Comments (50)

Kathy wrote on March 27, 2007 2:13 PM:

What is the current situation regarding the Dusty Foggo etc. case?

Kim McCall wrote on March 27, 2007 2:37 PM:

Any way to find out what percentage of the prosecutors in other border districts were assigned to immigration enforcement? Lam's 50% sounds darn high, and like she's surely given immigration high priority, but comparison numbers could make the case even stronger.

oldtree wrote on March 27, 2007 2:39 PM:

a guess to answer, it is on permanent hold by the justice department now that they control all the people dealing with the case. it will be sidelined as long as they have the power to do so.
since it involves a contract for office furniture for the VP, that appears not to have been delivered, but a check that was delivered for $140K that bought a boat for a congressman 2 weeks later. they must keep it, as Elmer Fudd might say, "vewwy, vewwy quiet"
since it clearly involves Issa, Hunter, Lewis, the new guy that replaced the duke, the "dukerstir" (boat and incarcerated congressman) and the entire justice department, the office of the vp, the pres, the FBI, the US Attorneys offices, numerous attorneys that are facing disbarment, bribery investigations of numerous defense contractors, certain people formerly employed by the CIA (#1 and #3 {smell number 2 in there?})

they have capped the prosecutor and replaced it with a tool. only congress can do anything now it appears. what's it going to be congress?

Hacidicider wrote on March 27, 2007 2:46 PM:

"What is the current situation regarding the Dusty Foggo etc. case? "

Posted by: Kathy

This is what I really want to know also.

Security Code: slime.

Vulture Breath wrote on March 27, 2007 2:50 PM:

What, did she have bad breath??

nunya wrote on March 27, 2007 2:51 PM:

Dusty was indicted in February 2007. Carol was initially on the pleadings and apparently in charge of presenting to the grand jury but has been removed from the pleadings since her departure.

Astrid wrote on March 27, 2007 2:55 PM:

On July 25, 2006, Waxman and Conyers sent a letter to Gonzales asking where DOJ funds had gone:

" We are writing to express our concern that U.S. Attorney offices across the nation are suffering from staffing shortages and lack of funds. The consequences appear to be severe. According to Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the lack of staff and resources force federal prosecutors to forego prosecutions in some important cases and to reach plea bargains in others. In some offices, there are shortages of even basic office supplies, like binder clips and envelopes."

The letter also notes:

"Compounding these impacts has been a decline in the experience level in some offices. Experienced front-line federal prosecutors have left government service for the private sector, frustrated by stagnant salaries and the lack of resources. One assistant U.S. Attorney stated that his office has become 'incredibly junior,' with 65% of prosecutors having less than four years of experience. In the District of Columbia, many misdemeanors cases have been delegated to law student interns."

and:

"The Los Angeles Daily Journal, which covers legal affairs in Los Angeles, reported budget cuts of 25% in the local U.S. Attorney office. According to this account, 'dozens of prosecutor slots will not be filled until 2008,' 'attorneys who leave the office before then will not be replaced,' and morale is low because the budget cuts make it difficult to 'have exhibits and discovery materials copies, order transcripts of proceedings, and travel.' One former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles said, "cuts of this magnitude are a scandal.'"

So where has the money gone?:

"According to budget information from the Department of Justice, appropriations for the U.S. Attorneys account have increased from $1.349 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $1.588 billion in fiscal 2006. This is an increase of 15%, representing an increase in real dollars even after inflation is taken into account. The disparity between increased funding for U.S. Attorneys overall and drastic shortages in staff and supplies in individual offices raises questions about Justice Department management."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2006/07/where_has_all_t.html

Alan Lewis wrote on March 27, 2007 2:55 PM:

Paul:

I'm not sure that these e-mails actually bolster the argument that Lam was fired as retribution for prosecuting Repubs. The May '06 e-mail seems to indicate that the "problem" that Main Justice perceived was the volume of immigration cases her office filed (never mind that her office focused, probably correctly, on the nature of the cases they chose), it does not sugggest that she was shoveed out for her role in prosecuting Cunningham. I'm sure that that is exactly why she was in fact pushed out, but these e-mails don't necessarily support that thesis.

bcf wrote on March 27, 2007 2:56 PM:

she be put "on a very short leash."

