DEATH BY NOVEL: We were told to take what we need!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2019

What we've been needing is fable:
It's a dangerous way to start a book. For that reason, we'll post it again:
MILLER (page vii): INTRODUCTION

The fact that I spelled subpoena, subpeena may suggest that I am not qualified to tell this story. But all court transcripts are at the world's disposal, all news articles online. This is not the ultimate truth, but it is mine, told to the best of my ability. If you want it through my eyes and ears, to know what it felt like inside my chest, what it's like to hide in the bathroom during trial, this is what I provide. I give what I can, you take what you need.
At the start of her well-received memoir, Chanel Miller—a talented though very young writer—laid out that dangerous plan.

She was going to tell us how it felt. If we were after something more, we could look up the court transcripts and the press reports for ourselves.

She was going to give what she could. We could take what we need.

As it turned out, what we've been needing is novelized narrative, blending toward fable or fairy tale. We've been needing to sand away relevant facts looking for simplified stories.

We've needed perfect heroes and heroines, along with perfect villains. For various reasons, the "Stanford rape case"—under California law, it involved no rape—became one of the most striking such cases in recent years.

Stating the obvious, a vast complexity entered this case through the drunkenness which was involved. It isn't just that our journalists don't know what happened that night, the victim doesn't know either!

This adds complexity to the case. In service to fabulized fairy tale, that complexity has been disappeared.

Alas! The victim had been blackout drunk for roughly an hour by the time the events in question occurred. She doesn't know what she may have said and done during the course of that hour, but we liberals needed the perfect victim. And so, at upper-end sites like The New Yorker, her story is now told like this:
ST. FELIX (10/11/19): Miller is a gifted storyteller who establishes her authority by stacking details, setting scenes...In 2015, Miller was a recent college graduate, working at a startup and living at home with her parents in the Bay Area. We meet her artful mother, a writer who wins awards for works that she publishes in China; her younger sister, Tiffany, who Miller feels a bracing need to protect; her gentle father, who cooks a meal of broccoli and quinoa for Tiffany, Miller, and Tiffany’s friend Julia, on January 17th, 2015, the night they decided to attend a party at the fraternity Kappa Alpha at Stanford. “I, to this day, believe none of what I did that evening is important, a handful of disposable memories. But these events will be relentlessly raked over, again and again and again,” Miller writes.

In what feels like slow motion, Miller pieces together what happened to her, first at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, where she awakes to find herself sore, the backs of her hands crusted with blood. Two Swedish grad students had found Turner on top of her by a dumpster at Kappa Alpha; he fled when they yelled at him, but they detained him until police arrived. She was found, according to intake documents, with “no wallet, no I.D.” She fills out paperwork, administrative flotsam that unceremoniously informs of her new identity: “I stopped when I saw the words Rape Victim in bold at the top of the sheet.”
As noted: Under terms of California law, Miller wasn't a rape victim. But the novel is better this way.

In our view, The New Yorker's Doreen St. Felix "is a gifted storyteller" too, of the type our tribe most enjoys. We say that for this reason:

When the New York Times profiled Miller's forthcoming book,
Concepcion de Leon was at least willing to say that Miller "remembers having some drinks" at the frat party in question.

In fact, Miller had had so many drinks in the course of the evening in question that she was blackout drunk by roughly midnight; completely unconscious by roughly 1 AM; and was later assessed to have been slightly more than three times the legal limit.

It is these facts which make the resulting events so complex, so hard to parse as both a moral and legal matter.

That said, we liberals have increasingly come to need our fables neat. And so, the New York Times sanded the drunkenness all the way down. Miller had apparently had some drinks, then had somehow become unconscious, in a way we were left to speculate about.

St. Felix goes that one better. There is no alcohol at all in her account of what happened that night.

Comically, she quotes Miller's defiant definitive statement—“I, to this day, believe none of what I did that evening is important"—without explaining what it is that Miller is refusing to own! In this perfectly managed account, Miller goes to the party and turns up unconscious with "drinks" playing no role at all.

(For Miller's account of "having some drinks," see below.)

For ourselves, we'd march the former president of Stanford away before we'd jail anyone else. Such august figures get very young people massively drunk, then send them off into the night. They then proceed be express vast shock when very bad outcomes (routinely) occur.

