A Closer Look at Jones v. Bush:
Jim excerpts Beldar's post on Harriett Miers' victory in the Jones v. Bush litigation in 2000. I noticed that Beldar didn't dwell on the legal questions litigated in the case, so I decided to take a closer look. My tentative conclusion: The Jones case seems pretty straightforward, and it's hard to draw much of a conclusion about Miers' legal skills from the opinions that were filed and the decisions that were reached.

  In this case, three Texas residents tried to alter the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election on the theory that Dick Cheney was a Texan. Cheney was a Texan, they contended, because he had lived in Texas when he was the head of Halliburton. Texas electors could not vote for the combined Bush/Cheney ticket if Cheney was from Texas because the 12th Amendment states that "[t]he Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves[.]"

  The trial court easily and properly rejected the plaintiffs' claim. First, the three Texas residents lacked Article III standing to sue:
  Because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a specific and individualized injury from the impending alleged violation of the Twelfth Amendment and are unable to show personal injury through harm done to non-defendant candidates, the court holds that they do not have standing under Article III to bring this suit.
  Second, Cheney was an inhabitant of Wyoming, not Texas:
  The record shows that Secretary Cheney has both a physical presence within the state of Wyoming and the intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation. It is undisputed that he was born, raised, educated, and married in Wyoming and represented the state as a Member of Congress for six terms. After additional public service, he eventually moved to Dallas, Texas to become the Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton Corporation ("Halliburton").
  On or about July 21, 2000 Secretary Cheney declared his intent to return to his home state of Wyoming. On or after that date, and before today, he traveled to Wyoming and registered to vote there, requested withdrawal of his Texas voter registration, voted in Wyoming in two elections, obtained a Wyoming driver's license (which, in turn, resulted in the voiding of his Texas license), and sold his Texas house. He advised the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and he retired from employment with Halliburton.
  The Fifth Circuit then heard a very quick appeal. The district court decision had come out on December 1, 2000, and the Fifth Circuit heard argument and entered a one-line affirmance on December 7th: "All requested relief is DENIED." The plaintiffs filed an emergency petition asking for more time to file a cert petition just a few days before the Texas electors were to meet, but the Supreme Court denied it. A cert petition was eventually filed — I'm not sure exactly when — but it was denied after the electors had met on December 18th.

  Perhaps Beldar intends his post to be tongue-in-cheek, so maybe I'm just not getting the joke by looking at the merits. If so, my apologies. But I don't think the opinions in this case provide a lot of insight into Miers' skills in constitutional law. I haven't read the briefs, so maybe there was a lot more to the case than I can see from the opinions. (I tried, but can't get the briefs via my Westlaw subscription.) And to be clear, I have heard (and don't doubt) that Miers was a very solid litigator. But three random dudes were trying to overturn a Presidential election on the theory that Dick Cheney was a Texan, and it was pretty clear that Cheney just wasn't a Texan. If there were tricky legal issues in the case, they're not obvious to me; the lack of standing was pretty clear, and it's hard to imagine a legal definition of "inhabitant" under the Twelth Amendment that could have made Cheney a Texan given the factual record. Nor am I sure what legal issue could have been presented in a petition for certioriari, as the district court decision was pretty fact-specific.

  Based on the opinions that were filed, at least, it seems to me that Miers' victory in Jones v. Bush doesn't give us a lot of insight one way or the other. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's my tentative sense of things.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. A Closer Look at Jones v. Bush:
  2. Beldar Defends Miers' Litigation Skills.--
Without commenting on how this all reflects on Harriet Miers...

I'd have thought that an argument could be made that allowing a legal and multi-year resident of Texas to move to another state promptly upon his party's nomination for VP where a potential XIIth-amendment conflict exists (and where his rapid move was obviously motivated by a desire to circumvent that conflict) would render the XIIth amendment's first sentence's prohibition meaningless.

I'd have guessed that if Lieberman had been willing to file this suit (with much clearer standing), things could have gotten dicier. (The irony of the XIIth amendment actually causing the exact situation it was passed to prevent would have been truly delicious.)
10.8.2005 2:12am
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
Orin, thanks for the link and the post.

I haven't read the briefing either, I've only read the district court's opinion.

I think that one can draw some inferences with great confidence, without reading the briefing. For instance, one can be relatively sure just from the district judge's description of the parties' positions that Ms. Miers' briefing did indeed grapple with the merits on important and sometimes subtle constitutional issues -- not just the novel Twelfth Amendment issue per se, but also the standing/justiciability issues. That by itself refutes one of the factual mistatements that Miers opponents have been braying all week -- i.e., that she's never dealt with issues of constitutional law in her practice. That is objectively false; not only this case, but others I discussed in my post, conclusively establish that falsity. Yet we'll hear that same falsehood repeated over and over again, probably through and including the confirmation hearings, by opponents of this nomination.

One could also draw inferences, but perhaps with less confidence, to the effect that since Ms. Miers won, her briefing was at a minimum adequate. That wasn't really my point, though; that is, I wasn't intending to comment so much on the briefing at all as on the fact that she won, which I do believe is significant. Completely apart from the merits of either sides' briefing, who won and who lost are significant on a cosmic scale because of the stakes, and I'd submit those facts are also significant based on who Ms. Miers' opposition was — a prototypical example of the kind of lawyer so many are insisting Ms. Miers is not, but that they're insisting one must be in order to be trusted with constitutional litigation. These things aren't matters of pure, objective fact, I'll concede. But my hope is to affect some opinions, or at least reopen some minds, with them.

You write, "three random dudes were trying to overturn a Presidential election on the theory that Dick Cheney was a Texan." Well, no. Prof. Sanford Levinson (probably with covert support and encouragement from the DNC and/or Gore campaign, but that's pure speculation on my part) was trying to do that, and he's no "random dude." He's one of the most esteemed constitutional scholars in America. I can't speak for him, obviously, and I'm not trying to do so. But with respect to your (and others') characterization of this case as a slam dunk for Ms. Miers' side: That's not the inference I would draw from the fact that a scholar of Prof. Levinson's stature signed onto this case, nor from the fact that he appealed his loss to the Fifth Circuit, and certainly not from the fact that he filed emergency motions and then a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

I genuinely am a fan of Prof. Levinson's. If I recall correctly (and I'm pretty sure I do), he taught my legal ethics class (spring semester 1980, I think, right after he arrived at UT and right before I graduated). One of the things we discussed at considerable length was Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and the parallel ethical canons regarding frivolous litigation. One can absolutely, positively infer, then, from the fact that Sandy Levinson filed this case and then appealed it through those higher courts that he didn't think his position was foreclosed outright by prior caselaw or the facts (or technically, if it was foreclosed, that he had a good faith basis for arguing that such precedents should be overturned), and that he likewise believed himself to have, at a minimum, a good faith basis for asserting those claims. I'm confident of that because I believe that Prof. Levinson is himself an ethical lawyer, and I don't expect anyone to challenge that assertion here.

You also wrote, "it was pretty clear that Cheney just wasn't a Texan." If so, that must be "clear" to you based on your rather sophisticated understanding of the differences between, for example, "citizen," "resident," and "inhabitant" — some of which can have varying meanings depending on context. But just on the Everyman's View of the Facts, this was not at ALL obvious: Dick Cheney had been living in Dallas as the CEO of Halliburton on what looked like a full-time basis. Ultimately, I think the district court got that issue right, and a well-written opinion — which I think this one qualifies as — makes its conclusions seem inevitable and obvious. That's not necessarily the way it seemed before that opinion was issued, however, and what seems a slam dunk in hindsight oftentimes wasn't at the time.

I do genuinely appreciate your post as well as Jim Lindgren's, and not because I've necessarily convinced you, him, or anyone else who reads them, or who follows your links to my blog from this one. I have a sense that at least within the blogosphere (which I'm vain enough to think can be an opinion leader of sorts), the average view of Ms. Miers' qualifications is shifting from where it started on Monday morning, which was "third rate lawyer" for an "undistinguished firm" who had nothing to commend her over any other lawyer. I already knew enough of Ms. Miers and her firm to be certain on Monday that those characterizations were very unfair to her. And everything I've learned since Monday has reinforced that conclusion, at least on my part.
10.8.2005 3:13am
Brian G (mail) (www):
Mr. Kerr,

Here are the 5th Circuit Briefs and the cert brief in a zip file. Just click on this site, and scroll down and click on free download. (Of course, others may do so as well) Enjoy. I look forward to your follow up. Just give a hat tip to me when you do.

10.8.2005 3:21am
Brian G (mail) (www):
10.8.2005 3:22am
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
Cool! Thanks, Brian.

One more quick prediction: We'll hear about this case in detail from Sen. Cornyn during Ms. Miers' confirmation hearings, since he was also in the case in his then-capacity as Attorney General of Texas, appearing on behalf (if I'm not mistaken) of the Electors. Whether that was a nominal or substantive role, I don't know yet.
10.8.2005 3:25am
FWIW, I had several friends in law school that assisted Prof. Levinson in this litigation. Granted, they were the quintessential bleeding hearts, but they - and, from what I gathered, Prof. Levinson - took it quite, quite seriously.

I think we all forget how frenzied and important-seeming the litigation resulting from the 2000 election was during that extraordinary period. Regardless of how it may seem now, at the time, it devolved into a legal royal rumble, with heavyweights on both sides adhering to the school of "swing hard in case you hit something." The fact that Miers participated in, and won, a battle in this war should assuage at least some people's reservations about her resume (though it should already be obvious that she was a very high quality litigator).
10.8.2005 4:00am
jgshapiro (mail):
I think it is a stretch to say that Miers is familiar with issues of constitutional law because she 'grappled' with standing and justiciability issues in one high profile case. Likewise, it is a strech to assume she is a good lawyer because she won a case such as this. You would have to be damn-near incompetent to lose it.

Put aside the question of whether Levinson is indeed a bigwig con law prof and ask yourself the obvious question: do you really think a federal appeals court (let alone a district court) would either overturn an election for president and VP, or prevent the electors from an *entire state* from voting in a national election based on a 12th amendment challenge? That strains credulity beyond the breaking point.

The issue is not whether the case was 'frivolous.' The issue is that even if it was brought in good faith and was colorable, it is too much to ask a court to overturn a national election based on this type of technicality -- even if it was a technicality rooted in the constitution. I think any 1L could have won this case for Bush. You might as well challenge the Mass gay marriage ruling in federal court under the republican-form-of-government clause. Good luck with that one too.
10.8.2005 5:12am
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Let me second the notion that the suit raised a ponderable issue and to say that Dick Cheney simply "wasn't a Texan" is incorrect. He moved around his residency several times in his life, for tax and electoral advantages. Here, after living in Texas for a number of years, he "moves" back to Wyoming (during a period when he is campaigning anyway and not spending much time at home) to avoid the 12th Amendment issue.

In the end, the meaning of the 12th Amendment is a political question that can only be decided by Congress, a state legislature (in certifying election results), or the members of the electoral college. But if it actually were justiciable, I don't think the District Court's determination is the only reasonable one; indeed, I would say that it is probably more reasonable to require some period of residence or some other indicia that residence is not simply being changed for electoral purposes. Otherwise, anyone can avoid the 12th Amendment's restriction simply by "moving", even though the candidate is out campaigning and doesn't even occupy his or her "new" domicile.

To take an analogous, actually justiciable issue, you can't simply "move" on the eve of filing a lawsuit to create diversity of citizenship in order to get yourself in federal court; you have to actually show that it is your intention to remain in the new state as your permanent domicile, or else the case may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

So while there's nothing wrong with the ultimate result of the case, it is way too facile to just declare the Dick Cheney was obviously not a Texan.
10.8.2005 6:59am
ed in texas (mail):
The point of all of this is in relation to Mier's critic's complaints that she has insufficient experience arguing before the Supreme Court.
If you do it correctly, the Supreme Court never hears it.
10.8.2005 8:49am
Eh Nonymous (mail) (www):
As usual, we have folks missing the point - almost I say deliberately.

The reason it seems "obvious" that the court could not or would not throw out results and prevent Texas from awarding its votes was that she won. If she had lost, lost on the merits, lost on appeal, whatever, the case might have gone up, but it would have not resulted in the reality we live today.

If you are persuaded that the issue is clear, then one of the advocates has failed.

If you are unable to see what the factual arguments on the other side would be, the prevailing party has won.

Beldar's point remains: this is all evidence of how _good_ an advocate Miers was.

As for whether or not the election "could have" turned on such a small point - well, it seems to me that Texas not giving its votes to W/Cheney would have prevented an outright win, and thus been more influential than the Florida case (which turned out to be unimportant... by a 5-4 margin). So the entire election might have gone to Congress - but I don't really care what the _facts_ would have been. The point is, the lawyering done by Miers et al. prevented that fork in the road from being taken.

I think Dick Cheney arguably _was_ a Texas resident at the time - which is to say, I can understand what an important task it was for Miers to argue about the 12th Amendment in a persuasive and coherent way.
10.8.2005 8:52am
Simon (391563) (mail) (www):

No, it isn't obvious just because Miers one. It was obvious when the case was filed, too, which is demonstrated (among other reasons) by the 5th Circuit's treatment of the appeal. Had the case contained truly contestable facts and novel legal issues, the circuit would not have brushed it aside. (Unless, of course, you think that they were doing so for extra-legal reasons. But even a cynic like me would be hard pressed to believe such an argument.)
10.8.2005 9:26am
So the argument is that Miers is uniquely qualified for the Supreme Court because she has won a small number of cases in the Court of Appeals?

Oh yeah ... that really distinguishes her.
10.8.2005 11:02am
pbswatcher (www):
I'm no lawyer as will probably be obvious from my questions. Is the point of the ruling on standing that only a losing candidate would have standing to sue? A voter whose vote was nullified by an alleged violation of the constitution would not have standing to sue? I'll take some enlightening. Doesn't smell right to a humble citizen.
10.8.2005 11:16am

I believe one of the background ideas is that the individual party in the best position to sue and with the most at stake should be the one bringing the suit. This is known as a "prudential" standing issue (as opposed to an Article III standing issue, which would mean it was outside the judicial power of the United States courts to hear at all--that would be the case if the voters had suffered no injury at all, which as you point out is not true).
10.8.2005 11:23am
pbswatcher (www):
It seems reasonable that the party with the most at stake SHOULD be the one bringing suit and that the court might agree to hear that suit to the exclusion of parties with lesser injury. But if the party with the most at stake declines to sue, why should the injury to lesser parties go unheard and the violation go unpunished?
10.8.2005 11:55am
Matt Barr (mail) (www):

A lawyer who went to Yale would have made the case closer. (Or something.)
10.8.2005 11:55am
I would think that, as lawyers, we would be ashamed of the notion that a prominent law professor brought a case, and that taxpayer dollars and judicial resources were consumed, on a case which was obviously of no merit, if that's what happened. If that is true, shouldn't Prof. Levinson apologize? And shouldn't the law professoriat police its own ranks a little better, so its members don't waste the courts' time on cases that are obviously meritless?
10.8.2005 12:03pm

Well, of course a court rarely knows for sure what suits may or may not be brought when it decides to dismiss a case for lack of prudential standing. And even in a case where the court knew that this was the only suit, I think defenders of prudential standing would note that if the party in the best position and with the most at stake thinks a suit is not worth pursuing, then it may well be best for no suit to be brought. In other words, I should have been more careful and said that the underlying principle is that a suit should be brought, IF AT ALL, by the party in the best position and with the most at stake.

I should note that all of this, of course, is about the federal doctrine of prudential standing, and is based in part on the notion that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, not courts of general jurisdiction. State courts can and sometimes do have more relaxed standing requirements, and so another underlying principle is that if you want to bring suits without federal standing, you could always try it in state court.
10.8.2005 12:15pm
Dan Pawson (mail) (www):
Two scenarios:

1) Case is even on the merits, but one advocate is so good that they easily persuade courts to adopt their position. Result: victory in district court. In the appellate court, presumably some discussion of the two competing sides before parroting winning counsel's convincing arguments to settle the question. Supreme Court is persuaded not to grant cert.

2) Case is strongly lopsided on the merits. Counsels are of unknown strength. Result: victory in district court. Appellate court sees no need to discuss the issue and affirms summarily. Supreme Court refuses to grant cert because of the unimportance of the issue.

There's a third scenario, where the case is even but opposing counsel is very bad, but I'll give Prof. Levinsonn the benefit of the doubt.

There are variables that alter this -- we know that Levinson is very, very smart, although we don't know how talented an advocate he is; I seem to remember the Court having another election-related case to deal with in mid-December of 2000, and they may have, as a political decision, decided that their involvement in the election was over no matter what the merits of subsequent petitions for cert -- but those two scenarios seem basically right.

What does that mean for Jones v. Bush? It means we ought to look at the facts of the case to see whether this was a lopsided case or not, and having read the briefs, it's pretty clearly lopsided. The brief for appellants is spotty and unconvincing (relying on the creation of a new body of federal common law at one point) and their standing argument is clearly wrong. The second scenario is much more likely. It doesn't mean that Harriet Miers is then just a middling appellate lawyer -- she could easily have been excellent or briliant -- but the results of this case don't prove it.
10.8.2005 1:12pm
Anon2 (mail):
Why is everyone assuming that Miers had any significant role in the legal reasoning that went into framing this case? Just because a lawyer appears on the briefs as legal counsel, and sometimes even argues a case, does not mean that they wrote the brief, especially in high profile cases where out-of-state lawyers often operate in the background. Mayber Miers wrote the briefs, but there is a good chance that she did not.

Also, Miers is being given credit for convincing the SCOTUS not to grant cert. However, westlaw contains only the cert. petition -- there is no evidence that an opp. was filed (which would not be unusual). An opp. might have been filed, but it would useful if somebody could find it, and find out who wrote it, before giving Miers credit for it.
10.8.2005 1:55pm
james23 (mail):
I'm not sure this one case tells us much of anything about HM's professional accomplishment. Sounds like straight a straight forward motion and appellate brief. I am assuming there was no trial. Was there oral argument on appeal, and if so, did HM argue personally?

I posted these questions over on Beldar's blog, but I see he looks in here too, so I'll post them here. In her entire career, how many significant cases if any has HM tried to verdict? can you cite a couple of case names? What significant appeals has she argued personally, and won? I don't necessarily expect Beldar to know the answers to these questions about HM; but she knows the answers. People who do this stuff for a living know and can tell you how many jury cases they've tried to veridict in a lead role; and how many appelate court arguments they've had. they can ususally cite you to a few of their own best performances.

One of the legal blogs links to the dockets of the Dallas area federal and state courts. When I checked earlier in the week, Miers’s name was showing up on less than a dozen cases in fed. and state court. That is not what you would expect to find for a busy and accomplished litigator.

The impression I have, and it is only an impression, is that HM is not really an active litigator, much less appellate litigator; rather, she appears to have focused on firm admin. and political/bar association matters. Of course, it helps the career path immeasurably to have a Bush as a client.

10.8.2005 3:03pm
OpposeMiers (mail) (www):
It is not only "constitutional law" -- in the sense of Brown v. Board of Education -- that a potential nominee should be familiar with, but also "constitutional law" in the sense of federal courts, federal litigation, and administrative law (which deals extensively with separation of powers concerns and the relationship between Congress and federal agencies).

The potential benefit of a Miers-type is that she may have litigated regulatory matters. In other words, she may have familiarity with administrative law, formulating federal questions, or a good working understanding of how federal courts work.

Problem: she was not a federal litigator. She did not do trials in federal district courts or try cases before federal regulatory agencies. So all of her experience in practice is not relevant to the Supreme Court. (She clerked, but simply being a clerk is not a per se qualifier for SCOTUS.)

To those who say, well, she was a great litigator in the state of Texas; well, then appoint her to a federal district court in Texas. Or put her on the Supreme Court of Texas. Or elect her to be the head of the Texas Bar. Or, frankly, if you get into the White House, have her serve as your counsel. But that doesn't mean she's qualified for the Supreme Court. Not by a long-shot.

Someone on here attacked the notion that Senators aren't per se qualified for SCOTUS. But Senators, even if their resumes are unimpressive before being elected to the Senate, once elected are actively engaged in the drafting of legislation, which requires constitutional interpretation. They gain an institutional understanding of Congress (a federal body) that is valuable on SCOTUS in deciding questions of federal law. Miers does not have a Senator's experience with federal law, so she isn't qualified in the way is the most idiotic Senator.

She's a state lawyer. Note that were she a state judge or a state legislator, then she would have experience dealing with federal law -- either writing laws that implement federal policies in your state or interpreting federal law when federal questions are raised in state court.

The fact that she "grappled" with this case is not really that big of a deal. The question -- as many here have asserted -- is a simple one for someone who has a working understanding of rudimentiary federal questions. I doubt that any 1L could handle the question; but I do believe that any law school graduate who clerks for a federal district court judge could win the case.

So my question to those who support Harriet Miers is this: Do you believe that a federal judicial clerkship is a per se qualifier for nomination on the Supreme Court of the United States? If not, then how is it relevant that she won this case?
10.8.2005 9:13pm
yebby61 (mail):
Hmmmmm. Not to be putting too fine a point on it but, the statement, "It is undisputed that he (Cheney) was born and... Wyoming", is factualy wrong. Actually, he was born in Lincoln, Nebraska on Jan. 30, 1941.

Re: The plaintiffs standing under Article III. If the Article XII provision had been applicable, wouldn't have every vote cast in Texas for Cheney have to be thrown out?
10.9.2005 3:39pm
Milhouse (www):
No, if the case was decided before the Electoral College met, then "every vote cast in Texas" would not be thrown out, because the Texas electors would simply vote for someone else for VP.

Oh, you mean the actual votes at the election in November? No, of course those wouldn't be thrown out? Why would they? The 12th amendment doesn't say anything about them. Nor does any part of the constitution say anything about the popular elections which indirectly choose the president and VP.

Seriously, in the extremely unlikely event that Jones had succeeded, Cheney would have withdrawn his candidacy, and the Republican Party would have put up another candidate, and urged all GOP electors to vote for him. Then one of two things would have happened: Probably all or nearly all GOP electors would have obeyed, and voted for the new VP candidate, and that person would now be VP. If enough GOP electors disobeyed, then the VP election would have been thrown to the Senate, and the the D majority there would have elected Lieberman as Bush's VP. Either way, Bush would be president.

The interesting question is what would then have happened in 2004. Would Lieberman have got the D nomination and run against Bush? Or would he have joined the Bush team, especially with the GWOT, which he supports, and recontested the Vice-Presidency in 2004 on Bush's ticket?
10.9.2005 9:20pm
Jam (mail):
Let's assume for a moment that Chenney was a Texas resident at the time. Why would a citizen, say from Texas, not have legal standing to sue?
10.10.2005 10:12am
stevejust (mail):
Many people are missing an important point: Cheney was either a resident of Texas or Wyoming. If he were a resident of Wyoming, he committed tax fraud in 2000 by claiming his homestead exemption on his residence at 3812 Euclid Avenue in Highland Park, the ritzy suburb of Dallas. If he were a resident of Texas (as I believe his never-released 1999 or 2000 tax return would indicate), then he committed voter fraud in Wyoming in an attempt to subvert the intent of the Founding Fathers, who originally put the Habitation Clause in Article II (it was then repeated in the 12th Amendment when that section was being revised.) The Wyoming Election code requires people to have resided there for at least a year, and not to have claimed residency in any other state for any purpose during that time. See WY. S. § 23-1-102(a)(ix).

Secondly, Fitzwater hired George P. Bush, with a C average from UT, to be his law clerk. Georgie P's uncle is one George W. Bush. I believe he was appointed by Bush senior. I would argue Fitzwater should maybe have recused himself.

If it were up to me, I'd be saying committing either tax fraud or voter fraud in an effort to become Vice President is a high crime or misdemeanor. And Harriet helped enable Cheney to pull it off.
10.12.2005 11:39am
stevejust (mail):
Sorry, one addendum. The reference to the WY statute in the above post comes from the pleading of the Bush v. Jones suit. I never did any independent research about it. It turns out that the statue is a reference to the Fish and Game Code. Because the Supreme Court struck down onerous residency requirements as a condition to voting back in 1971, WY, like most other states, requires only that you register 30-days in advance.

This apology, however, might be overlooking the fact that Cheney may not have had his WY driver's license at the time he registered to vote, which is a requirement for registering to vote in WY (this info comes from the democratic underground blog).

All this is to say you can't believe everything you read on the internet -- or even in pleadings filed in a federal court.
10.14.2005 7:44pm