Dodd, Leahy, Feingold, and Merkley Announce Bill to Repeal Retroactive Immunity

[kpete]

Source: S E N A T U S

September 28, 2009

Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced today that they will introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act, which eliminates retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.



“I believe we best defend America when we also defend its founding principles,” said Dodd. “We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizen’s privacy and due process right and we must not allow that to stand.”



Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “Last year, I opposed legislation that stripped Americans of their right to seek accountability for the Bush administration’s decision to illegally wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd to introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act. We can strengthen national security while protecting Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. Restoring Americans’ access to the courts is the first step toward bringing some measure of accountability for the Bush-Cheney administration’s decision to conduct warrantless surveillance in violation of our laws.”



“Granting retroactive immunity to companies that went along with the illegal warrantless wiretapping program was unjustified and undermined the rule of law,” Feingold said. “Congress should not have short-circuited the courts’ constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program. This bill is about ensuring that the law is followed and providing accountability for the American people.”

Read more: http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/senators-to-introduce-retroactive-immunity-repeal-act/

[Avalux]

1. Good news! K&R.

We'll see how far it gets; hopefully it'll be successful.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Very nice.

[PassingFair]

3. This would mean almost as much to me as REAL healthcare reform...

:kick:

[Mojorabbit]

18. Same here

It would give me some hope of returning to where we started before the last admin. came in.

[RJDem]

38. Really? Did you vote for Obama?

Even though he sold out on this prior to the election? I don't mean to pick on you .... I could respond to almost any comment in this thread with this question.

Between this and his reversal on promises about FISA, patriot act, universal healthcare, etc, etc, etc, this lifetime Democrat wrote in HRC rather than compromise myself with a vote for Obama.

[JTFrog]

46. Thanks for flashing your PUMA credentials.

Please don't compromise yourself by sticking around here.


:eyes:

[zbdent]

61. and the poster got the terminology wrong ...

it's "lifelong" democrat ...

[Robb]

78. Maybe they mean "Lifetime Channel Democrat"...

...Vote for any candidate who has a story that would make a good after-school special? :shrug:

[RJDem]

80. Oh please!

Save your PUMA baloney. My loyalty is to the democratic agenda - not a politician.

[JTFrog]

87. You save the PUMA baloney.

Your loyalty is fairly transparent.

[RJDem]

91. Good -- I would hate to be mistaken....

....as loyal to a politician rather than a political and social agenda. In fact it's fairly disgusting to see so many Democrats cheer Bush policies simply because they come out of the mouth of Obama. And frankly, until enough Democrats stop being entralled by him and get entralled instead with an actual DEMOCRATIC agenda, we will never see that agenda realized.

[JTFrog]

92. Says the guy who voted against the Democratic candidate for president.

Do you really not see how transparent you are? :wtf:

Did you expect things to go better with old man John or did you just rely upon real Democrats to make sure that didn't happen?

[RJDem]

98. A few corrections

A. Not a guy.

B. I have voted for Democrats in EVERY election in every race for 30 yrs, plus have made 10's of thousands in contributions. AND

C. I am done (as in D O N E - done) voting for a candidate just because the party says I should. I'm sick to death of my vote being taken for granted just because the other guy is a rethug. From now I'm on voting on principles. That would be MY definition of a real democrat.

And you know what? If we ALL did that the bill being discussed here never would have passed in the first place; we would already be leaving Iraq; we wouldn't even be discussing healthcare "reform" without a public option; we wouldn't Bush appointees regulating the financial sector under a Democratic administration; and we wouldn't have a Democratic president negotiating back room deals with big pharma and the insurance industry.

All I have is one vote but by god from here on out I'm going to use it. Even if the syncophants don't like it.

[JTFrog]

103. A.) Unspecified in your profile, I took a 50/50 shot.

B.) Is pretty much moot. You voted against the Democratic candidate last year.

C.) Funny how you waited 30 years to get those principles for this particular President, yet you obviously would have thrown them to the wind for HRC.

The majority of your post is puristic PUMA bullshit.

[RJDem]

111. Funny?

Believe me, I have been gritting my teeth and bearing it for years now. But THIS president flip flopped on FISA, the patriot act, the telecom immunity bill; he made statements as a candidate about health care that were totally the opposite of what he had said previously. Same with NAFTA.

And frankly, how can you say my judgment hasn't been confirmed? He throws the public option under the bus first chance he gets (dream on about universal healthcare). He says a contract is a contract when it comes to AIG exec million dollar bonuses from taxpayer funds, but that contracts have to be broken with union auto workers. He doesn't want Holder to investigate CIA abuses or Bush crimes. We should fund charter schools, in essence taxpayer money for private schools for rich kids. The list goes on and on and on. And sorry, there is no way in hell HRC would have done any of that.

Puristic? Please, he's not even in the ballpark of a progressive,democratic agenda. His policies don't sound any better coming from him that they did when they came from Bush.

I'm sorry you're so entralled with him rather than a democratic party agenda. Maybe you'll see the light some day and start holding your representatives in government accountable. Hopefully it won't take you 30 years like it did me.

[JTFrog]

117. No way HRC would have done any of that?

She was Bush's wet dream when she was a Senator:

IWR
Kyl-Lieberman
Workplace Freedom of Religion Act
Family Entertainment Protection Act
Patriot Act
Military Commissions Act
No Child Left Behind
Bankruptcy Bill
No on banning cluster bombs but yes on banning flag burning

And she campaigned on mandatory insurance payments to insurance companies. She wanted Greenspan to save our economy. She made up stories about dodging sniper fire and talked about obliterating Iran for fucks sake.

I'm just getting warmed up here, but I have no desire to relive the primaries, which seems to be the PUMA's favorite pastime.

Funny is spouting your HRC bullshit and thinking you can convince others you've been paying attention for the last 30 years and just woke up. Cognitive dissonance isn't pretty.

[RJDem]

124. Well I know Obama wasn't in the senate long....

... but the facts are while he was, their voting records were almost an exact match. It's cute how you pull votes for things that weren't voted on while Obama was in the senate, and ignore all the rest. Cute, but also transparent.

And while HRC was talking about obliterating Iraq, Obama was talking about obilterating Pakistan.

Now tell me how many times she said she wasn't going to vote for something, or pledged to vote for something, then turned around and did the exact opposite? THAT is the issue I am discussing, and THAT is why I don't trust him. No reason to trust him, and every reason not to.

She is opposed to NAFTA, DADT, DOMA. No way in hell she'd be cutting back room deals with big pharma and health insurance companies. And she sure as hell wouldn't have left Bushies in the government as her appointees like Obama has. In fact I don't think a SINGLE other candidate in the primaries except Lieberman would have done those things.

[Lord Helmet]

126. your Clinton lore is adorable

ridiculous, but adorable

[JTFrog]

128. Fresh pizza.

Nom nom nom.

[Beacool]

132. Yeah, because dissent is not welcomed on this board.

How very democratic.........

:eyes:

[JTFrog]

134. No because it was a sockpuppet as it disclosed on another thread.

But you just have to chime in on anything PUMA.

[Beacool]

130. Good for you!!!

C. I am done (as in D O N E - done) voting for a candidate just because the party says I should. I'm sick to death of my vote being taken for granted just because the other guy is a rethug. From now I'm on voting on principles. That would be MY definition of a real democrat.

:applause:

One lesson I learned from last year: Never again will I vote for a politician simply because he/she has a "D" after their name. As far as I'm concerned, a good portion of the party leadership can go to hell!!!

x(

[bvar22]

101. The Democratic Agenda ?

Please.
Hillary was the only candidate more Republican than Obama.

[RJDem]

104. LOL - she voted against immuniy. He voted for it.

[Lord Helmet]

118. her threat to obliterate Iran placed her right up there with the neocons

LINK

[RJDem]

123. And Obama threatening to obliterate pakistan....

... was different, how? LOL!

[Lord Helmet]

127. What's different? He's president and she's not.

[Le Taz Hot]

51. Agreed

I can't see President Change getting behind this. OTOH, if you don't think Hillary is suckling off the same corporate teet as Obama, you're mistaken. You'd be compromising your vote with either candidate.

[PassingFair]

56. Doesn't matter if Obama "gets behind" it or not.

As long as he doesn't stand in the way.

I'm perfectly happy to let senators like
Leahy and Feingold be the heroes.

Really.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. Ah, but he will stand in the way.

He'll just do it in that special, Chicago-style, back-room/back-channels kind of way. Publicly, Obama will bob-and-weave and never directly address the issue. Add to that Emmanuel's Blue Dogs and corporate lackeys and it's pretty much dead in the water.

[Beacool]

70. Sounds about right.

Pretend to stay above the fray while letting his crew do the dirty work.

;-)

[bvar22]

105. Nailed It.

+1 for Le Taz Hot for sharp political observation skills.

[Lord Helmet]

119. hey since you're making predictions, got any winning lottery numbers?

[midnight]

100. Me too.

[MNDemNY]

72. Your vote for HRC was hardly a stand on "Democratic principles".

:rofl:

[L. Coyote]

75. Former and no longer life-long

as you just admitted. You voted against the Dem candidate there bud!

[RJDem]

102. I see....

I'm not a democrat because I didn't vote for Obama and voted for a different democrat instead. Is it completely lost on the Obama worshippers here that you sound more like republicans every day?? Unbelievable!

[Lord Helmet]

116. you voted against the democratic nominee in the general election

that doesn't make you a republican -- it makes you a pissy puma that stomped their feet at the ballot box

[juno jones]

88. HRC

was promising something other than universal healthcare, something very close to the mandates that many find unacceptable.

HRC blew it out the gate with her mandates and didn't say much about FISA, patriot act etc either.

I don't think things would be any less business as usual with HRC in office. She didn't campaign on being anything but an extension of her husband and DLC philosophy.

[SlingBlade]

4. Kick and Hope !

[DissedByBush]

5. I'm doin' my happy dance! n/t

[TankLV]

6. It's fucking ABOUT TIME!!!

This is a SMALL step in the right direction!!!

[Gman]

7. AT&T won't bargain in good faith with CWA

so fuck 'em! Indict Randall Stephenson.

[TheDebbieDee]

8. Maybe they're using this repeal threat as a bargaining chip

to get the repukes to drop their attacks against healthcare reform...........

Edited: Because they're and their mean different things.

[L. Coyote]

76. Or, this is just another cash infusion from the telecoms. Old trick!

Watch Rockefeller's donation stats!

[tularetom]

9. I'm still glad I transferred my long distance service to Qwest

They were the only ones that did not go along with this bullshit.

Throw the rest of them under the fucking jail.

[peacetalksforall]

16. Do you think it still is the policy of Qwest? I'm in doubt about it now and I can't make a case

for my doubt - just a gut feeling. The person in charge at Qwest was targeted for a crime - possible tilted to the political angle and there is a new leader in charge. Something I read made me doubt that they are holding their position against sharing our data? I sure would like to know.

[druidity33]

129. he was sentenced to 6 years

which will probably be reduced. This is the former CEO of Qwest (Nacchio), convicted on 19 counts of insider trading...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ex-qwest-ceo-to-get-a-lighter-sentence-reports-2009-07-31


:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

17. Wait . . . I thought Bush put them out of business . . . ???

[BadGimp]

10. Stop teasing me dammit

[IndianaGreen]

11. K&R n/t

:kick:

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Wow..what a concept..

[quakerboy]

13. I sure am glad we elected Merkley

He was my second choice, and he is coming through far better than I ever expected.

[stevedeshazer]

23. Me, too

He's exceeding my expectations, not to mention he ain't no Gordon Smith.

[quakerboy]

26. As far as I can tell, he is putting Wyden to shame.

[earcandle]

14. oh yes! Can I sue them for the damage caused?

How does one put a price tag on such things?

[omega minimo]

29. One pays the price and pays it forward to future generations who may care enough

to do the same. to honor the principles the nation was founded on, every time the fascists come in on little cat feet.

[xxqqqzme]

99. I want all my fees refunded.

I thought by paying my bill that information belonged to me. Since at&t, essentially, sold it to *, I want it all refunded.

[defendandprotect]

15. Great news . . . but then . . .

what of QWest, who refused to participate in this illegal activity --???

Wonder if there is anything that can be done for them?

[PassingFair]

19. The head of Qwest was a crook, unfortunately....

I think they went after him, but I think
there was plenty to go after.

There must be an Aesop's fable about situations
like this.

[L. Coyote]

77. Nacchio and Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?

The political odor of this legal case has never been proper.
The issue first arose on DU with the USA firings discussion.
.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2051298

=====================
Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
BY Scott Horton - Oct 14, 2007
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001415

Last week, a career federal prosecutor friend told me, “Most of us have come to agree that there’s a real problem with political prosecutions on Bush’s watch, and that needs to be addressed ........

[PassingFair]

82. I have NO doubt it was political....

but his hands appeared to be dirty, and he
was easily prosecuted.

The others at Qwest were obviously collateral
damage in the "quest" to protect AT&T.

[OnyxCollie]

108. "appeared to be dirty," is the key phrase.

Joseph Nacchio's case and the judge that presided over it were highly suspect. His conviction was overturned and he was released, but last I read he had been indicted again.

[defendandprotect]

110. They'll hold tight to these cases, like Siegelmann's, I'm sure, because . . .

if one of them is tipped exposing the corruption behind these political prosecutions,

it may expose what was really going on --

But, I'm amazed that Democrats haven't been after the Siegelman case which is a threat

to all Democrats!??!

[Divine Discontent]

20. WHO turned on the Progressive Floodgates? 1st the Canadian generic prescription bill, and now this!

[Seedersandleechers]

24. I'm not getting my hopes up that either

of these two bills get passed. I think it's a tease.:hi: :hi:

[amandabeech]

33. Congress has decided to do some work.

They're not waiting for the President on this.

[Sherman A1]

36. My thoughts are the same

There is a big question mark from me here, but I will certainly write my Senators and ask them to support this bill.

[bhikkhu]

21. That would be a good idea

If the government asks you to do something immoral, unethical, illegal, its a bad thing if you have in your mind that it doesn't matter - probably nobody really cares.

The legal precedent was established at Nuremburg: chain of command doesn't mean shit. If you knowingly break the law under orders its your own ass on the line anyway, and the worthless ass of the former prez isn't going to help you.

[BREMPRO]

22. bring it on! n/t

[bjobotts]

25. The rule of law applies to all and not just when it's convenient

[flyarm]

27. Great! About damn time! eom

[omega minimo]

28. I Rec for FUCKING SANITY AND THE RULE OF LAW

[grahamhgreen]

30. Yahooooooooo! Call call call!

[orleans]

31. rec. but it will never pass or amount to anything. n/t

[tavalon]

32. Excellent!

[dmr]

34. Hip! Hip! Horray! This means so much to me!

And am so very happy I could dance!

The Bush* Administration did a lot of very bad things, but this one, in particular, made me purple with anger. I could not believe they actually granted immunity last year! I hate that bullshit of playing politics!

I've got some letter writing to do!

:bounce:

[omega minimo]

35. So, retroactively, the Rule Of Law, Habeas Corpus. Bill of Rights, etc. etc. shall be restored?

NO!!!!!!

Who are these goons pretending to care about the founding principles while they so NOTHING to uphold them?

[RJDem]

37. They must have forgotten Obama voted for immunity

... either that, or they are hoping the voters have forgotten it. Why is it important now, when it wasn't important then. That is truly when Obama lost me. He SAID he would vote against immunity, then he voted for it. Is he actually saying he won't veto it if congress votes to repeal it now? If so, why the flip flop??

[Wizard777]

39. It would be great to get back to being a nation of laws. Down with Dictators!

And Dickcheney's too! I know, I'm being redundant.

[yurbud]

40. now they just need to act on it

[PBass]

41. Oh, Senator Dodd... every time I think I'm "out"

YOU DRAW ME BACK IN!!!!

I'm calling both of my senators tomorrow!

[NecklyTyler]

42. We need to introduce the same bill in the House of Representatives

Let's get this through quick, and just steamroller the screaming Republicans.

It is important to show the parties involved in Government that the Democrats are in charge. We need to put small bills through both the Senate and the House and onto the President's desk on a regular basis. This will get everyone acclimated to us passing bills and make it easier to achieve single payer health care in the end.

[NecklyTyler]

43. K&R

[Hubert Flottz]

44. K&R

[unblock]

45. now THIS is an interesting constitutional question!

there's a prima facia argument that this is an ex post facto bill because they are going back in time and revoking legality. something that was legal (once the retroactive immunity had become law) will suddenly have become illegal. past events are not supposed to become illegal merely through passage of law.

however! in this case, unlike most ex post facto cases, the original act was illegal in the first place. the law isn't about looking at what they did during the time they had been granted immunity and making THAT illegal, it's about making illegal something that was already illegal at the time.

very interesting!

i would think the telcom companies would be well advised to do something during this time, prior to this bill passing, while they still have immunity, to reinforce their argument, e.g., go on record somehow fessing up to their temporarily-legal crimes. if they do this, they would have an argument that the temporarily legal status inappropriately duped them into testifying against themselves, violating their fifth amendment rights.


all this is just intersting intellectual argumentation, though.
personally, i'm reminded of the court scene in "my cousin vinny" where the juror says "fry 'em".

[crazyjoe]

47. can you say "Dodd is down in the polls"........

[tclambert]

48. But, but . . . that would mean corporations might have to obey the law!

. . . rather than Dick Cheney.

[pleah]

49. K&R

[old mark]

50. Rec - Will be interesting to see how the 'Pubs demonize this -

More socialism?

mark

[NewJeffCT]

53. Nope, those poor multi-billion $ telecoms

they were just so trusting of Bush & Gonzo when they cried "national security" that they gave up everything to them.

I think that was their line of defense before.

[old mark]

141. Wait - you mean Bush LIED to them???!!!!????

But he was President......


mark

[Imagevision]

52. yeah r-i-g-h-t...! and whatever became of the Karl Rove/Harriet Miers testimony - spin-spin it'll

take your mind off the condition of the country.

[SHRED]

54. How will this ever get through?

Oh I applaud the effort no doubt but with corporate control over our politicians I can't see this going anywhere.


---

[L. Coyote]

79. Wrong question. How much will this increase donations to both sides?

I know, I'm a cynic and I think like a politician :rofl:

[timtom]

55. Now, THAT'S change I can believe in!!

Thank you, thank you, gentlemen!

(Geez, not a Republican amongst 'em...)

[midnight]

57. This would, if repealed, signal the country is following the rul of law.

[Reader Rabbit]

58. Merkley's my senator!

Way to go, rookie! Maybe Wyden will take note and jump in, as well.

[Arugula Latte]

97. Me too! Merkley is kicking ass!

Wyden's too milquetoast for my taste.

[Demeter]

59. Who Issued the Bass Knuckles?

And where can I get some?

[Soylent Brice]

60. K&R

*here comes the sun...*

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. Hurrah!

[Bluenorthwest]

64. I'm going to wear my Jeff Merkley tee shirt today!

I put some effort in for Merkley and today I am glad that I did.

[rosesaylavee]

65. Yes.

Thank you Senators!

[varelse]

66. So, there's hope for justice after all? (nt)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

67. It'll be meaningless without prosecutions.

/obvious

[L. Coyote]

81. Really, where is DoJ anyway? Bush violated the law, and he doesn't have immunity!

It seems the law does not apply to pre-Obama time, even when the crimes are known to the whole damn world!!

That's the USA today, no rule of law, just rule be privilege.

[Vidar]

68. K&R

[mod mom]

69. I never understood how you could apply the "retroactive" aspect. It seems that any crime could be

legalized w such action. Good for them!

