Showing posts with label House Judiciary committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House Judiciary committee. Show all posts

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Songs from the Site Meter: They're looking for Diana Oo, Democratic House Judiciary counsel


Site Meter--I wondered when someone, anyone, would notice. My question to Ms. Oo and whomever was looking-up on her is: why in the hell didn't you do anything to help the DC Madam (or people like Don Siegelman)? Are you stupid? Are you being blackmailed? Time to end the game, uphold the Constitution of the United States as you swore an oath to do.

Attorney Diana Oo was the one that Rep. Conyers and company sent, then they got cold feet and dicked-out on her and the rest of us in late 2007. Henry A. Waxman and his staffers did likewise. "We're interested, but we're not interested," they seemed to have been saying. That's called covering your ass so you can say you tried to do something when someone comes around asking later on. Without being too prolix...


Domain Name
(Unknown)
IP Address
143.228.129.# (Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives)
ISP
Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : District of Columbia
City : Washington
Lat/Long : 38.8933, -77.0146 (Map)
Language
English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System
Microsoft WinXP
Browser
Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13
Javascript
version 1.5
Monitor
Resolution : 1680 x 1050
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit
Sep 4 2009 2:46:14 am
Last Page View
Sep 4 2009 2:50:49 am
Visit Length
4 minutes 35 seconds
Page Views
2
Referring URL
http://www.google.co...nr1jeZ_pFgREJCnf5sTw
Search Engine
google.com
Search Words
diana oo
Visit Entry Page
http://chickasawpick...tees-democratic.html
Visit Exit Page
http://chickasawpick...tees-democratic.html
Out Click

Time Zone
UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time
Sep 3 2009 2:46:14 pm
Visit Number
59,290


Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The House Judiciary Committee releases the Rove/Miers interviews related to the U.S. Attorney firings (with some excerpts from the Miers testimony)


Washington D.C.
--And so, we finally have a window, a real window, into what was going on at the DOJ during the time leading-up to the U.S. Attorney firings in that culminated in December 2006.

The House Judiciary Committee has today released what several scholars and pundits were saying would never see the light of day: the transcripts of the interviews with Bush II political operative and adviser Karl Rove and former Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Counsel (the president's legal adviser until early 2007), as well as emails and other documents and materials relating to what appears to be politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys, thus endangering their abilities to enforce the law correctly without undue or illegal political influence and/or obstruction through a general abuse of office.

Some highlights of the Miers testimony from June of this year:

(Beginning P.7) ...Q Yes, and also prior to that time. Let me -- why don't I start out asking you, before your work in the White House in any capacity, did you have any role in the selection of U.S. Attorneys or in the discharge of U.S. Attorneys?

A Not that I recall. (pg. 8) ...


(P.14) ...Q Now, there could be inappropriate reasons why a U.S. Attorney would be let go, as well, right?

A Yes.

Q If the Department of Justice were to recommend removal of the U.S. Attorney for a political partisan purpose, that would be an inappropriate basis for removal, right?

A I don't know what that term means. U.S. Attorneys are, by their nature, political.

Q Well, would you find it proper to remove a U.S. Attorney to stop him from prosecuting a friend of the President?

A I would not expect the Department to recommend removal for the U.S. Attorney doing his or her job. And if his or her job was investigating someone and there was an effort to cause that 15 person to step down because of that reason, I would view that as inappropriate.

Q So if the Department of Justice were recommending a U.S. Attorney be forced to resign because he was investigating a friend of the President, that would be an inappropriate reason for the Department to recommend his removal?

A If the reason was to interfere with a prosecutor's ongoing investigation of a particular matter, I would consider that inappropriate.

Q And, along those lines, if a U.S. Attorney refused to prosecute a political opponent of the President, that would also be an inappropriate reason to remove them?

A If the reason for a recommendation to ask a person to step down or to take action against the person was to cause them to take action that was inappropriate, then, yes, I would consider that not something that should happen.

Q Well, I just wanted to be very clear on this. If a U.S. Attorney is asked to resign because he refused to prosecute an opponent of the President, that would be improper, wouldn't it?

A If it was to cause the U.S. Attorney to take some action that the U.S. Attorney and others believed to be appropriate -- or inappropriate, then I would consider that something that should not happen. ...


P.16) ...Q And if, by the same token, a prosecutor refuses to bring a meritless prosecution against an opponent to the President, that would be improper also, right?

A If someone is asked to step down because they weren't bringing something that they, in good faith, thought they shouldn't and the examination concluded that that was a legitimate 17 position, then I would not expect them to be asked to step down.

Q Let me ask you also about the timing of prosecutions. Would it be improper to remove a U.S. Attorney because that U.S. Attorney failed to bring a prosecution that would aid a candidate during election time?

A It would be inappropriate to interfere one way or the other, either by asking somebody to bring an action they shouldn't bring or to not bring an action that they should, in both instances it would be inappropriate.

Q And particularly so if it was done with a design to influence an election?

A If that was the purpose, then I would think it would be inappropriate to attempt to influence an election.

Q Are there circumstances in which it would be proper to remove a U.S. Attorney based on purely partisan political considerations? A I would have difficulty answering that question.

Q Would it be proper to remove a U.S. Attorney because he refused to use his office to assist Republican candidates for elective office?

A If the sole purpose of asking someone to leave or to step down is to influence an election or do something the individual thought shouldn't be done, and the examination indicates that is correct, or to not do something, I think any of those things would have been inappropriate. ...


(P. 18) ...Q Would it be appropriate to remove a U.S. Attorney simply because one of the President's political allies or supporters has asked that U.S. Attorney to be removed?

A That would depend on the circumstances.

Q If the sole reason that the President removes a U.S. Attorney is because a supporter asked, would that be appropriate?

A U.S. Attorneys are serving at the pleasure of the President. And so, if anything is presented to him, then he has the ability to remove that person. ...


(P.21) ...Q Under what circumstances do you think it would be appropriate for the origination of the idea to remove a U.S. Attorney to come from the White House?

A I would think that would be perfectly appropriate from any other source. ...


(P. 27) ...Q Well, let's say you had a U.S. Attorney who refused to bring meritless cases.

A Well, you can stop right there. No one is going to condone bringing meritless cases.

Q And so, removing them for the failure to bring meritless cases would be an inappropriate reason to remove them?

A I believe we have already covered that. And I said you should not ask someone to leave because they won't bring a meritless case. ...


(P.38) ...Q And what about the Office of Political Affairs' role in the decision to let U.S. Attorneys go. What role did they play in 39 the process?

A I would say providing information.

Q And what type of information would they provide?

A Whatever they had in any particular situation. And if they had any, I would think many times they would not, but if they had any they may well have let their views be known. And in fact, and I apologize for not thinking about this at the time, someone from that office frequently attended the Judicial Selection Committee. So they were always there to provide the political sense with respect to the environment in any particular state.

Q And who was it from the Office of Political Affairs that attended the JSC meetings?

A Sometimes Karl Rove himself participated, but he may have had on his deputy chief of staff hat. But the Office of Political Affairs reported to him, so he could have been there. I don't really have a recollection of Sara Taylor being there, but she would have been logical. I remember Scott Jennings being there.

Q Do you recall any of the JSC meetings where it was clear Mr. Rove attended for the specific purpose that a U.S. Attorney removal was the issue to be discussed?

A I don't have a recollection of that.

Q Do you recall any case where the suggestion for the removal of a particular U.S. Attorney originated in the Office of Political Affairs rather than the Department of Justice? 40

A I think that's a good question. And I know that, for example, with respect to Mr. Iglesias that there were comments made about him and his performance. And those comments certainly could have been made at a Judicial Selection Committee meeting, but I don't recall it.

Q And did you raise the case of Mr. Iglesias because the first suggestion that he be considered for removal came from the Office of Political Affairs rather than the Department of Justice?

A I don't know whether it did or not come from the Department of Justice or whether that was just one more voice if, in fact, it happened. But I don't really know who came up with the idea. But certainly there were comments about Mr. Iglesias coming from the political office, or the deputy chief of staff for that matter. ...


(P. 41) ...Q But it was a call that Mr. Rove originated, you didn't call him? A Well, unless I called him back. But, yeah, he instigated the call. 42

Q And tell us the best you can about what you recall what Mr. Rove had to say when he called?

A My best recollection is that he was very agitated about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico. I don't know that I knew the gentleman's name at that time.

Q And what did he tell you about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico?

A That he was getting barraged by a lot of complaints about the U.S. Attorney and his not doing his job.

Q And who were the complaints coming from?

A People that he was in contact with, which I assumed, of course, and he may have said, were political people that were active in New Mexico.

Q These are Republican Party activists?

A They were the people that he would have been interfacing with as political leadership of the State, is my assumption.

Q And who would that have been?

A I have no idea.

Q Would they have been Republican Party activists?

A All I can tell you is that Karl was reporting multiple people complaining about Mr. Iglesias.

Q And did he identify any of the people who were complaining to him about Mr. Iglesias?

A I don't recall that.

Q Did he tell you what they were complaining about? 43

A That he wasn't doing his job. I do recall that.

Q Do you recall what specifically the complaints were that he wasn't doing his job?

A I don't recall the specifics of what he was saying.

Q Did Mr. Rove raise with you complaints about voter fraud prosecutions?

A That's my best recollection, that he did.

Q And what did he say about that?

A I don't know what he said. I know it's my impression that he talked about the complaints that the guy wouldn't do his job. And I believe he mentioned voter fraud.

Q What else do you recall that Mr. Rove said about the complaints, if anything?

A I'm giving you all the information that I can about that call. That's my best recollection that that happened.

Q And you said Mr. Rove was agitated. What led you to believe that he was agitated?

A He was just upset. I remember his being upset.

Q Was it the language he used or was it the tone of his voice that told you he was upset?

A I can't tell you. It's my recollection that he was upset. And how that was conveyed to me I can't tell you.

Q Did Mr. Rove tell you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney gone?

A I don't have that specific recollection. And I'm under 44 oath and I'm not going to swear to something coming out of his mouth that I just can't remember. The clear import was that he was upset with how this individual was performing.

Q And was the clear import also that he wanted him removed from his position?

A He was getting complaints about the guy. And he wanted to express, I think, and this is my general sense about the New Mexico situation, that there were complaints about how he was performing.

Q Ms. Miers, wasn't the clear import of his conversation with you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney removed from office?

A I can't say with certainty that he ever used that language. He may well have. I don't recall it.

Q Well, I'm not asking about specific language, but you were able to tell us the clear import of part of his conversation was that the U.S. Attorney was not doing his job and he was getting an earful?

A That's correct.

Q If Mr. Rove communicated to you that he wanted a U.S. Attorney replaced, you would recall that, right?

A Not necessarily.

Q Well, in this case did Mr. Rove communicate to you in whatever language he used that he wanted this U.S. Attorney removed?

A I can't put those words in his mouth. 45

Q I'm not using any specific words. But when you hung up with the -- when you hung up the phone call with Mr. Rove, was it clear to you that he wanted this U.S. Attorney removed?

A It was clear to me that he felt like he had a serious problem and that he wanted something done about it. And whether he said, and the answer is ask the guy to be removed, I can't -- I don't recall that, I just don't recall it.

Q But you do recall he wanted something done about it? A Yes, sir. I think he was calling for that purpose.

Q And he may have asked you, or he may have told you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney removed?

A That's speculation. And I can't put those exact words in his mouth. I mean, he was complaining about the guy.

Q The clear import was that he wanted something done about it, right?

A Yes, sir. That was his purpose in calling me.

Q And at this point, you can't rule out whether he asked that he be removed from office?

A I can't swear that he did or did not say that. Q So he may have? A I can't swear one way or the other.

Q So he may have asked for him to be removed, you just can't recall?

A I don't recall his using words like I want him fired or words of similar import. I just don't have that recollection. 46

Could he have said that, I can't rule it out. I probably should say that he may have said can't we get rid of this guy or something like that.

Q And do you recall what your response would have been?

A I don't recall him saying even that, so I certainly don't recall my response.

Q But he may have said that?

A I can't rule it out.

Q If Mr. Rove wanted him removed, what would the next step have been?

A If he had said that he wanted us to consider removing the guy, then I would have relayed that along with whatever else I believe I called Paul McNulty about. Because my belief is that I called Paul McNulty and reported this situation.

Q So at some point after your conversation with Mr. Rove, you called Mr. McNulty at the Justice Department?

A That's my belief. That I took whatever information he gave me and I called Paul and gave it to him. ...


Not a pretty picture at all, and these are just excerpts. I'm assuming Rove's transcript has some relevant material but that it's generally a lot of skirting around his culpability/guilt in the affair. And yes, we can expect them to protect the president at all costs...unless, perhaps, it means that they're going to to go to prison.

Keep in mind that this woman was nominated for the Supreme Court. Now we know why she declined.

The House Judiciary Committe's Rove/Miers interviews and materials: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHInterviews.html

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The House Judiciary Committee's democratic counsel contacted the DC Madam in late 2007: the exchange


Ed.--This one is long overdue and comes thanks to a recent comment from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous. Forgive the layout, courtesy of Blogspot bugs that never seem to get fixed. That said, read from the bottom-up.




Really? Then – why I wonder – am I getting the brush off?

-----Original Message-----
From: Justice League [mailto:spbiloxi00@gmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, December 17, 2007 11:36 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Cc: Matt Janovic
Subject: Re: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA
Jeane:
Let's hope that the HJC respond to you. The HJC certainly responded to the cases Siegelman and Katheryn Shields and her husband.
Bil

On Dec 17, 2007 11:24 AM, Jeane Palfrey <jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com> wrote:
Matt and Bil… FYI - speaking of the House Judiciary Committee. Let's see what, if any response I receive here. -Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent:
Sunday, December 16, 2007 10:49 PM
To: 'Diana.Oo@mail.house.gov'
Subject: RE: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA
Ms. Oo…
It is my understanding from the following thread and conversations with my attorney, Mr. Montgomery B. Sibley, that the House Judiciary Committee is interested in the civil asset forfeiture portion of my case. Accordingly, you made an appointment to speak with Mr. Sibley, on Thursday, December 5 th; an appointment, you did not keep. Despite messages – email and voicemail – from Mr. Sibley inquiring of your absence, to date you have chosen not to deign him and correspondingly me, with an explanation or apology here.
Your "on/off" behavior is rather interesting. It is particularly so, in light of similar actions by Judge Kessler, of late. It should be noted though, my case is replete with a history of sudden and inexplicable events, which seemingly shut down any and every opportunity I am given to uncover the truth in my bizarre situation.
I truly hope this is not the case with the House Judiciary Committee. You see, I take your statement regarding the Committee's interest in the due process rights of citizens in civil forfeiture matters quite literally.
Mr. Sibley and I look forward to speaking with you, as soon as possible.
Your attention to this concern is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Jeane Palfrey

-----Original Message-----
From: Montgomery Sibley [mailto: mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com]
Sent:
Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:39 AM
To: 'Oo, Diana'
Subject: RE: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA
Diana,
Do you still want to discuss the government's abuse of the forfeiture laws in my client Jeane Palfrey's case?
Montgomery



From: Oo, Diana [mailto:Diana.Oo@mail.house.gov]
Sent: 12/04/2007 12:33 PM
To: mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com
Subject: Re: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA
Montgomery, are you available to discuss by phone tomorrow afternoon, say around 2?




----- Original Message -----
From: Montgomery Sibley <mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com>
To: Oo, Diana
Sent: Mon Dec 03
14:17:39 2007
Subject: FW: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA

Diana,

Can you update me?

Thanks,
Montgomery


________________________________

From: Montgomery Sibley [ mailto:mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com]
Sent:
11/30/2007 7:04 AM
To: 'Oo, Diana'
Subject: RE: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA


Diana,

I am committed on Monday to matters I can't change without a court order. However, I can meet with you at your offices on Tuesday next most anytime. Let me know what works best for you.

yours,

Montgomery


________________________________

From: Oo, Diana [mailto:Diana.Oo@mail.house.gov]
Sent:
11/29/2007 4:05 PM
To: sibley@civilforfeiture.com
Subject: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA



Hi Montgomery,

Thank you for your letter on this matter. The Committee is of course interested in ensuring that the due process rights of all citizens are preserved during the civil forfeiture process. I have some questions. Would you like to discuss this case on Monday?


Diana Oo

Democratic Counsel

House Judiciary Committee

2138 Rayburn

Washington, D.C. 20515

P: 202.225.3951

F: 202.225.7680



Saturday, January 17, 2009

3 days left of Bush II administration crimes under the color of authority!


Ed.--And it's still not coming fast enough. Let the hearings and investigations commence!! We're not taking "no" or "it's off the table" for answers anymore. That's done, it's over, and we're going to continue to demand and act on this. The public has had enough of this systemic-corruption.

Heads must roll, people must be investigated, and if found guilty, sent to prison. Where to start? Start anywhere, but let's finally begin getting to the bottom of the Bush II energy policy meetings and their role in the Wall Street crash. Then, we can party like it's 1929.

Quit fooling yourselves--the Democrats enabled a lot of this, and some of them are going to have to go as well, sentimentality-be-damned. The first thing President-elect Obama needs to do is purge the bureaucracy of every single appointment made by George W. Bush and--in turn--hirings made by those appointees.

The appropriate time for the creation of a Special Prosecution team is January 20th, the 21st at the latest. There can be no "putting the past behind us," as President-elect Obama stated recently on George Stephanopoulos's program "This Week:". It's an attitude that's unacceptable in a democracy after what's happened out in the open under George W. Bush, putting aside what we don't know. Three days left. It's too long.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

2008 Roundup


J-7--It's been one hell of a year, hasn't it? From my work for the Palfrey defense, to my paralegal classes, to the inevitable collapse of world capitalism, to incredible revelations of Bush II administration wrong-doing and the resultant inaction from Congress and the Judicial branch, there's every reason to feel hopeful. What kind of a year did you have? Not one like mine, I can state with complete certainty.

I even had the well known Libertarian "Reason magazine" quoting me next to Val Kilmer, and conspiracy-theorist Alex Constantine has threatened to sue me for having negative opinions about him. This isn't even counting the hacking of my email account (I have my suspicions here), the phony "cease and desist" emails regarding the Palfrey information on my site about two noteworthy former clients, or the other harassing ones that came my way.

Wha? Hopeful?

Yes, there's every reason to feel hopeful about reasonable change. That doesn't mean we just sit back and let it happen, because then, it won't. Demand, demand, and demand again what you need to survive. Band together, make friends with people you might never have, and organize and act for change.

I've written on quite-a-few subjects this year, from attempts to desecrate the memory of Edgar Allan Poe, to issues of the geopolitical and of illegal surveillance. What's been most alarming is the inaction of Congress and the courts against Bush II crimes, but I have a newer take on this: they only did it to save a dying system, it was never really about protecting Bush and Cheney, and it's not working. With every revelation...nothing, no action to hold anyone truly accountable. That's desperation, kids.

American Empire is ending and history cannot be fought or denied when the currents are as strong as they are against established power in North America. It's over, now it just has to play-out, and all the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to fix it. As a matter of fact, the more they keep doing what they always have to preserve their power, the faster they're going to lose it. Empires fall and things are moving faster than they have in decades, and can be counted on to move faster than in the past thanks to widespread access to telecommunications technology.

This decline is affecting everyone. There's nowhere to run for the jaded and the apathetic anymore. Yes, things will become ugly at times, but if you have it in-mind to help others, we can avoid a catastrophe as we have in the past. Use your head and have a safe and happy 2009. Understand that this won't always be the case, have realistic expectations, and stay honest if you can. And remember that the children are counting on us not to blow it, we owe them a better world where people look out for each other. Helping others is the most important thing.

On Jeane Palfrey: Watching a woman die from a distance after being driven to it by federal prosecutors was horrible, but I did help her as much as I could and she told me that she appreciated it, she even told went as far as to ask me if anyone had ever told me I was smart. God knows that I wish she had survived her ordeal and that her suicide will haunt me until the day I die. One can only hope it does that and much more to her tormentors. I intend to keep digging into these matters regarding everything that happened to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and will continue to publish primary materials on this site since it's still my right as an American to do so. The vast majority of my contact with the deceased "DC Madam" was off-the-books, it wasn't under attorney-client privilege, and the public has a right to know what happened. Eventually, everything I have will be online in one form or another.

There must be accountability in this matter, and eventually, there will be. If that means people like Federal District Judge James Robertson looks like the goon
and lackey that I suspect he is in the history books after his death, then so be it. The same goes for Jeffrey A. Taylor, a most unusual U.S. Attorney for the fact that he's an interim appointment that was never approved of by the Senate, as the Bush II administration sneaked him in when they were on recess in 2006...during the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. He prosecuted Palfrey. At the very least, future generations of Americans are going to view her trial as the abomination it was, a fraud that was a matter of selective prosecution in a time when there were more than would be statistically normal. Had Palfrey lived, we might know more about what happened, although she wasn't the last word as some are painting it to my mind.

At this writing, the Palfrey Estate is working against disclosure, and it's understandable. They want things to rest and for their loved one to rest in peace. They've had enough of the circus, the press, the media, and the lawyers. So have I. They're tired of others (starting with Bill Bastone, an individual they should take to court for defaming their loved one) dragging the name of their loved one and their family through-the-mud. I concur. But that doesn't mean every revelation is going to make Jeane look bad--that's not even the point. From what I know, she's beginning to look more and more heroic, or at least edging beyond being an "antihero," which in this society isn't a bad thing to be either. She was that and a whole lot more, and she was very complicated, just like the rest of life itself.

I enjoin the Palfrey Estate to move towards transparency in the matter and to realize that the government isn't going to give them what's theirs (Palfrey's remaining assets) without a major fight. Having counsel that does contract work for the government in other capacities isn't going to help them towards this reasonable goal which their loved on died for in-part. My opinion.

Astonishingly, Palfrey's will wasn't discovered until September 2008--what took so long? Why is Orrick going around and threatening various players in the Palfrey saga with lawsuits and invoking attorney-client privilege? One could imagine it has a lot to do with brokering a deal with the government, and one still hasn't been completed in the arena of asset seizure and forfeiture The abatement issue created by Palfrey when she killed herself before sentencing created problems for the State, and a semi-secret Trust created by Palfrey is causing problems for the Estate itself. She knew what she was doing. I have to wonder if her family does, but I wish them well and empathize with their suffering. There are so many unanswered questions in the Palfrey scandal, but I don't think Jeane's death closes-the-door entirely: there were many things she simply didn't know about her predicament, things that should have been included in discovery (sharing of information, what they have on you) from the prosecution. Eventually, some of these documents are going to surface, and we'll have at least a little clearer picture. I do not believe that she was innocent, I believe that she was denied due process.

The House Judiciary committee contacted Palfrey in the spring of 2008 through a "Ms. Oo," then didn't appear for a face-to-face meeting or respond to further calls and emails. Oo wouldn't do. Why? Who or what put-the-skids to their inquiry into the effect that forfeiture had on her rights to due process? They--and others--might tell me and the public, but I'm not holding my breath on that one, it's going to take years, and it's going to take persistent demands. It was quite a year, 2008. I don't expect any miracles from President-elect Barack Obama, but it's on him and Congress to initiate lengthy and serious probes into every crime committed by the Bush II administration, to rollback the precedents, and to allow justice to be served in the matter rather than in the obstruction of it. Palfrey is a part of all of this. There's reason to be hopeful, but not without demands.


Postscript, 12.29.2008: Add to the list that Larisa Alexandrovna gave me a good review on a satire about her marrying Yakov Smirnoff, which surprised the bejeezus out of me.