<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Saundra, Ted,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Ted writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial size=2>"I agree with Saundra that there are
disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven guilty
in the Mubita HIV case. But given the fact that numerous cases of death
row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a court and
sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be
surprised?"</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I do not think anyone wants to deny Kanay Mubita a fair
trial.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I think what is occurring in this dispute is a
misunderstanding over the use of words. Perhaps a different, but real life
example can help us resolve this issue in part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>There is a couple that live over the hill from our
neighborhood. Both are well known, but he more than she. Both drive
at times on Saddle Ridge Road, the main line through our neighborhood (Nearing
Subdivisions, South Saddle Ridge Community).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Saddle Ridge Road is gravel in part and unstriped paved in
part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The male member of this duo frequently drives in the middle of
or on his extreme left hand side of the road. He has almost hit a number
of pedestrians and pets a number of times. Because he was entirely on the
wrong side of the road, he has almost hit my car three times. This has
also happened to other residents. Just after the first light snowstorm
about three weeks ago, I saw him from the deck of our home drive more than 1/2
mile entirely on the wrong side of a very slippery road, finally
disappearing around a blind curve, still on the wrong side.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The female member of this duo does the some sort of things
except much faster, including sliding around corners in her high performance
car. About three years ago on U.S. Highway 95 going north just past where
Estes Road enters, she passed five of us at one time, starting her pass before
she could clearly see if there was any oncoming traffic. I was the last
car she passed, being in the lead of 5 five cars. I was going 60
mph. I think my speedometer is fairly accurate as I check it
periodically. I do not know exactly how fast she was going, but she was
passing more than 2 reflective side strips to my one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>According to a friend, both members of this duo have amassed a
large number of traffic citations. Other people in our neighborhood
comment on this couple's arrogantly reckless driving and express outrage and
fear.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>For the acts I described above no citations have been issued
and thus no court action has occurred. Hence in the meaning of "innocent -
1" (in the eyes of the legal system), they are "innocent - 1."
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, it is clear to me from my own observations that it is
<FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>extremely</STRONG></FONT> probable that they have
both egregiously broken the law more than once. Hence, in that sense, they
are not "innocent - 2 ."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Further, like the Mubita case, they are a threat to the
public health, safety, and welfare.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The point is this: There is a difference
between:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[1] Being "guilty" or not "innocent -1" in
the eyes of the legal system after all the relevant proceedings have taken
place, and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] There is a high probability that the act
which forms the basis of a criminal allegation has taken place -- not "innocent
-2".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Except for a perfunctory bail hearing, little of the legal
proceedings in Mubita's case have taken place, hence there is
<STRONG>no</STRONG> doubt that Mubita is "innocent -1" in the eyes of the
legal system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As for the use of "innocent - 2" as above, let's
see. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It is alleged that he has tested positive for HIV. This
has been asserted by several independent news sources. It has been
reported that according to the police that after first denying it, Mubita
affirmed that he knew he was HIV positive. Given the huge sanctions
possible against the media and especially the police for making false and
defamatory statements, I choose to believe that it is extremely probable
that Mubita is HIV positive. This belief is not entirely
certain, and it is open to change upon new, credible information, but it appears
extremely probable at this juncture.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Has Mubita had unprotected sexual relations without informing
his partners of his HIV positive status? Apparently more than 20 women
have came forward and asserted so. Coming forward and making such an
assertion is real act of courage and exposes the asserter to all kinds of
unpleasant consequences. Hence, it is highly probable that these
assertions are true. Hence, again subject to new, credible information, I
choose to believe that it is extremely probable that Mubita did knowingly and
intentionally have unprotected sexual relations without informing his partners
of his HIV status on multiple occasions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>According the<EM> Latah Eagle</EM>, Mubita denies that he has
had unprotected sex and also denies that he has had sex outside of a
relationship. He first asserted to the police that he was not HIV
positive, then later admitted it. He denied knowing the woman who claims
having his baby. It is highly improbable that a woman would so expose
herself with such a lie given the state of DNA testing today. There are
other reasons why I believe that Mubita is not telling the truth but a
discussion of them at this point would not be appropriate on V 2020.
Hence, I do not believe Mubita.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Hence, although technically Mubita is "innocent -1,", I
believe that it is extremely improbable that he is not "innocent -
2." Again, this opinion is subject to revision upon further credible
information.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As Janesta, Phil, Shelley, Ellen, and others have pointed out,
this is an important public health issue. We are speaking of possible dire
consequences to many individuals on the possible tree of infections resulting
from his alleged actions. For acting in these public health matters, not
"innocent - 2" is sufficient in my opinion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>When there is the threat of a serious disease, mandatory
public health actions include the following, sometimes related
actions:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[1] Treat the disease as far as is
possible/practical.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] Prevent the disease form
spreading.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Preventing the disease from spreading includes testing those
that are probable carriers, educating others about the consequences of the
disease and how to avoid getting it, and to isolate via criminal/civil laws
those that have demonstrated that they are knowingly and intentionally willing
to engage in behavior that has some probability of spreading the
disease.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From what I have read on Vision 2020:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[1] No one is asserting that Mubita is
already not "innocent - 1."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] Most believe that he is not "innocent -
2."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[3] Most believe that the three public
health measures above should be rigorously pursued.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Pat Kraut does not believe further education is necessary or
would be useful. I disagree. Sometimes people do not get the message
the first time they hear it, or the second, or the third,... However, when
an event like the current case happens, more people become more willing to
listen and to change their behavior like using protection and getting tested not
only for HIV but for other STDs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It has been speculated that some of what has been written will
discourage people from being tested. I see no evidence of this.
Quite the contrary. Several brave people have came forward in response to
police requests. The more information that is disseminated, the more
people will realize the danger they may be in and/or the danger they may have or
may be putting loved ones or others in. People do not need to go to the
public health district to be tested. Except for one group of doctors where
confidentiality may be a problem (a suit was filed alleging such) people can go
to their doctors or other clinics/places for confidential testing. Hence,
dissemination/discussion of information such has occurred on V 2020, in my
opinion, is likely to lead to more testing, not less.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>One last point: Nothing I have said should be seen a
condemnation of anyone who unknowingly contacted HIV, that is, who contacted HIV
without know their partners were infected. This is a most unfortunate
thing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, I do strongly condemn those that knowingly and
intentionally engage in sexual relations without informing their partners that
they are HIV positive. I also condemn those that engage in HIV risky
behavior who do not get periodically tested and thus run the risk of
unknowingly infecting others, including loved ones.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=4>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow,
ID 83843</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>(208) 882-7975<BR></FONT><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>waf@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com
href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=sslund@adelphia.net
href="mailto:sslund@adelphia.net">sslund@adelphia.net</A> ; <A
title=CJs@Turbonet.com href="mailto:CJs@Turbonet.com">CJs@Turbonet.com</A> ;
<A title=janestacarcich@yahoo.com
href="mailto:janestacarcich@yahoo.com">janestacarcich@yahoo.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=thansen@moscow.com
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:34
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Health District
HIV Gossip?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR>All:<BR><BR>I agree with Saundra that there
are disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven
guilty in the Mubita HIV case. But given the fact that numerous cases of
death row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a
court and sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be
surprised?<BR><BR>Vision2020 is going far beyond insisting on public safety in
the discussions on Mubita's alleged conduct.<BR><BR>Those who are concerned
about encouraging testing for HIV might consider the impact of on those who
are afraid to get tested of what seems like an attempt to try and convict
Mubita on Vision2020. Would someone want a positive HIV test to result
in those who may have sexually contacted HIV from them coming forward to file
legal charges, resulting in their lives and conduct dissected on a public list
serve? Yes, sharing a needle is a more certain method of transferring
the HIV virus than sexual relations in some cases, so anyone who finds out
they are HIV positive who uses IV drugs has this possible legal ramification
regarding allegations of knowingly engaging in conduct that can spread
HIV. <BR><BR>The prosecutorial "climate" on Vision2020 does not
encourage people coming forward to be HIV tested.<BR><BR>I offer a few
corrections and comments regarding some statements in this
discussion:<BR><BR>Saundra wrote:<BR><BR>Yes -- as far as *you* know with
respect to *sex*. To date, transmission<BR>via IV drug abuse (and if you
think we don't have a problem with IV drug<BR>abuse in our area, I encourage
you to further educate yourself) is more<BR>risky than unprotected
heterosexual contact.<BR><BR>If what you imply (I'm not sure why you mentioned
heterosexual contact and left out homosexual contact) is that heterosexuals do
not have anal sex, the most risky means for HIV transmission by sexual conduct
on average, sorry, wrong. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, though often
do not report this, for obvious reasons. Gential/anal/oral lesions or sores
increase the risk of HIV transmission dramatically, providing a means for
blood products to enter the body. If someone has a healthy body with no
sores or lesions, the odds of transmission of HIV are reduced
dramatically. Anal sex on average has a higher probability of sores or
lesions or entry points for blood products than genital only intercourse or
oral sex between same or different sex couples. And so, devout lesbians
(David Camden-Britton where are you?) are a very low risk group for
HIV.<BR><BR>Concerning this comment by Shelley below, something is wrong if
the Health District is releasing information to the public of any kind
regarding who is or is not being HIV tested at what time according to any
criteria that might identify or embarrass the individuals involved.
These tests should be conducted with complete anonymity, with no information
of any kind being made public or otherwise disseminated to any gossip circles
regarding any criteria used to dictate who is tested or when they are
tested.<BR><BR>This is a major disconnect for someone who ostensibly is
attempting to encourage HIV testing to post on Vision2020 that they know the
order in which the Health District is testing clients based on how high risk
they are claiming knowledge of who the clients had sexual relations
with. If it is true that the local Health District was releasing ANY
INFORMATION OF ANY KIND outside that department regarding their testing of HIV
clients (well, accept the fact they do test for HIV), unless this involved law
enforcement or the courts, they need to change or enforce their polices
ensuring total anonymity for HIV testing.<BR><BR>Shelley wrote:<BR><BR><B>No
Saundra, this is incorrect. You can call Carol Morley at the Health District
and ask her. They had "kits" to test those at "high risk." Many people were
turned away with an appointment after they were counseled. The purpose of the
health clinic staying open last Thursday was strictly for the high risk people
that were in direct contact with Mubita as the Health Department had
limited kits. There were many people who showed up who had no contact
with Mubita but wanted tested. They were given
appointments.<BR>---------------------------------<BR><BR>Ted
Moffett<BR></B></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Saundra, Ted,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Ted writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial size=2>"I agree with Saundra that there are
disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven guilty
in the Mubita HIV case. But given the fact that numerous cases of death
row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a court and
sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be
surprised?"</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I do not think anyone wants to deny Kanay Mubita a fair
trial.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I think what is occurring here is a misunderstanding over the
use of words. Perhaps a different, but real life example can halp us
resolve this issue in part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>There is a couple that live over the hill from our
neighborhood. Both are wel known but he more than she. Both drive on
Saddle Ridge Road, the mian line through our neighborhood (Nearing Subdivision,
Additions, South Saddle Ridge Community).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Saddle Ridge Road is gravel in part and unstriped paved in
part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The male member of this duo frequently drives in the middle of
or on his extreme left hand side of the road. He has almost hit a number
of pedestrians and pets a number of times. Because he was enetirely on the
wrong side of the road, he has almost hit my car three times. Just after
the first light snowstorm about three weeks ago, I saw him from the deck of our
home drive more than 1/2 mile entirely on the wrong side of the road, finally
disappearing around a blid curve, still on the wrong side.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The female member of this duo does the some sort of things
except much faster including sliding around corners in her high performance
car. About three years ago on highway 95 going north just past where Estes
Road enters, she passed five of us at one time, starting her pass before she
could clearly see if there was any oncoming traffic. I was the last car
she passed, being in the lead of 5 five cars. I was going 60 mph. I
think my speedometer is fairly accurate as I check it periodically. I do
not know exactly how fast she was going, but she was passing more than 2
refective side strips to my one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>According to a friend, both have amassed a large number of
citations. Other people in our neighborhood comment on this couple's
arrogantly wreckless driving.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>For the acts I described above no citations have been issued
and thus no court action has occurred. Hence in the meaning of "innocent -
1" in the eyes of the legal system, they are "innocent." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, it is clear to me from my own observations that it is
<FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>extremely</STRONG></FONT> probable that they have
broken the law more than once. Hence, in that sense, they are not
"innocent -2 ."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Further, like the Mubita case, there is a threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The point is this: There is a difference
between:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[1] Being "guilty" in the the eyes of the
legal system after all the relevant proceedings have taken place,
and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] There is a high probablity that the act
which forms the basis of a criminal allegation has taken place.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Except for a perfunctory bail hearing, little of the legal
proceedings in Mubita's case have taken place, hence there is no doubt that
Mubita is "innocent -1" in the eyes of the legal system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As for the use of "innocent - 2" as above, let's
see. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It is alleged that he has tested postive for HIV. This
has been asserted in several independent news sources. It has been
reported that according to the police that after first denying it, Mubita
affirmed that he knew he was HIV positive. Given the huge sanctions
possible against the media and especially the police for making false and
defamatory statements, I choose to beleive that it is extremely
probable</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com
href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=sslund@adelphia.net
href="mailto:sslund@adelphia.net">sslund@adelphia.net</A> ; <A
title=CJs@Turbonet.com href="mailto:CJs@Turbonet.com">CJs@Turbonet.com</A> ;
<A title=janestacarcich@yahoo.com
href="mailto:janestacarcich@yahoo.com">janestacarcich@yahoo.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=thansen@moscow.com
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:34
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Health District
HIV Gossip?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR>All:<BR><BR>I agree with Saundra that there
are disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven
guilty in the Mubita HIV case. But given the fact that numerous cases of
death row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a
court and sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be
surprised?<BR><BR>Vision2020 is going far beyond insisting on public safety in
the discussions on Mubita's alleged conduct.<BR><BR>Those who are concerned
about encouraging testing for HIV might consider the impact of on those who
are afraid to get tested of what seems like an attempt to try and convict
Mubita on Vision2020. Would someone want a positive HIV test to result
in those who may have sexually contacted HIV from them coming forward to file
legal charges, resulting in their lives and conduct dissected on a public list
serve? Yes, sharing a needle is a more certain method of transferring
the HIV virus than sexual relations in some cases, so anyone who finds out
they are HIV positive who uses IV drugs has this possible legal ramification
regarding allegations of knowingly engaging in conduct that can spread
HIV. <BR><BR>The prosecutorial "climate" on Vision2020 does not
encourage people coming forward to be HIV tested.<BR><BR>I offer a few
corrections and comments regarding some statements in this
discussion:<BR><BR>Saundra wrote:<BR><BR>Yes -- as far as *you* know with
respect to *sex*. To date, transmission<BR>via IV drug abuse (and if you
think we don't have a problem with IV drug<BR>abuse in our area, I encourage
you to further educate yourself) is more<BR>risky than unprotected
heterosexual contact.<BR><BR>If what you imply (I'm not sure why you mentioned
heterosexual contact and left out homosexual contact) is that heterosexuals do
not have anal sex, the most risky means for HIV transmission by sexual conduct
on average, sorry, wrong. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, though often
do not report this, for obvious reasons. Gential/anal/oral lesions or sores
increase the risk of HIV transmission dramatically, providing a means for
blood products to enter the body. If someone has a healthy body with no
sores or lesions, the odds of transmission of HIV are reduced
dramatically. Anal sex on average has a higher probability of sores or
lesions or entry points for blood products than genital only intercourse or
oral sex between same or different sex couples. And so, devout lesbians
(David Camden-Britton where are you?) are a very low risk group for
HIV.<BR><BR>Concerning this comment by Shelley below, something is wrong if
the Health District is releasing information to the public of any kind
regarding who is or is not being HIV tested at what time according to any
criteria that might identify or embarrass the individuals involved.
These tests should be conducted with complete anonymity, with no information
of any kind being made public or otherwise disseminated to any gossip circles
regarding any criteria used to dictate who is tested or when they are
tested.<BR><BR>This is a major disconnect for someone who ostensibly is
attempting to encourage HIV testing to post on Vision2020 that they know the
order in which the Health District is testing clients based on how high risk
they are claiming knowledge of who the clients had sexual relations
with. If it is true that the local Health District was releasing ANY
INFORMATION OF ANY KIND outside that department regarding their testing of HIV
clients (well, accept the fact they do test for HIV), unless this involved law
enforcement or the courts, they need to change or enforce their polices
ensuring total anonymity for HIV testing.<BR><BR>Shelley wrote:<BR><BR><B>No
Saundra, this is incorrect. You can call Carol Morley at the Health District
and ask her. They had "kits" to test those at "high risk." Many people were
turned away with an appointment after they were counseled. The purpose of the
health clinic staying open last Thursday was strictly for the high risk people
that were in direct contact with Mubita as the Health Department had
limited kits. There were many people who showed up who had no contact
with Mubita but wanted tested. They were given
appointments.<BR>---------------------------------<BR><BR>Ted
Moffett<BR></B></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Saundra, Ted,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Ted writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial size=2>"I agree with Saundra that there are
disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven guilty
in the Mubita HIV case. But given the fact that numerous cases of death
row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a court and
sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be
surprised?"</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I do not think anyone wants to deny Kanay Mubita a fair
trial.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I think what is occurring here is a misunderstanding over the
use of words. Perhaps a different, but real life example can halp us
resolve this issue in part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>There is a couple that live over the hill from our
neighborhood. Both are wel known but he more than she. Both drive on
Saddle Ridge Road, the mian line through our neighborhood (Nearing Subdivision,
Additions, South Saddle Ridge Community).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Saddle Ridge Road is gravel in part and unstriped paved in
part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The male member of this duo frequently drives in the middle of
or on his extreme left hand side of the road. He has almost hit a number
of pedestrians and pets a number of times. Because he was enetirely on the
wrong side of the road, he has almost hit my car three times. Just after
the first light snowstorm about three weeks ago, I saw him from the deck of our
home drive more than 1/2 mile entirely on the wrong side of the road, finally
disappearing around a blid curve, still on the wrong side.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The female member of this duo does the some sort of things
except much faster including sliding around corners in her high performance
car. About three years ago on highway 95 going north just past where Estes
Road enters, she passed five of us at one time, starting her pass before she
could clearly see if there was any oncoming traffic. I was the last car
she passed, being in the lead of 5 five cars. I was going 60 mph. I
think my speedometer is fairly accurate as I check it periodically. I do
not know exactly how fast she was going, but she was passing more than 2
refective side strips to my one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>According to a friend, both have amassed a large number of
citations. Other people in our neighborhood comment on this couple's
arrogantly wreckless driving.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>For the acts I described above no citations have been issued
and thus no court action has occurred. Hence in the meaning of "innocent -
1" in the eyes of the legal system, they are "innocent." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, it is clear to me from my own observations that it is
<FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>extremely</STRONG></FONT> probable that they have
broken the law more than once. Hence, in that sense, they are not
"innocent -2 ."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Further, like the Mubita case, there is a threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The point is this: There is a difference
between:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[1] Being "guilty" in the the eyes of the
legal system after all the relevant proceedings have taken place,
and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] There is a high probablity that the act
which forms the basis of a criminal allegation has taken place.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Except for a perfunctory bail hearing, little of the legal
proceedings in Mubita's case have taken place, hence there is no doubt that
Mubita is "innocent -1" in the eyes of the legal system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As for the use of "innocent - 2" as above, let's
see. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It is alleged that he has tested postive for HIV. This
has been asserted in several independent news sources. It has been
reported that according to the police that after first denying it, Mubita
affirmed that he knew he was HIV positive. Given the huge sanctions
possible against the media and especially the police for making false and
defamatory statements, I choose to beleive that it is extremely
probable</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com
href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=sslund@adelphia.net
href="mailto:sslund@adelphia.net">sslund@adelphia.net</A> ; <A
title=CJs@Turbonet.com href="mailto:CJs@Turbonet.com">CJs@Turbonet.com</A> ;
<A title=janestacarcich@yahoo.com
href="mailto:janestacarcich@yahoo.com">janestacarcich@yahoo.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=thansen@moscow.com
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:34
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Health District
HIV Gossip?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR>All:<BR><BR>I agree with Saundra that there
are disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven
guilty in the Mubita HIV case. But given the fact that numerous cases of
death row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a
court and sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be
surprised?<BR><BR>Vision2020 is going far beyond insisting on public safety in
the discussions on Mubita's alleged conduct.<BR><BR>Those who are concerned
about encouraging testing for HIV might consider the impact of on those who
are afraid to get tested of what seems like an attempt to try and convict
Mubita on Vision2020. Would someone want a positive HIV test to result
in those who may have sexually contacted HIV from them coming forward to file
legal charges, resulting in their lives and conduct dissected on a public list
serve? Yes, sharing a needle is a more certain method of transferring
the HIV virus than sexual relations in some cases, so anyone who finds out
they are HIV positive who uses IV drugs has this possible legal ramification
regarding allegations of knowingly engaging in conduct that can spread
HIV. <BR><BR>The prosecutorial "climate" on Vision2020 does not
encourage people coming forward to be HIV tested.<BR><BR>I offer a few
corrections and comments regarding some statements in this
discussion:<BR><BR>Saundra wrote:<BR><BR>Yes -- as far as *you* know with
respect to *sex*. To date, transmission<BR>via IV drug abuse (and if you
think we don't have a problem with IV drug<BR>abuse in our area, I encourage
you to further educate yourself) is more<BR>risky than unprotected
heterosexual contact.<BR><BR>If what you imply (I'm not sure why you mentioned
heterosexual contact and left out homosexual contact) is that heterosexuals do
not have anal sex, the most risky means for HIV transmission by sexual conduct
on average, sorry, wrong. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, though often
do not report this, for obvious reasons. Gential/anal/oral lesions or sores
increase the risk of HIV transmission dramatically, providing a means for
blood products to enter the body. If someone has a healthy body with no
sores or lesions, the odds of transmission of HIV are reduced
dramatically. Anal sex on average has a higher probability of sores or
lesions or entry points for blood products than genital only intercourse or
oral sex between same or different sex couples. And so, devout lesbians
(David Camden-Britton where are you?) are a very low risk group for
HIV.<BR><BR>Concerning this comment by Shelley below, something is wrong if
the Health District is releasing information to the public of any kind
regarding who is or is not being HIV tested at what time according to any
criteria that might identify or embarrass the individuals involved.
These tests should be conducted with complete anonymity, with no information
of any kind being made public or otherwise disseminated to any gossip circles
regarding any criteria used to dictate who is tested or when they are
tested.<BR><BR>This is a major disconnect for someone who ostensibly is
attempting to encourage HIV testing to post on Vision2020 that they know the
order in which the Health District is testing clients based on how high risk
they are claiming knowledge of who the clients had sexual relations
with. If it is true that the local Health District was releasing ANY
INFORMATION OF ANY KIND outside that department regarding their testing of HIV
clients (well, accept the fact they do test for HIV), unless this involved law
enforcement or the courts, they need to change or enforce their polices
ensuring total anonymity for HIV testing.<BR><BR>Shelley wrote:<BR><BR><B>No
Saundra, this is incorrect. You can call Carol Morley at the Health District
and ask her. They had "kits" to test those at "high risk." Many people were
turned away with an appointment after they were counseled. The purpose of the
health clinic staying open last Thursday was strictly for the high risk people
that were in direct contact with Mubita as the Health Department had
limited kits. There were many people who showed up who had no contact
with Mubita but wanted tested. They were given
appointments.<BR>---------------------------------<BR><BR>Ted
Moffett<BR></B></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Saundra, Ted,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Ted writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial size=2>"I agree with Saundra that there are
disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven guilty
in the Mubita HIV case. But given the fact that numerous cases of death
row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a court and
sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be
surprised?"</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I do not think anyone wants to deny Kanay Mubita a fair
trial.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I think what is occurring here is a misunderstanding over the
use of words. Perhaps a different, but real life example can halp us
resolve this issue in part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>There is a couple that live over the hill from our
neighborhood. Both are wel known but he more than she. Both drive on
Saddle Ridge Road, the mian line through our neighborhood (Nearing Subdivision,
Additions, South Saddle Ridge Community).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Saddle Ridge Road is gravel in part and unstriped paved in
part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The male member of this duo frequently drives in the middle of
or on his extreme left hand side of the road. He has almost hit a number
of pedestrians and pets a number of times. Because he was enetirely on the
wrong side of the road, he has almost hit my car three times. Just after
the first light snowstorm about three weeks ago, I saw him from the deck of our
home drive more than 1/2 mile entirely on the wrong side of the road, finally
disappearing around a blid curve, still on the wrong side.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The female member of this duo does the some sort of things
except much faster including sliding around corners in her high performance
car. About three years ago on highway 95 going north just past where Estes
Road enters, she passed five of us at one time, starting her pass before she
could clearly see if there was any oncoming traffic. I was the last car
she passed, being in the lead of 5 five cars. I was going 60 mph. I
think my speedometer is fairly accurate as I check it periodically. I do
not know exactly how fast she was going, but she was passing more than 2
refective side strips to my one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>According to a friend, both have amassed a large number of
citations. Other people in our neighborhood comment on this couple's
arrogantly wreckless driving.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>For the acts I described above no citations have been issued
and thus no court action has occurred. Hence in the meaning of "innocent -
1" in the eyes of the legal system, they are "innocent." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, it is clear to me from my own observations that it is
<FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>extremely</STRONG></FONT> probable that they have
broken the law more than once. Hence, in that sense, they are not
"innocent -2 ."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Further, like the Mubita case, there is a threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The point is this: There is a difference
between:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[1] Being "guilty" in the the eyes of the
legal system after all the relevant proceedings have taken place,
and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] There is a high probablity that the act
which forms the basis of a criminal allegation has taken place.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Except for a perfunctory bail hearing, little of the legal
proceedings in Mubita's case have taken place, hence there is no doubt that
Mubita is "innocent -1" in the eyes of the legal system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As for the use of "innocent - 2" as above, let's
see. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It is alleged that he has tested postive for HIV. This
has been asserted in several independent news sources. It has been
reported that according to the police that after first denying it, Mubita
affirmed that he knew he was HIV positive. Given the huge sanctions
possible against the media and especially the police for making false and
defamatory statements, I choose to beleive that it is extremely
probable</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com
href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=sslund@adelphia.net
href="mailto:sslund@adelphia.net">sslund@adelphia.net</A> ; <A
title=CJs@Turbonet.com href="mailto:CJs@Turbonet.com">CJs@Turbonet.com</A> ;
<A title=janestacarcich@yahoo.com
href="mailto:janestacarcich@yahoo.com">janestacarcich@yahoo.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=thansen@moscow.com
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:34
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Health District
HIV Gossip?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR>All:<BR><BR>I agree with Saundra that there
are disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven
guilty in the Mubita HIV case. But given the fact that numerous cases of
death row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a
court and sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be
surprised?<BR><BR>Vision2020 is going far beyond insisting on public safety in
the discussions on Mubita's alleged conduct.<BR><BR>Those who are concerned
about encouraging testing for HIV might consider the impact of on those who
are afraid to get tested of what seems like an attempt to try and convict
Mubita on Vision2020. Would someone want a positive HIV test to result
in those who may have sexually contacted HIV from them coming forward to file
legal charges, resulting in their lives and conduct dissected on a public list
serve? Yes, sharing a needle is a more certain method of transferring
the HIV virus than sexual relations in some cases, so anyone who finds out
they are HIV positive who uses IV drugs has this possible legal ramification
regarding allegations of knowingly engaging in conduct that can spread
HIV. <BR><BR>The prosecutorial "climate" on Vision2020 does not
encourage people coming forward to be HIV tested.<BR><BR>I offer a few
corrections and comments regarding some statements in this
discussion:<BR><BR>Saundra wrote:<BR><BR>Yes -- as far as *you* know with
respect to *sex*. To date, transmission<BR>via IV drug abuse (and if you
think we don't have a problem with IV drug<BR>abuse in our area, I encourage
you to further educate yourself) is more<BR>risky than unprotected
heterosexual contact.<BR><BR>If what you imply (I'm not sure why you mentioned
heterosexual contact and left out homosexual contact) is that heterosexuals do
not have anal sex, the most risky means for HIV transmission by sexual conduct
on average, sorry, wrong. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, though often
do not report this, for obvious reasons. Gential/anal/oral lesions or sores
increase the risk of HIV transmission dramatically, providing a means for
blood products to enter the body. If someone has a healthy body with no
sores or lesions, the odds of transmission of HIV are reduced
dramatically. Anal sex on average has a higher probability of sores or
lesions or entry points for blood products than genital only intercourse or
oral sex between same or different sex couples. And so, devout lesbians
(David Camden-Britton where are you?) are a very low risk group for
HIV.<BR><BR>Concerning this comment by Shelley below, something is wrong if
the Health District is releasing information to the public of any kind
regarding who is or is not being HIV tested at what time according to any
criteria that might identify or embarrass the individuals involved.
These tests should be conducted with complete anonymity, with no information
of any kind being made public or otherwise disseminated to any gossip circles
regarding any criteria used to dictate who is tested or when they are
tested.<BR><BR>This is a major disconnect for someone who ostensibly is
attempting to encourage HIV testing to post on Vision2020 that they know the
order in which the Health District is testing clients based on how high risk
they are claiming knowledge of who the clients had sexual relations
with. If it is true that the local Health District was releasing ANY
INFORMATION OF ANY KIND outside that department regarding their testing of HIV
clients (well, accept the fact they do test for HIV), unless this involved law
enforcement or the courts, they need to change or enforce their polices
ensuring total anonymity for HIV testing.<BR><BR>Shelley wrote:<BR><BR><B>No
Saundra, this is incorrect. You can call Carol Morley at the Health District
and ask her. They had "kits" to test those at "high risk." Many people were
turned away with an appointment after they were counseled. The purpose of the
health clinic staying open last Thursday was strictly for the high risk people
that were in direct contact with Mubita as the Health Department had
limited kits. There were many people who showed up who had no contact
with Mubita but wanted tested. They were given
appointments.<BR>---------------------------------<BR><BR>Ted
Moffett<BR></B></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>