Snohomish County Sheriff questions governor’s plan, says citizens should be allowed to return to work

Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney

Updated with comments from Gov. Jay Inslee during his Tuesday press conference and a statement from Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Adam Cornell.

Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney is making waves after he posted to his sheriff’s campaign Facebook page Tuesday night criticism of Gov. Jay Inslee’s approach to getting Washingtonians back to work in light of the COVID-19 outbreak.

In an open letter to “Snohomish County Residents and Business Owners,” Fortney — who was elected sheriff in November 2019 — said he watched Inslee’s Tuesday night speech and “I am left to wonder if he even has a plan.”

Fortney started out by stating that “this virus is very real and sadly, it has taken 97 lives in Snohomish County. This is a very serious issue and the appropriate precautions need to be taken to protect our most vulnerable populations.

“However, our communities have already shown and continue to show they understand the severity of the situation and are doing all they can already to keep themselves, their families and neighbors safe and healthy,” he added.

Fortney was also critical of what he sees as the state’s unfair decision-making regarding what is defined as a local business. “If this Coronavirus is so lethal and we have shut down our roaring economy to save lives, then it should be all or nothing,” he wrote. “The government should not be picking winners or losers when it comes to being able to make an income for your family. If the virus is so lethal it shouldn’t matter whether you are building a school for the government, building a new housing development, restaurant owner, or you happen to be an independent contractor.”

“To the contrary, if the virus is proving to not be as lethal as we thought, maybe it’s time for a balanced and reasonable approach to safely get our economy moving again and allowing small businesses to once again provide an income for their families and save their businesses.”

Fortney also reiterated his decision to not carry out any enforcement for the current a stay-at-home order. “As your elected Sheriff I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion,” he wrote. “We have the right to peaceably assemble. We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to attend church service of any denomination. The impacts of COVID 19 no longer warrant the suspension of our constitutional rights.”

Fortney’s post as of mid-morning Monday had drawn about 3,600 comments to his Facebook page. Some commenters were supportive, citing examples of how they had been personally impacted by the shutdown, while others were dismayed, noting that the sheriff’s statements directly contradict the advice of public health officials.

The Governor’s Office also weighed in, with Deputy Communications Director Mike Faulk issuing the following statement:”It’s unfortunate when elected officials promote illegal activity that puts their community’s well-being at risk. That kind of leadership can only lead to more people getting sick, more rumor and more insecurity, and with the end result being a protracted crisis we must continue to mitigate.”

During a press conference Tuesday afternoon, Inslee specifically talked about Fortney’s comments, noting that “we cannot have individual law enforcement officers arbitrarily decide which laws they are going to enforce and which they are not going to enforce.”

The governor also mentioned a statement by Snohomish County Prosecutor Adam Cornell in which Cornell said that “prosecuting attorneys and sheriffs carry a unique responsibility in our criminal justice system to serve as bulwarks to a civil society. Put simply, we are elected to serve under the laws not to act above them.”

In his statement, Cornell said that he also fears that Fortney’s statements “will be interpreted by some citizens around the state to grant license to willfully and blatantly violate the law.”

“Let me be clear: actions have consequences,” Cornell wrote. “State and local emergency proclamations are binding on all of us whether we agree with them or not. A violation of the law carries consequences and as county prosecutor I will continue to uphold my oath and exercise my prosecutorial discretion.”

— By Teresa Wippel

  1. The Constitution defends the right to practice any religion we choose – NOT attend church services. Very different things.

  2. “The impacts of COVID 19 no longer warrant the suspension of our constitutional rights.” This seems to imply that at some point this scientist, epidemiologist, doctor, public health expert, constitutional scholar–oh right, he’s none of those things. He’s a sheriff. Anyway, this seems to imply that at some point the COVID 19 virus did warrant the suspension of our constitutional rights. So, sheriff, in your esteemed estimation, exactly what has changed that now makes it unacceptable? Have the facts on the ground substantively changed? Has the virus become less virulent? Have our family members, friends, and fellow citizens stopped dying from it by the thousands every day? Have we developed a vaccine, a therapy, or a prophylactic to combat it’s spread? Have we even come up with a system to comprehensively test and/or track it? Do we even have any idea how many of us are carrying it around yet are completely unaware? Of course the answer to all these questions is unfortunately, no. So to the nearly 50k Americans that have already lost their lives to this you say, open back up? My advice to you, Sheriff, is stick to what you know, fighting crime. Leave the epidemiological decisions to the public health experts.

    1. It should be remembered that at the time of the economic shutdown the model numbers said best case (meaning social distancing was baked in) was 240,000 dead. That is quite a bit different than what is more likely to be 60,000 dead.

      Also we need to factor in how many people are dying from the measures we are taking. People are not going in to get cancer treatments, you are going to see those numbers down the road. The simple stress of the shutdown is causing an increase in suicides, it also has to be impacting people that were already experiencing other health issues.

      At what point are we doing more harm trying to protect against one thing than the lives we are saving? Its a tough question and likely doesn’t have an accurate answer until hindsight.

      If we are ONLY looking at Covid itself then a reasonable person might say stay shut down until there is a cure, even if that is sometime in 2021. Is that a good idea though when considering the entire question of what is best for the country/world?

      1. How many peoples lives were saved because auto accidents are down? How many search and rescue operations have been halted because people are not putting themselves in harm’s way. How many people have spent time with family because they were forced to slow down and appreciate what they do have in this world. Things are different, yes, but it’s not all doom and gloom in the land of quarentine.

  3. The Sheriff is not a scholar of the Constitution. He was elected (not by me) to enforce the laws. If a court that has jurisdiction over Snohomish County rules that the Governor’s emergency orders are unconstitutional, then the Sheriff should comply with that court’s ruling. But since that is not the case, he needs to do his job on behalf of all county residents. He is entitled to his personal opinions and he certainly can engage in his First Amendment rights, but no one forced him to run for public office. Now that he holds office, he should try exercising discretion and good judgment on behalf of the common good or he should step aside. This is a national, no international, emergency. Babies, five year olds, twenty year olds are dying. People of color and poor people are dying at alarmingly high rates. This affects everyone, not just the elderly or those with underlying medical conditions. More is being learned ever day about this virus. It is far more contagious than was thought even just a few weeks ago. It is decidedly unhelpful, no dangerous, to have another elected official attempt to stir up dissent.

  4. Mr. Fortney has a choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem. Looks like he chose the latter. What does this statement have to do with law enforcement? Remember this statement the next time he runs for any office.

  5. Good job Sheriff! Thank you for standing up for our constitutional rights! If you are vulnerable, then protect yourself with PPE and take necessary precautions, and stay home if you feel like you need to stay home. Let me and my healthy kids back into parks, open our favorite local businesses, let my boys’ barber cut their hair! If you are vulnerable, please do everything you need to to protect yourself! But, LET US OUT!

    Also, why is Joanne’s allowed to be open? Essential business? and let’s talk about the Pot shops? They are open? Seems strange…

  6. I’m not going to join the call for the Sheriff’s head (lots of people already doing that, and that is what elections are for); but if he runs for office again he needs to swear an oath that he is in fact dedicated to upholding only some of the laws, only some of the time.
    You all can then decide if that is the guy that you want for that position …

      1. Since you asked, I don’t agree with the Governor’s stance on that, and I certainly don’t believe in the concept of “sanctuary cities”, but the fundamental difference is that it is within the Governor’s authority to make that call, whereas it is not within the authority of a county Sheriff to make the call that Fortney’s trying to make. That is the difference between the Governor of a state and the Sheriff of a county – one has remained in his statutory wheelhouse, whereas the other one is floundering at sea.
        Nevertheless, as I wrote above, these are things to be settled at the ballot booth, where everyone has a say.

  7. How reassuring to know that the Sheriff has discretion and is not a robot. The UCMJ identifies that servicemen and women have a moral and legal obligation to the Constitution, and not to obey an unlawful order. This seems no different. We are in the heat of battle and a decision must be made. Hopefully the Superior Court settles this question soon.

    Until then, based on Inslee’s press conference this afternoon where he cited the public’s obedience to his “Stay Home, Stay Healthy Initiative” as evidence of its constitutionality and the concurrence of everyone that his order will protect us all, he is inviting, even instigating public dissent beyond the thousands who gathered in Olympia and the Tri-Cities on Sunday.

    1. Governor Inslee did not cite the public’s overwhelming cooperation with the Stay Home, Stay Healthy order as evidence of its constitutionality. He cited the cooperation as evidence that the order is working to keep Washington residents healthy. He very clearly said that it is the purview of the judicial branch to determine constitutionality. His briefing is available on YouTube for those who want to listen to it. I have not seen any article about a legal challenge to his order. His order is presumptively the law of Washington until a court rules that it is not.

      The Governor also said that there has only been one enforcement action and that was against a landlord who was trying to evict one or more tenants for nonpayment of rent. He emphasized over and over that he hopes for voluntary compliance and for local law enforcement to educate rather than to arrest. He has stated and restated his hope for voluntary compliance and refers to his order as an initiative. I think he is using language to soften it and encourage us to do the right thing, not only for our loved ones, but for the greater community.

  8. This man was elected sheriff to enforce the law fairly and impartially, and now he’s telling us he’s only enforcing laws that he happens to agree with. That puts him in violation of his oath of office. If the governor and the attorney general can’t convince him to recant and do his job properly, then he ought to be recalled by the voters of Snohomish County. I will happily join such a recall campaign, if it should become necessary.

    1. The sheriff isn’t breaking any law because there is no law that says you must shelter at home. The Governor isn’t telling the truth when he says it’s the “Law of the Land.” It was an advisory or proclamation that Governor Inslee decided he wanted. Washingtonians have done a very good job of flattening the curve by sheltering in place and taking every precaution they can. There are families who are going to go hungry and suffer other consequences if they are not allowed to return to work. I doubt that the Governor is going to go hungry or not get medical care if he needs it.

  9. Roger, was just thinking of something, are you also for recalling all the sherrifs that refuse ICE retainers? Have to go both ways, if we are being fair.

    Something I saw today, these stay at home orders are not actually laws, they are really something called a govermentory advisory. If someone does get arrested and challenged it I wonder what would happen. Has anyone heard of anyone getting arrested (either here or another state) and the outcome?

    1. WA State and local officials have ignored laws concerning Federal drug and immigration laws for years. They all of course should resign in violation of their oaths.

      I can hear the rationalizations now: but, but, but…

  10. Sheriff Fortney should do the right thing and resign. The Oath of Office does not allow the County Sheriff to pick and choose which state and local laws to enforce. He has a right to his opinion but not a right to ignore laws with which he disagrees.

  11. I have a number of frustrations with the Stay at Home order: what’s the Governor’s exit strategy? If the intent was to flatten the curve to allow more ventilators to be available, great, we’ve done that. Now let people who need surgery and treatments proceed. Let other businesses open while implementing new safety standards: wear a mask in public, keep 6 foot distancing as much as possible.

    If he intends to keep the stay at home order in place until they can test us all and we have to have passes or until there is a vaccine in 12-18 months is that ok?

    We need a practical target and one that isn’t moving. It seems that our Governor either doesn’t know what that target is or he doesn’t want to fill us in. That just isn’t acceptable.

    1. Tina – I think many of us share your frustrations.

      But there is going to be uncertainty because the target is going to keep moving and we are going to learn more about the virus and the effect of various approaches to halting it. I would rather err on the side of caution, not least as the virus is now showing up more and more in rural areas and experts are cautioning us that premature re-openings could spark a second wave of infections.

      We need to draw a clear line between really necessary, careful re-openings, and idiotic re-openings such as the Florida beaches and the mayor of Las Vegas’ idea of re-opening the casinos. Washington, and Edmonds, have careful leadership and can do better. It is a complex and shifting situation, and while our elected officials may need to be non-committal sometimes and in some areas, and being human our officials will make some mistakes, we need to support them – and respect each other. Unity and community will demand the acceptance sometimes of uncertainty, but unity and community always win in the end.

      Chancellor Merkel, always a voice of sanity, warned the governors of Germany’s 16 states against easing restrictions too soon, warning that it could damage Germany’s ability to check the spread of the virus: “Let us not squander what we have achieved,” she said in in a speech to Parliament.

      1. Addendum: NBC News reports:

        German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday warned that the battle against the coronavirus was in its early stages and that the pandemic looked set to be part of life for the long term.

        The leader of Europe’s largest economy also lent her support to the embattled World Health Organization, which has come under fire from President Donald Trump for its handling of the global pandemic.

        “No one likes to hear this, but we are living at the beginning of the pandemic,” Merkel said in an address to the Bundestag, the lower house of Parliament. She also warned that Germany was still on “thin ice.” “We cannot return to life before the pandemic,” Merkel added. “Our everyday lives will be different.”

        1. I believe that Germany is likely to have a much bigger problem than us with the virus, since its population is much more dense. And it will be much harder for Germans to accept social distancing as they customarily frequent restaurants and bars even more than we do. I know a bit about Germany because I spent one year there, many moons ago, in the air force and traveled there several times a year during my business career.

        2. This message is really in response to Ron Wambolt, who was good enough to post his thoughts in reply to Nathaniel Brown’s comment as well.
          Germany is in fact being very proactive in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and is weathering the crisis fairly well, certainly in relation to us. As of yesterday (April 22, 2020) Germany had registered 63 deaths per 1M pop. (ours is more than twice that rate, at 144 deaths per 1M pop.), making Germany’s rate of fatalities due to COVID-19 being one of the lowest in Europe. Germany’s rate of infection (measured per 1M pop.) are also much lower than ours (about 30% lower). Their curve is now “flattening”, and they have recently started talking about (very) gradually reopening some parts of their economy.

  12. The police are supposed to enforce the laws (i.e. arrest suspects) and the courts are supposed to interpret the laws (i.e. determine guilt or innocence). The police and the courts are supposed to do this without violating anyone’s constitutional rights. It’s not up to the Sheriff to worry about the constitution beyond making sure he and his deputies aren’t violating it in the course of conducting their duties as servants of the public good. The Sheriff is an officer of the Court and it behooves him to stay on the good side of the Court; in fact he is duty bound to; or he risks removal from office by the Court or the people at the next election.

    The way things are going in reality as opposed to ideally , I suspect the Sheriff and his deputies are going to be so busy arresting thieves, substance abusers, domestic abusers and bad drivers that they won’t have much time to arrest people for going to work. The reality is people will go back to work when they feel safe doing so and customers will seek out businesses for commerce when they feel safe doing so or have to to get their essential needs met. People will obey laws they believe in and break laws they don’t believe in. End of story.

    1. Quick search on Snohomish County Oath of Office:

      I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I name
      will support the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the
      Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington, and that I will
      faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office
      of _____________________________________________________ jurisdiction or district
      ________________________, ____________________________ for office position
      a _________________ term according to law to the best of my ability.

      Looks pretty clear on what to do regarding constitution and law (if they agree) – like on immigration and drug laws. It doesn’t seem clear on what to do if law and constitution don’t agree. Or if state law conflicts with federal law. I wonder if they have other internal policy that helps the line officer make this call. I would hope so.

      1. Actually, strike the comment on drug laws being in agreement – federal to state. For example pot legal per state law but not federal law. But my general comment still applies – what is a line officer to do when the four things they are sworn to support are in conflict?

        1. Good point Darrell. On January 27, 2020, I sent the following email to elected officials in Edmonds. The recommended oath removes support of laws of the United States due to the conflict between Federal and State laws:

          Please consider using the Oath of Office recommended by MRSC

          Dear Elected Officials (Others blind cc’d including those applying for the open council seat that I had or found email addresses for),
          As a reminder, for whoever is appointed to City Council Position #2, please make sure they are aware of all differences between State and Federal law and please consider using the Oath of Office recommended by MRSC:

          I, _____, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _____, according to the law and the best of my ability.

          I believe it critical to include affirmation that all local ordinances will be supported. I believe so because:
          1. Edmonds is a Home Rule, Code City with broad powers.
          2. The Mayor is required to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced.

          As such, why would anybody choose to leave support of all local ordinances out of our Oath of Office? Please consider using the Oath of Office recommended by MRSC.

  13. Following is the City’s Oath of Office:
    I __________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of ___________________________), for a Four (4) year term, according to law to the best of my ability.

    None of our 8 elected officials have taken an oath to support our local ordinances. They have, however, taken an oath to support Federal Laws and State Laws, even though there are conflicts between the two.

  14. Sheriff Fortney apparently decided unilaterally, purely on his own knowledge in reaching his decision on non-enforcement of the Governor’s orders. He doesn’t cite a single constitutional authority in support of his decision. He apparently did not consult the county prosecutor~ one would think the first person a county sheriff would consult. Personally, I’m quite tired of public officials making sweeping decisions without doing their homework, without consulting and following the advice of knowledgeable authorities!

  15. Having served in a federal law enforcement capacity for over 20 years, I can assure you that officers have the latitude to address many minor offenses in “less than arrest“ manor. This is essentially what the Governor has been advocating. The sheriff’s action was purely a political attempt to appeal to his conservative constituency. Having worked as a field/deputy officer he knows full well this has always been the case. His superiors at all levels have the opportunity to overrule him.

    1. Well put, Gerry. I fully concur. The sheriff is playing politics, appealing to his “base” (which apparently now includes the weekend picketers in Olympia). The only real enforcement we really need is shaming the miscreants who flaunt the rules. Nobody goes to jail, nor should they.

      What I object to most about stunts like Fortney’s is some gullible people will use his words as an excuse for reckless behavior ~ putting themselves and others in harm’s way. Social distancing is working. It’s “bending the curve” and people, most people, understand and willingly follow the rules. Fortney doesn’t grasp what’s going on.

  16. I wonder if all those wanting to grab their pitch forks and drag Sheriff Fortney from office for indicating he would not make arrests for violation of some aspects of of Gov. Inslee’s Covid 19 Emergency Declaration 20-05 felt the same when Gov. Inslee declared (only after his election) that he would not enforce the states valid death penalty laws. He too swore an oath: ”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor to the best of my ability.“. Apparently the Governor thinks he has the right to pick which laws of the state he will faithfully support.
    The “stay at home” aspect of Emergency Order 20-05 arguably exceeds the Governor’s emergency authority under RCW 43.06. A debate for another day.

    1. Mark, Gov. Inslee violated no law when it comes to the death penalty. As governor, he has the power to commute sentences or postpone executions. He has legal authority here; he’s keeping to his oath.

  17. All the political and constitutional discussion is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    To stay alive we should not come into contact with carriers. If we were not allowed out until we have tested negative then all folks out would be either a survivors or not infected. Test and then go to work, go to the parks, etc.
    Short of testing everyone we need a process that increases the probability of no one out is infected. It would be more productive to craft ideas to not become infected, then all this discussion about “is it a law?” “do we enforce laws?” and all the other discussion that has little to do with saving lives and restarting the economy.

  18. With the latest data out of NY and CA showing that far more people have been infected than we thought and thus the death rate is somewhere down around 0.5% it might be a better idea to have only the people that are more likely to have severe complications shelter in place. The more otherwise healthy people get it as soon as possible the faster we build up an immunity base. In the end it will likely do more to protect the vulnerable than our current path where some experts are now talking about a big resurgence come the fall.

  19. From what we know now. Age 60+ or underlining health stay away from everyone. 14 days, all those people can see each other. Every one else get tested and go for it, but do not go see anyone you know in vulnerable group. They should not contact a valuable group person unless they are tested negative. It would still be helpful to have all others folks tested and be identified as negative. The constitutional wizard folks would likely not follow such a plan for it would violate a principle they hold near and dear. Forget that some of us hold live near and dear.

    1. Mr. Haug, I appreciate having rubbed elbows with you at the MEN 10th Anniversary event at the art museum. Apparently those were my good ol’ days.

      If I trusted our government, I may grant them some latitude. However, in this case, I don’t trust them-and based on your last post, you don’t seem to either! You expanded their 6′ rule to account for wind. Apparently, you don’t trust their 6′ distance (which is not based on science).

      With their pitch, you are in fear and have decided their rules don’t go far enough. For me, their incongruent statements prompted me to conduct independent research, and conclude they have gone too far, and fear what they will demand next.

      I agree that something is going on, and some people do not survive the illness. However, if we do not allow the strong among us to develop immunity now, what is the plan for next flu season? I suspect 2 options: lock down or get vaccinated.

      I fear that tyrannical future, and so opt to rise up against the tyrannical present. A Polio Pioneer might be a badge of honor, but vaccines today are different.

      I strongly believe that our community can develop natural healthy herd immunity now, and do so without over-burdening our healthcare system, with less impact to our economy, and limited loss of life. But I’m just one man with wit (a nod to the rebuttal given to William Wallace in Braveheart).

      Wednesday afternoon Inslee challenged us. He said that by our behavior (largely consent), Washingtonians are voting to give up their freedom (yes Ms. Riddell, I’m paraphrasing around minute 14, taken together with what he said around minutes 17 and 24).

      So this is our Braveheart moment: “Aye. Fight, and you may die. [Submit], and you will live; at least a while…” As for me and my house… I won’t let them take my freedom.

      1. BT, saying more that 6 ft and upwind has nothing to do with trusting govt. I saw some you tube stuff showing a sneeze and how the droplets were propelled. The breeze would impact the distance carried.

        Actually here is what I would suggest for all folks 60 or older. (2020-year of birth)/10=starting distance for social distancing. That work for indoor but outdoor one should add an extra 4 inchs for each mile per hour. At my age next month, if I make it, the starting distance would be 7ft 8.4 inches. It is really difficult to calculate the wind but on MEN it sometime is pretty great!

        To delay group immunity may only prolong the danger for “at risk” folks. By fall we will know a lot more real data and then we can talk about trusting government. My bet is with all the data govt will not even be able to define the problem we are trying to solve. It would be interesting to see what folks on MEN would say is the problem we are trying to solve at that point.

        Not a Wallace, but I am an Airth.

    1. Wow, Tina this is very informative and definitely worth the watch/listen. These two Dr’s are basing their thoughts on “data” and not “models”, which seems very sound. Also the “predictable negatives” of economic catastrophe vs “unpredictable negatives” of lock-down are really eye-opening. Thank goodness for these two young doctors who are not afraid to speak out. Their knowledge and courage is what our younger generation needs and shows leadership. Thank you for posting. I also appreciate and support Brian and Anthony’s perspective.

    2. My kind of Doctors! As a Nursing Student, this seems to reflect the thought process of my friends and peers. Also many of my Professors are agreeing with the Data VS Model argument.

      1. Laura, we know you are in the medical profession and that much of the best thinking in medicine is “data driven” vs model driven. Even some folks a little older than you believe in data. My experience is some folks while they say they are using data in the decision making it is really the opposite. What is the outcome they would like to see and then gather some data to support their position. The two Drs in the presentation should help us all understand the data driven thinking that should go on with CV and most other things as well.

        Some older folks who have seen things change in ways they may not agree with are sometimes genuine saddened that younger folks are experiencing the same things they did growing up. But that is the nature of change.

        I would hope we pause a bit and think about our collective future and use data and fact based thinking to see how best to responded to what’s next. Dreadfully many people are out of work and with unemployment will loose probably up to half of a years pay. Some of us older folks have different sets of economics. Some of us lost 5 years of pay because we count on our assets to provide us annual income. The old “data” may have allowed us to live to 95 or so before we ran out of money. Looking at the new data some of those folks who thought they had money until 95 will now be out of money before 90.

        Hopefully our grandchildren will do what you are doing for your grandmother. Last think I want to do is go to a nursing home. People from the outside come in and infect the residents with flu or CV or whatever and we have loose a bunch of people.

        I did not see the Drs talk about how best to see that nursing home folks can stay well. Maybe you have some suggestions on how we can protect those folks. Not there yet but time does march along.

        These are our kind of doctors, hopefully we can get other elected to become more data driven as well.

    3. Thank you for this, Tina. Inslee is often talking about the need to follow the science. It’s now time to respond to reality and the facts, not theory. Trump also needs a dose of these two doctors – they’re operating in the real world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.