Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 47  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 4096
Location: Brigadoon
Occupation: Retired
What's next? An appeal of the sanction for double or nothing?

:-k :-bd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2527
Location: The Little Red Dot
Occupation: ASEAN bureau chief; Keeper of the Bahasa; CSI for Semiconductors
Roboe wrote:

vic wrote:
I love the smell of a Friday Smackdown

especially on a Thursday!

It's always friday somewhere. In my case in an hours time :D


It's Friday morning here, and I can't think of too many better ways to start it

:banana: :banana: :rockon: :rockon: :thunb: :cheer: :cheer:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm
Posts: 2220
Sam the Centipede wrote:
Penguin 0302 wrote:
Can't wait to see what and when she'll post next. Surely something directing to the Paypal button, but I really want to see how she goes about it.

:-({|= Isn't there going to be a PayPal button on Fogbow to contribute to Taitz's unanticipated costs?

I'm sure Foggy would do it, but it must be technically ;) impossible ;) to have a PayPal button for Orly's sanctions and perhaps even ... unethical.

Donald T. Rump could revise his "offer" to Mr Obama and give Mr Obama's favorite charity $4,996,000 dollars plus $4,000 to Taitz if Mr Obama answers Rumps "show your papers boy" call. That would show Rump's solidarity with his fellow asshats.

OK, OK, OK... :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:



I'd like to see Foggy place a button on here that adds to her sanctions every time we click it :mrgreen:

_________________
"It’s time for this charade to stop” - Cold Case Posse Member Mike Zullo, destroying Irony Meters worldwide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Posts: 5731
Location: Glocca Morra
Somerset wrote:
Roboe wrote:

vic wrote:
I love the smell of a Friday Smackdown

especially on a Thursday!

It's always friday somewhere. In my case in an hours time :D


It's Friday morning here, and I can't think of too many better ways to start it

:banana: :banana: :rockon: :rockon: :thunb: :cheer: :cheer:


3 am here in Dubai, gonna nap till docs are posted. :)

_________________
"What's it like being an atheist? It's like being the only sober person in a car full of drunks, and they refuse to let you drive." Thomas Jefferson

Birtherism is so ridiculous that I no longer feel obligated to treat proponents w/slightest degree of respect or civility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:08 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Minnesota, U.S. of A., Earth
I am so excited. IANAL and have watched with dismay as Orly has said the same thing over and over for years with what seemed like almost no consequence (Judge Land's sanctions notwithstanding). I understand the importance of courts helping out the little guy and folks who don't understand the law and so on. But the more I read here and elsewhere the less I understood why she kept getting away with threats and all sorts of other behavior that didn't make sense.

I don't know how to make the happly face with pom poms but if I did it would go here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6632
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Reliable Source reporting:

Court did not convene until 1:44 p.m. It is believed that Judge Margines was reviewing the opposition papers submitted by Mssrs. Ritt and Botterud when the doors opened at 1:30. Mr. Ritt served Taitz with the paperwork in the courtroom. While waiting for the judge to take the bench, Taitz approached Mr. Botterud to ask, "If the judge grants this motion to compel today, do you have the documents with you?" An obviously amused Mr. Botterud replied "no" and Taitz asked "do they even exist?". Mr. Ritt stated "we not going to answer that question" and Taitz took a seat.

The judge took the bench, greeted the crowd, the crowd greeted him and immediately thereafter Dr. Taitz' cell phone rang. There was no comment by court personnel on this development.

Another ex parte matter was called first and the judge ripped the moving party a new one. Mr. Botterud and Reliable Source both appeared to take this as a positive sign, judging by looks exchanged. Taitz was too consumed in the opposition papers to take note of the demeanor of the judge.

That was probably not necessary anyway, as this is the 3rd time in the last week that she has appeared in his courtroom.

When the case was called Judge Margines began to summarize the posture of the case. During this, Taitz was busy shuffling random paperwork, notebooks and her purse around counsel table. This time she was on the correct side as Mr. Ritt took his position first. The judge stated that he "had some thoughts on this application" and that many of those issues were also raised in the opposition:

  • No proof of service
  • Exclusive method to obtain 3rd party information is by subpoena
  • The subpoena was served after the motion to compel was filed and served improperly
  • There was no notice to the "consumer" under California CCP 1985 or 1987
  • Taitz argument should address the request for sanctions, which the court is contemplating imposing

Taitz then tenders a large stapled stack of stuff she calls proofs of service and gives Mr. Ritt her only other copy.

Judge Margines begins a page by page review of the, eh, documents, noting defects in each and every alleged proof of service. The documents are pretty random, prompting the judge to exclaim, "This is just the order in which they are stapled". As he was reviewing this, Taitz interrupted to clarify several times and was told not to interrupt several times. Bottom line - none of the proofs prove anything.

Mr. Ritt was given the opportunity to argue. He pointed out that the subpoena was not served until the motion was already filed and that the subpoena was not served until yesterday. And, also, too, is untimely, facially defective in many regards and cannot possibly support a motion to compel.

Taitz reminds the court that she was just here on Monday for a status conference and the judge told her she hadn't served something, so she served something. Then she states her argument that because Oxy refused to produce documents in the Keyes case four years ago, it wouldn't make any difference to serve them with a new subpoena.

The judge asks, "is it your position that prior non-cooperation in another case excuses you from serving a subpoena? How did you ask before?" She says she served Oxy and that they filed an "opposition". At this point, she turned to Mr. Ritt and asked "was it a motion to quash?". The judge says, "talk to me Ms. Taitz."

The judge asks, "what happened in Keyes" and Taitz tells him it was dismissed before a hearing on the subpoena and that became moot. [raicha says: I don't think so.]

Then she's off, stating that the election is on Tuesday. The court says "you knew that". Taitz argues that she was there 2 times in 2 weeks, that she filed a request for default judgment. She thought that would be granted, but it wasn't, so she had to come back for the status conference at which point the judge had told her he would be willing to hear the case on short notice. Based on that, she paid $125 to serve Obama...

Judge Margines interrupts and asks, "if you were comfortable that no subpoena was needed, why did you serve it?" Taitz says "an abundance of caution". Then she refers to Mr. Botterud's email to her indicating that he would be at this hearing. She said when she got that, she did "extra due diligence" so Mr. Botterud would have the records with him.

The court notes that Mr. Botterud's statement that he was appearing in order to oppose the motion is not the same thing as agreeing to bring the records.

Taitz now launches the "national security" rant, referencing her documents, Arpaio, etc., and stating that with only 5 days left, she made an "extra effort" to serve everyone.

Then, somewhat surprisingly, she makes a new argument under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. She states that she didn't even need a subpoena under FERPA because it states that "directory information" about a student may be released by court order. She's says she not asking for private information, just citizenship information and she's here for her court order.

The court asks if, under that law, he would be required to make a finding that someone was a terrorist. Taitz says no. The court asks "if I find that this is real important, am I allowed to circumvent the law?". Taitz says yes, under FERPA.

With a copy of a portion of the Act in her hand, she asks "May I approach?" and the judge loudly and immediately responds, "NO! I do not need to see that" and, unlike Judge Malihi, successfully keeps Taitz out of the well.

To be continued...

_________________
ImageImage
Image
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Posts: 5731
Location: Glocca Morra
Quote:
The judge took the bench, greeted the crowd, the crowd greeted him and immediately thereafter, Dr. Taitz' cell phone rang. There was no comment by court personnel on this development.


:-

_________________
"What's it like being an atheist? It's like being the only sober person in a car full of drunks, and they refuse to let you drive." Thomas Jefferson

Birtherism is so ridiculous that I no longer feel obligated to treat proponents w/slightest degree of respect or civility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Posts: 5874
Location: between the candle and the star
Occupation: Manager, FEMA Camp 2112
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
BREAKING NEWS

Subpoena quashed, motion denied with prejudice.

Sanctions?

$4,000.00!!!!!!!!


=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

_________________
I am gray...

I stand between the candle and the star
...between the darkness and the light

-- Paraphrased from "Babylon 5" created by J. Michael Straczynski

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand'
-- from "Witch Hunt" by Rush on their "Moving Pictures" album.

Facebook
Shadows in Wonderland
- we stand in the sun and look back in our tracks
an image of self in grays and in blacks
laughter and joy hold us in there sweet thrall
but even in Wonderland shadows must fall


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 4096
Location: Brigadoon
Occupation: Retired
=D> =D> =D>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am
Posts: 4406
Thank you Reliable Source! :-bd

Image

_________________
@Orly: "No one is listening to you anymore. And that’s the way it should always be." - Scott J. Tepper (11/5/2012)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:51 pm
Posts: 272
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
chancery wrote:
Did Occidental submit any papers?

Oh, yes. prepared last night and this morning. (Or so I have it, on Good Authority.)

Taitz was nailed with all of her screechings. And Mr. Ritt seemed to have a handle on . . . everything.

For some strange reason. :-


Excellent, I look forward to reading them.

And well done. A busy calendar judge hears lots of stupid discovery motions every day. Even an extra specially stoopid motion is just another stupid motion from her prospective, to be given the quick flusheroo so she can get on with the docket and save time for less stupid motions, as well as the occasional meritorious motion raising difficult issues.

It's not easy to persuade a judge that the stupid motion you're opposing should be carefully scrutinized for sanctionable behavior, let alone persuade her to grant sanctions.

Occidental was well represented today.

chancery

Edit: this was drafted before I read the report from the court room, hence the arbitrary assumption that the judge was a woman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Posts: 9561
Location: Moonbat cave
Occupation: Deputy Minister of Propaganda, TP and PC Divisions
The incredible reach of the Fogtopus strikes again! =D> =D>

_________________
ImageX2Image X6


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Posts: 2893
Location: Connecticut
Occupation: Marketing finance

_________________
Birthers and Truthers both rely on the same underlying lack of verifiable facts.
Image
New York Obot Wrecking Crew
Image
May 2014 Philadelphia Boogiethon

Reality Check Radio
Reality Check Radio Facebook Page


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 2767
Location: In exile in NOVA
More more we want more ! :banana: :banana: :banana:

_________________
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. – Carl Sagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6632
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Part deux:

Now Taitz tries to get "Army Intelligence Officer Pamela Barnett" on the stand to testify regarding Ann Dunham's passport records. The court asks if Barnett submitted an affidavit and Taitz said no, but Strunk did and it says the same thing.

The court asks how Barnett relates to the Oxy matter. Taitz doesn't give a direct answer and begins the national security rant again.

The court interrupts to ask if Taitz had mentioned FERPA in her paperwork and she admits that she didn't.

Turning back to Mr. Ritt who states "It is absurd that Occidental College is here and was forced to spent money." He points out that FERPA is a consumer protection statute that protects everyone from the newest college freshman to the most esteemed graduate. If the judge reviews the statute, he will see that.

At which point the judge denies the motion to compel and asks Taitz to address the issue of sanctions. She says sanctions are not justified, there is real exigence in this case, only 5 days to the election. Restates the national security crap, references her docs, Arpaio, etc. Claims that she is President of a nonprofit foundation and that she has "no desire to make money", that she is working pro bono out of concern for national security. "Public concerns greatly outweigh any inconvenience Mr. Ritt may have suffered." Says that if Oxy were given more notice and more time that we would learn the truth after the election and national security requires that we learn it before. But, if the court is not willing to grant now, please reschedule to allow more time to Oxy.

Then Taitz veers off to the Trump $5M offer and asks why would Obama refuse? After all, "there is a high probability of an important concern."

Judge Margines then says, "I just want to be clear. The motion is denied with prejudice." Because:

  • It is improper on its face
  • There was no service
  • There was no notice to the consumer per CCP 1985
  • It is not timely - Taitz has known about the records for months, even years but brings this on nearly the last business day before the election.

Then tells Taitz that he is awarding sanctions not as a punishment but for cost shifting, to shift Oxy's costs to her. Orders $4,000 to be paid personally by Taitz to Oxy, to Mr. Ritt's client trust account. Mr. Ritt to give notice of the ruling.

Taitz requests a stay of imposition of sanctions pending appeal. Denied.

Mr. Ritt and Mr. Botterud depart while Reliable Source hangs around for more fun stuff.

To be continued...

_________________
ImageImage
Image
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:52 pm
Posts: 614
raicha wrote:
Part deux:


Great report. :-bd You set the stage perfectly, I feel as if I'm there. looking forward to the next installment. -xx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 1115
Thank you kindle Good Authority! I look forward to reading part two :-)

_________________
The One, the Only, Sterngard...Orly Taitz: She never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am
Posts: 4406
Nothing but *crickets* at Orly's site. :-

_________________
@Orly: "No one is listening to you anymore. And that’s the way it should always be." - Scott J. Tepper (11/5/2012)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:51 pm
Posts: 272
RTH10260 wrote:
Let's hope that a word over neighbouring fences get this result judicially noticed in Mississippi.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but a four-figure discovery sanction in a California state court isn't something Judge Wingate would care about in a million years.

Taitz's goose is cooked in Mississippi, or not, based on what she's submitted in Mississippi. Even the $20,000 Rhodes sanction, and the nasty comments made by other judges, are secondary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:36 pm
Posts: 1278
Location: The last remnant of the British Empire
Occupation: A little of this, a little of that, and a lot of the other.
Great report so far, raicha, you deserve at least 4,000 thanks. Chapeaux! to Reliable Source and Good Authority; where would we be without those two fine upstanding (and long-suffering) entities?

My my, I bet the screeching will be heard clear around the world when the $4,000 and the necessity to inform the CA bar penetrates that evil bitch's thick skull.

I do believe this calls for a celebration. Image

_________________
I am not able to rightly comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a document. - Thomas Jefferson, quoting Charles Babbage on Orly Taitz's submissions.

She spoke to her congressman and he said "Whoa! I'd like to help you Orly but you're too dumb to vote". - Eddie Cochran


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Posts: 2448
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Occupation: I'm the Grand Panjandrum of the uber-sekrit cabal that controls our faithful puppet George Soros, the Trilateral Commission, and Agenda 21 (among other things) as part of our grand plan to dominate maple syrup production.
Thank you Reliable Source :-bd :-bd :-bd

Now more than justifiably short $4000 wrote:
Public concerns greatly outweigh any inconvenience Mr. Ritt may have suffered.


I love Orly's euphemisms. In this case "inconvenience" means that Occidental College would have to break privacy laws to address the always evolving conspiracy theories from the kookier sides of the interwebs. Until I met Orly Taitz, I never knew some crazy narcissistic dentist who somehow is a member of the California Bar could file a lawsuit claiming that she has the right to anyone's private data because she received something in her Yahoo with 27 fwds and decided that it was a matter of national security. Note, this euphemism is also used in other similar cases. When she's asking to "stay" the election she uses it to ignore the fact that the President would be irreparably harmed (or for that matter ANY candidate) if he were removed from the ballot even temporarily and was you know innocent (but that's A-OK because he's clearly guilty of Usuperating and National Security-Screech).

_________________
It is easy to hope when things go right. Harder to choose to believe in it when things are blackest. However even the greatest darkness can be slain with the faintest of lights. And hope is more than enough to flicker in the dark.

I blog about my life and mental health issues @ Life of a Schizophrenic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm
Posts: 8399
Location: Intersection of Godwin Dr. and Poe Blvd.
Occupation: Personal security.
Orly caught up with her favorite Obot Thug this evening:


_________________
Imagex3 Image
"You unlock this door with the key of imagination.
Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of
unsound mind, a dimension of unreality, a dimension
of really, really bad law. You've just crossed over
into the Orly Zone."
-- Geritol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:51 pm
Posts: 272
raicha wrote:
Taitz requests a stay of imposition of sanctions pending appeal. Denied.

Ah, good. This means that the sanctions order will be immediately enforceable while any appeal drags on, unless Taitz bonds it. A bond would probably need to be backed by 100% cash collateral, which Taitz can afford, but might find ... how should I put this ... unpleasant to pay.

And if she doesn't bond it, Occidental can proceed to enforcement. Judgment enforcement is famously awkward, slow, and inefficient. But if the judgment holder has the time and inclination, the debtor will be forced to engage in the process, the disagreeableness of which depends to a certain extent on the rationality of the debtor's behavior.

-xx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6632
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
The Third...

Having disposed of the motion to compel, the judge made an announcement that filled Reliable Source with gleeful anticipation: He was ready to rule on the elections challenge itself and there would be no reason to address the motion to stay as there would be nothing left to stay!

He has reviewed all of the "evidence" including 35 exhibits and his tentative ruling is to deny the elections challenge without getting "to the merits". The plaintiff has the burden of proof and she failed to meet that burden. Asks Taitz if she wishes to hear his rationale or just conclude the case.

Taitz asks, "so you are finding that the nation has no right to know...?"

The court: "I'm not going to the merits. Do you want to hear my rationale or don't you?"

Taitz: "It is obvious that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented."

The court begins to explain the rationale:

  • There is no valid proof of service on the President or any of the responsdents. Barack Obama's name wasn't even on that proof of service.
  • Taitz has not shown that she is entitled to the relief requested
  • Taitz own affidavit is not properly verified
  • The petition (initiating affidavit by Taitz) refers to only 13 of the 35 total exhibits. Therefore the remainder are disregarded, although a quick review of them indicates that they have many hurdles to admissibility.

Going through the 13 exhibits, documents have no foundation, they are not authenticated, they are irrelevant and they are hearsay. Some are not credible on their face. Arpaio's affidavit is not properly verified under California law and his "beliefs" are not entitled to any weight. Vogt, Adams, and Papa have similar issues. Jordan is illegible. The judge isn't going to watch a DVD when there is no offer of proof as to why it is relevant at all. And documents in Indonesian were "translated" by an unidentified translator.

The other exhibits are "just out there" with nothing under oath to explain them.

Because Taitz has not met her burden, the tentative is to deny the entire election challenge without reaching the merits. Asks Taitz if she wishes to argue.

Taitz: If you have made up your mind, I'm not going to say anything.
Court: It is a tentative, you may argue it. You asked me to rule on the merits today. You want me to, don't you?
Taitz: That's what discovery is for. Let's hear the witnesses, have trial.
Court: We aren't hearing witnesses. That why we have pleadings and briefs.
Taitz: You have the voter roll information.
Court: Do I? You are a lawyer. You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the internet.

Taitz launches into the voter roll argument, states that Barnett will testify that USA is entered when they don't have the data. Asks to continue the case and have a trial.

Court: what are you asking me to do today?

After some back and forth with Taitz -

Court: You are asking me to stay certification of votes that haven't yet taken place for Senate and President.

Requests denied in full, court asks "what, if anything, is left in this challenge? Are you seeking to continue?"

Taitz says "yes". Trial? "yes".
Court: there is still no proper service.
Taitz: you have the proof of service of a professional process server on Obama.

Taitz then moves to dismiss Hughes and Williams, without prejudice. Granted!

On to part four...

_________________
ImageImage
Image
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12983
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
chancery wrote:
RTH10260 wrote:
Let's hope that a word over neighbouring fences get this result judicially noticed in Mississippi.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but a four-figure discovery sanction in a California state court isn't something Judge Wingate would care about in a million years.

I respectfully dissent.

If you wanted to demonstrate that Taitz is vexatious and unnecessarily multiplies proceedings, Exhibit A would be Keyes v. Bowen, and Exhibit B would be doing the exact same thing in this case.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 47  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group