Recent Posts:

Archive for May, 2011

« Older Entries

The Man Behind DSK’s Defense

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

By Chloe Sarnoff

All anyone can talk about these days are the allegations of attempted rape against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the now former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  Stories about DSK, and others involved in the case, have appeared on the front page of nearly every newspaper and news website since his arrest.  Everything about this case is juicy and high profile and would make anyone raise an eyebrow (if not two).  The Forum has a particularly vested interest in the upcoming trial because one of our very own film festival guest speakers, Benjamin Brafman, has been named lead defense attorney for DSK.  Brafman is no stranger to highly publicized cases, and is well versed in how to handle celebrity clients.

While DSK may not have been considered a celebrity, his recent stay at the Sofitel Hotel in New York City has made him the type of well-known name with whom Brafman is used to dealing.  Brafman’s list of previous clients include: pop icon, Michael Jackson, NFL star, Plaxico Burress, rapper, Sean “Diddy” Combs, New York State Senator, Carl Kruger, celebrity jeweler, Jacob Arabo, night club king, Peter Gatien, real estate mogul, Charles Kushner, and mafia boss, Vincent “The Chin” Gigante.  Adding the Managing Director of the IMF, and a man who was, until his recent hotel folly, a favorite candidate in France’s next Presidential election, seems like a nice addition to Brafman’s list of famous clientele.

Beyond his extensive history of cases, Brafman’s life is full of other interesting tidbits that make the stories about DSK and his lawyer an even more fascinating read.  Brafman was raised in a very religious, Jewish household in several neighborhoods in Brooklyn.  His family members were Holocaust survivors, but despite the solemn atmosphere at home, Brafman still knew how to make people laugh.  Brafman is said to have been a class clown during his days at the Yeshiva, and his taste for humor even landed him several stand-up comedy gigs in the Catskills when he was a young man.   Another interesting fact about Brafman is that, unlike many of his fellow lawyers who are on to marriage numbers 2, 3, or 4 (well certainly not number 1), he has remained married to his (first) wife, who he met as a teenager in synagogue. As if Brafman’s client list isn’t impressive enough, as an assistant in the Manhanttan District Attorney’s office, he tried 24 cases over a four-year period and only lost one. And to add to the intrigue surrounding Brafman’s case history, of the many cases he has tried, a fair number have dealt with organized crime. Brafman is certainly a character who has proven that no case is too big or too public for him to take on.  These quirky and intriguing facts about the man responsible for restoring the reputation and career of DSK only add to the gossip and curiosity surrounding his upcoming trial.

Forum Film Festival, Benjamin Brafman, “A Time to Kill,” October 24, 2006 from Forum on Law, Culture & Society on Vimeo.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Forum Guests, Law and Cultural Policy, News | 2 Comments »

An Important Step For Legal Content

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

By Ben Falk

There has been an interesting development in the way users consume cultural products. It seems, for the first time, according to the network-management software company Sandvine, that legal content distribution represents the largest percentage of Internet use. Specifically, Netflix’s streaming service is responsible for this transformation. For a long time, peer-to-peer networks represented the largest share of Internet use, much to the consternation of the entertainment industry. A great deal of the content “shared” over these networks is copyrighted, such as songs, movies, TV shows, etc, which, as can be imagined, does not sit well with many content creators. However, it seems the old Internet adage that people will always choose free content over content they must pay for is finally proved false.

That Netflix and real-time entertainment consumption now represent the largest share of Internet traffic is a harbinger of greater things. Essentially, it means that the majority of copyrighted content traversing the Internet is paid for, thereby  ensuring that creators and artists are compensated for their work. It also shows that a workable business model exists for distributing legal content online. It is this revelation that is most interesting.

For a long time it seemed that entertainment companies struggled to figure out how to monetize their content online. In some ways, they are still struggling. Netflix, however, developed a successful business distributing legal content over the Internet. Other entertainment companies have capitalized on this success, including for example ‘ Hulu Plus, which, like Netflix, charges a reasonable monthly fee in exchange for streaming an unlimited amount of television content.

This is a watershed moment. It demonstrates that there is, in fact, a market for legal content online and that people will treat their computers similarly to their TVs. It proves that with creative and reasonable pricing, a vast amount of content, and a robust and reliable distribution network, people will pay to watch movies and TV shows over the Internet. Media companies, artists, and other creators should take advantage of   this opportunity.

Granted, exploiting the opportunity and totally replacing offline revenues with online revenues will be very difficult, if not impossible. However, at least now we know that earning sizable revenues off of online distribution is possible. Furthermore, total replacement of offline revenues may not even be necessary. There will always be other ways, aside from Internet distribution, to make money off of content, no matter if it is a licensing deal, traditional on-demand profits, or even traditional television revenues (even if the ultimate distribution mechanism is the Internet). Thus, there is no reason that enterprising companies that create and distribute desirable content cannot succeed.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Law and Cultural Policy, News, Technology Policy | No Comments »

Happy Birthday Dr. Death

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

By Chloe Sarnoff

Time may be running out for former Forum Film Festival guest, Jack Kevorkian, or as others call him, Dr. Death.  Kevorkian, who turns 83 years old, tomorrow, May 26th, has recently returned to William Beaumont Hospital in Detroit, Michigan to be treated for pneumonia and kidney problems.  Kevorkian became famous (and in some circles infamous) during the 1990’s for advocating and administering physician assisted suicide.  His face was front and center of countless newspapers and magazines and his controversial beliefs were the subject of many talk shows.  In 1999, Kevorkian was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to 10-25 years in prison for assisting the suicide of 52-year old Thomas Youk, who suffered from severely advanced ALS. Youk’s death was filmed and aired on national television and created even more polarized debate on Kevorkians advocacy of physician assisted suicide. Kevorkian rejected legal aid from attorneys and decided to defend himself in court.  To make matters more difficult for Kevorkian, the presiding judge ruled that no testimonies from Kevorikian’s witnesses were relevant. Kevorkian served 8 years of his sentence in Coldwater, Michigan and was released on parole in the summer of 2007. He was granted parole under the conditions that he would not aid any additional suicides or provide care for any disabled patient or patient older than 62.  Kevorkian decided to redirect his efforts towards convincing states to change their legislation on physician-assisted suicide, with some success. Physician assisted suicide is now legal in three U.S. States, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

Last year, the Forum Film Festival aired HBO’s You Don’t Know Jack, which starred Al Pacino as Jack Kevorkian.  Pacino won a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award for his role as Dr. Death; the film received a total of 15 Emmy nominations and several other Golden Globe nominations.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the central figure in the tumultuous national drama surrounding assisted suicide, died Friday in a Michigan hospital. He was 83 and lived in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

The cause of his death was not immediately known, but local media reported that he had suffered from kidney and respiratory problems and that his condition had been worsening in recent days. His death was confirmed by Geoffrey Feiger, the lawyer who represented him during several of his trials in the 1990s.

Click to read more of the full New York Times article

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, “HBO Films You Don’t Know Jack,” 2010 Forum Film Festival, October, 2010 from Forum on Law, Culture & Society on Vimeo.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Film Festival, Forum Guests, News | No Comments »

He can bail out the global economy, but can he bail himself out? Dominique Strauss-Kahn on trial

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

By Erica Zaragoza

Known as “The Great Seducer,” Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), earned this not so endearing moniker through allegations of sexual misconduct, forcible attempted rape, and affairs dating back years. It also appropriately describes DSK’s latest indictment for attempted rape for an incident at NYC’s Sofitel Hotel victimizing a maid.

The scrutiny to which these affairs have been investigated, since the rape allegation, have caused increasingly mixed emotions. On one side you have those outraged, condemning DSK for his behavior and demanding an immediate replacement to assume responsibilities at the IMF, and on the other you have those defending the accused saying it’s all a conspiracy. Unsympathetic onlookers from Paris believe the maid’s allegation is part of a conspiracy to get DSK out of power.

DSK was an influential banker, known by his confidants and colleagues as a master of persuasion and mediation. He utilized his cogent ability to effectively convey and delegate responsibilities within the global economy through his high-ranking positions. The IMF’s primary responsibility is to maintain the stability of the international monetary system, ensuring the global economy, and maintaining the economic stability of all active countries. The IMF promotes the sustainability of economic growth, and has an established flexible crisis prevention unit for collapsing countries.

Since the allegations surfaced, DSK no longer has control over the responsibilities of managing director of the IMF. The growing physical evidence and media circus surrounding the case brought criticism from US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other officials in the financial sector condemning his continuation at his position. Due to the growing attention, detention at Rikers Island Jail in New York, and now 24/7 armed guard surveillance, his duties as managing director became a tertiary priority and in such a globally unstable economic time none of his responsibilities can afford to be neglected.

The board of directors at the IMF will choose replacement candidates this Monday, May 23rd for managing director, while the embattled DSK remains under house arrest monitored at his downtown NYC apartment. The election will take place on June 30th 2011 with a transparent voting system.

The controversial claims against DSK have brought a lot of unwanted attention to the organizational structure of the IMF as a whole. Affairs, rape, unprofessional sexual relationships, and a culture of chauvinism seem to flourish under the leadership of DSK. As more woman come forward reporting sexual misconduct at the IMF, questions of institutionalized harassment and abuse have been circulating in the media.

As of Thursday, New York State Supreme Court Judge Michael Obus ruled DSK would be allowed release from Rikers Island on $1 million dollars cash bail, and will be placed under 24-hour home detention with electronic monitoring. DSK was ordered to provide himself with a 24/7- armed guard. DSK remains strong in his conviction of innocence firmly denying the charges of attempted rape, sexual abuse, and criminal sexual acts. The former Managing Director faces up to 25 years in prison if convicted.

Leading defense attorney, and former Forum Film Festival guest, Benjamin Brafman has come to his client’s defense, reportedly saying the evidence will prove inconclusive for an attempted rape charge, and will be consistent with DNA evidence for consensual sexual activities.

Brafman remains firm that DSK’s principle intention is to try and clear his name and reestablish credibility. Brafman’s hope is that the press does not interfere with a speedy and fair trial, and to instill that his client is innocent until proven guilty.

See full video of Benjamin Brafman after the court’s decision: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/benjamin-brafman-dominiqu_n_862456.html#s279354&title=Dominique_StraussKahn

Tags:
Posted in News | 2 Comments »

Was the Moral Lawyer Hiding in LA?

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

For the tried and true New York native fan of Law & Order, there
seemed little to look forward to with Law & Order: LA. Regardless of
whether the structure would be the same, the idea of Los Angeles as a
character in the show (the way New York very much was) left a good
deal to be desired. Considering the national perception of the area,
it seemed as though it would be difficult not to focus on movie stars
and the wealthy in order for people to “buy” the “LA-ness” of the new
series. “Ripped from US Weekly” or some other tabloid simply seemed
silly when compared with storylines ripped from the New York Times.
And yet, Law & Order: LA had a different trick up its sleeve.
Granted, it was after a hiatus for a revamping, but the show returned
with a new attitude. More specifically, Deputy District Attorney
Morales, played by Alfred Molina, returned a different lawyer: a
lawyer so disillusioned by the law, he left it in episode 9, “Zuma
Canyon.” Morales’ moral compass and his disgust for political
trumping the legal led him to resign his position with the District
Attorney’s Office and rejoin the police force.

The episode began with a mass shooting at a quinceañera where several
people were murdered, including three children. Two detectives
arrived on the scene and determined that the shooting was the result
of the family’s accidental interference with a Mexican drug cartel.
After further investigation revealed the identity of the head of the
operation, the detectives confronted him about the shooting. Sadly,
the “crime” portion of the episode then ended with the head drug lord,
Cesar Vargas, murdering one of the detectives in a drive-by as he
heroically pushed his young daughter out of the way.

Morales then entered the scene. He first attacked the legal system by
calling for the State Department to grant asylum to the family of a
young Mexican boy who had offered to testify against Vargas. Despite
Morales’ argument that the “geo-political message” was less important
than justice for the slain detective, his request was denied and he
was told that the State Department was “not in the business of
antagonizing allies.” Unsatisfied, Morales took the issue to federal
court. Although the court was reluctant at first, Morales argued that
the court should “match the courage” of the young boy who agreed to
testify and his request was finally granted.

Sadly, however, the boy never had the chance to show this courage, as
he was murdered in his holding cell moments before testifying.
Without a star witness, the case was dismissed. Unsatisfied with such
a miscarriage of justice, Morales then requested that the Distract
Attorney turn the case over to the FBI. Again, he was met with
resistance and the DA asked him if his only motive was to humiliate
the office. Morales replied that clearly, his only interest was
justice. The DA responded that he had already “called in a lot of
chits on [Morales’] behalf.” Morales’ response was the defining
moment for his character.

Although the audience had seen inklings of it in the past, it was in
this response that Morales truly showed his true colors as a moral
lawyer. He countered, “on my behalf? I thought we spoke for the
victims. I quit the police department twelve years ago because I
thought here, in this office, I might make a real difference. But if
it’s all politics and posturing . . . you want humiliation, Gerry? How
about a prosecutor quitting his office and rejoining the police force
because his boss is too vain to ask for help in bringing a cop-killer
to justice.”

The very moment Morales truly became a moral lawyer, he stepped down.
Is Law & Order: LA suggesting that there truly are no moral lawyers?
That in order to retain a sense of justice one must abandon his post
rather than fight the politics? We shall see. For now, Morales
continues to fight for what he believes is right as a detective. We
can only hope he returns to his post at the District Attorney’s office
to shine a light on the hypocrisy. Who knows—perhaps despite being
considered superficial, LA is the perfect place to start cleaning up
the mess.

L.C
Law and Literature

Posted in Courtrooms as TV Entertainment, Series Review | No Comments »

Taboos in Film: “Burning Palms”

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

The film “Burning Palms,” directed by Christopher B. Landon, features
five vignettes that explore taboos in five affluent Los Angeles area
neighborhoods.  “Burning Palms” displays the conventional personas the
characters portray on the surface and the gritty events that occur
behind closed doors.  The film examines an array of poignant social
issues in a darkly comedic manner.

“The Green Eyed Monster” takes place in Santa Monica, and centers on
the relationship between Dennis Marx, played by Dylan McDermott, his
14-year-old daughter, and his fiancé.  Marx and his daughter have an
unusual and inappropriate relationship, and when Marx’s fiancé meets
his daughter for the first time and sees the nature of the
relationship, his fiancé becomes so jealous and disturbed that she is
driven to suicide.

“The Little Piggy” features the relationship of a young couple in
Westwood.  Chad asks his girlfriend, Ginny, to perform an odd sexual
act, and she punishes herself for performing the act through
self-mutilation.

“Buyer’s Remorse” is about a materialistic homosexual couple in West
Hollywood who adopt a little girl from Africa.  The couple is unhappy
with the child, so they abandon her in a forest and get a poodle
instead.  The couple treated their adopted daughter as though she was
sub-human.  When they were dissatisfied with her and embarrassed by
her behavior, they abandon her in a forest like a wild animal, and
trade her in for a domesticated dog that better suited their
lifestyle.  Their actions are both legally and morally repugnant.

“Kangaroo Court” takes place in Holmby Hills and is about 3 spoiled
and rich brothers who stage a mock trial in which a secret pertaining
to the death of their maid’s baby is revealed.  When the secret is
revealed, the maid kills herself.

“Maneater” stars Zoe Saldana as a rape victim in Sherman Oaks. She
searches for and finds her rapist and wants him to rape her again to
relieve her loneliness.  In a way, this can be viewed as a form of
moral punishment.   The rapist’s actions were heinous, and certainly
punishable in the legal sphere because of the overt harm done to her
body.  In the moral sphere, forcing her rapist to carry on any sort of
relationship with her, a stranger that he violated in such a personal
way, can be viewed as a form of moral punishment.

The subject matter of the film could be too troubling for mass
movie-goers, but those with a stronger stomach interested in exploring
broad social issues may find the film worthwhile.

Author: Heather Navy

Tags: ,
Posted in Forum Guests, Movie Review | No Comments »

Oliver Stone — 2011 Film Festival Guest!

Monday, May 9th, 2011

Legendarily acclaimed film producer and director Oliver Stone will be making his Forum debut at the 2011 Film Festival in October. Stone has proved to be a controversial storyteller and a profoundly resonant movie maker, with films such as Platoon, Wall Street, JFK, World Trade Center, The People vs. Larry Flynt, The Joy Luck Club, Any Given Sunday, and Natural Born Killers, just to name a few. To his credit these movie titles elicit more emotions than most films can attain in full. He has made a career on resilience and personal experience that has created the man, the legend, Oliver Stone, Academy Award winning filmmaker.

I remember being in a history course surveying the 1960s the first time I watched Platoon. Simultaneously, we studied the massacre of innocent civilians in the town of My Lai, the massive United States cover-up, and the reverberating consequences of the war in Vietnam at home. Platoon depicted the gritty dynamic of units in the Vietnam War, the grotesque presence of moral corruption, superiority complexes, and evil. I sat in a state of incredulity as I heard my classmates discuss their opinions on what they considered a superfluous war. However, no matter what side of the coin you fall on Platoon was an amazingly real portrayal of war characterizing morally conscientious soldiers, and also, those corrupted by their environment and being.

Watching Platoon became a paramount moment in my formative years of education. It was only later I researched Stone’s service in the Vietnam War, and how personal his films are, especially The Last Year in Viet Nam. Platoon also proved to be monumental in Stone’s career rewarding him with his first Oscar for directing. William Dafoe and Tom Berenger also received recognition for their roles with Oscar nominations. Although Platoon was Stone’s first Oscar for directing, his first Oscar win was for Midnight Express in 1978.

In 1991, Stone directed JFK. It has been reported that he considers this one of his best films, finest hour, and greatest feat. JFK challenged Stone’s film styling allowing him to explore different camera angles, which proved advantageous when the movie earned eight Oscar nominations. This matched his award nominations for Born on the Fourth of July and Platoon.

Stone explored the financial woes of a corrupt system in his critically acclaimed Wall Street. As of late, there has been a resurgence of Gordon Gekko’s infamous “greed is good” speech from Wall Street. “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.” Having watched the financial sector collapse, and pick itself up from ruins, this speech has become evermore relevant. In 2010, the sequel to Wall Street, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was released. This movie was a striking comparison to what the global economy was enduring.

This is Oliver Stone at his best, exposing corruption, making you think, and always delivering more than expected.

Join the Forum October 14-20, 2011 for the sixth annual Film Festival, and enjoy a night with Oliver Stone.

Tags:
Posted in Events, Film Festival, Forum Guests, News, Upcoming | 1 Comment »

Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Eichmann — and Revenge

Saturday, May 7th, 2011

With the assassination of an unarmed Osama bin Laden and questions arising whether he should have been abducted and brought to the United States to stand trial, the distinctions between justice and revenge once more confuse and confound the law abiding.

Fifty years ago Israel’s spy network kidnapped Hitler’s most trusted henchman, Adolf Eichmann, from a suburb in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he had been hiding for 10 years. The Israelis drugged and disguised him as an El Al flight attendant, and spirited him to a Jerusalem courtroom where he would become known as the infamous man in the bulletproof glass booth.

Read the full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thane-rosenbaum/osama-bin-laden-saddam-hu_b_858390.html

Thane Rosenbaum

Tags: ,
Posted in News | 2 Comments »

The Concept of Relevancy from a Moral Justice Perspective

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

There is a Law & Order episode in which a defendant is on trial
for murdering his business partner, with whom he ran an illegal
gambling operation.  During the proceedings, the defendant admits to
stealing money from the illicit venture, and further acknowledges that
his partner; the “muscle” of the operation, found out about his theft.
This evidence is admitted under the pretense that it is relevant; it
goes to demonstrating the defendant’s motive for the murder.
The more interesting exchange occurs when the defendant is asked
what he did with the money.  As it happens, the defendant was sending
the money to Israel to buy medical supplies in order to assist
citizens harmed by anti-Semitism.  The now deceased partner was
portrayed as some brute standing in the way of this noble pursuit.
As one with a legal predisposition would imagine, this testimony
was objected to by District Attorney Jack McCoy, on grounds that it
was wholly irrelevant.  McCoy argued that because justification was
not a defense that is allowed under the law, the “reason” offered by
the defendant was inappropriate.  Indeed, a standard definition of
relevancy asks if the evidence has any tendency to make the existence
of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Using this rubric, something is relevant when it speaks to a fact of
consequence; a fact which proves an essential element of the crime.
It is the task of the jury to decide whether all the essential
elements of a crime have been proven.  Following McCoy’s logic, which
should be noted is legally correct, since justification is not a
defense to murder, it is irrelevant and should be completely excluded
from the jury.  In short, what the defendant was doing with the money;
no matter how noble, or as the story attempted to portray as “the
right thing to do,” has no place in the courtroom.
This episode has a hallmark of Professor Thane Rosenbaum’s
courses; truth and storytelling, or lack thereof.  For one, the
defendant is essentially saying, “this is what I did, and this is why
I did it, it may not be right, but that does not mean it is not
relevant to my case.”  It is, after all, the broader story of what
happened, without which a full account of the “what and why” would not
be possible.  Yet as McCoy notes, there is no room for the full story
in the law.  What is paramount is the defining of the jury’s tasks; to
break down every element along a narrow determination of relevancy.
Does this shred of storytelling further a fact of consequence?  If
not, then the jury cannot hear it.  It must be objected to and
stricken from the record, or never allowed to be raised in the first
place.  If heard, the jury must be told to disregard it completely;
pretend it did not happen.  If such an undertaking is infeasible, we
must start over; get a new jury, one that has not been exposed to
material, which despite being the story of the murder, is not relevant
to the essential elements of murder.

-SG

Tags:
Posted in Courtrooms as TV Entertainment | No Comments »

“Michael Clayton” – A tale of the moral lawyer

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

No film of recent memory does a better job in portraying the moral
dissonance carried by the modern corporate lawyer than “Michael
Clayton,” a legal drama starring George Clooney. In the film, George
Clooney’s character (Michael Clayton) plays “the fixer” in a white
shoe New York firm. As “the fixer,” his job is not to litigate cases
or go to trial, but instead, Michael Clayton serves as the first
responder to touchy situations where the firm needs a person to run
immediate damage control and work to cover up incriminating evidence.
Indeed, the firm calls Michael a “janitor,” due to his knack for
cleaning up messy situations. Without a doubt, Michael Clayton’s job
runs counter to the Moral Paradigm described in “The Myth of Moral
Justice”. Instead of working to reveal truth, Michael’s sole job
description is to hide the truth and protect his client’s from future
liability.

The film does an excellent job in showing the moral dissonance that
George Clooney’s character faces as he is ordered to help silence a
rogue-partner who is about to reveal the truth of a mass tort lawsuit.
The partner, described as the firm’s senior litigator, had “went
crazy” and decided that he was going to turn on his firm and expose
their client (a chemical manufacturer) who is responsible for
releasing a chemical into the environment that killed hundreds of
innocent farmers. Michael Clayton is told that he needs to make sure
that this partner does not talk and cost the firm millions of dollars
in fees, not to mention extreme embarrassment. In a scene that
perfectly portraits the cold and immoral behavior of the firm, the
managing partner of the firm pays Michael a large bonus to sign a
confidentiality agreement that ensures his silence with regard to any
matters he has dealt with in his tenure as the “fixer.”

The film ends with Michael Clayton coming to his moral senses and
realizing the importance of story telling and truth seeking. Instead
of blindly following the lead of his firm, Michael turns on them and
secretly records the chemical company spokesperson admitting to him
that the company was fully responsible for releasing the poisonous
chemical and killing the hundreds of innocent people. With that
information recorded, Michael Clayton turns to company spokesperson
and says, “you’re fucked.” With that, Michael Clayton turns and
confidentially walks out of the building carrying the moral pride that
he has revealed the truth of a mass-wrong to the world.

-Evan R.
Law & Literature

Tags: ,
Posted in Movie Review | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries