I am so not into today's Delegate Assembly. I usually sign up right away, but I am getting bored with the
same old same old. Besides I am kind of fed up.

Back in October's town hall, I asked a fairly innocuous  question...

"Is there a transcript of the arbitration hearing concerning our retro check and if so, when will it be made available to rank and file."

I received an email back from "John." In the email he shared with me that he is  following up with those that were involved and will get back to me. The email was sent on October 20. Today is December 16. 

I again asked the question at last month's town hall. As of today I did not get an email back.

I get it. I am not going to get picked to ask a question in a town hall or a DA? I don't genuflect. I am not a member of Unity. I am not a chapter leader. But at least have the decency to not only email me back but to answer my question honestly. 

So I am typing this and listening to the DA at the same time. I pressed zero as soon as I answered the call for the DA and spoke to Michael who took my question and was going to relay it. I am waiting.

What is the UFT hiding? If there isn't a transcript, let me know. If there is a transcript why can't I or any other member of the rank and see it? Doesn't the UFT wish for transparency? Transparency would easily do away with any rumors, innuendoes, and accusations that are going around concerning the leadership of the UFT. 

I'll make it easy for the UFT. I'll agree to go to a private room at 52 Broadway with other Unity people. Let me read the transcript without taking notes. Heck, I'll leave my phone at the security desk in the lobby. Better,  I'll strip down to my rather fashionable boxer briefs to assure there is no monkey business. 

If there is a transcript, I'd rather deal with the UFT in knowing if there is one and actually being able to read it. I guess the other method would be filing a FOIL request with the city and asking for it that way. I'm sure I can find someone, somewhere, in a different caucus other than Unity to file the FOIL request.

What's bothering me, what got me going about seeing the transcript is something Mulgrew said at the October DA which raised my eyebrow...

...and then on October 2 I asked for confirmation they were processing payment. Asked again.

 He knew something was up on October 2. Twelve days before we were told we would not be getting our retro monies on  October 15. There is no reason we could not have gotten a heads up sooner. This is what makes members question the UFT. This is what makes the rank and file nuts. 

By the way, the question portion of the DA has ended. My questions wasn't chosen. What a shocker.

Let's try this again. Is there or isn't there a transcript of the arbitration concerning the retro monies? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Tomorrow is a UFT Town Hall. I think these town halls show the UFT is being proactive somewhat and somewhat transparent. But how much of it is substance and how much of it is for show? 

Something like this should have been done a long, long time ago in a reality that was too far away. Mulgrew or whomever was UFT president should have had these town hall face to face in each borough every month. The ATR meetings in November I have appreciated but instead of once a year should have been every month. 

Each town hall I have pressed zero to ask a question. I used to get Rasheed, lately it seems like some retiree. It used to be that someone from the upper echelon of the UFT emailed you back. But that is if you weren't amongst the chosen to formally ask Mulgrew a question. No longer, now you get some anonymous hack emailing you back a question. One thing did improve, we don't hear the same Flat Stanley question time after time in a town hall.

My gut tells me the teachers that get to ask question publicly and their questions are pre-screened. It just makes sense. The numbers I have heard on a town hall phone call are over 10k. How is it that of all these town halls, all the pissed off teachers, all the thousands of teachers there has not been one teacher to dare question Mulgrew's leadership? To scream? To rant? To curse? To mock? Statistically, this is impossible. How many callers would call Mike Francesa to mock him and/or rant in just a single hour?

So last month I came up with a good question. It was about the arbitration hearing with our retro pay. I asked this question due to Mulgrew sharing this at last month's town hall...

Many of you have written me about it. We always anticipate bad things. We plan for bad days as teachers. Didn't talk to city about it at all, and then on October 2 I asked for confirmation they were processing payment. Asked again. I then called, knowing members would check paychecks.

 October 2nd he had a hunch what was going on. He could've shared this with us. He didn't. But, I thought, the arbitration meeting, it must've been transcribed. I asked (click to enlarge)...

I asked if there is a transcript of the arbitration hearing and if so when can the rank and file expect to see such transcript. The email I received was dated October 20, 2020, and I followed up on November 18, 2020. As of today, November 22, 2020, I have heard hide nor hair from the UFT concerning my transcript request. If there is a transcript, the DOE and/or the city must have said transcript. Perhaps a FOIL request can be filed? 

Transparency. That's not very much to ask for. Let's see the transcript. Why is it taking so long to respond whether or not a transcript exists? Or even just an audio recording of the arbitration. There is enough skepticism about the process last month with our retro. Prove the skeptics wrong. Release the audio and/or transcript of the arbitration. 

A lot of us got really screwed with half a retro check this year. I think it is only fitting that we know the full truth on how we are out half our retro.

I guess the first bad taste I got in my mouth was early this year at a DTOE meeting I had
attended in the Woodlawn section of the Bronx right over the Yonkers line. I had been at the time, on the DTOE steering committee and was truly gung-ho about the future of DTOE and what it could accomplish.

But something that night did not feel right and I don't mean the dude who came dressed as Jean-Luc Picard and smelled like a Klingon.

With what I saw it was more like a revival meeting and seemed to be centered around a "leader" and only that "leader's" agenda. Forgive me if I am wrong, but should not an agenda for such a meeting go through a steering committee? Is not the job of such a committee is to steer?

Too much of the agenda was how to be reactive to the crap we as teachers go through. How to FOIL, how to write a grievance, how to record a principal, stuff like that. There was nothing about how to be proactive. Nothing to do with how to get through being targeted emotionally.

Now mind you I am all for fighting the fight and holding feet to the fire but that is just me. I can't force my beliefs on someone else nor, and much more importantly, not everyone is like me. Not everyone else can or wants to fight back like me. Some just want someone to talk to. Some just want a shoulder to cry on. Some just want support.

Something clicked that night for me. It reminded me of the family that lived across the street from me when I was a kid. They seemed perfect from the outside--like from central casting for a 1950's family TV show--but they were truly dysfunctional. The screaming fights we heard from outside truly made sense when we all found out dad was a raging alcoholic. And things started to make sense that night in the Bronx.

Back in April, DTOE had decided to align itself with New Action in several protests across the city. I was bothered by that. Why, should DTOE be aligned with New Action when NA is not only sleeping with the enemy but making Unity's breakfast as well?

"Oh, it doesn't hurt to work with others. Besides, NA might leave it's alliance with Unity."

Yeah, right. And Donald Trump will become president.

I questioned this publicly in DTOE FB page and elsewhere. Not just the alignment but more important was the subjugation of democracy. The DTOE steering committee was not notified. One person made the decision.

I then inquired as to the by-laws of DTOE. I was told;

"We don't need by-laws."

Really? I was perplexed. What was to be done?

The same thing the leader of any country that is ruled despotically and for the purpose of enriching a leader when factions from it's puppet legislature or cabinet speak up. Call for new elections.

Yes, new elections for the DTOE steering committee were immediately called for without any input from the current steering committee or any by-laws. Care to guess who called for these elections?

I got the hint. But fittingly no one else ran so in a way I think I might be still be on the steering committee.

Remember this? The teacher Carmen Fariña harangued at PS 123 in Harlem during a visit? The "leader" sent this email to the Principal of this school (Just to allay any concerns this was publicly displayed in one of the "leaders" many Facebook pages");

Good evening Principal Hernandez,

     I was reading the below article and couldn't help but wonder who the teacher you had concerns about was. Chancellor Fariña recommended you "observe them many, more times a day."

    I'm curious in not only their identity, but if they are probationary/non tenured or veteran? Even more important to me is what support have they been given in the last year, two years, three years etc.

     I will be making a Freedom of Information Law request today to obtain documentation on the support this teacher was given. Please expect communication from the Records Office soon.  I don't agree with the chancellor's "counseling" methods and intend to follow up on the number of observations this teacher has from now until the end of school in June.

Women, children, and those with weak constitutions please avert your eyes for a second while some choice words are used to express opinion of this email.

WHAT THE F**K?????

What right does the leader have to do this. Yes, we know, you have the right to FOIL anyone, anytime, but do you have the moral and ethical right to file a FOIL request on a teacher who you do not even know, who did not ask you, who does not know you?

How do we know if this teacher is nontenured, on probation and because of this FOIL (Which was also CC'd to Farina and Aimee Horowitz) led to this teacher's discontinuance? Or if this teacher is tenured led to the teacher facing a 3020-a hearing? Or even more harassment?

What right does the "leader" have to play God? Or has the "leader" started thinking of itself as a deity? 

That was it for me. But there is more that one can question the judgement of the "leader."

Why is a clown, borderline disbarred (In my opinion and almost all of Earth's) attorney like Joy Hochstadt given a voice in DTOE? What is her role now with Solidarity?

Why when after all your love-ins with New Action did they repay the love when an UFT Executive Committee voted down the rights of ATR to have their own chapter with only one New Action member voting on the proposal (A retiree) with 2 abstentions and the rest voting no?

Why does the "leader" label himself as a "Union Boss" when the "leader" as yet to achieve such a lofty position? One also can ask where are the photos of the "leader" with the words so big saying, "UNION BOSS" imprinted prominently?

Why at the ICE meeting last week in which the "leader" asked for a joint slate was the "leader" either unable or unwilling to answer this simple question from myself?

"If there were to be a joint slate would you be willing to step down as nominee for UFT president and let a joint committee decide and will let where the chips fall where they may?"

The leader as been unable or unwilling to answer the question.

Why did the "leader" take credit for creating the Facebook group ATR Alliance and why did the "leader" turn a FB group originally used for support into a political tool of the "leader's"? What accomplishments as the ATR Alliance endeavored to?

What truly happened at the lunch meeting with Randi Weingarten? Has she asked the "leader" to form another caucus to split the anti-Mulgrew vote?

As UFT President one should wonder what the "leader" will do to those who dare to those that dare to question or contradict the "leader" president.

And lastly, one can reasonably ask, whether or not the "leader" is in this for the "leader" or for THE CAUSE as the "leader" likes to say. If this is for THE CAUSE than the "leader" should remove the rose colored glasses and look around and do what is right for THE CAUSE.

Why all of the sudden come to ICE for a joint slate? Because Solidarity does not have the numbers to run nor to sign the petitions is what The Crack Team as ascertained. 

 What is one to make of comments such as this from this James Eterno posting?

 "When I'm up at the podium one day, don't worry, no hard feelings, I'll still call on you at the DA"

"You will see me up at podium one day and despite the fact that you've discarded our work together, know that you had a part in that success, whether you like it or not. MORE running a separate campaign would be a extremely irresponsible."

"Because I'm going to be leading something called the "United" Federation of Teachers."

Humility goes a long way. Try it. 

Francesco Portelos has been MIA since December 23 and I figured I might pick up the slack (Yes, it is unsolicited, but what the heck?) of a little primer of my own (Not taking anything away from DTOE's own resource's page) which I hope can be added over there. And when Francesco is found he can add anything to this if he so wishes.

The NYCDOE uses Outlook for all it's email purposes. However, all Outlook email is subject to FOIL and any and all discovery requests in a court of law. The NYCDOE is a public entity and all those working for the NYCDOE are in the realm of public employees.

Even if the emails are deleted they are stored indefinitely in servers at, I believe, MetroTech.

But some people, and not just at the NYCDOE, have figured out a way around using "official" email. As someone in government said to me, "Here is my personal email. Use this to communicate with me it is not FOILable."

But back to the NYCDOE. Yes, some schools have set up email domains and accounts through third parties. GoDaddy, Yahoo, Hotmail, and yes, even Google Mail or as we call it, Gmail with their own domains.

But let's focus on Google mail.

Through Google mail one can have their on ___domain (instead of @gmail.com one can have something like, @failingschool.com) which might make one think they are impervious to any FOIL requests or discovery requests.

This is false.

Once a private email provider (In this case Gmail) is used to discuss business, especially one like a government agency that email account is than considered to be a government account subject to all laws of FOIL and discovery.


But Kevin Smith of Fort Lee NJ asks a question;

"What if the emails in question have been deleted by the account? Then what?"

Good question Kevin!

The Crack Team checked with several people in the industry and with people at Google. The answers we got back were pretty much the same;

"With over a million servers world wide the deleted emails remain on the Google servers forever"

See, problem solved Kevin. We guess Kevin won't be deleting any emails anytime soon, right Kev?

But how does one get those emails? This was the question put forth to us by Kevin Jones of Fort Lee NJ.

Thank you Kevin, The Crack Team has researched your questions and please click here and for those who can't wait some of the highlights are below.

We here at SBSB hope that this post and the information below can and will be helpful.

What kinds of data do you disclose for different products?

To answer that, let's look at four services from which government agencies in the U.S. commonly request information: Gmail, YouTube, Google Voice and Blogger. Here are examples of the types of data we may be compelled to disclose, depending on the ECPA legal process, the scope of the request, and what is requested and available. If we believe a request is overly broad, we will seek to narrow it.

Gmail

Subpoena:

• Subscriber registration information (e.g., name, account creation information, associated email addresses, phone number)
• Sign-in IP addresses and associated time stamps

Court Order:

• Non-content information (such as non-content email header information)
• Information obtainable with a subpoena

What's the difference between a subpoena, a search warrant and a court order under ECPA? And what information can a government agency get from Google with each?

It's complex, but here's a summary of the different forms of legal process covered by ECPA:

Subpoena

Of the three types of ECPA legal process for stored information, the subpoena has the lowest threshold for a government agency to obtain. In many jurisdictions, including the federal system, there is no requirement that a judge or magistrate review a subpoena before the government can issue it. A government agency can use a subpoena to compel Google to disclose only specific types of information listed in the statute. For example, a valid subpoena for your Gmail address could compel us to disclose the name that you listed when creating the account, and the IP addresses from which you created the account and signed in and signed out (with dates and times). Subpoenas can be used by the government in both criminal and civil cases.

On its face, ECPA seems to allow a government agency to compel a communications provider to disclose the content of certain types of emails and other content with a subpoena or an ECPA court order (described below). But Google requires an ECPA search warrant for contents of Gmail and other services based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

ECPA Court Order

Unlike an ECPA subpoena, obtaining an ECPA court order requires judicial review. To receive an ECPA court order, a government agency must present specific facts to a judge or magistrate demonstrating that the requested information is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.

With such a court order, a government agency can obtain the same information as a subpoena, plus more detailed information about the use of the account. This could include the IP address associated with a particular email sent from that account or used to change the account password (with dates and times), and the non-content portion of email headers such as the "from," "to" and "date" fields. An ECPA court order is available only for criminal investigations.

Does a law enforcement agency in the U.S. have to use legal process to compel Google to provide user data or will a phone call be enough?

The government needs legal process—such as a subpoena, court order or search warrant—to force Google to disclose user information. Exceptions can be made in certain emergency cases, though even then the government can't force Google to disclose.

 

I got to thinking.

I got to thinking after reading some of Chancellor Fariña's Capacity Frameworks on the DOE website. Yep, was really rubbing my chin and pondering.

Under the Framework known as Trust, and so it was said;

Relationships between all members of the school community— including administrators, educators, students, and families—are based on social respect, personal regard, and integrity. Trust creates a school culture where teachers, principals, staff, and all members of the Department of Education value and respect each other...

Another Framework, Effective School Leadership so sayeth;

 The principal sets the tone for the school, develops a climate of inclusiveness, and inspires staff and students with a clear vision for student achievement. The goal of a strong school leader is to build coherent instructional and social-emotional support that improves student achievement. School leaders support teacher development by consistently offering professional development opportunities and providing meaningful feedback.

¡Uni momento, por favor! It seems that someone has not gotten the Frameworks memo. I wonder who, **COUGH COUGH**, **WINK WINK.**

 What would a lay person say if they have read about the shenanigans that DR Alison Coviello, Ed.D and Principal of PS 154 in the Bronx and BFF AP Jessica Cruz have engaged in concerning me, and possibly others?

When this was shared on August 7, would any Joe Shmoe from Palookaville see the integrity, the trust, the inspiration, and the meaningful feedback? Would Mr Schmoe find the same values in this? Or this?

One would hazard to guess that the answer would be an unequivocal no way!

But let's give DR Alison Coviello, Ed.D and Principal of PS 154 in the Bronx and BFF AP Jessica Cruz the benefit of the doubt for just an itty bitty moment. Perhaps we don't have enough information to make an informed opinion, or enough information to confirm a fact.

But first a little background info.

As reported here on December 3, 2013, the erstwhile and multi-talented Betsy Combier filed a FOIL request in September 2012 for Coviello's any and all emails regarding me. Betsy felt she was quite thorough in using many keywords. But alas, they were one step ahead of her.

In an email in September 2012 from BFF AP Jessica Cruz to DR Alison Coviello, Ed.D and Principal of PS 154, BFF AP Jessica Cruz suggested to DR Alison Coviello, Ed.D and Principal of PS 154 that all future emails regarding me should be use the honorific, "Mr."

Now I am not a member of the legal profession, I do happen to be Jewish, and I can assume that this is not kosher behavior. Can this be obstruction of justice as some have suggested? I can't say, nor is it my place to make either an assumption or pass judgement.

But these questions can be asked...

Why were they so afraid of what Betsy would find out and why would they use a pseudonym for me? 

In a school that still consistently has almost 90% of students across all testing grades in both Math and ELA  put so much energy into what some might also call a cover up?

Are there any other teachers from the 2012-2013 school year that were U-rated for the year subject to what I was subject to? 

Are there any other teachers from the 2013-2014 school year that were rated ineffective or developing for the year subject to what I was subject to? 

Are these kind of behaviors by administrators done in a vacuum or is it systematic throughout the system? Knowing that if we all had a dime for every time we hear a teacher say, "My principal set me up," we would be quite wealthy, if this is just the tip of the iceberg in a systematic problem, how many years do we go back to see if this was done and be sure accused teachers are exonerate?

What did District 7 Superintendent Yolanda Torres know and when did she know it? More importantly, was she the one orchestrating this conspiracy? 

Inquiring minds want answers.

Discovery is;

A category of procedural devices employed by a party to a civil or criminal action, prior to trial, to require the adverse party to disclose information that is essential for the preparation of the requesting party's case and that the other party alone knows or possesses.

Simple.

Exculpatory evidence

evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.

Again, simple.

 Back in January when I had the pre-hearing for my 3020-a we put in our discovery requests. Part of what was requested, and we feel the most important part is the request for emails, texts, letters, etc... pertaining to me from DR Alison Coviello; Principal and Ed.D of PS 154 and her BFF AP Jessica Cruz.

Here, have a look;


It's all very straight forward. Now you ask, what is the problem?

It's now almost June and we have yet to not only get a response from TPU and/or Naeemah Lamont, but not even what we requested in discovery. Thus far this is reminiscent of the stonewalling that both Betsy Combier and Francesco Portelos received with their similar FOIL requests.

Which begs a question.

Is DR Alison Coviello; Principal and Ed.D hiding something? Is BFF AP Jessica Cruz hiding something? Can they be hiding it from me in cahoots at someone else? Possible. Or even worse, are they keeping information away from others? Possible as well.

Are not DR Alison Coviello; Principal and Ed.D and BFF AP Jessica Cruz both public officials bound by the Freedom of Information Law? Certainly, they, or anyone else is not above the law. Isn't there a moral and ethical necessity to obey and follow through on a FOIL request that might have evidence that is exculpatory?

The rule of law is what bounds us as a society. None of us, not the president, not a senator, not a teacher, not any of our loved ones are above the law. Without the rule of law which so pervasive in our society and great country there will all will be living in an anarchist society. The law is what glues us together as a society.

Myself, and all those going through the 3020-a process (ATR's I am not forgetting you, but concentrating on one aspect for now), are all due our full due process rights as spelled out by the 14th Amendment to one of the greatest papers ever written, The United States Constitution. Do these words mean nothing?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In New York State, the 3020-a hearings fall under the rules and auspices of New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules. Again, the rule of law is all pervasive. It must be the standard. It must be what we follow.

If we choose to ignore the rule of law we are not better as a society, as a people, or a person than the tyrants that rule Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China.

One can reasonably assume at the lack of cooperation that a cover up might be happening. That there must be a reason to hide what is in our requests. Would not a reasonable person believe such a thing?

Which makes one wonder. What is really in those emails, texts, letters, etc..? 

In September of 2012, Betsy Combier put through a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request requesting any and all emails from DR Alison Coviello, PhD. and Principal of PS 154 in the Bronx for any and all emails with my name featured. In November of that year the request was granted and
11 irrelevant emails were shared with Betsy.

In March of this year, Francesco Portelos requested the same. However, instead of just my name in the emails he made it broader, using more keywords and asked for a wider array of information;

Dear Mr. Baranello,

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, please send me copies by Email of the following records:

Following information on Principal Alison Coviello and Superintendent Yolanda Torres.

1. Personnel files

2. Per session time cards from January 1, 2008 to March 15, 2013

3. All school expenditures Principal Alison Coviello has made since April 29, 2012.

4. All OORS reports filed by Principal Alison Coviello since April 29, 2012

5. Allison Caviello's PPR and TDR's for school years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.

6. Any email  from September 1, 2011 to present. From email accounts [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] and  personal email [email protected] (if she used this from DOE computer) as well Alison Caviello's text messages from DOE Blackberry containing any of the following keywords :

"Peter Zucker", blogger, blog,  "character education", TC, "teachers college", Calkins, Lucy, Jew, "through literacy", Kike, "blue eyes", Zuck, Peter, Zucker, Pete, PAZ, literacy, 326, "South Bronx School," Sobronxschool, SBSB, "Bronx Teacher," BT, blog, blogger, @sobronxschool

7. Any and all memorandum sent by Principal Alison Coviello from April 29, 2012 to present.

8. All emails and memos related to Alison Coviello being hired as principal.

9. Alison Coviello's licensing history.

10. How much and to whom Alison Coviello paid per session to since becoming principal.

Months passed, seasons changed, the Red Sox won yet another World Series (RATS!), when lo and behold Francesco got a reply last week from Rebecca Chasen, Deputy Central Record Officer at the FOIL Squad.

Now, we're supposdedly waiting on numbers 7,8, and 2. Number 4 is confidential records, but the interesting part is the emails. Just keep reading for the big shock. See if you get it.

When Betsy got the email records there were only 11 in total up until the end of September of 2012. When Francesco received his email records, there were a total of 19 up until the end of September of 2012. In total Francesco received 45 emails of which, I was either the recipient or the sender of 43 and the other two were to a personal director. What does this tell you?

As I have stated before on these pages I truly believe that DR Alison Coviello, PhD. and Principal of PS 154 was part of a conspiracy to ruin my career. I believe the truth is in the emails and the text messages from her Blackberry. I do not believe in any manner at all that there were no emails between DR Alison Coviello, PhD. and Principal of PS 154 and Yolanda Torres or any higher ups in the DOE between the time she took over as principal in May 2012 and the present.

One would assume that FOIL requests must be honored and not doing so, not sharing all what is asked for is either criminal or if that person is an attorney like Joseph Baranello, who is the records access officer for the NYC DOE, perhaps unethical and contemptible and perhaps the New York State Bar Association should be made aware of how disingenuous he is being. Perhaps the bar association is aware of his inflammatory Facebook posts that Betsy unveiled in February of 2012.

But something about this all still stinks like the New Jersey Turnpike does around Elizabeth. Just who processed those emails? DR Alison Coviello, PhD. and Principal of PS 154 rarely uses her DOE email opting instead to use a school created ___domain through Google Apps.

I was under the impression that with the DOE email a "FOIL official" just needs to mine the servers that hold the DOE email (Please correct me if I am wrong!). But how do they get the Google Apps email? Perhaps the owner of the email would give that same official the password to their account and that official will look for the emails in question?

Today, it was explained to me by a legal eagle and several lay people. Apparently, DR Alison Coviello, PhD. and Principal was given the task to find the emails that were requested and have them forwarded and shared for Francesco Portelos? Am I the only one here that sees some issues with this?

This is like having the fox watch the hen house. Of course, DR Alison Coviello, PhD. and Principal has shared with me on many an occasion that she NEVER LIES, so one must assume that this was done on the up and up. HA! Punk'd! I am being sarcastic.

But this leads to so many questions about ethics, accountability, criminality, morality. We all know when someone says they never lie what the truth is. It's like that guy I knew in high school who told us he had been to hundreds of Yankees games in his life, and this was in our junior year. We did the math and it was impossible. Or that guy we all know that claims to have been with hundreds of women but in reality is home on Saturday nights watching Nick Jr and eating his dinner out of a can while standing over the sink.

Anyway, there is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to legally obtain forbidden emails and other records that the DOE does not wish anyone to see.

Again, God will show the truth. I believe in my heart of hearts there is something out there.