The Shotgun Blog
« Double standard of student journalism | Main | Sunday Shopping in Manitoba »
Monday, November 30, 2009
Marc Emery vs. Roman Polanski: A tale of two extraditions
Canadian libertarian publisher and activist Marc Emery faces extradition to the U.S. on charges related to selling marijuana seeds. Movie director Roman Polanski faces extradition to the U.S. on charges related to drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. While the Canadian government refuses to protect its own peaceful, productive natural-born citizen from extradition, Polanski’s adopted country of France is fighting to keep this confessed sex offender from facing the U.S. justice system.
In a Western Standard column entitled “Marc Emery vs. Roman Polanski: A tale of two extraditions,” Peter Jaworski and Michael Wagner compare the two very different extradition cases.
...Polanski committed a heinous crime. Raping a child is clearly execrable and leaves a very identifiable victim. Selling marijuana seeds isn’t obviously a crime, and is only made to be one through legislation. Furthermore, there were no “victims” of Emery’s crime. No one claims to have been harmed by him, and no one has urged the government to punish him. Canadians, for the most part, find him interesting, admirable, and entertaining. They do not think of him as someone deserving a stint in a prison.
Polanski was actually in the U.S. when he committed his crime, whereas Emery was always in Canada. Polanski can be sent back to the place where he perpetrated his crime. Emery can’t be sent “back” to the U.S. because he wasn’t there in the first place. Polanski was a fugitive from justice, but Emery did not run away from anyone and operated his marijuana seed business openly and transparently. Emery even paid income taxes from being a "marijuana seed vendor," an occupation he volunteered on his tax forms.
Metro Vancouver reported on November 18, 2009 that Marc Emery would be paroled after he promise to surrender to U.S. custody within 72 hours after an extradition order is signed, which could happen as soon as Dec. 1. (h/t to Norm Smith)
MSNBC is reporting Monday that Polanski remains in a Swiss jail despite expectations that he would be released on bail under house arrest. It is believed that Polanski remains in jail because has not yet met his full bail payment of $4.5 million.
Continue reading "Marc Emery vs. Roman Polanski: A tale of two extraditions" here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 30, 2009 in Marc Emery | Permalink
So you're comparing Emery to an accused child molester? Think about what this says about your hero. Who will you defend next, Ernst "Ontario's Hero" Zundel?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-30 7:46:58 PM
You can't really have missed the point of comparing these two extradition cases, Zeb.
One extradition case is just -- Polanski's -- for the reasons provided and one is unjust -- Emery's -- for the reasons provided.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-30 8:02:30 PM
Just or unjust depends on one's point of view. The facts are that each broke another country's laws. By treaty, that country can request their extradition. Done and done. Both are going up for their actions. Serves them both right - one's a druggie, the other a pervert. They should regret their actions, one for visiting Switzerland, the other for selling drugs through the mail.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-30 8:10:12 PM
"Just or unjust depends on one's point of view."
Well...sort of, but that's very subjective and not the point anyway, Zeb.
You wrote: "So you're comparing Emery to an accused child molester?"
We are contrasting Emery's case against Polanski's case, not suggesting they are similar, but that they are different.
And as far as your so-called point of view, you stand firmly against any Western liberal notion of justice that separates the West from the barbaric legal practices of much of the rest of the world.
Legal questions ought to have little to due with one's prejudices and everything to do with rational legal principles.
You repeat the "the law is law" argument, despite that fact that this argument makes no sense to anyone, including you. If it was illegal to be left handed -- or Jewish, to use an ugly historical example -- no reasonable person would say "the law is the law" and demand these laws be enforced. It is universally recognized that the law must be more than an arbitrary government prohibition. (I assume you supported the Western Standard in our case against the Alberta Human Rights Commission?)
You need to make a principled, consistent argument for the continued prohibition of certain recreational drugs, and explain why alcohol and tobacco deserve an exemption, assuming you would not also prohibit these products.
Right now, you are displaying the legal sophistication of a fundamentalist Mullah, where anything that offends God can be justly prohibited.
Surely you’re better than this, Zeb.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-30 8:52:55 PM
I'm sorry - but may I suggest getting your facts right first before accusing Polanski of what you did. He never ‘confessed’ to what you state. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, and that after the attorneys had no case of rape and he did his time. He only fled after the judge illegally reneged on their plea bargain agreement on his release and was removed by both attorneys for this misconduct. Stop feeding the same old lies to the public. There was nothing ‘heinous’ about his ‘crime’, since it wasn’t rape and he’s not a child molester. The girl was a teenager and he was found of no paedophiliac tendencies. He said it was consensual, and the so called ‘harmed victim’ started often enough it wasn’t rape. But it seems you missed that important part. And to compare these two cases is pointless. Both don’t deserve any extradition. The US have failed to extradite Polanski for exactly these unsound judicial proceeding of then, and they won’t be any more successful in the future. They should concentrate on dangerous criminals and terrorists and stop wasting tax payers money on these two. May I suggest reading my more objective and factual analysis of this case, before claiming allegations as 'facts'.
Posted by: Novalis | 2009-11-30 9:04:05 PM
Dope smokers like to have sex with underage women?
Posted by: set you free | 2009-11-30 9:07:07 PM
What facts did I get wrong, Novalis?
Polanski faces charges related to drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. I didn't write that he was guilty of those charges.
But he did "confess" to having sex with the girl in question, which is at least statutory rape and therefore a sex offence.
So the man is a confessed sex offender, just as Marc Emery is a confessed drug offender, although he havsnever been accused of selling anything other than seeds, which have no THC content.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-30 9:51:20 PM
this notion that we MUST obey laws simply because they are laws is slave-thinking. We are duty bound, as citizens of a democracy (or this facsimile of one...) to break and otherwise tear down unjust laws. the laws prohibiting marijuana are not merely unjust, they are outrageously counterproductive, egregiously unconstitutional, and patently absurd. Anyone who touts prohibition as the solution to anything is too stupid to be allowed to vote.
Posted by: Russell Barth | 2009-12-01 6:23:24 AM
Popular protest against unjust laws should not be used as a cover for criminal enterprise. Emery is a life long drug dealer. He only uses you people to evade the consequences of his actions. He failed miserably and totally. Let this be a lesson to you: choose your causes better. Defending child molesters, Holocaust deniers, drug dealers and white Ontarians is not the way to win support.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-01 7:22:52 AM
"Popular protest against unjust laws should not be used as a cover for criminal enterprise."
There you go again. Using the fact that drugs are illegal to support your claim the Emery is a criminal. How many times are you going to use this fallacy?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-01 8:00:54 AM
But drugs ARE illegal. Look at Emery's rap sheet. That's proof of his real intentions. He's scared of going to jail again - with good reason too. He is the poster boy for why drugs are bad. If you want more proof, watch the AE TV series "Intervention" for the horrifying effects of drugs on people and their families.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-01 8:07:21 AM
Matthew, you stated in your article: 'In 1977 Polanski had drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl in Hollywood. Polanski admitted to the crime but subsequently fled to France to avoid a severe American jail term.' That clearly was never the case, nor did it say in your article what you say now, that, 'he did "confess" to having sex with the girl in question, which is at least statutory rape and therefore a sex offence.' That is entirely different to writing that he confessed to the drugging and raping, which is incorrect. Statutory rape is not rape by legal definition, but sex with a minor. You have to be more precise with your wording. ‘Had drugged and raped’ sounds like a he had done so and then confessed to that, when he hadn’t either way. And saying, ‘the man is a confessed sex offender’, might sound plausible, but a sex offender had done a serious crime, not just slept with a minor. Statutory rape and confession thereof is just a law label to sign off on a plea bargain when rape could not be proven, or the minor consented even if the law didn’t allow her to. He’s not a ‘confessed sex offender’, he confessed to sleeping with a minor, not to any ‘sex offense’ as the law defines it. Statutory rape is a misnomer in that respect people get hung up on, and he certainly isn't a child molester by definition nor had he in fact drugged her. And I said already why he fled. Maybe you should read my dissertation get the wider and factual picture. I’d be happy to engage you further in this. As for Emery, the case is not really important enough to pursue him like a terrorist. The US has serious extradition priority issues.
Posted by: Novalis | 2009-12-01 8:21:32 AM
I'm responsible for the blog post and not the article. I was under the impression that he confessed to statutory rape, hence the "confessed sex offender" comment.
I've informed the authors of the book -- Seeds of Liberty -- to review the short section on Polanski based on your comments.
Feel free to email Peter Jaworski at [email protected]
"As for Emery, the case is not really important enough to pursue him like a terrorist."
What's important in Emery's case is that he didn't comment a crime as far as any intelligent definition of crime is concerned.
With Polanski, the allegations being made constitute a serious crime.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-12-01 8:38:07 AM
I'm not going through these tedious debates again. Drugs are bad. We all know this. Banning them doesn't solve the problem nor does throwing dealers and consumers in jail.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-01 8:40:16 AM
"not just slept with a minor"
She's was 13. What the hell is wrong with you?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-01 8:41:44 AM
You need a lever and lots of help to overturn existing drug laws. You have neither with that toothpick Emery and his band of fools. He's a laughing stock.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-01 8:59:55 AM
"But drugs ARE illegal."
Your right zeb, but emery was not distributing any drugs. If for some reason you believe he was please list your reasons and i will go ahead and pwn them.
By your logic you believe yeast is a drug, right Zeb?
Posted by: Baker | 2009-12-01 9:04:28 AM
"But drugs ARE illegal."
LOL cool. Too bad he wasn't distributing any drug.
By your logic you would consider Yeast a drug, right Zeb?
Posted by: Baker | 2009-12-01 9:07:55 AM
oops double post. didn't think it went thru. Refresh issues....
Posted by: Baker | 2009-12-01 9:08:51 AM
If you're arguing that Emery is the wrong person to get the job done (legalizing pot), it is possible you have a point. I don't know Emery well enough.
I, however, get the feeling you think Emery deserves to go to jail because you don't like him. Stating he is a drug dealer does not make him deserving of jail.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-01 9:47:23 AM
it's not personal, I assure you. But his actions do not inspire any confidence in his plight. He has both an aggressive and belligerent attitude towards authority and an economic materialist stake in the process. he is hardly an innocent victim. His long rap sheet refutes that. if it was a first-timer, then maybe. That has long since passed.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-01 10:09:06 AM
"But drugs ARE illegal. "
WRONG. Some drugs are illegal (cocaine), some are controlled (alcohol, tobacco, prescriptions), and some have no laws (salvia).
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-12-01 10:11:47 AM
Zeb Pike comments: "So you're comparing Emery to an accused child molester? Think about what this says about your hero."
The article went to great effort to do exactly the opposite:
- Emery was not IN the US when the activity in question occurred. Polanksi was. Is this a comparison? No. It's a contrast.
- Emery's so-called crime is not considered a true offense to the majority of citizens. (A UN poll recently claimed 67$ of Canadians actually smoked pot within the last year.) Most Canadians oppose sex with a minor (consensual or not). Is this a comparison? No. It's a contrast.
- Emery's activity was done openly, not Polanski's. Is this a comparison? No. It's a contrast.
- Emery was politically motivated. Polanski was not. Is this a comparison? No. It's a contrast.
One could go on with each detail and each time find stark contrasts.
What does the critical mind of Zeb Pike get from all this? He assumes a comparison is being made!
Every detail stands in contrast but still Pike sees nothing but a comparison.
Think what this says about the value of Pike's comments and about the value of his critical thinking skills.
Posted by: Rev. Chris Lawson | 2009-12-01 10:36:12 AM
I don't know what purpose this comparison serves.
Polanski committed a violent act against a child. What kind of idiot is Novalist? I can't believe he wrote those words. He's saying it wasn't rape-rape? If she was a willing participant, why did he feel it necessary to drug her? I only wish these Eurotrash types would recognize rape for what it is, an act of violence and control.
Emery made a stand, and a political statement. He didn't sneak around, commit a vile act, then run for cover. I don't particularly agree with his approach, but he's no Polanski. If you really support him, you should refrain from making these comparisons. It could cause some people to view him in the same light as a filthy, Eurotrash, child rapist.
Posted by: dp | 2009-12-01 11:12:28 AM
dp, this post and the article was an attempt at contrast -- good vs evil, Emery being good and Polanski being evil, or at least excused of evil. Perhaps we failed.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-12-01 11:51:39 AM
It worked for me, but it seems to have attracted some nut cases.
Posted by: dp | 2009-12-01 1:06:23 PM
I was disgusted by Novalis' comments as well. Apparently 13 year old girls are capable of consent when they are stoned out their minds.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-01 2:07:27 PM
Thanks to Novalis for taking the time to set the facts straight.
As for DP and Charles...
How do we know Polanski raped her? How do we know he drugged her? Even if we believe the girl's own grand jury testimony - which has its fair share of holes - Polanski asked her if she wanted a quaalude, she said yes, so he gave her the smaller portion of one.
The girl was not a child. She was a sexually active teenage who had used drugs, including quaaludes, before.
True, the girl has never recounted her story. But she's also never been cross-examined.
Posted by: AB | 2009-12-01 2:51:57 PM
If I might offer a helpful observation on Polanski. The term "statutory rape" does not exist in any legal statute. In fact, the word "rape" itself is rarely used in legal statutes (Canada uses "sexual assault"). "Statutory rape" is the term that is popularly used to describe any crime of sex with a minor. So the question, "Was it statutory rape or not?" is not really a legal question. It's a garden variety linguistic question.
The popular understanding of "rape" includes any sex with a person who has not consented. The law that Polanski admitted breaking is one predicated on the belief that a 13 year old, even when not drunk or high, is not capable of meaningfully consenting to sex with an adult. Thus by the ordinary use of the non-legal term "statutory rape" that is exactly what Polanski admitted he did, even if he did not use that term to describe the act himself.
The rape charge against Polanski that was dropped was a charge that did not depend on the girl's age - he was charged with drugging her to gain her "consent". Before Rohypnol became common, champagne and quaaludes could do the job. The charge was dropped because it is hard to prove that the champagne and quaaludes were given to her in order to manipulate "consent". In fact, had the girl been 18 it is likely all charges would have been dropped as they would be hard to prove, even if true. The one thing that was easy to prove was, yes, they had sex and yes, she was 13. As far as the law is concerned, nothing more needed to be shown to prove the crime.
So there is nothing inaccurate about saying he is guilty of "statutory rape" and that he is a "confessed sex offender". Novalis can argue that statutory rape is not such a bad thing and so should not be a crime if he wants to, but he cannot reasonably argue that what Polanski did was not statutory rape.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-12-01 3:07:08 PM
"The girl was not a child."
Uh huh. I can't believe we're debating the morality of having sex with a drugged 13 year old girl.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-01 3:29:46 PM
Thank you AB - As I said before, maybe all those accusers out there should get their facts right first and then think again. He did NOT drug or rape her, and there is no case of a ‘violent crime’, no matter how much you want it. She was perfectly compos mentis to have sex with him in fact twice that day, before and after they were interrupted, and that according to her own words. She wasn't stoned out of her mind in any form, or incapable of ‘consenting’, nor did he ‘control her’, she took the drug on her own volition, and no medical findings substantiate any ‘violence’. Polanski's case does not constitute a 'serious crime' since it wasn't rape by legal definition, but unlawful sex between different age groups of which one cannot consent to. She stated often enough herself it wasn't rape, after a case of rape could not be corroborated and her testimony was found unsound in the most crucial key points. She would have cracked under cross examination and that’s why they plea bargained and he did his time for that. The outrage over this is purely based on the opinion that it is immoral for an older adult to sleep with a minor, which thousands are doing right now breaking that 'law'. Again, I point to my extensive research about the case to see the wider picture in a more objective form. Unless someone has a more constructive comment in regards to my contribution, I won't engage any further ill-informed replies or pointless insults. In regards to the comparison, maybe it would have been wiser to take two and the same cases of statutory rape and rape by definition to be extradited, rather than a drug related case weighed against sex allegations. Polanski’s case is neither ‘evil’, nor is Emery’s ‘good’, they simply don’t match as a comparison. And Matthew, thank you for informing the authors of the book -- Seeds of Liberty -- to review the short section on Polanski based on my comments.
Posted by: Novalis | 2009-12-01 3:58:29 PM
Fact Check - If you say: ‘"Statutory rape" is the term that is popularly used to describe any crime of sex with a minor. So the question, "Was it statutory rape or not?" is not really a legal question. It's a garden variety linguistic question.’ In that case I can well argue that what ‘Polanski did was not statutory rape’ when the term doesn’t even exist in any law books. It is as you said just a common terminology and misleading to what is rape and what not. Unlawful sex is the correct label as I stated.
Posted by: Novalis | 2009-12-01 4:15:15 PM
Novalis wrote: "He’s not a ‘confessed sex offender’, he confessed to sleeping with a minor, not to any ‘sex offense’ as the law defines it."
If by "sleeping" you mean "having sex" than he confessed to a sex crime, since it is a crime to have sex with a 13-year-old girl.
Did he also confess to giving her alcohol?
Thanks for the comment, Fact Check. Very helpful and informative.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-12-01 4:31:37 PM
"Did he also confess to giving her alcohol?"
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-12-01 4:43:27 PM
"In that case I can well argue that what ‘Polanski did was not statutory rape’ when the term doesn’t even exist in any law books."
You can argue that, but that would be stupid. The fact that the term does not exist in law books does not mean that the term does not exist at all or that it does not have a very clear and well-understood meaning. You can argue that "blue" means red, since law books don't define "blue", but that is also stupid.
Since the term is not a legal one, the OED might be a good place to look for a definition. It defines "statutory rape" as "sexual intercourse with a female who is below the age of consent (whether it occurs against her will or not)". This definition has a pedigree that is over 100 years old. While common usage has extended the meaning to include male victims, it otherwise agrees exactly with how people use the term. So you can play your Humpty Dumpty games if you want, but it just shows more clearly what a dumbfuck you are.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-12-01 6:12:06 PM
Matthew - No he didn't confess to the alcohol or any other counts only the unlawful sex charge which was one of the original indictment counts. The testimonies showed that she took the alcohol as the drug on her own volition.
Posted by: Novalis | 2009-12-01 7:21:05 PM
Should the question be whether or not either extradition is legal? I know it's a silly one since they both are - because the authorities in each country made it so.
The only wait Polanski can prove his innocence is to stand trial. It's too late for Emery, who accepted a plea deal and the punishment that went along with it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-01 7:25:27 PM
Novalis- Where are you getting the idea Polanski never admitted to having sex with that child? I've heard him admit to it on a TV interview.
You seem to have no problem with adults having sex with minors. Do you use the potatoe rule, or the two bucket rule?
Posted by: dp | 2009-12-01 8:19:25 PM
Where did I say that he didn't admit to having sex with her? Maybe you should read my posts again or blog to see how many times I state that he admitted to it. I even said here that he confessed to sleeping with a minor, as part of the plea bargain. Or pleaded guilty to unlawful sex.
Posted by: Novalis | 2009-12-01 8:36:01 PM
dp - Where did I say that he didn't admit to having sex with her? Maybe you should read my posts again or blog to see how many times I state that he admitted to it. I even said here that he confessed to sleeping with a minor, as part of the plea bargain. Or pleaded guilty to unlawful sex.
Posted by: Novalis | 2009-12-01 8:40:17 PM
Sorry my previous was comment posted twice, but it didn't show. Just delete the first one, Matthew. And this one. Thanks.
Posted by: Novalis | 2009-12-01 8:44:14 PM
Its not often that I don't get the joke, so please dp explain to me the potato/bucket rule?
As far as I'm concerned any grown man having sex with a 13 year old deserves a good hard shitkicking as well as a long stint in the slammer.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-12-01 9:50:45 PM
Confessions made under duress don't count for intelligent observers. Emery's deal amounts to just that. His friends were held as potential victims so in effect Emery was blackmailed by the DEA into making a deal to save his friends.
Michelle Rainey Fenkarek suffers from Crohn's disease and could literally DIE without her cannabis medication which would be denied to her in a US prison. She has a legal prescription for cannabis and an official Canadian government exemption to use it.
To claim that Emery would have made a plea deal without this kind of pressure is the height of ignorance. We should admire him for having the guts to take serious heat just to save his friends!
The Emery-bashing nonsense from Z.B., "The only wa[y] Polanski can prove his innocence is to stand trial. It's too late for Emery, who accepted a plea deal and the punishment that went along with it." This was all under extreme duress and in a just world Emery should be free.
It seems that EVERY article on the net about Emery gets a blog entry from Zeb Pike that does nothing but call names (see his "toothpick" comment above) and knowingly misrepresents the truth of the matter! It seems that he has nothing better to do with himself. It seems like a full-time official job for him. He uses the typical nonsense that is often spouted by LEOs.
So Pike, what's your BADGE NUMBER?
Posted by: Rev. Chris Lawson | 2009-12-02 1:48:20 AM
Emery really showed his cold-hearted impersonal nature on that issue. By being stupid and selling seeds by mail to US customers, breaking US law, he prevented someone (allegedly) needy from obtaining his goods and services. Why did he not think of that before he put profits and his shameless stunt first? Emery is a maniac. Hopefully her death will be on his conscience the entire time he's in jail.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-02 5:08:59 AM
That is IF Emery had a conscience! He interpreted leniency in Canada as acceptance of his lifestyle and a victory for his "cause." He arrogantly believed that Canada would protect him when he sold seeds through the mail to US customers. That worked out well. Loser. Why didn't he sell to Singapore or Malaysia as well? That way he could get rid of himself permanently.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-02 5:45:51 AM
- Emery's activity was done openly, not Polanski's. Is this a comparison? No. It's a contrast."
Sex is a private act so any comparison is ridiculous.
"Michelle Rainey Fenkarek suffers from Crohn's disease and could literally DIE without her cannabis medication which would be denied to her in a US prison"
I have had drug resistant Chrohns since I was a child and I've never had a Doctor tell me at any time it could be fatal. I've used cannabis tincture which did mediate pain very well but haven't used it for two years. Crohns is not and has never been classed as a fatal disease.
Critcal thinking would have caught comparing Polanski to a man who's expressed his favorite chicks are teens who grew up without a Father.
Didn't hurt anyone? Tell that to the kids who bought into Marks crusade in the States. The kids who can't get a decent job because they have a felony record. Anyone could buy seeds off Marc without anything other than cash and an address.
If your going to give credit for Marc's seeds supplying the every man then he also supplied organized crime.
Instead of preaching critical thinking, try practising it.
Posted by: Robert | 2009-12-02 10:01:11 AM
The potatoe rule is quite simple. If they're big enough, they're old enough.
The two bucket rule takes some research. If a girl can carry two buckets of water, she's ready to be plucked.
You'll have to excuse me, I've spent a lot of time, working around hutterite colonies.
Speaking of colonies, what does a hutterite girl have in common with the unabomber? Both got fingered by their brother.
Think I'm crude? Well, I've never drugged, then f***ed a 13 year old.
Now that I think of it, wasn't Polanski's victim actually 12?
Posted by: dp | 2009-12-02 10:59:20 AM
Zebulon Pike asks an excellent question: "Should the question be whether or not either extradition is legal? I know it's a silly one since they both are - because the authorities in each country made it so."
It's not clear if the Polanski extradition request is legal... the Swiss courts have yet to rule on it.
Posted by: AB | 2009-12-02 12:29:16 PM
Charles writes "Uh huh. I can't believe we're debating the morality of having sex with a drugged 13 year old girl." This was in response to my having written, "The girl was not a child."
First off, what does the morality of having sex with a drugged 13 year old girl have to do with whether she was a child or teenager?
Second, how do you know she was drugged?
Posted by: AB | 2009-12-02 12:34:06 PM
DP writes, "Now that I think of it, wasn't Polanski's victim actually 12?"
No. She was several weeks away from her 14th birthday.
Posted by: AB | 2009-12-02 12:35:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.