Complaint Seeks Disbarment of Cheney/Bush Torture Lawyers
Group claims attorneys misused licenses in interrogation tactics memos
Complaints have been filed against: John Yoo, Judge Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury who authored the torture memoranda. As well as attorneys who advised, counseled, consulted and supported those memoranda including Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith, Michael Mukasey, Timothy Flanigan, and David Addington. These detailed complaints, with over 500 pages of supporting exhibits, have been filed with the state bars in the District of Columbia, New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania, and they seek disciplinary action and disbarment. Copies of the complaints and exhibits are available on-line at DisbarTortureLawyers.com and VotersForPeace.us.
The AP
WASHINGTON - Two outside groups want Bush administration lawyers linked to memos on harsh interrogation techniques of detainees to lose their licenses to practice law.
Complaints were to be filed Monday against former attorneys general John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Stephen Bradbury. The complaints were being filed in the District of Columbia and four states — New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania.
Memos by the Bush Justice Department contended that waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning — as well as sleep deprivation and other extreme techniques were legal under U.S. and international law.
The groups VotersForPeace.US and Velvet Revolution say the lawyers misused their licenses.
05/17/09
Using a License to Practice Law to Facilitate Torture Should Result in Disbarment
Source: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org
by Kevin B. Zeese
Statement Made Upon the Filing of Complaints Seeking Disbarment of Bush-Cheney’s Cadre of Torture Lawyers.
My name is Kevin Zeese, I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Washington, DC and before the U.S. Supreme Court. I serve as the executive director of VotersForPeace.US and on the board of Velvet Revolution. Today, we filed complaints with the District of Columbia Bar and with four other states seeking the disbarment of 12 Bush-Cheney torture lawyers. These lawyers misused their license to practice law to provide legal cover for the war crime of torture. This misuse of their license requires the bar association to disbar them or the bar will become complicit in torture.
This cadre of torture lawyers colluded to facilitate the abuse and torture of prisoners (detainee) that included, evidence suggests, deaths at overseas U.S. military facilities. Human Rights Watch reports 98 deaths of people in custody of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Making torture even worse in this case is that it was used to try and get information to tie Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda – a relationship that did not exist – as well as information about non-existent weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
We have asked the respective state bars to revoke the licenses of these attorneys for moral turpitude. They failed to show “respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others,” and intentionally or recklessly failed to act competently, all in violation of legal Rules of Professional Conduct. Several attorneys failed to adequately supervise the work of subordinate attorneys and forwarded shoddy legal memoranda regarding the definition of torture to the White House and Department of Defense. These lawyers further acted incompetently by advising superiors to approve interrogation techniques that were in violation of U.S. and international law. They failed to support or uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the laws of the United States, and to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, all in violation state bar rules.
Torture is illegal under United States and international law. It is illegal under the U.S. Constitution, domestic law and international treaties to which the United States is a party.
This includes:
1. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 16 (ratified in October 1994). Article 2(2) of the Convention states that:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
2. The Geneva Conventions, Article 3, (ratified in August 1955). Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), held that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to accused members of al-Qaeda. Thus, due process protections apply to all detainees in U.S. custody, including those in military prisons.
The Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The United States Criminal Code, Title 18, Prohibitions Against Torture (18 USC 2340A) and War Crimes (18 USC 2441).
Torture is a clearly defined term under international and U.S. law. The Convention Against Torture defines torture as any act by which: “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person . . .”
The torture memoranda did not provide objective legal advice to government decision-makers, but instead twisted the state of the law so that it was unrecognizable. They were so inaccurate that these memoranda are more justifications about what the authors and the intended recipients wanted the law to be, rather than assessments of what the law actually is.
These laws provide no exception for torture under any circumstances. Moreover, the United States Criminal Code prohibits both torture and war crimes, the latter which includes torture. The Army Field Manual prohibits the use of degrading treatment of detainees. The individually tailored complaints allege that the named attorneys violated the rules of professional responsibility by advocating torture.
We decided to take action today because the federal government seems unable and unwilling to act. The Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility has taken nearly five years to complete its report, as some of the memoranda at issue became public in June 2004. Further, this OPR investigation is focused only on two lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee rather than all those involved. This inexcusable delay is unfair to the public because the consequences of any wrongdoing are diminished. The delay has already benefited the two men under investigation, John Yoo now has tenure at Berkeley law school and Jay Bybee now has a lifetime appointment as a federal court of appeals judge. If OPR had completed its duties in a timely manner it is unlikely that either appointment would have been made.
In addition to inaction by OPR, the Congress where select Members were briefed 40 times by the CIA, seems unable to take action because of fear of its own complicity being exposed. And, Attorney General Eric Holder, has now testified that he approved renditions – which results in prisoners being tortured by other countries at the behest of the United States – during the Clinton administration. And, sadly, the President of the United States has now decided to hide evidence of war crimes by refusing to release photographic and video evidence despite a court order to do so. Finally, the administration is appointing General McChrystal to be the head of operations in Afghanistan despite being responsible for commanding Fort Nama in Iraq as well as special forces involved in torture:
“An interrogator at Camp Nama described locking prisoners in shipping containers for 24 hours at a time in extreme heat; exposing them to extreme cold with periodic soaking in cold water; bombardment with bright lights and loud music; sleep deprivation; and severe beatings. When he and other interrogators went to the colonel in charge and expressed concern that this kind of treatment was not legal, and that they might be investigated by the military’s Criminal Investigation Division or the International Committee of the Red Cross, the colonel told them he had “this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there’s no way that the Red Cross could get in.”
Nicolas J S Davies, “Suspected War Criminal, General McChrystal, to Lead U.S. Forces in Afghanistan ” http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=1576.
The unit's slogan, which set the tone for its practices, was "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it." Reportedly prisoners died in the custody of troops in General McChrystal’s command and five officers were convicted of prisoner abuse.
Therefore, the people must act to face up to this issue and restore morality and Rule of Law to the United States. In addition to filing these complaints we are starting a campaign for disbarment, public torture hearings and for the appointment of an Independent Prosecutor. People who want to get involved are urged to go to DisbarTortureLawyers.com and VotersForPeace.us.
Only by taking torture out of politics and allowing an independent prosecutor to pursue the facts and apply the law will the United States recover from these war crimes. Application of the rule of law, beginning with disbarment, is a necessary part of the process of healing the nation.
Complaints have been filed against: John Yoo, Judge Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury who authored the torture memoranda. As well as attorneys who advised, counseled, consulted and supported those memoranda including Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith, Michael Mukasey, Timothy Flanigan, and David Addington. These detailed complaints, with over 500 pages of supporting exhibits, have been filed with the state bars in the District of Columbia, New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania, and they seek disciplinary action and disbarment. Copies of the complaints and exhibits are available on-line at DisbarTortureLawyers.com and VotersForPeace.us.
The AP
WASHINGTON - Two outside groups want Bush administration lawyers linked to memos on harsh interrogation techniques of detainees to lose their licenses to practice law.
Complaints were to be filed Monday against former attorneys general John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Stephen Bradbury. The complaints were being filed in the District of Columbia and four states — New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania.
Memos by the Bush Justice Department contended that waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning — as well as sleep deprivation and other extreme techniques were legal under U.S. and international law.
The groups VotersForPeace.US and Velvet Revolution say the lawyers misused their licenses.
05/17/09
Using a License to Practice Law to Facilitate Torture Should Result in Disbarment
Source: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org
by Kevin B. Zeese
Statement Made Upon the Filing of Complaints Seeking Disbarment of Bush-Cheney’s Cadre of Torture Lawyers.
My name is Kevin Zeese, I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Washington, DC and before the U.S. Supreme Court. I serve as the executive director of VotersForPeace.US and on the board of Velvet Revolution. Today, we filed complaints with the District of Columbia Bar and with four other states seeking the disbarment of 12 Bush-Cheney torture lawyers. These lawyers misused their license to practice law to provide legal cover for the war crime of torture. This misuse of their license requires the bar association to disbar them or the bar will become complicit in torture.
This cadre of torture lawyers colluded to facilitate the abuse and torture of prisoners (detainee) that included, evidence suggests, deaths at overseas U.S. military facilities. Human Rights Watch reports 98 deaths of people in custody of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Making torture even worse in this case is that it was used to try and get information to tie Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda – a relationship that did not exist – as well as information about non-existent weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
We have asked the respective state bars to revoke the licenses of these attorneys for moral turpitude. They failed to show “respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others,” and intentionally or recklessly failed to act competently, all in violation of legal Rules of Professional Conduct. Several attorneys failed to adequately supervise the work of subordinate attorneys and forwarded shoddy legal memoranda regarding the definition of torture to the White House and Department of Defense. These lawyers further acted incompetently by advising superiors to approve interrogation techniques that were in violation of U.S. and international law. They failed to support or uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the laws of the United States, and to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, all in violation state bar rules.
Torture is illegal under United States and international law. It is illegal under the U.S. Constitution, domestic law and international treaties to which the United States is a party.
This includes:
1. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 16 (ratified in October 1994). Article 2(2) of the Convention states that:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
2. The Geneva Conventions, Article 3, (ratified in August 1955). Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), held that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to accused members of al-Qaeda. Thus, due process protections apply to all detainees in U.S. custody, including those in military prisons.
The Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The United States Criminal Code, Title 18, Prohibitions Against Torture (18 USC 2340A) and War Crimes (18 USC 2441).
Torture is a clearly defined term under international and U.S. law. The Convention Against Torture defines torture as any act by which: “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person . . .”
The torture memoranda did not provide objective legal advice to government decision-makers, but instead twisted the state of the law so that it was unrecognizable. They were so inaccurate that these memoranda are more justifications about what the authors and the intended recipients wanted the law to be, rather than assessments of what the law actually is.
These laws provide no exception for torture under any circumstances. Moreover, the United States Criminal Code prohibits both torture and war crimes, the latter which includes torture. The Army Field Manual prohibits the use of degrading treatment of detainees. The individually tailored complaints allege that the named attorneys violated the rules of professional responsibility by advocating torture.
We decided to take action today because the federal government seems unable and unwilling to act. The Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility has taken nearly five years to complete its report, as some of the memoranda at issue became public in June 2004. Further, this OPR investigation is focused only on two lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee rather than all those involved. This inexcusable delay is unfair to the public because the consequences of any wrongdoing are diminished. The delay has already benefited the two men under investigation, John Yoo now has tenure at Berkeley law school and Jay Bybee now has a lifetime appointment as a federal court of appeals judge. If OPR had completed its duties in a timely manner it is unlikely that either appointment would have been made.
In addition to inaction by OPR, the Congress where select Members were briefed 40 times by the CIA, seems unable to take action because of fear of its own complicity being exposed. And, Attorney General Eric Holder, has now testified that he approved renditions – which results in prisoners being tortured by other countries at the behest of the United States – during the Clinton administration. And, sadly, the President of the United States has now decided to hide evidence of war crimes by refusing to release photographic and video evidence despite a court order to do so. Finally, the administration is appointing General McChrystal to be the head of operations in Afghanistan despite being responsible for commanding Fort Nama in Iraq as well as special forces involved in torture:
“An interrogator at Camp Nama described locking prisoners in shipping containers for 24 hours at a time in extreme heat; exposing them to extreme cold with periodic soaking in cold water; bombardment with bright lights and loud music; sleep deprivation; and severe beatings. When he and other interrogators went to the colonel in charge and expressed concern that this kind of treatment was not legal, and that they might be investigated by the military’s Criminal Investigation Division or the International Committee of the Red Cross, the colonel told them he had “this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there’s no way that the Red Cross could get in.”
Nicolas J S Davies, “Suspected War Criminal, General McChrystal, to Lead U.S. Forces in Afghanistan ” http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=1576.
The unit's slogan, which set the tone for its practices, was "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it." Reportedly prisoners died in the custody of troops in General McChrystal’s command and five officers were convicted of prisoner abuse.
Therefore, the people must act to face up to this issue and restore morality and Rule of Law to the United States. In addition to filing these complaints we are starting a campaign for disbarment, public torture hearings and for the appointment of an Independent Prosecutor. People who want to get involved are urged to go to DisbarTortureLawyers.com and VotersForPeace.us.
Only by taking torture out of politics and allowing an independent prosecutor to pursue the facts and apply the law will the United States recover from these war crimes. Application of the rule of law, beginning with disbarment, is a necessary part of the process of healing the nation.
Comment
-
Comment by 7R33SandR0P3S on May 18, 2009 at 11:54pm
-
Just to get you into some of the substance I am putting this up for your delight:
Re: Complaint against Jay S. Bybee
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Jay S. Bybee breached his legal duty and violated the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct by advocating for immoral and unethical “extended” or “enhanced” interrogation techniques (amounting to torture), and other policies that resulted in clear violations of United States and international law.
Specifically, Mr. Bybee, ignored over two centuries of historical and legal precedents, fell short of the “good faith” imperative, and advanced suspect legal analysis and prescriptions for detainee interrogation well outside of accepted and legal norms, thereby providing the false cover of claimed legality for those who then engaged in acts and policies that, in fact, violated the following laws, both in letter and spirit:
1) The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 16 (ratified in October 1994)
2) The Geneva Conventions, Article 3, (ratified in August 1955)
3) The Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishment”
4) The “Separation of Powers” constructs and imperatives of the U.S. Constitution
5) The United States Criminal Code, Title 18, Prohibitions Against Torture (18 USC 2340A) and War Crimes (18 USC 2441)
As the “law of the land,” these legal protections and dictates are clear. Rather than authoring a “good faith” analysis of the applicable law, Mr. Bybee created contrary memoranda [1] since repudiated [2] from the Office of Legal Counsel, and colluded with a small cadre of Administration lawyers[3] to advance arguments that led directly to detainee abuses, and, evidence suggests, deaths at overseas U.S. military facilities.[4] In so doing, Mr. Bybee impeded the administration of justice and violated the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the Convention against Torture, the US Criminal Code and several D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Bybee did not act in “good faith” but rather in a manner that was illegal, extremely prejudicial, grossly incompetent and clearly immoral.
Therefore, VR calls upon the Board on Professional Responsibility, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, to act immediately to disbar Mr. Bybee for conduct that is a travesty of justice and an affront to the rule of law and the standards of professional legal and ethical conduct.
Further, because the evidence points to violation of numerous laws, VR believes that disbarment will complement steps toward open hearings in Congress and criminal investigations by an independent counsel appointed by the Department of Justice.
APPLICABLE LAW PROHIBITING TORTURE
The U.S. Constitution -- The Supreme Law of the Land
As the initial U.S. report to the UN Convention against Torture wrote:
“…the protections of the right to life and liberty, personal freedom and physical integrity found in the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide a nationwide standard of treatment beneath which no governmental entity may fall.” [49., p. 13, Initial Report submitted by the United States to the Convention against Torture in 1999 (CAT/C/28/Add.5)
U.S. citizens are guaranteed these protections. Jose Padilla is one example of a U.S. citizen who was held without charge for several years and subject to the extreme interrogation techniques advocated by Jay Bybee. Citizens of other countries are similarly protected when in United States custody. The Eighth Amendment specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
The Geneva Convention (1949)
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions broadly prohibits ''violence to life and
person,'' and specifically prohibits ''mutilation, cruel treatment and torture'' including ''outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment''. These terms include ''other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment."
The drafters of common Article 3 avoided a detailed list of prohibited acts in order to ensure that it had the broadest possible reach, leaving no loophole.
[http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981]
The Army Field Manual on detainee treatment and interrogation is predicated on the Geneva Convention and specifically requires humane treatment of prisoners and detainees. Exhibit B
UN Convention Against Torture (1994)
Adopted by the United Nations in 1984, the Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders. The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994 and it entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994. To date, there are over 146 nations that are party to the convention.
Article 2(2) of the Convention states that:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2002) -- Due Process and Legal Protections
The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), held that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to accused members of al-Qaeda. Thus, due process protections apply to all detainees in U.S. custody, including those in military prisons (Guantanamo, Abu Grahib, Bagram), as well as so-called “black sites” in Poland, Diego Garcia and elsewhere.
US Criminal Code
TITLE 18 § 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
TITLE 18 § 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character;
CASE FOR DISBARMENT
to read the rest---> Jay Bybee-District of Columbia Bar
-
-
I read in the Yoo_Memo_8-102.pdf on page 46 under CONCLUSIONS:
QUOTE: "Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture. "
Further, we conclude that under the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, application of Section 2340A to interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance,
Signed
Jay S. Bybee
Assistant Attorney General
End Quote
Read it closely. It looks like the CONSTITUTION is violated and further explains how necessity or self-defense could (not will or does) provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability.
CHENEY/BUSH Torture Project is criminal.
Legal Opinions do not changes the case law and make it LEGAL.
The memo only serves as a How To maybe avoid criminal proceedings.
Criminal Investigations can take its toll on the NWO. How?
Well if torture was used to acquire evidence submitted to the 9/11 Commission then the final report can be reasonably in question as well.
Here is what you can view at DisbarTortureLawyers.com
Our State Bar Complaints
Jay Bybee-District of Columbia Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Douglas Feith-District of Columbia Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
David Addington-District of Columbia Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Stephen Bradbury-District of Columbia Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Michael Chertoff-District of Columbia Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
John Ashcroft-District of Columbia Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Timothy Flanigan-District of Columbia Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Alice Fisher-District of Columbia Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Michael Haynes-California Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
John Yoo- Pennsylvania Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Alberto Gonzales-Texas Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Michael Mukasey-New York Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Exhibits Attached To Each Complaint
ACLU List Of Known Torture Documents
Army Field Manual On Detainee Treatment
Bradbury 20 Page Memo 5-10-05
Bradbury 46 Page Memo 5-10-05
Bradbury Memo 5-30-05
Bybee to Gonzales Memo 8-01-02
Bybee to Rizzo Memo 8-01-02
Geneva Convention Article 3
Haynes Memo 11-27-02
Red Cross Detainee Treatment Report
Senate Detainee Treatment Report
UN Convention on Torture
U.S. Criminal Code
Yoo Memo 8-01-02
Yoo Memo 3-14-03
-
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
TRUMP ADVOCATING FOR PEACE, CABINET PICKS ADVOCATE WAR
The Trends Journal is a weekly magazine analyzing global current events forming future trends. To access our premium content, subscribe to the Trends Journal...
When Will the True Reparations Be Awarded?
Americans have weathered the worst storm perhaps in American history from an intentionally…See More
Veteran’s Day a Time That Should Be Honored
At a time in our confusing and idiotic history when a Democrat can’t define a woman when being…See More
"Thumbs up to this awesome school. Isn't it amazing that some of the greatest teachers are to…"
"Oh wow he is not wasting any time. May the power of the words he just spoke resonate across America…"
"A creative way to get hands on participation with students and the community."
The Perfect Lies
The Perfect Lies Time is like an ocean with its secrets running deepLike all the lovers you’ve…See More
© 2024 Created by truth.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!
Join 12160 Social Network