×

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.
×
July 2017 ~ Archival of WFS Public Forums (18 Jul 2017)

Archival & restoration complete!
After two weeks of intense attention these forums are restored and my job is done, only two days late.
New moderators and admin will be introduced after this years General Assembly.

Members are encouraged to attend WFS General Meeting 2017.
Contact and Linking information available on wfs.me

Right to Travel!

  • Thinker2
  • Thinker2's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #136457 by Thinker2
Thinker2 created the topic: Right to Travel!
Right to Travel

Carl Miller - Right to travel without a license plate


Well that was certainly a mouth full!

Michigan State Constitution
§ 13 Conduct of suits in person or by counsel.
Sec. 13. A suitor in any court of this state has the right to prosecute or defend his suit, either in his own
proper person or by an attorney.
History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 13, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
Former constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 12.

Source: www.legislature.mi.gov/(zc02ipmbu4m5tc45...l-Constitution-I.pdf


California State Supreme Court
Board of Commissioners v. Younger (1865) 29 Cal. 147, 149 "A party to an action may appear in his own proper person or by attorney, but he cannot do both."

Source: caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1066471.html

List of U.S. state constitutional provisions allowing self-representation in state courts

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state...tion_in_state_courts


Shapiro v. Thompson
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), The fundamental right to travel and the Equal protection clause forbid a state from reserving welfare benefits only for persons that have resided in the state for at least a year.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson


Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), Free Exercise claim upheld; A Pennsylvania ordinance imposing a license tax for those selling merchandise when such material is religious in nature violates the Free Exercise clause.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania


I'm having trouble researching the next one:

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963), Petitioners, two Negro ministers, were convicted in an Alabama State Court of aiding and abetting a violation of a criminal trespass ordinance of Birmingham, Ala. The only evidence against them was to the effect that they had incited ten Negro students to engage in a "sit-down demonstration" at a white lunch counter as a protest against racial segregation. In Gober v. City of Birmingham, post, p. 374, this Court today holds, on the authority of Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 373 U. S. 214, that the convictions of those ten students for criminal trespass were constitutionally invalid.

Held: since those convictions have been set aside, it follows that these petitioners did not incite or aid and abet any crime, and that, therefore, the convictions of these petitioners must also be set aside.

source: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/262

See also: www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_67


I don't comprehend how Carl got from what is above to what he wrote below:

Carl Miller wrote:
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham AL. 373 U.S. 262: (1962)
"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issues a license for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage in the right with impunity."

Source: freedom-school.com/acceptance/constituti...w-by-carl-miller.pdf


Perhaps this explains it:

PETERSON ET AL. v. CITY OF GREENVILLE.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 71.
Argued November 6-7, 1962. Decided May 20, 1963.
Petitioners, ten Negroes, entered a store in Greenville, S.C., and seated themselves at the lunch counter. The manager of the store did not request their arrest; but he sent for police, in whose presence he stated that the lunch counter was closed and requested everyone to leave the area. When petitioners failed to do so, they were arrested and later they were tried and convicted of violating a state trespass statute. The store manager testified that he had asked them to leave because to have served them would have been "contrary to local customs" of segregated service at lunch counters and would have violated a city ordinance requiring separation of the races in restaurants. Held: Petitioners' convictions for failure to leave the lunch counter violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even if the manager would have acted as he did independently of the existence of the ordinance. Pp. 245-248.

Source: casetext.com/case/peterson-v-city-of-gre...v-city-of-birmingham


Conclusion: Any Statute that makes a Right into a Privilege is no Statute at all.

peace

Don\'t FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!
Last Edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Thinker2.
  • Thinker2
  • Thinker2's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #136458 by Thinker2
Thinker2 replied the topic: Right to Travel!
Respnce to "Carl Miller - Right to travel without a license"

Carl Miller said, and I wrote: We go to court; the Judge starts acting like a prosecutor; asking me all kind of discovery questions. As soon as they call the case… (Now this is something important you got to understand; you are going to be your own attorney, and you got to know all the programming. When you hear them call your case, you get off your tail feather and you run up there as quick and expediently as you can without knocking anyone down, and you say; “READY YOUR HONOR!”, and state your appearance.) I’m so and so, I’m here and before this honorable court. I’m standing as my own council, in my State (Michigan) it is article 1 Section 13 I have appointed myself as my own attorney, and I am ready to proceed with my administrative and procedural matters, and at this time if it please the court I move for dismissal with prejudice for failure to show cause for action… (Garbled; but I think he is asking for fees and costs.) (I’m sorry for talking fast, but you need to learn when you’re in court, you need to talk fast, or you lose.) The Judge bips off right away; Well you got a ticket on such and such. I said Whoa your honor, are you the judge? The disinterested third party that’s trying this case? The trey of fact? (He; “yes”) I said; OK, I said; is this the prosecutor to my right? (He said; “Yeah, that’s him.”) I said; OK, are you going to prosecute this case your honor? (He says; “no, no, I’m the Judge.”) Then why are you asking discovery questions? (Judge; “I just want to know what is going on.”) I says; isn’t that his job over there? That’s what he’s supposed to do. He’s supposed to present his case as the prosecutor, trier of the case. You’re the trier of fact; he’s the trier of the case. If you are going to operate as the judge and the prosecutor; I’m going to object; on the record, as a mistrial. (Judge; “Ok, I’ll let you enter that on the record, go ahead.”) So I said; Ok, let it be entered on the record as an appeasable issue. (Judge; Ok, now it is on the record. Ok, now let me ask you this, did you get a ticket on September 30th?”) Yes your honor. (Judge; “Well let me ask you this; do you have any plates on your car?”) No, and I don’t intend to get any. (all the people in the court; aaaw, this guy is going to jail, watch this, this is going to be good.) (Judge; I assume you have a very good reason for that.) Yes sir. (and I shut-up, I waited…) (Judge; “Can I hear it?”)

I said; well your honor, I said; I am an uninfranchised common law freeman. I’m not a participant in any tontine ponzi schema or limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest to require me to participate in any of these corporate ponzi schemes. I’m just a little Joe from Cocomo, I live on the block, I travel at the common law. I have a right to travel unencumbered present to Shapiro v. Thompson and that right is so basic that it doesn’t even need to be mentioned. The State of Michigan arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right into a privilege and issued a license plate and a fee for it. Murdock v. Pennsylvania says no State may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, and if they do Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Alabama says I can ignore the license and engage in the Right with impunity, that means you can not punish me. Since I relied on previous decisions of the US Supreme Court and on Constitutional defenses I have a perfect defense for willfulness, I am immune to the prosecution, therefore prosecution council does not have a cause for action for which relief can be granted, and I move for dismissal with prejudice, and I’d kinda like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case. (Judge; starts reading the ticked; “told officer he’d just been waiting to get this ticket so he could fight it and beat it all the way to the Supreme Court.” He laughed and said; “Motion granted.” And he ran off the bench before I could get my damages.) So I went out into the hall, he went into the can, so I waited for him. He came out of the can and I served him with my papers. (Judge; he said; “you didn’t have to do that.”) I said; well, I didn’t want you to be inconvenienced Judge. (Judge; he said; “Ok” he signed.)


peace

Don\'t FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!
Last Edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Thinker2.
  • Thinker2
  • Thinker2's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #136461 by Thinker2
Thinker2 replied the topic: Right to Travel!


I am comprehending the PIO (Jan Caldwell) to say the Sheriff will follow (enforce) the Law (CODE / ACTs / Statutes) regardless of whether they are Lawful or Constitutional, because that is the job of the Sheriff's Office.

Not that every agency and officer should be arguing the Law, but...

The PIO is implying that the Sheriff will obey unlawful orders until they are taken to Federal Court and over turned, which is parity difficult to accomplish when a Person is in Indefinite Detention or Dead.

The PIOs statement could be interpreted as a deceleration of War on anyone not considered a member of government. However Civil Law is for Civil Servants, not the public (civilians).


peace

Don\'t FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!
Last Edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Thinker2.
  • Thinker2
  • Thinker2's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #136462 by Thinker2
Thinker2 replied the topic: Right to Travel!
San Diego Society of Professional Journalists, Grade the Media


The public is a mirror too!

Are you getting the reflection Jan?


In this "Press Conformance" the PIO (Jan Caldwell) is not only redefining her title and job description from Public Information Officer to Media Information Officer, she is also placing herself in the position of deciding who is and who is not the Media.

She is also claiming INTEGRITY and TRANSPARENCY.

It would be funny if it did not illustrate how insane and out of touch "government" agents really are, and why they think the public are "a little out there".

Which do you consider "a little out there"? (Civilians questioning authority, or 6 cops beating a 138lb homeless man to death and no one is accountable.)

The trouble with Media is their fear of loosing their JOB. Bloggers don't give a S__t, because they can not be FIRED! - That's TRANSPARENCY

Media Credentials:
  • So Jan, are you creating an exclusive Club within the Sheriff's Office?
  • Did any of the attendees say they do not want a Club to join and keep others out?
  • Anyone not admitted can not see the workings of the Sheriff's Office?
  • So, Jan, if Media credentials are a privilege, will you take them away when the Sheriff's Office is called out for being naughty (NOT NICE to us)?
  • (You can't have a good conspiracy without a conflict of interest.) - Isn't that a lack of transparency?

Isn't government great? You get to do what ever you want and tell everyone else; what to do. (Do as I say, not as I do.) :evil:

Press:

The word press in the 1st Amendment refers to a device for mass-production of the written word, NOT a job title. Anyone who writes and prints, or distributes by way of the internet is a member of the "press" by virtue of their activities. Weather you have 10 or 100,000,000 hits for your post or video, you are engaging in the activity of distributing information (press).

peace

Don\'t FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!
Last Edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Thinker2.
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #136466 by takito
takito replied the topic: Right to Travel!
help i was trying to use my right to travel and he told me to walk and peprer sprayed me + smashed my car + arrested me and they took my car from me and told me to show insurance + drivers license and i dont know what to do help plz

full incident here: worldfreemansociety.org/forum/45-i-need-...th-sentense-help-plz

T2 wrote: I'm still considering my reply, but the solution will require you being responsible for your own actions / choices.

peace

Last Edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Thinker2.
  • Thinker2
  • Thinker2's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #136481 by Thinker2
Thinker2 replied the topic: Right to Travel!
Carl Miller 1 Pt.2-11

(I wonder why the software I have will not let me download this video?)

(Never Overturned)

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803),

This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Marshall also argued that the very nature of the judicial function requires courts to make this determination. Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies. Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States." Part of the core of this reasoning is found in the following statements from the decision:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison


Conclusion: Any Law (CODE / ACT / Statute / Contract) that conflicts with the US Constitution is not and never was Lawful, and anyone enforcing an Unlawful Statute is subverting the Constitution and the Republic (Treason).

This would include but is not limited to the Federal Reserve Act, The IRS, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and Motor Vehicle CODE.

Now what do you do when the Supreme Court conflicts with the Constitution, like the 14th Amendment? (Making an artificial person equal to a natural person?)

High treason

Treason is criminal disloyalty. Historically, in common law countries, high treason is treason against the state. It was differentiated from petty treason (or petit treason), which was treason against a lawful superior (such as a servant killing his master). Petty treason was restricted to cases of homicide in 1351, and came to be considered a more serious degree of murder.

As common law jurisdictions around the world abolished petty treason, the concept of petty treason gradually faded, and today use of the word "treason" generally refers to what was historically known as high treason. In Canadian law, however, there are still two separate offences of treason and high treason, but both of these, in fact, fall in the historical category of high treason.[1] In Canada, the main difference in law between treason and high treason depends on whether the nation is at war. In nations without a common law legal system, the distinction between high and petty treason did not exist.

High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's government. Participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state are perhaps the best known examples of high treason. High treason requires that the alleged traitor have obligations of loyalty in the state he or she betrayed, but this will usually be satisfied by being present in the state at the time of the offence, or being a citizen of the state if abroad. Foreign spies, assassins, and saboteurs, though not suffering the dishonor associated with conviction for high treason, may still be tried and punished judicially for acts of espionage, assassination, or sabotage, though in contemporary times, foreign spies are usually repatriated in exchange for spies of the mentioned nation held by another nation.[2] High treason is considered a very serious – often the most serious possible – crime, by the civil authorities. A conviction, by a Canadian court, for high treason, results in a mandatory life sentence (albeit with the possibility of parole after 25 years).

Until the 19th century, counterfeiting coins was high treason in the United Kingdom and its predecessor countries. (T2; Wonder why? Could it be the "Pound" is counterfeit?)

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason


peace

Don\'t FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!
Last Edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Thinker2.
More
3 years 5 months ago #136483 by magpie369
magpie369 replied the topic: Birth vs Berth
OK, Maybe just for beginners, BUT, good to know, THAT, others are getting the drift of things... :)

Civil Law vs Maritime Admiralty Law.

There are, ONLY, two kinds of law on this Earth.

Civil Law = Law of the Land

Maritime Admiralty Law = Law of the Water

We are born with certain rights that we’ll have forever and those rights are of the “Land” which are the NATURAL RIGHTS or liberties, that cannot be given away unless you choose to do so.

There are certain “Rights” that can be added and certain laws that “remove” the added rights of Maritime Law or the Natural Rights, these “Rights and Laws” are the law of the “Sea”.

Maritime Admiralty is banking law which deals with vessels operating on international waters. Ships berth and are tied to the doc. Shallow waters are referred to as banks. The Captain has to inform the port authority and will receive a certificate of manifest, or “product” from the port authority because he has produced a vessel.

You came down your Mother’s birth canal and as you were born from your Mother’s waters you are an Admiralty Product. Your birth is normally overseen by a Doctor, or one is on duty just in case. The “Doc”….The Ship is tied to the Doc and your Mother or Father, the INFORMANT or Captain signs the register of your birth and receives a receipt, it’s a warehouse receipt but we call it a Birth Certificate. Your Mother has now informed the banks that she has just produced a PRODUCT to be bought and sold. Your name will appear in CAPITAL LETTERS.

The Birth Certificate is actually a corporation named with the exact same name as you, when you sign a document; it means you agree to REPRESENT the Corporation. You are acting on behalf of the corporation your name represents and so you degrade your Natural Rights. In favour of the artificial or Maritime Rights that fall ONLY on the corporation that you agree to represent.

If you sign a document that states in some way that you agree to “remove” your natural rights, (until you decide to quit or the document states a time in which your rights will be returned to you) you can be penalised at the point that the document states (bondage can be included). This is how people are lured into a trap of consistently signing certain documents (corporation documents) with fancy words that ultimately mean you agree to give away your natural rights and that you also agree to be penalised in the ways that your natural rights would have protected you against. The most important document is your birth certificate and until you destroy it or remove it from your life, you will remain a slave.

YOUR BIRTH > YOUR NAME > CORPORATION BIRTH WITH YOUR NAME (CERTIFICATED WITH “THE BRITH CERTIFICATION) > YOUR SIGN OF AGREEING TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATION NAMED AS YOU > YOU’RE CITIZENSHIP AND LIBERTY CHANGES ACCORDING TO THE RIGHTS ATTACHED TO THE CORPORATION > YOU LEAVE YOU’RE NATURAL RIGHTS BEHIND AND BECOME A “LEGAL ENTITY/BEING” UNTIL YOU DECIDE OTHERWISE

Take a look at your own birth cert. How many of the letters of your name are in capitals?

CAPITIS DIMINUTIO EXPLAINED:
•Human Being = natural rights are attached to – dipsey aura
•Capitis Diminutio Minimima = minimal loss of rights of – Dipsey Aura
•Capitis Diminutio Media = loss of citizenship but conservation of liberty – Dipsey AURA
•Capitis Diminutio Maxima = liberty changes to bondage – DIPSEY AURA

My own “CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ENTRY” states Mother and Father, followed by the names of both. My INFORMANT is stated to be my Father and all names are Capitis Diminutio Media.

On the other hand I have children and two different certificates for each. One stated as a “CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH”, the other a “CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ENTRY”. Each has a differing serial number; each certificate presents them as being Capitis Diminutio Media.

Your children DO (>not<) belong to you, ONLY , when you abide by, & within their 'SYSTEM'.



www.dipseyaura.com/birth-vs-berth/

No RULES... Twisted but Sane!
  • Thinker2
  • Thinker2's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #136485 by Thinker2
Thinker2 replied the topic: Right to Travel!
Sorry you did not see the thread Civil Law v. Common Law .

And in a Civil Law Jurisdiction like Russia, Europe, and South America, I would agree with you, but UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are Common Law Jurisdictions and Civil Law or Admiralty Law are for Civil Servants and Commerce.

Civil Law and Admiralty Law are both Top-Down and based on whatever "They" at the top want. So is Mosaic and Sheri Law. They are all Elitist oriented systems of Law.

Common Law is Bottom-Up Jury Trial, Grand Jury, Voting, Representative, Public Servant, Impeachment, Recall election. Those in office are supposed to work for us (We the people...)

However, if you are advocating that Common Law Jurisdiction should be overthrown (Abolished), that would be a conversation for an Anti-government Forum. I believe Rob and other Freemen are advocating (pro) Good Government. Repairing the system we have by educating people who have been systematically deceived for decades.

peace

Don\'t FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!
Last Edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Thinker2.
  • bmxninja357
  • bmxninja357's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Addicted to Freedom
  • Addicted to Freedom
More
3 years 5 months ago #136486 by bmxninja357
bmxninja357 replied the topic: Right to Travel!
Canada is both common law and civil law depending on where you are.

Peace
Ninj

\\\"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth.\\\"
  • Thinker2
  • Thinker2's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #136487 by Thinker2
Thinker2 replied the topic: Right to Travel!

bmxninja357 wrote: Canada is both common law and civil law depending on where you are.

Peace
Ninj


It's my intention to inform people, not taunt them with my knowledge.

It would be more informative if you said what part of Canada was Civil Law, rather than only pointing out an exception.

The Civil Law Jurisdiction of Canada is Quickie and the Civil Law Jurisdiction of the US is Louisiana.

Again, this conversation would be more appropriate on Civil Law v. Common Law, because it has a map of Law by geography.

This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.


peace

Don\'t FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!
Last Edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Thinker2.
Moderators: Thinker2UserAbuser
Time to create page: 0.233 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum