Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Deccline and fall | Main | Weather extremes don't harm insurance companies »

The judge, the presidential hopeful and some strange conflicts of interest

Donna Laframboise has been doing some interesting research on the Climate and Law conference recently held by the UK's Supreme Court. It seems that as well as Philippe Sands, several other judges used the occasion to advance their environmentalist views.

Prominent among them was Lord Carnwath, who called the Paris conference a test of our ability to address the challenges of climate change. It does seem extraordinarily unprofessional - if not outright corrupt - of these people to use public funds and their positions of public trust to promote their ideological fads.

Carnwath is an interesting chap. I read for example that tomorrow he is to hear a case in which Donald Trump tries to prevent an offshore windfarm being built next to his golf course development in Aberdeenshire.  At the start of the year he took part in a ruling on the Viking windfarm in Shetland, rejecting attempts to prevent it going ahead. He was also involved in a case in which a group called "Client Earth" forced the UK to formulate new air quality standards.

Quite why he didn't step down from all these cases is beyond me.

But there's another interesting angle to this. Cast your mind back to 2012, and the extraordinary FOI tribunal at which Tony Newbery's request for the identities of the 28gate seminar attendees was rejected by what amounted to a kangaroo court. As Andrew Orlowski later revealed, this might have had at least some connection with the fact that one of the lay judges was a vocal green activist who had been badmouthing Nigel Lawson just a few days earlier. Indeed it turned out that several tribunal judges at the time had environmental connections - an official from the Joseph Rowntree Trust - perennial funders of green causes - as well as two ex-Defra officials and a representative of a church environment group,

Now I bet you can't work out who had been head of the tribunals service for the five years prior to 2012.

Indeed. It was none other than Lord Carnwath! He had stepped down a few months before Newbery's case, but one can't help but wonder about his influence on the tribunals service during his years in charge.

After Newbery's hearing, Andrew Orlowski asked the tribunals service about conflicts of interest among its lay judges:

We asked the Information Commissioner's Office how a lay judge with such partisan views on climate change came to oversee hearings so closely coupled to the subject of climate. Campaigning lay judges would not normally be appointed to sit on such a case, a spokesman noted, and concerns would be legitimate grounds for appeal.

Campaigning lay judges are a no-no then. But what about campaigning professional judges? I'm sure Donald Trump would like to know.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (45)

Client Earth is yet another recipient of the European Climate Foundations (Green blob /Big Green) millions

Oct 7, 2015 at 10:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

I'd bet that Trump's legal team know - I bet Trump doesn't though - the legal profession being what it is.....

About as clear a circumstance for Lord Carnwath to recuse himself as you'd hope to find - I somehow doubt he'll do it under his own steam - green zealots familiar mindset being what it is....

Perhaps it's a case where Twitter might be of use - Mr. Trump in an enthusiastic user as I understand it :-)

Oct 7, 2015 at 10:45 AM | Registered Commentertomo

European Climate Foundation (had over 40 grants lobbying againt coal in the EU, back in 2008/2009 - one of them

ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom)

Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To provide legal support for an anti-coal campaign at Kingsnorth and other proposed sites, including coordinating the public inquiry or judicial review process.

Oct 7, 2015 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

I'm not a fan of Trump by any means but this is an utterly disgraceful situation. To have an eco zealot in charge of an important decision would be bringing the legal process into disrepute.

Oct 7, 2015 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn B

I think President (in waiting) Trump is going/wants to do a lot for the USA....don't envy that task for any amount of money. As regards Scotland (and the SNP) I think he's head banging...his own. Best to just dump it really and leave Scotland to its own ruin along with the gradual demise of the rest of us. Lawson last night didn't think we had much of a future (Vote IN) and Mandelson slithered as expected.

Oct 7, 2015 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterEx-expat Colin

I find the refusal to release the Zeroth Order Drafts strange as they're available for AR5, and as far as I can see, there's nothing in those which would cause anyone any discomfort. There hasn't been any talk of relations being harmed by them being publicly available, so why should it be different for earlier assessment reports?

In any event, Tim Osborn's post was about a request for AR4's Zeroth Order Draft, not TAR's.

Oct 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM | Registered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

This from Donna:
Ladies and gentleman, the UN is doing with judges and lawyers what it has long done with scientists. Wooing them with titles and travel. Coaxing them into the fold. Lobbying and co-opting them.
Do not forget that they do almost the same with political leaders such as Obama and Cameron. No titles but chairmanship of a committee that set the sustainability goals for Agenda 2030, Cameron will be up to his neck in this.

Oct 7, 2015 at 11:43 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Not all legally-minded types have been corrupted by the climate crisis campaigners. There is this analysis from 2008-2010 by Jason Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania (he is the Robert G. Fuller, Jr. Professor and Director, Program on Law, Environment and Economy):

This paper constitutes such a cross-examination. As anyone who has served as an expert witness in American litigation can attest, even though an opposing attorney may not have the expert’s scientific training, a well prepared and highly motivated trial attorney who has learned something about the technical literature can ask very tough questions, questions that force the expert to clarify the basis for his or her opinion, to explain her interpretation of the literature, and to account for any apparently conflicting literature that is not discussed in the expert report. My strategy in this paper is to adopt the approach that would be taken by a non-scientist attorney deposing global warming scientists serving as experts for the position that anthropogenic ghg emissions have caused recent global warming and must be halted if serious and seriously harmful future warming is to be prevented – what I have called above the established climate story.

Well worth a careful read. The IPCC and the 'established climate story' do not survive unscathed. Indeed I think the analysis is quite damaging for 'the cause'.

But the discoveries being made by Donna Laframboise, and enlarged upon above by the Bish, suggest that many high up in legal systems are victims of the climate crisis campaigners. Some may well be willing victims, who have spotted a chance to strut and fret to the advantage at least of their own vanity. It is surely very pleasant, after all, to be in the vanguard of those intent on saving the planet. It is also very lucrative for them, as well as being destructive, ill-informed, politically-loaded, and detrimental to both our society and our environment.

Let us hope that more analyses by legal minds with a stronger regard for evidence and integrity will emerge. Does anyone know of any other than the one I have linked to?

Oct 7, 2015 at 11:44 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade


It would appear the UN has been found slipshod with the housework! Cleaning contractors moving in?

United Nations officials charged with accepting massive bribes from China businessmen

"....We will be asking: Is bribery business as usual at the UN?'
US Attorney Preet Bharara ......."

Oct 7, 2015 at 12:10 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Also in the Telegraph YET another end of the world story.Shame the aptly named Mr Ashe wont be around to finish spending his ill gotten.The world will be engulfed by fire at midnight tonight.

Oct 7, 2015 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

According to many prison inmates, science and Law should be considered above corruption. Those representing the opinions of the UN, believe they should be considered above corruption too. It would be good for the population of the world, to know this subject is discussed more often, by a wide range of people, in prison.

Oct 7, 2015 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I should have mentioned that I came across Johnston's work thanks to Donna Laframboise's superb book 'The Delinquent Teenager' (see Chapter 17). Here is an extract from one of many favourable reviews of that book which also mention Johnston:

She introduces us to numerous well-credentialled skeptics, including Jason Johnston, an expert in environmental law, who set out to verify whether the ­IPCC reports in fact “conformed with the peer-reviewed climate science literature.” His conclusion: “on virtually every major issue in climate change science,” IPCC reports “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties.”

Oct 7, 2015 at 12:29 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Top United Nations diplomat John Ashe arrested over Chinese bribery scheme - CBS News

"A former president of the United Nations General Assembly was arrested Tuesday and charged with accepting over $1 million in bribes and a trip to New Orleans for his family from a billionaire Chinese real estate mogul and other business people to pave the way for lucrative investments."

