Doggy vs Mollie: The Court Case

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I’m about to present before you the most distressing case. You must read all the evidence carefully and make your decision. Your vote will decide the fate of our defendant, Mollie and the plaintiff, Doggy.

Mollie: The defendant

Doggy: the Plaintiff

Please comment your thoughts below and then having carefully considered all the facts our guest judge HIS HONOR SAMUEL KIMMELL will make a ruling.

For those of you not familiar with the case, the defendant recently started a Paw Token competition, she would ask a question and those who answered correctly would receive the aforementioned Token. In a recent post, the defendant offered a FREE token to those who had failed to answer a question correctly. At this stage, the plaintiff had collected 3 paw tokens.

Here is out first piece of evidence. A screenshot of Mollie’s post Monday Mischief and Results:

Exhibit 2:

Argument from the Plaintiff: (can also be viewed here)

Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury I present to you our case:

When Mollie hereby the defendant, published on her blog the offer of a free token for everyone, she did not specified that such token was limited to those contenders who did not have earned a token up to that point of the competition.
As you can see on the picture, hereby Exhibit A, the defendant did not specified who was exempt of the above mention token.
Was not until Sir Doggy, hereby the plaintiff, enthusiastically celebrated the addition of this new given token to the 3 he had fairly won on the previous challenges presented to all contenders under equal conditions that the defendant decided to change the the offer.
Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the plaintiff is not alleging that the defendant maliciously changed the rules , whoever, we, as his legal representation believe that the oscillation on the rules have caused a great amount of emotional distress on the plaintiff as you can see on the video hereby Exhibit B, the plaintiff is acting erratically since he was informed by the defendant that the token he held dear for hours was not for him to keep.
We ask this court to consider and to grant to the plaintiff with the coin that was offered and also with a compensation for all the emotional distress as well as medical and legal bills.

Sincerely yours,
Attorney for the plaintiff

Statement from the defendant’s legal representative:

Misaki QC

Acting as Mollie’s legal representative, I fully refute the plaintiff’s argument. I would like to direct him, and the court, to Mollie’s blog post entitled ‘Naughty Monday and results’
Quote: ‘I fink everyone has at least one token now, if ya haven’t, yoooz all take this give ya a start.’
As you will see from this extract, it is clearly stated that those entrants who had not previously won a token were at liberty to accept a free one. As the plaintiff already had more than one token, this is does not apply.

Therefore, the plaintiff’s emotional distress was caused by his own willful misinterpretation of the rules and not the fault of the defendant.

The defendant’s reputation has been harmed by the injustice of this case and we move for a quick dismissal before more damage can be done.

Counter argument from the Plaintiff

NYT has published:

The statement released by Mrs. Molli’s defense in the case Sir Doggy and The People vs Mrs. Mollie, lacks evidence based on the legal ground. The defense makes reference to edited post published by the defendant.
On the opening argument of this case the accusation specified that the post mentioned by the defense was edited, a copy and transcript of the early version was submitted to The Court during the case opening.
The experts see this as a desperate measure to divert to attention of the jury and the general public.
It appears that Sir Doggy was not the only affected by the oscilation on the rules and offers of Mrs. Molly, here you can see another citizen also affected by this and we quote:

“Whisppy on September 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm said:

Heh heh….that’s very very naughty indeed! Hey, so we had one token, we got this right so that makes two tokens, then you are giving one to everyone so that makes it 3 tokens….right? LOL.”
When asked if he would sue, Whisppy’s legal representation refused to release an official statement, but emphasized that he was undergoing therapy after learning that the token given by the defendant was not longer his.
This case has uproar the population, the page “Indian Givers no more” of Facebook has more than 2 millions of visitors and have collected digital signatures to make sure this injustice doesn’t remain hidden.

Closing statement from the defendant

Firstly I wood’s like to say, Sorry for Alfies abscence…although it waz mostly his idea to do the Paw Token game..He’z just devistated…

Whatz can I sayz ….Beings taken to courtz waz neffer in our fawghtz. Wez tried to come upz wiff a fun games for allz youz to play…( Oh I wish Alf waz here to helpz me, hez good at this stuff! Sob Sniff, Sob Sniff )

Wez been accused of some ink and I’mz not quites sure what it is… Wez loves Doggy, Wez phoned the President to get him a Knighthood..Now that’s weal love..

He’z saying Wez owe him a Paw Token..Wez did put on our blog..All those dat don’tz have one yet, can take one…to get ya started.. How fair of Uz waz that?? Wez wanted everyone tooz have a chance of winning.. He already had 3. Wez have commited a crime..finking to much of our furbuddies…Tryin to elp’s them all. Yez, that’s our crime..tryin to show, how much Wez loves you all, even by helpin Doggy win that uffer competition..getting him the Knighthood..for a deed wellz done. He’z given wiff one Paw and taken wiff anuffer!!  ” Sorry your Honour, have youz a tissue? ” Remembering our Buddies Birfdayz, trying to surprize them….Wez been there, and tried to helps youz wiff ya problems and Wez alwayz tried to put’s a smile on yor face… It’z not about the winin wiff uz, it’s the takin part. If youz vote that Doggy should have that extra Token, that he haz not earned..then Wez will give it tooz him. You cannot sayz, that you neffer win our competitons, it’z not fair Doggy alwayz dose..If youz vote for him, yoz will neffer win a competition..Wez don’t cheat..bribe or blackmail..


Kitties and Doggies..Do Wez really need to prove our case? .It’s all there in BLACK and WHITE ! Wez nose the members of the jury willz do the right fing..WEZ REST OUR CASE!
Common Molliekins, lets go home and cuddle up..I lovez yoz, even though youz stuck me in the washin machine! )

A message from the Judge:


Members of the jury this is a very serious case and your decision must not be taken lightly. Please read the above carefully before forming your opinion.

If you find in favour of the Plaintiff, Doggy will be awarded an EXTRA paw token.

If you find in favour of the defendant, Doggy will NOT get the extra token.

The decision is yours.


84 Comments on “Doggy vs Mollie: The Court Case”

  1. Not Mollie is NOT GUILTY :-). How can you turn against a fur ball who was helping the majority who are no good at the guessing game. Doggy I believe you was on to a winner but wanted all the tokens for yourself …. bad doggy (Love you really) xxxx

    • Negative my dear Mythreemoggies.
      Please refer to the evidence, the defense is calling me greedy and attacking me reputation, this is perjury.
      I have not, under any circumstances ever, requested a token ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY for me, I’ve always stated that the token was offered to ALL, which would put us in equal condition.
      If you had 1 token prior to the offering, you would ended up with two, if I had 3 prior to the offering I would have ended with 4, the difference between us was going to be the same.
      The attorney for the defense has been clearly misinformed by the defendant.
      The defense is fighting a fight under false argument given by the defendant. I will not fall nor recur to the same tactics that the defense is using.
      I kindly ask each and every one of you to review the argument from day one, I never asked for a token ONLY for me, I’m fighting for the token that was promised to all. It would leave us on the same place we are currently on the contest, I’m just fighting for the defendant to keep her word, I’m fighting for those who don’t like odd numbers and instead of 3 want 4, I’m just fighting to eradicate the Indian Givers of this world.
      Why amI being under trial?
      Because I fight for what is right?

  2. Clowie says:

    Mollie is not guilty! Doggy is being a little bit naughty!

    • Please refer to the evidence, the defense is calling me greedy and attacking me reputation, this is perjury.
      I have not, under any circumstances ever, requested a token ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY for me, I’ve always stated that the token was offered to ALL, which would put us in equal condition.
      If you had 1 token prior to the offering, you would ended up with two, if I had 3 prior to the offering I would have ended with 4, the difference between us was going to be the same.
      The attorney for the defense has been clearly misinformed by the defendant.
      The defense is fighting a fight under false argument given by the defendant. I will not fall nor recur to the same tactics that the defense is using.
      I kindly ask each and every one of you to review the argument from day one, I never asked for a token ONLY for me, I’m fighting for the token that was promised to all. It would leave us on the same place we are currently on the contest, I’m just fighting for the defendant to keep her word, I’m fighting for those who don’t like odd numbers and instead of 3 want 4, I’m just fighting to eradicate the Indian Givers of this world.
      Why amI being under trial?
      Because I fight for what is right?

  3. Oh, this is a difficult case – we find in favour of both the defendant and the plaintif.

    For the defendant we suggest Miss Mollie covers her but in future with a simple caveat page on her site (such as then the huge amount of fun and games that both she and Alfie generate can continue and any quibbles can be responded to with a huge raspberry.

    For the Plaintif, we suggest Sir Doggy follows a course at quizcompetitorsanonymous. You can beat this addiction Doggy. We all love you and you don’t need to prove a thing to us.

    Now, can we get on with the competition? 😀

    PS – well done Misaki and Sammy for providing a platform and an arbitrator to resolve this situation amicably

  4. Mollie is NOT guilty !
    I think Doggy just is greedy !
    I don´t have any tokens at all and I´m a happy cat 🙂

  5. “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” -Mark Twain

  6. FYI:
    The defense states that the argument published on the NY Times was the counter claim filed by the plaintiff, that’s HERSAY, it says clearly on the top “NYT has published:”
    I ask you Your Honor, to dismiss the argument of the defense, they are lacking juridical assessment and they argument is self-incriminating, I’m not no position to suggest this Court how to advice the defense, however, we firmly believe that the defense is using this respectable Court as a platform to showcase her theatrical skills. Miss Molli, may I remdin you the ” Sorry your Honour, have youz a tissue? ”has been seen in Chicago, both the movie and the musical, and we all know that Roxie was up to no good. You should refrain from performing such despicable acts, this Jury will not fall for tears.

    Defense: Objection.

    Judge: Overruled! And Miss Molli, this not a theatre, so get yourself together and presentable and after recess your outfit better show less clivage, this is a Court House I believe I don’t have to remind you that.

  7. Mollie is in the right! Some of us with tiny brains really NEEDED that free Paw Token. It should not be gobbled up by larger-brained creatures who already have a million tokens stashed away. Stay strong, Mollie. From the looks of your attorney, you’re in good paws.

    Love and licks,

    • Genevieve,
      I know you may hear this a lot but I love your last name, makes me remember the golden girls.
      But I digress, please read what I wrote, I’m not asking for a token for me, that’s what she doesn’t get, I just want her to be loyal to her offers, tokens for all, that’s all!

  8. This is The Princess who was specifically invited by the Defendant to take part. I think the kindness shown by Mollie to me (The Princess) at this difficult time and the understanding that I am feeling lost and friendless speaks to the character of the Defendant.
    I therefore find Mollie not guilty and would encourage Doggy to read the rules of the competitions a little more carefully next time and I am quite sure that Doggy had no thoughts of cheating or deceiving and I am satisfied that it was just a mistake.
    I would like to add that my decision was in no way influenced by the fact that I was invited by the Defendant to take part in this case and is solely based on what I feel Zac would feel because as you know he was a Tibbie who was very just and I am trying to mature and live up to his expectations of me through this sad and scary time. – Zena

  9. Sammy says:

    ORDER IN THE COURT!!!!! I will clear this court from all observers if we cannot maintain a modicum of decorum in my courtroom! Now……Mollie, the court cleaning lady has provided you with a fresh supply of tissue – and a tranquilizer for you Doggy, so let us continue with the presentation of opinions and evidence ladies and gentlemen………thank you.

    Judge Kimmell

  10. Sammy says:

    Thank you Princess Zena for speaking on behalf of Mollie as a character witness. Your opinion has been duly noted. May the court extend its’ heartfelt condolences on your recent loss.

  11. Mollie says:

    well I never! Doggy, schmoggie…whatever his name or title…he is up to no good! Yeah, yeah…he was nice to give over his spot on that blog roll thingy to LLCD, but then again, they need it and deserve it more…just based on principle…in my mind anyways. Now, he shows his true color, black as I can see…and he tried to diss on Miss Mollie for his own ill advised greediness and maniacal drive to win at any cost…and he grabs with his muddy dirt digging paws for a token that WAS NOT OFFERED to ANY PAWTICPANT WHO ALREADY HAD AT LEAST ONE…and he already had more than one…shame, shame doggy do little…and I will not ad-dress you with a title…just sayin’…And for Miss Mollie I am sending some nice soft paw pats…Savannah

    • My, your ears have grown miss Savannah! Me thinks this is a wolf in cats clothing?

      • Mollie says:

        No it is Miss Savannah..she sent it to myz blog last night..Yoz can go ask her…

      • Mollie is right, I left that comment and I stand by it. I am a logical analytical cat…and this unfounded suit needs to be dismissed and let contestants get back to the GAME! There is no place in the anifamily blog world for this kind of Scmunder Game mentality…schmearing our own anifamily just cuz they in good faith offered something to those of us who had NOTHING…Doggy is ready to sacrifice all of us to WIN! End this now and let the Game begin again! Oh yeah, paw pats to my handsome Alfie who is devastated over this…just sayin’. Savannah

      • A perfectly reasonable case of thinking Miss Savvy had grown rather large and doglike from her Gravatar. We stand corrected Miss S and Miss M and shall leave the courtroom now. Do hope it is all resolved amicably.

  12. I just received a poisoned pen letter at my house from the defendant!!!

  13. Mollie says:

    Judge I mean yor Honor..Doggy haz put false Emails ( that he said I sent ) on his blog…This is slander..I nefffer sent these..Just check the writin..He’z is weal grown up..

  14. Court will take a brief recess to call in an expert email authenticator to determine if in fact these emails originated from Miss Mollie OR if Mr. Doggy has made a fraudulent claim. We will resume testimony in five minutes. You may use the litter box or visit the “grass patch” in the garden as you wish. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

  15. Um. Mollie is not guilty!?! I just had to follow Sammy over here and see what was going on.

  16. Court will now resume and come to order. No poison pen letter was issued forth from Mollie to Doggy and that was merely a mistake on Doggy’s part so there will be no contempt citation issued at this time…..however I will caution both defendant and plaintiff that no false claims or evidence will be allowed in this court henceforth and forthwith and all that other fancy talk judges do. I hope we can continue with a modicum of decorum?? Excellent!…….you may resume ladies and gentlemen.

    • Your honor, the defendaf shoul then remove exhibit A since it that’s the edited version of the first post, she decided to edited after all contender were asking and cebrating the free token.
      False advertisement, chamber o commerce will be duly informed.

      • Mollie says:

        Putz a sock in it….

      • Very respectful from you!
        Must we recur to vulgar language to make a point?

      • My client means no disrespect, however, we – and I sure the rest of the court – are tired of the constant fabrications in your story!
        Please stick to the truth so that our honourable judge will be able to make a fair and just ruling on the case.

      • The truth has been my flag since the beginning, I’m only asking do what she offered, a free token to ALL, I’m not asking any kind of especial favors, just the token that was offered to ALL.
        How hard is to get that right?
        Counselor, your defense has been built based of fantasies of the defendant, I’m sorry you got dragged into this, but you should read what I ask, never, not once have I asked for a token only for me.

      • That is as may be, but the point is that the token was ONLY on offer to those who didn’t already have one. And therefore, everyone who had one when the blogpost went live (including you – and me – for that matter) is not entitled to one.

      • Alas, there’s where you are wrong dear counselor, you seem to remain oblivious to the fact that your client edit that little detail after she noticed that everyone wa asking for the free token. I was not the only one tricked by your client, I however, am the only one who doesn’t fear her as to come forward and make public her wicked ways.
        I’m glad you see that I’m right, and that you now know that I’ve never asked for a special favor, I kindly ask you to take back that unecessary remark about me being greedy.

      • Do you have evidence to back up your claim? A copy of this alleged unedited version of the rules to prove your case?

  17. Order in the court! Ladies and gentlemen I must ask for you cease hurling accusations and spurious comments at each other….I will have ORDER in this courtroom puleeeeeeze!

    • Starting to feel sorry for Doggy he is getting a bit ganged up on :-(. He did say ALL not himself. Anyway you two can settle this out of court as you was once great fur buddies 🙂 furry hugs Henry xx

      • Thank you for your opinion mythreemoggies….if an out of court arbitration could be arranged between these parties, I’m quite sure the er…um…well….JUDGE….the attorneys and the plaintiff and defendant would have done that prior to coming to court….we are also quite sure that the involved parties will remain fur buddies in spite of this disagreement. At least we (that’s the royal “we”) hope so! 😀

      • Mollie says:

        He’s trying to getz ya to feel guilty for him..he wanted the token for he could win the prize…neffer gave youz lot a second fouwt!!!

