Cullen had secret list

Share Button

New court filing says Allentown bishop, four others knew of 35 allegedly abusive priests

The Morning Call

10:30 p.m. EST, March 3, 2012

By Peter Hall and Matt Assad, Of The Morning Call

Allentown Bishop Edward Cullen was one of three high ranking clergy present when Philadelphia Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua ordered aides to shred a list of priests suspected of sexually abusing children. (Mariella Savidge, TMC / February 27, 2009)

Nearly two decades ago, Allentown Bishop Edward Cullen was one of two or three high-ranking clergy present when the head of the Philadelphia Archdiocese ordered the shredding of a list of 35 priests suspected of sexually abusing children, according to a recent court filing in Philadelphia.

A copy of that list and a 1994 memo recording Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua‘s instructions to destroy it has turned up in the case of Monsignor William Lynn, a former archdiocesan official charged with endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy for allegedly enabling priests to molest children.

Lynn’s attorneys have claimed the documents are proof of a conspiracy by Bevilacqua; Cullen, who was then the cardinal’s top aide; Cullen’s then assistant, Monsignor James Molloy; and Lynn’s then assistant, the Rev. Joseph Cistone, to hide sexual abuse allegations. They called for the dismissal of charges against Lynn, which were filed last year after the second of two Philadelphia grand jury investigations into allegations of sexual abuse by priests.

“This startling revelation raises clear issues as to whether Cardinal Bevilacqua, Bishops Cullen and Cistone and Monsignor Molloy obstructed justice in connection with grand jury I,” Lynn’s lawyers Jeff Lindy and Thomas Bergstrom wrote in a motion to dismiss the case.

In response, the Philadelphia district attorney’s office made clear the documents could expand the scope of its case.

“It is possible that the new evidence could lead to new charges — including new charges against [Lynn]. But whether others are charged now or in the future is irrelevant to the charges for which defendant is now on trial,” Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen wrote.

A judge last week denied Lynn’s request to have the case dismissed after prosecutors argued against his claim that he wasn’t part of the alleged conspiracy. Sorensen said the newly disclosed list and memo are “the equivalent of a smoking gun” for the prosecution’s case.

Lynn, who was the archdiocese’s secretary of clergy from 1992 until 2004 and is the only church official in the nation to be charged with covering up sexual abuse, is scheduled to stand trial this month with two priests accused of sexually abusing a boy in the 1990s.

Cullen, 78, is likely to land on the witness stand because he and Cistone, who now is bishop of Saginaw, Mich., are the only two living church officials named in the newly disclosed documents. Bevilacqua died in January and Molloy died in 2006.

Church attorney Timothy Coyne testified last month that when he asked Cullen and others about the list during the first grand jury probe, each said they didn’t know where the list was. The first grand jury report in 2005 does not include Cullen’s answer to Coyne’s question. But it does note, “Cullen instructed his assistant, James Molloy (who at times displayed glimpses of compassion for victims), never to tell victims that he believed them. Doing so would have made evident the church officials’ knowledge of other criminal acts and made later denials difficult.”

Cullen, who was head of the Allentown Diocese from 1998 until his retirement in 2009, declined to talk to a reporter last week at his home in Lower Macungie Township.

Matt Kerr, spokesman for the Allentown Diocese of more than 276,000 Catholics, would not comment on the Philadelphia case, but noted that as bishop of Allentown, Cullen took allegations of sexual assault by priests seriously.

Kerr pointed out Cullen cooperated with the five district attorneys in the diocese, and appointed the first diocesan victim assistance coordinator and the first diocesan review board. In fact, Cullen removed eight diocesan priests over allegations of abuse. He also initiated background checks for priests and laypeople and offered counseling to abuse victims.

A locksmith and a list

Days after Bevilacqua’s death Jan. 31, in a turn lifted from the pages of a legal thriller, the church’s lawyers disclosed to prosecutors a file they had discovered in 2006 when a locksmith cracked a dusty safe in Lynn’s former office.

Inside was a copy of Lynn’s list, placed there, Lynn’s attorneys say, by Molloy.

At the same time, church officials also disclosed to prosecutors Molloy’s handwritten note detailing Bevilacqua’s instructions to destroy the list and recording that he shredded four copies, including Cullen’s, with Cistone as a witness.

“It is crucial to note that the memo reflects that the directive for the shredding came at a March 15, 1994 issues meeting attended by Cardinal Bevilacqua, Bishop Cullen and Monsignor Molloy,” Lynn’s attorneys wrote in their Feb. 24 filing.

At the very least, the existence of the list supports the central claims in both the criminal case against Lynn and civil cases against the archdiocese, say lawyers familiar with the church abuse scandal.

“It proves what a lot of people have been saying all along, that the cardinal and hierarchy of the archdiocese had knowledge that at least 35 of its priests, and probably more, were sexually abusing minors,” said Kenneth Millman, a Berks County attorney who represents a victim of one of the priests Lynn allegedly protected.

While the newly disclosed evidence is powerful, prosecutors would face a high bar to bring charges against Cullen or Cistone, said Barbara Ashcroft, a former sex crimes prosecutor who teaches at Temple University law school.

“The commonwealth would have to have substantial facts to support charges of conspiracy or obstruction of justice with regard to Cullen or Cistone,” she said.

Prosecutors would have to show the clerics had an agreement to destroy the lists and that they understood the significance of doing so, Ashcroft said.

Asked if Cistone would comment on the newly disclosed information in Lynn’s motion, a spokeswoman for the Diocese of Saginaw referred questions to a Montgomery County attorney who represents Cistone. The attorney did not return a call last week.

Lynn’s trial threatens to shake the church to its core, said Rocco Palmo, a commentator for the National Catholic Reporter magazine.

“Every person who has survived from the senior administration of the Philadelphia diocese is fair game in this one,” Palmo said. “It’s going to be unlike any trial that the Catholic Church has ever had. We’ve never been here before and no one really knows what to expect.”

Palmo said what makes the trial so unpredictable, and potentially explosive, is that the judge is allowing all of the grand jury testimony and any testimony from past abuse cases.

“We’re talking about 50 years and 70 or 80 abuse cases,” Palmo said. “All bets are off on this one.”

Lynn’s motives

While neither side disputes that Lynn is the author of the list, each presents dramatically different versions of his motives.

Lynn’s attorneys say he was spurred to action after he discovered the case of the Rev. James Dux, who was an active priest with an extensive history of sexual misconduct, and set out to identify others.

“He undertook this project on his own for the benefit of the faithful,” Lynn’s lawyers wrote.

But prosecutors say the project was an attempt to fortify the archdiocese against any civil litigation by abuse victims.

The list was discovered in a folder that also held notes from a strategy session on dealing with lawsuits and negative publicity. It also contained a letter from a Time magazine reporter with questions about pedophile priests in Philadelphia and references to a lawyer who had settled lawsuits against the Camden, N.J., diocese.

Whatever Lynn’s motive, the result of his research was a typewritten memo that identified three priests diagnosed as pedophiles, 12 who were the subject of allegations deemed credible by the archdiocese and 20 who were named in unsubstantiated allegations, according to court documents.

Lynn forwarded the list to his supervisor, Molloy, and was summoned to the March 15, 1994, issues meeting with Bevilacqua, Cullen and Molloy to discuss his findings, Lynn’s lawyers said.

It was after Lynn left that meeting that Bevilacqua gave his order to collect copies of the list and shred them, Lynn’s lawyers said.

But prosecutors say Lynn’s lawyers understated his role in the March 15 meeting, noting memos show it was moved from the cardinal’s home to the archdiocese offices to accommodate Lynn. The memos, they note, make no mention of Lynn leaving that meeting before Bevilacqua ordered the copies shredded.

Cullen described the meeting in a memo to Bevilacqua: “Father Lynn provided supplemental background concerning particular files for which additional information had been requested. Cardinal Bevilacqua and Bishop-elect Cullen returned to Monsignor Molloy their copies of the file listings so that the material might be shredded.”

The list might have been lost to history, Lynn’s lawyers say, except that Lynn placed a copy of his cover memo in Dux’s personnel file.

The cover memo, which discussed Lynn’s recommendation to retire Dux, also outlined the list and is the reason prosecutors began searching for it during the first grand jury investigation, which ended in 2005, a year before the list turned up in a locked safe.

But the prosecutors say Lynn’s assertion in his filing that he alerted them to the existence of the list in 2004 by placing it in Dux’s file is a stretch. Prosecutors point out that the grand jury noticed the reference to the list when Dux’s file was turned over in response to a subpoena.

“Lynn was asked repeatedly for the list itself and testified that he could not find it. That testimony is highly suspect now that the list has been found in a safe under Lynn’s control,” prosecutors said.

Lynn is using the documents now, prosecutors argued, as an excuse to fashion a new defense — “a combination of the dead-guys-did-it and I-was-only-following-orders defenses.”

In fact, prosecutors said, the new evidence demonstrates Lynn had possession of the list during the first grand jury investigation, when he testified he could not find it.

The list shows Lynn knew in 1994 that one of his co-defendants, the Rev. Edward Avery, had a record of sexual misconduct, and Lynn still recommended him for positions where he had contact with children, the prosecution’s response says.

“[The documents] show Lynn to be the most active participant in a well-orchestrated conspiracy among archdiocese officials to cover up the sexual crimes of priests and to keep known child molesters in active ministry,” Sorensen, the assistant district attorney, wrote.

Jury selection for Lynn’s trial concluded last week. Testimony is scheduled to begin March 26.

[email protected]

610-820-6581

24 Responses to Cullen had secret list

  1. Sylvia says:

    Who’s going to throw who under the bus now?

    Now we learn that, in addition to Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and Monsingors William Lynn and James Molly, Bishops Joseph Cistone and Edward Cullen knew about and saw the list of 35 priests which Lynn allegedly compiled in 1994.

    Cullen and others testified under oath at the Grand Jury probe that they didn’t know where the list was.

    The Grand Jury report of 2005 notes that: “Cullen instructed his assistant, James Molloy (who at times displayed glimpses of compassion for victims), never to tell victims that he believed them. Doing so would have made evident the church officials’ knowledge of other criminal acts and made later denials difficult.”

    It was allegedly Molloy who placed a copy of the memo inside the file of Father James Dux in Monsignor Lynn’s safe. Dux had “an extensive history of sexual misconduct.”

    It was allegedly Lynn who placed a copy of a cover memo attached to the list inside the same file in his safe.

    The list was unearthed in 2006 when the safe was opened.

    In 2005 Lynn testified under oath that he couldn’t find the list. He was apparently asked repeatedly for the list.

    There is question as to whether or not Lynn was present for the shredding.

    The list shows that one of Lynn’s co-defendatns, Father Edward Avery, had a record of sexual misconduct – despite this Lynn recommended him for positions where he had contact with children.

    Monsignor Molloy is dead.

    Lynn Lynn’s attorneys say, by Molloy.

  2. Larry Green says:

    What a pathetic bunch.

  3. Mike Mc says:

    My God, what a revealed mess. It only goes to show you what we already know. The past Popes themselves have been probably aware of many things Cardinals have told them…about sexually abusive priests…since probably 1960. (Maybe even before). Secrets now revealed; safes opened. Next the vaults will be forced open by public outcry and courts of Law. I knew it! This up coming trial will reveal a lot and be the catalyst for future revelations about the Church and what it knew, and didn’t do about what it knew. The time has come!

  4. Larry Green says:

    How is it that so many Catholics ( laity and clergy) can go on and on with the pathetic claim that ” there are only a few bad apples?” “All”of the “good” priests suffer so deeply because of a “few bad apples” they say. Why do those claims appear to be so empty and disgusting? If “all” the “good” priest’s suffering is so terrible because of these “few bad apples”, then why aren’t they doing something about it? Why don’t we hear them standing up and demanding justice for victims and changes to take place immediately? Why is it that all we here from “all” the “good” priests is that we shouldn’t be making hasty judgments about accused? Why is it all we seem to hear from” all” the “good” priests that they will hire lawyers and sue anyone who speaks out and voices there anger and disgust with these predators ( pedophiles and deceitful conspirators alike). Why do the “all” the “good priests spend most of their waking hours monitoring and scrutinizing every word that good people who’s ,concern is to seek justice,say.

  5. Sylvia says:

    Thanks for that link Mike Mc. It is now posted in the site.

    So, according to the Grand Jury report, in 1993″Cullen issued a memo to another Philadelphia Archdiocese administrator, Monsignor William Lynn, saying parishioners of St. Therese of the Child Jesus parish in Philadelphia should be told the Rev. Edward Avery was resigning as pastor for health reasons.”

    Avery was recyled, and began to abuse a 10-year-old boy, and that child endured and suffered at the hands of Avery for four long years!

    But, because this horror was not discovered until after the statute of limitations had expired, Cullen could not be charged!!!

    I am at a loss to understand how this can be so.

    No matter, the boil has been lanced….

  6. Mike Mc says:

    Pondering this site and thread above, I once again feel I have to react.
    Larry, I’ve asked myself the same questions. I have given them…the good priests… the benefit of the doubt…so many times. But they don’t talk about this nor do they act upon it. I will give credit to Fr Tim for at least being vocal at times. But where are the others? Personally, I am disillusioned with the Church. The coverups…..the viewing “the Church’s reputation” more important than the truth of the matter. And what is the truth? We can say it is a sinful church……now there’s a Catholic term for you. But what the truth really is is that the RC Church has been misguided for a long time. An article on this site a couple of days ago said in Ireland the “Priest” was once higher than the courts, authorities, people etc. How wrong was that…..yet my parents certainly thought so…or at least said they did. God only knows what they really thought inside but dare not express at the time. And what about a Bishop? Cardinal? Well, priests were under them! …An even higher authority. And we now see time and time again the revelation that these men were just as guilty…if not direct abuse, then indirect abuse by covering up for abusive priests. It seems that through time the male species has raped, abused, gone to war, killed, hunted, been in male dominated authority etc etc…… What I often refer to as “the old boys club” running the RC Church is not much different.
    T’is time….and I know I am repeating myself here….that the male dominated Church realize it has failed in so many ways. I know this may sound crazy to some, but don’t you think it’s time for a female Pope on downward if the Church is to survive? “Act justly, love tenderly, and walk humbly with your God.” The book of Micah, I believe. Most women I know are the essence of that quote. God love them for it!

  7. Larry Green says:

    Mike Mc, the ‘holy’ men in the present church would watch the church crumble to pieces before they would even think of ordaining a woman into the priesthood. never mind a woman pope. They would burn down every standing house of God before a woman would be pope. In the eyes of catholic church women are inferior and there respective roles on this earth are to remain subordinate to their superior counter parts. Even though the truth is that substantially and in essence there is absolutely zero difference between male and female which is why they both belong equally to one and the same species.
    That being said , I do agree with you Mike that ideally, ordained women (banning men from ordination) could probably revive the sunken church . Apart from that all hope for the survival of the church in it,s present form has evaporated and that in reality may not be such a bad thing because at an ever increasing rate the church is doing more harm than good to mankind.

    • 1 abandoned sheep says:

      Larry,your position about the ordination of women in the Catholic Church is just another example of your disenchantment with everything Catholic.
      Do you blame your parents for you having been born Catholic? Or are you just a natural complainer when things are not according to Larry ?

  8. Sylvia says:

    1 abandoned sheep, you are going for the jugular and going to start a battle. You are attacking the person and not the idea.

    • 1 abandoned sheep says:

      Sylvia, when someone says the Catholic church is doing more harm than good, what is that if not going for the jugular of the Catholic church, which is made up of individuals, and a hierarchy?
      When the individual in question says something positive about the Catholic Church, then my attitude may change.
      But, if this is to become a Blog where all kinds of attacks can be made against our Church, and go unchallenged, then the focus has changed.

  9. Larry Green says:

    No worrys Sylvia , I know where it’s coming from and I would never dignify anything the lost sheep says to me with a response. He’s a 70 year old child.

  10. Sylvia says:

    Mick Mc and Larry

    I usually stay out of these discussions, but this time I will have my say.

    Why are you throwing yourselves and every male on the planet under the bus? Because some men are “bad” does not for a moment mean that ALL men are bad, and that is both in and out of the priesthood. Being male does not automatically doom a human being, any more than being female is grounds to exalt a human being.

    Think this through carefully. There are nuns who molest – largely under-reported. There are nuns who refuse to believe that a convicted clerical molester is in fact a molester and will even take the stand at sentencing to testify to the “good” character of “Father.”

    The Cure of Ars was male. Ditto St. Alphonuss Liguori. Ditto St. Fancis de Sales. There are countless male saints in the Church who were not scoundrels and are worthy of emulation.

    St. Theresa of Avila is a Doctor of the Church. Female. That did not deter officials proclaiming her a Doctor of the Church.

    I can tell you too that when I went through nurse’s training those we feared the most were the Director of Nursing and a handful of female nursing supervisors, not the male doctors. The large majority of doctors were kind to us.

    If you think long and hard you will realize that not all females are loving and kind. And like wise if you think it through you will realize that not all males are mean-spiritted beings, many of whom are molesters. That really is not true. Not at all. You men do your gender a disservice to further such a cruel and erroneous notion.

    The Blessed Virgin Mary was female. I truly believe that if Christ had wanted females to be priests He would have picked her. Why, I wonder, did He not? There must have been a reason. I don’t know what it was, but I do believe that if that’s the way He wanted things to be He would have picked her, even as the first Pope.

    I trul do not don’t think women have been denigrated in or by “the Church.” And I truly do not think all men are scoundrels.

  11. Larry Green says:

    Sylvia, I certainly agree that not all men are scoundrels and I have not made such a ridiculous claim. I happen to disagree with the assertion that women have not been denigrated by the church and my expressing that point of view in no way makes me a cruel person.
    Catholic clergy do not represent all men nor all human beings. No human being is either automatically doomed or exalted by virtue of their gender. The assumption that I have not thought this through carefully is far from the truth. I have been thinking this through carefully for longer than I care to say. I was raised in the Catholic schools and I know very well and first hand how hateful nuns can be , surely your not suggesting though that the problem of molesting nuns in the Catholic church is proportionate to clergy molesters and enablers.
    The subordination of women is a primitive practice that is shared by other religions including the Muslim faith and for many good reasons grounded on principle I would argue ( not in this forum) must end if we want ever to live peacefully on this planet. It is not so much a question of one gender being better suited over another it is a matter of removing power from a corrupted and self proclaimed superior group of human beings. My suggestion that ideally men would be banned from the priesthood stems from my perseption of the fact that women have been banned is a great injustice to all women and for far to long and the remedy to correct any injustice is to draw the pendulum as far in the opposite direction before a proper balance can be struck.
    God did pick Mary His mother to be a priest. Many of Jesus’ closest disciples were women. The first two people he appeared to upon His rising from the tomb on the third day were two women. In the gospel of John the one and only person to whom He revealed His Secret Name was a woman. 2000 years ago and in that part of the world women were also treated as inferior beings , but not by Jesus and there were times where men were jealous of the way that Jesus treated women.
    Judging other human beings based on a category they belong to rather than on individual merit is prejudice, wrong and unjust. And those who judge in this way are the cruel ones , not the ones who see and name the injustice.

    • Lina says:

      Larry, I do get what you are saying. You explained yourself very clearly where you stand on females issues especially their roles in the Catholic Church.
      I do sincerely thank you.

      I believe we do not want to see certain threads derailed and see the victims lost in those views and discussions.

      One of the many regrets a dying person has on his or her death bed is that they wish they had the courage to express their feelings more.
      It’s obvious you will not have that regret when your time comes.

      As for me for speaking out, it did get me in hot water so many times but it was well worth it.

      I believe when it comes to a point like a duel situation so to speak, it’s okay to agree to disagree.
      At least one’s point of view has been made.

      I remember a St. Joseph nun once telling me that she was not happy with some of her convent sisters viewpoints about the way the Catholic Church dealt with females roles in the Church and other females issues on the whole.

      She told me: “They want to put Jesus in a dress.”

      Larry, I did listen to this nun said to me but I thought it was wise of me not to tell her this…

      ‘didn’t Jesus dress like a female anyway. All those wrap around material look the same on men as well as on women in those days.’

      • 1 abandoned sheep says:

        Lina, that is your most ridiculous post so far.

        • Lina says:

          1 abandoned sheep,
          You have a right to your own opinion and I have a right to mine.

          I’m in a good mood today.

          You cannot take my joy away because my joy comes from the Lord!

  12. Sylvia says:

    Let`s agree to disagree Larry

  13. Anne C says:

    Syvlia, My sister is an inner city nurse – and she agrees with your entire assessment wholeheartedly! Thanks for the kudos to those under-rated female saints and women in charge. Glad you are keeping things on track. Keep up the good reporting. In the end, that is all that matters.

    Find a way forward, in truth.

  14. Larry Green says:

    Anne C your sister would have chosen to be an inner city nurse even though she may have rather been priest and if not there are many for whom that is and always has been the case.You do absolutely nothing to protect the dignity of such women.
    If you really and truly want to “see things kept on track on this blog” , why do you continue to attack me because my ideas are different from yours and I stand up for what I believe. In the end THAT is all that matters and according to your own judgement you should accept that claim because I am a man if for no other reason!

  15. Mike Mc says:

    Sylvia…you agree to disagree. I respect that statement but I must admit (to myself) that it is not good enough! I re-read your statement to Larry and myself and while I understand your thinking, I do not necessairly agree with all of it. Someone said this might not be the forum to discuss. Au contraire, I think it is. However, I do not want to change the thread’s topic of Cullen has secret list.
    But allow me..with great respect to you as a person…to tell you that I have to agree with Larry on many of his points. Seems so does Anne and Lina. Of course I am not saying all men are evil. But when you look at the situation in the world…despite a few nuns with swinging rosary beads….(I know of only one……the others I had were excellent teachers and had good discipline and were respected for being good teachers and not brutal)…..But when you look at the situation in the world, it is MEN who really have controlled things…thus controlled women, wars, writings, whips,wallets,…any every other “w” word…except the “weather”….. I think Lina and Anne and Larry would agree with me that if women were running the church, there is a very good chance that if abuse existed in the “priesthood of men and women”, it would have been dealt with swiftly a long time ago. Don’t you think? You may argue that this is in hindsight etc etc…..but I firmly believe this is true. Larry says quite honestly above, “The subordination of women is a primitive practice that is shared by other religions including the Muslim faith and for many good reasons grounded on principle I would argue ( not in this forum) must end if we want ever to live peacefully on this planet.” He is right and the Catholic Church has been guilty of this as well. Oh I realize there is a place for Church history and why women did not assume roles in the Church. But I honestly do not believe that is Jesus’ fault. In fact, women through the ages were often never allowed to show their amazing potential as equals to men. And equals they are!! Yes, we do see certain female names in history and the wonderful things they ” accomplished, discoveedr, invented, wrote etc etc”….but because it has been a male dominated world….until now ( I hope)……we are seeing women being the more compassionate and honest sex. Do you really honestly think women priests would have allowed sexual abuse to exist like what we are witnessing today…..and all it coverups and dishonesty and secrecy? Do you think women would have forgotten the abused for the sake of Mother Church? I truly doubt it. Sylvia….you said above:
    “Mick Mc and Larry

    I usually stay out of these discussions, but this time I will have my say.”

    Well you certainly did have your say but as you can see, I and a few others respectfully want to point out the other side. Take care ~MikeMc

    • 1 abandoned sheep says:

      Mike, you obviously missed the posts about the nuns abusing children sexually in the far North, in Ireland , in orphanages, in private schools etc.
      You must not be married to a woman, if you believe they are downtrodden.

  16. Sylvia says:

    End of discussion. This truly is not the forum, and I should have been smart enough to stay out of it. My apologies.

    If I were to leave this open to discussion it would turn into a back and forth and tit-for-tat, with one stating their opinion and another refuting while adding additional opinions, and another then refuting those opinions, and then others weighing in with their take on the matter. In short order the thread would be taken over by this line of discussion and the site would degenerate into arguments and disagreements over who said what, and what was meant by what was said, and each trying and/or defend his/her points. Those who have been following the site over the past years know where that leads.

    We have each expressed our opinions. Let’s agree to disagree. I apologize again for interjecting myself and my opinion into this one. It was fool-hardy on my part.

    • Mike Mc says:

      Fool hardy??,….. but you are no fool. Keep up the good work. You are doing an excellent job with this illuminating blog. I might add as well, that since you allow us to share and expand our thoughts in here, I think that is a good thing. Even if the topic at hand gets off tangent a bit, it still allows us…ALL of us…..whether we are angry, saddened, abused,misinformed, shocked, annoyed, disillushioned, or just “fact finding”….it allows us to express thoughts on this most disturbing topic for our time….the ‘sex abuse scandal and betrayal of trust within ourRC Church’…and that expression has been definitely good, beneficial and helpful for me. Enough said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *