Radford / Stollznow defamation case: What we know and what we can infer or extrapolate reasonably »« Skeptech fundraiser gameathon right now!

Did I just get a letter from President Obama?

Is this a real letter? You decide! All the evidence you need is right here in this very post!

A totes legit letter

A totes legit letter


Letter from the President of Americaland

In 2013, the admitted Canadian Jason Thibeault emigrated from Canada to America to get a good job at a good company in Minnesota. He has faced a number of challenges to make the journey, including having to take a three-month course in two weeks, and having to pull up all roots in Canada and sell many possessions. Some of these hurdles pale in comparison with the challenges others may face, and he has been mindful of that even while he has managed to overcome them himself. He is now living in America and he and his wife Jodi are settling into a new life.

Those challenges and hurdles against Jason Thibeault were unfair and in many cases costly, and as President of This Nation, Barack Obama regrets them and will work to reform immigration so that the path to citizenship is less painful for people who are not, like Jason Thibeault, lucky enough to fall under a NAFTA immigration policy. Having voted a few times for liberals in Canada, Obama is certain that his former lover Jason Thibeault is an excellent candidate to help with this fight for immigration reform. Republicans often fight immigration reform, owing likely to their latent racism and their patent hatred of Democrats and Obama in particular.

These serious and polarizing actions by Republicans create divisiveness in our government, and unfairly disadvantage people in similar situations who might need to come to America. Most of the outrage directed at Mexican immigrants, for example, stems directly from them having no true path to citizenship. Racists call them slurs, and Tea Party members erect fences to prevent Mexicans from crossing the border. Some are shot at by so-called Minute Men; some may even die from their injuries.

Obama cannot entirely undo the damage to these people who have been shot or slandered or unfairly vilified by Republicans, but this letter to Jason Thibeault is a sincere effort to set the record straight. Barack Obama and Jason Thibeault ask that politicians and others who have unfairly characterized the push for immigration reform please challenge or remove from their interwebblogsites any such attacks. Any such attacks only serve to perpetuate Republican efforts to undermine immigration reform.

This issue has unfortunately detracted from the success that Jason Thibeault has had in immigrating to Americaland. Barack Obama would like to grant Jason Thibeault some reasonably high political office, though he is still a Canadian citizen, knowing that he would thus be more capable of assisting in fighting for immigration reform on Barack Obama’s behalf. Perhaps a fiefdom in St. Paul. We still have those, right?

Comments

  1. carlie says

    I’m the skeptiest of all skeptics, but that leaves no doubt to its truth. and nothing will sway me from it.

  2. hjhornbeck says

    I have no idea what Radford is trying to accomplish here. If it’s true that Stollznow accepted the agreement, why did he reveal it in such a splashy way and without her input? He’s either set himself up for a slam-dunk libel case, or he’s daring her to file one, or he’s providing more evidence that he’s an asshole. The closest thing I’ve seen to a statement from Stollznow is this, via Twitter:

    Some “skeptics” should be more skeptical…

    Which says nothing. Radford could have demanded she make a public statement, yet she hasn’t. Presumably he’s smart enough to know oral agreements are worthless, which implies something was signed. In the age of camera phones, uploading a photo of a document is trivial. So where is this signed document?

    The whole situation stinks, and when the pieces fall into place someone is going to look very, very bad.

  3. says

    My current speculation is that Radford and Stollznow were going to settle, Radford drafted a retraction, Stollznow refused to sign. Whether that means the settlement isn’t going to happen, I don’t know.

    None of this speaks to the truth or falsity of anyone’s claims. All I CAN say is that Radford’s strategy of displaying a Word document without signature is being considered ironclad evidence that Radford was right, and some “skeptics” look like partisans.

    Just because I suspect that the accusations have merit doesn’t mean I’m willing to accept even Stollznow’s claims without any scrutiny whatsoever. The thing is, her claims pass the sniff test (it’s perfectly plausible), while Radford’s “defense” is laughable at best and libel at worst.

  4. lordshipmayhem says

    What marks it as phony for me is that line about a “good job at a good company in Minnesota”. In Minnesota, all the good jobs are with bad companies, as all the good jobs at the good companies are taken and all they have left are bad jobs.

    That, and the president of Americaland. That theme park has combined President and Chief Executive Officer, and so the letter should say both positions.

  5. Corvus Whiteneck says

    As a True Skeptic, I have relevant experience with such letters. It would be a great crime against humanity if I were to keep my precious-flower of an opinion to myself, even though my input was only obliquely made welcome by the rhetorical question titling the post. But if Jason didn’t want it he shouldn’t have written that. HEAR ME AND BE AMAZED!

    In favor of this being a real letter from President Barack Obama:
    1) It is written in the third person. Everyone knows totes true letters are always written in the third person, and it is the most reliable sign of a) genuine authorship, b) the veracity of the content, and c) the intent of the author.
    2)C’mon, it’s common sense. It says Barack Obama right there on the paper, in the middle there. Try to be evidence-based, why don’t you? What, you need more? Evidence, duh! I already told you.
    3)Why are you so irrational? Can you prove it isn’t from Obama? Well Jason got the letter, not you, so you don’t really know it isn’t from Obama.

    Against this being a real letter from President Barack Obama:
    1) Jason has not made any statements about the letter which conflict with, or are unsupported by, it’s content. This is highly unusual for a totes true letter. If it’s totes true, where are the exaggerations, conflations, fabrications about its content? Checkmate, you skepigration activists.
    2)The pattern of utilization of such letters is well established. I’ve traced it back to the the 1974 Orson Welles film “F is for Fake.” People write fake letters to themselves all the time. In fact, it’s pervasive, and a great danger to our postal service.
    3)Lots of ppl covet letters from Obama. You see, they aren’t rational like you and me. They need the L, they crave a good lettering, it’s only after they post it on their blog as a joke that they get ashamed and then try to insist it’s really from him.

    In summurarianity, the origin of this letter is clearly #upfordebate. It will take some long, hard JAQ sessions to come to a conclusion.

    You’re welcome for my invaluable True Skeptic services. Now, send me money (micropayments accepted).

  6. says

    There’s another possible explanation: Radford drafted the retraction unilaterally, and released it in the hope that Stollznow would just agree to it, in order to put the matter behind her. Such a tactic would be bizarre and cack-handed, but remember this is Radford we’re talking about.

  7. says

    I need to follow the right people on Twitter to have the faintest clue what this is all about, right? And how the Radford/Stollznow thing relates to a bizarre letter about immigration reform?

    (Note: I don’t follow anyone on Twitter)

  8. says

    Eamon Knight:

    I need to follow the right people on Twitter to have the faintest clue what this is all about, right?

    Having the faintest clue rarely counts for much in matters such as these.

  9. Stacy says

    On March 23, 2014, BMcHell attempted irony on a comment thread on the blog “Lousy Canuck.” This attempted irony caused Stacy many fractions of a second of mild annoyance.

    That attempted irony was feeble and BMcHell retracts it.

    BMcHell cannot entirely repay Stacy for the seconds of her life lost in rolling her eyes, not to mention those spent composing this retraction, but this retraction is a sincere effort to make amends.

  10. says

    Hyperskeptical much?
    [...]
    Always believe the victim, then?

    It surprises me not one whit that an avowed MRA who thinks that “political correctness run amok” on this board leads to fascistic censorship, that trigger warnings on extremely emotionally sensitive materials are a bad thing, or that anyone around here is particularly fond of Greg Laden at the moment, has no idea that folks around here don’t argue for “always believe the claimant” so much as “take claims seriously enough to investigate them”.

    We question Ben Radford’s post not only because Karen Stollznow has not actually confirmed it, nor is there anything resembling a signature or notary on that letter, but also because the retraction letter itself conflicts with several things that several other people connected to the case have said.

    It surprises me even less that someone as entrenched an ideologue as BMcHill doesn’t get the point of my admitting that I had someone start rumours of my having raped them when we were 16, that such rumours do in fact happen — nor, that that actually makes ME the victim in that particular story, and that his flippant remark actually tells people to “always believe” me when, in fact, I argued that if people feel the need to guard themselves around me as a result of the story, I won’t take offense. Seriously, I’m okay with a little bit of personal hurt feelings if someone else feels they need to avoid me so they don’t feel they are in any danger.

    What I’m not okay with, though, is hamfisted attempts at using my wounds to prove in some sort of all-or-nothing game that either no alleged victims of harassment should ever be considered, or they all should be treated as gospel truth.

    GTFO with your binary worldview, dude. I’ll help you out the door.

  11. Corvus Whiteneck says

    Okay, a serious point:

    If and when a notarized document is imaged, produced, or otherwise referenced… the details matter. A lot.

    Details vary by state, but there are several types of notarization. The two main types are acknowledgement and jurat. The former involves the notary confirming the signer a)signed it and b)*was aware of the contents*. The latter involves the notary confirming that the signer a)signed it and b)*affirmed or swore to the truthfulness of the contents*.

    If someone brings up the fact of a notarized document but doesn’t know details about the notarization, their arguments may be weak or flawed. And whether or not they end up being correct or incorrect on the larger point, these TrueSkeptics really care about good arguments for their own sake, don’t they?

  12. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    The whole situation stinks, and when the pieces fall into place someone is going to look very, very bad.

    Nah, that would require that people in positions of power in the Skeptic community have ethics and we all know well that’s not the case.

  13. hjhornbeck says

    Geez, MRAs have no ability to weigh the evidence and incorporate background priors.

    Anyway.

    Thibeault @6:

    My current speculation is that Radford and Stollznow were going to settle, Radford drafted a retraction, Stollznow refused to sign.

    That seems pretty close, but it still amounts to shooting his foot off. If that did take place, Stollznow had three options:

    1. Counter-suit for libel! Unlikely, but I can dream.
    2. Use the flub as leverage, and negotiate for a better settlement. This will alter their joint statement, giving away that Radford jumped the gun. I’m betting on this.
    3. Stollznow still agrees to the original terms, their lawyers pass a joint statement back and forth (because there’s no chance Radford’s lawyer saw what he released), and another, signed statement is released. Yet again, everyone learns Radford jumped the gun.

    But so far, I think Hyperdeath is the closest to the truth:

    There’s another possible explanation: Radford drafted the retraction unilaterally, and released it in the hope that Stollznow would just agree to it, in order to put the matter behind her.

    Who remembers this comment?

    Amy Stoker: It’s signed by Karen and notarized. Ben was over at my house tonight. I’m sure Ben will address this in the morning or at some point. For tonight he wanted to focus on those family and friends that have been by his side.

    I spotted that one earlier today, myself, so I was a bit shocked when I returned to that Facebook page and couldn’t find it. Stoker does appear later in the comments, so she wasn’t banned. It’s an odd thing to remove (assuming Radford removed it) because he himself states “Karen has now acknowledged that her accusations were false and she has retracted her claims.” If that’s true, Stoker’s comment would reinforce and strengthen Radford’s claim.

    If it wasn’t true, Radford may have just engaged in a little damage control, deliberately keeping his claims about Stollznow vague so that she wouldn’t have as strong a counter-claim. That omission tips things back to the “Radford was baiting Stollznow” hypothesis, but only just barely.

    We’re working on very little information, though, so I could easily be wrong.

  14. says

    I have never been more angry than I am with the so-called “Skeptical Movement” right now.

    This is fucking disgusting and there are a lot of parties that should be very much ashamed of themselves.

    I threw a little support Karen’s way on Twitter. I recommend others do the same. But also, be vague, for obvious reasons.

  15. says

    @HJHornbeck, I too saw that comment, if gone then Ben has memory holed a comment on his facebook page. Pretty sure this is a capital offence in the Slymetwit Big Book of Rules*, lucky he isn’t an FTBully or that would be on Phawrongula. If it turns out she didn’t sign, and what other reason would he remove the comment for, then he has brilliantly made a fool of himself and all the usual suspects for uncritically believing him. I hope this is the case, but not for that reason, as if Karen did sign then it was surely under duress. I hope she is still fighting him and his inept legal bullying.

    * That other people need to follow, not them.

  16. carlie says

    I’m dumbfounded by the number of people who are ready to believe that, even if Karen actually did sign the statement, it means that Ben really didn’t do anything wrong, and that anyone who thinks that the statement might be a lie to get his lawyers off her back is a hyperskeptical denialist who can’t handle the truth. Um, if that retraction is true it means she lied before, right? So both scenarios require her lying at some point, but the “she lied on the retraction” is her lying with a specific financial and mental health objective of making this whole thing be over with after having been hounded for months, and the “she lied originally about the charges” is her lying for… um… kicks, I guess? And yet they somehow find that second scenario more believable than the first.

    (Cross-posted from Pharyngula)

  17. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    I honestly don’t believe that most of these uberskeptics actually believe most of the stuff they claim to. It’s all one big game of “I’m Smarter Than You” and “Protect The He-Man Women Haters Club” to them. And they’re willing to claim anything to “win.”

  18. says

    carlie @23:

    So both scenarios require her lying at some point, but the “she lied on the retraction” is her lying with a specific financial and mental health objective of making this whole thing be over with after having been hounded for months, and the “she lied originally about the charges” is her lying for… um… kicks, I guess? And yet they somehow find that second scenario more believable than the first.

    The second scenario also requires lots of other people–male skeptic people, no less, like Brian Thompson, Joe Anderson, Matthew Baxter, and Ron Lindsay–to have been lying. Seems like there’s some skeptical principle about rejecting the scenario with the larger number of unsupported assumptions when all the other evidence is equal. I’m sure some True Skeptic will explain why it doesn’t apply here, though.

  19. says

    Tom Foss

    Seems like there’s some skeptical principle about rejecting the scenario with the larger number of unsupported assumptions when all the other evidence is equal. I’m sure some True Skeptic will explain why it doesn’t apply here, though.

    William of Ockham was a rage-blogging social justice warrior.

  20. says

    Not rejecting scenarios with larger numbers of assumptions — preferring. And by “preferring” I mean, obviously, that we unequivocally support throwing all men in jail the instant a woman says anything deprecatory about them.

  21. hjhornbeck says

    oolon @22:

    I too saw that comment, if gone then Ben has memory holed a comment on his facebook page. Pretty sure this is a capital offence in the Slymetwit Big Book of Rules, lucky he isn’t an FTBully or that would be on Phawrongula.

    I thought they’d given up on the “we never edit/delete comments” line, as it’s trivial to demonstrate they do. If not, cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug. :P

    If it turns out she didn’t sign, and what other reason would he remove the comment for, then he has brilliantly made a fool of himself and all the usual suspects for uncritically believing him.

    That might have been his plan all along. There’s two main possibilities here: Amy Stoker legitimately heard Radford say Stollznow had signed something, or she misinterpreted something he said. If it’s the former, then Radford’s silence on whether or not Stollznow has signed anything is puzzling. He should be shouting that from the rooftops, as it means his legal case is over. If it’s the latter, then Radford could have easily commented and said “you misheard me” or something to that effect, protecting himself from any legal repercussions.

    But he deleted that comment, instead.

    The more I ponder over it, the more I think he’s deliberately misleading people. Note that he said Stollznow “has now acknowledged that her accusations were false and she has retracted her claims.” He never said *how* she had retracted or acknowledged them. What he did do was post a photo headlined “Retraction/Statement.” Our natural inclination would be to connect the two and think that’s Stollznow’s statement, signed and agreed to, but Radford never specifically says as such.

    He may be trolling the skeptic movement, counting on us to jump to conclusions and slam Stollznow. Alternatively, he could be lying about his case in private, hoping to poison Stollznow’s reputation and counting on the lack of any written record to protect him.

    It’s all speculation, but if Stollznow is correct it’s true to form:

    This “fact collector” also collected a lot of hearsay from my harasser, about how I’m a slut and “batshit crazy”. This tactic of the accused is so common it’s known as the “nut and slut” strategy.

  22. BillKnightwing says

    If the public apology is false, Radford is incredibly, unbelievably stupid. He has just royally boned himself. This was a legal matter being discussed by lawyers, and any decent lawyer would exploit the shit out of a manufactured false statement like this. If indeed it is false.

    There are reasons why the document might not contain a signature, such as doxxing/privacy concerns. A signed and notarized document would have Stollznow’s full name and probably her address. Stollznow may have agreed to the document, but not agreed to let Radford display her signature displayed publicly on his facebook. In which case, Radford is also stupid, because he should have expected people to be, gasp, skeptical.

    I don’t know why that one comment was memory holed. It seems like a very dumb thing to do. Again, if Radford is lying, he is screwing his own arse by doing so. There is no magic Illuminarchy to protect him from legal punishment if he is manufacturing false statements. At the very least, it will help Stollznow’s case immeasurably. I am surprised Stollznow has made no direct statement about the apology. If Radford is making the entire thing up, she loses nothing by saying so publicly. A short statement like “I did not write that” cannot possibly harm her. She has had ample time to freeze the page and discuss it with her lawyer(s).

    So either Radford is incredibly stupid and preparing his anus for repeated penetration by Stollznow’s legal team, or he has evidence and an agreement from Stollznow which he is not sharing with the internet at large (which gave him the balls to post the apology in public). In which case, he is also stupid, because not providing better evidence leaves a lot of doubt as to what actually happened.

    I currently have no opinion on the validity of the apology letter. A direct statement of not having written the apology from Stollznow would tip me into her camp, and some evidence of her signing would tip me into Radford’s. Whatever y’all think us hyperskeptics are like, we are actually open to having our minds changed by evidence. Only time will tell. I think a lot is happening behind the scenes that we are not privy to.

  23. says

    I definitely saw that comment by Amy on the Facebook thread as well. Don’t assume that he is the one to have deleted it though. She could just as easily have deleted it herself.

    I wish someone had a freezepage of it, to see if Radford had “liked” the comment, e.g. tacit approval. Bah.

  24. says

    I am NOT surprised Stollznow has made no public statement (short of the vaguetweet that “some ‘skeptics’ should be more skeptical”). She evidently has lawyers that are worth their salt and respects their opinion. There is no earthly way that a lawyer that’s worth the money would advise Radford that what he did was a good thing. Not as a PR victory or as a way of ensuring that the settlement went through.

  25. hjhornbeck says

    Thibeault @31:

    I definitely saw that comment by Amy on the Facebook thread as well. Don’t assume that he is the one to have deleted it though. She could just as easily have deleted it herself.

    Fair point, I don’t know who deleted that comment and I certainly don’t know why. I do know there are more comments by Stoker later in the thread, so permission issues are unlikely.

    Even if it was Stoker’s action, that still doesn’t change the analysis much. They were OK letting everyone know that information, then they weren’t. Why? The level of detail makes it unlikely that was a miscommunication to be corrected, and even if it was the best way to correct the record is to make a second post, not delete it and make it look like Radford is hiding something.

    That’s been my biggest frustration over the past day. When it comes to human behaviour, I operate by the Idiot Ball Razor; the explanation that requires the least number of “Idiot Balls [TVTROPES]” in play is the one most likely to be correct.

    And right now, I’m struggling to come up with something that doesn’t stuff people’s arms with Idiot Balls.

  26. says

    If the public apology is false, Radford is incredibly, unbelievably stupid.

    well, he’s all that entirely independently of whether the letter is false or not. Must I remind people of “girls have evolved to like pink because babies are pink”?

  27. says

    “Amy did not state that she had seen a signed, notarized letter, but that was how it was interpreted. She removed it to avoid further confusion and because it was incorrect, and she misunderstood what I told her.” Now on that thread.

  28. says

    “…because it was incorrect…”

    If what is incorrect is that the letter has been signed, then why did you post it, Ben, and why have you been so accepting of people’s “it’s all over” messages? Until Stollznow’s signature is dry, it’s not over.

  29. hjhornbeck says

    Further to Zvan @35:

    Amy Stoker: It’s signed by Karen and notarized. Ben was over at my house tonight. I’m sure Ben will address this in the morning or at some point. For tonight he wanted to focus on those family and friends that have been by his side.

    Compare:

    Ben Radford: Matt- Amy did not state that she had seen a signed, notarized letter, but that was how it was interpreted. She removed it to avoid further confusion and because it was incorrect, and she misunderstood what I told her.

    I smell the faint whiff of desperation and damage control in the air, which goes well with the odor of gunpowder and shoe leather. And why is Ben Radford talking on behalf of Stollznow and Stoker? This is deeply suspicious, no matter what’s been signed.

    Also, now would be a good time to remind everyone that these are public comments, visible to both Stollznow’s and Radford’s lawyers. Be careful what you tell them.

  30. hjhornbeck says

    Also, who interpreted Stoker’s comment as meaning she’d seen a signed document? Anyone? Buller?

  31. says

    It does in fact imply that she’s seen it — what “skeptic” would make so bold a statement as “it is signed” followed by “he was here last night” without the implication being “and showed me the document”?

    But that implication is only supported if you assume she’s actually a good skeptic. She “misspoke” insofar as she suggested things that were not true, because she trusts Ben — more than he deserves, obviously.

  32. pneumo says

    What the flying fornication does “the retraction is real, and Karen has agreed to it” mean?

    I hope it doesn’tvmean Radford has a difficult time understanding if and when he has consent.

  33. hjhornbeck says

    Wait wait wait wait. Last I checked, Amy Stoker had two other comments on that thread, one on March 23rd @ 11:55am, the other @ 2:17pm. Now, I see NONE. Did they get deleted? Did she disappear? What the hell is going on here?!

  34. says

    There may be another factor at work: Radford banking on the fact that the usual crowd will believe anything he says, so long as it suitably trashes the enemy. If that’s the case, the tactic’s clearly working. They’re utterly ignoring the inconsistencies, while gleefully dismissing those who point out the inconsistencies as evil mentally ill liars.

    Come to think of it, it probably wouldn’t be difficult to scam that lot. Pose as some tragic victim of the “FTBullies”, solicit donations for a lawsuit, and then do a bunk. They’re so terminally gullible (at least in matters that don’t concern chemtrails and Bigfoot), and so determined to get “revenge”, that a scammer would make thousands.

  35. hjhornbeck says

    Thibeault @41:

    Radford’s posting of that picture is either deleted or made friends-only. Can someone who’s his “friend” confirm?

    [refreshes that tab]

    Shared with: Public

    … I believe you have been blocked, Thibeault.

  36. Rieux says

    There is no earthly way that a lawyer that’s worth the money would advise Radford that what he did was a good thing. Not as a PR victory or as a way of ensuring that the settlement went through.

    I concur with this… until and unless a settlement agreement expressly stating the terms mentioned in the letter has been executed. If my client’s litigation opponent has in fact signed a settlement agreement terminating the suit and conceding various facts—and there’s no confidentiality agreement or something similar in the picture—then my client can go ahead and tell the world that zie has won and the opponent has conceded those facts. (Well, it’s probably best to wait for the judge to accept the parties’ settlement and enter a judgment making the dismissal official, too.) Otherwise my client needs to shut the hell up.

    Of course, the latter piece of advice, when followed, tends to put spectators in a position of considerable ignorance and/or confusion about what is and is not actually going on. Damn lawyers.

    (IAAL, but never take my posts as legal advice, consult your own counsel, etc.)

  37. Rieux says

    Regarding the speculation upthread about what’s “really” going on (presuming that Stollznow has not, in fact, signed the letter Radford photographed), one middle-ish hypothesis that occurs to me is that Stollznow and Radford have indeed reached some kind of settlement (perhaps “in principle,” perhaps fully executed in writing) in which Stollznow did indeed concede… something… pertaining to the facts of the case. By this hypothesis, the depicted letter constitutes Radford’s tendentious reading (which is to say, his arguable misreading) of the substantive content of the settlement, perhaps in an attempt to provide the world with his preferred spin on an agreement that has not yet (and may or may not ever) become public.

    I have no idea if this notion is any more or less likely than the other hypotheses that have been offered on this thread—indeed, I don’t consider myself terribly knowledgeable about this case in general—but it seems to me at least plausible.

  38. hjhornbeck says

    Shit is going down, and the pieces are falling into place. I see Stollznow’s statement has been covered, which leaves:

    Baxter (her husband):

    I wrote a joint statement, they morphed it into an apology, said that I worked on it with them, and claimed that @karenstollznow agreed.

    Ben Radford:

    Yep, I saw that. I’ll be addressing that shortly. It’s a strange comment given that her husband Baxter e-mailed me a few days ago telling me that she agreed to it and would be having it notarized today. [image]

  39. says

    I feel like for the first time ever, I’m actually ahead of you folks on this. For some reason, I’m extremely well-positioned to see this stuff pretty much in real-time.

    But now that I’m caught up with the new post, feel free to include new developments there if I can’t get to them before you do.

  40. says

    Also, now would be a good time to remind everyone that these are public comments, visible to both Stollznow’s and Radford’s lawyers. Be careful what you tell them.

    In that case here’s a question for Radford’s lawyers: Are you getting hazard pay for the effect your client has on your blood pressure?

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>