The following is my response to Bruce Hulme’s letter on behalf of ISPLA concerning the discussion and ongoing controversy over whether CALI should reduce funding of NCISS (as proposed by a motion made by CALI VP Administration Ed Saucerman) and begin to fund ISPLA (again based upon a motion by Ed Saucerman). I find it unnecessary to respond to most of the letter at this time but I do think I need to expound upon certain issues that emanate from the letter and the context of other organizations and individuals communications on the issues.
First, my blog posting had nothing to do with a lobbying effort directed towards CALI members on the subject. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one subscriber to this blog who is a CALI member and he happens to be a non-voting service and industry member. I did nothing out of the ordinary to publicize my 7/23/10 blog entry so the only people who’d be automatically notified of the posting were my subscribers. I don’t even know who most of my subscribers are, so it’s entirely possible that there may be CALI members amongst them whom I don’t know by username or email address.
Regardless of the fact that I made no particular attempt to lobby CALI members on these issues with my blog, that was the interpretation given by people like Rick Von Geldern and Ed Saucerman who (a) made all sorts of fantastic accusations about the blog which included taking portions of it and spinning them out of context, (b) resurrected their attack of last year when they claimed that I was purportedly “anti-law enforcement” and therefore not to be trusted by anybody, and (c) my blog seems to have been an issue with PICA President David Hererra’s pronouncement that PICA was severing all ties with NCISS and transferring its support lock, stock and barrel to ISPLA. Macchiavelli never said or wrote that the “ends justify the means;” properly translated his phraseology is more akin to the “outcome is what counts.” Well the outcome of all this attention that was generated by Von Geldern, Saucerman, and Hererra is that I had about 200 hits in a single day on my blog and website, the most I’ve ever had in a 24 hour period. I’m still getting way over average hits in light of the latest postings on this subject.
But of course Von Geldern, Saucerman, and company should have nothing to fear by having generated so much interest in the posting. After all, they are of the opinion that their relentless attacks on me have paid off in spades and that my opinions have been thoroughly discredited and my credibility shot all to hell on these subjects. Instead of getting in a tizzy over a blog with a single CALI service and industry subscriber, they should have adopted Alfred E. Neuman’s Mad Magazine philosophy of, “What? Me worry?”
I also have to give some context to the quote that Bruce utilized to illustrate his points from the Nez Perce Chief Joseph. Chief Joseph, when the Americans betrayed him and his tribe and stole their land at gunpoint, changed his christian name to a Nez Perce name, “Thunder Rolling in the Mountain.” He fought with tenacity, bravery and great tact. But it was only after the U.S. Army had as a matter of strategic policy killed the tribe’s Appaloosa horses, almost wiping out the breed, that Chief Joseph finally said that he would fight no more. Deprived of its transportation and war vehicle, he could fight no more.
“What distinguishes ISPLA from NCISS, and most other national investigative and security professional associations, is reflected in the last three words of our name:
‘…for Legislative Action.’ That’s all we do, and we do it well.” – Bruce Hulme, ISPLA Director of Government Affairs
Date: August 23, 2010
To: Jan Tucker
From: ISPLA Executive Committee
Re: NCISS v. ISPLA
CC: CALI President and Board
This is in response to your blog posting dated July 23, 2010, and which was sent to ISPLA this past Friday. Hopefully, most of your concerns were answered by ISPLA in Burbank the day after your post. At the invitation of CALI president Chris Reynolds, Bruce Hulme, the ISPLA director of government affairs, appeared at his own personal expense before the CALI board on the afternoon of July 24. You were present and posed several questions, as did other board members-all of which were answered. The president of NCISS, who had made a presentation before your board that same morning, was also present during most of Mr. Hulme’s comments. Since you did not remain for the entire CALI board meeting, it is possible that you may not be aware of everything that occurred.
ISPLA was quite surprised to learn of your blog posting NCISS v. ISPLA. One would assume that the CALI membership is being lobbied to put pressure on the CALI board before it completes its deliberations. We understand that several steps are to be taken before CALI reaches a decision as to whether or not it will financially support ISPLA. First, CALI intends to perform due diligence on ISPLA. Second, it agreed to accept information from the CALI legislative chairwoman (who also serves as board chair of NCISS) against supporting ISPLA. Third, at that time the CALI legislative committee will make their recommendation to the board in support of or opposition to joining ISPLA and/or giving ISPLA financial support. The CALI board will deliberate on this issue at its September board meeting. In addition, subsequent to the board meeting in July, CALI’s president advised ISPLA that it could also submit additional material in writing should it choose to do so. As your blog comments and concerns may have been viewed by other CALI members, please feel free to share this with them.
