Home > Church of Scientology, Getting something done > Mary Jo has left the building

Mary Jo has left the building

She was the OT Ambassador in charge of the whole of Latin America. Together with her daughter she boomed the OT Committees. As an OT VIII and friend of so many Scientologists across LATAM, the exit of Mary Jo Leavitt will have strong repercussions across the boards. She has written extensive reports and sent them to Church of Scientology International and to RTC. Her keen eye and meticulous referencing to policy has shaken some stable data internally – but with no answers from the very top. It’s understandable as her reports are hard to answer with slick PR.

Her final report is a bombshell of a document that details some major systemic outpoints within the Church of Scientology. It’s easily the most detailed and thorough report I’ve ever seen.

It is my honor to release this report here.

  1. Tom
    2009-10-12 at 19:41

    Welcome Mary Jo! Your observations are astute, your analysis aligns quite well with LRH policy.

  2. Axiom
    2009-10-12 at 19:49

    Absolutely fantastic report!!! This is the beginning of the end for DM and his fine buddies! Awesome to read such a masterpiece!!! Great that you got hold of this,Geir!

  3. Axiom
    2009-10-12 at 19:51

    Absolutely fantastic report!!! This is the beginning of the end for DM and his fine buddies! Awesome to read such a masterpiece!!! Great that you got hold of this and thank you for sharing ,Geir!

  4. All the young dudes
    2009-10-12 at 20:31

    Ya brilliant report. Please send it to all the OTCs! And thanks Mary Jo for making us “right” for observing the “wrong”.

  5. Rebel Too
    2009-10-12 at 21:05

    This was amazing news! I read the full report at Scientology Cult.com I’m very happy to see her here.She’s a terrific person.

  6. jason beghe
    2009-10-12 at 21:06

    This is irrefutable evidence from an unimpeachable source. This is a GREAT piece of good fortune to have someone of Mary Jo’s caliber now on “our” side. She is a true leader-certainly others will follow.

  7. RJ
    2009-10-12 at 21:12

    Yes I’d say the situation has just gone nuclear.

  8. 2009-10-12 at 21:33

    I’m glad you woke up, Mary Jo Leavitt. You might find you have some more waking up to do in the future.

  9. StarsAwait
    2009-10-12 at 21:37

    I’m making sure some OT’s I know get this report because Mary Jo wrote this in just the right way.

  10. Someone
    2009-10-12 at 21:49

    Oh my God, this is going really fast 😀 More, more!

  11. Someone
    2009-10-12 at 23:00


    I was thinking about what I told you before, of this being a question that is broader than the church. Are we really as-ising this matter? What about the whole bunch of crap so similar to what this church is doing, in our society, perpetrated way before it even appeared?

    I don’t know anything, I am just asking. When I go deep down all these questions… they all seems so meaningless. Just a passing by moment, with its natural treasures. I’m a bit lyrical right now 😛

    Good night to you, good night to all.

    • 2009-10-13 at 05:15

      1. Handling the current situation. 2. Freeing the tech. 3. Helping to handle similar situations.

  12. ExKane
    2009-10-13 at 03:21

    The question now is how to propagate this for maximum effect. That’s up to you Scientologists. Start emailing/phoning/faxing/mailing. Tell those you contact to do the same, if they would. The material is not anti-tech so this should work if you act fast before DM and his PR machine start propagating the usual nonsense.

  13. Tomas
    2009-10-13 at 07:21

    Hi Geir and all you others out there.

    I am a little bit worried about all this liberation and de – PTSing among staff and public in the church. The final straw is the exellent KR Mary Jo had posted. I mean – the plan was that this should happen in year 2012 – according to the maiya calender. A new beginning – a new free world. Thats my interpretation anyway and now you are wrecking this. The church, in it present form, will go under within a year.

    Can we not all go back to our prison and PTSness and wait two more years, hmm? Please? I mean we are used to suppression for many many lifetimes – lets wait some time more.

    Respectfully Tomas

  14. mikethemarcabian
    2009-10-13 at 09:14

    I’m not against scientology, just the CoS as it currently stands. The Tech is being corrupted, the CoB is out-ethics, the PR is bad because in the age of the internet it is very difficult to hide crimes, the celebrities are obviously not doing KSW (eg; knowing when to shut up and behave like a sane person) & the BIGGEST problem is the policy of Exchange. Too many public are not on course because the gains from scientology as currently practised do not match the very high cost of courses. The Super Power building is a cash cow for the corrupt RTC too. How many times can you donate resources to a building that never seems to reach completion? There OT’s around for goodness sakes!!! Can’t they postulate?

    • 2009-10-13 at 13:46

      It requires more than just “postulate” (we postulate all the time, every being does) – it must translate to action. Less talk, more of Mary Jo.

  15. ThatsNotMyName
    2009-10-13 at 11:50

    This is truly fantastic news! Mary Jo is one super-smart cookie; everything an OT should be and a “born revolutionary” just like LRH asked for in such circumstances. Now it is ALL our duty, yes duty, to back up what these incredible beings are doing. The IAS event is a few days away. Good time to get busy. (You don’t need to attend by the way – I’ve had a sneak preview:
    The Church stats are booming like never before
    There are now more Ideal Orgs than doctors surgeries internationally
    More auditors made yesterday than in the previous 30 years
    The number of OTs has 1000xed in the last 30 minutes
    Every business in Texas now uses admin tech
    TWTH is in the hands of everybody in Africa
    The heads of 150 States are doing the Running program
    President Obama has privately proclaimed Mr Miscavige “a visionary of our age”
    DMSMH has been re-translated with a funky new non-LRH synopsis into 6489 new languages)

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-10-13 at 14:28

      *LOL* Agree, what about starting with the truth and go straight on up from there…?

    • Someone
      2009-10-13 at 15:07

      Scary! I think all this battle will make the bank stronger… including the banks.
      George Orwell’s 1984 is so close.

      • Someone
        2009-10-13 at 15:58

        I think we are not fighting the church but ourselves, really. And I think our ‘enemies’ are feeding off this battle, and becoming stronger. Besides, I don’t think scientology language is any enlightening for any person outside this reality.
        In my worst thoughts and nightmares, even this is a Scientology Church scam to call attention to itself and I am sorry if this sounds as me questioning your intentions, but questioning is still my biggest asset. Answers will say a lot about me and a lot about who answers. Our connection with everybody is that deep!
        And yes, I can perfectly admit I am insane without any problems.

  16. Roadrunner
    2009-10-13 at 14:47

    jason beghe :
    This is irrefutable evidence from an unimpeachable source. This is a GREAT piece of good fortune to have someone of Mary Jo’s caliber now on “our” side. She is a true leader-certainly others will follow.

    A mistake. Don’t think for a moment she is on ‘your'(“our”) side, as she is not. As far as I can decern she has said nothing against the subject of Scientology and/or L. Ron Hubbard.

    • 2009-10-13 at 17:59

      Roadrunner: What side are you on that you are referring to?

  17. 2009-10-13 at 14:57

    On one side those are good news, showing that the dictatorship of DM is going to end. But on the other side I am afraid that it will just end up in a vacuum, in an emptiness of Scientology.

    The orgs are factually bankrupt, the publics are in debts and exhausted by the hunting for money and service in the last years and decades, and not to mention the staffs, they have nothing upon they can build anything.

    So what will happen if the system starts to collapse like the bank system in the US and world wide – there will be no FED giving billions – the Ideal Orgs will be sold, or just be property of the real owner. We know that the building in Berlin is belonging to a accommodation address.

    According the article in the Berliner Morgenpost the company Bewoge sold the building to KW Berlin A/S.

    KW Berlin A/S is accommodation address and not registered to a natural name (Registering number 28282893, Toldbodgade 51, 1253 København K, no phone number, no employees). The administrator is Sten Sørensen who not necessarily has something to do with the KW Berlin A/S, just only doing the admin job.

    I am afraid that the staffs will have no org they can go to anymore, there will be just no location. And from organizing orgs outside the church I know that there are not many beings who can open an org. And loaded with debts, having no position in the society, does not help it either.

    In other words, get ready to deliver! Think over what you can do and start. You can start with almost nothing – it is possible. Now it is up to you and me to deliver, there will be no church anymore who can be blamed.

    Scientologists unite! We can do it, and we have to do it! Lets start.

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-10-13 at 18:31

      I think one of the MAIN reasons why the public aren’t attending as much as they could is because of the Scientology brand. As of today, the brand of Scientology is connected with words like: Cult, money-machine, abuse, Fair Game etc.

      When those keywords have been wiped out and the public really can start to look for themselves, that’s when we will flourish and prosper. And unfortunately I think that cannot be accomplished until DM is off-post and a fair eight-dynamic leader will take place instead.

      After that it might take something like 5-10 years before the public will start to accept Scientology again.

      And we as Scientologists must be more open to other practices, even IF it’s true that Scientology is the only organization that can “save” us, we must not act as if that is the case. People will think “fanatic” when they hear Tom Cruise say “WE are the only ones”. Just relax…. everything will be fine. (Cruise is a good actor by the way.)

    • LO
      2009-10-13 at 19:23

      Hallo Hauri,

      Du übertreibst aber schön ! You’re really exagerating with you generalities about publics being broke etc. Looks like you’re not in comm. I could observe that many Scientologists in the last 20 years weren’t any more disseminating and bringing their fiends, even their own kids and relatives into the orgs, BUT WERE HAPPILY APLLYING SCIENTOLOGY TECH IN THEIR LIFE and have achieved status in the wog world and are highly respected in their environment. Most of my scientology friends have businesses or have good jobs with high earnings, are financially still wealthy ! And i think this is the case Worldwide as Scientologists are Hard Working, Ethical people not bums as you try to convey it. As soon as the word spreads around that Scientology is again delivered in Orgs, they will be flooded with propably hundred thousands of Scientologists and they all will bring their friends and relatives. So what’s the PROBLEM ?
      I haven’t met in 35 years as a Scientologist, no one person that wasn’t basicly interested in the Tech (I don’t mean interested in becoming a member of the current C.O.S), excepting some people that were obviously crazy, and those weren’t many.
      Hauri hau rein !

      • LO
        2009-10-13 at 19:25


        Sorry I reacted before I read your full post. Looks like we mean the same !

  18. Anonymous for a reason
    2009-10-13 at 15:59

    Hello, Geir.
    Add me on Face, please. It would help me out a little bit if you do even though you do not use face on a regular basis. If you do, I will appreciate it a lot. Have a magic evening. .)

  19. Roadrunner
    2009-10-13 at 18:28

    isene :
    Roadrunner: What side are you on that you are referring to?

    It would suffice to establish on what side Jason Beghe himself is on (i.e. if the message I responded to was really posted by him), we know his story and his side is not the pro ‘subject of Scientology’ side. I wonder what some people are thinking, there is a subject and there is people, they seldom match. Mary Jo as far as can be established is not anti the subject of Scientology.

    • 2009-10-13 at 18:29

      It may be that you are jumping to conclusions as to what “side” Jason is on. Do not assume – it makes an ASS out of U and ME 😉

  20. Roadrunner
    2009-10-13 at 18:59

    isene :
    It may be that you are jumping to conclusions as to what “side” Jason is on. Do not assume – it makes an ASS out of U and ME

    I watched his video made by the ‘beardman’, I also have followed him when he entered at OCMB. Further I have seen some speeches from him about Scientology when he was here in Europe. I do not assume, I simply observe.

    • 2009-10-13 at 19:04

      Then observe what he has written her also.

  21. Roadrunner
    2009-10-13 at 19:58

    isene :
    Then observe what he has written her also.

    And what did he then write to her?

  22. Roadrunner
    2009-10-13 at 20:21

    isene :

    Typo. s/her/here/
    Breakfast with Jason

    A typo? I read ‘her’ as you understood now. I read this breakfast tale a little while ago, it doesn’t change however how he publicly has been speaking about L. Ron Hubbard and the subject of Scientology in general. Have you watched the ‘beardman’ video? He may very well be a nice person, but as far as the subject of Scientology goes, he hasn’t grabbed it as far as I can see. Scientologists are never followers, if they be Scientologists. Watch the video.

    • 2009-10-13 at 20:28

      I have seen the videos. Read his responses on this blog once again.

  23. Roadrunner
    2009-10-13 at 20:38

    isene :
    I have seen the videos. Read his responses on this blog once again.

    It does not change anything. What is your exact argument that would make it change?

    • 2009-10-13 at 20:44

      Since you don’t get what he posted on this site, send him an e-mail and ask what his views on the Scientology philosophy is. You may find that he is perhaps not on any side as you would define it

  24. Roadrunner
    2009-10-13 at 21:01

    isene :
    Since you don’t get what he posted on this site, send him an e-mail and ask what his views on the Scientology philosophy is. You may find that he is perhaps not on any side as you would define it

    You assume I don’t get that what he posted here. I ask you to forward your exact argument and you ask me to email him.

    • 2009-10-14 at 09:08

      I will not interpret what Jason has said on this board or what he has said to me personally when I stayed with him. Ask him directly. I advice you to do so as you assume he is on a certain side of something – at least on another side than Mary Jo.

  25. A. Watts
    2009-10-13 at 21:19

    I can see that a lot of work went into this report. However, as a former MAA I can tell you why it is unlikely that it will result in any action.

    There are a lot of references to policy. This is very good. However, it does not identify the section of the policy that is being violated, requiring the reader to research the entire policy in relation to the activity stated as being in violation. This leads us to the next problem. Exact violations and exact violators are not identified. Lines such as “Staff and SO members are accepting orders illegal and cross” does not provide an example of an illegal/cross orer being given, not does it provide an example of any specific staff or SO memberr following such an order. So, no incident can be investigated to determine what part of the listed policy was vioalted.

    If you are not writing a report on somebody specific, then the type of report to use is “things that chouldn’t be.”

    Yes, knowledge reports will get things addressed. However, a KR filled with ambiguities and generalities turns it around making the issuer look bad. Be specific in your reports. Keep emotion out of it. When I write a KR, I try to keep in mind Time, Place, Form and Event. Similar in content, though not in structure, to an O/W writeup. Or, I keep in mind the Situation, Data, Solution form of a CSW. That isn’t a requirement of course, it just helps me personally make sure that I am providing adequate detail that something can be done. The only references on how to write a KR are the LRH references on the subject. The thing is to provide enough details taht the person reading it has all the data they need on the situation. That means giving specifics; no generalities whatsoever. Also, don’t assume the reader knows anything that you do not put into the KR.

    This is planet Earth, therefore: Abberration is rampant. There are SP’s. Good intentioned people can make errors in judgement or strategy basd on incomplete or inaccurate data. No one has 100% of the data 100% accurately. Therefore, no one is immune. That includes management.

    Every point on this report might be accurate. However, no point provides enough information to verify its accuracy. Additiaonlly, since the KR is written on a generality againt the entire church, there is no ethics file it can be stored in. Break the points down. Write seperate KR’s for every violation. Write the KR’s on the specific individuals involved. Keep in mind that even an ethics hearing is not typically called unless there are 5 KR’s (you can find the reference in the OEC Vol 1 index) so don’t combine them into 1.

    I can’t tell you how many KRs I received as an MAA that I could do nothing with because they were too general. Frequently, though not always to be sure, I found that such reports were finger-pointing done to draw attention from the writer’s own overts. This personal observation led me to a tendency, right or wrong, to view vague or ambiguous reports suspiciously. I relate this only as a precautionary word to emphasize the importance of providing specifics. Especially when we know that one of the anti-social traits is to speak in generalities.

    It is one thing to investigate a KR to see if it is true. It is quite another matter to investigate a KR to just find out what the heck it is talking about. You’ll have to check on this to verify, but I beleive the LRH reponse to such KR’s is to send them back to the originator requesting more data, and do nothing further until that happens. And of coruse, a KR on nobody specific detailing no specific incidents can get relagated to a low priority position.

    • 2009-10-13 at 21:34

      TL;DR Make it shorter next time to not get your comment randomly clipped.

      FYI: Names were removed from the KR to make it OK to go public with it. Mary Jo has written many KRs that fits your bill very well.

  26. A. Watts
    2009-10-13 at 21:49

    Then to preserve the accuracy and veracity of the document, it would be better to replace personal namess, org names and posts with “XXXXXX” or “___________” or otherwise indicate the edits. That way, the reader knows what is really part of the document and what has been altered. I say this from my post as a professional writer.

    However, this report is not only missing specific names, it is missing specific actions, specific orders, and specific violations. I am not judging this report from the merits of other reports. It is a report in and of itself, and as such is materially lacking in useful substance. It is a shame and a waste to put so much effort into creating something that can’t be used.

    • 2009-10-13 at 22:20

      It may be that the report has aims at other effects than reaching you as a former MAA, i.e. target audience may not be MAAs

    • concernedScn
      2009-10-13 at 23:23

      OSA plant!

      If you’re so concerned with accuracy and references, why don’t you find the references that support all of the campaigns the Church is actively running? Or the reference that talks about the “Chairman of the Board RTC” post and that it is supposed to run everything in Scientology? Oh, right…because there aren’t any references that say such things.

      Nice try at discrediting something very informative and useful…nice try. I hope Geir doesn’t approve any more of your comments – they are, in fact, a waste of time.

      • LO
        2009-10-14 at 18:20

        A. Watts,

        I don’t understand your post. Per my understanding of Admin Tech, when you get a report that isn’t one (no facts) you send it back to the person and you cram her about how to write a report. That’s all ! Then you have no problem as a MAA. If you don’t do that you become the kind of E.O. I used to think about on Point 2 of the Liability Formula: “throw the E.O. out of the window.

  27. StarsAwait
    2009-10-14 at 00:20

    A. Watts, this was an excellent report and she’s doing a lot more than you to correct the situation.

  28. Soderqvist1
    2009-10-14 at 08:49

    Soderqvist1: To call A. Watts an OSA Plant is Ad hominem!
    We endorse the generalized Knowledge report because we have seen lot of policy violation in particular events, which we (me included) have read into the report which is simply not there to be seen for an ignorant MAA at Flag!

    “21: Security guards are demanding money for the IAS while using their beingness and position to reg for the IAS.”

    Soderqvist1: this is generalizations which doesn’t have any specifics, in example the violators names, and when it happened, and exactly what they did!

    21 This happened to me at Flag (where I was approached by three Security guards late at night, as I was going into my room; their tone and demeanor were intimidating) and I protested it at the time.”

    Soderqvist1: it should be added with; ‘Mr. Smith- Mr. Brown – Mr. Gordon did this 2008-12-08- clock 23.30’

    “22) The SO has the hat of putting ethics in on the planet. They are themselves largely out ethics”

    Soderqvist1: I see what she has in mind and agree, but sorry no violator and his act are named on the paper!

    Soderqvist1: Btw, I am a security guard by profession!

    • 2009-10-14 at 09:37

      For everybody’s information (and that includes OSA): There exists a 213 page report with all the specifics that would satisfy even “A. Watts”. If we challenge Mary Jo’s current report enough, maybe we can get her to release the full report with all the specifics. That would at least give OSA their run for the money 😉

    • Elgin
      2009-10-14 at 11:05

      I think that the report is perhaps more of a “Things that shouldn’t be” report as A. Watts mentions. But that’s just it then. No need, to hamper on about all the problems of the report. Why also not delve a bit into to those things, that can easily seen to be true or checked ;-).

      The report is a kind of summary or conclusion based on observations over long time. To be sure it would be good to have specifics to back up the conclusions (perhaps as attachments) or possibly the more specific edition of the report. The full 213 page report that Geir mentions could be good to have for anyone who might want to look at the full data foundation of the analysis and conclusions that Mary Jo put forth. The more specifics the better, and reference to names and be XXXXX’ed out as needed.

      In any case I would say the report points out enough to warrant a thorough investigation and data analysis. Just as an example, the org that hasn’t paid it’s house rent in a period of many years — very gross, and it should be easy to establish if that is true or not. The same for staff stating that they could use 80% of the time as IAS regges. Was that said by someone or not. Does staff in fact function as IAS regges and is that not in violation of holding your hat in an org.
      At the very least it should get management on the toes to check these things out in more detail.

      As a side note I would agree that there is no call for personal attacks like calling someone an OSA Plant. Even if that was the case, Geir, as far as I can tell doesn’t mind OSA to be in the forum — as long as the rules stipulated are followed.

      • 2009-10-14 at 11:38

        Correct. I don’t mind anyone being on the forum as long as the simple, but strict rules are followed. Those unwilling or unable to abide by the rules gets warned, then excluded.

      • concernedScn
        2009-10-14 at 15:41

        Soderqvist1, neither you or A. Watts understand:

        The RTC Reports line has one policy: acknowledge and shred. And sometimes they don’t even acknowledge! Anybody who has written a serious matter up to them can deduce this.

        I’m sure the KR, in its 213 page form, is extremely thorough. I would think that names have been masked from what has been posted because this is being posted on the internet. Of course the original report sent to RTC and other Church terminals (on the cover letter) would have actual names.

        I have seen MAA’s act on reports full of misemotion, generalities, etc. It happened with me when the ED of an Org wrote me up. It was the silliest report I had ever seen, yet an MAA acted on it and got in my face about it.

        To think that the Church or some 17 year old MAA at Flag would start getting to the bottom of this KR if there were a few more quotes from all the PLs mentioned is pure folly, and an insult to all the readers at this blog. It is also an insult to all of the people who have written very detailed reports to RTC that went completely ignored and unhandled. Wake up and smell the coffee, please.

  29. Soderqvist1
    2009-10-14 at 14:30
  30. concernedScn
    2009-10-14 at 16:02

    I’d like to add one more thing – just the mention of Miscavige using “cumulative” stats during events (this is included in Mary Jo’s KR) should be enough to repulse anybody – even the most pedantic of MAAs.

    Cumulative stats when we’re being led to believe that annual stats are being shown for number of WD auditing hours, courses completed, etc is a sick joke. If you’re watching an event on DVD, you can pause on these charts and see “cum.” which stands for “cumulative”. Watch the IAS Maiden voyage event 2009 and pause when stat graphs are shown and you will see this. They can’t show annual (or quarterly) stats because they are all down down down.

  31. Roadrunner
    2009-10-14 at 18:19

    isene :
    I will not interpret what Jason has said on this board or what he has said to me personally when I stayed with him. Ask him directly. I advice you to do so as you assume he is on a certain side of something – at least on another side than Mary Jo.

    What he said is clear enough and it does not counteract that which he revealed in the interview with the ‘beardman’. These present different angles. The ‘breakfast’ event addresses him as a person, the ‘beardman’ interview addresses Scientology.

    Indeed that was my point, he is not on the same side as Mary Jo. Again I am not assuming what his position is, I just don’t operate on assuming…, he made his position pretty clear in the media. However, since you broke with CoS, and now your interaction with said Jason Beghe, I wonder what your actual position is towards the subject of Scientology. I am not alone in wondering this as a contact of mine in Italy also originated to me his surprise about the ‘breakfast’ tale.

    Either way if Jason wishes to express himself to me (as you suggest), may be change, add or clarify some matters concerning his present position in this all. Did his position change since he first broke with CoS? Then ask him to send me an email message. I think you know who I am, if you don’t or doubt, tell me here, and I will send you a confirmation to your email address.

    • 2009-10-14 at 20:31

      Send me an e-mail.

      As for my own position, I have written much about this here on this blog. No need to be redundant.

  32. Roadrunner
    2009-10-14 at 21:04

    isene :
    As for my own position, I have written much about this here on this blog. No need to be redundant.

    It is not redundant in regards to and in association with Jason Beghe. He has expressed negativity towards L. Ron Hubbard and the subject of Scientology in general. If you then in turn express such high appreciative thoughts about him here you also put down the subject of Scientology. There needs to be clarity in these matters…

    • 2009-10-14 at 21:27

      Guilt by association? Really now, that’s a known logical fallacy. See what he wrote in the comments section, read what I write elsewhere on this blog. We are individuals with our own opinions. We are also very good friends. I am being nice about your comment here (it’s late).

      Let’s get this comment section back on topic. Next comment you post on this: Do it under “Breakfast with Jason”:

  33. John Boice
    2010-10-11 at 20:39

    You’re either willing to duplicate KSW and Scientology axiom 28 and apply them or you’re rhetorical phonies! Scientology is an “applied religious philosophy” and to quibble and Q&A over whether or not it’s a religion shows your intention and your ignorance; and after LRH has given us the data with which we can free ourselves! Don’t tell me that’s in question too! I can understand that from a beginner but not from such astute viewpoints as you and your “service-facs” represent! Why don’t your spend some time helping LRH spread the only gospel this planet has ever known?! Just like that stuperstar, Cruise, who can giggle and promote his bullshit wog movies on nation wide TV but can’t even mention the benefits of Scientology to his suffering entourage that worships the dirty shorts that hides a little dick.

    • 2010-10-13 at 21:44

      Much emotions. Why?

  34. 2012-07-16 at 04:16

    Finding your blog without exception made my afternoon.
    You have no idea.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: