One Step Closer – Craig Thomson trial nears completion

Posted: January 25, 2014 in HSU Saga, Media, Politics

Those who were waiting for some kind of grand finale or fireworks display in Magistrates Court on Thursday after lunch in the Craig Thomson trial, were not unlike those yelling for an encore at a Justin Bieber concert.

Setting themselves up for disappointment.

Despite a line up of Kathy Jackson and the head of the Victorian Police investigation John Tyquin the afternoon session was a bit of a fizzer by all accounts.

Kathy Jackson was the key prosecution witness for the day and despite saying that she thought there were things that seemed odd in Thomson’s financial records she really was not a good witness for the prosecution, quite the opposite in fact.

She seemed to be a far better witness for the defence.

As I wrote about on Thursday, Jackson confirmed in court that she made hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash withdrawals from union members funds whilst Secretary for BBQ’s and the like, all apparently with the blessing of her ever faithful BCOM and Trustee’s.

If I was one of the BCOM or trustee’s responsible for approving Jacksons spending, I’d be bracing to blow the whistle or grab my passport and run.

The sheer amount and volume of cash withdrawals from Jackson make those Craig Thomson is facing charges look like milk money.

Jackson was also kind enough to explain the $22,000 trip to Mt Hotham that the union members footed the bill for whilst on the witness stand. The amounts involved are shown on the GST reporting statement to the Tax Office below.

2005 BAS GST reporting

Apparently it was not a private holiday it was a union staff event. Something that was to benefit the staff of her branch, Marco Bolano’s branch, as well as another branch. Some kind of bonding or training type event I gather.

If this was indeed the case, I wonder if those from her BCOM approving all the spending also attended the trip. I am also left wondering, if it was for training purposes what the point of being at a snow field is? Was she just looking for the most expensive location possible?

Anyway, those members wondering about their funds being squandered on a ski trip junket need not fear, the staff all benefitted greatly I’m sure.

So immense was the staff benefit in fact, that the event was not even given the tiniest of mentions in the Unions Health Professional magazine/newsletter  for the entire year 2005 when the event occurred or indeed 2006.



Jackson also brought a friend along with her for her court appearance.

It was a sight that many in the court found quite amusing, Kathy Jackson was leading David Rofe QC around by the hand as if he was some kind of blind invalid, something he most certainly is not.

Although Rofe QC claimed to be there as a friend, I don’t think he is someone Jackson usually goes to the pub with or holidays with or even has chats with on the phone regularly, although I could be wrong. However I’d go so far as to hazard a guess that perhaps he was there to ensure Jackson did not incriminate herself on the stand, or perhaps even to ensure that the Lawler family name was not brought into the matter, but again that is just a guess.

Either way proceedings had to be stopped twice when his mobile phone rang, that’s right twice. He didn’t turn it off after the first time.

Still what was probably the most important thing that Jackson swore under oath to was that a credit card was a part of Thomson’s salary package.

This is odd indeed as it completely supports Thomson’s entire defence, as how can anybody require authorisation to spend their salary how they see fit?

Some have suggested that this is a complete backflip from her earlier statements involving claims of improper spending, and this may indeed may be the case, however I am of the opinion that this admission is a tactic to set up a defence for her own spending which is coming under increased scrutiny and she will perhaps one day find herself in court explaining.

The blogospheres got me down

The blogosphere’s got me down

So where to now for the trial?

This is the end of the witnesses, any smoking gun that was to have existed has been presented by now in either a written statement or on the witness stand.

On Tuesday final submissions will be made by both the prosecution and the defence teams and after that we will wait for the Magistrate to come back with a decision of guilty or not guilty.

No matter which way Magistrate Rozencwajg decides there will still be questions in the minds of most. These are the questions as to whether Thomson visited brothels or used escort services.

On this matter the opinions seem to differ just as much as the evidence.

However what this case comes down to and will eventually be decided upon is authorisation, and did Thomson have the authority to use his credit cards as he wished.

As much as the media may like to portray that the case is all about brothels and hookers, that is not the case.

Still, the media and the prosecution seem to have decided to have an each-way bet, if they can’t destroy Thomson in court then they will ruin his life via the headlines.

Going by the sworn testimony of the witnesses, the question of authority seems to be shady to say the least, with the prosecution’s star witness even going so far as to say it was part of his salary package.

The case against Craig Thomson, as much as the shock-jocks might like to think so is nothing at all like the case against Michael Williamson, not even remotely despite them often being referred to together. His case is also minor in comparison to the investigation into Kathy Jackson

Williamson and Jackson - Close links

Williamson and Jackson – Close links

Thomson’s entire case equates to less than $6,000 of questioned spending per year during the five years he was Union Secretary.

By comparison in the case against Michael Williamson the total figure exceeds $20 Million so far.

The investigation into Kathy Jacksons time running Thomson’s former branch are looking at allegations of improper spending that are measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Michael Williamson had other companies set up such as CANME that invoiced the union for services that were questionable.

Kathy Jackson you may recall also had a similar setup with companies such as Neranto #10 Pty Ltd and Koukouvaos Pty Ltd.

Neranto #10 cheque requisitions

Neranto #10 cheque remittances

Koukouvaos Consulting Payments

Craig Thomson had nothing of the sort.

Michael Williamson had the advice of expensive legal teams and I’m sure many contacts within the political and legal world to rely on for support.

Kathy Jackson had the support of Michael Lawler, Vice President of the organisation that investigated Thomson FWA, to lean on. She also had the support of all of her new-found friends within the Liberal Party such as Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, and of course Peter Reith. As mentioned earlier she even took a QC along while she appeared as a witness.

Ah, all the jitters of a first date...

Ah, all the jitters of a first date…

By contrast, Thomson has been almost bankrupted and has even been forced to partially rely on the financial support of the public to mount a decent defence, something the media clearly didn’t want to see him have given their reaction.

What has also become apparent during the Thomson trial is that the partnership between Jackson and Williamson was closer than Jackson would like us all to believe. In fact the measures that were put in place by Thomson to increase the levels of financial accountability of union secretaries made him the enemy of both Williamson and Jackson.

Thomson arrives at court last year with his support

Thomson arrives at court last year with his support

What I have attempted to do in my writing is not to prove Thomson innocent as many have mistakenly assumed. I have always felt my role is to serve those who seek to know all of the facts involved in the case, not just the ones that suit the main stream media agenda.

Call me naive, but I am just one of those nostalgic old souls that still believes in a fair trial.

Along the way I have highlighted misreporting, half-truths, and blatant lies within the mainstream media. I have also highlighted evidence that has been ignored and reported on witness statements and testimony the main stream don’t want us to hear about.

Overall I suppose I have done my best to provide a little balance to what has become a trial by media, something that even those participating in claim to be against.

If indeed Thomson has defrauded the union members, I will be the first to say he should be held to account and the members retrieve their money.

I also strongly believe that allegations against Kathy Jackson need to be scrutinised as intently as those against Williamson and Thomson and I will continue to pursue this matter, as the long-suffering union members deserve nothing less.

So there you have it, it’s almost over for Thomson.

Let’s hope that once this is over that our main stream journalists can lift their game and start reporting from the street, not the gutter.

It would make a pleasant change.

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

  1. annette says:

    Good on you Peter,you have done a great job!

  2. Fed up says:

    Sadly, no matter the verdict, many will still talk about him as guilty.

    We have Abbott’s inquiries. Among the 41 he has in play, into the HSU and AWU matters. These involve many millions of dollars, and I assume, run up to their next election.

    We still have the two Slipper judgements to come. Then maybe inquiries into Ashbey and Bough.

    What we should be out, complaining about, is the Liberals Party’s action in using the judicial arm of covenant for their own political quests.

    Time for politicians to keep their snouts out of the law and courts.
    Would love an inquiry into the role the police has played, with the assistance of Mr. Brandis over the last few years. Even back to the days of Howars, and such cases as the Hanefef matter.

    I expect to see Mr. Morrison, personally involved in decisions made by immigration, as was so back in the days of Howard., Time for politicians to keep themselves at arms lemght to these decisions.

  3. Fed up says:

    Thanks Peter for keeping us informed. Suspect it has been a personal cost to yourself.

  4. dafid1 says:

    Thanks Wixxy for your comprehensive honest reporting of this witch hunt. I am disgusted with the ABC and their climbing on the News Corp cheer wagon, reporting bits and pieces, mainy concentrating on their obsession with sex, prostitutes and brothels. Says a lot about the mindset of some in the ABC Newsrooms. Fairfax is not far behind.
    I hope the result is fair and just.

  5. muskiemp says:

    Well done Peter.
    Lets hope that Craig Thomson can at last be free from this vile attack from people who are corrupt and still trying to cover their arse.

  6. M. R. says:

    I noted dismally that Aunty continued to provide the same old same old on the news on Thursday night: it disgusts me that the News Editors can’t see their way clear to writing unbiased fact.
    Wixxy me old china, you done good with all this. Real good, mate! Thanks

    • wixxy says:

      It amazes me that the ABC won’t look at Jackson closer and expose her

      She testified in court on Thursday to members paying her child care for over 4 years.

      She told the ABC’s leading political journalist (Chris Uhlmann) that members never paid a cent towards her child care in an interview on their flagship current affairs show 7 30

      If the ABC won’t follow up on someone who makes a mockery of their flagship program what hope do we have?

      • M. R. says:

        Hence the dismalness of one’s feelings. And Uhlmann’s now caught up in making a doco about Rudd, which will be pointless because we all know all that we need to know.
        Don’t let any of the bastards keep you down: there are so many of us who turn to you for facts.

      • Tom R says:

        So, should the ABC be following up Chris Uhlmann, or Jackson? 😉

  7. joy cooper says:

    Thank you Peter.

  8. Heather says:

    Don’t hold your breath on that last comment Peter. I can’t see the MSM getting out of the gutters any time soon.

  9. imoho says:

    Thank you Mr. Wixxy,
    For your valour, your honesty, your persistence, your resilience and your integrity.
    And thank you for what have become rare jewels – facts.

  10. fugit60 says:

    Bit concerning you need to justify your stance Pete.. Anybody that’s been following the story from the start, knows its not abt Thommos possible guilt, its always been about the flawed process of the corrupt/biased and manipulation of the whole affair by LNP and the lap dog MSM ..

  11. Ross Barber says:

    Terrific job Peter over the long term on this. Your reporting has put to shame the mainstream including Auntie

  12. csaw59 says:

    Do know at the end of the day, if a ‘not guilty’ verdict is handed down, the media will just shrug their shoulders & walk away, waiting for the next politically inspired headline to salivate over. Laws, Hadley, Jones, Gilbert & the rest of the low life radio throng will not comment on a not guilty verdict, unless it is to say in the court of public opinion, Craig Thomson will still be guilty, only because they deem it that way.

    Kathy Jackson will fade away into obscurity, even if irregularities are found in the HSU accounting during her tenure &, at best, that will probably only rate a mention on Page 6. That is unless of course if Kathy Jackson visited a brothel, or even more unlikely, holds the balance of power in the next Federal Parliament & then she may feel elevated to Page 1 …. so it is unlikely she will grace us in the media anytime soon.

    Craig Thomson will be left broke, reputation destroyed, with him & his young family the victims of one on the most horrendous media campaigns in memory with no recourse for an apology. Unfortunately for the people of Dobell, they have also lost a hard working local member, who through all this, was at least able to keep his dignity & didn’t resort to the same tactics that were used against him …. I wish him all the best in the future

    The only bright spot was the being able to turn to the ‘new’ media reporters such as Peter Wicks & the IA team for unbiased reporting on important events … thanks guys, keep up the great work.

    • Joe says:

      Was that the same MSM who protected Albo when he was sprung walking out of Massage Parlor late at night, with photographic evidence that wasn’t printed because Albo “is a good guy”….. come off it.

      ” Unfortunately for the people of Dobell, they have also lost a hard working local member”. they didn’t lose him, they Got rid of him.

  13. maree says:

    Excellent investigative journalism for once

  14. Saaq Madiq. says:

    You are a courageous man Peter, an inspiration indeed. The MSM and the mongrel shock jocks are the lowest form of life. The truth will win out in the end. Thank you again for your great work.

  15. Marilyn says:

    The same gang who think David Hicks is still a terrorist, that refugees really did hijack the TAMPA even though we asked the TAMPA to rescue them, that kids were thrown into the sea by those rotten Iraqis and Dr Haneef really did blow up the Glasgow airport while on duty in Brisbane will always believe Thomson is a pervert.

  16. Joe says:

    “These are the questions as to whether Thomson visited brothels or used escort services.”
    Actually he has not disputed these facts, his defence is he was allowed to. So he Did attend the brothels and he did use escorts, but he says he was allowed too.
    Less than $6000 per year for 5 years, that’s almost $30000 of Union Members money. The amount should have Nothing to do with it. $1 or $1mil, not the point.
    He stated in Parliament that he did not do it, now he stats he did do it… did he mislead Parliament?

    • wixxy says:

      As I have explained a million times, undisputed facts are not admissions. These are legal terms and he still denies those claims

      He has chosen to take a path in his defense which he feels will be faster and will save him hundreds of thousands in costs. That is the authorisation defense and something he is legally entitled to do

      Yes it is just under $30K

      I only wish is that as much police hours, court time and media space were dedicated to the Coalitions rorting of taxpayer dollars by doing book promo tours, fun runs, attending weddings, holidays etc as they were dedicated to the effort of the public humiliation of Thomson

      • Joe says:

        I understand your concerns with Police time spent and other rorting claims, but this is Two different areas. One is MP’s expenses and the Other is a Union Leaders expenses. One is Taxpayers money and the other is Union Members money.

        I cant see how a not guilty finding will be a positive for the union movement as a whole…

        I agree he is free to use whatever defence he wants, this is his third now right?

        (So if he ‘wins’ with the authorization defence, and If it turns out it was part of his salary package, surely there must be a dollar figure on it, for the protection of members money, and for Fringe Benefit Tax purposes.)

        you really dont want to compare expense claims between the two parties do you?

      • wixxy says:

        That is his defense.

        It has yet to emerge if there was a dollar figure attached to it, the prosecution witnesses were vague to say the least.

        However given we are talking to what amounts to under $6K a year and Kathy Jackson admitted to spending over $100K a year in cash withdrawals alone in the years after Thomson I would say he is under any cap.

        I would welcome a comparison between party spending rorts, Brandis’s library alone would likely exceed any allegations of Labor expense rorting

      • Joe says:

        Kathy Jackson could have spent $10mil or a 50cent piece, it is not relevant in this case.

        The amount spent may play a part in any sentencing, but not in any guilt or innocence.

        You assume he was under any cap, but neither of us know that as yet. I only mentioned it as its a bit perplexing. If this is part of his salary, why wasn’t it mentioned at any time in the past. Lorry Oaks interview, Parliament, door stops outside court, he has never been shy around the media. This could have been mentioned many months ago.

        As I mentioned, if he is found not guilty as he was authorized to spend the money on the things he did, this will not be good for the movement. I answer questions on a daily basis from my members, if not guilty is the outcome, I will not be able to convince them to keep paying dues.

        I see we are both moving between points of Law and our own thoughts on right V wrong.

        I am sure Brandis was “authorized” to spend as he did…. case closed right?

      • wixxy says:

        I am saying if there was a cap he was probably under it, it is up to the Magistrate to decide if there was in fact a cap

        Jackson has an awful lot to do with the case, she supplied much of the evidence, her partners firm performed the investigation and she was the key witness for the prosecution

        As for Coalition rorts, many have been forced to pay money back as they were not authorised

      • Joe says:

        come off it… the Magistrate will decide if he was authorized to make the payment.
        If he spent too much, that is a different matter for the HSU to pursue, along the lines of recovering an overpayment of wages. Any cap is irrelevant. Again, could have easily been proved with documentary evidence submitted to the court. FBT return?

        again, what Jackson did or didnt do has nothing to do with Craigs innocence or guilt.

      • Marni says:

        Did the defense point out the misspelling of Thomson’s signature on the credit cards? I would think a person knows how to spell their own name and strongly suggests it wasn’t his signature to me.

    • Marilyn says:

      No Joe, the so-called brothel claims had nothing to do with this trial or any others. In the times he was supposedly in those brothels he was in another state and unless he has two old fellas he can’t be screwing hookers while in Perth with his wife.

      • Joe says:

        His whereabouts play little part in this. He authorized the payment. The question now is, was he authorized to authorize such a payment.

    • matt says:

      “One is MP’s expenses and the Other is a Union Leaders expenses. One is Taxpayers money and the other is Union Members money.”

      Yes, one is a public servant, and the other is a servant of an opt-in, members only organisation. We have no ability to “opt out” of paying taxes. We can certainly leave a union.

      “Kathy Jackson could have spent $10mil or a 50cent piece, it is not relevant in this case.”
      Nice try, she is central to this entire case. Without her, there is no case.

  17. Marilyn says:

    Joe, you are talking in endless circles that are a waste of time and space. Even FWA found there were no rules governing the use of the credit card, yet they then claim he broke them. How this ever got to any court beats me.

    • Joe says:

      So FWA finds there were no rules governing the use of Union Credit cards… I dont see how this helps Craig. He is claiming he was authorised, but he couldn’t be authorised as there were no rules. Maybe he is saying he was not not authorised to use it as he saw fit.

      I am sorry that I am a waste of your time and space, although you have replied to me twice. Discussions are great.
      If found not guilty, this could be the beginning of the end of the movement. Because not guilty would confirm he was allowed to spend union members money any way he saw fit. That is the bigger worry for me.

  18. “As I have explained a million times, undisputed facts are not admissions.”

    Actually as far as the court is concerned, they are. Thomson does not have to disprove that he used hookers, all he had to do was assert that he had not, it is then the obligation of the Crown to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Since all the prostitutes and brothel owners seems to have had house fires, or not recall him, it really all comes down to the contents of that green folder that La Jackson found so peculiar. However, when Thomson doesn’t dispute the facts, then he relieves the prosecution of the obligation to prove them. This means that the magistrate will have no option but to find he used union members’ funds for sexual services. The only question the magistrate will have to decide is was he entitled to use union funds for sexual services. Good luck with that one. It is a strategy of legal suicide, perfectly implented with the assistance of a highly qualified and expensive silk.

    Unfortunately when you come up against corruption it is always more pervasive in its effects that your previous experience enables you to comprehend. Craig Thomson’s problems were not those loudly baying for his blood in politics, media and blogs, but those who surround him as his friends. Because these will be the ones trying to manipulate you into not confronting corruption. All along the way his “supporters” were gently and warmly encouraging his slide into personal destruction.

    I remember once suggesting either here or on IA that he could use the Privacy Act to demand the records of the bank for the visa card and the mobile phone company. Because even though these were provided by the union, the fact they were linked to his name meant he was entitled to access to these records under privacy legislation. The response was electric, one after another of Thomson’s “supporters” insisted he couldn’t possibly do that, it was quite out of the question. Not even worth trying.

    I guess he will avoid jail. And who knows, for being such a good sport perhaps Jamie Packer and NSW Right will have a few plums for him and his wife down the track?

    • wixxy says:

      Not according to the Magistrate

      The terminology is different in Vic than in NSW

      Most of these undisputed facts are related to the 79 charges already dropped by the prosecution anyway, that is something nobody seems to be interested in….

      • Well, I am interested in it. In the same way I am interested why the defense to date has not asked various prosecution witnesses (eg brothel owners) why there were cancellation codes on those credit card vouchers – something I have no need to inform you about

        I mean maybe there is going to be one gigantic rabbit pulled out of the hat by Greg James when he presents the defense, but all I see in the media is he is going to be producing some claims as to Thomson’s “state of mind”, which is not encouraging.

        Apparently to this highly qualified, highly expensive, exquisitely elegant QC such trivial details like 3 digit rejection codes appearing on voucher slips are beneath him.

      • Joe says:

        Wasn’t it the Magistrate not the Prosecution that dropped the 79 charges you mention….
        not related to Victoria, or something very suss like that.

    • matt says:

      “Actually as far as the court is concerned, they are.”

      Wrong. Silence is not an admission of guilt. Not disputing an accusation is not an admission of guilt. The charges are not “craig used hookers”, the charges are about card authorisation. He only needs to defend what he is being charged with.

      Back to Kangaroo Court school.

      • “Wrong. Silence is not an admission of guilt. ”
        Correct, it is not an admission of guilt. He is saying I do not dispute the prosecution’s claim I spent union funds on hookers, because I was legally entitled to do so.

        We wait and see how the magistrate will.respond to this highly innovative strategy.

    • matt says:

      “He is saying I do not dispute the prosecution’s claim I spent union funds on hookers, because I was legally entitled to do so.”

      Wrong. He is not disputing it, because that is not charge. It is irrelevant whether he spent the money on hookers or sunshine and lollipops. That is not the charge, and to be clear, he denies it. The charge is lack of authorisation. You know his story is that the whole thing is a set-up, but it is much easier for him to prove that he had authorisation. The rest is plain old character assassination.

      • ” That is not the charge, and to be clear, he denies it.”
        He has denied it previously, but he is not denying it in court. He is saying I do not dispute the prosecution claims I spend money on hookers but I deny that my spending union money on hookers was illegal.

        Pure and unadulterated legal suicide.

    • matt says:

      “He is saying I do not dispute the prosecution claims I spend money on hookers but I deny that my spending union money on hookers was illegal.”

      This is in your head. He is saying he does not dispute the claim the payments were made on his card. Please quote the part where Craig said “yes I spent this on hookers”.

      Kathy Jackson’s testimony was clear that her card was used by other people. Craig Thomson say exactly the same thing.

      • Now CT is not disputing testimony that he was a regular client of prostitute ‘Misty’. By refusing to dispute it he forces the magistrate t0 accept her testimony as true for context of his judgement.

        Given I see this as an issue of systemic corruption I am not so concerned about evidence of sex workers – these workers and their establishments have a dependency on the police that means there is plenty incentive to give false testimony. But by refusing to contest such testimony CT is surrendering to corruption. Perhaps that is understandable in his position,

        But the IA kool-aid drinkers who set around saying how marvelous CT is doing and what a marvelous defense he is mounting have a lot to answer. Some of them wittingly and some of them unwittingly have been vital to the process of destroying Craig Thomson.

        It was not the job of Thomson to assist the crown to prove their case “to save time”. If the crown wish to claim he used prostitutes with union funds, his response should have been “Prove it and prove it beyond reasonable doubt.”

        And that meant pointing to certain credit card transactions by one Jeff Jackson that appear to show payments to the exact same institution, which the exquisite silk representing him seemed strangely reticent to bring up.

  19. Nifty_26 says:

    Did you not meet up with Smith? Do you still have the same high regard for this bloke? on another note – If anyone lives in Adelaide and going to the cricket tomorrow you could make up a banner

    – We will give you back the Ashes if you agree to take back Tony Abbott.

    We should start organising protests at the footy, open air concerts, etc by displaying the truth about these people, Abbott, Abetz, Brandis, Bishop, Murdoch, Rienhart IPA, and others. Get the information out there rather than banners that support unions and other things make banners with facts about the people that are calling unions and other protesters thugs, dole bludgers, greenies, etc. Lets put the truth about them right back in their face and then watch the reporting, conversations and questions being talked about

  20. xiaoecho says:

    When you refer to ‘The media’ who does that come down to? The media are only the propaganda arm of the corporates as the Liberals are their political arm

  21. paddy2 says:

    I love the idea of the poms taking the idiot back to England.
    G0 for it Adelaide!

  22. Ryan says:

    Re the 2005 Bas statement. Where is the income?

    • wixxy says:

      It isn’t the complete BAS Statement, just the GST reporting section of it, hence no income shown

      • Ryan says:

        Does the union charge GST on union dues?
        The MYOB report generated should show income either GST at 10% or no tax.
        Why is income not shown on this report?

  23. Steve says:

    Any updates on what is happening?

  24. Fed up says:

    wixxy, will that allow time for going through those boxes and boxes of evidences and statements?

    I was in the belief that all the charges laid from NSW were dropped. Why then are we hearing the statements, and seeing call girls interview.

    I find it hard to believe any Madam would be concerned re the source of any money they received.

  25. clarittee says:

    The Brothel element is there to be used for maximum effect and it has been. Thomson predicted it from the first. This was a stitch up. All thee elements are there , the formula is a tried and proven one. Pyne mentioned many times the making of Thomson bankrupt would serve the purpose of ruining his career and reputation.
    The police co-operation in publicising this has been monumental and the timing exact. These are the sort of things that should be looked into with the Thomson/ Slipper cases. The Justice Rare’s comments on abuse of the court should have been front page, but it’s just as if it never happened. The Brandis relationship with the police needs looking into. If he has nothing to hide there is nothing to fear.. RIGHT?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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