What an asshole. On many levels.

chuck wrote on March 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

Paul - There is some superficial tension between your conclusions that: (1) the number of immigration cases pursued reflected policy decisions; (2) nobody ever asked Lam to change those policy decisions; (3) Lam never changed her policy decisions with regards to immigration cases; and (4) immigration cases filed by her office rose sharply during the last year of her tenure.

If 1-3 and 4 are all true, then either Lam received additional resources for prosecuting immigration cases or some other factor (change in priorities?) accounts for the spike in filed immigrations cases. She may have changed priorities in response to the Issa attacks and without any input from the Justice Department, but the spike in filed cases seems to infer a change in policy.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 27, 2007 2:58 PM:

Yesterday, I posted the same comment twice on the Voice of San Diego blog where Rep. Darrell Issa was guest hosting:

"Rep. Issa:

You released a Border Patrol report to the media last May with great fanfare. But, according to emails released by the Department of Justice last week, the U.S. Chief of the Border Patrol, San Diego Sector,identified the report on May 19, 2006 as being an altered and unauthorized version of an internal intelligence report issued by the El Cajon substation. In fact, the date of the report had been changed from 2003 to 2004.

Did you verify the authenticity of the report with the Chief of the Border Patrol before releasing it to the media?"

Needless to say, Rep. Issa did not respond to my question.

I read that Issa was given the forged Border Patrol report by a senior offical in the Department of Homeland Security several months before he released it. Issa supposedly held on to the report in order to verify its authenticity.

Obviously, Rep. Darrell Issa never verified the authenticity of the report which brings into question who gave forged government document to Issa.

Once Carol Lam informed Main Justice that Rep. Issa was flogging a forged government document, AG Gonzales should have launched an investigation as to the source of the report. But he didn't.

In fact, no one at Main Justice seems to have been the least concerned about a member of Congress waving a forged government document around on national television.

As far as I know, Rep. Darrell Issa has never commented publicly about the forged Border Patrol report.

Notice no in the press is asking about why Rep. Issa passed off a forged government document on national television and why the DOJ never investigated the case?

eCAHNomics wrote on March 27, 2007 3:10 PM:

The answer to why Lam was canned is in the emails they haven't already turned over.

1970cs wrote on March 27, 2007 3:11 PM:

There are alot of factors involved in talking about the numbers of immigration arrests made by a particular USA's office.

San Diego is a much more urban area that has more of a law enforcement presence than do open desert areas of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. Border crossing hot spots change when large numbers of agents are placed in a certain area, those crossing illegally simply move on to a different place.

If in previous years an emphasis was put on placing resources into the San Diego district at the behest of someone with influence like Dana Rorbacher, the number of border crossings into San Diego would fall. So by using half truth/cherry picked fact analysis DOJ could claim Lam wasn't doing her job. When in actuality she was.

djcrow22 wrote on March 27, 2007 3:18 PM:

While all "at will" personnel "serve at the pleasure of the President", one facet of this scandal that has not received much attention is the total, callous disregard the Bush Administration has for the professional reputations and personal livelihood of not only these attorneys but for anyone participating in this obvious march towards permanent one party government. The most abused group, of course, is the United States Military. The horror of the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children that have been slaughtered to accomplish the dream of unitary executive one party rule is almost beyond comprehension. The casual attitudes exhibited by Mercer,Sampson,Scolinos et. al. in firing people precisely for political reasons is, I think, part in parcel to the complete poisoning of the American political environment by this Republican Administration over the past six years.

global citizen wrote on March 27, 2007 3:23 PM:

Putting Lam on 'a short leash' is code for 'let's obstruct justice'.

EH wrote on March 27, 2007 3:24 PM:

a complete poisoning of the american political environment would mean that it is dead.

nunya wrote on March 27, 2007 3:33 PM:

The "trouble with Carol" e-mail was sent ONE DAY after she obtained search warrants for Dusty's house and notified (per protocol) the DC office. She had already indicted Cunningham. What more proof do you need that it wasn't immigration?

es wrote on March 27, 2007 3:33 PM:

Speaking of obstruction of justice:

Over at the U Chiago Law School Faculty blog, Professor Cass Sunstein posts an easy to read summary of legal precedent regarding executive privilege.

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/03/executive_privi.html

Framed in a criminal context (e.g. obstruction of justice), executive privilege may not apply. But the ultimate moral of the story seems to be that there's just not a whole lot a precendent.

Anonymous wrote on March 27, 2007 3:38 PM:

Chuck:
"She may have changed priorities in response to the Issa attacks and without any input from the Justice Department, but the spike in filed cases seems to infer a change in policy."

I don't pretend to know how complex the cases are, but if the cases began to mature, that would account for the increase in Lam's las year.

DF wrote on March 27, 2007 3:41 PM:

Take a walk, hug your kids, and say a prayer for Tony.

LazyMF wrote on March 27, 2007 3:43 PM:

Playing devil's advocate here:

The number of her immigration prosecutions went up significantly during the last year of her tenure. Maybe she was told (in person or by telephone) to re-prioritize to increase the number of prosecutions, rather than the length of the sentences. Does Lam herself say that she was not told to re-prioritize? Maybe the lack of written evidence isn't what it seems, or maybe it is.

Dougie I. wrote on March 27, 2007 3:45 PM:

You wrote:

"But there never was any woodshedding, or a heart-to-heart, or any leash. Lam continued her office's policy, unaware that the Justice Deparment wanted it changed"

Is that assertion based on the email record alone? Because whether they disliked the policy or Lam personally it is highly unlikely she didn't know about it. You can take issue with how they managed Lam, but the emails you quote appear to back up their immigration enforcement justification.

Mr Blifil wrote on March 27, 2007 3:53 PM:

Pray for Tony? That is overstating it, in my view. I'm sorry he has an awful disease, but he is nevertheless a criminal accomplice at best.

djcrow22 wrote on March 27, 2007 3:56 PM:

EH, And if the Republican control of this country had not been interrupted in Nov. 2006, with the attendant congressional oversight, many, if not all of our fellow readers would agree that our American democratic experiment would in fact have died...I know that we all have spent countless waking hours in despair about when this nightmare of unjustified war, constitutional recklessness and withering sense of being powerless to do anything about it would ever end. And thanks to you, EH, and all of the concerned Americans on this blog and elsewhere in this incredible country we live in, especially Josh,Paul,Will and the rest of TPM, I am feeling the first sense of real hope and enthusiasm in 6 years that we can effect meaningful change in America. Thanks to all of you...

global yokel wrote on March 27, 2007 4:00 PM:

I don't know if Lam's successor has been appointed yet, but it would seem that in a big, complicated scandal case like the one she was working on, there would have to be significant interaction between Lam and whoever takes the reins from her. I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor for the intrepid Paul Kiel to keep an eye on this; find out from Lam herself if indeed her successor reaches out with a request for a briefing on the details and complexities of the case. My guess- she'll never hear from whoever succeeds her, because that person has specific instructions from Abu Gonzales to abandon the mission.

peacebug wrote on March 27, 2007 4:04 PM:

re DF's comment "say a prayer for Tony":

I may feel sorry for tony on a personal level, but I despise him professionally.

he knows he's telling lies. the cancer is back because his body is rebelling against the stress which the constant deception is causing. you can't live long with that sort of mindgame without something giving, rather like lee atwater and his brain cancer. a bit of poetic justice, that.

so, how about say a prayer for all those whose lives have been ruined while tony carries water for bushco? let's just take the iraq war: all those families irreparably harmed by the loss of life, maiming, shock, trying to hold up their end of the bargain in a war without end and without justification?

how about a prayer for getting out of iraq?

code apt: goat.

Anonymous wrote on March 27, 2007 4:06 PM:

Yeah...prayer for Snow, huh? I have to say, it's a bit hard for me to muster up much sympathy for the paid liar, the professional propagandist that deceives America on a daily basis.

TheraP wrote on March 27, 2007 4:07 PM:

Amen, djcrow22, Amen.

I am literally feeling almost surreal about this. Can it be really happening, after the nightmare of 6 plus years....

And imagine what the victory might have been - had they not been manipulating things? This has come - in spite of all the machinations!

mbbsdphil wrote on March 27, 2007 4:16 PM:

Hiding in Plain Sight?

Others have pointed out that the e-mails released to date heavily emphasize horse trading, sniping and backstabbing, and lots of CYA. Little about substantive work.

What if, at the topmost ranks of Gonzales' DOJ, that's all there is?

Nothing about multi-million dollar budgets, trial successes or failures, team building, up and coming prosecutors, troublesome areas of the law, computerization and interdepartmental communications, anlyses of the decline or growth of certain crimes. Just more Jon Stuart imitations by Carol's critics, "Gee, maybe we could get Carol to admit she refused to put our priorities first, heh, heh." And, maybe, "We burned that Dem candidates ass that time."

Maybe half the scandal is that the DOJ top management is a ship of fools.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 27, 2007 4:24 PM:

1970cs, the differences between heavily populated Southern California and the open deserts of AZ, NM and TX was glaringly absent in the "analysis" DOJ prepared comparing Lam's and other's districts' immigration statistics.

Huge differences in economic and physical geography, higher costs of operation, different mixes and rates of occurence of other federal crimes, etc., were never identified or analyzed. The DOJ staffer just used simple bar charts to imply Lam's district was falling behind. Which made the oversimplified "analysis" look more like a hit piece than a management tool.

mo2 wrote on March 27, 2007 4:27 PM:

Monica Goodling's lawyer is John Dowd. Is it the same John Dowd who was linked to the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal and who is a high-ranking official of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee?

"Chuck McGee wouldn't have gone through with this if he didn't believe that he had been authorized to do so by his boss, John Dowd," Donovan said.
http://betsydevine.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader$1363

Mark wrote on March 27, 2007 4:29 PM:

Dougie I,

There is some evidence that such an encounter never happened.

After the Issa slime job, Lam offered to respond by explaining the resource limitations of the office.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/week_2007_03_18.php

The phrasing of the letter indicates that such a complaint had never been raised with her. Considering that no response to this query has been found, it is pretty evident that such a complaint had ever been addressed with Ms. Lam.

Furthermore, the fact that there is no paper evidence that complaints had been raised with her, or even a Republican assertion that a phone call--with an attached date--had been arranged with her, is pretty damning in and of itself. The Republicans have the resources and the incentives to release this information, and yet no evidence exists.

Obviously, there is no way to fully prove that no performance review happened. However, the fact that one has yet to surface, with all of the reasons for the DOJ and WH to do so, is pretty damning for the argument that she was fired for performance related reasons.

djcrow22 wrote on March 27, 2007 4:39 PM:

At this point, what attorney in his or her right mind, would want to step into one of these USDA positions? Hi, my name is Rachel Palouse and I'm going to be running the show here in Minnesota. I don't have any real experience for the job, my predecessor was forced out but won't admit to it, I got this job because I kissed Abu's ring and I am completely willing to compromise my character,ethics and morals to serve at the pleasure of the absolute worst president in the history of history. oh yeah, I am a proud member of the Federalist Society, in case you were wondering about my devotion to one party rule in our so called democracy. So, if there aren't any questions, lets get to work. What, five of you are quitting? No prob, I'll give my man Sampson a call at the home shop and he'll have your replacements in no time. Sammie will just grab five freshly minted Regent University Law grads and slide 'em in, just like that provision in the Patriot Act. See? Just 'cus I'm a girl doesn't mean I can't mix it up with those nasty boys and show 'em a thing or two I learned from Abu... Hello, make sure that the choir, color guard and Karl are all in place before I make my grand entrance. After all, this is MY day!

Sorry, I get carried away. Check out the story if you haven't already. It will make your head implode. It is near the bottom of the TPM main page.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013236.php

Byron Servies wrote on March 27, 2007 4:43 PM:

"Either that's true, or it's a cover story."

To turn that around, your thesis is either true or a made-up conspiracy theory.

Outstanding reporting there.

Brownlemur wrote on March 27, 2007 5:01 PM:

If I remember the date of the emails correctly, the first discussion about any claims of deficiencies in immigration prosecutions came after she sent the email notifying the DOJ of the subpoenas she was serving on the CIA. It seems to me that any discussion of immigration after that date, I think May 10, 2006, is trying to find a justification for the firing, rather than a legitimate reason.

Robbie wrote on March 27, 2007 5:02 PM:

Carol had Arelleno Felix, billionaire drug dealer locked up in the San Diego Fed prison. Got him with a lucky bust of a fishing boat. Now there is the story the arrest may have been in Mexican waters. With Lam gone some corrupt judge is going to send him back to Mexico--watch.

justthetruth wrote on March 27, 2007 5:34 PM:

Like Mrs. Panstreppon, I too have wondered about the absence of anyone questioning Representative Issa about the forged Border Patrol report. Perhaps it’s because of Rep. Issa’s letter to Attorney Lam that can be found on his website in a press release dated 24 May 2006.

Apparently, Rep. Issa’s letter is in response to a communication from U.S. Attorney Lam whose contents are reproduced in the same press release. In his letter, Rep. Issa dismisses the fact that the report has been altered, arguing that this “does not dismiss the verifiable facts and details in the memo.” Further, Issa complains that her office had not returned his calls that were seeking to obtain the official unaltered copy of the report.

It is not known if Attorney Lam responded to this letter. However, she apparently did meet with Rep. Issa as requested in the letter. Unfortunately, I am unaware of what transpired in the meeting.

In a press release dated 6 March 2007, Rep. Issa indirectly referenced the same report in his statement to the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. In this statement he repeats his many complaints about Attorney Lam in regard to prosecuting immigration cases. In addition, he also refers to a June 2006 letter from Senator Feinstein that apparently also raised questions about Attorney Lam’s performance.

These are the facts as I know them and I must admit that I have even more questions now than when I started digging into this. For instance:

I would also like to know more about Senator Feinstein’s letter. Did she receive a response?

It appears that Rep. Issa does have some legitimate complaints that Attorney Lam apparently did not resolve in her communications and meeting with him. However, I believe that Rep. Issa should be more forthcoming about the forged or altered report.

I suspect that the complaints of Rep. Issa and Senator Feinstein caused Attorney Lam to ask senior Justice Department officials if she should change course, a question that was never answered.

Finally, I do not believe that Rep. Issa is a partisan hack. Although I do not agree with many of his positions, I am unable to accuse him of following the White House’s bidding on this issue. I believe that his statements in his recent appearance on the “The Newshour with Jim Lehrer” bear this out. In his 13 March 2007 appearance (audio and video available at pbs.org website), Rep. Issa sounded more like a Democrat than a Republican in his outrage at being mislead by testimony from Justice Department officials.

sdca wrote on March 27, 2007 6:12 PM:

Why was Carol Lam on the list to be fired? She was placed on the list because the Bush administration considered her corruption investigation of Cunningham, Lewis, Foggo, MZM to be "the problem" not the corruption.
It astounds me that Darrel Issa's press leak of the doctored Border Patrol memo the day after Lam advises Justice of the search warrant for Foggo isn't sufficient proof of his complicty in seeking to divert attention to the made up excuse for her termination. If he were truly outraged he'd want to know what connection there was between the firing and the investigations and would no be pressing the failure to prosecute immigration talking point.

jdw wrote on March 27, 2007 6:40 PM:

Here's a Mercer piece that E Pluribus Media put up yesterday:

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/us_attorney_william_mercer.html

Excellent piece that TPM could stand giving some extra pointers to since Mercer's becoming a player in the AG story.

John

Youffraita wrote on March 27, 2007 6:40 PM:

Carol Lam was doing a terrific job, uncovering tons of (GOP) corruption and, as noted above, working on higher-level immigration cases rather than just prosecuting the poor sods who only want to make a bit of money. She was competent and effective.

Naturally, the WH and DoJ cannot tolerate that.

I've been tracking this story since it broke in December, primarily because Carol Lam was one of the fired US Attys. The whole thing reeked of corruption at the highest levels then, and it smells like a 2000-year-old sewer now.

Horatio Parker wrote on March 27, 2007 10:02 PM:

Sometimes I think that Lam is what's all about and the others are more or less smoke.

The Oracle wrote on March 27, 2007 10:48 PM:

Astrid,

Just like during Watergate, following the money (or lack of money as you noted) is the way to uncover the latest Republican criminal/crony/bloodsucking activity.

Thus, an Associated Press article in my local newspaper today (paraphrased):

The Homeland Security Department's inspector general issued a report Monday (Mar. 26th) stating that operations teams working for the HSD can't account for over 600,000 immigrant/"fugitive aliens" ordered out of the country because of "insufficient detention capacity, limitations of an immigration database and inadequate working space. (HSDIG)"

(AP) "Even though more than $204 million was allocated for 52 fugitive operations teams since 2003, a backlog of 623,292 cases existed as of August, the report said."

Anyway, Astrid, several points:

1) Last years Republican Congress awarded a Halliburton subsidiary $385 million to build "detention centers" around the country, having through this year to complete.

2) 52 fugitive operations teams? Are these private contractor "bounty hunters" or government employees? What is the ratio of private contractors to government employees in the HSD?

We already know the Republican plan is to outsource as many taxpayer-funded government jobs as possible to their private contractor crony pals, under the radar, with no accountability.

Which makes the statistics you cited that much more interesting, Astrid:

"According to budget information from the Department of Justice, appropriations for the U.S. Attorneys account have increased from $1.349 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $1.588 billion in fiscal 2006. This is an increase of 15%, representing an increase in real dollars even after inflation is taken into account. The disparity between increased funding for U.S. Attorneys overall and drastic shortages in staff and supplies in individual offices raises questions about Justice Department management."

The answer might be that the additional money intended for the U.S. Attorneys' offices is instead being diverted to private contractors affiliated with the "culture of corruption and greed" Republicans. I don't know. But it definitely sounds like something the Democratic-controlled Congress should check into, because it is quite obvious that just as the Bush administration CPA'ed Baghdad and Iraq, they are attempting to do the same thing here in the U.S., doling out taxpayer money solely benefit to their favorite charities...themselves and their crony friends. They're even more crooked than Nixon.

Jack wrote on March 28, 2007 12:47 AM:

Dougie I./Mark:

Lam, Moschella and others testified on March 6 before the House Judiciary. Here are some quotes from the San Diego Union Tribune:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070307-9999-1n7attys.html

Lam publicly acknowledged for the first time yesterday that she was confused by her firing and was never told of failings that might warrant her dismissal. She also expressed concern that such actions could have “a chilling effect” on federal prosecutors who might conclude that “perhaps I should just play it safe and try not to displease anyone.”

“I don't feel that I did anything in my role as U.S. attorney to either embarrass the administration or the president or to warrant removal,” said Lam, who prosecuted the now-imprisoned Cunningham on tax evasion and conspiracy charges, then handed down indictments in a related case against former CIA executive director Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

Moschella acknowledged that Department of Justice officials should have explained earlier why Lam and the other attorneys were dismissed. In Lam's case, he said she failed to aggressively prosecute illegal firearms and immigrant-smuggling cases.

Lam, who left office last month, told the lawmakers that superiors never raised this issue with her.

“It does concern me that lack of pursuit of one of 20 or 30 priorities would be used as a reason to remove a U.S. attorney, particularly where the dialogue had not risen to that pitch,” Lam said. “There had been no conversation or ultimatum.”

Whistler wrote on April 17, 2007 4:10 AM:

"If [Carol Lam] balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way … remove her," ...

... doesn't that sound a lot like the plan the Dems have for Iraq? Measurable goals; followed by enforced change of leadership upon failure to meet those goals? Why such GOP hypocrisy?

clar@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 10:05 PM:

hello

michael@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 10:24 AM:

hello

monyka@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 10:56 PM:

hello

food saver wrote on January 14, 2008 7:16 AM:

I have just found an interesting forum on this theme
http://food.onlinewebshop.net

naked nymphets wrote on January 25, 2008 2:01 AM:

I have just found an interesting forum on this theme
http://groups.google.com/group/nymphets-studio/web/nymphets-2

russian nymphets wrote on January 25, 2008 10:01 AM:

I have just found an interesting forum on this theme
http://groups.google.com/group/nymphets-studio/web/nymphets-2