We'd march that fellow off first. But the journalism surrounding this event has displayed our liberal world's ongoing need for (intellectual) death by novel.

In fairness, we've never seen a text as overwhelming as Miller's vastly well-received, perhaps solipsistic book. In the vastness of its will to power, it's hard to nail its sprawling text down. It has certainly overwhelmed us.

As a text, the book is spectacularly flawed, right from that first unwise declaration on. In telling us "how it felt," Miller vastly obscures the basic events which occurred, along with the complex logic of these complex events.

Sadly, our journalists have been willing to play along. When we do this, an unusually complicated matter ends up a fairy tale.

The 19-year-old male was very drunk. The 22-year-old woman was drunker. According to the jury's logic, he was supposed to realize that she was way too drunk.

With Victorian logic upon us again, we'd send Stanford's former president off to jail, with reeducation for journalists to follow.

Tomorrow: The dawn of the modern novel

Remembers having some drinks: Here's Miller's account of "having some drinks" at the frat party, from Know My Name's page 4:
We discovered a plastic handle of vodka on the table. I cradled it like I'd discovered water in the desert. Bless me. I poured it into a cup and threw it back straight.
This followed champagne and shots of whiskey at home, preceded some later stale beer. Given all the harm which ensued, we'll admit that we find this attitude flippant.

By the time The New Yorker arrived, such matters had been disappeared.

28 comments:

  1. What, they actually have a super-woke dembot named 'St. Felix'? An actual saint? Tsk. Beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello everyone i Am williams pater and i am from USA i am here to give my testimony about an herbal doctor called Dr,olu I was heartbroken because i had very small penis,not nice to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors prescribe for me, but could not offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the internet about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to email him on his email i saw on the internet,(drolusolutionhome@gmail.com ) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal product for Penis Enlargement, Within three weeks of me use it, i began to feel the enlargement, " and now it just 4 weeks of using his products my penis is about 8 inches longer, and i had to settle thing out with my ex girlfriend , i was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my performance in bed and i now have a large penis.thanks to DR OLU for is herbal product. you can also reach him with emsil  drolusolutionhome@gmail.com though is..number WHATASPP him today on this number [ +2348140654426 ]   












































      Hello everyone i Am williams pater and i am from USA i am here to give my testimony about an herbal doctor called Dr,olu I was heartbroken because i had very small penis,not nice to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors prescribe for me, but could not offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the internet about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to email him on his email i saw on the internet,(drolusolutionhome@gmail.com ) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal product for Penis Enlargement, Within three weeks of me use it, i began to feel the enlargement, " and now it just 4 weeks of using his products my penis is about 8 inches longer, and i had to settle thing out with my ex girlfriend , i was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my performance in bed and i now have a large penis.thanks to DR OLU for is herbal product. you can also reach him with emsil  drolusolutionhome@gmail.com though is..number WHATASPP him today on this number [ +2348140654426 ]   



























































      Delete
  2. "She was going to give what she could. We could take what we need."

    Somerby has always hidden behind his editorial "we". But here is something very personal. It both sounds odd and is technically wrong to refer to himself as "we" when discussing what personal benefit he might find by reading a book. He cannot speak for any collective entity because the "take what you need" refers to a highly personal, individual cognitive and emotional experience of benefit to one's psyche.

    Somerby is not willing to share that with us, even in his daily statements of opinion, which again, he never shares with us.

    What can Somerby need from Miller's book? It isn't facts -- he can look those up elsewhere and they are not the subject of Miller's book. We can perhaps infer his needs from his reaction to her writing. One obvious need is to preserve his fiction that victims of sexual assault brought it on themselves by not protecting themselves in the first place. Another is to preserve his false belief that women lie about what has happened to them. The rest of his criticism of Miller's book exists to support these two key notions that Somerby won't admit to holding dear, because he never admits to anything personal. "We", even with reference to individual needs, is his shield.

    Deadrat, who has clearly never taken a college-level writing course, doesn't believe that each of us reveals ourselves with everything written, but the choices involved in using this word and not that, this organizational and sentence structure, this made primary and this secondary, all reveal the author. It is why it is possible to identify a person based on a sample of their writing.

    Somerby reveals his needs in his complaints. He cannot help doing so. And he reveals his cowardice. Miller at least revealed herself. Somerby attempts to hide but readers see him for what he is. Of the two, Miller has more integrity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your thinking is so muddled that in the words of the bard, “It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.”

      To start, TDH has never “hidden” behind the editorial first-person plural. Are you seriously under the impression that he’s actually expressing more than his personal judgment? Or do you think he owns a sprawling campus and employs numerous analysts?

      Nextly, TDH quotes Miller directly:

      [Miller says,] ”I give what I can, you take what you need.”

      And then he paraphrases her essentially using indirect discourse:

      [Miller said that s]he was going to give what she could. We could take what we need.

      This is not an instance of the editorial we. Indirect discourse requires that the blogger transpose the author’s first person to third and the author’s second person to first. The reason that TDH uses the plural (“we”) is that Miller uses the plural (“you”) in her book.

      Here’s another example:

      direct: The stand-up comic said, “I just finished my set so you can now applaud.”

      indirect: The stand-up comic said that he had just finished his set so we could then applaud.

      first person -> third person
      second person -> first person

      He cannot speak for any collective entity because the "take what you need" refers to a highly personal, individual cognitive and emotional experience of benefit to one's psyche.

      If we were to accept such nonsense, then we would require anyone speaking on behalf of others to refrain from expressing the group’s opinion about a “highly personal” matter.

      What can Somerby need from Miller's book?

      He keeps telling you — insight, self-awareness, accuracy, and perspective.

      We can perhaps infer his needs from his reaction to her writing.

      Is that a first-person plural pronoun I see as the subject of that sentence? Why doesn’t your head just explode from cognitive dissonance? Drawing correct inferences from text alone is like calling spirits from the vasty deep. Why, so can I or anyone, but will they come when you call for them?

      [H]e never admits to anything personal.

      Why should he and if he did, how could you know if he was telling the truth?

      Deadrat, who has clearly never taken a college-level writing course, doesn't believe that each of us reveals ourselves with everything written,….

      Please, please quit telling me what I believe. That’s my job. And, in fact, I believe that you’re correct, but it’s difficult to obtain true revelation, and it’s nigh impossible from text alone to declare epiphanies that reveal more about the author than about ourselves.

      Here’s a test to illustrate the point. Suppose I told you that the numerous humanities courses I took at my Ivy League college required written work, including the six semester-long courses I took in English literature. Would you believe me? I’d guess not. Suppose I told you that my degree in electrical engineering came from a university-level technical institute that required only three quarters of expository and technical writing combined. Would you believe me in that case? Suppose I told you that I went to a community college but still had to pass freshman composition. How about that?

      You don’t know whether any of those scenarios are true, but you’re just so convinced that I’ve never taken a college-level writing course.

      Somerby reveals his needs in his complaints. He cannot help doing so.

      Quite probably. But accurately discerning those needs is not a skill given even to the closest reader of text alone.

      And he reveals his cowardice.

      No, you reveal your arrogance.

      Miller at least revealed herself.

      And you know that how? I’ll agree you know what she wrote.

      Somerby attempts to hide but readers see him for what he is.

      As another bard wrote, “O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us.” Where’s the self-awareness fairy when you need her?

      Of the two, Miller has more integrity.

      Integrity? Did you mean self-involvement?

      Delete
    2. Anon 1:28 - I haven't read Miller's book, and have no desire to. Doesn't seem that it would be interesting or worthwhile. It's not clear that you have read it either. If, hypothetically, what you say is true that each of us reveals ourselves by everything written (reveals ourselves in what way, I wonder), that's not good for you, because you reveal yourself by your evidence and logic free post as kind of a nut. Hopefully, in real life that isn't the case, but only seems that way by what you write.

      Delete
    3. When has Somerby ever said things like:

      I favor Bernie but I will gladly vote for Clinton.

      I found Miller's book to be tedious and not very self-aware.

      I think kids these days drink too much and need to take more responsibility for their own actions.

      Right, he doesn't speak that way. That is my point. Instead he says "We found Miller's book to be flippant." That "we" is his way of avoiding responsibility for his own reactions by spreading it among a fictional collective. It is an affectation every bit as much as Miller's supposed flippancy (which may be her way of creating emotional distance when she confesses to something she shouldn't do).

      Even with the "flippancy," Miller is more honest than Somerby, who almost never says anything directly.

      You can dance around this, but you must recognize his rhetorical devices, if you really took any English classes whatsoever.

      Delete
    4. Anon 8:56. I took a lot of English classes, though it was quite a while ago. I don't remember the issue of the use of the "royal we" coming up. You seem to find TDH's use of "we" instead of "I" as being irritating and of some substantive significance. We, I mean I, don't.

      Delete
  3. "We discovered a plastic handle of vodka on the table. I cradled it like I'd discovered water in the desert. Bless me. I poured it into a cup and threw it back straight.
    This followed champagne and shots of whiskey at home, preceded some later stale beer. Given all the harm which ensued, we'll admit that we find this attitude flippant."

    I don't see anything flippant in this writing. I see her saying she was happy to find that Vodka.

    How does Somerby imagine she would have drunk all those drinks if she didn't like drinking and want to drink them? Here she is being honest about how she felt.

    She does have a tone, an edge, that is mostly consistent with the way many 20-somethings write about their lives. Browse facebook. Look at the text of magazines aimed at that demographic. Watch netflix shows such as Girls. You'll see that same tone. This is who Miller is, not flippancy, as it would be in a Boomer.

    Then Somerby is disappointed because the reviewers don't select that same quote for their reviews, don't cite the BAC. It is mundane to say that a young person drank too much at a frat party. That is what happens at frat parties all across the country, every weekend (if not also on weeknights). Girls are not being sexually assaulted at such parties in the numbers that might occur if it were natural or normal or OK to assault them when that drunk. It would be nice if both young men and young women didn't drink that much, but the same thing is happening in bars all across the country too, at dance clubs and private parties outside the college environment. Our country drinks too much, but normal men don't attack women when they are drunk. And Miller's book is about that crime and its aftermath, not how much she drank. She is honest in telling how she felt about alcohol. But it isn't germane to the crime and reviewers are correct not to make it the focus of their reviews, since it was not the point of her book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Turner was convicted, and I don't think it was an injustice, though I wasn't at the trial and haven't read the transcript. I did read the appellate court decision affirming the conviction. According to Turner, Miller consented to the sexual activity. She might have done this before she passed out. They were the only ones there. It's possible that what he did wasn't as bad as it has been made out to be, if she was a willing partner before falling asleep. That was the defense, and the jury rejected it. Again, I don't think it was an injustice. I don't think the sentence meted out was an injustice either. The thing has gotten politicized, and made to fit into a narrative, that's the problem TDH is addressing.

      Delete
    2. She wasn't asleep. She was unconscious. She passed out.

      Delete
    3. "She wasn't asleep, she was unconscious." I'm not seeing the difference.

      Delete
  4. Here is Somerby's idea of justice: "For ourselves, we'd march the former president of Stanford away before we'd jail anyone else."

    ReplyDelete
  5. "According to the jury's logic, he was supposed to realize that she was way too drunk."

    Is Somerby also proposing that a drunk person cannot tell when another person is unconscious (unresponsive)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I think TDH is confused. I think Turner testified that he had Miller’s consent to have sex when they left the party. If she was too drunk at that time but this was something that Turner couldn’t have reasonably known, then his having sex with her wouldn’t have been rape. But that’s not what he was indicted and convicted for. He was convicted of assaulting Miller when she was unconscious some time after they’d left the party. That's not legal even if he had prior consent, and her state is something he should have reasonably known.

      A sufficiently drunk person might not be able to actually tell when another person in unconscious and unresponsive, but the law in California doesn’t care. The reasonable person standard assumes the reasonable person is sober, and getting voluntarily blotto doesn’t allow anyone to claim a lesser standard for general intent crimes.

      Delete
  6. "As noted: Under terms of California law, Miller wasn't a rape victim. But the novel is better this way."

    That is actually not novelized. I read the first three or four pages of the court documents and after a little bit of questioning, the police arrested Turner and accused him of rape.

    Thus they were processing Miller as a rape victim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meh. Alleged rape victim, perhaps? One is not, officially, a rape victim until the court says so. And it never did.

