One opened, more to come!
It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:54 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
I looked for the name of the DA on the case.. maybe someone knows.

It looks really bad for a DA to attempt to prosecute such a frivolous case. When they waste taxpayer dollars like that they often do not get re-elected. Why would a DA take such an obvious gamble with his own career? Did scientology make some sort of promise to this DA?

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:56 am
Posts: 188
I'mglib wrote:
I'm riveted by these transcripts.

I just do not get why someone can lie, and use the court system to harass a person, waste 5 days of their life and thousands of dollars, and there isn't any recourse?


Adding to this list that Sparrow (and others) had to put countless hours of work into preparing for the case(s), was not able to exercise his 1st amendment rights for almost a year, and spent 36 hours in jail. I'm sure there's more, but those are just off the top of my head. Oh my, yes, there should be recourse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 14692
Location: U.K.
A lulzy little epilogue from Sparrow....
anonsparrow, posting on wwp, wrote:
FWIW, Key told me that the DA most likely inherited this case that noone else wanted and that he, too, probably would have gladly passed it on to someone else given half a chance.

Key told me not to take it personal and that he's actually a very nice guy. (And he really was super cool to me whenever proceedings were on pause. He was beyond cordial and even let me use his computer speakers throughout the trial. It was a nice piece of cooperation on our parts when it came time to switch speakers back and forth and manage a tangle of wires each time.)

After the trial was over, I was talking with my lawyers in the hallway for about thirty minutes when I saw the DA heading toward the exit. Tom Key called out to him and walked over. They talked for a few minutes about an unrelated matter.

But at the end of their discussion, the DA told Tom that when he was walking into court that morning, a sparrow shit on him and one of his exhibits. He said he knew it was a bad omen. LOL!

So yeah.. Good guy. Bad case. Evil cult.

ref: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/ ... st-1794442

_________________
WWW.XENU-DIRECTORY.NET Awesome document/media resources
Other Activism: Divided By Zero forum, Why We Protest forum
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 9037
There was some strange-but-true TV show many years back that had a story about a guy who literally sued everybody for the least little thing. I can't remember the details. I'm not making this up. He acted as his own lawyer and sued and sued and sued. A neighbor's kid would walk across his lawn. He sued the parents. Someone said a harsh word to him in the street. He sued. Someone looked at him with a scowl. He sued.

It reached a point where a judge finally ruled that enough was enough and that the guy could not sue anyone else for any reason ever again. I think there may be legislation in places where misuse of the judicial system is against the law. If there are such laws in effect for DC, then Anonsparrow may have access to recourse, should he want to go through the mill again. If such laws are not on the books it might be worthwhile suggesting them to some local legislators.

_________________
"Disconnection is both an act of war and an admission of defeat."
Jon Atack

Image
http://www.worldcat.org./profiles/Wieber/lists/563909


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9298
Barratry, in criminal and civil law, is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass.... in California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, barratry is a misdemeanor; in Texas, a felony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

California's "Vexatious Litigant" Statute
http://www.vbbigot.com/neighbors/Docs/P ... tatute.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 9037
Don Carlo wrote:
Barratry, in criminal and civil law, is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass.... in California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, barratry is a misdemeanor; in Texas, a felony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

California's "Vexatious Litigant" Statute
http://www.vbbigot.com/neighbors/Docs/P ... tatute.htm


There you go. It's already on the books. Thanks, Don Carlo.

Barratry! I like that word. Barratry! I think I'd like to use it again and again.

_________________
"Disconnection is both an act of war and an admission of defeat."
Jon Atack

Image
http://www.worldcat.org./profiles/Wieber/lists/563909


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:37 am
Posts: 466
C0$ isn't done with him yet, there's the civil case yet to be heard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Posts: 2315
Location: Canada
Don Carlo wrote:
Barratry, in criminal and civil law, is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass.... in California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, barratry is a misdemeanor; in Texas, a felony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

California's "Vexatious Litigant" Statute
http://www.vbbigot.com/neighbors/Docs/P ... tatute.htm


Good word.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:
The purpose of the suit is to harrass and discourage rather than to win. ¶ The law can be used very easily to harrass, and enough harrassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional de-cease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/dissem-of-material-1955.html


Gerry's essay on this topic: The Miscavige Regime: Criminality and Squirreling Go Hand in Paw

_________________
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:30 pm
Posts: 49
lostinspace wrote:
C0$ isn't done with him yet, there's the civil case yet to be heard.


The problem for the cult is that all the previous testimony is admissible. Doubt there's anything left that a judge will let them proceed with.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:05 pm
Posts: 3103
operatingwog wrote:
Astonishingly, Kim Belotte claimed not to know that Shelly Miscavige was DM's wife.

Sparrow Transcript, Friday, April 29th, p.150f wrote:
Q [from Thomas Key, Defense Attorney]. And then the last thing he [Sparrow] talks about is Shelly Micavige, who is that?
A [Kim Belotte]. That is a relative of David Miscavige.
Q. Is that his wife?
A. I actually don't know the relationship.
Q. Is she the one that everyone says or people say has been missing for three years?
A. I don't know the story. I don't know the story of Shelly Miscavige. Fortunately for me I deal with the naming ceremonies for the babies and the weddings and the conseling and the security guys deal with the security and these -- they're two kind of separate things.
Q. David Miscavige is the boss of all scientologists, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You're the Executive Director of one of the biggest Orgs, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you don't know the man's wife's name?
... [Objection. Overruled.] ...
A. I don't -- I don't research his family. It's not -- it's not --
Q. You've never heard about his wife supposedly being missing for three years?
A. No, I've never heard that.
... [More lies.] ...
Q. That was the first time you had ever heard that?
A. Yeah, and I didn't really even pay attention at that point, that's not something I remember even occurring.


She deals with the naming ceremonies for babies, finding lost bambi deers, cuddling teddy bears and making absurd allegations against protestors. The security guys deal with making the leader's wife disappear. They're two kind of separate things.

The Defense Attorney did at one point raise the question of whether she was supposed to be clear (with a perfect memory), but got slapped down. I think she is clear and has a perfect scientologist's memory: she can remember things that never happened, but instantly forget about the existence of people who've been hauled off to the gulag.


It's entirely possible for Kim! Her OTness has brought out who she truly is:

Image

_________________
Image
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm
Posts: 5146
I just finished reading the trial transcripts last night (Thanks, Zhent on WWP), and if you want a good read for the 4th of July weekend, I would suggest this. It's a page turner.

For those of you who can't wade through the whole 5 days, I would like to quote some of the best parts of the defense attorney's (Mr. KEY's) Closing speech. He pretty much nails Kim Belotte to the wall. I don’t understand how she can look at herself in the mirror in the morning. It’s just really shameful.

Quote:
MR: KEY:

In addition to that, Your Honor, I would argue that you should not credit Ms. Belotte's testimony, and there are reasons for that. Ms. Belotte has been significantly impeached. She admitted that on numerous occasions, first of all, that she is the boss of Scientology in D.C. She's the top person at the Church of Scientology. As the Court correctly noted, he goes there to protest, not to her house, not anywhere else, there. He stands there with signs, which were visible in some of the videos that the Court watched, and he protests an9 everything he said to her was related to Scientology. I understand it would have been better if he didn't ask her about her sister, but even then, he said, is it true that your sister works on the Freewinds, and the Freewinds is a Scientology-owned ship that is based in Curacao, so even that when he's asking about her sister, he asked about Scientology. And then he turns to Vicki Turissi, who's videotaping, did you know that, and she's giggling. She's not intimidated. Clearly he's not intimidating anybody. None of those instances is there proof that he was wearing a mask, but more importantly Ms. Belotte was impeached. Scientology has called the police numerous times about him protesting, and every time she was told it wasn't enough. He can stand on a public sidewalk and protest. It wasn't enough. So what did she do? She upped the ante. She made things up. He never followed her with an erection to her car. You know that, or at least there's a good reason to believe that that did not happen because if that had happened, she would have called the police. She said it happened on two occasions. It is not believable. You also know it's not believable because she didn't mention that to the police officer. She didn't mention that to the detective in a seven-page e-mail. It didn't happen. That's her trying to say something to make it worse to keep Brian from protesting the Church of Scientology, which has been the goal the entire time to suppress free speech, to keep someone who I am sure is annoying from doing Constitutionally-protected free speech at the Church of Scientology.

What else did she do? She told the police something that wasn't true. She told the officer that he said on July 20th, I can do anything I want to you. You know she said that because the officer told you she said that. He put it in direct quotes. He put it in three different police reports, and even the Government tried to say, well, you don't have any independent knowledge apart from your police work; you don't actually remember that, do you? Yes, I remember that. She said, I can do anything I want to you. The video doesn't show that. Why does she say that? Because that ups the ante, because that makes it worse, that paints him in a worse picture than was true. What he said was, I can do anything I want standing more than 10 feet away from her on the other side of a public sidewalk not near her when she's more than 10 feet away over at the building. She didn't tell the truth about that.

What else didn't she tell the truth about, scarecrow. Your Honor, she took that stand and she told you that she called him scarecrow because it just came into her mind. That's not true. She finally admitted that wasn't true; that actually that was a nickname they used for him. William Powell had used it two times the day before. When confronted with that, then she changed her story yet again. Why? Because if she was using nicknames, it kind of undermines the fact that maybe this was legit, so what does she do? She did that elaborate thing on the stand when you asked her what did you mean, why a scarecrow? Did it have any meaning? And then she kind of, you know, went into, oh, it just so scared me, all that stuff, whatever. She didn't do that in the video. She did that to make an impression on the Court that wasn't true. She didn't just come up with that term. She finally had to admit, no, that was a nickname we used for him. You saw the swarm video. How do you explain the swarm video where she's standing there by the car with a bunch of people. She's going to go this way. She sees Brian back there. She says, let's go, and they all walk around Brian and they all bump him and she's giggling and then they go back the way they came. Was he wearing a mask then? No, there's no testimony he's wearing a mask. Was he harassing or intimidating her? No, clearly not. It just wasn't true. It didn't happen that way. How else do we know that it's not true? Well, we know it's not true because are those ready to play? The two top Clyde clips, the second part July 11th. We know, Your Honor, that she would do anything and that the church would do anything to prevent people from protesting. They labeled him a suppressive person because of his protest, not because of any crimes that he committed. She took that stand and said that anybody could be labeled suppressive person if they committed serious crimes, and I said, well, what about murderers here? Well, well, no, I mean, not if not Scientology. She eventually had to admit that, no, it's really just Scientologists who aren't towing the party line. That's what it came down to. Well, Brian wasn't towing the party line because he was out there telling people that Scientology is not good; that they have problems. Sorry, go to the July 11th one. No, part two, and then pause it. July 11th, nine days before she calls the police and starts all of this her husband is out there saying this.

Hit play.

(Thereupon, the audio/visual recording played for the Court was reported, but is not transcribed herein.)

That was part one. I apologize. We need to play part two.

(Thereupon, the audio/visual recording played for the Court was reported, but is not transcribed herein.)

And then before we play this one, this I think is the most crucial piece of evidence in the entire case. Why? Because Kim Belotte took that stand and she said Radio Paul's different. Radio Paul didn't follow me to my car. Radio Paul didn't stalk me. Radio Paul didn't do anything other than free speech, protected First Amendment speech, and if you watch some of the videos, Radio Paul's wearing a mask sometimes, but she said on some of the videos that were admitted Radio Paul is wearing a mask.

MR. COOK: Government's going to object for the record. I don't ever remember seeing that in the videos but –

MR. KEY: The Court's memory will control.

THE COURT: I don't recall it either, but I don't find it dispositive to anything forward.

MR. KEY: But the point is that she said he was doing nothing that Brian was doing other than protesting, which she had no problem with. The protesting she had no problem with. So he's not following her to her car. He's not stalking her. He's not personally doing anything to
her. He's legitimately protesting, and yet on August 21st you see this. Hit play.

(Thereupon, the audio/visual recording played for the Court was reported, but is not transcribed herein.)

Brian treatment, why would Radio Paul get the Brian treatment? Radio Paul wasn't doing any of the things that they're claiming Brian did. She admitted on the stand the only thing he was doing was lawfully protesting, standing there with signs, but he wasn't doing any of those other things. Those other things that could possibly form the basis for a conviction here, intimidating, threatening, harassing, he wasn't doing those things. If he wasn't doing those things, why would he get the Brian treatment? The Brian treatment, I would suggest the only reasonable interpretation of that is, yes, when you take those two clips together, what does it mean? Scientologists will go after anyone who goes after them, so anyone who says anything bad about them, by any means necessary including making something up. You're going to get the Brian treatment, meaning you're going to get arrested. We'll get you, too. What is there to get Radio Paul? According to Ms. Belotte, he was a lawful protestor, had never done anything wrong.

Your Honor, when you put all that together, I'm not saying that you have to find that Ms. Belotte lied about everything or lied about anything. What I am suggesting is there's enough evidence in this case. It's pretty rare where you get something like that on tape. There's enough evidence in this case to suggest that they have a motive and they have a reason to stretch the truth and to fabricate and to make things up for the reason of getting him to stop protesting. • Calling the police didn't do it, telling the truth didn't do it, right? Couldn't just say he said he can do anything he wants. No, we had to add that, to you, and then these tapes from her husband. It's not believable. When you couple that with the fact that she never called the police any time he supposedly followed her with an erection, never called the police any time he supposedly blocked her in the car, never called the police, period, until July 20th, the next incident after her husband makes this statement, the first July 11th statement, that's when it happens?



This is just part of the closing argument. The whole thing is really good.

After Anonsparrow was acquitted, the judge did admonish him not to do the things that he felt crossed the line. Basically, there were 3 things: One was mentioning that he knew Kim’s sister worked on the Fairwinds, the second was supposedly following her to the Whole Foods store, and the third was supposedly blocking her from getting in or out of her car.

These really bothered me, because Kim was in the court room, and he didn’t mention to her that she shouldn’t LIE to a police officer, which she clearly did. She told the cop that Sparrow said, “I can do anything I want to you,” when clearly he said, “I can do anything I want.” I mean, it’s on video, and she had to admit that’s what he really said.

In my opinion, if she had told the cop the truth, Sparrow wouldn’t have been arrested. So that’s a big deal.

The things he admonished Sparrow for were much smaller. And the only one that was not just Kim’s word was talking about Kim’s sister. The other two weren't proved, and in fact, it was clear that Sparrow ALWAYS stayed on the public sidewalk, and never got closer than 1-2 car lengths. She even admits this. Hardly something that should land a person in jail for 36 hours, and a 5 day trial.

In any case, I’m glad he was acquitted. It was such a no-brainer, but still, it’s good.

_________________
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 14692
Location: U.K.
In the civil case, Moxon's motions to compel, in the discovery process, seems to be getting the smackdown from the judge....

Butt Hurt for Ken Moxon
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/ ... xon.92259/

Anonymous, posting on whyWeProtest.net wrote:
I checked online at the DC Court to see if there was any update with Sparrow's case and it looks like the little man with tiny prick and big Napoleon complex just got his butt hurt. It has not been uncommon to in the past for the wimp to try and bully people with (Motions to Compel) but this time the judge is not buying it. It looks as if the judge did not even need to see Sparrows lawyers response before denying it and the judge said the response was Moot. It is nice to know that the judge saw Kenny for what he is.

DOSE IT HURT MOXON?





Party Name
Party Alias(es)
Party Type
Attorney(s)

BELOTTE, KIM


PLAINTIFF
MOXON, Mr KENDRICK L L

MANDIGO, BRIAN


Defendant
LESTER, Mr THOMAS E





Docket Date
Description
Messages

08/11/2011
Additional eFiling Document to
Proof of Service to Order Denying as Moot Defendant's Motion to File Surreply Filed. Submitted 08/11/2011 18:20. jmv. Signed by Judge Macaluso on 8/11/11.

08/11/2011
Order Filed
Order Denying as Moot Defendant's Motion to File Surreply Filed. Submitted 08/11/2011 18:20. jmv. Signed by Judge Macaluso on 8/11/11.

08/11/2011
Additional eFiling Document to
Proof of Service to Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Brian Mandigo Signed by Judge Macaluso on 08/11/2011. Submitted 08/11/2011 18:14 jhc.

08/11/2011
Order Filed
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Brian Mandigo Signed by Judge Macaluso on 08/11/2011. Submitted 08/11/2011 18:14 jhc.

08/11/2011
Additional eFiling Document to
Proof of Service to Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Signed and Submitted by Judge Macaluso on 08/11/2011 18:33. tw

08/11/2011
Order Filed
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Signed and Submitted by Judge Macaluso on 08/11/2011 18:33. tw

08/11/2011
Additional eFiling Document to
Proof of Service to Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to File Reply Signed and Submitted by Judge Macaluso on 08/11/2011 18:21. tw

08/11/2011
Order Filed
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to File Reply Signed and Submitted by Judge Macaluso on 08/11/2011 18:21. tw

08/11/2011
Order Denying Motion * Entered on the Docket
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Entered on the Docket 8/11/11. Signed in Chambers by J. Macaluso on 8/11/11. Efiled and eserved on the parties on 8/11/11.

08/11/2011
Order Granting Motion * Entered on the Docket
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to File Reply Entered on the Docket 8/11/11. Signed in Chambers by J. Macaluso on 8/11/11. Efiled and eserved on the parties on 8/11/11.

08/11/2011
Order Denying as Moot Motion * Entered on the Docket
Order Denying as Moot Defendant's Motion to File Surreply Entered on the Docket 8/11/11. Signed in Chambers by J. Macaluso on 8/11/11. Efiled and eserved on the parties on 8/11/11.

08/11/2011
Order Denying Motion * Entered on the Docket
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition Entered on the Docket 8/11/11. Signed in Chambers by J. Macaluso on 8/11/11. Efiled and eserved on the parties on 8/11/11.

08/10/2011
Opposition to Motion Filed:
Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Additional Time for the Deposition of Brian Mandigo Filed submitted 08/10/2011 21:13 wjw.
Attorney: LESTER, Mr THOMAS E (468115)


For court dox, Go to https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf and put BELOTTE in the last name field and KIM in the first name field, search, then click on Case Details. Or search on Year 2010, Type CA, Case # 005422 and again click on Case Details.

_________________
WWW.XENU-DIRECTORY.NET Awesome document/media resources
Other Activism: Divided By Zero forum, Why We Protest forum
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:37 am
Posts: 466
^^^^^
I like this win. Moxon isnt compelling :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9298
Sponge, thanks for all your work. Judge, tell your judge buddies Moxon is a "vexacious litigant." Moxon, quit Sea Org before Miscavige abuses you for losing a case CoS was stupid to pursue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sparrow assault/SP declare. + Attempted stalking case
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 14692
Location: U.K.
and by total coincidence, today Ken Moxon is on Tony Ortega's "Top 25 people crippling scientology" list at #21
viewtopic.php?p=404319#p404319

_________________
WWW.XENU-DIRECTORY.NET Awesome document/media resources
Other Activism: Divided By Zero forum, Why We Protest forum
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group