Jump to content


SCOTUS Decisions - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly


114 replies to this topic

#101 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27481 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:58 AM

There's an interesting case headed to SCOTUS on whether prosecution by a state and by the feds is double jeopardy.

Quote

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments about an exception to the Constitution’s ban on being tried for the same offense. The outcome could have a spillover effect on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

The justices are taking up an appeal Thursday from federal prison inmate Terance Gamble. He was prosecuted separately by Alabama and the federal government for having a gun after an earlier robbery conviction.

The high court is considering whether to overturn a court-created exception to the Constitution’s double-jeopardy bar that allows state and federal prosecutions for the same crime. The court’s ruling could be relevant if President Donald Trump were to pardon someone implicated in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe and a state wanted to pursue its own charges against that person.

Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein joked at a Washington event before the term began in October that the high court case should be called New York v. Manafort, a reference to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Trump has refused to rule out an eventual pardon for Manafort, who has been convicted of federal financial fraud and conspiracy crimes. It’s by no means certain that the high court ruling will affect future prosecutions.

But Trump’s Justice Department is urging the court not to depart from what it says is an unbroken line of cases reaching back nearly 170 years in favor of allowing prosecutions by state and federal authorities. Thirty-six states that include Republican-led Texas and Democratic-led New York are on the administration’s side, as are advocates for Native American women who worry that a decision for Gamble would make it harder to prosecute domestic and sexual violence crimes.

Civil rights scholars at Howard University adopt a sort of middle ground that urges the court to at least preserve the federal government’s ability to lead civil rights prosecutions against people who have been acquitted of state charges. Civil rights charges to fight crimes of racial violence have been a key tool for federal prosecutors, especially when Southern juries were unwilling to convict defendants. The most recent example the scholars cited is the successful federal prosecution of Los Angeles police officers who had been acquitted of state charges in the beating of Rodney King.

On the other side, liberal and conservative groups say that the huge growth in federal criminal prosecutions in recent decades makes it urgent for the court to rein in successive prosecutions for the same crime.

Reinforcing the seemingly odd alliances in play on this issue, the unlikely high court duo of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas first suggested in 2016 that the topic “bears fresh examination in an appropriate case.”

At least four justices — the minimum required to hear arguments — felt Gamble’s situation is that appropriate case.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#102 pnwguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1647 posts
  • LocationPortlandia

Posted 06 December 2018 - 09:57 AM

If the Court rules these are double jeopardy situations at least I can imagine that tax fraud is slightly different. Each tax filing is a separate willful act, between the defendant and the IRS in one circumstance, and whatever states have jurisdiction on revenue. So state prosecution wouldn’t be stopped by a federal pardon.
"All glory to the HypnoTrump, or else..."

"It all makes sense when you remind yourself that the GOP is no longer a political party but turned into an organized crime family"

"I hope to live long enough that the name Trump is reviled as much as the name Hitler or Stalin"

#103 JackD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1589 posts
  • LocationChicago area

Posted 06 December 2018 - 11:24 AM

If the court rules against dual prosecution powers under the double jeopardy doctrine, it will, in effect, be binding the federal government to a factual finding in state court that it (the federal government) had no right to participate in and in which it was not a party. That is problematic to say the least.

#104 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27481 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 10 December 2018 - 02:17 PM

SCOTUS declines to hear a case where states want to selectively prevent Medicaid money from reaching Planned Parenthood. Kavanaugh seems to be laying low but Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were all in. This could have just as easily been posted in the Right-wing Christians Are Collecting What They Sold Their Souls For thread.

Quote

The Supreme Court on Monday avoided a high-profile case by rejecting appeals from Kansas and Louisiana in their effort to strip Medicaid money from Planned Parenthood, over the dissenting votes of three justices.

The court’s order reflected a split among its conservative justices and an accusation from Justice Clarence Thomas that his colleagues seemed to be ducking the case for political reasons.

The two states were appealing lower court rulings that had blocked them from withholding money that is used for health services for low-income women. The money is not used for abortions. Abortion opponents have said Planned Parenthood should not receive any government money because of heavily edited videos that claimed to show the nation’s largest abortion provider profiting from sales of fetal tissue for medical research.

Investigations sparked by the videos in several states didn’t result in criminal charges.

The dispute at the high court has nothing to do with abortion, as Thomas pointed out in a dissent that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. In his first discernible vote on the court, new Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined to join Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch because a fourth vote would have been enough to set the case for arguments. Chief Justice John Roberts also did not vote to hear the case, along with the four more liberal justices.

The issue is who has the right to challenge a state’s Medicaid funding decisions, private individuals or only the federal government. The states say that the Medicaid program, a joint venture of federal and state governments to provide health care to poorer Americans, makes clear that only the Secretary of Health and Human Services can intervene, by withholding money from a state.

Most lower federal courts have found that private parties can challenge Medicaid funding decisions in court, although the federal appeals court in St. Louis rejected a similar court challenge and allowed Arkansas to end its contract with Planned Parenthood. A split among federal appeals courts is often a reason for the Supreme Court to step in.

“So what explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion,” Thomas wrote.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#105 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12856 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 03:31 PM

Ginsburg Has No Remaining Signs Of Cancer, Will Return To Supreme Court.
Pray for Trump: Psalm 109:8

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#106 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12970 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 11 January 2019 - 05:18 PM

Quote

This is the third time Ginsburg has had cancer. Ginsburg fans can rest a bit easier with the news; doctors say that her odds of long-term survival are in the neighborhood of 80 percent.
How long is long-term?
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#107 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9318 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 11 January 2019 - 06:26 PM

View PostTraveler, on 11 January 2019 - 05:18 PM, said:

How long is long-term?

Until we're all dead.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#108 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12970 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 11 January 2019 - 07:03 PM

nope. just her.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#109 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27481 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 19 February 2019 - 01:52 PM

Clarence Thomas is doing his part to help Dear Leader muzzle the press. This is a dangerous man.

Quote

Justice Clarence Thomas believes the Supreme Court should re-evaluate modern defamation and libel law, according to his concurring opinion released Tuesday. The justice was in agreement with the court’s decision to decline the review of a case brought by Bill Cosby accuser Kathrine McKee. McKee alleges she was defamed when Cosby’s attorney characterized her story of being raped as a fabricated lie. Thomas used the opportunity to criticize the 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark case established that public figures have to prove actual malice when suing for libel or slander. Under that standard, public figures have to provide proof that the information published about them was known to be false, or that the publisher had disregard for the truth, an obstacle that Justice Thomas called an “almost impossible” standard. The “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law," Thomas wrote. He suggests that the malice standard should be removed—making it a lot easier for public figures to sue the media—a position President Trump has publicly embraced over criticism he has deemed to be unfair.

Quote

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
Justice Thomas's opinion concurring in the denial of certiorari in McKee v. Cosby is terrifying:

He's urging #SCOTUS to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan (and the idea that the First Amendment requires actual malice for libel against a public figure):https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/021919zor_2dp3.pdf …

Posted Image


Quote

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
It's impossible to fully underscore how central the Sullivan decision is to our modern conception of press freedom.

When @realDonaldTrump talks about rewriting the libel laws, _this_ is what he means. Justice Thomas is only one vote, but this is a scary opinion nonetheless.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#110 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27481 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 01 March 2019 - 04:34 PM

Clarence Thomas again. I repeat, this is a dangerous man. He is corrupt to the core.

Quote

In a rare move Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been secretly lobbying Republican Senators to urge them to vote to confirm President Donald Trump‘s highly controversial judicial nominee, Neomi Rao.

Justice Thomas “is working behind the scenes to boost the prospects of his former law clerk, Neomi Rao, to serve on a powerful federal appeals court in Washington,” The Washington Post reports Thursday.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a small but highly powerful appellate court that has the power to hear cases brought by or against the federal government. It “tends to have exclusive jurisdiction over matters that are likely to have a national effect,” and its judges are considered prime candidates to become Supreme Court justices.

Most recently, Judge, and now Justice Brett Kavanaugh sat on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Neomi Rao, whose rulings and stated beliefs are considered far out of the mainstream and by some entirely inappropriate for any judge sitting on the federal bench, is President Trump’s nominee to replace Kavanaugh now that he has been elevated to the nation’s top court. Four of the nation’s current sitting Supreme Court justices came directly from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Justice Thomas is not the only lobbyist in his family. His wife, far right wing Tea Party activist Ginni Thomas, a professional lobbyist, was recently in the news after it was discovered she has been lobbying President Trump inside the White House, disparaging transgender troops and women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Thomas’ husband, Justice Thomas, likely will hear at least one case on the constitutionally of banning troops because they are transgender.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#111 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27481 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:06 PM

I guess we'll see how the right-wing of the court feels about a 6th attempt at the same murder charges against a black man apparently being achieved by excluding all potential black jurors. BTW this is in Mississippi. The prosecutor sounds like a real piece of work.

Quote

Curtis Flowers has been jailed in Mississippi for 22 years, even as prosecutors couldn’t get a murder conviction against him to stick through five trials.

Three convictions were tossed out, and two other juries couldn’t reach unanimous verdicts.

This week, the Supreme Court will consider whether his conviction and death sentence in a sixth trial should stand or be overturned for a familiar reason: because prosecutors improperly kept African-Americans off the jury.

The justices on Wednesday will examine whether District Attorney Doug Evans’ history of excluding black jurors should figure in determining if Evans again crossed a line when he struck five African-Americans from the jury that most recently convicted Flowers of killing four people.

In overturning Flowers’ third conviction, the Mississippi Supreme Court called Evans’ exclusion of 15 black prospective jurors “as strong a prima facie case of racial discrimination as we have seen” in challenges to jury composition. This time around, though, the state’s high court has twice rejected Flowers’ claims, even after being ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to take another look.

Wednesday’s arguments at the high court are the latest stop on a twisting path that began on July 16, 1996. That’s when four people were found dead inside Tardy Furniture in downtown Winona. Shot in the head were 59-year-old owner Bertha Tardy and three employees — 45-year-old Carmen Rigby, 42-year-old Robert Golden and 16-year-old Derrick “Bobo” Stewart.

It was months before officials arrested and charged Curtis Flowers for the murder.

Prosecutors say Flowers was a disgruntled former employee who sought revenge against Tardy because she fired him and withheld most of his pay to cover the cost of merchandise he damaged. Nearly $300 was found missing after the killings.

Defense lawyers, though, say witness statements and physical evidence against Flowers are too weak to convict him. A jailhouse informant who claimed Flowers had confessed to him recanted in recorded telephone conversations with American Public Media’s “In the Dark” podcast. There’s a separate appeal pending in state court questioning Flowers’ actual guilt, citing in part evidence that reporters for “In the Dark” detailed.

Flowers, now 48, has been imprisoned at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman since 1997, following his first conviction. That and two subsequent convictions were overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Then two hung juries couldn’t reach verdicts. Finally, Evans won conviction in Flowers’ sixth trial, in 2010, the case at issue here.

The first two cases were overturned in part because Evans impermissibly introduced evidence relating to all four deaths in cases where Flowers was on trial for killing only one person. In the second trial, Evans got into trouble for striking black jurors, with a judge overruling one of the strikes. Then, the state Supreme Court overturned the third verdict, again citing racial bias in removing jurors. Lawyers for Flowers argue the guilty verdict from the sixth trial should be tossed for the same reason, noting Evans has overwhelmingly used his ability to strike individual jurors to remove black people.

“Mr. Evans has a history of keeping black folks off the jury … so he can guarantee himself a victory, pretty much,” said Ray Charles Carter, who represented Flowers in his last four criminal trials.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#112 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27481 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:10 PM

SCOTUS is reviewing the decision on Virginia's highly gerrymandered districts.

Quote

The Supreme Court seemed to struggle Monday with how to resolve a case that could help flip control of the Virginia House of Delegates to Democrats.

The justices heard arguments in a case about the map Virginia has used to choose House delegates, a map a lower court ruled discriminated against black voters. The lack of clarity about how the high court will resolve the case was odd because the justices had previously allowed the lower court to approve a replacement map. State elections officials are currently preparing to use that replacement map for primary contests in June. The replacement map is seen as favorable to Democrats and could help them gain control of the House.

The Republican-controlled House, meanwhile, is defending the map it drew in 2011, after the last census, which has been used in the four elections since. Democratic voters sued in 2014, accusing Republicans of packing black voters into certain districts to make surrounding districts whiter and more Republican. Republicans currently hold control of the House of Delegates by a slim 51-49 margin.

The map Virginia officials are currently using was created after the lower court ruled 2-1 in June that the previous, legislature-drawn map improperly factored race into the drawing of 11 of the 100 House districts. After the House and Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam were unable to reach an agreement on a redistricting plan, the lower court chose a new map from a series of proposals submitted by a special master.


Kavanaugh, as expected, turns out to be a real intellectual powerhouse by basically saying "these black guys said OK" before the extent of the racism involved in the Republican redistricting was fully understood. Also it was approved by W's Justice Department, the same one that told all of the U.S. Attorneys to find voter fraud somewhere ... anywhere.

Quote

On Monday, justices questioned both whether the House of Delegates had a right to bring the case to the high court and whether the districts it drew were problematic. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that black lawmakers had been supportive of the original map and that it was given required approval by the Justice Department. But Justice Elena Kagan seemed to suggest lawmakers should have done a more thorough, district by district analysis when drawing boundaries.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#113 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9318 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:49 PM

View PostJackD, on 06 December 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

If the court rules against dual prosecution powers under the double jeopardy doctrine, it will, in effect, be binding the federal government to a factual finding in state court that it (the federal government) had no right to participate in and in which it was not a party. That is problematic to say the least.

It would be utterly awesome for Red States, though -- they could prosecute, then dismiss, all sorts of Federal civil rights violations.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#114 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4733 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:54 PM

View PostD. C. Sessions, on 19 March 2019 - 12:49 PM, said:

It would be utterly awesome for Red States, though -- they could prosecute, then dismiss, all sorts of Federal civil rights violations.

Or alternately, give the Federal government a justification for sticking their noses into every state court case which bore some possible connection to Federal law.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss

#115 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27481 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 20 March 2019 - 01:29 PM

View PostLFC, on 19 March 2019 - 12:06 PM, said:

I guess we'll see how the right-wing of the court feels about a 6th attempt at the same murder charges against a black man apparently being achieved by excluding all potential black jurors. BTW this is in Mississippi. The prosecutor sounds like a real piece of work.

The corrupt, ignorant, sex criminal that is a member of SCOTUS (Clarence Thomas, just in case you were confused as to which one) asks a question for the first time in 3 years. I guess he felt his Uncle Tom credentials needed a bit of an update.

Quote

Justice Clarence Thomas is asking his first questions at Supreme Court arguments in more than three years.

Arguments were almost over Wednesday in a case about racial discrimination in the South when the court’s only African-American member and lone Southerner piped up.

The case involves a black Mississippi death row inmate who’s been tried six times for murder and a white prosecutor with a history of using jury strikes to exclude African-Americans.

Thomas wanted to know if the lawyer for inmate Curtis Flowers had made the same kind of decisions and if so, the race of struck jurors.

Lawyer Sheri Lynn Johnson said three white jurors were excused by Flowers’ trial attorney.

Thomas dissented when the court ruled for a Georgia inmate in a similar case in 2016.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users