And no, I’m nor talking to you, Ann Coulter — I mean a lawyer who can read and think and stuff.
Anyway, while I was reading this Corner post by noted know-it-all Andy McCarthy, I had a question. So, I will lay out the evidence, and then you, the members of the jury, will be asked to render a verdict.
First, here’s the opening paragraphs of ANdy’s post:
Oh, and I also want to let the Bush administration know that I think it would be reasonable to strip-search Andy, because he has an Irish name and therefore could be a terrorist. And I assure them that if they decide to do this, Andy will pose no objections, because, hey, this is war time, and whatever you guys think is reasonable is fine with him, Constitution be damned!
Posted by s.z. on Friday, January 5th, 2007 at 6:58 pm.
Anyway, while I was reading this Corner post by noted know-it-all Andy McCarthy, I had a question. So, I will lay out the evidence, and then you, the members of the jury, will be asked to render a verdict.
First, here’s the opening paragraphs of ANdy’s post:
Searching the Mail [Andy McCarthy]Now, for reference purposes, here is the Fourth Amendment:
The latest “imperial presidency” controversy in Washington involves President Bush’s statement, in conjunction with signing a postal reform bill, claiming what the New York Daily News breathlessly calls “sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant.”
As usual, this turns out to be a tempest in a teapot — notwithstanding the tut-tutting from Senators Susan Collins, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, as well as NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
To reiterate, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, not warrantless searches.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Now, here’s my question: I had always thought that the amendment was saying that in order to protect the people from unreasonable searches, warrants (based on probable cause) would be required prior to a search — otherwise, anything turned up in the search couldn’t be used in legal proceedings against said people. But it seems that Andy is saying that it’s an either/or thing; if the State thinks that the search is reasonable, then it doesn’t need a warrant; and if it has a warrant, the search doesn’t have to be reasonable. And since I keep hearing similar reasoning from other wingnuts, I’m now curious about this matter. So, legal scholars, explain this to me.
Oh, and I also want to let the Bush administration know that I think it would be reasonable to strip-search Andy, because he has an Irish name and therefore could be a terrorist. And I assure them that if they decide to do this, Andy will pose no objections, because, hey, this is war time, and whatever you guys think is reasonable is fine with him, Constitution be damned!
Posted by s.z. on Friday, January 5th, 2007 at 6:58 pm.
33 Responses to “Any Constitutional Lawyers Out There?”
Displaying that fine conservative grasp on logic again, it seems.
Personally, I suspect that Andy & Pals would be almost as happy if the government thought they were important enough as individuals to read their mail, as they would be if Al Qaeda put each of their names on an enemies list. They *want* to be that important in the global scheme of things. They *want* to have powerful enemies, they *love* being searched at airports, they need to feel that *someone* hates them, or it might mean they’re just pathetic little products of random chance and evolutionary mechanisms, created en masse and set upon just another ordinary planet as one species among millions, one human among billions, who, fifty years after their deaths, will leave such a nonexistent legacy that it would be as though they’d never lived, and a hundred years after their deaths, even their ideas will have vanished, and billions of years after that, so will their species, their planet, and eventually their universe be only wisps of what once was, without even a god to remember*.
It makes me wonder, how much of this could be solved if someone would just give them a hug and tell them they’re special people?
* Incidentally, I do believe all this to be true**. The funny thing is, I find it rather liberating and hardly a cause for existential panic. I mean, what’s the point?
**Yes, the thing about no gods, too. I’m pagan. Without belief, there’s no gods. Without sentience, there’s no belief. Without anything, of course, there’s no anything else.
Personally, I suspect that Andy & Pals would be almost as happy if the government thought they were important enough as individuals to read their mail, as they would be if Al Qaeda put each of their names on an enemies list. They *want* to be that important in the global scheme of things. They *want* to have powerful enemies, they *love* being searched at airports, they need to feel that *someone* hates them, or it might mean they’re just pathetic little products of random chance and evolutionary mechanisms, created en masse and set upon just another ordinary planet as one species among millions, one human among billions, who, fifty years after their deaths, will leave such a nonexistent legacy that it would be as though they’d never lived, and a hundred years after their deaths, even their ideas will have vanished, and billions of years after that, so will their species, their planet, and eventually their universe be only wisps of what once was, without even a god to remember*.
It makes me wonder, how much of this could be solved if someone would just give them a hug and tell them they’re special people?
* Incidentally, I do believe all this to be true**. The funny thing is, I find it rather liberating and hardly a cause for existential panic. I mean, what’s the point?
**Yes, the thing about no gods, too. I’m pagan. Without belief, there’s no gods. Without sentience, there’s no belief. Without anything, of course, there’s no anything else.
I’m not a constitutional scholar but I play one on TV. You’re both wrong. All searches need to be reasonable but only some searches require a warrant. For example, when police arrest somebody they can search him for weapons without getting a warrant first. Another situation is where there is a “special relationship” (such as that of schools to students) that can allow warrentless searches such as where schools can search students backpacks before letting them into the school. Lately the Supreme Court has been broadening this power more and more (to a really scary degree in my view), but it’s still nowhere near the point Bush is claiming. And, since there are specific laws passed by Congress against that activity, I doubt that even this Supreme Court would support him.
Andy’s reading only makes sense if you believe that two classes of “search and seizure” exist and are both permissible: those with warrants issued and those without, and further that it is only in those cases in which a warrant is issued that one must declare cause and cite the object of the search.
If that is the case, then there is no search conducted with warrant that would not be more expediently conducted without; thus we are left to wonder what would be the intent of such law, and his argument falls rather swiftly to the ground.
QED, and yo, c’mere, Andy, I ain’t troo wid yoo yet [delivers kick to groin].
If that is the case, then there is no search conducted with warrant that would not be more expediently conducted without; thus we are left to wonder what would be the intent of such law, and his argument falls rather swiftly to the ground.
QED, and yo, c’mere, Andy, I ain’t troo wid yoo yet [delivers kick to groin].
It depends. I don’t practice criminal law, but my recollection from law school is that there is a difference between searching a person and a person’s affects. In the case of warrentless searches like “stop and frisk” searches for example, the reasonable suspicion flows from a good faith belief, based on evidence, that a suspect has either contraband or weapons. Likewise, such items that are in plain view are discoverable. The concern here is that the officer has fairly direct apprehension of unlawful activity and must act quickly–such as in a “Terry stop” to discover weapons that might present a present danger to officers.
However, where officer safety and plain view/feel threats (with RS) are not present, PC is necessary to search areas in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. And those warrants must be particularized and subject to prior judicial review.
I’m not wording this well because I’ve had a Tsing Tao or three, but that’s the gist. Warrantless searches are generally allowed only when there is PC/RS coupled with concern for officer safety and the like (or inventory searches, which are another matter, entirely).
However, where officer safety and plain view/feel threats (with RS) are not present, PC is necessary to search areas in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. And those warrants must be particularized and subject to prior judicial review.
I’m not wording this well because I’ve had a Tsing Tao or three, but that’s the gist. Warrantless searches are generally allowed only when there is PC/RS coupled with concern for officer safety and the like (or inventory searches, which are another matter, entirely).
Okay, let me try to nutshell it for the non-lawyers.
A warrantless search is unreasonable only if it’s not unreasonable to get the warrant.
Now, if you can decipher that kind of triple negative, you have a future in jurisprudence.
A warrantless search is unreasonable only if it’s not unreasonable to get the warrant.
Now, if you can decipher that kind of triple negative, you have a future in jurisprudence.
Sounds like Andy\’s gunning for a shot at Director of the NSA or CIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Michael_Hayden#National_Security_Agency if you\’re not already familiar with the reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Michael_Hayden#National_Security_Agency if you\’re not already familiar with the reference.
I thought Andy McCarthy was a ventriloquist’s dummy?
I seem to recall a similar argument being dropped onto Glen Greenwald’s comments after one of his stories on (IIRC) the NSA spying scandal.
Oh, and I also want to let the Bush administration know that I think it would be reasonable to strip-search Andy
yeah, but then you run afoul of the eighth amendment for the rest of us once he’s naked
yeah, but then you run afoul of the eighth amendment for the rest of us once he’s naked
damm I hope they dont open up the package that has the bong in it I bought from tommy chong
By the way, signing statements have no legal force—they are merely being used here to attempt to exercise powers NOT granted to the president. In fact, they are being used to violate our unalienable rights—something no branch of government is authorized to do.
What most important here is that the president is systematically violating the Constitution——a direct violation of his oath of office and the MOST impeachable of offenses.
What most important here is that the president is systematically violating the Constitution——a direct violation of his oath of office and the MOST impeachable of offenses.
not being a lawyer, i dunno about interpretations of the 4th amendment, but i thought the real scandal here was this:
“That claim [that bush can have the mail searched when he says its an emergency] is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.”
(taken from the original nydn piece)
the real issue here, which andy mccarthy completely ignores, is bush once again asserting that he has the power to ignore a law passed by congress if he feels like it.
“That claim [that bush can have the mail searched when he says its an emergency] is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.”
(taken from the original nydn piece)
the real issue here, which andy mccarthy completely ignores, is bush once again asserting that he has the power to ignore a law passed by congress if he feels like it.
By the way, signing statements have no legal force—they are merely being used here to attempt to exercise powers NOT granted to the president. In fact, they are being used to violate our unalienable rights—something no branch of government is authorized to do.
This is so true, it bears repeating. Again and again.
This is so true, it bears repeating. Again and again.
Well, Jose Padilla is an American citizen, but they’ve happily violated his fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendment rights, arguably his fourth, and the only reason not his fourteenth is that it’s the federal government and not the state holding him.
I mean, I’ve always sort of assumed the government spirited people away and violated their rights, but until now they at least pretended to operate within the law and took pains to hide any illegal actions.
Now they aren’t even pretending to obey the law.
It scares and pisses me off.
I mean, I’ve always sort of assumed the government spirited people away and violated their rights, but until now they at least pretended to operate within the law and took pains to hide any illegal actions.
Now they aren’t even pretending to obey the law.
It scares and pisses me off.
Can I just say that I’m impressed, but not surprised, at how many really smart people are drawn to this blog?
Me, I’ll just snark quietly over here in the corner and try not to get in anyone’s way.
Me, I’ll just snark quietly over here in the corner and try not to get in anyone’s way.
I keep hearing similar reasoning from other wingnuts
Your problem is simple – you’re mistaking what the wingnuts do for actual reasoning.
I thought Andy McCarthy was a ventriloquist’s dummy?
Nah, that was his cousin Charlie.
Your problem is simple – you’re mistaking what the wingnuts do for actual reasoning.
I thought Andy McCarthy was a ventriloquist’s dummy?
Nah, that was his cousin Charlie.
If someone catches Condi sucking chickenGeorge’s dick while he’s issuing a signing statement, can we impeach him?
Sorry for the visual, guys.
Sorry for the visual, guys.
Just a little point from personal experiencee. I have, over the past 4 decades or so, been arrested, let’s call it “more than once” for what we can call “possesion of contraband”. Now, for those of you who are not dopers and have never had a close relationship with a doper, here’s a key fact. They rapidly become VERY good at hiding (stashing) things. Very good. So it’s interesting that in EVERY single event in my historical experiece, the police report stated that the contraband substance was “lying in plain sight”. Frequently they said in the back seat or the floor.
The irony here, of course, is that I got to sit in the back of the police car, handcuffed, and watch them practically dissmantle my car or motorcylce, searching for the very well hidden contraband. On the occasions they found nothing, I was free to go. On the occasions they found something, well, it was my word against all the nice police officers, who’s a judge or jury going to believe?
The point is that the powers have always viewed the constitutional guarantees as an impediment to be gotten around, not as guarantors of freedom, even their freedom. So it is no surprise to see the worst, least intelligent and least subtle administration in history not even trying to hide their criminal acts…
mikey
The irony here, of course, is that I got to sit in the back of the police car, handcuffed, and watch them practically dissmantle my car or motorcylce, searching for the very well hidden contraband. On the occasions they found nothing, I was free to go. On the occasions they found something, well, it was my word against all the nice police officers, who’s a judge or jury going to believe?
The point is that the powers have always viewed the constitutional guarantees as an impediment to be gotten around, not as guarantors of freedom, even their freedom. So it is no surprise to see the worst, least intelligent and least subtle administration in history not even trying to hide their criminal acts…
mikey
I am not a lawyer, but did do my bit of constitutional law in college. As I recall, the fourth ammendment exists, in part, as a reaction to the writs of assistance which the British used to openly search colonists.
Writs of Asisstance were open ended search and seizure warrents which could be transfered from person to person, and were mainly used in the collections of excise taxes. The Writs were one of the major grievances cited as unjust by colonists during the runup to the revolution.
If Mr. McCarthy truely believes his argument, he would have to accept the idea that the government also has the right to seize his property without warrent or due process as well. As I doubt that he would accept this, I believe he is simply trying tocover his glorious leader’s ass.
Writs of Asisstance were open ended search and seizure warrents which could be transfered from person to person, and were mainly used in the collections of excise taxes. The Writs were one of the major grievances cited as unjust by colonists during the runup to the revolution.
If Mr. McCarthy truely believes his argument, he would have to accept the idea that the government also has the right to seize his property without warrent or due process as well. As I doubt that he would accept this, I believe he is simply trying tocover his glorious leader’s ass.
mikey,
The thing is to not consent to a search. If a cop’s playing fair – and as you point, not all of ‘em do all of the time – and you keep your head about you, they really can’t do anything unless you let them. Or screw up enormously.
But then, there’s a big hoo-hah going on in Atlanta about the cops kicking down a 92-year-old woman’s door and shooting her (she shot back, one must keep in mind),all cause they acted on a tip from a questionable source that said she sold drugs. All with a legally obtained warrant. Go figure.
The thing is to not consent to a search. If a cop’s playing fair – and as you point, not all of ‘em do all of the time – and you keep your head about you, they really can’t do anything unless you let them. Or screw up enormously.
But then, there’s a big hoo-hah going on in Atlanta about the cops kicking down a 92-year-old woman’s door and shooting her (she shot back, one must keep in mind),all cause they acted on a tip from a questionable source that said she sold drugs. All with a legally obtained warrant. Go figure.
Good point, Matt T. That’s especially so for so-called “closed containers,” like glove compartments, trunks, and bags of any kind.
I thought Andy McCarthy was a ventriloquist’s dummy?
Nah, that was his cousin Charlie.
Well, it’s nice one of them is a contributing member of society.
Nah, that was his cousin Charlie.
Well, it’s nice one of them is a contributing member of society.
“and no warrants shall issue”
and
and
and
“and” is the key word here.
and
and
and
“and” is the key word here.
D. Sidhe: “Personally, I suspect that Andy & Pals would be almost as happy if the government thought they were important enough as individuals to read their mail, as they would be if Al Qaeda put each of their names on an enemies list.”
Tom Wolfe just NAILED this state of mind way back in the 60s. In “Radical Chic” he described in detail self-described radical activists, then of the Anti-Vietnam War Left. They considered themselves “anti-war,” but deep down they were actually FURIOUS that they’d been born too late to be heroes fighting Nazis like in the TV shows they grew up watching. So without a real evil enemy to fight, they created one in their minds, and convinced themselves that Lyndon Johnson was personally persecuting them.
The reality of course was far, far worse. LBJ was ignoring them. No wonder they hated him so badly!
Tom Wolfe just NAILED this state of mind way back in the 60s. In “Radical Chic” he described in detail self-described radical activists, then of the Anti-Vietnam War Left. They considered themselves “anti-war,” but deep down they were actually FURIOUS that they’d been born too late to be heroes fighting Nazis like in the TV shows they grew up watching. So without a real evil enemy to fight, they created one in their minds, and convinced themselves that Lyndon Johnson was personally persecuting them.
The reality of course was far, far worse. LBJ was ignoring them. No wonder they hated him so badly!
I am an attorney, I do some criminal defense but I am not a constitutional scholar. Traditionally, suppression of evidence is the remedy for an illegal search in a criminal case. However, Republican legal ‘thinkers’ have been pushing the idea that supression is not required. After all, the 4th amendment doesnt say anything about supression. They argue that instead you can sue the government and get monetary damages for illegal searches.
This is unlikely to deter police for a number of reasons, so people like me tend to believe people who advocate this are anti-american constitution hating morons.
This is unlikely to deter police for a number of reasons, so people like me tend to believe people who advocate this are anti-american constitution hating morons.
Isn’t this basically the same argument as they were using for torture: the constitution forbids “Cruel and unusual punishment,” so all we have to do is torture *a lot* of people, and torture will become “cruel, but not unusual,” and therefore constitutionally kosher.
The current trend is to say that all these civil rights are a nice idea and all, but no one seriously expects you to play by the rules when the chips are down. What’s scary is that I think most everyone agrees with that trend in principle, and are just quibbling over exactly how down the chips have to be.
The current trend is to say that all these civil rights are a nice idea and all, but no one seriously expects you to play by the rules when the chips are down. What’s scary is that I think most everyone agrees with that trend in principle, and are just quibbling over exactly how down the chips have to be.
If Mr. McCarthy truely believes his argument, he would have to accept the idea that the government also has the right to seize his property without warrent or due process as well.
I’m assuming Mr. McCarthy, like his fellow right-wankers, supports the idea that the government has the right to seize other peoples property without warrant or due process.
I’m assuming Mr. McCarthy, like his fellow right-wankers, supports the idea that the government has the right to seize other peoples property without warrant or due process.
I watched this constitutional argument play out one day at a traffic stop by a veteran highway patrolman and a constable. If you go to Myrtle Beach for Bikers’ Week, more than likely you will get rousted at least once on your way there.
In this case, 3 college age guys in a truck with a bunch o crap in the back. While the patrolman was running the driver’s license and registration, the constable was digging through the contents of the cargo hold. Triumphantly, he held up 2 open cans of beer,and said, “Now we can look for the dope”.
Patrolman asked where were the cans? Answer: in a cooler. Was cooler closed? Answer: yes but it looked suspicious. What was suspicious? It looked like someone would hide contraband there.
Patrolman handed driver back his license,told him to have nice day and then told the constable to keep his hands to himself.
On another weekend, local police chief took place of patrolman and they ended up tearing down several vehicles, removing seats, fenders, etc. and finally found a couple of bags of contraband in one vehicle.
Problem with warrantless searches is that they are supposed to have reasonable grounds and that assumes that law enforcement is reasonable in all cases.
In this case, 3 college age guys in a truck with a bunch o crap in the back. While the patrolman was running the driver’s license and registration, the constable was digging through the contents of the cargo hold. Triumphantly, he held up 2 open cans of beer,and said, “Now we can look for the dope”.
Patrolman asked where were the cans? Answer: in a cooler. Was cooler closed? Answer: yes but it looked suspicious. What was suspicious? It looked like someone would hide contraband there.
Patrolman handed driver back his license,told him to have nice day and then told the constable to keep his hands to himself.
On another weekend, local police chief took place of patrolman and they ended up tearing down several vehicles, removing seats, fenders, etc. and finally found a couple of bags of contraband in one vehicle.
Problem with warrantless searches is that they are supposed to have reasonable grounds and that assumes that law enforcement is reasonable in all cases.
Probable cause is sufficient for the police to enter your house and search. They’ll have to answer to an inquiry later, of course, and that probable cause had better be damned good, but no warrant is required to search your residence.
Think of it this way: the cops are chasing a killer down your block, who runs into your house through the backdoor. You don’t know he’s there.
The cops have every right to chase him into your house and arrest him, on the probable cause of his killing another human being. Here, the judge would say it was justified as the killer had presented a menace to other people and the police may have stopped him from killing you.
Think of it this way: the cops are chasing a killer down your block, who runs into your house through the backdoor. You don’t know he’s there.
The cops have every right to chase him into your house and arrest him, on the probable cause of his killing another human being. Here, the judge would say it was justified as the killer had presented a menace to other people and the police may have stopped him from killing you.
“Probable cause is sufficient for the police to enter your house and search. They’ll have to answer to an inquiry later, of course, and that probable cause had better be damned good, but no warrant is required to search your residence”
This is not true, actually. The “hot pursuit” doctrine does not allow an unfettered search of a suspect’s residence just because he/she was chased into it. All it allows is a cursory search for weapons… not even contraband unless the officers saw the suspect with the contraband.
Even the most staunch conservatives on the Court have held a person’s home as deserving of the highest level of protection from warrantless searches.
So… I’m not really sure where you got this notion, actor212.
This is not true, actually. The “hot pursuit” doctrine does not allow an unfettered search of a suspect’s residence just because he/she was chased into it. All it allows is a cursory search for weapons… not even contraband unless the officers saw the suspect with the contraband.
Even the most staunch conservatives on the Court have held a person’s home as deserving of the highest level of protection from warrantless searches.
So… I’m not really sure where you got this notion, actor212.
I think I dropped the argument into Greenwald’s thread a while back. There does exist a whole set of searches that are constitutionally permissable without a warrant, because they are “reasonable.” Hot pursuit and plain view are two examples. The history of searches of automobiles is a great example of how judges can use exceptions to swallow the rule over time by loading more and more situations into the exception. It is pretty much the law now that the police can just flat search your car without a warrant, including the trunk, packages in the trunk and the glove compartment, thanks to the application of numerous exceptions. This is partly enabled by the idea that there is a greatly reduced expectation of privacy in your car.
All it takes is for the Supreme Court to say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail or cell phone calls because they pass through many hands and are available to the companies that host them. With that legal conclusion, all searches of these things are permissible. It could happen. Judges concluded 10 years ago for instance that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in shredded documents you dump in the trash. If the government can piece them together, they can read it and use it as evidence, no problem.
All it takes is for the Supreme Court to say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail or cell phone calls because they pass through many hands and are available to the companies that host them. With that legal conclusion, all searches of these things are permissible. It could happen. Judges concluded 10 years ago for instance that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in shredded documents you dump in the trash. If the government can piece them together, they can read it and use it as evidence, no problem.
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in shredded documents you dump in the trash. If the government can piece them together, they can read it and use it as evidence, no problem.
That’s why I eat all my private documents.
What?!? I’m schizophrenic. Allow me some paranoia.
Actually, I just take the shredded bits out in the bag of used cat litter, shaking liberally to make sure it’s all gross. It’s possible I will someday annoy the hell out of someone who is searching my garbage, but they’ll probably give up quickly and go on to someone else’s stuff.
That’s why I eat all my private documents.
What?!? I’m schizophrenic. Allow me some paranoia.
Actually, I just take the shredded bits out in the bag of used cat litter, shaking liberally to make sure it’s all gross. It’s possible I will someday annoy the hell out of someone who is searching my garbage, but they’ll probably give up quickly and go on to someone else’s stuff.
Check out this article by a Watergate conspirator (it’s not stupid like the other links I’ve posted here, honest!) on the subject of signing statements:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
The standard for emergency warrantless searches is “exigent circumstances”, something on the order of a crazed gunman believed to be hiding in the closet or some guy trying to flush 2 kilos of heroin while the cop is pounding on the door. Sorry, but I can’t picture a piece of correspondence lying in a mailbag posing that kind of risk, unless it’s leaking white powder or ticking.
This signing statement was hopefully going to fly below radar, so someone else could rely on it, and some one else rely on THAT, and so on until every letter carrier in the country would be cheerfully walking around with a letter opener, looking at whatever suits their fancy. Maybe the Daily News sounding the alarm stopped the bastards this time.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
The standard for emergency warrantless searches is “exigent circumstances”, something on the order of a crazed gunman believed to be hiding in the closet or some guy trying to flush 2 kilos of heroin while the cop is pounding on the door. Sorry, but I can’t picture a piece of correspondence lying in a mailbag posing that kind of risk, unless it’s leaking white powder or ticking.
This signing statement was hopefully going to fly below radar, so someone else could rely on it, and some one else rely on THAT, and so on until every letter carrier in the country would be cheerfully walking around with a letter opener, looking at whatever suits their fancy. Maybe the Daily News sounding the alarm stopped the bastards this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment