Littleton v. Prange PLEASE POST AND REPOST AND SEND AND RESEND, WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET OUT THE WORD. 1. What do Texas TG folks do with Littleton? 2. Web sites for the full Littleton decision texts 3. LGBT local response possibilities in San Antonio on Littleton decision 4. Meet Mrs. and Mrs. -- this can happen in other states also 5. Apology from Long-time Critic in light of Littleton 6. Littleton ignores results of Humane Genome Project Phyllis Phyllis Randolph Frye, aka "the Phyllabuster" P.S. Check out my web page. If you can get onto the web, (regardless of if you are AOL or not AOL), then you can find my web page at: http://members.aol.com/prfrye ######################################################### 1. What do Texas TG folks do with Littleton? ######################################################### by Phyllis Randolph Frye I've been asked that question a lot this past week by many of my clients and by many who hired other lawyers to get their Texas documents changed. The legal answer and the personal answer are both the same. I am not sure at this time. Much depends on other things. Will Ms. Littleton's lawyers request a rehearing en banc (before the full court of appeals rather than the three judge panel)? As such is discretionary, will it be granted? Will Ms. Littleton's lawyers request a review by the Texas Supreme Court? As such is discretionary, will it be granted? Will Ms. Littleton's attorneys discover and push any 14th amendment Due Process claims to the U.S. Supreme Court? As such is discretionary, will it be granted? Since I was neither hired nor consulted by Ms. Littleton's attorneys, I do not know at this time. While it was pending, I tried to lay a case with the media of how stupid such a decision (as the one that actually came through) would be. My hope was that media coverage would so embarrass the court that the next review would cause the stupidity to be considered. In my opinion the San Antonio paper has done well, but media across the state and nation have been mostly silent thus far. My guess is that anyone that I have taken through to get their identification sex marker changed along with their name change still has a valid order. That is because their identification sex marker was argued as a public safety need. What if my person broke the law? Wouldn't it be easier for law enforcement to look for the correct gender presentation? They were also argued totally out of the closet both on paper and before the judge. My orders do not need to be reviewed for any failures to disclose to the court. As to correction of birth certificate for both surgical and non-surgical transsexuals, those who live in the jurisdiction of the 4th Court (Bexar County and surrounding) are holding orders that do nothing, for now anyway, until we see what happens later. Do not throw them away. Let us wait and see. For those that I did in the jurisdiction of the 4th Court (Bexar County and surrounding), but who no longer live in Texas, the answer is I do not know. It depends upon the jurisdiction where you live and how they will respect your order. For those who live in or who got their orders from other parts of Texas, again, I do not know. It depends upon how the Appellate Courts in those jurisdictions would rule. WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO DO IS GET OUT AND GET ACTIVE! I can hear it now, "On, great, there she goes again, trying to shame us into coming out." Yes, that is correct. If you are in the closet, you just cannot cry and nash your teeth because other people are not protecting your rights. If you do not like to fight, well guess what. The bigots just brought the fight to your front door. Grow up! If you do not come out and fight, the bigots are going to bust down your door and do whatever they legally wish in the name of religion, morality and conservatism. This has become a political fight. Surely for those of you still in the closet, you do not think that the two justices had the "law" in mind when they judicially legislated you out of your genital status. It was politics, pure and simple. And for each of you who continues to stay IN, to stay uninvolved and to vote for candidates running under the banner of religion, morality and conservatism, you just reaped what you have been sowing! What can we do now? A. Around the nation, I hope you will take this and the bullets below and use them to write to your local papers, television and radio stations. B. Around the nation, I hope you will take this and the bullets below and use them to contact and come out to your local elected officials for your city, state and nation. Tell them you are one and that you vote and that you want to talk to them. C. If you are in Texas, send an e-mail to TGAIN at rhost@flash.net and join. TGAIN is the political TG organization for Texas. It is the state organization of It's Time America. It is headed by Sarah DePalma, a long-time activist and trusted friend of mine. Sarah was with me when we took the ENDA-inclusion fight to the HRC in October 1995. She organized the