LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE Archives

PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE  July 2011, Week 4

PORTSIDE July 2011, Week 4

Subject:

I Do Not Want Mercy, I Want You To Join Me - Tim DeChristopher Speech to the Court

From:

Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:07:39 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (579 lines)

I Do Not Want Mercy, I Want You To Join Me - Tim
DeChristopher Speech to the Court

	"I want you to join me in standing up for the right
	and responsibility of citizens to challenge their
	government.  I want you to join me in valuing this
	country's rich history of nonviolent civil
	disobedience."

Published on July 27, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/26-13

Tim DeChristopher, who was sentenced today to two years in
federal prison for disrupting a Bureau of Land Management
auction in 2008, had an opportunity to address the court and
the judge today immediately before his sentence was
announced. This is what he said:


Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the court.
When I first met Mr. Manross, the sentencing officer who
prepared the presentence report, he explained that it was
essentially his job to "get to know me."  He said he had to
get to know who I really was and why I did what I did in
order to decide what kind of sentence was appropriate.  I
was struck by the fact that he was the first person in this
courthouse to call me by my first name, or even really look
me in the eye.  I appreciate this opportunity to speak
openly to you for the first time.  I'm not here asking for
your mercy, but I am here asking that you know me.

Mr. Huber has leveled a lot of character attacks at me, many
of which are contrary to Mr. Manross's report.  While
reading Mr Huber's critiques of my character and my
integrity, as well as his assumptions about my motivations,
I was reminded that Mr Huber and I have never had a
conversation.    Over the two and half years of this
prosecution, he has never asked my any of the questions that
he makes assumptions about in the government's report.
Apparently, Mr. Huber has never considered it his job to get
to know me, and yet he is quite willing to disregard the
opinions of the one person who does see that as his job.

There are alternating characterizations that Mr Huber would
like you to believe about me.  In one paragraph, the
government claims I "played out the parts of accuser, jury,
and judge as he determined the fate of the oil and gas lease
auction and its intended participants that day."   In the
very next paragraph, they claim "It was not the defendant's
crimes that effected such a change." Mr Huber would lead you
to believe that I'm either a dangerous criminal who holds
the oil and gas industry in the palm of my hand, or I'm just
an incompetent child who didn't affect the outcome of
anything.  As evidenced by the continued back and forth of
contradictory arguments in the government's memorandum,
they're not quite sure which of those extreme caricatures I
am, but they are certain that I am nothing in between.
Rather than the job of getting to know me, it seems Mr Huber
prefers the job of fitting me into whatever extreme
characterization is most politically expedient at the
moment.

In nearly every paragraph, the government's memorandum uses
the words lie, lied, lying, liar.  It makes me want to thank
whatever clerk edited out the words "pants on fire."  Their
report doesn't mention the fact that at the auction in
question, the first person who asked me what I was doing
there was Agent Dan Love.  And I told him very clearly that
I was there to stand in the way of an illegitimate auction
that threatened my future.  I proceeded to answer all of his
questions openly and honestly, and have done so to this day
when speaking about that auction in any forum, including
this courtroom.  The entire basis for the false statements
charge that I was convicted of was the fact that I wrote my
real name and address on a form that included the words
"bona fide bidder."  When I sat there on the witness stand,
Mr Romney asked me if I ever had any intention of being a
bona fide bidder.  I responded by asking Mr Romney to
clarify what "bona fide bidder" meant in this context.  Mr
Romney then withdrew the question and moved on to the next
subject.  On that right there is the entire basis for the
government's repeated attacks on my integrity.  Ambition
should be made of sterner stuff, your honor.

Mr Huber also makes grand assumptions about my level of
respect for the rule of law.  The government claims a long
prison sentence is necessary to counteract the political
statements I've made and promote a respect for the law.  The
only evidence provided for my lack of respect for the law is
political statements that I've made in public forums.
Again, the government doesn't mention my actions in regard
to the drastic restrictions that were put upon my defense in
this courtroom.  My political disagreements with the court
about the proper role of a jury in the legal system are
probably well known.  I've given several public speeches and
interviews about how the jury system was established and how
it has evolved to it's current state.  Outside of this
courtroom, I've made my views clear that I agree with the
founding fathers that juries should be the conscience of the
community and a defense against legislative tyranny.  I even
went so far as to organize a book study group that read
about the history of jury nullification.  Some of the
participants in that book group later began passing out
leaflets to the public about jury rights, as is their right.
Mr Huber was apparently so outraged by this that he made the
slanderous accusations that I tried to taint the jury.  He
didn't specify the extra number of months that I should
spend in prison for the heinous activity of holding a book
group at the Unitarian Church and quoting Thomas Jefferson
in public, but he says you should have "little tolerance for
this behavior."

But here is the important point that Mr Huber would rather
ignore.  Despite my strong disagreements with the court
about the Constitutional basis for the limits on my defense,
while I was in this courtroom I respected the authority of
the court.  Whether I agreed with them or not, I abided by
the restrictions that you put on me and my legal team.  I
never attempted to "taint" the jury, as Mr Huber claimed, by
sharing any of the relevant facts about the auction in
question that the court had decided were off limits.  I
didn't burst out and tell the jury that I successfully
raised the down payment and offered it to the BLM.  I didn't
let the jury know that the auction was later reversed
because it was illegitimate in the first place.  To this day
I still think I should have had the right to do so, but
disagreement with the law should not be confused with
disrespect for the law.

My public statements about jury nullification were not the
only political statements that Mr Huber thinks I should be
punished for.  As the government's memorandum points out, I
have also made public statements about the value of civil
disobedience in bringing the rule of law closer to our
shared sense of justice.  In fact, I have openly and
explicitly called for nonviolent civil disobedience against
mountaintop removal coal mining in my home state of West
Virginia.  Mountaintop removal is itself an illegal
activity, which has always been in violation of the Clean
Water Act, and it is an illegal activity that kills people.
A West Virginia state investigation found that Massey Energy
had been cited with 62,923 violations of the law in the ten
years preceding the disaster that killed 29 people last
year.  The investigation also revealed that Massey paid for
almost none of those violations because the company provided
millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions that
elected most of the appeals court judges in the state.  When
I was growing up in West Virginia, my mother was one of many
who pursued every legal avenue for making the coal industry
follow the law.  She commented at hearings, wrote petitions
and filed lawsuits, and many have continued to do ever
since, to no avail.  I actually have great respect for the
rule of law, because I see what happens when it doesn't
exist, as is the case with the fossil fuel industry.  Those
crimes committed by Massey Energy led not only to the deaths
of their own workers, but to the deaths of countless local
residents, such as Joshua McCormick, who died of kidney
cancer at age 22 because he was unlucky enough to live
downstream from a coal mine.  When a corrupted government is
no longer willing to uphold the rule of law, I advocate that
citizens step up to that responsibility.

This is really the heart of what this case is about.  The
rule of law is dependent upon a government that is willing
to abide by the law.  Disrespect for the rule of law begins
when the government believes itself and its corporate
sponsors to be above the law.

Mr Huber claims that the seriousness of my offense was that
I "obstructed lawful government proceedings."  But the
auction in question was not a lawful proceeding.  I know
you've heard another case about some of the irregularities
for which the auction was overturned.  But that case did not
involve the BLM's blatant violation of Secretarial Order
3226, which was a law that went into effect in 2001 and
required the BLM to weigh the impacts on climate change for
all its major decisions, particularly resource development.
A federal judge in Montana ruled last year that the BLM was
in constant violation of this law throughout the Bush
administration.  In all the proceedings and debates about
this auction, no apologist for the government or the BLM has
ever even tried to claim that the BLM followed this law.  In
both the December 2008 auction and the creation of the
Resource Management Plan on which this auction was based,
the BLM did not even attempt to follow this law.

And this law is not a trivial regulation about crossing t's
or dotting i's to make some government accountant's job
easier.  This law was put into effect to mitigate the
impacts of catastrophic climate change and defend a livable
future on this planet.  This law was about protecting the
survival of young generations.  That's kind of a big deal.
It's a very big deal to me.  If the government is going to
refuse to step up to that responsibility to defend a livable
future, I believe that creates a moral imperative for me and
other citizens.  My future, and the future of everyone I
care about, is being traded for short term profits.  I take
that very personally.  Until our leaders take seriously
their responsibility to pass on a healthy and just world to
the next generation, I will continue this fight.

The government has made the claim that there were legal
alternatives to standing in the way of this auction.
Particularly, I could have filed a written protest against
certain parcels.  The government does not mention, however,
that two months prior to this auction, in October 2008, a
Congressional report was released that looked into those
protests.  The report, by the House committee on public
lands, stated that it had become common practice for the BLM
to take volunteers from the oil and gas industry to process
those permits.  The oil industry was paying people
specifically to volunteer for the industry that was supposed
to be regulating it, and it was to those industry staff that
I would have been appealing.  Moreover, this auction was
just three months after the New York Times reported on a
major scandal involving Department of the Interior
regulators who were taking bribes of sex and drugs from the
oil companies that they were supposed to be regulating.  In
2008, this was the condition of the rule of law, for which
Mr Huber says I lacked respect.  Just as the legal avenues
which people in West Virginia have been pursuing for 30
years, the legal avenues in this case were constructed
precisely to protect the corporations who control the
government.

The reality is not that I lack respect for the law; it's
that I have greater respect for justice.  Where there is a
conflict between the law and the higher moral code that we
all share, my loyalty is to that higher moral code.  I know
Mr Huber disagrees with me on this.  He wrote that "The rule
of law is the bedrock of our civilized society, not acts of
`civil disobedience' committed in the name of the cause of
the day."  That's an especially ironic statement when he is
representing the United States of America, a place where the
rule of law was created through acts of civil disobedience.
Since those bedrock acts of civil disobedience by our
founding fathers, the rule of law in this country has
continued to grow closer to our shared higher moral code
through the civil disobedience that drew attention to
legalized injustice.  The authority of the government exists
to the degree that the rule of law reflects the higher moral
code of the citizens, and throughout American history, it
has been civil disobedience that has bound them together.

This philosophical difference is serious enough that Mr
Huber thinks I should be imprisoned to discourage the spread
of this idea.  Much of the government's memorandum focuses
on the political statements that I've made in public.  But
it hasn't always been this way.  When Mr Huber was arguing
that my defense should be limited, he addressed my views
this way: "The public square is the proper stage for the
defendant's message, not criminal proceedings in federal
court."  But now that the jury is gone, Mr. Huber wants to
take my message from the public square and make it a central
part of these federal court proceedings.  I have no problem
with that.  I'm just as willing to have those views on
display as I've ever been.

The government's memorandum states, "As opposed to
preventing this particular defendant from committing further
crimes, the sentence should be crafted `to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct' by others."  Their concern
is not the danger that I present, but the danger presented
by my ideas and words that might lead others to action.
Perhaps Mr Huber is right to be concerned.  He represents
the United States Government.  His job is to protect those
currently in power, and by extension, their corporate
sponsors.  After months of no action after the auction, the
way I found out about my indictment was the day before it
happened, Pat Shea got a call from an Associated Press
reporter who said, "I just wanted to let you know that
tomorrow Tim is going to be indicted, and this is what the
charges are going to be."  That reporter had gotten that
information two weeks earlier from an oil industry lobbyist.
Our request for disclosure of what role that lobbyist played
in the US Attorney's office was denied, but we know that she
apparently holds sway and that the government feels the need
to protect the industry's interests.

The things that I've been publicly saying may indeed be
threatening to that power structure. There have been several
references to the speech I gave after the conviction, but
I've only ever seen half of one sentence of that speech
quoted.  In the government's report, they actually had to
add their own words to that one sentence to make it sound
more threatening.   But the speech was about empowerment.
It was about recognizing our interconnectedness rather than
viewing ourselves as isolated individuals.  The message of
the speech was that when people stand together, they no
longer have to be exploited by powerful corporations.
Alienation is perhaps the most effective tool of control in
America, and every reminder of our real connectedness
weakens that tool.

But the sentencing guidelines don't mention the need to
protect corporations or politicians from ideas that threaten
their control.  The guidelines say "protect the public."
The question is whether the public is helped or harmed by my
actions.  The easiest way to answer that question is with
the direct impacts of my action.  As the oil executive
stated in his testimony, the parcels I didn't bid on
averaged $12 per acre, but the ones I did bid on averaged
$125.  Those are the prices paid for public property to the
public trust.  The industry admits very openly that they
were getting those parcels for an order of magnitude less
than what they were worth.  Not only did those oil companies
drive up the prices to $125 during the bidding, they were
then given an opportunity to withdraw their bids once my
actions were explained.  They kept the parcels, presumably
because they knew they were still a good deal at $125.  The
oil companies knew they were getting a steal from the
American people, and now they're crying because they had to
pay a little closer to what those parcels were actually
worth.  The government claims I should be held accountable
for the steal the oil companies didn't get.  The
government's report demands $600,000 worth of financial
impacts for the amount which the oil industry wasn't able to
steal from the public.

That extra revenue for the public became almost irrelevant,
though, once most of those parcels were revoked by Secretary
Salazar.  Most of the parcels I won were later deemed
inappropriate for drilling.  In other words, the highest and
best value to the public for those particular lands was not
for oil and gas drilling.  Had the auction gone off without
a hitch, it would have been a loss for the public.  The fact
that the auction was delayed, extra attention was brought to
the process, and the parcels were ultimately revoked was a
good thing for the public.

More generally, the question of whether civil disobedience
is good for the public is a matter of perspective.  Civil
disobedience is inherently an attempt at change.  Those in
power, whom Mr Huber represents, are those for whom the
status quo is working, so they always see civil disobedience
as a bad thing.  The decision you are making today, your
honor, is what segment of the public you are meant to
protect.  Mr Huber clearly has cast his lot with that
segment who wishes to preserve the status quo.  But the
majority of the public is exploited by the status quo far
more than they are benefited by it.  The young are the most
obvious group who is exploited and condemned to an ugly
future by letting the fossil fuel industry call the shots.
There is an overwhelming amount of scientific research, some
of which you received as part of our proffer on the
necessity defense, that reveals the catastrophic
consequences which the young will have to deal with over the
coming decades.

But just as real is the exploitation of the communities
where fossil fuels are extracted.  As a native of West
Virginia, I have seen from a young age that the exploitation
of fossil fuels has always gone hand in hand with the
exploitation of local people.  In West Virginia, we've been
extracting coal longer than anyone else.  And after 150
years of making other people rich, West Virginia is almost
dead last among the states in per capita income, education
rates and life expectancy.  And it's not an anomaly.  The
areas with the richest fossil fuel resources, whether coal
in West Virginia and Kentucky, or oil in Louisiana and
Mississippi, are the areas with the lowest standards of
living.  In part, this is a necessity of the industry.  The
only way to convince someone to blow up their backyard or
poison their water is to make sure they are so desperate
that they have no other option.  But it is also the nature
of the economic model.  Since fossil fuels are a limited
resources, whoever controls access to that resource in the
beginning gets to set all the terms.  They set the terms for
their workers, for the local communities, and apparently
even for the regulatory agencies.  A renewable energy
economy is a threat to that model.  Since no one can control
access to the sun or the wind, the wealth is more likely to
flow to whoever does the work of harnessing that energy, and
therefore to create a more distributed economic system,
which leads to a more distributed political system.  It
threatens the profits of the handful of corporations for
whom the current system works, but our question is which
segment of the public are you tasked with protecting.  I am
here today because I have chosen to protect the people
locked out of the system over the profits of the
corporations running the system.  I say this not because I
want your mercy, but because I want you to join me.

After this difference of political philosophies, the rest of
the sentencing debate has been based on the financial loss
from my actions.  The government has suggested a variety of
numbers loosely associated with my actions, but as of yet
has yet to establish any causality between my actions and
any of those figures.  The most commonly discussed figure is
perhaps the most easily debunked.  This is the figure of
roughly $140,000, which is the amount the BLM originally
spent to hold the December 2008 auction.  By definition,
this number is the amount of money the BLM spent before I
ever got involved.  The relevant question is what the BLM
spent because of my actions, but apparently that question
has yet to be asked.  The only logic that relates the
$140,000 figure to my actions is if I caused the entire
auction to be null and void and the BLM had to start from
scratch to redo the entire auction.  But that of course is
not the case.  First is the prosecution's on-again-off-again
argument that I didn't have any impact on the auction being
overturned.  More importantly, the BLM never did redo the
auction because it was decided that many of those parcels
should never have been auctioned in the first place.  Rather
than this arbitrary figure of $140,000, it would have been
easy to ask the BLM how much money they spent or will spend
on redoing the auction.  But the government never asked this
question, probably because they knew they wouldn't like the
answer.

The other number suggested in the government's memorandum is
the $166,000 that was the total price of the three parcels I
won which were not invalidated.  Strangely, the government
wants me to pay for these parcels, but has never offered to
actually give them to me.  When I offered the BLM the money
a couple weeks after the auction, they refused to take it.
Aside from that history, this figure is still not a valid
financial loss from my actions.  When we wrote there was no
loss from my actions, we actually meant that rather
literally.  Those three parcels were not evaporated or
blasted into space because of my actions, not was the oil
underneath them sucked dry by my bid card.  They're still
there, and in fact the BLM has already issued public notice
of their intent to re-auction those parcels in February of
2012.

The final figure suggested as a financial loss is the
$600,000 that the oil company wasn't able to steal from the
public.  That completely unsubstantiated number is
supposedly the extra amount the BLM received because of my
actions.  This is when things get tricky.  The government's
report takes that $600,000 positive for the BLM and adds it
to that roughly $300,000 negative for the BLM, and comes up
with a $900,000 negative.  With math like that, it's obvious
that Mr Huber works for the federal government.

After most of those figures were disputed in the presentence
report, the government claimed in their most recent
objection that I should be punished according to the
intended financial impact that I intended to cause.  The
government tries to assume my intentions and then claims,
"This is consistent with the testimony that Mr.
DeChristopher provided at trial, admitting that his
intention was to cause financial harm to others with whom he
disagreed."  Now I didn't get to say a whole lot at the
trial, so it was pretty easy to look back through the
transcripts.  The statement claimed by the government never
happened.  There was nothing even close enough to make their
statement a paraphrase or artistic license.  This statement
in the government's objection is a complete fiction.  Mr
Huber's inability to judge my intent is revealed in this
case by the degree to which he underestimates my ambition.
The truth is that my intention, then as now, was to expose,
embarrass and hold accountable the oil industry to the
extent that it cuts into the $100 billion in annual profits
that it makes through exploitation.  I actually intended for
my actions to play a role in the wide variety of actions
that steer the country toward a clean energy economy where
those $100 billion in oil profits are completely eliminated.
When I read Mr Huber's new logic, I was terrified to
consider that my slightly unrealistic intention to have a
$100 billion impact will fetch me several consecutive life
sentences.  Luckily this reasoning is as unrealistic as it
is silly.

A more serious look at my intentions is found in Mr Huber's
attempt to find contradictions in my statements.  Mr Huber
points out that in public I acted proud of my actions and
treated it like a success, while in our sentencing
memorandum we claimed that my actions led to "no loss."  On
the one hand I think it was a success, and yet I claim it
there was no loss.  Success, but no loss.  Mr Huber presents
these ideas as mutually contradictory and obvious proof that
I was either dishonest or backing down from my convictions.
But for success to be contradictory to no loss, there has to
be another assumption.  One has to assume that my intent was
to cause a loss.  But the only loss that I intended to cause
was the loss of secrecy by which the government gave away
public property for private profit.  As I actually stated in
the trial, my intent was to shine a light on a corrupt
process and get the government to take a second look at how
this auction was conducted.  The success of that intent is
not dependent on any loss.  I knew that if I was completely
off base, and the government took that second look and
decided that nothing was wrong with that auction, the cost
of my action would be another day's salary for the
auctioneer and some minor costs of re-auctioning the
parcels.  But if I was right about the irregularities of the
auction, I knew that allowing the auction to proceed would
mean the permanent loss of lands better suited for other
purposes and the permanent loss of a safe climate.  The
intent was to prevent loss, but again that is a matter of
perspective.

Mr Huber wants you to weigh the loss for the corporations
that expected to get public property for pennies on the
dollar, but I believe the important factor is the loss to
the public which I helped prevent.  Again, we come back to
this philosophical difference.  From any perspective, this
is a case about the right of citizens to challenge the
government.  The US Attorney's office makes clear that their
interest is not only to punish me for doing so, but to
discourage others from challenging the government, even when
the government is acting inappropriately.  Their memorandum
states, "To be sure, a federal prison term here will deter
others from entering a path of criminal behavior."  The
certainty of this statement not only ignores the history of
political prisoners, it ignores the severity of the present
situation.  Those who are inspired to follow my actions are
those who understand that we are on a path toward
catastrophic consequences of climate change.  They know
their future, and the future of their loved ones, is on the
line.  And they know were are running out of time to turn
things around.  The closer we get to that point where it's
too late, the less people have to lose by fighting back.
The power of the Justice Department is based on its ability
to take things away from people.  The more that people feel
that they have nothing to lose, the more that power begins
to shrivel.  The people who are committed to fighting for a
livable future will not be discouraged or intimidated by
anything that happens here today.  And neither will I.  I
will continue to confront the system that threatens our
future.  Given the destruction of our democratic
institutions that once gave citizens access to power, my
future will likely involve civil disobedience.  Nothing that
happens here today will change that.  I don't mean that in
any sort of disrespectful way at all, but you don't have
that authority.   You have authority over my life, but not
my principles.  Those are mine alone.

I'm not saying any of this to ask you for mercy, but to ask
you to join me.  If you side with Mr Huber and believe that
your role is to discourage citizens from holding their
government accountable, then you should follow his
recommendations and lock me away.  I certainly don't want
that.  I have no desire to go to prison, and any assertion
that I want to be even a temporary martyr is false.  I want
you to join me in standing up for the right and
responsibility of citizens to challenge their government.  I
want you to join me in valuing this country's rich history
of nonviolent civil disobedience.  If you share those values
but think my tactics are mistaken, you have the power to
redirect them.  You can sentence me to a wide range of
community service efforts that would point my commitment to
a healthy and just world down a different path.  You can
have me work with troubled teens, as I spent most of my
career doing.  You can have me help disadvantaged
communities or even just pull weeds for the BLM.  You can
steer that commitment if you agree with it, but you can't
kill it.  This is not going away.   At this point of
unimaginable threats on the horizon, this is what hope looks
like.  In these times of a morally bankrupt government that
has sold out its principles, this is what patriotism looks
like.  With countless lives on the line, this is what love
looks like, and it will only grow.  The choice you are
making today is what side are you on.

[Tim DeChristopher is a climate activist and board member
for the climate justice organization Peaceful Uprising.]

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019, Week 3
October 2019, Week 2
October 2019, Week 1
September 2019, Week 5
September 2019, Week 4
September 2019, Week 3
September 2019, Week 2
September 2019, Week 1
August 2019, Week 5
August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager