POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24201
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#126

Post by bob » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:34 pm

ProudObot wrote:Any explanation as to how and why Dr. T. hasn't received the same ruling? Shirley the CA Bar Court must be aware of her numerous and well-documented mental health issues. :think:
From Wolfgram's disbarment involuntary deactivation:
The November 1990 notice to show cause (“notice”) based its determination of probable cause on several instances of [Wolfgram's] conduct at an October 25, 1990, State Bar Court status conference in another pending original disciplinary proceeding. The notice alleged that at the status conference, [Wolfgram] stated that he was unable, due to depression, to concentrate and remember matters such as due dates for documents, court appearances and appointments. [Wolfgram] told the hearing judge that he had to request his clients to remind him of due dates in their matters so that [Wolfgram] would not miss them. The notice also alleged that [Wolfgram] told the judge that he did not have time to represent himself because he was without energy and unable to concentrate. Further, the notice alleged that, at the status conference, [Wolfgram] appeared to be in tenuous emotional control, appearing to over-react to statements not meant to be provocative and that certain of his responses were circuitous and repetitive. The judge noted that [Wolfgram's] written submissions also seemed circuitous and repetitive with unexplained references to persons and events. The notice then cited additional examples of related behavior of [Wolfgram] which could be an indication of mental illness.

[Wolfgram] was evaluated by two experts appointed by the State Bar Court . . . .
There's also a matter in which Wolfgram was found in an off-limits area of a courthouse, and he refused to leave.

So there was, like, professional examination and stuff in Wolfgram's case.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
ProudObot
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:46 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#127

Post by ProudObot » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:48 pm

Thanks, bob. I was hoping for something that could finally get her disbarred, but your explanation makes sense.



User avatar
boots
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#128

Post by boots » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:04 pm

From Wolfgram's profile on the above-linked site:

"In all, he has been jailed over 25 times and has never been convicted of

a jailable offense. When he sought help from the State Bar, they charged

him with "mental incompetency" and tried him for his philosophic beliefs

and ordered him "involuntarily inactive" , because Wolfgram believes, as

the basis of his legal philosophy, that the Constitution, as it is

written, (not as interpreted by judges) is the Supreme Law of the Land,

and that is the law that he was developing into a legal practice."

:eek2: :pigsfly: :swoon:



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#129

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:08 pm

Most of the people (and lawyers) who call themselves "constitutionalists" or who say they are "constitutional lawyers" are really little more than advocates of the Articles of Confederation.



User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2552
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#130

Post by woodworker » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:35 pm

CLGJ didn't fail TT, TT failed CLGJ. Just as with pictures and history books of Soviet leaders, we shall hear no more of brother Terry, other than to hear how he betrayed the revolution by not saying the magic words correctly. Too bad, so sad.


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
boots
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#131

Post by boots » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:47 pm

woodworker wrote:CLGJ didn't fail TT, TT failed CLGJ. Just as with pictures and history books of Soviet leaders, we shall hear no more of brother Terry, other than to hear how he betrayed the revolution by not saying the magic words correctly. Too bad, so sad.
It really is amazing isn't it? They've had every sovereign citizen / 'murican nahsunull / whatever they want to call themselves this week all wound up about common law grand juries for the last 3 or 4 years. Billions of pixels of nonsense have been written about it on the internet. Now when one of theirs gets put in the crosshairs - they all stay away from the courthouse, law low, some disown him even before the trial, and few have reported even a word on it!

I googled Terry Trussell trial and one of the only things that came up was ButtHurt's google group page. One of the others was the NLA disclaiming having anything to do with it and blaming it all on Dowdell. Not a lot about it otherwise, really. For people who like to throw around words like "traitor" and "treason" what does that say about them?

At the end of the day, it has all proven to be nonsense, just like they were all told by anyone with common sense, or historical or legal knowledge, back on day 1.



User avatar
Geritol
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#132

Post by Geritol » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:58 pm

If you're a grifter, it isn't common practice to go to the trial of a fellow grifter. They probably don't visit them in jail, either.

Your goal is to keep the con going. You really don't want to be seen around someone who has been caught selling the same snake oil you've been peddling.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10183
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#133

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm

Geritol wrote:If you're a grifter, it isn't common practice to go to the trial of a fellow grifter. They probably don't visit them in jail, either.

Your goal is to keep the con going. You really don't want to be seen around someone who has been caught selling the same snake oil you've been peddling.
They're afraid, and rightly so, that it might just be catching.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 16683
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#134

Post by RTH10260 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:41 am

bob wrote:
Techno Luddite wrote:Wow. I guess I would've figured that would show up on the State Bar's profile of him. I guess not.
1995. Many government agencies hadn't yet switched to electric databases.
I guess they used dusty electric chairs to pile the folders :twisted: :evil:



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 16683
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#135

Post by RTH10260 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:45 am

Family Liberty Patriot wrote:Has he written to Rharon?
He should write to Rharon.
Can he, TT, and the beloved (nearly) Admiral share prison notes :?:



User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 3013
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#136

Post by Azastan » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:43 am

RTH10260 wrote:
bob wrote:
Techno Luddite wrote:Wow. I guess I would've figured that would show up on the State Bar's profile of him. I guess not.
1995. Many government agencies hadn't yet switched to electric databases.
I guess they used dusty electric chairs to pile the folders :twisted: :evil:
Ol' Sparky wasn't used in California. Death Row inmates were executed with lethal gas. I saw the gas chamber on a visit to San Quentin. Not a happy place.



noblepa
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#137

Post by noblepa » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:55 am

Techno Luddite wrote:From Wolfgram's profile on the above-linked site:

"In all, he has been jailed over 25 times and has never been convicted of

a jailable offense. When he sought help from the State Bar, they charged

him with "mental incompetency" and tried him for his philosophic beliefs

and ordered him "involuntarily inactive" , because Wolfgram believes, as

the basis of his legal philosophy, that the Constitution, as it is

written, (not as interpreted by judges) is the Supreme Law of the Land,

and that is the law that he was developing into a legal practice."

:eek2: :pigsfly: :swoon:
I love when someone claims that the Constitution (or the Bible) should not be "interpreted", but simply obeyed. Interpretation is simply the act of trying to figure out how the general principles written in the document can be applied to the real-world situation that one is confronted with. Legal questions (or biblical ones) are seldom identical in every way to things set out in the Constitution. There MUST be some level of interpretation to apply it to the situation at hand.

Can the Constitution or the Bible be misinterpreted, or misconstrued? Of course. These whackos don't want NO interpretation, they want THEIR interpretation. They won't even admit that they, themselves are interpreting it.

I remember, during the last Supreme Court nomination that actually got to a vote, the right-wing was screaming that they did not want an "activist Judge". Someone pointed out that, of course they wanted an activist judge, they just wanted THEIR activist judge; one who would interpret the Constitution they way THEY believe it should be.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#138

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:11 am

The constitution these morans don't want interpreted is the Articles of Confederation.



User avatar
boots
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#139

Post by boots » Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:53 pm

noblepa wrote:
I love when someone claims that the Constitution (or the Bible) should not be "interpreted", but simply obeyed. Interpretation is simply the act of trying to figure out how the general principles written in the document can be applied to the real-world situation that one is confronted with. Legal questions (or biblical ones) are seldom identical in every way to things set out in the Constitution. There MUST be some level of interpretation to apply it to the situation at hand.

Can the Constitution or the Bible be misinterpreted, or misconstrued? Of course. These whackos don't want NO interpretation, they want THEIR interpretation. They won't even admit that they, themselves are interpreting it.

I remember, during the last Supreme Court nomination that actually got to a vote, the right-wing was screaming that they did not want an "activist Judge". Someone pointed out that, of course they wanted an activist judge, they just wanted THEIR activist judge; one who would interpret the Constitution they way THEY believe it should be.
Right, and aren't these types supposedly big on "common law?" They apparently are unaware it is just caselaw. Wouldn't a system that doesn't interpret its Constitution be a statutory civil law system, instead of a common law system? I know these are big words and they can't be trusted to know what they mean (except as defined by fake judges and youtube lunatics) but their inconsistencies are plentiful.



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 6980
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#140

Post by RVInit » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:08 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:The constitution these morans don't want interpreted is the Articles of Confederation.
:yeah:


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

noblepa
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#141

Post by noblepa » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:11 pm

Techno Luddite wrote:
noblepa wrote:
I love when someone claims that the Constitution (or the Bible) should not be "interpreted", but simply obeyed. Interpretation is simply the act of trying to figure out how the general principles written in the document can be applied to the real-world situation that one is confronted with. Legal questions (or biblical ones) are seldom identical in every way to things set out in the Constitution. There MUST be some level of interpretation to apply it to the situation at hand.

Can the Constitution or the Bible be misinterpreted, or misconstrued? Of course. These whackos don't want NO interpretation, they want THEIR interpretation. They won't even admit that they, themselves are interpreting it.

I remember, during the last Supreme Court nomination that actually got to a vote, the right-wing was screaming that they did not want an "activist Judge". Someone pointed out that, of course they wanted an activist judge, they just wanted THEIR activist judge; one who would interpret the Constitution they way THEY believe it should be.
Right, and aren't these types supposedly big on "common law?" They apparently are unaware it is just caselaw. Wouldn't a system that doesn't interpret its Constitution be a statutory civil law system, instead of a common law system? I know these are big words and they can't be trusted to know what they mean (except as defined by fake judges and youtube lunatics) but their inconsistencies are plentiful.
Yeah, the crazies have no idea what "common law" really is. As you say, its really just case law. They bitch and moan about judges making rulings, but that is all that common law is; a collection of rulings by judges in similar cases.

My point really was that it is not even possible to "not interpret" the Constitution. The act of deciding which (sometimes conflicting) constitutional principles apply to a particular set of circumstances, and deciding how that should guide the decision, is the very definition of interpretation. If you aren't going to interpret the Constitution, you might as well not even read it (and I suspect that many sovcits haven't).



User avatar
boots
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#142

Post by boots » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:39 pm

noblepa wrote:

Yeah, the crazies have no idea what "common law" really is. As you say, its really just case law. They bitch and moan about judges making rulings, but that is all that common law is; a collection of rulings by judges in similar cases.

My point really was that it is not even possible to "not interpret" the Constitution. The act of deciding which (sometimes conflicting) constitutional principles apply to a particular set of circumstances, and deciding how that should guide the decision, is the very definition of interpretation. If you aren't going to interpret the Constitution, you might as well not even read it (and I suspect that many sovcits haven't).
Right, and the effect of that just means that every time someone goes to court on an issue, they would''t have the benefit of stare decisis, things therefore would become more unpredictable. That would be bad for commerce among other things. There would be vastly different interpretations by different judges, and a lack of ability to reconcile that. So much for the rule of law.



User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 11946
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#143

Post by Dolly » Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:58 pm

Sekrit Stuffs!
Off Topic
Techno Luddite wrote:
noblepa wrote:
I love when someone claims that the Constitution (or the Bible) should not be "interpreted", but simply obeyed. Interpretation is simply the act of trying to figure out how the general principles written in the document can be applied to the real-world situation that one is confronted with. Legal questions (or biblical ones) are seldom identical in every way to things set out in the Constitution. There MUST be some level of interpretation to apply it to the situation at hand.

Can the Constitution or the Bible be misinterpreted, or misconstrued? Of course. These whackos don't want NO interpretation, they want THEIR interpretation. They won't even admit that they, themselves are interpreting it.

I remember, during the last Supreme Court nomination that actually got to a vote, the right-wing was screaming that they did not want an "activist Judge". Someone pointed out that, of course they wanted an activist judge, they just wanted THEIR activist judge; one who would interpret the Constitution they way THEY believe it should be.
Right, and aren't these types supposedly big on "common law?" They apparently are unaware it is just caselaw. Wouldn't a system that doesn't interpret its Constitution be a statutory civil law system, instead of a common law system? I know these are big words and they can't be trusted to know what they mean (except as defined by fake judges and youtube lunatics) but their inconsistencies are plentiful.

Image

KrisAnne Hall The Constitution doesn't need interpretation it requires application. The application is clear and simple when you apply the drafter's meaning and intent. Which, by the way, is the only legal, historical, and factual way to apply the Constitution. Those who oppose the drafter's intent do so either out of ignorance and malignant design. Wicked are those of the "living-breathing" ilk.

(ETA: 3,404 shares)
91 Comments - My favorites:
Paul Davis - Interesting to see so many posters insisting that the Constitution does not lend itself to interpretation, immediately followed on by their own personal theory of how it ought to be interpreted.

Jake Sabin - In that case we don't have the right to bear arms outside of a militia (it takes "interpretation" to find that right - its not explicit)
Also the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government by explicit language. The only reason your freedom of speech is protected against your state government is by "interpretation".
So if you like the right to bear arms or freedom of speech you like "interpretation"

Dawn Marie - Weren't you fired for citing this bullshit?

David Cole - Interpretation doesn't mean translation! Perhaps Kris Anne Hall needs to learn English.



Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10183
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#144

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:06 pm

When the "crazies" as someone so aptly put it, speak of "the Common Law", they aren't talking about what the rest of the real functioning world thinks of as common law. They are talking about a semi-mythological thing they fantasize about that is paramount to everything else and supersedes statute and man made law and is all powerful and if it isn't covered under "common law" then it doesn't exist for them, which of course never really existed. What they are fantasizing about is the customary local law of the way long ago under the we've always done it this way, so that is how we do it now theory, the problem being that that type of law was subject to memory and what someone wanted to get out of it at the time, and it mutated and changed as the people applying it changed, and wasn't at all standard throughout the realm. What was done in one place wasn't necessarily done in another or done in the same way. In this they are very much like the people who wistfully pine for the good old days of the 50's/whenever that isn't now.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
boots
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#145

Post by boots » Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:22 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:When the "crazies" as someone so aptly put it, speak of "the Common Law", they aren't talking about what the rest of the real functioning world thinks of as common law. They are talking about a semi-mythological thing they fantasize about that is paramount to everything else and supersedes statute and man made law and is all powerful and if it isn't covered under "common law" then it doesn't exist for them, which of course never really existed. What they are fantasizing about is the customary local law of the way long ago under the we've always done it this way, so that is how we do it now theory, the problem being that that type of law was subject to memory and what someone wanted to get out of it at the time, and it mutated and changed as the people applying it changed, and wasn't at all standard throughout the realm. What was done in one place wasn't necessarily done in another or done in the same way. In this they are very much like the people who wistfully pine for the good old days of the 50's/whenever that isn't now.
I'll go a step further. They want a common law that doesn't apply to them, or their friends. Or which gives them and their friends permission to commit things which have long been recognized as crimes at common law, to a near-universal extent. Just look at all of them trying to get out of criminal charges by going freeman.

I've even heard of a conspiracy theory about Marbury v. Madison which alleges, some 200+ years later, that the result was all about "corruption" instead of good jurisprudence. Of course, none of it can be proven, the witnesses are all dead, but that just encourages them. They live in the world of the anecdotal, sometimes occupied by other fringe groups.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10183
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#146

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:03 pm

More than that, they want a common law that says they can do anything they want, but you can't.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2423
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#147

Post by Turtle » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:27 pm

Techno Luddite wrote:
Notorial Dissent wrote:When the "crazies" as someone so aptly put it, speak of "the Common Law", they aren't talking about what the rest of the real functioning world thinks of as common law. They are talking about a semi-mythological thing they fantasize about that is paramount to everything else and supersedes statute and man made law and is all powerful and if it isn't covered under "common law" then it doesn't exist for them, which of course never really existed. What they are fantasizing about is the customary local law of the way long ago under the we've always done it this way, so that is how we do it now theory, the problem being that that type of law was subject to memory and what someone wanted to get out of it at the time, and it mutated and changed as the people applying it changed, and wasn't at all standard throughout the realm. What was done in one place wasn't necessarily done in another or done in the same way. In this they are very much like the people who wistfully pine for the good old days of the 50's/whenever that isn't now.
I'll go a step further. They want a common law that doesn't apply to them, or their friends. Or which gives them and their friends permission to commit things which have long been recognized as crimes at common law, to a near-universal extent. Just look at all of them trying to get out of criminal charges by going freeman.

I've even heard of a conspiracy theory about Marbury v. Madison which alleges, some 200+ years later, that the result was all about "corruption" instead of good jurisprudence. Of course, none of it can be proven, the witnesses are all dead, but that just encourages them. They live in the world of the anecdotal, sometimes occupied by other fringe groups.

Most of the ones who go sovcit have made poor life decisions and sovcittery allows them to find someone else to blame for it. There is one sad story I think I read on quatloos about a guy who was doing relatively OK, then he bought into the sovcittery and decided to start writing "accepted for value" on his mortgage bills. He made a series of youtube videos over the following months where he would show his notices and play his phone calls form the bank, then sovsplain how he was really winning. Of course the ending to this saga is predictable, but the dude literally wrecked his life over it.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6971
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#148

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:41 pm

I'm confused... doesn't the Constitution delineate who exactly gets to interpret the Constitution, in which case the 'Constitutionalists' are bent on disregarding the document?

It's a :pickle:


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5854
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#149

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:49 pm

RoadScholar wrote:I'm confused... doesn't the Constitution delineate who exactly gets to interpret the Constitution, in which case the 'Constitutionalists' are bent on disregarding the document?

It's a :pickle:
No, you haven't read your copy of Sovcittery For Dumbasses: common law overrides everything! And the magic of common law is that it's anything you want it to be, you just have to click your heels and wish as hard as you can.



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20376
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: POST VERDICT TERRY TRUSSELL DISCUSSION - THE AFTERMATH

#150

Post by TollandRCR » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:39 pm

Do not forget the DHS report of 2009, comissioned by GWB. Until suppressed by Obama in 2009 under Republican pressure, it told a horrifying story.

I believe this act to have been the first act that showed Republicans that Obama could easily be pusbed around.

See also SPLC, which needs financial help. If the health of ouy democracy matters to you, don't contribute to the inept DNC or the thugs in the RNC. Contribute to individual campaigns, the SPLC, or the ACLU.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

Post Reply

Return to “Terry Trussell”