Local DAs Allowing Debt Collectors to Use Their Letterhead, Split Fees from Shakedown

It’s one thing for the officialdom to sit back and allow financial services industry chicanery to go un or inadequately punished, quite another to get in bed with them to perpetrate a scam.

The New York Times reports on how over 300 local district attorneys are participating in and profiting from what amounts to a shakedown operation. Let’s say you’ve bounced a check. The debt collectors send letters using the local district attorney’s letterhead, threatening jail time unless you not only pay what is allegedly owed but also an additional fee, typically $150 to $200, to take a “financial accountability” course.

Mind you, the DA has not prosecuted the case, nor even verified that the debt is valid. But the DA’s office winds up getting a cut of the fee from the class that the funds-impaired checkwriter was conned into taking. The debt collectors and the DA call these arrangements “partnerships,” presumably in the Ambrose Bierce sense:

When two thieves have their hands so deeply plunged into each other’s pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third party.

The Times points out that the premise of this government-sponsored shakedown is that the people passing bum checks are shysters. But the focus of the course belies that:

Some officials in district attorneys’ offices have quietly raised concerns that the programs are misleading. A November 2009 county audit of Deschutes County, Ore., titled “District Attorney’s Office-Cash handling over revenues,” wondered whether elements of the program could be “disingenuous…

Ms. Yartz (who mistakenly wrote a check on an account she was closing) also questioned the need for a class on budgeting and financial accountability: “If I meant to bounce this check like a criminal, why do I need a class on budgeting?”

The excuse for this program is that district attorneys’ offices were overwhelmed with merchant requests to go after bounced checks where they were unable to collect the debt and alleged fraud. Um, what about saying “no” unless the amount at issue was significant, say at least a few hundred dollars, or having the merchant provide evidence of intent? Instead, this scheme allows the debt collectors to get a windfall from people who’ve stuffed up on relatively small checks (the two examples in the article were each under $100) as well as contributing to erosion of public faith in the legal system.

Consumer attorneys did succeed in getting one debt collector that engaged in this practice, American Corrective Counseling Services, to file for Chapter 11 in the face of class action suits. But its successor CorrectiveSolutions carries on with the same dubious practices and has “partnerships” with more than 140 district attorneys’ offices.

The expression “The best government money can buy” used to apply to big donors getting favored treatment. Strained state and local budgets are now ushering in an era of government backing being procured far more directly.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Middle Seaman

    It may also be a reflection of the “we,” the have/powerful and the “them,” which is everyone else. It may also be an additional/deeper manifestation of the 1% vs the 99%.

  2. C

    I’m beginning to suspect that many local DAs offices may in fact also be understaffed or feeling budget cuts more than they care to admit.

    Under federal law items used in drug cases can be siezed and sold by the arresting agency. In some cases this is done long before individuals are prosecuted let alone convincted making the accusation costly. In recent years cases have arisen showing that this process is widely used and sometimes abused.

    I read an article about the Marcopa County Sherrif Joe Arpaio that noted how much his office depends upon these seizures to finance its operations. It seems that the sale of seized goods is not treated as a bonus but is part of the core cash flow and a lack of drug crimes might cause serious financial crises. This may have been a case of poor management but it is hard not to look at stories like this DA arrangement and not see the consequences of slashing the tax base and expanding operations.

    In short, the DAs may be as hard up for cash as the poor victims that they’re helping to shake down.

    1. Mike S.

      Arpaio is particularly corrupt, no story on his operations should be taken as representative.
      That being said, ‘civil asset forfiture’ is a long established means of confiscating property for departmental benefit w/o obtaining a conviction. And by long standing I mean the better part of 2 decades.
      Also, the DA’s office being hard up for cash hardly justifies renting out the imprimatuer of state authority to debt collectors. Your conclusions – while not unreasonable – smack of unwarranted sympathy for obvious wrong doing.

      1. LeeAnne

        Saying DA’s office being hard up for cash is hardly an attempt to justify anything. It is an intelligent observation. The result of being capable of more than just one single prospective.

        We need more of that, not mudslinging and distorting what’s been said.

        1. whatever

          I openly support anyone stealing LeeAnn’s stuff if they are having a difficult time. I hope LeeAnn will understand as that is simply their “perspective”.

          It’s a complicated situation, but ultimately, people should steal LeeAnn’s stuff if only to shut her mouth about it being okay for the government to steal other peoples stuff.

          1. whatever

            For some clarification, I don’t care what little word-dance LeeAnn performs to excuse her behavior. I don’t care what she “really meant”. I don’t care about the many definitions of “is”. I know what she really meant.

          2. C

            “For some clarification, I don’t care what little word-dance LeeAnn performs to excuse her behavior. I don’t care what she “really meant”. I don’t care about the many definitions of “is”. I know what she really meant.”

            No you don’t. Her comment was clearly meant to differentiate supporting or endorsing the behavior and explaining it. She understood what I meant. Your comments, on the other hand seem more calculated to vent your spleen rather than actually respond to what she, or I, wrote.

          3. whatever

            Are you a little confused C?

            You to are explaining why the poor government people need to steal other peoples stuff just to make it. How they depend on their thefts to pay their salaries.

            So, C, I hope someone, government or otherwise, steals your stuff if they need to in order to “get by”. Because, I think we can all see where stealing is okay if it inconviences someone not to steal. Because so long as they wanna do it to make their lives easier, it is okay.

          4. C


            > Are you a little confused C?


            > “You to are explaining why the poor government people
            > need to steal other peoples stuff just to make it. How
            > they depend on their thefts to pay their salaries.”

            No, I never said the needed to do this. I said they were hard up for cash or that the demands they perceive outpace their budgets. That is, as I have said, not the same as endorsing their actions.

            > So, C, I hope someone, government or otherwise, steals
            > your stuff if they need to in order to “get by”. Because,
            > I think we can all see where stealing is okay if it
            > inconviences someone not to steal. Because so long as
            > they wanna do it to make their lives easier, it is okay.

            No. Clearly you are not interested in reading what I am writing but only in being angry about it. But for the last time:

            I am NOT endorsing this action or the general theft of goods by government agencies or private actors. Nor am I stating that the DA’s budget crisis validates their action any more than I would say the moon validates tides. I only point to one causal variable (government budget cutting) that helps to explain the effect (“Partnerships” being attractive to DAs).

            I, purely for the record, wish no ill on you or your stuff.

        2. Christophe

          The quality of discourse in the comments here has declined to a remarkable degree in a very short time period. Do you exert any editorial control over the comments at Naked Capitalism any longer?

          LeeAnne offered a useful corrective to a reactionary comment, only to be gratuitously lambasted by another commenter. Surely, that attack will not cause her to stop being insightful and rational; however, it may cause her to take her insights to less hostile venues, thus perpetuating the degradation of the quality of comments here. From the monotonous over-posting of late by a few truculent commenters, it appears that many value-adding commenters have already jumped ship.

          1. C

            I agree. I for one am less inclined to post than I used to be. But I perhaps that is the price of an unmoderated board.

          2. Dr Duh

            The community has to defend itself against trolls. This becomes more important now that Yves and the board is recognized as a threat to the hegemon’s control of discourse and thus becomes the target of attacks. And by attacks I don’t mean actual opposing points of view, I mean attempts to sabotage or hijack the conversation.

            Perhaps we should require a ‘real email’ to register.
            Or we could have a ‘vote to hide’ system.
            Or volunteer mods to warn and remove trouble makers.

          3. Warren Celli

            Christophe said; “Surely, that attack will not cause her to stop being insightful and rational; however, it may cause her to take her insights to less hostile venues, thus perpetuating the degradation of the quality of comments here.”

            No way! Not Lee Anne!

            Lee Anne has a lot more pluck than to get rattled by some brainwashed whatever that seeks to deflect from the fact the ‘rule of law’ is a selectively enforced scam written by aberrant Xtrevilist pigs who have hijacked, own, and control the government at all levels, and now run it like their own ‘human resources’ dept. The law sucks — it is presently a corrupt selectively enforced scam run by, and enforced by, evil sociopaths that get meaner and more diabolical each day in the ways that they terrorize us all.

            When the government is crooked,
            The cops are too,
            They are the 1%’s muscle,
            That oppresses you!

            What do we not understand here?

            The main problem that we have is that the corrupt process is backed by a massive propaganda media snow job that builds cop adoration and cops are sold to us as the epitome of goodness. Nothing could be further from the truth…


            A second significant problem is that people are being picked off one at a time in a trickle down cannibalism orchestration. If you still believe in the illusion you just haven’t been screwed yet. Ask the homeless what they think of the scam ‘rule of law’ that in blatantly Unconstitutional forms forbids them in many cities across Scamerica to even ask their fellow human beings for a helping hand; and affords them NO viable means to challenge these egregious terrorizing laws that virtually strip them of their Civil Rights.

            Arpaio is a scum bag Civil Rights violating gangster that appeals to low brow knuckle dragging whatevers.

            Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.

          4. K Ackermann

            That’s a slippery slope you are asking Yves to dance on. The comment was from a pinhead… or possibly someone under great stress. It’s no big deal.

            On the other hand, asking for increased censorship is a big deal. It puts everyone on edge and leads to groupthink anyway.

        3. C

          Thank you LeeAnne for your insight, you captured my point succinctly. The DA’s feeling they need the cash was an attempt at explanation not excuse. I would never excuse using state power for a shakedown.

    2. Ms G

      Whatever financial shortfalls the DA’s offices are having are a direct consequence of the finance-sector chicaneries that crashed Everything in 2008, and their budgets are being starved on purpose by elected officials who are pushing the agenda of the New World Order Public-Private P’ships (shorter: privatize all public functions and assets).

      You seem to posit this truth as an excuse for DA’s offices engaging in widespread illegal conduct against citizens — a “necessary” expediency, if you will. Do you realize what you are saying?

        1. Ms G

          10-4. Thanks LeeAnne and C for the fair and balanced correctives to the root post. Better trolls please (this is addressed to the root poster).

          1. C

            Really, I thought I had responded to LeeAnnes, at least that’s how it shows up in my browser.

            Ahh well. Have a good day.

    3. rhelonegunman

      Sorry but your post smacks of excuse…

      How about SOMEBODY saying: should we be involved in criminal prosecution of civil acts or focused on TRUE crime… But that’s because we’re a law and order driven society, wanting arrests and conviction numbers, easily understood in a powerpoint metrics ‘deck’, shown on the 30sec bit allowed by our corporate-owned ‘liberal’ media, to drive elections (because, after all, DAs are future governors or senators or presidents donchyano (hello Elliot, Rudy, Mario,etc..)

    4. do a little thinking

      Two wrongs does not make it right.

      I still believe that you are innocent until proved guilty.

  3. Jim Haygood

    Impersonating a law enforcement officer (including a district attorney) is a statutory crime.

    Too bad we don’t have independent grand juries any more, who can indict the DA himself as an accomplice.

    1. alex

      “Too bad we don’t have independent grand juries any more, who can indict the DA himself as an accomplice.”

      That sounds like a good idea, but do you have any cites or references to such practices?

      When/where was it used? Who would convene a grand jury to indict a DA? Who would present the case to the grand jury and who would prosecute?

      1. William

        Good questions, but if you really want to know, find out for yourself. No one here wants to do your research for you.

        1. alex

          Gosh William, how nice of you to reply on Jim’s behalf. Did you think that he suddenly lost the ability to write? Are you concerned that Jim or someone else here may know something you don’t and be able to respond quickly?

          1. Susan the other

            Impersonating a police officer is an indictable felony in every state and so is a liittle something in federal law called stg. like acting under color of authority. This is a federal felony because such illegal actions strip you of your civil rights.

      2. Larry Headlund

        “Who would convene a grand jury to indict a DA? Who would present the case to the grand jury and who would prosecute?”

        Since these debt collectors are interstate (i.e. American Corrective Counseling Services is headquartered in California but paid out to a Pennsylvania Class Action) ten it would seem that the answer would be a Federal Grand Jury and US Attorney.

        I’m not holding my breath.

        1. Ms G

          This would be a straightforward case for the DOJ’s Civil Rights division under the civil rights statutes that were created to stop the abuses of local (muni, county, state) authorities against persons (think voting rights, DA’s and juries that convicted blacks of crimes they never committed, etc.). This would be an action for deprivation of constitutional rights (due process, property, for instance) under “color of state law” (the phrase used in the statutes to refer to illegal acts by agents of local state authorities, including by private persons acting with the consent/authority of the state).

          This would be an excellent project for an Occupy sub-group — to draft a complaint, present it to DOJ’s Civil Rights office, and ask DOJ to initiate proceedings.

