« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Schumer's Five Questions
I can think of about a hundred more, but it's a good start.
Today, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to President Bush, posing five questions about the administration's mass firings of federal prosecutors:
1. In an email to the White House, Mr. Sampson refers to a “problem” with Carol Lam. What was this “problem” and was Lam’s firing motivated by her investigation into former Congressmen Randy Cunningham and Representative Jerry Lewis?a. Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, contacted William Kelley, Deputy Counsel to the President, on replacing Carol Lam, stating, “[t]he real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.”
b. Mr. Sampson’s email was sent the same day that the Los Angeles Times had broken the news that Ms. Lam’s investigation of former Congressman Randy Cunningham (R-CA) had expanded to include Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA).
More:
2. What was the involvement of the President and members of the White House staff on the removal of these eight U.S. Attorneys?a. White House spokespeople have portrayed the White House as having only limited involvement in the plan to dismiss these U.S. attorneys. Yet the documents released to the Senate Judiciary Committee clearly show that the idea of removing a group of U.S. attorneys originated in early 2005 with Harriet E. Miers, then serving as the President’s Counsel. Ms. Miers suggested dismissing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Mr. Sampson replied, "Harriet, you have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys whose four-year terms have expired. I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement for a limited number of U.S. Attorneys."
3. Who at the Department of Justice was responsible for inserting a line into the USA PATRIOT Act in March 2006 that allows the appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval? Did the President know of or approve this effort?a. Documents provided to Congress indicate that, during reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006, the Justice Department specifically requested a provision that authorizes the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time. This provision may have been deliberately exploited – and perhaps even deliberately added to legislation – in order to bypass the Senate confirmation process for U.S. attorneys. At
b. Mr. Sampson told Ms. Miers: “I strongly recommend that, as a matter of policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments…. By not going the PAS route, we can give far less deference to the home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it faster and more efficiently, at less cost to the White House.”
4. Was Karl Rove or Ms. Miers involved in lobbying for the appointment of Tim Griffin as U.S. Attorney in Arkansas?a. In a letter responding to questions from Senator Schumer dated February 23, 2007, the Department of Justice informed Schumer that it was “not aware of anyone lobbying for Mr. Griffin’s appointment” and that “[t]he Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.”
b. An email from Mr. Sampson sent an e-mail on December 19, 2006 contradicts these statements. His email stated, “I’m not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority [of the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys], but know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.” Please explain any involvement of Karl Rove or members of his staff in the decision to request the resignation of H.E. (“Bud”) Cummins III as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas and to install Tim Griffin in his stead.
5. When and why did U. S. Attorney David Iglesias become a target for removal? Was President Bush involved in that decision?a. On March 2, 2005, D. Kyle Sampson provided identified David Iglesias in bold type as an individual that Sampson “recommend[ed] retaining” based on Iglesias’s strong job performance and “loyalty” to the Administration.
b. On October 17, 2006, Mr. Sampson drew up a list of Attorneys they “should consider pushing out”; Mr. Iglesias was not among those names.
c. On November 15, 2006, Mr. Sampson prepared a detailed “Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys” that lists Mr. Iglesias among the prosecutors to be dismissed by the Department. As you know, in accordance with that plan, the Department contacted Mr. Iglesias on December 7, 2006, to request his resignation.
Comments (63)
za wrote on March 14, 2007 4:39 PM:To the moon, Georgie, to the MOON!!!
POW!
Bearpaw wrote on March 14, 2007 4:52 PM:For questions 3 & 5, "President" should be expanded to "President and/or the Vice President".
sholom wrote on March 14, 2007 4:52 PM:I'd sure like to know, also, about the firing of the Guam USA (who was investigating Abramoff); and, for that matter, the NJ USA who subpoenaed Bob Menendez the month before his election battle with Tom Kean.
Vulture Breath wrote on March 14, 2007 4:54 PM:99. Why was the U.S. Attorney in Guam fired?
a. Let me guess - that was Susan Ralston's fault.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 14, 2007 4:55 PM:The follow-up questions to #1 is:
Aren't you glad that Lam has already taken the job with Qualcom?
The follow-up questions to #2 & #3 is:
Do you know why the French celebrate Bastille Day each July 17th?
The follow-up questions to #4 is:
Does the appointment of little Timmy Griffin as U.S. Attorney in Arkansas any-farging-thing to do with the upcoming Presidential Election in 2008?
Don't you think that this is slimy even for you?
The follow-up questions to #5 is:
Just what did Iglesias do between 10/17/06 and 11/15/06 that pissed you off?
Could it have something to do with him NOT fixing the 2006 election?
Aaaargh wrote on March 14, 2007 4:58 PM:And Schumer should ask him fellow Congress Critters, "Why did I vote to approve the PATRIOT Act reauthorization when it had this provision in it?"
Hint: "I didn't read the law I was passing" is not an acceptable answer.
EasyRider wrote on March 14, 2007 5:00 PM:I have a couple of questions able the doc dump email of Miers and Sampson.
What you are looking at is the original email redacted tables. What is the final version of the information provided? Has the document be doctored? Where are the attachments?
Senator Orrin Hatch, (R-UT):
Discussing why he supports splitting the Circuit: "It is also a court that is seriously out of balance, with 17 of its 24 active judges appointed by Democratic presidents. It is about time that we let the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals know that, as the most reversed court in the country, to think twice before they do something like this." --Quoted in PBS Newshour, Controversial Court (Jan. 17, 2005). Available online at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june05/controversial_1-17.html
Real story Hatch may have communicated to Miers may be this:
Statement of Sen. Dick Durbin:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1426&wit_id=747
Nomination of William G. Myers III for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
I will vote against the nomination of William G. Myers III for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. I voted against him last year and was sorry to see him renominated by President Bush. The Myers nomination is bad for the environment and should not be recycled.
'---------------------------------------------------------
Is the Attorney General or his Chief of Staff involved with the appointment of Judges to our Federal Court System?
'------------------------------
Did anyone notice the use of the exclaimation point in front of the name of the file attachment?
Vulture Breath wrote on March 14, 2007 5:03 PM:Would this be a means of classification identity? Are there more?
Did Kyle call Hatch after Miers said she had a call from Hatch?
Did Kyle make changes to his chart based on the information from who? Miers, AG, or Hatch?
If Kyle called Hatch then a new question needs to be asked, "Why is Mier and Kyle using code to speak with eachother? Is this common to this administration or has they hidding their activities from public? From Pat Fitz?
AG censured the emails provided to Fitz. Have since then implemented a way to hide their activities?
When the low level staffers who are responsible for this type of thing are looking through the revised Patriot Act so they can report back to their bosses, aren't they supposed to be looking at the redlined version? How is it that nobody saw this provision. How many changes were in the reauthorized version? Believe me, I have some sympathy, I'm as lazy as the next person, I would just like an answer.
pj wrote on March 14, 2007 5:04 PM:Methinks it's time for the WH to STONEWALL. Plan A is not working. I predict executive privilege is invoked very soon. Next step...special prosecutor.
Vulture Breath wrote on March 14, 2007 5:05 PM:Why are some White House staffers using the email domain "gwb43.com"?
Is this where the missing Plame/CIA leak emails reside?
eric wrote on March 14, 2007 5:05 PM:"Do you know why the French celebrate Bastille Day each July 17th?"
Actually, it's July 14. Happens to me my birthday, too. :)
dweb wrote on March 14, 2007 5:06 PM:And shouldn't a REAL investigation demand testimony under oath from Senator Spector's staff about their role in the Patriot Act language insertion?
Englischlehrer wrote on March 14, 2007 5:06 PM:Only 5 questions? Each question is going to bring about another and another and we need to get people under oath.
Robert wrote on March 14, 2007 5:08 PM:Mr. President, I would have asked you 6 questions but you only have five fingers on your hand.
Punchy wrote on March 14, 2007 5:11 PM:Bush's answers to the questions:
btree wrote on March 14, 2007 5:13 PM:1)she sucked; no
2) none
3) nobody; no
4) no
5) never; don't know; no
Question: Is Timothy Griffin a criminal?
"But the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove’s assistant, the President’s pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.
Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight received a series of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research Director for the Republican National Committee. He didn’t mean to send them to us. They were highly confidential memos meant only for RNC honchos.
However, Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails — potential evidence of a crime — to email addresses ending with the domain name “@GeorgeWBush.com” he sent them to “@GeorgeWBush.ORG.” A website run by prankster John Wooden who owns “GeorgeWBush.org.” When Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.
And we dug in, decoding, and mapping the voters on what Griffin called, “Caging” lists, spreadsheets with 70,000 names of voters marked for challenge. Overwhelmingly, these were Black and Hispanic voters from Democratic precincts."
Hair Club For Congress wrote on March 14, 2007 5:17 PM:http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/
Schumer should stop playing with his forehead. That's why his hairline is receding.
Don wrote on March 14, 2007 5:20 PM:Mr. Sampson, WE NEED A VERB!
1a) quotes email: "[t]he real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."
No wonder Schumer's got a question!
Is this a redacted email? 'Cuz that's just incoherent...
Ishmael wrote on March 14, 2007 5:20 PM:No punchy, the actual answers were as follows:
1) Fuck off.
2) Eat some shit.
3) Blow me.
4) Drop dead.
5) Your mother.
Mercutio wrote on March 14, 2007 5:20 PM:One of the talking points has been that the attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President." So when is somebody going to ask him: why did you want these people fired?
infoshaman wrote on March 14, 2007 5:25 PM:An open-ended question is frequently better than a close-ended, yes-no, question. For example, the question:
When and why did U. S. Attorney David Iglesias become a target for removal? Was President Bush involved in that decision?
should be replaced with:
When and why did U. S. Attorney David Iglesias become a target for removal? What was President Bush's involvement in that decision?
melior wrote on March 14, 2007 5:29 PM:What did the POTUS/VP know and when did they know it?
Jim Thorne wrote on March 14, 2007 5:37 PM:What is the ratio of Democrats indicted by the various US Attorney offices compared to Republicans? is there a significant imbalance of more Democrats which could indicate a broad politicizing of the US Attorney offcies? Is there an even bigger story here?
JimT
joel wrote on March 14, 2007 5:46 PM:In his latest statement, Gonzales stated that he "serves at the pleasure of the President" and that ultimately Bush will decide his fate.
So I'm going to sidle up to the poster above and ask: "If the USAs served at the pleasure of the President, then what specifically did they do to diserve his displeasure, and what involvement did he have in their dismissal?"
You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim a right to at-will firing because the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, then you have to accept the tails side of the same coin: that the President is ultimately responsible for selecting and de-selecting such appointments in the first place.
Barbara wrote on March 14, 2007 5:46 PM:And just think what fun Harriet Miers could have had as Chief Justice.
Hector wrote on March 14, 2007 5:48 PM:Q:"The follow-up questions to #2 & #3 is:
Do you know why the French celebrate Bastille Day each July 17th?"
A: Because like the Bush administration they know nothing of history and have forgotten that Bastille Day is actually July 14?
Disco310 wrote on March 14, 2007 5:51 PM:What kind of crappy timepiece is that?!
EH wrote on March 14, 2007 5:51 PM:That'd be a funny tack, joel: If the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, does that mean that the President is the one who decided to fire them?
Aaaargh wrote on March 14, 2007 5:57 PM:Were the US attorneys no longer pleasuring the president?
Vulture Breath wrote on March 14, 2007 6:18 PM:"[Kyle] Sampson worked for Sen. Orrin Hatch on the Senate Judiciary Committee. After the election, Sampson drew on a friendship he had built in law school with Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the vice president, to land a job making personnel decisions in the early days of the Bush administration."
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5431030
Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 6:36 PM:As far as I'm concerned, the entire republican party has, in its entirety, committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States of America, its Constitution and its citizens and should, therefore, be charged with treason, found guilty, and hanged by the neck until dead. These b@st@rds aren't republicans, they're fascists.
bakho wrote on March 14, 2007 7:17 PM:In 1992, GHW Bush AG (Barr) wanted the USA in Arkansas (Banks) to file "Whitewater" charges including the Clintons as "witnesses". USA Banks said it was too political to touch until after the election.
In 2008, would USA Griffin say no to Rove? if there was anything at all that could be filed against a candidate with ties to Arkansas?
Maybe those 2006 charges in NJ need a much closer look from the outside?
Eureka Springs, AR wrote on March 14, 2007 7:19 PM:The following notes were culled from comments of mine and others at firedoglake and from a post here at TPM and relate to questions posed in this post. Great list of questions Senator Schumer!
It was the right-wing operative who was put on Specter’s staff as a condition of his becoming Chair of the Judiciary. Remember when Specter got mouthy just after his 2004 reelection and said some things about anti-abortion judges that caused some Republicans to demand that he be denied the Judiciary Chair? He agreed to accept this staffer as a price of getting the job, to keep an eye on him from inside the Committee.
From: http://salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/02/09/united_states_attorneys/print.html
The staffer who reportedly performed this bit of dirty work is Michael O’Neill, a law professor at George Mason University and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. As the Washington Times explained when O’Neill was appointed as the Senate Judiciary Committee’s chief counsel, many observers believed that Specter had hired him to reassure conservatives of his loyalty to the Bush White House. Right-wing distrust had almost ousted the Pennsylvania moderate from the Judiciary chairmanship, and appointing O’Neill was apparently the price for keeping that post.
_____Also on O'neill from washington times http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050905-114119-3586r.htm
On the USAG’s chief of staff who “ran amok” and made up the list of USA’s to be dismissed without telling Abu G.:
D. Kyle Sampson has served at the Department of Justice as a Counselor to the Attorney General since 2003, and he currently serves as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Prior to joining the Department, Sampson served in the White House as Associate Counsel to the President and as Special Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Presidential Personnel. From 1999 to 2001, Sampson served as Counsel to Senator Orrin G. Hatch on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he taught as an Adjunct Professor at George Mason University Law School during the 2000-2001 school year. [USDOJ website]
Both O’Neill and Sampson taught at George Mason, you’ll note.
a commenter @ TPM 2/6/7
How did this actually happen? Brett Tolman was counsel for crime and terrorism for the Senate Judicial Committee under Hatch and then under Specter. The Deseret News says Tolman “helped the two senators gain support for the renewal of the Patriot Act.” Tolman was then nominated for the position of US attorney of Utah by Hatch, supported in his nomination by Specter, Frist, DeWine, and McConnell. But the White House opposed this, pushing for Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales’ chief of staff for the position.
Tolman was nominated and appointed and this language somehow got in this bill.
EasyRider wrote on March 14, 2007 8:19 PM:Eureka Springs,
EUREKA!
viktor nehring wrote on March 14, 2007 9:18 PM:And what of the answers to these Q's? It (pretty much) makes no difference. I have yet to see how this is any kind of scandal. These are POLITICAL appointees, after all. Maybe it's wrong that they are, but they are. Period. Heaven forbid POLITICS enter into POLITICAL appointees.
Al in Austex wrote on March 14, 2007 9:23 PM:At the heart of this Darkness is Cheney . How do we get Scooter under oath regarding styming all of these investigations that would have outtted all the tainted money that the Veep & Addington were using for black ops overseas with no Congressional Oversight ( until now ! )
cs. art is bread wrote on March 14, 2007 10:17 PM:I love the smell of Congressional subpeaneas in the Morning.
Get the Vice under Oath NOW !!
Maybe Lam has some ideas about how to do this,,
Lots of errors in the texts of these questions. If they are posted here 'as is' from Schumer's office, a [sic] would help.
Either way, there is some sloppy editing/proofreading somewhere. Sorry if it seems petty, but it's pretty embarrassing when a letter challenging the president to explain his actions is so full of mistakes.
EasyRider wrote on March 14, 2007 10:43 PM:Al in Austex,
See if these will help you find the funding.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/easyrider/2007/mar/10/running_the_operations_out_of_the_office_of_vice_president_npo_cog
Running the operations out of the Office of Vice President? NPO COG
play all in correct order: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C61F964120E4502D
SeeDee wrote on March 14, 2007 10:56 PM:Sorry but the emdded of the links is not working for me.
cs.art is bread: The 'questions' were posed for a POTUS whose own short-comings RE grammar and verbal mangling are well-known.
Probably the 'mistakes' are to make it easier for GWB to think up answers....I think Schumer IS sincere in wanting some response....knowing all the while, of course, that there are NO sensible answers.
no excuses wrote on March 14, 2007 11:03 PM:GO Schumer!!!
We're all behind you!
PS: but if you blow this or drop the torch now.... people will call for your head.
We expect to see not just competent, but brilliant, investigation.
It's about time Congress started acting like leaders, the best and the brightest. You're not elected for nothing, this isn't the special Olympics.
We want serious accountability this time.
Sam Lowry wrote on March 14, 2007 11:09 PM:I'm very disappointed to hear from Eureka Springs on the details surrounding Michael O'Neil - Senator Specter's Chief Counsel who inserted the "don't investigate" clause into the US Attorney section of the Patriot Act reauthorization.
I had hoped it was the Michael O'Neil that worked as CIA General Counsel and CIA Chief of Staff between 1995 and 1997, and who is currently a partner with lobbyists Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP.
He specializes in "export, security, trade, information technology, and federal policy. He advises foreign and domestic clients on both regulatory and legislative solutions."
It looks like they are not the same person.
EasyRider wrote on March 15, 2007 12:18 AM:You have to wonder if Specter was blackmailed! Is that a crime waiting to be found? If Eureka Springs is right this may be a very serious crime. It would rise to level of the subversion of the Constitution. That is a very serious crime. If the White House or AG, or RNC had anything to do with advance planning to black mail Specter; get Michael O'Neil - Senator Specter's Chief Counsel added to Specter's staff; and then to stick that little know change into the Patriotic Act Reauthorization, jsut so they could shut down all the investigations into GOP criminal activities.
That would be very serious indeed, perhaps Treason by all that were (are) involved.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 15, 2007 2:02 AM:ouch . . . erf . . . the 14th is correct . . . sigh . . .
I'm sorry. I have got to stop inputting comments on my Treo.
dcrocks wrote on March 15, 2007 8:56 AM:Another question:
Describe and provide records of all communications between current and former members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and the Justice Department and White House, and between any Republican party organization and the Justice Department and White House, related to the dismissal, appointment or retention of U.S. attorneys.
Derek wrote on March 15, 2007 12:15 PM:"Why are some White House staffers using the email domain "gwb43.com"?"
From Network Solutions registrant data:
Registrant: Make this info private
Derek wrote on March 15, 2007 12:15 PM:Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
Domain Name: GWB43.COM
Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Republican National Committee
dns@RNCHQ.ORG
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
Phone: 999 999 9999
Fax: 999 999 9999
Record expires on 16-Jan-2008
Record created on 16-Jan-2004
Database last updated on 11-Oct-2006
"Why are some White House staffers using the email domain "gwb43.com"?"
From Network Solutions registrant data:
Registrant:
EasyRider wrote on March 15, 2007 12:27 PM:Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
Domain Name: GWB43.COM
Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Republican National Committee
dns@RNCHQ.ORG
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
Phone: 999 999 9999
Fax: 999 999 9999
Record expires on 16-Jan-2008
Record created on 16-Jan-2004
Database last updated on 11-Oct-2006
You want to bet that server has been removed and disassembled?
Can we have the FBI excute a search and seizure of a RICCO criminal ring property?
KathyG wrote on March 15, 2007 12:43 PM:As to the question of why did Senator Schumer vote for this? The last I heard about it was some staffer in Senator Spector's office that slipped it in in the dark of night and no one not even Senator Spector knew about it. Now if this is true Senator Spector should explain why they did it under his watch and what he has done about the staffer who did it.
hawiken wrote on March 15, 2007 9:13 PM:Ironic my security word is "hope".
Jim Thorne at 5;37-
Rudyker wrote on March 19, 2007 5:14 AM:From Krugman:
Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.
Sen. Schumucker is among the most repulsive senators now serving: A list which includes Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Reed, and Reid.
All he does is WHINE and flatulate from his mouth:
Rudyker wrote on March 19, 2007 5:16 AM:An abhorant YENTA.
Sen. Schumucker is among the most repulsive senators now serving: A list which includes Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Reed, and Reid.
All he does is WHINE and flatulate out of his mouth: He says nothing meaninful, but, whatever comes out STINKS.
green@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 7:21 AM:big balls penis
witney@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 9:46 PM:Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra
rick@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 1:19 AM:hello
rick@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 1:20 AM:hello
margaret@aol.com wrote on May 22, 2007 2:49 PM:cialis forum
fcoxdukqs kmqvx wrote on June 6, 2007 12:30 PM:ifjkva yjefvkl sftnyjap bzlcequnf acgxdvrt zwmhk iauwdlgps
fcoxdukqs kmqvx wrote on June 6, 2007 12:31 PM:ifjkva yjefvkl sftnyjap bzlcequnf acgxdvrt zwmhk iauwdlgps
kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl
john davies wrote on August 2, 2007 6:05 AM:and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings
B J Communications Ltd is a well registered company in united kingdom. We are into laptops,mobile phones, ipods and xbox wholesales.All our products are brand new,packed in their original package with 90days return policy.We sell wholesale price and very affordable.
We can only send our products price list to any interested buyer.
Reply to: commukltd@commukltd.ourprofile.info
Contact us for your your order.
John davies.
Meanser wrote on September 30, 2007 5:08 AM:marketing manager.
JB communications
12 Riverside Industrial Estate
Gorleston
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk NR31 6TU
United Kingdom
Phone : 447024025813
Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public
ok.. bitte
Olia wrote on October 2, 2007 9:33 AM:Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate international news profit
ok.. bitte
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:17 AM:Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye