Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Paine Files

Recommended Posts

Thanks Gene, interesting what Vince Salandria said. Pretty sleek! He could be right.

Ruth Paine is still living, and still rather lucid for an 87 year old woman, and spoke on Nov.19th, 2019 in Irving Texas. Joe, as to your question about whether Ruth wondered about the fishiness of Ruby's assassination of Oswald. All she said about Oswald's death is she wanted Oswald to have all his rights to a fair trial, but she was happy when he was murdered.

It's always occurred to me that Garrison and Stone are  in Jim Di's mind, and in general heralded as the 2 most key figures  in the JFKA investigation here, at least that's what I've always thought.. She certainly won't get any sympathy here for her simple and not elaborate remarks about Garrison and Stone near the end.

It is interesting in a podcast posted here earlier by Rob Clark where he was talking with  other JFKA investigators whose name slips my mind right now. There was a story about Stone's first approach to Garrision, when first contemplating making JFK where Stone was more directed toward finding out what leads Garrison had implicating the mob in the JFKA. and, Garrison, (who has also been accused by other JFKA researchers of being soft on the mob, in his investigation), at one point was to have said, to Stone that Stone can make a movie about the mobs role in killing JFK, but Garrison doesn't buy it and is not going to be a part of it. Where would the equation be now if Stone had taken a totally different tack?



Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 7/12/2020 at 4:11 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

All she said about Oswald's death is she wanted Oswald to have all his rights to a fair trial, but ... she was happy when he was murdered.

Ruth Pain "was happy when he was murdered." ???

Or did she say she was "glad" when he was murdered?

Either word, she actually said this in a public interview?

That's really quite shocking coming from a Quaker.





What a crazy contradictory statement Ruth Paine makes.

You want someone to have a fair trial. Yet, when they are denied such a trial and instead have their insides blasted out you are "glad" about this?

This is my point. 

Ruth Paine "hated" Oswald to a degree that was unreasonably extreme and illogical.

Being glad when he was shot and killed  ( and willingly stating this in a recorded interview) reveals a level of hate deeper than most others felt who knew him I would assume. Especially a Quaker.

So, what did Oswald ever do that Ruth Paine was aware of that made her hate him to this murder cheering degree? 

She couldn't "Christian love" balance her hate for Oswald with at least some consideration of his actual good side of being very loving towards his baby girl and, as Buell Frazier testified "good with children?"

His obvious love for Marina and contritely asking her to come back to him to give him a chance to be more respectful toward her? And his pain when she rejected him?

Oswald willingness to take and work a xxxx job with lowest wage pay and stick to it for at least awhile to get back on his feet. He didn't drink or slouch around the house all day. He read and was quiet much of the time.

He had to take buses everywhere and could not even care for his wife's basic needs at times. Of course the man was angry and frustrated. He didn't want to lose Marina and his baby yet he too often couldn't provide well enough for her without outside help.

Gerry Spence asked Ruth Paine in court ( after she expressed how aghast she was at Oswald's unattached tone on the phone, his blandly asking her to do something to help him and his irritation when he called her house a second time to speak to Marina from the Dallas jail )  could you not understand how Oswald might sound a little irritated under these circumstances and especially after he was arrested for the murder of Tippit, beaten by the police and wanted to communicate to his only love in this world...Marina?

Spence hammered RP on her extreme hate of Oswald personally. He got her to show this on the stand. He wanted to do so to reveal her as someone who could have motive to present Oswald in the worst possible light to investigators.

If Ruth Paine said she hated Oswald to this happy ( or glad ) about his murder degree because he shot JFK ( or even Tippit )  remember, no one ( including Ruth P ) could say for sure that Oswald actually committed this act that entire weekend.

Most of the physical evidence against Oswald wasn't even made public until after he was shot dead by Jack Ruby.

Ruth was and is still supposedly an intelligent, well read and educated woman.

You'd think she, more than average intelligence people, would not jump to a unquestioned Oswald guilty conclusion without knowing much more solid information and with Oswald himself himself denying his guilt at every turn all during his two days left on this Earth. She could have had great suspicion of his guilt but still not be sure if she was Quaker compassion reasonable, imo.

Ruth's admitted personal hate for Oswald reasonably gives at least some motive weight to her saying things or even possibly doing things with his belongings to incriminate him imo.

She just wanted the man to disappear...even if it meant his being violently and painfully murdered.



Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruth apparently did not care if the police had a search warrant and somehow knew they were coming, from John Kelin "Praise from a future Generation".

Mr. Rose.... just as soon as we walked up on the porch, Ruth Paine came to the door. She apparently recognized us - she said, "I've been expecting you all," and we identified ourselves, and she said, "Well, I've been expecting you to come out. Come right on in."

Mr. Ball. Did she say why she had been expecting you?

Mr. Rose. She said, "Just as soon as I heard where the shooting happened, I knew there would be someone out."

If Ruth Paine "knew," as soon as she heard where the assassination occurred, that the police would be visiting her home, then something doesn't add up. At that point, according to her own testimony, she thought Oswald was working at a second TSBD building - not the one at 411 Elm Street, where the Warren Commission ultimately placed Oswald and his rifle, but one that was located several blocks from Dealey Plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Nancy  Wertz noted, the Paines were still at it in 1993, in addition to Mike Paine claiming the Minox camera, there is also this:


1963: Mike tells the FBI he had never seen Oswald with a weapon.

1993 for Gus Russo and PBS Frontline: Oswald showed him one of the BYP the first time they met in April of 1963.




Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE about Ruth Paine being "glad" when Oswald was killed, etc.:

The Russian-born Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine, the CIA-connected woman who offered her housing in Irving and gave every indication of acting as her intelligence handler, together provided much of the physical “so-called evidence” used to frame Lee Oswald, magically produced out of the endlessly bounteous Paine home and its garage. One of the silliest books on the assassination is an incurious panegyric to Mrs. Paine, the supposedly benevolent Quaker benefactress of Marina, by Thomas Mallon, who titled his work, with inadvertent suggestiveness, "Mrs. Paine’s Garage: And the Murder of John F. Kennedy." A highly sanitized July 1964 profile of Ruth Paine in Redbook magazine, “Prelude to Tragedy: The woman who sheltered Lee Oswald’s family tells her story,” helped establish the pattern of glowing media praise for this intelligence operative. It was written by Jessamyn West, the Quaker author of "The Friendly Persuasion" and a second cousin of fellow Quaker Richard M. Nixon. The article paints Ruth Paine as a selfless religious do-gooder, praising her “acts of kindness, of unselfishness, of brotherly concern” for the Oswald family. West does express shock over Paine admitting in a rare moment of candor, “I was glad” when Oswald was killed; West chides her by saying, “There is nothing remotely saintly or even Quakerish about being glad that one man has murdered another man.” Redbook at the time was owned by the McCall Corporation, whose president was Marvin Pierce. He was the father of Barbara Pierce Bush, the wife of the already CIA-connected George H. W. Bush, whose involvement in the assassination coverup I exposed in two 1988 articles for The Nation (see Chapter 10).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a shame the ARRB never interviewed either one of them.

Carol Hewett volunteered to fly up to their offices on her own dime and go over briefing books she would prepare.  Since she was a lawyer and knew the ARRB law, she would have been precise about what to ask to stay within the defined boundaries.  But there is no doubt that the Minox camera and the BYP, and the rifle would have all been allowed.

It was bad enough that the HSCA never interviewed them, but the ARRB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, why was Ruth Paine stunned that Oswald wanted her to contact an attorney for him?

She says she tried to call John Abt. He was on vacation in the Connecticut woods.  When the press caught up with him, he said he had no record of any communication, directly or indirectly, from Oswald. (Harold Weisberg, Whitewash, p. 139). Did Abt have an answering service?  Did Ruth try and call him?  

But here is the capper.  Oswald said that if he could not get Abt, he would like an ACLU attorney.  When the ACLU lawyer, Greg Olds, got to the DPD HQ they told him Oswald had declined any lawyer. (ibid, p. 140)

Later, Olds regretted not meeting Oswald in person.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Great interview with Vincent Salandria in 2016: The Role of The Paines In History - Transcript of statement by Vincent Salandria read on April 8, 2016 during his interview as background for the Documentary, The Assassination & Mrs. Paine.  In this, he lays out how they were used ... and that they knew it, and should admit such:

Let us briefly summarize some, but certainly not all, of the vital work carried out by the Paines without which no successful Dallas conspiracy to kill Kennedy could possibly have occurred. The work of the Paines regarding Oswald was essential for the successful closing of the circle of events that were required to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald as the patsy.

  •  It was Ruth Paine who had arranged to drive Lee Harvey Oswald’s family from New Orleans to the Dallas area.

  • It was Ruth Paine who had timely managed Oswald to get a job in the Texas Book Depository Building which turned out to be situated on the Presidential motorcade route of November 22, 1963.

  • It was Ruth Paine who failed to advise Oswald that a better paying job was available to him than the one to which she had arranged to get for him at the Texas Book Depository Building.

  • It was in Ruth Paine’s garage where the rifle was supposedly stored that allegedly belonged to Oswald and was asserted to have been used by Oswald to kill Kennedy.

  • It was in Ruth Paine’s garage in which other incriminating evidence against Oswald was reported to have been stored.

  • It was the role of Ruth Paine and Michael Paine, both of whom purported to be committed to civil liberties, to join the authorities in designating Oswald as the assassin without his having had been offered even a suggestion of due process before he was conveniently killed while in police custody.

Probability theory, a branch of mathematics, dictates that the invaluable work of the Paines, which served to incriminate Oswald as the assassin, and to frame him, could not have been left by the conspirators to happenstance. One cannot rationally attribute to happenstance the cause of the series of actions of the Paines, which served to impute guilt to Oswald. Such a conclusion defies the axioms and logic of probability theory. So, the Paines were a necessary part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald. Probability theory precludes that the Paines had not been selected to play their roles but had randomly and by happenstance performed them. It also necessarily follows that since the Paines had been assigned their roles by the assassins, the Paines could serve as beacons showing the way to identify the conspirators who had selected them. It was to confirm the identity of the forces behind Kennedy’s assassination that I was eager to get to know the Paines.

As we have set forth, there is no rational way that the Paines can hope to explicate their roles in the Kennedy assassination as the innocent results of an accidental occurrence of a series of inexplicable and weird coincidences. The mathematics of probability theory forecloses that a series of coincidences serve as fig leaves to conceal effectively their guilt by enabling the conspirators to assassinate President Kennedy. The truth is plain. With great care, they were chosen by Allen Dulles to do their work that made possible Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas.

Intelligence agencies require that their operatives, in carrying out their covert functions, know only what they need to know. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Paines had no reason or need to know, and therefore had received no forewarning, of the planned assassination of Kennedy. They had no reason to believe that they were being selected by Allen Dulles to serve critical roles in falsely implicating Oswald in an assassination in which he was to be the patsy. The information to which they were made privy about the nature of their assignments, which information was greatly constricted, was based on need-to-know limitations. The information which they had prior to the assassination was unquestionably sketchy and uninformative. They were in a very real sense victimized by being unknowingly and critically positioned so that they have been recorded in history as having played key roles in effectuating the conspiracy which killed President Kennedy. They were victimized by their employers, the national security state, in its falsification of the historical questions in order to obscure how and why it assassinated Kennedy.

I respectfully direct my concluding remarks to Ruth and Michael Paine. I address them as a fellow human being who understands and empathizes with them for the evil roles they were unknowingly designated to serve on behalf of the criminality of our national security state. They were victimized by being placed in positions which resulted in enormous harm to our republic and to global peace. As a consequence of the Kennedy assassination, the national security state which killed Kennedy, is now in substantial control of both our military budget and our foreign policy. On May 1, 1962 Kennedy posed a question to some Quakers who visited him at the White House. He asked: “You believe in redemption, don’t you?” I hope that the Paines believe in redemption and will, through telling the truth about their assassination roles, turn away from the militarists and towards a more peaceful world which Kennedy was seeking when he was martyred.