TG-inclusive fight with the Texas LG groups and won. D. If you are not in Texas, contact TGAIN at rhost@flash.net and send money. Then send some more money. No, it is not tax deductible. If you want to protect your future surgery, then open up your surgery fund and send some money! If you want to protect your past surgery, then send some money! If you are not TS, but see the writing on the wall, send money. We need to present to the non-transgender world just how stupid the decision is and how it will adversely effect non-transgenders. Yes, that is correct. If we approach #1 and #2 above with an "oh, poor us transgenders, getting screwed" we will lose because most folks do not care about us. But if we tell them, "do you understand how you just got screwed too?" then we get their attention. I have included the following bulleted articles because they say so much better than I do, what the ramifications of the Littleton political mindset is to non-transgenders. They are part and parcel of this letter to you. If you reprint my letter without the following bullets, you will miss most of the issues. 2. "Web sites for the full Littleton decision texts" is short and contains what it says. 3. "LGBT local response possibilities in San Antonio on Littleton decision" has lots of good ideas of taking the new "religious, moral and conservative" law and CRAMMING IT DOWN THEIR THROATS! 4. "Meet Mrs. and Mrs. -- this can happen in other states also" is another observation of how we and the Lambda Legal folks could use "religious, moral and conservative" law and CRAMMING IT DOWN THEIR THROATS! 5. "Apology from Long-time Critic in light of Littleton" is from one of the many who have hated me over the years for yelling at them to come OUT. 6. "Littleton ignores results of Humane Genome Project" is another excellent presentation of how stupid the decision is. I wish to say two more things. First: WHERE IS THE LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND? Why aren't they getting into this? If they think this applies to ONLY transgenders, they need to think it out again. (See bullet #4 below.) This decision can effect us all. I hope that you are giving them hell for their transphobia, and I hope you raise the pressure up another notch. They belong in this fight! Second: Before you send me a go-to-hell letter for pushing you OUT, please note that the Littleton decision does not effect me. I am married to a woman. We still have a same-sex relationship because I am XY and she is XX. The economic situation does not effect me either because I am self-employed and have paying clients to whom I am OUT. My family is fine with me as I am. So are my neighbors and so is my God: I am OUT to them also. In short, I have nothing to gain or to lose by pushing you OUT, except to know that I have continued to do what I think will free good people who deserve to be free. You deserve to be free. You will NEVER be free if you do not come OUT! Part Two ######################################################### 2. Web sites for the full Littleton decision texts ######################################################### (NOTE: This was sent to me by our friend Karen Kerin in Vermont. She was the person who got me into Senator Jim Jeffords office and into the Senate Hearings on ENDA in July 1994. She an I sat in our conservative lawyer suits with low heels and listened. We listened to a hate filled man who blasted ENDA (which intentionally omitted TG and gender variant LGB folks) because it would force employers to allow a guy to show up for work in 5 inch heels and a sequined dress. So tell me again, why were we left out? Karen was an ICTLEP original, has completed law school and has been in the fight a long time. We will hear more from her -- trust me!) Dear Phyllis, I got stonewalled by the Fourth Circuit when I tried to get the decision for the Littleton case, but got it from the internet. I got the decision, the concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion on the following sites: http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/9900010.htm http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/9900010c.htm http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/9900010d.htm Please circulate this information to your list so that everyone can read the court's reasoning and we can begin a real dialogue on how to get a winning legal attack. Keep up the fight! Karen Kerin ######################################################### 3. LGBT local response possibilities in San Antonio on Littleton decision ######################################################### (NOTE: Tere was another ICTLEP original. She is a paralegal in San Antonio has been successful in getting the local LGBT group to refute HRC's call for funding. Tere was one of the group that first went with me in October 1995 to carry the ENDA battle to HRC in Washington, DC. She is one of THE BEST!) Legal Analysis Article by Tere Prasse, Paralegal, San Antonio, Texas Email: tere@amcinet.com RE: Littleton v. Prange, Tex. 4 Ct. App., 04-99-00010-CV, 10/27/99 