Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow. To join, email foggy at thefogbow dot com.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 512 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 21  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 26513
Complete Minute Order 3-21-2011

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


Image x 3 Image x 21


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12274
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
I can see why the defendant decided to roll the dice...not exactly overwhelming evidence of an attempt to mitigate damages....

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 5170
Location: Southwest of down east
Occupation: Food critic
Not sure this is the "complete" version of the previously referenced minute order. This one looks like an order memorializing the proceedings and the court's evidentiary rulings. It ends with the matter under submission.

The minute order Orly so proudly referred to actually reaches a judgment. Reading between the lines of the snippet Orly supplied the other day, the judgment amount was probably limited to $290K because Orly's ad damnum clause (ad damnum collage?) did not correctly seek all applicable statutory interest amounts. (Not that it matters because it's very doubtful Orly will collect the full amount in any event.)

_________________
Hope springs eternal within the human uniboob. - Thomas Jefferson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm
Posts: 2707
What does this mean : Who's on first ?

Quote:
Defendant Raif iskander is in default, however, Defendant has also filed bankruptcy. The court advised counsel (who-1?) that she (who-2?) may be violating the bankruptcy stay if she (who-3?) proceeds.


Marc Ettinger (male) is only defending Johnson (male).
Only Obly and Ettinger are shown as appearing. Were Johnson, Iskander and Pierson present?

Does "in default" mean "not present"?

Is Raif female? (I only know Raif as a diminutive (?) of Ralph)

So are who's 1, 2 and 3 Obly? Did SHE violate a bankruptcy stay?

_________________
Don't pee in a tree without a TJ Hunter www.tjhunters.com)
Fog-doe 1-909 REEKO subpoenas should be properly served on Blunt Force Donato
Feel free to copy/republish anything I post, with (tjh and/or tfb) or without attribution
Moderators : feel free to delete anything that offends/provides any assistance to the enemy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 26513
Quote:
So are who's 1, 2 and 3 Obly? Did SHE violate a bankruptcy stay?


It appears to me, based on the document, that the Court did.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


Image x 3 Image x 21


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12274
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
tjh wrote:
Defendant Raif iskander is in default, however, Defendant has also filed bankruptcy. The court advised counsel (who-1?) that she (who-2?) may be violating the bankruptcy stay if she (who-3?) proceeds.

Marc Ettinger (male) is only defending Johnson (male).
Only Obly and Ettinger are shown as appearing. Were Johnson, Iskander and Pierson present?

Does "in default" mean "not present"?

Defaulted defendants are not present.

Quote:
So are who's 1, 2 and 3 Obly? Did SHE violate a bankruptcy stay?

Counsel refers to either Taitz, or both counsel (Taitz and Ettinger); "she" refers to Taitz.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm
Posts: 2707
realist wrote:
Quote:
So are who's 1, 2 and 3 Obly? Did SHE violate a bankruptcy stay?


It appears to me, based on the document, that the Court did.


So who-1 is either or both counsel
who-2 (she) is the JUDGE
who-3 (she) is the JUDGE

Of course, didn't the lease say "jointly and severably?"

_________________
Don't pee in a tree without a TJ Hunter www.tjhunters.com)
Fog-doe 1-909 REEKO subpoenas should be properly served on Blunt Force Donato
Feel free to copy/republish anything I post, with (tjh and/or tfb) or without attribution
Moderators : feel free to delete anything that offends/provides any assistance to the enemy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm
Posts: 2707
bob wrote:
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages


Maybe that's why the judge took it "under submission", rather than ruling directly.

_________________
Don't pee in a tree without a TJ Hunter www.tjhunters.com)
Fog-doe 1-909 REEKO subpoenas should be properly served on Blunt Force Donato
Feel free to copy/republish anything I post, with (tjh and/or tfb) or without attribution
Moderators : feel free to delete anything that offends/provides any assistance to the enemy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 5170
Location: Southwest of down east
Occupation: Food critic
My take is that the court took the matter under submission to review the piles of poo left by Orly in order to verify a couple of points affecting the outcome. For one, the Court needed to see if the "rumor" that one of the defendants was in bankruptcy could be substantiated anywhere in the record. For another, perhaps Her Honor needed to review Orly's so-called "pleadings" to determine what damages, exactly, could legally be awarded.

According to Orly's blog, in its subsequent minute order entered on 4/1 (of which I've only seen the purported first page), the Court explained:

Judge Fell wrote:
The Court was informed that one of the Defendants had filed for bankruptcy. There is no evidence on the Court’s docket of any notice of bankruptcy or notice of stay by either of the defaulted Defendants but Plaintiff’s counsel conceded the accuracy of this information. Therefore, the judgment should not include the defaulted Defendant who has filed for bankruptcy.


My best guess? Orly probably told the Court that she'd gotten some kind of bankruptcy paperwork in the mail but, being the Worst Lawyer in the History of the Planet, she wasn't quite sure how or if it affected her lawsuit. The Judge interpreted this as a concession by Plaintiff that bankruptcy proceedings had been commenced and, therefore, judgment could not be entered against Iskander.

While this may not be what you'd call, uh, precision jurisprudence, I'm sure Judge Fell was happy to get Orly OOHFCR ASAP.

_________________
Hope springs eternal within the human uniboob. - Thomas Jefferson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
tjh wrote:
What does this mean : Who's on first ?

Quote:
Defendant Raif iskander is in default, however, Defendant has also filed bankruptcy. The court advised counsel (who-1?) that she (who-2?) may be violating the bankruptcy stay if she (who-3?) proceeds.


Marc Ettinger (male) is only defending Johnson (male).
Only Obly and Ettinger are shown as appearing. Were Johnson, Iskander and Pierson present?

Does "in default" mean "not present"?

Is Raif female? (I only know Raif as a diminutive (?) of Ralph)

So are who's 1, 2 and 3 Obly? Did SHE violate a bankruptcy stay?


Lordy. A bankruptcy stay operates to halt all collection actions by creditors. Therefore, the court advised counsel (for the creditor, Orly Taitz) that she (Orly Taitz) may be violating the bankruptcy stay if she (Orly Taitz) proceeds.

Only attorneys are listed in a minute order as appearing. Unless a defendant or party takes the stand, they will not be mentioned in the minute order.

"In default" does not mean "not present". It means the defendant never answered the complaint and the time has passed to do so. If an "entry of default" has been made against that defendant before trial, then the plaintiff may proceed at trial to prove the damages caused by that defendant. That defendant does not get to say anything at trial, because they are in default.

Raif may be of any known gender, but it is not relevant to the minute order.

If Orly proceeded against Raif to "prove up" her default and if Raif was in bankruptcy at that time, then Orly would be violating the bankruptcy stay. Which is what the judge advised her.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Piffle wrote:
Not sure this is the "complete" version of the previously referenced minute order. This one looks like an order memorializing the proceedings and the court's evidentiary rulings. It ends with the matter under submission.

The minute order Orly so proudly referred to actually reaches a judgment. Reading between the lines of the snippet Orly supplied the other day, the judgment amount was probably limited to $290K because Orly's ad damnum clause (ad damnum collage?) did not correctly seek all applicable statutory interest amounts. (Not that it matters because it's very doubtful Orly will collect the full amount in any event.)


According to the minute order of the judgment, the court calculated the present value of the unpaid remainder of the ten-year lease at a discount rate of 1.75% (SF Fed reserve rate +1%) This came out to be greater than the $290,000 Orly asked for in her complaint. So she got the $290,000 asked for in her complaint.

As the present value calculation was done as of the date of the judgment, there is no additional interest on the $290,000 as of the date of the judgment. However, post-judgment interest pursuant to California code will accrue from and after the judgment at the legal rate of interest, currently 10% per annum.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 6072
Location: FEMA Camp Pontchartrain, Tchefuncte River Lighthouse Annex
Occupation: Rhesus monkey litigation trainer
It's now a permanent injunction. Iskander filed Chap. 7 on 4/23/2007, case number 8:07-bk-11154 in C.D. Cal., Santa Ana Division. He was discharged 5/4/2009.

Neither Medical Dental nor Orly filed a claim, although it should be noted that Orly Taitze was on the creditor notice matrix so she clearly had actual or constructive knowledge as the principal of the Medical Dental.

IOW, she screwed up. Again. Stupid woman does not bother to read notices from the Bk Court and fails to educate herself about elementary bankruptcy law.

While technically speaking Iskander has a debt, Orly is legally prohibited from any effort to recover from him. Forever. This one is feeneeshed.

_________________
"This could be it Folks!" - charlesmountain January 19, 2011 at 1:09 am


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 3183
Occupation: Rescue Ninja
Another brilliantly constructed case from the world's foremost legal scholar, Orly Taitz. :lol:

_________________
“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.

The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.”

― Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
It's now a permanent injunction. Iskander filed Chap. 7 on 4/23/2007, case number 8:07-bk-11154 in C.D. Cal., Santa Ana Division. He was discharged 5/4/2009.

Neither Medical Dental nor Orly filed a claim, although it should be noted that Orly Taitze was on the creditor notice matrix so she clearly had actual or constructive knowledge as the principal of the Medical Dental.

IOW, she screwed up. Again. Stupid woman does not bother to read notices from the Bk Court and fails to educate herself about elementary bankruptcy law.

While technically speaking Iskander has a debt, Orly is legally prohibited from any effort to recover from him. Forever. This one is feeneeshed.


Jeez, he was discharged before she even filed the complaint. I don't think "technically speaking" he has a debt to her at all. It was listed, it was discharged, therefore it did not exist when she filed.

The minute order of the judgment notes that if there indeed was a bankruptcy "the judgment should not include" Iskander.

Damn straight. If the girl wonder files an abstract of judgment or otherwise attempts collection, she could find herself in front of a bankruptcy judge explaining her willful harassment of a discharged debtor.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Highlands wrote:
Another brilliantly constructed case from the world's foremost legal scholar, Orly Taitz. :lol:


Yup, the moron lowballed her own damage computation.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Posts: 14854
Location: New England
Occupation: Professor of Sociology
raicha wrote:
Highlands wrote:
Another brilliantly constructed case from the world's foremost legal scholar, Orly Taitz. :lol:


Yup, the moron lowballed her own damage computation.

Yosef may not be pleased.

_________________
I always have a quotation for everything-- it saves original thinking. -- Lord Peter De'ath Bredon Wimsey as reported by Dorothy L. Sayers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2450
Location: The Little Red Dot
Occupation: ASEAN bureau chief; Keeper of the Bahasa; CSI for Semiconductors
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
It's now a permanent injunction. Iskander filed Chap. 7 on 4/23/2007, case number 8:07-bk-11154 in C.D. Cal., Santa Ana Division. He was discharged 5/4/2009.

Neither Medical Dental nor Orly filed a claim, although it should be noted that Orly Taitze was on the creditor notice matrix so she clearly had actual or constructive knowledge as the principal of the Medical Dental.

IOW, she screwed up. Again. Stupid woman does not bother to read notices from the Bk Court and fails to educate herself about elementary bankruptcy law.

While technically speaking Iskander has a debt, Orly is legally prohibited from any effort to recover from him. Forever. This one is feeneeshed.


What about the other defendants/lessees?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Somerset wrote:
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
It's now a permanent injunction. Iskander filed Chap. 7 on 4/23/2007, case number 8:07-bk-11154 in C.D. Cal., Santa Ana Division. He was discharged 5/4/2009.

Neither Medical Dental nor Orly filed a claim, although it should be noted that Orly Taitze was on the creditor notice matrix so she clearly had actual or constructive knowledge as the principal of the Medical Dental.

IOW, she screwed up. Again. Stupid woman does not bother to read notices from the Bk Court and fails to educate herself about elementary bankruptcy law.

While technically speaking Iskander has a debt, Orly is legally prohibited from any effort to recover from him. Forever. This one is feeneeshed.


What about the other defendants/lessees?


The other two have "joint and several liability". She could collect from one of them, either of them, or both of them, up to a total of $290,000.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2450
Location: The Little Red Dot
Occupation: ASEAN bureau chief; Keeper of the Bahasa; CSI for Semiconductors
raicha wrote:
Somerset wrote:
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
It's now a permanent injunction. Iskander filed Chap. 7 on 4/23/2007, case number 8:07-bk-11154 in C.D. Cal., Santa Ana Division. He was discharged 5/4/2009.

Neither Medical Dental nor Orly filed a claim, although it should be noted that Orly Taitze was on the creditor notice matrix so she clearly had actual or constructive knowledge as the principal of the Medical Dental.

IOW, she screwed up. Again. Stupid woman does not bother to read notices from the Bk Court and fails to educate herself about elementary bankruptcy law.

While technically speaking Iskander has a debt, Orly is legally prohibited from any effort to recover from him. Forever. This one is feeneeshed.


What about the other defendants/lessees?


The other two have "joint and several liability". She could collect from one of them, either of them, or both of them, up to a total of $290,000.


That's what I thought.

I'm curious why neither of them put up any defense. If they were holding off declaring bankruptcy themselves on the off chance the suit would be dismissed, I'd have thought they would have put up a little bit of a fight.

Also, something stood out that seemed a little unusual. My experience with commercial real estate in SoCal is that ten year leases aren't the norm. When I was offered what I felt was a great lease rate for my San Diego office in 1995, the longest term I could lock it in for was three years. It seems to me that awarding her damages based on ten years of vacancy is a little bit unusual.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Somerset wrote:
I'm curious why neither of them put up any defense. If they were holding off declaring bankruptcy themselves on the off chance the suit would be dismissed, I'd have thought they would have put up a little bit of a fight.

Also, something stood out that seemed a little unusual. My experience with commercial real estate in SoCal is that ten year leases aren't the norm. When I was offered what I felt was a great lease rate for my San Diego office in 1995, the longest term I could lock it in for was three years. It seems to me that awarding her damages based on ten years of vacancy is a little bit unusual.


Ten year commercial leases aren't so unusual. Typically, long-term leases will have escalation clauses tied to an index so that rates will go up with inflation/cost of living etc. If you think a bad season is coming, a long-term lease can lock in a tenant at a good rate. And if the split, you can sue them, like Orly did here.

Not that she will get anything out of it.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2450
Location: The Little Red Dot
Occupation: ASEAN bureau chief; Keeper of the Bahasa; CSI for Semiconductors
raicha wrote:

Ten year commercial leases aren't so unusual. Typically, long-term leases will have escalation clauses tied to an index so that rates will go up with inflation/cost of living etc. If you think a bad season is coming, a long-term lease can lock in a tenant at a good rate. And if the split, you can sue them, like Orly did here.

Not that she will get anything out of it.


That's true. Winning a judgement and collecting it can be two very different things. Unless either of the two has significant assets (in which case, I doubt this would have gone to trial) I expect there will be two more BK filings in the near future.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 6072
Location: FEMA Camp Pontchartrain, Tchefuncte River Lighthouse Annex
Occupation: Rhesus monkey litigation trainer
raicha wrote:
Jeez, he was discharged before she even filed the complaint. I don't think "technically speaking" he has a debt to her at all. It was listed, it was discharged, therefore it did not exist when she filed.


True, it was listed as a debt and the debt was discharged. From a technical standpoint, the bankruptcy court enters a permanent injunction to replace the automatic stay, prohibiting collection as against the debtor personally. 11 U.S.C. § 524. The liability remains, which is why a lien against property for a debt secured by that property will continue as a charge on the asset. The liability cannot be collected from assets -- including money -- that the debtor acquires after the discharge. Another party takes the property subject to the lien and does not enjoy the same protection against collection because the debt still exists (unless, of course, the court enters an order voiding the lien and allowing the property to transfer free of liens).

Edit: Edited for clarity.

_________________
"This could be it Folks!" - charlesmountain January 19, 2011 at 1:09 am


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
raicha wrote:
Jeez, he was discharged before she even filed the complaint. I don't think "technically speaking" he has a debt to her at all. It was listed, it was discharged, therefore it did not exist when she filed.


True, it was listed as a debt and the debt discharged. However, from a technical standpoint, the liability remains. Upon discharge the bankruptcy court enters a permanent injunction to replace the automatic stay, prohibiting collection as against the debtor -- that is, the debt is no longer enforceable against the debtor personally. The liability remains, which is why a lien against property for a debt secured by that property will continue as a charge on the asset. The liability cannot be collected from assets -- including money -- that the debtor acquires after the discharge. Another person who takes the property subject to the lien does not enjoy the same protection because the debt still exists unless the court enters an order to transfer the property free of liens.


Yes BB, you are technically correct as always. There was/is a debt, but there is no personal liability for Iskander after the discharge injunction has been entered. In the case of an unsecured debt (which this appears to be), there is no lien either, so the discharge meant that Orly was feenished before she started. Nobody nowhere is going to pay Iskander's share.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 3183
Occupation: Rescue Ninja
raicha wrote:
In the case of an unsecured debt (which this appears to be), there is no lien either, so the discharge meant that Orly was feenished before she started. [highlight]Nobody nowhere is going to pay Iskander's share.[/highlight]


So in reality, Orly still loses. Perfect! :lol:

_________________
“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.

The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.”

― Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 15206
Location: FEMA Camp Pi PO Box 3.14159 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance @ "Drones RUs" - FAA Licensed and Certified "Drone Service Center©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance, warranty, and repairs. Emergencies - If we tell you, we have to bill you.
The worst lawyer in the world found a way to screw up a surefire winner. Big News...

It is going to cost Orly more in fees, etc than she is ever going to extract out of these 2 stiffs. :lol: :lol:

_________________
Image ImageImage

NOTICE:
This post is a natural product. The slight variation in spelling
and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no
way are to be considered flaws or defects.


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 512 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 21  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 0 guests


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