Docket Number 10-10204
SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
STEPHEN
M. ST. JOHN, Pro Se,
Petitioner
-against-
UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.;
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
PREETINDER BHARARA;
ET AL:
PERPETRATORS,
ACCOMPLICES & ACCESSORIES
TO THE ACTS DESCRIBED
IN LOWER COURT ACTIONS,
Respondents
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
To the United States Court of Appeals
For
the Second Circuit
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Stephen M. St. John,
Pro Se
Stephen M. St. John
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Newark, CA XXXXX
stephen@show-the-house.com
XXX
XXX XXXX
Questions Presented for Review
Do
Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States imply a certain reservoir of unspecified rights and
powers of the people?
In a grave matter without
precedent and of imperative public importance, where strong and universal delusion results from fraud, does this reservoir
of rights and powers of the people provide a way to meet these exceptional circumstances, particularly when the aforementioned
fraud emanates from within the government itself, from the very agency that is charged with enforcing the laws of the land?
Does this reservoir of rights and powers of the people confer
on a citizen, who confronts his government with irrefutable evidence of its very serious wrongdoing, proper standing to pursue
justice for all?
Is the Petitioner’s
discovery of a bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” surveillance video that was used by the US Department of Justice to
fool the public and a jury and to frame Arabs for the heinous crime of the century tantamount to an exceptional circumstance
conferring on a citizen the right to sue in pursuit of justice for all regardless of any provision that normally requires
his demonstration of actual damage?
List of all Parties
All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
Table of Contents
Questions presented for Review
2
List of Parties
3
Table of Contents
4
Table of Cited
Authorities
5
Citations
6
Basis for Jurisdiction
in this Court
7
Constitutional
Provisions
7
Statement of the
Case
9
Argument
11
Appendices
18
Appellate Court’s Order of
Dismissal
A
District Court’s Civil Judgment and Order of Dismissal
B
Appellate Court’s Order denying Motion for Reconsideration
C
Letter from Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
D
Aerial Photo Washington Dulles International Airport
D
Aerial Photo Dulles Airport Main Terminal
D
Edited still Photo from purported 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video
E
Texts of cited authorities in Table of Cited Authorities (page 5)
F
Table of Cited Authorities
18 USC § 35
Fraud
p. 9
18
USC § 371
Conspiracy to commit fraud p. 9
18 USC § 1512(c)
Obstruction of justice
p. 9
18 USC § 2381
Treason
p. 9
18
USC § 2382
Misprision of Treason
p. 9
18
USC § 2384
Seditious Conspiracy p.
9
28 USC § 1331
Federal Questions
p. 9
28 USC § 1332
Diversity of Citizenship p. 9
Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.4
Initiating aggressive war p. 9
Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3 Treason
p. 9
Constitution of the United States, Article VI
Supremacy Clause
p. 9
Constitution of the
United States, Amendment IX
unspecified rights
pp. 10,
11, 14, 15
Constitution of the United States, Amendment X unspecified rights
pp. 10,
11, 14, 15
Nuremberg Principles,
VI(a)
Initiating aggressive war pp. 9,
12
Citations
Citations of the official reports of the opinions and orders entered
in the case by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (10 CIV 3908):
This case was an ex parte proceeding with a sua sponte civil judgment
and order of dismissal by Chief Judge Preska. To the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge and belief
there were no official reports of the opinions and orders entered in the case. Chief Judge Preska relied
on the following citations:
28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
28
U.S.C. 1915(a)(3);
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 717, 751 (1984);
Arizonians for Official English v. Arizona,
520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997);
Coppedge
v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962);
Fulani v. Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49, 51-52 (2d Cir. 1994);
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992);
Pashaian v. Eccelston Properties, Ltd., 88
F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1996);
Valley
Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982);
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975);
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 508, 518 (1975);
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990);
Citations of the official reports of the opinions and orders entered in the case by the United States
Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (10-3022-cv):
This case was also an ex parte proceeding with a terse sua sponte order of dismissal by Judges Sack,
Parker and Raggi. Again, to the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge and belief there were no official
reports of any opinions or orders entered in the case. Judges Parker, Sack and Raggi relied on the following
citations:
28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989)
Basis for Jurisdiction in this Court
On 13 October 2010 Judges Sack, Parker and Raggi of the United States
Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit denied a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed
the appeal. On 16 November 2010 they denied “a motion for reconsideration.” On
22 February 2011 the Clerk of this Court advised the Petitioner to resubmit a corrected petition. Petitioner
believes Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States confer on this Court jurisdiction to review
on a writ of certiorari the judgments and orders in question.
Constitutional Provisions etc.
(The pertinent text of each citation appears in Appendix F.)
18 USC § 35
Fraud
18 USC § 371
Conspiracy to commit fraud
18
USC § 1512(c)
Obstruction of justice
18
USC § 2381
Treason
18 USC § 2382
Misprision of Treason
18
USC § 2384
Seditious Conspiracy
28
USC § 1331
Federal Questions
28
USC § 1332
Diversity of Citizenship
Charter
of the United Nations, Article
2.4
Initiating aggressive war
Constitution
of the United States, Article
III, Section 3 Treason
Constitution of the United States, Article VI
Supremacy Clause
Constitution
of the United States, Amendment
IX unspecified rights
Constitution of the United States, Amendment X
unspecified rights
Nuremberg
Principles, VI(a)
Initiating aggressive war
Statement of the Case
The Petitioner seeks review of a judgment by a United States court of appeals, and hereby states the
basis for federal jurisdiction in the court of first instance. The subject matter jurisdiction of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York was properly based on consideration of both federal questions
(28 USC § 1331) and diversity of citizenship (28 USC § 1332). Allegations were made of fraud
(18 USC § 35); conspiracy to commit fraud (18 USC § 371); obstruction of justice (18 USC § 1512(c)); treason
(Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3; 18 USC §§ 2381, 2382, 2384); and initiating
aggressive war (Nuremberg Principles, VI(a); Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.4; Constitution
of the United States, Article VI, Supremacy Clause) by employees of the United States Department of Justice and others
as yet unidentified, including foreign nationals and United States nationals with dual citizenship. These
crimes were carried out in Herndon, Virginia; Alexandria, Virginia; Washington, District of Columbia; New York, New York;
and other parts as yet unknown. The appeal was from Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska’s sua sponte
Civil Judgment and Order of Dismissal of 12 May 2010, for which she later issued a Certificate of Appealability on 27 July
2010.
The Petitioner’s
actions at both the district and appellate court levels yielded only sua sponte judgments and orders of dismissal;
hence these actions were in effect entirely ex parte with no known involvement of the respondents.
Notwithstanding Chief Judge Preska’s judicial erudition
and focus, the Petitioner believes that a just remedy emanates from Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United
States in a case of most unusual and compelling circumstances and of utmost importance where tried and true methods have
not worked and still do not work.
The
Petitioner caught the US Department of Justice in a false and misleading presentation of evidence about 9/11 to the public
and to a jury; namely, a demonstrably bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” surveillance video. In a
case of such exceptional and compelling circumstances, he believes he has proper standing to sue as a natural right springing
from the reservoir of unspecified rights and powers implied by Amendments IX and X of our Constitution. Otherwise,
the limitations imposed by an overly narrow definition of standing only serve to cover up and perpetuate a major fraud that,
as one component of a coldly calculated ruse to create a pretext for war, led to unjustified invasions and occupations of
Afghanistan and Iraq. The courts must join with a citizen in preventing or otherwise exposing fraud and
force, and not set barriers. This Court now has a unique opportunity to prosper the Petitioner’s
quest for governmental accountability about 9/11 and satisfy a worldwide yearning for truth and justice on this very grave
matter which has adversely affected millions upon millions of people.
