors/foremen. Portable radios purchased after the effective date of this Agreement for use and carried by ground service employees in road and yard service will not exceed three pounds in weight and will be equipped with a suitable holder which will firmly hold a radio close to the body." (Underlining ours.)
As you can readily determine Side Letter No. 8 is silent with respect to a remote control transmitter, nor did it envision or address same.
It is noteworthy the remote control transmitters have been used in the rail industry for over ten (10) years and as technology was improved, the size of the transmitter has grown smaller and the weight less. The trainman craft which you represent, voted by a 80% majority to accept the use of the remote control transmitter as a new condition of employment. It is also noteworthy the engineer positions that were eliminated by remote control operations, that Organization now demands exclusive use of the same transmitter, with no wight limit requirement. The BLE’s ongoing endeavor is an attempt to eliminate the trainman's craft and your Membership's jobs.
I believe it is also noteworthy, that RCO service was implemented in mid-March, 2003, and the first claims of this nature were not submitted until July 2003, four (4) months after implementation. We are unaware of any increase in the weight or size of the transmitter that was not in evidence when the National Remote Control Agreement was approved by our Leadership and Membership. Why the claims four (4) months after implementation?
The UTU did not want remote control operations in our Nations rail yards, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who installed RCO equipment on the locomotives, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who lobbied the FRA to authorize and sanction RCO, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who signed the first system-wide RCO Agreement, it was a Carrier and the BLE on Montana Rail Link. It was the UTU who recognized the new technology was now going to be a fact of life in all of the Nations rail yards, and consummated an Agreement to accept the new technology in its present form. The Agreement was approved by the crafts slated to use the new technology.
The claims are being returned to your Office because they lack merit and Agreement support. As Local Chairman it would be prudent on your part to educate your Membership on the fact that the claims lack merit and Agreement support, and will not be progressed.
In closing, this Office is not going to progress claims that clearly lack merit. Particularly, when any contrived position from this Office, all though I am at a loss what facts would support that position, could have the downstream effect of decimating the trainmen's jobs.
Fraternally yours,
John W. Babler
General Chairman, G.C.A.
JWB:jg
Attachment
________________________________________________________
Dear Dave:
Hope you didn't mind Brother Kennedy forwarding a copy of your RCO
letter. Please include me on your mailing list for any other important
communications of this nature, if it's not too much trouble.
As the Aug. 20, 2002 National Remote Control Agreement did not place a
maximum weight restriction on the remote control transmitter, existing
weight restrictions on radio transmitters should prevail. Mr. Babler
clarifies the language of Side Letter No. 8 of the Dec. 13, 1991 Crew
Consist Agreement to define portable radios as "walkie
talkies".....that's not what the agreement says. As far as I know the
RCO transmitters don't use laser or exotic new forms of energy
transmission, but are rather simple radio transmitters....exactly what
the existing agreement was intended to cover. Perhaps the agreement did
not forsee the advent of RCO transmitters, but the intent was clearly to
prevent ground service employees from carting around clumsy, obtrusive
and cumbersome equipment contrary to their health and safety. If the
carrier's didn't intend for the EXISTING weight limitations to apply,
they should have provided for specific relief of existing provisions for
radio equipment when they wrote the RCO rules. They did not, therefore
the existing language prevails.
Failure to submit claims at the moment claims are first in evidence is
no excuse for not protecting our contract at the present time. Whether
claims are first submitted 4 months, 6 months, or 12 months after they
first become evident, have no relevance as to the validity of the claims
so long as the claims which are filed are within proper time limits and
found to be in violation of our contract. Whenever local chairmen
submit claims the General Chairman should work to assist them, not act
as the carrier's agent.
Mr. Babler promised he would never allow a claims backlog to develop in
the General Chairman's office again. Little did his supporters imagine
that this wasn't because he would work harder or longer in processing
our members claims, but rather that he would be the carriers first line
of defense against such claims. Mr. Babler rejects our claims before
they are even discussed with carrier officers let alone before they are
tested through arbitration. But, hey.....no back log here, man.
Blaming the carriers and the BLE for RCO fails to tell the whole story.
At the same time the UTU was touting the glory of creating a single
operating union, on the eve of the election to determine the issue, at a
time when it appeared that a majority of the BLE membership favored the
union, Byron Boyd announces that the UTU owns the black box. I now see
this as a deliberate effort to sabotage the union and insure no merger
would take place. No issue has been more divisive or destructive than
RCO. The carriers and their union lackeys have succeeded in their
efforts. The BLE has jumped in bed with the proponents of triple bottom
trucks to save them from the wicked UTU and the VIA plaintiffs. All of
rail labor suffers the consequences of this conspiracy.
I don't want to see the loss of anyone's job, but in the end, all we
really have is our contract....and we need to insure it is defended !
I hope you intend to appeal Mr. Babler's refusal to progress these
claims, although the result of such submissions are almost certain. We
need to clean house in the UTU from the top to the bottom and return it
as a truly representative organization. Realization of who actually
favors a representative organization, and who does not is the beginning
of the process.
If we can be of any assistance in helping with your efforts, please
don't hesitate to ask.
Fraternally, Al T.
8:22:56 AM
Google It!
|
|
|
Monday, January 05, 2004 |
Brother R.D.Jones still has his UPSASU website up at
The unfortunate death of San Antonio brother Jody Herstine has affected everyone working that terminal and many of us working elsewhere. RD has posted various correspondence he and others have had with the FRA concerning this tragedy at
There are also some moving comments on Jody's life and death and his communities response to it.
One significant question raised about FRA and their "revised" mission certainly applies to the problem of subversion of regulatory agencies in general. They have passed from becoming industry watchdogs charged with protecting the interests of workers and the public, to industry lapdogs committed to helping implement any program or technology that will result in increased profits for corporations. Same can be said about our labor organizations. Don't look for this to change even with a probable Regime Change in Washington next November. It's time for The People to rise up and take back their unions and their government.
1:00:30 PM
Google It!
|
|
Reform Item #2 - From Roger Griffeth's Reform It! website. The speech he was not able to give in 1999.
For the past few days I've been looking through some of the old boxes of records I kept after leaving the International.
If you have been reading the correspondence relative to the Indictments, you might remember that GS&T Johnson requested information that would "support my allegations" that Boyd had violated his fiduciary responsibilities.
Like many of you, when trying to find something, you end up getting distracted by something else. Well, I did. What caught my eye was a copy of the "Speech" I intended to give at the International Convention in 1999 when I ran for International President.
When I drafted the document, I had incorrectly anticipated that the delegates would be interested in hearing about how their union was managed by Little and Boyd from 1995 thru 1999. I didn’t think that allowing a candidate 15 minutes or so to deliver his/her speech was too much to expect, but, apparently it was.
The delegates, if I remember correctly, only wanted to hear 3 minutes worth of solicitations for support. And, that’s what they got.
One of the problems with our UTU Constitution is that "speech making" is not protected. I for one think that the Constitution should allow candidates at a minimum of 30 minutes to present their case to the delegates, with a follow-up of questions and answers. After all, we are talking about the highest office in the union. If you are keeping track of the reform items on this web site, mark this one as Reform Item #2.
Oh well, it’s 2004, a lot of things have happened since 1999, but I still got this wonderful speech that needs to be archived somewhere for future generations, and, you guessed it, what better place than this web site.
So without further adieu, here is the speech I intended to give at the 1999 Convention.
11:20:29 AM
Google It!
|
|
© Copyright 2005 The Usual Suspect.
Last update: 5/25/2005; 4:27:36 PM.
|
|
|
