UPDATE 12/18/04: The full video of Clint Curtis' sworn testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Members in Ohio is now available.

Previously, we only had links to a portion of his testimony, which did not include his naming of Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) as having asked him to write the "vote-rigging software prototype! This clip now includes all of Curtis' testimony!

FULL CLINT CURTIS TESTIMONY ON VIDEO:

• Text-Transcript Available Here

The testimony was reported as "jaw-dropping" and "stunning" last week in this earlier BRAD BLOG exclusive!

The transcript of the earlier partial video, transcribed by the good "ignatz" from DKos is here. (Though you'll miss the audible gasps as heard on the video versions and the naming of Tom Feeney!) The full transcript is now here.

Be the media.

Testimony Described as 'Show Stopper'!
'Stunner', 'Jaws Dropped'!
Audible 'Gasps' heard in chamber room!

The BRAD BLOG has just received an exclusive first-hand account of Clint Curtis' sworn testimony (as reported earlier) to the Judiciary Committee Democrats holding hearings this morning in Columbus, Ohio on Election 2004 Voting Irregularities.

The software programmer, whose sworn affidavit was first reported by The BRAD BLOG, named Republican U.S. Congressman Tom Feeney (a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee!) as having asked him to create "vote-rigging" software in a meeting at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) prior to the 2000 elections!

Feeney was, at the time of the alleged meeting, a Florida legislator and later became Speaker of the Florida House. He was also the running mate to Jeb Bush in his failed 1994 bid for Florida Governor.

Curtis was the only witness to be sworn in at today's hearings.

Here is the exclusive account as we've just received it by a very reliable BRAD BLOG source inside the committee hearings!

The following account may sound melodramatic but it is highly accurate.

None of these are quotes and represent my best recollection.

At apprx 1p, after a witness had finished, cliff arnebeck --- who had given a presentation some time before --- interjected and asked to call one more witness. He was given permission to do so. He said he was calling clint curtis.

Some of the audience literally gasped while others applauded. They clearly knew who he was.

Curtis stood at the front of room with arnebeck seated behind him. Curtis was about five to ten feet from the members of congress. At the front of the room, he placed his hand on a bible and was sworn. To my knowledge, he was the only witness sworn.

Arnebeck began a direct examination of curtis with basic questions, name, residence....

Then got to his qualifications.

Then, he asked curtis something like whether voting machines could be hacked. He said yes. Arnebeck asked him on what he based that opinion. He said because I wrote a program that could do it. Arnebeck asked when that happened. Curtis said feeney had asked him to design such a program at yang enterprises.

Jaws dropped. Tubbs jones and waters looked shocked.

Tubbs jones, waters and nadler asked questions. Waters asked him to repeat who asked him to do it. Congressman feeney, he said. Nadler asked him some questions, as did tubbs jones and a state senator.

Curtis was asked what he would conclude if there was such a substantial deviation btwn exit polls and actual results. He said he would conclude the election had been hacked. Gasps. Could have heard a pin drop.

In the end, curtis was very very convincing to everyone in attendance. He was a show stopper, a stunner. It was a really amazing moment.

MORE....

As we've previously reported since breaking our original exclusive story on the Curtis affidavit [PDF] last week (Key articles are linked in a box in our right sidebar) Curtis last week met privately with staffers on the Judiciary Committee as well as Senate staffers.

Wired Magazine revealed today in their article on Curtis that it was staffers in Sen. Bill Nelson's office with whom Curtis met last week in D.C.

Nelson oversees NASA in the Senate. Curtis had charged in his affidavit that an employee, Hai Lin Nee (a/k/a Henry Nee) with whom Curtis worked at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) had inserted "wiretapping routines" into programs that YEI had been contracted to create for NASA, among other companies (including the Florida Dept. of Transportation).

Nee was charged with shipping chips used in Hellfire anti-tank missiles to the Peoples Republic of China in March of this year, and has since plead guilty to one of those counts (more on Nee soon!)

At the time of the alleged October 2000 meeting at YEI when Curtis claims that Feeney asked him to create a "vote-rigging software prototype", Feeney was a member of the Florida Legislature, a corporate attorney for YEI, as well as being a registered lobbyist for the company.

