Report inspires horrible work!


We’ll start with Walsh’s reaction: Randy Mastro’s report about Fort Lee has its strong points and its weak points.

(For today, we aren’t considering the part of the report which concerns events in Hoboken.)

On the positive side, the report includes apparent new information about the events which preceded Fort Lee.

On the down side, the report never really confronts the possibility that Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein may have received a go-ahead for the lane closings from some higher source within the Christie administration.

Other criticisms have been aimed at the report. As a general matter, we’d say the report has obvious flaws and shortcomings, though we’d also say it isn’t as bad as some partisans have said.

For today, we aren’t going to focus on Mastro’s report, which isn’t a press corps production. We’re going to look at some journalism about the Mastro report.

As we do, we'll test this assumption:

However bad the report may be, we all want quality journalism about the Mastro report.

Fellow citizens, is that really what we the people want? We’ll consider various forms of that question all next week. For today, let’s start with a post by Salon’s Joan Walsh, a ranking member of the rapidly emerging “liberal/progressive” press corps.

In the text of her actual post, Walsh focused on the alleged “sexism” in the Mastro report. This being Salon, her claim got ratcheted up in a pair of high-decibel headlines:
Christie’s creepy misogyny: Behold his despicable “blame Bridget” strategy
If you believe an “emotional” and “stupid” jilted woman caused Bridgegate, I’ve got a bridge to sell you
Walsh didn’t use the term “misogyny.” Salon’s headline writer did.

Several words appear inside quotes in Salon’s high-decibel headlines. As Walsh’s actual text begins, that’s where her journalistic problems start.

If you want to let tribunes invent facts and quotes, you should stop reading now. Remember—we’re trying to evaluate Walsh’s work, not the report itself:
WALSH (3/28/14): Gov. Chris Christie’s million-dollar taxpayer-funded self-exoneration in the Bridgegate scandal certainly found a bad guy—and it’s a gal.

Randy Mastro’s report put the blame squarely on two fired staffers, David Wildstein and deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly. But its treatment of Kelly was mind-blowingly mean, describing her as “emotional,” “erratic” and as a liar; confirming Trenton gossip that she was “personally involved” with chief of staff Bill Stepien, and that Stepien apparently dumped her; alleging that she asked an aide to delete an incriminating email when the investigation began, thus implicating her not only in the plot’s execution but its coverup.
As an example of journalism, that passage is ludicrous in several ways. Let’s start with a simple mistake:

As many people have noted, the Mastro report is more than 300 pages long. For a searchable version of its text and its endless footnotes, you can just click here.

According to Walsh, the Mastro report was “mind-blowingly mean” when it called Kelly “erratic.” But go ahead—search the text!

You won’t find the word “erratic,” a word Walsh placed inside quotes.

Where did Walsh get the idea that the Mastro report called Kelly “erratic?” Possibly from Taylor Marsh, to whose post she links.

Marsh starts with a transcript from Morning Joe in which Mark Halperin says that Mastro’s report describes Kelly as erratic. Marsh put the word “erratic” in quotes, apparently thinking that Halperin was quoting the Mastro report.

Whatever you think of Halperin’s characterization, he wasn’t quoting the report. In this age of the easy electronic search, Marsh apparently didn’t check.

Neither did Walsh. By now, the claim that Mastro’s report calls Kelly “erratic” has gone spanning the globe, with the word “erratic” inside quotes.

The Guardian didn't bother to check. Neither did the Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri. Please stop reading if you don’t care when your journalists do this.

That was an obvious error by Walsh. That said, we all make mistakes. Other parts of the passage we’ve quoted are considerably worse.

Even Walsh doesn’t put the word “liar” inside quotes. She doesn’t claim that Mastro used the word “liar” in describing Kelly.

That said, she says the Mastro report is “mind-blowingly mean” in some related way. According to Walsh, “its treatment of Kelly was mind-blowingly mean, describing a liar.”

Incredibly, here’s what she seems to mean:

The Mastro report asserts that Kelly lied to superiors within the Christie administration when she was asked if she had prior knowledge about the lane closings.

Even Walsh doesn’t claim that Mastro used the word “liar.” But her text says that Mastro was “mind-blowingly mean” when he made this assertion.

Did Kelly lie about this matter? Like Walsh, we have no direct way of knowing.

That said, it’s easy to see where Walsh’s logic leads us. If an investigator finds that Person A told a lie about Topic X, Walsh says it’s “mind-blowingly mean” for him to report that fact!

Welcome to Lower Nutsylvania, the land we all inhabit now.

In that passage, Walsh also says it’s “mind-blowingly mean” when Mastro says that Kelly “asked an aide [Christina Renna] to delete an incriminating email when the investigation began.”

Question: What is Mastro supposed to say if he finds that Kelly did that? According to Walsh, it’s “mind-blowingly mean” when an investigator says someone did something wrong!


How did we ever reach the point when a major “journalist” could even dream of composing a passage like that?

In our view, that’s a long story. In our view, it coincides with the rise of the gong-show, pseudo-liberal journalism which increasingly seems to be trying to match the pre-existing, gong-show journalism of the pseudo-right.

That said, Walsh’s opening passage is absurd on its face—and her piece takes off from there. In her next paragraph, Walsh excitingly says that “Mastro stopped just short of suggesting the state torch Kelly’s office and salt the earth it once stood on.” By paragraph 5, she is saying that “blaming the woman goes back to Eve,” even as she describes a report which blames both Kelly and Wildstein.

Walsh didn’t bother to search on “erratic.” More remarkably, she was too much the modern to retreat from the claim that it’s “mind-blowingly mean” to report apparent facts.

Please note: Walsh doesn’t deny the claim that Kelly lied to superiors. She simply says it’s mean to say that she did.

Walsh doesn’t challenge the claim that Kelly asked an aide to delete an incriminating email. Instead, she name-calls Mastro for reporting that Kelly did that.

How did we ever reach the point where our “journalists” functions this way? Have we always been like this?

We’ll ponder those questions all next week. At some point, we’ll even ponder this report by the New York Times’ Kate Zernike.


This morning, we’re asking you about our journalists, not about our writers of reports. Read that ludicrous passage by Walsh, then consider this obvious question:

Whatever you think of Mastro’s report, how did upper-end corporate journalism ever reach this point?

For the top group only: Did Governor Christie call Kelly “stupid” during his January 9 press conference?

If so, did he call Wildstein “stupid” too, or did he just name-call Kelly?

Zernike and Walsh both say that Christie called Kelly “stupid.” Each scribe puts “stupid” inside quotes. Each scribe seems to say that this alleged conduct was sexist.

Luckily, that transcript is searchable too. Click here, then consider both questions.


  1. Thanks, this analysis really helped since the New York Times account of the lawyer's examination was quite confusing. Salon is simply sensationalism now, so I stay away.

    1. Salon is the mainstay of mainstream media. If it were not, Bob would not have begun his musings with them.

    2. Just a suggestion. Read Walsh's entire piece before accepting Bob's assertions. (Hint: She goes on to explain quite clearly why she called the report's characterization of Kelly as "mean.")

  2. Attention topic changing trolls : the topic of this post is that Joan Walsh misquoted a report . Do her quotes appear in the report? If not, why did she do this? Now you may comment.


      Please follow the instructions of Professor/ PFC Perez.

      An example of topic changing is provided for your review:

      Topic of Post: Christie Report Oversold Dud (TDH 3/28)

      "A PerezMarch 29, 2014 at 10:32 AM

      An independent jury found Zimmerman not guilty. The tribe disagreed with the verdict. They were not zimmermans buddies in the jury. Give it up troll. You will only praise a verdict you like."

    2. "Attention topic changing trolls ... ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.

    3. Wake up. Rachel only pays when you stay awake for the whole reply.

    4. "Rachel only pays ... ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.

  3. Wow! This review includes real information about the quality of coverage of the million dollar Christie report.

    Obviously, we didn’t know that in advance. But it sounded like that could be possible, given the characterization you made about how advance reporting by liberals was just propaganda.

    That could have been all be piddle, of course. The coverage could have been spectacular. Thanks for telling us it was worse than the report itself, which was a big dud but only has flaws and shortcoming that in no way compare to the erroneous use of the word erractic.

  4. Bob continues to eagerly dig through that pile of cow manure the citizens of NJ paid over a million dollars for looking for a rose. bob is out of his fucking mind. somebody send help.

    1. Please mm. "..Dig through pile of cow manure" will only allow someone to tarnish the rest of us trolls with unwarranted comparisons to chimps flinging feces.

      As someone noted yesterday, this is a thoughful blog. Please do not discourage its many serious readers from comment box participation.

      Bullroar is OK. Cow manure is chippy.

  5. Given that reporters don't get it right when the actual written words of the report are in front of them in searchable format, how trustworthy are they when the facts are more difficult to gather?

  6. OMB (David in Cal and the BOBster have it nailed)

    Shame on that ranking member in the emerging liberal/progressive press corps (what a nice name for a "blog columnist") and all other reporters at sea.

    Having perhaps seen the word "erractic" somewhere in association with this report, and having that report (according to reliable eyewitness blog commenter David in Cal) in front of them in searchable format, how foolish of them not to substitute "panicked" "desperate" "irate" and "lashed out" in place of the otherwise misleading "erratic." And since the report noted private personal problems in her life "near" the occaisions where Ms. Kelly went astray (boyfriend dumping and family in hospital), how dare they infer sexism. After all, many women I know, when the more qualified man who is their "benefactor" cools the relationship, often lash out by ordering retribution against off the radar elected officials in otherwise
    tiny towns by world's busiest bridges.


  7. OMB

    The abject stupidity of the question for the top group only at the end
    of this post is a clever invention by someone with a lot of initiative and creativity.

    I have to admit, not being able to find "stupid" makes me seem clueless. Stick around and BOB will have me "acknowledge I don't know diddly squat" faster than you can stew squash in Saskatoon.


    1. Christie: ". . . if I had ever had an inkling that anyone on my staff would have been so stupid. . ."

      This will be interesting.

    2. It may be interesting. We don't know.

      Again I am stunned by the abject stupidity that was shown here. Regardless of what the facts ultimately uncover, this was handled in a callous and indifferent way. Ot it could have been in good faith.

      Either way you can call it sexist if you put "seems" in front without quotation marks.


    3. Wildstein is simply crazy, or deeply stupid, or maybe just on drugs. Some people are actually mentally ill. We wouldn't rule that out.

    4. Rachel was trying to get in your head! By now, we’d say that she has become the person she bravely opposes.

      The report may turn out to be a dud. But Rachel wants you thinking that before you get to peruse it.

  8. What did you like most about the report?

    I like the fact that they described the "lane realignment" (their words)
    as just another of Wildstein's "crazy" (their word) ideas. Didn't Bob devote a whole post to explaining why this was a good, valid exercise for a legitimate, good faith traffic "study?" (Bob's word)

    1. What I liked best was the report followed Rachel Maddow's
      lead and diverted people's attention by calling the GWB the "busiest bridge in the world." Losers.

  9. Bob, you write a fine, fine analysis and then allow professional trolls to destroy what you have done. Please do help us out by banning the trolls.

    1. What did you find "fine, fine" about this analysis.

      How have "professional" trolls destroyed what he did?

      How would banning trolls "help" you?

    2. Kelly's attorney is portraying her as a victim of misogyny by claiming that she is being scapegoated in sexist ways by the report. Walsh's jumping on that bandwagon has implications for others embroiled in this situation, aside from misinforming her readers by promulgating a script instead of checking the actual report. Somerby points out that this is happening and allows us to think more deeply about the interests of those reporting, those distorting, and the facts in the report itself. That is what is "fine" about this analysis and there are quite a few of us who value this.

      Banning trolls would make my life better because I wouldn't waste energy being annoyed by the mindless garbage aimed at Somerby as he performs what I consider a service to readers. It is one thing to do this without thanks and another to do it while being mocked and reviled daily. I would really like to see the trolls banned, but perhaps Somerby doesn't believe in it. I am not Anon @ 5:53 but someone who agrees with his plea.

    3. The trolls don't seem to bother Bob. Although he must be reading the comments as he tries to point out his commentary is about journalists and the way they cover stories, not the stories themselves. Something a lot of the haterz miss. I think the trolls have a right to say what they want. They don't seem to have any effect on TDH whatsoever beyond the aforementioned caveats.

      IMHO, TDH won't have effect on the journalism anyway. It will keep getting worse and worse. I am grateful that he points some of these things out. The "erratic" in quotes shows such bad, lazy journalism. It's good to have these things pointed out. That the people we turn to for information are sometimes lazy and sloppy and wrong.

    4. Anonymous @ 5:45 cannot or will not answer any questions about the content of his/her post but wants others banned.

      Anonymous @ 9:19 chimes in two and a half hours later with an answer about a person who is not mentioned in the post or the article it criticizes, and says banning people would keep him/her from being annoyed by mindlessness.

      Anonymous @ 10:18 opines that putting quotes around "erratic" is bad, lazy journalism despite the fact that the blogger who devotes half the post to these misplaced quotation marks cannot seem to point out how their existence in any way has an substative impact on what the person who put them there had to say or the impression anyone can derive from the content of the report.

      Bob has reached the mainstream audience he frequently describes as "we the people are dumb."

    5. I think Bob should be proud his work is important enough to merit the attention of professionals in any field.

  10. Bob does not mention the portions of the report Walsh talks about which bring up Kelly's personal relationship, and describe her as "emotional." Presumably he agrees with either those parts of Walsh's column or he agrees they were legitimate findings of the report. He can't do both. We'd call that fuzzy.

    1. You are so smart. Maybe that is why Walsh separated them with the word "and." But because you are so smart, I will wait for you to weigh in with what perhaps will be a better explanation of why she put the "and" in there.

  11. Those distressed over the decline of Bob's abilities will find refuge in the very good posts here:

  12. Bob, who invented that an NAACP official admitted not knowing something, spends half a post excoriating Joan Walsh for wrongfully putting quotation marks around a word used by a seasoned male reporter for whom he offers no unkind words.

    Well, the word erratic may have not been used. It was certainly implied when describing her division in the Governor's office exhibiting "aberrational behavior at Kelly's direction."

    Of course Somerby's performance since December has been aberrant, abhorent, erratic. But mostly errant.

    1. I don't think those words mean what you think they do.

    2. Reminds me of elementary school where you had to write a sentence using the new words on your spelling list.

      Aberrant and erratic do not mean the same thing, so one cannot imply the other.

    3. Doubling down on douchery, dudfan?

      "Like its linguistic relative, error, the adjective erratic means "deviating from the norm," or "wrong." It also implies behavior or qualities that are unpredictable or odd. The word comes from the Latin verb errare, or "to wander" off course."

      Use the adjective aberrant to describe unusual conduct.

      abhorrent / aberrant

      Abhorrent describes something truly horrible like finding a dead rat in your soup, but something aberrant is just abnormal, like a cat in a pink fedora. For conduct that departs from the norm, aberrant is at hand to describe it if you want to set a formal, or even scientific tone to the discussion. .... The Latin root aberrare means "to go astray," from the prefix ab- "off, away" plus errare "to wander." Other descendants of errare in English, like error and errant, have that double -r- and also refer to something that's either not wanted or not expected.

      You are now sitting with the Magpie's instead of the Bluebirds in the blogger's Fantasy Fifth Grade Class.

    4. You proved my point but you think you've made me look silly?

    5. "erratic....deviating from the norm"
      "conduct that departs from the norm....aberrant"

      I proved your point?

    6. erratic: not even or regular in pattern or movement; unpredictable

      Aberrant: departing from an accepted standard

      Not the same.

    7. Not the same!

      So you admit it was merely abhorent for Somerby to invent that an NAACP official "acknowledged" something which she did not say, but it was neither erractic nor aberrant.

      Instead it was part of his errant mission to make a stupid
      f@#k like me realize media types f@#k our intellectual culture over while most don't see it much less give a f@#k!
      Thanks for all your help.

    8. No, I said that your claim that one word implies the other is wrong because the two words do not mean the same thing. Using profanity doesn't make you any less wrong about that.

  13. "That said, Walsh’s opening passage is absurd on its face—and her piece takes off from there....." said Bob Somerby in a review of Joan Walsh's coverage of the million dollar report issued by Chris Christie's lawyers.

    Focusing at length on one single word in quotations marks which he himself calls "a simple mistake" Somerby blows this up into a suggestion Walsh invented facts and quotes, even though he never documented any beyond the single word mistakenly put in quotations marks.

    Somerby, who worked as a teacher, journalist, and comedian without formal educational credentials in any field, says in the piece he lives in Nutsylvania.

  14. "If you want to let tribunes invent facts and quotes, you should stop reading now......
    Here’s what happens as you approach the bridge from the south at a busy time:

    You crawl along in traffic for miles, cursing your fate and wondering if you’ll ever get to the bridge. When you finally see the bridge, you also see those now-famous access lanes from Fort Lee.

    Ten million cars from those access lanes crawl in front of you into the flow, slowing your approach from the south. Having cursed your overall fate for miles, you now start cursing those drivers.

    Bob Somerby

    1. For the record, Somerby -- a stickler for the literal when it comes to others -- wrote that embellished and exaggerated description of daily traffic on Jan. 11, when he was flailing away in his attempt to show why a "traffic study" was certainly warranted, and after all, this could have been one. And this came three days after Christie himself gave up on that fairy tale.

      Bob has subsequently gone further and stated what Baroni told the legislative committee in detail about the "traffic study" nearly three months later could have been the Gospel truth as Baroni believed it.

      After all, how could the deputy executive director of the Port Authority have possibly found out the truth in a scant three months?

      Now we have evidence that the fairy tale Baroni told included careful, handwritten editing by not one, but TWO member's of Christie's staff in Trenton, and neither one of them were named "Kelly."

      So how does Somerby respond to the unfolding of new evidence that reveals his earlier work to be "erratic" "aberrant" and even "abhorrent"? By manning up and 'fessing up that he has been blinded by his own loathing of Rachel Maddow, et al?

      Nope. He focuses on quote marks, a single word, and attacks Joan Walsh. Then he uses that as Exhibit A to show how awful the reporting about Mastro's report is.

      And while the whole world sees this report for what it is -- a taxpayer-funded whitewash, Somerby starts off by saying it "has its strong points and its weak points."

      Oh, good gawd!

    2. Note again, for the record. The annual traffic volume on the George Washington Bridge is 102 vehicles.

      For Bob's mathematically challenged fans, 10 million vehicles would be a wee bit short of 10 percent of the annual volume.

      Bob also disappeared on Jan. 11 a rather interesting point made by Foye a month earlier in his testimony. Approximately 25 percent of the bridge traffic accesses at Fort Lee. Thus, three of the 12 lanes are dedicated to that access.

      Bob also failed to consider another key point. Suppose the Fort Lee access was permanently reduced to one lane. Would motorists continue to get stuck in traffic jams for hours? Or would they seek alternative access farther south, thereby negating any gains to northbound traffic?

      Harvard-educated Bob apparently doesn't have the intellect to think that deeply.

    3. correction of course, the annual traffic volume on the GWB is 102 MILLION vehicles.

  15. Why doesn't Bob mention NPR anymore? It seem like they are always getting the short end of the stick.

  16. The reason Walsh made quotes up is Bob. Bob forced her to be a sucky blogger.

    1. Bob indicates Walsh did not make the single word, not a quotation, up. He even goes to great lengths to trace the word back through two previous uses. A. Perez is proving to be one of Bob's slower readers.

  17. On March 28th Bob declared: "But every pundit has declared that Kelly ordered the closings."

    Which was not true. Now Bob's whining because pundits are peeved that Christie is laying it on Kelly, while implying she's a bit emotional. Which it "seems" he is doing.

    Bob's script is the liberal press is wrong about this story, and dammit he'll keep turning over rocks until he finds something that fits his script, even lying, e.g. "But every pundit has declared that Kelly ordered the closings."

    Bob, put down your script "There's no story here, Maddow is perspiring" take a deep breath and write. "I was wrong about the bridge story, Maddow was pretty much on the money for keeping this in the news."

  18. "On the down side, the report never really confronts the possibility that Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein may have received a go-ahead for the lane closings from some higher source within the Christie administration."

    Oh, that's the down side?
    Of course Bob fails to comprehend that if the report had implicated any of Mastro's clients it would constitute criminal malpractice.
    Bob is a very open minded blogger.

    1. It is not the down side because of the facts reported but because of the reporting itself -- what is never really confronted.

    2. Yes, because confronting "the possibility that Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein may have received a go-ahead for the lane closings from some higher source within the Christie administration." would have constituted malpractice by Mastro and his law firm. It is astounding that TDH actually takes this "report" which is actually a defense brief seriously. But you know, any club to beat the liberal press will work for Bob.

  19. Here was Mastro's problem. He had to pin the whole thing on Wildstein and Kelly and no one else. We already knew Kelly ordered the lane closings and Wildstein acted upon it. There was no getting around that. They had to take the fall. And Mastro desperately had to keep them separate from the re-election campaign.

    Big problem. He learned that Kelly and Stepien, the campaign manager, had a "personal relationship." Bigger problem. He learned that on the evening before sending Wildstein the infamous e-mail (through their private accounts), that she had made certain specifically that Sokolich had NOT endorsed Christie.

    So . . . we use the part that Kelly and Stepien's "relationship" had cooled "by early August" (exactly when? We do not know). We also use the part about Kelly having a family member in the hospital.

    Voila! She wasn't thinking straight! She had just been dumped ("at the behest of Stepien"), and she had the extra stress of a sick loved one.

    Of course! It's all so clear! This stressed-out female acted upon Wildstein's "crazy" idea, somehow communicated to her in advance (even though she worked in Trenton and he in New York), and gave the green light in eight words. And he replied in two.

    And of course, nobody else on Christie's staff, and especially Christie himself could possibly have been in on such a monumentally "stupid" scheme.

    Except . . . We've got other evidence of high-level appointees of the Governor's administration working in concert with the Governor's re-election campaign to puniah a mayor who wouldn't endorse him.

    Now if somebody would be so kind to look up the world "Fulop" in this "comprehensive and exhaustive" report, I'd like to know how Mastro handled that.

    1. Mastro wrongly blamed cancellation of meetings scheduled with Fulop on Kelly. This, I think, was noted in Kate Zernike's reporting, which Bob promised to get to first but opted instead for dumping on Walsh at his first opportunity. Because, when you muse on mainstream media, what is more mainstream than the New York Times? Why Salon. Of course!

    2. And Talking Points Memo!

      So let's see if I understand this. Someone (presumably, from the campaign staff) got a "No dice" from Fulop, so Kelly -- once again on her own initiative because "that's not the way we operate" according to Christie -- then called all the department heads and told them all to cancel all their planned meetings with Fulop. And each one of them dutifully obeyed, individually calling Fulop's office to cancel.

      Was this before or after Stepien dumped Kelly? Because Mastro's whole stated purpose in bringing up that "personal relationship" that had cooled by the time of the Fort Lee e-mail was to show that Kelly was no longer speaking to Stepien, thus nobody else was involved.

    3. Right, this is complicated and there are things we don't know about it -- that's why this story cannot be fit neatly into press narratives that round off the corners.

    4. So who is guilty of "press narratives that round off the corners"?

      Certainly none of Bob's favored targets, in particular Rachel Maddow, who has reported ALL this information in detail.

      In fact, the only person I know who is "rounding off corners" and disappearing facts to fit a narrative is Somerby himself in his Capt. Queeg zeal to prove that Maddow stole the strawberries.

    5. Seems to me we also have a $1 million "investigation" that instead of being "comprehensive and exhaustive" has tried to "round off the corners" to fit a narrative.

    6. Yes, exactly.

  20. Horrible work?

    You mean like linking to this Guradian article to prove your point about one word rather than to demonstrate yet another Christie Port Authority appointee is gone?

    1. Yes, indeed. Ask not for whom the bell tolls in this "ginned-up" affair.

      So far the count is the three top Christie officials to the Port Authority, his campaign manager, and his deputy chief of staff in this "stupid shazam" (Somerby, 12/16/13)

      But never mind all that, Somerby has quotation marks to account for.

  21. I agree with KZ. He's right on this one.


  22. How To Get Your husband Back & Avoid Divorce,Love Spells That Really Work Fast

    My Name is Vicky Lorimer, I am From United Kingdom.i am hear to give testimony of how i got back my husband, we got married for more than 9 years and have gotten two kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Brave for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after a week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still love me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that Dr Brave casted on him that make him to come back to me today,me and my family are now happy again today. thank you Dr Brave for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay.

  23. Right here had been Mastro's issue. He'd in order to pin number everything upon Wildstein as well as Kelly with no 1 otherwise. All of us currently understood Kelly purchased the actual street closings as well as Wildstein applied this. There is absolutely no making your way around which. They'd to consider the actual drop. As well as Mastro frantically needed to maintain all of them individual in the re-election marketing campaign.

    fifa 14 coins
    lol boosting
    buy fifa 14 coins