The electoral tribunal validates the fraud

Unanimously, the electoral tribunal of the Federal Judicial Power, the TRIFE for short, decided to reject the demand of López Obrador’s coalition to recount the votes, one by one, polling place by polling place. Using the petty, casuistic, legalistic argument, that the coalition failed to prove the existence of irregularities but in half the districts and, in them, only in about 11,800 polling places (out of about 134,500), the TRIFE rejected the full recount.

While the TRIFE ruling is not surprising to those who know a little of the history of the Mexico’s judiciary, it is a big let down to — among many others — the working poor (about half of Mexico’s population), a significant portion of whom decided to pursue an improvement in their social condition within the parameters set by López Obrador, namely, first, the ballot and, now, the defense of the ballot by means of pacific, non-violent civil disobedience.

As a reminder of the volcanic forces stirring up in Mexico’s social subsoil, we could allude to the conflict in Oaxaca, where the teachers were engaged in a protracted battle for better wages and a larger education budget with an increasingly repressive state government backed up by the federal government. Or we could mention that, in southeastern Mexico, in Chiapas, over 12 years ago, a group of Indians abandoned any hope that the civic, peaceful ways to address their social disadvantage would do them justice. Organized in the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, they launched an armed insurrection.

While their armed struggle was suspended, their demands have not been met nor have they abandoned their arms or militancy. The PAN, with Vicente Fox, promised to solve the conflict in Chiapas in 15 minutes, but that turned out to be one among the many promises the PAN and Fox did not keep.

While the rich and the middle class in Mexico would like for the working poor to disappear from the political stage and only show up to do the menial work that keeps things running, they are not going to disappear. In fact, without a change in economic policy along the lines laid out by López Obrador, it is very hard to imagine a serious reversal in the trend towards more inequality and social injustice in Mexico. Therefore, the conditions that generate social discontent in Mexico will persist and, most likely, even grow. This at a time when the U.S. economy may get into a rough spot and the demagogues in U.S. Congress may make it harder for Mexican workers to migrate.

The TRIFE has proved to be blind and deaf to the plight of the working poor. With legal technicalities, it has provided cover to the fraud. In a previous blog note, I expressed concern that the TRIFE might be unable or may not want to join the dots: the irregularities shown by López Obrador’s coalition was a sample that justified opening all the electoral packages — like the tip of an iceberg. The main argument could not be technical. In Mexico’s context, the victims of electoral fraud, López Obrador and (more importantly) those who supported him with their votes, had to be treated like the victims of a political rape. The TRIFE couldn’t place on them the whole burden of the proof. The argument had to be political and just plain common sense in nature:

Given Mexico’s recent and remote history, a history of fraud and political deceit, and given the close distance between the main candidates in the official questioned IFE count (0.5% difference), a “small number” of irregularities — either in the districts and polling places spotted by the Coalición por el Bien de Todos or in other places where things appeared okay — should have been sufficient to cast a shadow of suspicion over the entire process. It was incumbent upon this high court to clean the election in the eyes of the public.

The way millions of Mexicans will read the TRIFE decision is as follows: the political establishment — its political institutions and its de-facto powers (elite business groups, the media, the Catholic church, etc. with an enormous influence in Mexico’s politics and state policies) — has spoken through the TRIFE. Instead of persuading the public that the election was clean, instead of gaining the confidence and credibility of the public, they have stated clearly that they don’t care for public confidence or credibility.

They will not admit a recount (they must know something!) and rather impose their candidate. They are willing to pay the price of having an illegitimate president: public discredit and, very likely, public unrest. And since the people in the movement for democracy are not going to give up their struggle to have their collective will respected, the state will have to resort to force. That is the message. The TRIFE, its magistrates, want to be remembered as enablers of a spurious and repressive president.

The people who are defending democracy in Mexico City’s streets have yet to speak. This evening, the Permanent Assembly in El Zócalo will convene and reach a decision about an appropriate response to the TRIFE’s validation of the electoral fraud. I have heard that the participation in the encampments is in the way up, there is more enthusiasm and determination that in the first few days — and there is more organization. It is very likely that they will ratchet up their methods of struggle. I can only wish them the best in the struggle ahead. (Note to the pundits: It’s not López Obrador who is driving these tactical decisions. He is only listening well to what his main constituency, the working poor, “los de abajo” are saying.)

