PERISHING FROM THE EARTH: Lawrence moves from one to five!


Part 3—Reports from the children's hour:
When the children start to stampede, they engage in certain familiar, time-honored behaviors.

They disappear unhelpful facts. They're strongly inclined to embellish all the others.

Presently, we will see how Lawrence may perhaps have engaged in a bit of embellishment at the start of Monday night's "cable news" show. First, though, a brief note on the number and nature of the sources the Washington Post cited.

We refer to the Washington Post's original report about Roy Moore—the report in which Leigh Corfman said that she'd been assaulted by Moore when she was just 14.

The children have taken turns saying how great the Post's research was. In one particular, they've stood in line to embellish, distort and misstate this statement by the Post's team of reporters:

"This account is based on interviews with more than 30 people who said they knew Moore between 1977 and 1982, when he served as an assistant district attorney for Etowah County in northern Alabama, where he grew up."

Let's reread what the Post's reporters actually said. The reporters said that they had interviewed "more than 30 people who said they knew Moore between 1977 and 1982."

In that statement, the reporters didn't characterize what those "more than 30 people" had told them. More specifically, they didn't say, or even imply, that the more than thirty people had all described misconduct by Moore.

If you actually read the Post report, it seems fairly clear that most of these "more than 30 people" didn't describe misconduct by Moore, depending on what you choose to count as misconduct. Example:

Did anyone connected to that girls' softball team describe misconduct by Moore? If they did, why didn't the Post report what those people said?

Not since Plato, in his famous Seventh Letter, described the rise of "The Thirty" in Athens has a group of (more than) thirty people been discussed in such detail. But because the children were on a stampede, they quickly began overstating the role of this "more than thirty" in the Post's report.

This began in jumbled incoherence on Thursday, November 9, soon after the Post report appeared on line. Wolf Blitzer threw to Nia-Malika Henderson, who is transcribed as shown below:
BLITZER (11/9/17): Because there's been like 30 people the Washington Post interviewed, including these women who are now adults, who were girls at the time. You've read the article.

HENDERSON: Yes, I mean, you look at the Washington Post story, right?, on Roy Moore—30 people they talk to, corroborating statements, at the time, from the young woman who was in that lead, phenomenal reporters, three reporters on that byline, one of whom is Alice Crites, who's been attached to almost all of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that the Post has done over the last ten or 15 years. So yes, I mean, I think there is this standard and a lot of this stuff. I mean, you have Republicans essentially saying "Oh, we don't know if you'll even be believed." I think the question is what is the standard of believability? And it feels like journalists—many of whom are women who are doing some of this reporting at the New York Times, at the Washington Post, there is I think a pretty good standard.
For our money, Henderson's normally very bright. But that incoherent, press-backing statement represents the early excitement which obtains when a stampede is starting.

In a murky rush of words, Henderson linked the thirty people to corroboration. By Friday morning, Chris Cuomo was referring to "thirty surrounding sources in terms of corroboration for their reporting."

Eventually, in his excitement, he had to be dragged down from behind by his CNN cohost, Alysin Camerota. Incoherent snap judgment looks a great deal like this:
STELTER (11/10/17): These rumors have existed in Alabama political circles for years. The Washington Post stumbled upon it, didn't seek it out. And eventually was able to convince these reluctant sources to speak on the record.

CUOMO: Thirty of them, by the way. Thirty sources were cited in their reporting.

STELTER: Right. Four women, and then corroboration of these women's accounts, and then other sources on top of that.

CUOMO: That's why the "if true" thing bothers me because—

STELTER: How much more do you need?

CUOMO: Right. An allegation is a suggestion without proof. That's what that word means in the law. Their word, their accusation is proof, right? I mean, that—it's being ignored.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, it's not proof, right? I mean—

CUOMO: Sure. If a woman comes forward and said this happened.

CAMEROTA: This is evidence.

CUOMO: Yes. Someone coming forward with testimony is evidence. You could have other evidence.

Camerota, who's very sharp, was recently stolen by CNN. Normally, Cuomo is quite sharp too. CNN's morning show is a hundred times smarter than Morning Joe, to which it loses in the ratings.

But on this occasion, Cuomo and Brian Stelter were joining a stampede. Weirdly, Cuomo said that if a woman says something happened, that's proof! It fell to poor Camerota to drag him down from behind.

