Rep. John Conyers
Guckert Gets FOIA'd
Wed Feb 16, 2005 02:40
64.140.158.31
CONYERS AND SLAUGHTER SUBMIT FOIA REQUEST FOR HOMELAND SECURITY RECORDS RELATING TO JAMES D. GUCKERT A.K.A. JEFF GANNON
Guckert Gets FOIA'd
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/002170.html
Posted by jesselee
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 12:16 PM
From Conyers' office:
CONYERS AND SLAUGHTER SUBMIT FOIA REQUEST FOR HOMELAND SECURITY RECORDS RELATING TO JAMES D. GUCKERT A.K.A. JEFF GANNON
Congressman John Conyers Jr., and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter sent the following letter today to Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act for release of Homeland Security records relating to James D. Guckert and his access to the President:
February 15, 2005
Dear Secretary Ridge:
This letter constitutes a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552 (FOIA). The request is submitted on behalf of the Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Recent news reports indicate that James D. Guckert, a Republican activist gained access to the White House press briefing room and Presidential press conferences in violation of standard security procedures and was allowed to work under the assumed name, "Jeff Gannon." News reports also indicate that Mr. Guckert would not be considered a bona fide journalist by his peers in the press corps, as most of his claims to legitimacy have already been discredited. Access to the President and his press corps is highly competitive, and many seasoned journalists have not had the honor of attending the events or enjoying the access Mr. Guckert has.
We are concerned that such an individual was allowed within a few feet of the President when the public is routinely disallowed any possible contact with either the President or the White House. We understand that your security policies are developed in conjunction with the White House and want to ascertain your respective roles in this decision as it appears to deviate significantly from heightened security measures you have employed recently. To the extent that White House policies were incorporated into the Secret Service's files and have been read by the Secret Service, we would also like records from the White House.
To determine what process you employ to clear individuals for attendance at events within a close proximity of the President, we seek the release of agency records as described in the numbered paragraphs below:
1. All records setting forth or discussing the standards the Secret Service or the White House impose on those who are granted access to the President and the White House Briefing Room. Please include all records discussing whether the Secret Service or the White House routinely allow guests to use false names.
2. All records setting forth or discussing policies, procedures or guidelines discussing clearance into the White House Briefing Room, as it was applied to Mr. Guckert. Please include all records indicating how any such policies, procedures or guidelines were communicated to Mr. Guckert.
3. The White House Press Secretary denied any responsibility for determining who is granted clearance into the White House Briefing Room. Please disclose what individual or agency is responsible for requesting that the Secret Service conduct a security clearance for individuals or members of the media who wish to enter the White House Briefing Room.
4. All records relating to security qualifications for granting "permanent" White House press corps credentials and how they differ from those of a simple day pass.
5. All records indicating or discussing whether and to what extent someone who is cleared for a daily pass is required to be cleared each time they return on subsequent visits to the White House Briefing Room, as in the case of Mr. Guckert, who returned frequently for up to two years.
6. All records relating to how many daily passes are issued for White House briefings and Presidential press conferences at one time. Please include all records indicating whether there is a limit in place for security or other reasons.
7. All records setting forth or discussing who has the authority, if at all, to exempt an individual or member of the media from security clearance by the Secret Service in order to gain access to the White House Briefing Room.
8. All records indicating how many times and on what days Mr. Guckert was cleared by the Secret Service into the White House, and at whose request.
9. All records indicating what types of passes were issued for Mr. Guckert.
10. All records of communication between the Secret Service and Mr. Guckert. Please include all records, including telephone conversations, emails, or facsimile communications.
We request a waiver of fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest and because disclosure "is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester." 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
The House Judiciary Committee and House Rules Committee publish newsletters, news briefings, and other materials that are disseminated to the public. These materials are widely available to everyone for no cost. The records requested are not sought for commercial use, and the requesters plan to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of this FOIA request through the channels described above.
As indicated above, numerous news articles reflect the significant public interest in the records we seek. Disclosure of the requested records will contribute significantly to the public's understanding of government conduct.
If our request is denied in whole or part, we ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the FOIA. We expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. We reserve the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.
We look forward to your reply to the request within twenty (20) business days, as required under 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention and response to this matter.
Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member, Committee on Rules
John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
UPDATE: Dave Johnson comments, asking the ironic question, "They can't get this info as members of Congress, so how are they going to get it as members of the public using existing laws?" Sadly enough, it would not be the first time that a FOIA outperformed Congressional requests. Julia also provides some context.
UPDATE II: ntodd elaborates at length.
TrackBack (3) | Other Blogs | Contribute!
Comments
Go Get'em Congressmen Conyers and Slaughter!!!
Posted by Joe McDonnell on Tue. 02/15/05 at 12:40 PM
When I was a whistle-blower, I did a FOIA request and got nothing. Then, I used the power of subpoena in the court case and still evidence wasn't turned over for the trial. In the end the judge gave the government sovereign immunity for having done what they did to me. So, anything is possible or impossible with these things. Think of it as a prelude to the OK on Abu Grahib and Geneva Convention being quaint, prior to the OK of Gonzalez. Rebulicans like the dictatorship and refusing to acknowledge the laws congress has passed. They consider these to be wussie laws.
Posted by ljm on Tue. 02/15/05 at 1:24 PM
Good God, it's about time the Democratic Party got a spinal implant. Come on, where is the leadership on this? I'm not a Democrat because my party is scared of its own shadow! Kudos to Conyers and Slaughter, but more Democrats need to get on board with this one.
Posted by Wilson Kolb on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:00 PM
Don't lose sight of the Valerie Plame incident; that is the true breach of trust here. Gannon/Guckert had access to those materials.
Posted by Greg on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:16 PM
Let's imagine that Bill Clinton were in office, and say, sometime during the Kosovo situation it had come to light that a male prostitute had been regularly admitted to the White House press room in a manner to evade the normal certification procedures.
Then let's further imagine that the hooker was working for a Democratic partisan group financed by people in Arkansas with long-standing ties to Clinton's prior campaigns, and that the White House press secretary made sure to call.
And let's further imagine that the hooker, while posing as a reporter, had been involved in the calculated smear of the spouse of one of Clinton's harshest critics, and that the smear had involved blowing the cover of a CIA agent.
And then let's further imagine that the prostitute, given special access to the White House during wartime, specialized in the wearing of military uniforms for their erotic effect.
Now tell me that Fox News and CNN and every other network and newspaper wouldn't have been all over that story. The silence of the news media over the story of the male prostitute with a White House press pass is deafening.
Posted by Wilson Kolb on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:21 PM
damn, I just got subpoened...
Posted by Gannon's Press Pass on Ebay on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:34 PM
lol, come to daddy.
Posted by Loose Gannon on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:45 PM
Consider the possibility that the Gannon situation was structured and allowed to blossom in order to pin the Plame leak on him -- saving the neck of someone high in the administration.
Posted by sausalito on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:46 PM
The GOP has a history that, when they get all the power they want, they "blow it" (no pun intended)...
Posted by dan on Tue. 02/15/05 at 5:38 PM
This means that Jeff Gannon will win one of those journalism awards that Sean Hannity won!!! Horay!!! A Macaroni Award (I think they call it?).
Posted by dan on Tue. 02/15/05 at 5:41 PM
Hey, sausolita, I was thinking the same thing about the bombing in Lebanon. An inside terror attack to blame on Syria? Can you say "9-11"? Bloggers are uncovering too much shit...expect another 9-11 to gain back public opinion. Anyone notice, the color-coded terror alert hasn't risen since just before the DNC convention? You know, just because the MSM isn't pointing that out, doesn't mean the masses of people aren't noticing this. I am an example. Just because the MSM is suppressing something, doesn't mean "average Joe" isn't talking and thinking about it...
Posted by dan on Tue. 02/15/05 at 5:46 PM
In the above FOIA, look at request #7:
7. All records setting forth or discussing who has the authority, if at all, to exempt an individual or member of the media from security clearance by the Secret Service in order to gain access to the White House Briefing Room.
Answer that, and we have a suspect in the leaking of the CIA memo. By what Logic? Glad you asked.
::This man would never have passed a Secret Service "Security Clearance" to have access to the President.
::Therefore, someone exempted is disqualification.
::This person had to vouch for "Gannon" to give him the daily pass.
::Gannon also claims to have "access" to the leaked CIA memo
::Only 6 people had access to that information, so the only person that trusted Gannon enough to have that information MUST be the same person that exempted him to have access to the daily pass.
::That person is a suspect in the CIA leak.
Posted by Fred on Tue. 02/15/05 at 7:13 PM
Remember when Nixon was the worst we could imagine a government evolving to...this administration makes them look like children! They are slaming americans from so many directions...actors and journalists pretending to report the news.. when we know someone is being paid to promote a policy vs someone who believes a certain policy we are able to determine if we want to believe what is being presented to us. But when we are not told who is being paid or if in Gannon's case he is given what amounts to special treatment...we the people are being treated like fools. Is this what the framers of the constitution had in mind for the manner in which government would treated it's people...I do not think so....
Posted by Dan on Tue. 02/15/05 at 8:39 PM
I read that the Democrats are coming up with their own "fix" for social security--raise the retirement age, reduce benefits. This is a BAD IDEA. #1 it is entirely possible that there won't be a shortfall. The social security administration prepares 3 scenarios under its 75-year projection. the "optimistic" one (which has turned out to be the accurate one for the last decade) has no reduction in benefits. #2 if the Dems issue a proposal they will be validating Bush's "there is a crisis, something must be done" argument. #3 these proposals are bitter medicine, Bush's lies are we'll make you richer with personal accounts. If the Dems want to stay a minority party, this is the way to do it.
Posted by cwhite on Tue. 02/15/05 at 9:46 PM
this all seems too eerily easy to me. remember we are dealing with KARL ROVE here!! I am convinced he was instumental in planting the memo that brought down Rather. now I wish that I could tell myself to keep my eye on the ball, but I have no idea what it looks like!! any insight is appreciated.
Posted by signman on Tue. 02/15/05 at 9:48 PM
I think Gannon got in with the help of his "friend" McClellon....which is how Gannon found out about Plame-perhaps he was the leaker and thus the "two Senior Administration folks" who told Novak. Novaks' ass, by the way, should have been the FIRST one to get a subpoena. As usual, anything involving W gets done ass backwards... Why is Novak getting off, when he in fact, "outed" Plame and her position?
Posted by mstfd on Tue. 02/15/05 at 10:07 PM
I think Gannon got in with the help of his "friend" McClellon....which is how Gannon found out about Plame-perhaps he was the leaker and thus the "two Senior Administration folks" who told Novak. Novak, by the way, should have been the FIRST one to get a subpoena. As usual, anything involving W gets done ass backwards... Why is Novak getting off, when he in fact, "outed" Plame and her position? Someone should be DEMANDING that he tell what he knows-preferably, under oath.
Posted by mstfd on Tue. 02/15/05 at 10:10 PM
cwhite - news to me, I haven't heard of such a plan.
signman - there really is a lot of mystery here. At the *least* it seems like somebody did somebody a huge favor, but we don't know who. People are pointing at McClellan, but I *believe* Guckert was coming to the White House on Fleischer's watch as well, though I could be wrong. Thus the FOIA.
Posted by jesselee on Tue. 02/15/05 at 10:15 PM
If the Dems let Bush get away with this one, no more money from me. Ever!
Posted by Vidky on Wed. 02/16/05 at 12:28 AM
Gannon and Lewinski have more than one thing in common.
Posted by Tim Adams on Wed. 02/16/05 at 12:48 AM
Post a comment
Name:
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/002170.html
Guckert Gets FOIA'd
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/002170.html
Posted by jesselee
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 12:16 PM
From Conyers' office:
CONYERS AND SLAUGHTER SUBMIT FOIA REQUEST FOR HOMELAND SECURITY RECORDS RELATING TO JAMES D. GUCKERT A.K.A. JEFF GANNON
Congressman John Conyers Jr., and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter sent the following letter today to Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act for release of Homeland Security records relating to James D. Guckert and his access to the President:
February 15, 2005
Dear Secretary Ridge:
This letter constitutes a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552 (FOIA). The request is submitted on behalf of the Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Recent news reports indicate that James D. Guckert, a Republican activist gained access to the White House press briefing room and Presidential press conferences in violation of standard security procedures and was allowed to work under the assumed name, "Jeff Gannon." News reports also indicate that Mr. Guckert would not be considered a bona fide journalist by his peers in the press corps, as most of his claims to legitimacy have already been discredited. Access to the President and his press corps is highly competitive, and many seasoned journalists have not had the honor of attending the events or enjoying the access Mr. Guckert has.
We are concerned that such an individual was allowed within a few feet of the President when the public is routinely disallowed any possible contact with either the President or the White House. We understand that your security policies are developed in conjunction with the White House and want to ascertain your respective roles in this decision as it appears to deviate significantly from heightened security measures you have employed recently. To the extent that White House policies were incorporated into the Secret Service's files and have been read by the Secret Service, we would also like records from the White House.
To determine what process you employ to clear individuals for attendance at events within a close proximity of the President, we seek the release of agency records as described in the numbered paragraphs below:
1. All records setting forth or discussing the standards the Secret Service or the White House impose on those who are granted access to the President and the White House Briefing Room. Please include all records discussing whether the Secret Service or the White House routinely allow guests to use false names.
2. All records setting forth or discussing policies, procedures or guidelines discussing clearance into the White House Briefing Room, as it was applied to Mr. Guckert. Please include all records indicating how any such policies, procedures or guidelines were communicated to Mr. Guckert.
3. The White House Press Secretary denied any responsibility for determining who is granted clearance into the White House Briefing Room. Please disclose what individual or agency is responsible for requesting that the Secret Service conduct a security clearance for individuals or members of the media who wish to enter the White House Briefing Room.
4. All records relating to security qualifications for granting "permanent" White House press corps credentials and how they differ from those of a simple day pass.
5. All records indicating or discussing whether and to what extent someone who is cleared for a daily pass is required to be cleared each time they return on subsequent visits to the White House Briefing Room, as in the case of Mr. Guckert, who returned frequently for up to two years.
6. All records relating to how many daily passes are issued for White House briefings and Presidential press conferences at one time. Please include all records indicating whether there is a limit in place for security or other reasons.
7. All records setting forth or discussing who has the authority, if at all, to exempt an individual or member of the media from security clearance by the Secret Service in order to gain access to the White House Briefing Room.
8. All records indicating how many times and on what days Mr. Guckert was cleared by the Secret Service into the White House, and at whose request.
9. All records indicating what types of passes were issued for Mr. Guckert.
10. All records of communication between the Secret Service and Mr. Guckert. Please include all records, including telephone conversations, emails, or facsimile communications.
We request a waiver of fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest and because disclosure "is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester." 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
The House Judiciary Committee and House Rules Committee publish newsletters, news briefings, and other materials that are disseminated to the public. These materials are widely available to everyone for no cost. The records requested are not sought for commercial use, and the requesters plan to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of this FOIA request through the channels described above.
As indicated above, numerous news articles reflect the significant public interest in the records we seek. Disclosure of the requested records will contribute significantly to the public's understanding of government conduct.
If our request is denied in whole or part, we ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the FOIA. We expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. We reserve the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.
We look forward to your reply to the request within twenty (20) business days, as required under 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention and response to this matter.
Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member, Committee on Rules
John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
UPDATE: Dave Johnson comments, asking the ironic question, "They can't get this info as members of Congress, so how are they going to get it as members of the public using existing laws?" Sadly enough, it would not be the first time that a FOIA outperformed Congressional requests. Julia also provides some context.
UPDATE II: ntodd elaborates at length.
TrackBack (3) | Other Blogs | Contribute!
Comments
Go Get'em Congressmen Conyers and Slaughter!!!
Posted by Joe McDonnell on Tue. 02/15/05 at 12:40 PM
When I was a whistle-blower, I did a FOIA request and got nothing. Then, I used the power of subpoena in the court case and still evidence wasn't turned over for the trial. In the end the judge gave the government sovereign immunity for having done what they did to me. So, anything is possible or impossible with these things. Think of it as a prelude to the OK on Abu Grahib and Geneva Convention being quaint, prior to the OK of Gonzalez. Rebulicans like the dictatorship and refusing to acknowledge the laws congress has passed. They consider these to be wussie laws.
Posted by ljm on Tue. 02/15/05 at 1:24 PM
Good God, it's about time the Democratic Party got a spinal implant. Come on, where is the leadership on this? I'm not a Democrat because my party is scared of its own shadow! Kudos to Conyers and Slaughter, but more Democrats need to get on board with this one.
Posted by Wilson Kolb on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:00 PM
Don't lose sight of the Valerie Plame incident; that is the true breach of trust here. Gannon/Guckert had access to those materials.
Posted by Greg on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:16 PM
Let's imagine that Bill Clinton were in office, and say, sometime during the Kosovo situation it had come to light that a male prostitute had been regularly admitted to the White House press room in a manner to evade the normal certification procedures.
Then let's further imagine that the hooker was working for a Democratic partisan group financed by people in Arkansas with long-standing ties to Clinton's prior campaigns, and that the White House press secretary made sure to call.
And let's further imagine that the hooker, while posing as a reporter, had been involved in the calculated smear of the spouse of one of Clinton's harshest critics, and that the smear had involved blowing the cover of a CIA agent.
And then let's further imagine that the prostitute, given special access to the White House during wartime, specialized in the wearing of military uniforms for their erotic effect.
Now tell me that Fox News and CNN and every other network and newspaper wouldn't have been all over that story. The silence of the news media over the story of the male prostitute with a White House press pass is deafening.
Posted by Wilson Kolb on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:21 PM
damn, I just got subpoened...
Posted by Gannon's Press Pass on Ebay on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:34 PM
lol, come to daddy.
Posted by Loose Gannon on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:45 PM
Consider the possibility that the Gannon situation was structured and allowed to blossom in order to pin the Plame leak on him -- saving the neck of someone high in the administration.
Posted by sausalito on Tue. 02/15/05 at 4:46 PM
The GOP has a history that, when they get all the power they want, they "blow it" (no pun intended)...
Posted by dan on Tue. 02/15/05 at 5:38 PM
This means that Jeff Gannon will win one of those journalism awards that Sean Hannity won!!! Horay!!! A Macaroni Award (I think they call it?).
Posted by dan on Tue. 02/15/05 at 5:41 PM
Hey, sausolita, I was thinking the same thing about the bombing in Lebanon. An inside terror attack to blame on Syria? Can you say "9-11"? Bloggers are uncovering too much shit...expect another 9-11 to gain back public opinion. Anyone notice, the color-coded terror alert hasn't risen since just before the DNC convention? You know, just because the MSM isn't pointing that out, doesn't mean the masses of people aren't noticing this. I am an example. Just because the MSM is suppressing something, doesn't mean "average Joe" isn't talking and thinking about it...
Posted by dan on Tue. 02/15/05 at 5:46 PM
In the above FOIA, look at request #7:
7. All records setting forth or discussing who has the authority, if at all, to exempt an individual or member of the media from security clearance by the Secret Service in order to gain access to the White House Briefing Room.
Answer that, and we have a suspect in the leaking of the CIA memo. By what Logic? Glad you asked.
::This man would never have passed a Secret Service "Security Clearance" to have access to the President.
::Therefore, someone exempted is disqualification.
::This person had to vouch for "Gannon" to give him the daily pass.
::Gannon also claims to have "access" to the leaked CIA memo
::Only 6 people had access to that information, so the only person that trusted Gannon enough to have that information MUST be the same person that exempted him to have access to the daily pass.
::That person is a suspect in the CIA leak.
Posted by Fred on Tue. 02/15/05 at 7:13 PM
Remember when Nixon was the worst we could imagine a government evolving to...this administration makes them look like children! They are slaming americans from so many directions...actors and journalists pretending to report the news.. when we know someone is being paid to promote a policy vs someone who believes a certain policy we are able to determine if we want to believe what is being presented to us. But when we are not told who is being paid or if in Gannon's case he is given what amounts to special treatment...we the people are being treated like fools. Is this what the framers of the constitution had in mind for the manner in which government would treated it's people...I do not think so....
Posted by Dan on Tue. 02/15/05 at 8:39 PM
I read that the Democrats are coming up with their own "fix" for social security--raise the retirement age, reduce benefits. This is a BAD IDEA. #1 it is entirely possible that there won't be a shortfall. The social security administration prepares 3 scenarios under its 75-year projection. the "optimistic" one (which has turned out to be the accurate one for the last decade) has no reduction in benefits. #2 if the Dems issue a proposal they will be validating Bush's "there is a crisis, something must be done" argument. #3 these proposals are bitter medicine, Bush's lies are we'll make you richer with personal accounts. If the Dems want to stay a minority party, this is the way to do it.
Posted by cwhite on Tue. 02/15/05 at 9:46 PM
this all seems too eerily easy to me. remember we are dealing with KARL ROVE here!! I am convinced he was instumental in planting the memo that brought down Rather. now I wish that I could tell myself to keep my eye on the ball, but I have no idea what it looks like!! any insight is appreciated.
Posted by signman on Tue. 02/15/05 at 9:48 PM
I think Gannon got in with the help of his "friend" McClellon....which is how Gannon found out about Plame-perhaps he was the leaker and thus the "two Senior Administration folks" who told Novak. Novaks' ass, by the way, should have been the FIRST one to get a subpoena. As usual, anything involving W gets done ass backwards... Why is Novak getting off, when he in fact, "outed" Plame and her position?
Posted by mstfd on Tue. 02/15/05 at 10:07 PM
I think Gannon got in with the help of his "friend" McClellon....which is how Gannon found out about Plame-perhaps he was the leaker and thus the "two Senior Administration folks" who told Novak. Novak, by the way, should have been the FIRST one to get a subpoena. As usual, anything involving W gets done ass backwards... Why is Novak getting off, when he in fact, "outed" Plame and her position? Someone should be DEMANDING that he tell what he knows-preferably, under oath.
Posted by mstfd on Tue. 02/15/05 at 10:10 PM
cwhite - news to me, I haven't heard of such a plan.
signman - there really is a lot of mystery here. At the *least* it seems like somebody did somebody a huge favor, but we don't know who. People are pointing at McClellan, but I *believe* Guckert was coming to the White House on Fleischer's watch as well, though I could be wrong. Thus the FOIA.
Posted by jesselee on Tue. 02/15/05 at 10:15 PM
If the Dems let Bush get away with this one, no more money from me. Ever!
Posted by Vidky on Wed. 02/16/05 at 12:28 AM
Gannon and Lewinski have more than one thing in common.
Posted by Tim Adams on Wed. 02/16/05 at 12:48 AM
Post a comment
Name:
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/002170.html
Main Page -
Wednesday, 02/16/05
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
