The North Carolina State Bar can now boast that it disbars prosecutors just like it does criminal defense and civil lawyers. By golly, Mike Nifong is not the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the Bar since its inception in 1933. The albatross around its neck has been lifted with the disbarment of a former district attorney for Person and Caswell counties, Joel Brewer, slated to take effect on February 25, 2011.
It was the fact that Mike Nifong’s disbarment in 2007 represented the only time that a prosecutor had been disbarred, to my knowledge, which spurred my activism and led to the formation of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. I have often made the following argument… that Mike Nifong was the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the NC State Bar. With the recent order of disbarment against Mr. Brewer, I must now modify my statement about Mr. Nifong to read that he is the only prosecutor to be disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933.
The reason the State Bar jumped on the disbarment option when made aware of unprofessional conduct about Brewer was most likely its desire to shut me up about my claims about Nifong being the only prosecutor disbarred. In their search to find a prosecutor that could be thrown under the bus like a human sacrifice, the Bar latched onto Brewer like a pack of wolves to a slab of bacon. And, what, you may ask, were Brewer’s grievous offenses that cost him his law license? It appears that during June 2008 and September 2009, Brewer conducted himself inappropriately by kissing and fondling women, often after illegally making traffic stops by posing as a police officer. The seven counts of misdemeanor assault which resulted from his unsolicited acts of affection were not the only charges he faced, and to which he pled guilty. According to the ABC-11 online article, Brewer also routinely dismissed random citations, which may account for the one count of “willful failure to discharge his duties.”
Although the charges against Brewer are criminal and serious, they come no where near to approaching the professional misconduct of prosecutors who have schemed and used foul tactics to put innocent people in jail. These prosecutors, such as Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor case), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael D. Parker (Floyd Brown case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case), and their prosecutorial misconduct have caused their defendants to be wrongfully held, charged, convicted and sentenced… with their actions being willful and malicious. By far, they are more deserving of being disbarred than Joel Brewer.
The practical solution to Mr. Brewer’s obvious problem was counseling, and not disbarment. A temporary suspension of his license while the extent of his problems could be ascertained along with a thorough mental and physical evaluation would have been reasonable steps for the State Bar to take. According to the ABC-11 article, Brewer’s behavioral problems occurred over a fifteen month interval, with the last known offense taking place more than a year ago. There might have been a physical explanation (brain tumor, for example) or emotional problem (family death, etc.) to explain Brewer’s string of irrational behavior. From what I could glean from the online articles, nothing suggested that Brewer’s prosecutorial actions during the period in question resulted in innocent people being convicted and languishing behind bars.
Because Joel Brewer was a prosecutor, you can expect for him to receive the “rare deal”… one that is not available to the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. After pleading guilty to the nine misdemeanor charges, Brewer was not sentenced to serve jail time, but was placed on supervised probation (the length of which was not mentioned in the article), and fined $50,000.00. Rare deals often include fines that are arbitrary. For example former Governor Mike Easley, when pleading guilty to a felony charge, was fined $1,000.00 while serving no jail time. And the media kept talking about how the State Bar could take Easley’s law license, but don’t count on it. He’s being represented by Joe Cheshire and the State Bar doesn’t want no parts of that.
For a brief comparison, consider the following: Brewer pleads guilty to nine misdemeanor counts and receives no jail time. Easley pleads guilty to one felony charge and receives no jail time. Crystal Mangum gets assaulted by her ex-boyfriend, is charged with a fire started by the Durham police, and serves 88 days in jail (she was extremely lucky that the bail bondsman came through out of nowhere). Mike Nifong does nothing wrong, but is accused by Judge Osmond Smith III (who is evidently a mind-reader just like the Bar’s F. Lane Williamson) of lying to the court and ends up serving 24 hours in jail. And I was nearly arrested on the Duke University campus for being a Nifong supporter, although its spokesperson came up with the cockamamie excuse that I was “soliciting” because I handed out a half dozen business cards to people who I had been talking to, and may have suggested that they visit my website. It all boils down to selective justice based on Class and Color, and it makes North Carolina’s justice system the laughing stock of the nation.
For former D.A. Joel Brewer it was a matter of bad timing. Had his offenses and his grievance before the Bar taken place prior to me raising a stink about Mike Nifong being the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar, then he undoubtedly would’ve been given nothing more than a mild reprimand, and possibly a paltry fine. Prosecutors, however, still need to be wary as the Bar will continue on its troll for disposable prosecutors to relieve of their law license in order to make the number of disbarred prosecutor appear to be realistic, especially when compared with the total number of disbarred professionals.
Note: In keeping with its PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, The News & Observer’s only mention of Brewer’s disbarment was snuck in at the bottom of page 2B in the February 5, 2011 issue of the paper, and which consisted of a four sentence blurb by the Associated Press.
Below is a link to Part 7 of EpisodeV of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper. Be sure to take a few minutes to view the commentary, insight, and analysis of Part 7 that follows.
It is very enlightening.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc133.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Nifong should have been disbarred because he brought great shame to the legal system in North Carolina.Then he should have been criminally prosecuted for fraud,obstruction of justice,perjury,and violating the civil rights of three innocent young men which is what would have happened if the defendants had been African Americans.He knew all along this crime had never taken place.Crystal Mangum should also have been charged but women are never punished for making false rape accusations.Who would want to rape her anyway.Certainly not the lacrosse players because they were not attracted to her.Besides the bathroom was too small.
Nifong richly deserved his disbarment. Though he did get off easy with only a day in jail for contempt. But, justice while imperfect, was done. Lets review the record. Nifong lied to the court about the absence of exculpatory evidence. Nifong concealed long after he was required to disclose the results of the DNASI testing. Nifong continued prosecution long after (April 10, 2006 at the latest when the DNASI report was given him) he had no probable cause to prosecute. And, if you believe Crystal that she was raped, then Nifong constructed the perfect prosecution to assure that her attackers were never even investigated. Disbarment is the bare minimum for doing justice in Nifong's case. He really needs the kind of rehabilitation that only the Department of Correction can provide over a long period of time.
Walt-in-Durham
Everyone who condemned the Lacrosse players should have thought to themselves-what if that were my son being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor and a drunk prostitute.Skin color shouldn't make any difference and Finnerty and Seligmann had nothing to do with hiring any strippers.I just finished reading a book about the Scottsboro case where a disgusting white prostitute falsely accused nine innocent black men of raping her on a train and almost lied them into the electric chair.Fortunately they weren't executed.We should all be opposed to injustice regardless of race.
Anonymous said...
"Everyone who condemned the Lacrosse players should have thought to themselves-what if that were my son being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor and a drunk prostitute.Skin color shouldn't make any difference and Finnerty and Seligmann had nothing to do with hiring any strippers.I just finished reading a book about the Scottsboro case where a disgusting white prostitute falsely accused nine innocent black men of raping her on a train and almost lied them into the electric chair.Fortunately they weren't executed.We should all be opposed to injustice regardless of race."
First of all, I don't condemn the Duke Lacrosse defendants because a trial was not held and evidence was not presented. Secondly, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of the prosecutor. Mr. Nifong was an honorable, dedicated district attorney, who ministered justice equally and was not swayed by class or color. As far as the Duke Lacrosse victim goes, I would guess that her blood alcohol level was far less than any of the beer-guzzling partygoers in attendance.
With the remainder of your statement, I am in full agreement.
Walt said...
"Nifong richly deserved his disbarment. Though he did get off easy with only a day in jail for contempt. But, justice while imperfect, was done. Lets review the record. Nifong lied to the court about the absence of exculpatory evidence. Nifong concealed long after he was required to disclose the results of the DNASI testing. Nifong continued prosecution long after (April 10, 2006 at the latest when the DNASI report was given him) he had no probable cause to prosecute. And, if you believe Crystal that she was raped, then Nifong constructed the perfect prosecution to assure that her attackers were never even investigated. Disbarment is the bare minimum for doing justice in Nifong's case. He really needs the kind of rehabilitation that only the Department of Correction can provide over a long period of time.
Walt-in-Durham"
First of all, Mr. Nifong did not lie about the absence of exculpatory evidence. There was nothing exculpatory about the DNA evidence. Just because DNA is present from other individuals, it does not exclude the possibility that a sexual assault took place. Not all sexual assaults, and not all rapes leave DNA evidence.
Also, acting as a "Minister of Justice," Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charges once he felt that the complaints were not fully applicable. It is the rare prosecutor who will act as a truth seeker, like Mr. Nifong. Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe, despite lack of credible evidence, and a recanted statement (which falsely implicated James Arthur Johnson) by the lone killer of Brittany Willis, refused to dismiss charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery against the person who provided information to solve that crime. There are many other examples I could give. The Duke Lacrosse boys, who attended a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party, served no jail time. James Arthur Johnson, who solved the heinous and senseless murder of a Wilson teen, served 39 months in jail.
Walt, which is the greater injustice?
Just because you say it is so does not make it true.
Provide 1 actual legal expert who agrees with you WRT your statement that Mike Nifong did not lie about exculpatory evidence.
Also, you seem fixated on the "failure to provide exculpatory evidence" charge, while completely ignoring the charge of improper pretrial publicity. Why is that?
Finally, I'll simply point out to you that it was the revision of discovery rules brought about by the Gell case that brought about the disciplining of Mike Nifong.
The crime that was alleged in this case,a pristine,immaculate gang rape in a bathroom that was too small in a time warp,was of course impossible and Nifong knew that all along.As someone who believes in men's rights what infuriates me is that disgusting women like Victoria Price or Crystal Mangum who make false rape accusations and ruin the lives of innocent men are never punished for what they do because a vagina is a get out of jail free card.The Scottsboro boys were railroaded because they were black and the lacrosse boys were railroaded because they were white and all decent people should condemn racism and lynching no matter who the victims are.
"Social order is based on law and its fair and equal administration.A lynching victim may die and his suffering cease but the perpetrators must suffer the shame for generations.History teaches us that women of the character in this case are prone for selfish reasons to make make false accusations of rape and insult upon the slighest provocation whereby their selfish ends may be gained."- James Horton.Judge Horton was speaking about Victoria Price but it applies equally well to Crystal Mangum.Both prostitutes lied to avoid being arrested.
Syd, you know better.
"First of all, Mr. Nifong did not lie about the absence of exculpatory evidence."
Not only did he lie about it, but he admitted in his DHC hearing that he lied about it. Further, he was found in contempt of court for lying to the court about turning over the exculpatory evidence.
"There was nothing exculpatory about the DNA evidence. Just because DNA is present from other individuals, it does not exclude the possibility that a sexual assault took place."
A little convenient change of the timeline. Nifong likes to do that. But, at the time he lied about the DNA evidence, it was not a sexual assault charge, but a rape charge. Further, the presence of DNA from other donors is exculpatory in that under Rule 412 it tends to show that the crime did not take place as Crystal claims it did. Also, it tends to show that the defendants did not commit the crime, if one was committed. Thus it is exculpatory.
"Not all sexual assaults, and not all rapes leave DNA evidence."
True, but in the history of jurisprudence, no rape as described by Crystal ever resulted in an absence of DNA left behind.
"It is the rare prosecutor who will act as a truth seeker,..."
Nifong never aced as a truth seeker. Instead he continued his prosecution long after the evidence evaporated. He had no viable identification either through an eyewitness or DNA. He had no physical evidence to corroborate the story told by Crystal. And he had no witnesses to corroborate any of her versions of the story. In short after the SBI report came back in April 2006, there was no further truth seeking being done by the DA's office. Simply, Nifong tried to do exactly what Bill Wolfe did. No difference except Nifong got caught sooner and perhaps he was just more arrogant than Wolfe.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
"Just because you say it is so does not make it true.
Provide 1 actual legal expert who agrees with you WRT your statement that Mike Nifong did not lie about exculpatory evidence.
Also, you seem fixated on the 'failure to provide exculpatory evidence' charge, while completely ignoring the charge of improper pretrial publicity. Why is that?
Finally, I'll simply point out to you that it was the revision of discovery rules brought about by the Gell case that brought about the disciplining of Mike Nifong."
I do not believe that the DNA evidence about other men is exculpatory, and evidently, neither does Mr. Nifong. Furthermore, Mr. Nifong did not withhold any evidence.
If, in fact, a report about DNA was not included within the reams of documents turned over in triplicate to the defendants, then Mr. Nifong can not be held responsible, as he did not sit by a copy machine compiling the documents for the defense.
Defendants had all documents by October 2006, well before a trial date was even assigned.
With regard to pre-trial publicity, what do you suggest Mr. Nifong said that was worthy of disbarment... that the perpetrators of the alleged crimes against Ms. Mangum were hooligans?
Finally, ever since Mr. Nifong has practice law as a prosecutor he has always maintained an open file policy in which he shared discovery with defendants. He did so prior to it being mandated by law. It is a shame that the Duke Lacrosse defendants did not reciprocate and give prosecution its discovery.
Anonymous said...
"'Social order is based on law and its fair and equal administration.A lynching victim may die and his suffering cease but the perpetrators must suffer the shame for generations.History teaches us that women of the character in this case are prone for selfish reasons to make make false accusations of rape and insult upon the slighest provocation whereby their selfish ends may be gained.'- James Horton.Judge Horton was speaking about Victoria Price but it applies equally well to Crystal Mangum.Both prostitutes lied to avoid being arrested."
First of all, Crystal Mangum was sent to the Duke Lacrosse house under false pretenses by a Duke Lacrosse player using a false name. She was sent there to dance, not provide prostitutional services. Where would the liability for arrest come from? What exactly was her motive for lying? I don't quite follow your reasoning.
Walt said...
"Syd, you know better.
'First of all, Mr. Nifong did not lie about the absence of exculpatory evidence.'
Not only did he lie about it, but he admitted in his DHC hearing that he lied about it. Further, he was found in contempt of court for lying to the court about turning over the exculpatory evidence.
'There was nothing exculpatory about the DNA evidence. Just because DNA is present from other individuals, it does not exclude the possibility that a sexual assault took place.'
A little convenient change of the timeline. Nifong likes to do that. But, at the time he lied about the DNA evidence, it was not a sexual assault charge, but a rape charge. Further, the presence of DNA from other donors is exculpatory in that under Rule 412 it tends to show that the crime did not take place as Crystal claims it did. Also, it tends to show that the defendants did not commit the crime, if one was committed. Thus it is exculpatory.
'Not all sexual assaults, and not all rapes leave DNA evidence.'
True, but in the history of jurisprudence, no rape as described by Crystal ever resulted in an absence of DNA left behind.
'It is the rare prosecutor who will act as a truth seeker,...'
Nifong never aced as a truth seeker. Instead he continued his prosecution long after the evidence evaporated. He had no viable identification either through an eyewitness or DNA. He had no physical evidence to corroborate the story told by Crystal. And he had no witnesses to corroborate any of her versions of the story. In short after the SBI report came back in April 2006, there was no further truth seeking being done by the DA's office. Simply, Nifong tried to do exactly what Bill Wolfe did. No difference except Nifong got caught sooner and perhaps he was just more arrogant than Wolfe.
Walt-in-Durham"
The contempt of court charge is bogus nonsense and his conviction and sentence by Judge Osmond Smith III is a disgraceful stain on North Carolina justice. Judge Smith should apologize to and seek forgiveness from Mr. Nifong.
With regard to rule 412, would the absence of DNA by other men have made the lab results inculpatory? I don't think so. DNA by other men is therefore, irrelevant with respect to those at the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party.
Crystal lied to avoid being arrested for public intoxication.She had just finished three years probation for car theft and trying to run over a police officer.It's obvious where she got the elements of her crazy story.She was in the bathroom with Kim Roberts and she said the assault lasted half an hour which is about how long they were in the house altogether.In one of her stories she said she was suspended in mid air and was attacked by ten more lacrosse players in the back yard.What is the world coming to when you can't trust a crazy hooker.Besides none of these young men would want to have sex with her in the first place.
"would the absence of DNA by other men have made the lab results inculpatory? I don't think so..."
Well -- there's your first problem. Exactly how much legal training do YOU have, Sid?
Specifically, GS 8C-412 states that the victim's past sexual behavior (as shown by the DNA evidence) is relevant because it
"Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant..."
"would the absence of DNA by other men have made the lab results inculpatory?"
How would the ABSENCE of DNA evidence tend to prove guilt?
Do you understand the terms "inculpatory" and "exculpatory"?
Syd said: "The contempt of court charge is bogus nonsense and his conviction and sentence by Judge Osmond Smith III is a disgraceful stain on North Carolina justice. Judge Smith should apologize to and seek forgiveness from Mr. Nifong."
Now Syd, you, or at least Nifong should know better. Nifong did not appeal the conviction. By your own often announced requirement of a trial to establish the evidence, Nifong is guilty beyond any doubt.
Anonymous said: "Specifically, GS 8C-412 states that the victim's past sexual behavior (as shown by the DNA evidence) is relevant because it
"Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant...""
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. Someone who understands the law. Something Nifong, Syd's principal legal advisor, does not know, or ignores.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
"'would the absence of DNA by other men have made the lab results inculpatory? I don't think so...'
Well -- there's your first problem. Exactly how much legal training do YOU have, Sid?
Specifically, GS 8C-412 states that the victim's past sexual behavior (as shown by the DNA evidence) is relevant because it
'Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant...'
Obviously you and Walt-in-Durham believe that it is impossible for a woman with loose morals, or one who is a prostitute to be a victim of rape or sexual assault. I disagree.
Obviously, when you can't find a flaw in the argument, you resort to attacking the person.
Add "Ad Hominem" and "projection bias" to the growing list of words you need to look up.
Sid -- I'll actually defer to you as the medical professional. In your opinion, is it possible for someone to attack a person in the manner Crystal Mangum states she was attacked without leaving DNA evidence behind?
"Obviously you and Walt-in-Durham believe that it is impossible for a woman with loose morals, or one who is a prostitute to be a victim of rape or sexual assault."
Now Syd, you should know better. Everyone is entitled to equal protection of the laws.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
"Obviously, when you can't find a flaw in the argument, you resort to attacking the person.
Add 'Ad Hominem' and 'projection bias' to the growing list of words you need to look up."
I have never attacked commenters to this blog. I value commenters and welcome all points of view to be expressed. As a matter of fact, I have honored blog commenters by displaying their names in the upcoming parts of Episode V of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper." Even unbekannte's name is featured.
In my prior response, I was paraphrasing the positions of Walt and Anonymous in a succinct manner. No way can that be misconstrued as attacking a person.
Anonymous said...
"Sid -- I'll actually defer to you as the medical professional. In your opinion, is it possible for someone to attack a person in the manner Crystal Mangum states she was attacked without leaving DNA evidence behind?"
I am not privvy to the detailed actions that transpired during the sexual assault to give you a good answer. However, considering the fact that Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charges against the three, I am inclined to believe that the likelihood of no DNA being left behind in the alleged sexual attack is quite high.
"In my prior response, I was paraphrasing the positions of Walt and Anonymous in a succinct manner. No way can that be misconstrued as attacking a person."
No, Sid what you did was a classic example of the logical fallacy "ad hominem".
The argument could be paraphrased as this -- You stated that rule 412 does not apply to the Duke LAX case. I stated that it did, and cited the rule itself as a reason why it applied. Your response? A silly statement about what you think I (and Walt) believe about who can be a victim of rape.
"I am not privvy [sic] to the detailed actions that transpired during the sexual assault to give you a good answer."
Come on, Sid -- Crystal Mangum's multiple descriptions about what happened that night are well documented. Pick one of them, and let us know if, in your PROFESSIONAL opinion, it is possible for an assault like the one she describes can occur without leaving DNA evidence.
No white man would want to have sex with Crystal Mangum,therefore no rape happened.
Anonymous: Do you understand the terms "inculpatory" and "exculpatory"?
Your suggestion is unfair. It is clear that Sidney understands the correct definitions of “inculpatory” and “exculpatory” from his discussion of other cases.
For example, Sidney believes the tire iron found on a neighbor’s lawn was exculpatory in the Michael Peterson murder. He believes it is a possible murder weapon. Given questions raised about SBI lab work, a defense request for an independent examination to confirm the finding that there was no blood would have been reasonable.
Sidney notes that the defense could have used the tire iron at trial to raise doubts about the prosecution’s theory that Peterson killed his wife with a fireplace poker. The poker was never found.
Clearly, the discovery of the tire iron does not prove that Peterson did not kill his wife with a fireplace poker. Sidney recognizes correctly that exculpatory evidence need not prove innocence beyond all doubt.
In the Duke case, however, Sidney adopts a completely different definition—one that is impossible to meet. In that case—and only that case—Sidney requires that “exculpatory” evidence prove absolute innocence in all cases—not just for Mangum’s specific allegations, but for other possible allegations. He contends that the failure to find the defendants’ DNA is not exculpatory because it did not prove that a sexual assault that did not leave DNA could not possibly have occurred—despite Mangum not having alleged such an assault.
Sidney has never explained why he adopts radically different definitions in different cases.
The Duke Lacrosse players were presumed guilty because they have white skin and belong to the male gender and that is just as disgusting as any other form of hate and prejudice.
Anonymous said...
"The Duke Lacrosse players were presumed guilty because they have white skin and belong to the male gender and that is just as disgusting as any other form of hate and prejudice."
The Duke Lacrosse defendants were no more presumed guilty than anyother defendant who is charged with a crime. I did not presume them to be guilty because I never heard the prosecution present its case in a trial wherein the attorneys for the defendants presented their case.
Note: I just uploaded Part 8 of Episode V of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" a day early. If you look in the next several parts, you will find the names of most of the commenters to the blog, including Kilgo. (In order to appear in the comic strip, like Guiowen, you need to send me a photograph.) Be sure to check out the commentary which follows the strip.
Also, tomorrow, I will upload a new blog.
I can't put a link here, but you can copy and past the address below, or go to the website.
http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc7panelEvP7.htm
Sorry. I meant "copy and paste.."
"Note: I just uploaded Part 8 of Episode V of 'The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper' a day early."
Is there a point to this?
Is there a point to this?
Sidney is enjoying himself. Give him a break.
We know that he is not trying to persuade anyone. Other than reminding his readers that Nifong is the only prosecutor disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct, and other prosecutors have abused their authority, he makes no arguments that support his case.
Kilgo is immortalized
in Super Duper Cooper ! ! !
Congratulations ! ! !
You must be so proud ! ! !
This is undoubtedly one of your highest achievements.
"In order to appear in the comic strip, like Guiowen, you need to send me a photograph."
So Sid, now you're trading pictures on the internet? I hope you know Guiowen's correct age.
Anonymous said...
"'In order to appear in the comic strip, like Guiowen, you need to send me a photograph.'
So Sid, now you're trading pictures on the internet? I hope you know Guiowen's correct age."
Although Episode V has been inked and is nearly completed, I will hold an open casting call for Episode VI, and anyone wishing for their image to be depicted can have the possibility of that happening. But in order for me to render them, I will need a photo or other visual reference. Guiowen deserves credit for this idea, as he requested to be in the strip. He will be presented in one of the final strips, so keep watching. Kilgo's name will be graffitied a few more times as well as other commenters.
Be sure and check out the current blog which I will momentarily post, along with a link to Part 8 of the comic strip.
Here I'll simply note that Sid has bowed out of the conversation rather than respond to the questions asked of him.
Typical. He often changes the subject when he's proven wrong.
Believe me, I'm probably the oldest person around here. Well, maybe Sidney is older.)
Post a Comment