Speaking of Emails


The Cabin Boy™ published part of the email exchange he had with Aaron Walker during negotiations for a settlement agreement for LOLsuit VI: The Undiscovered Krendler. He has selectively edited the emails. When one reads the complete exchange in light of Schmalfeldt’s subsequent actions, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he was not negotiating in good faith.

From: Aaron Walker
Date: Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM
Subject: starting a discussion on settlement…
To: Bill Schmalfeldt

Bill,

Let’s start with where you are. You have lost the case. In your angry response you said you were offering nothing. Bluntly, that is your best case scenario. Your best case scenario is nothing happens to you.

Your worst case scenario is owing them over $5,000 in legal fees, getting a vexatious litigant designation on you and a pre-filing order. In that situation, they would be allowed to garnish your social security and require you to sell non-essential items, such as a cell phone, your ipad, any desktop computers and television. This would render the last years of your life pretty miserable, I imagine.

You might recall that I made an offer when this case first started. However, we are in a very different posture today. We have had to actually expended effort to end this case, and now we are in a position there is no scenario where my clients end up owing you a dime. Specifically this is what they want today:

1. We agree not to pursue sanctions.

2. You agree to a pre-filing order preventing you from filing further suits without a judge’s approval. Hey, and that’s not all bad for you—in essence that judge will be giving you free legal advice.

3. You pay my clients $1,000 total. How they divide it among themselves is their business. A payment plan can be worked out.

4. You agree to a restraining order including terms identical to the stalking/no contact order she has for herself and her grandson, with similar terms to protect her daughter, and also including a promise not to contact her husband anymore.

5. You are not required to admit you did anything wrong, or that you are a vexatious litigant and the agreement can be kept confidential.

For everyone’s protection (including yours), I will state the following. I am not offering to make an agreement. I am offering to enter into non-binding negotiations with the non-binding hope that we may conclude with an agreement. No agreement is valid until it is signed by all relevant parties. However, I propose that we enter into such negotiations for an agreement that would state that the parties would enter into a consent decree that conforms generally to the above-proposed terms.

Right now, in the posture you are in, you can only lose or not lose. You can’t actually win, in the sense that you get anything from my clients. And you have a judge who is evidently very irritated with you. She told you to get out of her courtroom. She might very much like the idea of 1) preventing you from coming back and 2) making you rue the day you ever filed suit. Given the totality of the circumstances, these are very reasonable terms.

I suggest you give the matter a great deal of thought and not respond impulsively. Naturally, if you can find legal counsel, please consult with him or her. Seriously, take a few days, enjoy this nation’s birthday and then get back to me. If you like these terms, let me know and we can flesh out a contract along these lines. If you don’t, try to think of what you want instead. It is in your interest to control your risks in this situation.

Aaron

P.S.: in one of your emails you expressed a concern that we might agree to something and then Sarah and Eric would go after you on their own. Respectfully, you misunderstand the rights involved or the agreement contemplated. I have no rights to anything in relation to this case. They are the ones potentially owed a paycheck even if it is for my work. So the agreement that would be drafted would be between you and them.

**********

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Bill Schmalfeldt wrote:

OK, I think I’ve got it.

You’re saying that I must send you $1000 to divide among your clients (some of which will go into your pocket, I suppose). I have to agree to a pre-filing order, I must agree to another restraining order, including a promise to never contact Michael Palmer. And if I don’t agree, you will pursue sanctions. Am I understanding you properly? Are you waiving fees, or are you going to be reimbursed by the check I send you for the defendants?

**********

From: Aaron Walker
Date: Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: starting a discussion on settlement…
To: Bill Schmalfeldt

Yes, I think you mostly got it.

Except you need clarification on the question of fees. By waiving sanctions, we are waiving fees, including attorneys fees. So whether I get paid will be at that point between myself and my clients. This would decisively end the case and limit your exposure in relationship to it.

Feel free to ask for further clarification as needed if I am not clear. But don’t expect any response to email to be super quick, if only because there’s often a long delay before seeing it.

Again, these are proposed terms of an agreement we will be negotiating. Nothing is final until it is written down and signed.

Aaron

**********

From: Bill Schmalfeldt
Date: July 2, 2016 at 5:46:44 PM EDT
To: Aaron Walker
Subject: Re: starting a discussion on settlement…

Send me a draft as soon as you can. If I am going to decide by Tuesday, I need time to mull it over.

**********

From: Aaron Walker
Date: Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 6:06 PM
Subject: proposed agreement
To: Bill Schmalfeldt

Bill,

Attached find 3 documents. They work together and I suggest you read them in order. First, you have the settlement agreement. As part of the agreement, you agree to a consent decree and in turn you need a brief motion to get it before the court.

While you should consult with your own lawyer, please note that the “Whereas” parts technically have no legal effect, and as stated in the proposed contract, neither do the headers. I included a miscellaneous section that includes a lot of standard provisions for contracts, all of which are mutual and innocuous.

I’ll add that restraint on future litigation is taken from a vexatious litigant order I found in another case, but stripped of any language suggesting you have engaged in wrongdoing. The part that is a restraining order uses language ripped straight from the stalking no contact order currently in effect.

I tried to write it in a way that is acceptable to all parties. But obviously, I am not your lawyer and I recommend that you consult with your own lawyer. But if you are okay with it, I will turn it all into one giant pdf, that attaches the consent motion and the consent decree as indicated and we can execute it—i.e. sign it. Just to protect both sides, this agreement is not final and agreed to until signed by both sides as described in that agreement.

Finally, as a logistical issue, do you have access to a scanner? Or even possibly a fax? If not in your apartment, then in your community? You will see a section on “counterparts” that deals with signatures, etc. and if you don’t have access to those kinds of tools, we may have to rewrite it to accommodate you.

So let me know if this seems acceptable to you, and as I said, if it is, I will prepare the final to be signed pdf. And naturally if it is not acceptable, let me know what is wrong and we’ll see if we can work it out.

Aaron

**********

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Bill Schmalfeldt wrote:

OK, there’s the apple. Thank you.

Now, I want to see the stick. I want a clear statement from you as attorney for your clients what happens if I decline to agree to any of this. I don’t see anything in your documents that says, “in consideration of (our not seeking sanctions against Mr. Schmalfeldt or words to that effect), Mr. Schmalfeldt agrees to…”

These documents have me agreeing to pay money and abide by certain stipulations, but they don’t say why.

Rather than having you redraw the documents at the here and now, just please tell me what language you will add to them to provide the court with a reason for my being so “generous” with the defendants. I will accept the wording you submit by e-mail and trust they will be incorporated into the documents before signing.

Thanks again for your speedy response on a holiday weekend.

**********

From: Aaron Walker
Date: Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: proposed agreement
To: Bill Schmalfeldt

Bill,

You seem to want the agreement to make it clear that you are giving the $1,000 in exchange for them releasing you from any potential sanctions.

First, technically the agreement already says that. You have that paragraph toward the beginning that reads:

“NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and releases contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:”

I admit legalese can be dense, but in essence, it is saying that everything Eric and Sarah do for you is in exchange for everything you do for Eric and Sarah, and vice versa.

Second, if you still want it to be hit-you-over-the-head obvious then how about an alteration something like this? (The new language is in underline).

“2. Compensation to parties. William Schmalfeldt agrees to pay Eric Johnson and Sarah Palmer together the amount of $1,000.00 total. Such payment is to be made in a single $1,000.00 check made payable to Sarah Palmer at [redacted]., Reidsville, North Carolina, 27320. How this amount will be distributed among Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson or any third party is a matter of their discretion. Such payment is made in consideration of the releases Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson provided in paragraph 3.”

And viola, anyone who reads this will understand why you are paying it.

So does that meet your needs? Would you like to see it even more explicitly tied to sanctions? I will say bluntly as it is written now without any alterations at all, it makes it clear to… well… us geeky lawyers, but if you want it clearer for lay people, that’s fine. I’ll add that you can feel free to quote from this email if anyone asks about it. We could even call it “payment of settlement of sanctions claim” as the header if you feel it would be clarifying.

I will add that there was a reason why I wasn’t more explicit previously. I felt it was likely to be important to you to avoid admitting that you did something wrong and to avoid doing anything that even sounds like you are admitting you did something wrong. So the more we make it sound specifically like a settlement of the sanction claim, the more it sounds like you are admitting doing something wrong. So I wrote it that way, bluntly, to save face for you. So if you feel more strongly about tying to sanctions, then that is fine. This was done in your anticipated benefit, so if you don’t want it, that is fine.

Again, I say that not as your lawyer, and I recommend that you consult with your own lawyer (I know you know this, but it never hurts to repeat it).

Aaron

**********

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Bill Schmalfeldt wrote:

I have no problem admitting if I did something wrong. So, if you don’t mind, would you include something Fred Flintstone himself would understand tying my accepting this agreement to the clients not filing for sanctions?

Gracias.

**********

From: Aaron Walker
Date: Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: proposed agreement
To: Bill Schmalfeldt

Bill,

In line with your suggestion to make it super obvious, this is how I made paragraph 2 look:

“2. Payment in Settlement of Sanctions Claim. William Schmalfeldt agrees to pay Eric Johnson and Sarah Palmer together the amount of $1,000.00 total. Such payment is to be made in a single $1,000.00 check made payable to Sarah Palmer at [redacted], Reidsville, North Carolina, 27320. How this amount will be distributed among Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson or any third party is a matter of their discretion. Such payment is made in consideration of the releases Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson provided in paragraph 3, including but not limited to the release of any claim for sanctions arising from Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al.”

The changes are solely in the header for the paragraph and the last sentence of the paragraph. i think that is obvious enough for your purposes.

So let me know if I should get that final pdf made to sign. Also will you be able to scan your signed copy? Or maybe even fax it? Let me know.

And as per usual, the agreement is not final until signed in conformity with that agreement. I hate to keep saying that stuff, but its for both sides’ protection.

Aaron

**********

From: Aaron Walker
Date: Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:45 PM
Subject: pdf version of the settlement agreement with the attachments included as promised….
To: Bill Schmalfeldt

if you wish this to be final, sign it and scan it back to me. Scan the whole document, to avoid ambiguity–don’t just send me the signature page. If you need to fax it, well… life gets more complicated, but we will work it out.

Aaron

**********

On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Bill Schmalfeldt wrote:

One more question before I decide.

What is your legal basis for seeking sanctions in a case that has already been dismissed?

B

**********

On Jul 4, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Aaron Walker wrote:

Bill, I’m in the middle of family.

I’ll talk to you much later.

Aaron

**********

On July 4, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Bill Schmalfeldt wrote:

It’s a simple question, really. Case has been dismissed. What is your legal basis for filing sanctions? Need to know before I can agree.

**********

On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Aaron Justin Walker wrote:

Its a simple question, but its not a simple answer and I don’t have all the resources to give the answer in depth. But let me try one without citations, etc.

There are three potential sources of sanctions.

First, there’s a Wisconsin statute that provides for sanctions for filing where there isn’t personal jurisdiction.

Second, Wisconsin’s privacy statute provides for attorneys fees fie the prevailing party.

Third, FRCP 11 provides relief from lawsuits that do not have a sufficient legal or factual basis.

If you reread both motions to dismiss you see we thoroughly believe the case shouldn’t have been brought. There was no subject matter jurisdiction, there was no personal jurisdiction and the complaint didn’t allege a basis for relief. For instance, there is no cause of action for false light at all. And even where it exists, you can’t use it to collaterally attack a restraining order. Furthermore, your practice of suing and saying never mind supports the inference that you are abusing the courts, justifying a vexatious litigant order and punitive sanctions. All of that and the first amendment concerns support significant monetary sanctions.

That’s not a thorough explanation but it should give you a sense of the issue, and its all I can give at the moment.

Aaron

**********

From: Bill Schmalfeldt
Date: July 4, 2016 at 3:45:58 PM EDT
To: Aaron Justin Walker
Subject: Re: Thanks again.

Thanks for taking the time.

**********

On July 4, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Bill Schmalfeldt wrote:

I will have an answer for you either later tonight or early tomorrow. One more question, and this is a simple yes or no.

If I do not agree to these terms, you WILL file for sanctions in accordance with FRCP Rule 11, Wisc. § 805 and other statutes.

Correct?

**********

On Jul 4, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Aaron Justin Walker wrote:

On behalf of my clients, yes. That’s a major part of what we are bargaining about. Like any settlement agreement we believe you have committed a civil wrong on us, you might disagree w that and we (you & my clients) are settling to avoid the effort and uncertainty of litigation.

Aaron

**********

On July 4, 2016, at 7:15 PM, Bill Schmalfeldt wrote:

Did your clients suggest this plan to you, or vice versa? I noticed in the agreement that Sarah is mentioned prominently but is very little mention of Eric especially in the restraining order. So again, and I believe this will be my final question, was this your idea or theirs? Thanks again for your patience with me I know it’s a lot of questions over a holiday weekend.

**********

Subject: Re: Thanks again.
From: Aaron Justin Walker
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016, 7:26 PM
To: Bill Schmalfeldt

Bill, the deliberative process of my clients is a matter of privilege. I am not free to discuss it. I will therefore only say they are in agreement with what I offered.

Aaron

All this while planning those two frivolous bar complaints as Hell to be unleashed.

67 thoughts on “Speaking of Emails

  1. BS initiated the email exchange with what he styles as a “congratulatory” email to Aaron. Is that available for us to ciew?

    • I would like a clarification: Was there or was there not an initial email – congratulatory or otherwise? This is not educating the manatee, as obviously he would be able to tell if he sent an email.

  2. So to recap: Bill never had any intention of agreeing to anything. He’s a liar and a con artist. People were negotiating in good faith and he was stringing them along.

    Too bad. Some people learn the hard way. That Ram is about to leave a mudhole.

    • Even worse: Aaron provided him with the exact legal bases for sanctions and fees. BS excluded that info from his Just Answers request and the bar complaints.

    • Nope. He never had any intention. It was not in good faith on his part. But we already had known that. I mean, please. He leaves that one comment on MY WEBSITE? And expects us not to know what he is doing? SMH

      Murrum aries attigit.

  3. Wait…

    I don’t see the congratulatory email that allegedly kicked off this whole to-do!

    Where is it?

    In fact, it looks like the subject line in that very first (I mean, second) email lacks the standard “Re:” tag that marks it as a response to anything.

    Could it be that DUMBFUCK is once more lying in a facile, obvious and easy to debunk manner?

    Gosh, when has that ever happened before?

    Who could possibly have foreseen such stupidity occurring again?

    I mean besides EVERYONE?

        • Especially if she reads the loathsome loser’s own words on its archived blogs and twitter accounts. The grotesque ghoul can scream “rwnj” to try to explain what others have written about the fat freak, but there’s no explaining away its own vile words and repulsive ‘comedy’ involving young children engaged in sex acts with each other and with adults, and being photographed and urinated upon.

          IF the malignant monster wasn’t so incredibly arrogant and stupid, it would have learned by now:

          “All that is necessary to discredit Bill Schmalfeldt is to quote Bill Schmalfeldt.”

          The internet really IS forever.

          • Remember the days of innocence when the worst thing he had written was a tale of anally raping an adult?

          • There may be an ass for every saddle, but there’s more horse’s asses than there are horses in the world.

            And some of them poop into Slovenian Tupperware.

          • “Remember the days of innocence when the worst thing he had written was a tale of anally raping an adult?”

            Remember, even before that he was publishing his desire to press his penis against a young boys “swollen anal tissue” and discussing his daughters ummmm….. bodily fluids. In order to find the days of innocence you probably have to go back to before he could write.

      • Assuming there is a real person on that date, I hope she goggles herself so she doesn’t have the full effect of the Fat F*ck hit her eyes all at once.

    • Perhaps the best part of googling the Yokohama Casanova is that no one has put the terms “Bill Schmalfeldt” and “child pornography” together in a sentence more than …. Bill Schmalfeldt.

    • If he lied about the email, he is even more stupid than I thought. This is the level of lying you see from a small child, who claims that his sister filled his training pants or that he didn’t eat the cookies when there is chocolate smeared on his hands.

      It’s like he’s an actual toddler as well as a toddler stalker…

  4. “Ah ha! I have you now, Walker!”

    Bill must think his own version of reality will eventually replace the one that exists for the rest of the world. That would explain why he keeps getting beat on by the rest of the world.

    Another possibility is that Bill doesn’t even care about the outcome of anything anymore.

    • Yes Charles, let me elaborate on your first hypothesis. What you’re referring to is the Leninist principle of democratic centralism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism) wherein a decision made at the central party level is binding on all party members. He assumes that his virtue signalling adherence to leftist dogma gives him the natural/divine right/power to define truth, reality and morality for the rest of society, and definitely for subhuman right wing nut jobs like me.

      Hence his howls of protest when Our Gentle Host cites statute and common law precedent that contradicts his expressly articulated version of reality. “Law am Law, not Hoge am Law” is his rage-distorted way of arguing that as a member of the vanguard of the proletariat his pronouncements must define reality–not be subject to external constraints beyond the exercise of his will.

      Or in terms Nietzche would recognize: as an embodiment of the Übermensch, Bill recognizes no limits to the exercise of his will to define reality and morality; indeed it is his obligation so as to avoid the moral vacuum of nihilism. In his view, RWNJ is a synonym for the Nietzchean concept of Untermensch, and as a RWNJ it is simply inconceivable that Our Gentle Host could ever prevail against him.

  5. Bill, oh Billy SmallBalls, you love skipping over details you don’t like whenever you read anything … did you read while filling out those online forms the text below?

    “However, the confidentiality requirement will not protect you from a civil lawsuit by a lawyer who believes he or she has been wrongly accused. Virginia law controls this aspect of inquiries against lawyers, and the VSB has no control over it. If you have concerns about this area of the law, you should consult a private lawyer for advice.”

    Tell you another little secret too, Bill, your circuit has different Rule 11 motion practice than other federal circuits. The case is [redacted] v. Milwaukee County and your bar complaint has even less than zero merit considering your circuit’s motion practice and Rule 11 motion precedents.

  6. It would be interesting if someone with more time than I have would place tweets, blog replies and any other items of interest, inline in this document to see what Shakey was doing.

    Having read most of the bits, it’s obvious how things came to be, but, like Pulp Fiction, seeing it all laid out can be fun as well.

  7. With each email, Cabin Boy thinks that with his “questions” that he is drawing Aaron into making an extortionate demand, but he fails completely.

    This is an example of Cabin Boy thinking he is sneaky and shmart. Pathetic.

  8. I like how he tweets to Osborne, Kimberlin and Ferguson and they don’t like, comment, or retweet his stupidity. I’m sure even they’re worried he is pissing off the judge by all these stupid docket entries.

    Bill, do you have litigation privilege strategy sessions with your friends or are you all going at it alone?

  9. And being so sneaky and smart, he just had to ask what basis there was for requesting sanctions. He got an answer. So he could have asked a real practicing lawyer or even the AVVO or just answer folks about whether those were legitimate bases for requesting sanctions in Wisconsin. But that would have caused a delay and might not have elicited the eagerly desired response that offering to negotiate a settlement before requesting sanctions is extortion.

        • The smug self-satisfaction before he realizes he’s in open air and falling then having the anvil drop on him is priceless. Well, except he never really seems to understand that he has nothing at all to stand on and the crash + anvil are on their way. His stupid “cunning” is just awesome in its completeness.

        • It’s the incompetence that charms. One simply cannot quite believe what one is seeing, and the delusions accompanying the failures are so…florid.

  10. Bill thinks the whole world is like AVVO or JustExcuses where if you withhold information and lie through your teeth no-one will ever disprove you.

    • Uh…

      Boundaries,
      Impulse control,
      Self-awareness,
      Color coordination,
      Spelling his own name,
      Accepting critique of any kind,
      Socially appropriate behavior…

      The list of things DUMBFUCK doesn’t understand is long indeed.

  11. Father Merrin: Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that – do not listen.

    Fat Bastard demands that AW explicitly up a statement into the settlement and then runs to the bar to say he put this statement in the settlement.

    Well, isn’t he clever.

    • Oh yeah…other things he doesn’t understand…

      ENTRAPMENT…
      DIRTY HANDS…
      CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE…
      JURISDICTION, BOTH PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER…
      VENUE
      HOW TO MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING…
      BURDEN OF PROOF…

      Man, I got things to do today….

  12. I wonder why child pornographers are allways caught acting in bad faith – saw it on a TV show somewhere

    I also wonder why child pornographers are upset went potential dates research their online filth.

    Asking for a friend

  13. How dare Walker repeatedly suggest he consult his own lawyer, one who would look after his interests? I bet the Bar would like to hear about something as underhanded as that!

    • I know, right? It’s almost as if he actually wanted Bill to talk to another lawyer! I mean, come on! If you are extorting someone, you don’t want another lawyer poking holes in it. I mean PLEASE! Walker was obviously DOING IT WRONG!

  14. Remember Aaron’s his previous dealing with DF in his guise as the oh-so-clever “journalist”? This oh-so-cunning effort is as obvious that failed attempt, but may reap an unexpected harvest. (We can dream can’t we? At least ours arise from a solid legal foundation, rather than from the perfervid phantasmagoria of a pluperfect progressive.)

  15. Billy Badass: *breaks into someone’s home at 3am*.

    Home Owner: *wakes up startled, grabs gun, goes to the sound* “GET THE HELL ON THE FLOOR YOU MORON OR I’LL SHOOT YOUR ASS!”

    Billy Badass: “HAHAHAHA. I’ve got you now for EXTORTION! Now, who’s the moron!

    Home Owner: “That would still be you, now get on the floor.”

    Billy Badass: “Wow, with such a horrible understanding of the law, you really need a psych eval.”

    Home Owner: “Last chance: On the floor!”

    Billy Badass: “We’re all gonna be rich, right boss?”

  16. What I learned from this is that it’s important to Schmally to protect his ‘right’ to file baseless suits to punish people he doesn’t like. If he ever believed he ever actually had a case, he would welcome the opportunity to have a judge preview any complaint he might want to file, to make sure that said complaint would survive a motion to dismiss. This is proof, to me, that he doesn’t care about any recompense for his imaginary damages. The entire point is the litigation, no matter how futile. The process is the punishment.

  17. There is nothing smarter than PAYING for “legal advice” based on faulty information. Well, unless you then act on that bad advice. That’s smartest, right?

  18. What basis was there to suspect bill might suddenly alter and negotiate anything ever in good faith, or act with honor ever, even when it is in his own interest?

    • That would be precisely zero basis, Onlooker.

      The Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt is a dirtbag of the highest order. Of course he was “negotiating” in bad faith. Truth and honor are foreign concepts to sociopaths.

      BS has wholeheartedly bought into his master’s (The Domestic Terrorist Brett “The Speedway Bomber” Kimberlin) bogus narrative that Aaron Walker is the “Worst Attorney in the World.” And, lo and behold… it comes back and bites Blob in his big, fat, lazy ass EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. He’s just as stupid as they come. *smh*

      Oh. And, did I understand AReader’s comment up above correctly? Bill Schmalfeldt filing his frivolous, lie-filled bar complaints against Aaron opens BS up to the jurisdiction of the Virginia courts?

      Heh. Heh. *dig dig dig*

  19. I was speaking with Rev. William Spooner the other day, and he said he was amazed by the sheer volume of Biwwy’s shining wit…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s