Feeney was said to have been, at the time, the only registered lobbyist known to have been serving concurrently as a legislator in the 160 member Florida statehouse.

Shortly thereafter, Feeney became Speaker of the Florida Legislature.

In 2002 Feeney won a U.S. Congress seat in the newly created 24th Florida congressional district.

Feeney was the running mate to Jeb Bush during his first failed bid for Governor in 1994.

As we noted earlier, Wired Magazine article quotes YEI Attorneys as saying that Curtis was a "disgruntled employee", but does not note that the Attorney who made the statement is both a campaign contributor to Feeney, and, as well, is Feeney's former law partner in Florida.

As well, there seems to be little to indicate that Curtis was "disgruntled" with YEI or vice versa. He submitted his resignation in December of 2000 and stayed on, at YEI's request for an additional six weeks afterwards until a replacment could be found.

It has been reported YEI threw a "farewell party" for Curtis, and email correspondce that The BRAD BLOG has seen would indicate that employees --- including Nee --- missed Curtis a great deal in the months after he finally left the company.

...CONTINUING TO DEVELOP!...

UPDATE: Video of portions of Curtis' testimony now available online!

Judiciary Committee sources have just informed The BRAD BLOG via Email from their hearings now taking place in Columbus, Ohio, that Clint Curtis is now testifying under oath before the committee!

MORE...Apparently Curtis was the only witness to testify under oath.

BreakForNews.com has more detailed info on the hearings so far this morning in Ohio. We'll report specifics in a new item shortly. UPDATE: Audio highlights now available at that link!

UPDATE: Bob Fitrakis of Columbus Free Press offers additional details.

Audio report on Triad Computer engineer alleged by Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb today to have disassembled tabulation machine in Ohio last week via this report from What We Know!

Also...See the letter from Conyers to the Governor of Ohio, and the Leaders of the Ohio Senate and House asking them to delay or set aside the Electoral College results in OH until recount can be accomplished.

The BRAD BLOG's original exclusive story on Clint Curtis is here. Further key points to the story are now linked in the sidebar at right.

MORE DETAILS COMING...

UPDATE: CURTIS' SWORN TESTIMONY 'STUNS' HEARINGS! NAMES FEENEY! EXCLUSIVE detailed first hand account here!

In a fairly even-handed article today, Kim Zetter of Wired.com covers the story of Florida computer programmer Clint Curtis who has charged that he was asked by Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL), then a Florida legislator, to create a "vote-rigging software prototype" while working at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) back in October of 2000.

The story picks up on our coverage of Curtis' affidavit [PDF], first reported by The BRAD BLOG in our "WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT" shocker story published one week ago today.

The Wired.com piece drops the ball notably in only one area where Zetter quotes a statement from Yang attorney, Michael O'Quinn.

She quotes the attorney as calling the allegations "absurd and categorically untrue" and refers to Curtis as "an opportunist and a disgruntled former employee furthering an agenda by telling lies".

Unfortunately, Zetter, who we had spoken to last week, fails to note that Michael O'Quinn of the lawfirm "Fowler and O'Quinn" has been a longtime campaign contributor to Tom Feeney in both 2002 and 2004. Perhaps more notably, O'Quinn is also a former law partner of Feeney!

As The BRAD BLOG reported over the weekend when the comments from Yang's attorney's were first announced, O'Quinn's lawfirm was previously known as "Fowler, Barice, Feeney, & O'Quinn".

That very notable conflict of interest in the matter should have been acknowledged by Zetter in her article.

The BRAD BLOG has also spoken on several occasions (here and here) about the "disgruntled employee" charge, to point out that there seems to be no known basis for that claim.

Curtis resigned from YEI effective December 2000, but stayed on at the firm for another six weeks, at the request of the company, until a replacement for him could be found. The company was said as well to have thrown a "farewell party" for him when he finally left, and email correspondence reviewed by The BRAD BLOG would seem to indicate that he was missed greatly by employees of the company.

Still, overall, it was a fair enough article, and we're glad to see the story begin to break into some of the "corporate media". And there will be more to come...

Zetter has written a number of articles for Wired debunking, or otherwise disputing electoral malfeasance or irregularities in the 2004 election, so her generally positive coverage of Curtis' story is also notable despite missed notice of the Yeng Attorney's direct connection to Feeney.