Below are excerpts of your blog in italics, followed by ISPLA’s response.
“… ISPLA, an organization made up of former dissidents of NCISS”
The above statement is incorrect and misleading. ISPLA’s executive committee has two former NCISS presidents who are still active on the NCISS board. Other ISPLA executive committee members are for various reasons no longer members of the NCISS board. However, many have been NCISS members for a long time and are still NCISS members. They are also to a large degree responsible for the legislative accomplishments of NCISS over these many years. The successes of NCISS during its 35 years were gained in no small part by some of the same individuals who comprise the executive committee of ISPLA.
It was present ISPLA executive committee members who assisted in drafting NCISS testimony and exceptions in the 1994 Driver Privacy Protection Act for state licensed private investigators and security firms; testified before FTC hearings on consumer information privacy and before Congressional hearings including the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services on ID Theft and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act implementation, Ways and Means on Social Security number use and privacy issues, and Committee on the Judiciary on indigent defense issues; assisted in drafting prepared testimony before the U.S. Courts; and prepared written comments to the FTC regarding roles of the SSN as an authenticator and identifier and the private sector’s use of same in fraud prevention and ID theft for use by the President’s ID theft Task Force. That is just some of what we did before we formed ISPLA last year and created a PAC.
“As private investigators, we all need to see things from various perspectives. One way to view the situation of having rival professional organizations who both formulate their legislative agendas separately is to compare the situation of private investigators to other professions.”
I suggest that your analogies to chiropractors, dentists, and medical doctors may be akin to separate agendas and philosophies. However, in most cases the views of ISPLA and NCISS will be similar-but not always. ISPLA and NCISS are not the only legislative advocates for private investigators, security professionals and allied professions. ASIS, NASCO, NAPRS and NAPPS, like NCISS, have all retained lobbyists. Some might even posit that competition can be good. However, no member of the ISPLA executive committee has advocated that a member of NCISS drop their NCISS membership in favor of ISPLA. Most ISPLA members are affiliated with multiple professional associations; but if a colleague is going to choose just one, we hope it will be ISPLA. The discerning observer of the activities of NCISS since the formation of ISPLA will know that recommendations made to NCISS in the past by current ISPLA executive committee members have now been implemented by NCISS. The most obvious, of course, is the formation of a federal PAC-long strongly opposed by past and current NCISS leadership. Ironically, the greatest opposition to NCISS’ creating a political action committee came from NCISS board members who are past CALI presidents and who, we assume, have been involved in CALI-PAC.
“As we know from the fight over our MCE legislation, there are some issues where the legislature isn’t swayed by the influence of the smaller organization. There may be some critical mass where the legislature takes a smaller group seriously in a profession and when it doesn’t, subjectively determined by the particular facts. Obviously, since not one single vote went against MCE in the legislature, the influence of PICA’s opposition was between negligible and nil on the issue.”
ISPLA has no intention of interjecting its views on state issues unless they affect the best interests of ISPLA’s membership, whether they are state professional association members or individual members of ISPLA. Regarding the controversy over Mandatory Continuing Education: While serving as legislative director of NCISS in 2008, Bruce Hulme, the current ISPLA legislative director, was requested by the CALI legislative chairwoman (who was also serving as NCISS president at the time) to write a letter from NCISS in support of MCE. Mr. Hulme informed her at that time that MCE was an issue not supported by all of our investigative colleagues or by all state investigative professional associations. She was advised that such a letter of support would need prior NCISS board vote approval before it could be written. She sought not to seek such approval from the NCISS board, and it is doubtful that such would have been granted.
“So, the same situation we now face in California could be faced nationally if ISPLA gains credibility and membership at the expense of NCISS. It is far better that the industry speak with one voice rather than two when dealing with congress and executive branch regulatory agencies.”
