Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

Paul, please take a look at this video, because it reminds me of you after my review and what Ernie dug up on Harry Dean:

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWDAEim6EcY ]

As Cedric the Entertainer aid about Zeb Judah here, "He was so knocked out, he didn't know he was knocked out."

Caufield's book is a pretentious pile of sludge. And you should be ashamed of promoting it with no critical distance at all.

I guess this is just more evidence for what I have previously stated.

Everybody comes into a discussion with different levels of knowledge AND often with different criteria for separating fact from fiction.

For Jim, Caufield's book is "a pretentious pile of sludge".

For Paul, Caufield's book is a "history-making" new gold standard for the "JBS plot" paradigm.

For me, Caufield's book is an impressive (albeit very repetitive and seriously flawed) compilation of arcane data pertaining to the history of the radical right in the U.S. during the 1950's-1960's which only a very limited number of individuals could possibly have the time, resources, or inclination to investigate and verify.

So where does that leave us?

Obviously, there is no way to reconcile the mutually exclusive positions of Jim and Paul because apparently they employ entirely different standards for what constitutes credible evidence and/or proper use of compelling logic and argument.

Paul has always maintained that some earth-shattering new revelations will astound us 16 months from now when the final JFK documents are released.

By contrast, many of us believe that while (yes) there will certainly be some significant new insights in those documents, it is, nonetheless, very doubtful that any materially significant new data will be revealed -- and certainly nothing which confirms the delusions of people like Harry Dean.

So where does that leave us?

Probably pretty much where we started. Not very satisfactory perhaps -- but (in my judgment) the very internal nature of political conspiracy theories is that they can never be falsified or verified to the satisfaction of their creator or adherents or their skeptics/critics.

Well, Ernie, that's nicely stated -- yet it misses the main nuance of the difference between James DiEugenio and myself.

James belongs to the CIA-did-it paradigm of JFK Conspiracy Theory -- which is already a half-century old and unproven. The great advance of Caufield's book is that it raises issues that are new -- and have not been part of JFK CT before 2015.

Caufield presented the most complete review of Joseph Milteer through FBI informant Willie Somerset, ever published in American history.

The reason, IMHO, that Jim has been so harsh in his recent criticisms of Jeff Caufield, is because of the existential threat that Jeff Caufield's CT makes of the entire industry of book publications dedicated to the CIA-did-it theory.

No wonder Jim had to blast with both barrels -- and no wonder he hopes that his blast was a Knockout.

Well, it wasn't. In fact, the recent criticism of Jeff Caufield by James DiEugenio was superficial on multiple levels. The best CT book ever written on the JFK assassination remains standing, namely, Jeff Caufield's book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Yes, Ernie, this book by Caufield is (like all individual books) imperfect. Yet, it's the first of its kind in a world that is already weary of CIA-did-it nonsense. I expect follow-ups. I also expect that the JFK Records Act as it comes to fulfillment on Thursday 26 October 2017 will fully vindicate Caufield's CT over Jim's CT.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

for me, the difference between jim and paul has always boiled down to jim believing in and using verifiable evidence and testimony, while paul seems to get his info from voices in the wind and has the idea that things are true merely because he thinks them to be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, please take a look at this video, because it reminds me of you after my review and what Ernie dug up on Harry Dean:

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWDAEim6EcY ]

As Cedric the Entertainer aid about Zeb Judah here, "He was so knocked out, he didn't know he was knocked out."

Caufield's book is a pretentious pile of sludge. And you should be ashamed of promoting it with no critical distance at all.

I guess this is just more evidence for what I have previously stated.

Everybody comes into a discussion with different levels of knowledge AND often with different criteria for separating fact from fiction.

For Jim, Caufield's book is "a pretentious pile of sludge".

For Paul, Caufield's book is a "history-making" new gold standard for the "JBS plot" paradigm.

For me, Caufield's book is an impressive (albeit very repetitive and seriously flawed) compilation of arcane data pertaining to the history of the radical right in the U.S. during the 1950's-1960's which only a very limited number of individuals could possibly have the time, resources, or inclination to investigate and verify.

