An Interview with Szou Paulekas – “Vito and His Freaks” – #182

Share

GM_182_v252

This is our last episode for year 5 of the Gnostic Media podcast.

This episode is an interview with Szou Paulekas, titled “Vito and his Freaks” and is being released on Monday, October 28, 2013. This interview with Szou was recorded Saturday, September 14, 2013.
In our continuing investigation into MKULTRA, today I interview Szou Paulekas, who was one of Vito’s Freaks on the Laurel Canyon scene and became his wife at age 18. Today she’s takes us on an inside view of her life with Vito.

“Szou was a forerunner of thrift-store fashion, and there were always plenty of falling-apart velvet dresses and forties teddies available for a pittance. Whatever she got tired of wearing, she put a price tag on. She also concocted her own creations out of doilies and tags, which cost a bit more but were the ultimate in antique chic.”
Says Pamelas book “I’m with the band”.

Vito was convicted of armed robbery in 1938, but was released in 1942 and joined the US Merchant Marines. Around 1946, he moved to Los Angeles where, by the early 1960s, he had set up home on Beverly Boulevard.

Vito and Szou are some of the founding pioneers of what became modern art and the 1960s counterculture revolution.

“[LSD] it’s a military plot”


Dave McGowan’s full series “Inside the LC”:

http://informationfarm.blogspot.com/2010/02/inside-lc-strange-but-mostly-true-story_9615.html

Dave McGowan’s website:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html

Manufacturing the Deadhead by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/manufacturing-the-deadhead-a-product-of-social-engineering-by-joe-atwill-and-jan-irvin/

Art and the CIA
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:

Deb
Samuel

  38 comments for “An Interview with Szou Paulekas – “Vito and His Freaks” – #182

  1. jason butler
    October 29, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Very interesting, though not enough concise relevant examples of McGowan’s research, which funnily enough also match the exact few I’ve also verified. All in good time, waiting for his user friendly bibliography in the forthcoming book. Reading Programmed to Kill at the moment which is something else! Hoping he comes on your show soon Jan, keep up the excellent work

  2. tony williamson
    October 29, 2013 at 11:23 pm

    Hey man I guess we should be grateful for your laser like focus but I wish you would let up a little on your monomaniacal style. Szou seemed to corroborate your thesis that lsd and drugs were being pushed by the government but you were so determined to implicate Vito as a government agent that she was constantly on the defensive. You played a clip were she says that the government informants that had infiltrated them were always trying to steer things towards drugs but you kept trying to get her to say that Vito the one promoting drugs. She was revealing a lot of information about the activity surrounding Vito but she kept clamming up because you were so determined to out Vito as a government agent and she clearly didn’t seem to think so.

    I was really intrigued about what she said about certain clubs being ‘black listed’ and the political machinations happening around the LA club scene. I guess I can’t blame you for pursing your specific line of questioning but it is kind of tedious because most of us listening to your podcast are already pretty convinced of your point of view. What I love about gnostic media are the many different lines of inquiry that you expose your listeners to. You’ve pretty much convinced me about the governments involvement in shaping and manipulating the ‘counter-culture’ it’s just that you really seem to put way ‘too fine a point’ on things. If my criticism isn’t constructive just ignore it because I think you’re doing a great job.

    • October 30, 2013 at 10:54 am

      Monomaniacal style… hmmm, let’s start out with an ad hominem… while we put others down.

      She and Vito promoted the entire scene. Try to read through the lines. She contradicted herself repeatedly from our own conversation a day before. Vito was definitely dirty. She wasn’t claming up, I was calling her out for her contradictions and back peddling.

      Don’t claim they’re innocent when everything centered around them. She’s either a willful idiot or a matriarch.

      I have a better idea, rather than name call at me and confuse the issues, go start your own show so that I can give you a hard time and confuse your research and the issues with guests such as this one.

      • Travis Grant
        November 9, 2013 at 6:23 am

        Hmm. I don’t think Tony is name calling. Instead, I think he just saying that what he perceives as your attitude in this interview he would classify as monomaniacal, which could be broken down into the idea of a “single reality focused attitude” – as if you were only focused on outing Vito and getting her to confirm the idea. I too perceived that attitude in the interview, which made it seem like less of an interview and more of an attempt to convince her that Vito was associated in some clandestine way with the intelligence community. Please don’t take any of this the wrong way, I did enjoy the interview and appreciate your work. And, I will continue to listen and not start my own podcast at the moment. I also have to say that you are the individual who introduced me to the trivium, critical thinking, and the fallacies – I am very impressed with your work. But, you did convey a few fallacies in the arguments you were using to try and convince Vita. But, if what you are saying is true in your reply that she “back pedelled” from the day before, then one must also take pause and consider that she may not be telling the whole truth, and so I can see why you would have been singly focused on trying to demonstrate and otherwise show the correlated relationship to her and the audience. So, I see why you were so direct in your interview style, because when you think someone might not be telling the truth, then you don’t want them to just weave the audience a nice narrative that they had planned out before, confusing them further. You want to keep them an point.

  3. October 30, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    I graduated high school in 1975, a little late for the hippies, but my friends and I nonetheless imagined ourselves to be cultural revolutionaries. In hindsight we were just “products of our time” and produced little of constructive value during those heady years. Oh, well.

    Once the pain subsides — the pain of having been such an eager dupe — and adulthood imposes itself, then the adolescence of long-hair, roach-clip, freakism loses is romantic aura. There are mortgage payments to make and children to raise.

    Jan, your work with Joe Atwill, and Dave McGowan’s work, is just so astounding. I picked up Price’s “Weaponizing Anthropology.” Amazingly frightening. Whatever you can do to destroy the romance of “the noble savage” is a gift. That’s a little heavy, but when I watch Richard Grove in his coat and tie step thru the logic/illogic of an assertion, I wonder why the “60s counterculture” seemed so attractive. Because you could just jerk off and tell yourself that you’re rebelling against The Man ? That you are “avant garde”?

    Reluctantly I remain a great fan of Frank Zappa — his stylistic craziness, his first-amendment advocacy, his demanding musical innovations — but his descent from Military (chemical) Intelligence rattles my nerves. McGowan says that his book will elaborate on the the story of FZ. Let’s see.

  4. Andrew
    October 30, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    Tony Williamson said: ” You played a clip were she says that the government informants that had infiltrated them were always trying to steer things towards drugs but you kept trying to get her to say that Vito the one promoting drugs.”

    I didn’t understand this either. She clearly seemed to be talking about agents that weren’t Vito but the way you set up the juxtaposition of the previous days clip and what she’d said in the main interview tried to suggest that she was giving him up, so to speak. That’s not how I understood her comments at all.

    I didn’t understand the addition of the other clip either – where she said she ‘had to dance’ (I may be paraphrasing slightly). I thought she pretty well cleared up the ‘had to’, part, in the main interview. They had an agreement that she could go dancing and he’d watch the kid. If the Doors happened to be playing the club at that time and place, she was proverbially screwed. That was her allotted, more or less, time to dance and if it happened to be the Doors, tough shit. Unless I’m mistaken, you set that clip up to allude to an idea that some ‘agent’ made her go dance? If that’s the assertion, I don’t see it.

    It also seemed pretty clear that Vito and Szou didn’t promote most drug use (I say most because of the slight exception of marijuana, even though they didn’t really seem to be promoting that either). If by no other evidence than by the youtube clip you provided.

    Interesting to be introduced to these people though, thanks for that. I’d never heard of them.

  5. Libertymark
    November 1, 2013 at 10:19 am

    sorry posted in wrong blog ughhhh!

    Jan, I loved the interview man. You are on to some serious DD with this whole area including one of my favorite bands, the Doors.
    I feel like all roads lead to ROME anyway based on all my research. Funny how “the end” talks about being lost in a Roman Wilderness of Pain. And Vito goes to ROME..comes back and amps up his role. Did he get some marching orders there?

    My dad loved the Moody Blues..so I have heard the Timothy Leary stuff…LSD, etc. Never knew he admitted to being CIA? Putting all together everything looks like a mind control program

    I am amazing to what I just found as well as you sparked my curiosity…Timothy Leary’s best friend was Dr Carol Rosin…YES this one with the wild white hair who was part of the disclosure project and warner von braun stuff! You seriously can’t make this stuff up buddy!
    http://www.veritasradio.com/guests/2011/03mar/VS-110311-crosin.php. She is mentioned elsewhere on the web with leary as well

    • November 1, 2013 at 11:16 am

      deleted the other for you… Thanks for the citation! Yes, see Leary’s video “A Conversation on LSD”:

      Leary: All right. [Room laughs] Our undercover agents in Los Angeles were very cool about, uh, and yet they did more in a very laid-back way, uh, and it’s every bit as public as some of the other, you know, the buses running around the country [Ken Kesey he and the Merry pranksters – here identified as undercover agents]….

      • Libertymark
        November 1, 2013 at 11:40 am

        Jan, whole Disclosure Project stuff and her role is now under question with a connection this deep to LEARY. another f-ing psyop

  6. Jason
    November 2, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    Interesting interview, Jan. Thanks. Dave Mcgowan’s work is well worth checking out too. Amazing stuff.

    I agree with Tony Williamson and Andrew when they mention the clip you played of Szou the day before as if she were incriminating Vito when it was clear she was referring to the agents and not Vito.

    As Al Pacino said in the Godfather and oft quoted by Silvio on The Sopranos : “Just when i thought i was out, they pull me back in! My version is: Just when i thought it couldn’t go any deeper, another layer is uncovered.

    • November 2, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      Yeah, she contradicted herself many times. She also told me the day before that they knew the agents were in their classes too. Yeah, sure, they’re just aware of the others while running the whole op. McGowan was floored by Szou’s contradictions.

  7. david llewellyn foster
    November 17, 2013 at 5:46 am

    This is an important interview Jan, you’re getting closer to the black-cat bone in my estimation, only I’d like to raise some debatable points when I’ve listened closely again and done some fact checking…by the way you cite as reference the 1995 Independent article by Frances Stonor Saunders. She developed this thesis that was published in ’99/2000 by Granta http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Paid-Piper-Cultural-Cold/dp/1862073279/ref=pd_sim_b_1

    It was published in the US by The New Press as The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. It has been reissued in 2013. You can browse some of the contents here http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Cultural-Cold-War-Letters/dp/1595589147/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_4

    I think you’d find this a valuable source. Very interesting.

    Also, have you considered talking to Canadian film-maker Connie Littlefield (in Nova Scotia) who made http://www.nfb.ca/film/hofmanns_potion

    I thought this was an excellent doc. Her latest project is

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/conceptafilm/better-living-through-chemistry-the-documentary

    Nick Sands would be an excellent (inside) person to talk to ~ also why not contact Ralph Metzner for additional historical context? Or have you already approached him? I found his contributions to the Spirit Molecule well worth listening to.

  8. sylvestre lilly
    November 18, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Jan, enjoyed the Paulekas interview on many levels, and the attached references are rich with information. As a result, I watched MONDO HOLLYWOOD recently, which features roles by Vito and Szou playing themselves. The entire film is a trove of ‘freaks’ associated with art, music, decadence, monied elites, drugs and everywhere, government! There are some self admitted secret service associations in the film, not to mention a lengthy segment of Richard Alpert. I also watched an interview with the director afterwards which revealed some details.
    Overall, an interesting cultural mish-mash in the service of black-ops – this untold tale is truly more bizarre than the intended subject matter!

  9. david llewellyn foster
    November 18, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    RE Ralph Metzner: his observations about the CIA were very clearly articulated here in April 2012, in reference to Alborelli’s book.

    What would be the vanishingly small % of missing evidence, that might vindicate Metzner as being a paid agent, rather than just someone working in psychology at a time when the entire academic discipline was in the creeping shadow of ever more ambitious covert black-ops?

  10. david llewellyn foster
    November 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    Jan, I’ve just been listening to Rak Razam’s New Maps of Hyperspace interview with Metzner at MAPS 2010, for Reality Sandwich (that I seldom visit…) https://vimeo.com/album/1688275/video/21183544

    I’m not convinced this is CIA-protagonist double-speak going on here, very far from it ~ it just doesn’t seem remotely plausible…what exactly is the high probability evidence you have uncovered that supports your contention of direct control?

    • November 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm

      Are you serious? Metzner worked with Leary at the Millbrook Mansion, funded by Billy Hitchcock – one of the key banking families to fund the whole thing. Leary already admitted he was an agent. They were part of the Harvard club together under Murray. ‘nough said.

      Oh, and you say this is “New Maps of Hyperspace” and it doesn’t fit the agenda? Hmmmm. Ok… not even remotely plausible with all the evidence we’ve put out that they’re selling this magical BS to fool people… not remotely plausible at all… if you insist. Glad you’ve made all your conclusions about the obvious players.

  11. Andrew
    November 18, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    david llewellyn foster wrote: “what exactly is the high probability evidence you have uncovered that supports your contention of direct control?”

    Jan Irvin ‘answers’ with ridicule and scorn.

    It seems to me that you consistently employ the very fallacious rhetoric that you purport to warn others about.

    The question seems pretty straight forward. What evidence do you have regarding Metzner being an agent of the CIA? Have you ever even mentioned him before? Metzner worked with, Leary worked with…have you ever heard the phrase, “correlation is not causation”. Based on your method of thinking, Richard Grove, due to his having worked in the WTC, is guilty of all the crimes connected to that.

    The trivium method is not simply about pointing out logical fallacies ad nauseum, as if you’re on a road trip, playing slug bug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_buggy). Brett Vienotte, Richard Grove, Darrel Becker, etc. have done some solid work on compassionate communication, it may be worth a listen.

    • November 18, 2013 at 8:05 pm

      Try looking through the database and read the work we’ve already put forward, look who he worked with directly and the ideas he sold. He’s part of the entire team. He worked with Billy Hitchcock as one of the key guys, he was hired by Huxley and Osmond. Anyway, we’ve already covered most of this extensively. He just happens to work with all the exact same people, selling the exact same agenda, and you want us to believe that this ONE guy is innocent, even though he’s living at the same house, working at the same Harvard Department, under the same professor, getting funded by the same people, selling the same agenda. Sure, if you want to believe that it’s up to you.

      What was ridicule and scorn is saying that: “it just doesn’t seem remotely plausible”

      We’re working on another article right now that exposes these very people. See Manufacturing the Deadhead and just factor in Metzner. He was there from day one.

      • Andrew
        November 19, 2013 at 12:42 am

        “Try looking through the database and read the work we’ve already put forward”…I’ve looked at the database and read the work you’ve put forward. You continue to mix solid grammar and massive leaps of logic.

        “He worked with Billy Hitchcock”…correlation

        “as one of the key guys”…based on?

        “he was hired by Huxley and Osmond”…to do what?

        “He just happens to work with all the exact same people, selling the exact same agenda”…correlation. See Richard Grove example above.

        “and you want us to believe that this ONE guy is innocent”…I don’t “want you to BELIEVE” anything. I haven’t stated whether someone is innocent or guilty of anything. The onus of proof is on you.

        “even though he’s living at the same house, working at the same Harvard Department, under the same professor, getting funded by the same people, selling the same agenda”…correlation is not causation.

        “What was ridicule and scorn is saying that: ‘it just doesn’t seem remotely plausible’”…What part of that statement purports to show ridicule or scorn? This is not ridicule and scorn. This is a point-of-view, a statement, an observation.

        “We’re working on another article right now that exposes these very people.”…I look forward to it.

        “See Manufacturing the Deadhead and just factor in Metzner. He was there from day one.”…I’ve read the article. Implicating people as having nefarious intent is not a plug-and-play exercise. Again, the onus of proof is on you.

      • david llewellyn foster
        November 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm

        Jan, we need to be extremely scrupulous about language. You say: “he (Metzner) was hired by Huxley and Osmond” ~ what does that mean? Hired? Also just because Hitchcock had wealth does not necessarily implicate him or his siblings in a specific FBI/CIA/Mafia secret agenda.

        Also the inference that Leary obeyed Murray is misleading, Leary turned him on, gave him psilocybin. So who’s actually in control there? The connections are too circumspect. The “paternicitous” inferences, heavy with assumptions. This needs to be debated in forensic detail, discussed openly, intelligently ~ methodically documented and cross-referenced meticulously, else you may find yourself vulnerable to accusations of dogmatic cultic recruitment! I really admire your courage, originality, enthusiasm and shrewdness, but….we’re not all dupes of the black lodge y’know.

        Have you listened (carefully) to Paul Davids’ documentary (1996,) “Timothy Leary’s Dead?” Dick Alpert relates some remarkable stories towards the end and significant autobiographical anecdotes re “heroic” doses of acid and Indian gurus…

        Skepticism is surely wise; but cynicism is unhelpful at best, even mean-spirited at worst…we should all persist in our folly after all.

  12. david llewellyn foster
    November 19, 2013 at 7:42 am

    OK, I’m intrigued by the Laurel Canyon back-story, but over time (born in 1947, so no young cockerel,) I’ve experimented, travelled, applied myself, listened to hours and hours of discussions, met many people, read as much as most, and studied what I could to develop my discriminating faculties ~ it’s an ongoing process, but one of the biggest lessons I’ve had is to be willing to change my mind about things, to recognize that there is no final answer, because that would necessitate asking the single right “philosophical” question, identifying one precise “Platonic footnote” as Whitehead averred that would summarize the whole nine yards of existence.

    Now Whitehead was well known for his elaboration of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness or reification.

    I know you are not impressed by Popper’s work Jan, but I think the notion of falsifiability is very useful, so my main criticism would be that without that option, there is great intellectual risk inherent to over-ascribing far too much credibility to sinister “agencies of control.”

    Any human action or conscious intention is directed or affected by some thing or someone, it stems from somewhere, & is entrained by specific energies and conditions. Once we are prepared to search for these causes, then “ego” agendas, psychological contexts and political/historical continuities are brought into clearer focus; and it seems to me this is what you are doing.

    Where I would like to have even more clarity, would be the detailed business of showing exactly what tails are wagging which dogs. As the eponymous godfather aptly advised, stay close to your friends, fine ~ closer to your enemies, even better. Once we are prepared to go there, then we must be honest enough to reflexively examine our own circumstances, methodologies and agendas very scrupulously.

    One of the most powerful threads that runs through so many of these narratives, including the entire post-WW2 CIA/US academic/intelligence soap-opera, the Hoover FBI web and even the prosecution of (French-initiated) Indo-china wars like Vietnam ~ also all of S American politics, the history of the Philippines etc is the all pervasive influence of the Roman Catholic Church in all its global manifestations, both overt and covert.

    Empires rise and fall, but the power of this “church” its curia, enduring office of propaganda (influencing hasbara, Bernays, Stazi) and all its multiple (Jesuitical related) arms has been colossal. The Protestant (especially Rosicrucian, ‘Masonic elements) that challenged this hegemony have been undermined, co-opted and infiltrated, to the point that we are where we are today where nothing is what it appears to be. The greatest threat to Rome (even to the Orthodox, branches of “christendom” (so-called) particularly in recent times has been Islam, and naturally enough it has been under prolonged attack and proven vulnerable to massive assaults, especially from provocations fanned from within. It is obviously impossible to summarize this without falling prey to sophist simplifications, but suffice to say it is all happening and its “singularity” is fast approaching.

    My main question to you is, where is all your research leading? If the entire US/British “anti-imperialist” avant-garde is merely a manipulated foil for MKULTRA type programmers, who is left to save the baby in this flood of dirty water? is anyone excluded from what some might see as a potential witch-hunt, or actually exempt?

    Any human action or conscious intention is directed or affected by some thing or someone, it stems from somewhere, & is entrained by specific energies and conditions. Once we are prepared to search for these causes, then “ego” agendas, psychological contexts and political/historical continuities are brought into clearer focus; and it seems to me this is what you are doing.

    Study the trivium. It’s real simple.

    • November 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm

      So you’re just into your religion and don’t want to admit that you were fooled into a magic mystery show for the elite. I gotcha.

      If you want to know where my research leads, it would be common sense to study it and put your emotions and religious beliefs aside. I’m not here to do your grammar for you. You’ve been around here for YEARS, Dave.

      • david llewellyn foster
        November 19, 2013 at 3:13 pm

        I can take that. In fact I’m working quite hard on the logic, getting somewhere. As for grammar, I’ve done my level best to be informed and to educate myself. Although I must say I do enjoy a holiday occasionally and R Anton Wilson’s approach is refreshing. He made a pretty good fist of it, explaining the whole linked up Mafia thing really well in a 1988 gig (in LA I believe) on the CIA, Vatican, Cocaine banking nexus. Look it up.

        I don’t think it’s an emotional thing particularly for me, but I won’t rule out emotion. We need emotion and passion, its healthy. As for religious beliefs I don’t have any. The only thing I really believe is my own mind, and that is self-created; in that respect I’m actually an arch sceptic/skeptic, as I subscribe to notions of uncertainty, coherence and continual process. As Wilson said in his 2000 Prophet’s Conference riff on the Holy Guardian Angel “…we misunderstand each other more than we should, that’s another reason why the universe contains a maybe ~ all of our ideas are based on our perceptions, and all of our perceptions are uncertain.”

        I’m not having a go at you, quite the contrary; but we all need flexibility. It’s a Daoist thing.

        No Jan, I listen very carefully, and think hard.

        • el
          November 30, 2013 at 12:35 pm

          just don’t think TOO hard, lol

    • el
      November 30, 2013 at 12:29 pm

      I can tell you where Jans research is leading me to…
      Try to imagine a world with less suffering and more happiness.

      Personally, i rate this kind of information, and many of the other info found on this particular site—-ON PAR WITH ALL THE GREAT MINDS OF MEN WHO HAVE EVER CAME BEFORE US..

      …and what were they doing? Mental Masterbation? If they were just talking, they wouldn’t have produced anything. but they did, they made things understandable that you and i can ponder and test and KNOW. Most of us just ACT. Is why “all the worlds a stage” and so on….its why “there is nothing new under the sun” ect….well thats maybe a half truth……can you imagine what aligning ourselves with the reality of the mind control that exists (in Laurel Canyon) can do for you and I? Do you realize the GRAVITY of the situation? What if we could do things under the sun that have never been done before? Men have been SEVERELY retarded on our growth……What if we could explore the unbridled possibilities…… since you need freedom to explore, you need to align with truth, to be free. there is no fence-sitting! Shit or get off the POT!.

      this is what has been happening up till now. Men have ideas. the Church has none, but wants yours. And it doesn’t care about you, it just wants your ideas, for is own use. This is the world now, and during the 1960 in Laurel Canyon.

      Basically, if you and I don’t keep at this and find out everything we can, the knowledge will be lost, and we enter a Dark Age AGAIN.

      If you can’t see how we are all playing jesus, apostles, philosophers, and scientists, inventors, and healers—then—WHO are you, and why are you here in this thread asking Jan what the point of all this is? Just find out if what he says is true FOR YOURSELF.

      Jan, you and I, and everyone else here…..are passing the torch of inspiration at no cost to those who desire, without prejudice.

      The ability to align ourselves with what is true, allows us to GROW in LIFE……and its a major headache and a thankless profession. The things in life that are good require this attention, and this knowledge will FLOAT ALL BOATS. This means you benefit from alignment with what is true.

      Its about passing the truth on to Children.

      this is my reasoning to it all.

    • el
      November 30, 2013 at 12:37 pm

      oh yeah, and this is important because those mind controlled hippies are now running things in our society that truly effect us. when before, when they were young, they just looked funny and smelled bad.

  13. steve naive
    November 27, 2013 at 9:46 am

    hey jan

    have you ever come across any link between abbie hoffmann the hippie musician and youth international party co founder and albert hoffmann? i made a connection the other day but have been unable to find anything linking them. it seems a little coincidental to me that the creator of LSD and one of the 1st hippie musicians share the same surname. possibly just coincidence.

    cheers

    • david llewellyn foster
      November 29, 2013 at 4:44 pm

      Steve, Albert’s surname is Hofmann, Abbie has two f’s and one n as does Dustin.

      There could be a distant link, but a lot of people have very similar German names, some of whom are obviously Jewish. Even if there were some connection, these links when demonstrable would need to be defined in terms of some significant relationship beyond the familial, and that is always extremely difficult to infer with any satisfactory degree of forensic reliability.

  14. steve naive
    December 1, 2013 at 1:35 am

    thanks for taking the time to point that out. i now feel a little stupid as clearly my grammar failed me here.

    thanks again

Leave a Reply