Hanify & King is a serious Boston white-shoe law firm, and I doubt they are doing Lusking's bidding on a contingency-fee basis.

Either someone's bankrolling the operation, or Luskin's just had a wealthy aunt die.

What a flaming asshole Luskin is. In the thread Luskin cites (he objects not only to Atrios' "Diary of a Stalker" headline but to allegedly defamatory comments posted in response thereto), I called Luskin a "freak" and a "weirdo," and said he was "obsessed" with Krugman. So I suppose I'll be a defendant too. I am a lawyer. Bring it on, dickwad.

As I said on Kos, calling Luskin a stalker is an insult to honest, decent, satan-fearing stalkers everywhere. Real stalkers may hide behind bushes, trees, but not lawyers. This is foul and disgusting behavior, even by stalking standards. I dearly hope the snively litle wormtongue is crushed and molten lead poured into his nostrils for eternity.

I dunno that it's being bankrolled. A quick googling shows that Luskin and this particular counselor have a bit of a history together. The mouthpiece in question may be doing it out of an oddball sense of wingnut solidarity.

I think your friend Steve G. has it more right. This is a little bit of bluster directed at someone who Luskin seems to think he can grind under his heel. Oops. If Atrios is actually so much as publically identified, I'll be shocked.

'If bloggers are going to start hiring lawyers to threaten other bloggers, then it's easy to see the day coming when only those rich enough to afford lawyers -- or even worse, those who are themselves lawyers -- will be able to blog.'

I think a multi-blog, 'I am Atrios' PayPal legal fund is the answer if Luskin decides to act on his pathetic threat. A great way to defend free speech from the tentacles of creeps like him.

Snails or Oysters Don?

Donald Luskin day on Friday.

Bring your beard.

Atrios has permission not to participate.

Surely out there in blogland there is a good libel attorney who can do this pro bono? If the suit is not dropped, then we can get up the money to pay one.

So I suppose I'll be a defendant too. I am a lawyer. Bring it on, dickwad.

I may soon be in the market for one, the way things are going.

I, too, am Atrios!

Uh, let me just step back for a second and ask:

WHAT IN HOLY FUCK IS GOING ON AROUND HERE?

(And I hate it when people use all caps.)

How about "Luskin, a Fair and Balanced Stalker" banner on blogs? Why not copywrite the word stalker and countersue? There are lots of laughs possible with this one.

Billmon, why not be Luskin for a day, like atrios did with Shill O'Really?

Billmon, why not be Luskin for a day, like atrios did with Shill O'Really?

I'd have to rent a straight jacket.

Bless you, billmon.

Later

A Friday of posting 'I'm Atrios!' is the only way to go, your magnitude.

I may soon be in the market for one, the way things are going.

No, Billmon, El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido!

But needs to be updated for modern times. Anyone know what the Spanish is for "blogs"?

Luskin? Call me Snake.

Anyone want to contact Luskin's lawyer?

Jeffrey Upton
617 226-3459

I'm Atrios, and so's my wife!

What's the take on this, guys?

Congress issues Iraq deadline to CIA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3226045.stm

As someone nearly two months into this - don't know many of the players. Have been learning a lot however guys and gals. Thanks.

My biggest fear has been, (when I go into my boarderline paranoia state) -- is
THE PATRIOTS ACT -
Are we all being stalked?

Luskin, a Fair and Balanced Stalker

"Luskin: Wholly Without Merit."

Well, I may not be much of a libel lawyer, but I don't think Luskin has a chance in hell. And he can sue me for saying so.

There are interesting (maybe not so fascinating, if you're being sued, Billmon) issues here: do you hold a blog up to the same standard as the media (requiring the plantiff to prove mailicious intent) or do you see blogs as more "personal publications" which are just vehicles for free, robust, personal speech?

It seems to me that the law must see blogs as essential to a robust democracy; and particularly politically oriented blogs, which engage almost solely in political discourse. When a political blogger says that Bush is a corrupt goon, slug, moron, liar and cheat, could Bush sue that blogger for libel? (Of course, truth is a defense.) But even if what was said wasn't literally true, isn't the point that it's figuratively true? Or simply said as a rhetorical device?

Luskin doesn't have to be an actual stalker for purposes of our discussion of his behavior, his political positions, and how he treats others who espouse politcal opinions contrary to his own; it's metaphor, rhetoric. Calling him that can't be grounds for libel.

This is a nuisance letter and will never go to filing. Lofton is just trying to see how much shit he can kick up with a letter, when Atrios tells him to stuff it, it's over, unless Lofton is trolling for contingent fees. Every press lawyer I've talked to today said this will be laughed out of court like O'Reilly's suit against Franken, and any decent lawyer who practices in this area knows it. The lawyer is giving Atrios a hard time, because that is all he can do. Luskin has no remedy because he's suffered no loss.

Can I get a mutherfuckin' amen! We are all Atrios.

When a political blogger says that Bush is a corrupt goon, slug, moron, liar and cheat, could Bush sue that blogger for libel? (Of course, truth is a defense.)

A public figure, which means the Sullivan test applies -- actual knowledge that the charge was false, or reckless disregard of its truth or falseness. God I WISH Bush would sue someone for libel -- opening the door for endless rounds of discovery.

Every press lawyer I've talked to today said this will be laughed out of court

I have to admit, the thought has occurred to me that we may all have just been sucker punched by a brilliant publicity stunt. Luskin and Atrios may get a bit of ink out of this -- Howie Kurtz, Slate, etc.

I doubt Atrios cares much one way or the other, but for Luskin, who obviously can't stand Krugman's fame (and his New York Times soapbox) it may be just what he's looking to get out of all this.

I think it's time for a run on the ole printing machine for some new bumper stickers:

"I AM ATRIOS"

.. and the cry for free speech was heard around the world...

No, I'm Atrios!

You have little faith Billmon.

I have a sinking feeling that Luskin's lawyer's letter may one day be seen right beside one from UCLA...

All Atrios needs is one call for free help from the lawyers at the UCLA and thus send a letter to law firm of Hanify & King.

AND prehaps then we can all write letters to the BAR in Boston MA about a lawyer and his pet stalker Luskin and how we think it's unethical, really.

This lawfirm has a website - takes a while to load

It has jeffery J Upton listing and also his photo and his resume

It doesn't say anything about Mr. Upton handling of libel cases but than really that's not a hot topic for lawyers in professional law. However this case doesn't really seem to fit the libel case from what I've read and most lawyers won't do "libel" because it's hard to sue for this particular thing and this case certainly doesn't appear to be punitive. Most cases you only get one dollar if you win unless Mr. Upton can prove maliciously intentional wrong doing (extemely hard to do) and I don't think any judge is going see it that way. The Judge would be more likely to find that the only person with "malicious" behavior belongs to Mr. Utpon's client Luskin.

My understanding (non-legal as it is) from what I've read a person can sue and get nothing but lots of legal fees since especial since punitive doesn't seem to fit here. Luskin would just be paying out the noise for legal cost that he alone is responsible for as I don't believe under this type of lawsuit one can get can pass their legal fees on to the other party even if Luskin were to somehow win.

Luskin is a hothead and jeffery J Upton is just fine with taking the guy's money. That doesn't say anything nice really about the law firm of Hanify & King only that business must be slow for Mr. Upton or Luskin must be willing to pay the extra cost (higher then normal perhaps) for being a hot head.

Luskin has referred to himself as a stalker in print. He cannot then call it libel and hope to win a lawsuit when other people do the same. Luskin just thinks he can stifle the discourse with threats. He's a bully.

I suppose that, like O'Reilly, Luskin imagines that he's fighting a just war against the character assassins of the Left.

As a poster in the offending thread on Atrios, may I just say that I am both proud and shocked to have made even a modest contribution to what I am hoping will ultimately be a huge embarassment for Stalker Luskin. Thank you, Mr. Luskin, for allowing me a little space under your skin -- I couldn't have done it without you.

I'm just a humble, sometime commenter on this site, but if I call Luskin a lying, shitbag, stalking asshole, can he sue me?

I don't think the nasty lawyergrams are going to lead to the death of the blogosphere. If anything, they'll simply increase the fame of their targets. However, to veer off-topic for a minute, I do think the blogosphere faces an impeding crisis on two similar fronts - bogus comments, and bogus blogs.

The current blog comments boards offer no real authentication of users. Nothing stops me from going over to littlegreenfootballs and posting mea culpas under the billmon name. Similarly, nothing stops spammers from spreading their garbage through blog comments (in principle, anyway. haven't seen any real world examples yet, but i fear the day isn't far off). Manual intervention by the blog owners can help with these problems, but that solution doesn't scale. Attempts to distribute that load, ala slashdot and kuro5hin, have not been unqualified successes (though the jury's perhaps still out on k5). Perhaps even more insidious are fake and/or look-alike blogs, e.g. the riversbend spook...

I think the blogosphere is going to be in need of a distributed authentication system soon.

Peanut: Luskin has referred to himself as a stalker in print...

You can't say that Peanut, because it might not be true. As Billmon wrote in his post "It looks like Luskin's lawyer has another letter to write".

When you write for publication, headlines are generally not your creation. There are desk editors, whose job is to write snappy headlines that will fit the column space. So I assume that Billmon was referring to Luskin's employer, National Review.

Wouldn't that be ironic? ;-)

I, too, was recently threatened with legal action by Luskin, for posting an excerpt from a rather absurd e-mail he sent me. But apparently I didn't rate a lawyer letter.

Could you please post that letter...

This is certainly something worth writting to the Massachusetts Bar Association and complaining about about the lawyer Jeffery Upton and his blog threats from the Hanify & King Law Firm-(make sure you mention the law firm by name too if with to write to bar) People can complain if the feel that lawyer is acting in an unethical manner.

It seems this guy Mr. Luskin has threaten to sue several people. This lawyer doesn't seem to care or understand civil liberties and so at least I think it's worth a short complaint letter. This case just seems so frivolous and petty and getting more so by the hour.

You can complain about lawyers for these kinds of law suits.

1. bringing or defending a claim without substantial justification,

2. bringing or defending a claim solely or primarily for delay or harassment,

3. unreasonabley expanding or delaying the procedure, or

4. engaging in abuse of discovery...

There's three out of four here that this lawyer seems to fits into, the fourth for threaten Atrios with a subpoena.

This lawyer has been threating Atrios with subpoena to reveal is identity... without legal complaint to court first I think.

I'd have to rent a straight jacket.

Straitjacket! "Strait" as in a narrow place! The Straits of Gibraltar, Dire Straits, and so on. I know it's a pissy, niggling sort of correction to make, but I think it worthwhile to try to spread a little good orthography here and there.

Donald Luskin IS ABSOLUTELY A STALKER

God I WISH Bush would sue someone for libel -- opening the door for endless rounds of discovery.

Call me wacky, but I'm guessing that with experience to guide them the court would decide that a sitting president can't be distracted by such a thing.

Squire Upton may be a lawyer. And he may even be an expensive lawyer. But he sure doesn't seem to be a very good lawyer.

I don't want to go read his site, but isn't this Luskin a common or garden variety jerk of the sort that infests countless flamewars on usenet? I can recall reading dozens -- no, probably hundreds of threats to sue for libel, copyright violation, and all manner of other offenses, and there were certainly some obnoxious ones who reportedly went so far as to have their lawyers send a nasty letter. The letter was hardly ever followed up by an actual lawsuit.

Sending nasty intimidating letters is one of the ways (some) lawyers make a living. The grounds don't have to be strong enough to justify a suit; basically, it's just putting the client's real or imagined grievance into legal-sounding language. The tactic even works, a lot of the time; at the very least it tends to be somewhat alarming.

Anyway -- as lots of other people have said, the counter to that is to get your own lawyer to write a very stiff letter back, skewering the loopholes and pointing out that the other guy has no case. The reason you want a very good lawyer to do this instead of doing it yourself is that a good lawyer knows the right code phrases that will make the other guy's lawyer advise his client to back off, intimidation isn't going to work.

From reading the comment thread at Eschaton, it doesn't sound like Atrios is going to have any problem getting a very good lawyer willing to do this small service, pro bono.

Now, mind you, some clients just can't be told that they have no case. If Luskin is that sort of stubborn, this might eventually be brought before a judge. But don't assume that it will happen. Most of the time these things never go beyond an exchange of letters.

Hear, hear, Billmon! Personally I'm so sick of these rightwingers using intimidation to get their way that I'm willing to be Atrios or Billmon or Kos or whoever makes him most mad today.

Last week I was angered to hear that Ashcroft is trying to prosecute Greenpeace to "discipline" dissenters. My advice then was we should all join Greenpeace so the result of the threat is to make it stronger and to make the screwball Ashcroft's threat backfire. They are thugs.

the thought has occurred to me that we may all have just been sucker punched by a brilliant publicity stunt.

Ah, Billmon, it's the classic Rupert J Pupkin manoeuvre we know and love.

But this sucker punch in this context is not just a sucker punch - if Luskin's star rises as a result (and it's not clear that it will, even some of the GOPers are saying it's embarrasing) - Luskin becomes the story instead of the right's failure to rebut all of the truly heavy charges Krugman is laying at the administration's door.

I've not seen anyone on the right argue with him properly, rebut him (have you read anything from the right that's a credible critique of Krugman?) - so it's more corrosion of the political debate of the Gropinator type.

Which goes way beyond a publicity stunt for one individual's gain.

Um, o/t a little, but fiend wrote:
"nothing stops spammers from spreading their garbage through blog comments (in principle, anyway. haven't seen any real world examples yet..."

You ain't been hit? A new fix has had to be created to solve this problem. It's been all over the Movable Type part of the blogosphere, at least in the corners I frequent.

..as my grandmother used to say..."Just remember, half of all lawyers(or doctors,dentists,teachers,whatever)graduated in the bottom half of their class."

Hey Linkmeister, thanks for the heasd up on MT-Blacklist. Frankly, I wasn't aware that comment spam was actually a problem yet. Do you know of anything along the lines of a distributed authentication system?

Slightly off-topic here, but, has anyone mentioned today that George W Bush is a Miserable failure?

fiend, no, I don't. Jay (whose Blacklist that is) will probably be in the loop if one is discussed, as will Ben and Mina at Movable Type. Noah Adams at Greymatter might be in there as well. Since Blogger doesn't (as far as I know) offer a comments system, I suspect Evan won't be.

I'd return to Jay's site periodically (he's got an automated update system on the blacklist page), as well as checking the MT home page for news.

Last week I was angered to hear that Ashcroft is trying to prosecute Greenpeace to "discipline" dissenters.

Could be worse I guess. I gather his proposed amendments would make it possible to charge protestors with aiding and abetting terrorism -- and subject them to the death penalty.

These guys really are just fascists at heart, plain and simple.

Hey Linkmeister, thanks for the heasd up on MT-Blacklist. Frankly, I wasn't aware that comment spam was actually a problem yet.

It's shown up on a couple of threads here at Whiskey Bar. I try to nuke and ban as soon as I catch it, but the spammers seem to like to go for older posts, where it's hard for keep track of new comments. I may have to start closing comments on posts after awhile -- say a week or so.

You get too many to have them all emailed to you, I suppose; you're right, they show up on older posts. I had about 20 before implementing Jay's first version of the blacklist; since then I've had about 10 attempts, all caught and denied.

BTW, fiend, if you look at the MT home page, there's a link to their own discussion of comment spam and what they are thinking of doing about it.

lol, lurch, thanks for the plug, hopefully Billmon will soon get on board. (hint, hint)

On a side note, apparently Bill (Can't handle soft ball questions from Terry Gross on Fresh Air) O'Rielly is using Yahoo search with the terms Bill+O'Rielly+idiot. I, of course, reserve idiot for the Liar 'n' Thief (so as not to diminish his trademark value) so his leeches had to move onto another page but poor boy is obviously still licking his wounds from the "Wholly Without Merit" lawsuit against Al.

Luskin, Gollum for short, has failed in his own way. The seminal We stalked. He Balked. in which Luskin's headline admits he is a stalker of Krugman has a graph that would have failed him in a beginning level 100 course by either Dr. Krugman or Dr. Friedman (an economist not noted for being critical of Republicans)

Why?

Gollum profoundly demonstrates his ignorance of the time value of money. His erroneous? ignorant? misguided? calculation that posits 500,000 today is roughly equivalent to 40,000 a year for the next 10 years ignores compound interest and the inflation rate (not to mention simple multiplication). The effects of which are even worse with the inflation rate being higher than the short term yield that we have experienced under the Miserable Failure's economic "recovery."

A simple gut check of this fact is:

Would you rather receive a check for $500,000 today or a check for $40,000 a year over the next 10 years? Compare and contrast to lottery games which offer a million dollars now or $50,000 a year for the next 20 years.

Question: for some reason I haven't been able to read Atrios' blog for about a week or so -- my browser fails to load and then tries to load a website at IP address 66.102.15.101, and that fails too. I've noticed this with a couple of other blogs, but only a couple. I can get through to Billmon no problem, for example.

I initially thought Atrios was just off the air for a day or two but it's obvvious he's posting as usual. Anybody know what I could be doing wrong? I'm connected via Demon in the UK if that's aany help.

I think the blogosphere is going to be in need of a distributed authentication system soon.

An unspeakably bad idea. The blogosphere must accept the risks and responsibilities of its freedom or degenerate into just another hyper-regulated mass media forum. The only acceptable "system" here is the honor system. It's Anarchy or bust, friends. If you can't stand the heat, don't light the fire.

if it's starting to load and then the ad bar comes up, hit the back button. It seems to work for me.

If you are an e-World flea on a rat's ass, as Luskin is, this is a way to get noticed, to prove your bona fides to the rest of Bush's Fedayeen, get your 15 minutes of fame.

But I have never understood why Atrios, with all the actual mendancity, incompetence, and perfidy in the Republican Party and WH, even pays attention to the rightwing bloggers. Just ignore the harmless, dumb s.o.b.'s.

This is not about threatening to sue Atrios for libel. This is about outing Atrios.

This is Valerie Plame all over again. It is intended to punish Atrios for being too frisky and to intimidate the rest of us.

Since the lawsuit is absurd and individuals would be talked out of pursuing something so expensive that could fail, Luskin's move points to very deep pockets, Someone is prepared to lose lots of money in order to destroy Atrios, and the rest of us.

Therefore, this is only the first major hardcore legal attack on the liberal blogosphere. It will not be the last in the next year.

Why do these nuisance suits strike me as being a right wing thing? There was the Fox News/O'Reilly "fair and balanced" suit against Franken. There was the Michael Savage suit against three web sites. Now, Atrios.

WTF?

@tristero:
I think you're wrong, this is not the first such attack by the VRWC. IMO Luskin is actually deranged or at the very least plays a deranged person on the internet. I believe he assumes that it is his right and maybe even his duty towards his audience to attack Atrios in this way. (Consider Jonah Goldberg's recent "discovery" of Atrios to get an impression of how NRO writers view the matter)

I am Atrios.

And there's the suit for defamation purportedly in Bowling for Columbine.

Yahoo!

sez me: I think the blogosphere is going to be in need of a distributed authentication system soon.

sez Quinn: An unspeakably bad idea. The blogosphere must accept the risks and responsibilities of its freedom or degenerate into just another hyper-regulated mass media forum. The only acceptable "system" here is the honor system. It's Anarchy or bust, friends. If you can't stand the heat, don't light the fire.

I hear and understand your point, but the sad fact is that every system on the Internet which has relied on the honor system to function properly has failed. Besides, I'm not advocating that blogs use, say, Microsoft Passport as an authentication system, nor am I advocating that an authentication be forced upon anyone.

It just seems that, as people participate more and more in these interesting blog conversations, especially those that span blogs, that identity thieves are eventually going to try to come and spoil the fun. In response, individual blogs with active comment areas are likely to start using blog software with registered user accounts - e.g. dailykos's switch to scoop. I'm simply wondering if a federated authentication system might be the way to go; so that all blogs participating in a given realm can share persistent identities across blogs.

Or maybe, probably, I'm just imagining solutions to problems that don't exist. Still, better to think about them before they become real problems; it's too late then.

Tritero has a point though. Since much of the truth is only being told here, it would seem to me Bush has to shut the blog sites up during the next election cycle. I don't know how much of a true force blogs were in the 2000 election cycle (did not even have a computer then), but it would seem to me that this world holds an enormous hammer in the upcoming election.

Is it not true that many real live printed newspapers come to the blogs to get facts. Did all of you not get the Trent Lott issues out to the regular news cycle? And didn't the blogs have a part in getting the 16 words out? And hopefully aren't we trying to keep the Valerie Plame outing an issue?

I think Rove would really like to find some way to get us to shut up.

They intimidate everyone else in the media, they are now going to try it here.

this is only the first major hardcore legal attack on the liberal blogosphere

But read some of the lawyers posting to Atrios. They think it's a joke. There's a recent appeal court ruling protecting comments on blogs, so says the EFF. This is on the same level as Franken vs O'Reilly.

Read what the letter Luskin's lawyer sent says. It doesn't accuse Atrios of libel, but he wants the whole post and the comments (where the libel allegedly is) taken down, although Luskin wouldn't say which bits were libellous.

Which means he's trying to get Atrios shut down for having a comment that says something innocuous like here's a link to an article on another site. There's no way on God's earth that's going to stand up in court.

The paranoia arises from our point of view because these people are like mad dogs, some of them with a lot of spare cash, and it's such an effort to face yet more horseshit.

It's tempting to think that somewhere there must be a long-range plan because it's just too painful half the time to realise that, no, they are just fucking irrational, insane, and have given no reasonable thought to their actions whatsoever (see Iraq). They do it because they can. But eventually they come unstuck.

Luskin's about as dangerous as the Wicked Witch of the West. Which makes Atrios is Dorothy (although I hear he wants to be played by Colin Farrell in the movie of this particular episode of blog).

I'm not running a blog, so I'm not taking the heat like you, Billmon, so maybe I'm talking out of turn, but I truly believe that the blogosphere has mounted a good defence of Krugman, an invaluable critic of the Bush madness, and that the blogs taking on Luskin may have taken some of the heat off of Krugman in some small part.

Is it going too over the top to say that in some way, Luskin's letter to Atrios constitutes a victory of some sort? Or is that just a bit too Scott McClellan for comfort???

I know there's the issue of trying to "out" Atrios, but why is the ISP or whoever gonna fold? Atrios hasn't done anything wrong.

In addition to the "I'm Atrios" Friday operation, I also wonder what would happen if all participants send e-mail to Luskin's attorney stating that they are Atrios, whether they are anonobloggers or not. A faxed letter would be even more fun. The attorney will bill Luskin at least a quarter hour for every one he reads, and at the $200 an hour he's probably charging Luskin that would jack up Luskin's bill considerably.

But of course I don't recommend that anyone do that, because it might be considered harassment. It's just an idle thought.

sgc

We are all Atrios.

Thanks, Billmon. 8^) We've got to fight this nutjob.

(/) Roland X
Maybe this is a good thing though. He just might take the Ring into Mount Doom with him. ;^)

All of the blogs involved are political in nature and political speech is the most protected speech under the First Amendment.

The claim that "stalking" is a crime is not an accurate statement. There are actions that have been declared illegal in some states that have been defined by those particular states as "stalking", but there is no universal acceptance of its being an illegal activity.

The most basic defense against libel is that what the defendant stated is true. The NRO headline on the article submitted by Luskin makes him a stalker. Luskin must first win a libel suit against NRO before he can file suit against others, and even if he did prevail against NRO, claims would have to be made about statements after such a judgement.

This is intimidation and his attorney should be reported to the appropriate bar association for unprofessional conduct.

Even if the stalker did have a case that Atrios commited libel, he would then have to prove that we was damaged to recieve any kind of remedy of law. Just a guess but I bet those damages don't exist.

If a case was filed, regardless of the outcome or lack thereof, Atrios' identity - me, of course - would then be subject to the public record, thus "outing" him (me).

Is this not the case?

I'm getting worried here...

because, as we all know, I am Atrios.

Any enthusiasm for a class action complaint to the Mass. Bar re Hanify & King, ambulance chasers? I guess the problem is that you need a lawyer to tell you how to do it.

If Luskin does file (and I don't think he has yet), he will be further exposed as the malicious freak he really is.

And I assume Atrios, using his squad of top-grade pro-bono lawyers, possibly including back-up from Balkin at Yale) would then be able to sue the pants off him - who knows what the financial consequences for Atrios of being deanonimised are likely to be? Not, of course, that I am saying that is the issue. There might also be some handy new precedent about this type of recklessly malicious recourse to lawyers. But I'm not one, so whadda I know?

The downside is that prosecution would only feed into Donny's persecution complex.

Hey, Luskin--- did YOU ever serve in the military, or are you just another member of the Chickenhawk Brigade???

Inquiring minds want to know!

Hey, Luskin--- did YOU ever serve in the military, or are you just another member of the Chickenhawk Brigade???

Inquiring minds want to know!

We will help Atrios from Spain spreading this notice.