          Does anyone know if there is an OWS Law/Civil Rights group around that might be contacted about this (so as not to re-invent the organizational wheel?)

      3. Darren Kenworthy

        A US attorney could secure a grand jury indictment against a DA. An example would be the idictment earlier this year of district attorney Armando Villalobos of Cameron County, Texas on RICO charges. Folks might recall the strong evidence of politicizing of US attorney appointments during the Bush administration. It wouldn’t be surprising if that trend continued more recently, and resulted in politicized prosecutorial discretion at the, theoretically more insulated, US attorney level.

        1. Ms G

          The case on DAs partnering with debt collectors (and allowing them to use DA letterhead, etc.) in circumstances, no less, where DA has no evidence of debt (!) would be A LOT EASIER than any of the prosecutorial discretion cases which are very hard to build/prove.

          I mean, this is such a straightforward violation of rights under color of state law under the 5th and 14th amendments that if DOJ were half-awake or half-willing this could be crafted and filed in 30 days.

          Where is the ACLU on this one? (Maybe ACLU is AWOL because this concerns American citizens across ethnic and gender and sex-orientation categories . . . Sigh!)

          1. Darren Kenworthy

            My post was a reply to alex’s request for information about who might solicit a federal grand jury indictment against a district attorney and instances of same. My remark about prosecutorial discretion wasn’t an argument about the strongest grounds for an indictment against DAs participating in collections “shakedowns”. It was a recognition of the susceptibility of US attorneys to political pressure in the current environment.

          2. Ms G

            Darren — thanks for clarifying. I still thought it was a good example of the federal prosecutorial powers being capable of being used. And as a response to remonstrations that there just isn’t anything the Feds can do. Did not meant to distort or demean anything you said.

  4. Norman

    Go after the lower hanging fruit, or the easy way out. Why haven’t the D.A.’s banded together to go after the “looters”? Oh that’s right, the looters get a free pass because of their bigness, while the lowly taxpayer is an easy target. The rot/cancer of corruption/collusion has spread so deeply, that perhaps nothing short of dropping the bomb wiping out humankind and starting over. Drastic perhaps, but has anyone a better quicker solution? Anyone?

    1. McKillop

      You propose that “. . .dropping the bomb wiping out humankind and starting over.” is a solution to financial and governmental corruption.
      You state that your proposal is “Drastic perhaps, but has anyone a better quicker solution? Anyone?”
      Please reconsider your comment as it warrants only disdain or ridicule.

  5. ambrit

    Another ‘unintended consequence’ of this is what happened recently in Slidell Louisiana. Old friends of ours run a ‘mom and pop’ health food store there. Last week he showed me his new business property tax. It had ballooned from roughly $1200 a year to over $5000 a year in one fell swoop. He could name several other small business people who were seriously considering closing down as a result. The vicious cycle strikes again.

  6. Capo Regime

    This is embarrassing but had a bit of a tussle over a bad check.

    Received a notice from the DA’s office in Travis County Texas a few weeks ago. Was told I needed to produce 180.00 within ten days or have a warrant for my arrest! Looked into it and yes I did bounce a check. I inadvertently bounced a check for $25.00 as I had closed the account. The truly bizarre thing about this was that the check was written in 1984. Yes, thats right check written in 1984. Guess they have a new IT system or they are just combing through everything to get dough. Yes, I did it but you would have thought they would have let me know about this sooner than 28 years later.

      1. Capo Regime

        Yes–28 years. Statute of limitations does not apply. Sent them the $180.00 and then it turns out I needed to pay $440.00. All for a $25.00 check while in grad school–and closed account, stayed in town for 8 more years and never heard a thing despite same address etc. I certainly wrote the thing but it was an honest mistake. Be that as it may–28 years is pretty amazing. Chatted with a person in the bad checks division–apparently my case is not an outlier. They are working on cleaning up the 1980’s she says. The thing is I bounced a check 28 years ago and barely dodged having an arrest warrant issued for me. Now Corzine takes $1.2 billion and poof he has dinner at the white house…….

        1. C

          Capo, are DA’s elected in your neck of the woods? Even if not, this would make a fine story for your local press. People should be warned if they may face paying shakedown rates for a 28 year old typo.

          It’s hard to imagine this would be a popular policy.

        2. do a little thinking

          You were scamed. If you had a bad check you would have been notified by your bank they charge you for that also. The best thing to do is contact the business or person you wrote the check to pay them directly.

          Come on no bank would process a check that was over two years old any place and if the account has been closed for that long I’m not buying it. Come on make up one that is believeable at least. 28 years ago :>(

        3. Nathanael

          Um, I would have called my lawyer immediately, because it’s obvious that such a situation is not following the law.

          What, you don’t have a lawyer? Well, that’s one of the new class divisions: between those who can afford a lawyer and those who can’t.

  7. drinkof

    “Impersonating a law enforcement officer (including a district attorney) is a statutory crime.”

    This is the nut of it, but getting a crime charged …, well, that’s the DA, isn’t it? So … Some possible approaches, trying to initiate proceedings which aren’t impractical. This is, if nothing else, unauthorized practice of law, and at least one set of institutional interests protect that area jealously.

    1 – Complaint of unauthorized practice of law to the Bar, not directly against the DA’s office, but naming the person who signed the letter and their employer (which complaint would detail the DA’s office’s participation, of course). Rules for standing are pretty loose for these complaints, so you wouldn’t have to get the participation of every letter recipient, though the more the better. The Bar authorities then have to at least pretend to investigate. There are County level, then state level. Some actually care about this kind of thing.

    2 – Complaint with State level consumer entities; in NC, that includes the AG’s office. Again, they have to at least open a file and investigate.

    3 – Complaint with judicial commission or other authority.

    In each case, somebody in authority MUST open a file and at least investigate. And if you file a few, or poke around for a reasonable hearing (IOW, hearing officer shop) you may improve your odds.

  8. jal

    Survival of the fittest.
    Just another hoop to ump through.
    If you live beyond your means by borrowing or spending money that you don’t have is like the smell of blood for the sharks.

    Be happy that you are not living at the poverty line and have some understanding of what is happening to those who cannot make ends while getting less than the poverty line.

  9. Sam

    Which is why I’ve said if you’re unemployed after 26 weeks, you should commandeer a Republican’s office and use it to conduct your job search. Tax cuts are in place now for 11 years. They’re just simply wealth that’s gone into private pockets.

    Take a camera to film your job search process. Invite the Republicans to call Fox News. Believe me, they won’t want to. Then when debt collectors come calling, you can have your Republican politician loan you some of their letterhead to reply to the debt collectors.

  10. Rob

    This is another example of how the corporate structure charges and collects the “poverty penalty”.all these charges,higher interest rates,installment fees,and every other thing people pay who don’t have enough cash to pay in full every time.what otherwise WAS a normal added percentage for the benefit of credit of some kind,has now become vile.It is just all these mega corporate trends and now,municipal trends too,that preys on those who can least afford it,and who everyone knows,can’t hire the legal guns to defend themselves…..and now, the state is part of the shakedown……
    Just another sign of the times……

  11. David Chaney

    Sadly, this despicable practice does not suprise me, it is the new partnership to destroy the rest of us for the benefits of public and private kleptocracies.

    Here in Los Angeles, the second most corrupt city in America according to recent data (sorry I don’t have the link) our city has just started referring all city “fees” to collection. The Fire Dept., which every year shakes us hilldwellers down for thousands of dollars (hard to keep all limbs 6 feet above ground – things grow!) They have the power to attach all diliquencies to your tax bill. Now they’re reporting you as late, AND attaching the bills to your tax bills. They’re also doing it on our rental control regulation fees, which triple if you’re a day late after the deadline (from something like $60 a unit, plus a $30.00 fee for the pleasure of having an inspector bust you for such things as loose antique doorknobs) to $180 a unit.

    Of course our hard working city employees almost crashed the city’s computer system during the Olympics because they were all watching the games via the internet on their city computers, forcing Mayor Villaragosa – who thinks this is his personal banana republic – to have to publicly beg (suggest/plead?) that the city employees/partners in crime get back to work – generating fees. One recent clever example of this fee generation was charing commercial property to garbage cans – this happened to me – which we didn’t have, and which under the law, we CANNOT have, since any building over 4 units must use a commercial hauler.

    This generated hundreds of millions in fees, and was so egregious the city loving judges downtown finally had to rule against the city.

    The judges of course, are very grateful to the government All muni judges and our city council members whose pay was based on muni judges pay at $120K a year was suddenly bumped to $180K when the county abruptly ended the Muni judgeships and promoted everyone to Superor Court judges at the higher pay.

    Since the charter called for City Council members’ pay to be based on Muni judge pay – which no longer existed – the only option in the case of city council, which had to make this difficult decision – was to boost their own pay to the Superior Court level, thus making them by far the highest paid – and most housing-provider-hating – city council in the country.

    A loose doorknob can lead to losiing your building to the city under their REAP (RAPE) program where they seize the building, lower the tenants rents by half, collect the rents, demand unlimited repairs which you must pay for out of your pocket (because they have your rents) and when they have driven you out of business, they sell the building – with all the escrowed rents – to their biggest campaign contribution developer friends.

    Ain’t America grand!

  12. 86up

    We have to crack down on people who write bad checks for a $4.14 loaf of bread. If people get the idea that you just shouldn’t pay they may get a bigger idea; that the little guy should just not pay taxes either. If we had massive deliquency on the tax roles, well, we all know what Greece looks like.

    1. Christophe

      Is your comment intended to parody neo-liberal rationalizations or do you mean what you wrote in earnest? Not enough verbal cues to know how you intend for it to be read.

    2. bmeisen

      “We have to crack down on people who write bad checks for a $4.14 loaf of bread.”

      The 1% love this sentiment – it’s the kind of dementia that they are exploiting to get Romney elected. It’s so numbskulled that they feel justified continuing the rip offs.

      Checking is obsolete. The only benefit for the consumer is that it offers an alternative to cash, which is arguably convenient. Otherwise the Amish probably love its low-techiness. Yes there are poor people who are so desperate that they kite. As we all know this is not really a benefit, but hey, when the kids are hungry you’ll do anything.

      The most powerful argument for checking comes from banking. First of all it generates handy fee income as increasing numbers of poor people get caught kiting and, with the help of DAs, are tarred and feathered until they pay.

      Secondly, banks and their corporate customers get to kite too, and when the kited checks are big enough you’re getting into some real money. Arguably repo 105 was a kiting scheme.

      Thirdly, there are basically still just 2 alternatives to cash for American consumers: checking and credit cards. Which one do you prefer? As long as you keep your credit card payments up to date it’s a no-brainer to pull out the credit card before you get out your checkbook. The banks make it easy! No balancing, just one payment a month. And if you hit some rough water and fall behind a little, then the banks start to really cash in.

      There is no good reason for it other than that the inconvenience associated

  13. bob

    Time to kneecap a whole lot of state , county and federal bureaucrats . Put a couple of thousand in wheel chairs for the rest of their lives and maybe govenment will go back to eating doughnuts and doing crossword puzzles.

  14. Patrick

    This is a new low. I’ve heard of lawyers renting out their law license and letterhead to third party collection agencies. Now we have state and local governments doing this? Disgusting.

  15. whatever

    Certain people claim to be rational. That’s nice. Let’s disect their “statements”.

    1.You claim they “need the money to make it”. Proof? Hello? Proof?

    2.Even if the “police” and “DAs” as an organization need the money, the individual police officers and DAs have a choice to leave the mob. They don’t have to continue being members of the mob and shaking people down.

    3.Even if we ignore the two above points, the police and DAs of this country are way above starving, so your argument basicaly boils down to “baby wants a new BMW”. This equally applies to crack dealers.

    4.Even were their organizations were in a poor financial situation(unproven) where lowered wages would cause them actual difficulties(unproven) and were actually somehow unable to find other jobs(unproven), they would still be stealing from equally poor individuals in a “you not me” bum-fight.

    If this is what your retarded statement meant to say, well then, whoopie-doo. They are as good as the local crack-dealer. They wanna money and they gonna getta money.

    Somehow I doubt that is what you “meant”. Because, you see, I know what you “meant”.

    1. sabelotodo

      whatever lacks critical reading skills and seems to have a bug up his/her butt. I say we hold a bake sale to raise funds for and Evelyn Wood Reading Comprehension Course and and some Xanax for whatever.

      TO BE CLEAR: the original post, and none of the comementers have been in favor of DAs partnering with debt collectors. No, in fact, everyone thinks its a really bad idea, probably illegal. So crawl back under your bridge whatever, the billy goat on your breath is making me queasy.

Comments are closed.