1. Free Legal Help, Legal Forms and Lawyers. TheLaw.com has been providing free legal assistance online since 1995. Our most popular destinations for legal help are below. It only takes a minute to join our legal community!

    Dismiss Notice

High Profile Terrorism, Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Murder Entrampent Case Kidnapping, Unlawful Detention

Discussion in 'Criminal Charges' started by HatesTyranny, Sep 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Two friends got set up by the LVMPD Terrorism Unit attempting to set up some Sovereigns. The media made it seem like the cops "foiled" a huge plot to kidnap and kill cops, when the cops were the ones setting it all up. It made national news and was the TOP STORY on all the news stations here in Las Vegas. The only "crime" done was that they got my friends to SAY some things they shouldn't have said. There is no injured party.

    One guy got arrested for giving water away on Las Vegas Blvd. They sent an undercover cop into the cell with him to act like a patriot. The cop invited him over to an industrial unit they had rented for the purpose of entrapping someone. He bit and then invited me a 67 year old woman to come down and meet the "patriot" and his "friends" (all cops). I never went back, the woman continued to go with him.

    I need some help on how to beat cases that never would have existed had the government not created them?

    Thanks everyone :coolio:
     
  2. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,649
    Likes Received:
    1,662
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You never got to anything that amounts to entrapment. I suspect the injured party in the matter is the people of Nevada.

    The bottom line here is that the belief of those in the sovereign movement that they are outside the jurisdiction of the US or state government is flat wrong. You are not your own country.

    You may renounce your citizenship if you like, but as long as you remain in the US you will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the laws here.

    Jurisdiction over inhabitants of an area is something that has developed in law since long before the US even existed, with records dating back to medieval England.
     
  3. disagreeable

    disagreeable Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think it is foolish for you to defend yourself from a law you do not believe has jurisdiction. Just let them find you guilty and exercise your belief at gov't expense.
     
  4. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have to agree with you on not defending yourself against a charge where there is no jurisdiction. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "exercise you belief at gov't expense." Jurisdiction is always the first thing to challenge. So far that has only been done in court, verbally on the record.

    I an considering filing a counterclaim and removing it to the federal court. What are your thoughts on that?
     
  5. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There was a time when everyone in this country was sovereign, including the first 16 presidents. The difference then was that the Common-Law was in force, not statutes. There had to be a non-government someone to make a claim against you rather than a cop setting up a "sting operation" as they called it, before your freedom could be put in jeopardy.

    There is geographical jurisdiction of course, but there is also subject matter and personal jurisdiction. A court must jurisdiction over all 3 before it can proceed, if challenged. If they somehow manage to get jurisdiction the case should be thrown out because the so-called "crimes" were the work of the government (LVMPD) and if the government had not fabricated the scenario the Words in question would have never been spoken.

    Hit me back as hard as you can. If I can't hold my own against you I certainly won't be able to help these people.

    If you know any other words for "entrapment" that could help me with a search that would be great.
     
  6. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,649
    Likes Received:
    1,662
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You would be exposing your views at government expense while incarcerated.

    So jurisdiction is not an issue then.

    You won't see a federal court unless there is a federal offense. Other than that it will take a few years to get your appeals far enough- IF you can come up within a good enough argument to get that far. You will find that your attempts to thwart the system with nonsensical filings won't go far. You have been terribly misled and hopefully this experience will bring you back to the real world.
     
  7. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,649
    Likes Received:
    1,662
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You do not seem to have an entrapment scenario. Police may have provided an opportunity, but the offender commits the crime all on his own.
    You can best help your friends by convincing them that for the sake of their freedom they should drop the sovereign bit, get a real attorney familiar with the real world, and sort out their mess.
     
  8. CdwJava

    CdwJava Moderator

    Messages:
    4,388
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83

    So, you're acquainted with these people:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/2...-in-sovereign-citizen-plot-to-kidnap-torture/

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/22/metro-infiltrates-sovereign-citizen/

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/us/las-vegas-police-kidnapping-plot/index.html

    greedy4knowledge, seems to me that they were, indeed, actively planning to kidnap and kill police officers ... or, is that activity okay in your world view? For law enforcement, folks involved in the so-called "Sovereign" movement can be dangerous to the point of deadly on a number of occasions. If these folks engaged solely in civil disobedience or political activity, great ... sadly, that is not the limit to their actions and they quite frequently thumb their noses no only at state and local law, but are often willing to engage in violent confrontation in support of these beliefs.

    Your friends can argue jurisdiction, sovereign status, or whatever other nonsense they choose to. In the end, they will have to deal with the Nevada court system to answer for their alleged crimes.
     