So where does that leave us?

Obviously, there is no way to reconcile the mutually exclusive positions of Jim and Paul because apparently they employ entirely different standards for what constitutes credible evidence and/or proper use of compelling logic and argument.

Paul has always maintained that some earth-shattering new revelations will astound us 16 months from now when the final JFK documents are released.

By contrast, many of us believe that while (yes) there will certainly be some significant new insights in those documents, it is, nonetheless, very doubtful that any materially significant new data will be revealed -- and certainly nothing which confirms the delusions of people like Harry Dean.

So where does that leave us?

Probably pretty much where we started. Not very satisfactory perhaps -- but (in my judgment) the very internal nature of political conspiracy theories is that they can never be falsified or verified to the satisfaction of their creator or adherents or their skeptics/critics.

Well, Ernie, that's nicely stated -- yet it misses the main nuance of the difference between James DiEugenio and myself.

James belongs to the CIA-did-it paradigm of JFK Conspiracy Theory -- which is already a half-century old and unproven. The great advance of Caufield's book is that it raises issues that are new -- and have not been part of JFK CT before 2015.

Caufield presented the most complete review of Joseph Milteer through FBI informant Willie Somerset, ever published in American history.

The reason, IMHO, that Jim has been so harsh in his recent criticisms of Jeff Caufield, is because of the existential threat that Jeff Caufield's CT makes of the entire industry of book publications dedicated to the CIA-did-it theory.

No wonder Jim had to blast with both barrels -- and no wonder he hopes that his blast was a Knockout.

Well, it wasn't. In fact, the recent criticism of Jeff Caufield by James DiEugenio was superficial on multiple levels. The best CT book ever written on the JFK assassination remains standing, namely, Jeff Caufield's book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Yes, Ernie, this book by Caufield is (like all individual books) imperfect. Yet, it's the first of its kind in a world that is already weary of CIA-did-it nonsense. I expect follow-ups. I also expect that the JFK Records Act as it comes to fulfillment on Thursday 26 October 2017 will fully vindicate Caufield's CT over Jim's CT.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

No, Paul, I did not "miss the main nuance" of the difference between you and Jim.

Instead, what I wrote (and which apparently you did not comprehend) is that there is no way to resolve your differences with Jim (or, probably, with anybody else) because your methodology is NOT recognized as a valid way to arrive at facts, truth, or reality. It does not matter what specific subject is being discussed or disputed (i.e. CIA, Harry Dean, Ruth Paine, JBS, or anything else).

In other words---it is NOT possible to disprove (to your satisfaction) anything which you presently believe because either...

(1) you do not use the same methods for discovery of fact and truth as those normally used by other people AND/OR

(2) your standards for what constitutes acceptable and credible evidence are so atypical and anomalous that it would be impossible for anybody to meet them and, in some cases, your standards are not even applicable to what is being disputed -- such as demanding the highest possible standard of proof (i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt) for some matter where a lower standard (clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of evidence) would normally be entirely satisfactory

Nor are the observations which I just made above in #1 and #2 uniquely my numerous disagreements with you. Many other people here in EF have made comparable statements about you -- including in the message which Martin recently posted in reply to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Paul, I did not "miss the main nuance" of the difference between you and Jim.

Instead, what I wrote (and which apparently you did not comprehend) is that there is no way to resolve your differences with Jim (or, probably, with anybody else) because your methodology is NOT recognized as a valid way to arrive at facts, truth, or reality. It does not matter what specific subject is being discussed or disputed (i.e. CIA, Harry Dean, Ruth Paine, JBS, or anything else).

In other words---it is NOT possible to disprove (to your satisfaction) anything which you presently believe because either...

(1) you do not use the same methods for discovery of fact and truth as those normally used by other people AND/OR

(2) your standards for what constitutes acceptable and credible evidence are so atypical and anomalous that it would be impossible for anybody to meet them and, in some cases, your standards are not even applicable to what is being disputed -- such as demanding the highest possible standard of proof (i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt) for some matter where a lower standard (clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of evidence) would normally be entirely satisfactory

Nor are the observations which I just made above in #1 and #2 uniquely my numerous disagreements with you. Many other people here in EF have made comparable statements about you -- including in the message which Martin recently posted in reply to you.

Oh, my goodness, Ernie, what a RANT.

Let's get back to the topic at hand please, which is Ruth Paine and her involvement with the JFK assassination -- PLEASE!

The only real issue here is whether Jim's CIA-did-it theory is really obsolete now, after the brilliant expositions by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield (2015).

The ad hominem attacks are really out of place here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Paul, that was not a rant and this is not ad hominem..

You were the one who jumped on here like a rabbit in heat to tell us all how great Caufield's book was. How it was a "breakthrough" that would redefine the whole JFK case in a paradigm altering manner.

You then began to post Cliff Notes summaries of each chapter, never analyzing the material in any way. Just accepting everything Caufield wrote. Like the MSM did with the WR.

Never once did you do any kind of critical analysis of the material. In any way: comparative, qualitative, or internally, that is did it stack up on its own terms. Not once for a 780 page book. That is quite a negative achievement.

Your only seeming standard in going batty over this long piece of tripe was that it slammed Garrison, got the CIA off, and pointed to the hard right. That was enough for you.

Now after Ernie and I have exposed this white elephant for what it really is--which is useless as far as the JFK case goes--you say its Ad hom.

No its not: its about your powers of critical thinking on the JFK murder. Which you yourself exposed as being at the level of a high school cheerleader.

I mean did you not go to college and practice writing research papers, and analyze how to arrange an argument? Its not reciting someone's thesis, its analyzing the data enclosed and how it is assembled, and does it stand up to scrutiny.

Caufield's book, with his Pere Marquette building conspiracy, and his Oswald as a Nazi, and his final meeting at a woman's association gathering, simply was a dud in regards to the JFK case.

And for you to promote in with such jubilant glee and unqualified enthusiasm was to invite us all on a trip to nowhere.

Why? It is very weird in retrospect.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Paul, that was not a rant and this is not ad hominem..

You were the one who jumped on here like a rabbit in heat to tell us all how great Caufield's book was. How it was a "breakthrough" that would redefine the whole JFK case in a paradigm altering manner.

You then began to post Cliff Notes summaries of each chapter, never analyzing the material in any way. Just accepting everything Caufield wrote. Like the MSM did with the WR.

Never once did you do any kind of critical analysis of the material. In any way: comparative, qualitative, or internally, that is did it stack up on its own terms. Not once for a 780 page book. That is quite a negative achievement.

Your only seeming standard in going batty over this long piece of tripe was that it slammed Garrison, got the CIA off, and pointed to the hard right. That was enough for you.

Now after Ernie and I have exposed this white elephant for what it really is--which is useless as far as the JFK case goes--you say its Ad hom.

No its not: its about your powers of critical thinking on the JFK murder. Which you yourself exposed as being at the level of a high school cheerleader.

I mean did you not go to college and practice writing research papers, and analyze how to arrange an argument? Its not reciting someone's thesis, its analyzing the data enclosed and how it is assembled, and does it stand up to scrutiny.

Caufield's book, with his Pere Marquette building conspiracy, and his Oswald as a Nazi, and his final meeting at a woman's association gathering, simply was a dud in regards to the JFK case.

And for you to promote in with such jubilant glee and unqualified enthusiasm was to invite us all on a trip to nowhere.

Why? It is very weird in retrospect.

Now you're ranting, James.

It should be OK for me to come onto this site and extol the virtues of Dr. Jeff Caufield's new book.

It should not be required for me to write a thesis about his book, or to defend it with logical categories.

In fact, this is an informal FORUM dedicated to discussions about the JFK assassination.

I'm extolling Jeff Caufield's book as second to none in this discussion -- and your response amounts to Ad Hominem attacks about my style of writing.

Why? Because obviously I've hit a nerve. It's the CIA-did-it CTers here who don't know how to respond to Jeff Caufield.

I've read your online attacks on Caufield, James, and they are extremely weak. You put words into his mouth so you can mock him. That's weak writing.

Jeff Caufield -- I repeat -- has told us more about Joseph Milteer and Willie Somerset than any other writer in the past 50 years.

His research tends to OBLITERATE all CIA-did-it theories. Yet you're committed to CIA-did-it theories, right?

So, you're only response is Ad Hominem attack -- and you back up Ernie when he falls into that mode.

Anyway, my response to Ernie was directed to Ernie. I'll let Ernie speak for himself.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a rant. Just like Ernie's was not a rant about Dean.

So let me indicate why this is about substance.

Here is one part of my review of Caufield's awful book.

Let us first look with how he deals with Oswald:

Let me conclude this section of the review by noting a memo that Caufield repeats at least three times throughout the volume. (Repetition, and inclusion of extraneous material, are two methods by which Caufield inflates his page count.) The memo is from Hubert Badeaux, a New Orleans police intelligence officer, to state senator William Rainach (p. 273, 791) In this letter, the following two sentences appear in paragraph five:

“I have been in contact with an out-of-town person whom I have been grooming to come here to take over the establishment of infiltration into the university and intellectual groups. I will tell you in detail about this when I see you in person.”

Caufield actually tries to make the argument that Badeaux here is referring to Oswald. But Oswald was not out of town at the time, April of 1957. He was out of the state. He was in Jacksonville, Florida, being trained in avionics to become a radar operator. Five months later he would be out of the country and on another continent. He was shipped to the Far East, stationed at the giant CIA base at Atsugi, Japan, home of the U-2. Are we to think that both Badeaux—and Caufield—were unaware of this? Or that Badeaux did not know that Oswald had contracted with the service until December of 1959? Was Badeaux going to tell Rainach when he saw him that he had a prospect they had to wait for until 1960, over two and half years in the future, to cultivate? And then, in 1960, he would presumably tell the senator, well we have to wait another two and half years, since he’s going to Russia. But, hey Mr. Senator, that’s OK, because his fluency in Russian is going to help him infiltrate those integrationist groups in Louisiana, which used that language.

This all strikes me as nonsense. It shows how desperate the author is to place Oswald in this rightwing milieu as an operative. Which parallels his desperation to make Oswald into a Nazi. But that doesn’t stop Caufield from going even further in this regard. He actually tries to say that state senator Rainach took his own life in January of 1978 because he may have feared having to testify before the HSCA! (Caufield, p. 697) If anyone can show me where there was any imminent move inside the HSCA to call Rainach as a witness, I would love to see it. I would be willing to wager that almost no one on the committee even knew who he was. And for good reason.

Now Paul, in all of your pages of praise for Caufield, where did you note these two pieces of absurdity?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, how about that Pere Marquette building conspiracy?

This relates to Ruby.

What about Ruby’s links to organized crime? Whereas some authors have spent large parts of entire books on the subject, Caufield deals with these in about a page. (see pp. 498-99) In his hands, they mean little or nothing. In fact, what he does with this is say that if New Orleans mobster Carlos Marcello had anything to do with the assassination, because he was a racist, it was probably by association with rightwing extremists. And herein lies one of the most unbelievable tales in this unbelievable book.

Caufield states Jim Braden had an office in the Pere Marquette Building in New Orleans. G. Wray Gill, an attorney who David Ferrie did some work for, also had an office in that building. Braden was a former east coast criminal who was out on parole and was now in the oil business. Gill was one of several lawyers that Marcello employed. Caufield tries to make something out of the Pere Marquette connection. And the fact that Braden had a visit with Lamar Hunt scheduled while he was in Dallas the weekend of the assassination.

To a leaping exegete like Caufield, “this is evidence of conspiracy between the Hunts, Braden, and Milteer...” (Caufield, p. 303) To the not-so-leaping, as with the Badeaux memo, it was another Chaplinesque cannon moment. Recall, the tramp loads up the cannon, he lights the fuse, he plugs his ears: but the cannon does not go off, while the cannonball rolls out a few inches from the mouth of the cannon.

First of all, if Caufield had read Bill Kelly’s fine work on Braden, he would know that Braden did not actually have an office at the Pere Marquette Building. A man he worked with, oil geologist Vernon Main, had an office in that rather large office building. (Kelly, JFK Countercoup, post of 12/19/09) Braden had a legitimate reason to be in Dallas and talking to Hunt. He owned two oil companies, and his partner, Roger Bowman, lived in Dallas. Braden told his parole officer about his business trip and checked in with the probation office in Dallas on November 21st. He was actually part of a group of five men who were proceeding to Houston on more oil business after they met with Hunt. (ibid) As Kelly notes, Braden said he did not know Gill.

How does Caufield fit Milteer into his Pere Marquette circle of conspiracy? He says that the business card of G. Wray Gill’s son was in Milteer’s belongings when he died. I’m not kidding; this is what he says constitutes “evidence of conspiracy”. (Caufield, pp. 302-04)

You bought this one too, right?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should not be required for me to write a thesis about his book, or to defend it with logical categories.

sorry but it is. if you make a point you should be able to back it up with facts, dat, etc. what you seek is for your words to be accepted at face value. nope ain't the way it works. but for you logic never enters the equation.

In fact, this is an informal FORUM dedicated to discussions about the JFK assassination.

according to merriam-webster what you are referring to are not discussions, i.e, there has to be give and take. here's the definition:

consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate

I'm extolling Jeff Caufield's book as second to none in this discussion -- and your response amounts to Ad Hominem attacks about my style of writing.

here's what ad hominem means: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. what I see being made are not ad hominem attacks against you but reasoned and logical arguments against your methodology and not your style.

​as barretta used to say "and that's the name of that tune."

Edited by Martin Blank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a rant. Just like Ernie's was not a rant about Dean.

So let me indicate why this is about substance.

Here is one part of my review of Caufield's awful book.

Let us first look with how he deals with Oswald:

Let me conclude this section of the review by noting a memo that Caufield repeats at least three times throughout the volume. (Repetition, and inclusion of extraneous material, are two methods by which Caufield inflates his page count.) The memo is from Hubert Badeaux, a New Orleans police intelligence officer, to state senator William Rainach (p. 273, 791) In this letter, the following two sentences appear in paragraph five:

“I have been in contact with an out-of-town person whom I have been grooming to come here to take over the establishment of infiltration into the university and intellectual groups. I will tell you in detail about this when I see you in person.”

Caufield actually tries to make the argument that Badeaux here is referring to Oswald. But Oswald was not out of town at the time, April of 1957. He was out of the state. He was in Jacksonville, Florida, being trained in avionics to become a radar operator. Five months later he would be out of the country and on another continent. He was shipped to the Far East, stationed at the giant CIA base at Atsugi, Japan, home of the U-2. Are we to think that both Badeaux—and Caufield—were unaware of this? Or that Badeaux did not know that Oswald had contracted with the service until December of 1959? Was Badeaux going to tell Rainach when he saw him that he had a prospect they had to wait for until 1960, over two and half years in the future, to cultivate? And then, in 1960, he would presumably tell the senator, well we have to wait another two and half years, since he’s going to Russia. But, hey Mr. Senator, that’s OK, because his fluency in Russian is going to help him infiltrate those integrationist groups in Louisiana, which used that language.

This all strikes me as nonsense. It shows how desperate the author is to place Oswald in this rightwing milieu as an operative. Which parallels his desperation to make Oswald into a Nazi. But that doesn’t stop Caufield from going even further in this regard. He actually tries to say that state senator Rainach took his own life in January of 1978 because he may have feared having to testify before the HSCA! (Caufield, p. 697) If anyone can show me where there was any imminent move inside the HSCA to call Rainach as a witness, I would love to see it. I would be willing to wager that almost no one on the committee even knew who he was. And for good reason.

Now Paul, in all of your pages of praise for Caufield, where did you note these two pieces of absurdity?

Actually, James, it is not only a rant, it's also a biased report on Caufield's book. So -- now you want to repeat your weak arguments against Jeff Caufield's brilliant work? OK, let's take it point by point:

(1) You criticize Caufield for interpreting a letter by Badeaux -- and you make a mountain out of a molehill.

Caufield already said by Chapter 18 of his book that he was out of empirical material, and would now begin SPECULATION with the facts remaining. You conveniently (for yourself) ignored that key fact, James.

The key element that Caufield revealed before this section (which you also conveniently ignored) was the groundbreaking data about Joseph Milteer and Willie Somerset, which YOU and your followers had totally MISSED for the past 35 years.

(2) You also overstress the SPECULATION that Jeff Caufield makes about Oswald's interaction with the Radical Right Wing and the Fake FPCC in New Orleans, run by Guy Banister.

It's not Caufield, but YOU, James, who make the ridiculous claim that Oswald was a Nazi. As I already said, James, you force words into Jeff Caufield's mouth so that you can mock him.

It's a straw-dog. Actually, Jeff Caufield is here building upon Jim Garrison's research which clearly shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was working hand in hand with Guy Banister in NOLA, and that would include all the people who surrounded Guy Banister in the summer of 1963.

Yes -- they belonged to the Radical Right in the USA. That is Caufield's historical point. You deliberately twisted it to evade a genuine confrontation with Caufield's book.

And clearly you did this, James, because your work, going back to the 1980's -- has failed to give us the crucial details about Joseph Milteer and Willie Somerset that Jeff Caufield finally revealed.

You want to call it "absurd" James -- and make short work of Jeff Caufield's great work -- but actually, the impartial reader can see -- you're just jealous.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh Paul, the first time Caufield refers to that letter is on page 273. That is about one third of the way through the book. Therefore, you comment about Chapter 18 is nonsense.

I have never said Oswald was even a neo Nazi.

Caufield, based on two unproven associations, and Oswald's use of some rather common racial terms back then, like the N word, did so.

There is no running away from this Paul.

You did something that, in my view, is inexcusable. You tried to sell us a lemon.

Which, to me, at this time is incomprehensible.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another one by Caufield that Trejo missed:

At this point in the book, Caufield also fails to mention the Russian test that Oswald took while in the military. He therefore avoids another compelling indication that Oswald was being groomed by the Office of Naval Intelligence for a CIA assignment as a false defector to Russia. Later on, when Caufield does mention this test, he deals with it in a remarkable manner. In his ongoing vendetta against Jim Garrison, he tries to weaken the former DA’s argument about Oswald getting training in the Russian language in the Marines. (see p. 227)

He states that Garrison held that Oswald was being schooled in the Russian language in the service, but there is no evidence of this. Again, this is either symptomatic of Caufield working in a cocoon, or it is a deliberate omission, because over 25 years ago Melanson discussed in detail the report that the Warren Commission had about Oswald being instructed in language acquisition at the Monterey School of Languages while he was in the Marines. (Melanson, p. 12) Caufield then writes that although Oswald did take a Russian test, he did not do well on it. As Garrison noted in his book, this is what the Warren Commission witness said about it. (On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 23) To which Garrison replied: it would be like saying your dog is not very bright since you can beat him three games out of five in chess. But it also ignores the report of Rosaleen Quinn. Quinn was being tutored in Russian for a State Department position. She met with Oswald after his Russian test, and said that he now spoke excellent Russian. (DiEugenio, p. 131)

The author then continues in his hopeless jihad by saying that once he arrived in Russia, Oswald did not speak the language very well. Which, from Quinn, we know is wrong. But it is further vitiated by author Ernst Titovets. In 2010, Titovets wrote a book called Oswald: Russian Episode. By all accounts, Titovets was Oswald’s closest friend in Russia. When I interviewed him in Washington at the AARC Conference in 2014, I asked him about Oswald’s Russian language skills. He told me that Oswald spoke Russian fluently. In the face of all this evidence, only someone with an agenda would argue the contrary.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...