  18. Fizz says:

    From what I can see, this was supposed to be a fun competion. As I never saw the post from the beginning I cannot tell if it has been changed, however the one which is published (top) clearly says for those who DON’T have a token yet. If that is true then I feel Doggy is cheating, it is also possible that Mollie had originally miss-worded it and when realising her mistake changed the wording to make it clearer. So with the wisdom of King Soloman himself, I hearby pass the following judgement…. cancell the competition. If you can’t all play nice & fair then don’t play at all.

  19. Ladies and gentlemen it would seem that the heart of this dispute rests within the content of (a) the original contest announcement rules, (b) the follow-up “clarification” of the contest by the defendant, (c) the interpretation of said clarification by all contest participants, and (d) something else which I can’t remember because I’m beginning to get confused! Unless it can be POSITIVELY (PAWSITIVELY??) proven one way or the other, this case will be difficult to bring to a conclusion. Anybody for a lunch break??????

    Judge Samuel Kimmell…….

  20. Goose says:

    Not Guilty! How can an act of compassion we a bad thing. Not Guilty!

    • The court thanks you Goose for speaking up and asking for a Not Quilty verdict… the conclusion of this hearing I will of course take ALL opinions and testimony into consideration…..:D

  21. FleaByte says:

    I’d have to vote for Mollie, in this instance. Mostly because I know more about Molly and Mollie’s character than I do about Doggy. Mollie is a dog of impeccable grammar.

  22. Only a short visit, it’s really not our day and we have to solve unwelcome things here , sorry. But anyway, please don’t forget that Doggy wants the free Token for ALL contestants …he was like the ‘Dogin Hood of Blogwood Forest’… Maybe Judge Samuel starts a poll on his blog and the world-wide-web-jury can made their decision… or he will find another solomonic way. Hope, we can solve all problems and issues without aftereffects. I think Judge Samuel Kimmell will be wise in his judgement…

    • Thank you Mr. Easy for your complimentary and concessionary approach to commenting on the case. I hope to render a decision which will be satisfactory to both parties….by the conclusion of this court proceeding. I also appreciate your comment regarding my judiciary talents (such as they are)…..we aim to please here in the COURT OF ANIMAL FAIRNESS.

  23. catfromhell says:

    Dear Sammy, Molly and Doggy
    Why is Doggy being so dog in the manger? If her already has 3 Paws what does he need the 4th for! He is already ahead of the game? And Me thinks that Molly and Alfie was very clear. That’s what me thinks your honor!
    Me sends kisses to all of yous anyway
    PS if it was my court, me would has just said “Off With Their Heads” and gotten on the the croquet game

    • Thank you Your Royal Highness for gracing the court with your presence at this lowly hearing. Had we known to expect you, the Royal Red Carpet most certainly would have been unrolled for your dainty feet. We do appreciate your thoughts on this matter however. At this juncture “off with their heads” is certainly still on the table (not the heads – just the ruling of course….). Please feel free to use the COURT OF ANIMAL FAIRNESS’ croquet court any time. Just tell them “Judge Sammy” sent you. Speaking on behalf of all of us, thank you for the royal kisses…..:D

  24. Brian says:

    Not guilty by reason of insanity! Oh, not their insanity, ours!

  25. I stand by all my previous statements, including the reply to those who accused Miss Mollie of making a false statement about my comment left last night, no names purrlease, and…I know Judge Samuel Kimmel will make the best judgement so let’s let him decide and get back to the game

  26. Hey Misaki,

    I don’t normally get involved in Tiffs – even at the Dog Park – Mum calls me Switzerland!!

    However, Mollie is one of my Girlies and I feel honor bound to defend her reputation – she is just awesome and she did the contest out of the goodness of her little fluffy heart!! Anyway, I thought Alfie was overseeing the fairness of it all, did he fail in his duties?

    I’m voting for Mollie’s innocence!! Sorry Doggy, gotta look after the Girlies! 🙂

    Wags to all,

    Your pal Snoopy 🙂

  27. Kyla says:

    As a member of the jury, I’ve heard enough. I won’t let the fact that Doggy is ahead of me by one token in the competition influence my decision. Doggy is not following the intent of the defendant. Those are her tokens, her game, and she gets to make up the rules. Molly is not guilty and Doggy is fined two tokens plus one for court costs. Doggy now has one token. No appeal possible because we are the highest court in Blogville.

    • Thank you Kyla for appearing here before the court to express your opinion and suggest a verdict in the aforementioned case. All of these issues are of the utmost importance and are being considered as testimony is reviewed prior to the pronouncement of a verdict.

  28. Dear Misaki, Litchi has officially designated herself as Mediator to the Dogs and has posted a Plea Bargain request. I would ask that the judge and jury read said Plea Bargain and see if there is any way that this conflict can be resolved peacefully. Regards Litch – Dog Mediator.

    • As Mollie’s legal counsellor I fully support Litchi’s position and will advise my client to seriously consider the options that Litchi has laid out.
      I, too, am hoping for a swift and amicable end to this regrettable situation.

      • Thank you Counselor for presenting the offer made by Litchi to mediate with the offering of a Plea Bargain request. We will most certainly take this into consideration as a way to resolve this situation swiftly and fairly. The court is appreciative of Litchi’s assistance.

  29. catchatcaren says:

    sorry, but since we can’t seem to win ANY tokens…we’re pleading the fifth!

  30. Very difficult decision… very difficult, indeed. I believe the question must be asked… what is the value of the free token? Well, it’s free, so… If the plaintiff did not receive the value of something that was ‘free’ did he, in fact, suffer any damages? If no damages were suffered, I’m not sure he has a case!

  31. While we understand the other party’s concern, we have to aqree that Molly did state it was for those who didn’t have any tokens yet. So we are choosing Molly’s side of this court battle.

    But please, let’s resolve this matter without destroying your frinedship. We collies would hate to see you on Court TV!

  32. Mollie says:

    Off wiff his head…Bark Bark…Boom Boom!

  33. dogdaz says:

    We are American and ‘plead the 5th Amendment’ – Lulu and Sofie.

  34. I really cannot take sides in some Woofie Dispute that is of no concern to the World of the Feline. Bark on, my little friends, whilst we kitties ponder the meaning of the Universe.

    I loves you anyway, Mollie. Head-butts and nosetaps!

  35. Ladies and gentlemen. As the day is grinding to a close here in court, I want to encourage you all to continue to comment as you wish here BUT after all opinions are taken into consideration, and all offers which are currently on, around, under, beside, or anywhere NEAR “the table” will be likewise considered, I will be announcing the outcome of this case tomorrow morning. It’s been most gratifying to me as an over-the-hill-coming-out-of-retirement-for-this-case judge (whew!) to see how everyone has participated in attempting to bring this case to a happy conclusion.

    Judge Samuel Kimmell, Esq.

  36. Our closing plea is that everyone is happy and freindly again. We have one token (we think) and we award it to Doggy (precendent is already set). So, if Doggy accepts this, we can’t imagine what the problem might be. Case dismissed? xACx

  37. Mollie says:

    Youz keeps ya Token AC…Youz won it fair and squarez..All willz be reavelled tomorrowz..wez have sat round the table for hourz and hourz…Youz so kind xx00xx

  38. CATachresis says:

    We have had a discussion and feel we must vote for Mollie as she was being generous and considerate and there ain’t no law that can fight that!!!!

  39. We, the Three Moggies, would request that the most honourable, Judge Samuel Kimmell, Esq. dismiss this case forthwith due to a most palpable case of cat-tempt of court!
    The large number of comments and counter-comments on this case make it impossible for Mollie to have a fair trial!!
    Mollie – if that doesn’t work you might want to consider locking yourself in the Ecuadorian Embassy…
    Henry, Archie & Oscar; QC, QED, OCD.

  40. prancer pie says:

    Precious of Prancer Pie here: Paw token, schmaw token, why don’t ya’ll just cram them up your… PRECIOUS!!!
    Prancer Pie here: Sorry bout that outburst from Precious. We think that the defendant, Mollie, is right. These is trumped-up charges and this case should be dismissed post-haste!

Please leave a reply I'd love to hear from you!!

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s