CONTACT: Kim Zetter, Wired Magazine

Yesterday we reported that Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) had issued a terse --- yet patriotic --- statement on their website in regard to Clint Curtis' allegations (first reported here) that YEI had colluded with U.S. Congressman Tom Feeney (then a Florida Legislator, Speaker of the House, as well as YEI Corporate Counsel and registered lobbyist) to create a "vote-rigging software prototype" at Feeney's request in 2000.

This was the text posted yesterday on the YEI website...

Curtis has also alleged malfeasance by YEI and their CEO, Mrs. Li-Woan Yang concerning the shipping of secrets to China from Yang, over-billing to the Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT), and the employement of an illegal-alien, Hai Lin Nee (a/k/a Henry Nee) who, Curtis charges, added added "wiretapping routines" to software that YEI created for NASA and FDOT among others.

This morning, Elites TV announced that they had received the following statement from Michael A. O'Quinn, Esquire of Fowler & O'Quinn, P. A. representing himself as "outside general counsel" for YEI.

Here's O'Quinn's statement, in total, as reported by Elite TV:

As The BRAD BLOG has previously noted, there seems to be no basis currently known for O'Quinn/YEI's "disgruntled former employee" charge.

Curtis has told us, and we have confirmed with several additional sources, that he was not fired by YEI, but rather submitted his resignation effective December 2000.

Afterwards, YEI then asked Curtis to stay on until a permanent replacement could be found. One was soon found, but he reportedly quit the same day and Curtis ended up staying at YEI for another six weeks past his original resignation date.

As well, a "Farewell Party" was reportedly thrown by YEI for Curtis upon his leaving! We hope to report more details and related evidence for that soon.

The BRAD BLOG has also reviewed email, supplied by Curtis, purportedly sent to him by several YEI employees --- including Mike Cohen, Mrs. Yang's executive secretary who was, with Mrs. Yang, said to have been present during the now infamous October 2000 meeting where Feeney allegedly described the "vote-rigging software" that he was seeking. Several of those notes indicate that Curtis was missed by company employees after he left YEI.

One note, purportedly from Hai Lin "Henry" Nee --- who Curtis has charged in his affidavit as being an illegal-alien employed by YEI and having included "wiretapping routines" into software for NASA and FDOT --- shows that he was missed at the compnay.

That note from Nee, apparently sent on April 15, 2001, just a few weeks after Curtis had finally left YEI, includes the following:

The BRAD BLOG will have more to report on Mr. Nee in the coming days.

As to the lawfirm of Fowler & O'Quinn P. A. --- YEI's "outside general counsel" who issued the statement reported by Elites TV this morning, it seems that they are the lawfirm previously known as "Fowler, Barice, Feeney, & O'Quinn P. A."! That's right, Tom Feeney's old lawfirm where he served as a partner at the time he represented YEI as corporate attorney and registered lobbyist!

Furthermore, a quick spin through Tom Feeney's page at CampaignMoney.com reveals that Quinn is a campaign contributor to Feeney!

Michael A. O'Quinn, attorney of Fowler & O'Quinn P.A. is listed by CampaignMoney.com as having given $1,500 on 11/19/03 to Mr. Feeney's campaign.

Not uninterestingly, that contribution is listed just above another one on the same page as being from Tyng Lin Yang, Yang Enterprises Inc./president who gave Feeney $1,250 on 6/23/03.

His wife, Mrs. Li-Woan Yang, CEO of Yang Enterprises Inc., present at "the meeting" is also listed as having given $2,000 to Feeney's campaign on 9/5/03 and another $2,000 on 3/23/04.

Tom Feeney ran unopposed for Florida's 24th Congressional district in the November 2nd, 2004 election.

YES...IT'S STILL DEVELOPING...

UPDATE: Bev Harris' promised update/clarification/retraction mentioned in the following story is now posted at her site here. The BRAD BLOG wishes to thank her for her thorough reply to our response to her original concerns, and we will investigate the additional items she mentions in her update over the weekend.

After appearing yesterday morning on the Alex Jones Radio Show I'd heard that he was planning to have Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org on today's show to discuss the Clint Curtis case and her ongoing investigations into alleged vote fraud in Florida and elsewhere.

On Tuesday, Harris had written a piece that was critical of Curtis' case, suggesting that she felt it was likely disinformation. After reading her piece I posted a detailed response here and asked that folks make sure she saw it.

Her original piece seemed to be working from a misinformed perspective about the case that she seemed to have gotten after reading Wayne Madsen's piece on Curtis. The publication of that article --- as I mentioned in both my original story on Curtis and my response to Harris --- was one of the released I posted my article earlier than I might have liked. To avoid such potential misreadings of the situation.

I contacted Jones to make sure he knew about my response to Harris before she came on the show, and he asked if I wanted to come on with her. I declined as I really had no interest in creating a public spat with Harris, I'd just wanted to get the correct information about the story to her so she'd better be able to assess it.

While Harris was on the show today, the producers called and again asked me to come on, and --- after hearing that they'd cleared it with her, since I really didn't wish for her to feel sandbagged --- I agreed.

I did a quick 15 minutes or so (which, as with yesterdays show, I'm still trying to get permission to post here) in which Harris said that she had seen my reply, and thanked me for it. She said it had cleared up quite a few issues, and that she'd since been able confirm some elements of Curtis' story herself independently.

To that end, she said she'd be posting a clarification/update or retraction on her site later today or tonight on the matter "even it means some egg on my face", she said on the show. Such things are not always easy to do, so I greatly commend her for that in advance.

So I'm happy to report that all now seems well in that regard! Thanks to those of you who helped her get my response, and thanks to Harris for the many kind words she had to say about The BRAD BLOG's work while on the show. (And thanks to Jones for allowing me the opportunity to speak with her on-air).

Hopefully that's one more potential distraction that can now be set aside from the troubling claims of Clint Curtis' actual allegations.

According to the Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) website, a statement on the Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney charges is forthcoming. As of this morning, the following text now appears on the front page of the YEI website:

MORE...

The BRAD BLOG can confirm that all references to Mike Cohen, Mrs. Yang's executive secretary at YEI --- who was named in Clint Curtis' affidavit as having been in the October 2000 meeting with Feeney to discuss the "vote-rigging software" --- have now been removed from the YEI website and have been replaced by the name "Lowell Weaver" as of now.

Searches for "Mike Cohen" at the YEI site for the moment, will yield several documents though they no longer contain Cohen's name. A search at The Internet Archive Wayback Machine for those same documents reveal that Cohen's name was once were Weaver's name is now. Here's one of those cached pages revealing Cohen's name via the Wayback Machine. (Thanks to BRAD BLOG commenters for the tip!)

AND STILL DEVELOPING...

Unfortunately, over the last few days since breaking the "WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT" story, I've been stuck doing more answering to folks (media, etc.) than reporting on the story.

Many questions have appropriately been raised out in the net and beyond about the entire Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney / Yang Enterprises story, and --- occassionally --- my role in it.

Rather than answer the same questions so many times, I'll attempt to answer here some of the most frequently asked... And I'd encourage you folks out in Blogistan, who may see such questions or charges raised, to point folks to this document and/or any of the specific answers you may find germane to questions being asked.

As more arise, I'll try to answer them as the story moves along. Feel free to ask any you may have in comments here, and I'll do my best to speak to them. I'd echo the comments I reported earlier from Clint Curtis himself yesterday morning when I told him about all the questions coming up about his case: "Good! We want them to debunk as much possible, since that means they'll research the claims and find out how much is out there about it all...including stuff that I don't even know yet!"

In that spirit and in no particular order, but for the easiest (and most annoying one!) first...

I've been trying to prepare a FAQ on some of the most frequently asked questions I've been getting about the Clint Curtis story. It's taking longer than I had hoped because so much else is currently going on.

But since I get so many questions about that fourth page of the Affidavit, and why it looks different than the first three, let me post here at least an answer to that question right now! PLEASE feel free to point folks to this link or this information when you see them asking that particular question!

And keep being skeptical, which is good! (Though not cynical, which is not particularly helpful at all!)

Q. What's up with the fourth page of Curtis' affidavit [PDF]? The fonts and colors and pixellation were totally different than the first three pages! It must be a fake!

A. The original document was black and white except for the purple ink in the signature on the final page. The person who scanned it had the scanner set on an "Automatic" setting and the scanning program apparently kicked into Color mode only when it got to the purle signature on the last page.

I was concerned that folks would get distracted by that, as silly as it is, when the scan was first sent to me, so I asked to have it rescanned and resent. They did so, and it came back the same way again. The person doing the scanning couldn't figure out how to change it, and then had to get to a meeting. So that's the version I had to go with as I had to get the story out (for reasons explained in our original story itself.)

Please note, these aren't 40 year old documents! This is not the Dan Rather story where shadowy, anonymous figures had presented documents claiming they came from unnamed sources. This affidavit was signed, notarized, scanned and sent to me on Monday of this week! And the guy who created them --- Clint Curtis --- has gone very public in saying so! He was on the radio yesterday morning continuing to do just that!

As well, the copies of the affidavit that have been received by congressional people looking into this, and the folks at CREW who are looking into Curtis' claim are copied from the original. Not from the scan that I released with the story on Monday.

In truth, I don't really even understand the charge of "the affidavit is fake!" in the first place. If it was a fake, I'd think the person whose name is on them as swearing it to be truthful under penalty of perjury would likely have come forward and told the world that the affidavit was a fake!

To that end, while the skepticism is healthy and I share Curtis' point (quoted here yesterday) encouraging folks to research his claims and attempt to prove them false, it would be more useful perhaps if folks investigated the substance of the charges contained in the documents signed by the guy who admits he signed them! Debunking the substance of Curtis' story is more useful to everyone than getting stuck on some archane technical concerns make no sense anyway if one bothers to ponder it.

STILL...AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED...DEVELOPING...

Forgot to mention, Curtis interviewed yesterday with Air America Radio though I don't yet know the air date for it. They had originally hoped to schedule him for Marty Kaplan's show which airs on Saturdays, but as things are moving quickly on this story, they may be airing it sooner. Will update as I learn more.

The BRAD BLOG can also confirm that very high level folks have been informed about the Curtis issue (and have, in fact, visited this site).

He's also (as mentioned previously, but you may not have caught it here) been interviewed by several mainstream media folks. With more scheduled.

END OF DAY 2 on this story, and still no major holes in his story. (Or even minor ones yet that I know of!

RAW STORY, who's editor John Byrne has been doing some terrific reporting since we broke the FeeneyGate story, has another excellent piece confirming quite a few of the key points in Clint Curtis' story. Please give it a read.

While many internet folks have been all over this since yesterday (and on the Election 2004 issue in general for moreone exhausting month now), I can confirm as well that a number of very prominent mainstream media organizations are also currently looking into this. Even several organizations that The BRAD BLOG has been a a tad critical of over the last several weeks for not investigating and reporting on so many issues that have long been well-worthy of it. I am glad to see some folks are sitting up and taking notice finally.

C-SPAN is covering the Judiciary Committee Ohio Hearings tomorrow at 10am EST (another story which we also broke here on The BRAD BLOG - but please, sir, show some modesty!). I have been told, but cannot confirm, that NBC and MSNBC have announced they will also be carrying them live.

I hope I'll actually get time to watch them! And barring any breaking issues I need to deal with, I hope to have more answers to many of the "Frequently Asked Questions" about the Curtis case tomorrow.

I have been trying to get time off of the phone to answer many of the good questions that have been out there on the net about the Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney / Yang (YEI) / FDOT story. To put together a FAQ, if you will, since much of the speculation or attempts to debunk it that I've seen are very easily answerable by hard evidence.

There is much misinformation out there, and as I'm a primary source for much of the info that is out there --- having broken the story of Curtis' affidavit and having spent many hours interviewing him and others related --- I thought it would be wise to answer here to many of those questions.

I have been preparing a post on exactly that and hope to post it shortly.

However, since so many have sent me the Bev Harris (of BlackBoxVoting.org) article on her skeptical view of Curtis' claims, and it her article seems to contain so much misinformation, I thought it important to answer her questions immediately before their basis becomes "lore".

