Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL 287

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the guilty-until-proven-innocent dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL

Comments Filter:
  • Hey, I got a link directly to what AOL's letter said, Thanks editors, its more convenient than ever!
  • by mythosaz (572040) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:00PM (#17156138)
    ...but what in god's name does the defendant having MS have to do with anything? Granies, children, the infirm...c'mon. Leave the heart-string pulling crap out next time.
    • by KillerBob (217953) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:12PM (#17156302)
      This wouldn't be slashdot without the MS-bashing, would it? :-)
    • by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:13PM (#17156318) Journal

      ..but what in god's name does the defendant having MS have to do with anything? Granies, children, the infirm...c'mon. Leave the heart-string pulling crap out next time.

      Don't you see what the submitter is trying to say? She has a dreadful disease, therefore she can't possibly be guilty! Get with the program, dude!

      • by networkBoy (774728) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:16PM (#17156366) Homepage Journal
        While we all in fact know that the MS is a defence play for pity and is honestly underhanded as it really has no bearing on the case, what the RIAA did is perjury. They lied about the letter flat out. Not only should the case be tossed, but the lawyer that lied should be dis-barred &&|| the non-lawyer that lied should be fined & jailed for 20 days.

        Sadly, this will not happen.
        -nB
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by edward2020 (985450)
          I don't know that what they did is perjury. The trial hasn't even started yet. The plaintiff's were trying to show that they meet the prima facia elements of thier case in order to continue to trial after the defendant's motion for summary judgement. Of course this doesn't mean that the plaintiff's attorney's shouldn't be beat with a hose though.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by aussie_a (778472)
            It might not be perjury. But a lawyer outright lying to a judge should most definitely be illegal (if its done relating to a case of course for any smart asses out there).
        • by bishiraver (707931) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @10:13PM (#17156994) Homepage
          "[MS] really has no bearing on the case".
          (IANAMD,BIRW [I am not a medical doctor, but I read wikipedia])

          Actually, it sort of does. When you have MS, you can have "relapses" or "attacks" that increase the severity of your disability. These can be triggered by disease (colds, influenza, etc), or stressful events.

          Needless to say, having to go through the ordeal of a trial may cause her disease to get worse. So it sort of does have an inhumane quality if she really did pirate music. Even so: couple thousand dollars, or potentially make the person you're suing degenerate further into a permanent and debilitating disease... sort of calls their morals into question, eh?
        • Missing comma (Score:3, Insightful)

          by arth1 (260657)
          While we all in fact know that the MS is a defence play for pity and is honestly underhanded as it really has no bearing on the case, what the RIAA did is perjury. They lied about the letter flat out. Not only should the case be tossed, but the lawyer that lied should be dis-barred &&|| the non-lawyer that lied should be fined & jailed for 20 days.
          (Here goes my karma, but...)
          C'mon. What we're dealing with here is (deliberately?) bad English, where a left-out comma changes the meaning of a sente
      • Is it any worse? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:46PM (#17156720)
        The RIAA is claiming this lady is putting musicians out of work and wrecking the entire economy (which is irrelevant), so the lady brings up equally irrelevant stuff (I have MS).

        I'm not sure why the RIAA gets a pass on their outrageous claims of looking out for musicians...that's a complete fabrication since the RIAA does not work for recording artists, they work for recording distribution companies. But a lady with MS is pounded on?

        But I do expect that corporations and officers of the court to tell the truth in a statement to the judge. The lady didn't lie when she had MS, but the RIAA lied when it said it had a special letter from AOL. And your concern is for the fact that the lady brings up MS? Maybe you want to tear into Michael J Fox, too?

        I mean, separate the BS from the facts. Here they are as I read them:

        RIAA: Hey lady, you committed copyright infringment
        Lady: No I didn't, I don't even hook up to the internet the way you claim. Your honor, please throw this out
        RIAA: Your honor, we have the actual proof from AOL
        Judge: In that case, no.
        Lady: Let me see the letter.
        RIAA: Uh... here?
        Lady: It doesn't say anything about me. In fact, it keeps mentioning something about a Wookie on Endor. What does that mean?

        Ignore the MS part. This is what we have. If the judge threw the lawyer in jail for a week and sanctioned him, along with a few RIAA execs every time they lied, I suspect this kind of behavior would stop in about 20 seconds.
        • by GodInHell (258915) * on Thursday December 07, 2006 @11:29PM (#17157672) Homepage
          Judges and jurries look on the infirm and those with disabilities in a kinder light than others. Specficially Judges will tend to view it as the work of the court to protect the weak (the disabled) from the powerful (RIAA).


          Don't get me wrong, this I'm not making a claim to a legal fact, just that the status of the defendant is taken into account by the judge. It's perfectly reasonable to address that fact in the cour memos, since it draws sympathy, and it highlights the degree to which the practice of randomly selecting defendants with little or no concern to physical evidence of guilt is an injustice. That's a very important word to a court. Judges don't like injustice, and the constitutions of the various states (and of course the U.S. constitution) grant judges a wide array of abilities to limit, curtail, and disbar injustice.


          On a more practical level, the fact that this woman has MS is a public interest factor. You should pay attention because this poor woman has a crippling disease.. sympathy and empathy sell papers.


          -GiH
          Not a Lawyer (yet).

    • by krotkruton (967718) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:14PM (#17156336)
      Definitely. The only problem is that the RIAA and MPAA have been using the "think of the artists" line as their reason for prosecuting. When people think about millions of songs being downloaded without compensation to the artists, a lot of people feel sorry for the artists. When those same people think about a woman with MS being sued by an organization with an almost endless supply of money and lawyers, they start to feel bad for the woman. If the RIAA/MPAA had started this campaign as "downloading songs is illegal and we will sue anyone who does so, regardless of age, sex, or race" then this wouldn't be an issue. (And it's not like this argument is my idea, I've read it in dozens of other slashdots posts about this subject, and agree.)
      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @11:46PM (#17157826)
        (And it's not like this argument is my idea, I've read it in dozens of other slashdots posts about this subject, and agree.)

        Attribution is no excuse.
        The fact is, you did steal that argument.
        Think of all the karma-starved slashdot posters - how are slashdot posters going to feed their families if they can't be compensated with the karma they deserve for the work they do?
    • by sorak (246725)

      ...but what in god's name does the defendant having MS have to do with anything? Granies, children, the infirm...c'mon. Leave the heart-string pulling crap out next time.

      Whether you agree or disagree, I think the common theme with these stories is that the RIAA will stop at nothing to enforce their will. The last two stories I remember seeing were 1). about how the RIAA was prosecuting the family of the recently deceased, and 2). About how that the president of either the RIAA or MPAA looked the other way

  • What can I say... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ekhymosis (949557) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:02PM (#17156160) Homepage
    That hasn't already been said about the dirty tactics that the RIAA is using. If they said that the AOL letter said something and then the defendant's lawyers who received a copy said it didn't, wouldn't that be called 'lying'? And if this so called 'lying' thing is not allowed in courts, how will this play out?


    Probably with the judge ruling in favor of RIAA since they most likely have the government in their pocket anyways. =(

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:17PM (#17156380)
      It's not called 'lying' ... it's called 'pretexting' ... corporations don't lie - they 'pretext'.
    • Maybe the submitter doesn't understand english? Based on the PDF of the letter it appears that the RIAA investigators submitted a subpeona to AOL requesting the names and contact information of the people associated with particular IP addresses at particular times. Let us say that the investigators have evidence that a particular IP address uploaded a file to someone at a particular time. So the claim made by the RIAA has two parts:

      1) a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access a
  • lying in court? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by User 956 (568564) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:03PM (#17156176) Homepage
    the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it

    Is there a reason they don't hold lawyers accountable for stuff like this under penalties similar to perjury? If not, why the hell not?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DAldredge (2353)
      Look at the former profession of most of those who make our laws. That will answer your question.
    • I can't address the question of what qualifies you for disbarment in NY, but before we get there.. where did they lie?

      What did they state?
      confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.

      Break that statment into it's component parts: AOL has provided a letter stating that the defendant owned an interenet account || through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.

      Unpacking that statment lead

    • by maddogsparky (202296) on Friday December 08, 2006 @12:04AM (#17157986)
      Exact wording from November 1st letter to the judge:

      "Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiff's consent. Defendant does not dispute this fact."

      Lawyers love to use long sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The above actually contains several "facts" lumped together.
      1) "Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account "
      2) "the internet access account through which hundreds of ... sound recordings were downloaded"
      3) "the internet access account through which hundreds of ... sound recordings were ... distributed"

      Number 1) is substantiated by the AOL letter, assuming that one accepts that having an IP assigned for a set time period (i.e. a few hours) to an account holder is equivalent to owning the internet access account in question. I doubt that number 2 can be proved, unless the screenshot giving the IP address actually showed the files being downloaded. The defendent could just as easily have uploaded them to her computer from CDs. Number 3 is a pretty straight-forward claim; however, it is not substantiated by AOL's letter.

      Of course, the way the sentence is structured, all three claims are lumped together so that the sentence can be construed to mean that either the AOL letter confirms just the account ownership or that it confirms ownership AND downloading AND distributing. Such a sentence structure lets them give the wrong impression to the judge without saying anything that can be proven to be false (at worst, it can shown to be ambiguous). This gives an easy win if the Judge misunderstands and still allows them to claim that they didn't lie if they are caught-only that the sentence was misunderstood.

      To top it off, the second sentence quoted above is a claim by the RIAA which basically says the defendant hasn't already said something contradicting the claim in the previous sentence (notice they say claim, not claims). This is bogus because they could claim that the lady committed murder and hasn't disputed it (which would technically be true until the defense hears the claim and can say how absurd it is!) Of course the lady's attorney disputed the misunderstood claim pretty much as soon as they got a hold of the AOL letter (that is what the article is about).

      I suppose if the judge gets pissed, he can chew out the plaintiffs for sloppy writing and maybe even censure them for making misrepresentations, but not perjury.

      Kinda funny though, how the article doesn't mention that the lady has a teenage daughter with friends who used the computer ...
      (see counterclaim 27 at http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elek tra_schwartz_061028anscounterclaim [ilrweb.com])
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Jesrad (716567)
        Of course, the way the sentence is structured, all three claims are lumped together so that the sentence can be construed to mean that either the AOL letter confirms just the account ownership or that it confirms ownership AND downloading AND distributing. Such a sentence structure lets them give the wrong impression to the judge without saying anything that can be proven to be false (at worst, it can shown to be ambiguous). This gives an easy win if the Judge misunderstands and still allows them to claim t
    • by arth1 (260657)

      Is there a reason they don't hold lawyers accountable for stuff like this under penalties similar to perjury? If not, why the hell not?

      Which lawyer, though? The RIAA lawyer who left out a comma, or the defendant's lawyer who plays stupid and deliberately interprets the sentence as if RIAA claims that AOL verified the download, despite it being quite clear that all it is is a missing comma?
      I sure wouldn't want the latter lawyer to ever represent me.
      Yes, RIAAs lawyer should be slapped for being clumsy, but

  • uh-oh...all the personal information in the letter is "redacted", except for one line with (presumably) the defendant's name and address...looks like major privacy breach for Ms. Schwartz.
  • Nothing to see here... just another story about the RIAA shooting itself in the foot. I just hope that someday the general public gives a shit about who they get their entertainment from, and gets something done about this BS that the RIAA keeps pulling without any oversight from the government or condemnation from the public (except for those of us who are in the 'know').
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu.gmail@com> on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:09PM (#17156272) Journal

    Ms. Schwartz needs a stern talking to [wired.com].

  • I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Krater76 (810350) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:12PM (#17156296) Journal
    IANAL but frankly I don't see the 'mischaracterizes' part of this whole story. From what I can tell, AOL matched one or more IPs directly to the defendant - name, street address, state and ZIP. If they didn't have an account with AOL how did they know that information?

    Looks like the RIAA has probable cause to continue litigation because AOL did in fact correlate an IP that downloaded the music to the defendant. It doesn't prove anything but the RIAA still should have the right to continue with the lititgation, as much as it pains me to say it.

    Maybe I'm just not seeing the problem here. Maybe I need someone to clear it up or just put on the 'Evil RIAA' blinders that I guess I'm supposed to wear when reading slashdot.
    • I think the mischaracterization comes from RIAA's claim that AOL's letter shows that the defendant not only had an account with AOL, but was downloading copyrighted information with it. The letter shows only the first part - the second part is a separate claim by the RIAA.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by man_of_mr_e (217855)
        I think this is, at best, word play semantics. I'm completely on the defendants side, feeling the RIAA shouldn't be suing people, but this is just ridiculous nit picking.

        Let's do this:

        "RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account[,] through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' "

        The simple addition of a comma changes the meaning. The letter confirms the defendant owned an access account, and the RIAA claims they can prove t
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          It's more than the placement of the comma - the comma doesn't change anything because the agent of the sentence isn't changed by its placement. The implication is that AOL has evidence that copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded through the account because that is the logical reading with or without the comma. You need at least a full stop and an indication of who has the evidence of copyright sound recordings to make it correct.

          For example, ...'letter from AOL confirming that defendant owned an inter
    • by SpecBear (769433) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:38PM (#17156632)

      All the AOL letter says is "To the best of our knowledge, here are the people who were using these IP addresses at these times." You are correct in that it's pretty good evidence that she has an AOL account.

      The problem is, the RIAA said that the letter confirmed that "defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed." The letter alone does no such thing. When a defendant's motion is denied based on materially false claims made by the plaintiff, I would certainly hope that the decision would be reviewed. If there is sufficient evidence that actually links the IP address to illegal activity occurring at that time, then the decision will stand.

  • by spiritraveller (641174) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:13PM (#17156308)
    because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider.

    To say that something "confirms" something is not the same as saying that it has a specific statement. If they have a witness who can testify as to how the internet works and that packets were received from that IP address at that time, then guess what?

    You guessed it, the letter would then "confirm that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed."

    Jeez, you'd think we were biased against the RIAA or something.
    • by Sj0 (472011)
      It doesn't say that the internet connection was used to download copyrighted sound files. It says that at certain times, a certain IP address was leased by a certain account holder. She wasn't the only one with a lease to that IP address during the time period in question, thus there's going to have to be further proof that it was HER account that illegally distributed the sound files.
      • She wasn't the only one with a lease to that IP address during the time period in question,

        The letter says she was the account using that IP address at that second.

        Where do you get the idea that someone else had the same IP address at that time?

        That's not what the letter says, and that's not how the internet works.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Todd Knarr (15451) *

          It's called "network address translation". Every home-networking router out there supports it. Even if they didn't, what AOL is saying in that letter is that a specific user account had those IP addresses leased at a particular time. That does not mean that a specific person was using that account. Usually the router or network connection's configured with the appropriate account information, and anyone using the computer will use that connection. The RIAA's claim isn't that the user account did the downloa

          • It's called "network address translation".

            Yes, I know. But you're just throwing out a possibility. No one has said that the Plaintiff (an AOL user) was using NAT. There could be all kinds of defenses that she might have. But you don't get your case thrown out by saying that a hypothetical person MIGHT have a defense. You have to actually put up the defense first. That's what trials are for.

            what AOL is saying in that letter is that a specific user account had those IP addresses leased at a particular t
          • What they have to prove yet is that the person they're accusing was the person at the keyboard at the time or that they were otherwise legally responsible for the actions of whoever was

            I don't think they do though. As far as I know this is a pretty established issue in civil law already. As the owner of the account, and the sole control of access to it, she can be held liable for anything done with it. If you loan someone your car and they are involved in an accident you can be sued for damages even if

  • Scary (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:14PM (#17156338)
    I don't know about you, but it really scares me to depend on the technical expertise of AOL (or any ISP, but especially AOL) to keep straight which customer had which IP at which time. You don't have any opportunity to review how carefully they record who was using which IP or how accurate their clock is set on their logging system.
  • by mpapet (761907) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:17PM (#17156378) Homepage
    Actually, it's all about creating an environment of fear for the common consumer.

    Like a dog that has been beat for no good reason, less tech savvy computer users will simply follow the entertainment conglomerates bizarre rules out of fear and never consider that the Doctrine of First Sale still applies to their entertainment media regardless if it's in a downloadable package or not.

    I've been thinking I should start a simple parent's guide to the Doctrine of First Sale so smart parents aren't teaching their kids stupid RIAA tricks. Yes? No? Is there one already out there?
  • by Cracked Pottery (947450) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:21PM (#17156440)
    Why should we permit this kind of practice. I can understand the greed of record companies, but lawyers are officers of the court and MUST be required to be truthful and respect the legal process, even at the expense of their clients. The tactics used by the RIAA lawyers are calculated to deprive a reasonable defense to victims of these actions. Lawyers who represent these kind of actions are not fit to practice.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Last I recall, laywers are not under oath. Therefore, they are not required to be "truthful." They must respect the legal process, yes, but that does not mean being "truthful." If you've ever been on a jury trial, they instruct you to explicitly recognize the fact that anything the lawyers say is *not* to be considered evidence. The lawyers are just there to bring the evidence together, to help you see the evidence in the right way, such that you understand it. Their job is to make sure you aren't confused
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Peyna (14792)
        Laywers are under oath from the day they are admitted to the bar, an oath that usually involves loyalty to the client and a statement regarding conduct as an officer of the court, among other things such as upholding the laws and constitutions of whereever they may practice. Those laws include things like legal ethics codes.

        There is a difference between lying and presenting your client's side of things. If my client tells me his story, and I don't have concrete proof the contrary, then presenting that sto
    • As soon as a lawyer accepts a fee or agrees to accept a payment from a client he/she ceases to be a officer of the court and becomes a mear peddler of their clients version of the truth.

      The only way to have them return to being true 'officers of the court' is to have them paid directly by the state. Sort of like doctors in Canada.

      • I disagree. A quality lawyer serves his client, but within the bounds of decency and fairness. Good lawyers know where to draw the line.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by KiahZero (610862)
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm [cornell.edu]

        (b) Representations to Court.

        By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

        (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increas
  • by Shawn is an Asshole (845769) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @09:22PM (#17156450)
    <rant>
    Is anyone else fed up with this phrase? Nearly everything on the Internet is copyrighted. Everything on my website is copyrighted. The Xen kernel I just download is copyrighted. The ISOs of FC6 I just downloaded consist of thousands of copyrighted programs.

    My webhost, for example, displays a warning every time I ssh in that says it's a violation of the terms of service to store "copyrighted materials" on the server. Like a smartass I emailed them a few times and asked if that meant I would have to release my songs in the public domain and why they violate that by storing/using copyrighted tools (the Linux system, Apache, etc), but didn't get any replies.

    This almost pisses me off as much as calling copyright infringement "piracy".
    </rant>
  • Payments (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CriminalNerd (882826)
    I wonder how the RIAA is expecting to get paid from a MS patient no matter how autonomous and able-bodied she is. Family? Friends? Loans? Give me a break. And honestly, I think the RIAA is losing money from all of these lawsuits being as long as they are.

    Also, AOL only gave a list of names associated with IP addresses, so how does that translate to "This user downloaded music with these IP addresses at these dates"? Some justice.
  • They think she is actually capable of downloading music? -_-
  • It's too bad the lawyers for the defendant called the ISP "American Online [ilrweb.com]" on page 2. I'm sure they're technical savvy guys, but really.... "American Online" ?

  • by Tillwe Havefaces (1037092) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @10:21PM (#17157070)
    "172.200.205.238" on "2005-11-25" at "04:03:44 EST" is:

    happy to see that someone else actually appreciates the Joni Mitchell collection they've complied

    "172.143.208.80" on "2005-11-26" at "01:48:14 EST" is:

    wondering if MSgurl2459 is really as edgey as her taste in 3-6 Mafia seems to be. Wonders if MS stands for Microsoft (ooh a cute nerd chick!)
  • Here's some helpful hints for the RIAA.

    1. If consumers like you, they will buy more of your product.
    2. If you stop suing consumers, they will hate you less.
    3. If you create something new, consumers will be more inclined to buy your products.
    4. If you create something that's not easy to steal, people won't steal it so much.

    Here's something new that I (a consumer) would LOVE to buy. The tools for this idea are already widely available and used by almost everyone.

    Take a Wii with that new style nunchuck co
  • Bologna (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spiritraveller (641174) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @11:16PM (#17157550)
    Here is what the RIAA lawyer wrote in his letter [ilrweb.com]

    Defendant's October 28, 2006 letter also provides no basis for a motion for summary judgment. Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs' consent.

    AOL confirmed that the Defendant was the owner of the account. The rest of the sentence describes the account and is not a statement that AOL confirmed what the account was being used for.

    This should be fairly obvious to most people who can read English.
  • When will the RIAA finally be held accountable for all its abuses of the legal system?
  • This added to other horror stories about the RIAA lawsuits makes me wonder if they have ever told the truth in any of them? Do they have any concept of what truth is? Hopefully one of these days a judge will have enough balls to have them charged with perjury or at least hold them in contempt.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...