  9. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You maybe right on that. A counter claim in the same court might work as well. The claim would be against the cops for setting them up, unlawfully arresting them and false imprisonment. No one is injured in this matter except for them. No cops were injured and no citizens either. So who has the real claim?
     
  10. CdwJava

    CdwJava Moderator

    Messages:
    4,388
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83

    You are assuming that this was entrapment. From what I have read, independent action was taken by the suspects to actively plan for the kidnapping, torture and execution of the officers. But, their attorneys are free to try and raise the issue of entrapment should they choose. That may be their only "Hail Mary" defense here, so they have little to lose by giving it a go. However, I'd venture to guess that the documentation and paper train in this will turn out to be quite extensive and will show that the suspects took the initiative.

    And the whole concept of an "injury" being required in order for a law to be broken is a red herring and entirely untrue under US law. If the suspects conspired and took affirmative steps to move forward with a plan to kidnap and/or kill people, then that will be sufficient provided the elements of the alleged offenses are met and the state can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Arguing the sovereign interpretation of "common law" will not be a successful tack for them to take.
     
  11. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have seen all those links and I have the police report right here. These people are not dangerous. Devon is a 67 year old female with no criminal record at all. Take any Sovereign and any Citizen and the Citizen is 157 times more likely to kill you than the Sovereign. Sovereigns self-govern and live by the the common-law rule of "do no harm", at least 99% of them.

    The problem with David is that he is a follower. The cops played him like a fiddle. With a little coaxing I could have him dancing down Las Vegas Blvd. naked with a bouquet of tulips up his butt and singing Joy to the World. The cops planned it, not him. They just got him to say the things they wanted him to say on tape so they could arrest him. If that isn't entrapment, what is? If it wasn't for the cops doing what they did, he never would have said those things they allege he said.

    I'm not saying that you are wrong. They may have to take to the jury.
     
  12. CdwJava

    CdwJava Moderator

    Messages:
    4,388
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83

    Interesting that YOU have the police report ... I'm surprised it's being released at all.

    Given what the police are alleging, they sure as heck SOUND dangerous.

    And this interesting factoid comes from where?

    That other 1% sure makes up for the others. The ones I have encountered tend to be angry and inclined to resisting if not outright violence when dealing with law enforcement. And a casual read of a few sovereign blogs finds references to the occasional need to KILL law enforcement officers (the "blood of tyrants" and all) as part of some sort of natural process.

    Sorry, but you're not going to be able to paint the sovereign movement as some casual book club of pacifists engaged in Ghandi-like civil disobedience. I will concede that most are not likely to plot the murder of others, but a good many of them do - certainly a higher percentage than most any other political movement, I'd imagine (though I can no more quantify THAT than you can the "157 times" claim).

    Then I suppose his attorney will have no problem making an entrapment defense. Somehow I suspect it ain't gonna be so easy ... and, I imagine, there will be a lot of audio/video to present at trial.
     
  13. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hello CdwJava, I am sure there will be a lot of audio at the trial. The police report referenced audio a lot. I still have to get the audio from the DA and will tell them to include the mitigating evidence. I find it interesting that the police report was not signed under penalty of perjury or notarized (not even a witness) even though the cop signed as an Affiant.

    I just looked up the murder rates per 100,000 and it is not what I heard on the radio. I will admit that I suspected the 41 number I heard was too high to believe and it was. So I had to redo the math and now I will retract my number of 157 times. Depending on the year you compare it to the Citizen is 15 - 35 times more likely to kill you than the Sovereign. Sovereign murders are only 11 in 13 years. I'm good at math, I owned a machine shop. Give me the right stats and I can give you right answer.

    I am pretty sure that police reports fall under the FOIA. Aside from that, I have a full power of attorney from David.

    Are you reading what Sovereigns are saying or what others are saying about Sovereigns? There is a big misconception out there and most of is perpetrated by the FBI and DHS.
     
  14. CdwJava

    CdwJava Moderator

    Messages:
    4,388
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83

    I do not know that a report in NV has to be signed in such a way. I believe they do in TX, but no such signature is required in my state of CA. We DO have to sign the complaint request that is sent to the court from the DA, but that's not the same as the report.

    We do not release police reports in what is still (arguably) an open case. So, either you have obtained a copy from the defendants' attorney(s), or NV has some very liberal laws with regards to police reports. Or, perhaps what you have is something less than the full report.

    Of course, I didn't say KILL. Sovereigns also have a great many assaults on officers - often with better firearms than we carry ... there's a reason that we receive regular training on these groups.

    Well, the FOIA is a federal thing, so it wouldn't apply in NV. And PoA or not, you are not his attorney. In my state, you more than likely wouldn't be getting this. But, if his attorney wants to provide you with the reports and NV law permits him to share them, then so be it.

    The first couple of blogs I read were by people that sure talked like sovereigns. I, frankly, don't spend a lot of time thinking about them. But, as a group, they are a significant enough concern to warrant extra attentiveness when the signs are there. I have yet to have an enforcement related encounter with a self-proclaimed sovereign that did not end up in a scenario involving resisting in one way or another. Blessedly, no physical assaults, but sufficient resistance that the arrests and/or vehicle impounds tied up resources. And the ones I have encountered probably need to check their blood pressure as they seem to be ready to be pissed off about anything. I was returning the purse belonging to one fellow's wife that had been recovered at a local big box store, and he opened the door and loudly ordered me off of his property. I told him why I was there, left his wife's purse on the porch, and left ... I think I heard a muttered, "Thanks" as I was walking away. I thought he was going to blow a gasket. It's gotta be tough living so angry all the time. (We had to arrest him about a week later and it took three of us to accomplish this task without injury to anyone ... but, that's another tale.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  15. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL :) Well I can't speak for all Sovereigns, only the ones I know and myself. The ones I know would not harm anyone unless it was self defense. Most Sovereigns are scholars or on their way to it. Sovereigns know their rights far better than a citizen does and they value their rights the same as any other property of theirs. A Sovereign knows that all men were created equal with certain unalienable rights. Cops have no more rights than anyone else, citizens don't know that. The Sovereign does not wish to tell anyone else what to do, but he knows that no one has the right to tell him what to do. Are cops where you are trained to keep their Oath of Office and preserve, protect and defend the constitution? The cops around here act as if they have never even read it.

    It is funny that I got pulled over one night because I don't have a license plate from the state. Because of my Don't Tread On Me plate the cop knew I was a Sovereign, so he called for back up. I was 100% non-violent, and yet I thought for sure they were going to kill me. The cop that pulled me over was a nice guy but the SGT acted like I pissed in his Cheerios and one of the others got out of the car with his hand on his pistol. I was surrounded by 6 cop cars! All over a paperwork ticket. I never even yelled at them. I let them speak and then took my turn. I was held there for 80 minutes. I called a witness so I would have one in case they shot me. When they were done with me they surrounded my witness who parked across the street!

    These people don't have attorneys. They refused them because they don't want to be wards of the court, thus granting jurisdiction. Attorneys don't work for the client no matter how much they are paid. CJS 7 says that their first loyalty is to the court, not the client. The bar attorney, the judge and the DA are members of the same club, and you and I are not in that club.

    Peace
     
  16. CdwJava

    CdwJava Moderator

    Messages:
    4,388
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83

    It could be that some have a different definition of what might necessitate or constitute "self defense" than I, or the law, might allow. There's a reason why - as a group - they are on the radar screen for law enforcement, and why they are considered a credible threat - and it's not because they are known for passive resistance.

    I beg to differ. I would say that they BELIEVE they know their rights better than others. But, to say that they KNOW their rights better than others implies that their understanding and interpretation of government, the flag, and a number of other things is legally correct. Being well-versed in snippets of the law, quotations, and platitudes does not make one legally correct.

    Well, the police do have those powers bestowed upon them by the law in their respective jurisdictions. Whether they want to recognize this fact is beside the point. Legally, the police DO have certain enumerated powers not granted the ordinary citizen - sovereign or otherwise. They do not have any greater RIGHTS, but they do possess powers to enforce the law as granted by the state and the jurisdiction that employs them.

    Of course. However, that doesn't mean they are expected to enforce someone else's interpretation of the Constitution. Since the local, state and federal courts were established to interpret the constitution and to reconcile these statutes with the US and state Constitutions, it is their interpretation that law enforcement is expected to adhere to - not yours, not mine, not my neighbor's.

    If you had homemade plates, one of which said "Don't Tread On Me" I would probably start backup as well. Prudence doesn't mean paranoia or even certain risk - it means going home in one piece.

    Well, they don't really have any choice - the court HAS that jurisdiction. They don't have to recognize it. I guess that means they will be acting pro se? That is likely to result in a certain conviction. My guess is that the court will assign counsel to assist them so as to help avoid a mistrial or grounds for appeal due to incompetent counsel when/if they muck it up.
     
  17. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry, accidentally posted this twice :(
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2013
  18. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a big communication problem between Sovereigns and police. In a democracy there are statutes that apply to the employees of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION. The police automatically presume that everyone is an employee (citizen) like they are themselves. Police live in the democracy. Sovereigns live in the republic. They don't speak the same language. In Black's law dictionary you see 2 definitions for every word. There is the common-law definition and there is the admiralty or statutory definition. So anytime a Sovereign speaks to a cop, attorney or judge there is a communication issue and each one leaves thinking the other is ignorant. There is little chance of coming to an agreement.

    You said, " Legally, the police DO have certain enumerated powers not granted the ordinary citizen". What would happen if you removed the costumes, badges and titles and rendered an incident down to only the elements? Would the actions be a crime? Are not the police public servants? Since when does the master/public answer to the servant? Is not the servant paid by the public? Somewhere along the line the rolls got switched. They got switched in the democracy. In the republic, the People created the government and no one is subject to it's creation. 99.9% of the time you are dealing with a citizen that was created by the 14th Amendment, so you are pretty safe to presume that you have a subject. But once in a while that is not the case. You are pretty safe to treat a citizen like you own them, they are chattel. But the Sovereign owns himself and he is free to do whatever he wants so long as he does not trespass on the rights of others. You don't have to listen to me, but if I were a cop I would not do anything to a Sovereign that would be a crime if he did it to me.

    You said, " Since the local, state and federal courts were established to interpret the constitution....". This is the biggest flaw in the constitution. The constitution is an instrument to restrain the government. By allowing a branch of the government interpret a restraint on the government is like Goering deciding what Hitler can't do. It is the very reason that Patrick Henry boycotted the Constitution Convention in 1787 saying, "I smell a rat". Any interpretation of the constitution should be left to a jury of the people, not a branch of the government.

    Are not these inferior courts just corporations for profit? They are listed on Dunn and Bradstreet as such. If that is all they are, then what obligation does an individual have to contract or do business with them? I realize that the courts try to put on a pretense of justice to keep the business rolling in, but that is all it is. Bottom line is that they want your money.

    I've been thinking of changing my plate to "NO CONTRACT". I have no contract to buy their license plates or driver's licenses. The contract makes the law.

    The judge did assign him a lawyer as a helper, you called that right. I wonder how much help he will be. Since all crimes are commercial I think they should just accept it for value.

    If you ever make it to Vegas we should meet up for lunch. I'm sure you love a good debate or you wouldn't be here :)
     
  19. CdwJava

    CdwJava Moderator

    Messages:
    4,388
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83

    That may be so. Yet, the law is on the officer's side. Regardless of the wishes of the "sovereign" the officer and other employees of the Executive are empowered under the law (be it federal, state, or local) to enforce certain laws. You can say you don't want to play all day, still, at the end of the day, the rule of law will prevail.

    The tools are not what grants the officer his authority, it is the appropriate state or federal statute that does so.

    Since the public pays the servant to maintain order and keep the peace through the enforcement of the law. We, the people, grant this authority to our government to help maintain order. Without an order maintenance arm of the Executive, chaos would reign and there would be no consistency in enforcement of the law. Enforcement of the law would vary widely by locale and by individual and you'd have, effectively, anarchy at best, a series of despotic oligarchies at worst.

    And as long as he follows the laws and doesn't bother anyone, he's free to do and behave as he chooses. The problem arises when he feels that he does not need to follow the same rules. Vehicle registration, driver's licenses, taxes, etc. - these are all things that cause sovereigns to run afoul of the law and, thus, law enforcement. Understand that the law does NOT require that there be an injury to another. I know that is what the sovereigns claim, and what they believe the "common law" says, but that's not the law that we are subject to.

    Well, since the only time I have had to deal with so-called sovereigns is when they have been in violation of one law or another, they wouldn't be able to take any action against me because I did not commit those violations. I pay my taxes, my vehicle registration, have a valid driver's license, and choose not to trespass, be drunk in public, or engage in other unlawful activity. So, I'm not sure what that statement implies.

    Then move to convene a Constitutional convention and rewrite the thing. As it stands, however, the court is an independent leg of the triad and is empowered with the authority to interpret the law. Do they always reach decisions we all agree with? Nope! But, they are the branch of the government that we have empowered with this responsibility and unless we toss the Constitution out, we are expected to abide by those decisions. And, as part of the triad, the legislature can try and change the law if the people (through their elected representatives) feel that a particular interpretation is flawed.

    No.

    Huh?

    Actually, no, the state where you reside makes the law. You are free to put whatever plate you wish on your vehicle provided you never operate it on the public roadways. I live in farm country and there are a good number of people that do NOT register their farm vehicles because they do not have to as they never leave the farm or ranch. But, if they are travel the public roadways, they must comply with state law regarding equipment, registration, licensing, etc. This "contract" angle is a legal fallacy, though often argued by sovereigns.

    As a note, when I stop a sovereign and they try to hand me a sheaf of papers purporting to be court decisions "proving" they do not need a license or registration, I don't read them. They can bring it up to the judge ... though, I have yet to go to court for one because the ones I have been involved in simply fail to appear and eventually have to be picked up on a warrant.

    If he wants to stand a chance in heck of beating or mitigating the charges, he'd better listen to his attorney.

    I haven't been to Vegas since my wife was pregnant with #3 son (13 1/2 years ago), but, we're talking about it.
     
  20. HatesTyranny

    HatesTyranny Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great come backs CdwJava :) It does reenforce my point that the Citizens in the democracy speak a different language than the Sovereigns in the republic. Example; in the democracy a statute is considered a law and there are so many that not even the attorneys and judges know them all, in the republic a law is considered a law, specifically the Common Law, i.e. you don't need anyone to tell you that you should not steal, vandalize, murder, commit fraud, kidnap or rape someone. It is really pretty simple, don't deprive anyone of Life, Liberty or Property and you have committed no crime. I know that later on they came up with Breach of the Peace and the Common Law backed it up. But an arrest could not be lawfully made unless the breach was in the presence of the peace officer.

    Statutes are the lowest form of law. The Common-Law and Constitutional law are next and the highest form of law is Contract law. Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution say "no...law impairing the obligation of contracts". It is fundamental that you have a right not to contract as well. You will find this interesting and it is probably the same in California;
    NRS 483.550  Driving without valid license.
    1.  It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway in this State without being the holder of a valid driver’s license.

    NRS 483.560  Driving while license cancelled, revoked or suspended; probation, suspended sentences and plea bargaining prohibited; exception; penalties.
    1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, any person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access at a time when the person’s driver’s license has been cancelled, revoked or suspended is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    Notice that driving with a suspended license in a misdemeanor, then notice that not have a license is nothing at all. The reason being is that in 483.560 there is a contract to enforce, in 483.550 there is no contract to enforce and no contract can be forced on you, it must be by consent.

    But, if you are engaged in commerce on the highways then you are regulable. An owner - operator or driver of a taxi, limo, bus or truck that transports goods or people as a business has to have a license for both himself and the vehicle. A driver is a paid professional and passenger is someone that pays a fare for the ride. A man or woman traveling in their car does not need licensing. The logic of it is crazy. You can travel by horse, buggy, bicycle, roller skates or elephant on the roads and you won't be asked for a license. But the act of placing an engine in something automatically makes it a crime to use if you don't have a license (permission that you pay for for something that you already have a right to do)!

    You make it sound as if we do not have a despotic oligarchy now :) People don't automatically get chaotic anytime there are no law enforcers around to keep them in line. If the government went bankrupt and could not pay the cops things would not change all that much. For the most part, people are good and will govern themselves. If you rounded it off they would all be good, but there is that 1-2% that can really mess things up and make life hard on the rest. Unfortunately here in Vegas if you ask anyone who the most feared gang in town is, the answer is always Metro (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept). Rather than serving the public, they terrorize the public. Anytime someone has an encounter with them they don't say, "here is a nice police man to keep me safe". They say, "am I going to get out of this alive and keep my freedom" or at best, "what is this going to cost me". The worst part is that the people fund these tyrants. Oh, once in a while they actually catch a real criminal or save a life, but most of what they do would be a crime if the same was done to them.

    Dunn and Bradstreet is a credit reporting agency for companies and businesses. If you go to their website you can see that all the courts and even the sheriff departments are listed as for profit companies.

    You may want read that sheaf of papers the Sovereign hands you. You might learn something. I compiled my own collection of case law but as you said, the cop never reads it. Sovereigns do not make those claims based on nothing, there are plenty of state and federal decisions to back up the claim. I do have something most don't and although it is limited to Clark County it should come in handy if I ever need it. I accepted the sheriff's oath of office as a binding bilateral contract, recorded it at the county recorder's office and sent him a copy. He kept it. So if he or his underlings do not deal with me constitutionally then they are in breach of contract. I haven't had to use it yet.

    I don't ignore the court and then get picked up on a warrant. I know how to deal with it. I can understand why some do though. I handle as much as I can through the mail, I hate getting up that early.

    "The contract makes the law" is a maxim.

    I'm impressed, all 3 of my marriages together only add up to about 13 1/2 years. I'll give you my number if you would rather debate on the phone.

    Cheers
     

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.