ISPLA has already gained credibility. The fact that Congress, government agencies, and like-minded stakeholder organizations have sought our assistance validates our credibility, expertise, and knowledge of legislative and regulatory affairs. The current NCISS president recently announced that NCISS membership has actually increased to 1200 members. So, if such a statement is accurate, ISPLA’s emergence as a lobbying force would appear not to be hindering the growth of NCISS in these tough economic times. Furthermore, this past week NCISS posted to its members a release by the ASIS director of standards and guidelines seeking industry and individual volunteers on their Technical Committee to develop an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard. It is disingenuous to acknowledge such an initiative by that other professional association while questioning the good work of ISPLA and the benefits our profession derives. The current NCISS president is a longtime active member of ASIS and will be the recipient of a service award by them at their October conference in Dallas.
There are literally dozens of privacy, consumer and labor union advocacy groups opposing the interests of investigative and security professionals. At times they speak with one voice, and at times they do not. NCISS leaders would be delusional to ever think that just one voice speaks for our profession or that one organization has the capability of doing so. But ISPLA is singularly focused full-time on legislative and regulatory issues. NCISS and the other major professional associations are not. NCISS as well as associations such as ASIS, NASCO, NAPBS, NAPPS, USAPI, ACFE,
WAD, CII and INTELLENET, offers a wide range of member services including conventions and trade shows, newsletters, email listservs, membership directories, referral services, and the presentation of awards. ISPLA does not engage in such activities or offer such services. ISPLA is focused on legislative advocacy and PAC activities.
“For that matter, should we ever have the occasion to deal with the judiciary in a lawsuit for declaratory relief against legislation, imagine the nightmare of an organization competing with NCISS filing an amicus brief or complaint in intervention against the NCISS position. Nobody can guarantee that this is a scenario that can’t occur, anymore than anybody can guarantee that ISPLA would not wind up lobbying with a position opposed to that of NCISS and CALI.”
It was present ISPLA executive committee members as officers in NCISS, and over the objections of some current NCISS leaders, who pushed the organization to file an amicus brief. That brief was the Second Amendment case of DC v. Heller decided before the U.S. Supreme Court. ISPLA has recently been approached by legal representatives of a like-minded stakeholder to file an amicus brief in several states regarding detrimental state legislation that is also pending before Congress. Should ISPLA deem such legal action of benefit to the investigative and security professions, it will not hesitate to seek input and support from NCISS, as well as other associations.
ISPLA’s executive committee is not only experienced in handling federal and state legislative affairs; most have held leadership positions in national and state professional associations. Their experience in professional association management and legislative advocacy is unmatched; they have served in positions which include: three NALI national directors, the executive director of INTELLENET, two presidents and chairmen of the board of NCISS, eight board members of NCISS, six state association presidents, and the sole board member representing licensed private investigators serving on the IASIR board, of which the State of California is a member. Eighteen ISPLA members are or have been chairs of professional association legislative committees.
“To me, the best wisdom on the subject was stated a long time ago by Chief Little Turtle of the Miami Indians: “If our people fight one tribe at a time, we will be cut off like the fingers from a hand; but if we join together, we will make a powerful fist.”
Your above statement may be interpreted in more than one way. For example, the good chief’s analogy to the five fingers of the hand making a powerful fist could just as easily be stating that the tribes which should be joining together are the tribes of ISPLA, ASIS, NASCO, NAPRS, NAPPS and NCISS. ISPLA has already been working with these tribes. We offered our political action services on several occasions to NCISS at little or no costs; we alerted ASIS, NASCO and NCISS to fast-breaking new federal legislation about which they had no prior knowledge; and we worked closely with their respective retained lobbyists to gain a positive result on legislation which, if passed, would severely impact investigators and security firms, including members of CALI, who utilize surreptitious video recording.
ISPLA would welcome CALI as an association member and would be grateful for any financial contribution towards our efforts they may wish to give. They would be joining 18 other professional associations that recognize the good work of ISPLA for the benefit of investigative and security professionals in the United States.
There is another quote from a famous American Indian chief and military tactician-Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Indians, appearing before Congress in the 19th Century. And it is a quote you will never hear from any ISPLA leader regarding either NCISS (if they continue their current campaign against ISPLA) or Congress: “I will fight no more, forever.”
There is some really strange — no, Mondo Bizarro is more like it — email traffic going viral all over the Private Investigative world as I write. Just when I think that life can’t get any more surreal (see my last posting of earlier today), somebody out there in cyberspace forwards me the following email that has a lot to say about the same crowd that have been denouncing me of late. You decide for yourself whether some of the accusations flying around should qualify as Guilt by Association for those folks or just birds of a feather flocking together…..
Note first of all that I haven’t seen what Mr. Ammons is responding to….maybe somebody out there in cyberspace will be kind enough to forward it to me, preferably just as I’m about to take a stiff drink:
My Esteemed Colleagues:
Here is my response to the issues outlined by Mr. Herrera and Mr. Pipkins. I’m sure Ann Marie, Reinhardt and Rob will have more specific regarding the taxes and accounting of PICA’s business transactions. Nonetheless, feel
free to correct me on any inaccurate statements that I’ve made as it is solely based off of my recollection of events.
1. It is my understanding that are books had been properly maintained and reconciled on a regular basis since Reinhardt Schuerger assumed responsibility. In 2009, Secretary-Treasurer Rob Lough and Ann Marie Batesole
met regularly (I believe every month) to reconcile the PICA accounts via Quick books. Rob Lough never received training or had previous experience (as was the case with all but 3 of the 2009 PICA BOD) and I had informed him
that we would establish an SOP for future Secretary-Treasurers. Mr. Pipkin refused training from Mr. Lough, Ann Marie. Mr. Pipkin and Mr. Herrera ignored our attempts to train and assist them in understanding PICA strengths and weaknesses. They were dead set on reinventing the wheel.
2. If this was true, it wouldn’t take 6 months to go online or request the statements from the bank. This would not prevent a review based off of the documentation that was available.
3. Mr. Pipkin is delusional at best. In my limited experience, using a debt card to pay for transactions is an easier and more secure way of doing business. If a transaction occurs, the credit card company will always give the patron back their funds until the dispute has been resolved. Nonetheless, I am not a CPA and like Mr. Pipkin statement, it is only an opinion.
4. In 2009, the only new agreements that were entered into were for the Online training portal (NATG) and the member’s web site (VOICE). Both contracts we co-authored by myself and reviewed by reputable contract
attorneys. A copy of those contracts, as well as every other documentation relating to PICA was emailed to the entire BOD in December of 2009. Mr. Herrera repeatedly asked for documentation and complained of not being trained yet he failed to review the contents of those 2 emails and refused to have his BOD accept/participate the offered training that the 2009 BOD voted to provide the incoming BOD. In 2009, it was voted that the outgoing BOD would provide training for the incoming BOD at the last BOD meeting of the year. Mr. Herrera attended that meeting, but refused the training. Why?
5. This item was put on the agenda by me as I knew PICA was losing money via the old credit card processing portal (Your Pay). However, I had no idea how much! I obtained a bid and requested others. My goal was to have
3 bids and be able to vote on a new credit card processing company/virtual terminal by the time the PICA main web site was to be completed, because the credit card virtual terminal/shopping cart had to be integrated during
the web site construction. The credit card company that submitted the bid was cheaper than Pay pal with less security issues and hoops to jump through. In my experience, Pay pal is too expensive and a huge headache to deal with!
6. It is my understanding that Mr. Herrera failed to handle this issue as he was PICA’s 1st President. I learned that this was an issue when I came on the Board in 2007, as Mr. Rhetts brought it to the BOD’s attention.
I believe these necessary fees and paperwork were filed by Reinhardt Schuerger in 2007. I have no idea what they are talking about, but it appears that they realized that it was done when PICA was formed and believed it
hadn’t been done. They probably sent in fees and paperwork which had already been completed… Maybe Rein and or Ann Marie have more insight into this matter.
