Al Gore's son pulled over for doing 100 mph

July 4, 2007

It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN0428148420070704?feedType=RSS&rpc=92

Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car

Wed Jul 4, 2007 6:26PM BST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al

Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped

for allegedly speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official

said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight

global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about

100 miles (160 km) per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he

was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m..

A subsequent search yielded a small amount of marijuana, along with

prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall, said

sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. There were no prescriptions found, he

said.

Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and booked into the

Inmate Reception Centre in Santa Ana, about 34 miles (55 km) south of

Los Angeles, on $20,000 bail, he said.

It was not Gore's first brush with the law. He was arrested in 2003 for

marijuana possession and in 2002 for suspected drunken-driving.

Gore was still in custody as of mid-morning and was sharing a holding

cell with an unknown number of people, said Orange County Sheriff's

spokesman Jim Amormino.

"There are no special privileges," he told Reuters.

Gore cooperated with law enforcement as soon he was pulled over and

quickly identified himself as the son of the former vice president,

Amormino said.

July 4, 2007

On 4-Jul-2007, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car

> Wed Jul 4, 2007 6:26PM BST

You really have to hand it to his kid. What an amazing man. Most people who

believed Al Gore was there father would have blown their brains out by now,

or if you're Al Gore III, at LEAST changed your name.

It's understandable why no one heard of him before now; he's probably been

in the witness protection program.

July 4, 2007

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

message news:c1Tii.4241$zA4.3984@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>

> It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

> speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

I could care less at this point. When the law only applies to certain

people, it's meaningless. The law books were all burned on Monday as far as

I'm concerned. Hell, I think Bush should pardon him.

turk.

--

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President. of a rabid and

irresponsible corner of the Republican Party.--Keith Olbermann on the Libby

commutation

July 4, 2007

On Jul 4, 4:46 pm, "turk" <tur...@noway.nohow> wrote:

> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote in

> messagenews:c1Tii.4241$zA4.3984@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>

> > It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

> > speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

>

> I could care less at this point. When the law only applies to certain

> people, it's meaningless. The law books were all burned on Monday as far as

> I'm concerned. Hell, I think Bush should pardon him.

Ineligible. Wrong political party, and also needs to be a Bush crony.

July 4, 2007

In article <zrqdnSuUf4itmhHbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"turk" <turk96@noway.nohow> wrote:

> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

> message news:c1Tii.4241$zA4.3984@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> >

> > It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

> > speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

>

> I could care less at this point. When the law only applies to certain

> people, it's meaningless. The law books were all burned on Monday as far as

> I'm concerned...

You're a little late, they were burned 1969, July if memory serves.

July 4, 2007

"turk" <turk96@noway.nohow> wrote in message

news:zrqdnSuUf4itmhHbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com...

> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

> message news:c1Tii.4241$zA4.3984@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>

>> It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

>> speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

>

> I could care less at this point. When the law only applies to certain

> people, it's meaningless. The law books were all burned on Monday as far

> as I'm concerned.

=================

Is that the day Clinton pardoned thoe 16 Terrorist Bombers ?

February 18, 2001

My Reasons for the Pardons

By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. - Because of the intense scrutiny and criticism of the

pardons of Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green and because legitimate

concerns have been raised, I want to explain what I did and why.

First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations

of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and

unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against

the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is

granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit"

(United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a]

pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the

public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v.

Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for

several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including

voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law

since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal

circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason

the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive

Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he

deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might

be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as

President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion,

President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President

Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon

of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft

resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants,

including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that

investigation.

On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During

my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and

commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two

terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and

commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77.

President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was

president.

The vast majority of my Jan. 20 pardons and reprieves went to people who are

not well known. Some had been sentenced pursuant to mandatory-sentencing

drug laws, and I felt that they had served long enough, given the particular

circumstances of the individual cases. Many of these were first-time

nonviolent offenders with no previous criminal records; in some cases,

codefendants had received significantly shorter sentences. At the attorney

general's request, I commuted one death sentence because the defendant's

principal accuser later changed his testimony, casting doubt on the

defendant's guilt. In some cases, I granted pardons because I felt the

individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the

Independent Counsel statute then in existence. The remainder of the pardons

and commutations were granted for a wide variety of fact-based reasons, but

the common denominator was that the cases, like that of Patricia Hearst,

seemed to me deserving of executive clemency. Overwhelmingly, the pardons

went to people who had been convicted and served their time, so the impact

of the pardon was principally to restore the person's civil rights. Many of

these, including some of the more controversial, had vigorous bipartisan

support.

