Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Library Censorship to Defend Child Porn; Another Request for Review Filed With the Illinois Attorney General

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out
who you are not allowed to criticize."
Not Voltaire but it fits OPPL-BoT perfectly.
Dear Illinois Attorney General,

I respectfully request a review of the actions of the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL] for violation of the Open Meetings Act [OMA] by denying me the right of public comment at its 19 May 2014 OPPL Board of Trustees [OPPL-BoT] meeting. This is the second time I have been denied that right despite OMA and library policy and the second time requested a review. The first Request for Review was for violating OMA during the 16 December 2014 OPPL-BoT meeting: “Open Meetings Act Violations by the Board of Library Trustees of the Orland Park Public Library.” ( )

OPPL Censorship Policy Is Ultra Vires

After that first time I attempted to speak, was denied, and I filed a Request for Review, OPPL-BoT reacted by creating policy specifically designed to exclude me since I’m the only person who wants to speak electronically. I live in New Jersey so a personal visit just to speak for five minutes to a library board that repeatedly violates the law could be obviated by speaking electronically. OPPL policy in place at the time of both meetings and now is “Section 7. Teleconferencing shall not be provided for members of the public to use in order to attend or participate in a meeting.” I was going to participate via Skype or FaceTime provided by OPPL library patron Megan Fox, not by teleconferencing provided by OPPL. I was not restricted from speaking via policy, yet both times I was blocked from speaking by OPPL-BoT in violation of OMA. These are elected officials acting in their official capacity as a library board to refuse to follow the law that allows public comment. They also violate state and local law that created the library and does not permit the library board to act ultra vires or outside the law. These elected officials defend child pornography in the public library despite the law, as evidenced by their actions as opposed to their words, while practicing government censorship when it comes to someone seeking to illuminate the illegality of allowing porn in OPPL under Illinois state law, Orland Park local law, and OPPL policy–until they change it, that is, but even then it will violate the law.

OPPL-BoT Shows It Will Not Comply With Law Nor Attorney General Determinations

Worse than simply blocking me repeatedly, OPPL-BoT’s latest free speech denial comes at a time when the Attorney General has already warned the library, “This office cautions the Board to avoid restricting public comment on substantive bases that are not addressed by its established and recorded rules.” And worse than a mere warning, the Attorney General determined OPPL-BoT violated OMA by holding an illegal meeting on a legal holiday, and it was at this illegal meeting that OPPL-BoT approved the policy specifically designed to block me, and OPPL-BoT used that policy from that illegal meeting as the excuse to block me from speaking days ago. So in the face of the Attorney General ruling the meeting was illegal, OPPL-BoT just ignored the Attorney General and held up its illegal policy to block me. On advice of counsel, no less. When library patron Kevin DuJan specifically pointed out the library was refusing to allow me to speak in violation of the law and the Attorney General’s determination finding violations of the law, the library reacted by threatening to arrest Mr. DuJan. OPPL-BoT has shown a clear and convincing disdain for the law in general and the Attorney General’s determinations specifically.

What OPPL Sought to Block: My Advising State and Local Law Precludes Porn In Public Libraries Statewide

What is it that so motivates OPPL-BoT to defy the law and the Attorney General with cheerful briskness by repeatedly blocking me? What could I possible say in five minutes that they don’t want people to hear? This is relevant as it shows why OPPL-BoT is blocking me, specifically, I’m saying the exact opposite of what it says to mislead people at meetings and in the media, and I back up what I say with reliable sources, such as Supreme Court cases. If people knew the truth, they would know Internet porn in Illinois libraries is illegal, libraries that allow it are acting outside the law, and municipalities that allow libraries to act outside the law are exposing all citizens to the potential for serious liability, let alone the harm done to the victims of Internet pornography on both sides of the camera. In short, if people knew porn may be legally excluded from public libraries as the law requires, they would choose for themselves to block Internet pornography and would not be misled by anyone into keeping porn available despite the law.

Municipal Law Precludes Internet Porn in OPPL

OPPL was created by Village of Orland Park Ordinance No. 77 issued 14 July 1941 stating “That a free public library and reading room be established for the use and benefits of the inhabitants of the Village of Orland Park … in accordance with the provisions of the Libraries Act, Chapter 81, Illinois Revised Statutes….” ( ) We see the library has a limited purpose. It is for the “use and benefits” of the local population it supports. It is not established for any purpose whatsoever, rather, it has limitations. Internet pornography is effectively excluded by that “use and benefits” clause because it has neither use nor benefit. On the contrary, Internet porn harms people. It harms the viewers, it harms the people who interact with the viewers by accident or force including librarians and library employees, and it harms the people who are forced to create pornography, such as sex trafficked children and adults.

The word “benefit” is from the Latin bene factum. Bene meaning good. There is nothing bene about Internet pornography in a public library, let alone anywhere else. The display of Internet pornography in OPPL violates Village of Orland Park Ordinance No. 77. It is not for the “use and benefit” of anyone, as required by law. Rather, it does the opposite and causes harm. To any extent OPPL-BoT permits Internet pornography in OPPL, it is acting ultra vires and harming the community.

State Law Precludes Internet Porn in Illinois Libraries

The Illinois Local Library Act (75 ILCS 5) referenced by the municipal ordinance also limits what governments may provide in public libraries, only it applies across Illinois, not just in OPPL. Throughout the entire state of Illinois, the law states public libraries may be created “[t]o provide local public institutions of general education for citizens of Illinois” ( ). “General education” does not mean Internet pornography. Also, “the library board may adopt [reasonable rules and regulations] in order to render the use of the library of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of such residents and taxpayers.” So, similar to the “use and benefits” clause of the ordinance, the state law requires that the library’s use be “of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of such residents and taxpayers.” Any library in the entire state of Illinois, not just OPPL, is violating state law if it allows Internet pornography. It would be acting ultra vires. For example, have you heard the news for many years about the constant crimes attributable to porn in the Chicago Public Library? Have you been there lately and seen the rows of unfettered porn with children walking about? Did you know the library’s director blamed the parents for letting their children walk about in the library? Now if Internet porn is so beneficial, why is she criticizing parents for letting children see such beneficial material?

The US Supreme Court Finds Pornography Is Traditionally Blocked From Libraries

And how do we know pornography neither educates nor benefits communities, from a legal basis, let alone common sense? We look at the United States Supreme Court case that the American Library Association [ALA] and the ACLU brought and lost big to try to stop the Children’s Internet Protection Act, the law requiring libraries to use porn filters if obtaining certain federal funding. US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003) ( ) made it clear that the purpose of public libraries does not include providing Internet pornography. Indeed, tame-in-comparison print pornography is excluded from most libraries:

Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment. …. [P]ublic libraries seek to provide materials “that would be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community.” [NOTE: substantially similar to the language in 75 ILCS 5 and the municipal ordinance.] …. To this end, libraries collect only those materials deemed to have “requisite and appropriate quality.” …. A public library … provides Internet access … for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality. ….
A library's need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source. Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently, when these judgments are made for just the same reason.
[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights….

Internet Pornography Has Neither Use Nor Benefit so US Supreme Court Ruled It May Be Blocked

So we learn from the US Supreme Court that Internet pornography may be legally blocked from public libraries precisely because it does not benefit communities. And since the state and local law requires libraries to act for the benefit of the people, Internet pornography is excluded. Libraries in Illinois providing Internet pornography are acting outside the law that restricts libraries in a way that precludes Internet porn.

Has OPPL-BoT Ever Explained Why Porn is Beneficial in Libraries Despite the Law?

Has ALA or OPPL-BoT ever once explained why people are supposed to think Internet pornography is beneficial in public libraries and should be allowed despite the law saying it shouldn’t? I understand both groups have been for months attacking Megan Fox, Kevin DuJan, and me to avoid substantive issues. Have they explained how Internet pornography benefits the community? Of course not. They can’t. There is no benefit. Having no benefit, and indeed being harmful, Internet pornography allowed by an Illinois library violates Illinois law. And OPPL is an Illinois library. And ALA and OPPL and their attorneys attack or silence people who expose their misinformation as their means of pushing ahead with the porn agenda–by not addressing substantive issues. It is a tactic that often works. Just look at how long child porn has gone unreported in OPPL–years. Right now OPPL-BoT is ignoring the Attorney General. I predict if the Attorney General continues to find violations of the law, at some point OPPL-BoT and/or ALA will begin attacking the Attorney General instead of just ignoring her.

This is Why OPPL-BoT Bullies and Will Continue to Violate OMA

I suspect my saying the above in a five minute public comment combined with OPPL-BoT not wanting people to hear that message is why OPPL-BoT repeatedly violates OMA to censor my free speech and the speech of others. I also suspect OPPL-BoT knows it is breaking state and local law by making Internet pornography available, thereby acting ultra vires. I suspect its repeatedly silencing its critics and violating OMA is a bullying effort to impose its harmful lawlessness on the community by freezing people into inaction or by running out the clock. Fortunately for Orland Park, neither Megan Fox nor Kevin DuJan are intimidated or are giving up. Sadly, the illegality in OPPL continues on. For over eight months now OPPL-BoT has successfully defended its illegal actions with threats, intimidation, false calls to the police, illegal meetings on a legal holiday passing policy to allow porn despite the law and silence critics despite the law, violation of Illinois library law, repeated violations of OMA, etc., and never once an explanation of how providing Internet pornography benefits the community and complies with the law. They have turned the tables on innocent victims forcing them to suffer from porn, all while attacking them for complaining and not explaining why Internet porn is supposedly legal in libraries. I am hoping the Attorney General will see the open defiance in OPPL-BoT’s actions and being to restore law and order in this local library and perhaps statewide.

Local Police Are Stymied by Lawbreaking Library

Recent investigations by Megan Fox reveal the Orland Park police have been stymied by OPPL in efforts to stop a registered sex offender from viewing pornography ( ):

Meet David Varlotta. He likes Orland Park Library a lot. An informed source told me this man has been seen by police on a regular basis on the computers at OPPL. He is unemployed and goes to OPPL “nearly every day.” Mary Weimar has been informed by police that he is not legally allowed to use the internet. The Library claims they disconnect the device he is on from the internet but they do not ask him to leave. Let me ask you a question. What might a sex offender be doing on a computer for hours on end without access to the internet? Knowing the Library lies about pretty much everything (and I have proof of that from the Illinois Attorney General) do we believe that they actually do cut off internet access to this man on a daily basis and yet he continues to return? What is he doing? Writing his memoirs in a Word doc? Why does Mary Weimar continue to allow a sex offender who committed aggravated sexual abuse against a minor child sit for hours in her building full of children? This is like putting a shark in a kiddie pool. We have FOIAd his record and will have his complete story soon. Stay tuned.

Back to the Policy OPPL-BoT Wrote to Block Me Personally

The policy OPPL created to block me was supposedly effectuated during the OPPL-BoT meeting on the 12 February 2014 holiday. It has been effectively ruled void ab initio by the Attorney General. It is not in effect. The policy in effect before the illegal meeting remains in effect.

The updated policy sought to be implemented at the illegal meeting was designed to block me and me alone since I was the only person seeking to speak electronically. Current policy prohibits merely teleconferencing provided by the library. The updated policy seeks to include other means of communication, including Skype or FaceTime, provided by anyone. The policy used to exclude me states, “All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated.”

OPPL-BoT, in its meeting after the illegal 12 February meeting, claims to have affirmed the policy it supposedly effectuated, but such policy is not yet in effect because legally it is impossible to affirm something found to be void ab initio. But OPPL-BoT wants people to think the policy is in effect, despite the law, despite how it discriminates against the disabled since they must only participate in person, so it just acts like the policy is in place.

Again, OPPL-BoT Ignores the Illinois Attorney General

Worse, OPPL-BoT is again ignoring the Attorney General. It used its policy from the illegal meeting and revoted on at the next meeting to block my speaking. The attorney did this. Remember, this is the attorney whose firm represents possibly hundreds of library clients, who wrote the book on Sunshine Laws that is sold throughout the state by the Illinois Municipal League, and who trains librarians on FOIA and OMA laws at the Illinois Library Association. This is no inexperienced attorney. This is no rookie mistake. This is an intentional abuse of authority to bully people into silence in the face of the law and of Attorney General determinations. This is the attorney telling the Attorney General her determinations don’t matter one whit.

The Lack of Public Recital Tossed Aside While Kevin DuJan Gets Threatened with Arrest

To remind everyone, OMA has certain requirements intended to ensure the public’s rights are protected from the very kind of illegal activity OPPL-BoT does repeatedly. Those requirements are not met when a library passes policy at an illegal meeting then claims the next meeting validated what was done at the illegal meeting with a mere quick vote. Public Access Opinion 14-001 dated 10 April 2014 ( ) makes it evident that the mere quick vote to reaffirm action at an illegal meeting does not supply a public recital sufficient to comply with the law, namely, section 2(e) of OMA: “(e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted.” That was simply not done by OPPL-BoT, the attorney knows it given his expertise and experience, and the Attorney General warned against further restricting public comment, but the library went ahead, ignored the Attorney General, and threatened Kevin DuJan with arrest if he did not stop trying to point out is was illegal to block my public comment.

Library Silences Critics with Illegal Policy

So OPPL-BoT is attempting to silence critics with policy not legally in effect and that violates OMA and the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. “Teleconferencing shall not be provided for members of the public to use in order to attend or participate in a meeting” has supposedly been changed to “All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated.” So not only are additional and modern means of communicating ruled off policy, but also the library reveals no one may participate remotely, whether or not the library provides the services. I am hoping the Attorney General will address this.

Setting aside that the library is supporting Internet pornography as free speech when that is not true in libraries, and stifling free speech when anyone reveals the library is acting outside the law by allowing pornography including child pornography, the new policy language OPPL wants people to think is in place appears to represent a clear violation of OMA and ADA. If that policy ever does get properly adopted by OPPL-BoT, it will represent a codification of a violation of OMA, and I or others will seek another Request for Review from the Attorney General. I am certain you cannot simply write library policy that abrogates state law such as OMA.

The Specific Instance That Violates OMA

At the 19 May OPPL-BoT meeting, Kevin DuJan points out I am next to speak on the list but the library denies the request, and that is the action I am asking the Attorney General to review. Exactly how it happened was recorded and placed online. As part of the evidence for this Request for Review, please view the recordings of the meeting, particularly at the end of Kevin DuJan’s public comment. Kevin DuJan says, after he completed his own comment, “Actually, Dan Kleinman is the next person that’s on the list.” Megan Fox then says, “He’s here,” referring to the FaceTime connection. The library then blocks my speech in violation of OMA. Kevin DuJan says, “You have no policy that bans this … that policy is void ab initio. …. You are in violation of the Open Meetings Act.” The library board persisted in blocking my speech even after being told it was violating the law. Mr. DuJan was threatened with arrest if he did not stop arguing that I should be allowed to speak. A fuller transcript can be found at so the facts that evidence the breaking of the law can be fully reviewed. It is the Request for Review filed 21 May 2014 by Kevin DuJan. That Request for Review contains even more detail about exactly how the OMA violation occurred with respect to the subject of my own Request for Review. In the interests of brevity, I ask its facts related to how OPPL-BoT violated OMA by refusing to allow my public comment be included here in my own Request for Review. That Request for Review is hereby incorporated by reference.

Megan Fox Files Request for Review About OPPL-BoT Blocking Me

On 27 May 2014, Megan Fox also filed a Request for Review with the Attorney General ( ). Her request is predominantly about the library’s lawbreaking with respect to blocking my public comment. I consider what she said to be factual as well and is hereby incorporated by reference into my own Request for Review. After all, she was the one to whose iPad I was electronically connected and ready to speak. As she points out, “OPPL-BoT desired to keep Dan Kleinman, the national expert on child porn and other evils being accessed in libraries, from speaking during the Public Comment segment.”

OPPL-BoT Evidences an Intention to Defy the Law

And by that time OPPL-BoT was well aware of the Attorney General’s admonition where representative Steve Silverman warned, “This office cautions the Board to avoid restricting public comment on substantive bases that are not addressed by its established and recorded rules.” So OPPL-BoT threw caution to the wind, as it were, and plowed ahead with its lawbreaking by again restricting public comment on substantive bases not addressed by its established and recorded rules.

That evidences an intention to continue to defy the law and shows absolutely no respect for the Illinois Attorney General. Such an intention indicates the crime of child pornography in the library will continue to go unpunished and unabated. This is a major consequence of a library acting outside the law.

OPPL-BoT Purposefully and Knowingly Defies the Law to Protect the ALA

OPPL-BoT’s defiance of the Illinois Attorney General is purposeful and knowing. It will not back down on its provision of pornography in the library no matter what the consequences because, inter alia, ALA has been holding out OPPL’s successful but lawbreaking tactics as being exemplary. If OPPL is eventually forced to comply with Illinois library law, that will spell disaster for ALA’s efforts to promote porn in public libraries throughout Illinois and nationwide. For an example of porn promotion, teaching new library trustees that libraries must allow Internet porn when the law says the opposite is promoting porn in libraries ( “How State Library Associations Endanger Children; NJ Libraries and You: Not Perfect Together ). ALA has for two years in a row now been found to be one of the nation’s leading facilitatators of porn (“ALA Listed as Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women ). Even now there is Illinois library filtering legislation SB2784 that ALA opposes, and OPPL following library law and filtering the Internet would be disastrous to efforts to oppose such legislation. I say this not to promote my view but to illustrate how strongly OPPL-BoT will resist Attorney General determinations, as if that is not already becoming evident from OPPL-BoT’s own actions. And I’m not the only one saying this. Consider Jim Kraft at the Edgar County Watchdogs ( ):

Behind the scenes, the real power play at issue here is that the American Library Association cannot afford to allow a plum like the OPPL to shut off the child porn access, since the ALA is based in Chicago and fears losing control of another public facility. Currently, the ALA in effect controls the OPPL, via the OPPL’s Director Mary Weimar (who is a committed acolyte of the ALA). If the OPPL Board of Trustees voted against the ALA and stopped allowing itself to be an access point to child pornography this would be a clear repudiation of the ALA’s “guidelines” for libraries…and would diminish the ALA’s clout.

The fear in the ALA’s offices is that if the OPPL votes to block the child porn then other libraries in Chicago could follow…and if that happens then the ALA’s entire house of cards could tumble.

This is why every effort imaginable is now being undertaken by the OPPL’s Board of Trustees to violate the OMA and FOIA in our State to thwart the public’s demand that child porn be permanently blocked in this Library.

Not Even the Appearance of Compliance with the Attorney General is Present

OPPL-BoT has shown absolutely no interest in ever giving even the appearance of compliance with Attorney General letters of determination and OMA. For example it used policy passed at the illegal 12 February meeting that the Attorney General found to be void ab initio to continue to silence me as it had in the past–even though it already knew that meeting was illegal, the policy was invalid, there was no required public recital at the next meeting, and the library’s attorney is supposedly an expert on sunshine laws.

A Third Library Patron Speaks Up for My Free Speech But OPPL-BoT Turns a Deaf Ear

At least one other person besides Kevin DuJan and Megan Fox also commented at the recent OPPL-BoT meeting how it was wrong for the library board to refuse to allow me to speak. He said: “However, rather than compromise, this elected board, with help from the ALA, has turned a deaf ear to the public, and instead taken it upon themselves to initiate inept activities to undermine its critics. You lied to the media. You stonewalled FOIA requests. You filed baseless complaints with the police. You arbitrarily moved public board meetings and changed rules just to avoid criticism. I ask why you wouldn’t allow that man who wanted to Skype in today, hear what he has to say? What is wrong with a free and open exchange of ideas here?”

Request for Review of Government Censorship and Law Defiance

So I request this latest denial of my free speech, what amounts to government censorship, be reviewed as yet another instance in a continuing string of illegality and OMA violations by OPPL-BoT. I also look forward to a decision on my first Request for Review for the first time the library violated the law regarding my public comment in December.

It would be worthwhile to consider at the same time whether the new policy language, were it to be properly effectuated, would also represent a violation of OMA. I understand that since the policy is not yet legally in effect, the issue might not be ripe for review. Nevertheless, OPPL-BoT acts as if the policy is in effect, and it will certainly place it into effect eventually, so that may make it valuable to make it clear to OPPL-BoT that such a policy of blocking electronic participation would violate OMA.

The Village of Orland Park Has the Right and Duty to Step In or It May Face Liability

Now that the library is acting outside the law, the Village of Orland Park has every right and duty to step in and require the library to follow the law that created the library and the board. It can do this without piercing the veil of autonomy that allows the library to act freely to carry out the purposes of that law. Where the library steps outside that law, the local government must act. The local government has the power to remove library trustees who have broken the law. The law has been broken. Given how the library ignores Attorney General admonitions and continues to defy the law with alacrity, it is my opinion that removing such library trustees is likely the best means of restoring respect for the law to the library board. If the local government does not move to stop the library board from acting in defiance of the law, it condones such illegality and risks serious liability, at a minimum. If it needs notice of potential harm, consider this to be that notice.

ALA Targeting Me By Name May Be Why OPPL-BoT Repeatedly Silences Me

A significant fact has come to light regarding these violations as it tends to show an intention to violate OMA at the time the crimes were committed and likely a continuing motivation to violate the law. Basically, ALA targeted me by name when setting up library training in which it featured OPPL personnel. If I were present, it would have to tone down its message to librarians–that’s basically what ALA wrote. As it turned out, I was not present, and if I heard correctly, ALA trained librarians how to thwart the law by destroying evidence otherwise available via FOIA requests. No wonder ALA didn’t want me to be present and OPPL-BoT silences me despite the law. And I’ll bet there’s more where that came from. More FOIA’s are being filed but the level of compliance is near ALA perfection, namely, few things of major significance has been supplied so far and the rest is likely destroyed, per ALA diktat, but in violation of state criminal law.

On 7 November 2013, ALA sent an email asking if I would be present at its librarian training featuring OPPL personnel because, if so, it would have to change its message: “IF Dan Kleinman or some of our detractors attend, we will need to change our content.” See the full email published at “Illinois Attorney General Update Evidencing Orland Park Public Library's Defiance of the Open Meetings Act; Arrests Possible” ( ).

Now I know why OPPL-BoT has written policy expressly to deny my public comment. I was targeted by the ALA over a month before I had attempted to speak at any OPPL-BoT meeting. So now I’m targeted by OPPL-BoT for silence. The targeting is evidenced by, among other things, a refusal to follow policy that allows my public comment, the drafting of new policy that specifically targets me, the supposed adoption of the policy during an illegal meeting held during a holiday, and the overbreadth of the policy such that it may violate ADA as well as OMA. As a result my public comment has been suppressed again and again in violation of OMA and is likely to continue to be suppressed without intervention from the Attorney General. And even then, OPPL-BoT has shown no proclivity to follow the Attorney General’s determinations/opinions.

Attorney General Intervention is Needed to Stop the Lawbreaking

Given this, Attorney General intervention is needed to begin to stop OPPL from violating the law. OPPL-BoT has demonstrated that mere warnings are not enough of a remedy to stop a recalcitrant library board from breaking the law to defend its various lawbreaking activities, including aiding and abetting child pornography by, among other means, failure to report such crime to the police and destroying evidence. Therefore, I respectfully request the Attorney General review my request and take action to stop the repeated criminal activity.

Thank You

Thank for for reviewing my request regarding OPPL-BoT violating OMA yet again. I look forward to a response at your earliest convenience, but OPPL-BoT shows no sign of slowing its crime spree on its own, so I hope to have resolution as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,


Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog
[address/phone elided]

The above was submitted today, sans the graphics and captions.

More about this very incident of OPPL-BoT committing another Class C Misdemeanor crime by censoring me, besides what's provided by Kevin DuJan (link) and Megan Fox (link) as discussed above, is available here:



On Twitter:  @ChiPubLib @ECWDogs @HillBuzz @ILAttyGeneral @IllLibraryAssoc @IML_Legislative @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @Skype @VillageOrlandPk

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.