Passing the Private Patrol Operator license PPO test CAN be easy-- if you know what to study. Most applicants are frustated with multiple failures, because so much of the test is about running a business, not about doing security work.
You need to know the answers to about 500 questions to be able to answer any of the five different 100-question tests that the test center issues you. You can find full study material at the website (click here:) PPO Sample Test Questions.
The State of California requires that a PPO license applicant possess at least 2000 paid hours of experience as a guard, bodyguard, patrolman, or similar.
Did a lie-detector challenge decide who became California's new governor?
Did a lie-detector challenge decide who became California's new governor?
A Los Angeles Times reporter's editorial, titled:
Meg, let's get together for that lie-detector test
OK, Meg, I've got a polygraph expert lined up.
That's right. In response to gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s pledge that she would take a lie-detector test to prove that she and her husband didn’t know they had an illegal immigrant cleaning their house for nine years, I made a couple of calls and got it all set up.
I spoke to John Grogan. It turns out that Grogan, who has been doing polygraph exams for 23 years, has been following campaign news.
Before I could complete a single sentence, Grogan said:
"Oh, sure. I'll test Meg Whitman for you."
Grogan has done thousands of polygraph exams and considers himself one of the most reliable lie-detector guys in the world. I was thinking maybe I could persuade our cousins at KTLA to broadcast the polygraph exam on live television, if Whitman goes for it, and Grogan said that would be no problem at all.
"I'll go anywhere at any time," he said.
So what do you say, Meg? There still seem to be a few discrepancies on what you and your husband knew about the housekeeper and when you knew it.
Out of the goodness of my heart and in the public interest, I'm offering you the chance to clear it all up, and you know where you can contact me. As for readers, here's your chance to participate.
As soon as possible, send us your questions for Meg regarding her maid, her campaign promises or her time at Goldman Sachs. I'll try my best to have some of your queries added to Meg's polygraph exam.
Talk about direct democracy.
Don't delay; just ask away.
(publication of this paraphrased news item to this blog was delayed as to follow the PEOA 'no politics' policy)
A Los Angeles Times reporter's editorial, titled:
Meg, let's get together for that lie-detector test
OK, Meg, I've got a polygraph expert lined up.
That's right. In response to gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s pledge that she would take a lie-detector test to prove that she and her husband didn’t know they had an illegal immigrant cleaning their house for nine years, I made a couple of calls and got it all set up.
I spoke to John Grogan. It turns out that Grogan, who has been doing polygraph exams for 23 years, has been following campaign news.
Before I could complete a single sentence, Grogan said:
"Oh, sure. I'll test Meg Whitman for you."
Grogan has done thousands of polygraph exams and considers himself one of the most reliable lie-detector guys in the world. I was thinking maybe I could persuade our cousins at KTLA to broadcast the polygraph exam on live television, if Whitman goes for it, and Grogan said that would be no problem at all.
"I'll go anywhere at any time," he said.
So what do you say, Meg? There still seem to be a few discrepancies on what you and your husband knew about the housekeeper and when you knew it.
Out of the goodness of my heart and in the public interest, I'm offering you the chance to clear it all up, and you know where you can contact me. As for readers, here's your chance to participate.
As soon as possible, send us your questions for Meg regarding her maid, her campaign promises or her time at Goldman Sachs. I'll try my best to have some of your queries added to Meg's polygraph exam.
Talk about direct democracy.
Don't delay; just ask away.
(publication of this paraphrased news item to this blog was delayed as to follow the PEOA 'no politics' policy)
The Lie, the Bluff and False Confessions
Research Review: The Lie, the Bluff and False Confessions
One of the most controversial aspects of criminal interrogation involves the use of trickery and deceit. While Federal and State Supreme Courts routinely uphold confessions that were obtained from interrogations during which the suspect was falsely told that there was incriminating evidence, academicians and psychologists have argued that lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence is unethical, erodes the integrity of the criminal justice system and may induce an innocent suspect to confess.
Considering the necessity of dealing with criminal suspects on a somewhat lower moral plane than the average public, Supreme Court justices have rejected the ethical arguments. While there have been some restrictions placed on the use of trickery and deceit during an interrogation, e.g., manufacturing evidence against a suspect, the prevailing logic has been that merely lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence would not be apt to cause an innocent person to confess. As a recent appeals court ruled, "such misrepresentations (lying about having evidence), of course may cause a suspect to confess, but causation alone does not constitute coercion..."1
A recent study challenges this basic premise.2 The authors offer the paradoxical hypothesis that lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence actually encourages innocent people to confess. The study used a cheating paradigm in which participants (college students) were instructed not to help another person (a confederate within the study) with a particular task. In half of the cases, the other person asked the participant for help, which most provided. All participants were then accused of helping the confederate with the task and advised that cheating would be a violation of the University's honor code. Under this condition, none of the innocent participants confessed and 87% of the guilty participants confessed.
A second group of half innocent and half guilty suspects were not only accused of cheating but also told that there was a hidden video camera in the room which would eventually reveal their guilt or innocence. Under this circumstance 93% of the guilty suspects confessed and 50% of the innocent suspects confessed.
To anyone who has conducted actual interrogations, this finding makes absolutely no sense. The explanation can be found within the procedures used during the mock interrogation. As it turned out, these innocent participants didn't confess to helping the other person at all. Rather, they signed a prepared statement to that effect. Further, and of most importance, they were reassured that if the hidden camera exonerated them they would not get into any trouble by signing the statement. According to the study, the participants were then told, "stop wasting my time and sign this," which almost all of the guilty suspects did as well as half of the innocent suspects.
If this interrogation tactic were used during an actual criminal interrogation, the confession would be suppressed in a heartbeat. Encouraging suspects to sign a prepared confession by offering them a promise that if future evidence exonerates the suspect the confession will not be used against them, clearly shocks the conscience of the court and community.3 In other words, the innocent participants in this study were manipulated into believing that signing the confession would not result in any negative consequences. The tactic falls just short of having the suspect sign a blank document, which the investigator later fills in.
In real-life interrogations suspects are fully aware that their confession is an admission of guilt. In real-life interrogations if false statements are made to a suspect with respect to evidence, it is that the evidence clearly implicates the suspect in the crime, e.g., "We've got a witness who saw you leave her apartment!" or "We've got your fingerprints from the murder weapon!" Under this circumstance, an innocent suspect would immediately recognize that the evidence could not exist (or was manufactured) and the suspect would be more motivated to maintain their innocence. Certainly the innocent suspect would not be encouraged to falsely confess, as suggested by this research.
In conclusion, this study is a prime example illustrating the dangers of generalizing laboratory research findings to real-life situations. In an effort to prove their hypothesis, Perillo and Kassin have ignored legal guidelines regulating interrogation practices. They created an interrogation scenario that is not advocated by any authority in the field of interrogation that we are aware of, and certainly not by John E. Reid and Associates. Hopefully courts will recognize that any laboratory hypothesis can be proven if one manipulates research variables in a manner favorable to the hypothesis.
1 State v. Perez, WI, 2010
2 Perillo, J. and Kassin, S, "Inside Interrogation: The Lie, The Bluff and False Confessions" Law and Human Behavior, Aug. 2010
3 Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731,89 S. Ct. 1420 (1969)
--- printed with permission; PEOA is a longtime Reid member, and can issue a discount code for Reid.com seminars and books.
One of the most controversial aspects of criminal interrogation involves the use of trickery and deceit. While Federal and State Supreme Courts routinely uphold confessions that were obtained from interrogations during which the suspect was falsely told that there was incriminating evidence, academicians and psychologists have argued that lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence is unethical, erodes the integrity of the criminal justice system and may induce an innocent suspect to confess.
Considering the necessity of dealing with criminal suspects on a somewhat lower moral plane than the average public, Supreme Court justices have rejected the ethical arguments. While there have been some restrictions placed on the use of trickery and deceit during an interrogation, e.g., manufacturing evidence against a suspect, the prevailing logic has been that merely lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence would not be apt to cause an innocent person to confess. As a recent appeals court ruled, "such misrepresentations (lying about having evidence), of course may cause a suspect to confess, but causation alone does not constitute coercion..."1
A recent study challenges this basic premise.2 The authors offer the paradoxical hypothesis that lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence actually encourages innocent people to confess. The study used a cheating paradigm in which participants (college students) were instructed not to help another person (a confederate within the study) with a particular task. In half of the cases, the other person asked the participant for help, which most provided. All participants were then accused of helping the confederate with the task and advised that cheating would be a violation of the University's honor code. Under this condition, none of the innocent participants confessed and 87% of the guilty participants confessed.
A second group of half innocent and half guilty suspects were not only accused of cheating but also told that there was a hidden video camera in the room which would eventually reveal their guilt or innocence. Under this circumstance 93% of the guilty suspects confessed and 50% of the innocent suspects confessed.
To anyone who has conducted actual interrogations, this finding makes absolutely no sense. The explanation can be found within the procedures used during the mock interrogation. As it turned out, these innocent participants didn't confess to helping the other person at all. Rather, they signed a prepared statement to that effect. Further, and of most importance, they were reassured that if the hidden camera exonerated them they would not get into any trouble by signing the statement. According to the study, the participants were then told, "stop wasting my time and sign this," which almost all of the guilty suspects did as well as half of the innocent suspects.
If this interrogation tactic were used during an actual criminal interrogation, the confession would be suppressed in a heartbeat. Encouraging suspects to sign a prepared confession by offering them a promise that if future evidence exonerates the suspect the confession will not be used against them, clearly shocks the conscience of the court and community.3 In other words, the innocent participants in this study were manipulated into believing that signing the confession would not result in any negative consequences. The tactic falls just short of having the suspect sign a blank document, which the investigator later fills in.
In real-life interrogations suspects are fully aware that their confession is an admission of guilt. In real-life interrogations if false statements are made to a suspect with respect to evidence, it is that the evidence clearly implicates the suspect in the crime, e.g., "We've got a witness who saw you leave her apartment!" or "We've got your fingerprints from the murder weapon!" Under this circumstance, an innocent suspect would immediately recognize that the evidence could not exist (or was manufactured) and the suspect would be more motivated to maintain their innocence. Certainly the innocent suspect would not be encouraged to falsely confess, as suggested by this research.
In conclusion, this study is a prime example illustrating the dangers of generalizing laboratory research findings to real-life situations. In an effort to prove their hypothesis, Perillo and Kassin have ignored legal guidelines regulating interrogation practices. They created an interrogation scenario that is not advocated by any authority in the field of interrogation that we are aware of, and certainly not by John E. Reid and Associates. Hopefully courts will recognize that any laboratory hypothesis can be proven if one manipulates research variables in a manner favorable to the hypothesis.
1 State v. Perez, WI, 2010
2 Perillo, J. and Kassin, S, "Inside Interrogation: The Lie, The Bluff and False Confessions" Law and Human Behavior, Aug. 2010
3 Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731,89 S. Ct. 1420 (1969)
--- printed with permission; PEOA is a longtime Reid member, and can issue a discount code for Reid.com seminars and books.
Need our discount code for interview & interrogation seminars and books by Reid.com?
Need our discount code for interview & interrogation seminars and books by Reid.com?
As a long-time member of the Reid Group of Preferred Associations, PEOA has its own discount code for members.
peoamail@aol.com
As a long-time member of the Reid Group of Preferred Associations, PEOA has its own discount code for members.
peoamail@aol.com
Used computerized instrument needed in Spain
Used computerized instrument needed in Spain
peoamail@aol.com
peoamail@aol.com
Arizona Department of Health Services seeking bids on polygraph services
Arizona Department of Health Services seeking bids on polygraph services
peoamail@aol.com
peoamail@aol.com
Used LX-4000 Lafayette needed in Atlanta
Used LX-4000 Lafayette needed in Atlanta Georgia
peoamail@aol.com
peoamail@aol.com
It's time to add some new white sticky GSR/EDA electodes to your polygraph supplies!
It's time to add some new white sticky GSR/EDA electodes to your polygraph supplies!
If you don't already use them, shame on you. They replace the stainless-steel and velcro heads when the fingertips are giving no GSR/EDA tracing due to dehydration or other interference. Two go on the palm of the hand; they bear a snap connector. If you are a busy examiner, you have had situations of little or no GSR/EDA tracings; using white stickies on the palm likely would have cured that.
If you already have some, it's a safe bet that they are past their 18-month shelf-life. Don't let that they still are sticky fool you-- what goes bad first is that the electrode's wet gel in their centers will evaporate, killing the good electrodermal connection.
Vermed (800-245-4025 x1203, ask for 'Pearl', www.Vermed.com) carries the popular disposable types for polygraph examiners. The 1" X 1 3/4" rectangular disposable electrodes (part #A10013-100S, also known as 'GSR-13') are only available in a 1000-piece $163 case order (that works out to less than 17 cents each).
For examiners who have been blaming GSR/EDA problems on their instrument or its software, using white stickies almost always solves the problem. We have observed sxaminers ramble on to excess about faulty instrument software when in reality it was just a dehydration issue that could have been cured by use of 'white stickies'.
TIP: remind examinees to drink plenty of water (not soda or coffee) in the hour or two prior to the exam, to help assure hydration.
If you don't already use them, shame on you. They replace the stainless-steel and velcro heads when the fingertips are giving no GSR/EDA tracing due to dehydration or other interference. Two go on the palm of the hand; they bear a snap connector. If you are a busy examiner, you have had situations of little or no GSR/EDA tracings; using white stickies on the palm likely would have cured that.
If you already have some, it's a safe bet that they are past their 18-month shelf-life. Don't let that they still are sticky fool you-- what goes bad first is that the electrode's wet gel in their centers will evaporate, killing the good electrodermal connection.
Vermed (800-245-4025 x1203, ask for 'Pearl', www.Vermed.com) carries the popular disposable types for polygraph examiners. The 1" X 1 3/4" rectangular disposable electrodes (part #A10013-100S, also known as 'GSR-13') are only available in a 1000-piece $163 case order (that works out to less than 17 cents each).
For examiners who have been blaming GSR/EDA problems on their instrument or its software, using white stickies almost always solves the problem. We have observed sxaminers ramble on to excess about faulty instrument software when in reality it was just a dehydration issue that could have been cured by use of 'white stickies'.
TIP: remind examinees to drink plenty of water (not soda or coffee) in the hour or two prior to the exam, to help assure hydration.
Examiner seeks employment in Haiti
He is a 1982 Certified Member of the Florida Polygraph Association
peoamail@aol.com
peoamail@aol.com
Like-new Lafayette LX4000 instrument for sale
Like-new Lafayette LX4000 instrument for sale
Austin Texas
includes countermeasure pad
peoamail@aol.com
Austin Texas
includes countermeasure pad
peoamail@aol.com
A day on the member's Internet referral listserve, thanks to PEOA's 150+ polygraph websites!
A day on the member's Internet referral listserve, thanks to PEOA's 150+ polygraph websites!
Merced CA: relationship, both parties
Dearborn MI: test 4 employees
Montreal or Quebec Canada: relationship / himself
Kenner LA: relationship
Austin TX: relationship
Waterbury Center Vermont: neighbor dispute
Hollywood CA: filmed exams for a reality TV show
Henderson NV: relationship / both
Brooklyn NY: relationship
Chicago IL: immigration exam for a law firm
Milwauke WI: 8 employees need testing
Philadelphia PA: family issue
Phoenix AZ: relationship
Belton TX: 3 employees
Grand View IA: crim-himself
Modesto CA: relationship
Mexico City MX: relationship
Union County NJ: court matter
Seattle WA: relationship
Bryant TX: in custody / Federal
Albany GA: relationship
Phoenix AZ: relationship - a US soldier in Japan wants his girlfriend in the US to be tested
Reno NV: relationship
Charlotte NC: relationship-both
St Louis MO: relationship
Hayward WI: statement verification
Racine WI: relationship
Los Angeles CA: 5 employees
Philadelphia PA: relationship
Cherry Valley AR: relationship
Chicago IL: relationship
Boise ID: 2 employees
San Francisco CA: immigration/asylum testing needed for law firm
Miami FL: relationship-both
Long Island NY: relationship
Merced CA: relationship, both parties
Dearborn MI: test 4 employees
Montreal or Quebec Canada: relationship / himself
Kenner LA: relationship
Austin TX: relationship
Waterbury Center Vermont: neighbor dispute
Hollywood CA: filmed exams for a reality TV show
Henderson NV: relationship / both
Brooklyn NY: relationship
Chicago IL: immigration exam for a law firm
Milwauke WI: 8 employees need testing
Philadelphia PA: family issue
Phoenix AZ: relationship
Belton TX: 3 employees
Grand View IA: crim-himself
Modesto CA: relationship
Mexico City MX: relationship
Union County NJ: court matter
Seattle WA: relationship
Bryant TX: in custody / Federal
Albany GA: relationship
Phoenix AZ: relationship - a US soldier in Japan wants his girlfriend in the US to be tested
Reno NV: relationship
Charlotte NC: relationship-both
St Louis MO: relationship
Hayward WI: statement verification
Racine WI: relationship
Los Angeles CA: 5 employees
Philadelphia PA: relationship
Cherry Valley AR: relationship
Chicago IL: relationship
Boise ID: 2 employees
San Francisco CA: immigration/asylum testing needed for law firm
Miami FL: relationship-both
Long Island NY: relationship
New PEOA polygraph members of the last month, from:
New PEOA polygraph members of the last month, from:
Guatamala
California
New York
Ohio
South Carolina
Texas
Guatamala
California
New York
Ohio
South Carolina
Texas
How can you already know that a caller will never have a polygraph exam done?
Overall, PEOA members average 50-70% of calls & referrals that actually turn into paid exams.
Some of the other callers are just 'looky-loos', competitors, bluffers trying to scare their girlfriends into confessing, and various other time-wasters.
Some examiners have previously said that they know instantly if a person will be engaging their services or not. So, we polled a group of successful examiners, asking them "How can you already know that a caller will never actually have a polygraph exam done?".
Their answers included:
"If they insist on an e-mail conversation only (no phone), it will not go"
"Requiring you to listen to 30 seconds of rap music before their voice mail message comes on is a sign of no-work-here"
"Calls after midnight virtually never become an exam"
"Telephone calls from 'blocked' or 'withheld' numbers for whatever reason almost never become an actual polygraph exam"
"Getting several calls from a person in a short period usually means too emotional now, and he/she will not show up for their appointment"
"When you call them back and get a message of either 'Voice Mail Full' or 'Voice Mail Not Set Up Yet', it's not going to happen"
"When you hear the caller being told word-for-word what to say to you by someone in the background, its just another control-freak trying to use polygraph as a free scare"
"When they want to discuss their entire relationship problems by phone, it is usually someone who needs a friend and wont be hiring you"
"If they say 'Cost is no concern', don't count on it"
"(If they contact you by e-mail) The longer their e-mail, the lower the chance they will be hiring an examiner"
"When the caller insists that he be present during the test because he doesn't trust his girlfriend alone with an examiner, we have a control-freak that often is putting her through her 2nd or 3rd exam because he's not happy with hearing NDI"
"They will not be showing up if they want to schedule many weeks into the future"
"Should the caller insist that an examiner be either a woman or a very old man, good luck"
"If they say that they will keep their appointment with you depending on if their tax return or some other money arrives, it will be a no-show"
"A woman crying as she tells that she needs to have herself tested because her guy thinks she is cheating, with a baby or two screaming in the background during the call, will not turn into an exam"
Obviously not 100% for certain, but it was agreed that the above is solidly accurate.
Some of the other callers are just 'looky-loos', competitors, bluffers trying to scare their girlfriends into confessing, and various other time-wasters.
Some examiners have previously said that they know instantly if a person will be engaging their services or not. So, we polled a group of successful examiners, asking them "How can you already know that a caller will never actually have a polygraph exam done?".
Their answers included:
"If they insist on an e-mail conversation only (no phone), it will not go"
"Requiring you to listen to 30 seconds of rap music before their voice mail message comes on is a sign of no-work-here"
"Calls after midnight virtually never become an exam"
"Telephone calls from 'blocked' or 'withheld' numbers for whatever reason almost never become an actual polygraph exam"
"Getting several calls from a person in a short period usually means too emotional now, and he/she will not show up for their appointment"
"When you call them back and get a message of either 'Voice Mail Full' or 'Voice Mail Not Set Up Yet', it's not going to happen"
"When you hear the caller being told word-for-word what to say to you by someone in the background, its just another control-freak trying to use polygraph as a free scare"
"When they want to discuss their entire relationship problems by phone, it is usually someone who needs a friend and wont be hiring you"
"If they say 'Cost is no concern', don't count on it"
"(If they contact you by e-mail) The longer their e-mail, the lower the chance they will be hiring an examiner"
"When the caller insists that he be present during the test because he doesn't trust his girlfriend alone with an examiner, we have a control-freak that often is putting her through her 2nd or 3rd exam because he's not happy with hearing NDI"
"They will not be showing up if they want to schedule many weeks into the future"
"Should the caller insist that an examiner be either a woman or a very old man, good luck"
"If they say that they will keep their appointment with you depending on if their tax return or some other money arrives, it will be a no-show"
"A woman crying as she tells that she needs to have herself tested because her guy thinks she is cheating, with a baby or two screaming in the background during the call, will not turn into an exam"
Obviously not 100% for certain, but it was agreed that the above is solidly accurate.
ABC films 'The (Jon Benet) Ramsey Polygraphs-- 10 years later', with John Grogan
ABC films 'The (Jon Benet) Ramsey Polygraphs-- 10 years later', with John Grogan.
Soon to air on a news show, it discusses the exams conducted at the time, as well as changes in polygraph science since then.
Polygraph examiner John Grogan has 23 years of extensive lie-detection experience, with more than 5000 court-verified completed exams. He conducts exams in several states for the public, businesses, and agencies city through federal. He has more than 600 media appearances involving the investigative and lie-detection professions.
Soon to air on a news show, it discusses the exams conducted at the time, as well as changes in polygraph science since then.
Polygraph examiner John Grogan has 23 years of extensive lie-detection experience, with more than 5000 court-verified completed exams. He conducts exams in several states for the public, businesses, and agencies city through federal. He has more than 600 media appearances involving the investigative and lie-detection professions.
Richmond VA examiner seeking to buy a used Lafayette LX-4000 computerized polygraph instrument
Richmond VA examiner seeking to buy a used Lafayette LX-4000 computerized polygraph instrument
peoamail@aol.com
peoamail@aol.com
Used Lafayette or Limestone computerized polygraph instrument needed for purchase in Central Kansas
Used Lafayette or Limestone computerized polygraph instrument needed for purchase in Central Kansas
peoamail@aol.com
peoamail@aol.com
With friends like this, . . .
(from PEOA's members-only all-day polygraph referral internet listserve)
Cincinnati Ohio
Woman is missing $51,000.
Only friends have been in her home . . .
peoamail@aol.com
www.peoa.US
Cincinnati Ohio
Woman is missing $51,000.
Only friends have been in her home . . .
peoamail@aol.com
www.peoa.US
Kansas City Missouri polygraph services
Kansas City Missouri polygraph services:
Are you an examiner that covers this area?
PEOA has increased its polygraph marketing coverage for this area, and can refer requests to competent examiners.
We have also increased our polygraph marketing coverage for other major cities in Missouri (St Louis, Independence, Springfield, Columbia, Lee's Summit, O'Fallon, and more), and many cities in Kansas (Wichita, Overland Park, Kansas City, Topeka, Lawrence, Olathe, and more) as well.
peoamail@aol.com
Visit www.peoa.US
Are you an examiner that covers this area?
PEOA has increased its polygraph marketing coverage for this area, and can refer requests to competent examiners.
We have also increased our polygraph marketing coverage for other major cities in Missouri (St Louis, Independence, Springfield, Columbia, Lee's Summit, O'Fallon, and more), and many cities in Kansas (Wichita, Overland Park, Kansas City, Topeka, Lawrence, Olathe, and more) as well.
peoamail@aol.com
Visit www.peoa.US
Polygraph examination demonstrations needed for 'Fokkers' movie-premiere parties nationwide / several major cities
Polygraph examination demonstrations needed for 'Fokkers' movie-premiere parties nationwide / several major cities
peoamail@aol.com
peoamail@aol.com
Is he a 'tenant' or is he a 'squatter'?
(from PEOA's members-only all-day polygraph referral internet listserve)
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Arrested as a 'squatter', he wants a polygraph exam to show he paid the owner (who denies it and had him arrested) to rent the apartment
peoamail@aol.com
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Arrested as a 'squatter', he wants a polygraph exam to show he paid the owner (who denies it and had him arrested) to rent the apartment
peoamail@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
