Friday, January 26, 2007

 

The left's Sisyphus complex

Something must be in the air. Progressives are riding high for the first time in years, so now we have to round up the circular firing squads. The article is from the Nation, and is entitled The ACLU vs. The ACLU.

Actually, this dispute is old.
Last September a group of civil libertarians launched a website, savetheaclu.org, on which they declared: "We come together now, reluctantly but resolutely, not to injure the ACLU but to restore its integrity." Only a "change in leadership," they insisted, "will preserve the ACLU." That website, and those words, marked a new phase in a lengthy campaign to unseat Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director. The website contained a surprise: a pithy and combative declaration from Romero's retired predecessor, Ira Glasser, who recruited Romero for the top job six years earlier.

....

In late October a second website, voicesfortheaclu. org, was launched by supporters of Romero. That site was spearheaded by some prominent ACLU veterans, including Aryeh Neier,Gara LaMarche and Norman Dorsen, who declared themselves "dismayed by the ongoing attacks on the ACLU and its leadership" and the "disproportionate and distorted coverage...in some quarters of the press." Since 2004, Stephanie Strom, who covers philanthropy and nonprofits for the New York Times, has written a dozen stories about internal controversies at the ACLU, stories that have infuriated Romero and many of his colleagues at the organization.

....

On savetheaclu. org, Kaminer and Glasser wrote that the "ACLU continues to do a great deal of excellent, important work." Romero's supporters argue the point with greater emphasis and feeling. "The ACLU has never performed better," says Burt, a former ACLU legal director who is now a law professor at New York University. "If you drew up a blueprint for a machine to protect civil liberties, you'd literally copy the existing ACLU."

So what is the row about? The critics proclaim that Romero has made grave mistakes; that those mistakes amount to a firing offense; and that he has betrayed "fundamental ACLU values." Romero's supporters say that he is a visionary leader and that his critics are only damaging the ACLU. Glasser's intervention, and his decision to employ the full range of his polemical, linguistic and strategic abilities in the fight against Romero, has only ratcheted up the tension.


....

Romero's difficulties can be traced back to 2002, when he signed a consent decree with the New York Attorney General at the time, Eliot Spitzer, to settle a privacy breach that had been discovered on the ACLU website. A company called Virtual Sprockets was responsible for the breach, but Spitzer's office demanded a $10,000 fine from the ACLU. The terms of the decree required Romero to distribute it to the national ACLU board within thirty days, but he waited six months to do so. Glasser and Kaminer have written that Romero "offered vague and inconsistent explanations of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation, execution, and eventual distribution of the agreement." They further allege that ACLU president Nadine Strossen and the eleven-member executive committee, the leadership body of the board that oversees the executive director, "declined to reprimand Romero, even though a number of them privately conceded that they believed he had been less than honest with them." At the Warwick Hotel Romero told me, "I probably was a bit cavalier about it. But $10,000 is not a huge sum of money, and it was fully reimbursed [by Virtual Sprockets] to the ACLU. Had it been a million-dollar fine coming from our bottom line, I would have paid a lot more attention to it."

Then, in April 2004, Romero quietly put his signature on a Ford Foundation grant letter that contained a dubious clause: "By countersigning this grant letter, you agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state." Dissident board members Kaminer and Michael Meyers viewed that language as disgraceful, and believe that Romero and the ACLU should have vigorously opposed it [see Sherman, "Target Ford," June 5, 2006 ]. Upon questioning Romero, the critics learned that he had done more than sign the grant letter: He had privately advised Ford on how to craft it. After vigorous debate, the ACLU ultimately refused more than $1 million in Ford money, which Romero wanted for the organization. "The mistake I made," Romero told me, "was in not appreciating the civil liberties implications" of Ford's grant language; he also says that he should not have signed the Ford document without first consulting his board.

A long sad article.

Sisyphus gif is from Wikipedia.


Addendum: For those who are interested in the NAMBLA case which is referenced on the comments page, here is an extensive discussion of it.


Comments:
But $10,000 is not a huge sum of money,

I'm glad he is out-of-touch with the common person.
 
On the scale of his budget, it's not a huge amount of money. Everything's relative.
 
You are correct. After all, if you donate as little as $10 a month, "you can provide the support we need to continue to fight for all our freedoms."

It costs $20 minimum to become a ACLU memeber, but they really want you to spend $35 a year.

So at best, the ACLU burned through 500 members dues. Nice isn't it?

But yeah, $10,000 buck for a corpration claiming poormouth all the time is funny.

Yeah, the ACLU is a corporation, the ACLU Foundation is the one you can write off.
 
The ACLU lost its soul long ago when it represented NAMBLA's right to publish instructions on abducting and raping young boys. Save your freedom of speech argument for some other sucker.
 
Uh, no it didn't.
 
Incitement to commit a crime is not protected speech when someone acts upon it. How could anyone represent NAMBLA and still look in the mirror without being revolted? Eric you say no it didn't then you link to an article that admits it did. Whats with the double speak?
 
What the ACLU did was to defend NAMBLA's right to advocate for elimination of statutory rape laws. That's protected speech.
 
If you are factually correct I agree, But it is my understanding that what they defended, at least what I was referring to, is MAMBLA's posting on the Internet of Instructions on how to kidnap and sodomize young boys. If that is true, then the ACLU has gone off the deep end.
 
An old friend of mine once said this about the American Civil Liberties Union: "They're a bunch of whale-saving, criminal-loving pinkos — and thank God for them."
This remark nicely summarizes the ambivalence with which many people regard the ACLU. Few organizations dance closer to the very edge of the loony-Left precipice than it does. There seems to be no thug too hardened nor any cause too exotic for the ACLU to champion. At the same time, if America ever were unlucky enough to face a president who decided to remain in the Oval Office past her expiration date, the ACLU would battle her and her junta with every sharp courtroom argument, pointed legal filing, and well-aimed briefcase it could muster.

That said, the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.

The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.

Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.

So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?

Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.

Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."

NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."

Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."

"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.

Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.

The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.

Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers. The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.

This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy, Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.

Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization last July and declared that their involvement with Balboa Park violated the separation of church and state. The ACLU used this ruling to secure a settlement wherein the City of San Diego cancelled the Scouts' lease on the park, even though it did not expire until 2007 and, in fact, was extended in 2001 for 25 years. The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets.

San Diego's Boy Scouts are appealing Judge Jones' ruling. A federal judge someday may decide whether or not the Scouts' good deeds will go unpunished.

The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.

Today's ACLU makes one wish it would find some whales to save.
 
Like I said, the ACLU has lost its soul.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
The "survival manual" story is all over the internet and in a bunch of right wing sources, but the actual lawsuit, filed by the parents of a child who was killed by someone who took "psychological comfort" in the NAMBLA website, does not allege any such manual put out by the organization. Whether such a manual exists and whether it was put out by NAMBLA, it apparently has nothing to do with this case. If it does, at least according to the plaintiff pleadings, it did not say what you and the legions of right wing websites say it did.

Here's a clip from the blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

The legal argument that the parents of the victim are making is that NAMBLA's publications fostered an atmosphere that caused the crime to take place. That's right - they do not allege that there was anything that specifically instructed Jaynes to rape and kill a child, that either their publications or their website provided any material support for the crime, or even that it advocated committing such a crime, only that the "totality of the child sex environment" advocated by NAMBLA somehow caused this to happen. In fact, the defendants filed a motion early on in the case asking that the plaintiffs spell out specifically what statements or expressions in either the group's publications or website could reasonably be construed as causing Jaynes to commit this crime. The amended complaint did not do so, referring instead only to the general "climate" fostered by NAMBLA. And herein lies the crux of the case.

The ACLU was right to defend them, unsavory as they were. If they had come into my office, I would also have defended them, because the due process issue is much larger than the individuals involved.
 
Here's the link.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/the_aclu_and_the_nambla_case_1.php
 
I'm waiting to see if ACLU is willing to take on the Separation of Church and State when it comes to U.S. support for the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel. Good luck on that one..yeah, I know..
 
Also from the site:

Yeah I am sure people of NAMBLA were going to turn over their lovely pamplet on "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships", which the Curley's attorney says he has a copy of.

They don't have to turn it over voluntarily, they can be ordered to turn over anything and everything they've put out. In fact, they can simply have their offices raided, hard drives taken, and so forth, if they are uncooperative. If the attorney really has such a pamphlet, why didn't he enter it into evidence? Would it make sense that he has this incredibly damning piece of evidence that could be the key to his entire case, with who knows how much in damages...but he won't show it to the court? That simply makes no sense. Attorneys claim to have things to the media all the time that they don't really have. During the OJ trial, lots of trial balloons were floated to the press but never showed up in court. Why? Because they didn't exist. They were trying to win the public relations battle by planting a seed that someone would believe. If they had it, they would have entered it into evidence and released it to the media. They wouldn't just claim they have it.

 
Steve - by your logic, under the Establishment Clause the US can ally itself with no nation which does not recognize our separation of church and state.

Now that's quite a stretch of the amendment!
 
Eric, you have fallen pray to leftist disinformation.
 
Folks, I doubt Eric intended to deceive, but here is the lawsuit proving that the plaintiff's allege
that: "By its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children. Public libraries have been identified as places for its members to meet or visit. Upon information and belief NAMBLA members travel to Thailand to have sex with young male slaves."

Here is the full lawsuit:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

BARBARA CURLEY AND
ROBERT CURLEY
Administrators of the
Estate of JEFFREY J. CURLEY

plaintiffs




Docket No. 00CV10956 GAO

v.


NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY
LOVE ASSOCIATION, JOHN
DOE INC., ROY RADOW, JOE
POWERS, DAVID THORSTAD, DAVID
MILLER, PETER HERMAN, MAX
HUNTER and ARNOLD SCHOEN

defendants


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

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
INTRODUCTION


1. This is a civil action brought by Barbara Curley and Robert Curley in their capacity as administrators of the estate of their deceased son, Jeffrey Curley, to recover for the conscious suffering and wrongful death of Jeffrey Curley caused by the defendants. The claims are brought under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 229 Section 2 and 6, and seek compensatory and punitive damages. In addition plaintiffs allege a violation of 42 USC 1985 against defendants North American Man Boy Love Association, Roy Radow, Joe Powers, David Thorstad, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter and Arnold Schoen.


JURISDICTION


2. Jurisdiction is conveyed upon this Court by 28 USC Section 1332(a)(2) and 42 USC Section 1985(3).


PARTIES


3. The plaintiffs Barbara Curley and Robert Curley are residents of Cambridge and Somerville, Middlesex County, Massachusetts and are the duly appointed administrators of the estate of Jeffrey J. Curley. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the next of kin and Estate of Jeffrey J. Curley.

4. The defendant North American Man Boy Love Association is a group of individuals organized and operating in the United States and allegedly North America under the name of "NAMBLA" and hereinafter referred to as "NAMBLA" with a principal place of business at P.O. Box 174 Midtown Station, New York, New York 10018.

5. The defendant John Doe Inc. is a duly organized corporation with a principal place of business unknown to the plaintiffs at this time hereinafter referred to as "John Doe".

6. The defendant Roy Radow is a resident of 175 20 Wexford Terrace, Jamaica, New York 11432. Hereinafter referred to as "Radow".

7. The defendant Joe Powers is a resident of parts unknown with a principal place of business at NAMBLA P.O. Box 174 Midtown Station, New York, New York 10018. Hereinafter referred to as "Powers".

8. The defendant Daniel Thorstad is a resident of parts unknown with a principal place of business at NAMBLA P.O. Box 174 Midtown Station, New York, New York 10018. Hereinafter referred to as "Thorstad".

9. The defendant David Miller is a resident of parts unknown with a principal place of business at NAMBLA P.O. Box 174 Midtown Station, New York, New York 10018. Hereinafter referred to as "Miller".

10. The defendant Peter Herman is a resident of parts unknown with a principal place of business at NAMBLA P.O. Box 174 Midtown Station, New York, New York 10018. Hereinafter referred to as "Herman".

11. The defendant Max Hunter is a resident of parts unknown with a principal place of business at NAMBLA P.O. Box 174 Midtown Station, New York, New York 10018. Hereinafter referred to as "Hunter".

12. The defendant Arnold Schoen is a resident of parts unknown with a principal place of business at NAMBLA P.O. Box 174 Midtown Station, New York, New York 10018. Hereinafter referred to as "Schoen".


ALLEGATIONS


13. Defendants Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen collectively organize, manage and control the daily organization of NAMBLA at all times material hereto.

14. NAMBLA is an organization which falsely alleges it is non-profit in nature as defined by the Internal Revenue Code of the United States of America and exists for the purpose of changing society's attitudes about man/boy love through publications, educational and political activities and membership conferences.

15. Although NAMBLA represents that it is a lawful non profit organization working to change society's attitudes on pedophile activity in reality it is not a recognized non-profit organization by the United States of America or any state in the United States.

16. NAMBLA publishes a quarterly bulletin which it distributes throughout the United States and Europe and maintains a website on the Internet at www.nambla.org.

17. NAMBLA attempts to associate itself with the Gays Rights Organizations in the United States to justify its advocacy of men having sex with male children. NAMBLA attempts to equate lust and sex with love in order to justify men illegally raping male children.

18. By its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children. Public libraries have been identified as places for its members to meet or visit. Upon information and belief NAMBLA members travel to Thailand to have sex with young male slaves.

19. NAMBLA serves as a conduit for an underground network of pedophiles in the United States who use their NAMBLA association and contacts therein and the internet to obtain child pornography and promote pedophile activity.

20. NAMBLA maintains two mailing addresses in the United States. One location is a mail box location at 537 Jones Street, P.O. Box 8418, San Francisco, California 94102 (a photograph of this location is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and incorporated by reference). This mailing address is maintained by Defendant Schoen. NAMBLA's second mailing address is P.O. Box 174, Midtown Station, New York, New York 10018. A photograph of this location is attached hereto marked Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. This mailing address is maintained by Defendant Radow from his residence at 17520 Wexford Terrace, Jamaica, New York 11432. A photograph of this location is attached hereto marked Exhibit C and incorporated by reference.

21. NAMBLA maintains two voice mail telephone numbers. One telephone number is 415-281-0767 and is located in San Francisco, California. The second telephone number is 212-631-1194 and is located in New York, New York. NAMBLA's voice mail system is established for the purpose of providing communication to and between it's members and to impede law enforcement investigation of it's members' activities.

22. NAMBLA regularly publishes a publication called the NAMBLA Bulletin. The Bulletin contains various articles and letters encouraging men to have sex with young male children. The articles and letter allegedly report of the sexual experiences between men and male children and contain statements such as "call it love, call it lust, call it whatever you want. We desire sex with boys and boys whether society is willing to admit it, desire sex with us". Lust - NAMBLA Bulletin No. 18.4.

23. NAMBLA members describe the Bulletin as "a nice collection of photos of cute boys (practically on every page)" NAMBLA Bulletin No. 18.4. A sample of some NAMBLA Bulletin photographs and drawings is attached hereto marked Exhibit D and incorporated by reference.

24. For a profit on or about October 11, 1996 Defendant John Doe was the internet service provider to NAMBLA and intentionally, negligently, recklessly and carelessly provided technical support to NAMBLA to create and maintain the NAMBLA website.

25. John Doe Inc. at all times material hereto provides the international website communication systems for pedophiles in North America under the name of NAMBLA which intentionally promotes child pornography and pedophile activity. John Doe Inc. allows NAMBLA to "reach more people and provide a more scattered target for" law enforcement officials. NAMBLA Bulletin No. 18.4.

26. At all times material hereto Defendants NAMBLA, John Doe, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to illegally rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material.

27. In the Fall of 1996 Charles Jaynes also known as Elizah Woods, Anthony Scaccia and Scott Eastman of 42 Peterson Avenue, Brockton, Massachusetts joined NAMBLA.

28. Prior to joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes was heterosexual.

29. After joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes received and read the NAMBLA Bulletin, accessed and read the NAMBLA website which is provided by John Doe Inc. and by said means of communication began to collect child pornography and various pedophile material.

30. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy conspiring and promoting of pedophile activity by John Doe Inc., NAMBLA Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen, Charles Jaynes became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children.

31. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy and promoting of pedophile activity by John Doe Inc., NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen, Charles Jaynes stalked Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts who was ten years old and tortured, murdered and mutilated Jeffrey Curley's body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library.


COUNT ONE

(Wrongful Death - NAMBLA)


32) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 31 above, as if stated herein.

33) The Defendant North American Man Boy Love Association's aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

34) The Defendant North American Man Boy Love Association's malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

35) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next to kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

36) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

37) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against NAMBLA as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT TWO


(Conscious Suffering - NAMBLA)


38) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 37 above, as if stated herein.

39) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, North American Man Boy Love Association, Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

40) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against NAMBLA as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT THREE


(Wrongful Death - Roy Radow)


41) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 40 above, as if stated herein.

42) The Defendant Roy Radow's aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

43) The Defendant Roy Radow malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

44) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next of kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

45) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

46) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against Roy Radow as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT FOUR


(Conscious Suffering - Roy Radow)


47) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 46 above, as if stated herein.

48) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, Roy Radow, Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

49) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against Roy Radow as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT FIVE


(Wrongful Death - Joe Powers)


50) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 49 above, as if stated herein.

51) The Defendant Joe Powers' aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

52) The Defendant Joe Powers' malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

53) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next of kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

54) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

55) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against Joe Powers as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT SIX


(Conscious Suffering - Joe Powers)


56) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 55 above, as if stated herein.

57) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, Joe Powers, Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

58) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against Joe Powers as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT SEVEN


(Wrongful Death - David Thorstad)


59) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 58 above, as if stated herein.

60) The Defendant David Thorstad's aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

61) The Defendant David Thorstad's malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

62) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next to kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

63) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

64) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against David Thorstad as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT EIGHT


(Conscious Suffering - David Thorstad)


65) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 64 above, as if stated herein.

66) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, David Thorstad, Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

67) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against David Thorstad as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT NINE


(Wrongful Death - David Miller)


68) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 67 above, as if stated herein.

69) The Defendant David Miller aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

70) The Defendant David Miller malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

71) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next of kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

72) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

73) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against David Miller as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT TEN


(Conscious Suffering - David Miller)


74) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 73 above, as if stated herein.

75) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, David Miller, Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

76) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against David Miller as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT ELEVEN


(Wrongful Death - Peter Herman)


77) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 76 above, as if stated herein.

78) The Defendant Peter Herman's aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

79) The Defendant Peter Herman malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

80) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next to kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

81) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

82) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against Peter Herman as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT TWELVE


(Conscious Suffering - Peter Herman)


83) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 82 above, as if stated herein.

84) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, Peter Herman, Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

85) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against Peter Herman as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT THIRTEEN


(Wrongful Death - Max Hunter)


86) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 85 above, as if stated herein.

87) The Defendant Max Hunter's aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

88) The Defendant Max Hunter's malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

89) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next of kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

90) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

91) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against Max Hunter as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT FOURTEEN

(Conscious Suffering - Max Hunter)



92) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 91 above, as if stated herein.

93) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, Max Hunter, Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

94) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against Max Hunter as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT FIFTEEN

(Wrongful Death - Arnold Schoen)


95) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 97 above, as if stated herein.

96) The Defendant Arnold Schoen's aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

97) The Defendant Arnold Schoen malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

98) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next of kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

99) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

100) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against Arnold Schoen as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT SIXTEEN

(Conscious Suffering - Arnold Schoen)


101) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 100 above, as if stated herein.

102) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, Arnold Schoen, Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

103) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against Arnold Schoen as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT SEVENTEEN

(Wrongful Death - John Doe Inc.)


104) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 103 above, as if stated herein.

105) The Defendant John Doe Inc.'s aforementioned conduct constituted malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

106) The Defendant John Doe Inc.'s malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

107) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's next of kin are entitled as damages to the fair monetary value of injury to Jeffrey J. Curley including, but not limited to, compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice.

108) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to the reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

109) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to punitive damages in an amount no less than five thousand dollars.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in their favor against John Doe Inc. as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages as allowed by law; and
c. For such other damages and relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT EIGHTEEN

(Conscious Suffering - John Doe Inc.)


110) Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 109 above, as if stated herein.

111) As the direct and proximate result of the serious bodily injuries to Jeffrey J. Curley caused by Defendant, Best Communication Inc., Jeffrey J. Curley was caused to suffer consciously from the time he was injured until his death.

112) Pursuant to Massachusetts law, Jeffrey J. Curley's estate is entitled to damages for conscious suffering resulting from such serious bodily injuries.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment in his favor against John Doe Inc. as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


COUNT NINETEEN

(42 USC 1985: NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller,
Herman, Hunter and Schoen)


113. Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations made in paragraph 1 through 112 above, as if stated herein.

114. Jeffrey Curley was a member of a protected class of persons under the United States Constitution as a minor child pursuant to 42 USC 1985, and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Sections 22A, 23, 24B.

115. At all times material hereto Jeffrey Curley had the right to life and liberty and to be free of illegal sexual contact and intercourse pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and United States Constitution.

116. At all times material hereto NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen in the United States conspired directly and indirectly for the purpose of depriving young male children including Jeffrey Curley of their right to liberty and to be free from illegal sexual contact and intercourse.

117. Pursuant to said conspiracy defendants Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter, Schoen and NAMBLA maintained a website and published material to the general public in a manner to impede law enforcement officials investigating child rape, urging, advocating and promoting members of the public to directly or indirectly deprive young male children of their liberty and right to be free of illegal sexual contact and intercourse.

118. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy conspiring and promoting of pedophile activity by NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter, Schoen, Charles Jaynes became obsessed with having sex with a raping young male children.

119. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy and promoting of pedophile activity by NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter, Schoen, Charles Jaynes stalked Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts who was ten years old and tortured, murdered and mutilated Jeffrey Curley's body on or about October 1, 1997. Immediately prior to said act Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library.

120. The aforementioned acts of defendants NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen violated Jeffrey Curley's rights to life, liberty, equal protection under the laws of the United States and Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the equal privileges and immunities under the Constitution and laws of the United States and Commonwealth of Massachusetts and 42 USC 1985.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in their representative capacity, requests judgment jointly and severally against defendants North American Man Boy Love Association, Roy Radow, Joe Powers, David Thorstad, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter and Arnold Schoen in their favor as follows:

a. For general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court with interest and costs;
b. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the court with interest;
c. For reasonable attorneys fees;
d. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.


PLAINTIFF'S HEREBY DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY.


Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiffs



Lawrence W. Frisoli
Frisoli & Frisoli
797 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, MA 02141
(617) 354-2220
 
A society that coddles and allows groups like NAMBLA is a sick society. What does it say about us? Free speech has never meant that anything goes.
 
Okay, so I've read the whole complaint. Where are the specific quotes that instruct members on how to rape, kill, or kidnap a child? Apparently they were instructed by the court to provide specific quotes and what you've shown is that they couldn't do it.

Where are the allegations about the "survival manual?"
 
Eric, courts require ultimate fact pleading, not statements of the evidence in support of the ultimate facts. That is what discovery is for. You are just having a hard time accepting that one of your cherished institutions has lost its soul.
 
Apparently, you missed the earlier posts and the link I provided. In some cases you do have to plead specific facts. Apparently, in Massachussetts, you have to do so for either the tort of wrongful death or conscious suffering. A motion was made for more specificity and the plaintiff's refiled, once again without specifics. The case was dismissed on what appears to have been a judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment.

The "survival manual" all of the right wing sites bring up, if it exists, was not introduced into these proceedings. Either the plaintiffs did not know about it, or it's not a NAMBLA publication.

The plaintiffs lost their case, because they had none. The ACLU was wrong to take up the defense, because a verdict against NAMBLA in this case could be used against a rock climbing organization in the next, when a family sues for wrongful death of a rock climbing accident victim for creating a "climate" which induced the victim to climb.
 
The ACLU has lost its soul and NAMBLA should be eradicated with extreme prejudice.
 
Eric, that is not a good argument. Advocating legal rock climbing techniques is a far cry from advocating repulsive criminal acts. What NAMBLA did should be a crime. NAMBLA was complicit in the brutal murder of a young boy. It hardly surprises me that the extreme left, which also advocates infanticide (partial birth abortion), also wants to make the World safe for kiddy molesters. Do you really want to be on record saying that it should be legal to advocate the criminal rape of young boys?
 
How was it complicit in murder? Be specific. And when did it advocate criminal acts, and which acts? Again, be specific.
 
NAMBLA's website tought homosexual pedophiles how to abduct boys and how to have the best chance to get away with it. Unfortunately, I do not have access to their old website material. What do you allege was the limit of NAMBLA's involvement?
 
No it didn't. That's an urban legend that has nothing to do with reality nor the lawsuit in which the ACLU defended NAMBLA.

Your basic argument is that NAMBLA is bad, therefor guilty, or liable. The courts disagreed.
 
Where is the info NAMBLA posted how do you know what you say is true?
 
The following are true facts of the Curley case. There may be other true facts unknown to this writer.

In 1997, 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley was picked up by two men, one of whom was Charlie Jaynes. The men took Curley to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website.

Jaynes and another man later attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him.

According to attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder.

NAMBLA teaches pedophiles how to profile kids, Frisoli told WorldNetDaily.

An overt pedophile organization, NAMBLA provides resources to pedophiles seeking information about sexual relationships between men and boys.

In the organization's regularly published bulletin, various articles and letters reporting the sexual experiences of members are printed . One statement from the bulletin, as printed in the lawsuit, says, "Call it love, call it lust, call it whatever you want. We desire sex with boys. . ."


"I think it's long overdue that groups like NAMBLA came under the same type of microscope that companies have come under for pushing products seen as dangerous," Bob Knight, of the Family Research Council, told Family News in Focus, a publication of Focus on the Family.

Queer Resources Directory includes NAMBLA on its website, which "contains 25,317 files about everything queer."

So we know that twisted killer "kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do."

Is that not enough to know that such websites should not be allowed? The site glorified and encouraged criminal acts with children. The ACLU was stupid to defend the organization. It just tarnished its reputation and made it less credible for the worthy cases it does take on. Discretion is the better part of valor.
 
NAMBLA teaches pedophiles how to profile kids, Frisoli told WorldNetDaily.

This is the only sentence of substance in the article, and there is no elaboration. If this is the case, then NAMBLA should have been prosecuted. But merely providing "psychological comfort" by advocating for a change in laws is protected.

Again, it comes down to NAMBLA bad so NAMBLA guilty.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for www.electoral-vote.com