Last spring Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis upon hearing the tapes from the Buzayan case–the ones that the prosecutor wanted her to hear–proclaimed:
“LISTEN FOR YOURSELF… You’ll hear a Davis police officer discharging his duty to this community in a decidedly professional manner. He’s doing his job, and he’s doing it well. In every contact with the hit-and-run victim, the witness and every member of the Buzayan family, he is polite, respectful and professional.”
This pronouncement by Debbie Davis has always troubled me, because to the best of my knowledge Ms. Davis is neither an attorney nor does she have any sort of legal training.
The issue of Officer Pheng Ly’s demeanor during the incident got some how overblown in the press. The issue was never that Officer Ly was rude or abrasive, rather that he violated the rights of young Buzayan.
As the complaint filed by the Buzayan family states:
“The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office and Ly mischaracterized the complaints made by the Buzayan family as arising out of Ly’s demeanor during his interactions with them – as opposed to his multiple violations of federal, state and local laws – and then refuted “strawman” arguments never made by the Buzayan family”
The complaint filed by the Buzayans however claims a much more serious violation of the law–“Defendant Ly also deliberately and unlawfully denied her request for an attorney in direct violation of both federal and state law.”
This is a violation of Miss Buzayan’s Miranda Rights. This was taken by some to mean that Officer Ly failed to read Miss Buzayan her Miranda rights. But the rights embodied under Miranda not only include the requirement that the officer inform the individual of their rights, but also that at the moment that she requests an attorney, any interview immediately cease. Particularly, in the case of a minor, it is incumbent upon the police officer to ensure that her rights are not violated.
Listening to the recorded transcript between Officer Pheng Ly and Halema Buzayan one hears:
Officer Ly: ugh before I…emmm… ask you questions about the case, I wanna read you something very important.. emm OK?
Halema Buzayan: Umhem
Ly: You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand?
HB: Yeah… to be quiet?
Ly: Yes
HB: And not answer your question OK?
Ly: Any thing you say may be used against you in court. Do you understand?
HB: Not really.. no.
Ly: Ok. Anything you say may be used against you in court. OK. Basically, if you tell you me anything I can go to court and say this is what she told me. OK.
HB: Umm OK?
Ly: You have the right to the presence of an attorney before and during any questioning. Do you understand?
HB: So, like right now or no?
Ly: Yeah right now if you want one you can.
HB: Will it be my attorney? Or…
Ly: It could be……….any attorney that you want.
HB: OK… uhhh… my parents… like my dad has an attorney. Could I use that one?
Ly: He has a…. he has a…he’s…he’s… he’s…an attorney…? He has a law partner..?
HB: No no no no he has…. No no he has an attorney like for UC Davis employees they have them.
Ly: Ugh umm yeah.
HB: OK
Ly: Yeah, if he is available
HB: OK, could you? Can you do that?
Ly: if you can not afford one, then one will be appointed for you free of charge before any questioning if you want. Do you understand that.
As the complaint explains: “As Ly well understood, Halema’s statement, “ok, could you? Can you do that” constituted a request for an attorney under federal and state law, requiring him to cease his already unlawful interrogation of Halema. But Officer Ly, in direct violation of state and federal law, denied a minor’s request for an attorney. Officer Ly, Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde and the Yolo County District Attorney would later falsely claim that Halema Buzayan did not request an attorney, or that her request was “ambiguous.””
According to legal experts who I have spoken with, the moment that Miss Buzayan said, “Ok, could? Can you do that?” Officer Ly was required to cease his interrogation. For some reason however, the issue of Miranda became focused on the question of did Officer Ly read Miss Buzayan her Miranda Rights.
For example, on May 2, 2006, Bob Dunning in his column writes:
“As the alleged “facts” of this arrest have seeped into the public consciousness over the last few months, I was told time and time again that Pheng Ly never advised Halema Buzayan of her Miranda rights, a serious violation in any arrest. And yet, as I listened to the tapes, there was Officer Ly ¬ clearly and directly and deliberately ¬ advising Halema of her Miranda rights and making certain she understood.”
Dunning’s column illustrates the misconception about this issue that was repeated in the Davis Enterprise newspaper last spring which created that perception that Officer Ly had been unjustly accused of wrong doing and that the community owed him an apology. Officer Ly on his website (which in the last week seems to have been taken down) similarly would claim that the issue was the reading of the Miranda rights rather than the denial of attorney upon request.
The record here on the transcript is pretty clear if you are familiar with the law. The error for the community was when non-lawyers such as Debbie Davis clouded the public issues by false assertions that Officer Pheng Ly was “doing his job and doing it well.”
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Teenagers should make an effort to be more clear when they ask for an attorney. However, it is still evident that she was requesting an attorney. It is also quite clear that the officer knew what was going on – all of a sudden he began to stutter and then he tried to change the subject.SAH
Teenagers should make an effort to be more clear when they ask for an attorney. However, it is still evident that she was requesting an attorney. It is also quite clear that the officer knew what was going on – all of a sudden he began to stutter and then he tried to change the subject.SAH
Teenagers should make an effort to be more clear when they ask for an attorney. However, it is still evident that she was requesting an attorney. It is also quite clear that the officer knew what was going on – all of a sudden he began to stutter and then he tried to change the subject.SAH
Teenagers should make an effort to be more clear when they ask for an attorney. However, it is still evident that she was requesting an attorney. It is also quite clear that the officer knew what was going on – all of a sudden he began to stutter and then he tried to change the subject.SAH
One of the questions I asked of attorneys (and some out of the area police officers) is in a case such as this–where does the burden fall? And the answer I got is that the burden falls on the officer in all cases but especially when it is a minor. An adult would probably have said, no I asked for an attorney and he would have had to stop at that point.
However, if there is any question as to whether or not the minor asks for an attorney, the officer is required to stop the interview and either gain clarification.
He never said: are you asking for an attorney. Had he said that, he would have covered his base there. He didn’t. He ignored her statement that seems to request an attorney and proceeded.
The fact as you note, he starts stuttering is very suspicious.
One of the questions I asked of attorneys (and some out of the area police officers) is in a case such as this–where does the burden fall? And the answer I got is that the burden falls on the officer in all cases but especially when it is a minor. An adult would probably have said, no I asked for an attorney and he would have had to stop at that point.
However, if there is any question as to whether or not the minor asks for an attorney, the officer is required to stop the interview and either gain clarification.
He never said: are you asking for an attorney. Had he said that, he would have covered his base there. He didn’t. He ignored her statement that seems to request an attorney and proceeded.
The fact as you note, he starts stuttering is very suspicious.
One of the questions I asked of attorneys (and some out of the area police officers) is in a case such as this–where does the burden fall? And the answer I got is that the burden falls on the officer in all cases but especially when it is a minor. An adult would probably have said, no I asked for an attorney and he would have had to stop at that point.
However, if there is any question as to whether or not the minor asks for an attorney, the officer is required to stop the interview and either gain clarification.
He never said: are you asking for an attorney. Had he said that, he would have covered his base there. He didn’t. He ignored her statement that seems to request an attorney and proceeded.
The fact as you note, he starts stuttering is very suspicious.
One of the questions I asked of attorneys (and some out of the area police officers) is in a case such as this–where does the burden fall? And the answer I got is that the burden falls on the officer in all cases but especially when it is a minor. An adult would probably have said, no I asked for an attorney and he would have had to stop at that point.
However, if there is any question as to whether or not the minor asks for an attorney, the officer is required to stop the interview and either gain clarification.
He never said: are you asking for an attorney. Had he said that, he would have covered his base there. He didn’t. He ignored her statement that seems to request an attorney and proceeded.
The fact as you note, he starts stuttering is very suspicious.
I am anxiously awaiting the tongue-lashing that Rifkin will undoubtably grant this blog thread. Thank goodness we have him to correct us….
I am anxiously awaiting the tongue-lashing that Rifkin will undoubtably grant this blog thread. Thank goodness we have him to correct us….
I am anxiously awaiting the tongue-lashing that Rifkin will undoubtably grant this blog thread. Thank goodness we have him to correct us….
I am anxiously awaiting the tongue-lashing that Rifkin will undoubtably grant this blog thread. Thank goodness we have him to correct us….
Another outstanding piece of work!
PLEASE… let’s not let this important contribution to understanding the issues be obscured and readers’ attention diverted by the volume(both size and decibel level) of provocative(a calculated ploy?) comment “noise” that will follow.
Another outstanding piece of work!
PLEASE… let’s not let this important contribution to understanding the issues be obscured and readers’ attention diverted by the volume(both size and decibel level) of provocative(a calculated ploy?) comment “noise” that will follow.
Another outstanding piece of work!
PLEASE… let’s not let this important contribution to understanding the issues be obscured and readers’ attention diverted by the volume(both size and decibel level) of provocative(a calculated ploy?) comment “noise” that will follow.
Another outstanding piece of work!
PLEASE… let’s not let this important contribution to understanding the issues be obscured and readers’ attention diverted by the volume(both size and decibel level) of provocative(a calculated ploy?) comment “noise” that will follow.
The best way to avoid those type of things is to discuss the issue at hand…
As I reviewed this portion of the case, I read through the op-ed from Tim Talbott who represents the DPOA.
It was very telling in his views on the rights of officers to enter a private resident and under what pretenses the officer involved can use to gain entry for the purpose of making a warantless arrest. That of course let to a large part of the public battle last spring.
But there was so much that was overlooked about this case. That’s a reason I’ve decided to revisit some of these issues.
The transcript of the encounter clearly suggests an intent by Ly to skirt Halema’s right to an attorney. The reason the law is so clear is that it is very difficult for someone in Halema’s position to go–no officer, I clearly said I’d like an attorney–we cannot allow a system to operate where that kind of burden is placed on a child.
And yet all of the debate in public was about the other aspect–what the law says with regards to the entry into the Buzayan home itself.
The best way to avoid those type of things is to discuss the issue at hand…
As I reviewed this portion of the case, I read through the op-ed from Tim Talbott who represents the DPOA.
It was very telling in his views on the rights of officers to enter a private resident and under what pretenses the officer involved can use to gain entry for the purpose of making a warantless arrest. That of course let to a large part of the public battle last spring.
But there was so much that was overlooked about this case. That’s a reason I’ve decided to revisit some of these issues.
The transcript of the encounter clearly suggests an intent by Ly to skirt Halema’s right to an attorney. The reason the law is so clear is that it is very difficult for someone in Halema’s position to go–no officer, I clearly said I’d like an attorney–we cannot allow a system to operate where that kind of burden is placed on a child.
And yet all of the debate in public was about the other aspect–what the law says with regards to the entry into the Buzayan home itself.
The best way to avoid those type of things is to discuss the issue at hand…
As I reviewed this portion of the case, I read through the op-ed from Tim Talbott who represents the DPOA.
It was very telling in his views on the rights of officers to enter a private resident and under what pretenses the officer involved can use to gain entry for the purpose of making a warantless arrest. That of course let to a large part of the public battle last spring.
But there was so much that was overlooked about this case. That’s a reason I’ve decided to revisit some of these issues.
The transcript of the encounter clearly suggests an intent by Ly to skirt Halema’s right to an attorney. The reason the law is so clear is that it is very difficult for someone in Halema’s position to go–no officer, I clearly said I’d like an attorney–we cannot allow a system to operate where that kind of burden is placed on a child.
And yet all of the debate in public was about the other aspect–what the law says with regards to the entry into the Buzayan home itself.
The best way to avoid those type of things is to discuss the issue at hand…
As I reviewed this portion of the case, I read through the op-ed from Tim Talbott who represents the DPOA.
It was very telling in his views on the rights of officers to enter a private resident and under what pretenses the officer involved can use to gain entry for the purpose of making a warantless arrest. That of course let to a large part of the public battle last spring.
But there was so much that was overlooked about this case. That’s a reason I’ve decided to revisit some of these issues.
The transcript of the encounter clearly suggests an intent by Ly to skirt Halema’s right to an attorney. The reason the law is so clear is that it is very difficult for someone in Halema’s position to go–no officer, I clearly said I’d like an attorney–we cannot allow a system to operate where that kind of burden is placed on a child.
And yet all of the debate in public was about the other aspect–what the law says with regards to the entry into the Buzayan home itself.
I very much agree with the comments of Davisite. I don’t believe that Mr. Rifkin cares about free speech, the marketplace of ideas, or the goals of this website to be an alternative to the Davis Enterprise. I don’t think he even cares about changing people’s minds, nor do I think he feels impassioned about any of the positions he takes. I believe he posts here because he wishes to bog down the flow, tie people up in arguments about semantics, spelling, etc. In this way, he can dominate the conversation, cast aspersions on the commenter, shout down any dissent from his stated position, and attempt to humiliate the dissenter for having an opinion. He already has a column in the Enterprise where he can hold forth unchallenged, why let him dominate this blog? Some people who I have sent to this blog have been immediately turned off by the tone of negativity, pettiness, and mean-spiritedness which I believe has been set or at least amplified by Mr. Rifkin. We need to welcome participation, and not allow Mr. Rifkin to shut down debate. The viability of this blog depends on it.
I very much agree with the comments of Davisite. I don’t believe that Mr. Rifkin cares about free speech, the marketplace of ideas, or the goals of this website to be an alternative to the Davis Enterprise. I don’t think he even cares about changing people’s minds, nor do I think he feels impassioned about any of the positions he takes. I believe he posts here because he wishes to bog down the flow, tie people up in arguments about semantics, spelling, etc. In this way, he can dominate the conversation, cast aspersions on the commenter, shout down any dissent from his stated position, and attempt to humiliate the dissenter for having an opinion. He already has a column in the Enterprise where he can hold forth unchallenged, why let him dominate this blog? Some people who I have sent to this blog have been immediately turned off by the tone of negativity, pettiness, and mean-spiritedness which I believe has been set or at least amplified by Mr. Rifkin. We need to welcome participation, and not allow Mr. Rifkin to shut down debate. The viability of this blog depends on it.
I very much agree with the comments of Davisite. I don’t believe that Mr. Rifkin cares about free speech, the marketplace of ideas, or the goals of this website to be an alternative to the Davis Enterprise. I don’t think he even cares about changing people’s minds, nor do I think he feels impassioned about any of the positions he takes. I believe he posts here because he wishes to bog down the flow, tie people up in arguments about semantics, spelling, etc. In this way, he can dominate the conversation, cast aspersions on the commenter, shout down any dissent from his stated position, and attempt to humiliate the dissenter for having an opinion. He already has a column in the Enterprise where he can hold forth unchallenged, why let him dominate this blog? Some people who I have sent to this blog have been immediately turned off by the tone of negativity, pettiness, and mean-spiritedness which I believe has been set or at least amplified by Mr. Rifkin. We need to welcome participation, and not allow Mr. Rifkin to shut down debate. The viability of this blog depends on it.
I very much agree with the comments of Davisite. I don’t believe that Mr. Rifkin cares about free speech, the marketplace of ideas, or the goals of this website to be an alternative to the Davis Enterprise. I don’t think he even cares about changing people’s minds, nor do I think he feels impassioned about any of the positions he takes. I believe he posts here because he wishes to bog down the flow, tie people up in arguments about semantics, spelling, etc. In this way, he can dominate the conversation, cast aspersions on the commenter, shout down any dissent from his stated position, and attempt to humiliate the dissenter for having an opinion. He already has a column in the Enterprise where he can hold forth unchallenged, why let him dominate this blog? Some people who I have sent to this blog have been immediately turned off by the tone of negativity, pettiness, and mean-spiritedness which I believe has been set or at least amplified by Mr. Rifkin. We need to welcome participation, and not allow Mr. Rifkin to shut down debate. The viability of this blog depends on it.
This blog by Doug Paul Davis is an extremely valuable service to our community.
I agree with the comments of Anonymous and Davisite. Doug’s work and this blog is too important to be taken over by Mr. Rifkin’s endless attacks and attempts to bait people into wasted discussions about who is the smartest with word play. Although at times, I must admit it is entertaining to read Mr. Rifkin’s repartees, use of vocabulary and some good ideas.
By the same token, Michelle or anyone one else needs to follow the lead of Doug Paul Davis and Davisite as well as other commentators who both advocate and defend their positions without invective, personal insults and lashing out emotion. When that happens it opens the door for those who wish to disparage this blog to move right into where they are most comfortable–the sandbox–where bullies live, in an attempt to intimidate and rule. Truman
This blog by Doug Paul Davis is an extremely valuable service to our community.
I agree with the comments of Anonymous and Davisite. Doug’s work and this blog is too important to be taken over by Mr. Rifkin’s endless attacks and attempts to bait people into wasted discussions about who is the smartest with word play. Although at times, I must admit it is entertaining to read Mr. Rifkin’s repartees, use of vocabulary and some good ideas.
By the same token, Michelle or anyone one else needs to follow the lead of Doug Paul Davis and Davisite as well as other commentators who both advocate and defend their positions without invective, personal insults and lashing out emotion. When that happens it opens the door for those who wish to disparage this blog to move right into where they are most comfortable–the sandbox–where bullies live, in an attempt to intimidate and rule. Truman
This blog by Doug Paul Davis is an extremely valuable service to our community.
I agree with the comments of Anonymous and Davisite. Doug’s work and this blog is too important to be taken over by Mr. Rifkin’s endless attacks and attempts to bait people into wasted discussions about who is the smartest with word play. Although at times, I must admit it is entertaining to read Mr. Rifkin’s repartees, use of vocabulary and some good ideas.
By the same token, Michelle or anyone one else needs to follow the lead of Doug Paul Davis and Davisite as well as other commentators who both advocate and defend their positions without invective, personal insults and lashing out emotion. When that happens it opens the door for those who wish to disparage this blog to move right into where they are most comfortable–the sandbox–where bullies live, in an attempt to intimidate and rule. Truman
This blog by Doug Paul Davis is an extremely valuable service to our community.
I agree with the comments of Anonymous and Davisite. Doug’s work and this blog is too important to be taken over by Mr. Rifkin’s endless attacks and attempts to bait people into wasted discussions about who is the smartest with word play. Although at times, I must admit it is entertaining to read Mr. Rifkin’s repartees, use of vocabulary and some good ideas.
By the same token, Michelle or anyone one else needs to follow the lead of Doug Paul Davis and Davisite as well as other commentators who both advocate and defend their positions without invective, personal insults and lashing out emotion. When that happens it opens the door for those who wish to disparage this blog to move right into where they are most comfortable–the sandbox–where bullies live, in an attempt to intimidate and rule. Truman
To stay on point –
I have searched and searched for information that gives the officer a right to hold and interrogate a child after their arrest.
What I read is that if the officer takes the child into custody, he has to read the rights at the time. In this case, Halema was taken into custody at her home in front of her parents. If it had been done at this time, her parents could have cautioned her and maybe had time to produce a lawyer on her behalf.
With a juvenile, an officer can warn & release, cite & release, or take the child to detention by turning over the child to Probation, who does their own interview and chooses to release the child to their parents or detain the child in juvenile hall. No where does it say that the officer can hold the child for the purposes of an interrogation without anyone present to gather more evidence after their arrest.
I am not an attorney here. I’m going off my gut feeling.
In this case, the child’s request for an attorney may have appeared ambiguous to the Officer. However, now that the officer had handled what he perceived to be a “public safety” crisis by taking the girl into custody, his concern should have moved on to being concerned about the safety of the child. He should have defaulted toward protecting the child. In this, the officer failed.
His case against Halema was weak and a confession was needed – that’s clear.
To stay on point –
I have searched and searched for information that gives the officer a right to hold and interrogate a child after their arrest.
What I read is that if the officer takes the child into custody, he has to read the rights at the time. In this case, Halema was taken into custody at her home in front of her parents. If it had been done at this time, her parents could have cautioned her and maybe had time to produce a lawyer on her behalf.
With a juvenile, an officer can warn & release, cite & release, or take the child to detention by turning over the child to Probation, who does their own interview and chooses to release the child to their parents or detain the child in juvenile hall. No where does it say that the officer can hold the child for the purposes of an interrogation without anyone present to gather more evidence after their arrest.
I am not an attorney here. I’m going off my gut feeling.
In this case, the child’s request for an attorney may have appeared ambiguous to the Officer. However, now that the officer had handled what he perceived to be a “public safety” crisis by taking the girl into custody, his concern should have moved on to being concerned about the safety of the child. He should have defaulted toward protecting the child. In this, the officer failed.
His case against Halema was weak and a confession was needed – that’s clear.
To stay on point –
I have searched and searched for information that gives the officer a right to hold and interrogate a child after their arrest.
What I read is that if the officer takes the child into custody, he has to read the rights at the time. In this case, Halema was taken into custody at her home in front of her parents. If it had been done at this time, her parents could have cautioned her and maybe had time to produce a lawyer on her behalf.
With a juvenile, an officer can warn & release, cite & release, or take the child to detention by turning over the child to Probation, who does their own interview and chooses to release the child to their parents or detain the child in juvenile hall. No where does it say that the officer can hold the child for the purposes of an interrogation without anyone present to gather more evidence after their arrest.
I am not an attorney here. I’m going off my gut feeling.
In this case, the child’s request for an attorney may have appeared ambiguous to the Officer. However, now that the officer had handled what he perceived to be a “public safety” crisis by taking the girl into custody, his concern should have moved on to being concerned about the safety of the child. He should have defaulted toward protecting the child. In this, the officer failed.
His case against Halema was weak and a confession was needed – that’s clear.
To stay on point –
I have searched and searched for information that gives the officer a right to hold and interrogate a child after their arrest.
What I read is that if the officer takes the child into custody, he has to read the rights at the time. In this case, Halema was taken into custody at her home in front of her parents. If it had been done at this time, her parents could have cautioned her and maybe had time to produce a lawyer on her behalf.
With a juvenile, an officer can warn & release, cite & release, or take the child to detention by turning over the child to Probation, who does their own interview and chooses to release the child to their parents or detain the child in juvenile hall. No where does it say that the officer can hold the child for the purposes of an interrogation without anyone present to gather more evidence after their arrest.
I am not an attorney here. I’m going off my gut feeling.
In this case, the child’s request for an attorney may have appeared ambiguous to the Officer. However, now that the officer had handled what he perceived to be a “public safety” crisis by taking the girl into custody, his concern should have moved on to being concerned about the safety of the child. He should have defaulted toward protecting the child. In this, the officer failed.
His case against Halema was weak and a confession was needed – that’s clear.
“In this case, the child’s request for an attorney may have appeared ambiguous to the Officer. However, now that the officer had handled what he perceived to be a “public safety” crisis by taking the girl into custody, his concern should have moved on to being concerned about the safety of the child. He should have defaulted toward protecting the child. In this, the officer failed.”
I think this is a great point and it is coincides with my understanding of the law here–the burden is on the officer to determine whether this was a request for an attorney not on the minor to be forceful. That’s why we have Miranda protection so that one does not have to be a lawyer to protect one’s rights.
“In this case, the child’s request for an attorney may have appeared ambiguous to the Officer. However, now that the officer had handled what he perceived to be a “public safety” crisis by taking the girl into custody, his concern should have moved on to being concerned about the safety of the child. He should have defaulted toward protecting the child. In this, the officer failed.”
I think this is a great point and it is coincides with my understanding of the law here–the burden is on the officer to determine whether this was a request for an attorney not on the minor to be forceful. That’s why we have Miranda protection so that one does not have to be a lawyer to protect one’s rights.
“In this case, the child’s request for an attorney may have appeared ambiguous to the Officer. However, now that the officer had handled what he perceived to be a “public safety” crisis by taking the girl into custody, his concern should have moved on to being concerned about the safety of the child. He should have defaulted toward protecting the child. In this, the officer failed.”
I think this is a great point and it is coincides with my understanding of the law here–the burden is on the officer to determine whether this was a request for an attorney not on the minor to be forceful. That’s why we have Miranda protection so that one does not have to be a lawyer to protect one’s rights.
“In this case, the child’s request for an attorney may have appeared ambiguous to the Officer. However, now that the officer had handled what he perceived to be a “public safety” crisis by taking the girl into custody, his concern should have moved on to being concerned about the safety of the child. He should have defaulted toward protecting the child. In this, the officer failed.”
I think this is a great point and it is coincides with my understanding of the law here–the burden is on the officer to determine whether this was a request for an attorney not on the minor to be forceful. That’s why we have Miranda protection so that one does not have to be a lawyer to protect one’s rights.
It’s amazing how ANYTHING can be twisted … Off. Ly is the most repectful person I’ve ever met. You don’t even know all of the details, and yet you judge. It seems that maybe you all should turn the finger-pointing right back around.
It’s amazing how ANYTHING can be twisted … Off. Ly is the most repectful person I’ve ever met. You don’t even know all of the details, and yet you judge. It seems that maybe you all should turn the finger-pointing right back around.
It’s amazing how ANYTHING can be twisted … Off. Ly is the most repectful person I’ve ever met. You don’t even know all of the details, and yet you judge. It seems that maybe you all should turn the finger-pointing right back around.
It’s amazing how ANYTHING can be twisted … Off. Ly is the most repectful person I’ve ever met. You don’t even know all of the details, and yet you judge. It seems that maybe you all should turn the finger-pointing right back around.