"Information Clearing House - "Washington Times" - In a revelation missing from the official investigations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance terrorist attacks in the United States, according to court testimony in a little-noticed employment dispute case.
The information the FBI gleaned back then was so specific that it helped thwart a terrorist plot against a Masonic lodge in Los Angeles, the court records reviewed by The Washington Times show.
“It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Edward J. Curran, a former top official in the FBI’s Los Angeles office, told the court in support of a discrimination lawsuit filed against the bureau by his former agent Bassem Youssef.
Mr. Curran gave the testimony in 2010 to an essentially empty courtroom, and thus it escaped notice from the media or terrorism specialists. The Times was recently alerted to the existence of the testimony while working on a broader report about al Qaeda’s origins.
Members of the Sept. 11 commission, congressional intelligence committees and terrorism analysts told The Times they are floored that the information is just now emerging publicly and that it raises questions about what else Americans might not have been told about the origins of al Qaeda and its early interest in attacking the United States.
“I think it raises a lot of questions about why that information didn’t become public and why the 9/11 Commission or the congressional intelligence committees weren’t told about it,” said former Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, who chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2004 through 2007 when lawmakers dealt with the fallout from the 9/11 Commission’s official report.
“This is just one more of these examples that will go into the conspiracy theorists’ notebooks, who say the authorities are not telling us everything,” Mr. Hoekstra told The Times in an interview last week. “That’s bad for the intelligence community. It’s bad for law enforcement and it’s bad for government.”
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission with former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, said that as far as he can remember, the FBI never told the commission that it had been working a source so close to bin Laden that many years before 9/11.
“I do not recall the FBI advising us of a direct contact with Osama bin Laden,” Mr. Hamilton told The Times in a recent interview.
Exactly how the information was omitted from the various congressional reviews and the 9/11 Commission report is a mystery. FBI officials and staff involved in the review said they couldn’t determine definitely so many years later whether the information was kept from the various investigations or whether it was simply overlooked by staff in the thousands of pages of documents and electronic records made available during the exhaustive reviews of al Qaeda’s history.
“Both the commission and the U.S. government compiled a fair amount of evidence about the activities of the set of groups later best known as al Qaeda during [the early-1990s], when the group was settling into Sudan. We did not delve as deeply in this period because it was so distant from the plotting that led directly to the 9/11 attack,” said Philip Zelikow, who served as the 9/11 Commission’s executive director and now teaches history at the University of Virginia.
Like Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Zelikow said he does not recall ever being told by the FBI about the 1993 source and that Mr. Curran’s disclosure appeared to involve “valuable intelligence gathered in 1993 and 1994.”
But Mr. Zelikow cautioned against reading too deeply into the revelation, asserting that bin Laden’s activities that long ago would be viewed as “pretty attenuated in relation to 9/11.”
FBI officials told The Times that the bureau could not say for certain that its agents specifically briefed the 9/11 Commission about the 1993 asset or plot but was proud that it gave unfettered access to its records to the various investigators.
“The FBI made all relevant information available to the 9/11 Commission and the joint intelligence community inquiry. Throughout both of these reviews, the FBI shared pertinent documents and knowledgeable personnel in order to present all known information to commission and inquiry personnel,” Assistant Director Michael P. Kortan said.
The lawyer who represented Mr. Youssef and called Mr. Curran to testify in the 2010 court case, however, said the FBI kept the information from his litigation for years.
Attorney Stephen Kohn said that even his own client declined to tell him about the sensational revelation until it surfaced during the court hearing because the information had been kept classified.
“I was shocked when it came out, and I was frustrated because the FBI had censored that information clearly to hide it from the public,” said Mr. Kohn, who has represented some of the FBI’s most famous whistleblowers over the years.
“There was absolutely no reason for that to be kept secret,” he told The Times in an interview. “In some respects, it was kind of demeaning for the FBI because they had kept secret one of the most significant triumphs in the war on terror all so they wouldn’t have to give credit to Bassem for the work he had done. As a result, none of the bureau got the credit it was due for what was a spectacular counterterrorism triumph.”
Mr. Youssef remains with the bureau, overseeing its telephone intercept analysis unit, and he won an appeals court ruling a few years ago to pursue a discrimination lawsuit against the bureau. That ruling was handed down after FBI supervisors were forced to admit he was blocked from his job as one of the bureau’s top terrorism fighters because he was mistaken for an Arab Muslim whose loyalties should be questioned after Sept. 11. In fact, Mr. Youssef was a highly decorated agent and a Coptic Christian.
As the case played out in federal court in 2010, Mr. Curran testified in Mr. Youssef’s favor, methodically telling the court about the agent’s many successes during the early 1990s when the U.S. government’s unofficial war on terrorism was just beginning. Those successes included thwarting specific terrorist attacks, including one on a British cruise liner and another that targeted the Los Angeles area, Mr. Curran testified.
The former supervisor testified that Mr. Youssef developed a confidential source connected to the infamous “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and that he managed to get that source to go overseas and meet personally with bin Laden.
The source was “very in tight, close,” to the leadership of al Qaeda, which was then known as the Islamic Group, Mr. Curran testified.
“The one source came back, had direct contact with bin Laden,” Mr. Curran testified, adding that upon returning to the U.S., the source indicated to the Blind Sheik that bin Laden “had a target picked out for an explosion in the Los Angeles area. I believe it was a Masonic lodge.”
Mr. Curran said the source also provided information about terrorist cells operating in California. During the testimony, he related in detail how Mr. Youssef flipped the asset so “he was working with us,” describing how the FBI collaborated with the source’s wife from an arranged marriage to get him deported from the United States to put pressure on him.
“He wanted to come back, and that was the carrot we used to get his cooperation,” Mr. Curran said.
Eventually, the plot to blow up the Los Angeles target was diffused based on information the source provided the FBI, according to the court testimony and other FBI documents.
Mr. Curran’s testimony is further supported by two documents, his own FBI personnel performance review report as an assistant special agent in charge in Los Angeles at the time, and a 1995 inspection report of the Los Angeles FBI office, both of which reference the asset and the thwarting of the plot.
“During the past six months, through ASAC CU’s personal efforts, the FBI identified and supported an investigative effort which uncovered a large terrorist group operating out of the Los Angeles and San Diego areas,” stated Mr. Curran’s 1994 performance evaluation, a copy of which was obtained by The Times.
The evaluation stated that Mr. Curran “personally participated in the overseas interview of a potential asset who is in a position to provide valuable intelligence information to the nation’s entire intelligence community.”
While the document made no specific reference to the asset’s proximity to bin Laden, it stated outright that “the development of this asset, as well as the initiation of other investigative techniques, has resulted in the Los Angeles office obtaining significant intelligence information which is not being provided by any other sources and agencies.”
The 1995 inspection report of the Los Angeles office, meanwhile, praised agents for conducting “analysis of asset information received immediately preceding the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, which indicated the presence of an active terrorist infrastructure.”
Similarly, Mr. Youssef provided a written set of answers in his own court case that played out years later, during which he confirmed that he had personally groomed an asset who led to the uncovering of two active terrorist cells in California.
Mr. Youssef wrote that he began investigating information in January 1993 — about a month before the first World Trade Center bombing — that an Egyptian man was involved in terrorism activities in the California area and “this effort led me to a source that was initially contacted by another government agency.”
“I quickly developed a scenario to gain the source’s trust, and in a short period of time, I gained the source’s trust,” Mr. Youssef wrote. “During the relatively short recruitment period, it became evident this source was in a unique position to know and provide highly valuable information not just about the main subject but regarding two very active, thriving IG terror cells.”
Missing from the testimony and the record is any mention of what eventually happened to the human asset and whether he was still available to the United States in later years. U.S. officials declined to discuss the source’s whereabouts after 1994.
The more than 500-page official 9/11 Commission report, as well as equally exhaustive reports produced by the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the CIA’s office of inspector general, made no mention of the source or his contributions to thwarting a Los Angeles area terrorist plot.
The 9/11 Commission report broadly outlines how, during the early 1990s, bin Laden was seeking to expand al Qaeda globally — an effort that included “building alliances extended into the United States,” and that “the Blind Sheikh, whom Bin Laden admired, was also in the network.”
But the report downplays the notion that bin Laden was actively plotting or seeking to finance any specific attacks inside the United States as far back as 1993 — two pieces of information that, according to Mr. Curran’s testimony and contemporaneous documents, the FBI’s Los Angeles field office corroborated at the time.
Alternatively, the report outlines how all of the attacks pursued by bin Laden during that period were against U.S. assets outside the United States.
With regard to the one attack inside the U.S. — the first World Trade Center bombing — the report says “bin Laden involvement is at best cloudy.”
Mr. Zelikow said he regards Mr. Youssef as a “valuable FBI agent” and does not doubt the credibility of Mr. Youssef or Mr. Curran.
But he concluded that if the source referred to by Mr. Curran “had remained close to al Qaeda leadership into the Afghan period, I am pretty sure we would have known about that.”
Mr. Hoekstra, however, is not so sure.
“I believe that if one of the agencies wants to hide something from you, it’s pretty hard for someone else to find it,” he said. “My bias would be that if the FBI knew about this and wanted to hide it, they could, absolutely.”
Special Congressional Panel to Investigate FBI Contact With Bin Laden February 27, 2014 "Information Clearing House - "Washington Times" - A special panel recently authorized by Congress to review the FBI’s efforts to reform itself in the aftermath of the 9/11 Commission report will examine the case of a mole the agency had in direct contact with Osama bin Laden during the early 1990s, a key congressman said Wednesday. The existence of the FBI mole and his dealings with bin Laden were omitted from the official investigations into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but were disclosed in an exclusive report Wednesday morning in The Washington Times. Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI, said the panel would take a close look at what came of the human source that the FBI’s Los Angeles field office cultivated in 1993. The source’s contributions, which included helping thwart a terrorist plot in Los Angeles, were never mentioned in the more than 500-page official report published in 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. In an interview with The Times on Wednesday evening, Mr. Wolf said the details surrounding the source represent “exactly the type of activity” that the newly established panel will examine. The panel, which is also being dubbed a “commission,” was created in late January under language Mr. Wolf crafted for Congress‘ 2013 omnibus appropriations bill that President Obama ultimately signed into law. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Ambassador Tim Roemer, who also served in Congress, and longtime national security analyst and Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman have been appointed to serve on the commission, which also is tasked with probing the success and failure with which the FBI “is addressing the evolving threat of terrorism today.” “I cannot think of three more qualified individuals to serve on the commission,” Mr. Wolf said in a Jan. 27 statement announcing the panel. “They are all men of integrity and have significant credibility and expertise on counterterrorism policy.” At the time, Mr. Meese said it “is imperative that as we move further away from the 9/11 attacks, we make sure the bureau is evolving to address the ever-changing threat from al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.” It’s a point that seems all the more pertinent in light of the revelations in The Times report, which homed in on testimony that Edward J. Curran, a former top official in the FBI’s Los Angeles office, gave in a little-noticed employment dispute case involving a counterterrorism agent at the bureau. As the case played out in federal court in 2010, Mr. Curran testified that the FBI had placed a human source in direct contact with bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance a terrorist attack in the United States. The information the FBI gleaned back then was so specific that it helped thwart a terrorist plot against a Masonic lodge in Los Angeles, the court records reviewed by The Times show. “It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Mr. Curran told the court in support of the discrimination lawsuit filed against the bureau by his former agent, Bassem Youssef. Mr. Curran gave the testimony in an essentially empty courtroom, and thus it escaped notice from the media or terrorism specialists. The Times was recently alerted to the existence of the testimony while working on a broader report about al Qaeda’s origins. Members of the Sept. 11 commission, congressional intelligence committees and terrorism analysts told The Times they are floored that the information is just now emerging publicly and that it raises questions about what else Americans might not have been told about the origins of al Qaeda and its early interest in attacking the United States. The 9/11 Commission report broadly outlines how, during the early 1990s, bin Laden was seeking to expand al Qaeda globally — an effort that included “building alliances extended into the United States,” and that “the Blind Sheikh, whom bin Laden admired, was also in the network.” But the report downplays the notion that bin Laden was actively plotting or seeking to finance any specific attacks inside the United States as far back as 1993 — two pieces of information that, according to Mr. Curran’s testimony and contemporaneous documents, the FBI’s Los Angeles field office corroborated at the time. Alternatively, the report outlines how all of the attacks pursued by bin Laden during that period were against U.S. assets outside the United States. With regard to the one attack inside the U.S. — the first World Trade Center bombing — the report says “bin Laden involvement is at best cloudy.” It remains to be seen whether the newly created commission might uncover information that will change that assessment. Mr. Wolf told The Times on Wednesday evening that the commission’s members will present findings to the Appropriations Committee in late March. It is not the first time that Mr. Wolf has pushed for deeper insight into the evolution of al Qaeda and its relationship with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. In 1998, he authored language that resulted in the creation of the National Commission on Terrorism, also known as the Bremer Commission. That panel’s final report, released in 2000 just months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, highlighted the threat from bin Laden and al Qaeda. Mr. Wolf reflected Wednesday on the chilling irony surrounding that report, the cover of which had a picture of the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York. He said the goal for the new “commission is to look at everything, so we don’t make a mistake and let something happen that could be prevented.”
Among the most fundamental purposes of the government of any developed country is to ensure the conditions where every citizen can afford to feed themselves and their families.
At least since 1945, the policies that have shaped Britain’s farming and welfare have had at their heart the idea that food should be affordable and the benefits safety net big enough for all. That is not to say there will never be the occasional crisis, but on the whole food security has been a question of land use, climate change and global population growth.
That is why the biggest organizer of food banks in the UK, the Trussell Trust, was originally set up not to help in the UK, but in Bulgaria. It is 15 years since they realized that there was a problem closer to home. Since 2011 it has escalated sharply. Between April and September last year, the trust provided 355,000 food parcels, more than in the whole of the previous year. The total, taking into account many other less national or well-organized providers of food aid, could be nearer 500,000, according to the church leaders who wrote an open letter to David Cameron on Thursday. Even more shocking, over 5,000 people have been treated for malnutrition in the past year.
The letter from the bishops and faith leaders echoed closely the criticisms earlier in the week of the archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols. This was not a political point-scoring exercise. They were not arguing against the government’s benefits reforms. They acknowledge that many of the food bank clients’ problems were related to the recession – debt, sharply rising food prices and heating costs and stagnant wages. But there was also the compound impact of many small cuts in state support, from the bedroom tax to family tax credit. And many of the cases – 48 percent on Trussell Trust figures – can be traced to delays and sanctions in the benefits system. This is something the government can take action on.
But first, ministers would have to overcome their absolute refusal to acknowledge the problem. The denial is becoming absurd. Take the fate of a Warwick University report into household food security that was finally published on Thursday, nearly a year after it was commissioned. The report was completed within weeks – it was a rapid evidence assessment report, a kind of literature review – but what the commissioning department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, called the “quality assurance process,” has taken an astonishing 10 months to complete.
Yet its conclusions were, like the evidence on which they were based, patchy. Most contentiously, the researchers rebutted the opinion of some ministers that it is the expanding number of food banks that is driving up the demand for food parcels. They found the reverse: food banks are in fact following demand as more and more people have nowhere else to turn. They also point out that emergency food is no solution to a long-term problem about which far too little is understood. These are hardly scandalous conclusions, except to a government in denial.
Organizations that manage food banks say that the way benefit delays and harsh sanctions are imposed varies across the country. Clearer guidelines and closer monitoring could mean thousands fewer desperate households. So could a bit of attention to detail for which hard-pressed Jobcentre Plus staff often do not have the time. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has 50 potential legal actions against the Department for Work and Pensions on behalf of blind and partially sighted people who have had their benefits stopped for failing to respond to letters they couldn’t read.
This is not an argument about whether or not welfare reform is necessary, nor how far it should go, nor even how fast. On the one hand, it is a question of poor administration that is pitching some families into crisis. Scaled up to the levels it has now reached, where in one of the world’s richest countries half a million people need food aid, the church leaders have got it right. It is a national crisis, and it is a disgrace.
Si vous avez besoin d’un traducteur expérimenté, veuillez visiter ma nouvelle page Facebook pour un zoom sur mon activité.
Délais courts possible
Diversité de sujets
Plusieurs langues possibles
Personnellement, je fait le français et l’espagnol vers l’anglais, mais je travaille souvent avec un vaste réseau de collègues
Illuminati bloodline spawn, Prince Harry, has recently launched a new Paralympic-style warrior games championship that he says will ‘honour’ the sacrifice made by injured British soldiers as well as celebrate their “fighting spirit”.
The ominous sounding ‘Invictus Games’ which is Latin for ‘unconquered’ will see disabled ex-soldiers competing in sports like wheelchair basketball, indoor rowing and sitting volleyball while the ‘elite’ megalomaniacs who sent them off to fight their unnecessary family feuds in the first place cheer them on from the sidelines.
The dark prince was apparently ‘inspired’ to bring Invictus to the U.K after seeing similar veteran games in the U.S. yet more likely saw them as the perfect means by which to fool the nation into thinking he’s a caring and compassionate chap.
Interestingly, the fourth heir to the throne elected to highlight the letters “I AM” from the games branding presumably to convey the message that despite thier disabilities, the competitors still remain somebody, yet the yellow selection also ‘coincidentally’ sits in a pyramid, where the letter I takes the place of the literal all-seeing eye found at the top of the illuminati pyramid, hinting at the hidden hands behind the new ritual games and constant global conflict in general.
Whilst dealing with any considerable physical disability in a positive light can only be admired, we must remember these are disabilities that these young men and women should ultimately never have ben inflicted with in the first place.
The young Prince’s Invictus Games, despite those competing not knowing, is nothing but an elaborate, government subsidised publicity stunt to paint the bloodthirsty ruling ‘elite’ in a good light while perversely serving as a post-bloodshed ritual from which they can mock those who unwittingly endangered their lives for them.
Morals and Dogma Of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite Of Freemasonry (Newly Revised and Illustrated)
(Newly Revised and Illustrated) The teachings of these Readings are not sacramental, so far as they go beyond the realm of Morality into those of other domains of Thought and Truth. The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite uses the word Dogma in its true sense, of doctrine, or teaching; and is not dogmatic in the odious sense of that term. Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment. Of course, the ancient theosophic and philosophic speculations are not embodied as part of the doctrines of the Rite; but because it is of interest and profit to know what the Ancient Intellect thought upon these subjects, and because nothing so conclusively proves the radical difference between our human and the animal nature, as the capacity of the human mind to entertain such speculations in regard to itself and the Deity. Contents: Apprentice; Fellow-craft; Master; Secret Master; Perfect Master; Intimate Secretary; Provost and Judge; Intendant of the Building; Elu of the Nine; Elu of the Fifteen; Elu of the Twelve; Master Architect; Royal Arch of Solomon; Perfect Elu; Knight of the East; Prince of Jerusalem; Knight of the East and West; Knight Rose Croix; pontiff; Master of the Symbolic Lodge; Noachite or Prussian Knight; Knight of the Royal Axe or Prince of Liabanus; Chief of the Tabernacle; Prince of the Tabernacle; Knight of the Brazen Serpent; Prince of Mercy; Knight Commander of the Temple; Knight of the Sun or Prince Adept; Scottish Knight of St. Andrew; Knight Kadosh; Inspector Inquisitor; Master of the Royal Secret.
List price: $44.99
We all know that the government’s plan to fix “broken Britain” is predicated on blaming our national scapegoats: the undeserving poor. Sitting at ease behind closed curtains, fecklessly “breeding” life that they haven’t the means to feed, we are told, the poor are the real scourges of a society in which the richest 10% own 40% of our country’s wealth.
They do not deserve the same rights that we might expect, were we ever to find ourselves in their position, because, truth be told, we are better people than those awful scroungers. And just when you thought such treatment of our poorest citizens couldn’t get any worse, the coalition is proving itself willing to plumb new depths.
Leaked internal documents from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have shown that it is tabling a proposal to charge people who challenge a decision to strip them of their benefits. There is no mention of refunds for those who manage to win their appeals. That’s right, some of the poorest in our society could be forced to put up and shut up, even when a government department is at fault.
In the last year, nearly a million people had their benefits stopped and of those who appealed against the decision at independent tribunals, 58% won their case. It leaves me wondering about the efficacy of such a maneuver. This is a department that gets its decisions more often wrong than right. Why does it have the mettle to even attempt such a policy? I guess you have to admire the pure chutzpah of this public-school cabal.
Aphorisms often appear too trite to tell us anything meaningful, yet this is not the case with the assertion attributed to Mahatma Gandhi that “the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members”. The Tories have transformed what should be our national shame into a public spectacle in which we should all revel in kicking those on the rung below us; it’s easier that way to forget about what is happening above you.
Rather than question why parts of our stake in the bailed-out Lloyds Banking Group could be sold at a £230m loss, we are supposed to champion draconian measures such as cuts to disability living allowance. The DWP’s own figures show that only 0.5% of those claiming incapacity benefit do so fraudulently, yet the company it placed in charge of carrying out its work capability assessments, Atos Healthcare, judged a third of claimants to be fit to work. These are the sorts of people who stand to lose if the government charges them for appealing against a process that is skewed against them.
The policy seems like a kite-flying exercise to gauge just how far we are willing to go when it comes to making the most vulnerable pay for the City’s excesses. If, as I hope and pray, the measure is deemed too extreme and is shelved, Iain Duncan Smith’s department will still come out smelling of roses. To the Tory heartland it continues its incessant drumbeat of being “tough” in “lean” times. To the rest of us, it hopes to appear measured and able to accept criticism.
We should distrust any government that is willing to go where this policy would take it. To call it Orwellian would be a sober assessment of facts rather than an emotive exaggeration. When the state removes all avenues for the individual to hold it to account in respect of how it treats them, we are living in hard times indeed.
The state of Connecticut is making lists of firearm owners to raid. It seems obvious to me that it is thus only fair to list those anti-constitutional tyrants who will have blood on their hands the moment the first Connecticut citizen is shot by the CT state police while carrying out their orders. I will be sending these folks my own email later today.CT State Senators voting Yes on “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety, also known as Public Law 13-3 or Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1160,” 3 April 2013. List includes home addresses. Photos and home phone numbers of these tyrants are available here: http://www.cbia.com
John W. Fonfara, 99 Montowese St., Hartford 06114-2841Eric D. Coleman, 77 Wintonbury Ave., Bloomfield 06002-2529Andrea Stillman, 5 Coolidge Ct., Waterford 06385-3309Gary LeBeau, 501 Canyon Ridge Dr., Broad Brook 06016-5602Kevin Kelly, 240 York St., Stratford 06615-7952Steve Cassano, 1109 Middle Tpke, E Manchester 06040-3703Anthony J. Musto, 15 Maymont Ln., Trumbull 06611-2111Beth Bye, 99 Outlook Ave., West Hartford 06119-1432Andres Ayala, PO Box 55106, Bridgeport 06610-5106Terry B. Gerratana, 674 Lincoln St., New Britain 06052-1833Michael A. McLachlan, 47 W Wooster St., Danbury 06810-7731Bob Duff, 50 Toilsome Ave., Norwalk 06851-2425Toni Boucher, 5 Wicks End Ln, Wilton 06897-2633Paul Doyle, 38 Thornbush Rd., Wethersfield 06109-3554Carlo Leone, 88 Houston Ter., Stamford 06902-4449Toni N. Harp (no longer in the Legislature, she is now the Mayor of New Haven, CT).John McKinney, 986 S Pine Creek Rd., Fairfield 06824-6348Martin M. Looney, 132 Fort Hale Rd., New Haven 06512-3630Donald E. Williams, Jr., 41 Malbone Ln., Brooklyn 06234-1563Edward Meyer, 407 Mulberry Point Rd., Guilford 06437-3204Dante Bartolomeo, 167 Reynolds Dr., Meriden 06450-2568Gayle Slossburg, 14 Honeysuckle Ln., Milford 06461-1671Joan V. Hartley, 206 Columbia Blvd., Waterbury 06710-1401Leonard Fasano, 7 Sycamore Ln., North Haven 06473-1283Joseph J. Crisco, Jr., 1205 Racebrook Rd., Woodbridge 06525-1822L. Scott Frantz, 123 Meadow Rd., Riverside 06878-2521CT House members voting Yes on “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety, also known as Public Law 13-3 or Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1160,” 3 April 2013. Photos and home phone numbers of these tyrants are available here:Catherine Abercrombie, 64 Parker Ave., Meriden 06450-5945Ernest Hewett, 29 Colman St., New London 06320-3558Peter Tercyak, 150 Belridge Rd., New Britain 06053-1008Brenda Kupchick, 85 Liberty St., Madison 06443-3258William Tong, 99 Chestnut Hill Rd., Stamford 06903-4030Gary Holder-Winfield, 480 Winchester Ave., New Haven 06511-1920James Albis, 369 Coe Ave., Apt 14, East HavenDavid Alexander, 277 Pearl St., Enfield 06082-4368Bryan Hurlburt (Stepped down to take a position with the USDA’s Farm Service Agency.)Diana Urban, 146 Babcock Rd., North Stonington 06359-1334Gail Lavielle, 109 Hickory Hill Rd., Wilton 06897-1135Claire Janowski, 263 Hany Ln., Vernon 06066-2740Edwin Vargas, 141 Douglas St., Hartford 06114-2422Angel Arce, 248 Franklin Ave., Hartford 06114-1841Susan Johnson, 120 Bolivia St., Willimantic 06226-2818Joe Verrengia, 160 Colonial St., West Hartford 06110-1814David Arconti, Jr., 141 Great Plain Rd., Danbury 06811-3844Tom Vicino, 92 Carter Hill Rd., Clinton 06413-1230Joe Aresimowicz, 248 Lower Ln., Berlin 06037-2231David Kiner, 5 Cranberry Hollow, Enfield 06082-2200Toni Walker, 1643 Ella T Grasso Blvd., New Haven 06511-2801Patricia Widlitz, 12 Island Bay Cir., Guilford 06437-3058Timothy Larson, 33 Gorman Pl., East Hartford 06108-1450Christina Ayala, 506 Brooks St., Bridgeport 06608-1303Terry Backer, 125 Jefferson St., Stratford 06615-7810Roland Lemar, 6 Eld St., New Haven 06511-3816Roberta Willis, PO Box 1733, 30 Upland Meadow Rd., Lakeville 06039-1733Tom O’Dea, 37 Holly Rd., New Canaan 06840-6406David Baram, 5 Warbler Cir., Bloomfield 06002-2233Matthew Lesser, 1160 S Main S.,t Apt 110, Middletown 06457-5034Christopher Wright, 35 Ruth St., Apt 49, Bristol 06010-3218Arthur O’Neill, 617 Bucks Hill Rd., Southbury 06488-1952Brian Becker, 14 Candlewood Dr., West Hartford 06117-1009Rick Lopes, 208 S Mountain Dr., New Britain 06052-1514Elissa Wright, 51 Pearl St., Groton 06340-5732Elizabeth “Betty” Boukus, Legislative Office Bldg., Rm 4017, Hartford 06106Geoff Luxenburg, 45 Chatham Dr., Manchester 06042-8522James Maroney, 22 Saranac Rd Milford 06461-9401Larry Butler, 70 Blackman Rd., Waterbury 06704-1203Juan Candelaria, 28 Arch St., New Haven 06519-1511Brandon McGee, 43 Warren St., Hartford 06120-2117Robert Megna, 40 Foxon Hill Rd., Unit 54, New Haven 06513-1166Charles “Don” Clemons, 130 Read St., Bridgeport 06607-2021Michelle Cook, 499 Charles St., Torrington 06790-3420Patricia Miller, 95 Liberty St., Apt A4, Stamford 06902-4732John Shaban, 29 Ledgewood Rd., Redding 06896-2916Bill Aman, 878 Strong Rd., South Windsor 06074-2006Philip Miller, 24 Bushy Hill Rd., Ivoryton 06442-1108Victor Cuevas, 17 Keefe St., Waterbur,y 06706-1616Mike D’Agostino, 575 Ridge Rd., Hamden 06517-2519Russ Morin, 495 Brimfield Rd., Wethersfield 06109-3209Richard Smith, 25 Jeremy Dr., New Fairfield 06812-2109Prasad Srinivasan, 268 Grandview Dr., Glastonbury 06033-3946Bruce Morris, 315 Ely Ave., Norwalk 06854-4619Stephen Dargan, 215 Beach St., West Haven 06516-6133Paul Davis, 335 Smith Farm Rd., Orange 06477-3127Ted Moukawsher, 48 W Elderkin Ave., Groton 06340-4933Mitch Bolinsky, 3 Wiley Ln., Newtown 06470-1812Stephen Walko, 7 Charter Oak Ln., Greenwich 06830-6911Mike Demicco, 6 Deborah Ln., Farmington 06032-3031Mary Mushinsky, 188 S Cherry St., Wallingford 06492-4016Patricia Dillon, 68 W Rock Ave., New Haven 06515-2221Sandy Nafis, 49 Whitewood Rd., Newington 06111-2133Larry Cafero, Jr., 6 Weed Ave., Norwalk 06850-2224Terrie Wood, 50 Saint Nicholas Rd., Darien 06820-2823Joe Diminico, 26 Finley St., Manchester 06040-5616David Yaccarino, 1804 Hartford Tpke., North Haven 06473-1248Elaine O’Brien, 1321 Hill St., Suffield 06078-1024Kim Fawcett, 234 Collingwood Ave., Fairfield 06825-1877Chris Perone, 8 E. Rocks Rd., Norwalk 06851-2919Christie Carpino, 29 Sovereign Rd., Cromwell 06416-1136Lonnie Reed, 60 Maple St., Apt. 44, Branford 06405-3562Andy Fleischmann, 25 Sherwood Rd., West Hartford 06117-2739Mae Flexer, 452 Main St., Danielson 06239-2104Emmett Riley, 150 Yantic St., Unit 160, Norwich 06360-4248Daniel Fox, 14 Carter Dr., Stamford 06902-7013Matt Ritter, 169 N Beacon St., Hartford 06105-2246J. Brendan Sharkey, 600 Mount Carmel Ave., Hamden 06518-1606Jason Rojas, 128 Langford Ln., East Hartford 06118-2369Gerald Fox, III, 66 Fairview Ave., Stamford 06902-8129Mary Fritz, 43 Grove St., Yalesville 06492-1606Livvy Floren, 210 Round Hill Rd., Greenwich 06831-3357Henry Genga, 5 Elaine Dr., East Hartford 06118-3515John Frey, 2 Copps Hill Rd., Ridgefield 06877-4013Linda Gentile, 158 Hodge Ave., Ansonia 06401-3236Robert Sanchez, 269 Washington St., New Britain 06051-1024Minnie Gonzalez, 97 Amity St., Hartford 06106-1001Ezequiel Santiago, 991 State St., Bridgeport 06605-1504Jeffrey Berger, 134 Gaylord Dr., Waterbury 06708-2181Auden Grogins, 155 Brewster St., Apt 5L, Bridgeport 06605-3111Hilda Santiago, 86 South Ave., Fl 3, Meriden 06451-7624DebraLee Hovey, 296 Fan Hill Rd., Monroe 06468-1329Bob Godfrey, 13 Stillman Ave., Danbury 06810-8007Antonio Guerrera, 194 Catherine Dr., Rocky Hill 06067-1096Brian Sear, 11 N Canterbury Rd., Canterbury 06331-1209Elizabeth Ritter, 24 Old Mill Rd., Quaker Hill 06375-1319Tony Hwang, PO Box 762, Fairfield 06824-0762Joseph Serra, PO Box 233, Middletown 06457-0233Gregg Haddad, 28 Storrs Heights Rd., Storrs Mansfield 06268-2322John Hampton, 33 West Mountain, Simsbury 06092Charlie Stallworth, 35 Wickliffe Cir., Bridgeport 06606-1929Themis Klarides, 23 East Ct., Derby 06418-2640Noreen Kokoruda, 85 Liberty St., Madison 06443-3258Jonathan Steinberg, 1 Bushy Ridge Rd., Westport 06880-2104Jack Hennessy, 556 Savoy St., Bridgeport 06606-4125