Thanks also to Legal Insurrection's Andrew Branca for linking this post.
Editor Note Updated: The site Wonkette has posted an article concerning Kincannon in which our post is linked.
It's horrible drivel and the only point it established in my mind is that I am not the worst writer on the innerwebz. No, I'm not providing a link to the landfill.
---------------------------
By Kim D.
Anyone who has encountered or followed Todd Kincannon (@todd_kincannon) on Twitter knows what a contentious character he is. Love him or hate him, both liberals and conservatives have to admit, Todd, a South Carolina lawyer, also known as the honey badger of American politics, knows how to shine the light on the most divisive issues of our time.
The campaign was successful and books were due to be released to those who had pre-ordered this June. But, then all of a sudden on June 22nd, a curious thing happened. The Honey Badger went silent on Twitter. In a letter released today via email, Todd explains why.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
If you are receiving this email, it means you ordered a copy of my book. Yet no one has received any copies yet, and I owe you an explanation why.
I am presently legally barred from fulfilling the order. The South Carolina lawyer disciplinary authorities—government officials—have determined that my political and religious commentary is “unethical.” I am legally barred from sending you a copy of my book at this time. (Well, I could send you a copy, but I could be disbarred for it.)
This is the culmination of a two year secret investigation of me by the South Carolina Commission on Lawyer Conduct and the South Carolina Office of Disciplinary Counsel, two entities that have taken the position that the First Amendment simply does not apply to lawyers. Unsurprisingly, no Democrat lawyers have been targeted so far as I know, and the people in charge of the South Carolina Office of Disciplinary Counsel have solid Democrat voting histories.
I encourage you to do discuss this matter in public and on Twitter and Facebook, and you are free to contact the people involved to complain. Here are some excellent talking points: (1) This is just like the IRS Tea Party targeting scandal, because I am being targeted for my political commentary but absolutely no Democrat lawyers are being targeted. (2) Anyone with half a brain understands that the genuinely offensive things I say are merely to provoke the Left and are my distinctive brand of political commentary. (3) If my political activism wasn’t effective, no one would be trying to shut me up. (4) Unlike the Mozilla controversy and other examples of private boycotts, the South Carolina lawyer disciplinary authorities are government agents who are punishing private citizens for political and religious advocacy that is not to their liking. (5) This is book burning, plain and simple. (6) If I lose my right to speak freely because I am a state licensed professional, anyone in a state licensed profession is subject to having their free speech rights taken away from them. (7) This case is one of the absolute best arguments against state licensing for professions. Once government gets its dictatorial foot in the door, everyone in the room becomes a slave to whatever group of petty tyrants happens to run that wing of government at any given point in time.
The reason for my silence about this matter until now is that I truly thought they would come to their senses about all of this. In fact, they indicated to me more than once that they would not punish me for political or religious commentary that was not to their liking, after initially demanding that I stop saying anything offensive on Twitter. (That was why I briefly stopped using profanity on Twitter in late 2012, in case you were wondering what that was all about.)
However, in early June, just as I was preparing to send out my book, I received an unexpected notice from the South Carolina Office of Disciplinary Counsel that the investigation was going to continue because of comments I made on Twitter regarding a left wing political activist named Col. Morris Davis, a frequent guest on MSNBC. (I have no indication that Col. Davis has anything to do with this—it appears a supporter of his filed a bar complaint on me, the seventh or eighth complaint filed on me in recent times.)
As a result of all this, I have prepared and filed a lawsuit in federal court. Please read the attached complaint that was filed earlier this evening. I will fight this matter all the way to the United States Supreme Court if I have to. Surrender is not in my DNA. However, I have no choice but to stop tweeting and hold off sending out copies of my book or engaging in any other advocacy until the federal court gives me clearance to do so without fear of professional repercussions.
Given that I am now legally banned from sending you my book, if you want a refund for what you have paid for my book (or anything else), please let me know and you will receive one immediately. A few people have offered to donate legal fees. That is not necessary. All I ask is for you to pray for me and my family and to raise absolute hell about this. I’m going to win this fight no matter what, but the louder you are, the quicker and easier it will be.
I suspect the federal court will clear me to send you a copy of my book within a month or two. I suggest you not cancel your order, because I have an idea that these books are going to be collectors items by the time this litigation is concluded with finality.
I will provide more details as they become available. I plan to coordinate a full-scale political and legal attack on all involved (within the bounds of law and ethics, of course) if this matter isn’t resolved to my satisfaction in the very near future. This is just my opening salvo.
Don’t just expect fireworks, folks. Create them. (Again, within the bounds of law and ethics.)
Todd Kincannon
Ha! Ha! You deserve to be disbarred dude. You are one nasty piece who gives all lawyers a black eye.
ReplyDeleteHe's not going down without a fight . . . http://www.scribd.com/doc/233976535/Kincannon-v-SC-Commission-on-Lawyer-Conduct
ReplyDeleteHang tough, Todd. This is what Progressive fascists do. Silence by brute force. Because their ideas suck ass.
ReplyDelete--Andrew
Obviously he hurt your feelings, that's to bad.
ReplyDeleteThis article was a test to see who would go Nazi, in favor of suppressing speech. You win, htowngenie! Congratulations.
ReplyDeleteDidn't expect that a patriot is treated like that in the US. Disbarred? This is NOT the democracy we know about in the USA. I bet the so called Muslim Bro are behind. Hang on there, Todd. Egypt is behind you.
ReplyDeleteUsing the courts against leftists what a model plan, it is how we are where we are today. While leftists used their friends in the "justice is blind" court system to destroy a moral nation we did nothing. The time to fight is now, or there will be no tomorrow. Prayers are up!
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should fly to Mexico and then illegally cross the border back into the U.S. Then the liberals would celebrate you!
ReplyDelete"...gives all lawyers a black eye."
ReplyDeleteSo it was all because of him?
No one likes when their dirty laundry is aired. That's why drs & lawyers have trouble policing their members & throwing out the bad ones (and everyone knows who they are.) The cts are going to have to rule & isn't it sad that the first amendment which covers specifically uncivilized political speech isn't held up. Good luck to him
ReplyDeleteThe progs need to lose and lose big. If they start winning these battles, there will be no stopping them.
ReplyDeleteYou know how to reach me Todd. Anything you need.
ReplyDeleteOh, right, suppress free speech because he gives lawyers a black eye? Reminds me of a joke...what do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean who have black eyes? A good start.
ReplyDeleteTodd's a fun follow. I miss him sparring with RB0003. Hope this quiets down soon.
ReplyDeleteI love Todd. He WON't go down without a fight. I am behind him all the way. Blatant stifling of his first amendment rights!! Go get em Todd!
ReplyDeleteBecause we can always trust the nomenklatura to identify what speech is socially useful. They've done such a good job everywhere it's been tried.
ReplyDeleteWhat a good wittle fascist htowngenie is.
ReplyDeleteAre you still taking book orders?
ReplyDeleteYes, because Lawyers had a wonderful reputation before...
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely incredible. I cannot believe that political speech is being targeted so much. I know first hand what it is like to have psychotic left wing loons target me as best they could, but stopping me from speaking was never even possible for them. Perhaps that is because I am in Texas where freedom of speech is more than a slogan.
ReplyDeleteThis is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't planning on buying his book; I'm conservative, but he's so far over to Right he might slide off the edge.
Having
said that, the South Carolina Bar Association has zero business in
telling this man what he can and cannot say regarding his own opinions,
especially in print!
So I WILL buy his book, because #1A is more important than whether I agree with him or not.
Too. Education - not just for Liberals anymore.
ReplyDeleteThen don't play by their rules.
ReplyDeleteTodd Kincannon's weakness is that he has too much invested in the Byzantine court system to challenge it effectively. Even if he "successfully" fights it, his side has been drained of resources and time that the Liberal side can afford to lose.
It's attrition.
The purpose of this tactic is not to win or be ethical, but to harm, harass and intimidate/deter others from opposing Liberals. It's a terrorist tactic without the bombs or guns. It's outside the accepted norms of the legal "ceasefire" in the Culture wars
The weak spot, as some Liberals know, is that there are other avenues of resistance and counter-attack outside of their strong points. If they want to use the court system to silence their opponents, don't play on their terms in that court system. Todd is a lawyer so that's his avenue of attack, although I suggest he [continue to?] diversify his talents. Use your own strong points (we all have specific talents and weaknesses, so cater your response accordingly).
One thing: Todd Kincannon draws a line of "law and ethics", as he was trained to do. But it is clear in this case that his opponents have both broken the "law" and violated "ethics"; Sorry, I don't defer my better judgment in favor of Lawyers and Bureaucrats in our court systems.
In such a confrontation, it is foolhardy and unethical to entreat such opponents according to law and ethics. When a person plays "knockout" and tries to break your skull, you don't respond with a shrug and say "You broke the law and violated ethics" - then do nothing because you're afraid of what the courts or your own vanity will say. Such a response itself is not simply suicidal or amoral;
It is immoral.
It is pretentious.
And it is doomed to the failure it deserves.
The moral response against someone trying to harm you to the best of his ability is to do harm in return to the best of your own ability. Again, these people are lawyers and bureaucrats, who are doing their best within their sphere of knowledge. They're hiding beneath a veneer of "law and ethics" they violate with impunity, thinking they can get away with it. If you're neither a Lawyer or a Bureaucrat, don't play on their terms. We have our own vocations. Even better, Lawyers and Bureaucrats are very limited or "Specialized" in their talents with few exceptions. They have a lot of vulnerabilities (and blind spots) outside their field of expertise.
That's our field.
Whoever wins will gain the ultimate moral high ground.
The Disciplinary Counsel understands that much at least, and I will commend them as far as it goes. I'm amused, actually, when people like them take off the mask so brazenly. Don't they realize that the only thing holding their opponents back is the belief that they actually believe the hooey they purport to believe?
Save ethics and "good manners" for the people who deserve it.
Destroy those who don't.
He's facing disciplinary action because he's acting like a douchbag - even for a lawyer. No one is preventing him from publishing his book. Of course no one on this blog would understand professional ethics.
ReplyDeleteSo, I assume you have read the indictment against him from the Bar? So many people on the internet hop, skip and jump over so much they know nothing about.
ReplyDeleteWe reported this story. We did not slant it. So don't go insulting my blog because you read something into this post that is not there.
ReplyDeleteI may not be a master of professional ethics, but I am a professional at spotting bitches.
Bitch.
So what? People paid him to write his opinions and his "professional community organizers" are telling him that they will disbar him if he write and sells his opinions.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you entitled to spew anything yet gives you the power to deny him the same opportunity?
Even though I mostly agree with Todd on issues, I had to stop following him on twitter. His excess was too much for me to take. Especially troubled by his occasional anti-Catholic rants. Having said all that, this action by the SC Bar is complete BS!
ReplyDeleteMost Americans don't regard Catholics too highly; many of our ancestors specifically escaped Catholic persecution.
ReplyDeleteWe're well aware of what would happen if Catholics gained a dominant role in America, similarly to what has happened to Latin America; poverty, crime, strife, and hopelessness. Catholics also want to swell their ranks in the US by supporting amnesty. Their politicians today like Nancy Pelosi wanted to force abortion onto other denominations in this country, but carve out specific exceptions for the Catholic Church only, thus delegitimatizing every other Christian denomination in America.
So yes, there are reasons (a pantheon of them, actually) why Catholics are not held in high-regard based on their record of behavior.
That basis of reasoning is rock solid.
The resulting perception of you is likewise: We don't like you.
He needs to get a pro bono lawyer; his pro se pleading is a little sloppy.
ReplyDeleteYour second sentence was gratuitously insulting and (at least) tactically mistaken.
ReplyDeleteWant to argue? Make a point? Go for it but don't lead with your rhetorical chin.
As it happens, I've taught legal ethics several times in continuing legal education programs accredited by the State Bar of Texas and presented by one of the local law schools. "Acting like a douchbag" is not grounds for disbarment; and that's a good thing, because it's something that almost every lawyer is accused of at one time or another.
ReplyDeleteI don't know Mr. Kincannon, nor had I heard of him before today. So I'm genuinely curious if there's something more being alleged, or threatened, by the relevant South Carolina authorities. I've seen legal licensing organizations act irrationally, sometimes outrageously, but to decide whether this is an example of that, I'd need to know more than that Mr. Kincannon claims he's being targeted and threatened, presumably with consequences to his license. I'd need to know what the other side of the story is, presented in its best light and fairly. If that's been done, I haven't yet seen it.
Of course Mr. Kincannon can attach a copy of his book to his federal brief, and that way it gets published ethically, as a public document.
ReplyDeleteSo, our anonymous htownidiot likes censorship as long as it does not apply to him. Figures.
ReplyDeleteInternet, Linda. No one is writing for posterity or grades.
ReplyDeleteWhy should he lose his prospective profit? Hell no!
ReplyDeleteYes, he is being legally prevented from selling his book. I talked with him yesterday morning and wrote an article on the case.
ReplyDeleteLinda, using a typo as a pretext to spew partisan ugliness does not make you look smart -- just petty.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech for conservative viewpoints is just so inconvenient and oppressive for proggies, isn't it? So, to alleviate the "burden" of this civil right, let's get some Democratic-controlled oversight committee to suppress freedom. Right? Yeah, you're totally ethical./sarc
ReplyDeleteBTW, most people think ALL lawyers are nasty pieces. The action taken by the South Carolina Office of Disciplinary Counsel only serves to support that premise.
Maybe you should fly to Mexico and stay there.
ReplyDeleteRandy, I need your daughter's hymen. No time to explain!
ReplyDeleteNah, it's probably because no one listens to Texas anyway.
ReplyDeleteI remember when he told me how to join TCOT, and right after I did, UniteBlue attacked me- those were the days you could bump someone off immediately by saying they were spammers- the left thought that a spammer was anyone saying anything they did not agree with politically.
ReplyDeleteTodd Kincannon watched all of this happen, and did not speak up, did nothing, I assumed (stupidly) that TCOT was a united force that would protect each other (he wanted a lot of information on who we were, you had to fill out a questionnaire to belong to TCOT)- and Kincannon just said- I never said you would be safe!
So no...he’s on his own, as all of us TCOT were. I’m not saying a word, not exactly the kind of person I would ever stand up for. I look for a little more team player. Odd that he is asking for the very thing he denied others.
ya- it is BS- but also BS on how he treated others (conservatives) on Twitter- so I guess what comes around goes around.
ReplyDeleteYes- you are all correct on what you say- but you can not attack Christians of any faith, you can not insult people’s beliefs...if you do you’re (and I do not mean YOU..it’s a generalization) no better than the Liberals.
ReplyDeleteWow that's genius.
ReplyDelete(1) Todd purportedly failed to support you, which you find despicable, so now you fail to support him, which you find admirable. Got it.
(2) Let's only protect the free speech of those people we like. That should work out just awesome.
--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
oh- so you know each and every one of his followers? No it was not like that- he started a group, we thought that it would keep you from being bumped of Twitter or have someone speak up for you when you were. Turns out it was just a Kincannon ego trip and that was all it was. Live and learn.
ReplyDeleteI was concerned at first- but think about this- Obama has insured GOP success (and Tea Party Success for that matter) for the next ten generations- no one is going to vote for a Democrat for a long, long, long time...and the Dems have just shot themselves in the foot from the way they have just handled things, and the GOP will do the same thing when it gets into power. It’s not good for any one group to do this- we always need checks and balances because it’s human nature to go to the extreme when no one is stopping you- it is anti progress. Oddly you do not see any Conservatives hoping to see the demise of the Democratic Party as the Liberals do the GOP, because we know we are best and make the most progress when we have checks and balances, and we work together. However, because of the nonsense Liberals have pulled, it has opened the door to that kind of behavior from now on- so look out Liberals, you are in for a bumpy ride in the near future- you will probably be the target then.
ReplyDeleteThey listen to Obama, Pelosi and Reid. They're the idiots.
ReplyDeleteHmm, so abusing the civil rights of somebody you dislike or disagree with is okay?
ReplyDeleteTake this the wrong way if you'd like, but you're an idiot. You're wrong when you say "Most Americans don't regard Catholics too highly." You merely exposed yourself as an anti-Catholic bigot. The rest of your rambling post exposed you as a fool who believes a lot of incorrect information.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious - how did they notify you that you weren't allowed to publish your book? Did they send you a letter that actually says if you publish your book you'll be disbarred? Can you show us, or at least quote the language? I'm really curious to see how they explain their position.
ReplyDeleteThere is no indictment; this is not a criminal matter. In any event, it is a disciplinary action taken by the a government bureaucracy that (apparently) thinks it has absolute control over everything a lawyer does, whether or not this is related to the actual practice of law. While we should all be ethical, "ethics" is often used as a convenient stick with which to pummel the nonconformist.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, going to the SC Judicial Department web site and typing in Kincannon retrieves 6 opinions and nothing related to this "ethics" probe - so unless you can provide a link to something specific, I have to assume things are currently under wraps.
Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with his right, however obnoxious any of us may find it, to express his opinions. Calling him up on an "ethics" violation appears to be a sham.
ReplyDeleteProfessional ethics are related to his practice of law. They are unrelated to his opinion, no matter how obnoxious that may be. Using the "ethics" violation to silence those you find objectionable would be rise to the highest level of unethical behavior. And, yes, he can publish his book as long as he gives up his profession as an attorney - even a progressive should be able to see the contradiction of this with freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Catholic who has upheld Mr. Kincannon's right to express his opinions in several previous notes on this blog post, disagreeable as they often are. That said, your puerile, infantile and historically hilarious diatribe against Catholics made my day.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mrs. Pelosi, she has no intention of carving out exceptions for any religious body; many Catholics (myself included) think she should have been publicly chastised if not excommunicated by now for her radical support of abortion. But then it's apparent that either you don't read or can't understand the news. You're ignorance of Catholicism is only exceeded by your arrogance.
I, too, would like to see the specific communications from the SC Commission on Lawyer Conduct / Office of Disciplinary Council. Perhaps it's like double secret probation?
ReplyDeleteFor the Leftists/Fascists, using the power of the government (or quasi-gov like the SC Bar) to silence you is just so much more efficient and time-saving than to muster the effort to refute what has been said.
ReplyDeleteTodd Kincannon repeatedly divulged private conversations and then mischaracterized them. He also dug up public court filings on people and mischaracterized their nature in an effort to engage in blatant character assassination of the people involved. He further in my opinion engaged in acts of "defamation" under the SPECIAL meaning of the word in South Carolina Insurance Code in an effort to destroy the business of a husband and wife in Alabama but also licensed in South Carolina, alleging that they would steal clients' money or fail to deliver on any contracts lawfully entered into. What is going on with Mr. Kincannon cannot possibly punish him to the fullest extent he fully deserves.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the awesome mention on Legal Insurrection!
ReplyDeleteSays the troll listening to the viewpoint of a Texan. What a derp :-(
ReplyDeleteHe has precedent on his side. The Northern District of Ohio tossed a bar complaint against a judge for her advocacy on an issue not pending in her court almost 20 years ago. Lawyers have 1st Amendment rights
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would Todd do this????
ReplyDeletethanks- glad you GOT IT
ReplyDeleteSHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP
ReplyDeletePrivate information of clients? Proof, or bugger off.
ReplyDeleteFor those curious to an easy way to see the kind of integrity J. Todd Kincannon has ~ simply examine two verifiable things;
ReplyDelete1. The title of his "book"
2. The # of followers he has on twitter
His book title is a partial plagiarism of a #1 best seller from Dr. Laura Schlesinger;
"The Care and Feeding of Husbands"...
...'the care and feeding of liberals' ?
Gee Todd, what else in your "book" is cut & pasted from numerous other popular conservative writers?
Twitter followers; Todd has spent a few $ to purchase likely, 50,000 (+/-) 'followers.
Savvy users of social media can find the program that ID's the number of 'egg-type' accounts.
Aside from those two verifiable nuggets, his unrestrained hubris is a laugh too.
~He assigns his spouse as the "First lady of Twitter" [air-sick bag please!?]
~In his sniveling legal complaint, he states in item #5;
"Kincannon is a nationally known conservative Republican and evangelical Christian who has a highly popular Twitter account - one of the most popular Twitter accounts in the world by all measures."
Todd is a nationally 'wanna-be' known...
Todd "highly popular" twitter account claim is an obvious joke, conspicuously obvious to **anyone** who can comprehend simple whole numbers!
And recall those 50K bought 'followers'?
Little J.Todd Kincannon is nothing more than South Carolina's version of Anthony Weiner -- and there is evidence of 'that' anatomy being sent out by little J.Todd, too!
/
/
Oh, & just one more tid-bit ~ when verifying all the purchased 'eggs' little J.Todd has, don't forget to examine his window-dressing wife's phony followers too.
She might be the future 'Pants Suit II' on twitter~
None of which is actionable for disciplinary purposes. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteGood grief, he's living in your head rent-free, and banging your hypothalamus while he's there.
Look, if you want to sleep with him, just ask him. Never know with Todd. He might just go for it.
--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I **NEVER** said his oily-shyster integrity was "actionable"... did I sunshine?
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you have the faux-sophisticated anatomy-legal vocabulary buzz terms at 'the ready'.
For those like YOU - where the concept of honesty & integrity are footnotes in legal history, outward (however un-actionable they are) & verifiable signs of a sleazy & shameless character DO have ample merit.
Little J.Todd loves his self-masturbatory "public image" so much, it's pathological.
He's just another social-media climber - seeks desperately to get an offer from national media.
"Facts are stubborn things" -wrote John Adams, who, I share his values of personal integrity & honor, far more than you or little J.Todd.
The "facts" of what are itemized in the charges against him - I look forward to seeing!
Hahahaha! Your meds. Take them.
ReplyDeleteOr not. Which will surely continue to be more entertaining. :-)
--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Hahaha! SMFH. :-)
ReplyDelete--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Col. Morris is not someone that plays nice. That man has it out for anyone that makes comments on Twitter that disparage him in any way. I've experienced that personally. The left is intent on silencing opponents.They also hate it when we mirror their Alinsky tactics. God speed, Todd. I support your effort.
ReplyDeleteAnyone have phone numbers, home addresses or lists of law firms these Cretans can be found at...preferably mornings....I like mornings much better.
ReplyDeleteWhen we start silencing people we are on shaky, shaky ground. No one is forced to read his tweets, no one is forced to follow his acct., and regardless of whether I agree with everything he posts, I will defend his right to say whatever he wants.
ReplyDeletePublic records are just that. PUBLIC.
ReplyDeleteMischaracterizing them is UNETHICAL. The issue before the Bar Association is unethical conduct. Not freedom of speech.
ReplyDeletePretty sure Kincannon knows what is and is not lawful. Sounds like someone got owned by him after engaging him without the expected result.
ReplyDeleteHave to say it did concern me learning the Koran was read in Vatican.
ReplyDeleteSo in your opinion, someone should lose their livelihood over "Twitter" interactions. Jeez, no one forces anyone to engage Todd on social media. SOCIAL MEDIA. Ridiculous, beyond belief. If you can't take the heat....you know the rest, although clearly didn't practice it.
ReplyDeleteGuess all those "....for dummies" books are plagiarized too. Weak.
ReplyDeleteKnowing what is and is not lawful and doing it are two separate things. Apparently this is something much deeper than a Twitter fight gone wrong. We shall let the process play out and see what the Bar Association rules. I'm trying to get a copy of the complaint now.
ReplyDeleteAlso, let me point out that there are also distinctions between legal and ethical. What is legal is not always ethical. And what is legal or ethical is not always moral. What is in play here is probably not a question of morality or even legality, but probably a question of ethics. But again, until I see and read the complaint, anything else would be supposition.
ReplyDelete