Meanwhile, Cuomo and Stelter made it sound like the thirty sources had all "corroborated" the charge, or charges, against Moore—a suggestion which is thoroughly murky and, it would seem, untrue. The Post reporters had never said that, but the boys had begun to stampede.

"How much more do you need?" Stelter excitedly asked. Exactly what Rolling Stone said!

Cuomo is normally much, much sharper than this. Camerota brought him back to his senses concerning the concepts of "evidence" and "proof."

That said, the stampede had clearly begun. In CNN's 11 AM hour, Kate Bolduan, grumpy anchor of At This Hour, raced down the Cuomo road:
BOLDUAN (11/10/17): What more is there to learn? That's the question a lot are asking today. I'm hearing from Republicans as well, what more is there to learn? If it's four people on the record, the then-14-year-old says—is on the record talking about what amounts to sexual abuse, back then, and 30 people corroborated their stories? And these—and this then-14-year-old, not that it should matter, says she's voted Republican in the last three elections and voted Republican for Donald Trump. What more is there to learn?
Did thirty people actually "corroborate their stories?" That isn't what the Post had said, and it almost surely isn't accurate. But so what? A stampede was on!

"What more is there to learn?" Bolduan excitedly said. Exactly what the professors said about the Duke lacrosse case!

In fairness, the children simply can't help themselves at such times as this. We think of Chekhov's description of Gurov, in the beautiful story Nabokov said was possibly greatest of all:
Long and indeed bitter experience had taught him that every new affair, which at first relieved the monotony of life so pleasantly and and appeared to be such a charming and light adventure...invariably developed into an extremely complicated problem and finally the whole situation became rather cumbersome. But at every new meeting with an attractive woman he forgot all about this experience, he wanted to enjoy life so badly and it all seemed so simple and amusing.
Anthropologically speaking, the children seem to "want to enjoy life so badly," or so the experts now tell us. The only way they can accomplish this end is by rushing off in their tribal group stampedes, embellishing and disappearing facts as they go.

All through these early days of excitement, pundits cited the thirty sources as proof of the claims against Moore. If you actually read the Post report, it's clear that most of those thirty people didn't "corroborate" what Corfman had said, nor had the Post attempted to say how many of The Thirty corroborated the claim that Moore had dated young women when he was 32, if that was the crime we were now pursuing.

No matter; a stampede was on! Finally, on Meet the Press, Elise Jordan achieved apotheosis.

There was competition that day. On ABC's This Week, host Martha Raddatz was making this baldly inaccurate statement, in which, to add a bit of amusement, the thirty people had somehow become thirty women:
RADDATZ (11/12/17): Let me say again, there are four women who were named and 30 women who have corroborated it.
She went ahead and said it again! By now, thirty women had "corroborated it," whatever "it" might be taken to be!

Raddatz was saying that, and quite a bit more, on ABC. She was joined by Matthew Dowd in a prescribed rush to judgment.

Raddatz was talking a whole lot of smack. On Meet the Press, Jordan may have topped her:
JORDAN (11/12/17): It was so uncomfortable for Senator Toomey to try to defend these charges of pedophilia against Roy Moore. And he was forced to say the allegations were 40 years old—

TODD: In fairness, molestation doesn't—it isn't pedophilia. Molestation is— We looked up this legal definition to be careful. But it's "molestation—"

JORDAN: Molestation!

TODD: —when it's teens. When it's preteen, it's "pedophilia." We're having to debate this—versus pedophilia.

JORDAN: But when you're having to debate molestation, when you're having to defend someone who is accused of it, and who there are corroborated [sic] eyewitnesses backing up the case? It's a tough position to be in.
Heroically, Jordan didn't report a number! But now, viewers were being told that there were "eyewitnesses" who were backing up the charge of molestation, a charge only Corfman had brought.

The Post had cited exactly zero "eyewitnesses" to this alleged assault. Todd, who was being so careful with his definitions, let Jordan's thrilling misstatement slide. Maybe Camerota should host a Sunday morning program!

We're just giving you a tiny sample of the ways the children ran with the Post's statement about the "more than thirty people who said they knew Moore" during the years in question. Those people had quickly evolved into "corroborating" sources, even into "thirty women," on their way to becoming "eyewitnesses" to a criminal act. But this is the way the children react when a stampede begins.

(In this same way, the children embellished an endless series of statements by Candidate Gore on their way to electing Candidate Bush as punishment to that vile man, Bill Clinton. Along the way, they even slipped "invented" inside quotation marks—the one word Gore had never said in his one utterly pointless remark about the Internet! People are dead all over the world because of that prior stampede. The children can cause enormous harm when they stampede in this manner.)

In this case, we'll guess that the children have been stampeding after a guilty party, but they're on a stampede nonetheless. That said, it's always amusing to watch the children's hours. This brings us back to what Lawrence said at the start on Monday night's program.

Yesterday, when we left our story, two of Lawrence's guests had made peculiar remarks on Friday evening's program. Each set of remarks was weirdly inaccurate, a situation Lawrence made little attempt to address.

In October 2000, this same fellow went on the smelly old McLaughlin Group show and reissued an 11-month-old howler about what a big liar Candidate Gore was. That howler maintained the two-year stampede which led to vast death in Iraq.

Last Friday night, it was Lawrence's guests who were making the weird misstatements. Lawrence had been rewarded for prior misconduct by getting his own cable show.

This brings us up to Monday night, when Lawrence went back on the air, prepared to make a peculiar remark of his own. Earlier in the day, Beverly Young Nelson had alleged a brutal sexual attack on her person, an attack she said had been staged by Moore in 1977.

We think Nelson performed a great service that day. In response, Lawrence started with a statement which struck us as slightly peculiar:
O'DONNELL (11/13/17): And now, there are five—five accusers of Roy Moore. A fifth accuser of Roy Moore emerged this afternoon. And this time, the woman appeared before cameras and told her own story in her own words about what she says Roy Moore did to her when she was 16 years old.
Was Nelson the fifth accuser of Moore, or was she the second accuser? Needless to say, it would all depend on what you thought Moore was being accused of.

For ourselves, we'd regard Nelson as the second accuser. She was the second person accusing Moore of committing a sexual assault, an extremely serious crime. The three other women Lawrence was counting had accused Moore of such heinous acts as buying them a glass of wine when they were 18 or 19 (the "accuser" in question wasn't sure), when 19 was the legal drinking age in the wilds of Etowah County.

Below, you see two "accusations." Should they be conjoined?
Accusation 1: Roy Moore committed a brutal sexual attack against my person.

Accusation 2: Roy Moore bought me a glass of wine when I was maybe 19.
How similar are those accusations? To us, those accusations seem immensely different.

Indeed, what kind of person would conflate or conjoin these types of "accusation?" Can you see where our tolerance for press corps stampedes can take us, in our desire to enjoy life?

To us, those accusations seem extremely different. For ourselves, we'd be hard-pressed to describe Accusation 2 as an "accusation" at all.

But when the children stage a stampede, five is better than two. Five is a bigger number than two. It makes the story better, just as all those plays on the "more than thirty people who said they knew Roy Moore" did.

Our press corps has staged many stampedes since 1992. One of those stampedes sent George W. Bush to the White House. To this day, all the children agree that it simply can't be discussed.

Another one of the press corps' stampedes continues with the GOP's focus on the scary uranium deal. To this day, none of the children will discuss the disgraceful role of the New York Times in creating that mess. Another stampede has been extended this week as Michelle Goldberg writes an unintelligent column in which she heroically reaches a judgment which, truth to tell, she isn't positioned to reach.

This site began as press critique way back in 98. By now, this site has become anthropology. The conduct of the children in question is so comically strange that it leads a sensible person to realize that it involves the deepest questions about our very species.

The current stampede is a highly instructive stampede. In the next two days, we'll continue to ask these basic questions:

Are we looking at five accusers, or are we looking at two? If we're looking at five accusers, what exactly is the children's target being accused of?

This takes us to the two different tribes who have emerged from this stampede. On the one hand, we have the tribe which initially said "if true." They were opposed by the tribe of angry avengers who "can't tell the difference."

We'll also examine the crazy puritanical wave which tends to emerge, within our malfunctioning species, when matters like these are in play. For our money, William Saletan, who isn't crazy, went all in on this puritanism in a crazy piece which appeared at Slate just yesterday.

Are there five accusers, or are there two? Also, very importantly, how long should a journalist wait before reaching a judgment about a serious claim?

Spoiler alert! When the children stampede, they don't wait long. The Dimmesdales rush in behind them.

Tomorrow: The "if true" crowd is swiftly denounced in a time-honored "rush to judgment"


  1. Somerby really wants reporters to behave like attorneys presenting evidence in court. Reporters tell stories -- they don't give technical evidence as would occur in a court of law. They inform readers (and viewers and listeners).

    Somerby wants us to be believe that because most of the 30+ people interviewed were not accusers, they have nothing important to contribute. Some were corroborating the stories of the young women whom Moore "dated." They include girlfriends, sisters, mothers of the young women in question. They told the paper about the things said to them contemporaneous with Moore's advances toward the four young women in question. That makes them pretty important in terms of "evidence." Others among the 30 described seeing Moore hanging around school dances, football games and practices, the mall, YMCA and other places where young children gather. This supplies evidence of a pattern of behavior in which Moore sought out young girls. More such witnesses have emerged subsequent to the Post's article's appearance. They are not exonerating Moore and they too have something important to say, despite not being young girls who were approached by Moore.

    Somerby thinks it is clever to compare a Chekov story about sexual misbehavior with the journalists. He thinks Nabokov's praise of Chekov's story is important, since Nabokov wrote a famous book about a pedophile who was in a tragic situation. People admire that book for its writing -- they do not admire Humbert Humbert. Equating sexual misbehavior with mistakes by reporters is insulting and not clever. It attempts to normalize wrongdoing by equating big mistakes with trivial ones in a different context.

    Somerby doesn't notice the details that the press has left out about these young girls lives. He doesn't tell us about the fact that the youngest, who was "dated" by Moore at age 14, attempted suicide at age 16. That isn't normal for teens but it is very common for girls who have been molested. Some of us think it counts as additional evidence of the truth of her accusation. She had other lifelong problems with men, including three divorces. She didn't live happily ever after.

    Somerby persists in calling reporters "children". That is offensive when we are focusing on wrongs done to real life children. Young girls who were not protected by an officer of the court whose job was to uphold the law. We can tell the difference between children and dateable adults. Perhaps Somerby is taking this tack because he, like Moore, cannot tell the difference. It would explain why he has been trying so hard to insist that there is some measure of possible innocence in the pile of accumulating evidence against Moore.

    It may be time for Somerby to take some time off from blogging and see a shrink.

    1. Just going from your first paragraph, if the job of reporters is to "inform" readers and viewers, are they actually doing their job if they're telling "stories" that aren't consistent with the facts?

    2. "Reporters tell stories". You can say that again. That's the core theme of this blog and the core criticism of its author.

    3. Somerby is nit-picking the language used to talk about this stuff, the references to the 30+ interviewees. I don't get the sense he is questioning the facts as reported.

    4. Unlike most of the commenters here, and everyone on TV now, Bob doesn't want to act like a feverish mob.

    5. Nitpicking?

      The media were claiming that "30 individuals" were "corroborating" four claims of "sexual misconduct."

      There weren't four, only one at the time, and there were 30 people in total INTERVIEWED.

      Huge difference.

    6. When Trump doesn’t want people to focus on an important issue, he distracts them. What is Somerby trying to fistract us from with this non-issue? As a woman, I find it frustrating that men want to talk about anything rather than confront their own bad behavior, this time with young girls.

    7. Cart before horse time, obviously.

      Bob's examining the claimed evidence, and related statements. He's then comparing it to the mangled versions we're hearing from the cable machine.

      He's doing his job, in other words.

    8. True dat 7:09. And when someone has to post a 400+ word response about what he should have written about, then I would say he's touched a nerve.


    9. Re: this latest shiny squirrel -

      "Do you ever get the feeling you've been taken?" (Johnny Rotten)

    10. Yeah. This latest info about the "D.A." initials attached to both the 1977 yearbook and her 1999 court divorce document raises serious questions.

      If Moore is telling the truth about his court assistant's initials being "D.A." in 1999, then someone obviously and unwittingly placed them on the 1977 yearbook. Even if it was just an embellishment, it's still forgery.

      And who gets their yearbooks signed at Christmas? That alone raises questions about authenticity.

  2. "Letourneau is in jail because she’s in love.I admit it’s unorthodox. She’s 35, the boy is 14. He was 12 when they started. But she is pregnant again. They are keeping the mother in jail because she won’t conform to what society feels should be the perfect American family. Raped? Come on. How do you know, and how can you?”

    That's Bill Maher. Everyone knows he said this because it was widely reported then and this year. Democrats refused to appear on his show because he advocates child rape. All except these Democrats and dozens of others in recent months.

    Jane Fonda
    Keith Olbermann
    Al Franken
    Joy Reid
    Chris Hayes
    Ana Navarro
    Elizabeth Warren
    Rob Reiner
    Al Gore
    Gavin Newsom
    David Axelrod
    Barack Obama
    Eric Holder
    Barney Frank
    Michael Moore
    Sara Silverman
    Chris Matthews

    1. Yes, I agree that this is an example of people overlooking sexual misconduct because taking a stand would harm their career. This is why everyone kept silent about the wrongdoers in the entertainment industry, when everyone knew about them.

      Bill Maher has quite a few odd opinions, some of which are harmful. He uses his show to promote them and is rarely opposed when he expresses some odd health belief or says something stupid about Muslims.

      The boys who are involved in these situations have consequences later in life that interfere with their well-being. It isn't good for them, just as it isn't good for girls (who have an additional burden of possible pregnancy). The boys may seem to be consenting but they do not have the life experience to understand their choices and that is why they cannot give consent. No one would mind if they waited until graduation before having a relationship with a teacher. Thing kind of thing is wrong because it is harmful to the boy. It takes an act of empathy to understand how and why that is true. This isn't moralizing, it is based on studies of what happens to children who are seduced by adults. I realize this is a staple of the coming of age genre in movies and books, but it is still bad for the kids involved. Adults, like Maher, who insist otherwise are ignorant if not mainly self-serving. I think ignorance defines a lot of Libertarians, but that's a different argument.

    2. I agree with @12:39. 12 isn't a child and 14 isn't a child or too young to have a relationship with a 33 year old and become a father.

    3. It's not appropriate, but it's not "rape" and it's not "child" anything.

      You know, these things are bad enough without frantic people (that's what they are) trying to make them 10,000 times worse.

      Why are they doing this? And how then can you trust them on ANYTHING?

    4. Agreed, 12:33. A child that young is not fit to make rational choices when it comes to seduction. Some people seem to think “Hey, he got a boner, he’s no kid! How could it have been rape?”

      The actual details of the relationship aside, I think such people miss the point: Someone as young as twelve should be allowed to progress further into adulthood, whether male or female, before being pressured into such choices. (The pressure which, of course, has a biological component.)

      Sexual congress creates deep and lasting emotional memories. They do so even in adults! Children should be allowed to develop fully into adults before making such choices. After all, we do have a slight human population problem.

      Allowing children to evolve into adults before attempting procreation seems a no-brainer to me.


    5. You would think it was a no-brainer that a grown man or woman having sex with minors is not only a pervert but one of the worst forms of abuser. The youngster is put at risk for becoming a mother or father or even worse coerced into killing the child.

  3. I'm so glad Bob's saying something about this. Everyone else is either too afraid or too dishonest to buck the company line.

    And now -- today --we have Claire McCaskill trying to claim the age-old "knee pads" joke was "sexual harassment."

    Hardly. And the first time I ever heard that joking aside was from a woman!

    1. A woman says something sexist, so sexism doesn’t exist. Yay yay yay!

  4. "The Post reporters had never said that, but the boys had begun to stampede."

    Is there any doubt, though, that Bezos' Ministry of Truth did it on purpose? I mean, mentioning 30 interviewees without specifying the number of actual witnesses. This is how the game is played. You're probably the only one who attributes it to individual clowns being 'sharp' or not.

    1. No, it wasn't really the Post that did this-- although the innuendo was there.

      It's the cable people-- and just about everyone else!

    2. Mischa, even an argle-bargle, word-salad troll like you can answer this question with 1 word: who has the better haircut - Kim Jong-un or Trump?

  5. Heaven knows why I should rise to Brian Stelter's defense: Somerby quotes him disapprovingly:

    "STELTER: Right. Four women, and then corroboration of these women's accounts, and then other sources on top of that."

    That's actually a fair description of the original WaPo account.
    There are 4 women named who had personal interactions with Moore: Leigh Corfman, Wendy Miller, Debbie Wesson Gibson, and Gloria Thacker Deason; 3 people who corroborate Corfman's story: Betsy Davis, a friend of Corfman's, a second friend who wished to remain anonymous, and Nancy Wells, Corfman's 71-year old mother; and one person who corroborates Wendy Miller's story: Martha Brackett, Wendy Miller's mother.

    In addition, the WaPo reporters talked to other (unnamed) people to establish Moore's "social habits" at the time: Women who played on a girls softball team, people who encountered him at the YMCA, and people who worked at the Gadsden Mall. (Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working at the mall when she met Moore).

    Somerby is playing his own games here.

    1. There are not "thirty people" who "corroborated" the account of the 14 year old.

      That's the point.

      And, the other three women cited as having been familiar with him at the time NEVER said ANYTHING about sexual misconduct.

      You'd never know this though watching MSNBC. But you would hear a lot of slanderous talk about "pedophilia."

      And, ridiculous claims that these girls were all "under age."

      Whether you like it or not, they weren't.

    2. Oh, OK. Just the one 14 year old he *allegedly* molested. And the one 18 year old that he *allegedly* served wine to, in violation of the law. And the 16 year old that he *allegedly* molested, another violation. And more being reported today. But hey, if you object to calling it "pedophilia", then call it what you will: an adult male just getting his jollies.

  6. In the deep-red Southern state where I live, there exists a very aggressive "puritanical" mindset amongst conservatives and evangelicals. They have absolutely zero tolerance for sexual misconduct with a minor, and, perhaps much to Somerby's chagrin, they have zero tolerance for an adult giving alcohol to a minor; that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    1. Possibly. But they're the minority!

      Until 1972, a minor was anyone under 21. Did they think that then?

      "Minor" btw has different meanings. Since 16 is the age of consent in Alabama, that's not the same as the legal age of majority. So it's a rather phony citation, being a "minor."

    2. Your comment is incoherent. The word "minor" means younger than the lowest age limit, i.e. 21 for drinking, 16 for sex.
      Drinking age here is 21. An adult giving alcohol to someone younger than that will be prosecuted, no exceptions. Moore *might* have served wine to a "minor"; Somerby downplays that, but it would absolutely result in a prosecution, then as now. Moore is alleged to have molested a 14-YEAR OLD. That was a minor vis-a-vis sex then as now.
      Quit being obtuse.

  7. It seems that the "stampede" that Somerby hears is the Republicans abandoning Moore for the "very credible" allegations of "sexual misconduct."

    1. Ha. They're abandoning him because they never liked having him around!

  8. Libs are gonna regret this stampede. Moore and his lawyer just gave a press conference putting forth good evidence that the accuser's purported "yearbook signature" is a straight up forgery, and they called on noted shyster attorney Gloria Allred to release the yearbook for inspection by a neutral analyst. Gloria Allred, no surprise, is refusing to do so.

    This is going to end very badly for you, just like Dan Rather in 2004 ....

    1. LOL, it gets better...

      Wolf Blitzer just hammered Gloria Allred on air, repeatedly asking her if the yearbook signature was a forgery, and she refused to answer!

      This is unraveling at breakneck speed...

    2. Why doesn't Moore just publicly swear an oath on a Bible that he didn't do it? Hmmm?

    3. Wow. Wolf's after her.

      Yeah, the "D.A." initials are a major FUBAR moment for Gloria.

      If it's true that Moore's court assistant was in fact a "D.A.," Gloria's a goner. It means that someone unwittingly cribbed those initials from the woman's 1999 court papers onto the 1977 yearbook, thinking they were part of his signature (!)

    4. You are correct, Moore's assistant did have the initials D.A.

      But get this, Gloria also forgot to mention that Judge Moore presided over the accusers divorce hearing! Thus, the accuser had both motive and opportunity for the forgery. She also lied by saying she never saw Moore again after 1977.

  9. I'm glad libs have finally come around on teaching abstinence.

    "You're too young to be making this decision but just in case here's free condoms, birth control and a pamphlet on 16 different positions (you won't believe NUMBER 13!). After you're done you should watch some degenerate trash on prime time television. Have fun!"

    1. Kids should be learning about this in the home. That's why paying labor enough so that both parents don't have to work is imperative. Now let's get started making this happen (ProTip: Don't vote for corporate stooges.)

  10. Hello everyone reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my husband after three(3) years of marriage just because another woman had a spell on him and he left me and the kid to suffer. One day when I was reading through the web, I saw a post on how this spell caster Dr irosi have help a woman to get back her husband and I gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a woman had a spell on my husband and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that I will have my husband back. I believed him and today I am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back because I am now happy with my husband. Thanks for His great work here is his email: Or call his number  +2348118829771, Contact Dr irosi and get your relationship problem solved. Great Dr irosi could also help you with the following:
    1) Love Spells
    2) Lost Love Spells
    3) Divorce Spells
    4) Marriage Spells
    5) Binding Spell.
    6) Breakup Spells
    7) Banish a past Lover
    8.) You want to be promoted in your office/ Lottery spell
    9) want to satisfy your lover
    Contact this great man if you are having any problem for a lasting solution