When I posted my scepticism that we would be given the full truth about the content of the Panama Papers by the mainstream media outlets who were controlling them, it went viral and became the first individual article to be read by half a million people on this blog alone, and a multiple of that as it was posted all round the web, translated into several languages.
I also attracted some derision from establishment propagandists. I had contended that the fact the papers themselves were not made available, but we were rather fed selected information by the western and corporate state media, would limit and slant what the public was told. The initial concentration on Russia, Iran, Syria etc seemed to confirm this. But it was urged that more was to come, and I should wait, and it was suggested I would look foolish when they finished publishing. "Wait and see" tweeted the editor of the lead newspaper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung, in response to my post.
Well I waited, and what happened? The story fizzled out.
[...] I have a clue what is going on. A young lady contacted me from Le Monde newspaper. She was one of the journalists working on the Panama Papers. She had been allocated the task of researching a Russian oligarch, and not knowing I had made any comment on the Panama Papers, she contacted me as I had background information on the man. Her email made plain that the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists" in Washington was closely controlling the process, and that what she wrote would have to go back to them for "checking" before publication. The ICIJ is funded, as I pointed out, by corporate America.
[....] So, in one stroke, the argument that the data was not being controlled because it was "shared with hundreds of journalists around the world" falls. That argument was repeatedly thrown at me but it appears not to be true; hundreds of journalists did not have unfettered access to the entire database or free publication of their findings. It was very much a controlled leak.
[Continues...]
Of course I am not claiming there is absolute control. It is a matter of degree. As I pointed out, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation made a documentary which directly implicated and challenged Australia's biggest company, BHP Billiton, and Australia's biggest foreign investor. But that only emphasises the problem.
Are we really supposed to believe that in Australia the biggest economic players were involved, but in the UK – where far more lawyers and accountants were implicated – it was just Cameron's dad and a slightly dodgy geezer in Islington?
The corporate media still claim there are legitimate reasons, apart from avoiding tax and jurisdiction, for using companies like Mossack Fonseca. They will therefore – again contrary to a widespread claim – only be publishing a small minority of the actual documents for the public to search. "The application will not be a 'data dump' of the original documents — it will be a careful release of basic corporate information" says the ICIJ. Their words, not mine.
So the fundamental question is, do you trust the corporate media to give you a true picture? By passing the data to the corporate media the leaker has put us back to a pre-WikiLeaks world. My instinct is not to trust them, and the promised revelations that would prove me wrong are yet to appear.
Source: Craig Murray
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
Related Story: "Panama Papers" Compendium
Related Stories
We had submissions from several Soylentils reguarding the "Panama Papers" document leak. We lead off with some background on what the leak is, followed by two stories about Iceland's Prime Minister resigning and being replaced, and conclude with a perspective from a former British Ambasador.
2.6 Terabyte Leak of Offshore Banking Industry Data
Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) has released the biggest leak in journalistic history, posting 11.5 million documents from a Panamanian law firm online and providing "rare insights into a world that can only exist in the shadows."
https://panamapapers.icij.org/
http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/
http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/56febff0a1bb8d3c3495adf4/
The Panama Papers leak is a news leak of confidential documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca that relate to the offshore wealth of world leaders and other politically exposed persons and politicians, and prominent individuals in business, finance, and sports governance. Mossack Fonseca allegedly helped world leaders and other high profiles evade taxes by creating oftentimes illegal tax havens.
Panama Papers Claim a Victim: Iceland's Prime Minister Resigns
Iceland's Prime Minister will resign following the discovery of offshore bank accounts linked to him, found in the leaked Panama Papers:
Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson resigned Tuesday, days after a massive data leak known as the Panama Papers linked him to secret offshore bank accounts. With Gunnlaugsson on his way out, his deputy in Iceland's Progressive Party, Sigurdur Ingi Johannsson, will lead the country, according to Godjon Helgason, a reporter at Icelandic National Broadcasting Service who spoke to NPR's Newscast unit.
[...] Gunnlaugsson intends to remain the head of Iceland's Progressive Party, FastFT reports. Earlier Tuesday, Gunnlaugsson had asked Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson to call early elections and dissolve the current Parliament, the BBC reports, adding that Grimsson refused.
On Sunday, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung , along with other international news outlets that collaborated on the story, published a wave of reports about the murky underworld of shell companies and offshore bank accounts. The reporting was based on a massive trove of leaked emails and other documents from a Panamanian law firm.
[Continues...]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 02 2016, @07:41PM
Why? Who is controlling it, and for what benefit?
I've seen conspiracy-theory-esque rumblings that this was done to harm nations who would either not be signing onto the TTP and/or would be attempting to shift their reserve currency off the US dollar. Geopolitics is not my strong suit, at least not where massive amounts of money are concerned, but at this point I'd be willing to believe it; everyone we were saying 10 years ago had their tinfoil trilbies on too tight turn out to have been not only correct but not paranoid *enough.*
What the hell is going on here?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @07:51PM
Sounds like the intro to WWIII
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday May 02 2016, @08:06PM
Do you guys ever wonder if Operation Mockingbird [wikipedia.org] was really shut down in 1976 like CIA Director George Bush said it was?
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 02 2016, @08:28PM
Just do this. Remind yourself who are the persons found to be lying the last years due to various leaks. Especially what positions do these people have and how elaborate schemes do they set up.
Add to that, what does media not focus on and how is reality twisted. Not at least, who benefits?
Who owns ? etc.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @08:46PM
I don't wonder, but then again I don't have proof. Apparently I should get a tinfoil hat?
People think elaborate schemes will never hold up, but in reality they hold up quite well. Unless there is something easily actionable, everything just gets swept under "that's how we do things". Sort of like the corporate employee getting flak when they say "sorry, company policy". People have been conditioned so that they believe the blame lies with some "entity" like the corporate office, the church, the government. In reality its the people who make up those organizations that should be held responsible, and not able to hide behind "official policy". The LLC is the greatest trick ever pulled!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Monday May 02 2016, @09:05PM
The only possible legitimate excuse... which can only be verified by the criminal ringleaders (owners and founders of Mossack-Fonseca) is that U.S clients were repeatedly denied during "due diligence" on new accounts. They've deliberately created a firm that served non-US customers specifically over the last few decades, so that is why we don't see more US representation in the leaks.
We have:
1) Anonymous leak with no way to verify that the leaker obtained all documents, or even intended to obtain all documents
2) The highest level people involved deny US interests were served
3) Allegedly independent journalists that are knowingly funded by monied interests not friendly to the Common Joe (not that dude around here).
4) The explicit statement that the leak will be heavily protected, heavily redacted, and that the "independent" journalists will be the gatekeepers.
They can all go fuck themselves, and I can't believe any of it. It's not just convenient that specific countries are being embarrassed, it's suspicious. Both of the leaders of Russia and China complain the US is saying it's shit doesn't stink. How can they be wrong? The ICIJ has literally admitted to cleaning up specifically so the US comes out smelling like roses.
What is released on Putin is fucking pathetic. If all you can show is a friend purchasing instruments at great cost (nothing unusual there) to donate them to institutions for the people, then just shut up.
Everything, everywhere, is fully, absolutely, and irredeemably corrupt. Including the ICIJ. It's foxes guarding the hen houses, all the way down.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by ikanreed on Monday May 02 2016, @09:28PM
Believe it or not, the US government is pretty serious about identifying shell corporations used for tax evasion and money laundering. It's one of the few financial crimes they've actually sent bankers to jail for in the past couple of decades.
It's crazy to think of the US as one of the less corruption tolerant financial systems, but Germany and France are also notable for not having any leaders on the list.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @11:25PM
Yeah, not,
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:08AM
Wow. I'm completely blown away by your eloquence and your air-tight arguments.
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Monday May 02 2016, @11:55PM
I do not believe you, not even remotely. A few token imprisonments of the bankers they were willing to throw under the bus do not make me believe that the U.S is serious about prosecuting financial crimes.
Your statement falls on many deaf ears when they remember that a poor minority can do 10+ years in prison for selling a small amount of crack cocaine, but high level bankers processing billions of the that revenue for drug lords were deemed "Too Important To Imprison". More so, when the government itself announces that it will start doing the absolute very basics like prosecuting financial misconduct and actually sending people to jail. Look it up, they needed to release a press statement about the actual moment when they realized they need to start doing their jobs. Both of what I've said is actually represented by the Justice Department's own words in the press, and they did indeed explain why these bankers were being let off with no punishment.
Pretty serious? You may have that confused with lackadaisical. Better word for it.
In the end the rest of the world will solve it for us, as I'm sure if the average Greeks had two pennies to rub together they would pool the money to take out hits on Goldman Sach's, that started it. There will come a time when America is at war, for no other reason than that the terrorists who attacked another country live here. I'm sure at that time you can educate them on how serious we are about prosecuting, and not engendering, large scale financial malfeasance. You know, because the US has a history of taking the financial elites to task right?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:18AM
Boy, your ignorant and blind hatred is pretty sorry. There is very little US involvement here because this corporate shell game is legal in the US! Why the fuck would one need to do it secretly in Panama when one can just set up shell corporations in Delaware, Nevada, or Wyoming? Seriously? It is some big fucking US coverup? OMG! THEY'RE COVERING UP LEGAL BEHAVIOR!!!
Get a grip.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday May 03 2016, @06:44PM
Interesting rant, with none it being pertinent to what I was responding to, or what I said.
We were speaking about the seriousness in which the US government prosecutes financial misconduct. Feel free to try again at contributing something useful to the proceedings.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday May 02 2016, @09:28PM
My guess is the targets that don't care (Putin and friends, for instance) or don't have enough money have been released. The rest of the people have been given N days to cough up bitcoins, or have their details published.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday May 02 2016, @10:01PM
Nothing is going here.
ICIJ to Release Panama Papers Offshore Companies Data [icij.org] - announcement made on Apr 26. (Craig Murray's TFA is Apr 29)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by n1 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:15AM
Just to make sure we're all clear on this... As noted in TFS/A and TFPR...
What use is a 'careful release of basic corporate information' as far as uncovering anything noteworthy?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:51AM
Would you rather see innocent suffer than let a criminal escape?
How do you know that everybody mentioned in those papers is a criminal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:50AM
Who made such a claim? Nobody!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:44AM
Then based on what right would one require an indiscriminate dump of all documents?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by n1 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @08:32AM
I wrote this comment already but it got lost....
There's a huge middle ground between releasing all the documents and not releasing any, which is apparently the route they're going.
I hope i'm wrong but I assume the database will yield results such as:
"ABC Holdings LLC (BVI) was incorporated by Mossack Fonseca (Panama) on behalf of CDE Trust (Jersey)"
Which will provide 0 insight into the who,what,why of controlling interests and potential criminal activity... And i'm sure there are plenty of legitimate reasons to incorporate a BVI company through a Panama based law firm but I can't think of any of the top off my head.
While we might learn nothing, we probably will get some more pretty info graphics showing interconnections that ultimately lead nowhere.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:58AM
It knocked the Unaoil bribery scandal [theage.com.au] completely out of the news. I have just assumed that the purpose of the Panama papers link was to distract from the bribery scandal. The rest of the papers are being held, pending another need to change the headlines.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday May 03 2016, @09:50AM
Why? Who is controlling it, and for what benefit?
Answer, as always, follow the money. Unfortunately the money goes to a corporation in Panama and you can't follow it any further...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday May 02 2016, @07:46PM
When the grand expose first started showing up, most pointing to Russia (untouchable) and Iceland (who cares), and virtually nothing to the US, I knew it was something other than it claimed to be.
How convenient to run a few politicians through the shredder just to prove a point. Like a nuclear test shot just to show ¨them the instruments¨
Then hold back the rest till the hot and heavy part of various election cycles. Or perhaps never reveal them at all if the bribes come in on the right side.
I have no idea what this is all about, or who is actually behind it, but the way it is being played by these journalists just seems unlikely to be unbiased,
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @08:27PM
I have no idea what this is all about, or who is actually behind it
Look into who's funding the "research" on these documents. Rothschild and Rockefeller among other western banks. You're distracted by the "who's implicated by the breech of banks like Mossack Fonseca. That's only part of the propaganda. The real battle is being fought by banks against each other. This is to demoralize the non-western banks and get such tax haven business in more western banks. "See, you can't trust those banks, instead you should come to the US or The City (small powerful banking capital inside London), we can protect our customers better, and we control the media." All wars are bankers wars. [youtube.com]
If you're ever in doubt who's behind some shit, then it's a safe bet it's bankers, if you don't know this then you should study some more history. Where do you think "follow the money" always inevitably leads?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 02 2016, @11:21PM
If you're ever in doubt who's behind some shit, then it's a safe bet it's bankers,
And by bankers, every one of us here knows exactly what you are trying not to say.
Even posing AC you are hiding behind your hiding place.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:36PM
Jews. There. I said it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by MikeRo on Monday May 02 2016, @07:47PM
Remember the Monty Python 'Blackmail' sketch? There's your answer.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @07:57PM
"Where Are the Other 10 Million Panama Papers?"
Don't ask us. We tried asking logical questions like "Why the hell should the whole Linux world be forced to use System D? Is this some kind of sick joke?" and practically got shouted right off the innertubes.
If you want real answers, then, your best bet is to look elsewhere.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @08:22PM
Once they have more systemd this problem is going to go away. Why do you hate blind people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:09AM
You laugh but systemd has a lot to do with this.
Not directly but the paradigm at work (screw the little guy) is the same old same old.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @08:19PM
Why is Glenn Greenwald still sitting on the rest of the Snowden leaks? These things go to show why one should be enormously skeptical of leaks and whistleblowers who immediately receive widespread mainstream media attention.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday May 02 2016, @08:24PM
They don't want to face the public backlash (egged on by governments) that would happen if all the documents were dumped with little or no culling.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday May 02 2016, @08:29PM
agreed. And probably the reason even Snowden's haul has not been fully released.
This is essentially the problem with the modern system of politics and media. It it too complex to observe continuously, especially when news organisations only promote the "new" not the context of many threads.
In engineer parlance the signal/noise ratio is too low, and the carrier media has limited bandwidth!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:12AM
Especially when you can control the story and narrative by selectively releasing info. Look at Assange, he is the poster child for that. If he or Greenwald released everything, then they're irrelevant. How can they stay the bastions of freedom if they don't control it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @08:51PM
I remember on the Colbert Report he said more shocking revelations where to come and strongly hinted the NSA was targeting peaceful domestic groups, but there has been very little of note since then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @09:57PM
If Snowden were unhappy with the situation, he would say something about it. He is all over twitter after all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @10:31PM
You would think.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:39PM
The Russian KGB, FSB or whatever they want to be called nowadays, have him under tight control. If he isn't a double agent, I feel bad for the guy. Must be real fun living in Russia under constant supervision by government thugs. I bet he cant even take a dump without someone watching him.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday May 02 2016, @08:23PM
Many people believe that some corruption, some "flexibility", is actually beneficial. In cases where the law is too strict or counterproductive, this is true. In some cases the law is itself the product of corruption, designed to force most or all of a sector of business to go through a few favored companies. Then it becomes a matter of fighting corruption with corruption. I would rather take the high road. Improve the system. The existence of rampant corruption is a signal that some system is not working, and is likely unfair. It's a whole lot easier to cheat a system when one feels the system cheats them. Many people feel that way about the entertainment industry and their extreme copyright. Clearly copyright needs significant reform and change, yet if anything, the only changes being considered and enacted make it even worse.
A problem with a career in politics is that at least in the US at the local level, the pay is ridiculously low. For instance, jurors get $6 per day they serve on a jury. $6 for a whole day? Waitresses make more than that in wages alone, despite being paid below minimum wage. If one happens to be unemployed, a day on jury duty might be worse than begging for spare change on a street corner. The pay for being on the council of a town is similarly poor, can be something like $5 per meeting attended. The naive noble thinking is that one should serve the public out of the goodness of one's heart and not care about the pay. The justice system even has the nerve to ask jurors whether they would like to donate their laughable pay to some charity, under the suggestion that it's not much money anyway, so why not give it away? So, they admit the amount is a pittance. The reality is that elected officials are always angling for ways to leverage their power into wealth, and aren't shy about bending the rules to do so.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @08:54PM
First paragraph points to a systemic "unfairness" which generates the corruption, then the second paragraph points out that any people in power angle to get more wealth/power from their position.
There is no unfairness driving the corruption in the US, except for the perceived unfairness of environmental regulations. Here in the US it is all about greed and power, how to screw over anyone else so that you can have your own piece of pie. My opinion is that this is a by-product of the individualist / capitalist ethos that pervades all aspects of our society.
I recall an episode of Stargate where they meet a highly advanced race, and the team worries that the leader is making backroom deals with the Goauld. Their chaperone is shocked at their allegation and says that such a breach of the public trust is a higher crime than murder.
I think we need to head that way, right now corruption at worst results in some minimal jail time; but usually simply means the person needs to get out of the spotlight for a few years and come back. I am all for corruption charges carrying heavier sentences than murder, for the simple fact that a minor act of corruption can lead to the death of thousands (Flint water for the contemporary ref) and definitely encourages further acts of corruption till you get to where we're at today. Our corruption has become so legalized its laughable, Civil Forfeiture being one of the worst examples I know of.
(Score: 1) by quintessence on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:58AM
Difficulties here.
Point blank- the more laws you have, generally the more corrupt the system is. And the US has a fuckton of laws, to such a degree EVERYONE is guilty of something. And if you are really a pain in the ass, evidence can be manufactured. Suppose Bill Cosby is innocent of all allegations made against him. Doesn't matter because his life is over.
With such high stakes for corruption, you've just changed who is in a bargaining position, not actually reduced corruption.
While the threat of jail might make the timid think twice, the real powerbrokers know they are only a phone call or two away from a presidential pardon. The law is effectively meaningless to them.
Nope, what you are looking for is structural change in how capitalism and government operates. Something like a land value tax makes tax fraud mostly impossible to where you don't need these convoluted tax codes. Pay the tax or take a hit to your credit rating, risk losing your company HQ, and possibly risk losing your corporate status.
Now that makes people sit up and take notice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @09:47AM
While the threat of jail might make the timid think twice, the real powerbrokers know they are only a phone call or two away from a presidential pardon. The law is effectively meaningless to them.
That's the real corruption!
Compare: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 [rollingstone.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs [theguardian.com]
vs: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/West-Texas-Man-Sent-to-Prison-for-Laundering-Drug-Money-298641601.html [nbcdfw.com]
I'm sure the bankers would misbehave a lot less if there was actually a plausible chance of them going to prison for 5 years, doesn't even have to be 10.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @09:27AM
I am all for corruption charges carrying heavier sentences than murder,
Ah but what is corruption? In the USA tipping is very common and practically considered mandatory by many.
But in places I've worked in, if a customer rewarded me for doing my job well/differently or for merely doing my job, it's considered corruption.
for the simple fact that a minor act of corruption can lead to the death of thousands
Yes but not all minor acts of corruption would lead to the death of thousands. Why not punish people for what they are actually guilty of? If your corruption couldn't actually lead to the death of thousands why should you be punished as if it did?
The real problem is those in Power or in Favor hardly get punished at all. As long as that's true, your proposal of harsh punishments is merely throwing the weak and unwanted to the mobs. The big shots continue to be untouched, while the small timers are executed to satisfy you and the mobs.
Take the money laundering stuff for example. The small timers go to jail but the big timers get away with it.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 [rollingstone.com]
That's the real corruption there.
Your proposal of harsher punishments is like giving a bigger gun to the Big Corrupt Guy and hoping that somehow things get better. Reminds me of those sheep in corrupt countries who ask for Sharia law and somehow think that those in power would have their hands chopped off... Somehow they never realize it'll only apply to the sheep and outcast wolves.
Harsher punishments are rarely necessary. Put most wealthy people in a normal prison for three years and they'll still suffer a massive downgrade in lifestyle. Why do you think they prefer fines (especially those paid by the Company) or settlements and hire expensive lawyers to prevent or delay them from being incarcerated? The problem is they are avoiding punishment almost as easily as they are avoiding taxes.
Whereas some of the poor in the US have such a terrible life that they rob banks for a dollar just to get critical healthcare in prison.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 02 2016, @08:32PM
Either they go straight with this or their credibility will be burnt, hard.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday May 02 2016, @09:17PM
FTFY
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 02 2016, @09:28PM
American media debunked..
Perhaps the ICIJ papers are in the pipeline. The whole mess smells special alphabet soup organization setup.
(Score: 4, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday May 02 2016, @10:36PM
Wait, what credibility?
http://mumbrella.com.au/journalists-less-trusted-laywers-taxi-drivers-airport-baggage-handlers-reveals-readers-digest-survey-23298 [mumbrella.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:10AM