He was the chair of the UNFCCC Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), which only disbanded in 2012, having finished its work.

Oct 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

dennisa, one of the unforeseen consequences of the UN, has been that the academic qualifications, and professional experience, of those in prison keeps rising. Those parts of the UN, with the easiest access to other peoples money, are leading by example, and the IPCC has been doing a lot of work behind the scenes, and out of the publics view, to ensure its representatives are in the best financial position to take advantage of the poor and needy.

Oct 7, 2015 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

what do those UNACCOUNTABLE UNELECTED OFFWORLDY OVERPAID crppy judges think of Julia Slingo hiring her daughter??

Oct 7, 2015 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenusNotWarmerDueToCO2

VenusNot... , nepotism is best kept in the family.

What did the UK taxpayer gain from sending Slingo to the Shukla Symposium, as identified at Climate Audit? Presumably the Information Tribunal, will be relieved she did not sign the RICO letter, being a UK citizen.

Oct 7, 2015 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Complaints about judges should be made to the Judicial Complaints Office, Make the complaint and pursue it. Rulings b the Information Tribunal can be appealed, so appeal against them.

All this talk, no action.

Oct 7, 2015 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndais

From FBI New York Field Office:-

Former UN General Assembly President and Five Others Charged in $1.3 Million Bribery Scheme

Couple of little snippets:-

"......In addition to agreeing to pay for ASHE’s family vacation and basketball court, LORENZO began paying ASHE’s wife, as a “climate change consultant” for NGO-1, in the amount of $2,500 per month.....

.......In addition to attendance at the conference, CC-3 also sought to “offer [ASHE] a permanent convention venue for the UN meetings on sustainability and climate changes . . . as well as for the 193 members of the UN to convene. . . .”"

Oct 7, 2015 at 4:05 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Oct 7, 2015 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndais

Have you got any idea as to the costs of litigation in the UK.

The recent Andrew Mitchell case is a good demonstration. This only involved the analysis of an oral exchange between two people (which was not overheard although some lied at the time that they did over hear the exchange) and which exchange lasted only about 15 seconds.

The costs run into millions.

It may be Ok for environmental groups who have deep pockets (often funded by government) to resort to the Courts, but this is not an option for the ordinary man.

In practice, for most, there can never be a legal review of matters.

Oct 7, 2015 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

I submit a comment with the word "shameful" and Ed Hawkins deletes it. I remember Richard Betts vigourously defending Hawkins. It seems all he does is play defence for his colleagues. An activist in sheep's clothing.

Oct 7, 2015 at 4:52 PM | Registered Commentershub

I deleted the word "Shameful!" because that has no place in the polite discussion that happens at Climate Lab Book. I did not delete the rest of the comment which is still there and will remain so.

Oct 7, 2015 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd Hawkins

It is clear that Dr Betts keeps an eye on this site. Pretty rare these days for him to dare to make a comment.

Or to answer a straightforward and reasonable question.

Oct 7, 2015 at 6:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterjolly farmer

Ed, I value open discussion more than politeness. Now your readers are safe from the knowledge of the opinions of people who are familiar with David Holland's struggle. I see the attempts by UEA to deny Holland's requests as shameful, defensive and above all, suspicious. But no one will know. Instead they will just see Tim Osborn, himself from the UEA, and his views laundered.

How is that better?

Oct 7, 2015 at 6:38 PM | Registered Commentershub

By the way, I may be mistaken but I don't remember using an exclamation point.

Oct 7, 2015 at 6:41 PM | Registered Commentershub

Oct 7, 2015 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

Richard, I think that andais was pointing out where complaints about a judge can be made by a member of the public without legal representation.

Oct 7, 2015 at 7:04 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

It seems that, the equipoise of this bloke has been upset by his meddling in affairs in which, as a man of presumed unimpeachable discernment and clear sightedness he should never approach, let alone trespass into.

