Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Michael Gableman and his lawyer

A couple of things about the dust-up regarding Michael Best's representation of Justice Michael Gableman in ethics proceedings stemming from the Reuben Mitchell case. We've seen a ripple of uninformed commentary. I think the issue is worth discussing but it's not the scandal that some people seem to think it is.
Is the arrangement unusual? Any case brought by the Judicial Commission is a bit unusual, so we can't look at a large universe of judicial discipline cases. But considering cases of all types, the fee arrangement here really isn't uncommon. Because state law provides for the prevailing party to recover fees, this was what lawyers often call a "fee generating case," i.e., a case in which the law provides for payment of fees to the prevailing party or there is  the potential for a monetary recovery from which fees can be paid. These arrangements allow lawyers to take a case in which the client could not otherwise afford to hire them.
We are all familiar with the typical contingency arrangement in personal injury cases. A lawyer provides services (clearly a thing of value) but is not paid unless there is a recovery. The lawyer agrees to do this because, if she does not, the client will be unable to afford to retain her. She makes an economic decision - it is better to have the opportunity to earn a fee than not. (This is one reason that a personal injury lawyer may not take your case if it is too weak or too small.)
We are less familiar with contingency arrangements under which the fee is paid not out of a recovery but because there is a statute that awards fees to a prevailing party. But they are also fairly common. They are, in fact, the bread and butter of lawyers who specialize in civil rights cases and class actions.  The economic calculus is the same. The lawyer decides that a shot at fees (even if it means working a case "on the come") is better than no shot at all.
This latter arrangement was apparently the bargain between Justice Gableman and Michael Best. To say that contingency fee arrangements involving defendants are rare does not get us far because there are relatively few statutes permitting the award of attorney fees to a defendant.[i] But there was one in this case.[ii]
In a complaint filed today with the Judicial Commission, Mike McCabe and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign say that the arrangement is unusual because the award of attorney fees in a case like this is discretionary. Because the controlling law, Wis. Stat. § 757.99, says that fees "may be" awarded, WCD’s McCabe – who is not a lawyer – says that agreement of a lawyer to accept only what might be awarded is unusual - even "unheard of."
That’s not true. The award of fees in civil rights cases is also discretionary. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) provides that a "court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs ...." Yet no one regards the agreement of a civil rights lawyer to limit herself to whatever fees a court might award as giving a gift or thing of value or otherwise entering into an unusual arrangement.
WCD's complaint also argues that sec. 757.99's reference to the "reimbursement" of fees means that Justice Gableman would have actually had to pay them or at least be obligated to pay them in order to recover. I am not aware that the statute has ever been construed that way and one could make the similar arguments with other fee shifting statutes. While they tend not to use terms like “reimbursement,” one could argue that, if there is no obligation to pay in the absence of an award, there are no fees. But these laws are not construed in that way and I doubt that the use of the term "reimbursement" would require a different result here.
In any event, that was not the interpretation of Justice Gableman and Michael Best. They seem to have believed that the he could be reimbursed for fees that were contingent upon an award. If they were wrong, that argument would go to the merits of a fee application that was never made and not to whether an arrangement of this type is unusual.
But, even if it is common, was it unethical? I don't think so. SCR 60.05(4)(e) prohibits judges from taking a gift subject to certain exceptions. Before even considering the applicability of the exceptions, it is necessary to determine whether the arrangement with Michael Best was a gift.  SCR 60.01(7) defines a gift as "the payment or receipt of anything of value without valuable consideration."
But there was valuable consideration here. It was Justice Gableman's agreement to retain Michael Best in a potentially fee generating case. Whether or not you think that is "enough" consideration to warrant spending time on the case in the mere hope of recovery is immaterial. Every first year law student learns that courts do not examine whether the consideration underlying a contract is "enough" for whatever is promised in return. We all learn that a mere "peppercorn" will do.
While we may not wish to interpret SCR 60 in the same way - it is possible that there could be sweetheart deals that are tantamount to gifts even though there is some form of consideration - this doesn't seem like a particularly inviting case to do so. Lawyers generally do regard the opportunity to be retained in fee generating cases as valuable. This is is one of the reason that they advertise so heavily to get cases in which they will only be paid if they win. Don't believe me? Consider David Gruber and the Law Offices of Hupy & Abraham. TV time ain't cheap.
Even were that not the case, a lawyer's obligation to consider the need for  provision of legal services to those who could otherwise not afford it militates against an overly expansive interpretation of the term "gift." As noted above, disciplinary proceedings against a sitting justice who lacked adequate representation would not serve the public interest.[iii]
State ethics law governing "state public officials" doesn't change the analysis. Sec. 19.45(2) prohibits state public officials from using their position to obtain a thing of value and sec. 19.45(3) prohibits a state public official from accepting a thing of value if it could reasonably be expected to influence him or be seen as a reward for this past conduct.
Assuming that this provision applies, receiving a thing of value for consideration - particularly pursuant to a fairly common arrangement between lawyers and clients - does not fall within the proscriptions of ss. 19.45(2) or (3). A common arrangement that lawyers and clients typically enter into does not suggest undue influence (19.45(2)) or influence or reward (19.45(3)). To suggest otherwise would bring all sorts of standard business relationships and transactions within the scope of the chapter 19 and its preface makes clear that this was not the legislature's intention.
This is not to say that there aren't issues raised by lawyers representing judges. But those issues are better addressed through recusal to which I turn next.
Will it - or did it - require Justice Gableman to recuse himself? This is a completely different question. A lawyer-client relationship between an attorney and a judge may create an appearance or risk of bias when the lawyer appears before the judge. This may lead to a duty on the part of the judge to recuse. In some instances, that might apply to members of that lawyer's firm. We all talked about this with respect to whether Justice Prosser should sit in a case in which Jim Troupis was involved after Jim had represented the judge with respect to the recount of last spring's Supreme Court election.[iv]
In today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, I am quoted as listing the factors that would inform a decision to recuse or not and describing the process as a judgment call. The quote is accurate.
That is the law. There are no clear or objective guidelines for the resolution of these questions. The determination of whether to recuse and how long to do so is committed almost entirely to the Justice who must weight a variety of factors including his or her ability to remain impartial, the extent to which a reasonable person might question his impartiality and the public interest in having a matter considered by the full court. That determination - in matters before the Wisconsin Supreme Court - is final and subject only to correction only in unusual and extraordinary cases by the United States Supreme Court.[v]
The article then refers to the opinion of two law professors, Stephen Gillers and Charles Geyh, who are not Wisconsin lawyers, who said they "believed" that Gableman should have recused himself. "Believed" is the operative word. Their conclusions reflect the way in which those professors thought - at least during the few seconds it took them to respond to a reporter's inquiry - they would have reacted. They may be right but I doubt that they knew all of the facts or spent the type of time on the question that an actual judge does.
In the paper's coverage, Professors Gillers and  Geyh seem to be heavily influenced by the fact that Justice Gableman did not pay by the hour..  But is it really correct that judges may not retain counsel on a contingency fee basis? What if a justice or member of her family was in a car wreck? Do Professors Gillers and Geyh believe that a judge may hire counsel on a contingency basis, but that the lawyer is (indefinitely?) barred from appearing before the judge if the case is lost? What if, as was the case here, the matter involves important constitutional questions? What if, as I assume was the case here, a judge lacks the financial resources to hire competent counsel?
The idea must be that Justice Gableman owes Michael Best a "debt of gratitude" because they agreed to represent him on a contingency basis. But this certainly doesn't comport with our common understanding of what constitutes a gift. If I hire Bill Cannon to represent me in a medical malpractice case and he doesn't get paid because he loses the case, I don't think that he gave me a gift or that I owe him anything. If I retain Walt Kelly to represent me in a civil rights case after the police beat me up and he doesn't get paid because the case gets tossed on summary judgment, I don't owe him a debt of gratitude for working for "free."
The bottom line is that these issues are not easy and not properly the stuff of sound bites and partisan attacks.
Today's article report that Justice Gableman sat on some cases involving Michael Best during a period that included (but was not coterminous with) the period in which he was represented by Michael Best. Should he have recused himself during that period?
Perhaps. I'd want to know precisely when these cases arose, who the actual lawyers were and the public interest in each. The three cases that the article refers to, for example, were argued and submitted to the court after Michael Best's representation of Justice Gableman had ended[vi] - although one had also been argued earlier and then set for additional briefing and reargument.
It does appear, however, that there were other cases in which Michael Best was involved and in which Justice Gableman participated during the period in which he was being represented by the firm. Even if I – or Professors Gillers or Geyh – might have decided to stand down during this period does not mean that someone else might reach a different conclusion.
The one thing I can say is that Michael Best's representation of Justice Gableman does not seem to have much of an impact on his voting which was pretty much split down the middle.[vii] Although the recusal issue goes beyond the issue of actual bias, if, as some intemperate bloggers have charged, Michael Best thought it was "buying a Justice" (and it didn't; it thought it was acting in the public interest), then it got a raw deal.

There is an ethics issue to be raised that does not involve Justice Gableman. SCR 20:1.6 prohibits a lawyer from disclosing information "relating to the representation of a client” without authorization. From press reports and other sources, it appears that the firm disclosed Justice Gableman's fee arrangement to other members of the court and to the press. Did Justice Gableman authorize the disclosure? If not, was there a legal justification to do so? 
I am not accusing anyone of anything and my experience with large law firms is that they do not act rashly. There may well be an explanation and we ought to be willing to hear it if and when the proper time comes.
But, as a member of the bar, I am naturally curious about this type of disclosure of a client confidence. I think it is important to raise it because the public ought to be confident that lawyers will respect the confidentiality of their matters.
Why was it OK to disclose a confidential fee arrangement?

[i] It is possible for a defendant in an action brought under the federal civil rights law to recover fees but there are additional requirements imposed by case law (essentially that the position of plaintiff have been frivolous) that makes it hard to do.
[ii] It would be unfair to Michael Best, however, not to point out that it may also have been motivated by altruism and consideration of the public interest. There were important constitutional issues raised in the Gableman disciplinary matter and it would have been contrary to the public interest for a sitting Supreme Court justice to lack adequate representation. (As noted below, it is apparent that what Michael Best has not gotten was favorable treatment for its clients.)
[iii]Unless Michael Gableman is independently wealthy, he could not afford to hire Michael Best & Friedrich by the hour on a justice's salary. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never seen a bill from a large law firm. However, matters as complex and important as those presented in his disciplinary matter required retention of counsel of comparable talent. Lawyers like that don't come cheap.
[iv] By way of full disclosure, I was also involved in that case although not the recount. Jim Troupis withdrew, Justice Prosser recused himself and I argued the case which is pending.
[v]The reason that I say federal review would be limited is because the opinion in the  controlling case, Caperton v Massey Coal Co., repeatedly stated that a federal constitutional duty to recuse only arises in "unusual," "rare" and "special" circumstances.
[vi] The cases are Metropolitan Milwaukee Ass’n of Commerce v. City of Milwaukee (argued October 1, 2010); Metropolitan Associates v. City of Milwaukee (argued October 7, 2010) and State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald (argued June 6, 2011)
[vii] Apparently, Gableman voted for Michael Best's position five times and against it four times. The three other "conservative" justices, Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler, broke 4-5, 4-4 and 4-4. That difference is not statistically significant. The "liberal" wing - Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley and Crooks (to whom the liberal label should be applied lightly) - all went 1-8. This suggests that the outcomes were a matter of philosophy and not some external bias.


Display Name said...

At some point, I think Gableman's robe won't be able to hold any more sponsor patches.

Dad29 said...


If I hired Walt Kelly....and we lost...I'd prolly be inclined to think of him as a 'good guy.'

So it devolves to the published reasoning in a given decision. I note that nobody has attacked G. on 'reasoning' in decisions involving Michael Best Friedrich.

Alexander said...

Exactly the piece of information I was looking for! Thanks so much!

Anonymous said...

Those are some interesting logical leaps and contortions. This was not a "fee generating case." Even if Gableman had won he still would have had to persuade the state (taxpayers) to reimburse him for his legal fees. And "reimburse" is the operative word. Gableman was never going to pay anything whether he won or lost the case. Gableman was never liable for the cost of his legal services. There would never have been any cost to "reimburse." And by the way, if you think Gableman paid James Bopp any legal fees, I have a bridge for sale. Gableman received a gift of free legal services courtesy of the Republican attorneys who want him to do their bidding.

Rick Esenberg said...

Yes, he must persuade the state to pay fees just as a successful civil rights litigant must persuade the judge. That litigant is also not at risk for the fees. If you think I am wrong you are going to have to do better than that.

If they wanted him to do "their bidding," he apparently didn't uphold his end of the bargain. 5-4 is a coin flip.

Anonymous said...

In the typical contingent fee arrangement, the client is unwilling to risk a big lawyer bill in the face of no payout and the lawyer is betting that he or she can realize a windfall by obtaining a large judgment and then taking a percentage as compensation. Neither of those factors is present here.

From the lawyer's perspective, the only options are zero fee and a reduced fee (since there is no way the state would cover the normal "big firm" hourly rates). There is an odor to the arrangement that your legal calesthenics just can't blow away.

You can contort all you want, Mr. Esenberg, but you will have to admit that this was a most unusual arrangement, given the circumstances and given the players.

It also occurs to me that you can find fault with almost everything any Democrat does but you can twist and contort to justify almost anything a Republican does.

This is what any good lawyer does, of course, when representing a client, but it makes you look like a nakely partisan political hack in this arena. Sorry.

Brett said...

"Yes, he must persuade the state to pay fees just as a successful civil rights litigant must persuade the judge. That litigant is also not at risk for the fees. If you think I'm wrong you're going to have to do better than."

Alright. You're wrong. 42 USC 1988 is written in permissive terms but is construed, consistent with the sister statute it's patterned after, to be mandatory, absent extraordinary circumstances. So, no, fee application in civil rights cases is not an appropriate analogy here. Your analogy actually shows how this arrangement is absolutely a nod-nod-wink-wink-know-what-I-mean free-bee. Plus, from a practical standpoint, plaintiff lawyers (those damned "trial lawyers") are not in the business of strict fee shifting retainer agreements because most civil rights cases resolve. There's no forum for an application of reasonable fees under 42 USC 1988 if the case resolves.

Despite pro bono requirements for indigent prisoners and the like, firms like Michael Best are simply not in the business of providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in free legal services. And having litigated against Michael Best, I can safely say that a multitude of lawyers would have worked on this file, to the tune of hundreds, not tens, of thousands of dollars in services provided. Gableman got a gimmie. Big time.

Rick Esenberg said...


I am not wrong. While I agree that fees are normally awarded, the discretionary language of 1988(a)is comparable to the language of sec. 757.99. There is no reason to think that the latter would be interpreted more stringently than the former.

As far as the fact that cases settled, I have never settled a 1983 case without fees being addressed.


Civil rights lawyers take "reduced" fees all the time. I just got an award against Lee Holloway and the County Board in which Corp Counsel explicitly argued that my time should be compensated at less than what my market rate would be.

As far as what I do and I don't do, I don't think this post is a full throated endorsement of every decision that Justice Gableman made. And there are plenty of times that I have refused to join in condemnation of something a Democrat did. My post on the GAB's authority is quite balanced. I was very careful to point out that the Lena Tayor story might well turn out to involve no wrongdoing on her part.I argued that Mary Lazich's proposed solution to the problem of recall elections in old districts was ill considered.

Display Name said...

And there are plenty of times that I have refused to join in condemnation of something a Democrat did.

So Professor, to undo those doubled negatives, you're saying you're even-handed because you don't defend what a Democrat might do right, even when your conservative friends are telling you to pile on what you know is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Esenberg, you are digging a bigger hole for yourself the more you type.

When you acknowledge that whatever bill the lawyer rendered to Justice Gableman might well be reduced by the state prior to payment, you basically concede that there had to be something wrong with the arrangement in the first place.

Consider the high-powered trial attorney at the large Milwaukee law firm. He can run the meter at $300-400 per hour and rack up a substantial bill and then accept either a reduced payment from the state or nothing, if the state declines to pay.

What was in it for the lawyer? Surely not a fat fee. So there must be something else at work here.

Exactly what that is will take some explaining on the part of Justice Gableman as well as the lawyer. There is an odor to the deal, no?

One thing we probably know for certain: The "Will Work for Nuttin'" lawyer won't be defending the Justice this time around.

Rick Esenberg said...


You need to reread my post. What is "in it" for the lawyer is that, if he doesn't enter into this arrangement, he doesnt' get retained. He doesn't get retained because the client can't afford $400/hr. So lots of very good lawyers who could and do get paid very handsome rates also take cases on this basis.

You can pick around the edges but the fact is that this is much like very common arrangements. It does not provide a basis for accusing either Justice Gableman or Michael Best of acting unethically. They did not.

Anonymous said...

"You can pick around the edges but the fact is that this is much like very common arrangements."

Mr. Esenberg, you continue to dig deeper. To say that it is "much like very common arrangements" concedes that it is, indeed, an uncommon arrangement.

"What is 'in it' for the lawyer is that, if he doesn't enter into this arrangement, he doesnt' get retained."

The high-roller partner at the state's third largest law firm is so hard up for work that he takes a case where the choice is between getting zero pay or the table scraps the state will pay (perhaps) if he wins?

And the fact that he and the law firm have nine cases pending before the "client" never entered into the picture?

What turnip truck did you just fall off of?

Care to pick up your shovel again?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the Goverrnor is being advised that the conduct of Gableman's lawyer may not pass the smell test. And in addition to five pending cases, Gableman has already ruled on nine cases involving his lawyer's law firm. Still think that this is all on the up-and-up ethically, Mr. Esenberg?


Ed Hammer said...

To cut to the chase, this affair is about impropriety, or ar least the appearance of impropriety. Haggling over words misses the point. This actions by a Gableman and Michael Best smell bad and doesn't cut it for me and many other folks.

Dad29 said...

Yah, well, a number of Conservatives have endured the stench from decomposing babies ever since SCOTUS made up "emanations and penumbras."

But it's not our protocol to declare that the Justices were on the take at the time.

Weed, maybe, but not the take.

Clearly, the Left is engaging in their favorite exercise: projection.

Rick Esenberg said...

Move to strike as nonresponsive. It doesn't matter if he was "hard up" for work or could have made more money some other way. The question is whether this looks like relationships that we see between lawyers and clients. One week into this controversy, I have yet to see a single person offer an effective response to the argument that it does.

The fact that Gableman was a judge to whom the lawyer might owe a debt of gratitude goes to recusal.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight. The third largest law firm in the state -- which has 14 cases decided or pending before the Supreme Court -- cuts a sweetheart deal with one of the Justices and the only potential issue in your mind is recusal?

And what does this sentence mean:

"The fact that Gableman was a judge to whom the lawyer might owe a debt of gratitude goes to recusal."

The lawyer who did the free work "might owe a debt of gratitude" to the Justice for whom he did the free legal work? Is that how it works? You work for free for me and you're grateful to me for the privilege?

When the Governor starts talking about dropping the lawyer, you know that we may be moving beyond the "stink" stage in this little caper.

Anonymous said...

Although Rick's analysis is correct and this isn't the scandal that liberals and the media are portraying it to be, it's still an unforced error by the good guys.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if all the paid commenters on this matter I see all over the internet are getting union wages :)

Anonymous said...

Rick's post made perfect sense, until I read in today's Journal Sentinel that the cap on the potential reimbursement by the State was $5000. Gableman got legal services worth tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for Michael Best's opportunity maybe to get reimbursed up to $5000. If a judge sells a lottery ticket with a maximum award of $5000 for $50,000, has the judge received a gift?

Dad29 said...

Not quite.

The cap is set at $5K, BUT G. could have petitioned the Leggies (and Gov.) for more. You note that a (D) Legislature and Gov. granted about 400% of the then-$2K cap for another similar situation.

Anonymous said...

Please come back from the holidays and offer your commentary on Viet Dinh's Alice in Wonderland assertion (in his letter to the JS)that MBF providing legal services to Justice G for which the justice did not pay did not constitute his receiving "free" legal services.

eclecticlaw said...

Great article. Clear thinking throughout.

I am interested in your comment that a state supreme court recusal decision is reviewable only by the U.S. Supreme Court. That being the case, if the Dane County D.A. is aggrieved by the matter, is his proper recourse to seek certiorari from he U.S. Supreme Court?

I find the D.A.'s motion for rehearing to be very odd. It is not clear to me that (even if they wanted to) the other justices could require Gableman to recuse himself.

Anonymous said...

This article will help the internet viewers for creating new website or even a blog from start to end.

my web blog - safe diets

Anonymous said...

Fantastic goods from you, man. I have understand your
stuff previous to and you're just too magnificent. I really like what you've acquired here,
really like what you are saying and the way in which you say it.
You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it
sensible. I cant wait to read far more from you.
This is actually a terrific web site.

Take a look at my site; rent to own homes

Anonymous said...

Good way of describing, and good post to get data
regarding my presentation topic, which i am going to deliver in
institution of higher education.

Feel free to visit my page: Wholesale NFL Jerseys

Anonymous said...

Just want to say your article is as amazing.

The clearness in your post is simply excellent
and i can assume you're an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the gratifying work.

Also visit my site semenax.com

Anonymous said...

Genuinely no matter if someone doesn't know then its up to other people that they will assist, so here it occurs.

My webpage ... virility ex

Anonymous said...

Yes! Finally someone writes about oldnavy.

my web site; breast Xl

Anonymous said...

Sweet blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News. Do you have any suggestions on how
to get listed in Yahoo News? I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Appreciate it

my weblog Sidney Crosby Authentic Jersey

Anonymous said...

It's an amazing piece of writing designed for all the internet visitors; they will get advantage from it I am sure.

Feel free to surf to my webpage: painsolv reviews

Anonymous said...

Right here is the perfect blog for anybody who really
wants to find out about this topic. You know so much
its almost tough to argue with you (not that I actually will need to…HaHa).

You definitely put a fresh spin on a topic that's been written about for decades. Wonderful stuff, just excellent!

Also visit my web-site ... buy provillus

Anonymous said...

Pills that work with naturally occurring materials are much easier for people to work with than other materials.
Vig - RX Plus reviews can be obtained online as well as in medical journals and popular lifestyle magazines like Maxim
and Penthouse. You simply enjoy sex to the full when you
use the pills.

my webpage :: buy vigrx plus

Anonymous said...

Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot
about this, like you wrote the book in it or something.
I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home
a bit, but other than that, this is wonderful blog.
A great read. I will definitely be back.

Here is my site provillus for women in stores

Anonymous said...

Greetings! I've been following your weblog for a while now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Lubbock Tx! Just wanted to say keep up the excellent work!

my web page :: provacyl

Anonymous said...

It's going to be end of mine day, however before finish I am reading this impressive post to increase my knowledge.

Feel free to surf to my page; Louis Vuitton Bags

Anonymous said...

I have read so many content regarding the blogger
lovers but this paragraph is genuinely a nice article, keep it up.

My site - http://rovio-birds.ru/

Anonymous said...

Hi! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues with hackers?
My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing several
weeks of hard work due to no backup. Do you have any solutions to protect against hackers?

Look at my webpage ... fiber supplements for weight loss

Anonymous said...

If you desire to obtain a great deal from this article then you have to apply such strategies to your won weblog.

Stop by my web site; http://buyproactol.beep.com

Anonymous said...

Hello! I just want to give an enormous thumbs up for the good information you have got here on this post.
I will be coming again to your weblog for more soon.

Also visit my weblog - seomoz bookmarklets

Anonymous said...

Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you could be a
great author.I will remember to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back sometime soon.

I want to encourage continue your great posts, have a nice weekend!

My page :: Wholesale Jerseys

Anonymous said...

Whats up are using Wordpress for your site platform?

I'm new to the blog world but I'm trying to get started and set up
my own. Do you need any html coding expertise to make your
own blog? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Also visit my web site :: full article

Anonymous said...

Great article, just what I wanted to find.

Also visit my web site: Bonuses

Anonymous said...

Great article, exactly what I needed.

Also visit my weblog :: Air Jordan

Anonymous said...

Admiring the time and energy you put into your
blog and in depth information you provide. It's great to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same old rehashed information.

Fantastic read! I've bookmarked your site and I'm
including your RSS feeds to my Google account.

Also visit my site Chaussures De Foot Pas Cher

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why but this site is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this issue or is it a problem on my end? I'll check back later and see if the
problem still exists.

Here is my website: homepage

Anonymous said...

If you are going for finest contents like I do, just visit this
website daily as it gives feature contents, thanks

Also visit my web-site Nike Air Max

Anonymous said...

I blog quite often and I seriously appreciate your
information. This article has truly peaked my interest.
I'm going to bookmark your blog and keep checking for new details about once per week. I opted in for your Feed as well.

My web blog; related site

Anonymous said...

Yesterday, while I was at work, my sister stole
my iphone and tested to see if it can survive a forty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation.
My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off
topic but I had to share it with someone!

Here is my blog post New Kevin Durant Shoes

Anonymous said...

An impressive share! I have just forwarded this onto a friend who had been
doing a little homework on this. And he actually bought me dinner because I discovered it for him.
.. lol. So let me reword this.... Thanks for the meal!
! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to discuss this topic here on your internet site.

Have a look at my blog post - Cheap LeBron James Shoes

Anonymous said...

Hello i am kavin, its my first time to commenting anywhere, when i read this article i thought
i could also create comment due to this brilliant piece of writing.

Look into my webpage ... Cheap Jerseys

Anonymous said...

Hiya! I simply want to give a huge thumbs up for the nice data you will have right here on this post.
I will likely be coming again to your blog for extra soon.

Visit my site semi-permanent hair color products for black women

Anonymous said...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate your efforts and
I will be waiting for your further write ups thanks
once again.

My web-site ... Sac Guess Pas Cher

Anonymous said...

Thanks for every other magnificent post. Where else may anyone get that
type of information in such a perfect manner of writing?
I have a presentation subsequent week, and I am on the search for
such information.

my site :: Louis Vuitton Pas Cher

Anonymous said...

Wow! After all I got a weblog from where I be capable of in fact get
valuable data concerning my study and knowledge.

Look at my site - Air Max

Anonymous said...

Your mode of explaining all in this post is genuinely nice, all be capable
of effortlessly understand it, Thanks a lot.

Here is my site - Tory Burch Handbags

Anonymous said...

Today, I went to the beach with my kids. I found a sea shell
and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear." She placed
the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit
crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back!
LoL I know this is completely off topic but I had to tell

Also visit my web blog; Sac Louis Vuitton Pas Cher

Anonymous said...

What's up to all, how is everything, I think every one is getting more from this site, and your views are good for new users.

My webpage ... sexual performance ()

Anonymous said...

Keep this going please, great job!

Look at my web-site: Air Max Pas Cher

Anonymous said...

great points altogether, you simply received a new reader.

What could you suggest about your put up that you just made some days in the past?
Any certain?

Also visit my site Louis Vuitton Outlet