[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Israeli VS Palestinian Connections to the Land of Israel-Palestine

Israel Just Lost Billions - Haifa and IMEC

This Is The Income A Family Needs To Be Middle Class, By State

One Big Beautiful Bubble": Hartnett Warns US Debt Will Exceed $50 Trillion By 2032

These Are The Most Stolen Cars In Every US State

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]


(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Service union contends signatures for Nader petition faulty (Article from 2004 election where I kept Nader off the Oregon presidential ballot)
Source: Oregonian
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read ... cgi?ArtNum=62365&SC=1&EC=40#C1
Published: Aug 16, 2004
Author: JEFF MAPES
Post Date: 2008-11-01 11:18:00 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 475
Comments: 38

A public employees union claimed Monday that it has uncovered widespread fraud in the Ralph Nader campaign's effort to gather enough signatures to qualify for Oregon's ballot.

Nader's campaign discounted the allegations and said the Service Employees International Union -- which supports Democrat Sen. John Kerry -- is trying to intimidate its petitioners as a way of keeping the independent presidential candidate off the state's ballot.

Nader must collect 15,306 valid signatures from registered voters by Aug. 24 to run in Oregon. Earlier this year, he twice failed to draw 1,000 voters to a convention, which is another way of qualifying. In those attempts, he received help from some Republicans -- who think his presence would help President Bush win the state -- and hindrance from Democrats -- who fear Nader's candidacy would drain votes from their nominee.

The service employees union, which said it has spent as much as $25,000 to investigate Nader's petition drive, held a news conference to release dozens of examples of what it said appear to be falsified names and addresses. It provided written statements from 26 Portland-area voters who said their names were on petitions they did not sign.

The documents included many examples of duplicates, including one woman whose name showed up on three petition sheets. One man was listed twice on the same sheet with two addresses, one of which is in the middle of a park in Gresham.

"The evidence of systemic fraud is clear and convincing, and goes beyond anything we have seen before in Oregon," said Alice Dale, president of SEIU Local 49.

Margaret Olney, a lawyer representing the union, said investigators checked 269 signatures and found 87 were valid. In the rest of the cases, she said, the addresses were incorrect or nonexistent, or the voters told investigators they did not sign a Nader petition.

The union also presented the sworn statement of a janitor who said he heard three Nader petitioners, who are paid by the signature, sitting in an isolated stairwell discussing techniques for forging names.

Michael McCarthy, who said he overheard the conversation at the Skidmore Fountain Building where Nader's canvassing operation is headquartered, told reporters that one of the petitioners described "ways to make sure the forged signatures looked more real."

Later, he said, he saw a petitioner with pages ripped out of the telephone directory copying names onto a sheet.

Ellen Lowe, a veteran human-services lobbyist, also appeared at the news conference to say she has filed 17 complaints with the state Elections Division accusing canvassers of fraud.

Greg Kafoury, a Portland attorney who is Nader's top campaign aide in Oregon, argued that SEIU was picking out isolated examples of problems that crop up in almost any petition campaign. He said some petitioners were fired early in the drive for falsifying signatures.

Kafoury said he was incensed that union investigators had visited many canvassers to deliver a letter warning that falsifying petitions is a felony. He said the letter was worded to scare petitioners into thinking they could be held liable for an invalid signature, even if they believed the signer was a properly registered voter.

"The obvious goal is to intimidate people so they stop gathering signatures because they know we are close," Kafoury said. "Visiting people at their homes at night to threaten them with prison is gangster tactics. Nothing like this has ever been seen in Oregon before."

The letter tells petitioners that "your signature certifies that you personally witnessed each signature collected on the petition and that you obtained the signatures from qualified voters. Falsely signing the petition may result in conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 or prison for up to five years."

Olney said the letter simply restates elections law. She also said investigators weren't picking out only suspicious signatures when they began investigating about 4,000 signatures the Nader campaign submitted to Multnomah County elections offices last week.

Kafoury said the Nader campaign has collected about 10,000 signatures, adding that about two-thirds of those submitted to the counties have been approved. That is a standard error rate, he said. If he doesn't lose many petitioners, Kafoury said, he is confident of making the ballot.

But Nader's campaign is under mounting time pressure. Elections officials have warned that the campaign needs to submit all of its signatures to the counties early this week so they can be verified and turned over to the state by Aug. 24.

In addition, Multnomah County elections officials say they have tightened procedures as a result of the SEIU investigation and are watching for duplicate signatures.

Anne Martens, the secretary of state's spokeswoman, said, "We take fraud very seriously, and we will investigate every complaint."

Jeff Mapes: 503-221-8209; jeffmapes@news.oregonian.com


Poster Comment:

My press conference statement:

Good morning, I’m Michael McCarthy and I’m here today to describe the fraudulent behavior I have witnessed.

First, let me tell you a little about myself. I am a longtime forest activist and a strong supporter of Ralph Nader and his work. In 2000 I was an ardent Nader for President supporter and worked hard on his campaign here in Oregon. I still believe that he would be a wonderful President and have the utmost respect for him and his lifetime of activism. That is why I was shocked to discover the fraud and identity theft that was being committed on his behalf – I know what it feels like to have my identity stolen, it happened to me and it took several years for me to clear up the situation.

In the course of my duties as a janitor for the Portland Saturday Market I work in and around the Skidmore Fountain Building, where the signature gathering office for the Nader for President Campaign is located. In late July I encountered a number of signature gatherers and began to witness a number of events that got me very worried.

One afternoon I noticed a group of three signature gatherers, one of whom had already approached me about signing his sheet, sitting together in a back corner of the office building. I was curious as to their activities because it is an area that was not usually frequented by the other circulators and was quite out of the way from their normal traffic flow.

I was in a position to overhear their conversation and was shocked at what they were saying. All of them expressed dismay over how difficult it was for them to gather signatures on the street, because of, as they described it, the bad vibes they were getting from Oregonians when asked to sign the Nader petition. One of the three circulators was telling the others how this could be “free money.” He told them how to copy signatures from previous initiative sheets like he does, and how he had copies of those sheets that they could use. He went on to describe ways to make sure the forged signatures looked more real, like using different pens, how to alter the angle of the pens to make the writing look different and many other ways to make “the product look as real as possible”

They kept using the phrase “free money” over and over again.

Four days after overhearing that conversation, I observed a different circulator sitting at a table in a public area of the building frantically writing on a number of petition sheets. I looked closer, and saw that he had ripped-out pages from the phone book in front of him and was copying names onto his sheets from the pages.

To me all of this activity was plain theft. It is the right of the individual to sign or not sign any petition. When someone falsifies signatures, they are stealing someone’s identity and they are directly assaulting a very important tool – direct access to democracy past the oligarchy. We need to keep that process honest.

Being on the Oregon ballot is a right that ought to come through the support of the people, not the fraudulent efforts of those only interested in easy money.

Thank you,

Mike McCarthy

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)

I was shocked to discover

Shocked, simply shocked, I say.

Methinks the believer in the fascist Dem/Rep game doth protest too much.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-01   13:01:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: bluegrass (#1)

Notice how he isn't shocked, shocked let him tell you, over Obama's refusal to produce a CERTIFIED COPY OF HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE? Apparently it is fine and dandy for his hero to run for President even if the sob was born in Kenya and not even a citizen of this country. Just another hypocrite.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-11-01   14:14:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: James Deffenbach (#7)

Except he was born in Hawaii. That small detail eludes you still.

You fools don't even get it do you? That the lies were designed to make a native born American possibly tainted with the suspicion he is dangerous, exotic, not worthy. It was designed to bring out the worst in people.

And this is completely in keeping with Rovian divide and conquer campaigning.

I am not bothered by a man born in Hawaii who has proved himself worthy of the hire as POTUS next Tuesday taking office.

Damn right I'm not, if fact I am quite happy to see it happen.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2008-11-01   15:09:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Ferret Mike (#8)

Except he was born in Hawaii. That small detail eludes you still.

So you say. Please provide proof. Without proof, the claim is empty, just like the promises of most politicians.

mirage  posted on  2008-11-01   15:26:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: mirage (#10) (Edited)

I see. So, if Barack Obama got a DUI, he would be innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. But if agenda laden Swift Boat operatives drum up false accusations complete with hearsay and false or distorted evidence, he is guilty of being born abroad until he provides concrete evidence he was born in Hawaii.

Of course, as I pointed out, you could test the paper, ink, check the control number, find it identical in every way to all the birth certificates stored around it, but you idiots still would not believe he was born in Hawaii.

Then you would be screaming about the treacherous jackals you face and how they diabolically forged the document as part of their plan to destroy the white race as we all know it.

Get a life.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2008-11-01   15:36:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Ferret Mike (#11)

Mike, you need to get a clue and get a life yourself.

I don't trust anyone's claims of anything. Not you, not Bush, not Obama - nobody. Its called "Trust but verify". Its time for the "verify" part which is not coming.

Color me a Missouri person. Show me.

Until you can do that, you're whistling in the wind making claims you can't back up. I trust that you believe what you do. Now verify it.

Honestly, it can't be that tough, can it?

mirage  posted on  2008-11-01   15:39:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: mirage (#12)

Truthfully, nobody need go past the proof currently established which is well beyond what the Swift Boaters running this crap deserve.

I know this was a load of shit when it was raised, and all it continues to do is continue to stink, from the Swift Boater side of things.

It is now established beyond a reasonable doubt that he was born in Hawaii. The issue is moot. You have beaten the skin completely off this dead horse.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2008-11-01   15:49:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Ferret Mike (#13)

I know this was a load of shit when it was raised, and all it continues to do is continue to stink, from the Swift Boater side of things.

Yes, I'd demand proof from the Swift Boaters as well to back up their claims. Wouldn't you?

Another thing you're not getting it this - you work for the Obama campaign and all you do is run around antagonizing people.

One can only assume that the Obama campaign condones this and hires people who just run around insulting voters.

You need to get a clue. You may have a life, but you're clueless and hopelessly so until you look at your own actions and see what results they are having. So far, you've managed to antagonize a lot of people with your stuff.

Its fine to support a candidate, but its not fine to resort to insulting people when all they want is to see claims be backed up.

That is clueless behavior and you should be admonished for it.

mirage  posted on  2008-11-01   16:15:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: mirage, Ferret Mike (#23)

Asking for proof is obviously just "hate".

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-01   16:17:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: bluegrass, Ferret Mike (#25)

Asking for proof is obviously just "hate".

According to some, that may just be the case.

This reminds me of something that went on at work on Friday. One of the helpdesk people closed out a ticket saying that the request "violated policy".

The ticket was escalated and the request was not unreasonable (it was justified) so I asked the gal who dumped the ticket what the policy was that the ticket violated and where one could get a copy of it.

Of course, there wasn't any such policy, the request had a legitimate business purpose, and so the ticket was reopened and taken care of.

It is always fine to say "Show me" when someone makes a claim; burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

What bothers me about the court cases surrounding the Obama candidacy is that the courts are saying that Citizens don't have "standing" to enforce the Constitution. If that is the case, then the Courts are advocating for fascism.

Fascism seems to be fine for the Obama supporters so long as it serves their purpose.

Where they are being absolutely and totally clueless is is not looking past their own noses at the long-term ramifications. If citizens are not allowed to bring a motion to the Courts to enforce the Constitution, then who is? The GOVERNMENT????

Yeah right -- that's the REALLY scary part of all of this, but it is something that Obama supporters are missing completely in their desire to serve their candidate. If citizens cannot sue to enforce the Constitution, then it is a completely dead document and we're completely screwed.

If that's just fine by the Obama supporters, then they need to wake up and look at the problem from the longer-term perspective, get over themselves, and decide which is more important: The Constitution and their rights or their Candidate.

This is a case where you can't have both, unfortunately. Which is the correct choice? The Constitution or the Candidate?

mirage  posted on  2008-11-02   4:29:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 32.

#34. To: mirage (#32)

What bothers me about the court cases surrounding the Obama candidacy is that the courts are saying that Citizens don't have "standing" to enforce the Constitution. If that is the case, then the Courts are advocating for fascism.

Fascism seems to be fine for the Obama supporters so long as it serves their purpose.

Tailgunner Joe was right.

We didn't go far enough to remove the cancer and look at us now.

Look at all these pathetic, weak people and their fraud-savior ! This is what you get when government is the god of the God-less.

"Take care of my family, Obama !" ~ El Paso jumper

Rotara  posted on  2008-11-02 12:49:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: mirage (#32)

What bothers me about the court cases surrounding the Obama candidacy is that the courts are saying that Citizens don't have "standing" to enforce the Constitution... Where they are being absolutely and totally clueless is is not looking past their own noses at the long-term ramifications. If citizens are not allowed to bring a motion to the Courts to enforce the Constitution, then who is? The GOVERNMENT????

Yeah right -- that's the REALLY scary part of all of this, but it is something that Obama supporters are missing completely in their desire to serve their candidate. If citizens cannot sue to enforce the Constitution, then it is a completely dead document and we're completely screwed.

If that's just fine by the Obama supporters, then they need to wake up and look at the problem from the longer-term perspective, get over themselves, and decide which is more important: The Constitution and their rights or their Candidate.

Excellent post!!!!!

Indeed, it troubled me as well that the lower court said that a) Phil Berg, as a US citizen and a voter, had no standing/ no right to request that a candidate for the highest elected office in the land show proof of natural born eligibility to run for that office AND b) that whether or not Obama was eligible to run for President would not be an "injury" to the Constitution.

That's why I said at the time the news came out that judge should be impeached or sent for psychiatric examination. The judge as either mentally unsound or he was consciously under mining the Constitution, which he was appointed to protect and defend.

It's interesting that liberal judges always love to "interpret intent" (ie. read into the Constitution) when it suits their leftie cause ( eg. abortion = privacy? huh) but when they are faced with the need for a common sense understanding of the intent of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution - ie. like understanding that the Constitution is all about giving powers to individual citizens and ensuring that they have a say in their nation's business and have the right to petition/question government ( and one would assume elected officials of government like Senator and Pres candidate Obama), the leftie judge suddenly morphs into a literalist and says in effect "I don't see anything written in the constitution that specifically says citizens have standing to ask for proof of a Kenyan born being natural born and who cares anyway."

scrapper2  posted on  2008-11-02 13:05:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: mirage, Ferret Mike (#32)

This is a case where you can't have both, unfortunately. Which is the correct choice? The Constitution or the Candidate?

Historically, people that worship Great Leaders (Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Obama, etc.) will always betray principle for Der Leader.

The Constitution, or any other law, matters not one whit to the worshippers.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-02 16:39:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: mirage (#32)

Where they are being absolutely and totally clueless is is not looking past their own noses at the long-term ramifications. If citizens are not allowed to bring a motion to the Courts to enforce the Constitution, then who is? The GOVERNMENT????

excellent post, mirage. in case you missed it, Edwin Vieira eloquently enumerates the consequences/ramifications in his latest article posted here:

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

christine  posted on  2008-11-02 17:22:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]