Conspiring to defraud the U.S. Government. Was that wrong?

This one left me stunned.  Even as the author of this column.

As most readers know, I’m a big fan of pub trivia.  The MVP on any pub quiz team is the person who can nail the “music round.”  A great tidbit of music trivia is that 10cc sang The Things We Do For Love. The relevant line today:

“You lay your bets and then you pay the price,

The things we do for love.”

First, and by way of background, Was That Wrong? is a semi-regular column on Ethical Grounds. The column features stories of the absurd & outrageous from the world of legal ethics and attorney discipline. My aim is to highlight misconduct that I hope you’ll instinctively avoid without needing me to convene a continuing legal education seminar that cautions you to do so.

The column is inspired by the “Red Dot” episode of Seinfeld. In the episode, George Costanza has sex in his office with a character known only as “the cleaning woman.”  His boss finds out.  Here’s their ensuing exchange:

(Scene) In the boss’ office.

  • Boss: I’m going to get right to the point. It has come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?
  • George: Who said that?
  • Boss: She did.
  • George: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Boss: You’re fired.
  • George: Well, you didn’t have to say it like that.

The full script is HERE.  The scene is HERE.

Now, onto today’s story.

I’m fairly confident that none of our judges has a spouse who will end up charged with federal crimes.

I’m as confident that those who do understand the risks of tampering with the government’s witnesses.

Finally, I’m even more confident that those who are removed from the bench for witness tampering in a spouse’s criminal cases will not later engage in an elaborate scheme to convince the Federal Bureau of Prisons that their convicted spouse is an alcoholic when, in fact, they know that their spouse is not.

This one also left me feeling naïve.

Who knew there were businesses that, for a fee, would help convicted persons learn to lie their way into prison programming that would help them gain early release?

The story comes via Bloomberg Law (sub. req.) and the Legal Profession Blog.  The relevant documents from the disciplinary case are here.  I urge you to scroll to the “agreed upon statement of facts.” It begins on page 18 of the PDF.

Anyhow, here’s how I envision the Was That Wrong? adaptation:

  • Court: We’re going to get right to the point. It has come to our attention that you and others conspired to get your wife into prison programming for which you knew she did not qualify?
  • Lawyer: Who said that?
  • Court: You did. When you pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the U.S. Government.
  • Lawyer: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Court: Disbarred.
  • Lawyer: Well, you didn’t have to say it like that.

Lay your bets indeed.

costanza

Prior Entries:

Was That Wrong? Being shorted by drug buyers then claiming they robbed you.

As many readers know, I used to be a high-school basketball coach. One particularly memorable season, two of my players decided to rob a marijuana dealer. Their theory: the dealer wouldn’t report the crime.  Alas, he did and, as a result, the players missed the rest of the season.

To be clear: each player dealt with the consequences, learned his lesson, and is now a stand-up member of the community.  I consider each to be a fully vested member of the “My Former Players Club,” a club in which membership includes me doing whatever I can for you.

Back when the incident went down, never for one instant did I think that I’d encounter similar misconduct by a lawyer.  Well, R.I.P Sean Connery, and never say never.

With all that said, welcome to another edition of Was That Wrong?!

 Was That Wrong? is a semi-regular column on Ethical Grounds. The column features stories of the absurd & outrageous from the world of legal ethics and attorney discipline. My aim is to highlight misconduct that I hope you’ll instinctively avoid without needing me to convene a continuing legal education seminar that cautions you to do so.

The column is inspired by the “Red Dot” episode of Seinfeld. In the episode, George Costanza has sex in his office with a character known only as “the cleaning woman.”  His boss finds out.  Here’s their ensuing exchange:

(Scene) In the boss’ office.

  • Boss: I’m going to get right to the point. It has come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?
  • George: Who said that?
  • Boss:She did.
  • George: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Boss: You’re fired.
  • George: Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

The full script is HERE.  The scene is HERE.

costanza

Today’s WTW? entry comes courtesy of David Kluft. Here’s the first line of David’s Twitter profile:

“Attorney. Bald.  Asst Bar Counsel @ Mass. Board of Bar Overseers.”

We are everywhere in lawyer regulation!!  Yesterday, David tweeted:

My interest piqued, I did a little digging and found this opinion from the North Dakota Supreme Court.

As it turns out, the lawyer did not appear or participate in the trial or appeal. I’m left to wonder whether the lawyer did not know about the Costanza Defense or, in a last-gasp demonstration of competence, concluded that it’d be fruitless.  Here’s how it might have gone:

  • North Dakota Supreme Court: We’re going to get right to the point. It has come to our attention that, after they shorted you in the transaction, you falsely accused people to whom you’d sold marijuana of robbing you at gunpoint?
  • Lawyer: Who said that?
  • Court: You admitted it the very next day.
  • Lawyer: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Court: Disbarred!
  • Lawyer: Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

Other Was That Wrong? Posts

Don’t Be This Guy.

Two topics I’ve covered before are civility & puffery.  As to the former, my thoughts are best summed up by my post Don’t Be A Jerk.  As to the latter, well, puffery in negotiations isn’t necessarily unethical.  Assuming, of course, that the conduct at issue can legitimately be described as “puffery in negotiations.”  More on that in a moment.

Over the past 21 years, I’ve seen some incredibly bad behavior by lawyers.  I’ve never seen anything like the story I’m about to recount, a story covered by Above The Law and Professor Bernabe’s Professional Responsibility Blog.  I’m not the only one. Indeed, the story is one of  behavior so bad as to cause opposing counsel to file a request for relief that ended with:

  • “In a collective 75 years of legal practice, [defense] counsel have never seen
    behavior that even comes close to that of [plaintiffs’ counsel] here. It is unlikely that the Court has either.”

I can hear you now: “Mike, tell us more! What was this behavior?”

Here’s what I’m willing to share.

Water damaged a house.  A contractor hired by the homeowners’ insurance company estimated the damage at $150,000, which is the amount that the insurance company paid on the claim.  The homeowners sued, contending that they incurred $350,000 in covered damages.

Negotiations (and discovery) weren’t pleasant. So unpleasant that, last month, the insurance company’s lawyers asked a federal court to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to disqualify plaintiffs’ attorney.  They also requested a restraining order against plaintiffs’ attorney and a protective order preventing plaintiffs’ attorney from deposing defense witnesses. A memorandum in support of the request opened with:

  • “Plaintiffs’ attorney . . . has embarked on a campaign of abusive and intolerable conduct that began with profanity-laced emails, escalated to discriminatory slurs, and culminated in repeated threats of physical violence against Allstate’s witnesses, Allstate’s attorneys, and their families.”

This is where my job as tour guide ends.  To continue the journey, the insurance lawyers’ memorandum in support of the request is here and a declaration from one of the lawyers is here.  I suspect the odds that you’ve seen conduct as egregious are greater than the odds that I will win next year’s Boston Marathon.

The Above The Law post includes an excerpt of plaintiffs’ attorney’s response:

 

Umm, that’s not the kind of puffery I blogged about.  Also, the attorney’s apology and promise not to do it again make me think of Costanza: was that wrong?  Perhaps the lawyer will soon join those who learned the hard way that the answer is “yes.”

For now, and per an update on Above The Law, the court ordered the plaintiffs’ attorney to appear and show cause why the insurance company’s requests for relief should not be granted.  The hearing is set for December 16.

Stay tuned.

costanza

 

 

 

 

Five for Friday #134

Welcome to Friday!

Last week’s post drained the creative juices and “134” isn’t replenishing them.  So, I’m tempted to pull a Costanza and disband the quiz.

I'M Out George Costanza GIF

 

Yet, I trudge on.

With not much springing to mind as fodder for this week’s opening, I turned to the date & decided to look for inspiration in the events of October 12s past.

Inspiration I found!  How I’ve never heard of Joshua Abraham Norton until today is a scathing indictment of public high schools, public universities, and society at large.

Background, roundabout 1853, Norton lived in San Francisco. He had a lot of money and wanted more. At the time, rice was in short supply & high demand.  As such, prices skyrocketed.

Norton learned that a ship was due to arrive with 200,000 pounds of Peruvian rice.  Hoping to corner the market, Norton bought the entire load.

Unfortunately for him, a bunch of other ships full of rice arrived shortly thereafter.  The replenished supply not only drove down the price of rice, it drove Norton into financial ruin.

Fear not.  A little financial ruin didn’t keep Norton down.

After wrangling over the doomed rice deal all the way to the California Supreme Court, Norton got his groove back.  Bankruptcy was but his first declaration.  To wit, in September 1859:

  • “At the peremtory request of a large majority of the citizens of these United States, I, Joshua Norton, formerly of Algoa Bay, Cape of Good Hope, and now for the past nine years and ten months of San Francisco, California, declare and proclaim myself Emperor of these U.S., and in virtue of the authority thereby in me vested, do hereby order and direct the representatives of the different States of the Union to assemble in the Musical Hall of this city on the 1st day of February next, then and there to make such alterations in the existing laws of the Union as may ameliorate the evils under which the country is laboring, and thereby cause confidence to exist, both at home and abroad, in our stability and integrity.”

That’s right – he declared himself Emperor of the United States.

Then, on October 12, 1859, in one of his first acts as Emperor, Norton proclaimed:

  • It is represented to us that the universal suffrage, as now existing through the Union, is abused; that fraud and corruption prevent a fair and proper expression of the public voice; that open violation of the laws are constantly occurring, caused by mobs, parties, factions and undue influence of political sects; that the citizen has not that protection of person and property which he is entitled to by paying his pro rata of the expense of Government–in consequence of which, WE do hereby abolish Congress, and it is therefore abolished; and WE order and desire the representatives of all parties interested to appear at the Musical Hall of this city on the first of February next, and then and there take the most effective steps to remedy the evil complained of.”

That’s right.  He abolished Congress!  Clearly a visionary. Anyhow, from thereon, Emperor Norton reigned as one of San Francisco’s more colorful characters.

My favorite Emperor Norton story is this 1872 proclamation:

  • “Whoever after due and proper warning shall be heard to utter the abominable word ‘Frisco,’ which has no linguistic or other warrant, shall be deemed guilty of a High Misdemeanor, and shall pay into the Imperial Treasury as penalty the sum of twenty-five dollars.”

Why my favorite? Because I was born & raised in South Burlington. For many years, I coached at South Burlington High School.  I still live in SB.

I do not, and never have, lived in “SoBu.” Stop calling it that!

I am beyond tempted to substitute “SoBu” for “Frisco” and issue the proclamation anew.

For more on Emperor Norton, check out these posts from History.Com, SFist, and The San Francisco Chronicle. And, if you’re ever on the Bay Bridge or taking BART thru the tunnel that connects San Franscisco to Oakland, remember who proclaimed each should happen.

I don’t like failing to connect the week’s number to the story that leads into the quiz.  But, today I don’t mind.  Had “134” inspired something, I’d never have researched “today in history” and, more importantly, I’d never have learned of Emperor Norton.

Onto the quiz!

Rules

  • None.  Open book, open search engine, text/phone/email-a-friend.
  • Exception – but one that is loosely enforced – #5 (“loosely” = “aspirational”)
  • Unless stated otherwise, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct apply
  • Team entries welcome, creative team names even more welcome.
  • E-mail answers to michael.kennedy@vermont.gov
  • I’ll post the answers & Honor Roll on Monday
  • Please don’t use the “comment” feature to post your answers
  • Please consider sharing the quiz with friends & colleagues
  • Please consider sharing the quiz on social media.  Hashtag it – #fiveforfriday

Question 1

What is this the definition of?

  • an agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.

Question 2

By rule, of the following, which must a financial institution  agree to do what in order to be approved as a depository for pooled interest-bearing trust accounts?

  • A.  block ACH transfers to and from such accounts.
  • B.  notify disciplinary counsel whenever such accounts are overdrawn.
  • C.  not issue debit cards that are tied to such accounts
  • D.  All of the above.

Question 3

Lawyer represents Organization.   Can Lawyer also represent one of Organization’s directors?

  • A. Yes, subject to Rule 1.7, which is the rule on conflicts.
  • B. No, the rules prohibit dual representation of organization and its directors/officers/constituents.

Question 4

Some might argue that “paltering” violates the rule(s) on:

  • A.   honesty
  • B.   conflicts
  • C.   safekeeping client property
  • D.  competence & diligence

Question 5

The ABA recently updated its list of the 25 Greatest Legal Movies of All-Time.  Two of the Top 3 are set in the same state.

What state?

email answers to: michael.kennedy@vermont.gov

 

 

 

Was That Wrong? Cannabis (In)competence

As I’ve blogged, in 2016, the Court adopted a comment to Rule 1.2 authorizing lawyers to advise clients on cannabis & marijuana issues that are legal under state law.  If you’re a Vermont lawyer who intends to do so, make sure you know what you’re talking about.

Was That Wrong? is a semi-regular column on Ethical Grounds. The column features stories of the absurd & outrageous from the world of legal ethics and attorney discipline. My aim is to highlight misconduct that I hope you’ll instinctively avoid without needing me to convene a continuing legal education seminar that cautions you to do so.

The column is inspired by the “Red Dot” episode of Seinfeld. In the episode, George Costanza has sex in his office with a character known only as “the cleaning woman.”  His boss finds out.  Here’s their ensuing exchange :

(Scene) In the boss’ office.

  • Boss: I’m going to get right to the point. It has come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?
  • George: Who said that?
  • Boss: She did.
  • George: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Boss: You’re fired.
  • George: Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

The full script is HERE.  The scene is HERE.

costanza

Today’s lesson comes courtesy of an order from the Florida Supreme Court disbarring a lawyer who advised clients that it was legal under state law to cultivate, possess, and use marijuana for medical purposes.  It wasn’t. The Chicago Tribune and the Cannabist were among the outlets to cover the story.

Hint:  it’s never a good sign when a state supreme court’s disciplinary order includes: “The most prominent features of Respondent’s misconduct are incompetence and extremely serious harm to clients.”  Opinion, p. 5.

Someday I hope to launch a YouTube channel tied to this blog.  When I do, I’ll adapt Was That Wrong entries to the screen.  Here’s how I envision scripting today’s:

  • Court:  We will get right to the point. It has come to our attention that you;
    • advised clients that it was legal to grow, possess, and use marijuana for medical purposes;
    • referred these clients to doctors who weren’t licensed to practice medicine in Florida and who provided your clients with meaningless “legal certifications” and “grow cards;”
    • told clients “not to worry” when they called to tell you that the police had stopped by to instruct them to dismantle grow operations; and,
    • did not refund fees to clients who, having relied upon your advice, were arrested, charged, convicted, fined, and lost almost everything including, in at least one case, a professional license; and,
    • continued to insist that your advice was correct even as your clients were prosecuted criminally.
  • Lawyer: Who said that?
  • Court: Your clients did.
  • Lawyer: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’d only been admitted for 3 months when I started doing that.
  • Court: Disbarred.
  • Lawyer: Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

Again, Comment 14 to Rule 1.2(d) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct authorizes lawyers to provide clients with advice on cannabis & marijuana issues that are legal under state law.  Nothing in the rules, however, relieves lawyers from doing so in a competent manner.

Was That Wrong?

Don’t forget to send me your votes for Top 3 novels involving the law, a lawyer, or lawyers!

Now, I know it has only been a week since I posted a Was That Wrong?, but as they say, you’ve got to go where the evidence leads you.  Plus, for those of you for whom the next few days will include a daunting amount of time with family, today’s topic will likely serve as better conversation fodder than a more scholarly post – to the extent any of my posts can be described as “scholarly.”

As a blogger, this year I’m thankful for the lawyer who managed the impossible: multiple Was That Wrong? moments in a single disciplinary case.

Was That Wrong? is a semi-regular column on Ethical Grounds. The column features stories of the absurd & outrageous from the world of legal ethics and attorney discipline. My aim is to highlight misconduct that I hope you’ll instinctively avoid without needing me to convene a continuing legal education seminar that cautions you to do so.

The column is inspired by the “Red Dot” episode of Seinfeld. In the episode, George Costanza has sex in his office with a character known only as “the cleaning woman.”  His boss finds out.  Here’s their ensuing exchange :

(Scene) In the boss’ office.

  • Boss: I’m going to get right to the point. It has come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?
  • George: Who said that?
  • Boss: She did.
  • George: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Boss: You’re fired.
  • George: Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

The full script is HERE.  The scene is HERE.

Today’s column involves a lawyer suspended for 4 months by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  The order was reported by the ABA Journal, the Legal Profession Blog, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Someday I hope to launch a YouTube channel tied to this blog.  When I do, I’ll adapt Was That Wrong entries to the screen.  Here’s how I envision scripting today’s:

  • Supreme Court:  We’re going to get right to the point.  It’s come to our attention that you smuggled two toothbrushes and some red pepper to a client who was in jail.
  • Lawyer:  Who said that?
  • Supreme Court:  The guards found the toothbrushes and red pepper inside a legal file that was in a bag your brought to the client.  In jail, toothbrushes can be converted in shanks & red pepper made into pepper spray.
  • Supreme Court: It has also come to our attention that you utterly failed to communicate with a different client.
  • Lawyer:  Who said that?
  • Supreme Court: The client did.
  • Supreme Court: And, finally, it has come to our attention that at the hearing on your failure to communicate with the client, you argued that the client called your office phone instead of your cell phone and, in any event, that you had regularly e-mailed him.
  • Lawyer:  Yes.
  • Supreme Court: He didn’t have an e-mail account.
  • Lawyer: Was all of this wrong? Should I have not done any of it? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started practicing that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do this stuff all the time.
  • Supreme Court:  4 month suspension.
  • Lawyer:  Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

costanza

 

Was That Wrong?

It’s been a while.

Was That Wrong? is a semi-regular column in which I focus on stories of the absurd & outrageous from the world of legal ethics and attorney discipline. My aim is to highlight misconduct that I hope you’ll instinctively avoid without needing me to convene a continuing legal education seminar that cautions you to do so.

For example, our most recent discussion of the the perils of representing BOTH plaintiff and defendant while sleeping with defendant.

Today, and as reported by the ABA Journal, The Indiana Lawyer, and NMI.com, we have the story of an Indiana prosecutor who has been suspended for 4 years for listening in on conversations between murder suspects and their lawyers.  The Indiana Supreme Court’s order is here.

Hint: it’s never a good sign for a lawyer when the Supreme Court’s very first statement in discussing the appropriate sanction is:

“There is, quite thankfully, scant precedent in our disciplinary annals for misconduct such as this.”

This column is inspired by the “Red Dot” episode of Seinfeld. In the episode, George Costanza has sex in his office with a character known only as “the cleaning woman.”  His boss finds out.  Here’s their ensuing exchange :

(Scene) In the boss’ office.

  • Boss: I’m going to get right to the point. It has come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?
  • George: Who said that?
  • Boss: She did.
  • George: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Boss: You’re fired.
  • George: Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

The full script is HERE.  The scene is HERE.

Someday I hope to launch a YouTube channel tied to this blog.  When I do, I’ll adapt Was That Wrong entries to the screen.  Here’s how I envision scripting today’s:

  • Supreme Court: We’re going to get right to the point. It has come to our attention that, as a criminal prosecutor, you used technology to listen in on privileged conversations between suspects and their lawyers.  Is that correct?
  • Lawyer:  Who said that?
  • Supreme Court:  You did.  So did police chief who tried to tell you it was wrong.
  • Lawyer: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started practicing that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Supreme Court:  4 year suspension.
  • Lawyer:  Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

*********************************************************************************

Here are the previous entries in Was That Wrong?

costanza

Was That Wrong?

It’s been a while.

Was That Wrong? is a semi-regular column on Ethical Grounds. The column features stories of the absurd & outrageous from the world of legal ethics and attorney discipline. My aim is to highlight misconduct that I hope you’ll instinctively avoid without needing me to convene a continuing legal education seminar that cautions you to do so.

The column is inspired by the “Red Dot” episode of Seinfeld. In the episode, George Costanza has sex in his office with a character known only as “the cleaning woman.”  His boss finds out.  Here’s their ensuing exchange :

(Scene) In the boss’ office.

  • Boss: I’m going to get right to the point. It has come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?
  • George: Who said that?
  • Boss: She did.
  • George: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Boss: You’re fired.
  • George: Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

The full script is HERE.  The scene is HERE.

Today’s column involves a 2013 order suspending a North Carolina lawyer’s license for 5 years. I learned about it after reading on the Legal Profession Blog and in The Charlotte Observer that the lawyer has petitioned for reinstatement.

Someday I hope to launch a YouTube channel tied to this blog.  When I do, I’ll adapt Was That Wrong entries to the screen.  Here’s how I envision scripting today’s:

  • Disciplinary Commission:  We’re going to get right to the point.  It’s come to our attention that you sued Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff.  Then, without telling Plaintiff, you started representing Defendant in other, unrelated matters. And, finally, while continuing to represent both Plaintiff & Defendant, you had a sexual relationship with Defendant.
  • Lawyer:  Who said that?
  • Disciplinary Commission:  Plaintiff and Defendant.
  • Lawyer: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started practicing that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.
  • Disciplinary Commission:  5 year suspension.
  • Lawyer:  Well you didn’t have to say it like that.

*********************************************************************************

Here are the previous entries in Was That Wrong?

costanza