Justice Department 'Complies' With FOIA Request For GPS Tracking Memos; Hands ACLU 111 Fully Redacted Pages

from the the-answer-is-none;-none-more-black dept

Just recently, we learned that the EFF had been handed what appeared to be several pages of severe formatting errors and faulty Morse code in response to its FOIA request for the secret interpretation of the FISA spying law. There were also the "sobering findings" faux-released by the NSA, which left in only enough unredacted wording to open speculation on these "sobering findings," as well as to publicly lament the surely misguided public debate on the super-secret agency's actions. Now, the news comes to us that the FBI has handed the ACLU a stack of papers that would make any toner supplier very happy.

The ACLU filed a FOIA request last July in hopes of receiving some insight into the FBI's tracking of US citizens via GPS devices. Two months later, it filed a lawsuit against the FBI, forcing the issue. At long last, the FBI has responded... with 111 pages of black ink.
Two key memos outlining the Justice Department's views about when Americans can be surreptitiously tracked with GPS technology are being kept secret by the department despite a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU to force their release. The FBI’s general counsel discussed the existence of the two memos publicly last year, yet the Justice Department is refusing to release them without huge redactions. 


The word "see" is obviously some sort of joke because there's absolutely nothing to "see" here, unless you consider To, From and Subject fields to be the "smoking gun." Oh, and this one paragraph that leads into 56 straight pages of black ink.

In United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), the Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of location data generated by a GPS tracking device surreptitiously affixed to a car without court authorization and monitored continuously over a 28-day period.
Yep, that's the power of the FOIA. All the black ink (or blank pages) you could possibly want, delivered months after they're requested. The redactions on these two documents obviously goes far beyond simply protecting sensitive information that might jeopardize ongoing investigations. This is nothing more than the DOJ covering up unconstitutional practices.
The Justice Department's unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking — possibly for months at a time — or whether the government will first get a warrant. This is yet another example of secret surveillance policies — like the Justice Department's secret opinions about the Patriot Act's Section 215 — that simply should not exist in a democratic society.
The ACLU is asking the court to order the DOJ to release these memos in full. The Fourth Amendment's reasonable expectation of privacy is undermined by these secret memos, which limit knowledge of law enforcement tracking efforts solely to the executive branch.

The implications of these withheld documents go even further than discussing GPS tracking. FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissman's explanation of the second memo ("Guidance Regarding the Application of United States v. Jones to Additional Investigative Techniques") leaves the door open for tracking via other technology.
[The] second memoranda [sic] is going to be about guidance about what this means for other types of techniques, beyond GPS, because there's no reason to think that this is going to just end with GPS and some of that is going to be very much a judgment call.
It's already common knowledge that law enforcement agencies are using cell phone tracking. As the ACLU points out, wireless carriers already receive 1.5 million requests for data every year, most of which is used for location tracking. Additional technology, such as drones or license plate readers, make endless surveillance a logistic reality, and all without a warrant.

A fully-redacted document doesn't seem to indicate that the FBI is operating within the constraints of United States v. Jones. It signals the very opposite and provides us with another example of how government agencies, when faced with constitutional limitations, are more than happy to simply "interpret" their way around them -- and keep these interpretations out of public view, perhaps indefinitely. It's extremely hypocritical for the FBI and DOJ to sit in a position of law enforcement when they clearly believe abiding by the law is optional.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 1:22pm

    Someone's laughing

    You know damn well, someone involved with fulfilling this FOIA request was laughing their ass off while they blacked these out.

    I'm sure it's a huge game for them: "Just how much can we redact and get away with it?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tom Belicheck, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 1:58pm

      Re: Someone's laughing

      I think it's funny as hell.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        weneedhelp (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:16pm

        Re: Re: Someone's laughing

        Funny it was redacted, or funny your rights and safeguards are being obliterated and a surveillance grid is being erected?

        In either case, there is nothing funny about what is happening.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: Someone's laughing

          It's more funny in a tragic way, than actually humourous.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          monkyyy, Jan 21st, 2013 @ 1:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Someone's laughing

          wait.. i had rights to start w/?
          i was under the impression that armed psychopaths would come into my house guns blazing if i got caught smoking something; and that this was true since before i was born and that apathy towards these "protectors" was an act of civil disobence

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:04pm

      Re: Someone's laughing

      I've worked in the offices of various large and small contractors for various branches of the federal government, including the FBI and the military. The staff at each location was sometimes surprisingly mixed, politically, but a couple offices, especially those requiring security clearance, were rather lopsided.

      Once, a button-down manager made no secret of his irritation at having to "waste so much time" fulfilling FOIA requests. Then, when he thought I wasn't around, he and others in the office were dishing out snide remarks about "liberals". As soon as they realized I could overhear them, they started whispering and cackling to themselves about the college town I live in.

      Sending out 99%-redacted documents to the ACLU and EFF is surely regarded as a big hilarious joke.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:17pm

        Re: Re: Someone's laughing

        Eventually, those people are going to find out the hard way that "conservatives" can feel just as strongly about transparent government.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 7:05am

      Re: Someone's laughing

      You know damn well, someone involved with fulfilling this FOIA request was laughing their ass off while they blacked these out.

      I'm sure it's a huge game for them: "Just how much can we redact and get away with it?"


      While there are probably some people working FOIA that think that way, it's a rarity.

      FOIA processors are trained to understand the intricacies of the FOIA law, the structure of their organization, and the administrative tasks involved in processing FOIA requests (i.e., response letters, redaction, etc.). They can tell how to apply the exemptions, but they don't have familiarity with what portions of a record may be sensitive, particularly when it comes to classified documents. As such, they get to deal with "Subject Matter Experts."

      This can lead to many wonderful exchanges:

      FOIA: We need you to review this for release.
      SME: Can't release. FOUO means it can't be FOIA'd.
      FOIA: No, FOUO means there might be FOIA exemptions.
      (Weeks pass with no response to any further communication)
      FOIA: Hello? Are you sitll working on this?
      SME: Can you resend?

      FOIA: We need this to be reviewed for declassification.
      SME: It's all classified. Can't release.
      FOIA: ["There may be Communists in the ruling party of the USSR"/"Gunshot wounds can kill people"/(some other benign piece of information)] is (still) classified?
      SME: The document's marked classified, and there's classified information. Can't release.
      FOIA: This is a declassification review. We need to determine what specific lines or paragraphs are actually classified, and declassify everyhting that can be declassified.
      SME: Fine. Here. (Provided document is almost entirely blacked out.)

      And so on.

      And if a SME says certain information isn't releasable, the FOIA processor has two options: elevate the issue to be discussed between attorneys; or do your best to present a legally defensible argument justifying the SME's intransigence.

      So no laughter. You have the FOIA guy redacting information that (probably) shouldn't be redacted due to a decision from someone who's "more important," thinking all the time "we're so going to get sued for this," and the SME is annoyed that this obnoxious pencil-neck from the FOIA office has been wasting his time and taking his attention away from his "real" work.

      The SMEs aren't pure evil or arrogant or any of that, really. I'm sure most people here would be annoyed by some legalistic hair-splitter demanding you spend time dealing with something you don't understand while emails pile up and your managers get on your back for failing to meet delivrables.

      So no Snidely Whiplash running the FOIA office. Like just about everything else, it's just highly dysfunctional.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dan, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 2:36pm

      Re: Someone's laughing

      Next FOIA request should be to name that person :D

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 1:28pm

    apart from how ridiculous this is and how 'on purpose' this was done in this way, it makes e even more concerned about the way ALL the law enforcement agencies behave and what they are up to. they are obviously guilty to the extreme, with plenty of what seems to be 'contra US citizen interest' practices going on. that cant be good! it also makes the reason why it was so important to renew FISA without any amendments reasonably obvious too

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 1:34pm

      Re:

      Yep.

      There are conspiracy theorists who came to this conclusion years ago - and started planning for revolution. Maybe those Doomsday Planners aren't crazy after all.

      At what point will the government simply declare martial law when they realize they can no longer hide their intentions?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 1:40pm

        Re: Re:

        At what point will America start electing people from outside the current parties?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          At what point will the people unite and take to the streets in full force?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Ophelia Millais (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          At what point will viable candidates from outside the two mainstream parties surface without having some kind of tragic, alienating dealbreakers in their platform?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            At what point people will realize it doesn't matter?

            I mean, make the laws outside congress and just elect the dumb asses that will make it happen doesn't matter if they are republican or democrats.

            Anyone you put there will be a dumbass, they will all have to rely on government institutions to say what is cool and what is not and they act accordingly, this is the big real problem, anybody you put there will be absorbed by that system.

            Change the system, do the laws outside congress and have a real public discussion about it, the day the public do that is the day things will change and I don't even hope it is all for the better I am old enough to know that people will eventually screw it up somehow at some point, but better to be an inclusive fuck up than one only by a few screw ups.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              John Fenderson (profile), Jan 18th, 2013 @ 10:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Since the Constitution mandates that Congress is the only body with the power to make laws, how would you propose to "do the laws outside congress"?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              monkyyy, Jan 21st, 2013 @ 1:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              if congress were idiots 50% of their actions would be good for america; they have a 0% rating so they are not idiots

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        weneedhelp (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:52pm

        Re: Re:

        "There are conspiracy theorists who came to this conclusion years ago" - Being a self proclaimed conspiracy theorist; Doesn't this now go beyond theory and become fact?

        The MSM has the public brainwashed and used conspiracy theorist as a stigma to immediately discredit anything anyone has to say that goes against the norm, most Amerikans will never realize until it is too late, and when they do and revolt, then Marshall law will be declared and another civil war will ensue.

        I will, after this day, never call the American PPL sheeple again, but use the more appropriate term lemmings.

        I try really hard not to bring 911 stuff up here, but what we see happening has been accelerated due to the events of 911, and it was absolutely abused as a catalyst to the end-goal of the neoconservative agenda.

        Pentagon - Black boxes - altimeter. Upon take off the altimeter gets adjusted for the barometric pressure of the day. The NTSB data from the black boxes clearly shows the adjustment after take off but upon landing/crashing no such adjustment is made. So what does that mean? Well about a 400 ft difference is all. How do we interpret that? Well that has kept me up nights and I don't have an answer for you. One thing I do know is either the NTSB data was made up or manipulated. Either conclusion brings up a myriad of additional questions to which some ppl's mind just cant handle. Is this a conspiracy theory? Or just someone like myself, and many others noticing a discrepancy in the official documents provided by the NTSB and questioning how that could possibly be?

        Alright ill get off my tinfoil soapbox now, take off my tinfoil hat and stick to the articles at hand.
        -End conspiracy laden rant.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 1:37pm

    I'd fax it back to them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    jjmsan, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 1:52pm

    Ignorance

    It is generally held that ingorance of the law is not a defence against charges you have broken it. Maybe that should be changed. If you cannot know a law exists because the government will not disclose it then you are innocent of any charge to have violated it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bergman (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:27pm

      Re: Ignorance

      The idea already exists after a fashion. The legal doctrine is commonly called 'void for vagueness'.

      Basically, the idea is that a court can strike down a law that is so badly written or obfuscated that it is utterly incomprehensible to a non-lawyer or is so vague that it can be stretched to criminalize perfectly lawful behavior (such as exercise of a constitutional right).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Matthew Cline (profile), Jan 18th, 2013 @ 2:29am

      Re: Ignorance

      While I don't at all agree with what the government is doing here, the secret interpretations of law is about laws saying what the government can or can't do, so this doesn't involve any secret interpretations of laws that you or I could break. Of course, there could be secret interpretations of laws that you or I could break, but that would be the subject of a different FOIA request.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btrussell (profile), Jan 18th, 2013 @ 4:21am

        Re: Re: Ignorance

        "While I don't at all agree with what the government is doing here, the secret interpretations of law is about laws saying what the government can or can't do..."

        Aren't the people the Government?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:00pm

    I really hope the judge agrees with the ACLU and hits the DOiJ hard on this, and rightly calls them out for such a blatant mockery of the FOIA system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    lolzzzzz, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:12pm

    hahahahhahaha poor trees

    hahahahahahahaa
    im sorry your govt is totally crazy
    NUTS i tell ya
    hahahahahaha

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:55pm

      Re: hahahahhahaha poor trees

      Dont laugh too hard the GOV is doing all it can to drag other countries in to this crazy way of thinking.

      Yours might be next.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:34pm

        Re: Re: hahahahhahaha poor trees

        Years ago, I remember international comments on an article about the DMCA were rife with: "Why do we care about this? This is a U.S. problem", and at the time, I remember distinctly telling them to watch out - as our government was planning to export our copyright viewpoints.

        I don't see too many international individuals brushing off U.S. government's bullshit these days - I think most of them have learned to not trust their own governments to protect them from ours by now.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DUMBASS POLITICIANS, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:17pm

    Invest in TONER TODAY!

    hahahaha

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:28pm

    Criminals don't like evidence

    Obviously, the sensitive information they are redacting is the court-admissible evidence that their agents have violated the law and committed serious crimes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:31pm

    For all the things you may complain the government gets wrong, trolling is not one of them

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:45pm

    I wonder what the governments response would be if I redacted half of my tax forms before I sent them in this year?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:50pm

    OMG I'm blind!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    crazy moe, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 4:13pm

    Thoroughly reading a document and blanking out only the small section that actually deserve redacting is a lot of work. It's easier to just blank out everything and you'd save time that could be used playing solitaire/minesweeper/hearts/etc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The dude, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 4:20pm

    Looks more like a demonstration of power than an answer to a public request.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 5:15pm

    Buy a gun
    Buy lots of Bullets for that gun
    A war is comming

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    velox (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 8:48pm

    Fascinating...
    The two memoranda above which have a little bit visible were issued by the DOJ Chief, Criminal Appellate Division, Patty Merkamp Stemler.
    Couldn't this possibly be the same Patty Merkamp Stemler who was part of the Federal prosecution team held in contempt of court for failing to turn over information to the judge after being explicitly ordered to do so? That misconduct resulted in the collapse of the criminal case against Senator Ted Stevens.
    It looks like the episode didn't teach DOJ attorneys anything. Maybe the lesson we should have learned is that the members of the executive branch are now so powerful that they can flout rules, ignore law and nothing happens. After all, none of the DOJ attorneys involved in the Stevens case suffered any career damage.
    Ms. Merkamp Stemler even got promoted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Jan 18th, 2013 @ 2:35am

      Re:

      They are out of control. Rogue organizations inside the US Government.

      The Constitution provides power to the people to put them back in check but I wonder how far that would go considering they own the Justice system that will evaluate the use of such control mechanisms?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 11:18pm

    Why does the DOJ just not tell them to fuck off... It's a lot more easy than wasting all that black ink.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 12:20am

      Re:

      They have to pad the budget with something, after all, they can't pad it with logical things, like competent attorneys.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    maclypse (profile), Jan 18th, 2013 @ 2:00am

    I got a question: how long is the US citizens going to tolerate secret laws, secret procedures, secret interpretations of laws, and secret applications of all of the above - before the americans actually vote for "none of the above" and find a third party?

    The libertarians is starting to look pretty damn good about now, aren't they? At least they are neither democrats nor republicans and it'll send a message.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), Jan 18th, 2013 @ 2:30am

    It's like some weird kind of performance art.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dirkmaster (profile), Jan 18th, 2013 @ 5:55am

    I believe at this point it should be perfectly clear to anyone still breathing that the DOJ doesn't believe itself to be above the law, the DOJ believes itself to be Judge Dredd.

    "I *AM* the law!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 8:17am

    On one hand, I want to say "Well played". On the other hand...WTF is this shit? I'm simultaneously proud of my government for taking trolling to a whole new level, and ashamed of my government...for taking trolling to a whole new level. I'm so confused....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jay Goldfarb, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 1:10pm

    FOIA

    But Obama is running the "most transparent administration in US history"!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Emptyfull, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 1:30pm

    The panoptican

    The panoptican is coming; indeed it is already mostly here.

    The eye of God will be granted to the corporate-military elite. They will, inevitably, then show us how short-sighted they are by using that information to their short-term advantage. But they will know everything they want to know about us, whenever they care enough to look.

    More than anything else, I think this is why Dick Cheney and Co. framed the War on Terror like they did. Since OWS folks were quickly labled "terrorist" threats, we can see the suppressive potential of this system for elite interests.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Valkor, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 7:55pm

    Looks like a flag to me.

    A large black rectangle on a white field looks like the next emblem of government opacity. Fly it high, fly it proud.

    When "the government" won't tell us how it its planning to enforce the LAWS OF THE LAND, it is no longer a government OF, BY, AND FOR the people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      monkyyy, Jan 21st, 2013 @ 1:47am

      Re: Looks like a flag to me.

      people*

      *shall be defined as white, male, landholding, and above a random age


      when exactly was this government for the people?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Burly, Jan 19th, 2013 @ 3:01pm

    What a joke

    The government's blatant disregard for the truth makes me sick. It just gets worse and worse. *I'll bet the redactors at the DOJ had a good laugh at this one before they sent it off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    hp, Jan 19th, 2013 @ 3:22pm

    photoshop

    How do you know it's not really a copy of the Constitution?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CaptainVic, Jan 20th, 2013 @ 7:21pm

    Your "smart phone " lays a pop corn trail no matter where you go and yes the gov can look at it anytime and know exactly where your "stashes " are to the foot not nine foot but foot ! They can see if you are dbl parked by where your driver seat is and they use google earth with is painstakingly upgraded all the time ,. 2 ) no smart phone ? How about they have a agent drop off powder that can adhere to your shoes or car handle and you can't get it off ,. It has to scrubbed with scolding water ! They just deliver it next to your truck ,. It can be tracked anywhere on the planet ( even Osama knew this ten years ago he had the Ap get their clothes off and the thugs scrubbed ! If you all did research and read you would not need to ask its all out their ! What's blacked is tactics of delivery ,. U turn off your phone it still pings ! And they can listen to you and it takes pics being off,. The Apple guy died and took a big secret with him it was that all people in t

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      arcan, Jan 20th, 2013 @ 8:59pm

      Re:

      this is why my computer has a 84 character password for its encryption. it would take years to break, and the os has been scrubbed for anything that might tell them the password.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Erlkoenig, Jan 22nd, 2013 @ 8:38am

        Re: Re: arcan

        It is actually encrypted, right? Like...you use actual encryption software? Not just windows/linux/OSX standard password? Because that shit is easy to get past.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This