[US Patriot]

The future of Raw Milk in California in jeopardy

The governor of California and his henchmen have just legislated away our right to drink raw milk. Of course they didn't ban it outright: that would have been noticed by the citizens of the state of California and protested against. No, they chose to pull a sneaking maneuver and inserted eight little words that will have the same effect.

These eight words will prevent California dairies from selling raw milk:

"or more than ten coliform bacteria per milliliter"

Those eight words were added to dairy legislation in California on October 8, 2007.

Assembly Bill #1735 (AB 1735) was signed by the Governor and becomes law on January 1st, 2008. Contained in this law are new standards for raw milk. These new standards require 10 coliform bacteria per ml or less. This standard does not increase the safety of raw milk and it will make the production of organic raw milk in California nearly impossible. Under the tried and true old standards that have been in existence for forty years or more, coliforms could be 50 or 500. It did not matter.

A press conference was held at the Fresno Farmer's Market in Fresno on Saturday, October 27 at 11 a.m. in protest of the new law. This post will be updated as more details become available.

You might be thinking, "I don't drink raw milk. Why should I care?" While many of us who grew up drinking raw milk and extol the benefits of drinking a healthy natural beverage. This isn't merely about the availability of milk. This issue extends far beyond the obvious in that our government is supposed to be transparent. Ours is supposed to function as a government for and by the people. When our public officials use underhanded, sneaky and unethical tactics to achieve their goals, we all pay the price.

The EPA reports that even testing for fecal coliforms (a subset of coliform bacteria) is a "a poor indicator of the risk of digestive system illness." The EPA goes on to advise that the only way to determine whether food is actually sanitary is to test for those specific coliforms that can be a sign of something harmful such as E. coli and enterococci. Neglecting to test for those specific harmful coliforms, but banning all coliforms outright is equivalent to forcing Ford to recall every vehicle they ever made when only a single model year of one product is found to have a flaw. Even then, the previous law set the limit of coliforms at 750 coliforms per mL. A legal reduction of over 98% over the course of less than 3 months cannot be interpreted as anything other than a direct attack on raw milk providers, particularly when far more than 90% of coliform bacteria are not harmful.

This is not the first-time I've personally witnessed the blatant disregard for public opinion and openness required for our government to function properly by those in Sacramento. For instance, it's not an uncommon practice for a legislator to reuse a bill number that is no longer active - after the date legally prescribed under California law. There is a reason legislation isn't allowed to be introduced after a certain date, but that doesn't stop our legislative branch from manipulating the rules to their advantage.

How long will Californians stand by and allow our elected officials to skirt the laws that guarantee the rest of us a spot at the table? If you are sick and tired of being railroaded and regulated to death, now is your opportunity to let your voice be heard in Sacramento. Contact your legislators and let them know what you think about the way they are conducting our business.

More Information:

• Government Sneak Attack on California Raw Milk
• Contact lawmakers today about Ag. Bill 1735
• Eight words are threatening to change your life:
• State's tough new raw milk standards upset consumers, farmers
• Will Raw Milk Still Be Available in CA Come Jan. 1?
• Arizona Raw Dairy Alert
• What is Organic?

Labels: AB 1735, California, legislation, Organic Pastures, raw milk

Schwarzenegger Sells California Out to Gambling Casinos

Massive tribal contributions flow into political campaign coffers.

by Kathryn Bowen

Whoever coined the phrase "Ignorance is bliss" must have been talking about the 35 million Californians trusting that their governor and their elected officials are actually doing their job with respect to gambling casinos run by Indian tribes in our state.

"Bliss" is what Governor Schwarzenegger has been selling the public while he sells the State down the river by granting the largest expansion of gambling in history to 5 casino tribes.

In the wake of Californian's support of Prop 1A, former Governor, Gray Davis, negotiated gambling compacts with Indian Tribes. Millions of voters succumbed to a brilliant marketing campaign that casino tribes invested nearly $100 Million into, equal to a presidential election, to persuade voters to change our State constitution and direct gambling monopolies to Indian tribes. I was one of those voters.

Here's the bad news.

At this moment, your elected representatives in California are just about to vote on whether to grant 5 casino tribes, consisting of just 1,876 people, the ability to expand willy-nilly despite the impact on our communities, families, children and ultimately the financial future of California.

This is just the beginning; 67 additional tribes with gaming compacts are waiting in the wings and the Governor may not inform the public when renegotiations commence with these tribes.

The reality is the revenue promised for the state through gambling expansion will not materialize. The Governor and his advisors know this and should probably buy a new calculator because they know the expected income is neither measurable or enforceable!

Thousands of emails, letters, phone calls and exhaustive testimony attempting to alert our elected officials of endless issues regarding jurisdiction, regulation, accounting and disastrous social costs have fallen on deaf ears.

Hearing Loss

The reason for the hearing loss? Could it be the massive unregulated tribal contributions flowing into political campaigns of the majority of our elected officials in our State Capitol?

In fact, tribes poured $429,600 into the campaigns of just fifteen assembly members who held an "impartial" hearing on problematic regulatory issues with the compacts and will be key in deciding their fate. How impartial can they really be when taking money from the same tribes that will benefit from their vote? By any definition, this is a profound conflict of interest.

Making matters worse, the Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS), the only federal regulatory leg left to oversee the integrity of the games and to collect the money, has been eliminated from the compacts.

What does this mean? These so-called compacts are really contracts that will cement a permanent partnership between the State of California and loosely regulated gambling casino tribes for the next 25-years, without the ability of the state to audit and collect the money or to ensure fair gaming for the patrons.

Casino tribes have kicked federal regulators off their land claiming sovereignty. What makes the state think its going to be any more successful especially given the fact there are simply not enough enforcement resources?

Moreover, Schwarzenegger privately brokered 25-year, multibillion dollar deals without so much as an economic study to show how expanded gambling will impact the people of California.

Given the fact that 80% percent of gambling revenue comes from households with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, don't you think you need a study to show what this spread of gambling is going to do to the state?

What kind of representative government balances its budget on the backs of its poorest and most vulnerable citizens? Even Russia and other countries around the world who believed that gambling actually produced economic vitality have come to their senses and banned or closed most of their casinos due to the economic strain caused their economies.

Once again, our elected officials are going for the quick fix approach to fixing the state's budget problems instead of assessing the long-term effects of really bad policy.

What does California get? We all get to sit by and watch our regional economy redirect billions in disposable income (taxable sales) into "sovereign tribal governments" who are not bound by the U.S. Constitution, remain outside regulatory laws and pay no taxes on their $23 Billion profits.

This massive federal scandal's tentacles have found their way into every corner of our government through corrupt campaign finance loopholes. From the White House on down to local county governments who are faced with the dilemma of how to stand up to tribes who exploit their ancestral suffering to bully local governments into giving them what they want.

Wake up California! The gaming tribes' plight no longer has anything to do with civil rights, justice or historical reparations, but rather with self-indulgent gambling expansion under the guise of self-determination.

About the author:

Kathryn Bowen is an expert and activist on government regarding gambling across the country.

Issues include: tribal expansion, tribal sovereignty, tribal sovereign immunity, political corruption due to unlimited funds from casino tribes both in local and state government, civil rights, equal protection issues communities struggle with due to representative government becoming too reliant on big gambling dollars. Member of the legal subcommittee team involving a lawsuit filed by Preservation of Los Olivos (POLO) and Preservation of Santa Ynez (POSY) against the federal government in 2005. This suit was filed as an appeal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs decision to accept privately purchased land by the Santa Ynez Band into federal trust status without proper representation of community interests. Writer/Producer of documentary "Big Gambling Dollars and Politics at Work"

Labels: California, casino, contributions, gambling

Child and Family Protection Association recently issued an alert on California Assembly Bill 755 (AB 755) and while I agree that this bill creates a huge problem for parents of young children. I really think they miss the point.

