MIDNIGHT TRAIN (of THOUGHT) to GEORGIA

 ©2012 jbjd

Okay, so now we have confirmation that 1) President Obama will not be attending today’s administrative law hearing in Georgia and 2) neither will Attorney Michael Jablonski, representing him in that matter.

For those of you who, since learning these latest developments, have experienced a sudden descent from the manic phase of the bipolar-like disorder associated with blind belief in the probable success of any ‘legal’ ploy attempted by Attorney Orly Taitz in her quixotic pursuit of exposing President Obama is not a NBC; I offer a little ‘chillin’ out’ music for your listening pleasure.

Now, let’s work.

Here is the letter sent by Mr. Jablonski to Secretary Kemp. (H/T Jack Ryan.)

View this document on Scribd

The most important words are these:

For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued

Here’s the reason why.

In previous posts on the subject, I  cited several portions of the Georgia statutes which apply to the administrative process. In sum, there are 2 ways a challenge to the conduct of the Secretary of State with respect to ballot challenges, can reach the OSAH. 1) The elector aggrieved by an adverse decision of the SoS can appeal that adverse decision to the OSAH. 2) The SoS, on receiving a challenge to his act; can ‘certify’ the challenge directly to the OSAH.

For example, this section of the law describes how to file a ballot challenge.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5
GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5  (2011)

§ 21-2-5.  Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications

(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.

(d) In the event that a candidate pays his or her qualifying fee with a check that is subsequently returned for insufficient funds, the Secretary of State shall automatically find that such candidate has not met the qualifications for holding the office being sought, unless the bank, credit union, or other financial institution returning the check certifies in writing by an officer’s or director’s oath that the bank, credit union, or financial institution erred in returning the check.

(e) The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are:

(1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law.

And this section of the law describes the ways an agency dispute can reach the OSAH.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41
GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 2.  OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41  (2011)

§ 50-13-41.  Hearing procedures; powers of administrative law judge; issuance of decision; review

(a)(1) Whenever a state agency authorized by law to determine contested cases initiates or receives a request for a hearing in a contested case which is not presided over by the agency head or board or body which is the ultimate decision maker, the hearing shall be conducted by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, and such hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulations promulgated under this article.

(2) An administrative law judge shall have the power to do all things specified in paragraph (6) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13.

(b) An administrative law judge shall have all the powers of the referring agency with respect to a contested case. Subpoenas issued by an administrative law judge shall be enforced in the manner set forth in paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13. Nothing in this article shall affect, alter, or change the ability of the parties to reach informal disposition of a contested case in accordance with paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13.

(c) Within 30 days after the close of the record, an administrative law judge shall issue a decision to all parties in the case except when it is determined that the complexity of the issues and the length of the record require an extension of this period and an order is issued by an administrative law judge so providing. Every decision of an administrative law judge shall contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the case.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this article, in all cases every decision of an administrative law judge shall be treated as an initial decision as set forth in subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-17, including, but not limited to, the taking of additional testimony or remanding the case to the administrative law judge for such purpose. On review, the reviewing agency shall consider the whole record or such portions of it as may be cited by the parties. In reviewing initial decisions by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, the reviewing agency shall give due regard to the administrative law judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses. If the reviewing agency rejects or modifies a proposed finding of fact or a proposed decision, it shall give reasons for doing so in writing in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(e)(1) A reviewing agency shall have a period of 30 days following the entry of the decision of the administrative law judge in which to reject or modify such decision. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within such 30 day period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law.

(2) A reviewing agency may prior to the expiration of the review period provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection extend such review period by order of the reviewing agency in any case wherein unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such period. Any such order shall recite with particularity the circumstances which render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such review period. Any such extension by the reviewing agency shall be for a period of time not to exceed 30 days. Prior to the expiration of the extended review period, the review period may be further extended by further order of the reviewing agency for one additional period not to exceed 30 days if unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable to complete the review within the extended review period. Such further order further extending the review period shall likewise recite with particularity the circumstances which render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within the review period as previously extended. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within the extended review period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law.

(3) An agency may provide by rule that proposed decisions in all or in specified classes of cases before the Office of State Administrative Hearings will become final without further agency action and without expiration of the 30 day review period otherwise provided for in this subsection.

As I said, I didn’t know which route got us to ‘here.’

I am not privy to what chain of events preceded this hearing or, to the documents previously presented to the Secretary; I have no idea how this case reached the administrative hearing level. But, obviously, Farrar must have failed to persuade Kemp to remove Obama’s name from the ballot in that state’s 2012 Democratic Presidential primary. Farrar disagreed with that decision. Under GA law, this led to the administrative hearing. Orly subpoenaed Obama to appear at the hearing in order to provide testimonial evidence which would support her client’s claim that by refusing to do as asked, that is, to remove Obama’s name from the primary ballot; the SoS had broken the law.

WITNESS FOR ORLY’S PERSECUTION or MUCH ADO ABOUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Then, I read Mr. Jablonski’s letter to Secretary Kemp, withdrawing from these administrative proceedings; and Secretary Kemp’s reply. (H/T nolu chan.)

View this document on Scribd

Now, I know this case ended up in front of the ALJ not as the result of an adverse decision against Mr. Farrar by the SoS. Evidently, Mr. Kemp had never issued such ruling but only referred the matter directly to the OSAH. How do I know?

Because Attorney Jablonski referred to Secretary Kemp’s “hearing request.” That is, the request for hearing did not come from Farrar but from Secretary Kemp.

And I know why Mr. Kemp wrote what he did.

I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to anadministrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

First, let me remind you that in yesterday’s post, I referenced a part of the law which states, the authority vested in OSAH is limited by § 50-4-3.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 2.  OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40  (2011)

§ 50-13-40.  Office created; chief state administrative law judge

(a) There is created within the executive branch of state government the Office of State Administrative Hearings. The office shall be independent of state administrative agencies and shall be responsible for impartial administration of administrative hearings in accordance with this article. The office shall be assigned for administrative purposes only, as that term is defined in Code Section 50-4-3, to the Department of Administrative Services.

Now, since most of you evidently didn’t bother to look up § 50-4-3; I re-print the law here, in its entirety.

O.C.G.A. § 50-4-3
GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 4.  ORGANIZATION OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH GENERALLY
O.C.G.A. § 50-4-3  (2011)

§ 50-4-3.  Assignment for administrative purposes only; authorities to retain separate identities

(a) An agency assigned to a department for administrative purposes only shall:

(1) Exercise its quasi-judicial, rule-making, licensing, or policy-making functions independently of the department and without approval or control of the department;

(2) Prepare its budget, if any, and submit its budgetary requests, if any, through the department; and

(3) Hire its own personnel if authorized by the Constitution of this state or by statute or if the General Assembly provides or authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor.

(b) The department to which an agency is assigned for administrative purposes only shall:

(1) Provide record keeping, reporting, and related administrative and clerical functions for the agency;

(2) Disseminate for the agency required notices, rules, or orders adopted, amended, or repealed by the agency;

(3) Provide staff for the agency subject to paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this Code section; and

(4) Include in the departmental budget the agency’s budgetary request, if any, as a separate part of the budget and exactly as prepared and submitted to the department by the agency.

(c) Whenever any authority is assigned for administrative purposes, it means only that the state department through which the authority deals with the state shall be that department to which the authority is assigned. Any authority created by state law shall retain its separate identity as an instrumentality of the state and a public corporation. The department to which an authority is assigned is authorized, only with the approval of the authority, to perform for such authority any or all of the functions set forth in subsection (b) of this Code section.

This means that, when the SoS asks (through a referral) the OSAH to issue a finding in a disputed case; it is essentially engaging OSAH as a consultant. In this case, Secretary Kemp merely shifted the burden of addressing the complaint brought to his office by Mr. Farrar; to its consulting branch, OSAH, for reasons about which I will not speculate in this article, which is already too long.

BUT THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHOSE NAME GOES ON THE BALLOT IS ALWAYS VESTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND NOT OSAH.

In short, Secretary Kemp tried to avoid dealing with this issue by relying on OSAH, consultants for his office, to provide some political cushioning for his conduct. But now that Mr. Jablonski has opted out of the circus; he is (seemingly) protesting, at least in public, the fact the issue has been tossed right back in his lap.

Trust me; the outcome would have been the same, either way.

Advertisements

15 Responses to MIDNIGHT TRAIN (of THOUGHT) to GEORGIA

  1. jbjd says:

    I was watching the GA hearing this morning. (WARNING: Those of you who insist on calling this simple administrative hearing ‘historical’; and still cling to hope this will result in the unseating of President Obama from the GA D Presidential primary ballot leading to his eventual Impeachment; might want to block your ears.)

    Just one comment from the first presenter, along with ALJ Malihi’s non-response; provided prima facie evidence, I have been telling you the truth all along. 1) Petitioners have no idea what they are talking about. 2) ALJ Malihi knows they have no idea what they are talking about and is only listening to them because Secretary Kemp asked him to.

    I didn’t get his name – the sound is horrible – but I did hear him complain at the end of his presentation, he wanted noted for the record that by failing to appear (in response to a subpoena issued by one of the Petitioners); President Obama has demonstrated contempt for the “judicial” system. OF COURSE, THE OSAH IS NOT PART OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT BUT PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE SAME BRANCH AS THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE, WHICH REQUESTED THIS ADVISORY OPINION OF PETITIONER’S BALLOT CHALLENGE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Naturally, ALJ Malihi knows Petitioner made a mistake; but while he admonished him for providing opinion and not fact; he did not correct him.

  2. Guest says:

    Ms. Taitz may have hoisted herself by her own petard. It is reported that she attempted to testify from the bar, and the judge admonished her not to testify. She then proceeded to take the stand and testify. Most states have ethical rules preventing attorneys from being a witness in their own case. By taking the stand, she proved she is really the plaintiff. There could be serious consequences.

    • jbjd says:

      Guest: I have no idea what you mean. Please, instead of merely repeating rumors and, supposing “[m]ost states have ethical rules preventing attorneys from being a witness n their own case”; do the work. That is, describe Orly’s conduct at the hearing; find the applicable GA law (or professional rule of conduct); and fit the facts to the law. (Naturally, I would prefer that you examine the election laws in your own state and figure out how to either challenge Mr. Obama’s name on the ballot or revise the laws so as to ensure the next President of the United States is unequivocally Constitutionally eligible for the job.) ADMINISTRATOR

      • Guest says:

        Sorry, I thought you were an attorney, and I didn’t think I needed to spell it out. An attorney would instantly know what I meant. My mistake.

        It has already been widely reported that Orly Taitz took the stand (in fact, there is a photo of her ON the stand). (I am not including links, because many comment sections prohibit them).

        See Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.7 (prohibiting lawyer as a witness) and the identical Georgia rule.

        • jbjd says:

          Guest: I am an attorney; I understood your question; and I asked you to do the analysis and come back here to report your findings. I have had enough trouble over the past several days finding the time to maintain this blog reporting on significant issues that materially impact our lives. In fact, even under more normal circumstances, I tend not to engage in such frivolous pursuits as implicated by your original question. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Diar says:

    I have a question. There seem to be reports that a default judgment will be rendered. What is the difference between this and a judgment based upon the merits (as if Jablonski showed up to argue Obama’s side?)? Is there one. If true, would that mean that this case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs NOT on the merit? Does that matter?

    • jbjd says:

      Diar: SoS Kemp will not remove President Obama from the GA D Presidential preference primary ballot because 1) Petitioner(s) did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence, he is not a NBC; 2) ALJ Malihi will not find they made this case; and, even if ALJ Malihi recommends Obama’s name should be removed from the ballot; SoS Kemp will ignore him. I am not saying a case cannot be made that Obama’s name should be removed from the ballot in a candidate ballot eligibility state; after all, I proposed this solution more than 3 years ago. I am merely saying, this GA administrative hearing was farce.

      I just posted this reply to a comment on CW. It bear repeating here. (I am responding a comment posted by “observer,” which comment I quote at the beginning of my posted response. My comment begins under the asterisks.) ADMINISTRATOR

      jbjd | January 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

      observer | January 26, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

      giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/

      EXCLUSIVE! BREAKING NEWS!…JUDGE WILL ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OBAMA…

      I just got off the phone with Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama’s name not be on the Georgia ballot!
      ******************************************************************************
      People, get a hold of yourselves! Even if you still have no idea about the nature of these proceedings (because you haven’t yet bothered to read the extensive analysis I offer on my blog), please, use what is left of your common sense in this regard.

      Do you suppose that if Judge Malihi had actually uttered these sentiments; at the end of today’s hearing, d2i would have interviewed Susan Daniels instead of one of the attorneys? (Dean Haskins was not one of the attorneys; anything he reports is hearsay, at best!)

      You are being jerked around by people who have made an industry of Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility. Get off the merry-go-round. Become an activist citizen and take care of business on your own.

      • Diar says:

        If indeed you are correct, and I do not know that you are, It may be irrelevant regardless. I just read this over at Free Republic a few minutes ago… People do not vote for POTUS. They vote to tell their members of the Electoral College HOW to vote, There have been faithless electors in the past…. Even if off the ballot, he may get the nod anyway.

  4. Diar says:

    Well, that was quite an assumption to make there.

    No, I am not just learning what the electoral college is or what it can and cannot do, as well as why it exists.

    That was not my point.

    My point is that this hearing might well be completely irrelevant for more than one reason. Much depends on how the Judge rules, and what he says IN that ruling.

    Does he render an opinion? Or does he just file a default judgement without comment.

    Is he gonna punt? If so, is it gonna be an onside kick meant to take him off the hook and pass the buck back to the Secretary of State. No one knows yet, and wont until at least mid February.

    Thanks for your opinion.

