Genarlow Wilson DA Guilty of Distributing Child Porn?

There are some misconceptions about the Genarlow Wilson case that have pervaded since it first caught the attention of the national medla.

It's true that in addition to the bogus charge related to his receiving oral sex form a 15-year-old, for which Wilson was convicted, Wilson was also charged and acquitted of rape in a second incident involving a 17-year-old girl. Both incidents were captured on videotape, which jurors viewed before reaching both verdicts.

I haven't seen the tape, so frankly, I don't know if Wilson is a criminal, or if at the time was merely your average, sexually-charged 17-year-old who had the good fortune of being a star athlete, able to find girls willing to service him. I do know, however, that Wilson's detractors in Georgia have awfully short memories if they don't think it's possible for a star athlete to be falsely accused of rape.

When the case started getting national attention, District Attorney David McDade—or someone in his office—apparently began circulating copies of the video to legislators and members of the media, in an effort to counter the mounting sense of outrage at Wilson's 10-year prison sentence. McDade told media outlets that the tape showed a "gang rape" on the charge for which Wilson was acquitted. That resulted in op-eds like this one , in which Georgia political officials tried to brush off the mounting criticism, by calling public attention to the second act (an act for which, once again, Wilson was acquitted of criminal wrongdoing).

U.S. Attorney David Nahmias now says that if anyone in McDade's office distributed copies of the tape to media or legislators, they may be guilty of distributing child pornography, something I'd been wondering about since first hearing people outside the case talking about the tape. Nahmias says the warning was more an effort to direct those who have copies of the tape to destroy it than an indication of any plans to indict anyone in McDade's office (though he didn't rule out an investigation). I'd think some professional organizations in the legal community might want to look into possible ethics violations here, too (for this and other odd behavior on the part of McDade).

But aside from professional discipline, I'd probably agree that criminal charges against McDade's office would be a reach.

It's too bad McDade didn't exercise similar discretion when he decided to prosecute Wilson in the first place.

Comments

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

So technically the prosecutor is guilty of distributing child porn just like technically Wilson is guilty of child molesting.

I love the justice system.

[Chappel]

Never have I been so ashamed to be from Georgia.

[MikeT]

I disagree in principle that he shouldn't be charged. If a state court in Florida can say that a 16 year old and a 17 year old are guilty of producing, possessing and distributing child porn for video taping their own sex act and emailing it to each other, I don't see how this is any less of a distribution charge. I would like to see where in the Georgia legal code it gives state prosecutors such a level of immunity that they can distribute illegal pornography to critics.

Critics, Radley. Not court officers and jurors, but people in the press and state legislature. I would like to see McDade prove that this action is covered under sovereign immunity since there is no basis for him to argue that breaking the law was necessary to perform his job.

[SugarFree]

The legal system has become so absurd, I think we should scrap the whole dang thing and go with the only sensible alternative:

THUNDERDOME!

[Warren]

If McDade distributed copies of the tape to media or legislators, might Wilson have a civil case against him?

[disgusting]

It's an old political tactic. It's called getting the legislators disgusted enough to do your bidding.

[ktc2]

Damn! I e-mailed a story on this morning. I've been robbed of my hat tip!

[Brian Sorgatz]

Once upon a time there were some grownups. They fucked a bunch of prepubescent kids. The End.

Now I can be arrested for distributing literary child porn.

[ktc2]

Personally I'd love to see him prosecuted for distributing child pornography, but I don't think it'll happen. Wouldn't they then have to go after the media groups and legislators for possessing said child porn?

[SugarFree]

ktc2,

I don't see the downside in what your suggesting.

[SugarFree]

you're

crap, why isn't their a soft where fix fore that?

[ktc2]

LOL. Nor do I. Unfortunately it still won't happen.

[Randolph Carter]

Brian Sorgatz,
It's not child literary porn, it's a description of the Genarlow Wilson case

[SIV]

The legal system has become so absurd, I think we should scrap the whole dang thing and go with the only sensible alternative: dueling, lynching, vendetta and non-binding arbitration!

Some days I wake up and I'm a minarchist on others I'm an anarchist.

[Chappel]

ktc2-
I emailed it too. Maybe there was a tie.

[Jack]

Chappel, that's saying something!

[Wesley]

I'm not entirely sure about Georgia's ethics guidelines for lawyers, but I'm pretty sure distributing the video of the alleged rape where Wilson was acquited must violate something. It's malicious defamation of character, if nothing else, since he was already declared not guilty.

[Brian Sorgatz]

It's not child literary porn, it's a description of the Genarlow Wilson case

No, it's not, and that's exactly the source of the injustice. Wilson was a teenager fooling around with slightly younger teenagers. That's not child molestation unless you're swept up in a moral panic about child molestation.

[joe]

I'm not sure how widespread malnourishment is where Randolph (Randy, like Randy Jackson?) Carter lives, but in eastern Massachusetts, people have generally gone through puberty by the time they're 15.

[John]

Radley is just lying about this case. I was buying the cool aid until I talked to people in Georgia who actually know about the case. This was not Romeo and Juliet. This was a case where several boys who were in a room with two girls one of whom was so drunk she passed out. This is how Wikipedia describes it and from the people I know who have first hand knowledge of the case is a pretty good description of what happened.

The conviction was based on an amateur video tape showing Wilson engaging in sex with a 17-year-old girl during a private party, and later receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl.[3][4] The video shows the 17-year-old girl on the bathroom floor, then later having sex with Wilson. She appeared sleepy or intoxicated during the sex act but did not ask Wilson to stop. [5] Waking up naked and in a stupor the next morning, she claimed to have been raped.[4] Investigating the alleged rape, police later found condoms and evidence of drinking, as well as the video camera, in the motel room used for the party.[5]

A jury acquitted Wilson of raping the older girl, but convicted him of aggravated child molestation against the 15-year-old. The "aggravated" nature of the charge refers to fellatio (oral sex) rather than a mere "immoral or indecent act." Had the two teenagers had intercourse without oral sex, Wilson would have been charged with a misdemeanor, punishable up to 12-months, with no sex offender status, instead of the 10-year minimum term that the judge gave him.[1]"

Yes, Wilson was acquitted of raping the 17 year old. But he is also a dirt bag who took advantage of a two drunken teenage girls one of whom was 15 at the time. Did he deserve 10 years? Probably not. He sure as hell deserved something. The law is 16 is the age of consent. He committed statutory rape and statutory rape under the worst circumstances. It is not like this was his g/f and her father caught them having sex. Even under the new law he would have deservedly gotten a year in prison.

The point is that by the law, Wilson got exactly what he should have gotten. We are beyond talking about legal points. This is about justice. Right now the only legal way he can get out of prison is to have his sentence commuted. Does he deserve a commutation? Perhaps, all of the facts surrounding the case, not just the ones Balko chooses to report are relevant in considering that. Having only read about this case on Reason, I had no idea what a dirt bag Wilson is. Balko has absolutely avoided giving the full facts of this case. He owes his readers better than that.

[Randolph Carter]

I was talking about the prosecutors as the adults, btw

[Taktix?]

John,

Post.
Too.
Long.

[Charles]

John,

The question isn't whether Wilson is a bad person. The question is whether he is ten years in prison of a bad person. Especially considering that a jury of his peers (who saw the tape) found him not guilty of the only real crime at issue, rape, should he be looking at ten years in jail? The answer is, of course not.

[John]

"The question isn't whether Wilson is a bad person. The question is whether he is ten years in prison of a bad person. Especially considering that a jury of his peers (who saw the tape) found him not guilty of the only real crime at issue, rape, should he be looking at ten years in jail? The answer is, of course not."

Having sex with a 15 year old is a real crime. Even under the new law, Wilson still committed statutory rape. I think you also have to take into account the circumstances of the case. Not all statutory rapes are equal. Had this been a case of obviously consensual sex rather than Wilson taking advantage of a drunken 15 year old, I would be more likly to have sympathy for him. But that is not what happened here. Balko and Reason make this case out to be Romeo and Juliet caught having sex in the back seat of Romeos car and Romeo getting 10 years. Bullshit. Wilson took advantage of a drunk underage girl. That puts the case in a whole new light.

[ktc2]

John,

He was acquitted of the rape charge making that irrelevent to any just sentencing. He was not convicted for drinking under age either, or supplying alcohol to other under age persons.

And all of that has been discussed ad nauseum here not concealed.

So the only remaining question is, Is a 10 year (or for that matter ANY) jail time 'just' for a 17 year old getting a consentual blow job from a 15 year old.

I say no.

[John]

"So the only remaining question is, Is a 10 year (or for that matter ANY) jail time 'just' for a 17 year old getting a consentual blow job from a 15 year old."

I don't think he deserved a ten year sentence either. But, that was the law at the time. I think he certainly deserved to be convicted of statutory rape and deserved to go to jail for a significant amount of time just not 10 years. But, he turned down the plea agrement and took his chances. The Georgia law at the time was overly harsh, but it is not like he didn't commit any crime. He did commit a crime. He is not innocent in any sense of the term. Taking all of the facts in to consideration, if I were the judge I would have given him a year or so. Some might give him more, some might give him less. I am not sure that that fact means he deserves commutation. At best, he probably should get out of jail on his first parole hearing.

[John]

By definition he did not get a consensual blowjob. The girl could not consent. Moreover, she was drunk and her capacity to consent was greatly diminished. There are lots of people in this country rotting in jail because they had what they thought was consensual sex with a drunk girl. The bottom-line is this guy is just not nearly as sympathetic a defendent as Reaon makes him out to be.

[Warren]

Sorry John, I don't buy the she was drunk therefore it's HIS fault. What if he was drunk? Would that absolve him of responsibility?

Sex with a 15 year old is indeed statutory rape. But how often is a 17 year old prosecuted for statutory rape. I find the idea absurd. What really takes the biscuit in this case is the blow job.

Down in GA they really think sucking cock is some sort of deviant sex act that needs to be punished. What a bunch of backwards inbred rednecks.

[Nick M.]

Warren, Warren, Warren. The guy being drunk automatically makes him guilty.

[ktc2]

LOL.

Yes, if she's drunk he's guilty. If he's drunk he's guilty. If they're both drunk he's guilty. If neither are drunk he's guilty.

I'm sorry what was the relevence of the alcohol again?

As a teenager I was at several hotel room parties of under age drinking and . . . other things. Nobody there was "an innocent" being taken advantage of. Same things had happened before and again later, sober, drunk or high.

[Jim Bob]

This is how Wikipedia describes it

hahahahahahahahaha

Apologies: I have nothing relevant to add to this thread, but I had to laugh at that.

[bill]

So if a guy turns 16 and gets a blow job from his 15 year old girlfriend whose birthday is the next day he deserves 10 years in prison?

[Seitz]

So if a guy turns 16 and gets a blow job from his 15 year old girlfriend whose birthday is the next day he deserves 10 years in prison?

Yep. But under this law, if they'd just plain 'ol fucked instead giving/receiving oral sex, he'd be a free man. Oh, and John didn't tell you that the law had since been changed.

Apparently John also knows more than the jurors who sat through the case, but that's cool, because he read it on wikipedia.
He stood trial in February 2005 for five days. And at first, the jury's deliberations moved swiftly. Jurors voted to acquit Wilson of raping the 17-year-old.

"I mean it wasn't even an hour," said jury forewoman Marie Manigault. "We immediately saw the tape for what it was. We went back and saw it again and saw what actually happened and everybody immediately said not guilty."

But there was one other charge the jury had to decide on. The second girl in the videotape was 15, and the age of consent in Georgia is 16. And under state law, prosecutors charged Wilson with aggravated child molestation. To those close to the young man, it was an outrage.

"Nobody could believe that this is the law," Mann said.

Even jurors frowned on the charge. "A bad law, absolutely," Manigault said.

And in Georgia, that they'd had oral sex made matters worse. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. In Wilson's case, even though he is only two years older than the girl, she was 15 and -- willing or not -- could not consent legally that night.

Whatever their feelings about the law, jurors felt they had no choice but to find Wilson guilty of aggravated child molestation. Moments later, back in the jury room, jurors were told for the first time that the conviction came with a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in prison. In addition, Wilson would be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

So if a guy turns 16 and gets a blow job from his 15 year old girlfriend whose birthday is the next day he deserves 10 years in prison?

No. Of course not.

Personally I think the judge and the DA know this guy is rat fuck and they're pissed that he got off on the rape charge so they're gonna pull a deal like the IRS did to Capone. Can't get him for killing anyone so we'll put him away any way we can, which was for tax evasion. A very common tactic in the justice system.

I agree with John though, the original way this was painted here had me believing it was a case of two love birds sitting in a tree and she was K-I-S-S-I-N-G his wee knee.

While I see the sentence as severe, every 17 year old guy knows that if you get a 15 year old drunk and then stick your pecker in her mouth you're asking for trouble.

Course in my world everybody would be legal for everything (buy guns, drugs, booze, get jobs, sign contracts) at age 14 and this would not be an issue at all.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

He was not convicted for drinking under age either, or supplying alcohol to other under age persons.

Which of course means he wasn't drunk, didn't drink, nor did he get the little 15 year old wench drunk.

That is a perfect example of the idiocy of the legal system.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

What if he was drunk? Would that absolve him of responsibility?

Had a client who hit and killed a drunk pedestrian while he was drunk driving. Had he been sober he would have gotten off. The pedestrian walked right out in front of my guy's automobile and was killed. This turned out to be not to matter BECAUSE MY GUY WAS DRUNK and he did four years for manslaughter.

So, based on that logic, I suppose that if our boy had been sober and she gave him a hummer he could have gotten off (heh). But since they were both drunk, well, hey.....

Justice is wonderful.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

Whatever their feelings about the law, jurors felt they had no choice but to find Wilson guilty of aggravated child molestation.

No they did not and I hold the jurors complicit as well. They could have voted to acquit or at least one could have held out and forced a mistrial.

[Seitz]

Personally I think the judge and the DA know this guy is rat fuck and they're pissed that he got off on the rape charge so they're gonna pull a deal like the IRS did to Capone.

Bullshit. If it was that obvious to the jury that there was no rape, it had to be at least as obvious to the judge and the DA. The DA wasn't pissed that he got off on the rape charge. The DA was pissed that Wilson didn't take the plea deal and he had to actually go to court to prosecute. And darnit, if that little fucker is actually gonna make the DA work, well, he's sure as hell gonna pay for it.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

Seitz, On the charge of BS; I could be wrong about that and you well may be right. Whether they're pissed cuz he's an RF or cuz he spurned the plea deal we're still close enuff for government work anyway.

If it was that obvious to the jury that there was no rape...

Juries, prosecutors, and judges don't always see eye to eye on things, which is why OJ is walking around in a nice suit. It's also why Phil Spector is going to get off on his murder beef. Had to throw Phil out there to avoid charges of racism.

[littlewilly]

I just thank God video cameras were too expensive to have when I was in high school or I would have been in jail for the rest of my life. I always thought if you were under 18 and so was she you were safe. I guess that ain't the case.

[Seitz]

Juries, prosecutors, and judges don't always see eye to eye on things, which is why OJ is walking around in a nice suit.

C'mon, though, one hour? Either it was plainly obvious to everyone that there was no rape, or the DA and judge both have no clue about what the actual law is, because they certainly didn't do a good job of conveying it to the jury.

Whether they're pissed cuz he's an RF or cuz he spurned the plea deal we're still close enuff for government work anyway.

I see it differently, I guess. If he was truly a threat to society and needed to be locked away, you might have a point. That's the Al Capone analogy. I have a lot tougher time with a DA who's just pissed that he had to get off his ass because people wouldn't do what he said. Hell, that's not different than a cop being a dick on traffic stop and then arresting you because you didn't blindly submit. It's bullshit. Only in this case, it's 10 years worth of bullshit, with a lifetime of sex offender registration thrown in.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

Seitz, first of all, you misunderstood what I said. I said that it doesn't matter either way what the DA's motives were. Doesn't matter whether the DA sees him as a threat to society that needs to be eliminated or someone that needs a 10 year lesson for his crime. I'm not suggesting that either of those things is right just that either motive may be accurate.

Second of all, those same jurors that acquitted on the rape charge convicted him on the charge that bought him 10 years.

They claim they just had to convict him because they're hands were tied.

Well, I say, NO their hands weren't tied at all. They could have acquitted or hung the jury. They didn't do that.

Why not?

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

Meant to say......

Doesn't matter whether the DA sees him as a threat to society that needs to be eliminated or someone that needs a 10 year lesson for not taking the plea bargain.

[Gray Ghost]

They claim they just had to convict him because they're hands were tied.

Well, I say, NO their hands weren't tied at all. They could have acquitted or hung the jury. They didn't do that.

Why not?

Because most jurors actually take seriously their oath to uphold and apply the law. At least, such has been my very limited experience. Friends of mine who try cases before juries will comment on the lack of education and sophistication of the average juror, but they say that most jurors try as hard as they can to follow the court's instructions and do the right thing.

I think their not knowing that the mandatory minimum for the charge was 10 years had a lot to do with their lack of nullification. I was surprised to hear that a 17 year old boy could get 10 years for getting a hummer from a 15 year old girl. Not that it had a snowballs chance of happening at the time, but I had no idea when I was 17, that I could go to jail for intercourse with that cute 15 year old on the track team. Obviously, I was extremely naive.

Agreed that the first accounts here about the case dramatically whitewashed the circumstances surrounding the sex acts.

[MikeT]

John,

Having sex with a 15 year old is a real crime. Even under the new law, Wilson still committed statutory rape. I think you also have to take into account the circumstances of the case. Not all statutory rapes are equal. Had this been a case of obviously consensual sex rather than Wilson taking advantage of a drunken 15 year old, I would be more likly to have sympathy for him. But that is not what happened here. Balko and Reason make this case out to be Romeo and Juliet caught having sex in the back seat of Romeos car and Romeo getting 10 years. Bullshit. Wilson took advantage of a drunk underage girl. That puts the case in a whole new light.

Here's a thought. This 15 year old girl is probably a slut. She went into a questionable, sexually charged environment, got a little sauced and then serviced the football team.

Why should I find her to be a poor innocent widdle child, but fully capable of having sex one year later? I just don't see it.

Rape? Try more like buyer's remorse. She got drunk, got taken advantage of, but didn't get raped. Rape implies that she didn't consent. Do you think that someone should be able to get off for murder while drunk? Suppose they do something unspeakable sick while intoxicated? At what point do you stop blaming the booze and start punishing the drunk or letting them get what they have coming to them?

[MikeT]

Also... if "taking advantage of a woman" is rape, then you have bought into the bullshit rape crisis nonsense promulgated by mainstream feminists. It would then logically follow that every man who has ever mislead a woman about his intentions, which is a form of taking advantage of her, is guilty of rape as well.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

Mike, the rape charge was a different girl who was also 17 and [apparently] was passed out drunk on the bathroom floor or at least in pretty bad shape. She claimed rape and from what I gather has never recanted.

This 15 year old girl is probably a slut

Yeah, we had one. Used to call her Pass Around Pack as in the jumbo box of cracker jack.

Gray Ghost, point taken.

[Cactus]

Along with tossing the prosecutor in the slammer for distributing and manufacturing child pornography, shouldn't all these commentators and news analysts who have supposedly viewed the tape also be charged with possessing and viewing child pornography? Damn, wouldn't it be sweet to see Greta, Nancy, Bill, Geraldo, etc all doing hard time for kiddie porn and having to register for life as sex offenders? Talk about karma coming back to bite you in the ass.

[R C Dean]

Because most jurors actually take seriously their oath to uphold and apply the law.

Only because they have been brainwashed into believing that the law consists solely of whatever edits have been handed down by Our Masters.

And only because judges monopolizing power in their courtrooms refuse to inform them of their duty to act morally, decently, and ethically when the law is an ass.

[MikeT]

Mike, the rape charge was a different girl who was also 17 and [apparently] was passed out drunk on the bathroom floor or at least in pretty bad shape. She claimed rape and from what I gather has never recanted.

I am not going to argue that having sex with a girl whose passed out is rape. I'm merely objecting to the suggestion that a sauced 15 year old who gets "taken advantage of" has in fact been raped. The 15 year old in this was, IMO, not in the least bit a victim here.

[daniel k]

I particulary agree with Mike T's comments on 7/12 at 2:25 and most if not all the subsequent comments about investigatin the prosecutor. Where is the meaningful oversight of the judges (all those search warrnats that end in the shooting of innocent people) and prosecutors?

[Eric the .5b]

The 15 year old in this was, IMO, not in the least bit a victim here.

The then-15-year-old girl has repeatedly, and consistently, insisted that the oral sex was entirely consensual.

[Jerri]

John said:

"Having sex with a 15 year old is a real crime. Even under the new law, Wilson still committed statutory rape. I think you also have to take into account the circumstances of the case. Not all statutory rapes are equal. Had this been a case of obviously consensual sex rather than Wilson taking advantage of a drunken 15 year old, I would be more likly to have sympathy for him. But that is not what happened here. Balko and Reason make this case out to be Romeo and Juliet caught having sex in the back seat of Romeos car and Romeo getting 10 years. Bullshit. Wilson took advantage of a drunk underage girl. That puts the case in a whole new light.

According to Georgia Statutes, statutory rape committed by a perpetrator who is 18 or younger or no more than 4 years older than the victim (who is age 14 to 16) is only a misdemeanor.

http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp

From what I can tell, misdemeanors in Georgia generally bring a jail term of no more than 12 months.

http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp

[Jerri]

Whoops, the links didn't seem to work. Here is the verbiage regarding statutory rape:

? 16-6-3. Statutory rape

"(c) If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

? 17-10-3. Punishment for misdemeanors generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, every crime declared to be a misdemeanor shall be punished as follows:

(1) By a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or by confinement in the county or other jail, county correctional institution, or such other places as counties may provide for maintenance of county inmates, for a total term not to exceed 12 months, or both;...

[Jerri]

Moreover, what John is saying is rape does not seem to meet the definition:

Carnal knowledge in rape occurs when there is any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

? 16-6-1. Rape

(a) A person commits the offense of rape when he has carnal knowledge of:

(1) A female forcibly and against her will; or

(2) A female who is less than ten years of age.

Carnal knowledge in rape occurs when there is any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ. The fact that the person allegedly raped is the wife of the defendant shall not be a defense to a charge of rape.

[kormgar]

I've seen a number of posts here that claim that the 15 year old girl couldn't have given consent because she had been drinking and partying that night. In the context of this case, this is highly misleading.

Why do I say this? Because the 15 year old girl never accused Genarlow of rape or any other wrongdoing. Had the actual act for which Genarlow has been jailed been non-consensual, then why has does she continue to claim that it was a consensual act on her part.

The only person who has claimed rape is the 17-year old girl who had sex with Genarlow while they were both drunk. After the fact, she claimed that he had raped her, a crime for which Genarlow was acquitted.

The technical crime for which Genarlow has been imprisoned was, by the prosecutors own admission, raised as a means to coerce a guilty plea for the charge of raping the 17 year old.

[Jerri]

"I've seen a number of posts here that claim that the 15 year old girl couldn't have given consent because she had been drinking and partying that night. In the context of this case, this is highly misleading."

A fifteen year old doesn't have the legal capacity to consent to sexual activity. My understanding is that the statute (sexual molestation of a child) under which he was convicted was amended to have the same language as the statutory rape statute. That is, if the victim is under 16 and the perpetrator is 18 or younger (or no more than four years older than the victim) the acts are misdemeanors--but are still illegal.

I wonder what happens under these statutes when both parties are 15 and they pet or engage in intercourse. Are both parties charged?

[Steve Verdon]

I have to say John has some of the most schizophrenic posts in this discussion. Case in point:

Yes, Wilson was acquitted of raping the 17 year old. But he is also a dirt bag who took advantage of a two drunken teenage girls one of whom was 15 at the time. Did he deserve 10 years? Probably not. He sure as hell deserved something.

[...]
The point is that by the law, Wilson got exactly what he should have gotten.

Let me see, he didn't deserve 10 years, but he got exactly what he deserved. John, seek medical help, preferably with large amounts of medication.

Sheesh.