The alert highlights the following points of contention:

AB 755 (Assembly Member Sally Lieber) – Prohibition of Spanking Opposition Points to Share with Legislators
Position: Strongly Oppose
Status: AB 755 (introduced 2/22/07)

Assembly Member Sally Lieber's first proposal to address all spanking of children ages three and under was never introduced as a bill, apparently due to much opposition. However, contrary to claims originating from her office:

1. She has not "fixed" her no-spank proposal; she has only adopted a different strategy;
2. AB 755 is an anti-spanking bill "in disguise" and would have the effect of abolishing most spanking without using language directly outlawing spanking.
3. Lieber believes that all "good parents" never spank their children; that only "bad parents" do, and therefore "good parents" do not need to be worried about her bill; and
4. When Lieber claims that her bill only deals with child abuse, remember that she believes that all spanking, by definition, is child abuse. Her strategy in AB 755 is to treat all spanking with an object as criminal child abuse. She has deliberately failed to make any distinction between spanking as a method of discipline and true child abuse.

AB 755 would amend Penal Code 273a, which currently makes it a crime to cause unjustifiable pain, harm, or injury to any minor child. AB 755 would create a new "rebuttable presumption" that physical pain or mental suffering inflicted upon a child is unjustifiable if it is caused by any of the seven kinds of actions, which are listed in AB 755.

The first of the seven actions listed is: "the use of an implementation, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe." This first action includes the act of spanking with an implement (i.e. an object other than using one's hand).

The significance of the new "rebuttable presumption" in AB 755 is that regardless of any circumstances, the police and District Attorney would have to consider all spanking with an implement to be unjustifiable. Parents would have the difficult task of proving (rebutting the charges) that the spanking was justifiable to the satisfaction of the court in a criminal trial in order to avoid being sent to jail for up to one year or receiving other penalties. The case also could be referred to Child Protective Services (CPS) and Juvenile Court, which could result in the possible temporary or permanent loss of custody of their children.

Roy M. Hanson, Jr.
Child and Family Protection Association
Alert issued April 12, 2007
PO Box 730
Lincoln, CA 95648-0730

Let's put this all in perspective. The only way a parent would ever get caught up in this trap is by being reported by a childcare worker or medical personnel. This means that more parents will think twice before seeking medical attention.

The proposed legislation also requires; if a person is convicted of violating this section and probation is granted, the court shall require the following minimum conditions of probation:

1. A mandatory minimum period of probation of 48 months.
2. A criminal court protective order protecting the victim from further acts of violence or threats, and, if appropriate, residence exclusion or stay-away conditions.
1. A Successful completion of either a nonviolent parental education class approved by the probation department or no less than one year of a child abuser's treatment counseling program approved by the probation department. The defendant shall be ordered to begin participation in either the class or the program immediately upon the grant of probation.
2. The terms of probation for offenders shall not be lifted until all reasonable fees due to the counseling program have been paid in full, but in no case shall probation be extended beyond the term provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1203.1. If the court finds that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees based on the defendant's changed circumstances, the court may reduce or waive the fees.
3. If the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the defendant shall abstain from the use of drugs or alcohol during the period of probation and shall be subject to random drug testing by his or her probation officer.
4. The court may waive any of the above minimum conditions of probation upon a finding that the condition would not be in the best interests of justice. The court shall state on the record its reasons for any waiver.

This bill, as it is written, will provide a huge influx of cash for those offering parental education classes, treatment counseling programs and require more probation officers to be hired and more business for drug testing facilities. All of these "services" provided at the cost of the accused.

Those who are familiar with our court system know that it is currently next to impossible to get a fair trial. This bill will increase the caseload on the court system and does nothing to provided added protections for children.

In short, this bill is a smoke screen – a band-aid that does nothing but rake good parents over the coals and empty their wallets. You've heard the fraise "As California goes, so goes the nation." If this bill is passed, you can expect to see similar legislation passed in many more states.

Related Articles

• AB 755 Action Alert
• AB 755 Alert Supplement
• Read AB 755 - Corporal punishment
• CA: Spanking Ban
• California News Archive

Labels: AB 755, California, child abuse, legislation

Nazism - American Style

When Privacy is Expendable, and Public Service is Private

By Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. CIC

The right of privacy is one of the most sacred and major of all property rights, and champions the right of the freedom of worship. It is inherent with nature. What you do with your own - is your business, and no one else's, so long as your right does not affect the rights of others. The California Constitution starts out with these words, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Art. I, Sec. 1.

