Patterico's Pontifications


What the Press Won’t Tell You About the Fired U.S. Attorneys: Interesting Information on Carol Lam from the Recently Released E-Mails

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:03 pm

This morning, I called for conservatives to examine the newly released e-mails on the fired U.S. Attorneys. My goal is not to defend the Administration — which can’t defend itself, and continually sabotages itself — but rather to keep a watchful eye on the press and the Democrats (but I repeat myself), and to learn the facts that the press won’t tell us about.

Today, I received an e-mail from someone who wishes to remain anonymous — but whom I trust. The person is a Harvard Law classmate of several of the people whose names appear on various documents. He passes along some interesting information from the e-mails regarding Carol Lam. My correspondent says:

In a quick review of some of the Judiciary Committee documents that were just released, here are several items that make it overwhelmingly clear that people at the highest levels — from the Dept. of Justice to Senator Feinstein to all of the California congressmen — were concerned about Carol Lam’s performance on immigration cases and, to a lesser extent, firearms cases.

What follows is my correspondent’s analysis.

From Documents 11-5:

Email from Kyle Sampton to William Mercer, Dec. 5, 2006:

Administration has determined to ask some underperforming USAs to move on (you’ll remember I beat back a much broader — like across the board — plan that WHCO was pushing after 2004).

Email from Kyle Sampson to Bill Mercer, May 31, 2006:

Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?

If the AG ordered 20 more prosecutors to S.D. Cal. to do immigration enforcement only, where would we get them from (remember the premise: AG has ordered it)?

Response email from Bill Mercer to Kyle Sampson, May 31, 2006:

I don’t believe so.

Not that I am aware of.

There are good reasons not to provide extensive resources to SD Ca. Other border districts have done substantially more. It will send the message that if your people are killing themselves, the additional resources will go to folks who haven’t prioritized the same enforcement priority.

Email from Kyle Sampton to Bill Mercer, June 1, 2006:

Bill, this relates (certainly in the AG’s mind) to the e-mail I just sent to Elston (cc to you) re our pressing need to, in the very short term, generate some deliverables on immigration enforcement, and in the long-term, insulate the Department from criticism by improving our numbers. AG has given additional thought to the SD situation and now believes that we should adopt a plan — something like the following:

Have a heart-to-heart with Lam about the urgent need to improve immigration enforcement in SD.

Work with her to develop a plan for addressing the problem — to include alteration of prosecution thresholds; additional DOJ prosecutors; additional DHS SAUSA resources; etc.

Put her on a very short leash;

If she balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way by July 15 [my date], remove her.

AG then appoints new USA from outside the office.

Email from Bill Mercer to Paul McNulty, June 5, 2006:

. . .

What, if anything, should be done in SDCa [sic] to address concerns about inadequate immigration enforcement numbers. The range of options includes: replace Carol, replace Carol only if she fails to make demonstrable improvements within 90 days (maybe shorter like 45 days) . . . .

Pages 20-21 of Documents 11-5 reproduce a letter that Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California sent to the Attorney General on June 15, 2006, claiming that

despite high apprehensions [sic] rates by Border Patrol agents along California’s border with Mexico, prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of California appear to lag behind. A concern voiced by Border Patrol agents is that low prosecution rates have a demoralizing effect on the men and women patrolling our Nation’s borders. It is my understanding that the U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of California may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases.

As shown in pages 9-12 of Documents 11-5, someone was concerned enough to write a report comparing Lam’s total prosecutions of immigration, firearms, and fraud cases to the total number of such prosecutions in other border districts (such as Arizona and Texas). The report also notes (in bold text) that federal firearms cases “hit a 10 year low in SD CA in FY 2005 even after the conversation between Jim and Carol [Lam.]. . . . This is a long-standing issue.”

From Documents 11-4:

Email from Lee Otis to Bill Mercer, May 2, 2006.

