Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

FINALLY: Closing Arguments Set for June 16th

Daily Summary Liveblogging Trial analysis Uncategorized

By Paul Hogarth

So now we finally have a date for Closing Arguments for the Prop 8 trial — Wednesday, June 16th, or 156 days after the start of the Trial.  By now, we’ve heard the evidence, we know what’s been said, and there’s been a lot of analysis on this site about what it means for the outcome, our movement, and our lives.

But besides setting a date for closing arguments, Judge Walker set a date for the defense counsel to submit their motion to suppress at least part of Dr. Tam’s testimony.  As you recall, Dr. Tam was the right-wing San Francisco minister who believed that his kids will turn gay if marriage equality was allowed to remain.  We’ll find out on May 7th how much of the testimony they want stricken from the record, and what is their basis.  Our side will have until May 10th to then file an objection.

So what happens if Dr. Tam’s testimony is taken out?  Dr. Tam was powerful evidence that Prop 8 was driven by animus and a hatred of homosexuals, which would be enough to strike Prop 8 — even under the more lenient “rational basis” grounds set up in Romer v. Evans (1996.)  But while Dr. Tam’s testimony is damning and it should be kept in, there was a whole lot of other evidence that our side presented.  In fact, when it came time for the defense to produce their “experts,” there wasn’t a whole lot of reason they could provide.

If it’s impossible to dream up a “rational” basis for deny LGBT people the right to marry the person they love, and all the reasons the defense provides is merely a subterfuge for bigotry, Prop 8 must be found unconstitutional.  Dr. Tam’s testimony was the most dramatic and forceful, but our side put on a good case tying other “rationales” for Prop 8 to be simply animus.  In fact, I would argue the strongest witness we had for our side was San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders — who explained how he came to the realization that his so-called “friendly” reasons for opposing gay marriage had merely been based out of irrational discomfort.


  • 1. Ronnie  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:10 am

    They want to hide anything and everything that proves that they are bigots, nazis, hateful, ect ect ect…..True COWARDS…..<3…Ronnie

  • 2. UM  |  April 29, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    I agree. Those people are really the poster child of bad losers.

  • 3. mattymatt  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:11 am

    It's good to have a date, finally.

    I'm also curious about those documents and emails that were turned over yesterday — when will the public get a chance to look at them?

  • 4. paulhogarth  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Anything that's been submitted into evidence (unless privileged for some reason) should be reviewable. My guess is these documents won't be that illuminating, and it was all just a fishing expedition on the part of the Prop 8 people to keep us busy …

    Corporate lawyers love to make these kind of discovery requests on the other side, knowing that small public interest firms don't have the resources to pour into such huge endeavors. It's a brilliant, and malicious tactic.

  • 5. Dave Cox in Maine  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:19 am

    What would be the reason for their desire to suppress any part of Dr. Tam's testimony?

  • 6. Ronnie  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Because his testimony is apart of the evidence that proves animus towards the LGBTQI community…but I'm not a lawyer…thats just my observation….<3…Ronnie

  • 7. Andrea  |  April 28, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Not Tam's personal testimony, they can't strike that. wants to get rid of all those documents that prove Tam was a puppet of national organizations, and that show the extent of "religious" groups' involvement.

  • 8. John  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:20 am

    Have the defendents stated their justification for striking Dr. Tam's testimony? Other than "it makes us look really bad," that is.

  • 9. Kathleen  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:32 am

    If it's the motion that's already been filed (see my post below), then it has to do with the 9th Circuit's clarification (in Perry II) that privilege attaches to communications between "core" persons that span more than one organization, not just communications internal to a specific group. Thus, if Tam is a core person in the campaign, his communications with any other core person should not be discoverable.

    There is more discussion of this here. See, especially, third paragraph:

  • 10. Kathleen  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Paul, is it this Motion to reconsider by Tam that Walker's referring to?

  • 11. paulhogarth  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Yes. Thanks for finding that … I'll read it over lunch.

  • 12. Kathleen  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Paul, I've been acquiring all court filings through my Pacer account, in order to make them available to the trial watchers. I've recently begun uploading them to Scribd:

    If there's anything you want, not uploaded yet, let me know.

    See also Doc 640, Proponents' Motion for leave to file Motion to strike/reconsider. Did Walker make any reference to their motion during the hearing?

  • 13. James Tuttle  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:30 am

    This is so exciting. And, again, I will inundate you all with questions. Am I right in my understanding that after this trial, any appeals that happen after and eventually up to the supreme court, may not introduce new players or evidence? Like..the bad guys are stuck with their shoddy evidence and lawyer? Or can they change lawyers and introduce new evidence in future trials?

  • 14. John  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:36 am

    After the trial is over no new evidence can be admitted. Either side can change lawyers for appeal (and frequently do, as trial counsel doesn't always do appeals). If for some reason a new trial is ordered, then new evidence may be admitted, as it's like a re-do.

  • 15. Andrea  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:47 am

    You've got it James. Once that trial record closes, that's it the rest of the way up. Appeals can only be based on clear legal error, no new evidence or testimony allowed.

    There's a persistent opinion around here – incorrect IMO – that if Walker rules for Perry, his decision will be stayed through appeal. I'm not so sure about that myself. The standard, as we saw in the DC marriage challenge, is "reasonable chance of success on appeal." The Equal Protection and Due Process issues created by Prop 8 are so obvious and glaring that it's a stretch to see a "reasonable chance of success." At least I think so. And remember again, had this case not been fast-tracked, Walker might well have put a stay on enforcement of Prop 8 at the beginning, and a "marriage window" would be open right now!

    I'm also not so sure that "rational basis" is the test that will be applied here. Usually when a State constitution is in play "enhanced scrutiny" is the standard (Walker hinted at this in pre-trial). While it's true that Romer set out a "rational basis" standard, that was pre-Lawrence when sodomy laws were still allowed. Now that intimate expression of love is a recognized private personal right, the standard may well be different. We just have to wait and see.

  • 16. Kathleen  |  April 28, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Just adding a bit of clarification…

    There are situations where new evidence could be admitted. If one of the parties tried to admit evidence and Walker ruled it inadmissible, that ruling could be part of an appeal. If it's decided on appeal that the evidence should have been admitted, then it can become part of the record. If the appeals court thinks the newly-admitted evidence could have affected the decision, had it been in the record all along, then they'll sometimes send the case back to the lower court to reconsider its decision in light of the new evidence.

    Just so we're clear, the fact that the law being challenged is an amendment to a state constitution isn't what would qualify this case for "enhanced scrutiny." Higher levels of scrutiny happen because a fundamental right is at stake and/or the challenged law discriminates against a "suspect class." Plaintiffs argued that both applied – that marriage is a fundamental right and that g&l should be considered a suspect class. D-Is disagreed, saying the fundamental right is for "one-man-one-woman" marriage and that g&l don't qualify as a suspect class – that it's not an immutable trait, are not politically powerless, and not even clear that it's a distinct class (who is and isn't glb)

    As for Romer, though the Court claimed to be using a rational basis standard of review, this decision is often used as an example of "rational basis with bite," as it applied a standard somewhat stricter than usual rational basis.

  • 17. John  |  April 28, 2010 at 7:04 am

    D-Is disagreed, saying the fundamental right is for “one-man-one-woman” marriage

    I know they don't agree, but that's an incredibly weak argument.

    I mean, it boils down to: they didn't have the right to marry each other already; therefore, it's not a right.

  • 18. Jorge  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:31 am

    YAY! And the day after my birthday. 🙂 Great late present I hope. 🙂

  • 19. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:35 am

    YOu're right, Paul. And under cross, the witnesses for the Yes on 8 side actually turned out helping our side.

  • 20. Anon  |  April 28, 2010 at 6:36 am

  • 21. Adam G  |  April 28, 2010 at 6:59 am

    It's about damned time we had a closing arguments date.

  • 22. Bolt  |  April 28, 2010 at 7:11 am

    The religious zealots who've defended proposition 8, and facilitated it's passage, don't deserve any wiggle room; however, I'm not a legal expert, and my faith rests with the federal court system. I think justice will be ours.

    This disgusting law must not survive it's court challenge!

  • 23. om  |  April 28, 2010 at 7:18 am

    6-16 = 2 yrs after Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin got hitched in San Francisco.

  • 24. MJFargo  |  April 28, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Judge Walker was going to submit a list a questions to the parties that he wanted specifically addressed at closing. Are his questions going to be public? [Thanks, you folks, for keeping us informed; I check this site almost every day.]

  • 25. Kathleen  |  April 28, 2010 at 7:53 am

    I don't recall that. I think he suggested he would be actively questioning both sides during their closing arguments, but I don't recall him saying anything about submitting questions he wanted answered in their arguments.

    Are you thinking of the request he made of both sides to submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law?

  • 26. MJFargo  |  April 28, 2010 at 8:12 am

    page 2948 of the transcript, line 19 Judge Walker: "And what I will probably do, in connection with setting that date, is to perhaps key up some questions that have come to the fore as a result of the review of the evidence, and give you an opportunity to address that in closing argument and in any post-trial briefing that you wish to make on the law."

    I thought those questions might give some indication as to Judge Walker's "leanings" at this point.

  • 27. Kathleen  |  April 28, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Thanks for looking that up. I suppose he might still submit questions to them prior to closing arguments. If he does it in writing, it will be through a court filing and we'll be able to see it. It's possible he'll just give indications through oral direction during a hearing prior to closing arguments. And, yes, the questions may give some indication of his thinking, but more likely it gives us indication of what argument(s) he thinks need clarifying or strengthening. He seemed to indicate it's something he would consider doing after reviewing all the evidence.

  • 28. MJFargo  |  April 28, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Thanks. This is so exciting. To all who made this so accessible to the public (that would not include the US Supreme Court) many, many thanks.

  • 29. Bill  |  April 28, 2010 at 8:45 am

    I thought Tam was the prosecution's witness, not the "Yes on Eight" side's witness. Tam inserted himself as one of the defendants and then had second thoughts, but being a defendant doesn't automatically make one a witness. Rather, he was called as a hostile witness because he was such a poster boy for bigotry.

    Aside from that, there are good reasons to object to suppressing Tam's testimony – he was one of the five or so people who filed Proposition Eight., not some random person who decided to support Proposition Eight in his own idiosyncratic way. As one of the five filers, testimony from him showing animus would be quite relevant.

  • 30. Kathleen  |  April 28, 2010 at 9:09 am

    I haven't had time to read in detail everything the Proponents and Tam are asking to have stricken. But, in general, it's specific pieces of evidence, almost all of it communications (maybe all of it?) that D-Is are claiming are privileged, and the testimony that references that evidence.

    If you look over Docs 640 and 642, the last attachments on each of these is a Proposed Order to Strike. These proposed orders list in detail what evidence and testimony they're asking to strike from the record. You can identify it by referencing the corresponding trial transcripts. For example "Trial Tr. 1905:3-8" refers to transcript page 1905, lines 3 through 8. Page 1905 is from Day 8:
    (all of the testimony Tam's Motion asks to strike is from day 8)

  • 31. Vaati Raptor  |  April 28, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Excellent, while my girlfriend is visiting from Finland we'll be able to see, finally, what happens with this trial. I have been keeping an eye on this for as long as there has been a Prop 8 and now my hopes are that it may be struck down for what it truly is.

    I'm ready to see some good news, the Opposition to Prop 8 has done an excellent job in the court room and I'd like to think that because it wasn't our side trying to smear the judge we may have some good karma in our corner.

  • 32. Ray in MA  |  April 28, 2010 at 9:33 am


    "Under Perry I, the privilege applies to the core group of persons engaged in the formulation of strategy and messages, whether or not they are members of a single organization or entity."

    Did Tam's testimony show that he "engaged in the formulation of strategy and messages" ? (don't think so)

    Didn't he imply that his major role was to collect signature's and was told not to do/say anything without their approval?

    Wouldn't this mean he was NOT part of the CORE group, therefore his testimony should not be stricken?

  • 33. Jeff  |  April 28, 2010 at 10:39 am

    No only that – during his testimony he tried desperately to say he was not part of the core group:

    "During a news conference outside court, lawyer Andy Pugno, who represents Proposition 8 backers, said Tam had "next to nothing" to do with the campaign, even though he was one of the measure's official proponents."

    "Under cross-examination from Nicole Moss, a lawyer for Proposition 8's sponsors, Tam said the opinions expressed on the Web site were his own and had not been approved by, the organization that ran the campaign, or submitted to its strategists for review.

    "At any time during the campaign phase or any phase for Proposition 8 did you have a role in drafting the official message for" Moss asked.

    "No," Tam answered, adding that his contact with the campaign's staff was minimal. "I was acting independently."

    Shortly before Tam left the witness stand, Boies asked him if he had spoken to his lawyer during a 5-minute break in his testimony. Tam said he had."

  • 34. Ray in MA  |  April 28, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Jeff: you and i shouild be the lawyers here!

  • 35. Jim  |  April 28, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember rumblings about possibly televising or at least recording the closing arguments. Did that crash and burn somewhere along the way or is it still a possibility?

  • 36. Jim  |  April 28, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Didn't look far enough. 🙁

  • 37. Papa Foma  |  April 28, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Applause to all who have kept those of us who just drop in occasionally advised of legal information — and their personal comments as well. I'm even more proud to be gay than before the trial. I'm impatient, but hope that Independence Day will have new meaning for all of us.

  • 38. James tuttle  |  April 28, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Sorry to badger everyone with questions but I have yet to find a clear answer to this one: if judge Walker rules in our favor, will marriages be again allowed in ca until an appeal is filed? Or will they continue to be illegal until the final courts decision or innaction, again if the ruling is in our favor? *crosses fingers*

  • 39. Don  |  April 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    If Judge Walker rules in our favor, the ruling goes into effect right away. The Prop 8 proponents will most likely ask for a stay (stop) of the ruling pending appeal.

    In the 9th Circuit, the requirements for a stay of the decision pending appeal are as follow:

    “either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits of the appeal and the possibility of irreparable injury should the stay be denied, or (2) that serious legal or factual questions are raised by the case and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.”

    I doubt that either Judge Walker or the 9th Circuit would say that there was a probable success on the merits of the appeal by the Prop 8 supporters. Then too, what is the possibility of irreparable injury that the Prop 8 supporters would suffer if the stay were denied? How would more gays getting married harm the Prop 8 supporters, particularly since we already have over 18,000 gay married people who don't harm the Prop 8 supporters? What's another 5 or 10 thousand married gays?

    Also, there are no serious legal or factual questions raised by the case, so that option is also foreclosed IMO.

    So, it seems to me that Judge Walker will overturn Prop 8 and will deny a Motion to Stay. The Prop 8 supporters will then apply to the 9th Circuit for an emergency stay pending appeal. Based on the above rule, I don't see how a stay could be granted.

    This is how I understand that it works.

  • 40. Prop 8 Trial: Closing Arg&hellip  |  April 28, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    […] Prop 8 proponents are now trying to strike the testimony of their own witness, Dr. Tam. His testimony almost single-handedly proved that Proposition 8 was motivated by hatred of the LGBT community. From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker: […]

  • 41. James Tuttle  |  April 28, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    I will continue to wait with my fingers crossed. My partner and I are hoping…praying…that maybe we can marry during that time. Were a bit nervous about a SCOTUS vote against it and then it being many years before the opportunity presents itself again.

  • 42. Eye of Souron  |  April 29, 2010 at 5:30 am

    On what grounds would any part of Tam's testimony be stricken? He's their expert. He answered their questions, and they had ample opportunity to raise all their objections during trial. What new argument are they making?

  • 43. Kathleen  |  April 29, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Tam was Plaintiffs' witness. See my comments above for what they're asking to strike. It has to do with a renewed claim of privilege for some of the documents entered into evidence.

  • 44. Kathleen  |  April 29, 2010 at 6:20 am

    UPDATE: Minutes entry from yesterday's hearing. Lays out the time line for dealing with the follow up to the discovery orders. Proposes June 16 as date for closing arguments.

    It also grants Tam's and Proponents' motions for leave to file motions to reconsider and sets dates for Plaintiffs' opposition and Tam's and Proponents' reply. This is NOT granting permission to strike the evidence/testimony requested by Tam and Proponents. It is just saying that the court is willing to consider their argument.

    Doc 650

  • 45. K!r!lleXXI  |  May 4, 2010 at 2:53 am

    I've heard many jokes about Americans not being attentive to spelling, but this is just too funny: they misspelled Schwarzenegger's last name in that minute order (Doc-650)! It says "SCHWARNEGGER". Not that I'm looking for that kind of stuff… Just funny…


  • 46. Kathleen  |  May 4, 2010 at 3:12 am

    That's funny! I'm sure there's a joke in this somewhere, but I haven't had my coffee yet. 🙂

    I hadn't even noticed it (I just skip right over the title page when reading these). Nice to hear from you!

  • 47. Jason Zenobia  |  April 29, 2010 at 6:41 am

    So if I understood the commentary correctly, the documents introduced into evidence during Tam's testimony can be stricken as "privileged" only if he was a part of the core group that was formulating strategy and messaging for the campaign.

    But during the trial, the Prop 8 people howled endlessly that Tam was a bit player, a rogue agent, loose cannon, etc. The reason they said this is because, as one of the five cosponsors of the ballot initiative, his presence in the core group would have proven that the initiative was motivated by anti-gay animus, thus meaning the strict scrutiny applies.

    It sounds like the Prop 8 people are trapped in a Catch-22 of their own making. If Tam was part of the core group, then the documents can be excluded but his testimony cannot (his testimony can't be excluded in any case, Walker's already made that ruling) therefore animus, therefore strict scrutiny. If Tam's not part of the core group, then the documents are in – and strict scrutiny still applies. They're screwed.

    Seems to me they know they've lost and are just trying to contain the damage to the religious groups in the docs (ie the Mormon church) by getting them excluded.

  • 48. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 29, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Yes, but thanks to a movie that was at Sundance, the involvement of the LDS hierarchy, and the fact that they did so functioning as a PAC will become public anyway. The movie is called "The Mormon Proposition," and it deals entirely with their involvement in Prop H8.

  • 49. Brent Zenobia  |  April 29, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    It's one thing to make an advocacy movie. It's something else to have documentary evidence introduced in a court of law. Perhaps the Mormon church hierarchy is concerned that having these memos entered as evidence in the public record might increase their liability in other ongoing legal proceedings?

  • 50. Kathleen  |  April 29, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Jason, the question of whether or not strict scrutiny will apply here doesn't rely on a finding of an improper motive (animus) behind the passage of Prop 8. Conversely, even if the court determines that animus and prejudice toward g&ls were the primary reasons for Prop 8's passage, this does not mean that strict scrutiny applies. Plaintiffs are making this argument to show that Prop 8 shouldn't withstand even the most lenient standard, that of "rational basis." The rational basis standard requires that any law be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest. The argument here is that animus towards g&ls is not a legitimate government interest.

    Whether or not strict scrutiny applies depends on whether Walker determines that Prop 8 infringes on a "fundamental right" and/or g&ls are a "suspect class."

    As to the Catch-22 regarding Tam, I think both sides are caught in this. My understanding (which granted, is somewhat limited) is the same as yours — that privilege attaches only to communications between so-called "core persons." As you point out, if Proponents are making the claim that Tam was just a crazy loose canon who wasn't central to the formulation of messages and strategy, then he's not a core person and his communications are not privileged. But at the same time, if Plaintiffs are going to argue that he's not "core" in order to enter his communications into evidence, then it seems to diminish their argument of how representative his whacka-doo messages were of the Yes on 8 campaign as a whole. I'll be interested to see how Plaintiffs respond to the D-Is motions to strike.

  • 51. Brent Zenobia  |  April 29, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Thanks, that helps to clarify the issues. But in any case it seems to me that the Catch-22 cuts more deeply for the Proponents than the Plaintiffs. No matter what, the Prop 8 side has undercut their own argument yet again. What if any weight is likely to be accorded to the sheer number of these contradictions?

    There's an odd pattern to the Proponent's case. GLBT people can't be clearly defined, therefore they don't exist. Such-and-so does not reflect the position of – who, exactly, is I'm getting the impression that even if Schubert were to be put on the stand, the Proponents would deny he had anything to do with It disappears like the Cheshire Cat, leaving only its sneer.

  • 52. Kathleen  |  April 29, 2010 at 9:40 am

    For anyone interested, I've gone through Tam's testimony and highlighted the portions he wants struck from the record (based on the Proposed Order he filed with the court 4/26). The marked up document is available here:

  • 53. Kathleen  |  April 29, 2010 at 9:44 am

    You probably have to download the document to be able to read what's highlighted. On Scribd, the highlighted sections just appear yellow.

    Let me know if it's reading properly once downloaded.

  • 54. John  |  April 29, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Yes! I downloaded it and it worked just fine.

    It appears to me that they're trying to strike Dr. Tam's testimony where he says he's not a part of the "core group," because they need him to be part of the core group, in order to strike other statements that would be admissible, if he was not core.

    Am I understanding correctly? They want to prove he was a core member, and thus protected by the 1st Amendment, by removing his statement that he was not a core member?

    Isn't that like retouching a photograph to remove a person, in order to "prove" that person was not in the photograph?

  • 55. Kathleen  |  April 29, 2010 at 10:21 am

    I think the part where he talks about a core group is specific to the piece of evidence they want stricken from the record — emails between Tam and Lynne Fishel from California Family Council. In that bit of testimony, he says he's not part of the Protect Marriage core leadership. But I don't think that's what they're concerned with. I think they want the emails out of evidence, and thus any testimony to do with them.

    If you look at page 2002, lines 14 and on, you'll see there is testimony there again where he says he doesn't consider himself part of the core group for Yes on 8. He hasn't asked that that part of his testimony be removed.

  • 56. ParisLV  |  April 29, 2010 at 11:01 am

    I am confused! Somebody, if I have the story straight (no pun), when the No-on-8 people wanted the Yes-on-8 people to turn in their e-mails, and memos, etc.. The Yes-on-8 people objected and they won… HOW COME when the scenario was reversed, the No-on-8 had to end up giving them our e-mails, memos, etc???

    Whew, June 16th! It's on my calendar!!

  • 57. Kathleen  |  April 29, 2010 at 11:19 am

    First of all, No-on-8 didn't ask for anything; they're not parties to the lawsuit (just so we're clear on who the players are).

    Yes on 8 had to turn over plenty of correspondence and documents.

  • 58. Josh  |  April 29, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Actually, I'd consider David Blankenhorn to be the best witness for the plaintiffs. With enemies like that, who needs friends?

  • 59. Mary Ellen  |  April 29, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    why we are fighting from a sweet soul: <a href="″ target=”_blank”> <a h…” target=”_blank”>

  • 60. zppzzfys  |  October 7, 2012 at 2:38 am

    何世紀世紀地域モンクレール打ち上げ2010 アウトドア主題カタログ – グッチ
    残念ながら上の行事も、偉大レザーバッグ切り替えることができます適切に維持そうではありません場合に醜い – グッチ バッグ
    カフ fleshlight袖袋で発見簡単に動かされる垂直アーム – グッチ トートバッグ
    クリスマスプレゼントとしてセレクトバッグに関しての友人彼らは、より可能性が高いです – グッチアウトレット
    製品製品ライン洗えるとドライ洗浄バッグはその用ポリウレタン人工レザーを持っています。 – 人気

  • 61. unxyhzmu  |  October 7, 2012 at 2:43 am

    から来る| |貫通ビア|からの様々な店で
    シャネル 財布
    シャネル 長財布
    ファッションの世界今日バッグはから内部ので、高温になっていますそのときに 1特定はオンライン何気なく見える
    シャネル 長財布
    このような袋を着用すべてを持つ |ガウン|衣装|衣装|スカートまたはドレスを女の子たちにもに崇拝服装いくつかの特別な回
    メンズ バッグ

  • 62.  |  March 17, 2014 at 3:29 am

    It’s appropriate time to make a few plans for the long run and it’s time to be happy.
    I have read this post and if I may just I wish to counsel you some fascinating things or suggestions.
    Perhaps you can write subsequent articles regarding this article.

    I wish to read even more issues approximately it!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!