The above is just basic nature and common sense. Our Founding Fathers wrote in our Constitution, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment.

There cannot be any such thing as a general search warrant, or the initiation of a fishing expedition. Our Constitution also specifies, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." First Amendment.

Freedom to Shut Up

Of course, the freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak. But notwithstanding these prohibitions against government by the Constitution, it is amazing how government has twisted and subverted the truth so that those who have privacy rights have none, and those who do not, possess privacy rights.

I am laying a foundation in regards to the Alabama Decatur Daily Newspaper article, "Who owns government office e-mails?". Therein the court agrees with public officials on the use of public time, public computers, in that they have the right to privacy when accused of mismanaging funds and embezzling public funds. J.A.I.L. says, not so.

Try leaving your own country with your own money without declaring the amount you are carrying to the Security and Exchange Commission. Numerous citizens have tried, and are now serving long sentences in federal prisons because they believed their privacy was an inalienable right, where no victim is claiming that money was stolen from them.

Order your DVD today!
Special $6.95
(includes shipping)

Your 1040 Tax Return

I once asked a tax lawyer friend of mine if the material placed on a 1040 form could be used against the signer in a court of law. He said, "Of course."

I then asked him if it would not thus follow that according to due process of law, everyone must be informed that anything they place on that form could be used against them, and therefore they must first be Marandized. Individuals must be informed that they could be arrested, jailed, and forced to appear in court to testify against themselves. The information provided to the IRS can and will be used against them in a court of law.

He said, "Yes, that is correct!" However, it is universally apparent that such due process of law is never placed into practice in America. Rather, everyone is left to their ignorance so that fraud may abound, and no one gets due process of law.

Papers Please!

Now, what would happen if you said to the police officer who pulled you over and walked up to your window and asked to see your driver's license, and you said, "Well, that's my personal matter, officer." Aren't we taught that not having a driver's license is a crime? Is he going to inform you that under due process of law, you do not have to produce a driver's license?

In reality, what will happen is the officer is going to ignore due process of law and rely upon your ignorance, asking you to provide him with the evidence he needs to charge you with a crime. And and if you fail to provide him with the incriminating evidence he needs, he is going to take you to jail.

Was this not the same tactic used in Nazi Germany when they forced their captives to "confess" to the crime they committed against the state? A confession of a crime against the state was grounds for imprisonment and torture, and refusal to confess to a crime against the state, was an arrestable offense, to which you would be imprisoned and tortured.

Nazism - American Style

This is precisely the Nazi practice we are employing here in America. Perhaps we could call it, "Nazism - American Style." Instead of manifesting itself as a red and black swastika, it manifests itself as red, white and blue stripes, adorned with stars, and it is explained to us as "bringing one to justice." After all, are we not a country of "liberty and justice for all?"

An acquaintance of mine was compelled by a judge to take the witness stand in a criminal case against himself. When he arose to be "sworn in," they asked him, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" he responded, "No! I do not!" The judge threw him in jail for answering his question truthfully.

Oh, yes, I know there are going to be some of you who will say so me, "Oh, but the judge cannot do that because the Constitution says, 'No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself' And so it does. But my answer to them is, "You mean you honestly believe that the law is going to govern the conduct of such judges? You've got to be kidding!" It's all a joke conducted in the name of "justice."

On the other hand, let's now look at those who have no right to privacy, yet are being granted the right to privacy. When government officials are called to answer before Congress about their misconduct involving their public duties while on taxpayer time and money. They lean toward their attorney, and after a whisper, they straighten up and say, "On advice of my attorney, I cannot answer that question because it might incriminate me," even if the matter is not criminal.

This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). Let me make it very clear, the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination does not, nor could it apply to public officials, holding a position of public trust. They carry out their duties on public time, and function on the public payroll with public equipment. Their position as a public trustee, i.e., a public servant, places them in the same roll of a servant to his master. They are obligated to give account as an accountant would his boss. This is why a employer may install cameras throughout his work place to monitor all his employees without being held liable for violations on privacy issue.

Have you ever once heard a Congressman or Senator retort, "Mr. Public Servant, this is not a criminal proceeding, nor is it a court prosecution. We are are here exploring the appropriatness of your conduct in public office while you were working as a public servant. We are asking you to give account to those who have hired you." The Fifth Amendment does not apply under these circumstances.

Now let's look at The Decatur Daily a story in which government officials are arguing that newspapers have no right to investigate or question matters of public trust. Nor do they have the right to look into matters of government fraud, with the court concuring with the government official's argument.

-Ron Branson

Labels: California, J.A.I.L., privacy, Ron Branson

Media falsely reporting spanking ban abandoned

Sacramento—Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D- Mountain View) has, as promised, introduced a bill to ban parents from using physical force in disciplining their children.

AB 755 bans parents from using spanking as discipline for misbehavior.

According to the bill, a parent who spanks their child will be placed on probation for 4 years, would be forced to attend a "nonviolent parental education class" and the child would receive a criminal court protective order "protecting the victim from further acts of violence."

"Media outlets are falsely reporting that the spanking ban has been dropped. In fact, the bill is still a ban on spanking," stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"Assemblywoman Lieber has claimed that she is no longer going to ban 'spanking'. This is mere semantics as AB 755 on its face bans the use of force in disciplining a child.

This is a tactic often used by politicians to make their legislation seem benign when in fact it is still just as bad."

"Parents often use a wooden spoon or ruler to spank their children. This legislation actually bans the use of 'a stick, a rod, a switch, a belt'—tools often used by responsible parents in spanking disobedient children," explained England. "As a parent, I am angered that the government is declaring my disobedient child "a victim" and intervening in the raising of my children."

"AB 755 creates a 'rebuttable presumption' that when parents discipline their children, they are abusers," explained Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "The government is basically telling parents that when they use responsible discipline in training their children, they are the criminals. Discipline is used to protect children from disobedient behavior that could harm them. It is appalling that the government is treating parents like criminals when there are dangerous sexual predators on our streets."

"Assemblywoman Lieber is purposely misleading the citizens of California when she claims to have 'abandoned' the spanking ban. And the media have become her accomplices in this deception," stated England. "Make no mistake, AB 755 is a serious attack on parental authority. We call on every responsible parent in California to contact their legislator and urge them to vote against AB 755."

Read AB 755

Karen England
Capitol Resource Institute
1414 K Street
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 498-1940

Labels: AB 755, California, Capitol Resource Institute, CRI, legislation

By: Jim Brown

A Christian group is calling for a nationwide boycott against the use of radio frequency identification devices, or RFID, to track students in schools.

AgapePress recently reported on a California school that not long ago used RFID technology in a test of an experimental attendance monitoring system (see related story). While the company that introduced the system is continuing to develop and market the technology, one religious group is denouncing RFID as a dangerous herald of the advance of a demonic "new world order."

RFID and similar technologies are already in use, and their incursion into everyday life is a rapidly growing trend. For instance, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has already announced its intention to make use of "contactless chips" or "proximity chips" or "contactless integrated circuits" in passports and identifying documents in the coming years.

A recent Wired News article suggests these various terms for RFID tags in identification documents may indicate that the federal government is engaging in semantic acrobatics in order to call the technology anything but what it actually is. According to Wired News, "The Homeland Security Department is playing word games to dodge the privacy debate raging over RFID tags, which will eventually replace barcode labels on consumer goods."

John Conner is a spokesman for "The Resistance for Christ," a group that opposes the formation of the so-called new world order. He believes one day every student in the world as well as the population at large will be forced to wear tracking devices under the premise of security.

"What these devices are going to do is just, ultimately, turn over ever last bit of privacy that we have to this global system," Conner says. Potentially, he warns, RFID will become a form of technological oppression that "dehumanizes every student and every person who is forced -- mind you, forced -- to take these beastly tracking devices, and this opens the door for limitless abuse."

The Resistance for Christ spokesman contends that RFID tracking technology is a predecessor to the universal sign that will be mandated by the anti-Christ during the period of history described by end-times scholars as the tribulation.

"This is the precursor to the 'mark of the beast' -- the 666 Satanic mark that the Bible talked about," Conner says, "and [the proponents of the RFID technology are] implementing this system under the guise of security and [saying] it's going to keep your children safe." But, ultimately, the San Diego activist warns, "what it's going to do is it's going to turn every single one of us into a piece of inventory -- not a human being -- a piece of inventory, a number."

Conner says even though born-again Christians will be "raptured" from the Earth before the tribulation reign of the anti-Christ, they should resist the use of RFIDs and other Orwellian influences in society. He is urging people everywhere to boycott RFID technology and to oppose its incorporation into schools or other aspects of daily life in America.

Additional RFID Info

• Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs
• Microchip-Cancer Report
• Human Inventory Control
• RFID School System
• Japan school kids chipped
• Delta radio tags
• Keep RFIDs Out of Public Schools

http://www.christian-underground.com/

Labels: California, cancer, children, RFID

Today (2001/03/01) I had the pleasure to take my wife and son to the California state capital. We accompanied a group of homeschooling families that are in Sacramento for the next couple days on group field trips. We took the capital tour together and had the opportunity to watch a session of the state assembly. Though, admittedly, I am not very familiar with our states laws, I am a self-declared minimalist - I believe less government is better in almost every regard.

I had the 'pleasure' all right. There were at least two bills on the table for vote today. One of which specified March second as the 'Nationwide Reading Day' (or something to that effect). Nationwide? From a bill in CA? Amazing. I didn't know we had that authority. What's more, I was impressed to see the number of 'co-authors' for the bill. The total number was in the realm of seventy. Yes seventy. No, you're not reading that incorrectly, and yes, we only have seventy-nine assembly 'persons'. You'll have to excuse those three or four that did not coauthor - I'm sure it wasn't by design. I think they were all deathly ill, attending to funerals or otherwise incapable of being there for the opportunity to co-sponsor such important legislation. Yes, that was sarcasm; but unfortunately, no, I'm not making it up.

It's important legislation like this that keeps me up at night. And rightfully so.

And that's not all. Special consideration was made for the individuals (and families of) that lost their lives in the driving incident in Santa Barbara last week. With all due respects, the respect and 'moment of silence' are perfectly satisfactory, but it should be understood that it is little more than political posturing - of course. Especially when this 'moment of silence' was followed quickly by statements about how we need to work harder on handgun regulation - where did that come from? It was an AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT. No weapons of any kind were involved. But some politicians obviously felt it necessary to take that opportunity to speak out about their need to stifle your second ammendment rights: over an auto accident.

After some more ludicrous discussion, the assembly came to a discussion about colon cancer being the second largest cause of death nationally - or something to that extent. I wasn't sure exactly what the point of this discussion was, since they brought up several means of detecting colon cancer and how 'simple' it was to remove, if found in time. Great. There was discussion about how the legislators should have an 'awareness campaign' within their districts, but I don't think there was any political force behind it. If people don't want to go to doctors are they going to force them? Does the assembly hope to author a bill that would require Californians to get a rectal exam ever year? What was the point of this?

My concern in this is that within the short session today (it couldn't have been more than an hour and ten minutes) they managed to bring up both firearm legislation and something to do with people dying from colon cancer. Why? I think they should instead spend their time and energy fighting the greater evil of our state: stupidity. I think that if you look back at each murder, accidental death and 'near death experience' throughout the world, much less the country or 'tiny' state of California, you'll find that the number one cause of death and accidents is *stupidity*. Where is the drive to educate people on common sense, or to eliminate the widespread following that stupidity claims? In fact, stupidity is so abundant that several of the assembly 'persons' were obviously infected. Where is the call to arms against it now? I think you'll hold your breath a long time if you wait for it.

Remember, you won't always be in the majority; Please subscribe.

Regards,

Shawn K. Hall

Labels: California, legislation