In case you haven’t seen this, here is the Q&A at the AG’s House Judicial Committee hearing re: San Diego immigration prosecutions:

Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fl):

. . . I recently spent a full week on the Mexican-California border, riding around with Border Patrol agents. I was with them 2:00, 3:00 in the morning as they arrested various illegal aliens and smugglers . . . . These coyotes get approximately $1,500 per person that they illegally smuggle into the U.S. The Border Patrol agents told me that they have arrested some of these alien smugglers between 20 and 30 times. They tell me that the U.S. attorney in San Diego for the Southern District of California, Carol Lamb [sic], has repeatedly refused to prosecute them; that the prosecutions have been slashed dramatically; that under the guidelines and practice of this U.S. attorney, the only way you’re really going to see a prosecution is if someone dies in the transport of the illegal aliens or if one of these alien smugglers attempts to run over someone . . . .

The morale is so bad among these Border Patrol agents that I show you a photograph that they call the wall of shame. It has pictures of over 200 coyotes that have been arrested by the Border Patrol agents in the Southern District of California who this U.S. attorney has repeatedly failed to prosecute.

Pages 47-48 of Documents 11-4: This is a letter sent to Carol Lam by Rep. Issa of California lambasting her performance on immigration enforcement.

The last two pages of Documents 11-4 and the first few pages of Documents 11-5 are an official memo dated May 26, 2006, from Daniel Fridman (Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General) to the Deputy Attorney General. The title of the memo: “Analysis of Immigration Prosecutions in the Southern District of California.”

The conclusion: “It appears that SDCA is employing prosecution guidelines that are more restrictive than other districts in immigration prosecutions. The most immediate fix would be to change the prosecution guidelines so they are more in line with the guidelines employed by other border districts. In particular, SDCA should place a greater emphasis on pursuing illegal reentry cases and alien smuggling cases.”

Pages 9-13 of Documents 11-3 constitute an official memo to William Mercer in response to “your recent request regarding the immigration policies of the five (5) Southwest Border districts.” This is not dated.

From Documents 11-2, page 49 is an Oct. 20, 2005 letter to Alberto Gonzales from Rep. Issa of California and about 18 other Congressmen, complaining of the fact that the “U.S. Attorney in San Diego has stated that the office will not prosecute a criminal alien unless they have previously been convicted of two felonies in the district.”

Also, liberal bloggers have made much of the fact that on Aug. 23, 2006, DOJ wrote a letter to Dianne Feinstein defending Lam’s record on immigration cases. That letter can be found here.

Read between the lines. The letter cherry-picks just about the only statistics that appear to show an improvement. But when you look at the overall statistics, the number of cases in S.D. Ca. dropped from over 2,500 per year in 2003 and 2004, to a mere 1,514 in 2005. This is a huge drop, and one that can’t be masked by claiming that the number of prosecutions in one narrow category went from 21 to 77, or that the number of tried cases rose from 37 to 80 (which are claims that the letter makes).

In other words, DOJ was merely putting its best face forward when publicly responding to a Senator’s letter. But behind the scenes, as numerous documents and emails show, many people at DOJ were concerned with Lam and the immigration issue.

37 Responses to “What the Press Won’t Tell You About the Fired U.S. Attorneys: Interesting Information on Carol Lam from the Recently Released E-Mails”

  1. Patterico — I told you this days ago, and you go and give credit to some Harvard types.

    Something I have found just now is in release 1-6 of the documents, and it is a Memorandum for the Deputy Attorney General from the DAG’s Deputy Legal Counsel dated Feb.21, 2006, reviewing FY 2005 case filing statistics for Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), which is a gun crime enforcement initiative that has been an Attorey General Priority since 2002.

    DAG Bates Pages No. 726-727 have a graph that shows the steady decline of gun crime case filings during Lam’s tenure. Frankly, I’m STUNNED that a district as big as San Diego had only 12 gun crime cases filed in 2005. That ranked 86th out of 93 US Attorneys’ Offices nationwide, while the San Diego US Attorney’s Office is probably among the 10 or 15 largest in the country. I’m in an office maybe 1/4 the size of San Diego, and I’m certain we have filed probably 4x or 5x the number of gun cases they filed.

    Even more amazingly, the SDCA gun case filings dropped from 24 in 2002 to 12 in 2005, while at the same time ATF referral of such cases increased from 98 in 2002 to 152 in 2005.

    All you have to do is look through the numbers of some of the other districts that are reflected in this memo to see that other districts have gun case filings totaling in the hundreds — not between 10 and 20 (closer to 10).

    At Bates Page 734, there is the following paragraph:

    “Of the listed districts, the Southern District of California stands out as the only one with the same US Attorney since 2002, a substantial urban population, almost no increase in cases filed from FY 2003 to 2004, a 33% decline in cases filed in FY 2005 (to a total of 12), and increased ATF referrals — despite a call from DAG Jim Comey in June 2004. The Southern District of California’s cases filed are at their lowest since 1994 — and that is the earliest year for which EOUSA provides records — despite 152 case referrals from ATF in FY 2005.”

    This is DEVASTATING stuff. No US Attorney could/should survive.

    Remember, its only 2 months later that Sampson calls her the “real problem.”

    wls (077d0d)

  2. As if being terminated wasn’t bad enough, the Dems and press making such a fuss leads to all of this stuff in open air.
    Of course, the way things have been going, the President and AG will be blamed for smearing Attorney Lam’s reputation because, “If they had handled the firing better none of this would have happened…”

    Alice, we’re not in Kansas anymore.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  3. Actually — where I said it was document release 1-6, it should have been 1-7.

    wls (077d0d)

  4. “The letter cherry-picks just about the only statistics that appear to show an improvement . . . In other words, DOJ was merely putting its best face forward when publicly responding to a Senator’s letter. But behind the scenes, as numerous documents and emails show, many people at DOJ were concerned with Lam and the immigration issue.”

    And the DOJ couldn’t just publicly admit the truth because . . .?

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  5. Thanks for that, Patterico…
    When I called Sen. Feinsteins last week asking for help on the illegal immigration issue the guy on the other end said Lam had a “lack of resources”. He was just spouting the party line. Today I find out his boss had a problem with Lam’s performance.

    tyree (9874a0)

  6. That “woodshedded” e-mail was a bit late, though; apparently no one ever had, which is a shame for them. But yes, Lam had differnet priorities–she went after immigration, but she went after bigger fish, like corrupt Border Patrol agents–like the war on drugs, sometimes it isn’t just the sheer numeracy of the prosecutions that matters. However, it seems that someone with access to Border Patrol documents didn’t like this and retaliated against her, resulting in some political heat for her and for the DOJ. Fortunately, they stood by her till the last–until they betrayed her in the end.

    Biff (c3722c)

  7. Bradley,

    They couldn’t because they were “defending” (read: “Trying to not make her appointment look as bad as it really was”) Lam because she was one of their’s.

    Dems do it constantly. We do it constantly. When someone of ours is attacked, we damage-control it as best we can. Then comes the point where you can’t excuse it any more, and you cut them loose.

    Ever had a friend you KNEW was a screwup, but when someone outside your circle of friends started to bad-mouth them, you stood up for them? Defended the screw up? And then, later on they became SUCH a screwup you just walked away from it because they refused to change?

    THAT is what happened.

    It’s a shame we can’t just say what we think anymore. We have to bury it behind piles of political BS.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  8. “Gun crime cases” are mostly horse-doodoo. Good for her for not pursuing them.

    nk (cbd34d)

  9. nk — tell me all you know about gun crime cases. I suspect it won’t take much space.

    wls (077d0d)

  10. As if being terminated wasn’t bad enough, the Dems and press making such a fuss leads to all of this stuff in open air.

    I thought about that yesterday as CNN reported on Chiara’s emails begging the DoJ to keep her firing quiet. She had announced she’d stepped down voluntarily. So much for letting her have some dignity.

    MayBee (eb1824)

  11. MayBee — the other guy who is getting screwed with all this attention is Bogdon. The guy is a career prosecutor, and he didn’t even go seeking the US Attorney’s job, Senator Ensign’s Chief of Staff heard about Bogdon through the fed. law enforcement grapevie, and went and sought him out. Bogdon was honored to be approached, and took the job.

    His forced termination is the one that really puzzles me because he’s about as non-controversial as they come, and Ensign clearly didn’t want thim out.

