Media

Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Probably Change Ownership

Over $140 million judgment for hosting Hulk Hogan sex tape.

|

Gawker logo
Gawker Media

The massive $140 million judgment Gawker media has taken its toll. The company announced today that it is filing for bankruptcy and is likely going to be auctioned off.

Gawker famously fought a lawsuit brought by wrestler Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea over the media site posting a sex tape, which Hogan said violated his privacy. The lawsuit got even more attention when it was revealed that tech billionaire and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel had quietly financed the lawsuit as revenge, believing the outlet had violated his own privacy and that of his friends in the industry.

The New York Times reports:

The company is beginning an auction, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the auction has not been announced. Ziff Davis, a digital media company, has submitted an opening bid of $90 million to $100 million, the person said.

Such an offer is known as a stalking-horse bid, meant to set a floor in a court-supervised auction.

The person said Gawker has filed for bankruptcy to protect jobs and ensure continued operations. Filing for Chapter 11 stays claims from creditors, including court judgments — meaning Gawker would not need to begin paying Hogan, whose name is Terry G. Bollea. It also allows companies more time and more control as they reorganize themselves.

It seems unlikely that Gawker is actually going to disappear entirely as a result of the lawsuit. But it may end up as a profoundly different outfit.

I've been fairly ambivalent about the case itself. While Hulk Hogan is indeed a public figure, that doesn't mean that he has no claim to privacy rights. The conflict between Hogan's right to privacy versus the media's right to speech would seem to be appropriately handled in a court setting, and that's what happened here. The assumption that Thiel's involvement could herald the days of rich folks funding lawsuits against people they don't like is rather ignorant of the fact that such lawsuits already happen, and the reason why this case is getting so much more attention is due to the size of it, the players, and the fact that it involves the media. It's very reminiscent of the media drawing attention to how Donald Trump would possibly punish them by loosening up libel laws somehow, while much less attention is paid to other industries that might also be punished by Trump's behavior as president.

The fears also don't take into consideration that a jury might see a significant difference between publishing a sex tape versus publishing factual, non-prurient information that a wealthy or powerful person doesn't like. In a way, it reminds of those who believe that the average voter or consumer is just a slave to television advertising and will vote or buy whatever the wealthy or powerful attempt to sell them. If I were on the jury, I probably would have sided with Gawker over the larger issues of censorship, but I'm not willing to indulge the idea that this particularly vivid case is a precursor to a wave of successful censorship lawsuits by the rich.

This is also a great time to remind folks that there is another large, wealthy, and extremely powerful consortium of people who are attempting right now to use the courts to silence and punish people for saying things they don't like. They are attorneys general from states across the country, and they're trying to use their position to legally punish and potentially censor those who have historically challenged the science of climate change. Matt Welch wrote about this abuse of power in Reason's July issue.

If you're a media professional who is disturbed by the outcome of the Gawker case but thinks what these attorneys general are attempting to do corporations and think tanks is about fighting "fraud," maybe stop and think for a minute about having a little bit of consistency.

UPDATE: A nice shot and chaser about the two cases. Here's New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman tweeting on the Gawker bankruptcy:

And here's what Schneiderman says about those who don't share his position on fossil fuels and climate change (from Welch's aforementioned column):

"Our offices are seriously examining the potential of working together on high-impact, state-level initiatives," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman crowed at the March conference, "such as investigations into whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions."

NEXT: Friday A/V Club: The Terrible Things That Can Happen When a Pop Act Makes a Movie

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Niiiiiice.

  2. First they came for Gawker and I said nothing, because fuck Gawker.

      1. In a just world, Paul. In a just world…

      2. Are Slate and Salon next?!?!

        1. They’re already weazing and near death.

        2. Without Slate and Salon, where would America get its valuable identity politics outrage coverage?

          1. Buzzfeed and Hufflepost, dude.

            1. And then Rolling Stone. They have to be on that list.

          2. think progress
            reddit
            motherjones

            Derp isn’t exactly a monopoly or even an oligopoly. It is more like a very diverse and fragmented industry in need of consolidation.

            1. Does anyone read MoJo anymore? It seems they kind of peaked in the 90s during PC 1.0.

            2. Better to herd them all into camps and give the progtards showers.

          3. Christmas in July?

    1. Those assholes should have been out of business when the Gizmodouches stole that iPhone prototype and tried to destroy the career of the engineer they stole it from, but Apple didn’t pursue the matter as rigorously as they should have.

      -jcr

  3. Somebody buy it and Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

    1. Would it be tacky for Peter Thiel to buy them out, fire everyone, and refuse to release the domains for all time?

      1. No. It would be one of the all time class moves ever. That would have real style.

      2. If he has the money to do it, I would cheer for the guy. That would be 90 million well spent.

        1. Nobody’s paying $90mm for Gawker. No way its worth that much.

      3. That was my first thought when I saw they were up for auction.

  4. This is also a great time to remind folks that there is another large, wealthy, and extremely powerful consortium of people who are attempting right now to use the courts to silence and punish people for saying things they don’t like.

    The difference being that these people can put people in a cage for years.

    1. The other difference being that there is a difference between criticism of taxpayer-funded studies and releasing someone’s private sex tapes.

      1. If someone gave the tapes to Gawker, I suppose they weren’t so private.

  5. Peter Thiel had quietly financed the lawsuit as revenge, believing the outlet had violated his own privacy and that of his friends in the industry.

    Is this “Thiel hates Gawker because they ‘outed him'” claim really credible? I saw Thiel in an interview a while back, and he did not actually seem to give a shit whether anybody knows he’s gay.

    1. It wasn’t because they outed him. It was because they outed a few other people and did real damage to some people’s lives and Theil seems to be a genuinely good guy who got pissed off about it and had the resources to follow through.

      http://time.com/4348840/peter-…..ulk-hogan/

      1. “Consider turning your Ad Blocker off”

        Consider sucking my dick, Time.

        1. Eh, I’m okay with this strategy. Much better than paywalls imho.

          1. All they’re doing is pissing off potential customers; and I’m not opening my browser to the vast pile of shit they want to heap on me.

            1. If you don’t see their Ads, then you aren’t providing a product for their actual customers. The customer is the person who pays the bill not the person using the service.

              1. I meant customer as in “maybe I’ll buy a subscription”. I know the ad agencies are their real customers.

              2. I am only going to provide a product for someone that pays me. A shitty Time article isn’t payment.

              3. Also, I’d have been happy to be fed ads if the ads didn’t come with all sorts of extra baggage like tracking devices, viruses, etc. The media outlets are accomplices in that and they’ve lost my trust forever.

                1. People might use adblocker less if the ads did not do obnoxious to malevolent things to people’s devices. Don’t be evil and people might not be evil to you.

      2. What John said.

        The way I see it, Thiel did this basically as a hobby. As good works.

        And good for him.

  6. All Thiel did was give people who had claims against Gawker but lacked the money to pursue them, the money necessary to do so. If Theil had funded a bunch of frivolous lawsuits in some kind of legal DNS attack against Gawker, I could understand why people would be angry. That, however, is not what he did.

    Gawker and Denton are complete scum who have made a business out of slandering and invading people’s privacy for voyeuristic and sadistic pleasure. A lot of the people Gawker has slandered are not public figures who have stepped into the public life and assumed the risk of publications like Gawker doing sleazy hit pieces on them. A lot of them were ordinary people unlucky enough to come under Gawker’s scrutiny and with no real ability to fight back.

    Theil did the world and the country a great service. I hope Nick Denton lives the wrest of his days living in a flop house doing quarter tricks as a tranny hooker to survive.

    1. It bothers me to agree with you.

      1. It’s okay to agree with John as long as you hit that spam button.

        1. *marks as spam*

      2. It bothers me to agree with you.

        You too?

        What Thiel did was no different than donating money to a political campaign. It’s all speech.

      3. It bothers a lot of people to agree with me too. It’s usually that way with people, are apusually right even if they a tent one of the cool kids. John is one of those people.

    2. “I hope Nick Denton lives the wrest of his days living in a flop house doing quarter tricks as a tranny hooker to survive.”

      I have never agreed with you more. Hamilton Nolan is also a complete scum bag.

    3. If you visit HuffPo you will see moans about the 1% abusing their power. Because Gawker was a public service funded by orphans darning socks.

  7. I’m familiar enough with chapters 7 & 13 bky, but not 11. Is there any chance that Gawker, 1) is able to get out from all debt, 2) acquired by someone else with the same political and journalistic bent, and 3) thus goes on exactly as before, with absolutely no lesson being learned by anyone?

    1. 11 is the most common business bankruptcy. It allows a restructuring of their debts.

      The answer to question 1 is no, because it’s a restructure. Answer to 2 and 3 are a definitive yes.

      1. I was afraid of that. Thanks for the info.

        1. See below. It is not that simple.

      2. Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code excepts from discharge any debt “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” The legal meaning of the phrase “willful and malicious” has changed over the years and, along with it, so has the breadth of the willful and malicious injury exception.

        Invasion of privacy is a willful and malicious tort. Gawker is not writing this judgement off in bankruptcy.

        1. That part I knew. I don’t know if it’s ever been applied to defamation torts, as opposed to gross negligence, et al.

          1. Defamation is an intentional tort. The distinction is that the judgement has to come from damage the bankrupt intentionally caused not damage that was caused by his negligence.

            1. Ah, ok. Thanks. Only ever dealt with bankruptcy in a securities law sense.

              1. It used to be a really broadly interpreted rule. If the judgement came from anything other than simple negligence, you were fucked. Then in the late 1990s, the Supreme Court narrowed it so that it no longer included judgements for gross negligence. Now it has to be an intentional tort like assault or defamation.

        2. How can they restructure debt in such a way to save the company if the debt they can’t discharge is more than the entire company is worth? It sounds like they are literally just using the procedures as a play for time while waiting for the payout to be reduced. That or they are trying to use it as an excuse to give themselves non-refundable golden parachutes. “Oh, we’d love to pay you Hogan, but literally all our assets were given out as a Christmas bonus this year.”

          1. That won’t fly. The BK judge would shut that shot down in a nanosecond, and possibly jail the principals for contempt if the action were egregious enough.

        3. OK, so how will this play out?

          Let’s say hypothetically, they owed Hogan $500 Million, had $100 million in assets, owed $1,000,000 in unsecured debt to other people, and $5,000,000 secured by various assets.

          How would the judge start distributing the money (assuming they go Chapter 7)?

          Let’s say to get out into Chapter 11, they need to get their debt down to $10 million. How would that work?

          1. See Illocust above. They are just playing for time. Anyone can file for Chapter 11. That doesn’t mean a judge is going to give it to them. They will no doubt claim that the judgement can be discharged. They will fight that out and once they lose, the judge will see there is no way to reorganize the company and then turn the Chapter 11 into a Chapter 7. But that will be months from now. And the hope is by then they will have gotten the judgement reduced on appeal.

  8. I really wish Hulk could use the potential payout from his lawsuit as collateral to buy Gawker, then he could shut the whole place down. Maybe stop by the office and piss on the editors desk on his way out the door, or even better, make an actual sex tape to sell to a porn distributor in their office after he owns it. Just rub salt in the wounds.

    I might really really not like Gawker.

  9. What Thiel did was “maintenance”.

    http://tinyurl.com/jrgrv92

    Maintenance was a crime until recently.

    “Mr. Hogan’s lawyers excluded a claim that would have activated Gawker’s insurance to pay its fees and damages, and they rejected settlement offers. It looks as if the lawyers’ primary loyalty was to Mr. Thiel, who signed their checks, not to their client.”

    http://tinyurl.com/zjquphs

    If that statement is true, that Hogan’s lawyers worked the charges specifically so that Gawker’s insurance couldn’t save them, then it would indeed appear that the lawyers were working on Thiel’s rather than Hogan’s behalf.

    My understanding is that one of the reasons laws against champerty and maintenance (and barraty) fell by the wayside is that the state bars became more responsible in policing themselves. There are a million things that are both unethical and perfectly legal. Maybe the bar should look at the lawyers in question. They knew whom they were working for. Did they make like it was otherwise?

    1. then it would indeed appear that the lawyers were working on Thiel’s rather than Hogan’s behalf.

      Not necessarily, Hogan could have also wanted to nuke Gawker from orbit.

      1. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say that justice supposes forced compromise, but I think it used to be even more like that when people had to hire a prosecutor, even for criminal offenses.

        The idea that people’s ability to the use the courts to force themselves on others is limited by their ability to pay for a civil prosecution might even be seen as a liberty maximizing principle.

        I’m not saying I fall on either side of that argument yet, but I can see that argument pretty clearly. I can see why champerty, maintenance, and barraty were all illegal–going back to the 13th century.

    2. You’re assuming that Hogan didn’t also want Gawker destroyed. I’m willing to bet that he did.

      1. As much as Hogan may have wanted to see Gawker destroyed, he presumably wouldn’t have been able to support his suit without Thiel’s support.

        The opportunity to get a settlement from an insurance company is almost always the least expensive way for the plaintiff to get a claim paid–without going to trial

        Hogan isn’t the first person in the world to hate the people he’s suing–and want them destroyed. It’s unclear to me that taking the option for a quick payout at low expense off the table was something Hogan would have wanted.

        Especially when a jury trial is like an outrageously expensive box of chocolates; . . .

        No, I don’t care how much this is going to cost me or how risky the payout will be, I want to go forward anyway? That’s not what most plaintiffs do. Not even when they hate the people they’re suing.

        1. But it didn’t cost Hogan anything. The fact someone else was paying for it changed the math for Hogan. If I get a $15,000 computer because my grandparents were willing to pay for it but if purchasing on my own I’d only buy a $2,000 one, does that mean I didn’t want the $15,000 one?

          1. Exactly, that’s the point.

            That’s one of the reasons why funding someone else’s lawsuit used to be illegal.

            Like I said above, the whole justice system may be predicated on assuming such limitations will force people to settle. If government is best that governs least, then isn’t the best kind of ruling the one that’s never made because the parties settled their suit?

            Maybe that’s an important part of the game.

            Has anyone launched kickstarter campaign to fund a class action lawsuit yet? Someone must have by now.

            1. You’re asking for the government to step in and govern more in the name of governing less?

              I also don’t get why being rich makes me more worthy of not having to settle than being able to convince someone that is rich to fund me? The money is being voluntarily given either way, and I don’t understand where we can make a libertarian point that consensual trade between two adults is bad just because we don’t like what they spend the money on.

            2. Wait, but isn’t EVERY class action lawsuit funded by a third party? It’s always done by the class action lawyers on behalf of the supposed claimants that have been “wronged”, many of whom are unaware that a lawsuit is even taking place?

            3. That’s one of the reasons why funding someone else’s lawsuit used to be illegal.

              You realize that every contingency fee case is, essentially, the lawyer funding the plaintiff’s lawsuit, right?

              And, of course, there are innumerable other lawsuits all the time where a large corporation funds lawsuits where the plaintiff is one of its subsidiaries or even employees.

              What difference does it make who funds the lawsuit, anyway? Isn’t what matters whether the suit has any merit?

              Would your proposed rule also apply to the defense of lawsuits, or just to the plaintiff’s side? If funding one side of a lawsuit is bad, why isn’t funding the other side bad? Because insurance companies fund defense all the time. Do you want to outlaw that, too?

              1. Doesn’t there have to be someone the lawyer in question is actually representing in the suit?

                And in order to be a part to the suit, you need to have suffered damages, right?

                Thiel wasn’t a part to this suit. He wasn’t claiming any damages against Gawker.

                1. Neither are most of the people who are part of a class action lawsuit…

          2. Exactly, that’s the point.

            That’s one of the reasons why funding someone else’s lawsuit used to be illegal.

            Like I said above, the whole justice system may be predicated on assuming such limitations will force people to settle. If government is best that governs least, then isn’t the best kind of ruling the one that’s never made because the parties settled their suit?

            Maybe that’s an important part of the game.

            Has anyone launched kickstarter campaign to fund a class action lawsuit yet? Someone must have by now.

            1. Like I said above, the whole justice system may be predicated on assuming such limitations will force people to settle. If government is best that governs least, then isn’t the best kind of ruling the one that’s never made because the parties settled their suit?

              There are plenty of actions government could take to discourage lawsuits. For example, it could simply randomly shoot 10% of the people bringing a lawsuit outright, or threaten to throw anybody in jail who doesn’t settle, regardless of guilt.

              The problem with outlawing funding someone else’s lawsuit is that the enforcement of such a rule infringes on property rights and freedom of association; it also invites arbitrary enforcement. For example, is a husband supporting his wife’s lawsuit legit? What about a friend? Or an unmarried couple? Or a parent helping their son?

    3. Ken,

      A lawyer’s duty is to his client. There is no indication that Hulk is hurting for money. As long as Hulk was okay with the strategy, there is no problem here. You are assuming that Hogan wanted the cash rather than revenge and that the lawyers disregarded his wishes to follow Theil’s. That is very unlikely to be the case, especially since Hogan could have fired them or went to the judge with his complaints. That never seems to have happened. So, one can only conclude that is what Hogan wanted and that he approved of the strategy.

    4. Mr. Hogan’s lawyers excluded a claim that would have activated Gawker’s insurance to pay its fees and damages, and they rejected settlement offers

      Whatever reporter wrote that is a moron who doesn’t know anything about how litigation works. The lawyers don’t turn down anything. The client does. And anytime there is a settlement offer, the client has to sign the response turning it down. Hulk Hogan turned down those settlement offers. Had he wanted to accept them, he could have done so and there would have been nothing Theil or his lawyers could do to stop him. It was his claim not Theils and Hogan could settle it for however much money he wanted to settle for.

      God reporters are stupid.

      1. excluded a claim that would have activated Gawker’s insurance to pay its fees and damages

        Entirely rational, if they didn’t want Gawker to be able to draw on that insurance to strengthen their defense.

        and they rejected settlement offers

        Never in my 30 year legal career have I ever seen a lawsuit where settlement offers weren’t rejected. Most of them do wind up with settlement offers that are accepted, but not without leaving a long trail of rejected offers.

    5. champerty and barraty

      OK, now you’re just making words up.

      1. Back then, they also had to worry about dropsy and consumption.

      2. Not champerty, unless Thiel gets a slice of the proceeds.

        Not barratry, as this lawsuit was not “vexatious”. Its definitional – if you win, its not vexatious, its justified.

    6. What Thiel did was “maintenance”.

      I don’t think so. Thiel neither encouraged the lawsuit, nor did he share in its outcome. He simply helped a friend pay for his lawyers.

      Be that as it may, why would a libertarian have a problem with “maintenance” in the first place?

  10. the state bars became more responsible in policing themselves.

    Hilarity ensued.

  11. I really wish some news sites would do a comparison pieces between Gawker and the National Enquirer. A while back the National Enquirer nearly got sued out of existence for printing straight up slander. In response they did a major restructuring of how they state and source claims. All those alien baby stories have sources (crazy insane sources, but sources none the less) that don’t initiate inside the National Enquirer office. They also are very careful to only target people who are public figures or willing participants. I think the comparison would do good to point out exactly how bad Gawker was, and that they didn’t have to be.

  12. THANK YOU for the Schneiderman update.

  13. Actually, first they came for the National Enquirer….

    Anyone old enough to remember that one, where Carol Burnett was awarded 1/3rd of the Enquirer’s total corporate value?

    Lucky for the Enquirer, the judge, wanting to preserve quality Supermarket Tabloid news, reduce the punitive award to $150,000.

    1. Enquirer actually did change their tune after this lawsuit. Unlike Gawker they aren’t politically motivated partisans. They are way more interested in continuing to make money lawsuit free, than taking down “The Enemy”.

    2. They knowingly printed a lie about Brunett that portrayed her as a drunk and seriously damaged her reputation. They should have been run out of business. Since when does free speech mean the right to slander people?

      1. John, you’re not seriously taking my comment as a defense of Gawker, are you?

        1. Not at all. I was taking it as a sort of defense of the National Inquirer. But forgive me for not getting the sarcasm.

          1. Neither. I remember that lawsuit and I thought it deserved everything it got, and was personally disappointed when the judge lowered the judgement.

      2. Dude! You call me a retard all the time! If I sued you for libel, I’ll bet you’d be filing a SLAPP motion citing the first ammendment so fast that time would start flowing backward.

        1. Opinions are not facts. And besides, truth is an absolute defense to libel. 😉

          1. That’s it buddy!

            I demand satisfaction! At dawn, on the common, haddocks at 20 paces!

  14. Yeah, brother!!

  15. I’m actually kind of surprised Gawker doesn’t have a couple hundred million (or more) lying around, given that I think we’re in another tech bubble. What the hell are they doing wrong?

    1. What the hell are they doing wrong?

      Doing what so many other sites do but without a Union?

      1. Hah right, I forgot about that. Idiots.

    2. Well, it is Gawker, after all. Didn’t they unionize their writers sometime not too long ago?

    3. Hiding their money offshore?

    4. Markets over-saturated. They are in competition with Slate, Salon, and fifty million other proggy websites. Doesn’t help that some of their competitors (like Salon) don’t actually have to turn a profit to stay in business.

  16. Bigger piece of shit: Eric Schneiderman or Kamala Harris?

    1. Harris, though it is awfully close.

  17. Scott I hope you tweeted Schneiderman’s quote back at him.

  18. As usual, I think Scott has the best take on this whole subject so far, and manages to split the difference between those claiming, “Free speech is doomed!” and others who want only to see comeuppance served, regardless of possible side-effects.

    1. I wonder if anyone remember when the KKK’s headquarters building was awarded to that woman. This kind of reminds me of that. I don’t know why.

      1. the “free speech” pearl-clutching pretends that the ‘threat of lawsuit which sinks them‘ hasn’t been held over the head of every media organization on earth since the dawn of the printing press.

        you don’t even need libel laws ; you just have to be able to show damages. and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. And when rich people DO try to silence the press with lawsuits? they are entering in a public-relations game where they could very well come out the loser. Because of the streisand effect, etc.

        Its always been a delicate dance and it probably should be. You dont destroy people in the media *for no reason* other than ‘we can’.

        If you can’t step up in court and convince a jury that there was some interest larger than “WE NEED CLICKS”, then you probably shouldn’t be in the business of “journalism”…

        ….If that’s what you call publishing shit like, “James Franco Is Gay” and “Black people have a right to steal from you” etc.

        1. Wearing a pair of thick wedges and a sundress, Vondrich chased after him.
          Hot on the kid’s heels, she pleaded with him to give the cellphone back.

          I have a thing for a woman who can do shit like this in high heels.

        2. Now, granted, it’s not entirely Clara Vondrich’s fault that this 13-year-old boy was arrested by police for stealing her phone.

          *spits drink all over monitor*

  19. What if the NSA or the IRS had obtained this sex tape (the sex being consensual and taking place inside a home) and leaked it online? “Privacy violated! Edward Snowden II!” the left might exclaim.

    Of course, we understand that freedom doesn’t merely protect David from Goliath. It benefits them both. But the other side doesn’t get this. It explains why they believe activist protesters have unrestrained 1A right to disrupt a speech by a Jewish speaker but a corporation doesn’t have a right to spend whatever sum they want on political ads.

  20. This couldn’t have happened to a nicer group of people. That it was also at the hands of a libertarian is just icing on the cake.

    Sure, sure, we can toss back and forth whether it was underhanded for Thiel to finance the lawsuit, or if there are any free speech implications. There might be. But man, I can’t bring myself to give a single fuck.

  21. I have no problem whatsoever with newspapers going out of business due to civil claims against them. Gawker in particular is/was an absolutely horrid kind of online rag, something that doesn’t even deserve the already tainted moniker of “press”.

  22. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  23. 3″My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time. you can also do this.

    ……….. http://www.Maxcenter20.com

  24. And here, children, we learn that freedom of speech doesn’t necessarily mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

    Especially when you’re a collective of sociopathic verminous muckrakers.

  25. 2″My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time.You can also do this.

    >>>>>>> https://www.Cashpay60.tk

  26. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.selfcash10.com

  27. 3″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 98usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do.

    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Today70.com

  28. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

    ======> http://www.Today70.com

  29. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  30. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  31. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  32. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  33. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  34. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.