http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions.htm "A Hazard When Courts Dabble in Science" Many followers of the Littleton v. Prange case thought it was humorous; the Texas 4th Court of Appeals was to rule on the validity of the marriage of Christie Littleton to her spouse of seven years. Littleton had filed suit in the Texas 288th Judicial District Court (98-CI-15220) against her spouse's doctor alleging malpractice resulting in the death of her husband. The defendant's attorney asked the trial court for summary judgment, maintaining that Littleton could not be legally married to her spouse under Texas Family Code; therefore, she had no right to bring suit as next-of-kin. Based on one document entered in evidence (Littleton's original Texas birth certificate), the court granted the defendant's request. Littleton appealed. Littleton's original birth certificate listed her gender as *male*. Subsequently, Littleton had undergone extensive medical therapy and treatment at University of Texas Health Sciences Center to alter her physical characteristics and social role to that commonly accepted by society for females. All accepted standards of medical care and treatment protocols were followed. Eventually, a Texas District Court issued an order declaring her gender to be *female* under the guidance of the Texas Health and Safety Codefor amendment of gender marker on her original birth certificate. The Texas Courts had declared her legal status and social role as female, and thus entitled to be legally treated as female under all Texas law. This is quite common procedure in Texas. Each pleading includes a medical affidavit stating that the pleadant meets standards of medical protocol for amendment of gender marker in accordance with Texas code. Historically, the courts have deferred to medical protocols rather than attempt to rule on the validity of scientific complexities of gender determination. The status quo of gender determination in Texas was dramatically changed with the Texas 288th Judicial District Court's granting of summary judgment and subsequent affirmation by the Texas 4th Court of Appeals. The 4th Court's Chief Justice Phil Hardberger ranged far afield in his opinion concerning determination of gender, oddly twisting his rationale to fit into the context of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. He stated that since Littleton's original birth certificate indicated *male* gender determined by our Creator is immutable. Chief Justice Hardberger acknowledged various factors which contribute to a scientific determination of gender. He actually named four but missed three others commonly accepted by medical science. Finally, he concluded based on assumption, since there is no evidence cited of Littleton's actual genetic makeup, that Littleton's chromosomal configuration was XY, and therefore, Littleton's marriage was illegal under Texas Family Code, again presuming that Littleton's spouse also had an XY chromosomal configuration, despite no evidence substantiating the assumption cited. Chief Justice Hardberger's entire opinion seems based on assumption and consideration of only one factor of determination of gender. The 4th Court's ruling and content of opinion is dangerous because it draws the courts into unstable ground dabbling with medical science, ruling what is valid in science and what is not valid in science. We've seen it all before. It dates back to the "Scopes Monkey Trial" and ranges through the science ofwhen life begins. It becomes even shakier when the court creates new law based on its interpretation of just what is scientifically valid and what is not, and also includes reference in a religious context that a "Creator" hasdeemed our gender to be immutable. Two justices of the Texas 4th Court of Appeals have overturned existing Texas code and procedure in favor of their interpretation of science combined with an unknown, unproven religious assumption. Many people responded to the Littleton case with a shrug and a "so what, it doesn't affect me." Well, this ruling affects everyone in Texas. The 4th Court has stated that marriage is only valid between an *XX* person and an *XY* person. The effect is that the 4th Court has mandated new law which now requires all county clerks to validate chromosomal makeup of individuals seeking marriage licenses before the clerks can legally grant a license. Failure to require the chromosomal check would place county clerks in contempt if a license were granted to couples with any other chromosomal configuration than one individual *XX* and one *XY*. Additionally, the 4th Court substantively annulled Littleton's marriage of seven years. If the courts are to annul one marriage based on the new law of chromosomal determinations, then all marriages under licenses granted in Texas must be examined for legality. This is a clear extrapolation Chief Justice Hardberger cites for compliance with the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Thousands of marriages in Texas will have to be dissolved since not all will meet the strict *XX* married to *XY* criterion. Medical science has identified many chromosomal combinations, yet the 4th Court has only identified two chromosomal combinations which constitute a valid marriage in Texas. Chief Justice Hardberger interpreted the Texas Family Code to infer that man equates to *XY* and woman equates to *XX* making those two the only valid chromosomal combinations for marriage. As we begin to examine the 4th Court's new determination of gender and its further ramifications, it becomes rather alarming. Marriage is not the only thing affected. Any official document generated in Texas must now rationally follow the 4th Court's methodology for gender determination. This includes birth certificates, death certificates, driver's licenses, identifications, employment forms, agency tracking of gender demographics, and on and on. Potential impacts boggle the mind. We will have to have entirely new law governing virtually all aspects of our lives even remotely relating to our gender. Insurance law, family code, and even criminal code will have to be amended. Not only is the legal impact formidable, but the final potential economic impact is astronomical. What the 4th Court has done is move gender from the simple binary determination of either *female* or *male* to a multiple gender identification requirement covering all possible chromosomal combinations identified by medical science. One hates to even think how employment and anti-discrimination law will be affected. Did Chief Justice Hardberger and Justice Angelini have any clue whatsoever when they made their ruling in the Littleton v. Prange case? Justice Lopez in the final analysis had it right when she entered her dissenting opinion on the ruling. Oh, I'm sorry, but we'll have to do away with our old beloved binary gender specific nouns and pronouns in the English language too, they are no longer legally sufficient or accurate in Texas. Tere Prasse, email: mailto:tere@amcinet.com Part Three ######################################################### 4. Meet Mrs. and Mrs. -- this can happen in other states also ######################################################### (NOTE: Although this is a British story, it is the logical conclusion of the Littleton case in Texas, PLUS what has been available for some time in Ohio and what is probably possible in New York, Tennessee, and Oregon where birth certificates cannot be altered. -- Read Arizona Law Review article from Summer 1999 by Julie Greenberg. -- SO WHERE IS LAMBDA LEGAL with thisfertile ground to push for opposing chromosome but matching genital marriages as the step towards legalizing gay and lesbian marriages? IS LAMBDA LEGAL'S TRANSPHOBIA THAT GREAT, so as to sacrifice multiple potential openings for gays and lesbians with the help of transgender precedents? I received this from Brenda Lana Smith <Brenda-Lana@blsmith.freeserve.co.uk> through penn45@ma.ultranet.com.) "Meet Mrs. and Mrs." UK - Woman's Own magazine, Nov 01/99, OCRD' text pages 10-11... First Josie was a man who wasn't interested in women. Then she had a sex change and met Sarah. Now they're wife and wife. Confused? Read on... By Angela Carless It's hard to believe that less than five years ago, Josie Asher was a good-looking bloke called Timothy with a string of female admirers. But as Josie will tell you, 'she' wasn't interested in any of them sexually. All she wanted to do was to try on their clothes when they were out of the house, and fantasies about what it would be like to be one of them - a real woman with breasts and a lipstick in her handbag. In 1996, her wish came true when she finally underwent a sex change operation. Timothy was transformed into Josie - pretty, feminine, and very definitely a woman. But there's a twist in this modern day tale of gender swapping. Josie, to her surprise, discovered she did like women after all. So much so that she recently 'married' lesbian Sarah Green in a civil blessing ceremony in front of 100 friends and family. It's all the more ironic because legally Josie is still a man, so if they'd wanted they could even have had a civil wedding. Josie was born Timothy Asher in Archway, North London - a working-class boy who never knew his father and was brought up by his mum and grandmother. 'I was dressing up in my mum's clothes from the age of six,' says Josie. 'It wasn't just a game, I really wanted to be a little girl. But whenever Mum and Gran caught me in their clothes, they said it was disgusting. I just became more careful about being caught.' As Timothy grew older he realized he wasn't the same as other boys his age. 'My first sexual experience with a girl happened when I was 15 and I didn't enjoy it,' admits Josie. 'My sexual role felt all I wrong - but dressing up as a woman still felt right. 'I did wonder if I was gay, but the last thing I wanted was to be a gay man because I knew my mum and my gran would be so disapproving.' So for years Timothy led a double life - going out with girls at the same time as secretly wanting to be one of them. But eventually his burden became too much to bear and he talked to his GP about changing sex. 'I was referred to the Charing Cross Hospital where I began hormone treatment,' says Josie. 'The effect on my body was dramatic. I gained weight, I began to develop breasts and my facial hair became more sparse. I even began to get mood swings and go on chocolate binges one week of every month.' Four years ago in April 1995, Josie met Sarah in the community cafe and bookshop in North London where Sarah was teaching an adult literacy class. Sarah says: 'I was instantly attracted by Josie's personality and her looks. Gender didn't come into it. I liked her as a person - and by the way she flirted, I knew she liked me too.' By the time Sarah met Josie, she'd been single for two years but had two children from a previous lesbian relationship which had lasted 10 years. Her son was conceived after a straight friend agreed to be the father, and her daughter was conceived by artificial insemination. 'Josie told me that she was a pre-op transsexual the second time we met, but it didn't put me off,' says Sarah. 'I thought it was really interesting. There was an instant spark between us, as If we were soul mates.' Josie and Sarah's relationship progressed rapidly, but there was one major condition they agreed on from the start. 'We agreed not to have sex like a heterosexual couple,' stresses Josie. 'You don't have to have penetrative sex to have a good love life and although it was my first lesbian relationship, it felt very natural.' On 8 March, 1996 - International Women's Day - Josie was finally admitted to hospital for her sex-change operation. 'The surgery took all day and when I came round I was dosed up on morphine to kill the pain,' says Josie. 'I was so relieved it was over. They'd put something inside me to keep me open. When they pulled it out it looked like the biggest tampon you've ever seen! It was agony, I couldn't watch as they removed it or look down afterwards.' When Sarah came in, Josie asked her to look instead. 'I was amazed,' she recalls. 'She looked just like any other woman - it really is a miracle of modern medicine. Josie was in hospital for 10 days. When she got out the first thing she did was to go to the pub for a pint - and then buy a handbag. 'At first I couldn't walk properly,' she says. 'There was something missing between my legs and something new there instead, plus there were other physical changes I didn't expect. 'If I lift something too heavy, I feel pain where I never used to feel it before. In becoming a woman I lost my physical strength and became much more emotional.' All this makes Josie even more appealing to Sarah. 'I like the fact that she's so very feminine and wears pretty clothes,' Sarah admits. 'And I love having a beautiful girlfriend by my side.' In turn, Josie says: 'I like the fact that Sarah's so butch and wears manly clothes, without being a man. We're a good team.' Yet their lives have become almost unbearable. 'People gossip about Josie once being a man,' says Sarah. 'They don't talk about her as a person with feelings. And I get called things like "dirty lesbian" all the time too. 'Complete strangers react because they don't know what gender we are. Even some of the lesbian community show prejudice because Josie is not a natural-born woman.' Even Josie, who's just launched her own magazine called It's My Decision aimed at anyone with gender issues, admits that they can't win. 'Everybody gives us such a hard time,' she says, sadly. 'There are constant threats and abuse. Once, someone even made the sign of a gun and pointed at me saying: "I would shoot you if I could!" It really scared me. I just don't understand it. We're not doing any harm.' But she doesn't have any regrets. 'Our wedding was brilliant,' she remembers. 'Then afterwards we honeymooned in Holland. We visited the dykes because we thought it was so appropriate! Now I can hardly believe that we've become each others' wives. It's great. We call each other Mrs. and Mrs.' The couple both act as mums to Sarah's two children. who live with them. 'I suppose you could say we're like any other family now,' says Sarah happily. 'I just wish other people would see it that way. I don't judge them - so why do they have to judge me? At the end of the day we love each other. ######################################################### 5. Apology from Long-time Critic in light of Littleton ######################################################### (NOTE: The following has been heavily edited. I have thanked the writer, and am not interested in embarrassment or in vindication. What I am interested in is presenting a case for folks to come OUT and fight. Coming out AFTER being screwed makes fighting that much harder. Even so, coming out late is better than never coming out. Her message came in caps. For those of you in Texas who want to join the struggle, join TGAIN through rhost@flash.net. For those of you who are outside of Texas, send money to TGAIN. Thanks!) DEAR PHYLLIS, I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN. I HAVE ALWAYSCRITIZED YOU FOR BEING THE WAY YOU ARE. I MEAN, FOR TRYING TO "OUT" EVERYONE AND FOR SUPPOSEDLY SHOVING THIS DISCLOSURE STUFF DOWN OUR THROATS. BUT I WAS WRONG. ALL THAT WORK THAT YOU DO IS FOR ALL OF US. AND NOW THAT SOMETHING AWFUL HAS HAPPENED I REALIZE THE HARD LABOR YOU ENDURE. I WENT TO COURT AND GOT MY NAME CHANGE. I HAVE THE COURT ORDER GRANTING ME ALL THE CHANGES. 1 WEEK AFTER I RECEIVED IT I GET A CALL FROM MY LAWYER SAYING THAT THE COURT AND THE JUDGE WENT BACK IN TO THE ORDER AND REVOKED IT!!!!! THAT THERE IS A CASE UP IN THE [appeals] COURT INVOLVING A T.S AND THAT THERE ARE MANY CHANGES REGARDING T.S'S AND T.G'S THAT ARE GOING TO OCCUR. SO THE COURT ISSUED A NEW ORDER DENYING ME THE SEX DESIGNATION AND GRANTING ME THE NAME CHANGE. IN OTHER WORDS I WILL REMAIN WITH A "M" EVEN THOUGH I AM POST OP.!!!!!!!!(M TO F). OH AND THAT THEY MIGHT GO BACK AND SWITCH EVERYONE BACK TO THEIR PREVIOUS DESIGNATIONS!!!! ######################################################### 6. Littleton ignores results of Humane Genome Project ######################################################### (NOTE: This was sent to the San antonio paper covering the case. Please respond to unity_in_identity@usa.net.) I guess that it's safe to mention that you're probably aware of how the Littleton decision takes our culture down the slippery path of genetic theory, as applied by legal theory. When you mix that much theory in one room, things are going to get messy and ugly. In legal theory, the Littleton decision opens the public policy issue for chromosomal sex karotype testing, which is the procedure used to determine the combination of X's and Y's (or any surplus or lack thereof) in an individual. Interpreting the 4th Circuit's legal opinion would require all heterosexual couples choosing to marry to undergo a mandatory chromosome blood test to assure that the man really is sex karotpyed as "XY" and the woman as "XX". And because the Littleton case is technically interpreted as a retroactive decision, all currently married couples in the 4th Circuit's jurisdiction would have to submit to the same test, which would probably be administered at their next annual physical exam. At face value, this policy would preserve the spirit of the Littleton decision. However, to enact the procedure on all couples would be cost-prohibitive to the state (which would provide the test using public funds), as this test isn't cheap. Furthermore, every 500th individual statistically has a sex karotype other than what they assumed (like actress Jamie Lee Curtis, who is understood to be genetically "XY" and insensitive to androgen, the hormone that develops masculine traits), which could leave a lot of people fuming over their null and voided marriages, since marriage between two people of the same sex is illegal under DOMA, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. How many? Well, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, the 1994 estimate population count for Texas was 18,291,000. Being generous, let's assume that half of the state is married. If every 500th person's sex karotypes aren't kosher with what they assumed to be true, then there are 18,291 marriages in Texas that could be legally challenged in probate proceedings, insurance beneficiaries, spousal benefits, tax credits for married couples, hospital visitation rights and countless other perks that married couples receive. At with that many court-annulled marriages, Texas would have over 36,000 (far larger than the size of New Braunfels!) ticked off citizens, to say nothing for their offspring. This technicality would be used by any insurance company willing to play hardball to avoid paying out on their policy. Furthermore, the decision brings into question those people who discover after testing that their sex karotype isn't "XX" or "XY", but instead is something like "XXY" (Klinefelter's Syndrome), "X0" (Turner's Syndrome), "XYY", "XXX", "XXXY", "XXYY", et cetera. There are over 14 sex karotype varieties. For instance, those men who have Klinefelter's Syndrome sometimes figure this out when their sterility keeps them from having children. If the Littleton case is interpreted to decide who a person is allowed to marry based on their chromosomes, with whom can these people--remember, 1 out of every 500 people--legally consummate a marriage? If the court decides to discriminate who can marry whom on basis of chromosomes, what other ways can the law legally decide policy based on segregation of one's genes? Could people predisposed to have, say, Alzheimer's Disease, be banned from seeking executive decision-making professions? It's a scary--but conceivable--prospect. These matters will have to be addressed in detail as we catch up with the revolutionary advancements in genetic theory and parse the findings of the Human Genome Project, which has almost finished mapping out our genes. All things considered, give Christie Littleton a break. After all, do we know what her sex karotype is? All the best, juli goins-maclean at unity_in_identity@usa.net, Minneapolis, MN
	by Phyllis Randolph Frye
	[home] - [info.] - [links] - [list] - [e-mail] Arctic Fox DesignEmail: webmaster@ftminfo.net