From this blog, if I may, I insist on the need for the movement to remain united and grow from where it is. People should speak their mind about the right way to conduct the movement, its stragegy and methods. There must be respect for differences in perspective. But there must also be unity in action. Unity, unity, unity! It will be a long struggle, but it is “por el bien de todos” (for everyone’s good).


15 Responses to “The electoral tribunal validates the fraud”

  1. Charles Says:

    I have a different take, PV.

    Let’s assume for a moment that they will recount the precincts flagged by the PRD as the most problematic. If so, then suppose that there is a 30,000 vote shift toward AMLO. This is just 4 per precinct. At that point, they will have to count more precincts. And more.

    So, my interpretation is that the court was under pressure from the right not to count at all, but knew that was politically impossible. I see this as a good decision… not that the PRD suffered a defeat, but that it moved the ball to the 9 yard line.

    AMLO will speak in an hour. I predict he will denounce the decision… and wink. He’ll call for patience. He will continue the campaign of civil resistance. He will keep digging for evidence. And the hotheads who he doesn’t control will keep doing what they’re doing to start a real revolution. The combination of these might possibly convince Los de Arriba that there are worse things than an AMLO presidency.

    At that point, all that is necessary will be a way to spin the fraud as the misguided efforts of local partisans.

  2. panchovilla Says:

    You may be right, Charles. But you may be wrong. Whatever their reasons, the decision is the direct and immediate responsibility of the tribunal. Or, to make it even more personal, it is the responsibility of Leonel Castillo González, Eloy Fuentes Cerda, José Alejandro Luna Ramos, Alfonsina Berta Navarro Hidalgo, J. Fernando Ojesto Martínez Porcayo, J. de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, and Mauro Miguel Reyes Zapata.

    If the right was squeezing them hard, they could have denounced them publicly. Masses of people would have helped them deal with the threats… or was it bribes? You know, this is the thing — their making **that** kind of decision suggests that they are more attracted to money and old power (or, if you wish, more afraid of them) than they are of the righteous rage of the people.

    One way or another, they are making the wrong decision. At this point, instead of speculating and attributing to them astute motives, the movement has to press on. From afar and all, I feel like I’m part of that movement. So that’s my take.

  3. panchovilla Says:


    Just to show that my innuendo about the possibility of the TRIFE being bribed is not unwarranted, let me mention two things here:

    1. Alberto Barranco (El Universal), a business journalist well-respected in Mexico, wrote in a recent column the following:

    “Por si faltara enrarecer el ambiente del país ante la creciente certeza de un fraude electoral, en el ámbito empresarial corre insistente la versión de que algunos magnates se estarían cooperando para integrar una vaquita, cuyo monto se entregaría, a título de donativo secreto, a los integrantes del TEPJF. Los recursos garantizarían un retiro placentero”.

    Translated loosely: “As if more were needed to rarify the political atmosphere in the country given the growing belief in an electoral fraud, a rumor is circulating in business circles that some tycoons are collecting funds to make a pool of money to bring, as a secret donation, to the members of the TEPJF (or TRIFE). Those resources would allow them a pleasurable retirement.”

    Believe me, Alberto Barranco hasn’t become a respected and credible business journalist (he was a founder of Unomásuno and then moved to La Jornada, currently writes for El Universal) by merely echoing unsubstantiated rumors. Given Mexico’s history of endemic corruption, even though Barranco says this is a ***rumor*** I’d not bet a dollar on the honesty of the magistrates.

    As I’ve said before, if the judges are honest and patriotic, they are having a chance to demonstrate it to the public, with deeds. But they cannot expect people’s trust a priori. In fact, they should expect distrust. The onus of the proof is on them. (By the way, one of the arguments used by the magistrates yesterday, in their session, was that of “respect to authority.” Frankly, the reaction this kind of argument gets from regular Mexicans is something translatable as ‘WTF?!! How about the authorities respecting those whom they are supposed to serve?’)

    2. The copies of two (duly notarized) e-mails López Obrador presented yesterday in the Permanent Assembly, exchanged between two high-level PAN bureaucrats. These big shots implicitly admit that the documentation submitted by the Coalición to the TRIFE is valid.

    Here is the documentation:

    And — thanks to Sendero del Peje blog at — these are the e-mails:

    Mr. Carlo Varela ( says it clearly “Re. point 1 [double checking López Obrador documentation of the so-called ‘arithmetic errors’], which took us the longest to verify, there are no falsified data — everything seems fine.”

    Moreover, what César Nava, the PAN top bureaucrat, did was to order the analysis of AMLO’s documentation of the fraud ***in order to find a small sample among the polling-places where López Obrador found irregularities that, if recounted, would hurt them the least (“errores no determinantes” in his jargon)***.

    Their conclusion was that, yes, if properly picked out, there was a small number of polling places detected by the Coalición as irregular whose recount the PAN could still survive. Recounting the votes of more polling places would kill them. Very curiously, the TRIFE ruled that 9.07% of the polling places are to be recounted — polling places they chose on the basis of who knows what criterion. Hmm…

    These two e-mails and AMLO’s accusation are being taken seriously by fair-minded people and the media. CNN en Español had Dr. Alfredo Jalife Rahme, a Mexican political analyst, alluding to these very e-mails as very serious and saying the TRIFE should clarify. By the way, Jalife blasted the TRIFE’s ruling. Here’s the link to youtube (this is also courtesy of the Sendero del Peje blog):

  4. Charles Says:

    Thanks for your comments, PV.

    We have some figures now that make it less probable that a selective recount could end up not exposing fraud: Jalisco 33 % recount, Aguascalientes 35% , Colima 33 %, Baja California 32 %, Sonora 26.6 %. Since these are presumably challenged precincts and not all precincts were challenged, it provides heavy coverage of precincts in doubt.

    I agree that the e-mails are incendiary. They admit the the PAN is objecting to recounting precincts where they know the numbers don’t add up. On the other hand, they’re not surprising or necessarily incriminating.

    In the US, we have six years of experience in dealing with corrupted elections. That experience has shown that not all suspicious precincts actually are fraudulent.

    As for bribery, it’s always a possibility. But in the end, if the recount isn’t persuasive, if they impose Calderon, then he’ll be ruling Hell itself.

  5. nik Says:

    You’re seeing way too much in the actions of the magistrates. They weren’t called upon to make a political choice or a Salomonic decision. There are some specific technical guidelines that must be adhered to. Nothing less nothing more.

    AMLO’s team just didn’t have the required elements to challenge all “precintcs” because the elements just weren’t there in the first place. The election took place without any major incidents.

    They knew all along what the tribunal outcome would be but they are still deliberately feeding their followers the idea of a massive fraud. Now in everyone’s mind the TRIFE has also become part of the complot. Get real! How can everyone be wrong except López Obrador?

    If you still believe all they tell you it means you’re still under the spell. What’s in it for you?

  6. Charles Says:

    Um, Nik…

    Suppose you run a business.

    You do a quick check of your salesmen’s business expense reports and you discover that 9% of them list payments to “Madame Susie’s House of Prostitution.” There are another 25% that show payments to “Marie’s Feather and Leather Fantasy.” Yeah, maybe it’s a restaurant or a limo service. It doesn’t say it’s prostitution.

    Now, it’s pretty clear that a lot of salesmen are abusing their expense accounts. Would you (a) do a full audit of the 9%? )b) audit the 9% and the additional 25%? or (c) do a full audit?

    Now, I have posted that judicially the right approach is to start with the 9% and see what develops. The law always chooses the most conservative solution. But politically, it will be catastrophic not to do the full audit.

    I want to make clear: errors of even a few votes per precinct are not normal and not acceptable. We have a long experience with recounts. They very rarely succeed. This is because errors are normally very small and cancel one another out. To find 9% of precincts with significant errors– even three or four votes– in the same direction is almost the same as saying the election was fraudulent.

  7. panchovilla Says:

    Thanks Charles and nik for the comments.

    nik, you have it exactly backwards. According to Mexico’s constitution (article 99), the TRIFE is the “top jurisdictional authority” in qualifying an election that transfers political power from one individual to another. Also according to the constitution (article 41), the governing principles of an election should be “certainty, legality, independence, impartiality, and objectivity.” In other words, the function of the TRIFE is eminently political.

    Consider certainty. How is the TRIFE giving certainty to the election by verifying the results in only 9% of the polling places when millions of citizens are convinced that the election was rigged from the getgo? And if a sample of 9% is in doubt as found by the TRIFE, why didn’t they rule for a full recount then? I mean, it’s not 1, or 2, or 3 or 4 or 5%, which you could attribute to random human error. It’s almost 1 out of 10 polling places, according to the ruling!

    In any event, the TRIFE is vested by the constitution with ample powers to qualify the election. They are not there to defend the IFE. They are there to defend the interest of the people of Mexico. So, it is well within their legal function to supplement the deficiencies in the evidence presented by any of the parties (in this case, the Coalición) and rule for a full recount on the basis of their own considerations of principle. Didn’t that make sense in view of Mexico’s history and how contested the election appears to have been? I mean, again, a constitutional principle in the electoral process is supposed to be “certainty.”

    The deficiencies in the legal case presented by the Coalición shouldn’t have been used as an excuse to reject the full recount. That’s clear if the TRIFE had actually assumed seriously its constitutional duties. But, was the Coalición’s case really so weak? I don’t think so. They presented evidence that over 60% of all polling places had “arithmetic errors.” If you read carefully the e-mails linked above, between two top PAN bureaucrats, you’ll note that ***they*** acknowledge that AMLO’s documentation is correct. Carlo Varela, the PAN’s number guy, says these figures are fine:

    But, suppose that AMLO’s documentation doesn’t show irregularities in 60%+ of the polling places. Suppose their legal case was the weakest possible. Still, at least a third of the citizenry strongly believe there was fraud. Blame it on AMLO’s hypnotic powers, because you cannot attribute it to the people’s credulity. I mean, if these people are so gullible, how come they didn’t fall for the ***strenuous and very costly efforts made by the president, the federal government, the PAN, the IFE, the Catholic church, the bulk of the press, and the whole mass media machine to make people believe that the election was squeaky clean***?

    But back to the point, in that context of widespread doubt, what should a responsible tribunal with constitutional powers to recount every vote should rule in order to give certainty (and plain closure) to the election? Easy — full recount! Any way you cut it, this argument is irrefutable:

    If Felipe won, why isn’t he and his supporters calling for a full recount already?

  8. Help Please (Por favor) Says:

    Do you have a link, or do you know a website with specific data of which casillas will be recounted. I am conducting research, and need casilla-level data for the recount. Thank you.
    My email:

    Necesito saber donde estan las casillas que van a recontar. Donde puedo encontrar esta informacion?

  9. panchovilla Says:

    I’m replying to you directly, by e-mail.

  10. pelón Says:

    Observations and questions.

    I’m a gringo living just three blocks from the blockade. Saturday night I took a walk through the tent city and found hundreds of people dancing to banda, cumbia and mariachi music in the cold rain. To my surprise the street vendors have not filled every unused space but there are enough tamales and elote to keep people fed. I was astounded by the level of organization. Most tents are large and durable, not a collection of flimsy blue tarps like you might expect. Every block or two there is a stage for giving speeches by day and playing music at night. Tents are often grouped by community or common interest. I live near the Iztapalapa encampment. The blocked streets and the adjoining sidewalks are probably cleaner than they’ve ever been. It shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with Mexico that running through the center of Juarez street, among the tents, are three mini soccer fields with real metal goals, netting and artificial turf. Even in the downpour two full teams were going at it.

    My experience with political action in the U.S. has been in the form of events; people show up, make noise, leave a mess and go home. Enduring actions tend to be a sting of events. What I see in the streets of Mexico City is quite different. The people are not taking time off from their daily routine to voice their opinion, they are incorporating the protest into normal life. Those that have a job go to work every day and return to the tents in the evening. While Chilangos go home at night to sleep, people from outside the city fall asleep in chairs or return to one of dozens of buses that brought them to the city. Although quiet at night, there are still hundreds of people milling about, drinking coffee, playing dominoes or chess, gossiping about their neighbors, trying to stay warm and dry. I presume some are planning actions for the next day.

    The Zocalo is occupied by a tent or two nearly every day of the year (Atenco, Zapatistas, Oaxacan teachers, indigenous…). They stay a day, a week, a month, and much longer. If Calderon is “appointed” president I can imagine six years of “occupation” in the Zocalo as well as along Reforma. Of course Felipe cannot allow this and there will likely be violence.


    Logically, if the recount shows significant discrepancies there should be a broader, if not total recount. But I haven’t heard anyone in the government or the press mention this. Will this decision go back to the court? Are there laws governing what is to be done after the recount.

    Are we sure that the precincts that will be recounted were actually challenged precincts?

    Will we ever know what criteria the court used in choosing which precincts to recount?

    I wonder what the polls looked like in those 11,800 precincts before the election.

  11. panchovilla Says:

    Thank you so much, pelón. This is great info. Please keep us informed.

    Re. your questions, I can only try to “answer” a couple of them. Let me start with the last one: I don’t think the polls are representative at the level of a precinct or polling place (casilla). The sample is usually meant to answer questions at a higher level — broad demographic category, state, and overall. So it’s going to be hard to find polls that tell what the voting preferences where in those specific places before July 2.

    You also ask whether the precincts that will be recounted were challenged. The answer is yes, the Coalición challenged those precincts specifically — among many others that won’t be recounted. The press is making a big deal out of the fact that the Coalición’s legal team wasn’t able to put together a specific, duly-argued case to challenge each and every of the 150K precincts in the country. Moreover, they weren’t even able to challenge formally and individually each of the 60%+ of the precincts where they detected “arithmetic errors.” That’s is true, but this is very understandable. They had a deadline to turn in well-argued cases for each precinct they were challenging, and they had limited resources (distances, time, communications, and people with the proper expertise).

    Just imagine, collecting the “actas” (the tally reports for each of the 150K precincts from each corner of the country), and then verifying the math in each of them. All of this manually, because we’re talking about pieces of paper here that you cannot easily turn to data. A daunting task. So, they were understandably selective. Again, in spite of all that, they were still able to spot “errors” in 60%+ of the precincts and uploaded scanned copies of these “actas” on their web site. That’s how they figured there were 1.5 million votes missing, compared to those reported in “actas.” Furthermore, with more resources and technology, the PAN verified their documentation (see above comments) and found it to be okay.

    Out of those precincts with “errors,” they focused on those where they thought the discrepancies were largest and then built detailed legal cases in as many as there was time and resources to do it. Here, they needed a team of lawyers or para-legals minimally versed in electoral and constitutional law. Meanwhile, the cadres (perhaps the same people) were also busy working on other fronts — e.g. public and media relations and helping the people get organized. When you’re involved in a movement like this, you realize how short in trained cadres you always are.

    Still, the result was that they were able to turn out to the tribunal relatively well-argued cases for almost 22K precincts. I think that’s remarkable. Keep in mind that the legal team built its case in three levels, and this one — the casuistic demonstration that an individual precinct showed irregularities worthy of a recount — was the third or last level of their case. The first level, was based on the invocation of broad constitutional principles. So they showed that the campaign was all but equitable, that the government — president Fox included — were deeply involved in supporting one of the candidates (Calderón). Basically, that the resources of the government were used to prop up Calderón’s candidacy. And that the media was completely skewed in favor of Calderón. That it was a dirty war against López Obrador. And they also showed that the IFE had dropped the ball with its PREP and with the handling of the whole process.

    The purpose of this level of their case was to convince the tribunal that broader principles were at stake that justified a recount, even if their legal team couldn’t clone itself sufficiently to argue each individual precinct’s official results. I think that’s exactly what they had to do. And they did it relatively well. So now, the press is saying, but hey, if AMLO only challenged 22K and the tribunal granted him the recount of 11K, half of those challenge, why is he complaining? See today’s Reforma (Sergio Sarmiento’s article). Well, this is not strictly correct. AMLO challenged the validity of the ***entire*** set of results of the election. That’s what the first level of his case was meant to do. And that was also a valid legal argument.
    But they’ve been trying to convince people that the electoral law is very narrow in its scope, that the tribunal was tied by the law to only pay heed to the piece-meal level of the Coalición’s case and discard the rest, which it did (so far). In my view, that’s bs. Just check the history of the tribunal’s rulings and you’ll note that they have used broad principles to solve local cases. The law gives them ample powers to take a hard look at the whole election process, powers that they decided not to use in this case — so far at least.

  12. Charles Says:

    Greg Palast has given us reason to worry.

    According to Palast, they systematically excluded from the recount precincts in which there were more votes than voters, burned ballots, etc. They simply took the cases where the arithmetic didn’t add up, many of which may be simple errors or minor vote shaving.

    I hope he’s exaggerating. But I fear he’s not. And if he’s not, there is big, big trouble ahead.

  13. Jane Doe Says:

    I find it disturbing to read that people outside Mexico are buying the load of crap el Senor Lopez has been feeding his herd. The unsubstantiated claim of fraud is yet to be proven. Not a single evidence of tampering has been produced or will be, it seems; all we have seen are shifts in theory from cyber-fraud to ballot stuffing and back, not to mention the monetary co-opting of PRD representatives.

    The tribunal did not ordered a full recount because the coalition’s case was poorly made and did not formally petitioned it. Imagine a case including research done on Wikipedia, and I am not kidding.

    El Senor Lopez has hijacked Mexico City with the complicity of Mexico City’s Mayor. His (preposterous) claim of representing the voice of the people can be dismissed with one simple argument: Out of the 42+ million electors that voted on election day, roughly 65% did not vote for him. It can then be said, that 65% of Mexicans voted against him.

    The partial recount ended yesterday and according to available information, no significant change was observed. Yet the coalition is desperately immerse in an arithmetic conundrum to justify their, as of today, conspiracy theory.

  14. panchovilla Says:

    Crap? Herd? Can you give us feedback without being so rude with people who don’t share your views? Just because I’m Pancho Villa doesn’t mean I don’t believe in civilized discourse.

    Check out these two videos to see how “unsubstantiated” the fraud is:

    One other thing: It’s not at all clear that a majority (or a plurality) voted for Calderón, because that’s precisely what the whole contention is about.

    Keep reading my blog. And keep posting your thoughts, but please take a deep breath before you do.

  15. Jane Doe Says:


    I am sorry to read that my comments are coming across as rude, not my intention, honestly.

    The fact of the matter is that people outside Mexico are being presented with biased, subjective reporting. Take Palast’s report “Florida con Salsa” linked above by Charles.

    The man does a decent job as a film maker, however, his report on the Mexican elections is all but flawed.

    The following is a comment I submitted to him regarding his report:

    Mr Palast,

    I watched with great interest your report “Florida con Salsa” on the 2006 Mexican Elections.

    I was very disappointed to find numerous inaccuracies in your report, many of them presented as irrefutable proof of an electoral fraud which as of today has not been substantiated by the losing candidate, it’s all been a sorry case of propaganda and misinformation.

    Your report lacks journalistic merit since you failed to approach independent, objective sources. That is poor journalism, if any at all. More like tabloid sensationalism.

    Unsuspecting readers are being fed fodder for conspiracy theories by being presented with biased opinions from the people you interviewed. Take Luis Mandoki’s testimony, the author of an apologetic film about Mr. Lopez, did you think he was qualified to provide an unbiased take of the situation? or was he who approached you and said “Take a look at the Mexican papers.”?

    Did you really take a look at the Mexican papers, or did you just see the one newspaper (“La Jornada”) they knew would say what they wanted you to read? Did they tell you that the video they produced as the first “evidence” of “fraud” was dismissed for it shows no illegal or fraudulent activities?

    Were they candid about the delay tactics implemented by Mr. Lopez’s advisers for the transmission of the data from those precincts where they knew Mr. Calderon was sure to come ahead, and that the purpose was to show Mr. Lopez ahead in the quick count and the PREP?

    The PREP showed Mr. Calderon with 37.18% of the vote, and Mr. Lopez with 36.29 at 02:00 on 03 july 2006, with 72.09% of the precincts reported. So, where’s the fraud?

    Mr. Palast, your report is so obviously biased that it reeks foul, I suspect your Mexican friends paid your expenses with taxpayer money.

    I am sure a number of your readers are looking for serious, objective reporting, as I’m sure there are those that are propaganda-hungry.

    You are letting the former down, but the latter are cheering for more, I am sure…

    Let me share with you something that will give you a better idea of Mr. Lopez’s true character, and the behavior he expected from the people of Mexico but no, no Buffalo Valley for us…..we are going to the beach. Odd how fiction resembles real life, huh?

    Jane Doe.

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

%d bloggers like this: