From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #532 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, October 1 2003 Volume 06 : Number 532 In this issue: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #528 Court Date Correction Response to Al Muir re: NFA, Ottawa Office, OFAH Re: Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun discharges Re: Help with answers please BREITKREUZ INTRODUCES THREE MOTIONS TO JUSTICE COMMITTEE Stupid statements - Canadian Commanders in Kabul A charge of possessing an unregistered firearm was dropped. Suspects sought in armed robbery Chef stabs robber at White Spot Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #527 Gagne was on a day pass when he committed the double murders, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:32:44 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Ackermann Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #528 In response to the bullsh!t artical about Canadian Infantry going (essentially) unarmed in combat zones: Rick Lowe said it all. Hear Hear! - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS Secretary, St. Mary's Shooters Association Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca My Bio: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/mikeack.htm SMSA URL: www.smsa.ca "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:33:21 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: Court Date Correction Date Correction: Court Date for Dr Hudson is Monday, 06 October 2003, Humboldt, Saskatchewan at 10 a.m. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:35:09 -0600 (CST) From: Fred Hoenisch Subject: Response to Al Muir re: NFA, Ottawa Office, OFAH Al Muir wrote: > I have written on the OFAH licensing issue in the past but have not > continued to focus on it because the Canadian Federation of Municipalities > has voted as a group in the past to call for a halt to the program. The > OFAH approach is nothing new and promises to be a dead end as it was in the > past. Good evening Al: I've struggled with responding to the OFAH part of your post, because it really bothers me that here's a group that although is 'representing OFAH members' is quite frankly making statements/suggestions that is likely to impact all Canadian Firearm owners. I believe (as do others based on their responses to the 'answers' post about licensing) that what they are doing is utterly wrong and destructive to us (even though I agree it isn't likely to amount to much to have the municipalities support the motion anyway). If I read your post correctly - you suggest it isn't worth addressing OFAH on this? But is it? Is it acceptable to sit back and let them speak out on behalf of the non-OFAH members without any criticism on our part? Many CFD posters seem to have a heyday when it comes to slamming the NFA. But quite frankly, (and if this is the case - as I haven't seen their financial report) I'd let their President drive and have his gas paid for long before I'd like to see a gun group promote and further impose the licensing aspects of C-68 on us. All the posters who have chosen to say "No way to licensing" should (in my opinion) be sending a letter to OFAH saying "You motion stinks." I guess I also don't want to see OFAH come around when the registry collapses (on its own) and say "See what a wonderful job we've done - join us and know you've got a great progun support network behind you." In my opinion - they stink for what they've done, but I'm not seeing a similar reaction, on the CFD at least, and wondering if I'm alone in my frustration? Am I just overreacting? Yours truly, Fred in Victoria ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:36:03 -0600 (CST) From: Mark L Horstead Subject: Re: Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun discharges > From: Rick > Date: 2003/09/30 Tue PM 12:42:43 EST > To: undisclosed-recipients: ; > Subject: Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun discharges You don't leave much, if anything, unsaid. > And so they should have been (after all, they are Canadian soldiers, not > American pilots who can expect little more than a slap on the wrist for killing > the wrong people). This was the only good part of the story. > However... what is this bullcrap about "bringing to a head concerns over the > readiness of guns". What concerns? And where has this concern been brewing? > In the mind of some chairborne garritrooper? I know Denne, vaguely, from my somewhere in my dim-and-distant past. Can't remember much about him, however. I don't know what the threat is perceived to be, but the policy and pseudo-reasons behind it make no sense at all. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:02:07 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Help with answers please The Jordan's wrote: > I am trying to get a deal with Martins support staff, a commitment to > review the following: > > "We want the long gun registry scrapped and no more funding for the program" > > My, our, offer is to stop criticizing Martin, the Liberals in return. > After all the talking, I still have no idea where our bottom line is, what > do we want, and not want, leave out reverting to a totally open market with > anyone getting a firearm without a reason, and a safety course, and permit. Why do you need a reason, other than "Because I choose to"? Why should someone need to justify their purchasing a legal item to the Government? Do you need to tell the State why you want to buy a car, or a TV? It's called "freedom". It is exactly these kinds of assumptions on the part of the Lieberals that need to be challenged. > Even I would not go for that. I need, want, a sort of list, objectives, a > target to shoot for, and not the sky either. > > Linda, can you poll your group(s) and see what we would settle for > please? (Kooky replies are fine but "settle" should not be as a gun kook > who wants everything, we simply cannot get everything we want.) Why not? Why is "freedom" a "kooky" idea? Why can't we have it? Who are you to deny it to us? This shows the basic incompatibilities between gun owners and Lieberals. > 1. What kind of license? Let me qualify my remarks by saying, up front, that LICENSING IS EVIL! There are so many reasons why LICENSING IS EVIL that to do the topic justice would require an entirely separate response. Given that position, I think that it is a general consensus that the majority of us would "settle" for the original, pre-intrusive question & testing, 1978 FAC as the absolute *MAXIMUM* infringement of our rights that we would be willing to bear. And ONLY until such time as we can get this infringement rolled back, too. Even the idea of an FAC is based on the fallacious rationale that it's somehow OK for someone to actually *own* some guns without being a danger to anyone, but if you actually want to go out and "acquire" *more* guns, that automatically makes you suspect. I think it is readily apparent that one can do just as much damage with a firearm that you already own as you can with one you want to go out and "acquire"... Just another example of the asinine nature of "gun control". > 2. Who may qualify for ownership? Anyone over the age of 12 who is not on probation or parole with conditions not to possess firearms. If you are too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, you are too dangerous to be left out wandering the streets, and should be locked up. > 3. Safe storage law will stay as is, is that OK? No. Safe storage is simply a means of punishing the law abiding gun owner for the criminal acts of others. It is based on the premise, as are all "gun control" laws, that because *some* people can't be trusted with guns, *nobody* can be trusted with them. Ninety nine percent of all gun owners will never use their firearms to commit a crime. Leave us alone - we are fed up being the scapegoat for all the evils of the world. > 4. Any other issue you can add here. There are already several laws regulating the improper use of firearms. Real laws already exist that govern the use of firearms in the commission of real crimes, such as robbery, assault, threatening, pointing, discharging at, wounding, or killing someone. All of these are "malum in se" crimes - bad because they in and of themselves harm someone else. No amount of licensing will prevent someone from committing such a crime. All licensing laws are "malum prohibitum" - bad because the State says they are bad. Committing a crime with a gun is no more nor less wrong because one does so without a license for that gun. > 5. What about registration, what to do with existing data if it is dropped? Destroy it. This includes the handgun registry. It has been in existence for almost 70 years, and it hasn't been any more effective than the long gun registry. Register criminals, not guns. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:20:03 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: BREITKREUZ INTRODUCES THREE MOTIONS TO JUSTICE COMMITTEE BREITKREUZ INTRODUCES THREE MOTIONS TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE - - September 30, 2003 FIREARMS INTEREST POLICE (FIP) DATABASE "That the Committee examine the reasons why the government has refused to implement the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations with respect to the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database." REVIEW OF PROPOSED FIREARMS ACT REGULATIONS "That the Committee review the proposed Firearms Act Regulations currently tabled before both Houses of Parliament before the expiration of the thirty sitting days deadline as per section 118(4)." REDUCE SUPPLEMENTARY "A ESTIMATES FOR THE CANADIAN FIREARMS CENTRE BY $10 MILLION "That Supplementary Estimates (A), 2003-2004, Vote 7(a) for the Solicitor General - Canadian Firearm Centre in the amount of $10,000,000 under New Appropriations be reduced to $1." NOTE: For Background Information see below http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article177.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:21:34 -0600 (CST) From: "principal" Subject: Stupid statements - Canadian Commanders in Kabul This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C387EA.CD3E1200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have to wonder where these officers got their training. What they are = saying is utter NONSENSE. When a soldier comes under effective enemy = fire his first reaction is NOT to dive for cover. His first reaction is, = in sequence- Double tap - two shots in the direction of the effective enemy fire in = order to suppress the threatening fire and make subsequent enemy fire = less accurate,=20 Dash - make yourself a moving target,=20 Down - now that you have moved make yourself a smaller target,=20 Crawl - so that if the enemy saw where you went down he doesn't know = where you will pop up,=20 Sights - NOW, actually use your sights to locate the enemy Observe and engage - engage meaning shoot at the source of the effective = fire and try to KILL them. If the engagement is an ambush the troops best chance of survival is to = pour as much lead at the sources of the fire, be it; small arms, = claymores (remote detonated mines), RPGs, while moving fast!! back the = direction they came. Aussi peel-back or some form of this response. There is no excuse for negligent discharges. The only reason is = incompetence. (refects directly on the commanders, NO?) Now, to anyone who takes up arms in the face of a threat including, = police, soldiers or home owners, please do yourself the life saving = favor of ; 1.. Learning how to handle your weapon (especially a firearm) of = choice so well that in a crisis you use it to its greatest effect and = advantage. 2.. If you are going to arm yourself to confront a threat anywhere, at = home or on duty, put a round into the chamber. Let me explain why. If = you wait until a threat presents itself to cock the action the following = things may occur; a.. You can't cock the action because the safety is in a position that = does not allow it. On many firearms if the safety is applied you can't = cock it.=20 b.. The threat might present and engage so rapidly that you loose = valuable time. Those fractions of a second need to be applied to target = acquisition, not a cocking procedure that jostles the gun around, places = hand anywhere other than in positions that support the firearm, takes = mental focus away from evaluating the threat. c.. The magazine may not have seated properly and your efforts to cock = the action fail to put a round into the chamber. Dirt or other materials = might cause the round not to completely seat, that is one reason the C7 = rifle has a forward assist. If you cock when you load you know you you = have at least one shot even if you get a toppage on the second round. d.. In anticipation of confrontation your hands become sweaty. You may = fail to operate the cocking mechanism completely, pump action shotgun, = semiauto hand-guns are prone to this operator error.=20 e.. There are other reasons for a jam in the cocking procedure, any of = which make your gun useless until you clear the jam.=20 f.. You could, as I have personally witnessed, point a loaded, but not = cocked, gun at someone forgetting completely that the firearm was not = cocked. I just got back today from Yemen where I was teaching security forces. = Believe me when I tell you that when the Canadian troops get ambushed, = and they will, they better fight for their lives from the first = supersonic crack of a 7.62 round. Because if they wait for the sound of = the shot being fired, they my wait an eternity. (7.62 Russian will cut = through their flak jackets and Kevlar helmets like it wasn't there). If someone has an email address or can forward this to any of the troops = in Afghanistan please do. Barry Holland [Moderator's Note: Please turn off HTML/MIME and/or "quoted-printable" encoding before posting messages to the Digest - plain text only. BNM] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:24:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: A charge of possessing an unregistered firearm was dropped. PUBLICATION: The Chronicle-Herald DATE: 2003.10.01 SECTION: NovaScotia PAGE: A9 SOURCE: South Shore Bureau BYLINE: Gerrie Grevatt PHOTO: Gerrie Grevatt / South Shore Bureau ILLUSTRATION: Doug Hatt of Beech Hill denies he cut timber on Crown land,even though he admitted to the offence in court in July. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Timber case handled properly - official; South Shore man denies cutting on Crown land near his home - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Beech Hill - A Natural Resources conservation officer says he conducted a full investigation before charging a Beech Hill man with cutting timber on Crown land. Terry Beck was responding Tuesday to claims Doug Hatt made to this newspaper last week that he was wrongly accused in January of felling trees near his home on property held in trust by the Department of Natural Resources. In an article in Saturday's newspaper, Mr. Hatt said he pleaded guilty in July to the charge only because he couldn't afford to go to trial. "I thought that would be the easy way . . . but there was not one stick of (wood) was ever cut on the Crown land," Mr. Hatt said. "It was all cut on my own land." Mr. Hatt, 67, lives alone in a small cabin without electricity or running water at the end of a two-kilometre dirt right-of-way. He makes about $1,000 a year cutting timber and selling it, he said. Mr. Beck launched his investigation into Mr. Hatt's activities after someone complained to the department. Mr. Beck was able to match the tree stumps he found on Crown land with the logs in Mr. Hatt's woodpile. "A stump would have a very distinct mark," Mr. Beck said. The conservation officer took a statement from Mr. Hatt in which he admitted that he and another man he wouldn't identify had cut about 1.5 cords of pulpwood on Crown land. "He had every opportunity to go to court and plead . . . not guilty," Mr. Beck said. "He had the opportunity to go call a lawyer. He didn't wish to do that." Instead, Mr. Hatt pleaded guilty and was given a year to pay a $387.50 fine. A charge of possessing an unregistered firearm was dropped. "I actually brought him into the office and registered (the firearm) online for him free of charge, plus he got to keep the wood," Mr. Beck said. "As far as I'm concerned, I treated him as fair as I possibly could." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:26:33 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Suspects sought in armed robbery PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) DATE: 2003.10.01 EDITION: Final SECTION: Local PAGE: A4 COLUMN: Province in Brief SOURCE: The StarPhoenix - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Suspects sought in armed robbery - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Police are seeking two female suspects after an armed robbery at May's Chicken at 450 20th St. West Tuesday. At about 7:30 p.m., the suspects entered the restaurant armed with a handgun and a hunting knife and demanded cash. They left the store with a small amount of money, and were last seen running across 20th Street. There were no injuries. The suspects are described as Native females, about 16 to 18 years old, about 5-foot-5, with slim builds. One was carrying a knapsack. One had a ponytail and was wearing bunnyhug-style dark clothes. The second had a white knit scarf over her face and also had a ponytail. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:28:12 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Chef stabs robber at White Spot PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun DATE: 2003.10.01 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: B7 COLUMN: In Brief SOURCE: CanWest News Services DATELINE: PORT COQUITLAM - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Chef stabs robber at White Spot - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= PORT COQUITLAM -- A chef at a local White Spot restaurant thwarted an armed robbery by stabbing one of the suspects in the back with a knife Tuesday morning. Two men demanded money from staff at the White Spot on Ottawa Street shortly after 7 a.m. One of the men produced a handgun, Coquitlam RCMP Corporal Catherine Galliford said. The manager of the store then started fighting with the two robbers, and the bandit with the handgun clocked the manager in the head with the butt end of the firearm, Galliford said. "Seeing the efforts of his manager, a chef in the kitchen foiled the robbery attempt by stabbing one suspect in the back with a knife," Galliford said. The two men drove off with only a small amount of cash, and police recovered the vehicle parked outside the A & W Restaurant at Schoolhouse Street and Lougheed Highway. The wounded suspect was still in the car, and he was arrested and taken to hospital to undergo surgery, Galliford said. His condition is not known, she added. His accomplice got away. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:29:17 -0600 (CST) From: "Hugh Evers" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #527 > For those who are not responding - why not? > > Linda Hello Linda, My position is as follows, No negotiation of any kind without first getting passed into legislation by act of Parliament, The absolute right of every citizen of Canada to have & own Property ( including Firearms) For their own personal use & enjoyment.. Chretien, Rock, & Annie McClellen Have all stated in public....( Registration does not mean confiscation) So let the RFC & the people of Canada see this right Chisled in stone, Carved in Granite, Punched & bored into legislation never to be tampered with or negotiated away.. An act with teeth ...To last forever... Then & only then can the RFC approach any Government body for negotiations with equal footing and dignity... You Own Your Property or You Are The Property Hugh Evers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:31:06 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Gagne was on a day pass when he committed the double murders, PUBLICATION: Toronto Star DATE: 2003.10.01 SECTION: NEWS PAGE: A04 SOURCE: Toronto Star BYLINE: Bob Mitchell and Peter Edwards ILLUSTRATION: Jeff Goode/Toronto Star File Photo Eddie Melo spars for thecamera in January, 1980. Melo, who turned pro at the age of 17 and later won the Canadian middleweight championship, survived an attempt on his life in 1989. Charles Gagne, 30, is expected to be called as a crown witness in related murder case. Charles Gagne, 30, is expected to be called as a crown witness in related murder case. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Boxer's killer gets life in prison; Can be released in 12 years for double slaying He was considered low-risk parolee at time of shooting - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= A Quebec man who killed former boxing champion Eddie Melo was regarded by federal officials as a low-risk parolee at the time he committed the contract killing in 2001. Charles Gagne, 30, was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 12 years after pleading guilty yesterday to two counts of second-degree murder in the killings of former Canadian boxing champion Eddie Melo, 40, and his long-time friend, Joao (John) Pavao, 42, on April 6, 2001. Mr. Justice Terrence O'Connor "reluctantly" accepted the 12-year recommendation of crown prosecutor Stephen Sherriff. "The crown is accepting Gagne's plea to second-degree murder, in what is clearly a first-degree murder case, because of the need to call Gagne as a crown witness in order to seek justice in that related case," Sherriff told the court. Eddie Melo's partner, Rhonda Sullivan, 37, who is the mother of his young son Eduardo, 6, and Melo's daughter Jessica, 22, wept repeatedly during yesterday's hearing, as did several other family members. National Parole Board documents obtained by the Star indicate that Gagne was on a day pass when he committed the double murders, after being given a 10-year sentence for robbing a grocery store in 1995 with an AK-47 assault rifle while unlawfully at large. In the Dec. 12, 2000, parole board decision, Gagne was told, "The board is persuaded that your risk is not undue upon such a release." However, when he was given his day pass, Gagne was told by the parole board, "Your criminal history includes a number of weapons offences, which involved guns on all occasions and negative associates." Calling his behaviour "impulsive" and "thrill-seeking," the decision said, "As well, you have demonstrated a comfort with a criminal lifestyle that includes guns and negative peers who make 'big promises' of easy money." The decision to grant Gagne day parole also notes, "Your institutional performance over-all has been good, which the board takes as evidence that you are less impulsive and better able to choose your associates, ... all of which suggest that risk is manageable." He had been incarcerated at the Portsmouth Community Correctional Centre in Kingston when he received day parole. When initially arrested this past July, Gagne was an inmate of the Hull Correctional Centre in Quebec, where he was facing two new charges of aggravated assault. The Peel police investigation revealed Melo was shot at about 6: 30 p.m. as he sat behind the wheel of his Jeep Cherokee. Pavao was shot as he stood outside the vehicle, leaning inside as he talked to Melo. The two men had just left the popular Amici sports bar, located in the Cliffway Plaza, near Hurontario St. and the Queen Elizabeth Way. "Melo was the target and Pavao happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time," Sherriff told the Brampton court. The court heard how Gagne made his getaway by hijacking a car from a passerby. Sherriff said evidence against Gagne included wiretaps of telephone conversations, which contained admissions by Gagne, and money paid to him by a co-conspirator. In an agreed statement of facts read yesterday in court, Gagne admitted he shot Melo and Pavao in the head at close range in what Sherriff described as "execution-style slayings." "This was a contract homicide planned well in advance, and Gagne was promised $75,000 in exchange for killing Melo," Sherriff said. "There were a number of other co-conspirators. Gagne received $50,000, some of which he gave to one of his co-conspirators." Sheriff said Gagne didn't know either Melo or Pavao. Gagne's lawyer, John McCulligh, said his client had "renounced the life he lived" and knows with his guilty plea that "deep waters" are ahead. Melo, who became a pro boxer at 17 and later won the Canadian middleweight championship, was the Toronto driver for Montreal crime boss Frank Cotroni when Cotroni visited Toronto in the 1980s and '90s. There were two paramilitary officers from the Peel police tactical squad in court yesterday. Members of the Melo and Pavao families, who attended the emotionally charged hearing, were upset and angry, but accepted the decision. Melo's younger brother, Joey, 39, said his brother was killed over jealousy, not underworld ties. "It had nothing to do with bikers and it had nothing to do with mobsters," he said. Rhonda Sullivan said she was "thankful" for the job done by Peel police. "At least we have some closure, but there is still only going to be two people at the dinner table tonight," Sullivan said. "This is not a day for celebration. My son still has no father." Melo came to Canada at the age of 6 but never obtained citizenship, and authorities unsuccessfully tried to deport him to his birthplace of Portugal for his criminal associations in the late 1990s. He survived a 1989 plot to have him killed. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #532 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@cogeco.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.