I wonder how nude 2nd Amendment advocates would do?

Another sad day — two decisions by the US Supreme Court have struck blows to the First Amendment.

One serious. One, well, OK, not so much. Can I mention nudity here, just to boost the web hits?

First, the Supreme Court upholds, in a negative sort of way, a decision by Bush II aides to exclude people from a public political event the then-president was attending because the people trying to get in had a bumper sticker on their car that said “no blood for oil,” which, obviously, shows a direct physical threat to the president so of course they needed to be excluded.

That’s why someone in the Bush camp obviously had people monitoring cars coming to that event, checking for dangerous folk. Everyone knows dangerous people use bumper stickers.

On the other hand, those people wearing side-arms at Obama speeches? Oh, just good old boy Americans, showing their freedom, maybe even helping the Secret Service protect us from commies, or muslims, or lib-rals, or something. Can never be too careful, no sir-ee bobby.

This is part and parcel of that whole “Free Speech Zone” idiocy that Bush started — part of the polarizing paranoia that politicians love to foster because it secures their base from any of that independent thought thing.

One used to think the entire nation was a free speech zone, but as it turns out the free speech is only allowed in that little fenced off area half a mile down the road — the rest has to be carefully controlled because people with bumper stickers might force the president to see an idea that makes him sad, or upset his little feelings, or something, God forbid.

Local content: Brigham City recently enacted a “free speech zone” ordinance, or something similar, requiring public protests to get permits and so forth. Right here in arch-conservative Utah, land of the ultra-free.

I thought this was America. Silly me. Everyone knows that protest is anti-American.

THE NUDITY THING  I know you are wondering about: The Supreme Court also upheld, by refusing to review, a law Utah passed slapping an extra tax on nude bars and other sexually oriented businesses. The tax is 10 percent and considering the performers wear 10 percent — or maybe a whole lot less than that — fewer clothes than the average dancer, one wonders if this isn’t a weird sort of reverse taxation.

Or not. I never was good at math.

I am reminded of  Tim Gurruster’s best all time lead ever,  just about, reporting on nude bars in Ogden which said full nudity was legal because it was a form of expression: “Clad only in the First  Amendment” he wrote, and who cares what else he said? It was a great lead.

It is not untypical for the legislature to slap extra taxes on stuff they don’t approve of — cigarettes, booze, naked women — because they know higher cost doesn’t hurt the revenue stream. That seems to be the rationalle here as well.

Still, another First Amendment case takes a hit.

This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler, News. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to I wonder how nude 2nd Amendment advocates would do?

  1. Doug Gibson says:

    Charlie, what do you think of the Westboro Baptist case. The high court will decide if the extremist church is allowed to go to the funerals of slain soldiers and tell mourners that the soldiers are going to hell, etc.

  2. Bob Becker says:

    Damn, that was a great lead.

    Interesting that the court, which has held in the past that the power to tax is the power to destroy when the issue involved a state’s power to tax a federally chartered bank, seemed to think otherwise today. But then, as you note, sin taxes are nothing new in Utah, or elsewhere for that matter.

    The other case, involving ejecting people with unacceptable bumper stickers from a public event, a speech by the president [not a party rally], is a more serious matter, but since the court does not deign to explain why it refuses to hear cases, it may be the problem was the question of whether suit was brought against the right people. Cases, Sotomayor noted, are pending against the WH officials who ordered event workers to eject the two people involved [this suit was brought against the event workers]. We shall see. But permitting people in who had Bush tee shirts/bumper stickers and ejecting those who had opposing bumper stickers seems to define “content discrimination,” which a long series of precedents has held government may not engage in. This one will be back. Sometimes justices refuse to hear a case on appeal because, while they thing the core constitutional issue is an important one, they don’t think the case they’re being asked to hear raises it in the best way to have it addressed clearly.

    And sometimes the justices just chicken out.

  3. Neal Cassidy says:

    Doug Gibson, The solution for the Westboro Baptist protesters is easy. All of the communities where they will attend and protest should follow the example of Brigham City. Establish free speech zones and require a permit toi protest. After all if its good for Utah its good for all America.

  4. Sylvia says:

    But Neal, isn’t that what Charlie is complaining about? Free speech zones? I was going to bring up the same example. I have mixed feelings on this. People have the right to protest, but I also think people have the right NOT to be harangued at their sons’ funerals. I also don’t think I should have to shove through a group of people yelling at me when I attend an LDS General Conference. I don’t mind that they’re there; I just want to be prevented from being accosted by them. (And don’t think that they don’t accost people. They do.)

  5. Charles Trentelman says:

    My feeling on the Westboro Baptist “church” is that they have the right to protest, but they do not have the right to be rude about it, which they patently are. As my college poli-sci teacher said, the right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

    How one legislates against rudeness is the problem the Supreme Court gets to deal with. My own feeling is, if someone is rude, they lose their legal protections, or at least set the bar for behavior, and it is perfectly ok to respond at a similar level.

    I liked one solution: Patriot Guard bikers who surrounded the “church” members and reved their motorcycle engines to ear-splitting levels, forcing them to retire.

    More realistically, simply providing a barrier, and telling the protestors to stay away on public land (most cemeteries are private/city-owned) is another solution.

    How this particular supreme court will rule is anyone’s guess — as we see from these two cases, they seem to be operating more on political correctness than constitutional interpretation.

  6. Bob Becker says:


    No, Charlie, rudeness is not banned by law, nor should it be. You quote the old saw about someone else’s right to swing his arm ending just short of your nose, and that’s true. But the only thing the Westboro vermin are tossing is words. I sure as hell do NOT want government at any level deciding what is “rude” and therefor subject to limit by law, and what is not.


    If the anti-Mormon crowd accosts you [physically], you can have them arrested and should. If they are blocking the sidewalk so you have to force your way through, they are breaking the law and you can, and should, demand the law step in to remove them. But if all they’re doing is hurling words, however objectionable you find those words, they’re within their rights. Nothing requires protest to be polite. Laws do require it to be non-violent and non-obstructive [can't block a road, sidewalk, etc.] But speech alone is protected, and should be, however offensive you or I might find it.

    I’m afraid that applies to the Westboro loons too, though they can be excluded from private cemeteries and have been, and they cannot block access roads to those cemeteries. The legal problem arises when the burial ground is a public site.,

    I’d also point out that the Westboro crowd’s abominable disrespect is winning for them only the contempt of decent folks, not converts.

  7. Owain says:

    Charles, one would think that Free Speech Zones are used only by Republicans. Not so:


    I guess doing away with this kind of thing wasn’t included in Hope and Change.

    If you are going to condemn folks for the practice, make sure you condemn everyone for the practice.

  8. Charles Trentelman says:

    i’d be happy to condemn them if anyone does them, Owain — Mr. Obama gets no slack on this one. Has obama busted anyone for a bumper sticker yet?

    bob becker — words are words, but screaming and yelling are not words, they are screaming and yelling. If that screaming and yelling interrupts a funeral, it goes beyond speech.

  9. Bob Becker says:


    You wrote: “words are words, but screaming and yelling are not words, they are screaming and yelling. “

    I’m not sure that’s a distinction that could be reasonably sustained and applied by law. How would a policeman or a court decide at what point what was being said ceased being “words” [protected] and became [forbidden] “screaming and yelling” instead? A certain decibel level? Measured where — at the point of utterance, or where the complainers were located? What then? How? If you’re going to distinguish between “words” [protected] and “screaming and yelling” [not protected], there’ll have to be some standard established, some clear line drawn, between the one and the other.

    During the VN war, protesters surrounded the White House chanting “Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” Were those words? Or “screaming and yelling”? And who gets to decide? When anti-abortion protesters yell at at women entering abortion clinics, is that protected free speech [words], or “screaming and yelling” [not protected]. Some of the existing law on what is permitted by way of protest came out of cases involving abortion protesters near abortion clinics. In general, the courts decided they could say whatever they wished, as loudly as they wished, but could not block women or anyone else from entering or leaving clinics, nor physically accost them, etc. The same rules, I think, apply to the Westoro vermin.

    Charlie, I don’t see how a reasonably consistent able-to-be-understood-and-applied in real life by both protesters and policemen can be constructed to distinguish between protected “words” and words that are yelled, screamed or chanted and so are not protected.

  10. Owain says:

    CT wrote:
    “i’d be happy to condemn them if anyone does them, Owain — Mr. Obama gets no slack on this one. Has obama busted anyone for a bumper sticker yet?”

    Not that I know of, but which is worse, excluding people from a public event because of a bumper sticker, or beating and arresting a disabled man for carrying an “Impeach Obama” sign?


    Am I going to be seeing a column expressing your outrage at this appearing any time soon in either The Wasatch Rambler or here on your blog, or will I be detecting some significant slack being granted?

  11. Charles Trentelman says:

    Owain, I’m looking to see where that guy was protesting while Obama was visiting at the Alaska fair — and from the story, the content of his sign doesn’t seem to have been the issue.

    can you point that out where it says Obama was visiting and a free speech zone had been established? Because, otherwise, it’s not really an incident that supports what you were saying..

  12. Neal Cassidy says:

    Protest seems to be wrong if I get my feeling hurt or my beliefs criticized or challenged. Protest is fine if I am trying to show the error of your ways.Why was I criticized for protesting the war in Iraq? I was called unpatratoic and anti American. Many people invited me to leave the country. Now the right wing considers it the height of patriotism to criticize the President. My criticism is wrong but apparently others criticism is good?

  13. Owain says:

    Charles said, “Owain, I’m looking to see where that guy was protesting while Obama was visiting at the Alaska fair — and from the story, the content of his sign doesn’t seem to have been the issue.”

    From the article I linked:

    “But at the Alaska State Fairgrounds, which is private property, the fair has the right to ask political protesters to leave. It’s like a public school, where school property is owned by a school district, he said. If Hill or anyone were to show up and start protesting, they’d either need permission or leave if asked.”

    He was asked to leave, and then arrested when he refused to comply, because of the content of his sign, i.e. he was protesting.

    In your example, the individuals were asked to leave (barred entry to the event) based on the content of their sign (their bumper sticker). The only difference I can see between the two events was that the bumper sticker owners complied with the request, and so were not arrested.

    See the analogy?

  14. Bob Becker says:


    The protester may — may — have a case. It would depend I think on two things: (a) the degree to which the fairground organization is in fact a private [and not quasi-public] organization and, if it is the latter, (b) whether the fairgrounds had been established as a public forum.

    But even given that, your claim that the two situations are analogous a stretch for several reasons. First, the public speech given by President Bush welcomed hundreds of people expressing political views [wearing Bush T shirts, bumper stickers on their cars, banners, etc.] The only people excluded were two who had bumper stickers expressing other ideas. That seems to be viewpoint discrimination plain and simple. Unless the security people at the Alaska fair were admitting people waving pro-Obama signs, and there’s no suggestion in the story that they were, the parallel you draw seems thin. Second, the two were excluded from the Bush speech by campaign workers, and on the orders of Bush staff. The Alaska demonstrator was excluded for violating the established policy, well known at the time, of permitting no protesting on any kind on site. As you yourself note, he was excluded for protesting, and not because he was protesting President Obama. Your parallel would work better if the security people were permitting say anti-Palin protesters on site, for example. Then you could establish that there was illegal content discrimination going on. But no one has alleged that.

    As I said, he may have a case if the fair site was an established public forum and if the fair organization is in fact a quasi-public [rather than entirely private] body. That remains to be seen. But even conceding those two points for the sake of argument, the parallel with the two excluded from the Bush public speech [not campaign speech] on order of Bush WH officials and at the request of party staffers is not much of a parallel for what happened at the Alaska state fair. You also suggested that, somehow, President Obama should be criticized for what happened to the guy at the Fair. Unless you want to argue that the Alaska [Alaska!] state fair security people were acting on the orders of the Obama White House, again, it’s hard to see a close parallel between the two incidents.

    Finally, with respect to the Alaska man being “beaten and arrested,” you chose to ignore the fact that he was armed, again in violation of the Fair rules excluding firearms. And you ignore the fair security people’s claim that he was not arrested and no force was used until they discovered he was packing. Seems to me ignoring that and blaming all of what happened after they discovered he was armed on the content of the sign he was carrying is, again, a stretch.

  15. ctrentelman says:

    owain, no i don’t. the people with the bumper sticker were jsut walking in and were stopped and told to leave. The guy with the sign was being a loudmouth jerk who pissed off the guards.

    The people with the bumper sticker were booted because of the content of the sticker which was on their car out in the parking lot or on the street or wherever. In other words, they didn’t do anything, they didn’t say anything, the thought police jsut decided their thinking was wrong and they had to go.

    This is analogous to a guy with a sign being loud and obnoxious how? I do not see.

    and, as noted by bob, he had a gun. The bumper sticker people were armed only with the wrong thoughts.

  16. Owain says:

    Bob Becker: “First, the public speech given by President Bush welcomed hundreds of people expressing political views [wearing Bush T shirts, bumper stickers on their cars, banners, etc.] The only people excluded were two who had bumper stickers expressing other ideas.”

    I imagine that at the Alaska State Fair, there were hundreds of people with signs, T-Shirts, banners, etc. welcoming Obama, yet it was only the guy with an “Impeach Obama” sign that was wrestled to the ground and arrested or expressing an another idea. What do you say to that?

    “.. the two excluded from the Bush public speech [not campaign speech] on order of Bush WH officials and at the request of party staffers is not much of a parallel for what happened at the Alaska state fair.”

    I’m not sure where you are getting that this was on the order of Bush WH officials. According to the link Charles provided, “A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said the pair could not, on free speech grounds, sue the volunteers…” Even so, I suppose I could play the same game, and say that the Alaska State Fair representatives ejected the man on the orders from Obama WH officials with just as little evidence.

    “Finally, with respect to the Alaska man being “beaten and arrested,” you chose to ignore the fact that he was armed, again in violation of the Fair rules excluding firearms.”

    I figured someone would jump on this, so I looked up Alaska firearms laws.


    I’m not seeing a restriction against concealed carry claimed by the Fair organizers. What I am seeing, from the link, is this:

    “Any person 21 years of age or older may carry a handgun
    concealed on their person provided that, when contacted by a police
    officer, informs the officer of that possession and allows the police
    officer to secure the handgun for the duration of that contact.”

    “A person carrying a concealed handgun may not carry it into any
    place prohibited by state or federal law.”

    I doubt concealed carry is prohibited by Federal law at the Alaska State Fair, and the Alaska state law in the link , Alaska only prohibits carrying into schools, school busses, school sponsored events, courthouse, courtroom, day care center or parking lots ajacent to thise areas, or in a domestic violence or sexual assault center, or places where liquor is sold for consumption on the premises (i.e. a bar).

    Becker also said, “And you ignore the fair security people’s claim that he was not arrested and no force was used until they discovered he was packing.”

    False. From the article I linked, ” “He also had a handgun on him, and they took him into custody. There were trying to get him on the ground and felt the gun.”

    So, they were wrestling to the ground when they discovered the firearm he was carrying legally, and for which the fair grounds had no legal right to prohibit. So where do you get “…no force was used until they discovered he was packing.”

    Care to revise your arguments?

  17. Owain says:

    CT said, “owain, no i don’t. the people with the bumper sticker were jsut walking in and were stopped and told to leave. The guy with the sign was being a loudmouth jerk who pissed off the guards. ”

    So, you are on record then, for disallowing speech for people based on whether they disagree with you or not, or tthe manner in which they express their speech. How very liberal of you. Progressive, even.

    And if one of your Wasatch Ramble columns pisses off a police officer somewhere, what then? I imagine that happens quite regularly. Should you be wrestled to the floor of the newsroom and arrested? Be careful of what violations of right of free speech you are willing to condone.

    With respect to the hand gun, see my response to Bob Becker. Concealed carry in Alaska is perfectly legal, and is irrelevant to the details of this case.

  18. Bob Becker says:


    1. With respect to whether others were wearing/carrying pro-Obama sentiments, that goes directly to the question of whether the fair grounds was a “public forum,” which I said, and say again, is one of the matters that has to be determined to decide if the protester has a case on first amendment grounds.

    2. This court case involved a suit against the Bush volunteers who had the two ejected. There is some speculation — and it has to be that, since the court does not as a rule explain why it refuses to hear cases — that the reason the case was refused was because the volunteers were acting under directing of Bush campaign and WH officials. As Justice Sotomayer noted in her statement, there are other suits currently being heard against the Bush officials who it is alleged directed the volunteers to eject the two.

    3. The story says they were trying to remove him from the premises, felt the gun, and then placed him under arrest, presumably somewhat more vigorously knowing he was armed. That’s the security men’s story, of course, and may be self-interested testimony. But then so is the protester’s. My point was you’re assuming the protester’s version is the accurate one. We have two conflicting stories as to what happened and why at this point. You seem to credit only one of them.

    4. I am not an expert on Alaska firearms law, and what you’ve quoted does not address the question of whether the fairgrounds was indeed private property,and the fair itself a private event on private property. If the latter, Alaskan law may permit private property owners to restrict the bringing of weapons onto their property if they wish. I think most states do. Again, it goes back to the question of to what extent, if any, the fairgrounds and fair operators are “public” entities or entirely private ones.

    5. In any case, he was not being ejected from the premises because he was packing. He was being ejected for violating the fair’s “no protesting” policy. That he was packing became known only when he was being ejected, or they were trying to, for the protest.

    6. Finally, again bearing on the question of whether the two instances are analogous, Charlies’s last point seems to me a very good one: the two removed from the Bush speech were not protesting anything. They were quietly in their seats when told to leave because of bumper stickers on their car out in the lot. The guy in Alaska was loudly, actively making a visible protest at the event [which he may have had a right to do]. He was not simply walking through the fair unobtrusively and being ejected because someone found an anti-Obama bumper sticker out on his car in the parking lot.

    7. He may, once again, have a case. I don’t know. But as a parallel for what happened to the two at Bush’s public speech — not campaign speech — the Alaskan incident is not a very good one. [By the way, it matters that Bush's speech was a public event, not a campaign event. That means the taxpayers were footing the bill for his travel there, etc. If it had been a campaign speech, the Republican Party would have been footing the bills, and would have some reasonable justification for limiting attendance. But it wasn't. It was a taxpayer-funded public address.]

  19. Bob Becker says:

    By the way, Owain, you have a much much better case to make on the UT incident: link here —

    So called “free speech zones” in public places are an abomination, no matter whether they’re imposed by Republican presidents or Democratic ones, no matter if they’re in Brigham City or elsewhere, and they’re particularly odious on college campuses. You want to go after the Obama team and UT for the Texas example, I’m with you. But once again, this is a poor parallel for what happened at the Bush speech. The Texas people were in fact protesting at the event, outside the approved protest zone [good for them, and I hope they beat the rap]. The two ejected from the Bush speech were engaged in no protest what so ever when ejected.

  20. Owain says:

    BoB, covering your points one at a time.

    1. Agreed.

    2. The speculation on the case is irrelevant. I can speculate that they were ejected because their deodorant wasn’t hacking it any more, but that doesn’t mean that my speculation carries any weight. I think I can safely presume the reason that Supreme Court elected not to hear the case was because they felt the ruling by the lower court was justified. You can read the ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals here. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1500102.html

    Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs:

    “Plaintiffs simply have not identified any First Amendment doctrine that prohibits the government from excluding them from an official speech on private property on the basis of their viewpoint. For the First Amendment to bar the government from taking action against a speaker, the speaker’s activity in question must be (1) speech and (2) protected. First, the speech at issue, the bumper sticker on Ms. Weise’s car, occurred outside the event. However, Defendants did not suppress Plaintiffs’ bumper sticker speech nor did the government prosecute Plaintiffs for the speech.1 At the event itself, Plaintiffs were “not speakers at all,” as their counsel conceded at oral argument, but rather attendees. They did not intend to speak at the President’s speech.2 Although Defendants ejected them from the event on the basis of their speech outside the event, Plaintiffs have identified no authority suggesting that mere attendance is transformed into speech or even expressive activity because of their speech elsewhere.”

    “Second, Plaintiffs have not put forth any authority establishing that their presence at the President’s speech was protected.”

    This paragraph then goes on to cite several precedences. If you are interested in the details, follow the link.

    Now, my complaint to Charles was not that his point regarding this case was invalid. Charles felt that the decision by the Supreme Court not to hear the case represented an attack on free speech and the First Amendment. As the published decision from the Court of Appeals shows, this is not the case, and the Supreme Court agrees. I merely pointed out another case that I feel illustrates a much more clear violation of the freedom speech, but regarding speech with which Charles disagrees. True to form, and fulfilling my every expectation, Charles wholeheartedly agrees that Sidney Irving of Alaska deserves to have his freedom of speech violated. He bases his opinion not upon the location or circumstances of that speech (which you and I agree is a matter of dispute), but rather upon the manner of that speech, which certainly should be irrelevant.

    3. They first laid hands on him, then, based on his protest sign, not the weapon. If they were unjustified in manhandling him in the first place, then again, the fact that he was legally carrying a firearm is irrelevant.

    4. I provided a link to the relevant law related to firearms. I don’t see a provision there respecting private property. Regardless, he was still originally being ejected based on his speech, not on the fact that he was legally carrying a concealed weapon.

    5. Agreed, as specified in item 4, but you brought up the firearm issue, not I.

    6. Agreed. See my response to your point 2.

    7. As it I pointed out above, the comparison between the two cases is not apt, but not for the reasons you list. The dismissed court case, from the ruling, does not represent a free speech issue, as Charles originally opined. My example, which Charles dismisses, would seem to be a much more blatant example of a violation of free speech, depending on the circumstances (which are currently undetermined. More information is needed). See my last paragraph from 2 above or a reminder of my contempt for CT’s reasoning in this regard.

  21. Bob Becker says:


    2.Based on past experience regarding SCOTUS refusal to hear particular appeals, it’s risky to assume they denied cert. because they agreed with the lower courts decision per se or its reasoning. It’s also risky to assume all of the judges voting “nay” had the same reasons. Sometimes [these things come out in subsequent interviews sometimes, or when retired justices write their books] they reject because a particular case does not as presented raise the key constitutional question clearly or in ways they think will permit them to address what they think is the key question and so on.] They didn’t say. We don’t know. But the assumption you want to make that the rejected because they accepted the reasoning of the lower court per se is, based on the court’s history, risky, given the history of the court.

    I think Sotomayor is right. We’ll be seeing this issue come back to the court again. A refusal to grant cert does not constitute a definitive ruling by the court on the underlying constitutional question. I think the SL Trib’s headline on this today was inaccurate. The headline is “Supreme Court Rules President Can Pick His Audience.” That the President, at a public speech, paid for by the taxpayers, can exclude those he thinks may disagree with him so that only his message may be heard, and without permitting even so mild an objection as someone with a disagreeing bumper sticker on their car out side being allowed in, I find, Owain, a very scary doctrine if it becomes embedded as settled law.

    The Trib story is here: http://blogs.standard.net/2010/10/fight-like-badgers-for-2nd-amendment-the-first-not-so-much/#comments

  22. Owain says:


    Do you suppose they denied cert because they disagreed with the lower court’s ruling? That seems unlikely. On the whole, I think my explanation is more plausible. Not certain, to be sure. Even so, in the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, according to the lower court’s ruling, this wasn’t a First Amendment case.

    Regarding Sotomeyor’s opinion, get back with me if and when the Supreme’s do decide to hear the case. In the meantime, about the best you can say with certainty is the the guys were ejected due to an overabundance of caution on the part of the Secret Service. That isn’t a First Amendment issue.

    But as I said, I’m less interested in this case than I am with CT’s appallingly poor judgement. As if there was anything new there.

  23. ctrentelman says:

    we need to get you two together in a bar, and drunk.

    The video would be highly amusing.

  24. Owain says:

    I sing disgusting fighter pilot songs when I get drunk. Depending on your appreciation for disgusting fighter pilot songs, that may or may not be amusing.

  25. Bob Becker says:


    Here’s the nub of our difference on the issue involved. You wrote: “about the best you can say with certainty is the the guys were ejected due to an overabundance of caution on the part of the Secret Service. That isn’t a First Amendment issue.”

    It most certainly is.

  26. Bob Becker says:

    Sorry, Charlie. In bars, I follow my Dad’s advice still: never discuss politics or religion. Mostly I stick to sports and, if the evening wears on long enough, how long it will be before we re-build Ebbitts Field and the Brooklyn Dodgers return to their people.

  27. Owain says:

    I said, “That isn’t a First Amendment issue.”

    Bob replied, “It most certainly is.”

    Not according to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, it isn’t.

    In the absence of an opinion from the Supreme Court, I think I will take their word for it over yours.

  28. destiny says:

    this website i need to get on

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>