      Delete
    2. Mao, if someone is raped, they are a rape victim, whether or not a court says so. I'm not sure there is such a thing as "officially being a rape victim.". The alleged perpetrator can't be convicted of rape unless he is arrested, charged, and found guilty at a trial or pleads guilty.

      Delete
    3. In context ("under terms of California law"), she was, for a while, an alleged rape victim.

      Delete
    4. Mao, true, an alleged rape victim for a time.

      Delete
  7. "She was found, according to intake documents, with “no wallet, no I.D.” She fills out paperwork, administrative flotsam that unceremoniously informs of her new identity: “I stopped when "I saw the words Rape Victim in bold at the top of the sheet.”
    As noted: Under terms of California law, Miller wasn't a rape victim. But the novel is better this way."

    Somerby objects because Turner wasn't ultimately charged with rape. Somerby appears unable to understand that (1) Miller is recounting how she discovered the details of the previous night after waking up with amnesia, and (2) police will classify this as rape because it must be investigated as a rape until that possibility is ruled out. She was being attacked, the perpetrator ran, she had no idea, she was in a state of undress (bra pulled up, panties pulled down), and she was unconscious. Of course that will be considered a rape until the evidence is collected and tested.

    Somerby is being an ass, because he must understand that there was a chronology to events, yet he judges Miller's account of what she encountered upon waking up and going to the police station to fill out paperwork. She didn't know she was a "rape victim" and she didn't know whether she had been raped AT THAT TIME, and neither did the police. That is clarified later. Somerby, however, pretends she is lying, ignoring that she is recounting how it felt to be labeled a rape victim upon waking up with no memory of what actually happened.

    This is dishonest of Somerby. If he truly cannot take on a different perspective when going back in time and assume the mind state of someone who has been in Miller's position, he is brain damaged and needs to stop writing this column. Even three year olds can take the perspective of another person, understanding that they might believe something different than the truth known to the child.

    I hate to think that Somerby is brain injured, but the alternative is that he is dishonest. In either case, he isn't reading normally.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “The 19-year-old male was very drunk. The 22-year-old woman was drunker. According to the jury's logic, he was supposed to realize that she was way too drunk.”

    Way too drunk for what?

    The sentence could be amended: “he was supposed to realize that she was way too drunk to be sexually assaulted.” Write it that way, and see the way the thumb is being put on the scales.

    Turner claimed Miller gave her consent, and that he didn’t think she was “too drunk” (his words) to give valid consent. (This implies that he knew she was drunk, but his judgment was apparently not sufficiently impaired by his own drinking to judge that she wasn’t “too” drunk).

    But the jury was asked to think about the veracity of Turner’s statement, in light of several pieces of evidence they had to consider.

    And in what legal system is getting drunk and judgmentally impaired, as Turner did, an exculpatory factor when the person commits a crime while under the influence? (It may in some cases lessen a sentence, as in this case, for example.)

    One has to assume that Somerby’s logic, contrary to the jury’s, dictates that Turner should have been found not guilty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sentence could be amended: “he was supposed to realize that she was way too drunk to be sexually assaulted.” Write it that way, and see the way the thumb is being put on the scales.

      Who’s thumb is on the scales?

      Turner was legally responsible for recognizing that Miller was unconscious, regardless of what he could actually realize in his drunken state.

      And in what legal system is getting drunk and judgmentally impaired, as Turner did, an exculpatory factor when the person commits a crime while under the influence?

      For voluntary intoxication and general intent crimes, I don’t think any legal system in the US allows drunkenness as an excuse.

      One has to assume that Somerby’s logic, contrary to the jury’s, dictates that Turner should have been found not guilty.

      Didn’t TDH agree with the jury’s decision? Don’t make me go back and look.

      Delete
  9. “without explaining what it is that Miller is refusing to own! In this perfectly managed account, Miller goes to the party and turns up unconscious with "drinks" playing no role at all.”

    Somerby seems to keep muddying the waters, saying that it is the liberal reviewers who sand away the rough edges and disappear Miller’s drinking, and yet here he claims that it is *Miller* who refuses to own something called “it.”

    Of course, it isn’t her drinking that she refuses to own; she’s very up front about that. She not only talks about drinking the night of the party, but she makes it clear that that wasn’t her first night drinking.

    Had she wanted to write a fable to make herself seem more perfect, she could have claimed that that was the first time she had ever drunk that much (kind of like Turner did), or that she just did it because of peer pressure. But she clearly tells us that she had enjoyed drinking for some time.

    The “It” that Somerby wants her to own is, of course, the idea that her drinking led to her assault. And Somerby has now written enough about this case to show how he imagines that she might very well have given her consent that night, while drunk, and Turner didn’t know she was too drunk, which means no assault occurred, and it was all really her fault for getting drunk in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The “It” that Somerby wants her to own is, of course, the idea that her drinking led to her assault.

      You don’t think her drinking to unconsciousness played a factor in the unfolding of events?

      And Somerby has now written enough about this case to show how he imagines that she might very well have given her consent that night, while drunk, and Turner didn’t know she was too drunk, which means no assault occurred,….

      Miller might have given consent to have sex that night while too drunk to have legal capacity. And it’s possible that Turner might not have known she was too drunk. That’s the way alcoholic blackouts work sometimes. But consent stopped being an issue when Miller passed out, which means assault did occur.

      … and it was all really her fault for getting drunk in the first place.

      Legal fault. Nope, that’s all Turner’s.

      Delete
  10. Miller was found unconscious, outside, and on the ground. Somerby wants us to believe that either 1) Miller, while blacked out, consented to engage in sexual activity under these circumstances, which on its face is exceedingly unlikely; or 2) Turner should not have been expected to recognize that someone in this condition was not in full control of their faculties and thus unable to consent, which, frankly, infantilizes him or suggests he's more ignorant than he would appear.

    It's not that hard to recognize when sexual contact crosses ethical, if not legal, lines. How many women does Somerby know that would consent to sex outside, on the ground "behind a dumpster." The answer is definitely zero, and I suspect that no matter how drunk those women got, they would not agree to any such behavior.

    Unsurprisingly, Somerby's disingenuous "How could he have known?" refrain disappears this glaring and obvious fact about that night's events, which is ironic considering his tedious condescension toward "liberals" who he thinks are too dumb to learn the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby wants us to believe that either 1) Miller, while blacked out, consented to engage in sexual activity….

      Not quite. Turner claimed when he and Miller left the party, Miller consented to sex. It turns out that Miller was blackout drunk at the time, which means she was so highly intoxicated that she couldn’t form memories of the episode. It’s possible for blackout drunks to seem not particularly incapacitated. This is different from blacking out, which is a colloquial term for losing consciousness.

      I’m not sure what TDH is talking about when he says, “According to the jury's logic, he was supposed to realize that she was way too drunk.” If he’s talking about getting consent from someone who at the time was upright but had lost legal capacity to give consent, then I don’t think the jury considered that. The crimes for which Turner was convicted all happened at the dumpster.

      or 2) Turner should not have been expected to recognize that someone in this condition was not in full control of their faculties and thus unable to consent, which, frankly, infantilizes him or suggests he's more ignorant than he would appear.

      TDH’s statement doesn’t quite make sense for this case either. What Turner was supposed to realize was that Miller was unconscious, not that she was “way too drunk.” It’s certainly possible that Turner was so drunk that he didn’t realize Miller’s state, but the jury needn’t have considered that hypothetical. Turner’s drunkenness couldn’t relieve him of criminal liability.

      Delete
  11. Powerful Love Spell- Get Your Ex Wife/Husband Back Urgently..My name is Alexis scorpio from FL Usa, I want to quickly tell the world that there is a real online spell caster that is powerful and genuine, his name is Dr happy he helped me recently to reunite my Marriage back with my wife who left me, When i contacted Dr happy he cast an urgent love spell for me, and my wife who said she doesn't have anything to do with me again called me and started begging me to come back. she is back now with so much love and care. today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the powers to restore broken marriage/relationship back. because i am now happy with my wife. to anyone who is reading this article and needs any help, Dr happy can also offer any type of help like, Curing of all types of Diseases, Court Cases, Pregnancy Spell, urgent love spell,Spiritual protection and lot's more. You can contact him Via his email happylovespell2@gmail.com for more info, whatsapp/call...+2348133873774 view on his Web site...happylovespell2.webnode.com/ also His blogs site.http://happylovespel.blogspot.com.ng/

    ReplyDelete