Library Chief Criticized for Requiring Subpoena

sudnshok writes "Hasbrouck Heights (NJ) Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena. Her lawyer explained, 'Reutty did the right thing... At no time did Michele Reutty say to any police officer or anybody else that she would not give the information if it was properly requested.' However, borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police. 'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,' Horn said."

Protecting privacy

[tekspot (531917)]

protecting privacy is not "cool" any more...

sad day

Re:Protecting privacy

[The Snowman (116231)]

protecting privacy is not "cool" any more...

I like the line "...said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police." What, am I supposed to disagree with this? Hell yeah I want her to protect the library and its patrons and only help police when necessary. If it takes a subpeona, so be it. If she can help the police without compromising customers' privacy, that's cool too.

I was talking today about the recent theft of veterans' data and the recent trend of theft of personal data in general. Yes, I am one of those unlucky veterans. Sigh. Anyway, this really is not a privacy issue so much as a Congress issue. Until they force banks, phone companies, etc. to protect our privacy through common sense legislation, we will have personal records stolen with little to no accountability and police demanding our personal records from libraries and elsewhere (or the NSA demanding our records from AT&T). The worst part is, nobody seems to care. It is a non-issue in the news. It happens, but never ignites the flame of public debate and outcry. We care more about Jolie's new baby than our phone records. Sad.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Dorceon (928997)]

Obviously it was the police department 's misjudgement of the serious of the matter. Otherwise they would either have got a subpoena (if it was actually important) or not bothered (if it wasn't).

Re:Protecting privacy

[by Anonymous Coward]

"I like the line "...said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting her library than helping the police."

Interesting how today's government officials habitually speak in the 'ad hominem tense' of anyone who opposes them, isn't it? In a world in which uni-brows don't make police chief that would have read "more interested in protecting her library patrons' rights than helping police efficiency."

Re:Protecting privacy

[RareButSeriousSideEf (968810)]

I would damn well hope she's more interested in protecting her library... she's a *Library Director*.

If she were a *Detective*, maybe I'd expect her to be more interested in helping the police.

Well, since congress has been co-opted into being acting agents of the MPAA, it should be no surprise that some enforcement folks expect to be able to commandeer the investigative efforts of any & all public personnel, on a whim.

I'm glad this lady got it right.

Re:Protecting privacy

[dbIII (701233)]

protecting privacy is not "cool" any more...

And neither is due process it appears. How long will it be before we bring Saddam's methods of running prisons home after giving them a try in Iraq and Cuba? People already disappear without charge or trial - and we need to get back to due process again before things go too far and the suspects start turning up dead.

Re:Protecting privacy

[by Anonymous Coward]

That's what happens in a police state. You Americans are in a very bad way and unfortunately the majority of citizens in your country are too self-absorbed to see past their own noses and that is why the politicians/big business are getting away with the hijacking of your country.

Wise up and take it back before its too late.

Oh the Pain

[schneidafunk (795759)]

FTA: the mayor called it "a blatant disregard for the Police Department"

When the police are breaking the laws (or sneaking around them) who do we ask to protect us?

Re:Oh the Pain

[QuantumG (50515)]

I don't ask anyone to protect me. It's not the job of the police to "protect and serve" no matter what their slogan says. It's the job of the police to investigate crime and arrest suspects so that the courts can accurately determine their guilt or innocence.

Re:Oh the Pain

[Saedrael (880381)]

What, exactly, is your point? The police are supposed to be protecting you by investigating crime and arresting suspects. Laws don;t exist in a vacuum; they are designed (or they should be) to protect you.

Re:Oh the Pain

[gogoGodzilla (984399)]

Yeah they are supposed to be doing a lot of things however they have a habit of bungling investigations. Now by this librarian doing his job he in effect forced the police to do their job and now maybe the evidence, if any, will hold up in court thereby making him a hero...not a terrorist.

Re:Oh the Pain

[Trailer Trash (60756)]

Laws don;t exist in a vacuum; they are designed (or they should be) to protect you.

That's right, but they do so passively, not actively. In other words, I am protected every time a criminal is removed from the general population and locked up. On the other hand, if someone breaks into my house while I'm home, I have to protect myself. SCOTUS has ruled twice recently that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. There is no law that says I have to be protected from criminals by the government.

Propaganda in the UK

[whoever57 (658626)]

I was horrified by a drama that BBC America has shown in the USA, I assume it was previously broadcast in the UK. I am referring to Murder Prevention Unit [bbcamerica.com].

In this drama, the police use illegal means to trap potential criminals.

None of the police are ever criticised or punished in any meaningful way for breaking the rules. The drama shows the rights of innocent people being routinely and egreiously trampled upon.

I see it as the BBC portraying what some people in government would like. No restraint on the police, no rules of evidence, no need, in fact for actual evidence -- just lock up (or better still, shoot) the people you think are the "bad guys". How many people will watch the drama and later think it is OK for the police to take such actions becasue "they have seen it on TV"?

Re:Propaganda in the UK

[badboy_tw2002 (524611)]

We have that show too. Its called "24". I think its a way to get people to be ok with torturing potential suspects. Pretty soon, you'll have Joe Average saying "Well, they should just torture the guy and find out what he knows. Why are they letting him have a lawyer?"

Re:Oh the Pain

[wordsofwisedumb (957054)]

When the police are breaking the laws (or sneaking around them) who do we ask to protect us?

Librarians.

Re:Oh the Pain

[terrymr (316118)]

There's buttons here : https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlin ks/radicalbutton.htm [ala.org]

The phrase "Radical Militant Librarian" was used by the FBI to describe exactly this situation where somebody actually insisted on following the law.

Key quote from TFA

[daveschroeder (516195)]

"I followed the law. And because I followed the law, at the end of the day, the policemen's case is going to hold strong. Nobody is going to sue the library and nobody is going to sue the municipality of Hasbrouck Heights because information was given out illegally."

That's actually the best argument she can make. Any case prosecutors will have against this man will be much stronger because the library complied with the applicable law(s) when responding to a police request. What if that evidence had been thrown out because it was illegally, or at least questionably, obtained?

Re:Key quote from TFA

[foreverdisillusioned (763799)]

I'm not sure it actually is the best argument she could make, because it almost lends weight to the retards like b0nj0m0n (see his -1 Troll post below) who say that the law should be changed to allow police to do this. IMO, the best argument she could've made was "If the police had just cause for this information, they could have gotten a warrant for it. They did not have a warrant, so I was inclined to believe that they did not have just cause, at least not yet. In this country we have a long-standing precident that people are innocent until proven guilty and a long-standing precident of seperation of powers, including judicial oversight of law enforcement. Anyone who believes that I should have violated my patron's civil rights just because the police said I should needs to either grow some fucking balls and realize this is America, where freedom comes above absolute safety, or move to a "safer" totalitarian country like China, where I hear their police have all kinds of powers that ours lack."

It never ceases to amaze me that the most diehard, ardent flag-wavers are usually the least American people of all... those who use the word "freedom" the most frequently seem to have no fucking clue what it actually means.

Re:Key quote from TFA

[TubeSteak (669689)]

What if that evidence had been thrown out because it was illegally, or at least questionably, obtained?

One of the basic things you'll learn in any course about criminal law is based on writings by a guy named Herbert Packer.

Basically, there are two ways to deal with crime:
the "due process" model and
the "crime control" model

The due process model revolves around protecting the rights of the accused by presenting formidable impediments to carrying them past each step in the legal process.

The crime control model desires to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens by stressing efficient apprehension and punishment of criminals.

Judges and criminal defense attorneys are all about due process
Criminal prosecutors deal with due process so they can convict
Most Policemen jump for joy at the idea of the crime control model

So, to bring everything back to what you said: The Police don't care about questionable origins of evidence. It burns them everytime evidence gets thrown out on 'technicalities'. They do not like things that impede their ability to arrest 'bad guys'.

Many rational people agree with that point of view, because they see see criminals as enemies, not members, of their community. Anything that prevents the community from defending itself is disabling.

This Librarian is is experiencing, first hand, how crime control people feel about impediments to capturing criminals.

Grandma was right

[Marko DeBeeste (761376)]

Teachers and librarians are the real heroes. They change the world without ever kicking down a door.

Re:Grandma was right

[Skreems (598317)]

Yep. Because driving a shiny car makes you a better person than him. Go you.

Journalism isn't an exact science

[jd (1658)]

And journalists rarely let facts get in the way of a good story. So, I would caution people to not assume everything printed is correct. Nonetheless, to whatever degree it is true that a librarian was asked to break the law by the police, the librarian was in the right to refuse. She is likely to be punished, possibly severely, regardless. I doubt the city or the police will forget in a hurry, no matter who was in the right, and that should be the real point of concern. When revenge becomes more important than upholding the law, there is no law. It is a troubling cultural divide by zero error.

Re:Journalism isn't an exact science

[ClamIAm (926466)]

I doubt the city or the police will forget in a hurry, no matter who was in the right, and that should be the real point of concern.

Any person who wants to raise a concern or stand up for what they believe in is a "troublemaker", and will be dealt with accordingly. It doesn't matter what it is, the fact remains that they oppose someone in power, and will be harassed unless there is massive public outcry (or lawsuits that prevent further harassment).

Also, this isn't limited to police. Any organization, church or business will have a certain code that, when broken, results in labeling the perpetrator a "heretic" or somesuch.

Also also, I'm not being Orwellian here. This is the way things have always been.

Re:Journalism isn't an exact science

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

The journalists you're insulting are the only reason you even know about this. And despite what you seem to believe, committing large errors of fact regarding the police to the paper are a quick way to get your ass fired. Police departments are extremely sensitive to bad publicity, and newspapers are extremely sensitive to reporters who "don't let the facts get in the way of the story".

The odds of said librarian getting "severely punished" drop through the floor when this sort of story gets good media exposure, again thanks to the newspaper who broke the story.

Unless you're a tv talking head, or a fact-free syndicated columnist, being a journalist is a crap job. You get to spend all day trying to get info from people who only want to talk to you when it furthers their agenda, and you do it for little money, and no respect.

Facts

[Tony (765)]

Certain facts were presented, no matter the original spin. The police did not have a subpeona, and the chief of the library did not give them the information requested.

The facts are what we are cheering. It doesn't matter whether she helped an alleged pedophile get away or not. (She didn't.) She helped protect liberty. That's more than most of us do in a lifetime.

Duh?

[keyne9 (567528)]

'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police.

You don't say? That's precisely why that rule exists in the first place! Fucking morons.

huh?

[spiritraveller (641174)]

From TFA:
Borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was "more interested in protecting" her library than helping the police.

"It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter," Horn said at Tuesday's meeting.

What utter bullshit. She doesn't work for the police, and it is her job and her legal mandate to protect the privacy of people who check out books from her library.

These "borough officials" are nothing but a bunch of grandstanding politician assholes trying to make their careers by harassing a librarian who was doing her job the way it should be done. They should all be voted out of office.

Send your thanks to...

[mattkime (8466)]

A quick googling reveals that you can send your thanks and support to [e-mail] [mailto].

I already have.

(Does anyone else just love that some cases are too important for proper legal procedure? They should have gotten warrants in the first place...)

Re:Send your thanks to...

[KefabiMe (730997)]

Send some encouraging words! This is what I just sent.

Hello Michele,

I just read about your recent episode with law enforcement. I do not normally email strangers, but I wanted to thank you for requesting a subpoena before handing private data to law enforcement.

It saddens me to think that much of this country just reacts to fear and emotional pleas. Though I am an engineer at heart, I am very grateful to the librarians, history teachers, and government teachers in this country who do what they can to help us remember the past. Thank you for reminding folks through your actions that we have laws, regulations, and the Constitution for a reason.

The news report I read stated that your punishment may be as harsh as a 30-day unpaid suspension. I hope that you are instead praised by your community. I would prefer to see citizens like you serve in government rather than the mayor who called your actions "a blatant disregard for the Police Department."

I realize you have many emails to read as hundreds of thousands of people, if not a million, have heard of your actions by now. Hopefully you have a lot of encouraging words to read. I don't care what anyone says; you are not helping the terrorists. ;')

I first read about you on these two web sites.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/22/22 51209 [slashdot.org]
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3Z jczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2MDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5NTE 1NjImeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkz [northjersey.com]

Good luck,
Josh Smith

I'm Sick of Appeals to Fear

[verisof (970392)]

In September, I ran the datacenter in the Houston Astrodome during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The organization I was working for (a large international organization that provides relief in disasters, hint hint) keeps data on the people who seek help private. In fact, that's their mantra. I received visits from no less than FOUR Department of Homeland Security deputies who wanted to get their hands on the refugee data, purportedly to track sexual predators. Some of these requests were polite and some were not. I've encountered similar requests within the last year for data in my corporate job as well.

It's my observation that these people will ALWAYS appeal to our base fear when they encounter barriers to getting the data they want, knowing that no one wants to aid and abet "Sexual Predators" or "Terrorists". That's why the due process laws, calling for subpoenas are in place here in the US (but for how long?) I can only hope that we can come to our senses and end this gross abuse of power. . . . Has anyone else had similar experiences? How come we never really hear much about it?

Re:I'm Sick of Appeals to Fear

[daveschroeder (516195)]

How come we never really hear much about it?

Um, are you shitting me? Like, are you really serious?

We hear about this ALL THE FUCKING TIME, especially on the internet (e.g., blogs).

Constantly.

More than we ever have before, and more every day. And it's not because there are "more abuses"; there's more people hunting for and collecting evidence about said abuses. Some of these people do it out of genuine concern. Most of these people do it because their political leanings are crystal clear.

And you know what? There aren't really any more or less "abuses" than there ever have been; there are just much easier ways to spread the word. That's what makes people believe we're heading down the primrose path to a fascist state and all this other crap.

Technology cuts both ways: it makes it easier for the government to abuse rights and freedoms, and it makes it easier for everyone else to find out and call them on it.

Protecting the library

[jmv (93421)]

Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library [and its users] than helping the police

I think I'd actually be proud if someone said something like that about me.

It's ironic...

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

that the ones supposed to UPHOLD the Law are the first ones wanting to BREAK the Law.

Second - the Library director did the right thing. Why? Because if the information she gave was obtained without "due process", the pedophile could get free because of this. Now who would be the one to blame? The Library. Wonderful.

I'd pretty much tell the stupid police to just do their job and STFU.

Re:It's ironic...

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

I'd pretty much tell the stupid police to just do their job and STFU.

That's pretty much what she did, and apparently it pissed some of them off. Although, interestingly the police aren't the ones that are threatening her ... the Library's own Board of Directors (for some unaccountable reason) are not only not supporting her but are in the process of determining what punishment should be given to this woman for doing her job properly. That kind of in-your-face irrationality smacks of hidden politics: there's more to this story. Somebody has it in for Ms. Reutty, found an excuse to go after her, and is making the most of it. Either that, or she's simply being used as an example to show what happens to people that dare to tell the police to back off. I hope that the people of that fine city understand what's at stake here. Probably they don't.

What I find interesting is that the police were willing to deliberately obtain potentially tainted evidence. Maybe they didn't care: maybe they already had enough on the guy and simply wanted the Library's records to confirm what they already knew. But that's irrelevant: they wanted convenient access to confidential information without going through the proper channels. Frankly, it's not her job to make things easy for the cops: it is her job to, well, do her job.

My hero

[peacefinder (469349)]

Far from being an "... absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter", this librarian correctly realized that it was a serious matter which she was not qualified or empowered to judge. She deferred to the courts, which are only appropriate and authorized arbiter of police search powers.

Bravo, Ms. Reutty!

This is to be expected

[dreemernj (859414)]

If she hadn't forced them to follow the letter of the law, whoever this person was that broke the law initially could have turned around and used the illegal obtaining of his records in court to get the case thrown out.

That exact scenario has happened before, where these small-town cops get worked up, don't follow the rules, and it ends up hurting what could have been a simple, open-shut case if they had just had patience. I really wish I could post a link to the details (I've spent a lot of time in Jersey Boroughs) but usually there is little to no public record, things get lost, or safety nets are put in place.

Its really really sad actually.

let's do something about it

[by Anonymous Coward]

Let's tell these sociopathic assholes what we think of their attempts to trample on our rights.

HASBROUCK HEIGHTS NJ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbrouck_Heights,_Ne w_Jersey [wikipedia.org]
General Info - http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/general/towninf o.html [hasbrouck-heights.nj.us]

Mayor Ronald R. Jones
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604 USA
Phone: [phone]

Police Chief Michael Colaneri
Hasbrouck Heights (Bergen County)
248 Hamilton Avenue
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604-1811
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Bergen County Prosecutor's Office
10 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Mon-Fri [phone]
After Hours [phone]

Also let's show Ms. Reutty our support!

Michele Reutty, Director
Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard, Hasbrouck Heights NJ 07604
E-mail: [e-mail]
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

i am going to give her a call when i get done w/ work.

i gaurantee if the people involved get just a few dozen calls or emails it will make them think twice. please take a moment to show your anger and/or support.

Let's be serious here...

[RyoShin (610051)]

However, borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police. 'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,' Horn said."

If it was so serious, then why couldn't the police go through the steps to get the supeona?

If it's that serious, you want a trail of evidence and iron-clad law-abiding police searches and questioning to bring you through prosecution. The fact that the police failed to get a subpeona for a situation where one would likely be needed (they wouldn't have to use it right away, only if the librarian put up a fight).

I applaud this librarian for forcing the police to do their job. Why, if everyone did this, we might actually have a trust-worthy government! Oh, the horror!

Members of the Borough Council have suggested she receive punishment ranging from a letter of reprimand in her personnel file to a 30-day unpaid suspension. But the Library Board of Trustees said it would reserve judgment until a closed-door hearing next month.

The article mentions that reps from a library association went to a meeting to show support for Reutty, but I think it might help if concerned citizens from around the country let their voice be heard.

Hasbrouck Heights Library website [bccls.org]

Here is a list of staff, with the board of trustees at the bottom. [bccls.org] I can't find individual contact lists for them, but sending snail mail to the library and putting their name would probably work.

seriousness of the matter?

[Physics Dude (549061)]

" 'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,' Horn said."

Apparently the police didn't think it was even serious enough to bother getting a subpoena.

I don't get it...

[layer3switch (783864)]

"Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police."

errr... call me stupid, but isn't that what her job supposed to be, protecting the library? I just don't get it... If she wanted to help the police, she'd be a neighborhood watch woman.

Sad fact but...

[Caine (784)]

Citizens of the United States of America, you do realize you live in a fascist state, don't you?

Text of NJ Library Privacy Statute

[patio11 (857072)]

Library records which contain the names or other personally identifying details regarding the users of libraries are confidential and shall not be disclosed except in the following circumstances:

      a. The records are necessary for the proper operation of the library;

      b. Disclosure is requested by the user; or

      c. Disclosure is required pursuant to a subpena [sic -- probably transcription error in the database] issued by a court or court order.

      L. 1985, c. 172, s. 2, eff. May 31, 1985.

You can't be serious

[OverflowingBitBucket (464177)]

From the article:

Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena. ... Reutty, the director for 17 years, now faces possible discipline by the library board. Members of the Borough Council have suggested she receive punishment ranging from a letter of reprimand in her personnel file to a 30-day unpaid suspension.

You can't be serious!

What if I said:

"Michele Reutty didn't send me a Christmas card last year. This made me very sad and I got angry at some children. This was a blatant disregard for my feelings and resulted in harm to children. I suggest we put a letter of reprimand in her file or suspend her for 30 days."

You'd think I was nuts, right? Why? Well, she is under no obligation whatsoever to send a Christmas card to me. Now, here she is, having been pressured to do something she was under no obligation to do... and frankly, likely in breach of privacy laws as well. She said no. Good on her!

If people want a law that forces anyone to obey arbitrary instructions of police officers (hint: this might be a baaaad thing), then petition to pass one. Until then, she not only did nothing wrong, but she did the right thing. If the police need the information for an investigation, they should get a warrant. Until then, she's done the right thing. Shame on the council members who have suggested disciplinary action.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[by Anonymous Coward]

Warrants are there for a reason.

What if the dangerous paedophile actually managed, through hard work and dedication, to get a job on the police force? Sure, the overwhelming majority of police are good, but it's definitely possible for ONE bad cop to get through. Should he be able to get your child's records without anyone even looking over his work to determine if it's 'warranted'?

Food for thought.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[inKubus (199753)]

Alleged sex offender. Allegedly scoping out your child. What's stopping them from pulling YOUR library records because they don't like you, and making up some story to throw you behind bars. This dude was 23, probably was a skateboarder or something and said "lick me where I pee" but the police wants to get rid of such a trouble maker so they just pin sexual comments on him. Maybe the girl threw something at his car, or maybe she's lying. God knows 12 year olds NEVER lie. I don't see how someone's library records could possibly stop a life or death situation. You see that stupid crap in the movies all the time but that doesn't make it real. Real police work is tedious and exhaustive. It has to be that way to protect the innocent. That is what sets America apart from the rest of the world. Now if a bunch of Redneck cops want to flex on the constitution, and then COMPLAIN that the librarian didn't LET THEM? Shit, it's every citizen's duty to make sure that the constitution is followed and to speak out if it isn't. For the protection of future generations. But I forgot, only "lefties" think about the future.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[rumblin'rabbit (711865)]

It's not "her" library,

Perhaps not, but she has been entrusted with running it. She is responsible for the library, and presumably would be held to task if she shirked that duty.

She's obstructing justice

Nope. Obstructing justice is a specific crime, and this librarian came no where near to committing such a crime. Quite the opposite - she kept strictly to the law.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[vertinox (846076)]

The police are out there busting their hump, protecting you and me. 99% of them are good

Apparently you've never been pulled over by a cop in Georgia.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[fozzy1015 (264592)]

Unless you are "fighting terror", an improperly conducted search will get thrown out by the courts and then the "bad guys" usually get a walk.

Why should there be an exception for "fighting terror?"

It is the mindset though. Look for more and more things to fall under the concept of 'fighting terror' as a way to get around due process and the Bill of Rights. I remember hearing some guy on NPR say some members of LA gangs were 'street terrorists'.

Re:The news just ate it up.

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

Of course they did. Journalists file FOIA requests all day long, and have to wade through mountains of forms to get information that should be freely available to any citizen, if the governement wasn't fricking corrupt. Cops are supposed to have to do the same thing for data that isn't freely available. That's the law. And after filing dozens of FOIA requests for police reports, you bet your ass they jumped on it when the cops tried to pretend like they were above the law.

On top of that journalists are in a position where they can end up in posession of information that the government wants to know, and unlike librarians, they don't have the luxury of giving that info up if they want to continue in their careers. Strong and respected privacy laws are very much in their self interest.

And finally, journalists tend to be literate library affectionados, and, as such, are well disposed toward spunky, privacy-respecting librarians.

Re:So what?

[OzoneLad (899155)]

"If the police aren't abusing their powers and have a legal claim to the information then what's the problem here?"

That's what a warrant or a subpoena is for, establishing that the police have a legal claim to the information.

-HT