7. Only a FOOL would create a line item that would state “No malfeasance was ever suspected or found.” The fact is it was suspected by Mr. Herrera to me over the phone in December, in a discussion regarding the
Executive Director position. He had a problem with CALI and referenced their ED woes with Sharon Hilke. He believed that Ann Marie was doing something fraudulent and I explained to him that it was highly unlikely as there is not enough money to make it worth while. All checks are reconciled, so unless Ann Marie took cash payment from a member, we will never know unless someone comes forward. I informed him that an audit is costly and doesn’t make sense unless someone is going to watch how the ED & Treasurer manages books, to give us insight on how to better manage our records and transactions. Mr. Herrera had told others that he suspects that Ann Marie and I had misappropriated funds,because my corporate taxes were delinquent. Thomas Tomka & Matthew Garrison were later asked by Mr. Herrera to conspire against me, and requested that they conduct a financial background investigation on my personal finance”s, to determine if there was any evidence of misappropriations of funds. This rumor was spread by Ray Guillermo to discredit me right about the time Thomas Tomka and myself resigned from PICA. Ben Harroll also had knowledge of this rumor and contacted me directly… I even have an email, which I cc’ d many people when Rick Von Gelding made a accusatory statement to me regarding PICA audit. He asked if I wanted to tell the BOD anything for the audit was completed. I cc’ d everyone in my email list and asked him to send out a public apology when he find out that his audit was a futile and costly attempt to find any wrong doing. It was only a smoke screen to cover up there many missteps and beliefs that the 2009 BOD was less than forthright.
8. Missing receipts from credit cards can be replaced by the bank. They have the only 2 new contracts in 2009. Everything else was voted on and is in the minutes. The minutes reflect everything!!! Unlike the 2010 BOD,
we got 3 bids and the BOD voted. We ran PICA as a democracy and not a dictatorship. I have no doubt that their level of intelligence and pride prevents them from wanting to find the documentation. I am confident that although
PICA’s bookkeeping methods were not perfect, we were in the midst of making change for the better, and were far from incompetent. The costly creation of districts, without sustaining members, was more of a sign of incompetence than anything we overlooked in 2009 or prior. The thought that PICA could grow to 1000 members in 2010 without any additional means of advertising, member benefits or real added value from an educational standpoint in my mind, demonstrates a clear lack of intelligence, vision, and planning.
9. I hope the PICA members demand an audit for 2010. This group of RVG & Herrera minions conspire so much to bring harm to others, These guys just don’t understand that most everything they do is sent via email (in
writing) or can be recorded (audio).
10. Lastly, I take responsibility for not filing the taxes on time. I had no prior knowledge of when and how PICA’s taxes were handled. In October, (the same time my corp. taxes were due) I contacted Ann Marie to inquire
about PICA’s tax liability. I was told that she believed we didn’t have to pay taxes, because we were a non profit status, but she would look into it. Ann Marie then worked with Rob to reconcile the accounts, and the taxes
were later sent at the end of December beginning of January. Nonetheless, despite the “Sky is falling hysteria” over the delinquent taxes, no fines or penalties were assessed to PICA…
I have come under criticism (actually denunciation is more like it) from several private investigators because of my blog of July 23, 2010 entitled NCISS vs ISPLA. Most vociferous is CALI Vice President for Administration Ed Saucerman who accuses me of making a personal attack apparently because I identified him in that blog as being a supporter of CALI funding for ISPLA and for a decrease in our funding of NCISS.
Well, I don’t understand why that constitutes a personal attack. Ed Saucerman does support CALI funding for ISPLA and does call for a decrease in funding for NCISS. He’s made motions to that effect in the CALI Board of Directors. Perhaps he just didn’t want other CALI members or the world at large to know that he had taken these positions.
But, there is history to this whole debate. To understand it in context, first you need to read a number of my prior blog postings:
7/23/10 NCISS vs ISPLA
2/5/10 How to talk stupid & influence people (negatively)
9/20/09 Who’s who of PI MCE Supporters
9/16/09 Eyewitness ID
9/16/09 Literacy as a requirement for licensing
9/13/09 Why PI’s need MCE
9/8/09 Stupid, stupit, or stupiter?
9/8/09 First Amendment Rights & Non-Rights
After you’ve read these postings, you get a better idea of what’s going on behind the scenes in the PI world. It’s also important to know just how inexplicable Ed Saucerman’s positions have been in light of the following events: (1) Ed Saucerman and others, including Rick Von Geldern, came up with this line of attack against me claiming that I’m anti-law enforcement and publicly bandied it about so much that I had something like 250 website hits in two days; (2) next, Ed Saucerman asked me for my endorsement of his race for Vice President of Administration for CALI and I turned him down (when I was board chair I never endorsed anybody in any CALI election); (3) when I turned Ed down for endorsement I asked him why on Earth he would want my endorsement since he was publicly on record as denouncing me for purportedly being anti-law enforcement (I suggest here and now that Ed should leave a comment on this blog to explain why he wanted my endorsement, because what he told me at the time was incomprehensible and I don’t want to characterize it as I would be accused of making a “straw man argument”); (4) now Ed’s back to his accusations that I am anti-law enforcement.
I feel sometimes that when I’m trying to promote legitimate, reasonable discussions with people about the policy issues that pervade the world of private investigator organizations that I’m talking to inanimate objects, like brick walls. It’s often pointless to engage in these discussions with some people because you can’t win. They’re either not hearing you or else they’re really not interested in having a reasonable give and take discussion.
With Ed Saucerman in particular, I can sort of understand why now because I googled him and found the following link:
That story speaks for itself and hopefully, it won’t speak to inanimate objects, just to human beings who can read and understand and ask appropriate questions.
There is a controversy within the private investigative and security industry over whether CALI (California Association of Licensed Investigators, the world’s largest group of private detectives) should reduce funding of its longtime national partner, NCISS (National Council of Investigative and Security Services) and start funding ISPLA, an organization made up of former dissidents of NCISS. These moves are vigorously being pushed by CALI VP of Administration Ed Saucerman.
Seeing the Forest and the Trees
Undoubtedly you’ve all heard the old saying about not being able to “see the forest for the trees.” As private investigators, we all need to see things from various perspectives.
One way to view the situation of having rival professional organizations who both formulate their legislative agendas separately is to compare the situation of private investigators to other professions. One of them that clearly illustrates the problem is the legislative conundrum that chiropractors find themselves in.
In this debate it has been pointed out that in the evolution of the relationship between PICA and CALI to the point where it is today there have been positive developments. But will that evolution continue to be positive? Maybe. Some also might see storm clouds on the horizon. In biological evolutionary terms, some species are successful and some become extinct, but all species live in the inter-relationship with all other species of plants, animals, protists, as well as the natural environment they live in. The choices that “species” of professional organizations choose may also lead to success as well as to extinction or marginalization, at the risk of engaging in a Social Darwinistic analogy.
There are two prevalent schools of thought in chiropractic health care: Palmerists and non-Palmerists is the easiest way to characterize the situation. Palmerists, the smaller school of thought, have their own local, state and national associations as do the larger non-Palmerists. The Palmerists are opposed to the use of drugs, such as pain killers, while their non-Palmerist opponents think that they should be able to administer pain reducers in order to make some bone manipulations less painful, just as an MD or a DDS would in order to make a medical or dental procedure less painful. After all, the first two years of chiropractic school are virtually identical to the training of an MD in medical school.
Because the Palmerists object to this being allowed, every time the larger group attempts to legislate for their members’ interests, the legislative process balks since the smaller group won’t give a consensus opinion on the bill. In essence they wind up with veto power in the process.
As we know from the fight over our MCE legislation, there are some issues where the legislature isn’t swayed by the influence of the smaller organization. There may be some critical mass where the legislature takes a smaller group seriously in a profession and when it doesn’t, subjectively determined by the particular facts. Obviously, since not one single vote went against MCE in the legislature, the influence of PICA’s opposition was between negligible and nil on the issue.
However, that may not always be the case. PICA may lose or gain credibility in the future. If it both gains credibility AND simultaneously becomes obstreperous vis a vis CALI’s legislative agenda (doing the latter may be a strategy for growth of a professional organization, i.e., become parasitic towards the larger rival) that could bode ill for the ability of CALI to accomplish its legislative goals.
So, the same situation we now face in California could be faced nationally if ISPLA gains credibility and membership at the expense of NCISS. It is far better that the industry speak with one voice rather than two when dealing with congress and executive branch regulatory agencies. For that matter, should we ever have the occasion to deal with the judiciary in a lawsuit for declaratory relief against legislation, imagine the nightmare of an organization competing with NCISS filing an amicus brief or complaint in intervention against the NCISS position. Nobody can guarantee that this is a scenario that can’t occur, anymore than anybody can guarantee that ISPLA would not wind up lobbying with a position opposed to that of NCISS and CALI.
To me, the best wisdom on the subject was stated a long time ago by Chief Little Turtle of the Miami Indians: “If our people fight one tribe at a time, we will be cut off like the fingers from a hand; but if we join together, we will make a powerful fist.”