    DAG McNulty said in an email that he was a little unsettled over Bogdon as well, since he wasn’t clear on why he was targeted.

    Its important to remember that McNulty was one of the first US Attorneys appointed by Bush following the 2000 election. He got the very plum spot in the ED of Virginia – just across the river from D.C. McNulty was always one of the leaders of the US Attorneys as a group, and chaired the Attorney General Advisory Committee made up of 20 selected US Attorneys. So, he knew all 8 of the targeted AUSAs well, having worked with them for 5 years before becoming DepAG.
    I’m sure this was not something he was involved in with enthusiasm.

    wls (077d0d)

  12. You tell us, wls. Just how many of your cases involve “use” of a gun by a felon to commit a crime and how many involve an easy office statistic by a now law-abiding citizen with a prior felony conviction in possession of a firearm?

    nk (cbd34d)

  13. Patterico — I told you this days ago, and you go and give credit to some Harvard types.

    My friend, the Harvard type knows how to deliver a post already written, so the host just has to cut and paste. Do the work for the lazy blogger, and watch the credit roll in!

    Anyway, I quoted you extensively — and corrected your typos to boot, albeit somewhat late. Some of your points overlapped with Mr. Cambridge’s points, but that’s OK.

    [UPDATE: I should note that “Mr. Cambridge” is not his name — it’s just a snide reference to Harvard.]

    Patterico (04465c)

  14. P.S. Civil, non-jury, non-reasonable doubt domestic violence protective order too?

    nk (cbd34d)

  15. I’ve prosecuted plenty of gun crimes involving “use” — in all its various and tortured meanings — of a firearm by — a felon, a habitual drug user, a drug trafficker, and a person engaged in a crime of violence. In fact, I’ve had two pleas in the last two months by marijuana cultivators — each with more than 500 plants — one of whom had an AK-47-style assault rifle with a full mag and a round in the chamber under his mattress; and another who had two side-by-side double-barrel shotguns each of which had a barrel length of less than 10 inches.

    And, if you have a complaint about the fact that it is currently a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1) for a person with a prior felony conviction to possess a firearm, even if they are now a “law abiding citizen” — I would suggest you take it up with your Congressional Representative or Senator. I don’t write the laws, I just enforce them as they are written.

    Isn’t that the way its supposed to work? Or do you want unelected prosecutors to pick and chose which laws are really important and which was are “horse-doodoo”???

    wls (077d0d)

  16. nk — are your referring to the provision of 922(g)(8) that reads as follows:

    (8) who is subject to a court order that —

    (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

    (B) restrains such person from harrassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intiminate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

    (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
    (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threated use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.

    You mean that “civil, non-jury, non-reasonable doubt” effort to curb spouse-on-spouse or spouse-on-child violence with firearms?

    Do you read the papers?

    Again, I don’t write ’em, I just enforce ’em.

    wls (077d0d)

  17. “Or do you want unelected prosecutors to pick and chose which laws are really important and which was are “horse-doodoo”???”

    Yes, definitely. Given limited resources and murderers, rapists and robbers on the street, I do want the prosecutor to go after the ones who pose a danger to society and not the ones who only provide him an easy conviction for his win-loss record.

    nk (cbd34d)

  18. You do know, NK, that the feds don’t prosecute murderers, rapists and robbers from the street, right? You do know that’s a state/county issue, using state/county resources, right?

    I want the USA’s to go after people who violate Federal law. That includes the smugglers, illegals, federal gun law violators, and the like.

    But that’s just me.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  19. Sorry, we cross-posted on 16 and 17.

    Yes, I meant the Lautenberg Amendment. That’s a heck of a way to impose an attainder on U.S. citizen. Just an opportunity to be heard? No conviction? No proof beyond a reasonable doubt? No jury? Just a judge who cannot go wrong if he enters the protective order but will be forever castigated if he denies it?

    nk (cbd34d)

  20. Scott #18,

    Your point is valid but Ramos and Compean might not see it that way.

    DRJ (53e939)

  21. Funny thing about that — its generally the murderers, rapists, and robbers that are carrying the guns.

    My first felon-in-possession case in 1993 was a guy with a prior conviction for 2nd degree murder who spent 18 years in prison, and 3 months after being released he robbed a cab driver with a handgun. He got 22 years for those crimes — interference with commerce by robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. I think he was 52 at the time, and I was fairly confident that he would die in prison — and he did.

    And, about 6 months ago I declined to file on a guy with a domestic violence restraining order because when I looked at the reports it looked like the guy had gone to the court hearing after his girl-friend filed for the order, they were sent to anger-management classes, they went back to court together and the judge gave him a big atta-boy for their efforts, and the guy didn’t realize that the domestic violence restarining order stayed in force for 3 years notwithstanding all that. He was later cited for having a hunting rifle in a gun-rack in this truck. I didn’t think the facts of the underlying domestic violence matter supported a conclusion that he was aware that he was still subject to the order after he did what the family court told him and then they gave him a certificate for his effort.

    So, contrary to your professed belief, individual prosecutors do exercise discretion to sort the wheat from the chaff in these types of cases.

    I know its hard for skeptics to believe, but I have PLENTY of work to chose from, and I don’t need to chose the cases that lack merit or lack evidence. Its a target rich environment. There are plenty of scumbag criminals lurking about that just can’t keep their hands off guns.

    wls (077d0d)

  22. WLS,

    I’m glad you shared those anecdotes. I want prosecutors to follow the rules but it’s good to know they appreciate exceptions, too.

    DRJ (53e939)

  23. I think that it’s a pretty moot point to be concerned with the belief by many in the DOJ, senator feinstein, and CA congressmen of Carol Lam’s ill-pursuit of immigration cases. The fact is that the DOJ defended Lam’s immigration work to congress. It seems, but may or may not be proven with further investigation, that Lam was fired for her pursuit of dirty government officials. Personally, I think that this is why the administration shoots itself in the foot everytime. The administration is too bent on only fulfilling its goals whether or not there is any precedent. Sure, there may have been a precedent to force Lam out, but the Bush administration will be damned if they care. Ring any bells? Iraq?

    Da Bombz Diggity (e1bfb4)

  24. wls, re your comment #21:

    So wadda? Where do we disagree? That Carol Lam did not pick up state cases involving use of a firearm? Or that she did not pursue enhancement in federal cases?

    nk (cbd34d)

  25. WLS, thanks for that post. This gun owner appreciates your common sense and decency.

    DaBomb, you are proof of people believing what they want despite a lack of supporting evidence.

    Hard Right (ac504f)

  26. nk — Carol Lam’s office filed 12 — TWELVE — gun cases under PSN in all of 2005. My district, with about 1/4 the number of prosecutors, and with a much smaller population in the district, and without a drug smuggling border area, filed 112. And we didn’t just pad out stats with domestic-violence order cases.

    Whether you like it or not, and whether Carol Lam liked it or not, PSN is one of 5 Attorney General National Priorities:

    1. Terrorism
    2. Corporate Crime
    3. Human Trafficking
    4. Project Safe Neighborhoods
    5. Project Safe Childhood (exploitation and child porn)

    If Carol Lam couldn’t bring herself in good conscience to pursue the Dept. and Admin. priorities with the resources given to her to do so, then she should have resigned.

    Its not “Carol Lam’s Justice Department” or “Carol Lam’s Southern District of California”.

    She works for somebody — and she didn’t do what she was directed to do.

    So, she now works for somebody else.

    wls (077d0d)

  27. Hard right, on the contrary. I believe that there was supporting evidence to force Lam out, but what concerns me is that the administration did not take advantage of that supporting evidence because it had other motives. For example, why wasn’t Lam forced out by July 15, 2006 as Sampson originally suggested? Why when Lam was forced out in December of 2006 did no one offer an explanation, like the belief that she was not pursuing immigration cases? Did Lam begin to perform well with regard to immigration cases by July 15, 2006? Where are the documents that prove that the DOJ actually asked Carol Lam to change her policy towards immigration? Although there is evidence that Sampson told Mercer and that Mercer told McNulty, there still has not appeared any evidence of anyone telling Lam, per Sampon’s suggestion. Why would the DOJ praise Lam for her efforts in dealing with immigration cases when the DOJ was also concerned with her (poor?) performance with regard to those very same immigration cases. These are questions that present ambiguities that question the administration’s motives. If I were you, I’d be concerned about the answers to these questions. If anyone were to try to force me out of a job on my performance, I would need to see consistent evidence, not conflicting evidence that present ambiguities.

    Da Bombz Diggity (e1bfb4)

  28. wls, #26:

    I get it. I don’t like Project Safe Neighborhoods but I will stop arguing with you about it. I do stand corrected on my basic premise. I had thought that U.S. Attorneys had greater autonomy and independence. That they were mini AGs in their respective districts. Like State SA/DAs.

    nk (cbd34d)

  29. […] Patterico has the goods. The Feds basically gave up prosecuting illegal foreigners in SoCal .. and know we know at part of what happened. Against all expectations — for PR reasons — the Bush people at Justice were on the side of increased law enforcement. […]

    PrestoPundit » Blog Archive » Fired U.S Attorney Well Deserved It (d881ce)

  30. Great work. Thanks for this.

    PrestoPundit (a2369b)

  31. Scott,

    “Ever had a friend you KNEW was a screwup, but when someone outside your circle of friends started to bad-mouth them, you stood up for them? Defended the screw up? And then, later on they became SUCH a screwup you just walked away from it because they refused to change?

    THAT is what happened.

    It’s a shame we can’t just say what we think anymore. We have to bury it behind piles of political BS.’

    Thank you. That puts this whole matter in a much more normal light. A lack of ability to be candid in the political process just makes everything seem more suspicious than it actually is. (Save for Sampson’s behavior, which is in another class of deception entirely).

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  32. Never ever expect the whole truth from the secular left-wing news media after all they still spew this poppycock of envoltion,global warming,gun control and other fruad

    krazy kagu (6a69d6)

  33. […] Patrick Frey (aka “Patterico”): “I Use Titles That Are Too Freaking Long, So I’ll Have To Suffice With Links From ASHC All in One Made-Up Quote“ […]

    A Second Hand Conjecture » Attorney-Gate II (f55714)

  34. […] (You can read the two memos summarizing the immigrant prosecution policy starting on page 9 of this slice of Department of Justice documents, released by the House Judiciary Committee. A big “thank you” to the Patterico’s Pontifications blog, which points out where to find the key documents.) […]

    U.S. policy towards illegal border crossers: it takes at least six strikes in Texas before you’re out - Vindu’s View from the Valley - A Silicon Valley Perspective on Public Policy, Business and Technology (43f857)

  35. What crap! Here’s the source of the REAL PROBLEM the Bush WH, and by strong-arm extension, the DoJ, had with Carol Lam: “Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) signed on to a letter criticizing U.S. Attorney Carol Lam’s “lax” handling of immigration crimes.” There’s your Limbaugh-like factoid.

    Here’s the context: The letter, signed by 18 other Republican lawmakers, was sent October 20, 2005. Cunningham pled guilty November 28 to bribery charges and resigned from office.

    Cunningham (probably as advised by Rove) following typical Republican Swift-Boat tactics, called in some chips among fellow scum-bag Republicans to put political pressure on an honest (god can it be true?) Republican USA, trying to defame her over immigration prosecutions, hoping she’d fold on his corruption charges.

    Didn’t work, did it? When Swift-Boating fails, revenge is the next Rovian weapon. Hence the firings.

    Focusing on Lam and immigration as a “legitimate” poor performance excuse for her axing doesn’t wash because 1) She’d been praised by her handling of the same issue by the DoJ prior to l’affaire Cunningham and 2) you can’t ignore the other 7 USAs who felt the blade fall, too because they weren’t loyal enough in NOT prosecuting Republican corruption. Context, always context.

    Nailer (2dbd61)

  36. low air loss mattress\”\”…

    There are a lot of great things here….

    low air loss mattress\"\" (eecc5f)

  37. Hey, that’s a good idea, conceptually. Lots of air mattresses lose too much air.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1538 secs.