For the record, a perusal of the The BRAD BLOG (if you can get to it now, I can't) will show that I have been a supporter of Harris' efforts from very early on in all of this. I fervently support her continuing fraud investigations in Florida and elsewhere. I mean no disrespect in answering to some of her questions and suggestions, but it appears she may be working from a number of very incorrect assumptions about Curtis' claims.

That may be due to the fact that she is very busy, or --- more likely --- she is working off of some of the information that Wayne Madsen had posted in an article partly covering these issues.

One of the reasons I released my story when I did --- slightly earlier than I would have liked --- was because of Madsen's article which tied in a number of unevidenced wide-reaching elements to into the Curtis/Feeney/Yang story which --- all by itself --- had some very good and hard evidence to look into!

I was concerned that folks might confuse Curtis' story with the broader picture Madsen was painting, and I have seen no supporting evidence to suggest that the two stories are in any way related. Not to say they aren't. I just have seen nothing to suggest they are.

As well, I have never heard Curtis speak of the broader Bush Family / CIA stuff that Madsen attaches Curtis' story too. And there is no reference to any of it in Curtis' sworn affidavit.

So far, I have been unable to find any disparities in Curtis' story, or evidence that he is not telling the truth. Again, not to say it's not out there. I just haven't found it. And believe me, I have been looking!

Harris is correct in taking Madsen to task as well for his implications that Curtis' story is in anyway "proof" that voting-machines in Election 2004 (or any prior to it!) have been rigged! That is not what Curtis has claimed in his affidavit or to me.

As well, I have defended previous claims made against Madsen, to a certain extent , in a previous BRAD BLOG article. Inasmuch as the charges Kieth Olbermann had made, attacking him for not having made direct contact with "the primary object of his reporting". The issue on which I defended Madsen was that Olbermann himself hadn't bothered to check in with Madsen --- the primary object of his reporting --- for reply. Not crack journalism when one is accusing someone of doing same. I checked with Madsen however, and while some of his claims I still had trouble with, I believe that Madsen would have had answers to many of the questions Olbermann had asked in his article.

So I am taking no sides here! I am only trying to clear up the facts of the case.

But there are many facts that Harris seems to simply have wrong about Curtis' story --- wherever she may have gotten them from.

It does not seem as if she read my report on Curtis' claims, and I would strong suggest she do so. That report can now be found here on BRAD BLOG TOO since the original version is so hard to get to because of heavy traffic over there.

I will italicize her text, and include my replies to them below in regard to what I know, and in hopes of clearing some of the air in --- and the facts of --- the issues she raises...

The BRAD BLOG has learned that a D.C. Ethics watchdog group has met with, and is now investigating the claims made by Clint Curtis in an affidavit [PDF] that we released exclusively here yesterday.

According to a spokesperson Naomi Selligman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Curtis was referred to the group by aides on Capitol Hill after they recieved and reviewed Curtis' affidavit.

From Selligman's email to BRAD BLOG:

Seligman confirmed the email by phone, and has informed The BRAD BLOG that Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay has since sought to have CREW found in contempt of Congress for their role in having drafted the complaint against him.

FYI... Mr. Curtis' dog was shot and killed a few hours after I published my original story on the BRAD BLOG. This is the second time that Mr. Curtis has been the apparent victim of intimidation through such tacticts. Another one of his dogs was killed in 2002.

Here is part of an emotional note I wrote to my friend at Crooks & Liars just after I'd heard of the incident and while I was unable to post at the main BRAD BLOG site due to the heavy traffic after I published the story.

I have seen speculation that the dog story is a hoax or something. And I certainly don't expect anybody to take my word for it.

To that end, I hope to have info from a police report (and I don't know that one was yet filed or not, checking into it) when I can get it.

But as I believe folks have found most of my other reports (See the Raymond Lemme issue for example) have, in fact, been confirmed and are real, I hope you will give the benefit of the doubt until anything I have reported has been proven to be incorrect.

I encourage your skepticism in the entire affair. I have tried to remain equally as skeptical about all of these charges since I initially heard of them, at least until I have seen substantiation. Most have been substantiated with evidence. The most notable charges for this moment concerning election charges are clearly less substantiated with hard evidence. At this time.

MUCH STILL DEVELOPING...THANKS FOR ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT!