Commission narrows Mirkarimi charges to one but recommends removal

Ross Mirkarimi with Eliana Lopez, attorney David Waggoner, and his mother, Nancy Kolman Ventrone (right), after the ruling.
Steven T. Jones

The Ethics Commission today unanimously rejected most of Mayor Ed Lee’s official misconduct charges against suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi – including abuse of power, impeding a police investigation, and dissuading witnesses – but voted 4-1 to recommend the Board of Supervisors find him guilty of official misconduct for grabbing his wife’s arm on Dec. 31 and pleading guilty to the resulting misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment.

The sole dissenting vote, Chair Benedict Hur, said he had “grave concerns” that such as a broad interpretation of what behaviors constitute official misconduct would give mayors a “strong tool” to inappropriately remove their political adversaries (or at least invite charges that they were), as Mirkarimi supporters allege is happening now.

But the rest of the commission adopted a broad interpretation of what city officials and voters intended in 1995 when they overhauled the City Charter and added a new official misconduct clause banning “conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers.”

“I have a lot of concerns about where you draw the line if you don’t relate it to official duties,” Hur said, appealing to his colleagues that, “I think this charter provision was meant to be narrow.”

Commissioner Paul Renne – who in earlier hearings had taken a strong role in excluding prejudicial evidence against Mirkarimi and was thought to be a possible vote in his favor – today led the charge in interpreting misconduct in the broadest possible way, arguing it didn’t even have to be related to his official duties, while the three other votes against Mirkarimi made the case that his conduct and conviction were related to a sheriff’s role overseeing the jail and its domestic violence programs.

“I think the voters would be shocked if we were to say a public official who pleaded guilty to domestic violence has not committed an act of official misconduct,” Renne said.

But Mirkarimi’s attorneys and supporters – who outnumbered those urging his removal (mostly domestic violence advocates) by more than 4-to-1 during the three hours of public testimony taken today – say the shocking thing is for a just-elected official to be unilaterally removed from office by a political adversary for reasons that today’s proceedings showed were tenuous.

“No case has ever been upheld in court to remove an elected official for a low-level misdemeanor,” said Paula Canny, the attorney for Mirkarimi’s wife, Eliana Lopez, who sat next to and supported his husband throughout today’s nine-hour proceedings.

Indeed, the city is wading into uncharted waters and the commission had few court precedents to draw from in making its findings. It’s also possible that the charter provision is unconstitutionally vague, as Mirkarimi’s attorneys have alleged, both here and in court, with an earlier judge opting to wait until after the city’s process plays out before ruling on the question.

But first, it will be up to the Board of Supervisors, where nine votes on the 11-member body are required to remove Mirkarimi. Today’s hearing got complicated at the end – as commissioners wrestled with what it means to essentially throw out the mayor’s charges and adopt their own more narrow accusation, and how to present everything to the board – that it decided to hold one more meeting in early September to adopt a summary and send everything to the board, which will then have 30 days to act.  

“I leave this process concerned that the will of the voters is being undermined,” Mirkarimi told reporters after the hearing. Holding his hand, Lopez said, “I’m shocked to see what happened today, but we are fighters.”


For complete coverage and analysis of what happened today, what it means, and what’s next, read next week’s Bay Guardian.


62% of the people who voted in November preferred to have someone other than Mirkarimi as Sheriff. And there were only 4 candidates, not 14 like in the Mayor's race.

So 38% of the people wanted Mirkarimi in November. That poll says that 24% supported him during this disaster. It would be nice to have a new poll but those numbers sound quite reasonable.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 6:54 am

After all, you've willfully continued to ignore my request for substantiation of your claims with regard to the level of popular support for Lee and support for Lee's action with regard to his suspension of Ross Mirkarimi without pay.

Not a single poll exists which was conducted fairly; only one deeply flawed poll which was conducted prior to Ross Mirkarimi having been able to get his side of the story out.

It wasn't for the EC to take lies such as yours about public polls and use them as justification to further the mayor's nefarious agenda in negating an election.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 7:17 am

Uh, but Mirkarimi won without IRV, 50% +1.
Your retort is moot.
Back under the bridge with you.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

Not at all. Do you even live in SF because you don't sound as if you know what you're talking about.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

Ross most certainly did not win without IRV. He did not get a 50% plus one. Back to reality for you.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 7:55 am

Let's see, trolls... you say that 60% of voters voted for Lee, and only 38% of voters voted for Ross. Real funny. OK, two can play at that game. Using that same criteria, I can say that only 31% of voters voted for Ed Lee, and 53% of voters voted for Ross.

Secondly, I've never seen this poll cited. Only talked about in vague terms. Who paid for it? What were the questions? When was is done? Does it even exist, but in your minds?

The third point, I love the best... 80% of the kangaroo court known by the positively Orwellian moniker of "the ethics commission" voted to remove Ross. Left unmentioned is the fact that 3 out 5 members of this "court" are representatives of the SAME 3 people prosecuting him! And surprise surprise, 100% of those 3 members voted to remove. *This* is called justice???

Do I see a pattern? Oh yeah! A pattern of corruption and abuse of power! More accurately, it should be said that 100% of the troika of Ed Lee, George Gascon, and Dennis Herrera want to have Ross removed.

Well, shit. We didn't need a whole kabuki dance to figure that out. They could've just gone to the supes and told them that themselves!

Oh wait, perjurer Ed Lee already did that!

Posted by Greg on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 7:33 am

Greg, I'm really sorry but yes, in the election last November only 38% of the voters picked Mirkarimi as the guy they wanted to be Sheriff. Against two other strong candidates and one marginal.

Most adult people try to accept and resign themselves to facts even if they work against their cause.

But not Progressives. They ignore whatever doesn't work for them and then go on to explain how the members of the Ethics Commission are obviously biased because they didn't vote the way the Progressives wanted.

So Louis Renne needs to compromise himself in order to find work?

What about Liu, who was picked by a Progressive BOS?

And when did Hererra become anti Progressive?

Bunch of weak crybaby whiners. No wonder the moderates are wiping the floor with you.

How's Peskin and the DCCC working for ya?

Posted by Troll on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 8:08 am

Not really a big fan of "gotcha" comments having been repeatedly subjected to picayune criticisms based on typos and misspellings, but "Louis Renne?"

With all the piss and vinegar you emit here, I'd have assumed that you had a better grasp on basic facts. *Paul* Renne is on the ethics commission. *Louise* -- with an "E," get it? -- Renne is former city attorney and supervisor. That's Paul's wife.

lillipublicans©, often impostered, less frequently equaled.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 8:35 am

Hererra became anti-progressive when dared run a good campaign that drew votes away from the Guardian-anointed "progressive" John Avalos.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

Uh, the Ethics Commission has been ineffective for many, many years. It has over a dozen official misconduct cases on its docket that Exec Dir John St Croix tried to dismiss on his own without them even making it to the Commission's agenda. How is that for official misconduct? In fact, there are two cases of official misconduct against the Ethics Commission and staff right now that had to be transferred to San Jose Ethics Commission for adjudication due to conflict of interest.

How's that for a kangaroo court?

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

How shallow and superficial you are like all Republicans. This is not the end of the story in any way.

Let's take a look at what the two convicted parties have to say about the incident again that ALL SUPERVISORS need to review before making their decision or NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AT ALL.

Key issue: They didn't have the time to correct the matter in their own way before it turned into a scandal by Ivory Madison through the brilliant work of Phil Bronstein and his network of cronies, SFPD and, above all, DA Gascon. Shall we add Willie Brown into the mix, too?

The Mayor now needs to clean house of all public officials that have committed similar crimes, convicted or not.

Let's start with the Fire Chief who cracked a beer stein over the head of her hubby in a drunken stupor plus her kids witnessed it.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

"Shall we add Willie Brown into the mix, too?"

Oh, why not? You kooky conspiracy theorists love to add ingredients to the cauldron of crazy.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

Just call your opponent a "kooky conspiracy theorist". Since this is your idea of a well-reasoned argument, you don't even have to think, much less come up with an original thought. Just fling a few insults and one tired cliche, and pray it sticks. Way to debate, troll.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

MistofTheCity didn't really offer up anything for debate.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

Funny Greg, I didn't see you questioning this commission *prior* to their decision. But now that Ross loses again - for what has to be the 100th time - you're sure it must be because of a biased commission.

Here's a clue if you ever want anybody to take your bullshit seriously. Make these dramatic proclamations *before* the ruling comes out, not after.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

"Funny Greg, I didn't see you questioning this commission *prior* to their decision. "

I have repeatedly said that this process is illigitimate, starting right at the beginning. You just haven't been paying attention.

C'mon guys. Pick up the pace. I expected at least 3 troll-ish posts piling on within an hour of my post. Right now, you're falling somewhat short of expectations.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 11:43 pm

would you claim that their finding wa therefore illegitimate?

Is analysing politics just like watching a football game to you - ra ra for our side?

Ross admitted he committed violence to his wife and admits false imprisonment. That makes him unsuitable for office, as you would have instantly agreed had a right-winger done that.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 11:57 pm

Setting aside rhetoric, talking points, and legal technicalities... at the heart of the matter we have a group of people trying to stage a coup, overturning an election, over an arm bruise. The notion that an elected official should lose his job over an argument, where the entire sum of his offense was the grabbing of an arm, is so absurd that I can't imagine anyone involved really gives a rat's ass about the arm grabbing itself.

Certainly not Ed Lee or George Gascon. If they really cared about such things, then they would've come down like a ton of bricks on say, Police Commissioner Julius Turman, who beat the daylights out of his partner. (For that... yeah, he should lose his job *and* be in jail.) But an arm grabbing? Please, spare me the talking points. I don't even think you yourselves believe your own propaganda.

This is about derailing the political career of a strong progressive leader who is capable of getting elected citywide and poses a threat to the downtown power structure.

You know it. I know it.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:39 am

sheriff who lacked the nous and self-control to avoid assaulting his wife, thereby putting his career at risk.

You seem to think Ross is a completely innocent party here. But if, knowing he had powerful enemies and knowing that they would look for any opportunity, he then just ignored that and bruised and falsely imprisoned his wife anyway.

So if nothing else, he is guilty of appalling political judgment. and he has let down his supporters, the voters and, most of all, his family and himself.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 1:35 am

Still a stupid process even if they found him not guilty. It was a complete waste of time that had no merit.

What has merit? Ed Jew, that had merit because he willfully falsified election documents to gain an advantage. Chief Hayes-White, if it every comes to pass. Gavin Newsom, alcohol/drug abused and screwing his secretary in the office who was his best friend and campaign manager's wife.
Below level of decency and never convicted. Need I say more?

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

that proved to be so malleable and confusing to some of the ethics commission members.

Just crazy. Haven't people learned that the kind of "end justifies the means" thinking that the EC embraced is destructive to social harmony?

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:20 am

a very balanced ruling, throwing out much of Lee's arguments but retaining the essential key point i.e. should a sheriff be allowed to commit crimes and be violent towards his wife, and still be able to do his job as if nothing had happened?

Most SF'ers support Lee and want Ross gone. The EC was 80% for Lee and the voters are 76% for Lee. The EC are merely saying what most of the rest of us are saying.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:32 am

for the voters of San Francisco; and your claims regarding statistics are not substantiated and without a doubt mostly false.

It is telling indeed that you felt it neccessary to begin your reply with a snarking "gotcha" with regard to my misspelling a word.

lillipublicans©, often impostered, less frequently equaled.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 7:03 am

Everyone now understands that the 76% number is the result of an alleged poll that has raised a lot of questions about its integrity.

A better way to judge opposition to Mirkarimi is to look at the promised recall movement. Promised, but apparently no one has yet made any attempt to recall Mirkarimi.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 8:28 am

This had better open the door to charges of official misconduct by other City Officials/Employees by the Ethics Commission.

Posted by roflynn on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 10:32 am

It's kinda why they're, you know, in existence.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 10:47 am
Posted by Terrrie Frye on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

Ben Hur, would give the mayor *far* too much power if interpreted in the broadest manner his fellow commissioners advocated. Even Mayor Lee's team didn't hold that misconduct needn't be conduct related to official duties.

The other four commissioners held that the ethics code (the "impliedly required" clause which was added by the voters in 1996) meant that conduct need not be related to official duties; that the clause should be interpreted separately and independent of the first part of the sentence.

Why didn't the other commissioners step back from endorsing such an unconstitutional concept; a concept inimnical to the values of democracy?

lillipublicans©, often impostered, less frequently equaled.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 10:53 pm

misbehavior is in a field unrelated to that of the Office because, in this particular case, the misbehavior is most definitely related to the office in question.

I would have given Ross a pass if his crimes and actions were not directly related to LE and so to his ability to perform his duties.

The EC found fairly, I believe, and the cited criticism does not apply in this case.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 11:37 pm

as, in fact, they took place *before* he was sheriff.

The ethics commissioners who voted to sustain the mayor's charge essentially voted to validate the mayor's suspension of the sheriff based on his opinion that Mirkarimi could not effectively perform the duties of his office; an opinion which directly contradicted the consensus of the voters and which was not in their purview.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:04 am

heard him admit on videotape that "I committed an act of violence against my wife". Nor would they support Ross when he has only just been convicted. If the voters knew all this and elect him anyway, then i am fine with that.

In fact, I fully support Ross's right to stand for the next election for sheriff. and if he wins again, that's fine with me.

But here and now, the Mayor, the EC and the people are all of one mind and voice. Ross cannot do his job any more, and it is not in the best interest of the city and the people that he try.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:34 am

It's not in the best interests of the city to have the mayor finish his coup by appointing a political favorite.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:59 am

more importantly, isn't constantly injecting politics and ideology into what is essentially an administrative and non-policy making role that most cities wouldn't elect anyway. Personally I think it makes little sense to elect a sheriff while appointing more political jobs like the police chief and the DA.

In fact, I don't even know why Ross wanted the job, let alone spending his family's life savings on trying to save it.

Ross needs to move on; the voters need to move on; the city needs to move on.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 1:41 am

whether it affects his ability to run a LE department now that he has a criminal record and an admission of violence tainting him.

The majority say not while only a minority ever voted for him anyway. The EC's findings are fair.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:39 am

I don't believe the Commission recommended that Ross be removed, and in fact I think they specifically did not take a position on that matter.

On another note, I covered extensively the charter rewrite that passed in 1995, including covering all the Charter Revision Task Force meetings. The language adopted on official misconduct was directed at removing a phrase dealing with "moral character" because it had been used in other circumstances as a surrogate to mean homosexual (for example, for admittance to the bar). LGBT groups strongly objected to retaining that language, and so it was replaced with the language at issue in this trial. Unfortunately, this salient fact was not before the commission. The city attorney, in my opinion, was guilty of a legal ethics violation because it misrepresented this part of the rewrite as regarding other aspects for which it can not produce a scintilla of evidence.

Posted by CitiReport on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 11:17 pm

The EC have very clearly, and by a 4-1 majority, recommended that the Super support the Mayor's decision.

It would take a very obscure reading to conclude anything else. Steven gets a lot of things wrong but he is right here.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 11:39 pm

Well, the EC certainly discussed the matter of whether it's a slam dunk to automatically recommend removal even though only 1 in 5 (or was it 6) of the charges were upheld. That was a thoughtful point to bring up, if you ask me. Maybe in the end, they couldn't "mess" with the neat package of the 2 together, even though most of the charges were dismissed ("because it would complicate matters"). So we'll see what the BOS makes of it.

At least this is how I remember how it went down.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 8:53 am

barely at all on the damning finding that Lee's decision was justified.

It's typical to try for several counts as juries are unpredicatable. That's how these thigns work.

Sorry but Steven, and every other informed news source, has this story correct. When even the SFBG admits it's a defeat, you KNOW it's a defeat.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

I don't think Lee's decision was justified. And they did discuss whether or not to consider the removal part in a new light. Too complicated for you? Well, why am I not surprised?

Okay, so let's focus on the charges they did uphold, since I wanna see you salivate: Yes, Ross did something wrong!! Hey!!! Whaddya know? And it involved an arm bruise....and a heated argument!!! wow....Sorry, whoever you are, but I can live with that. Mistakes happen, and we all have our faults, which sometimes come to a head. It's called life. Get over it.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

but 3/4 of SF'ers think it is a big enough deal to want to see the sheriff go.

And if the perp here had been a right-winger, you'd be crowing the same tune too, and demanding he go.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

First of all, you do not know for sure what the percentage of SF'ers would want Ross "to go".

Instead of using the word "DV" to hide behind and react to like it's the plague, I choose to look at what actually took place. I refuse to live my life out of fear. I choose to see this as a human failing, a low-level offense, and not sweep it under the rug by any means, but in my view it doesn't warrant kicking a guy out of his job...I know my approach is more human, more forgiving, and I also know that many will not see it this way, but instead take a "hard-line" approach, and will kick ross to the curb. I am sorry, but I do not share your point of view.

And no, you are wrong about "if the perp had been a right-winger"...I like to really
L O O K at the facts...I don't play by "labels" All labeling is de-humanizing.

That is my opinion, and you do not have to share it.

And please don't lump me with all these other names you cite. That is another example of "labeling", and I don't appreciate it. I am who I am, thank you very much. I wouldn't lump you with anybody, so don't do it to me.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 12:16 am

have had two polls and, moreover and anecdotally, I am actually yet to meet anyone IRL who thinks Ross deserves to stay.

The simple fact is that there is a zero tolerance policy on Dv that applies in all cases. It's automatically a stayaway order, at least a misdemeanor, the 52-week DV class and all the rest. Ross got the exact sme punishment as with every DV conviction.

So the question for the EC, the Supes and the voters are these:

Should a man convicted of false imprisonment be in charge of the prison system?

Should a man who admits that he "committed an act of violence on his wife" be managing people dealing with DV every day?

Should a man on probation be working closely with probation officers, including presumably having power over his own PO?

Should a very recently convicted criminal be our sheriff?

3/4 of us are very clear Ross should not serve and should move on. Those who disagree are all extreme left-wingers from what I have seen.

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 4:28 am

knowledge of; he doesn't care about the falsely venerated will of the voters; and he certainly doesn't care about domestic violence.

It is clear from his utter lack of nuance -- and yes, candor -- that Anonymous is hardwired to advance the corporate agenda anywhere he sees the possibility for advancing it.

In every single context, Anonymous will make the most obscenely insupportable claims to further his perspective rather than keep within the bounds of honesty to which those of integrity remain faithful.

Anonymous is a troll and a liar. Otherwise, after having been given multiple opportunities to dispute the fact that there is *only* one poll -- which was not and certainly is not valid -- he would have stopped referring to that poll, let alone "another" poll for which no evidence of its existance or makeup has *ever* existed.

Elsewhere, Anonymous called me "asswipe." Perhaps such a title belongs to those who sweep away the likes of Anonymous and his mendacity? If so, then I wear the term with pride.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 8:21 am

You know that most voters want Ross gone. you've only got to talk to ordinary people or read the comments on a number of websites. You know that and you don't like that, so you try and discredit it.

Two polls show your man is doomed and that the will of the people is being done. But even if you believed the polls and that a clear majority want Ross gone, even then you'd refuse to accept it, because you are blinded by bias, prejudice and ideology.

Under the circumstances, "asswipe" is charitable.

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 8:30 am

If most voters want Ross gone, then where were they at public comment? If 75% of SF feel so strongly, that's a lot of'd think it would be reflected on the most important day of these hearings. And don't give me the "party line" of only the progressives don't work, because that wouldn't be accurate either. Unemployment doesn't care if you're progressive or not. I happen to be under-employed at the moment, seeking work, so I could be there.

I believe most voters have not taken the time to look at the details of this case. I have because a) I volunteered in Ross' office for a bit, so I know him a little. b) i'm interested in *nonviolence* and have taken the time to study it, and this case obviously relates. So I've taken the trouble to do my homework.

You know, there is a French film festival going on now at the Roxie Theater organized by Mick LaSalle, the film critic for the Chronicle. He points out that American films are all about "right and wrong" "the hero and the villain" for the most part. Moralizing about right and wrong. In contrast, the French are much more interested in human behavior and like to portray what people do, warts and all...He calls his book on the subject the "Beauty of the Real". The French are willing to be "real" a lot more than Americans, who tend to see everything in black and white. I see this case as reflecting that. There are those who just want to see the words "DV" and "conviction" and close the book, case closed. I can't do that and refuse to do that. I'm looking at the whole of this case, and while I share everyone's disdain for violent behavior, I'm willing to see that Ross' was low-level. That the conviction was for "turning the car around", and therefore it doesn't scare me to the point of demanding his resignation. It is a human, low-level offense for which he is getting the remedial help he needs. He will have more empathy, more insight, not less, for people in a similar situation as Sheriff.

So let's agree to disagree then Guest/Anonymous. I can only show you where I am coming from and hope that you understand.


Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:13 am

Larry (CitiReport), I understand your point about how the commission didn't recommend removal per se, and that some commissioners had earlier discussed the possibility of recomending some lesser punishment. But then they got legal advice that an official misconduct finding requires removal, they discussed the possibility of recommending some lesser punishment and opted not to pursue it, then took a formal vote to recommended an official misconduct finding knowing that means removal. So, with respect for your position, I stand by my headline.

Posted by steven on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 9:29 am

Newsom, Brown and Pak ever did *combined*.

If I didn't know better, I'd think he was a "right wing operative working on behalf of downtown interests", or whatever bullshit term you guys use.

The guy truly is the gift that keeps on giving. And now, it goes to a BOS vote. Good luck, Mar....

Posted by Lurker on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

he admitted violence towards his wife. That's certainly what most political parties in most locations would do.

The only reason I think that the left have tried to "stand by Ross" is that they have so few people in any positions of power, because in turn because SF'ers don't want to give power to the far left.

Then when they finally sneak one of their own guys into power, albeit only thru the vagueries of RCV in a split field and in a non-policy making role, he self-destructs within a week.

Likewise, politicians almost always resign in such situations, to save their families and their party from damage. But Ross is too arrogant and spends 100K trying to save his skin, rather than supporting his family who then have to flee.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 11:44 pm
Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 12:13 am