Argument
For whatever reason, the appellate judges did not detect from the Petitioner’s
intuitive reasoning the grounds on which he bases his claim of most exceptional circumstance that overrides the actual damage
test for proper standing. The matter was ignored altogether, and remains an important question of federal
law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court. Amendments IX and X of the Constitution provide
a source of resilience and innovation for matters that are unprecedented and unforeseen.
The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority recently confirmed the
Petitioner’s correctly deduced location and view of the video surveillance camera at “West Security Checkpoint
#1” at Washington Dulles International Airport on 11 September 2001. (Per Rule 14(1)(i)(vi) please
see Appendix D.) This new information reinforces the Petitioner’s original challenge in the lower
courts to the authenticity of the video which had been used by the Associated Press to promote the publisher’s release
of the 9/11 Commission Report on 21 July 2004 and by the US Department of Justice to convict Zacharias Moussaoui
in 2006. This surveillance video allegedly shows five Arab hijackers passing through the security checkpoint
at Dulles Airport on their way to boarding American Airlines Flight 77 on the morning of 9/11.
Now that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has established
beyond any and all doubt that the surveillance camera pointed north and passengers walked south through the checkpoint, a
reliable framework from Dulles Airport authorities permits final analysis of the sun’s shadows cast by passersby seen
outside the terminal entrance in the far background of the video. (Per Rule 14(1)(i)(vi) see appendices
D and E.) These shadows are pointed south at a heading of approximately 180°, which means the sun had
to have been rising at the north cardinal point of the compass on the morning of 11 September 2001 in Herndon, Virginia.
This of course is impossible and the only conclusion to be made is that the video is a total fraud. The
video could not possibly have been made at Dulles Airport, but was made elsewhere, at a place and time as yet unknown, and
then falsely presented first to the public and then to a jury as having been filmed at Dulles. The lower
court judges somehow failed to appreciate these circumstances as exceptional and compelling, but instead insinuated that the
Petitioner’s just cause in the public interest is either frivolous or malicious.
The Petitioner avers that whatever the true provenance of this purported
“Dulles Airport” video, it staggers the mind to imagine a scenario not indicative of foreknowledge and preparation
for the framing of Arabs in a classic “false flag” military intelligence black operation. Again,
the lower court judges did not see that the solitary effort of one citizen, the Petitioner, to expose the fraud is tantamount
to a compelling and exceptional circumstance very much in the public interest.
Furthermore, the Petitioner avers that such a ruse to commence unjustified and immoral
invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq with a fake video is an act of treason at home and the supreme war crime
abroad according to international law, particularly the 1950 Nuremberg Principles. Shouldn’t the
lower court judges have moved heaven and earth to allow the Petitioner wide latitude in exposing fraud and force?
The Petitioner points out that the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq began in a very real sense at three airport gates on the morning of 11 September 2001. Yet we have
NEVER seen ANY credible video surveillance evidence of ANY of the passengers or hijackers at ANY of the three airports from
which the flights of 9/11 are said to have departed. Billions of people around the world were mesmerized
by heavily repeated broadcast images of two alleged hijackers passing through a security checkpoint, but few know the video
actually came from Portland Maine International Airport. This Portland tape and the bogus “Dulles
Airport” tape are all we have in the category of routine video surveillance evidence for 9/11. How
could the appellate judges not see in these circumstances compelling reason to override the actual damage test for a unique
and original action to expose serious wrongdoing and find out what really happened?
These grave issues go to the heart of good governance and integrity
in government. Now we know why our government could not respond in a forthright way to the Taliban’s
good faith offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden upon presentation of evidence of his involvement in the crime of the century.
Our government lacks evidence. It also lacks integrity. It did then, and it does
now. The current administration countenances the manifest criminality of the previous one, and sixteen
months after having been apprised of the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video by the Petitioner’s repeated
faxes, emails, phone calls and personal visits, it is at the very least an accessory after the fact.
The bogus “Dulles Airport” video is just the tip of
the iceberg of accumulated evidence undermining the official findings of the 9/11 Commission Report.
It is unique, however, in that the video presumably has a chain of custody of evidence which will lead to the Praxis
of Evil in our midst which actually pulled off 9/11 and the cover-up. Why would the lower court judges
baffle such a fortuitous discovery that explodes the myth of 9/11?
The Co-Chairmen of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Thomas H. Kean
and Lee H. Hamilton, have already indicated in their book Without Precedent that they were “set up to fail” in
their investigation of 9/11. What better argument can there be for the establishment of a new and a real
investigation? Such a new and real investigation of 9/11 – one that will look into foreign infiltrations
and espionage, as well as high tech piracy of telecommunications, computer, radar and flight control systems - is the main
remedy sought by the Petitioner in the lower courts. The investigation will work in tandem with a federal
grand jury in New York. Is this not a reasonable goal in the interests of truth and justice for all?
The sun and its shadows are unimpeachable witnesses at Washington
Dulles International Airport on the morning of 11 September 2001. Basic astronomy and geometry give the
proof of our government’s fraud and force. A choice now presents itself to the esteemed members of
our nation’s highest court. Do we follow the light in pursuit of 9/11 truth and justice?
Or do we join or maintain the ignoble conspiracy of silence and of shunning surrounding this very grave matter?
By directing the lower courts to regard Amendments IX and X of the Constitution not as dry artifacts in a legal desert,
but as living sources of resilience and innovation for unprecedented and unforeseen circumstances, the prospect for truth
to be told and justice done will come alive to the benefit of all mankind.
The Petitioner’s discovery of treasonous, warmongering fraud on the people
of the United States and indeed the people of the entire earth should be introduced in an adversarial process where the respondents
will be confronted with the evidence and compelled to respond in a reasonable way according to the law and the grave responsibilities
of their offices.
In light of these very
serious crimes, the Petitioner should not be impeded by a legal stricture with respect to standing, but should go forward
in the best interests of justice and the good name and national security of the United States of America.
In this unique and compelling circumstance, where the Petitioner
is quite alone in making his discovery and accusation against the chief law enforcement agency of his nation and in the face
of a conspiracy of silence and of shunning, shouldn’t the status of proper standing devolve upon him as one of the unspecified
rights guaranteed by Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States? Is this not
a simple matter of a natural right to hold his government to account for serious wrongdoing when no one else can or will?
The wise advice seen on New York City subway posters to heighten
security awareness - “If you see something, say something” - goes to the heart of the matter. Herein
is the essence of what promises to be a landmark case of a solitary citizen standing at the gates of justice and shaking the
nations of the earth from very strong delusion about 9/11. But what kind of jurisprudence denies a watchman’s
approach, let alone his warning? In a very real sense all citizens who see something and say something
have standing and a corresponding natural right to a responsive government. Amendments IX and X of the
Constitution of the United States guarantee that no law or statute or decision can deny the Petitioner’s right
to a responsive government, let alone reasonable relief that leads in this case to exposure of treasonous, warmongering fraud
and rewards his vigilance and perseverance against all odds and under circumstances never before encountered or even imagined.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “Let us have faith that right
makes might.” Where law intersects with humanity, surely the law’s natural rigidity can give
way in circumstances never before encountered or even imagined by those who write or interpret it. A just
and proper resolution of this very extraordinary case should therefore not be contingent on actual damages such as loss of
a spouse or other family member or property damage and a dollar amount attached thereto, especially when such a legal requirement
prevents discussion of far graver matters that have hitherto been unexplored. A unique and original discovery
that explodes the 9/11 Myth should not be relegated to the dust bin of history and the discoverer in effect exiled to Siberia.
Rather, this Court will serve all of mankind quite well by initiating rational, honest and open discussion about a
very troubling aspect of the official account of 9/11. Jesus said, “And you shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.”
The
Petitioner is not asking for the moon, but a chance to confront the Respondents with his evidence in a moment of truth.
Furthermore, the remedies sought by the Petitioner are reasonable,
forward looking, corrective, collaborative and in the best interests of justice, our national security and our nation’s
good name and proper standing as a sovereign equal among sovereign equals.
The Petitioner also reminds this Court that one purpose of the Judiciary is to check
the excesses of the executive and legislative branches of government and if this is not done in this instance our nation will
be exposed to adventitious outcomes.
Conclusion
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen M. St. John
22 April 2011
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Newark,
CA XXXXX
stephen@show-the-house.com
Appendices
A
Appellate Court’s Order of Dismissal
B District
Court’s Civil Judgment and Order of Dismissal
C
Appellate Court’s Order denying Motion for Reconsideration
D Letter from Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority
D
Aerial Photo Washington Dulles International Airport
D
Aerial Photo Dulles Airport Main Terminal
E
Edited still Photo from purported 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video
F Texts of Cited Authorities
from Table of Cited Authorities (page 5)
Appendix A
Appellate Court’s Order of Dismissal
Appendix B
District Court’s Civil Judgment and Order of Dismissal
Appendix C
Appellate Court’s Order denying "Motion for Reconsideration"
Appendix
D
Letter from Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority
The photo above
is a still from the purported 9/11 “Surveillance videotape from Dulles Airport West Security Checkpoint #1,” which
is published on the website of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html
where
one scrolls down to Exhibit NT00211 and clicks to download.
The Petitioner’s analysis of this videotape reveals that
it could not have been filmed at Washington Dulles International Airport as falsely stated and maintained by the US Department
of Justice, the respondents in this case, but was filmed elsewhere at a time and place as yet unknown. The
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has confirmed beyond any and all doubt that on 11 September 2001 the camera faced
north and passengers going to the gates to board airplanes entered the terminal on its north side and walked southward through
the security checkpoint. Therefore, the shadow of the passerby seen just outside the terminal entrance
in the far background of the video (outlined in a yellow oval) is pointing south at an approximately 180° heading. This of course means the sun had to have been rising very near
the north cardinal point of the compass on the morning of 11 September 2001 in Herndon, Virginia. But this
is impossible. One must conclude the video is bogus.
Appendix F
Texts of Cited Authorities from Table of Cited Authorities (page 5)
18 USC § 35
(a) Whoever imparts or conveys or causes to
be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being
made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or
chapter 97 or chapter 111 of
this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 which shall be recoverable in a civil action brought
in the name of the United States.
(b) Whoever willfully and maliciously, or with reckless disregard for the safety of
human life, imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false,
concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this
chapter or chapter 97 or chapter 111 of this title - shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
18 USC § 371
If two or more persons
conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in
any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided
for such misdemeanor.
18 USC § 1512(c)
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record,
document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for
use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs,
influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 20 years, or both.
18 USC §
2381
Whoever, owing allegiance
to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States
or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under
this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 USC § 2382
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason
against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge
of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason
and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
18 USC § 2384
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of
the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder,
or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United
States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years,
or both.
28 USC § 1331
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
28 USC § 1332
(a)
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects
of a foreign state;
(3) citizens of different
States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties;
Charter of
the United Nations,
Article 2.4
All Members shall refrain
in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless
on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Constitution of the United States, Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws
of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Constitution
of the United States,
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Constitution of the United States, Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Nuremberg Principles, Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under
international law:
(a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, prepaaration, initiation or waging of
a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common
plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination,
enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial
or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connexion with any
crime against peace or any war crime.
Stephen M. St. John
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Newark, CA XXXXX
stephen@show-the-house.com
Waiver of right of respondents Eric H. Holder,
Jr., Attorney General, et al. to respond
filed
on 31 May 2011
m
