Acrimonious.com
TTYN, Doug! Paris And Dud Reinhardt Are O-V-E-R
We don’t like spreading celebrity gossip any more than you like reading it. But our best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend knows this kid who’s going with the girl who sez Paris TOTALLY dumped Doug Reinhardt.
So, OK, here’s the deal: Apparently, E! Online asked Dougie ’bout rumors that he and Paris broke up yesterday and he told them “that’s not true. Everything is OK with us.” Meanwhile, at almost the exact same time, Paris’ rep confirmed the split to Usmagazine.com, saying they’re “no longer together” but “remain friends” (and could you please “respect their privacy”) and blahblahblah.
In other words? Doug’s either a total liar (not implausible) or else he literally had no idea that Paris was kickin’ him to the curb. (OMG, right??!)
Bottom line, Doug’s been TTYNEd and Paris is as single as they come. Hmm, anyone else thinking spinoff? Paris Hilton’s My New GF DOES have an awfully nice ring to it …
Hillary’s Bitter Victory: How the Democratic campaign turned into an absurd and acrimonious culture war
Acrimonious.com
Night of the excruciating Pennsylvania primary. I’m in the ballroom of the Park Hyatt hotel in Philadelphia, site of Hillary Clinton’s victory speech. The place is going nuts. The floor is a teeming mass of celebrating Lifetime demographic; I haven’t seen this many strong, independent women in one place since [potentially offensive gender-specific content self-censored by writer]. Clinton, who has just kicked Obama’s ass all over the state, is onstage spooning out her rap.
“You know, for me, the victory we share tonight is deeply personal,” Hillary says. “It was here in Pennsylvania where my grandfather started work as a boy in the lace mills. . . .”
“Really?” I say from my perch in the press balcony, nudging an HBO producer next to me. “Her grandfather worked in a lace mill? I hadn’t heard that!”
“Yeah, right?” she says, laughing. “Who knew?”
But I’m catching stares now from a camera woman kneeling a few feet in front. “You clap at these things,” she snaps at us. “That’s what you do at these things. You clap. You should be clapping!”
I clap quietly to calm her down, sighing once she turns around. In the past, the press areas at campaign stops have always been wisecracking oases, a place where the rules of partisan politics are largely suspended. After all, this job is hard enough without having to take the subject matter seriously. But as the Obama-Clinton race has devolved into one of the all-time political death matches, the Hutu-Tutsi thing has spread even into the reporter ranks. Now, even one wrong word on the press bus can start a fight.
It’s the same way with Democrats everywhere now. Seldom in American politics has the same side of a single party split into such distinct and acrimonious factions. As virtually identical as the two candidates are in their political positions, there is no longer any common cause left between Hillary lovers and Obama supporters. There is only a culture war of epic proportions, featuring some of the most unlikely and absurd combatants in the history of impassioned conflict. Ordinary suburban Americans, people who consider Tina Fey biting satire and whose only “fighting” experience has usually been against trans fats or hair loss, can now be seen running through the streets, screaming war calls like Maoist guerrillas in the jungles of Nepal.
As Hillary finishes her speech in the ballroom, plumes of confetti shoot into the air out of a pair of paper-cannons. The loudspeaker — which for hours now has been playing an agonizing loop of patriotic classic rock, with heavy emphasis on Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down” — is now blasting John Cougar Mellencamp’s “Our Country.”
I raise an eyebrow. The song is (1) the soundtrack to a hideously overplayed truck commercial and (2) possibly, just possibly, a weird and weirdly gratuitous dig at Obama, who at that very moment was making his gloomy “I’m fucked” concession speech in Evansville, Indiana, flanked by Indiana native Mellencamp and his wife, Elaine. Is the Clinton camp trying to make a joke about the fact that Obama is grasping for the endorsement of some gnomish Eighties B-lister while Hillary is grabbing America by the balls? Yeah, this is our country, motherfucker! Suck on this!
Has it come to this? The political equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?” On both sides, this Obama-Clinton race has turned into something very like the vicious rivalry of a pair of blood-lusting high school student bodies — Odessa Permian versus Midland Lee, only with the fate of the free world hanging in the balance.
This race has already seen such juvenilia as one would previously have considered inconceivable in a contest between two ostensibly cerebral Democratic presidential candidates, including a surprisingly serious argument over which camp had the right to invoke Rocky references in their Pennsylvania campaign rhetoric — an argument settled, amazingly, when Gov. Ed Rendell declared “by executive order” that the right was Hillary’s alone. The problem has been exacerbated by the relatively minor policy differences between the two candidates, although one suspects that even if those differences were major, they would take a back seat to the emerging tribal schism now cleaving the Democratic Party — a wholesale regression to clashing teenage emotions that turns these supposedly profound electoral battles into feverish squalls of car-honking and sarcastic sloganeering.
How long before one side kidnaps the other side’s mascot? Will we wake up some morning in the near future and find Obama’s campaign bus taken apart and reassembled on the roof of the Indiana Statehouse? Will Obama hooligans steal Hillary’s Botox kit and gleefully paint the word “suck!” at the end of every yes she can sign in Guam?
More important, when will this thing end? Is there any relief in sight?
The short answer to this question is no, there isn’t. This contest no longer has anything to do with the electoral math. After the Pennsylvania contest, Obama holds some 1,724 delegates, which include 1,488 pledged delegates and 236 superdelegates. Hillary, by contrast, has 1,593 total delegates, broken down into 1,334 pledged and 259 superdelegates.
The popular vote is a more confusing story, but even there the margin is substantial: 14,417,619 votes for Obama to 13,917,393 for Hillary. Those numbers can be skewed in several different directions, depending on one’s inclinations (Obama’s number is artificially low because it fails to reflect caucus-state populations; Hillary’s number is artificially low because she doesn’t get credit for Michigan and Florida). But either way, the final count will almost certainly favor Obama.
The fact that the race seems so closely fought now makes it hard to remember Obama’s crushing streak of victories in the middle of this campaign. But the truth is that he built up so big a lead back then that even a major victory in a major state like Pennsylvania has little influence on the outcome: Hillary picked up only nine delegates on Obama in the process.
By the time the primary season officially ends on June 3rd with Montana and South Dakota, Obama will almost certainly be leading in delegates and the popular vote — but there almost certainly will be no nominee, either. The remainder of this race has therefore become a matter of each candidate making a case for his/her electability to the 300-odd superdelegates still uncommitted — people like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, who ultimately will decide this contest at the convention.
In the meantime, one thing about this contest can be said with absolute surety: Everyone involved has lost their minds. For Clinton supporters, the race has taken on a meaning that transcends politics. One gets the sense that Hillary’s campaign has become an idée fixe for any Democrat of a certain type who has ever been fucked around or disrespected or abused or disappointed. Far more than any policy position, it is Hillary’s “fight to the finish” mantra that is reaching her supporters on some elemental level that is hard for outsiders to comprehend.
Her campaign has become a symbol of not giving in to those who would wish us to surrender, of defying the smug assessments of those who think they know better, of not letting someone else’s diminished expectations for us — maybe those of a boss, maybe an ex-boyfriend or ex-wife, maybe a Madison Avenue ad world that tells us we have to look a certain way/age to be worth loving — rule the day. I would say that Hillary is the electoral incarnation of a Gloria Gaynor song, but Gloria Gaynor is too campy and even a little bit too black for this crowd; the vibe at Hillary events feels more like nostalgic white suburban angst, a numbing misery of a type that runs deep enough it can hear the same song over and over again in the car on the way to work for 20 consecutive years and yet still sing along to it, lips pursed defiantly in Billy Crystal’s white-man’s overbite, when it hears it twice, three times, even four times in the same hour. In other words, this Hillary campaign is basically Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down” running for president.
If you’re the kind of person who’s ready to throw a chair through a window if you hear that fucking song even one more time, you’re not going to get this Hillary thing. More to the point, you’re not going to fit in with these crowds, which are full of featureless, angry faces, faces of the type that all us smug cleverati in the media think can be ignored, faces that have been going to boring-ass jobs every day and taking one crappy vacation a year to Puerto Vallarta and running a treadmill three times a week to help their spouses find sex with them more tolerable — you see, there we go, making jokes about them again! See, we can laugh all we want, but they won’t . . . back . . . down! THEY WON’T! BACK! DOWWWWWWWN!
Somewhere in there is where you can find the emotional imperative underneath this campaign, and the reason why all the electoral math in the world doesn’t mean shit to these people. Hillary calls them the “invisible Americans.” There are a hell of a lot of them, and their anger is real. They don’t want to hear about numbers, and they don’t want to hear about Hillary bowing out for the good of the party. After Clinton’s victory speech, I stop an elderly woman with orange hair who is wearing what looks like a white rayon sweater. I ask her if there would ever be a point at which she thinks Hillary should consider stepping d—
“Absolutely not!” she cries. “You never get out!”
I start to bring up the math, the delegate count—
“SHE IS GOING TO WIN!!!”
Next thing I know, this woman, in life probably someone’s quiet grandmother from Lancaster County, is mugging in front of a TV camera, her hands raised in twin victory signs like Dick Nixon, shouting Hillary’s name to the world.
Watching this scene, I was struck suddenly by the genius of the Clinton campaign — and also felt myself beginning to understand why this Obama-Clinton contest may yet prove to be one of those defining cultural clashes that come along once a generation or so, like Bryan-Darrow or Ali-Frazier. It has been generally accepted by the media class that in Barack Obama we have the privilege of witnessing a rare oratorical talent, a dynamically attractive personal presence capable of taking even a step-in-shit moment like the Rev. Wright scandal and turning it into a positive through a well-timed and disarmingly seductive address on the issue of race in general.
But if we recognize that, we must also recognize what we have in Hillary Clinton: a once-in-a-generation political pugilist who, like her much smoother adversary, is amazingly capable of turning weakness into strength. Pitted against physical beauty and inspirational rhetoric, Hillary made herself the champion of everything stylistically ordinary, superficially unimpressive and ignored. And while her opponent won all the attention and admiration, all the teen-idol gushings of the beautiful people, she went for something deeper — resentment at the lack of those same things. She took an opponent who was relentless in his attempts to remain genial, positive and unifying, and managed to turn him into a divisive villain, a symbol representing every oversexed winner who ever had it too easy at the pimply kid’s expense.
It’s brilliant strategy, and it’s working so well that Hillary now has her crowds hurling catcalls at the mere mention of anything Obama. Moreover, she’s inspired such profound loyalty that her supporters no longer give a shit at all how they win, as long as they do. Like O.J. apologists who became overnight skeptics of DNA evidence, Clinton backers don’t see anything wrong with winning the nomination through a brokered convention, despite being behind in the popular vote and the delegate count. “Why not?” says Don Dileo, a union organizer who worked for Hillary in Pennsylvania. “That’s the system of government we have, right?”
Meanwhile, there’s no shortage of Obama crazies, either — only on that side, the fanaticism is more of the throw-your-panties-onstage craze for the cool cool thing last seen swirling around the Beatles or Elvis or Shaun Cassidy. Just as the majority of the Hillary supporters I’ve talked to lately don’t give a damn about her policy positions, so too do many Obama fans hide behind vague terms like “I like his integrity” or “He changes the paradigm.” It’s the same mindless devotion as the Hillary camp’s “I won’t back down!” Only it seems painfully personal in one case, intellectually earnest (almost comically so) in the other.
And here’s the thing. Whereas the Clinton rallies seem to embrace the combative nature of this contest, in the Obama camp one frequently finds people who are deeply troubled by it. “He’s been a complete gentleman,” says Amala Lane, an Obama volunteer from New York who came down to Pennsylvania for the primary. “This is exactly what Obama is trying to get us beyond: this blue-state/red-state thing.”
Listening to Lane — a soft-spoken, white, college-educated intellectual who worked as a teacher overseas — you can see exactly where Obama has gone wrong. In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Obama polled well among people exactly like this: liberals and college graduates. In the Full Metal Jacket paradigm, faggots and sailors. Earlier in the campaign, the Obama camp was so busy stewing over Bill Clinton’s comparison of Obama’s South Carolina win to Jesse Jackson’s and worrying about being painted as a “black candidate” that they forgot to worry about being painted as something even worse, in American political terms: the candidate of liberal intellectuals.
With all his verbose deflections of Hillary’s attacks and unconcealed annoyance over silly nonissues like his failure to wear a flag lapel pin, Obama inadvertently painted himself into a corner as a know-it-all, a pointy-head who would rather yammer in polysyllables and talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than wear the fucking American flag on his chest — as Hillary, meanwhile, was promising to “obliterate” Iran and in the process roping in hordes of nondescript suburbanites who’ll crawl through the mud for “Madam President” while marching to classic rock tunes like the “Horst Wessel Song.” Clinton’s genius was in seeing that it was possible to play the liberal/intellectual-baiting game not only with Republicans but with Democrats — and that by forcing her opponent to take the high road, she could scour the fish-rich waters of the low road.
The result has been an epic clash, a war of cultural types that has nothing whatsoever to do with issues and everything to do with self-image. It’s become a pitched fight between the fucked-over suburban little guy and the vilified intellectual, two groups that for years have felt put upon and dispossessed, for different reasons. The fact that their respective champions are identical superstar U.S. senators/multimillionaires makes the bitter hatred this schism is inspiring absurd, but it doesn’t make it any less real. Or likely to end anytime soon. Oh well Obama WON!!
3 definitions for acrimonious
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
Acrimonious \Ac"ri*mo"ni*ous\, a. [Cf. LL. acrimonious, F.
acrimonieux.]
1. Acrid; corrosive; as, acrimonious gall. [Archaic]
—Harvey.
[1913 Webster]
2. Caustic; bitter-tempered’ sarcastic; as, acrimonious
dispute, language, temper.
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet® 2.0 :
acrimonious
adj : marked by strong resentment or cynicism; “an acrimonious
dispute”; “bitter about the divorce” [syn: bitter]
From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 :
68 Moby Thesaurus words for “acrimonious”:
acerb, acerbate, acerbic, acid, acidic, acidulent, acidulous,
acrid, astringent, belligerent, biting, bitter, burning, caustic,
choleric, contentious, corroding, corrosive, cranky, cross,
cutting, double-edged, edged, embittered, escharotic, fierce,
harsh, incisive, indignant, irascible, irate, ireful, keen, mad,
mordacious, mordant, penetrating, piercing, poignant, quarrelsome,
rancorous, rankled, resentful, resenting, rigorous, rough,
scathing, scorching, severe, sharp, sore, splenetic, stabbing,
stewing, stinging, strident, stringent, tart, testy, trenchant,
vehement, violent, virulent, vitriolic, withering, wrathful,
wrathy, wroth
?
The Magic of Making UP
McCartney divorce deal details
Paul McCartney
The acrimonious divorce battle between Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills will finally be resolved today.
A judge will tell them how much the settlement will be. Divorce experts have estimated Ms Mills could walk away with ?60m of Sir Paul’s estimated ?825m fortune.
Sir Paul is said to be happy for details of the settlement to be made public. Ms Mills, on the other hand, is not.
The couple failed to reach an agreement in court last month, leaving the judge to determine the final figure.
Anna Fernando from Heat magazine says whatever happens, Ms Mills will continue to make the front pages of British newspapers:
“I think she wants to be there. I mean, she is a woman who has gone out there, she’s put herself in the press and she’s wanted to be there.
“She was instructed by her PR guy not to speak, she went against him, she lost him, she has lost legal representation. She does everything she’s told not to do. She wants to be in the papers,” she said.
Ms Mills, 40, married Sir Paul, 65, in June 2002, four years after the death of his first wife Linda from breast cancer.
The couple, who have a four-year-old daughter Beatrice, announced the end of their marriage in 2006.
Divorce, Alamo Style
acrimonious image
From a small north-side apartment via tony Rob Roy, a Hays County ranch, and several sojourns in jail Janet Kennedy keeps fighting a battle featuring all the latest in family bitterness
It’s one of the most contentious land battles in the Hill Country ? but for once, a controversial development isn’t at the center of the storm. Instead, an acrimonious divorce case is driving Janet Kennedy’s attempts to right the wrongs she believes she’s been dealt since 1999, when the Kennedy v. Kennedy saga began.
The case has traveled a circuitous path from Travis County, where Janet’s then husband Bobby Joe Kennedy, an Austin dermatologist, initiated the proceedings that would end the couple’s 32-year marriage, one that had produced five children. He eventually pulled the case and refiled it several months later in Hays County, where things got chaotic and nasty, and Janet ended up in jail. The case proceeded to the 3rd Court of Appeals (the first in what would become a long string of appeals), which determined that an associate judge erred in granting Bobby Joe a divorce as a sanction against Janet for refusing to endorse a check from the sale of the family home in Rob Roy.
Nevertheless, Janet’s refusal earned her not only a divorce sanction but a contempt of court charge that landed her in the county jail. For a woman in her late 50s, the Hays County lockup is no picnic. Kennedy was assigned to the top of three bunks, but because of a shoulder injury was unable to climb up to it. She slept on the concrete floor for the first two nights and in the daytime, instructed her fellow inmates in Bible study. By the time she got out, 42 days later, Bobby Joe Kennedy had remarried.
In all, since 1999, when her husband initiated the first divorce proceedings, Janet has endured four separate stints in the Hays County jail:
July 6, 2000: Arrested for failing to appear for a divorce hearing two weeks earlier, she spent 24 hours in a holding tank.
July 7, 2000: When she was summoned from the holding tank to sign the note on the sale of the family’s Rob Roy home, she refused, and Associate Judge Brenda Smith declared the divorce final and ordered Janet jailed for contempt of court.
April 2003: Arrested for remaining on one of the couple’s Hays Co. ranches after the property was sold a month earlier, she spent 24 hours in a holding tank, before being released on a personal recognizance bond.
June 2004: Arrested a second time for trespassing on the same property, she spent 45 days in jail.
The first opinion from the appeals court agreed that the June 2000 contempt judgment against Janet Kennedy was justified, but faulted the lower court for granting the divorce without settling the community property dispute. Therefore, the appeals court reconfigured the date of the divorce judgment from July 2000 to August 2001, when the property settlement actually occurred, following a six-day jury trial. But Janet wasn’t satisfied. While the jury had awarded her temporary spousal support of more than $3,000 a month, the trial court brushed that portion of the verdict aside. Instead, visiting District Court Judge Fred Moore noted that Janet holds a master’s degree in health care administration and has practiced as a licensed pharmacist, and he told her to get a job. Again she turned to the 3rd Court but to no avail. The Texas Supreme Court came next, followed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The signature of Justice Antonin Scalia graces Janet’s perfunctory rejection letter.
Had the divorce case remained in Travis County, it’s possible that Janet Kennedy would not have ended up on a seemingly endless, pitfall-ridden journey for justice. Family law attorney Ted Terry represented Janet in the Travis Co. proceedings, but re-signed from the case once it moved to Hays County, because of a conflict with another divorce case; he was representing the wife of a Hays County official ? District Court Judge Charles Ramsay. Terry says Bobby Joe Kennedy pulled his divorce petition out of Travis Co. after a judge ordered him to pay his wife’s attorney fees and spousal support. “I figured he’d be filing in Hays County ? it’s a better county for him ? and lo and behold, that’s what he did. Janet would have been protected a lot better in Travis County because the judiciary or a jury wouldn’t just blow her off as an eccentric person. They put up with a lot more around here.”
A small, conservative county like Hays isn’t so forgiving, Terry said. “If you get cross-wise with a judge in a small county, you’re toast,” he said. “You should never thumb your nose at the judge ? that’s suicidal,” he said, “but there were some ways to get around that ruling other than putting her in jail. I really don’t think she’d be where she is today if the case had stayed in Travis County.”
Yet, Janet Kennedy remains undaunted, and at 61 shows no signs of slowing down. She’s a devout Southern Baptist who follows a strict regimen of scripture reading, praying … and writing legal briefs from her modest North Austin apartment, tastefully furnished with a couch, a few chairs, tables, and knick-knacks she picked up from Goodwill and Salvation Army stores. In a recent interview in her home, she greeted me with a plate of flan and a glass of ice tea. “Since my divorce,” she said, ushering me to a small, perfectly set table with a blue tablecloth, “I don’t have the opportunity to make things. And I do enjoy making things.” She’s estranged from her children, though she and her ex-husband dispute the reasons why. A few friends have stuck by her all these years. “I believe her cause is just and right,” said Ann Capps, a longtime friend from an old Bible study group at Hyde Park Baptist Church. “And I believe she’s been mistreated by the courts and by her husband.”
Showdown at Alamo Ranch
As with most sticky divorce stories, Kennedy v. Kennedy has developed a running series of subplots. It is the kind of messy saga that occasionally garners a mention at family law seminars, commented one local lawyer. Houston attorney David Gray singled out the case in his December 2002 column� “Gray’s Interesting Cases”� a regular newsletter feature of the Houston Bar Association’s family law section. He referred to it as “a legally insignificant case that’s so bad it has to be reported.” Drawing on the first opinion of the 3rd Court of Appeals, Gray poked fun at the Hays Co. associate judge who initially granted the divorce� as a punishment� before tossing Janet in the slammer for contempt. “I should stop here and make you read the opinion,” Gray wrote, “but if I do, somebody out there will think its OK to grant a ‘final divorce’ as a contempt or other sanction.” The trial court’s divorce sanction against Kennedy, Gray concluded, “makes you want to hang your head in shame.”
It’s been five years since the sanction, and though the appellate court found no reversible error, Janet Kennedy is still seeking redemption. A central argument in the multilayered case concerns her attempts to regain control of Alamo Ranch Inc., a wholly owned entity created in 1992 to maintain the couple’s real estate holdings in Hays and Gillespie counties. According to the divorce trial record, Janet served as the sole officer of the corporation, mainly for liability reasons; the idea according to testimony was that Alamo Ranch would shield the family’s 600 or so acres of ranch properties in the event Dr. Bobby Joe Kennedy, a dermatologist, was sued for malpractice. Janet also asserted that her husband acquired the property as his “gift” to her for the years she spent helping him with his practice.
As things turned out, the 2001 jury verdict in the divorce trial deemed the Alamo Ranch community property. But the judge gave control of Alamo Ranch’s assets to Bobby Joe, directing him to sell the properties and divide the proceeds from the sale. To this day, Janet refuses to accept her estimated $500,000 share of the proceeds. To do so, she said, would be an admission of defeat, and the acceptance of what she believes to be a mere fraction of what she is entitled.
She argues, among other things, that her ex-husband had no legal authority to draw up documents declaring himself president of Alamo Ranch Inc. After raising five kids, setting up her husband’s practice, and managing his office for a number of years, Janet says she decided to turn Alamo Ranch into a full-time gig of raising Navajo-Churro sheep, longhorn cattle, and other livestock. But Bobby Joe insists that he and his sons performed most of the work on the ranch, building fences and managing the growing menagerie of livestock that Janet regarded as her pets. “We had five breeds of sheep. We had donkeys, peacocks, a llama, and a buffalo,” said Dr. Kennedy in an interview. “And she just wanted more. There was no end to it.”
A sideline of the business branched out into the age-old craft of spinning wool sheared from the sheep, teaching spinning classes, and marketing the wool to suppliers. But Bobby Joe says the marketing side never took off. The wool languished in dozens of large bags, presumably waiting for shipment.
In any event, in the spring of 1997, the couple and their youngest son packed up their belongings and moved from their half-million-dollar home in the exclusive Rob Roy subdivision of far West Austin to a beautiful spread in northeast Hays County, south of Hamilton Pool Road. The site covers 19 acres of rugged, rolling green terrain, and boasts a small lake, a creek, and one of the highest points around, where the Kennedys would take in gorgeous sunsets and 360-degree views of the Hill County. The family initially set up housekeeping in a 1997 Teton RV and, according to Janet, began planning the home they would build. Meanwhile, they started prepping the Rob Roy home to put on the market.
For whatever reasons, the marriage collapsed before Janet realized her dreams. When her husband announced he was divorcing her, Janet says she was shocked, arguing that the Bible and their Baptist faith forbid it. Bobby Joe proceeded anyway. The more time passed, the uglier things got. Tempers flared, and things were said that came back to haunt them during the divorce proceedings. Janet became clinically depressed and began taking medication. She was angry, devastated, sad, suspicious, and terribly confused. At the divorce trial, the testimony of her grown children and her husband painted a picture of someone who ran an ultra-strict household and whose deep and ever-expanding religious convictions had become a source of family irritation. One of the Kennedy sons testified that his mother insisted that he always wear a white shirt to church. If he showed up in a blue shirt, he’d have hell to pay the rest of the day. The trial left Janet feeling all the more alienated. “I feel like a trauma victim,” she told her attorney.
Halloween Fantacy, Ghosts, Hauntings, Pumkins, Costumes, Tricks and Treats!
Find or design your favorite Halloween Costume and Carve your best pumkin ever! These sites are filled with ideas from Telling your favorite Ghost Story to Hosting the Best Halloween Party. Find Safety Tips and great ideas for adults and children’s activities for Halloween!
; "acrimonious.com")
button beside categories below to add/edit content
