Comments (69)

TheOtherWA wrote on March 28, 2007 7:17 PM:

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark!

Kali wrote on March 28, 2007 7:21 PM:

Yellow hankie on the turf.

Thucydides Jr. wrote on March 28, 2007 7:30 PM:

Good lord. Are they lying? Are their mouths moving and fingers typing?

Someone is gonna need a big mop for the blood.

Abby Kelleyite wrote on March 28, 2007 7:30 PM:

Very nice work putting the pieces together. The white house will still try to weasel out of it with a "we took DOJ's word about what they were 'aware' of," but the earlier email establishes that they were advised that the AG's chief of staff was aware of Rove's involvement. Subpoena on the way to Oprison.

SDM wrote on March 28, 2007 7:30 PM:

C'mon - this is getting too easy. The guy who signed off on the letter has the last name OPRISON??

O-Prison??

The guy has PRISON IN HIS NAME!!!!!

henry wrote on March 28, 2007 7:33 PM:

how reminiscent of watergate. nothing like a good ol' justice department scandal that doesn't involve claims of national security secrecy. this is gettin' fun!

jdw wrote on March 28, 2007 7:34 PM:

I pointed this out in an earlier TPM thread - does it appear that the *attachment* is printed off and produced. In other words, is Oprison's 2/23 revision attached?

It's e-Discovery 101 - produce the e-mail *and* all attachments to the e-mail. The common way to do it is print the e-mail off first, then put the attachment right behind it with the next bates number.

If the DOJ *didn't* do that, they are the biggest bunch of f*ck ups that I've seen. They're lawyers - they should know discovery.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see what changes Oprison made to the final version.

Robin Michael wrote on March 28, 2007 7:34 PM:

If Scooter didn't prompt him to, The Decider might reeeeally wanna revisit his hardline policy on issuing pardons.

Leta wrote on March 28, 2007 7:35 PM:

They know exactly whats been released, because they are releasing it. Sampsom will be prepared to do some good splaining. My only hope is; is that the Congresscritters have been out interviewing and deposing some of those lowly civil servants who could blow doughboy Sampson, and Rove out of their rat holes. Woe is us...if it were a blow job we'd have impeachment.

Joe Mama wrote on March 28, 2007 7:35 PM:

The guy's name isn't really "O **PRISON**," is it? Seriously? As in, "Gosh and begorah, laddies, it sure does scare me wits out to think about spendin' a few years in o'Prison for all this!!!"

Joe Rogan was right: "I’m telling you, man… the universe has a sense of humor. A [freaking] wicked one, too."

rmadilo wrote on March 28, 2007 7:37 PM:

Am I missing something? The Feb 23 link/email is from Sampson to Oprison. Maybe it implies the same thing, or the link is incorrect.

Also, I agree the wh is probably directing everything, but noting that something is important to someone doesn't do much to highlight their role. Sunlight is important to me, but I don't think I have much of a role in producing it.

islandliberal wrote on March 28, 2007 7:37 PM:

Are there any Bush Administration employees who aren't dirty? Congress will have to budget a few billion dollars more than anticipated to build enough Club Feds to house them all.

justthetruth wrote on March 28, 2007 7:40 PM:

Some people are going to do serious jail time over this.

To my knowledge, this is the first hard evidence of wrongdoing. Other than the misleading and contradictory statements to Congress that could be explained away by mistakes and bureaucratic bumbling, all previous evidence was only circumstantial at best.

jdw wrote on March 28, 2007 7:41 PM:

Oh - and I do agree with the comments above, especially the yellow hankie one. The whole USAG story is one of laughable screw-ups. Do they even check their own documents to see if the next Talking Point will fly?

These are lawyers. Set aside the universal hate of lawyers that folks have. There are DOJ and WHC lawyers. It is staggering that they are so errant in the positions they are rolling out. They either don't give a f*ck, or are the biggest collection of idiots in the profession. This is keystone cops level stuff. When we have cases where our clients f*ck up this bad, we instantly go into "what's the best settlement we can come up with to just make it go away" mode. These would literally be nightmare clients to have.

Anonymous wrote on March 28, 2007 7:43 PM:

Oprison eh!

I'd hate having someone with that name working for me.

rmadilo wrote on March 28, 2007 7:43 PM:

..."The Decider might reeeeally wanna revisit his hardline policy on issuing pardons."

So if you pardon someone, isn't that the same thing as giving them immunity? Once pardoned, why not call 'em to testify. No 5th pleading at that point.

Blue Ticker wrote on March 28, 2007 7:43 PM:

Here's a question for tommorrow.

Mr. Sampson, the US Department of Justice has 93 USA's, these are the Department's top lawyers, the face of the entire Department. These 93 USA manage 1000's of career attorney's and staffers who investigate and prosecute individuals and companies who break the law or do harm to our country. Do you expect anyone in this country to believe that AG Gonzales handed over the decision of who stays or goes to his Chief of Staff, without any input or knowlege? If so, than Gonzales is possible the worst manager ever, or you sir are not telling the whole truth.

rapier wrote on March 28, 2007 7:49 PM:

We should be greatfull for the doc dumps. I am actually shocked we are getting them. Anyway at this point I wouldn't put too much stock in them knowing what they are doing in regard to the releases. It's probable that the incompetence is so deep that whoever "they" are who are doing the releasing don't have a clue.

Oprison! What can you say? Even, you can't make this stuff up, falls short. Is he a Regent alumi too?

Pinson wrote on March 28, 2007 7:49 PM:

JDW: I'm not sure if these are the Oprison additions and deletions, if I'm following the email trail correctly they might be changes by Sampson that he's showing back to Oprison, but you can see some changes clearly pointed out on page 76 of 93 in the 2nd batch - here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG958-1050.pdf

Whoever these are from made just a few very minor changes to the key point about Rove being out of the loop. But one other point of interest, all of this was deleted:

"Deleted: Mr. Cummins' continued service as U.S. Attorney was first considered after the Departement learned of Mr. Cummins' stated interest in possibly resigning for a position in the private sector..."

Evidently they were smart enough to take this out. They couldn't be sure that Cummins would play along on this since the heat was starting to get a little intense.

jp wrote on March 28, 2007 7:52 PM:

When lying becomes a habit and becomes the norm, it's as if it is the truth. A bad side effect of habitual lying is poor memory.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 28, 2007 7:53 PM:

O.T. - Citizen92, emails sent to you from different domains keep getting bounced back. One response was that your account did not accept Hotmail. The other was that your email account did not exist.

I know we mentioned the Cheneys in our latest exchange but this is ridiculous!

DGOQ wrote on March 28, 2007 7:55 PM:

I want to see the likely earlier versions of the "Reid letter re cummins-griffin v.4.doc". It suggests there are 3 earlier versions.

Adam Cole wrote on March 28, 2007 7:56 PM:

Oh, come now, who can be expected keep track of all this tiresome 'who said what to whom when' business? It's all so confusing, what with 9/11 changing everything and all. Can't we talk about Bill Clinton again? I hear he fired 93 attorneys!

jdw wrote on March 28, 2007 7:56 PM:

Pinson - pages 75-77 do look like Oprison's correction. They're document 1032-1034, clearly following up the e-mail.

Robin Michael wrote on March 28, 2007 7:58 PM:

rapier:

"Mr. Oprison previously served as a Senior Litigation Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP and as a Marine Corps prosecutor. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of California, Los Angeles and his JD from George Washington University."

From:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061129-1.html

Randy wrote on March 28, 2007 7:59 PM:

I think it's important to remember that they issued the emails that have been "discovered". I would be suspect of anything that has come out. This puke isn't coming before Congress with anything like confession and contrition in his heart. These people are not running scared yet, so be prepared for more of that "I don't recall that" bullshit. I don't think we will start to know the truth of what happened until there is some immunity taken.

Security Code snake

Teresa wrote on March 28, 2007 8:02 PM:

I don't think it is any coincidence that these documents were dumped tonight. They are setting up Sampson as the fall guy tomorrow. He'll get grilled and the Republicans will claim he was a "rogue operator" and that any further investigation is unnecessary. (I'm not saying Sampson isn't guilty, but this is a pretty typical Bush & Company MO: make some underling the fall guy for what is clearly the project of those much further up the food chain.)