Salandria's explanation raises a lot more questions than it answers. I assume because he doesn't have specific answers, and that's ok. The way I'm interpreting this, He's in essence saying "I can't explain all the "coincidences" that lead the Paines to be in this situation, but there's so many of them, the mathematical probability that they just happened on their own is remote."
It's very unclear, for example, are the Paines aware in advance that they have this wealth of evidence in their garage against Oswald including the alleged murder weapon?. Salandria with his "need to know basis" seems to be saying No.
Ok, so that begs the question, Was there any official capacity to either of the Paines?
Were they following anybody's specific orders at any juncture? One can for example say De Mohrenscildt set up Ruth to meet Marina, but what are  the real chances that the Paines would split up just in time for Ruth to be so desirous of finding a native to teach her Russian, that she'd innocently ask Marina  to move in?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2020 at 7:02 PM, Joe Bauer said:


Like Gerry Spence asked Ruth Paine in court ( after she expressed how aghast she was at Oswald's unattached tone on the phone and his blandly asking her to do something to help him, and his irritation when he called her house a second time to speak to Marina from the Dallas jail )  could you not understand how Oswald might sound a little irritated under these circumstances and especially after he was arrested and charged with the murder of the president, beaten by the police and wanted to communicate to his only love in this world...Marina?

Spence hammered RP on her extreme hate of Oswald personally. He got her to show this on the stand. He wanted to do so to reveal her as someone who could have motive to biasedly present Oswald in the worst possible way to investigators.

Ruth's admitted extreme hate for Oswald logically gives at least some weight to her possibly doing things with his belongings to incriminate him. She just wanted the man to disappear...even if it meant his being violently and painfully murdered.



Gerry Spence Questions Ruth Paine

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul and Kirk:

I've always admired Vincent Salandria for his courage, insight ... and the fact that he's a fellow Philadelphian.  Vince originally taught at John Bartram High School (near where I grew up) for eight years before his conspiracy theories made him an outlier among fellow teachers.  Even his wife didn't believe him. He finished the last 30 years of his career as a school-system and ACLU lawyer. He was troubled by how Arlen Spector (another Philly guy) seemingly sold out, and he called him on it many times.   At the end - and only six years ago - they met and attempted to make peace.  It seemed Arlen was willing to say he made mistakes, but wanted Vince to retract his earlier criticisms: “Instead of calling me corrupt,” he said, “can you change it to incompetent?”   Vince refused, and as the interview relates, whatever personal redemption Specter may have been seeking, he left without it.  But he didn’t leave empty-handed; on the way out of the Oyster House, (a favorite center city restaurant of mine), Vince handed Specter a copy of James Douglass’s book "JFK and the Unspeakable".   

What's telling about this exchange is that Vince was of the opinion that his life was saved by Arlen Specter’s work on the Warren Commission (and the ineffectiveness of his own efforts) ... that had it been him (instead of Arlen) who was asked to be on the Warren Commission, his strong opposing views would have caused him his life.   The government would've had him killed ... and in some fashion, Vince believed that the Paines lived with that threat too.  But Vince was right in labeling the Paines as "clear beacons to the assassins". 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting insights, Gene! Interesting to hear of your local ties with Salandria as teacher in the neighboring school. What I always liked about Salandria was his passion. His comment that if he was asked to be on the Warren Commission, his strong opposing views would have cost him his life sounds true to form.
Here's how I'd logically break down, "The Paines on a "need to know" basis.
"We both know whose behind it."
Michael's explanation is that they were talking about the right wing rumble that was going around Dallas at the time.  But if we accept the phone call between Michael and Ruth Paine was stating a realization that they in fact, were an unwitting  part of a conspiracy. That  would indicate both of them were on a need to know basis. Ok, maybe not as much for sure with Michael, but we're focusing on Ruth right now.
If Ruth is on a need to know basis, I can tell you once I knew I was framed , and if I wasn't into this killing Kennedy thing. I'd have no allegiance to the CIA, and their entrapping me whatsoever, much less to take the ball and further incriminate Oswald, like she did.
"Coming clean" is admitting her affiliations and specifically who directed her to befriend the Oswalds, or take the series of actions she took.
Just for cooperating, she's a "sure walk" in any case. So why wouldn't she turn?
I think there are 2 possible explanations.1) Ruth and Michael finds themselves so innocently intertwined in this plot, that they know any explanation that attempts to spin off  their actions on some unsubstantiated "invisible hand" would not be believed or suppressed.(like Jack Ruby?)
I would say, the probability of that sinking into place so perfectly that the agents are scarcely aware that they can't even plausibly  explain what happened to them is remote.
But Salandria proposes that the Paine's coming clean right away would cause a revolution or a military coup. On the ground, the U.S. public had pretty much bought the "land of the free, home of the brave" economic American Dream at the time and would never have just bought into that. The overwhelming political direction of  the U.S. just was not going to accept a coup.
It would seem to me any admission of the Paines being guided into their position would have to reveal Michael's family's connection to Alan Dulles. Wouldn't that lead to an investigation of Dulles?  I'd say , pretty soon, game over. As neglectful as the media eventually became concerning the JFKA., I don't think they're just overwhelmingly  going refuse to take that lead.
But some would disagree, so for purposes of discussion, let's consider the alternative. I could see the Paine's disclosures and revealing a trail toward Alan Dulles necessitates the squelching of the Paines, the seizing of martial law and either a government false flag activity or an assertion that the USSR was behind the JFKA, , with a greatly increased possibility of immediate nuclear war. It would seem to me it would have to be "immediate" because any cooling off period, any amount of time passing is going to expose the threat as a hoax. Would LBJ, who was more of a hawk than JFK, really  have conceded to that? He certainly used the JFKA to put out, not inflame the fervor over Cuba. Still could it  become a situation beyond LBJ's control?
Could the Paine's be sure it wouldn't lead to that?
That's the central question, it seems to me behind the Paine's not coming forward if you accept  the Paines , on a "need to know" basis" theory.
I'd be curious to hear anyone else's take.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Michael and Ruth knew the moment they heard of Oswald's arrest they had better keep anything they knew further  and/or maybe suspected to themselves.  Further that full cooperation with all authorities would be in their best interest.  Right down to giving the "right" answers when questioned later by the Warren Omission.  I also think they knew the capabilities and extent to which their and Oswald's handlers and those above them might go to.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talbot's "The Devil's Chessboard" and other authors make it clear that Allen Dulles used religious groups (like the Quakers) to further his schemes. In George Michael Evica's book “A Certain Arrogance: The Sacrificing of Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cold War Manipulation of Religious Groups by US Intelligence”, he reveals how Paine's circle of Quakers was among the Protestant groups that served as covert breeding grounds for intelligence operations, effectively disguised because Quakers are known for advocating peace. The Paine's are historically characterized as an average middle-class religious couple who just happened to associate with a Marxist assassin and his Russian wife ... but in reality, they were the patsy's "handlers" (Mike assigned to Lee; Ruth to Marina) to establish Oswald's legend, and ultimately incriminate him. I would speculate that they were used, but had to be witting.  I once posted about the many "coincidences" surrounding the Paines:

  1. The Paines moved from Pennsylvania to Irving TX (where Marguerite lived) the same September 1959 week that Oswald left his mother and defected. When Oswald returned to Dallas in 1962, the Paines were still there ... as though waiting for him.
  2. Lee and Marina randomly meet the Paines at the Glover White Russian party. When the enigmatic George de Morenschildt left for Haiti, Ruth and Michael stepped-in as his "benefactors" ... almost as a hand-off to the Paines. The Oswalds move in with them for nothing more than Russian language tutoring. 
  3. Michael and Ruth conveniently separate (ostensibly for cruel treatment) but remain amicable; Mike watching over Lee while Ruth watches over Marina. Two babysitters whose marriage ends in 1971. 
  4. Ruth persistently offered Marina the opportunity to separate from Lee. It strains belief that Ruth would send a letter to Marina asking her to come live with the Paines, after only a 3-week acquaintance, begun at the Magnolia Oil party in February 1963, when Ruth first met Marina.
  5. Both the Paines and the Oswalds maintain separate residences from their respective spouses ... serving to obfuscate any future examination of links or associations.
  6. Ruth appears on the scene to whisk Marina away whenever Oswald has somewhere important to go (e.g. New Orleans, Mexico City). Ruth's visits to the Neely Street apartment coincide with the same days the rifle and revolver are ordered/shipped.
  7. Ruth is instrumental in obtaining the critical/timely job for Oswald at the TSBD via a random conversation with a neighbor.
  8. Marina  was cut off from Ruth Paine within days of the assassination, and advised by the Secret Service to stay away from Ruth because she was "sympathizing with CIA.”
  9. Marina abruptly dropped her benefactor immediately after the assassination, but Ruth continued to write (like a spurned lover) incessantly, with letters that took an almost desperate tone, but received no response except for a Christmas card. They met briefly in 1964, but afterwards they would never see each other again.
  10. Damming evidence against Oswald flowed exclusively from the Ruth Paine's garage (e.g. backyard photographs, Kleins order, radical magazines, Mexican bus ticket). Their incredulous lack of knowledge of a rifle (early on) followed by their certain knowledge of its storage/discovery in their garage. Ruth's home continued to cough up evidence against Oswald for months, even after it had been thoroughly searched by DPD and FBI agents many times.
  11. The picture portrayed of Oswald changed from a regular guy who didn't drink and liked watching football on TV, playing with his kids (prior to November 22nd) … to a dangerous, unhappy, drunken wife-beating communist assassin (after November 22nd). In contrast to Quaker-Unitarian ideals, the Paines performed a skillful/scripted character assassination of the alleged assassin.  
  12. The dichotomy of a virtuous Quaker-Unitarian couple who belonged to the ACLU (ideologically liberal) ... but did nothing to help Oswald with legal assistance.
  13. The Paines own the most quoted testimony in the Warren Commission record (over 6,000 questions) ... no one is even a close second.  Michael Paine (in contrast to Ruth) was treated as the 'court jester' by the Warren Commission. His testimony rambles and exhibits an astonishing lack of recall on many subjects of a personal nature. He jumps back and forth over the Oswald is guilty/not guilty fence, and he left a very muddled trail relating to his knowledge of the Oswald weapons.  Marguerite Oswald expressed to FBI agents her belief that Lee was framed by none other than Michael Paine (i.e. the spotlight has been mistakenly shined on the wrong Paine).
  14.  Ruth attended a Unitarian college (Antioch) and only later became a Quaker. It appears that someone decided to portray Ruth as a Quaker ... encouraged her to posture as a liberal Quaker, but then act as a surveillance agent (as surmised by other intelligence agencies). 
  15. Ruth’s reaction to Oswald’s murder - the pious Quaker interviewed by  Redbook magazine in the summer of 1964.  Ruth told the Redbook journalist that she was glad Oswald was dead because it spared Marina the trauma of a trial; an obvious parallel to Ruby’s alleged motive about sparing Jackie Kennedy (i.e. the same scriptwriter at play). Ruth's statements show little empathy for Lee's widow and two little girls - whom Ruth was supposedly attached to - and notably, Ruth did not attend the funeral. 
  16. For the following 30 years, Michael and Ruth remain untouched (i.e. HSCA, AARB), untainted (albeit with income tax returns classified) and under-investigated


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gene - good summary. Question about point 6: how did you piece together Ruth’s visits to Neely street and the order/shipment of revolver and rifle? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Gene, This is a far cry from what you posted from Vince Salandria. Your list of "coincidences" is much more detailed than Salandria, and shows a deliberacy and is rather damning of the Paines. Which is fine. I think some points are better than others.

As an overview you quote Dulles use of religious groups in "The Devils Chessboard'.  I regret I don't have a copy of that. But as I recall, doesn't Talbot pretty much leave the Paines alone? . I'm reminded in particular of Talbot's 2 accounts of the Paine's life  in 2015, at the time it was written. He talks of them rather sympathetically as trying to lead a normal life amidst their obvious historical infamy.  He makes no reference to "terrible secrets" they may hold, or a desire for them to come clean, which is the prevalent thought on this forum.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
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

  • Create New...