Thursday, September 13, 2007

Jeff Roe = Adam Smith Foundation


There has been some minor debate regarding whether Jeff Roe is the brains (yes, he is intelligent) behind the attacks on a neutral judiciary and behind the Adam Smith Foundation. Let's put that to bed.

Jeff Roe leads the charge to knock off Judge Brown from Cole County.

Jeff Roe tells the KCMBA Bench Bar Conference he knocked off Judge Brown to prove it could be done. He also promises to stay involved in judicial campaigns and to do it again because that is how he makes money (he's honest, too).

The Missouri Political News Service is a TX based group, which is linked on The Source (Jeff Roe's blog).

The Missouri Political News Service's ONLY paid advertisement is for the Adam Smith Foundation. The Missouri Political News Service has blogged nine times favorably about the Adam Smith Foundation.

Jeff Roe rented space from Lathrop & Gage, where Amy Blunt works. Lathrop & Gage did the corporate work to set up the Adam Smith Foundation.

Matt Blunt - who has employed Jeff Roe's Axiom Strategies and attending the open house of Axiom at the Lathrop & Gage building - makes numerous attacks on the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. Some reports show Matt Blunt, Lathrop & Axiom all in bed together.

Former Blunt Appointment Secretary James Harris is an organizer of the Adam Smith Foundation and set up the Wikapedia entry for the group.

Let there be no doubt, Jeff Roe is the brainchild behind the Adam Smith Foundation and the attack on the judiciary. My congrats go out to Jeff Roe for a well organized, well financed, multi-level attack on this respected intuition of government. You said you could do it and you did.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Steve- Maybe congrats isn't the right word. Who doubted that Roe was behind the Adam Smith Foundation?

Anonymous said...

Check out the following editorial by the St. Louis American, Missouri's largest African American newspaper.http://www.stlamerican.com/articles/2007/09/13/news/political_eye/peye01.txt

Former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White has been waiting for a call from someone in the media - anyone - looking for a reaction from him after Gov. Matt Blunt used the occasion of announcing White’s replacement to insult the one and only African American ever to serve on the state’s highest court.

“I believe that Judge Breckenridge can improve the Missouri Supreme Court by replacing one of its most liberal members,” Blunt said (with an eye toward his conservative base) in announcing his appointment of Judge Patricia Breckenridge.

Everyone reported Blunt’s slam on White, but no one called White for a reaction, the former judge said. Except the EYE.

About the insult, White said, “The last time a Republican did that, he ended up an ex-senator,” a reference to John Ashcroft’s smear campaign against White, which hurt Ashcroft much more than it did Ronnie.

“If it’s liberal to be fair regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, then I guess I’m a liberal,” White said. “Though, really, it’s all about fairness.”

White had more good things to say about Breckenridge than the governor who appointed her did. He said, “She’s good; she’ll be fair. She’s been a decent judge her whole career.” (Breckenridge owes a previous appointment to Ronnie’s old buddy Ashcroft, by the way.)


Of course, it was not lost on the only black man every to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court that he was not replaced by another black person. Blunt could have appointed Judge Nannette A. Baker, the lone African American on the three-person panel given to him by the Appellate Judicial Commission.

Instead, he tried to insult the only black person who ever wore the black robes in the Missouri Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...

What are firms like, humm, Lathrop, doing to protect the Missouri Plan?

Phil Cardarella said...

Why do you begrudge Jeff making a living, just because it undermines the fairness of the judiciary and creates bad public policy. Seriously, what has he ever done that did not further bad public policy? You want the guy to starve?

Remember when there were moderate Republicans? Hell, remember when there were actual conservative Republicans -- like Goldwater? Remember when Democrats impeached a president who used the Constitution for a doormat?

It is not a coincidence that the Repubs have evolved into predators at the same time that the Dems have seemed to evolve into invertebrates. Don't blame Roe or Rove. The fault, dear Brutus...

On the other hand, it is a tribute to our judges that Lathrop lawyers actually can show their faces in a courtroom and be treated with fairness and respect. I doubt the Boy Governor's choices would be as fair.

whistleblower said...

Is stating that Judge Ronnie White is one of the most liberal members of the Missouri Supreme Court really an insult? Don't get me wrong! I can't stand Little Boy Blunt.

If Judge White was a conservative; would calling him one of the most conservative members be an insult?

Call Judge White anything you want. That doesn't change his integrity. I have read many of his dissenting opinions. I find him to be sensible. What if liberal meant sensible? If I called him one of the most sensible members, would someone still complain?

Now let's address the Adam Smith Foundation. I despise activist judges. I have been fighting against the worst kind of activist judges; those that do it without the constitutional authority to do so. I even point out who some of them are. Take a look at my website: http://www.kahunah.com

I have contacted the Adam Smith Foundation for support. One would figure that a foundation who is truly attacking activist judges would team up with someone who is going after the worst. I sent them an email. They had a young guy named "Joe" call me. Joe wanted me to send a letter to the editor of the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, and be sure to mention them. Why would the SL Post give me the time of day when the Adam Smith Foundation would not give me anything more?

sophia said...

Whistleblower,

I also found it odd that the editorial appears to treat "liberal" as an insult. And I did check out your website. Although I admire your efforts to understand our legal system, I don't think you'll ever get there if you insist on treating all members of the Bar as untrustworthy sources.

Regarding your concern with Cole County judges ruling on the constitutionality of statutes, I think you're confusing original and appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction on constitutional challenges. You can't have an appeal without an underlying case, which is where original jurisdiction comes in.

Art V, Sec 14 of the Mo constitution grants original jurisdiction to the circuit courts in "all cases and matters, civil and criminal." I'm not sure why you're looking for an express delegation for a specific kind of case (constitutional challenge of a state statute) when the language is intentionally so broad. Cole County is where these cases are filed at the trial court level (original jurisdiction) because that's where the government entity in charge of executing the law is located (i.e. that Circuit has personaljurisdiction over the Defendant). This isn't a dictatorship. This is the rule of law. If the state wants to appeal from the circuit court's decision, it can, at which point the MO Supreme's exclusive appellate jurisdiction dictates the appeal goes directly to them.

Now, if what you really care about is ensuring that constitutional challenges of statutes are dealt with exclusively by the Missouri supreme court, then you should be advocating a constitutional amendment providing that court with exclusive original jurisdiction over those questions. Instead of accusing judges who are playing by the established rules of being dictators and accusing politicians who refrain from expressing outrage that the system is working as designed of being complicit in this dictatorship.

But if you're really only interested in maligning the judiciary and the Missouri bar, well, then - I guess I just wasted my time typing all that. I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

Phil Cardarella said...

Liberal is NOT an insult -- except when it comes from the lips of fascists or fools. Feel free to choose which category today's Repubs fall into.

Anonymous said...

Sophia - there are law professors that couldn't explain original jurisidcition that well. Could you explain the Missouri Plan to Prof. Bill Eckhardt?

whistleblower said...

Sophia...

Thanks for taking the time to review the information on my website, and I do appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. I don’t consider all the members of the Bar to be untrustworthy sources, just the ones that I have had contact with. They all stop responding when I point out the facts. I hope that you will not do the same.

I just got in, and I have an appointment with a client tomorrow morning. I'll provide support for my position when I get home. Unfortunately, the layout of this blog is not conducive to a lengthy presentation.

whistleblower said...

Sophia...

I'm heading out the door, but I thought this link may help to further support my contention.

http://www.kahunah.com/referees.pdf

sophia said...

anon 7:37,

Bill Eckhardt is a good professor. Instead of making baseless criticisms of his teaching ability, I wish people would focus on more relevant facts. For example, to my knowledge he has never been a member of the Missouri Bar or appeared in a Missouri court in a lawyerly capacity. He has, as far as I know, no first hand knowledge of the reality of the quality of Missouri judges. He does not, as far as I know, make a practice of reading slip opinions and keeping abreast of Missouri law. He does not even teach Missouri law.

By virtue of his professorship at a Missouri law school, he presents himself as a person having specialized knowledge of our courts that, to my knowledge, he does not have. If this were an exam in his Evidence class, I would point out that he is not qualified to offer an expert opinion on this subject. I would also point out that the overwhelming majority of his experience as a practicing attorney was with JAG, and, last time I checked, they don't let servicemen elect their own judges.

I don't know if any of this has been addressed in a public forum. I do know that as much as I personally like Eckhardt and respect his teaching abilities, if I were in charge of a push back campaign, I'd politely note that the law professor is outside of his portfolio. There's nothing wrong with a layman's opinion. But I think he's basically misrepresenting himself as an authority when he is not. My limited knowledge could be incorrect. But if he continues to take the mic on behalf of the anti Missouri plan forces, someone should clarify these points.

whistleblower said...

Sophia...

I may be able to best explain the support for my contention by establishing some ground upon which we can mutually agree.

1. The Missouri Constitution of 1820 did not provide any court in the State with jurisdiction to pass on the validity of a statute. However, the Missouri Constitution of 1875 did specifically authorize the Missouri Supreme Court to address the validity of a statute or provision of the constitution of this State. Other than Article V, Section 3, no other Article of the Missouri Constitution or Act of the Missouri General Assembly discusses the authority to pass on the validity of a statute. This is also the teaching of the Missouri Bar, as demonstrated by this teaching synopsis; http://www.mobar.org/teach/judicial_review.doc

2. The first time that Congress provided the U.S. Supreme Court with the power to pass on the validity of a statute was contained in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

3. In Missouri, the circuit court does not have superintending authority over administrative bodies, except as provided by statute. The Missouri Supreme Court and the Districts of the Court of Appeals have this authority as it is provided by Article V, Section 4 of the Missouri Constitution. Before this section was amended in 1976, this superintending jurisdiction over other tribunals extended to circuit courts, as well. We cannot conclude that the Missouri Constitution grants circuit courts superintending jurisdiction over administrative tribunals when the constitution was amended to explicitly remove the grant of such jurisdiction.

4. If the circuit court has no superintending jurisdiction over administrative bodies of the Missouri Government, it would only be reasonable to conclude that they would not have superintending jurisdiction over any branch of the Missouri Government.

5. Administrative agencies of the Missouri Government are judicial or at least quasi-judicial. They are considered to be “inferior courts”.

6. A judgment, issued by the circuit court, that would permanently enjoin an administrative body from performing an action is, in fact, a writ of prohibition directed to an administrative tribunal.

7. Article V, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution provides that the circuit court is a court of original jurisdiction to hear and determine all cases.

Original –def. Black’s (first edition)- Primitive; first in order; bearing its own authority and not deriving its authority from an outside source.

Jurisdiction - def. Black’s (first edition)- The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, or in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. Jurisdiction is a power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate to take cognizance of and determine causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution.

Neither of these definitions confers upon any court the power to determine what the law is, or whether it is valid.

Persons are individuals or corporations. Departments of the government, and their administrative agencies are not persons.

8. No provision exists that provides instruction for removal or indication as to the validity of a statute that has been invalidated by the circuit court.


Before we can go further; do you concur with the preceding statements?

whistleblower said...

Sophia...

As you have not yet responded to my last post; I will continue.

Your explanation of original vs. appellate jurisdiction may have excited anonymous, but it lacked a very important part. You stated " I'm not sure why you're looking for an express delegation for a specific kind of case (constitutional challenge of a state statute) when the language is intentionally so broad".

I can only guess that you forgot about the Separation of Powers Doctrine of Article II, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution. Don't feel bad; the circuit courts of Missouri seem to have forgotten about it too.

Article II, Section states that; "The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments--the legislative, executive and judicial--each of which shall be confided to a separate magistracy, and no person, or collection of persons, charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of those departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances in this constitution expressly directed or permitted."

Do you see a problem with your statement that Article V, Section 14 is "intentionally so broad", and the statement made by the founders of our Constitution in Article II, Section 1 stating "except in the instances in this constitution expressly directed or permitted"?

I sure do! A judge is effectively stating, "You can't do that." to the Legislative Branch, by invalidating one of their Acts. That would clearly be considered as interfering with their constitutionally granted powers. This can only be done where expressly directed or permitted in the Constitution. Article V, Section 3 does permit the Missouri Supreme Court to do this, but no other court in this state has been granted that power with regard to a statute.

Since most of the administrative agencies of the Missouri Government fall under the Executive Branch, it would only make sense that their decisions could not be invalidated unless the Constitution expressly directed or permitted such action. That is exactly what Article V, Section 18 does. In fact, Section 18 permits the Supreme Court to delegate this power to the lower courts. The Missouri Supreme Court did delegate this power to the circuit courts by rule 100. They then looked to Congress to establish the guidelines for such review by stating that; “The provisions of sections 536.100 through 536.150, RSMo, shall govern procedure in circuit courts for judicial review of actions of administrative agencies unless the statute governing a particular agency contains different provisions for such review.

The circuit court may have the ability to hear and determine all cases and matters, but they do so in accordance with existing law. They don’t get to determine what the law is. Just because you present a challenge as to the validity of something does not mean that the entity hearing the challenge has the authority to determine the validity of the fact being challenged.

The circuit court is merely the babysitter. A child under their care may bring up a good reason for staying up past the 9:00 pm deadline set by the parents, but the babysitter does not have the authority to deviate from the rules established by the parents, unless the parents expressly permitted the babysitter to make that determination.

If I was going to introduce a constitutional amendment to further limit the power of judicial review, it would be to require that all challenges to the validity of a statute must be determined by the Missouri Supreme Court en banc. Before we can look to future restrictions, we must adhere to the restrictions currently in place.

sophia said...

Whistleblower,

I suspect the reason people stop responding to you is because you don't really respond to them, you just keep repeating yourself. This habit of yours doesn't encourage extended discussion.

From reading your comments, I'd say that if you sincerely believe that judicial review is a good and necessary thing then you wouldn't be making separation of powers arguments. The point at which all parties disagree with your read of the situation (a perceived technicality making cole county review of statutes a dictatorship) is not when you should double down your efforts to convince them that you are right in all your particulars. Look at your goal, find a new way to it.

If you want en banc review of constitutional challenges, start working on that amendment. There is zero reason that following the current rules as you read them (contrary to how everyone else reads them) should be a necessary precondition to getting the change you want unless the only reason you want it is because it somehow proves you were right to begin with. At which point you are a dog chasing its tail and people are understandably reluctant to sit around and watch you chase it for hours on end.

whistleblower said...

Sophia...

I did respond to your post. I even quoted your post. However, you did not address any of the statements directed to you for acknowledgment of concurrence.

If you have documentation to support your position, please provide it.

Article V, Section 14 does not provide the circuit court with the authority to determine the constitutionality and subsequently invalidate an Act of the Missouri General Assembly. The words of that Article do not support your position, and no Missouri Supreme Court decision cites V, 14 as authority to support your position.

It is evident that you have acquired your position based on belief, rather than supporting documentation. I can see why you would be frustrated. You have interpreted the words of an article of the constitution to support your beliefs, but you cannot provide any reference that would supply a definition for the words of that article that would provide support for your interpretation. I did, however, provide you with the definitions for those words from Black’s Law Dictionary (first edition). I chose the first edition, as it would have been the closest to the time that that article was enacted, and I chose Black’s as it is the most recognized reference of the legal community.

My post of September 16, 2007 11:51 AM, presented declarations and requested your concurrence. Do you concur with the statements made in that post? If you do not agree, please address the items that you do not agree with along with supporting documentation. If you do not address an item, I can only assume that you concur.

The teachings of the Missouri Bar agree with my position. I even provided you with a link so that you could see it for yourself. If you don’t agree with the teachings of the Bar, have the guts to say so. All you did was ignore the information that was presented to you. Since you decided to avoid the information presented to you, I will provide the statement from the Missouri Bar.

“The United States Constitution says nothing about the one job the Supreme Court of the United States is most known for today. That is the power to review federal and state laws to determine whether or not they are constitutional. On the other hand, the Missouri Constitution specifically grants the power of judicial review to Missouri Courts:

The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving the validity…of a statute or provision of the constitution of this state… (Article V, Section 3.)”

I don’t see anything that would grant this power of judicial review to the circuit courts, only the Supreme Court. Do you? Am I missing the magical words?

You stated; “I suspect the reason people stop responding to you is because you don't really respond to them, you just keep repeating yourself. This habit of yours doesn't encourage extended discussion.”

It is extremely clear that I responded to you. I even provided you with information to support my position as it is inapposite of yours. I guess the only way you would consider someone as having responded to you would be to agree with you.

You stated; “The point at which all parties disagree with your read of the situation is not when you should double down your efforts to convince them that you are right in all your particulars.”


All parties do not disagree with my read. Attorneys, paralegals, and Law Professors agree with my read of the situation. They feel as trapped as I do with an out-of-control judiciary. They will come forward when I gather enough support.


I do believe in judicial review, but I don’t believe that a 25 year-old judge, with limited law experience, who was elected by just over ½ of 1% of the voters should have that authority. According to your position, that is a possibility. You seem to think that the members of the judiciary have unlimited power unless the constitution limits that power, when, in reality, the judiciary has no power not granted to it by the constitution.

You appear to want to treat the Separation of Powers Doctrine as if it were a statement of “all or nothing”. What about the statement of “no person, or collection of persons, charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of those departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances in this constitution expressly directed or permitted” is confusing to you? If you can find a place in the Missouri Constitution the expressly permits the circuit court to decide what the law is, I will concede. I can see where the Missouri Constitution permits the General Assembly to say what the law is. I can also see where the Missouri Constitution allows the Missouri Supreme Court to determine the validity of that law. I cannot see any place in the Missouri that expressly permits the circuit court to have any role in determining what the law is. If I am missing that part of my copy of the Missouri Constitution, please send it to me.


My email address is available at the end of the slideshow on my website. You can send any supporting documentation for your position to that address.


I am not pushing for a Constitutional Amendment. I am pushing for the Missouri Courts to follow the Missouri Constitution as it currently exists. I live in a Representative Republic. Lone circuit court judges do not have the authority to invalidate law that the voters of Missouri create through their elected representatives.


I am willing to meet with you at any time, and at any place, for a videotaped debate on this issue. I will provide supporting documentation for my position, and will provide you with relevant authority that can refute any item of contention you may have. This video can be placed on YouTube, and the viewers can decide for themselves.

Layla said...

Whistleblower is right. Sophia did not answer any of his questions.

I checked out his presentation. It is full of useful information, and links to support his claims.

Sophia must have some hidden agenda. If she does respond, I bet she will still avoid his questions.

The Establishment of Judicial Review school handout provided by the Missouri Bar goes right along with his statements.

Sophia and people like her must consider us all to be brain dead.

whistleblower said...

Layla...

Thanks for your support.

Sophia wants people to think that I have a problem with all attorneys and judges. She even stated; "Instead of accusing judges who are playing by the established rules of being dictators and accusing politicians who refrain from expressing outrage that the system is working as designed of being complicit in this dictatorship."

Just because circuit court judges are playing by the "established rules", doesn't mean that those rules were established by the constitution. She also states; “system is working as designed”. Notice that she didn’t say…”as the Missouri Constitution has established”. She didn’t lie. She avoided the truth.

I agree. I don't think that Sophia will answer the questions posed to her. She can't, at least she can't and back it up with documented authority. She has tried to discredit my claims, but has provided no documentation to do so. She stated that an Article of the Missouri Constitution is "intentionally broad", when she wants it to enable the circuit court to invalidate law, but the Constitution clearly states that this authority is only established when expressly permitted in the Constitution.

Attorneys go to law school to learn how to practice law, not to learn the law.

My claim is really very simple. No individual in this country can create an Act of the General Assembly, and no individual in this country can invalidate an Act of the General Assembly.

We don't let an individual judge determine whether or not a trial judge erred. Therefore, why would we let an individual trial judge determine if the General Assembly erred?

We currently have over 300 years of combined legal experience in the Missouri General Assembly, and that doesn't include their staff. Why would we ever think that an individual judge, who may only have a year or so of legal experience, would have more wisdom as to the constitutionality of a statute than the 300 years of experience that created it? It not only doesn't make sense, it is unconstitutional. As this is currently occurring in Missouri, it has established a dictatorship.

whistleblower said...

The words below are not mine, but were found in an article on the internet.


Roger Weidner, a former Oregon state prosecutor, claims America is making a steady transition from freedom to slavery, saying fighting judicial corruption is one way to return to a Constitutional form of government before it’s too late.

And for more than 20 years, Weidner, 67, disbarred in 1997 from the practice of law in Oregon for trying to fight the corrupt system, has been asking one important question every single blacked-robed jurist has failed to answer:

“Your honor, is this a court of due process as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution!”

Almost like clockwork, Weidner says each judge refuses to answer, knowing the leading question opens up a judicial can of worms and court-guarded secret since the system, through legal technicalities, has become a biased administrative arm of the government set up to take away a citizen’s right not protect them.

“The constitutional rights, guaranteed to the citizen by the sworn pledge of our publicly elected magistrates, have been shamelessly and treacherously stripped from the citizens of this great land by an arrogant and abusive judiciary,” said Weidner this week on Greg Szymanski’s popular radio show, The Investigative Journal.

“This judiciary has made our courts "safe havens" for thieves and a house of horrors for innocent citizens seeking to recover what has been wrongfully taken from them.”

A former member of the 101st Airborne Division before graduating from Lewis and Clarke Law School, Weidner’s fight against corruption began 18 years ago after he struggled to return the now-valued $100 million Kettleberg estate to its rightful beneficiary after it had been wrongly seized by an unscrupulous but well-connected attorney.

And for trying to get justice for his client, Weidner was repeatedly arrested, imprisoned, confined to an insane asylum, and finally disbarred. His story, as told to H. Hammond in a book called “The Weidner Method,” is a real life testament to how the judiciary has usurped the law while replacing constitutional guarantees with a system in which judges rule by decree.

After fighting judicial corruption on every level in the 18 years since his “eyes were opened” in the Kettleberg case, Weidner has been jailed more than 19 times, including 70 days in a psychiatric institution for simply speaking out in courtrooms demanding judicial accountability.

“My overall goal is to restore Constitutional government to the people of Oregon and the people of the United States,” said Weidner. “It’s really very simple if people want to take back their country, they have to take back their court houses and this means descending on these corrupt judges by in a group revolt.”

Speaking from the heart and trying to emphasize there is no hope of taking back America if there exists no place to obtain a redress of grievances, he added:

“It is my hope that Americans in every county in the country will converge upon their courthouses and use The Weidner Method to fight any kind of case. Throughout my 20 years of research about government corruption, The Weidner Method is the first solution I have ever encountered. If nothing else, it will expose duplicity and make the entire community aware of it, a necessary first step.

“The government should be restructured from the bottom up in cells of 10 families as described in the writings of Kelly Hoskins, author of the Hoskins Report. Senators should again be elected by state legislatures, illegal aliens should be incarcerated, deported and the borders sealed, no more foreign aid, fractional reserve banking should be outlawed, debtfree money should be issued by the Congress, solar technology, which was running factories 100 years ago, should be unsuppressed, natural healing should be unsuppressed, the truth should be unsuppressed, return of the media to the private sector—all of these and countless other issues can be addressed in the courtroom using The Weidner Method.

“According to history, when a nation is in transition from one form of government to a different type of government, as we are now making the transition from freedom to enslavement, there is a point in the struggle, a section of time, during which it could go either way. I believe we are presently teetering on that brink.”

allen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
allen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.