Teresa wrote on March 28, 2007 8:03 PM:

JOSH -- I saw on another comment thread that no one could find out if Monica Goodling actually had a license to practice law. Any follow up on that?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 28, 2007 8:04 PM:

Somewhat O.T. - On 1/12/2000, the Cheneys bought a house in Langley VA for $1.3 million. If the Cheneys are living in that house, what is the official Vice-President's residence near the Naval Observatory being used for?

Someone commented earlier that an industrial shredding operation has been ongoing at the offical VP's residence for awhile.

Maybe someone in charge should take a look.

Humanities Grad wrote on March 28, 2007 8:08 PM:

Was the actual Word document that was attached to these e-mails among those released in the DOJ dump? If so, it would be very helpful to see what, if any, changes Oprison made to the original letter drafted by Sampson.

What's available here doesn't explicitly implicate Oprison in anything. There's no way to tell what his recommendations were (theoretically he could've suggested something along the lines of "I don't think it's a good idea for you to say that Karl, Harriet, et al were not involved in the decision to replace Cummins, since we know that they were.").

Is it likely that the WHCO said something along those lines to Sampson? No. But until the various drafts of the letter are made available, there's no way to be sure that they didn't.

And if in fact WHCO _didn't_ say something along those lines, then what gives? Aren't these people supposed to be smart?

hawaiilaw wrote on March 28, 2007 8:08 PM:

Oprison? Is he Irish?

br wrote on March 28, 2007 8:10 PM:

This is the guy who's firing United States Attorneys because they aren't tough enough on election fraud?

>> The complaint, filed with Loudoun Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Plowman and Clarke County Commonwealth’s Attorney Suzanne M. Perka, potentially could lead to criminal and civil charges against Oprison and members of his campaign staff, and disqualification of Oprison from the ballot. The offenses range, according to Leesburg2day, from the Oprison campaign having an ineligible campaign worker collect signatures and sign affidavits to accusations of tampered and mishandled documents. Sayeth Leesburg2Day:

>> Many of the complaints center around 22-year-old Andrew Tyrell, a Patrick Henry College student working for Oprison. Tyrell came from Florida and apparently was registered to vote there until May’s campaign raised questions with the local Republican Party shortly after the petitions were delivered about whether he was an eligible Virginia voter. Tyrell’s car was also registered in Florida.

>> Tyrell signed many of the affidavits verifying the signature on the campaign petition forms. The form states that the person signing must be at least 18, have no felony convictions and be eligible to vote in Virginia. After the concern was raised, Tyrell registered to vote in Virginia, an action confirmed by the local electoral board.

http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com/2005/05/criminalizing-opposition.html

Anonymous wrote on March 28, 2007 8:11 PM:

No, not a Regent Grad.

With credentials like these, he could be a Democrat!

The President has named Christopher G. Oprison to be Associate Counsel to the President. Mr. Oprison previously served as a Senior Litigation Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP and as a Marine Corps prosecutor. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of California, Los Angeles and his JD from George Washington University.

Jamey wrote on March 28, 2007 8:11 PM:

No, not a Regent Grad.

With credentials like these, he could be a Democrat!

The President has named Christopher G. Oprison to be Associate Counsel to the President. Mr. Oprison previously served as a Senior Litigation Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP and as a Marine Corps prosecutor. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of California, Los Angeles and his JD from George Washington University.

John Snyder wrote on March 28, 2007 8:17 PM:

I agree with JDW.... Putting aside their lack of ethics, I am appalled at their ineptitude in terms of the nuts and bolts of standard litigation practice. Even if they are a bunch of liars, I would expect that they would at least have reviewed the documents well enough to know what they can lie about!

At the risk of sounding snooty, I think it may be that the emphasis on loyalty to Bush, at the expense of intelligence and experience, has led the Justice Department to put too many Monica Goodlings of the world into top positions. I wouldn't let most of these people second-chair a slip-and-fall trial. These low-rent morons are in charge of U.S. Department of Justice???

tbhull wrote on March 28, 2007 8:18 PM:

Posted by: jdw
Date: March 28, 2007 07:41 PM

These are fine experienced lawyers as well. For example, Ms. Goodling graduated from Pat Robertson's law school. That is a resume diamond only in this dipshit findamentalist administration.

The folks are all a bunch of yes people with no real "lawyer" experience. How many cases has dough boy Sampson tried? Goodling? Griffin? I would wager none!

This folks are nothing more than good christian whores for our sod of a president, not too dissimilar from the fresh, clean, sweet, virginal, well-oiled rotating regimen of good christian Utah Boy Scouts Karl keeps on 24 hour call in an unnamed location in DC. Their underlings are probably no better.

This reflects so well on those numerous experienced and reputable lawyers at DOJ and the US Attorney's offices that are real attorneys and that have tried cases and that will try important cases under the lingering cloud created by this scandal for some time to come.

pol wrote on March 28, 2007 8:20 PM:

This is all too easy.

Do you think Rove could slip something fake into the document dump, just to trip us up -- like he did with Rathergate?

Jamey wrote on March 28, 2007 8:22 PM:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070328/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc

The poor saps have been going at it blindfolded. Can't tell any more the difference between "political," and "partisan."

The administration contends that the ousters were justified and largely performance-related or involved policy differences.

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said.

rlogan wrote on March 28, 2007 8:22 PM:

What you are seeing is common amongst criminals.

Just more brazen until not just that they are caught, but that there is some penalty exacted.

For Christ's sake Bush and everyone working for him have been lying through their teeth about every important public issue for years.

Even when proven to be lies, nothing happens. So what point is there in changing your behavior?

tbhull wrote on March 28, 2007 8:24 PM:

Posted by: pol
Date: March 28, 2007 08:20 PM

Possible. However, once you start lying you will eventually get busted, sometimes even by the truth. This is universal and applies to Rove.

Jamey wrote on March 28, 2007 8:25 PM:

Simpson was an associate at Skadden--The same Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom that defended Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case.

Maybe a bit before his time...

Jamey wrote on March 28, 2007 8:26 PM:

Make that Sampson, not Simpson. D'oh!

John Snyder wrote on March 28, 2007 8:28 PM:

tbhull -- well said. The ranks of AUSAs and US Attorneys are full of really top-notch trial attorneys, including many who could be making seven figures if they wanted to go into private practice. They truly are serving their country. How galling must it have been for the eight US Attorneys to be done in by that empty suit Kyle Sampson, then accused of being incompetent?

tbhull wrote on March 28, 2007 8:31 PM:

Posted by: Jamey
Date: March 28, 2007 08:25 PM

What firm practice was Sampson in at this large firm? Litigation?

chris miller wrote on March 28, 2007 8:34 PM:

Along the same lines a missing attachments, we need the headers. We should be able to see who got copies and who got blind copies as well as more accurate timestamps and rounting information. At least the few documents I saw don't have that.

As a long time internet professional, I want the headers!!!!

mayan wrote on March 28, 2007 8:35 PM:

I would think that lying becomes exponentially more difficult as you add more people who HAVE to lie. This seems to be a heady brew of several people who HAVE to lie.

EasyRider wrote on March 28, 2007 8:50 PM:

Like many others in the Blogsphere I do analysis of computer systems and software. We use the attachment of documents and file as a means of transfering the real information contain in the emails.

The emails text are most often just shorthand and real important information if inthe attachments.

The DOJ doument dumps without the attachments being provided is a joke and an insult to the American Public and to Congress. It is in short Obstruction of Justice by the DOJ and White House personnel involved in these dumps.

Buck wrote on March 28, 2007 9:00 PM:

I posted the following on an earlier thread yesterday. Was my earlier read on this story correct?

*******************************************
On the Chicago Tribune page, there is a link to a story with a picture of Karl Rove above it that says "Email trail leads to Karl Rove" and a reference to CNN. I can't seem to find this story, the link doesn't go anywhere.

Is this story about to break? Or did I miss something lately?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070327gonzales,1,2575444.story?coll=chi-news-hed

See my post with the screenshot of the URL link above.
Posted by: Buck Batard
Date: March 27, 2007 09:07 PM
********************************************

Did CNN have this story yesterday?
The link and picture of Karl Rove is still up on the Chicago Tribune webpage, but the link still doesn't work.

Is the MSM actually ahead of us on this story?

See my post below. I put it up on our main page at Badattitudes but took it down and have it off the main page, but the link below works.

http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/2007/03/does_email_trai.html

Cufford wrote on March 28, 2007 9:12 PM:

A bit off topic...but on the issue of using non-governmental email services to avoid scrutiny, and, ironically, putting them outside of Executive Privilege, I've not seen the issue of National Security mentioned.

Then I saw the following article over at BoingBoing.net which speaks to the obvious; that such outside emails are highly insecure, putting national security at risk due to sending sensitive information outside the firewall of government servers.

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/28/white_house_subpoena.html

Cufford
Freano, CA

Ann Coulter wrote on March 28, 2007 9:12 PM:

"U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The president may fire them for any reason at all. That includes not implementing the president's policy about criminal prosecutions. It also includes being in the way of someone else whom the president wants to appoint for patronage reasons."

"Why wasn't a fuss made when Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld? He is every bit as much a political appointee as the U.S. attorneys are."

"Were the dedicated staffers who worked on various committees while the Republicans were in control retained by the incoming Democrats? Or were some of those staffers fired because of their (gasp!) partisan affiliation?"

"Democrats have the breathtaking audacity to claim that Bush's replacing his own political appointees is "politicizing prosecutions."

jhpearman wrote on March 28, 2007 9:15 PM:

Appears Sampson is going to be Scootered,why else the testimony-eve dump? The Bush health care plan--Group immunizations.

mjames wrote on March 28, 2007 9:44 PM:

It is just shocking that Sampson and Goodling have no experience as practicing attys (and I can't find out where, if anyplace, either is admitted to practice), yet these two hacks are passing judgment on career litigating attys. What is this? The Stepford DOJ? This admin just hires two mindless robots who've been indoctrinated with some crap about GB is God, or screwing over the Constitution is God's plan, or lying is good when done in His name, or some such other idiocy. Goodling and Sampson have absolutely no credentials whatsoever. None. Have they ever even been inside a courtroom? That is shocking in and of itself!
Arlen should be forced to testify as to his involvement in this whole mess. He sold his soul (if he ever had one) a long time ago (I was around for Anita Hill). He knew damn well what was going on here. Otherwise, he'd be screaming bloody murder. He's in on it. Respondeat superior. He's responsible for what his aides do. HE did this! Or at least he let it happen. Which makes him at the very least a co-conspirator. What a disgusting wretch of a human being!

Slippery Slope wrote on March 28, 2007 10:35 PM:

"As a long time internet professional, I want the headers!!!!

Posted by: chris miller
Date: March 28, 2007 08:34 PM "

Chris, I hear you...

I could not believe my eyes when I saw attachment file name on the email link Josh points us to.

Even the most novice computer user would name a document (Well, I’d maybe excuse the former Senator from Montana). How many "Document.pdf" documents do you have in your files?

Check this out.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/steve-bell/

djcrow22 wrote on March 28, 2007 10:45 PM:

The least Arlen Spinchter should do is recuse himself and have another rethug sit in for the rest of this investigation. How he can face himself in the mirror everyday... Today with Lurita Doan was so much fun, really fun. And tomorrow Kyle "I don't recall" Sampson should be juicy squirmtime.

Books Alive wrote on March 28, 2007 10:52 PM:

Earlier, one of the DoJ underlings was identified as a graduate of Patrick Henry College. This school was set up to cater to home-schooled students. Currently there are 17 full-time faculty and 325 students, having opened in 2000 with 92 students. They offer two degree paths, Government, including journalism, and Classical Liberal Arts. The activist author and NYU prof, Mark Crispin Miller, calls this a school for Dominionists. And is he *down on dominionists!*

Here's the wikipedia page,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry_College but on the www.phc.edu page you'll find they promote themselves as good training for pre-law and list many prestigious law schools where there grads have been accepted.

Giant Teapot wrote on March 28, 2007 10:55 PM:

@Mrs. P:
Wonkette has been following the shredder at OVP's residence, with pics, tonguein-cheek. It's not such a joke now, is it?
http://wonkette.com/politics/dick-cheney/shreddin-with-dick-211028.php

Regarding admission to bar, Monica is admitted in Virgina and Sampson somewhere, year of admission unknown. I don't have the cites, but don't waste time on that, it's established.

Monica's whereabouts from law graduation in 1999 until DOJ picked her up as a public affairs schedule C in about 2002, seem to be without documentation so far.

EddyG wrote on March 28, 2007 11:17 PM:

"These low-rent morons are in charge of U.S. Department of Justice???"

What makes anyone think the FBI is managed any differently? And if the AG's are expected to prosecute political opponents would anyone be surprised to learn that FBI is expected to do the same, using the same threats, etc?

j swift wrote on March 28, 2007 11:23 PM:

Does anyone know what time the barbeque starts tomorrow....Roast Republican on the spit yum, yum.

Giant Teapot wrote on March 28, 2007 11:31 PM:

FWIW, Kyle's photo credited to BYU alumni association, seems to be taken on the North Lawn of the WH.

jdw wrote on March 28, 2007 11:47 PM:

Josh & Co: please add documents #1032-1034 to the #1031 document you have linked above. As Pinson and I were pointing out above, it's clearly the Word attachment with Oprison's corrections. They're pages 75-77 of the orginal PDF (Pinson provided the link).

I think they tend to be important.

The e-mail implies White House *approval* of the letter to Congress that people are asserting is untruthful.

The Word document shows *active participation* in drafting the letter. Oprison's corrects are incorporated in the final letter sent.

It eliminates the type of defense that is commonly being used - "We approved it, but really didn't pay attention to the details."

We've seen a similar defense rolled out by Fredo on other items in the USAG story, so one can expect it out of the White House.

Tying Oprison to the letter drags him into. Let's say he claims that he made the corrections and gave approval, specifically on the Rove section, based on "information and belief" given to him by others. Three guess on where that information and belief leads to on the Griffin matter?

So adding documents #1032-1034 after document #1031 provides a more clear picture for Congress to chase.

leckavrea wrote on March 29, 2007 12:13 AM:

jdw asks "Anyway, it would be interesting to see what changes Oprison made to the final version."

Well, not sure you can see that but you can see the changes Sampson made to the draft version attached to the 23 February e-mail. In the e-mail Sampson says "I accepted your changes and then made some changes" but the dufus left tracking on, so the PDF captures all his changes (pages 75-76 of OAG958-1050.pdf). Actually, I'm not sure if the changes shown are just those made by Sampson, but it is interesting to see how he has made little nuanced changes. I've posted the before and after of a couple of those changes on Daily Kos at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/28/223435/091

obsessed wrote on March 29, 2007 12:59 AM:

Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch.

that's a quote from the article linked to by the original Josh Marshall TPM blog, which doesn't take comments.

... on the other hand, no comment is needed ... that's the beauty of that blog!

but here I am commenting anyway

bp wrote on March 29, 2007 6:20 AM:

A heartfelt thank you to all colleagues postings which is appreciated. And thank to Josh and team.

VietVet67 wrote on March 29, 2007 9:04 AM:

Is that Radar O'Reilly?

Touchgrey wrote on March 29, 2007 9:22 AM:

What's the old saying . . . When you find yourself in a hole, what's the first thing you do? YOU STOP DIGGING! Sampson and rest of the wingnuts in the Whitehouse just don't seem to know when to put the shovel down. So let them keep on digging. The testimony UNDER OATH should be wonderful.

Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 8:48 PM:

Cool...

jmzfpd nmclka wrote on September 2, 2007 4:45 AM:

hngpjsl smunklgec riqzhsaxc ydihwc ucex etwsjfkr ihxp

E.M. wrote on November 2, 2007 2:49 AM:

All you need to file a grievance against Mr. Sampson can be found here:

grievanceproject(dot)wordpress(dot)com

free number phone reverse wrote on December 20, 2007 5:35 AM:

ffk8gpce9dkobum free number phone reverse free number phone reverse