    • jbjd says:

      Diar: Oh, okay. (Hopefully, the links I provided relating to the Electors will not go to waste.) ALJ Malihi will review all materials submitted by the interested parties (as opposed to, the Parties) previously set date submissions and, report back to SoS Malihi his findings of fact that Petitioners have failed to satisfy by a preponderance of evidence their charge that candidate President Obama is not qualified for office under GA law and, therefore should be removed from the primary ballot. Thus, his recommendation will be that the SoS should keep Obama’s name on the primary ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    Great title to your article, I hope you didn’t stay up past midnight to write this article, but I have a feeling you did.

    BUT THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHOSE NAME GOES ON THE BALLOT IS ALWAYS VESTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND NOT OSAH.

    Here’s my thoughts;

    SoS Kemp will get the info and te findings from the hearing judge, then he will have to weigh all of the information including the ‘information’ in Attorney Michael Jablonski letter to him. The SoS will have to decide whether the info presented at the hearing is conclusive such as a clear and indisputable definition of NBC and whether BO’s personal records (i.e. bc and ssn) are forgeries. The records can only be proved by obtaining such records and I am guessing no law is in place to compel the SoS to obtain those records. This would means the SoS doesn’t have the proof necessary to keep BO off the ballot since BO has already applied for ballot access and is essentially on the ballot. Then, I believe, the petitioners would have to appeal and the ‘burden of proof’ would be on the petitoners, again.

    But I suppose the SoS could out on a limb and say something like, ‘doubts exist as the U.S. Constitution commands and says a person for President “shall be eligible to the Office of President” and our state law says a candidate ” shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought” and as neither party has proved the candidate is eligible or not eligible and as there is nothing in the public record which has proved the candidate is eligible. A bc and a ssn may not be enough to prove age, residency and natural born citizenship, therefore the state cannot allow ballot access for the candidate’. Then the respondent would have to appeal and the ‘burden of proof’ would be on the the respondent. Then BO would have to provide the proof he is a NBC if appealed and the question is brought to the proper court of jurisdiction.

    Of course, anything can happen at that point with Bob Bauer on board as BO’s personal and campaign legal counsel as he has so cleverly assisted BO as done to this day.

    I would say the merry-go-round will still go around and around and around …for awhile.

    (Very Important Disclaimer: I may not have any of this right as I have not studied the Georgia laws well enough to have any final conclusion, so this comment is only general ‘food for thought’ and I refuse to start any further rumors or comment on anything which may be misleading. My comment is only free speech with ideas.)

    Any thoughts…

    Thank you for this article as your analysis is always educative.

    • jbjd says:

      azgo: I love this line: “Of course, anything can happen at that point with Bob Bauer on board as BO’s personal and campaign legal counsel as he has so cleverly assisted BO as done to this day.” But you really have to understand his role in all of this to appreciate how clever he really is. (See BOB BAUER, RUMORED-TO-BE NEXT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FEDERAL COURT: F*** YOU!; and COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT.)

      As for what will happen, well, at a minimum, Petitioners must establish their case before ALJ Malihi with a preponderance of evidence. (This information can be accessed through the GA OSAH web page.)(In lay terms, this means, a more than 50% likelihood what they charge is true.) We will have to see what else is submitted into the record before the February cutoff date. But you mention the salient point I have tried so hard to get across: in order to prevail against Obama, you have to present a case that shifts the burden of proof. (More about this in another post. But, no one has hit the PayPal button since you did. And, I don’t mind saying, I have worked my fingers to the bone getting out the word about today’s hearing, amidst the overwhelming misinformation flooding our airwaves. And, while I am certain everyone else involved in this circus has received donations supporting their work which, as you know, is a crude take-off on my original proposal; I have not. I cannot imagine the logic that continues to reward the same person who has been wasting their money for the past 3 1/2 years, using a mechanism I proposed back to her back in 2008. But, I guess, that’s just me…) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. connee (not my real name either) says:

    Trust you?
    Who are you?
    To me, you’re an anonymous person with four lower case consonants for a name asking for money and purporting to be an attorney.

    Who cares? “Obama” will never be removed through the courts; it’s the propaganda that counts. And it is having a debilitating effect upon him. Odd that you are always on the wrong side of that propaganda.

    • jbjd says:

      connee: I have been writing this blog since the fall of 2008; and commenting in the blogosphere even longer. Some people find that the facts contained in my writings are consistently accurate; and that the conclusions based on these facts make sense. Many have used my work as the impetus for action, including petitioning elected officials (A’sG) to investigate their complaints; testifying before a state election board; and proposing legislation. This does not mean, either that these people agree with all of my opinions; or that I make no mistakes. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: