Sunday, October 05, 2008

Important news on the Ramat Bet Shemesh alleged molesting teacher case!

Dear UOJ,

Important news on the Ramat Bet Shemesh alleged molesting teacher case.

Rabbi Akiva Kagan, of Toras Eliyahu, was served with a restraining order by the Bet Shemesh Police on Thursday.

This reportedly restricts him from coming into contact with children
for 15 days, while the police continue their investigation into
multiple complaints of child abuse by the teacher.

Meanwhile, the Toras Eliyahu school is retaining Kagan as a teacher
of 30 young boys in the classroom. The school management claims that the restraining order only restricts Kagan from teaching in his old school, Ishrei Lev, which ceased to exist over the past summer, and therefore has no influence or impact upon Toras Eliyahu.

It is astounding that, despite all the outcry over the past three
months by parents, by the general public (led by UOJ and others),and by Rav Chaim Soloveichik, that the school is still insisting that the teacher is totally innocent beyond any shadow of doubt, and is therefore fully fit to teacher young children.

Furthermore, the school's previous claims, to justify their decision
to employ the alleged pedophile while under police investigation, that:

* there were no complaints
* there were complaints but the school has investigated and found
them groundless
* there was "only" one complaint, by a family of miscreants
* that the school has not received official notification of anything,
from anybody, are all exposed now as total fabrications - schemes and lies.

Nothing but a scam to protect the teacher and the "good name" of their school. They are scared stiff of investigations now progressing - to the previous seven years Kagan worked with children at Toras Eliyahu.

The complaints are for real; and the risks to the kids are real. And there are probably more damaged kids whose parents must now step forward.

The outcry is vindicated. Heads must roll at Toras Eliyahu.


FED UP said...

Hi there! I guess I'm the first comment today!

You people in RBS, pull your kids out of the school already. Stop whining.

Anonymous said...

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of an association with a former '60s radical, stepping up an effort by John McCain's campaign to portray Obama as unacceptable to American voters.
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin
Photo: AP
Slideshow: Pictures of the week

Palin's reference was to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground. Its members took credit for bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and US Capitol, during the Vietnam War era. Obama, who was a child when the group was active, has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.

Palin told a group of donors at a private airport, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

The Obama campaign called Palin's remarks offensive but not surprising in light of news stories detailing the McCain campaign's come-from-behind offensive.

"What's clear is that John McCain and Sarah Palin would rather spend their time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy," Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan said in a statement.

Palin, Alaska's governor, said that donors on a greeting line had encouraged her and McCain to get tougher on Obama. She said an aide then advised her, "Sarah, the gloves are off, the heels are on, go get to them."

The escalated effort to attack Obama's character dovetails with TV ads by outside groups questioning Obama's ties to Ayers, convicted former Obama fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.

Obama was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.

In an interview with CBS News earlier in the week, Palin did not name any newspapers or magazines that shaped her view of the world. On Saturday, she cited a New York Times story that detailed Obama's relationship with Ayers.

Summing up its findings, the Times wrote: "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8."'

Earlier Saturday, Palin spent 35 minutes at a diner in Greenwood Village where she met with Blue Star Moms, a support group of families whose sons or daughters are serving in the armed forces. Reporters were allowed in the diner for less than five minutes before being ushered out by the campaign.

Palin, whose 19-year-old son, Track, headed for deployment to Iraq last month as a private with an Army combat team, was overheard at one point commiserating with one of the mothers: "Any time I ask my son how he's doing, he says, 'Mom, I'm in the Army now."'

Anonymous said...

Additionally, if someone sees him teaching children during the 15 day period they should call the police and let them know the restraining order has been violated.

Not a bad idea said...

AKRON, Ohio - Mortgage finance company Fannie Mae said it is forgiving the mortgage debt of a 90-year-old woman who shot herself in the chest as sheriff's deputies attempted to evict her.

Arthur said...

Hekhsher Tzedek is Not the Way to Go
taken from cross current

What does it take to get two very opinionated writers to drop their differences and collaborate on a hot topic?

A shared feeling that the topic is too important to go without comment. That is what led to a
recent op-ed in The Forward on Hekhsher Tzedek, the plan to introduce a second tier of hashgacha on food products that would assure compliance with ethical standards.

Rabbi Michael Broyde and I have written together before, more often than not on relatively innocuous issues of interest in the legal community. Our awareness that we come from somewhat different hashkafic universes and often hang out with some very different people has not diminished our friendship in the slightest. Neither has our frequent disagreeing on important matters. When we find that we do agree on more controversial topics, we sense that it might be important to broadcast far and wide that people from different points on the continuum of Orthodoxy nonetheless see some real danger ahead.

Anyone who took notice of our collaboration last week probably figured that out for him or herself. It was probably even easier to figure out after observing that we went head-to-head with Reform leader Rabbi Eric Yoffie, and that Agudah (completely independently) issued a press release on the same issue, making virtually identical points.

Many people, including some unpublished commenters to this blog, have asked what could be wrong with assuring higher ethical standards? Our position is that scrupulously obeying the law – Torah law, and the law of the land – is a good idea. Going beyond the letter of the law is also a good idea. Hekhsher Tzedek is not a good idea.

When Rabbi Broyde and I collaborate, we usually pen first drafts independently, and then merge the best points. In this case, each of us championed completely different arguments, and merging them together proved difficult. We may not have succeeded, so it is worthwhile relating what we were trying to do.

My main concern was the damage to kashrus that would result from people coming to believe that the details of the law were far less important than the ethical intent of the law. Traditional Jews have been told that too often in the past, by those who wished to wean them away from what they saw as excessive legalism. We were told that in centuries of Christian polemics; we were told that by 19th century Reform. Although Hekhsher Tzedek claimed that they were not going to replace the hechsher concerning legal compliance, I could never trust such a claim. Hekhsher Tzedek quickly gained the endorsement – and is now formally linked to – the Conservative movement. This is not a movement known for its compliance with the laws of kashrus. Even among the minority of members who would call themselves kosher-observant, you will not find many under the age of sixty for whom the details of Yoreh Deah (as opposed to more general rules, like avoiding pork) are real considerations. Some of their statements about the relative importance of the legal and the ethical give further reason to suspect that the Agriprocessor debacle affords the Conservative movement an opportunity to sell the public a kashrus newly manufactured in its image. In fact, Hekhsher Tzedek’s webpages link to kashrus manuals and essays that are all of heterodox provenance.

Rabbi Broyde’s central argument was that consternation in the community about alleged misconduct (to the best of my knowledge, we are still dealing only with allegations, not accepted facts) had to do with violations of the law, and nothing more. When people grimaced over the fact that kashrus, which in our mesorah is so heavily weighted with ethical considerations, was being linked with unethical behavior, they meant violations of the law of the land. They were disgusted that the source of their meat stood accused of employing child labor and tolerating practices that unnecessarily caused pain to animals. These are legal infractions. They were not chagrined that Rubashkin failed to come up with a profit-sharing plan for its laborers, or offer two months of paternity leave, or volunteer to pay for the college education of their workers. Such treatment would be laudatory, but complying with the law of the land in a generally just country – and nothing more - cannot be condemned.

Moving in the marketplace beyond the letter of the law in is not easy to demand. What level of compensation, of health-benefits, of vacation privileges should be agreed upon as “ethical?” Without such agreement, any standard is unsatisfying. What is compelling to one person is excessive to another, and insufficient to yet someone else. If the standard does not flow directly from Torah literature, then it is necessarily arbitrary. Both Rabbi Broyde and I (as well as anyone who spent a decent amount of time in a yeshiva) know that there is no accepted set of ethical expectations. If arbitrary standards are going to be used instead, we argue that rabbis are no better than anyone else in developing them, and at a definite disadvantage in enforcing them, having little investigative experience or authority.

Briefly, if the standard is a legal one, governmental agencies can do a better job enforcing them. If the standard is not a legal one – and does not flow from genuine Torah sources – then reasonable people will disagree, and rabbis have little to add.

Some would argue that there is nothing to lose by agreeing to have a group of well- meaning rabbis come up with some standard, even if arbitrary. This is a mistake. Whenever you go beyond the expectations of the law, there are complications. Sometimes, they are so onerous as to make the entire exercise counterproductive. It is easy to see, for example, that the wage and benefit package suggested by Hekhsher Tzedek will add significantly to the price per pound that consumers will have to pay for meat. It should also be easy to see that were meat prices to rise, someone would set up large scale production in Argentina, or even China, and not have to worry about American conceptions of minimum wages and benefits. The net result is that American workers would not get enhanced wage packages, but that they would lose their jobs altogether.

Interestingly, Hekhsher Tzedek seems very much aware that any ethical standards that do not flow from Torah sources will not find consensus in the community. The subtitle on its collection of sources is Al Pi Din – according to Jewish law. In other words, they try – admirably – to find the authority for any ethical standard within mainstream mekoros in gemara and poskim. They correctly identify key sugyos – issues of ta’arumos, lifnim mi-shuras ha-din, minhag ha-medinah. In each and every case, without fail, they completely misunderstand and/or misapply these concepts. It is painful for anyone with background in learning to read such a complete manhandling of texts. The arguments are as specious as the ones coming from the same movement that tried decades ago to argue that eating fish in a treif restaurant is permissible (stam keli of an akum is an eino ben yomo, reducing the issur to a derabban; since most Jews eat out, it proves that any ban on such activity is a gezerah she-ein ha-tzibur yecholim la’amud bah), as well as driving on Shabbos (since no one used fuel in an internal combustion engine at the time of the Mishkan, burning fuel for transportation is a melachah she-eina tzrichah legufah, making it a derabbanan; see above in re fish for the rest of the argument).

While looking for a higher standard seems praiseworthy and impossible to resist, closer inspection shows it to be a Trojan horse. And no hechsher can make horsemeat kosher.

Anonymous said...

Europeans scramble to save failing banks

Sunday October 5, 2008

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Governments across Europe scrambled to save failing banks on Sunday, working largely on their own a day after leaders of the continent's four biggest economies called for tighter regulation and coordinated response to the global meltdown.

"UOJ" - "The Un-Orthodox Jew" said...

Tainted Cadbury chocolate found in Hong Kong

Sunday October 5, 10:45 am ET

Chinese-produced Cadbury chocolate tainted with melamine found in Hong Kong

BEIJING (AP) -- Hong Kong said Sunday it found two Cadbury chocolate products contained considerably more of the industrial chemical melamine than the city's legal limit in a growing scandal over tainted food made in China.

Iran banned imports of all dairy products from China because of the contamination concerns, state radio reported.

In China, the food safety watchdog said no traces of the melamine were found in new tests of milk powder sold domestically, as officials sought to restore public trust in dairy products.

Baby formula containing melamine has been blamed for killing four infants and sickening more than 54,000 with kidney stones and other ailments in China.

Chinese authorities suspect suppliers trying to boost output diluted their milk, adding melamine because its nitrogen content can fool tests measuring protein content.

The scandal has sparked global concern about Chinese food imports and recalls in several countries of Chinese-made products including milk powders, cookies and candies.

Hong Kong's food safety agency said samples of two chocolate products made by British candy maker Cadbury at its Beijing factory contained considerably more melamine than the city's legal limit of 2.5 parts per million.

The two items were among 11 Chinese-made products that have already been recalled by Cadbury in parts of Asia and the Pacific.

Hong Kong's Center for Food Safety said Cadbury's Dairy Milk Hazelnut Chocolate Bulk Pack contained 56 parts per million of melamine, while Dairy Milk Cookies Chocolate contained 6.9 parts per million.

Calls to Cadbury offices in London and Asia Pacific went unanswered Sunday.

In Iran, the Health Ministry said the ban on imports of dairy products from China is in place until further notice, according to state radio. The ministry is assigning health workers to destroy suspect Chinese dairy products currently on the Iranian market.

China's government has been struggling to contain the damage from widespread contamination of milk supplies, castigating local officials for negligence while promising to keep stores supplied with clean milk.

The latest tests of 129 batches of baby formula and 212 batches of other kinds of milk powder showed they were free from melamine contamination, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said on its Web site.

The tests were on baby formula and other kinds of milk powder produced after Sept. 14, when the scandal broke, the watchdog said. Quality supervisors have been stationed in baby milk powder production facilities to oversee the process.

The Agriculture Ministry said it is providing subsidies to Chinese dairy farmers badly hit by declining demand for milk. Many farmers have been tossing out raw milk as they are squeezed by feed costs they cannot recoup due to waning demand.

The ministry's statement did not give details of the subsidy plan.

Anonymous said...

Why are there often many unrelated posts on this site?


DEAUVILLE, France - Armed pirates aboard fast-moving skiffs have increasingly turned the shipping lanes off Somalia into a lucrative hunting grounds: commandeering vessels large and small and leaving the world's maritime powers frustrated about how to stop the seafaring bandits.

Now, however, momentum is growing for coordinated international action to back up the sharp response after the stunning seizure late last month of a Ukrainian cargo ship laden with tanks and heavy weaponry — as the pirates quickly found themselves encircled by U.S. warships and receiving only silence to their demands for millions of dollars in ransom.

It could be a sign of a more aggressive and unified front in the one of the world's most important shipping lanes.

Several European Union countries are planning to launch an anti-piracy patrol, and Russia announced Friday it would cooperate with the West on fighting the pirates. U.S. warships, meanwhile, are being diverted from counterterrorism duties to respond to the hijackers.

America and some of its allies already have 10 warships in the area in the Gulf of Aden, north of Somalia on Africa's eastern elbow and between the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.

Let's be Honest said...

I was privileged to get a wonderful education and ultimately received S'micha (the real kind) the old fashioned way...I earned it. I graduated at one of the respected institutions of higher learning with honors.

A smicha in what - lashon hara against gedolei Yisrael?

Modesty Patrol Soldier said...

Please place your orders as soon as possible for this year's newly approved tznious women's attire. The new fashion in our catelogue is curtisy of the BBC.


Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil
Saudi woman in full face veil, or niqab
The two-eyed look remains too seductive for Sheikh Habadan

A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye.

Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

The question of how much of her face a woman should cover is a controversial topic in many Muslim societies.

The niqab is more common in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, but women in much of the Muslim Middle East wear a headscarf which covers only their hair.

Sheikh Habadan, an ultra-conservative cleric who is said to have wide influence among religious Saudis, was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel al-Majd.

"UOJ" - "The Un-Orthodox Jew" said...

I have been following this case closely.

Mary Ryan, who was raped by a priest, refused to accept a $400,000 settlement from the diocese.


In 1982, Mary Ryan was raped by a Roman Catholic priest in the bedroom of her Providence apartment. The priest, the now-deceased Monsignor Louis Ward Dunn, was convicted by a judge. It was the first rape conviction of a priest in Rhode Island.

Like many victims who were sexually abused by priests over the last several decades, Ryan went on to sue the Diocese of Providence and its hierarchy, claiming that they should be held responsible for what had happened to them. The suits alleged that over a period of decades, diocesan leaders had received many reports of sexual misconduct by priests assigned to its parishes but had swept them under the rug. Instead of expelling the priests from their ranks, the lawsuits claimed, diocesan leaders repeatedly transferred them from church to church where they continued their sexual predation.

But unlike the other victims who filed such lawsuits, Mary Ryan refused to accept a mediated settlement. She turned down $400,000 that the diocese was prepared to give her to compensate her for her injuries.

Now, in what may be the final leg of her long battle with the Rhode Island judiciary, the 47-year-old Burrillville mother of four is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that she has a right to a jury trial on the merits of her claims. Joining her as a petitioner is her husband of 25 years, Thomas Ryan, a fire-alarm installer who has stood by her side since the day, 14 years ago, that she revealed to him that the priest who had given her away at their wedding –– a man whom she considered a surrogate father, who had baptized her first child –– had sexually assaulted her.

MARY RYAN’S quest for justice has never been about money, she says. It’s about holding the diocese publicly accountable for what she calls “a cover-up” and a long campaign by its leaders to smear her reputation. She wants to be able to present her case to a jury. If she goes to trial, she reasons, she will be able to force the diocese to open up thousands of pages of confidential records that the diocesan leaders have fought for years to keep secret. The records, now under court seal, will be the vehicle, she says, that will help prove her case.

Ryan’s legal battle has been a lonely, uphill fight. In 2002, she was the only one of 38 victims of sexual abuse who would not participate in a $13.5-million settlement from the Diocese of Providence that was mediated through binding arbitration. When she balked, her lawyer decided he didn’t want to represent her anymore. For the past six years, she has gone it alone, incurring thousands of dollars in costs –– much of it donated by friends–– to continue her court battle on her own. She says she has spent more than $6,000 on transcripts alone.

So far it has been for naught.

In 2003, Superior Court Judge Robert D. Krause –– the judge who presided over the dozens of cases that settled with the diocese –– dismissed Ryan’s lawsuit after she refused to join with the others who took the money, saying she had waited too long to sue after being raped by Louis Dunn. This February, the state Supreme Court rejected her appeal, agreeing with Krause. The court said Ryan and her husband had just three years to sue after the rape, but had waited 13 years to do so.

Ryan asserts that the state Supreme Court erred in its ruling and that it completely missed the point she was trying to make when it ruled on the statute of limitations issue.

“Dunn and his criminal conduct was not before the court,” she said in a recent interview. “That’s already been established. The criminal case was done. The issue here is that these men [diocesan leaders] knew Louis Dunn and other priests were criminals yet they put them in positions of power” where they could continue preying on young parishioners “of their sexual preference.”

“Unbeknownst to me, Dunn had been reported to the diocese long before what he did to me, while stuff was happening to me.” But no one, she says, did anything to stop him.

In Mary Ryan’s mind, there is “no statute of limitations of a cover-up that continues to this day.” As recently as this January, the church was in court arguing against having to produce records to show what it knew about sexually abusive priests over the years. In a decision involving three lawsuits brought by men who say they were molested years ago by three different Rhode Island priests, Superior Court Judge Netti C. Vogel ordered the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence to provide much more information regarding allegations against dozens of priests going back nearly four decades.

In response to the court order, the church produced files on 83 priests –– including Father Dunn –– who have been accused over the years of sexual misconduct. But since those lawsuits were settled without a trial, almost everything produced by the diocese remains under seal.

Representing herself, Ryan is now asking the nation’s highest court to review the lower court’s decision, overturn it and reinstate her lawsuit. She is asking to be heard “in forma pauperis” –– which would allow her to argue her case as an indigent petitioner, someone who has no ability to pay.

She asserts in her newly filed brief that not only did the Rhode Island Supreme Court err in interpreting the statute of limitations but that her constitutional rights were violated. She alleges that the chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Frank J. Williams, should have disqualified himself from participating in her case –– alleging that his “strong public ties” to diocesan leaders made him a less than neutral participant. She also asserts that Krause, the trial judge who threw out her lawsuit, had “an agenda” in pushing the settlement of the cases and that he, too, should have recused himself from hearing her case once she made it clear she did not want to settle.

Thomas R. Bender, a lawyer representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, believes Ryan’s petition is so meritless that he has waived his right to file a reply to her filing. In a recent interview, he called Ryan’s petition mostly “a rehash” of arguments over state law that she has previously made –– without success –– for the past several years.

“She hasn’t raised any federal constitutional issues that I think the court would be interested in,” said Bender.

But Ryan contends that it would be in the public interest for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case because “across the nation, there are numerous courts issuing contradictory rulings” regarding statutes of limitation in clergy sexual abuse cases “and many victims have been denied their day in court.”

She says that local diocesan leaders “have acknowledged –– in their own ‘audit report’ –– that more than 10,000 children across the nation are alleged to have been sexually abused by more than 4,500 priests” yet have “lobbied across the country to preserve their privilege … and financial assets at the expense of the nation’s children. They have fought hard against the elimination or extension of statutes of limitations as a matter of public policy….” Ryan says she has filed 1,400 pages of exhibits to bolster her claim –– along with a stream of quotes from Chief Justice Williams from published interviews he has given to reporters over the years.

One of the things she cites in her brief is an excerpt from an interview that Williams gave to M. Charles Bakst, the now-retired political columnist for The Providence Journal, in September 2003. “Writing about certain church and State issues, Mr. Bakst discussed Judge Williams’ decision to use the prestige of his public office to urge R.I. State judges to take part in the defendants’ ‘Red Mass’ on Supreme Court stationery.… Judge Williams requested the judges to notify a designated court employee to confirm their attendance.”

She also includes statements Williams made to The Providence Visitor, the diocesan newspaper, on Jan. 5, 2004. “Without faith, you’re dead…,” he told the reporter. “It’s very easy going from being a Catholic to being a judge. We follow the same principles…. We were not founded as an atheist society.… Peaceful mediation has become my mantra…. That peace coming from Christ.”

Ryan also noted that in an interview with the Associated Press on Sept. 8, 2004, Chief Justice Williams said he had urged lawyers in the clergy abuse cases to mediate. “You don’t need a forum such as the court to go through every gory detail…. I don’t think we need that in our culture,” Ryan quotes Williams as saying.

In her appellate brief, Ryan also tells the court that after her lawyer decided to pull out of her case, he contacted her therapist. The lawyer, she said, wanted her therapist to meet with him and the Ryans to “attempt to convince them” to participate in the multi-million-dollar settlement that the other sexual assault victims had agreed to take from the diocese. The therapist refused to attend the meeting, Ryan says.

THE NATION’S highest court is taking up Ryan’s petition in a conference on Friday to decide whether to take the case.

The odds are slim that the court will accept it. In 2006 –– the latest year for which statistical records are available –– there were 8,857 cases that the court was asked to review. It chose to hear just 78 of those cases. Historically, of the cases that are accepted for review, less than 1 percent are from indigent petitioners.

Once a petition is filed, it is first read by the justices’ law clerks. The justices themselves often go no further in deciding whether to accept a case than reading a memo from a law clerk pool. Legal experts say that the best barometer for weighing whether the Supreme Court will take a case is whether there is a federal issue of national importance. It takes four justices –– out of the nine on the court –– to vote to place a case on the court’s calendar for briefing and argument.


Anonymous said...

like i have said before on this blog
before you bash UOJ take a moment and look honestly how the moetzes gedolie torah who were self appointed failed our jewish children by protecting and enabling molesters

i to have semicha and i hate the fact that dovid cohen a shmuel kaminetzky allowed and advised molesters to flee and evade justice

gedolim should relearn the dina demalchusa dina
but you know what there is hope
for kolko

it took 13 years for OJ to go to jail for the rest of his life and soon mondorowitz and kolko will be there with g-ds help

so gedolim bring back mondorowitz to stand trial then will see who you really are

Anonymous said...

Has it been confirmed that David Cohen advised accused molesters to flee justice or that he encouraged people not to go to the legal authorities to report abuse cases? Are you referrring to the mondrowitz case?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps its just me, but I seem to see a common thread in matters Rubashkin: Fire.

From the textile mill in PA that had a series of fires, at least one of which was determined to be arson... to a fire in a garage of one of the plantiffs in a labor suit againts Agriprocessors the day after the suit was filed...
to now this episode at Ro-Ka.

Anonymous said...


here we go again