On July 27th, 2009, the jury deliberation ended in no decision; a mistrial.The jurors were STRONGLY in favor of conviction on felony molestation charges by the end of deliberation. Lady Justice has been pressing the honed edge of her sword against ayres' throat, and only the thin cloth of his rumpled suit jacket has prevented that fatal slice.
On 6 counts the vote was 11-1 in favor of conviction.
On 1 count the vote was 10-2 in favor of conviction.
On 2 counts the vote was 7-5 in favor of conviction.
The primary holdout was apparently the young female law student or recent graduate or some nonsense...
UPDATE: Thursday, July 30, 2009: MillsPeninsula.blospot.com has some pretty great content today.
There are several posts of interest below this post, including detail about the vote split, comments from jurors, as well as the jury foreman, some comments on "recovered memory" as well as many other comments and essays. There is a A pre-written request for re-trial, set up by Patient Advocate, and some words of thanks.
When you get to the bottom of the page, you can click the "Older Posts" link to step back through daily blog postings, or just look at the "Blog Archive" list on the right hand sidebar for a list of titles.
Comments are turned OFF for most of the older entries. If you find a topic you wish to post on, and it's closed, feel free to come back and post on this top entry. (With ONE exception.) Comments are moderated, and sometimes it may take a bit before they get through. If your comment does not get ever through, you may want to consider what you wrote within the context of this blog. In most cases, you can reword it and it will get through. We do have an obvious bias here.
Well on that news, I would say a retrial is certainly in order. No wonder Doron Weinberg was not tooting his horn to loudly!
ReplyDeleteBy a slim margin he almost lost another case.....
If these numbers are confirmed by the prosecutor you need not waste your time writing letters. A retrial--absent a state prison plea--is assured.
ReplyDeleteSecond, at Ayres’ age and apparent health (77), even a midterm sentence on one 288 count (6 years) with the remainder stayed as a part of a plea deal would be tantamount to a life sentence.
On the other hand, no way is the prosecutor going to entertain a non-state-prison disposition in this multiple victim 288 case or let Ayres plead to simple battery (a misdemeanor).
Therefore, it is very likely that there will be no plea deal and a second jury will decide Ayres’ fate.
So save your printer paper. It is a done deal.
I agree with Anonymous on July 29, 8:58 am.
ReplyDeleteThe million dollar question is: will Weinberg continue to be Ayres' lawyer? How will the good doctor pay for his services ? There was a backlash among psychiatrists to that fundraising letter sent out by Dr. Dick Shadoan.
So, now what? Maybe for starters the Ayres can sell their season subscription to the opera...
I think "Anonymous" at July 29, 2009 8:58 AM has some good points.
ReplyDeletePrinter paper is made to be printed upon. Let's let it be clear that a re-trial is definitely something that we desire. Save a tree, and get a bunch of people to sign your letter with you, but make sure that you are heard.
I think a retrial will be a good thing. It will certainly ruin him financally if he isn't already as well as provide closure for the victims. I am sorry for his son but don't know how I feel about the wife.
ReplyDeleteAs to the outcome of a retrial I would think it would be much more efficient as the prosecutors are able to clean up all their mis-steps and fill in all the gaps.
Perhaps if he's out of money he'll plead guilty second time around? Can he do that?
I just e-mailed my letter to Our District Attorney James P. Fox. jfox@san mateo.ca.us
ReplyDeleteThan You PA
Michael G. Stogner
Michael Stogner has the letter posted at the San Mateo Daily Journal Forum and has used email:
ReplyDeletejfox@co.sanmateo.ca.us
Save a tree and email I am all for that as well!
Dear July 29, 2009 10:18 AM:
ReplyDelete1. Yes, Ayres could always unilaterally “plead the sheet”—meaning plead guilty to all charges—but he won’t. (That way would lead to more years in prison than he has left to live.)
Even if he could not afford Doron Weinberg on retrial, he would be eligible for the San Mateo County Public Defender—but I have a feeling that Weinberg is in for the retrial.
2. Regarding a retrial ruining him financially—who knows what his financial circumstances are? One can only speculate.
However, keep this in mind:
“It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of crime who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime.” (Pen.Code, § 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) Thus, “[I]n every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by the court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim…” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).) The restitution order “shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, all of the following … [¶] (A) Full or partial payment for the value of stolen or damaged property. The value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible.” (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(A).)
Therefore, if Ayres pleads guilty even to a misdemeanor OR goes to trial and is convicted of as much as a misdemeanor offense, he faces court ordered victim restitution as to the charged victims.
3. If the court orders Ayres to do a reduced jail or prison term as a condition of probation, the court has the discretion of ordering Ayres to pay restitution to uncharged victims as well.
4. Victim restitution is limited to “economic loss” (so no pain and suffering, emotional distress damages, or punitive damages) but would include lost wages or income while cooperating with the police investigation or testifying in court as well as the cost of any related psychological therapy—whether covered by insurance or not.
5. The court must adopt the victim’s restitution claim and order restitution in that amount, unless the defendant a. requests a hearing to contest all or part of the claimed restitution and b. bears his burden of rebutting any prima facie showing by the victim (through his claim) of the restitution amount he is seeking.
6. It is my general impression that many charged or uncharged victims in this case were treated in therapy following Ayres’ alleged criminal misconduct, and therefore the amounts of that therapy + other cognizable economic losses under the victim restitution statue would indeed be financially ruinous to Ayres.
7. If the court ordered victim restitution amounts are not paid by Ayres during the probationary period and he cannot show he was financially unable to pay, then the court may revoke probation and impose all or a part of the full suspended sentence (if any).
8. In all cases, the court ordered victim restitution order is enforceable as a civil judgment, may be recorded as an automatic lien on all real property owned by the defendant, and (like any other civil judgment) may is good for 10 years and may be renewed for another 10 years in perpetuity.
9. However, unlike most civil judgments, a victim restitution order is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Melissa, Thank You for your quick response, I wish you and your team the very best, I do know how important this case is to you, and you know how important it is to the people of San Mateo County.
ReplyDeleteBest of Luck
Michael
--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Melissa McKowan
From: Melissa McKowan
Subject: Ayres
To: michaelgstogner@yahoo.com
Cc: "James Fox"
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 1:15 PM
Mr. Stogner:
Thank you for your letter of support regarding the potential retrial of the defendant in the Ayres case. Please understand that the District Attorney's Office is currently employing the "usual procedures" that follow a hung-jury/mistrial. These procedures include interviewing the former jury members, talking with the victims and other witnesses and evaluating the probability that we could obtain a more favorable outcome after a second trial. Upon the completion of that process (which, by the way, is nearly complete just two days after the mistrial), I will meet with my management team and we will decide whether or not to retry the case.
I can assure you that NO ONE is more disappointed or saddened by the mistrial than I am. I still have the same belief in the victims that I have always had but I feel even more responsibility to them now that I have come to know them on a personal level and have watched them agonize through the trial process.
My sincerest hope is that I will be given authority to retry the case but I, like every other DA in San Mateo County, must let the process play out before a decision is made that involves the lives of already-victimized men and huge amounts of public money. I would, of course, have loved to have jumped up 20 seconds after the mistrial to demand a new trial date or to have started picking a new jury that afternoon, however, I must (and do) respect the process that is in place to assure justice and reasoned decision-making by our elected officials in situations such as this.
I believe, first and foremost, in justice, Mr. Stogner. I also believe in the jury trial process, in the victims and in the procedures my management team has put in place to make sure that we act reasonably rather than rashly. I sincerely and with all my heart and soul believe in the defendant's guilt. All that said, I truly believe that on August 28th, we will announce a decision that will be based on a FULL analysis of all of the relevant factors related to retrying a felony sexual assault case and that by engaging that process, we will have the full support of the community in whatever decision we make.
Thank you for your support.
Melissa R. McKowan, DDA
San Mateo Co. District Attorney's Office
400 County Center, 3rd Floor
Redwood City CA 94063
Ph: (650) 363-4774
Fax: (650) 363-4873
mmckowan@co.sanmateo.ca.us
Translation: Hell yes we are going to refile!
ReplyDeleteWe know that there are victims who are reading this blog who have not yet come forward to the police. Several are in statute.
ReplyDeleteWe know how hard it is to take that first step to report abuse, but in the event there is a retrial, it could be very cathartic for you to testify.
We have heard that it has been freeing for some victims who testified in this trial.
We hope that you will come out of the shadows and come forward.
I saw this from a story a few days ago and was surprised:
ReplyDeleteShe said that the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office cannot change the charges against Ayres, and he therefore still faces the same nine counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14.
____
I was hoping that the victim who dropped out would come forward to testify. And others too.
Next time i hope they hire a jury consultant.
ReplyDeleteI also think that some of the victims should not have said "It was no big deal to me at the time" and "I didn't think anything of it."
That well may have been the case - and it sounds as if they were in denial. Nonetheless, I don't think they should say that on the stand. It's something that the young woman lawyer would grab on to for dear life and use as ammo to acquit.
Can they try to get the nude boy books in or are they out?
ReplyDeleteRegarding adding of charges:
ReplyDeleteAs to adding back in the counts pertaining to the witness who dropped out, if the charges were dismissed after the jury was sworn in, i.e. after “jeopardy attached,” then those charges are barred by the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution and can never be refilled. If the charges were dismissed before the jury was sword in, then the charges can be refilled one more time.
As to adding charges not barred by double jeopardy, including new charges arising from new victims coming forward, those charges would first have to be filed before a magistrate through a complaint, Ayres would be entitled to a preliminary hearing, and only if held to answer would Ayres be arraigned on second information containing the new charges in Superior Court. That process would take months if not a year—depending on availability of defense counsel.
Regarding the comment of July 30, 2009 6:07 AM:
All witnesses in every trial should tell the truth. If at the time they thought nothing of it, then that is what they need to say.
One aspect of a retrial is that the prosecution and the defense will have a complete transcript of the testimony from the first trial, and if any witness says something different his prior testimony can be read to the jury.
It would be better to tell the truth, be consistent, and let the cards fall where they may.
If material changes in testimony are brought out, the jury may use that to distrust the testimony from that witness.
To Anonymous at 7:01 am.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your expertise.
It is my understanding that the seventh victim dropped out after the jury was sworn in.
Also, the police have in their custody those nude boy books, but they were not admitted into the trial because they didn't get a new search warrant to look at them this past May.
Can those books be brought into the second trial if they get the right search warrant?
Thank you for posting here.
I hope the judge allows more out of statute victims to testify this time.
ReplyDeleteOr can she? They can use different witnesses for the new trial, can't they?
I think they have to keep everything the same or else they are putting on a different case.
ReplyDeleteLike getting a second chance and using information for your benefit. Same witnesses, same charges, but perhaps a different method of presenting the same facts.
Focusing on areas that would have helped the jurors understand the charges.
Regarding the use of previously excluded evidence, the answer depends on the basis on which the court excluded the books and the analysis may be complex.
ReplyDeleteIf the court exercised its discretion under Evidence Code Section 352, found the books more prejudicial than probative, and excluded them on that basis, the court could theoretically revisit that ruling on retrial and admit the books—if it weighed those factors and found the books were more probative than prejudicial.
If the defense filed a motion to suppress the books as improperly seized during warrantless search or on the basis that the search warrant did not extend to the books, and that motion was previously granted, then the books remain out—they are excluded and the time for the prosecution to appeal the exclusion order has most likely expired.
There is another possible permutation here that relates to the application of the exclusionary rule to evidence that the prosecution wants to use for impeachment.
[This usually arises when there is an excluded, illegally obtained confession or statement, the defendant takes that stand and contradicts the excluded confession or statement, and then the statement or confession is allowed for impeachment purposes (provided the statements were not “coerced” or “involuntary.”) In 1990, the United States Supreme Court held that the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule would not be expanded to permit the prosecution to use the defendant's illegally obtained statement to impeach defense witnesses other than the defendant. I have not researched the issue of whether the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule applies with equal force to illegally obtained physical evidence.]
I do recall a tiny news blurb in this case that the trial judge ruled that if the defense put on affirmative evidence that Ayres was not a pedophile, then the court would admit the books.
I read that defense counsel then decided to not call an expert on that issue.
I am not clear on the original basis to exclude the books, so I could not comment on the propriety of that ruling. However, even if the impeachment exception to the exclusionary ruled applied to illegally obtained physical evidence (the books), it would not seem proper to admit them to impeach a witness other than the defendant, such as an expert witness—assuming the original basis for exclusion was an illegal search and seizure.
Is the judge allowed to allow more out-of-statute victims to testify on retrial?
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, the trial judge has the discretion to revisit any issues relating to the admission or exclusion of evidence on retrial—with the exception noted regarding previously excluded and illegally obtained physical evidence (if any).
However, if the court does decide to allow more out-of-statute victims to take the stand this go around, that decision (in my view) would appear to be transparently the result of tendentious reasoning, meaning an effort allow the prosecution to increase the quantum of its evidence to achieve the desired result of a unanimous verdict of guilty on all counts.
There also may be valid tactical reasons supporting a prosecutorial decision to go with the same witnesses this go-around.
First and foremost, but for a loan holdout juror, the prosecutions presentation in the first trial worked—at least as to six felony counts, each carrying 3, 6, or 8 consecutive years in state prison. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Second, every additional witness that an attorney puts up on the witness stand creates the opportunity for a snafu, and often the jury will attribute that mistake to the side calling that witness to the stand. This holds particularly true for lay witnesses unaccustomed to testifying in court in front of a crowd.
Is it a given that Judge Freeman would be the Judge in retrial?
ReplyDeleteThanks Anonymous for sharing your legal expertise.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the prosecutor would have been permitted to talk hypothetically about the nude boys books had Doron Weinberg brought on his witness to say that Ayres did not fit the profile of a pedophile.
I hope that the jurors in the first case will show up to support the victims by attending the retrial hearing on August 28th.
ReplyDeleteI know that several jurors from the first Phil Spector trial (which ended in a hung jury because of one stubborn holdout) attended the second trial.
Regarding Spector's retrial:
ReplyDeleteIt was not "several" jurors who attended the retrial. On a few occasions, Juror #9 from the first trial dropped by.
For the sentencing, three jurors from Spector's first trial and three or four from his second trial showed up.
I would like to hear from other jurors here.
ReplyDeleteStealth Jurors, Holdout Jurors in San Mateo County
ReplyDelete"This is a chilling, chilling, frightening thing" M.G.
"It is." Hon. Judge Alfred Delucci
Hon. Judge Alfred Delucchi agreed with attorney Mark Geragos that the possibility of a stealth juror — a person who actively seeks to be on a jury with a hidden agenda — does exist, If somebody wants to deceive the court and the attorneys and they are crafty, there is no way around it.
James P.Fox, who had been the district attorney for 21 years, as of this date 2004 said he has never prosecuted a juror for perjury.
I say that gives STEALTH JURORS in San Mateo County the green light.
Perjury is a felony crime that carries up to four years in prison.
M.G. "I've got a 10-year old boy who could investigate (the stealth juror) in 10 minutes"
The witness told the court in a signed document that on a seven-hour ride to Reno with a senior group the woman said “she was trying as hard as she could to pass the test and not appear biased” and she implied that she wanted to be the foreperson.
Here we are 5 years later we have a case where 1 juror has caused a mistrial. According to posts above the Spector trial was a mistrial because of 1 juror.
Doron Weinberg was the defense attorney in both cases.
Welcome to San Mateo County
Michael G. Stogner
Michael,
ReplyDeleteSounds like the movie "Runaway Jury" with Gene Hackman.
Could be a very real possibility!
Dear Michael:
ReplyDelete1. Doron Weinberg was not on or associated with the Spector’s defense team during the first trial—where there was a lone holdout juror. So he could not possibly have had anything to do with that hung jury—even coincidentally. Weinberg was only hired after the jury hung, for the second trial.
2. If one is going to go down the road of investigating jurors who withhold information during jury selection, there is arguably more cause for suspicion of the juror who was dismissed from Ayres #1—than the lone holdout on six of the counts. (She was not the only hold out on three other counts—which were 10-2, 7-5, and 7-5.)
3. The take-away lesson from Ayres #1 is: Never leave a lawyer on the jury.
Very truly yours,
A Lawyer
The juror that I thought paralleled the Runaway Juror was the juror in Spector two who started (as with the Grisham novel) started wearing provocative tea-shirts associated with Spector and then (I speculate) when—unlike in the book—no one approached him to “bid” for his jury vote—he at first threatened to quit for “money issues” then did.
ReplyDeleteMichael: In the first Spector murder trial which ended in a hung jury, Doron Weinberg was NOT the lawyer on the case. Spector had a team of lawyers, including Bruce Cutler (who's represented a lot of mafia guys.)
ReplyDeleteWeinberg only came on board for the second Spector trial. And as you know Spector was found guilty.
To A Lawyer
ReplyDeleteJuly 31, 2009 10:49 AM
I agree.
I remember that the first foreman on the Scott Peterson trial was a doctor AND a lawyer. He wanted to deliberate for months and drove everyone crazy. He got booted off. The final foreman was someone who was close to being a blue collar worker, as I recall.
Many lawyers were astonished at how quickly the jury was selected. Perhaps they might go more slowly next time.
ReplyDeleteDeep Sounding:
ReplyDeleteI think you should offer a prize to anyone who can get a shot of Ayres walking without his walker.
Does anyone know how Ayres is being treated by his peers, colleagues and friends these days? Is he just the same old fellow who goes to the opera or is he shunned?
ReplyDeleteDick Shadoan, the shrink behind the fundraising letter, attended the trial, as did Etta Bryant and Dr. Sam and Thea Leavitt. (Though Dr. Sam looked very uncomfortable during testimony about the touching of penises and scrotums.)
ReplyDeleteI wonder what his neighbors at his rented condo think of him,
You just know that there were hundreds of juveniles who were molested by Ayres. They're probably too afraid to come forward. Maybe they think they will be punished.
ReplyDeleteBut I think they should all band together and file a class action suit against San Mateo County for sending them to Ayres.
I think Doron Weinberg might live in Piedmont. Not Berkeley.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont,_California
http://www.ehs1.org/common/news_detail.asp?newsid=399249&L1=1&L2=5&L4=
ReplyDeleteInteresting that Weinberg's wife, also an attorney, "is a member of the Board of Directors for the Ann Martin Center – a unique nonprofit agency that combines professional psychotherapy and educational therapy to hundreds of children and adolescents primarily in the Oakland-Piedmont area."
I think there should be two prosecutors at the table next time around. The DA's office needs to show some muscle.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to Eagle Hill School. Founded in 1967, Eagle Hill School is an internationally known college preparatory boarding school that educates students with learning (dis)abilities, including Attention Deficit Disorder in grades 8-12.
ReplyDeleteThis is the school which Doron Weinberg's wife is on the Board of Trustees.
A lot of the students of this school have learning disabilities, ADD, etc.
I wonder since the school opened in 1967 how many of the students went to see a psychiatrist and received a genital exam?
So Doron has three children, and has an understanding of the very types of things kids were sent to Ayres for.
I always have to say "Doron what if it had been one of your children?"
He must just be in this case for the money. He couldn't even apologize for saying a victim's full name in court, on several occasions.
I really don't respect the guy.
Excellent points, PA.
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder about Weinberg's wife, too.
Of course, we all know and agree that everybody is entitled to a defense.
But that doesn't mean everybody has to respect the defense attorney.
What, exactly, is the purpose of publishing the name, place of employment and residence city of the defense lawyer’s wife and family?
ReplyDeleteBecause they made it public information?
ReplyDeleteThat is what public information is "public".......
What was the purpose of Weinberg's using the victims' full names -- not just once, but several times -- during the trial?
ReplyDeleteWeinberg had no problem blurting out the full names of all the victims not once but MANY times. He even did it during closing arguments!!!
ReplyDeleteTo the person who asked why it was necessary to publish the residence city of Weinberg?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is: because Weinberg's wife told someone at the courthouse that she read the blog and told this person that they didn't live in Berkeley, as this blog had previously stated.
Since Waller, the wife, was upset about being identified as being from Berkeley, someone wanted to set the record straight.
Not to mention the fact that Weinberg not only welcomes but also actively seeks the spotlight.
ReplyDeleteMr. Weinberg is neither naive nor stupid; he knows full well that one cannot control the "side effects" of celebrity.
With the amount of inappropriately directed anger ricocheting around here I have no doubt that you were abused children—all of you.
ReplyDeleteBut by whom is the question?
Are you sure that you mean to direct your anger toward Ayres, and not mommy, daddy, or uncle Bob?
What trauma started your troubled youth—before going to juvenile court, before ever laying eyes on Dr. Ayres?
Care to talk about THAT?
I heard that the DA is meeting today to decide whether they will retry the case.
ReplyDeleteOK.
ReplyDeleteWow. I just managed to actually read all of these recent posts in detail.
1) The information that was "posted" about Weinberg and his wife and their kids were posted by (presumably) Weinberg's wife, on her organization's web site. (They even list their kid's names, which I personally think is not very wise at all. Not a lot of braintrust there, I think.)
2) I think the information was commented on because it's IRONIC, give the nature of HER work contrasted with HIS recent work. Duh.
3) I heard that thing about Weinberg's wife asking about the Berkeley statement too "We don't even live in Berkeley" or something like that. And I have to clarify: I didn't SAY they were from Berkeley, I said they were "Berkeley-looking sorts" which, they were. Even if they live in Iowa on a farm, they LOOK like they should be residing in Berkeley.
Ummmm...DS, I love ya; and I have no love for DW.
ReplyDeleteBut as a proud Berkeley grad, I have to stand up for the place:
Weinberg no more typifies Berkeley than Ayres typifies Hillsborough. (Both communities with which I am intimately familiar... :-) ... )
ReplyDeleteBut by whom is the question?
Are you sure that you mean to direct your anger toward Ayres, and not mommy, daddy, or uncle Bob?
What trauma started your troubled youth—before going to juvenile court, before ever laying eyes on Dr. Ayres?
Care to talk about THAT?
Thanks for coming to visit Solveig!
ReplyDeleteBut as a proud Berkeley grad, I have to stand up for the place:
Weinberg no more typifies Berkeley than Ayres typifies Hillsborough.
Oh... come on... you never even tried some burlap clothes? Maybe just a shirt? With some nice beads?
lol
To Anonymous at 6:02 pm on August 3:
ReplyDeleteHi, Solveig!!!
By the tone of your post, I would ask the same thing of you: what trauma did you have in your youth that has caused there to be so much anger in you? Were you abused? Were your parents not faithful to their wedding vows?
I for one have often wondered what the secret is in your own life you have fought to the death to keep under your own wraps.
Does the secret in your life have something to do with your daughter Barbara?
Also, FYI: none of the victims who took the stand went through juvenile hall.
August 3, 2009 6:36 PM:
ReplyDeleteI did not say juvenile hall I said juvenile court, and whether the charged victims passed through there on the way to see Ayres, YOU did didn’t you?
I am NOT Mrs. Ayres, but I am confused by your referenced to a female child….
I thought you all claim that Ayres was not into girls….
To anonymous August 3 at 6:52 pm:
ReplyDeleteIf you attend juvenile court, then you have gone through Hillcrest Juvenile Hall. That's how it works in San Mateo County.
And no, I have never darkened the door of a juvenile hall or court.
Solveig, you of all people should know why we are talking about your daughter Barbara.
But YOU were the one who insinuated something untoward about Ayres and his daughter Barbara. Not us... But since you brought up the connection yourself, why don't you tell us more about it? Did the police stumble upon some ugly family secret when they raided your home?
With the amount of inappropriately directed anger ricocheting around here I have no doubt that you were abused children—all of you.
ReplyDeleteBut by whom is the question?
Dah again, this blog is mostly written and commented on by victims of AYRES!
Dah, anger at the justice system.
Dah, Weinberg for defending the child molester.
Dah, Idiots like you who could not even bother to post but do!
Does that answer some of your questions.....
I like Bezerkley, but I don't wanna wear Crocs or fanny packs!
What surprises me most about Solveig is that she is not more psychologically-minded. Her observations are neither astute nor insightful. (And I refer to other writings of hers, not simply the alleged "Solveig-type" writing here.)
ReplyDeleteBut then I suppose that shouldn't be surprising. She has spent her entire life with a fraud.
DS—you could not afford the home prices in the Berkeley Hills, or in Piedmont.
ReplyDeleteYour sour grapes aside, both are wonderful areas.
DS—you could not afford the home prices in the Berkeley Hills, or in Piedmont.
ReplyDeleteYour sour grapes aside, both are wonderful areas.
Snicker.
Anonymous 8:34:
ReplyDeleteYour point is?
(Perhaps you wandered onto the wrong forum, or perhaps you simply have difficulty following a discussion...this discussion is not about real estate.)
Maybe I could afford those areas if I was always defending the guilty!
ReplyDeleteYou gotta remember AYRES can't afford those places either. He don't pay no friggin property taxes to the tax man.....sold out, house gone for 2.3M....
Snicker Doodle =}
...it is less trouble and more satisfaction to bury two families than to select and equip a home for one.
ReplyDelete-Mark Twain