The pardons that have attracted the most criticism have been the pardons of

Marc Rich and Pincus Green, who were indicted in 1983 on charges of

racketeering and mail and wire fraud, arising out of their oil business.

Ordinarily, I would have denied pardons in this case simply because these

men did not return to the United States to face the charges against them.

However, I decided to grant the pardons in this unusual case for the

following legal and foreign policy reasons: (1) I understood that the other

oil companies that had structured transactions like those on which Mr. Rich

and Mr. Green were indicted were instead sued civilly by the government; (2)

I was informed that, in 1985, in a related case against a trading partner of

Mr. Rich and Mr. Green, the Energy Department, which was responsible for

enforcing the governing law, found that the manner in which the Rich/Green

companies had accounted for these transactions was proper; (3) two highly

regarded tax experts, Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin

Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center, reviewed the transactions in

question and concluded that the companies "were correct in their U.S. income

tax treatment of all the items in question, and [that] there was no

unreported federal income or additional tax liability attributable to any of

the [challenged] transactions"; (4) in order to settle the government's case

against them, the two men's companies had paid approximately $200 million in

fines, penalties and taxes, most of which might not even have been warranted

under the Wolfman/Ginsburg analysis that the companies had followed the law

and correctly reported their income; (5) the Justice Department in 1989

rejected the use of racketeering statutes in tax cases like this one, a

position that The Wall Street Journal editorial page, among others, agreed

with at the time; (6) it was my understanding that Deputy Attorney General

Eric Holder's position on the pardon application was "neutral, leaning for";

(7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my

former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished

Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official;

William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan

Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of

staff; (8) finally, and importantly, many present and former high-ranking

Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish

communities in America and Europe urged the pardon of Mr. Rich because of

his contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad's

efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the peace

process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and the

West Bank.

While I was troubled by the criminalization of the charges against Mr. Rich

and Mr. Green, I also wanted to assure the government's ability to pursue

any Energy Department, civil tax or other charges that might be available

and warranted. I knew the men's companies had settled their disputes with

the government, but I did not know what personal liability the individuals

might still have for Energy Department or other violations.

Therefore, I required them to waive any and all defenses, including their

statute of limitations defenses, to any civil charge the government might

bring against them. Before I granted the pardons, I received from their

lawyer a letter confirming that they "waive any and all defenses which could

be raised to the lawful imposition of civil fines or penalties in connection

with the actions and transactions alleged in the indictment against them

pending in the Southern District of New York."

I believe my pardon decision was in the best interests of justice. If the

two men were wrongly indicted in the first place, justice has been done. On

the other hand, if they do personally owe money for Energy Department

penalties, unpaid taxes or civil fines, they can now be sued civilly, as

others in their position apparently were, a result that might not have been

possible without the waiver, because civil statutes of limitations may have

run while they were out of the United States.

While I was aware of and took into account the fact that the United States

attorney for the Southern District of New York did not support these

pardons, in retrospect, the process would have been better served had I

sought her views directly. Further, I regret that Mr. Holder did not have

more time to review the case. However, I believed the essential facts were

before me, and I felt the foreign policy considerations and the legal

arguments justified moving forward.

The suggestion that I granted the pardons because Mr. Rich's former wife,

Denise, made political contributions and contributed to the Clinton library

foundation is utterly false. There was absolutely no quid pro quo. Indeed,

other friends and financial supporters sought pardons in cases which, after

careful consideration based on the information available to me, I determined

I could not grant.

In the last few months of my term, many, many people called, wrote or came

up to me asking that I grant or at least consider granting clemency in

various cases. These people included friends, family members, former spouses

of applicants, supporters, acquaintances, Republican and Democratic members

of Congress, journalists and total strangers. I believe that the president

can and should listen to such requests, although they cannot determine his

decision on the merits. There is only one prohibition: there can be no quid

pro quo. And there certainly was not in this or any of the other pardons and

commutations I granted.

I am accustomed to the rough and tumble of politics, but the accusations

made against me in this case have been particularly painful because for

eight years I worked hard to make good decisions for the American people. I

want every American to know that, while you may disagree with this decision,

I made it on the merits as I saw them, and I take full responsibility for

it.

William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States.

July 5, 2007

I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

> speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

>

> http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN0428148420070704?feedType=RSS

> &rpc=92

>

> Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car

> Wed Jul 4, 2007 6:26PM BST

>

> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al

> Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped

> for allegedly speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official

> said.

>

> Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight

> global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about

> 100 miles (160 km) per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he

> was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m..

>

> A subsequent search yielded a small amount of marijuana, along with

> prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall, said

> sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. There were no prescriptions found, he

> said.

>

> Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and booked into the

> Inmate Reception Centre in Santa Ana, about 34 miles (55 km) south of

> Los Angeles, on $20,000 bail, he said.

>

> It was not Gore's first brush with the law. He was arrested in 2003 for

> marijuana possession and in 2002 for suspected drunken-driving.

>

> Gore was still in custody as of mid-morning and was sharing a holding

> cell with an unknown number of people, said Orange County Sheriff's

> spokesman Jim Amormino.

>

> "There are no special privileges," he told Reuters.

>

> Gore cooperated with law enforcement as soon he was pulled over and

> quickly identified himself as the son of the former vice president,

> Amormino said.

July 5, 2007

On 4-Jul-2007, nobody@nowheres.com (the_blogologist) wrote:

> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

I presume you mean C-Span's live senate broadcast?

July 5, 2007

On Jul 4, 4:55 pm, "??????????" <???????????@???????????.com> wrote:

> "turk" <tur...@noway.nohow> wrote in message

>

> news:zrqdnSuUf4itmhHbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com...> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote in

> > messagenews:c1Tii.4241$zA4.3984@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>

> >> It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

> >> speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

>

> > I could care less at this point. When the law only applies to certain

> > people, it's meaningless. The law books were all burned on Monday as far

> > as I'm concerned.

>

> =================

>

> Is that the day Clinton pardoned thoe 16 Terrorist Bombers ?

>

> February 18, 2001

>

> My Reasons for the Pardons

> By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

> CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. - Because of the intense scrutiny and criticism of the

> pardons of Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green and because legitimate

> concerns have been raised, I want to explain what I did and why.

>

> First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations

> of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and

> unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against

> the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is

> granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit"

> (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a]

> pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the

> public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v.

> Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for

> several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including

> voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law

> since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal

> circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

>

> The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason

> the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive

> Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he

> deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might

> be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as

> President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion,

> President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President

> Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon

> of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft

> resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants,

> including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that

> investigation.

>

> On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During

> my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and

> commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two

> terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and

> commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77.

> President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was

> president.

>

> The vast majority of my Jan. 20 pardons and reprieves went to people who are

> not well known. Some had been sentenced pursuant to mandatory-sentencing

> drug laws, and I felt that they had served long enough, given the particular

> circumstances of the individual cases. Many of these were first-time

> nonviolent offenders with no previous criminal records; in some cases,

> codefendants had received significantly shorter sentences. At the attorney

> general's request, I commuted one death sentence because the defendant's

> principal accuser later changed his testimony, casting doubt on the

> defendant's guilt. In some cases, I granted pardons because I felt the

> individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the

> Independent Counsel statute then in existence. The remainder of the pardons

> and commutations were granted for a wide variety of fact-based reasons, but

> the common denominator was that the cases, like that of Patricia Hearst,

> seemed to me deserving of executive clemency. Overwhelmingly, the pardons

> went to people who had been convicted and served their time, so the impact

> of the pardon was principally to restore the person's civil rights. Many of

> these, including some of the more controversial, had vigorous bipartisan

> support.

>

> The pardons that have attracted the most criticism have been the pardons of

> Marc Rich and Pincus Green, who were indicted in 1983 on charges of

> racketeering and mail and wire fraud, arising out of their oil business.

>

> Ordinarily, I would have denied pardons in this case simply because these

> men did not return to the United States to face the charges against them.

> However, I decided to grant the pardons in this unusual case for the

> following legal and foreign policy reasons: (1) I understood that the other

> oil companies that had structured transactions like those on which Mr. Rich

> and Mr. Green were indicted were instead sued civilly by the government; (2)

> I was informed that, in 1985, in a related case against a trading partner of

> Mr. Rich and Mr. Green, the Energy Department, which was responsible for

> enforcing the governing law, found that the manner in which the Rich/Green

> companies had accounted for these transactions was proper; (3) two highly

> regarded tax experts, Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin

> Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center, reviewed the transactions in

> question and concluded that the companies "were correct in their U.S. income

> tax treatment of all the items in question, and [that] there was no

> unreported federal income or additional tax liability attributable to any of

> the [challenged] transactions"; (4) in order to settle the government's case

> against them, the two men's companies had paid approximately $200 million in

> fines, penalties and taxes, most of which might not even have been warranted

> under the Wolfman/Ginsburg analysis that the companies had followed the law

> and correctly reported their income; (5) the Justice Department in 1989

> rejected the use of racketeering statutes in tax cases like this one, a

> position that The Wall Street Journal editorial page, among others, agreed

> with at the time; (6) it was my understanding that Deputy Attorney General

> Eric Holder's position on the pardon application was "neutral, leaning for";

> (7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my

> former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished

> Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official;

> William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan

> Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of

> staff; (8) finally, and importantly, many present and former high-ranking

> Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish

> communities in America and Europe urged the pardon of Mr. Rich because of

> his contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad's

> efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the peace

> process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and the

> West Bank.

>

> While I was troubled by the criminalization of the charges against Mr. Rich

> and Mr. Green, I also wanted to assure the government's ability to pursue

> any Energy Department, civil tax or other charges that might be available

> and warranted. I knew the men's companies had settled their disputes with

> the government, but I did not know what personal liability the individuals

> might still have for Energy Department or other violations.

>

> Therefore, I required them to waive any and all defenses, including their

> statute of limitations defenses, to any civil charge the government might

> bring against them. Before I granted the pardons, I received from their

> lawyer a letter confirming that they "waive any and all defenses which could

> be raised to the lawful imposition of civil fines or penalties in connection

> with the actions and transactions alleged in the indictment against them

> pending in the Southern District of New York."

>

> I believe my pardon decision was in the best interests of justice. If the

> two men were wrongly indicted in the first place, justice has been done. On

> the other hand, if they do personally owe money for Energy Department

> penalties, unpaid taxes or civil fines, they can now be sued civilly, as

> others in their position apparently were, a result that might not have been

> possible without the waiver, because civil statutes of limitations may have

> run while they were out of the United States.

>

> While I was aware of and took into account the fact that the United States

> attorney for the Southern District of New York did not support these

> pardons, in retrospect, the process would have been better served had I

> sought her views directly. Further, I regret that Mr. Holder did not have

> more time to review the case. However, I believed the essential facts were

> before me, and I felt the foreign policy considerations and the legal

> arguments justified moving forward.

>

> The suggestion that I granted the pardons because Mr. Rich's former wife,

> Denise, made political contributions and contributed to the Clinton library

> foundation is utterly false. There was absolutely no quid pro quo. Indeed,

> other friends and financial supporters sought pardons in cases which, after

> careful consideration based on the information available to me, I determined

> I could not grant.

>

> In the last few months of my term, many, many people called, wrote or came

> up to me asking that I grant or at least consider granting clemency in

> various cases. These people included friends, family members, former spouses

> of applicants, supporters, acquaintances, Republican and Democratic members

> of Congress, journalists and total strangers. I believe ...

>

> read more

July 5, 2007

In article <1183600164.542516.326350@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,

bushlyed@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Jul 4, 4:55 pm, "??????????" <???????????@???????????.com> wrote:

> > "turk" <tur...@noway.nohow> wrote in message

> >

> > news:zrqdnSuUf4itmhHbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com...> "Speeders & Drunk

> > Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote in

> > > messagenews:c1Tii.4241$zA4.3984@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> >

> > >> It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

> > >> speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

> >

> > > I could care less at this point. When the law only applies to certain

> > > people, it's meaningless. The law books were all burned on Monday as far

> > > as I'm concerned.

> >

> > =================

> >

> > Is that the day Clinton pardoned thoe 16 Terrorist Bombers ?

> >

> > February 18, 2001

> >

> > My Reasons for the Pardons

> > By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

> > CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. - Because of the intense scrutiny and criticism of the

> > pardons of Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green and because legitimate

> > concerns have been raised, I want to explain what I did and why.

> >

> > First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations

> > of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and

> > unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses

> > against

> > the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is

> > granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit"

> > (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a]

> > pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the

> > public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v.

> > Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted

> > for

> > several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including

> > voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law

> > since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal

> > circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

> >

> > The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason

> > the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive

> > Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what

> > he

> > deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might

> > be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such

> > as

> > President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion,

> > President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President

> > Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon

> > of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft

> > resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants,

> > including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of

> > that

> > investigation.

> >

> > On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During

> > my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and

> > commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two

> > terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and

> > commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77.

> > President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was

> > president.

> >

> > The vast majority of my Jan. 20 pardons and reprieves went to people who

> > are

> > not well known. Some had been sentenced pursuant to mandatory-sentencing

> > drug laws, and I felt that they had served long enough, given the

> > particular

> > circumstances of the individual cases. Many of these were first-time

> > nonviolent offenders with no previous criminal records; in some cases,

> > codefendants had received significantly shorter sentences. At the attorney

> > general's request, I commuted one death sentence because the defendant's

> > principal accuser later changed his testimony, casting doubt on the

> > defendant's guilt. In some cases, I granted pardons because I felt the

> > individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the

> > Independent Counsel statute then in existence. The remainder of the pardons

> > and commutations were granted for a wide variety of fact-based reasons, but

> > the common denominator was that the cases, like that of Patricia Hearst,

> > seemed to me deserving of executive clemency. Overwhelmingly, the pardons

> > went to people who had been convicted and served their time, so the impact

> > of the pardon was principally to restore the person's civil rights. Many of

> > these, including some of the more controversial, had vigorous bipartisan

> > support.

> >

> > The pardons that have attracted the most criticism have been the pardons of

> > Marc Rich and Pincus Green, who were indicted in 1983 on charges of

> > racketeering and mail and wire fraud, arising out of their oil business.

> >

> > Ordinarily, I would have denied pardons in this case simply because these

> > men did not return to the United States to face the charges against them.

> > However, I decided to grant the pardons in this unusual case for the

> > following legal and foreign policy reasons: (1) I understood that the other

> > oil companies that had structured transactions like those on which Mr. Rich

> > and Mr. Green were indicted were instead sued civilly by the government;

> > (2)

> > I was informed that, in 1985, in a related case against a trading partner

> > of

> > Mr. Rich and Mr. Green, the Energy Department, which was responsible for

> > enforcing the governing law, found that the manner in which the Rich/Green

> > companies had accounted for these transactions was proper; (3) two highly

> > regarded tax experts, Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin

> > Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center, reviewed the transactions in

> > question and concluded that the companies "were correct in their U.S.

> > income

> > tax treatment of all the items in question, and [that] there was no

> > unreported federal income or additional tax liability attributable to any

> > of

> > the [challenged] transactions"; (4) in order to settle the government's

> > case

> > against them, the two men's companies had paid approximately $200 million

> > in

> > fines, penalties and taxes, most of which might not even have been

> > warranted

> > under the Wolfman/Ginsburg analysis that the companies had followed the law

> > and correctly reported their income; (5) the Justice Department in 1989

> > rejected the use of racketeering statutes in tax cases like this one, a

> > position that The Wall Street Journal editorial page, among others, agreed

> > with at the time; (6) it was my understanding that Deputy Attorney General

> > Eric Holder's position on the pardon application was "neutral, leaning

> > for";

> > (7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my

> > former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished

> > Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official;

> > William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan

> > Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of

> > staff; (8) finally, and importantly, many present and former high-ranking

> > Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish

> > communities in America and Europe urged the pardon of Mr. Rich because of

> > his contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the

> > Mossad's

> > efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the

> > peace

> > process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and

> > the

> > West Bank.

> >

> > While I was troubled by the criminalization of the charges against Mr. Rich

> > and Mr. Green, I also wanted to assure the government's ability to pursue

> > any Energy Department, civil tax or other charges that might be available

> > and warranted. I knew the men's companies had settled their disputes with

> > the government, but I did not know what personal liability the individuals

> > might still have for Energy Department or other violations.

> >

> > Therefore, I required them to waive any and all defenses, including their

> > statute of limitations defenses, to any civil charge the government might

> > bring against them. Before I granted the pardons, I received from their

> > lawyer a letter confirming that they "waive any and all defenses which

> > could

> > be raised to the lawful imposition of civil fines or penalties in

> > connection

> > with the actions and transactions alleged in the indictment against them

> > pending in the Southern District of New York."

> >

> > I believe my pardon decision was in the best interests of justice. If the

> > two men were wrongly indicted in the first place, justice has been done. On

> > the other hand, if they do personally owe money for Energy Department

> > penalties, unpaid taxes or civil fines, they can now be sued civilly, as

> > others in their position apparently were, a result that might not have been

> > possible without the waiver, because civil statutes of limitations may have

> > run while they were out of the United States.

> >

> > While I was aware of and took into account the fact that the United States

> > attorney for the Southern District of New York did not support these

> > pardons, in retrospect, the process would have been better served had I

> > sought her views directly. Further, I regret that Mr. Holder did not have

> > more time to review the case. However, I believed the essential facts were

> > before me, and I felt the foreign policy considerations and the legal

> > arguments justified moving forward.

> >

> > The suggestion that I granted the pardons because Mr. Rich's former wife,

> > Denise, made political contributions and contributed to the Clinton library

> > foundation is utterly false. There was absolutely no quid pro quo. Indeed,

> > other friends and financial supporters sought pardons in cases which, after

> > careful consideration based on the information available to me, I

> > determined

> > I could not grant.

> >

> > In the last few months of my term, many, many people called, wrote or came

> > up to me asking that I grant or at least consider granting clemency in

> > various cases. These people included friends, family members, former

> > spouses

> > of applicants, supporters, acquaintances, Republican and Democratic members

> > of Congress, journalists and total strangers. I believe ...

> >

> > read more ?

>

> Clinton

"Wah, he stole the election, way, he did it again."

No matter what happens, that's all we hear from you guys.

July 5, 2007

the_blogologist wrote:

> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>

It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

July 5, 2007

turk wrote:

> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

> message news:c1Tii.4241$zA4.3984@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>> It appears he wasn't even charged for the extreme and potentially deadly

>> speeding but instead for mere drug possession!!

>

> I could care less at this point. When the law only applies to certain

> people, it's meaningless. The law books were all burned on Monday as far as

> I'm concerned. Hell, I think Bush should pardon him.

>

> turk.

I know what you mean dood. Scooter walks so why is anybody in prison???

July 5, 2007

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

> I know what you mean dood. Scooter walks so why is anybody in prison???

They don't carry the Seal of President Bush. It's that simple.

July 5, 2007

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> the_blogologist wrote:

> > I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

> >

>

> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

In a Prius. A hybrid.

BTW, what office did the kid hold?

July 5, 2007

"ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>

> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>> the_blogologist wrote:

>> > I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>> >

>>

>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>

> In a Prius. A hybrid.

>

> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

%%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>

July 5, 2007

David Moffitt wrote:

> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

>> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>> the_blogologist wrote:

>>>> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>>>>

>>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

>>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>> In a Prius. A hybrid.

>>

>> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>

> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>

>>

>

Still claiming that Bush was never charged and convicted of DUI?

Moffitt earlier today"

>>> I would like to start and over/under pool on how long it will take the

>>> lunatic liberal left to blame it on President Bush.

>> Wasn't Bush also busted for DWI?

> %%%% No he wasn't.

%%%% No they were in jail for murder. How many people did Libby murder?

Moffitt on July 3 talking about the Puerto Rican nationalists pardoned

by Clinton. When asked who they were convicted of murdering Moffitt left

the thread.

July 5, 2007

George Grapman wrote:

> David Moffitt wrote:

>> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

>> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>>> the_blogologist wrote:

>>>>> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>>>>>

>>>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>>>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

>>>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>>> In a Prius. A hybrid.

>>>

>>> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>>

>> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>>

>>>

>>

> Still claiming that Bush was never charged and convicted of DUI?

>

> Moffitt earlier today"

>

> >>> I would like to start and over/under pool on how long it will take the

> >>> lunatic liberal left to blame it on President Bush.

> >> Wasn't Bush also busted for DWI?

>

> > %%%% No he wasn't.

>

> %%%% No they were in jail for murder. How many people did Libby murder?

>

> Moffitt on July 3 talking about the Puerto Rican nationalists pardoned

> by Clinton. When asked who they were convicted of murdering Moffitt left

> the thread.

This where Moffitt either leaves the threads, posts links unrelated to

his claims or asks "where did you serve?".

July 5, 2007

In article <AUbji.4903$zA4.4162@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

"David Moffitt" <moffitcl@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

> >

> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

> > message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> >> the_blogologist wrote:

> >> > I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

> >> >

> >>

> >> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

> >> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

> >> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

> >

> > In a Prius. A hybrid.

> >

> > BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>

> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

There you go, pointing out the leftards' hypocrisy.

July 5, 2007

In article <_1cji.37786$Um6.22656@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,

George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

> David Moffitt wrote:

> > "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

> > news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

> >> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

> >> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> >>> the_blogologist wrote:

> >>>> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

> >>>>

> >>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

> >>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

> >>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

> >> In a Prius. A hybrid.

> >>

> >> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

> >

> > %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

> Still claiming that Bush was never charged and convicted of DUI?

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

July 5, 2007

Harold Burton wrote:

> In article <_1cji.37786$Um6.22656@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,

> George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>

>> David Moffitt wrote:

>>> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

>>> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>>> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>>>> the_blogologist wrote:

>>>>>> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>>>>>>

>>>>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>>>>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

>>>>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>>>> In a Prius. A hybrid.

>>>>

>>>> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>>> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>

>> Still claiming that Bush was never charged and convicted of DUI?

>

> Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

Who are you addressing that to? Earlier in the thread Moffitt denied

that Bush was ever charged with DUI, In fact he admitted he was charged

and convicted.

July 6, 2007

"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message

news:_1cji.37786$Um6.22656@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

> David Moffitt wrote:

>> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

>> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>>> the_blogologist wrote:

>>>>> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>>>>>

>>>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>>>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

>>>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>>> In a Prius. A hybrid.

>>>

>>> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>>

>> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>>

>>>

>>

> Still claiming that Bush was never charged and convicted of DUI?

%%%% Nope. I thought it was public drunk. I stand corrected. What does that

have to do with the thread above I was addressing Crapman?

>

> Moffitt earlier today"

>

> >>> I would like to start and over/under pool on how long it will take the

> >>> lunatic liberal left to blame it on President Bush.

> >> Wasn't Bush also busted for DWI?

>

> > %%%% No he wasn't.

>

> %%%% No they were in jail for murder. How many people did Libby murder?

>

> Moffitt on July 3 talking about the Puerto Rican nationalists pardoned

> by Clinton. When asked who they were convicted of murdering Moffitt left

> the thread.

July 6, 2007

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:hal.i.burton-D75E1B.17332405072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> In article <AUbji.4903$zA4.4162@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

> "David Moffitt" <moffitcl@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>

>> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

>> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>> >

>> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

>> > message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>> >> the_blogologist wrote:

>> >> > I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>> >> >

>> >>

>> >> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>> >> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

>> >> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>> >

>> > In a Prius. A hybrid.

>> >

>> > BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>>

>> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>

> There you go, pointing out the leftards' hypocrisy.

%%%% Yep!

July 6, 2007

"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message

news:0ydji.25342$C96.9887@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...

> Harold Burton wrote:

>> In article <_1cji.37786$Um6.22656@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,

>> George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>>

>>> David Moffitt wrote:

>>>> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

>>>> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>> in

>>>>> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>>>>> the_blogologist wrote:

>>>>>>> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>>>>>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month

>>>>>> utility

>>>>>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>>>>> In a Prius. A hybrid.

>>>>>

>>>>> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>>>> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>>

>>> Still claiming that Bush was never charged and convicted of DUI?

>>

>> Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

>

> Who are you addressing that to? Earlier in the thread Moffitt denied

> that Bush was ever charged with DUI, In fact he admitted he was charged

> and convicted.

%%%% You tried to change the subject away from the offices held by the Bush

girls Crapman.

July 6, 2007

David Moffitt wrote:

> "George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message

> news:0ydji.25342$C96.9887@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...

>> Harold Burton wrote:

>>> In article <_1cji.37786$Um6.22656@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,

>>> George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> David Moffitt wrote:

>>>>> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

>>>>> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>>> in

>>>>>> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>>>>>> the_blogologist wrote:

>>>>>>>> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>>>>>>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month

>>>>>>> utility

>>>>>>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>>>>>> In a Prius. A hybrid.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>>>>> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>>>

>>>> Still claiming that Bush was never charged and convicted of DUI?

>>>

>>> Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

>> Who are you addressing that to? Earlier in the thread Moffitt denied

>> that Bush was ever charged with DUI, In fact he admitted he was charged

>> and convicted.

>

> %%%% You tried to change the subject away from the offices held by the Bush

> girls Crapman.

>

I never bought that up but, as usual, when you are shown to be wrong

(in this case your claims the Clinton pardoned murderers and that Bush

never was convicted of DUI) the best you can do is show your lack of

intellect with the childish misspelling of my name, something I take as

a tacit admission that you, as usual, can not back up your fantasies.

July 6, 2007

David Moffitt wrote:

> "George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message

> news:_1cji.37786$Um6.22656@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

>> David Moffitt wrote:

>>> "ronin" <ronin@ree.tv> wrote in message

>>> news:Rmaji.89005$1i1.69714@pd7urf3no...

>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>>> message news:x2aji.4200$tj6.2900@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>>>> the_blogologist wrote:

>>>>>> I can't wait to see the political cartoons on this one!! :o)

>>>>>>

>>>>> It's more hypocrisy from the Gore family. Daddy loves to rant about

>>>>> global warming while he lives in a mansion with $3,000 a month utility

>>>>> bills and has a son that wastes gas by driving 100 mph.

>>>> In a Prius. A hybrid.

>>>>

>>>> BTW, what office did the kid hold?

>>> %%%% The same office as the Bush twins and Jeb's kid.

>>>

>> Still claiming that Bush was never charged and convicted of DUI?

>

> %%%% Nope. I thought it was public drunk. I stand corrected. What does that

> have to do with the thread above I was addressing Crapman?

>

>>

>> Moffitt earlier today"

>>

>>>>> I would like to start and over/under pool on how long it will take the

>>>>> lunatic liberal left to blame it on President Bush.

>>>> Wasn't Bush also busted for DWI?

>>> %%%% No he wasn't.

>>

>> %%%% No they were in jail for murder. How many people did Libby murder?

>>

>> Moffitt on July 3 talking about the Puerto Rican nationalists pardoned

>> by Clinton. When asked who they were convicted of murdering Moffitt left

>> the thread.

>

Still waiting for you to tell us who they murdered.

Sign In

Al Gore's son pulled over for doing 100 mph

Recommended Posts

Guest Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDE

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Steve

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest turk

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest jls

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Harold Burton

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ??????????

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest the_blogologist

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Steve

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest bushlyed@yahoo.com

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Harold Burton

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDE

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDE

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James McGill

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ronin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest David Moffitt

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest George Grapman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest George Grapman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Harold Burton

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Harold Burton

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest George Grapman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest David Moffitt

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest David Moffitt

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest David Moffitt

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest George Grapman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest George Grapman

Link to comment

Share on other sites