Auerbach insisted that he was not pushing for a tax on the satellites but was simply doing his job and trying to determine whether they should be taxed.
``I'm neutral on the whole thing,'' he said. ``My job is to make sure all property that's taxable gets assessed and I'm going to follow the law. If the law says its not taxable it's not taxable. If it is taxable I will assess it.''
I suppose, as with any racket, whoever has the ability to knock the satellites down or render them inoperable could levy a "tax" on them.
No, the real question is who can knock down or render inoperable the OWNER of the satellite. ----- Original Message ----- From: <mmotyka@lsil.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 8:58 AM Subject: Who can tax a satellite?
``I'm neutral on the whole thing,'' he said. ``My job is to make sure all property that's taxable gets assessed and I'm going to follow the law. If the law says its not taxable it's not taxable. If it is taxable I will assess it.''
I suppose, as with any racket, whoever has the ability to knock the satellites down or render them inoperable could levy a "tax" on them.
The power to destroy is the power to tax. Did I get that backwards? I'm sorry. The power to tax is the power to destroy. I suppose it makes no difference. It's a statement of equivalence rather than implication. Nothing neutral about it, is there? Black Unicorn wrote:
No, the real question is who can knock down or render inoperable the OWNER of the satellite.
They're first cousins, I suppose.
----- Original Message ----- From: <mmotyka@lsil.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 8:58 AM Subject: Who can tax a satellite?
``I'm neutral on the whole thing,'' he said. ``My job is to make sure all property that's taxable gets assessed and I'm going to follow the law. If the law says its not taxable it's not taxable. If it is taxable I will assess it.''
I suppose, as with any racket, whoever has the ability to knock the satellites down or render them inoperable could levy a "tax" on them.
At 02:30 PM 7/11/01 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote:
No, the real question is who can knock down or render inoperable the OWNER of the satellite.
Cable landfalls... satellite control centers.. MAE... ESS.. same thing. I suppose that is a plug for a fully distributed system like pipe/black/whateverNet...
At 02:30 PM 7/11/01 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote:
No, the real question is who can knock down or render inoperable the OWNER of the satellite.
But ownership is easily fixed - a few magic words from a lawyer (ok, with a lot of expensive research into tax and accounting issues first), and the satellite is owned by a Caribbean corporation owned by Hughes, so it's no longer physical property subject to Los Angeles property taxes. That doesn't mean a tax collector can't try to attach one of Hughes's buildings near LAX, but it becomes a much different problem.
Such a transfer would cause the entire value of the satellite to be taxed as income to the selling company in at the end of the fiscal year. Selling the satellite to an island managed firm for $1 isn't going to fly. Fair market value will be assessed at the IRS's sole discretion and subject only to an (expensive and normally futile) appeal to the U.S. Tax Court. Bad move. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Stewart" <bill.stewart@pobox.com> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 1:47 PM Subject: Re: Who can tax a satellite?
At 02:30 PM 7/11/01 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote:
No, the real question is who can knock down or render inoperable the OWNER of the satellite.
Mr. Stewart replied:
But ownership is easily fixed - a few magic words from a lawyer (ok, with a lot of expensive research into tax and accounting issues first), and the satellite is owned by a Caribbean corporation owned by Hughes, so it's no longer physical property subject to Los Angeles property taxes. That doesn't mean a tax collector can't try to attach one of Hughes's buildings near LAX, but it becomes a much different problem.
At 08:58 AM 7/11/01 -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
I suppose, as with any racket, whoever has the ability to knock the satellites down or render them inoperable could levy a "tax" on them.
Heh, right on. But some dingleberry in LA is not about to violate an international space treaty without *really* needing the publicity. The treaty that says you don't fight in space. (Yes, I know its toast when next the US needs to perform a little orbital cleansing.) Besides, when multiple gangs see an untaxed (but coercable) resource, they'll fight amongst themselves first for the territory.
At 5:58 PM -0700 7/11/01, David Honig wrote:
At 08:58 AM 7/11/01 -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
I suppose, as with any racket, whoever has the ability to knock the satellites down or render them inoperable could levy a "tax" on them.
Heh, right on. But some dingleberry in LA is not about to violate an international space treaty without *really* needing the publicity. The treaty that says you don't fight in space. (Yes, I know its toast when next the US needs to perform a little orbital cleansing.)
Besides, when multiple gangs see an untaxed (but coercable) resource, they'll fight amongst themselves first for the territory.
I'll bet good money that Washington is leaning on L.A. to drop this ridiculous claim. For several decades the U.S. (and presumably Russia/FSU) has convinced the nations of the world that fees need not be paid to India, Botswana, and Shakedownistan just because U.S. satellites pass overhead. If L.A. is able to shake down Hughes for some tax to be distributed to the welfare bums and crack hoes, then Botswana and Shakedownistan will be next in line. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 04:13 PM 7/11/01, Tim May wrote:
At 5:58 PM -0700 7/11/01, David Honig wrote:
At 08:58 AM 7/11/01 -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
I suppose, as with any racket, whoever has the ability to knock the satellites down or render them inoperable could levy a "tax" on them.
Heh, right on. But some dingleberry in LA is not about to violate an international space treaty without *really* needing the publicity. The treaty that says you don't fight in space. (Yes, I know its toast when next the US needs to perform a little orbital cleansing.)
Besides, when multiple gangs see an untaxed (but coercable) resource, they'll fight amongst themselves first for the territory.
I'll bet good money that Washington is leaning on L.A. to drop this ridiculous claim.
I doubt it, or it would already be a dead issue.
For several decades the U.S. (and presumably Russia/FSU) has convinced the nations of the world that fees need not be paid to India, Botswana, and Shakedownistan just because U.S. satellites pass overhead. If L.A. is able to shake down Hughes for some tax to be distributed to the welfare bums and crack hoes, then Botswana and Shakedownistan will be next in line.
They aren't talking about rotating satellites though, they are talking about geostationary ones, ones that hover over CA, or are property that is administered from CA - not quite the same thing as passing overhead, or every airline would end up owing to every nation and state it flies over _for the act of flying over_ also. Reese
At 8:31 PM -1000 7/11/01, Reese wrote:
I doubt it, or it would already be a dead issue.
Sure. Things happen instantaneously. Oz is all powerful.
For several decades the U.S. (and presumably Russia/FSU) has convinced the nations of the world that fees need not be paid to India, Botswana, and Shakedownistan just because U.S. satellites pass overhead. If L.A. is able to shake down Hughes for some tax to be distributed to the welfare bums and crack hoes, then Botswana and Shakedownistan will be next in line.
They aren't talking about rotating satellites though, they are talking about geostationary ones, ones that hover over CA,
None of them hover _over_ CA. Physically impossible. The Clarke Belt is well-defined. Look into it.
or are property that is administered from CA - not quite the same thing as passing overhead, or every airline would end up owing to every nation and state it flies over _for the act of flying over_ also.
News flash to Reese: Airlines DO make payments or other considerations to nations they fly over. Jeesh. Every summer brings the return of "Reese" and "Petro." --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
I thought it was sats of companies based in CA, not that the sat is "hovering" that's the comparison to off-shore property of CA corporations or individuals such as boats, etc? Also, about airlines. Not sure they pay countries they fly over without landing, wouldn't they only pay landing fees, customs fees, and taxs at an airport? When planes get routed through a sovereign nation's airspace is there any way to collect fees other than sending a bill back to its nation of origin? stu [This is a sig file] note: just expressing an opinion. Can I still do that in the 21st century? On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
At 8:31 PM -1000 7/11/01, Reese wrote:
I doubt it, or it would already be a dead issue.
Sure. Things happen instantaneously. Oz is all powerful.
For several decades the U.S. (and presumably Russia/FSU) has convinced the nations of the world that fees need not be paid to India, Botswana, and Shakedownistan just because U.S. satellites pass overhead. If L.A. is able to shake down Hughes for some tax to be distributed to the welfare bums and crack hoes, then Botswana and Shakedownistan will be next in line.
They aren't talking about rotating satellites though, they are talking about geostationary ones, ones that hover over CA,
None of them hover _over_ CA. Physically impossible. The Clarke Belt is well-defined. Look into it.
or are property that is administered from CA - not quite the same thing as passing overhead, or every airline would end up owing to every nation and state it flies over _for the act of flying over_ also.
News flash to Reese: Airlines DO make payments or other considerations to nations they fly over.
Jeesh. Every summer brings the return of "Reese" and "Petro."
--Tim May
-- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 09:57 PM 7/11/01, Tim May wrote:
At 8:31 PM -1000 7/11/01, Reese wrote:
I doubt it, or it would already be a dead issue.
Sure. Things happen instantaneously. Oz is all powerful.
Not what I meant and you know, or should know it.
For several decades the U.S. (and presumably Russia/FSU) has convinced the nations of the world that fees need not be paid to India, Botswana, and Shakedownistan just because U.S. satellites pass overhead. If L.A. is able to shake down Hughes for some tax to be distributed to the welfare bums and crack hoes, then Botswana and Shakedownistan will be next in line.
They aren't talking about rotating satellites though, they are talking about geostationary ones, ones that hover over CA,
None of them hover _over_ CA. Physically impossible. The Clarke Belt is well-defined. Look into it.
Your quibble is noted, you didn't even address the middle clause.
or are property that is administered from CA - not quite the same thing as passing overhead, or every airline would end up owing to every nation and state it flies over _for the act of flying over_ also.
News flash to Reese: Airlines DO make payments or other considerations to nations they fly over.
Do they also land in those countries they make payments to, pick up and drop passengers off? Or are you saying "Zed Airlines" that has no offices and makes no stops in "Zilch" but flies over it, makes payments to it? One real world example of such.
Jeesh. Every summer brings the return of "Reese" and "Petro."
I nub you too. Do the letters "F O" mean anything to you? Reese
At 10:19 PM -1000 7/11/01, Reese wrote:
At 09:57 PM 7/11/01, Tim May wrote:
At 8:31 PM -1000 7/11/01, Reese wrote:
News flash to Reese: Airlines DO make payments or other considerations to nations they fly over.
Do they also land in those countries they make payments to, pick up and drop passengers off? Or are you saying "Zed Airlines" that has no offices and makes no stops in "Zilch" but flies over it, makes payments to it?
One real world example of such.
Learn to use a search engine. Search on the obvious terms, like "airlines overflight payments." The first such hit you will find in Google, one of hundreds, is: "FAA ESTIMATES CUBA OWES US$1 MILLION FOR OVERFLIGHT FEES- Information obtained from an inquiry to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within the United States Department of Transportation by the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council shows that Republic of Cuba government-operated Cubana Airlines and Republic of Cuba government-operated AeroCaribbean Airlines were invoiced approximately US$1 million by the FAA for the period May 1997 to 31 January 1998 for overflight fees." Is this enough for the "one real world example"? Or, like many quibblers, do you claim that "one example" is not enough? Picking from the many items, "Overflight fees from commercial aircraft flying over Georgia will repay the loan." I think I'll stop with two examples. You can do the rest of the work. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 10:43 PM 7/11/01, Tim May wrote:
One real world example of such.
Learn to use a search engine. Search on the obvious terms, like "airlines overflight payments."
The first such hit you will find in Google, one of hundreds, is:
"FAA ESTIMATES CUBA OWES US$1 MILLION FOR OVERFLIGHT FEES- Information obtained from an inquiry to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within the United States Department of Transportation by the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council shows that Republic of Cuba government-operated Cubana Airlines and Republic of Cuba government-operated AeroCaribbean Airlines were invoiced approximately US$1 million by the FAA for the period May 1997 to 31 January 1998 for overflight fees."
Is this enough for the "one real world example"?
Is that datum from cubatrade.org or cubaonline.org? How about from a real website?
Or, like many quibblers, do you claim that "one example" is not enough?
I specified one. Since you seem to cite the FAA interalia though, I shall require the one example be from the FAA and not from some pro-Cuba organization. Reese
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 12 July 2001 22:53, Reese wrote:
At 10:43 PM 7/11/01, Tim May wrote:
One real world example of such.
Learn to use a search engine. Search on the obvious terms, like "airlines overflight payments."
The first such hit you will find in Google, one of hundreds, is:
"FAA ESTIMATES CUBA OWES US$1 MILLION FOR OVERFLIGHT FEES- Information obtained from an inquiry to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within the United States Department of Transportation by the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council shows that Republic of Cuba government-operated Cubana Airlines and Republic of Cuba government-operated AeroCaribbean Airlines were invoiced approximately US$1 million by the FAA for the period May 1997 to 31 January 1998 for overflight fees."
Is this enough for the "one real world example"?
Is that datum from cubatrade.org or cubaonline.org? How about from a real website?
Or, like many quibblers, do you claim that "one example" is not enough?
I specified one. Since you seem to cite the FAA interalia though, I shall require the one example be from the FAA and not from some pro-Cuba organization.
Reese
It's a moot point anyway, but for the record, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states that no nation may claim jurisdiction or territory beyond the limits of Earth's atmosphere, which is spelled out in a separate treaty as being 100km altitude above mean sea level. So even if airlines do pay fees for overflying nations - which seems rediculous but no more so than thousands of other laws - it wouldn't apply to satellites. - -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7TpkLBxcVTa6Gy5wRArHqAKDlapdTAl3TuHaVclhlw4mskK8hhgCghVYu H3uRFj17aSGyGk4UH1s60eE= =Nv9K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 11:45 PM -0700 7/12/01, Matt Beland wrote:
It's a moot point anyway, but for the record, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states that no nation may claim jurisdiction or territory beyond the limits of Earth's atmosphere, which is spelled out in a separate treaty as being 100km altitude above mean sea level.
So even if airlines do pay fees for overflying nations - which seems rediculous but no more so than thousands of other laws - it wouldn't apply to satellites.
Not all nations are signatories to that treaty, and not all nations that did sign that treaty are the same country today. As soon as some socialist piece of shit (well, more like fascist, but why quibble over distinctions without a difference) aquires the ability to knock commercial sats out of orbit and convinces a significant portion of the population in his/her country that they can extort money from US companies, they're going to try.
At 7:53 PM -1000 7/12/01, Reese wrote:
At 10:43 PM 7/11/01, Tim May wrote:
One real world example of such.
Learn to use a search engine. Search on the obvious terms, like "airlines overflight payments."
The first such hit you will find in Google, one of hundreds, is:
Or, like many quibblers, do you claim that "one example" is not enough?
I specified one. Since you seem to cite the FAA interalia though, I shall require the one example be from the FAA and not from some pro-Cuba organization.
"I shall require..." Well, then, require away! Twit. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 07:53:09PM -1000, Reese wrote:
At 10:43 PM 7/11/01, Tim May wrote:
One real world example of such.
Learn to use a search engine. Search on the obvious terms, like "airlines overflight payments." <Snipped a perfectly good example>
Is this enough for the "one real world example"?
Is that datum from cubatrade.org or cubaonline.org? How about from a real website?
Or, like many quibblers, do you claim that "one example" is not enough?
I specified one. Since you seem to cite the FAA interalia though, I shall require the one example be from the FAA and not from some pro-Cuba organization.
Reese Perhaps like Tim suggested you should learn to use a search engine: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&q=overflight+fees
Turns up the FAA's old page loads the FAA's NEW page from where you can easily find http://www.faa.gov/aba/html_overflight/index.html. A short quote: "...aircraft operators will be required to pay fees for air traffic control services provided to aircraft that operate in U.S. airspace, but do not take off or land in the United States." Stop being an ass. -- Trevor Crosse crossetj@net-ronin.org
At 08:48 AM 7/13/01, Trevor wrote:
Reese Perhaps like Tim suggested you should learn to use a search engine: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&q=overflight+fees
Turns up the FAA's old page loads the FAA's NEW page from where you can easily find http://www.faa.gov/aba/html_overflight/index.html. A short quote: "...aircraft operators will be required to pay fees for air traffic control services provided to aircraft that operate in U.S. airspace, but do not take off or land in the United States."
Stop being an ass.
Et tu?
So how much does Cuban Air Traffic Control charge for U2 overflight support? 1960 - 2001, with some reasonable interest rates for late payments.... At 07:53 PM 07/12/2001 -1000, Reese wrote:
At 10:43 PM 7/11/01, Tim May wrote:
One real world example of such.
Learn to use a search engine. Search on the obvious terms, like "airlines overflight payments."
The first such hit you will find in Google, one of hundreds, is:
"FAA ESTIMATES CUBA OWES US$1 MILLION FOR OVERFLIGHT FEES- Information obtained from an inquiry to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within the United States Department of Transportation by the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council shows that Republic of Cuba government-operated Cubana Airlines and Republic of Cuba government-operated AeroCaribbean Airlines were invoiced approximately US$1 million by the FAA for the period May 1997 to 31 January 1998 for overflight fees."
Is this enough for the "one real world example"?
Is that datum from cubatrade.org or cubaonline.org? How about from a real website?
At 06:44 AM 7/12/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:19:51PM -1000, Reese wrote:
I nub you too. Do the letters "F O" mean anything to you?
Now this is certainly a new high point in cypherpunklian discourse.
Aw, would you prefer I told him to Fuck Off, the way I always used to?
It doesn't bother me either way, so I have no real preference. (If such juvenalia did bother me, I would have resigned from cpunx 6 years ago.) But you should know that it does make everyone feel a strong urge to killfile you. Consider this a fair warning. -Declan On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 07:56:23PM -1000, Reese wrote:
At 06:44 AM 7/12/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:19:51PM -1000, Reese wrote:
I nub you too. Do the letters "F O" mean anything to you?
Now this is certainly a new high point in cypherpunklian discourse.
Aw, would you prefer I told him to Fuck Off, the way I always used to?
The infallible archives show that the top users here of "fuck off" are ... well, not to provoke additional applications of the highly acceptable use term, check the archives yourself. Reese is no where near the top user, except at sea. This is not to suggest that heavy users of the term have not be killfiled, repeatedly, to no effect, as befits this foul-mouthed wonderland where killfiles are a joke of venerable shallowness. This is not to say that shallowness is not perfectly acceptable usage here. Otherwise there'd be nothing. Sure, that's what may be the best acceptable use but for christsakes this is the cornucopic of plenitude, negritude and FO attitude.
At 04:40 AM 7/13/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
It doesn't bother me either way, so I have no real preference. (If such juvenalia did bother me, I would have resigned from cpunx 6 years ago.)
But you should know that it does make everyone feel a strong urge to killfile you. Consider this a fair warning.
Everyone? They've all told you? Whatever. I think anyone who objects to profanity spoken out loud in their home is within their rights to take action, but anyone who would censor the rest of America as well (on a list absent a declared religious overtone or theme especially) is possessed of a certain personal problem that goes beyond a simple decision to refrain from use of profanity. I'm not worried about being killfiled, it doesn't stop me from reading what others have to say and I am free to agree or disagree with what those others have to say. Free speech, even for the dumb (and censorious). Reese
Yes. Clearly killfiling is a concept coterminous with censorship. I urge Reese to expand this campaign to people who change the channel too. -Declan At 05:37 AM 7/13/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
At 04:40 AM 7/13/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
It doesn't bother me either way, so I have no real preference. (If such juvenalia did bother me, I would have resigned from cpunx 6 years ago.)
But you should know that it does make everyone feel a strong urge to killfile you. Consider this a fair warning.
Everyone? They've all told you? Whatever.
I think anyone who objects to profanity spoken out loud in their home is within their rights to take action, but anyone who would censor the rest of America as well (on a list absent a declared religious overtone or theme especially) is possessed of a certain personal problem that goes beyond a simple decision to refrain from use of profanity.
I'm not worried about being killfiled, it doesn't stop me from reading what others have to say and I am free to agree or disagree with what those others have to say. Free speech, even for the dumb (and censorious).
Reese
How quaint. Do let us know when you move beyond strict technical definitions. At 05:48 AM 7/13/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Yes. Clearly killfiling is a concept coterminous with censorship. I urge Reese to expand this campaign to people who change the channel too.
-Declan
At 05:37 AM 7/13/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
At 04:40 AM 7/13/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
It doesn't bother me either way, so I have no real preference. (If such juvenalia did bother me, I would have resigned from cpunx 6 years ago.)
But you should know that it does make everyone feel a strong urge to killfile you. Consider this a fair warning.
Everyone? They've all told you? Whatever.
I think anyone who objects to profanity spoken out loud in their home is within their rights to take action, but anyone who would censor the rest of America as well (on a list absent a declared religious overtone or theme especially) is possessed of a certain personal problem that goes beyond a simple decision to refrain from use of profanity.
I'm not worried about being killfiled, it doesn't stop me from reading what others have to say and I am free to agree or disagree with what those others have to say. Free speech, even for the dumb (and censorious).
Reese
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Reese wrote:
How quaint. Do let us know when you move beyond strict technical definitions.
At 05:48 AM 7/13/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Yes. Clearly killfiling is a concept coterminous with censorship. I urge Reese to expand this campaign to people who change the channel too.
Actually 'killfiles' are the mechanism of censorship. They are the 'how' of the 'what'. Changing the channel is also censorship. However they are both consensual so no rational would consider consensual acts somehow 'wrong'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (13)
-
Bill Stewart -
Black Unicorn -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Matt Beland -
ming -
mmotyka＠lsil.com -
Petro -
Reese -
Tim May -
Trevor