Patterico's Pontifications


More on Hiltzik from Comrade Patterico

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:16 am

Some follow-up thoughts about Michael Hiltzik’s recent pair of posts about Comrade Patterico:

First — even taking into account Hiltzik’s jaw-dropping analogy of me and other conservative critics to Stalinist apparatchiks — probably the most insulting thing about his posts is the insufferably haughty attitude he displays towards Patterico readers. If you enjoyed my Year in Review post about the Los Angeles Times, then you are, without exception, uncritical readers choosing to wallow in your own ignorance:

Patrick Frey’s end-of-the-year gloss on the L.A. Times’s ostensible sins of bias, cited in my post yesterday, goes on for many screens; I assume that the members of his personal choir have been devoting close scrutiny to the indictment. Uncritical readers, wishing to have their ignorant preconceptions reinforced without straining a brain cell, are no doubt gobbling it up. Those seeking serious commentary and analysis on the role and performance of the press will more likely abandon it in mid-course, on the principle that life is too short to waste on such flapdoodle.

What breathtaking arrogance. And how unfortunately typical of someone who works at the Los Angeles Times.

The idea that intelligent readers of the paper might actually agree with many or most of my criticisms is a possibility that Hiltzik is simply unwilling to entertain.

His attitude is, unfortunately, reflective of a huge group of people working for this newspaper. For proof, you need only open up their newspaper on any given day. Only those who agree with their leftist outlook of the world qualify for respect in their eyes. And people like you? They see you as uninformed chumps. You’re willfully, comfortably ignorant rubes.

Also, I have another observation about Hiltzik’s pal Chuck Philips, and the relevance of the accusation that Philips was on Suge Knight’s payroll.

I have said before that I found strange and puzzling Philips’s insistence on portraying as credible the recantation of witness Kevin Hackie in the Notorious B.I.G. trial. After all, Hackie stated repeatedly that he feared for his life, and people who cross Suge Knight historically have good reason to fear for their lives. Why did Philips write the story as if Hackie’s recantation was clearly credible, and his earlier statements clearly untrue, when that conclusion is by no means obvious?

With the publication of the article I linked to, we have an answer that makes sense: because one of the things Hackie recanted was a pretrial accusation that Philips was on Suge Knight’s payroll. If someone makes an accusation that serious about you, it stands to reason that you are going to want to see that witness discredited. If he recants his statement, you want his recantation to be believed. Under these circumstances, you can no longer be an objective reporter covering this story. You have a stake in how this witness comes across — because it affects you personally.

Once it became clear that Hackie had made these accusations about Philips, Philips had no business covering that trial anymore — in my opinion. He simply had too much of a vested interest in portraying a crucial plaintiff’s witness’s pretrial statements as incredible, and portraying that witness’s recantation at trial as credible.

Critically, the conflict of interest is there regardless of the truth of the allegation. It is the fact that the allegation was made that creates the conflict. Of course it would be worse if the accusation turned out to be true. But even assuming that the allegation is untrue — which I do, for the sake of this post — the fact that it was made to begin with creates a conflict of interest.

Who bears the fault for the fact that Philips continued to cover the trial, despite this conflict of interest? I don’t know, because I don’t know if Philips disclosed the conflict to his editors. I don’t remember reading about the accusation in the L.A. Times — but I’ll admit that I don’t know for sure whether it ever appeared in the paper’s pages or not.

So now that Michael Hiltzik has sanctimoniously declared that I have “zero” credibility because I had the audacity to link a story reporting Hackie’s accusation, Hiltzik should tell us whether Philips reported the accusation himself. Especially if Philips kept that little tidbit under wraps — and arguably even if he didn’t — Hiltzik should explain whether he sees a conflict of interest in a reporter’s covering the testimony of a witness whose testimony includes an accusation that the reporter is corrupt.

And with that, I am going to do my best to take my leave of Michael Hiltzik and his toothless criticisms of me and my blog. At a certain point, too much back-and-forth bores readers, and I think I’ve made my points.

Show trial’s over, folks. You can all go home now.

P.S. But if you just can’t get enough, Tom Maguire has some fun with Hiltzik. And Cathy Seipp has more on his background, as well as his latest response.

P.P.S. It has come to my attention that some people don’t realize I already responded to Hiltzik at great length, in another post. You can read it here.

61 Responses to “More on Hiltzik from Comrade Patterico”

  1. Patterico = Hitler.

    Well somebody was bound to say it. 🙂

    KARL ROVE = SATAN (022fa6)

  2. “Toothless criticism”?

    Interesting word choice from someone who just got pimp-slapped.

    ACW (5abdb6)

  3. What a visual. Stalin getting pimp-slapped.

    Patterico (806687)

  4. Well, I can’t understand most of this, but I get it when you say “LA Times bad, Patterico good.” I just wish you’d use shorter words.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  5. What you don’t understand is that this is a Holy War. Hitler is the devil, Stalin was the apostate to the True Way, and the Vietnam War was the Fall. The world began in 1967 and was corrupted by the Satan and his right-wing.

    When you call you “Stalinist” it’s because you are an un-American conservative, which means you are apostate and heretical. You didn’t listen to your liberal schoolteachers and media betters. Instead you chose the way of the devil (Hitler), whose anti-Christ has arisen in the form of Karl Rove/Bushilter and his Neocon demons. This makes you worse than infidels in the third-world. Some of you have dared to chosen a different “God,” a demon by the name of Christ. Iraq is Vietnam, the Fall from Eden on earth…and we Leftists are the little lambs of angels who are here to cleanse the Evil World from the apostates.

    We don’t need Reason, we have Gnosis. You are Evil. We are Good.

    Get it yet?

    Leftist Brain At Work (adabb6)

  6. One point that I think merits mention: it’s true that I didn’t follow any of the links in the “year in review” compendium post. It’s true that the post is encyclopedic, comprehensive, and it would take hours and hours to read up every source article that Pat linked.

    However, I didn’t need to read the source articles from the round-up, because I had read many, if not most, of them over the course of the year as Pat reported on each incident. The year-in-review was a walk down Memory Lane for the regular readers here. We don’t have to approach it as a daunting task to validate the points it makes; we’ve been doing that all year.

    I think Hiltzik missed that point.

    Joan (1f3f15)

  7. Hiltzik ought to get a life. And while he’s at it, he should visit an orthodontist, too, since all that teeth grinding and gnashing has probably done a lot of damage by now.

    Have a wonderful weekend, Patterico. I know you’re not losing any sleep over anything Hiltzik and his ilk may write or say about you. Keep up the great work.

    Ann (cc9923)

  8. Oh — having now read further, I see you characterize Mr. Hiltzik as being “toothless.” I missed that before.

    Maybe he doesn’t need to see an orthodontist after all.

    I stand corrected.

    Ann (cc9923)

  9. Great stuff, Patterico. I just left a comment over there ripping Hiltzik’s silly assertion that blogs have no beef with the LAT’s sports section. Matt Welch, Jon Weisman and the contributors to the Baseball Primer Newsblog would find that rather amusing.

    Crank (3fed2a)

  10. Wait a second — no forced confessions, no one singing praises to the Great Leader, only then to be taken out and shot? No denunciations of Left-deviationist Trotskyite wreckers who are merely dupes of Karl Rove? What kind of show trial is this? I want my money back.


    Anthony (Los Angeles) (f93591)

  11. Hysterical reaction typical of delusional lefties. You are obviously doing something right if they hate you. And it appears they really really hate you.

    MeanRightWinger (d5222f)

  12. Patterico, you may be done with Hiltzik, but I’m not done commenting on his contempt for our readers (and by extension, his).


    Armed Liberal (5a81e1)

  13. Hiltzik brought a knife to a gunfight.

    Patterico’s end-of-year summary was outstanding.

    The LA Times, and other “mainstream” outlets, would do well to listen to reader criticism (in this case supported by a mountain of facts and evidence), rather than remain in denial.

    It is fun to watch the Legacy Media squirm, thugh.

    Excellent work Patterico.

    Morris (c07286)

  14. Does the allegation always create a conflict of interest? I’m not sure that’s so.

    Suppose that a reporter with specialized expertise is busily uncovering a pattern of bribery among elected officials. Reporter is accused, pre-publication, by said elected officials of receiving bribes from the other side.

    If this were automatically disqualifying, it would be fairly simple to get rid of a vigorous, competent reporter, which may be in alarmingly short supply.

    Consider a partial parallel: Prosecutor is accused by charming member of DWPG (Dumb White Prison Gang) of being a member of the arch-rival LGCA (Low-grade Criminal As….pirants), which is why he’s trying to put large piles of DWPG’s in prison.

    This disqualifies the prosecutor? I think not.

    *Some* threshhold of believability ought to be reached before a conflict is declared, or even investigated.

    An LA DDA was leafletted in Lancaster almost 20 years ago by a cult leader accusing the prosecutor of, among other things, allegiance to Satan. For some reason, he wasn’t removed from the case, and to my knowledge, no investigation was done of the Satan-prosecutor tie. I (as reporter) did get him to admit that “We don’t meet directly, but, you know, Satan’s people and my people – we get things done,” but, sadly enough, didn’t use the quote.

    I don’t know enough about the situation here to draw a conclusion, and I’m not apologizing for Hiltzik here. But I don’t think the conflict is as clear as you make it.

    Side note: It could be worse. It could be Bill Plaschke on the news side.


    JRM (de6363)

  15. I think JRM makes a good point, which leaves the question: Did the reporter disclose the accusation? I don’t see how an ethical reporter can avoid doing that.

    Dan S (4d968f)

  16. Seriously, at some point you need to cut your losses and quit digging.

    Carrying on with this, after being effectively bitch slapped with actual facts, makes you look more than a little silly.

    Davebo (3bf575)

  17. And it is curious that while you’ve quoted his slightly vitriolic insult of your readers, you didn’t quote the parts of his post pointing out your blatant misrepresentations of the Times.

    Will that be buried published in your back pages somewhere?

    Davebo (3bf575)

  18. Patterico, In my experience the most arrogant people are those who know in their hearts they do not deserve to be where they are…that deep inside they are far less than it seems. See John Kerry, for example.

    clarice (c49871)

  19. It all depends on the meaning of “their job”…

    Patterico did his usual great job critiquing the LA Times… which in turn brought him some criticism from Michael Hiltzik,, a business columnist for the LAT… which in turn brought Hiltzik some criticism from the likes of Tom Maguire and Cathy Seipp….

    ThoughtsOnline (e37e4c)

  20. The one point that keeps popping up in my head is that Hiltzik does this for a living. He writes, etc., for the Times.

    Patterico does this in his spare time. Where he gets this much time I don’t know — I could never find such time — but I appreciate him for it. But my point is that Patterico does a hell of a job pointing out blatant errors — ones that are ultimately insufficiently corrected — long after we’ve gone to bed or before we’ve woken up.

    Great Job Pat !!! Keep up the fight.

    MOG (f92d17)

  21. “Arrogant” was the adjective that stayed in my mind yesterday while thinking about Hiltzik’s posts. A dialogue finally begins with someone within the LAT, and he could have, should have, began with a more humble approach, given that he was responding to criticism from his customers. But his arrogance creates a blindness where he sees us as Mongols attacking the wall of his rarefied LAT.

    Brian (b0d240)

  22. The funniest part is this clown writes for the Buisness section. Not the Editorial. You wonder why the Times is losing customers and money?

    Crispee (766a92)

  23. Here’s a comment I just posted there that probably won’t last long, so I’m re-posting here for posterity:

    Dave S:

    Patterico also notes that the word “killed” was unnecessarily replaced with the word “slain”, which is obviously more loaded and accusatory.

    Oh, there you go with your silly right-wing paranoia again. Don’t you know that there is no liberal media, just a 100% objective media which, for some unknown reason, frequently offends conservatives and never manages to offend liberals except when they fail to go far enough? Re-read this entry, and learn, you right wing partisan, you. They didn’t substitute “slain” for “killed” to malign anybody; they did it to save precious space. Didn’t you know “slain” takes up only five characters while “killed” consumes six? Get with the program.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to write a blog entry of my own comparing Hiltzek and his L.A. Times cohorts to Hitler. I used to think that sort of argument was bad form, possibly even a backhanded admission of defeat, but after reading this post and comment thread, I now understand that anyone who has lived and studied in a given country is free to make all the reckless analogies he wants to the worst aspects of that country’s history. Well, I’ve lived and studied in both Germany and Austria, so enjoy running your fascist little paper, Nazi-boy.

    Xrlq (ffb240)

  24. Correcting The LA Times

    Michael Hiltzik, who works for the Los Angeles Times, has attempted to defend his paper here and

    Dean's World (fa8fba)

  25. I was wondering about Hiltzik’s claim that your attack on Phillips was “sleazy”… it just didn’t make sense! Now it does, interestingly.

    [I’m confused. You’re not saying you agree with him, are you? — P]

    Susan (5f8f0d)

  26. Hiltzik’s postings scared me. They made me think. I don’t like thinking, it makes my brain hurt. That’s why I read Patterico. His stuff is simple, it never challenges me and always tells me exactly what I want to hear and agrees 100% with my worldview on everything. Why I was just saying in email to him the other day, “You know why I like you Patterico? You always agree with everything I think. You’re like Mister Rogers that way. So very soothing, so very agreeable. And cute as a button! Plus you’re part of our army of darkness led by arch-fuhrer Rove–all praise his name!”

    Because you know, that’s just what we evil deathbeast bloggers are like.

    Dean Esmay (d98eac)

  27. In Hiltzik’s original post, he called your reference to Golab’s article “sleazy”.

    I couldn’t understand why Hiltzik made that remark… you merely linked the article and (if I remember correctly) didn’t even comment on it. Hiltzik called this “sleazy”, and went on to provide what I thought was a personal & unnecessary defense of Phillips.

    Reading your post today on Phillips/Hackie adds a dimension… perhaps Hiltzik was attempting to pre-empt any discussion on Phillips’ reporting… It appears to me that Hiltzik’s view is that any discussion of Phillip’s reporting is out-of-bounds.

    By the way, I was curious to see how the LAT would defend itself & its reporters against the charges in the Rolling Stone article. Through this exchange, I guess Hiltzik has answered my question… which is to say, no real response at all: call those who link the information “sleazy” and don’t bother with any answers to the charges.

    Susan (5f8f0d)

  28. Give the man style points for using the word ‘flapdoodle’.

    Ken McCracken (3ad205)

  29. Good point. “Humbuggery” and “toodle pip!” would have gotten him extra points.

    Dean Esmay (d98eac)

  30. The Leftist Brain

    I wish I wrote this:What you don’t understand is that this is a Holy War. Hitler is the devil, Stalin was the apostate to the True Way, and the Vietnam War was the Fall. The world began in 1967

    Right on the Left Beach (72c8fd)

  31. […] UPDATE 2: Whew — Michael Hiltzik at the LA Times’ Golden State Blog really didn’t like Patterico’s LAT Year in Review, and let loose what can only be described as an unhinged (”Stalinist show trials”?) two- part response. Big mistake: Patterico fires back, and supplements it; it’s an unfair fight. Patterico in a knockout. […] » Magnificent Obsession: Patterico Chronicles a Year of LA Times Bias (475ea5)

  32. I’m just glad I left California. And I can read the mighty NYT here…wait…strike that…I’d use either paper to line my bird’s cage! At least he knows what to do with these papers…s..t on them!

    JAT0 (c4afa3)

  33. Hiltzik does not suffer “fools” — anyone to his right — easily. The arrogant attitude you write about is typical for him. A few weeks ago we summarized some of this obnoxiousness in a post The Los Angeles Times’ Michael Hiltzik Favors Civil Discourse … Just Not From Himself.

    If he makes mistakes, they are not acknowledged. He blames “ideological spinners” for misrepresenting the state of the economy, yet when his own spin — a gleeful prediction of Christmas season catastrophe — fails to come true, he writes … not a thing. I guess that’s one way to always be right.

    Sorry. Don’t mean to hijack this; it’s great to see Hiltzik’s self-important writing get the attention it deserves.

    A Senior Administration Official (5c600b)

  34. Davebo,

    You say:

    And it is curious that while you’ve quoted his slightly vitriolic insult of your readers, you didn’t quote the parts of his post pointing out your blatant misrepresentations of the Times.

    Will that be buried published in your back pages somewhere?

    Apparently you completely overlooked the post of mine where I responded to him in great detail. Hint: it’s here.

    Patterico (20b04a)

  35. Patterico

    It might be interesting to see what “Davebo’s” ip address turns up.

    Maybe a cubicle next to “Biff?”

    Darleen (f20213)

  36. You are justified by the enemies you have won. Hang in there!

    T J Ready (47faa3)

  37. We’ve all heard the old wise adage, “never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.” Looking at their circulation numbers, Los Angeles Times is buying alot fewer barrels of ink this year than last year.

    Mike W (c20d28)

  38. I just love the squealing of moronic brownshirt fucks like yourself. You got nailed, but good, and now it’s titty-ass whiny baby time.

    Blow it out your ass, motherfucker.

    dave (c87aa8)

  39. Man, what a great smackdown. Dave really got you didn’t he? 🙂

    Dean Esmay (81f299)

  40. When one has no ideas and is so obviously inarticulate, profanity-laden invective is the sole remaining option.

    #39 Pathetic and rude.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  41. Wizard’s First Rule: People are stupid and can never be relied on to do the sensible thing*

    Get the feeling people like Hiltzik ascribe to this?

    *From Terry Goodkin’s “Wizard’s First Rule”. Goodkin is a misanthropic 3rd rate Ayn Rand wannabe.

    Alan Kellogg (c438e9)

  42. Wow #39 dave, great post.

    Armed Liberal really summed up what troubles me most about this in his post over at Wind of Change (link in #12).

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  43. […] I missed the opening salvos of this latest battle of Patterico v the Los Angelas Times. If you want to read up and see what both sides are saying, then clicketh here, squire! And scroll down. […]

    QuickRob » Patterico v LA Times: Brains v Braun (7f554d)

  44. Wow, I am simply underwhelmed by criticism you’re taking, Patterico. Hiltzik reinforced by dave – what a combo!

    Keep up the good work, sir.


    Gaius Arbo (7d3894)

  45. Over at Hiltzik’s LAT blog Hiltzik “hiltziked” himself in a debate over his use of “Stalinist show trial” with a college student who proved Hiltzik did not know what the term meant when he first used the term, despite Hiltzik’s best attempts at nuancing and personal attack.

    For me it was well worth following Patterico’s link to discover this debate, as it tends to confirm my working hypothesis that Journalists of today really don’t know anything or want to know anything. If true, it might explain why they see no sense in making corrections.

    J. Peden (dda86b)

  46. Dave, if this were a sporting event, we’d all be shouting “You Da Man” as your trembling, little fingers work the keyboard.

    PC14 (98b75e)

  47. When hardscrapple newspaper reporters (up the ranks through apprenticeship) gave way to special, college-educated, professional journalists, the die was cast that the same sort of elitism towards the unwashed masses would infect many of its members as it has in other professions — doctors, lawyers, college profs, et al.

    Scrape away the layers of vituperous adjectives in the journalists’ screeds against bloggers and the underlying motive is clear

    Elitist to unwashed “WHO are YOU to judge ME?”

    Darleen (f20213)

  48. Well, it seems that the term “Stalinist show trial” has now been used in another context – see Dean Esmay’s site:

    This is getting ridiculous.

    Gaius Arbo (7d3894)

  49. When you got nothing else, you become an elitist.

    J. Peden (b92261)

  50. Patterico, keep on doing what you’re doing. These neo-Stalinists – LA Times, New York Times, etc. – have gotten away with it for too long. For someone to turn the smug into the slackjawed and then go into a infantile temper tantrum gets a thumbs up in my book.

    Mr. Hiltzik proved himself to be neither a respected journalist nor a person with grace or maturity – he proved himself to be a spoiled, immature brat with zero manners.

    Yankee Yankee Zulu (19ba93)

  51. Or you become George Foreman. Foreman recalls Ali asking him at the end of round six in the fabled rope-a-dope confrontation, “Is that all you got, George?” Foreman reflects that he “knew something strange was happening in my life, because that was all I had. Knock me out now.”

    Foreman then recovered after about 10 years, having endured the wilderness of knowing “I was dying” subsequent to his defeat, to emerge as the new George we all know who has confounded the experts who told him he couldn’t do what he then did at his age, and after recurrent defeats. Let’s see which path Hiltzik takes, or if he can learn/know anything.

    J. Peden (b92261)

  52. The phrase that most succinctly sums up Hiltzik, I first read in an article leading up to the 2004 elections. I unfortunately can’t give credit to that writer because I can’t remember who is was, it might have been Peggy Noonan. Anyway, the phrase is “myopic hauteur.” Anyone that shares the world view of Hiltzik has to have a certain arrogant disregard for new information. And that myopia reveals the fatal flaw of such a mindset.

    Both Democrats and Republican information consumers are human and it’s human nature to prefer the style of Patterico where information is presented with links for the reader to verify and then form their own opinions. Contrast this with the hauteur of Hiltik and the inferior format of print, radio and TV where there is no interaction and the news and opinion is simply presented to the reader, listener or viewer in a style more suited to absorbtion than study.

    Hiltik et. al. simply can’t fathom a world in which new objective information can come from any lone Joe with a computer and that might force them to change their stance. I guess in part, I can understand their frustration. Unlike other professions such as elite level sports or medicine, there is no real barrier to writing and reporting. To be sure, a degree from the Columbia School of Journalism may produce better sylistuc writing, and it may produce a Pulitzer prize, but fundamentally, what matters in any writing is the idea. Words and their creative organization are simply the vehicle for ideas and the state of the world.

    Hiltik’s ideas are myopic and their presentation is haughty.

    Jeff B. (dc6c07)

  53. On a related note, I have a theory about why people like Hiltik attack people like Patterico. I think they do it because they are leeches, they are trying to latch onto the traffic of accomplished bloggers.

    I developed that theory about excitable Andy and his constant distortions and attacks on Reynolds. He’d take some random blurb Reynolds had typed and turn it into “Reynolds favors torture” or some such BS. Reynolds would respond on his post and voila! Andy’s traffic goes up by 50,000 for a few days.

    I suspect the same dynamic may be going on here. As Hewitt points out, if you look at Hiltik’s blog he gets virtually no comments…except on his post attacking our host.

    It might be a hard position to take, but maybe its better just to ignore screeds from desperate unread blogs like Hiltik’s, since in the end all it does is help them accomplish what appears to me to be a significant goal of their’s, IE getting attention. Let them earn their way to blog traffic. Actually it might be a really good lesson for them.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  54. But, my good friend Dwilkers, you forget that the Endangered Species Act requires us to save Hiltzik! Evolution of any kind must not proceed but rather the Liberal Loon Garden of Eden be retained by our noble sacrifice to this Ideal of Sensitivity, Tolerance, and even Perfection. Only then will we be one with Gaia – yet also dead, an event which alone validifies our values, as I’m sure you well know, but have also merely forgotten?

    J. Peden (11c761)

  55. Davebo,

    You say:

    And it is curious that while you’ve quoted his slightly vitriolic insult of your readers, you didn’t quote the parts of his post pointing out your blatant misrepresentations of the Times.

    Will that be buried published in your back pages somewhere?

    Apparently you completely overlooked the post of mine where I responded to him in great detail. Hint: it’s here.

    Davebo=another lib shot down trying to look clever with his lib friends pushing a self-evidently false assertion.

    Talk about a large, slow moving target…

    Scott (57c0cc)

  56. OK, how does today’s settlement by the City of LA with BIG’s family for concealing evidence play into the credibility of the various claims here?

    Just asking…


    Armed Liberal (5a81e1)

  57. […] Patterico is a blogger based in L.A. who specializes in exposing the Times’s factual errors and leftist bias. He’s tangled with Hiltzik off and on since the Golden State blog began. Read this and this for a taste of how a Pulitzerian responds to his critics. […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Radio Alert: Patterico To Discuss Hiltzik on “Hoist The Black Flag” (3ca10e)

  58. […] in the Wallace murder. Philips later trumpeted the witness’s recantation of that accusation without telling readers that 1) the same witness had accused Philips of receiving payments from Knight; or 2) that the […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Inmate Whose Innocence Was Touted by Chuck Philips Accuses Philips of Conspiring with Suge Knight to Threaten Him and Suborn Perjury (b16ea8)

  59. […] in the Wallace murder. Philips later trumpeted the witness’s recantation of that accusation without telling readers that 1) the same witness had accused Philips of receiving payments from Knight; or 2) that the […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Inmate Whose Innocence Was Touted by Chuck Philips Accuses Philips of Conspiring with Suge Knight to Threaten Him and Suborn Perjury (b16ea8)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1056 secs.