[bertman]

71. Can you say "Long Shot"?? But this is a HUGE step in the right direction.

Recommend.

[fascisthunter]

73. yes!!! (nt)

[L. Coyote]

74. REC #166 - Go Bill Go

[The Backlash Cometh]

83. Yeeeeeesssssssssssss!

[redqueen]

84. Wonderful news.

K&R

[StreetKnowledge]

85. About motherf*!$%&@ing time!

We can pass this.

And fuck the Blue Dogs.

And FYI to everybody: I just made proudly it +176 Recommended. :)

[BuyingThyme]

86. I don't know the details, but I don't think this will fly Constitutionally.

(In the long run.)

[Hutzpa]

90. You don't know the details

but you don't think it will fly constitutionally, what sort of ignorant and stupid statement is that??

Don't you first do your homework before you even start to be negative....

[BuyingThyme]

93. One thing's for sure: I know more than you're capable of understanding.

So you really should not post here at all.

[Hutzpa]

94. Well thank you for that

bit of perspective, I see you're sticking to plan, no surprises there then.

:hi:

[BuyingThyme]

114. Plan? I had a plan of how to respond to a simpleton who calls names

and ignores the facts? That's just what intelligent people do. Why can't you do it?

[Hutzpa]

136. You ain't worth my spit. n/t

[Hutzpa]

89. About damn time

this is very good news....

:thumbsup:


:kick: & rec

[DutchLiberal]

95. Didn't Obama vote FOR the retroactive immunity?

[BuyingThyme]

113. Yes.

[DireStrike]

96. Does it have any chance of passing? -nt-

[mvd]

106. Exactly right, Dodd

"“We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizen’s privacy and due process right and we must not allow that to stand.”

Agree 100%!

[dhpgetsit]

107. Now aren't we glad we dumped Gordon Smith?

Go Merk!

[leftcoastie]

109. About time.

Right on. Keep pushing back. Keep pushing back.

[Ozymanithrax]

112. What is this really worth?

Since they've been given immunity, and now the immunity is pulled away, can they be charged, or held accountable by those whose privacy was disrupted.

These seems to me nothing more than soemthing to make the left feel good, but if anyone tries to take them to court they will be untouchable because of the law.

[EVDebs]

115. Then they can start investigating this...

Blackwater Director Let 9/11 Hijackers into US, then Killed, Tortured the Remaining Witnesses
by leveymg posted on the Democratic Underground site at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6363469

[Greyhound]

122. 208 Recs before going to the dungeon.

New link;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x265254

[Lord Helmet]

120. k 'n r

[joeycola]

121. "This bill seeks to reverse the mistake of the last Congress" Obama said

he would fix this when he became President. (why he originally voted for this horrible mistake, it a mystery to me!)


...........This bill seeks to reverse the mistake of the last Congress and repeal the retroactive immunity provisions. The Senators strongly believe that the courts, and neither Congress nor the Administration, should be the ones to determine whether these corporations violated the law and rights of Americans and whether or not they should be held accountable.

[Amonester]

131. Maybe he voted for this sh*t because he did not want the mc$ame

campaign to use such bullsh*t as "Obama voted against protecting 'mericans in that bill because he hates America" in their $tupid pRopaganda.

[2QT2BSTR8]

125. Well it's about F@^#*&G time!

[Octafish]

133. Good.

Let's see who was willing to go along with the Gestapo.

[boppers]

135. This should be amusing.

A whole lot of people who didn't realize that they were being tracked are about to get schooled in how modern phone systems (and surveillance) actually works.

Hint: The Hollywood "trace a phonecall" or "guy sitting there with tape recorder" things are laughably wrong.

[ms liberty]

137. Well yay to that! K&R n/t

[Krashkopf]

138. THE DEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

No DLC Democrats in that group. . . these are REAL Democrats, standing up for REAL Democratic values.

Its so wonderful to see!

[wordpix]

139. YEAH!! !!

[midnight]

140. HOT DOG. This has gotten lot's of attention.....

[Realityhack]

142. YAY!! good chance it won't pass and all but Hooray! for the effort. it is about time n/t