What will become of a country when the highest of the high - are also advocates given in to their personal prejudice?

Oct 7, 2015 at 9:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

What can I complain about?

The definition of personal conduct covers a wide range of behaviour and circumstances both inside, and outside of, the court environment. It is not, therefore, possible to provide a definitive list of what is, or is not, personal misconduct.

Some examples of the type of things we can and cannot investigate are shown below:

We can investigate

The use of racist, sexist or offensive language
Falling asleep in court
General rudeness
Misusing judicial status for personal gain or advantage
Failing to fulfil judicial obligations or duties
Criminal convictions
Failure to declare a potential conflict of interest

We cannot investigate

A judgement, verdict or order
Sentencing decisions
What evidence should be, or has been, considered
The award of costs and damages
Whose attendance is required at court
Who should be allowed to participate in a hearing
Recusal - whether a particular judge should preside over a case or hearing
Allegations of criminal activity for example, perverting the course of justice (criminal allegations should be directed to the police)

Oct 7, 2015 at 11:36 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Oct 7, 2015 at 11:36 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Further to your earlier comment, I was merely pointing out that the limited steps of redress that might be available are more theoretical, since on a practical level, most people cannot afford to resort to legal process. The costs of some judicial review would be out of the pocket of the ordinary man.

As regards your second comment, there appears to be some inconsistency in what can and cannot be investigated. Apparently no review lies with respect to "Recusal - whether a particular judge should preside over a case or hearing" and yet there can be a review of "Misusing judicial status for personal gain or advantage" and "Failure to declare a potential conflict of interest"

There is some overlap here. In my opinion, the provision should read:-

'there can be no review of 'Recusal (whether a particular judge should preside over a case or hearing) unless there has been some misusing of judicial status for personal gain or advantage, and/or the failure to declare a potential conflict of interest"

The big story of today is the article in the Independent suggesting that wind is the cheapest form of energy. hopefully, in due course there will be a post on this since I for one question the soundness of that assertion and suspect it is based upon an incorrect economic assessment of the true costs of wind (which includes building the infrastructure to connect the windfarm to the grid, includes the costs of building back up generation for when the wind does not blow, the costs of back up diesel generation for balancing the bid etc which I suspect are not fully being taken into account).

Oct 8, 2015 at 12:31 AM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

You really ought to take a look at the latest from Donna:

the Cause seems to be really strong among some judges.

Oct 8, 2015 at 7:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPethefin

As regards your second comment, there appears to be some inconsistency in what can and cannot be investigated. Apparently no review lies with respect to "Recusal - whether a particular judge should preside over a case or hearing" and yet there can be a review of "Misusing judicial status for personal gain or advantage" and "Failure to declare a potential conflict of interest"

Oct 8, 2015 at 12:31 AM richard verney


It was not clear to me which (if either) would cover a case "where a judge has expressed strong opinions about a subject and has heard cases where that subject is relevant".

Oct 8, 2015 at 7:53 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

The symposium that Donna has been reporting about surely raises eyebrows. The organizer have felt need to publish a "clarification" at their website

"The event remit was not to endorse particular solutions, legislative or otherwise, but in recognition of the increasing amount of climate change-related cases being brought before courts worldwide in different areas of law and legal practice."

However, the program for the symposium is nowhere to be found and based on the reports from the symposium, the event does seem to have had a rather one-sided approach. Since the program and list of participants are not made public, it is nevertheless difficult to draw any conclusions. It would be really interesting to see if any views other than the politically correct ones were included (e.g. the likes of the opinions expressed by Jason Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania that were pointed out above at Oct 7, 2015 at 11:44 AM by John Shade). Participation of judges, potentially one-sided approach, lack of transparency in terms of program and list of participants, and a key-speaker asking for quashing of skeptic/dissenting opinions really should be an invitation for journalists to dig deeper.

Oct 8, 2015 at 8:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterRule of "green" law

There's an official transcript of Philippe Sands' lecture, here:

Oct 8, 2015 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

The official transcript of the Sands lecture has been slightly doctored. At page 14 he comments that there are well qualified scientists who disagree with the consensus. But in delivering the speech he added "and the Court can play a role here in finally scotching those claims" which are missing from the transcript. Tells you all you need to know really. Of course the whole idea that a court is competent to decide between rival scientific hypotheses about what will happen in the future is absurd but that is where we are. And I haven't even started on the very serious constitutional implications!

Oct 8, 2015 at 10:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterKestrel27
Oct 8, 2015 at 10:06 AM | Kestrel27

"We will give them a fair trial and then we will hang them" then.

Oct 8, 2015 at 10:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterClovis Marcus

Kestrel, yes it is interesting that the printed text and the speech were a bit different. I think (rather than 'doctored') he was reading from his text and departed from it in places, such as adding 'scotching'.

The 'clarification' referred to above is presumably a response to Donna's post Climate Secrets at the UK Supreme Court, though it answers none of the questions she raises.

There's a point 4 minutes in to the video where his lordship says "The purpose of this conference is to stimulate such a debate ..". Under the video it says "Comments are disabled for this video."

There's more comment on this story coming very soon...

Oct 8, 2015 at 1:04 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Paul Matthews. Yes I think you may well be right; this possibility occurred to me after posting. Certainly letting his true colours show though. It's clear from the speech as a whole that he buys every detail of the consensus.

Oct 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterKestrel27

Oh for goodness sake. Have none of you been following the case involving Peter Smith J and BA? He is being investigated precisely because he appears to have been partial and did not recuse himself when he arguably should have done. If you have evidence that Carnwath LJ (actually a very nice man, I speak from personal experience) has also been partial then REPORT him. The JCIO will investigate. The same applies to the other members of the Information Tribunal.

As for litigation costs; there are sufficient of your numbers around the world to make crowd funding litigation relatively straightforward as I believe Mark Steyn has found to his benefit.

Andrew Mitchell was his own worst enemy, either that or he was very badly advised. He could and should have asked for the CCTV film straightaway, not left it for ages (or put his trust in Jeremy Heywood) and then been reliant on Channel 4. He could have discredited the police overnight, at which point the Met and the IPCC would have had no choice but to investigate.

Oct 8, 2015 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndais

Oh for goodness sake. Have none of you been following the case involving Peter Smith J and BA?

Er, no. What's it about? Perhaps you have a link we could follow?

Oct 8, 2015 at 11:58 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

... as promised above:

Robin Guenier has written a very careful, detailed and well referenced to Philippe Sands.
A direct link to his paper is here.
And if you want to comment - after reading it! - there's a blog post here.

Oct 9, 2015 at 12:41 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Martin A

Here is a wonderfully funny court transcript - allegedly genuine - of one of the hearings in the Peter Smith J issue where the applicants sought to get the judge to recuse himself.

Andais can draw his own conclusions. If the transcript is genuine, then what it tells me is that a judge - like the rest of us - really doesn't know he is displaying bias even when he is showing a fairly extreme intolerance for one side. In this instance, the judge cannot let go of the fact that one of the parties in the suit, BA, lost his luggage and still haven't told him how or why two weeks after the event. The transcript could readily be converted to a comedy sketch with hardly any change of script.

Oct 9, 2015 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul_K

Paul_K - thank you. Yes, a comedy script more ludicrous than most comedy writers could come up with.

Oct 9, 2015 at 10:23 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

@ Paul_K

I'm female

Peter Smith J knew precisely what he was doing, all his protestations aside, because it was the second time he had behaved like this when hearing a case.

Oct 11, 2015 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndais

As noted by tomo on unthreaded:

Oct 18, 2015 at 12:30 AM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

The Bishop mentioned a group called Client Earth, in connection with air pollution rules. They are currently intervening in the TTIP/ISDS issue, of which I have little knowledge. However they are likely to be more prominent as the push for a Paris deal moves along, so who are they? They are the environmental movement with wigs on:

"We use law as a tool to mend the relationship between human societies and the Earth."

These are some of their current pronouncements:
Directors warned they face legal risk if they ignore climate change

Submission of Evidence on EU Energy Governance to the House of Lords EU Committee

Streamlining planning and reporting towards achieving the EU 2030 climate & energy targets

Sarah Butler-Sloss is from the Sainsbury family, married into the Butler-Sloss legal family. Chair of Trustees of The Ashden Trust, one of the Sainsbury Family Trusts. She was formerly a trustee of Forum for the Future, (who clearly don't believe in gender equality, because the 80 member team consists of just 22% males). Founded by Jonathan Porritt, advisor to Prince Charles on climate matters, formerly director of Friends of the Earth and former chairman of the Green Party.

Howard Covington - Former investment banker and trustee at the Science Museum, where former British Antarctic Survey Director Chris Rapley tried to use the museum as a propaganda outlet prior to Copenhagen. He is now Professor of Climate Science at University College, London.

Frances Bernecke
Former Executive Director and President of the US Natural Resources Defense Council, (NRDC), a major recipient of government and foundation funding in the US. There is a very resilient revolving door with the US Environmental Protection Agency. Beinecke is on the board of the Meridian Institute founded and chaired by William Ruckelshaus, first EPA director and a member of the Brundtland Commission with Maurice Strong and Nitin Desai, the main architect of Agenda 21.

Also on the Meridian board is Leena Srivastava, deputy to Rajendra Pachauri at TERI. Desai is a “Distinguished Fellow” there. Beinecke has co-chaired the Leadership Council of Yale School of Forestry, is a member of the Yale School of Management’s Advisory Board and is a former member of the Yale Corporation, Yale’s governing board. Dr Pachauri was Head of the Yale Climate and Energy Institute in 2012.

Beinecke is also on the board of the World Resources Institute (WRI), where until recently Al Gore was a board member. His GIM carbon offset partner, ex Goldman Sachs David Blood, is on their Global Advisory Council. Other board members include Ruckelshaus again and Ciao-Koch Weser, Vice Chairman, Deutsche Bank Group. He is chairman of the the European Climate Foundation and is another World Bank import. Koch-Weser was a member of Ban Ki Moon's "High Level Climate Finance Panel", established after Copenhagen. Other members were Lord Stern, Christine Lagarde, (now IMF chief), billionaire George Soros and a mix of presidents from developing nations. Koch-Weser's wife is a trustee of Pachauri's TERI-EU. He is promoting The New Climate Economy.

President and CEO of WRI is Andrew Steer, again from the World Bank, where he was Special Envoy for Climate Change from 2010 - 2012. From 2007 to 2010, he served as Director General at the UK Department of International Development (DFID) in London.

The founder of both the NRDC and WRI, James Gustav Speth is still a board member of WRI. He is Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School and a senior fellow at Demos (US) the Democracy Collaborative, and the Tellus Institute, which says "the only sustainable growth is de-growth." A trustee at Demos is activist and former Obama advisor, Van Jones, whose concept of fossil fuels is somewhat bizarre:

"Oil – dead for 60 million years, we pull it out of the ground. We take Coal – dead for 300 million years – pulled out of the ground. We burn it in industries. We burn death. We act shocked, having pulled death out of the ground, that we get death out of the skies in the form of global warming."

Philippe Joubert:
Senior Advisor and Special Envoy Energy and Climate at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Chair of the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, sits at the Advisory board of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership where he is part of Faculty and is Executive Chairman of the Global Electricity Initiative at the World Energy Council.

With trustees like these it is easy to see the direction of travel by the purveyors of "Climate Change" and "Environmental Justice".

Oct 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>