Referendum wash up!

  • 1 Replies
  • 933 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4107
  • +75/-0
Referendum wash up!
« on: August 03, 2016, 09:52:37 PM »
Please start reading from the bottom up
----------------------------------------------------------------

I wish that I could assist. I am supporting Bill Etheridge and could send your email to his office but things are so frenetic with people being on holiday as well...

The only thing I personally could do is mention the subject during my talk I intend to give on 7th September in Denmark. Does Denmark have a similar constitution?


Caroline Stephens

============================================

To Rodney and others. Regarding your email that proving the treaties are illegal would be long winded. I disagree. If any parliamentarian, Lord or commoner were to explain in parliament the arguments contained in the Kilmuir letter the treaties would themselves be declared illegal and null and void.*

The problem is not the time taken on unnecessary 'long winded' negotiations.  it is the lack of courage by the individuals pointing stating in parliament that the treaties are illegal. A glaring example is UKIP's Douglas Carswell who literally runs away when questioned about the legality of the treaties.

Nothing will change unless these so called Eurosceptics, notably now David Davis are forced to openly discuss the illegal treaties.

I can only see two ways to achieve this.

1) By persons such as yourself threatening to expose the dishonesty of the main players or

2) Actually exposing the truth on a live media conference.

John T.
=============================
---------------------------------------------------------
 
From: Kate
Subject: Re: Government responded to “Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act immediately on EU Referendum OUT vote.”
 



I note that Heseltine is being given extensive airtime on BBC Radio 4 lately, to repeat his lying mantra that Parliament is sovereign and not the people. He may repeat it as he pleases, it will never make it the truth.


Civil servants are trained with the indoctrination that 'this democratically elected government' has the power to do anything.


Kacey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rodney
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2016, 19:52
Subject: Re: Government responded to “Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act immediately on EU Referendum OUT vote.”






No - as I write on Freenations we don't

have to prove illegality (long winded)

Simply rescind the treaties in the same way

they were signed - by ministers acting with

Crown Prerogative Powers granted by the

Queen as sovereign acting on behalf of us

 - the actual sovereigns !!!




RA

 Sent from my iPhone



 On 3 Aug 2016, at 19:47, roger wrote:





Thanks for continuing to pursue this Rodney. Needless to say, you are not alone.



Since the EC Act would fail, once the treaties are rescinded, all we have to do (it seems) is to demonstrate that the treaties are invalid.




Possible reasons for invalidity would appear to be that British Ministers were bribed to sign them, or that they contravened constitutional law - knowingly in the case of Ted Heath. Is that correct?




If so, then is there an international forum where the case might be made, WITHOUT depending on UK Judiciary or Politicians (who seem to have been complicit by default) perhaps citing the UN Charter, or the Vienna Convention?





The chances of succeeding in our own courts, against those who seem all too ready to betray us, seems something of a long shot.




Apologies for asking what might be a dumb question.




Regards




Roger

============================


On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Caroline Stephens
Have you had experience of the time given before the government has to respond to e petitions in the past? Could the fact that it is August pose a 'problem'? I am speaking to Danish politicians on 7th September. I don't see why I shouldn't mention this.



On 3 Aug 2016 17:31, "john TIMBRELL"  wrote:





Dear Rodney, Please ask Lord Stoddart's opinion on the law explained in the Kilmuir letter.

The reply that you received from Lord Stoddart is similar to the reply Lord Tebbit gave to me. I then followed it up with the details contained in the Kilmuir letter. Instead of discussing the contents of the letter he denigrated me. There is no doubt in my mind that these men know exactly what the law is and that they choose to say silent. The bottom line as I see it is that if I had a friend who knew the law and chose not to follow it for whatever reason I would expose him.

My judgement may seem harsh but by refusing to acknowledge that the treaties are unlawful he is allowing the establishment to continue to break the law in many other ways. Children are continued to be abused so that the Globalists can use the evidence to control and blackmail establishment figures. I am not saying that Lord Stoddart or Lord Tebbit and many others are pedophiles but their silence on this allows it to continue.




You have circulated an email regarding the Sharia Law petition. Of note is the fact that 10 days after reaching 10,000 there is still no government response. Likewise the Kilmuir petition has received no response. There needs to be positive action to force these issues into the public arena. Quite honestly I absolutely hate putting you in this position but I do not know anyone else except Caroline Stephens and Justin Walker with enough public presence to call a live media conference to put this into the public arena. Perhaps you know of others who would join you. David Davis should be forced to respond publicly so that the law can be exposed.

If not I cannot see any other way to avoid the further slide into slavery. Possibly you could put pressure on The Lords Tebbit and Stoddart and David Davis and Liam Fox by explaining that you have already arranged a media conference and pointing out that Russia Today has a video of your views which will be published should anything happen to you. Sincerely and with best wishes JohnT




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: RodneySent: 03 August 2016 10:51
To: annette
Cc:
Subject: Re: Referendum wash up! Further letter to MP


Please pass on. I could not put original cc's in




I am afraid I don't agree with my old friend Lord Stoddart on the important first step

As I have explained on Freenations the only critical step is to rescind the Treaties including the EU Accession Treaty by Ministers obtaining Crown Prerogative Powers - in other words an exact reversal of the process of entry

The 1972 Act merely put the treaty into UK law. As soon as the treaties are rescinded the 1972 Act has no meaning - so we do not have to rely on a treasonous and very thick Parliament to repeal anything!!!

 RA

========================================






'Andrew Turner' <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Referendum wash up!

 

Hello Andrew,

Within an ultra-short space of time if you people at Westminster do nothing about the crisis in this country, and the total  lack of interest from the police especially Hogan Hough, there will be pandemonium and riots  in the streets and they will run red with blood ( as was once predicted by Enoch Powell) (a thoroughly decent and honest man) because there are so many yellow gutless wonders within the walls of Westminster who have either not got clue regarding what is going on in this country or are too damned scared to do anything about it, and the only thing they are interested in is pay time. I guess it won’t be long before anarchy will creep in.

Make a name for yourself Andrew, scream and shout as loud as you can within those hallowed halls and make people sit up and listen and take notice.

Regards,

Martin

=====================================

From: Nick C.
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; home.n[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Fw: Referendum wash up!
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:11:56 +0000


Well Mrs May - when the hell are you going to start putting some Brexit markers down. You missed your biggest opportunity standing outside No 10 on your first day when you should have announced no more money going to Brussels, no more immigration until we have our system organised, no more EU fishing in our grounds. But you missed these.
WE 17 MILLION VOTERS FOR BREXIT ARE WATCHING YOU VERY CLOSELY AND SHOULD YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL THEN BE IT ON YOUR HEAD - WE 17 MILLION WHO VOTED TO END THE HEATH TREASON WILL NOT TOLERATE FURTHER FOOT DRAGGING. CONTRARY TO WHAT YOUR IDIOTS IN WESTMINSTER THOUGHT,  THE VOTE FOR BREXIT WAS  N O T  ANYTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRANTS. IT WAS ALL TO DO WITH ENDING THE 43 YEARS OF TREASON THAT WAS COMMITTED BY HEATH AND SUPPORTED BY WESTMINSTER. 
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WESTMINSTER, WHEN WILL YOU DAMNED WELL READ THE CONSTITUTION WE ALREADY HAVE AND HAVE HAD FOR CENTURIES AND STOP PRETENDING IT DOESN'T EXIST AND START ACTING WITHIN IT?????
YOU ARE A BLOODY DISGRACE THE LOT OF YOU - NOT ONE OF YOU KNOW THE CONSTITUTION OR COMMON LAW. AND WHY ARE THERE DENIZENS IN POSITIONS OF POWER IN THIS COUNTRY? THE ATTACHED PHOTOS PROVE TO YOU WHY THE LAW ON DENIZENS WAS PASSED.


AND, MRS MAY, DO YOU KNOW THEN THE NEXT TARGET FOR DEMOCRACY? IT IS TO GET RID OF THE PARTY SYSTEM, A PARADIGM OF UNEQUALLED UNDEMOCRATIC DESIGN. WE SHALL GET RID OF PARTY MPs IN FAVOUR OF INDEPENDENT MPs WHO CAN THEN VOTE WITH THEIR CONSCIENCE AND NOT WHAT THE BLOODY WHIPS TELL THEM AND BLACKMAIL THEM WITH. THIS CORRUPTION OF DEMOCRACY HAS GONE ON TOO LONG!!!!




Nick C.


Worcester - The Faithful City

==============================================================


Referendum wash up!


These definitions of odious debt don’t help much - although the classic case in Europe was the way the nazis forced the Greek State to take on debt to fund their conquest of Greece and that could be said to apply to the debts incurred today by Greece conquered by the Euro!!!




But the real trouble both here and in the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties is that Treaty law and Crown prerogative take absolutely no notice of the essence of the modern state - ie that the voters are the sovereigns, not the sovereign STATE.




Nowhere in the Vienna Convention does it say that a State’s PEOPLE must approve or be consulted to make a treaty valid. Equally as regards odious debt there is no mention of approval by voters of debts incurred by the State




RA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




On the 3rd of August Jane wrote





We mustn’t trigger Article 50, I see it as a trap, as does Rodney Atkinson.


 


As you say Jerry, we need to repeal the ECA1972, which is already void and of no legal force under the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969.


 


We should then walk away treating the debt as Odious Debt, and arranging trade agreements afterwards.


 


I wrote to the treasury under Osbourne about this, and they ignored the item on Odious Debt.


 


Before we joined the EC, Germany and others on the continent had been paying their pensions in real time from their taxes, never building up a surplus for bad times, whereas Britain had, and Germany and others desperately wanted Britain’s money and a slice of the pension pot to pay for their pensions.


 


The attached paper is the UN’s discussion paper on Odious Debt.


 


The UN recognise Odious Debt see attached paper page 2.


 


“The Concept of Odious Debt in Public International Law 2007”


United Nations Conference on Trade and Development – Discussion Paper no.185


 



I. DEFINITION OF THE ODIOUS DEBT CONCEPT
The modern concept of odious debts was first articulated in the post-World War I context, by the jurist Alexander Nahun Sack, in his 1927 book The Effects of State Transformations on their Public Debts and Other Financial Obligations.

 

For Sack, odious debts were debts contracted and spent against the interests of the population of a State, without its consent, and with full awareness of the creditor. Sack (1929) wrote as follows:

 

“…if a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the

State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress its population that fights

against it, etc., this debt is odious for the population of the State.

 

“The debt is not an obligation for the nation; it is a regime’s debt, a personal debt of the power that has incurred it, consequently it falls within this power….The reason these ‘odious’ debts cannot be considered to encumber the territory of the State, is that such debts do not fulfill one of the conditions that determines the legality of the debts of the State, that is: the debts of the State must be incurred and the funds from it employed for the needs and in the interest of the State.

 

‘Odious’ debts, incurred and used for ends which, to the knowledge of the

creditors, are contrary to the interests of the nation, do not compromise the latter – in the case that the nation succeeds in getting rid of the Government which incurs them – except to the extent that real advantages were obtained from these debts.”

 

Sack divided odious debts into several categories: war debts, subjugated or imposed debts, and regime debts. Other jurists have used slightly different taxonomies. O’Connell (1967) referred to “hostile debts” in addition to war debt; others have referred to “profligate debts”. Still others refer to a new category of “developing world debts not spent in the interests of the population” framing the concept in terms of irresponsible or odious lending (Khalfan et al., 2003).1

 

The most common classical types of odious debts are hostile debts and war debts.

“Hostile debts” can be defined as debts incurred to suppress secessionist movements, to conquer peoples and so forth.

“War debts” are debts contracted by the State for the purpose of funding a war which the State eventually loses and whereby the victor is not obliged to repay the debt.

 

In the context of the negotiation of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties (still not ratified) Mohammed Bedjaoui2, Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission, concluded that “odious debt” is an umbrella

term covering a range of specific debts – war debts and subjugated or imposed debts being but two examples. He clarified the situation as follows:

 

(a) From the standpoint of the successor State, an odious debt can be taken to mean a state debt contracted by the predecessor State to serve purposes contrary to the major interests of either the successor State or the territory that is transferred to it;

 

(b) From the standpoint of the international community, an odious debt could be taken to mean any debt contracted for purposes that are not in conformity with contemporary international law and, in particular, the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.3

 

Sack believed that state practice was such that the doctrine of odious debts could be said to be part of positive international law – a generally accepted rule of law. However, to avoid opportunistic use of the doctrine in inappropriate situations, Sack (1929: 163) proposed a process for the practical application of the doctrine that would be fair to all parties:

 

“(1) The new Government would have to prove and an international tribunal

would have to ascertain the following:

 

“(a) That the needs which the former Government claimed in order to

contract the debt in question, were odious and clearly in contradiction to

the interests of the people of the entirety of the former State or a part

thereof, and

“(b) That the creditors, at the moment of paying out the loan, were aware

of its odious purpose.

 

“(2) Upon establishment of these two points, the creditors must then prove that the funds for this loan were not utilized for odious purposes – harming the people of the entire State or part of it – but for general or specific purposes of the State which do not have the character of being odious.”

 

The above formulation does not appear to require that the creditors be aware of how in fact the funds were actually spent. Nevertheless, subsequent jurists, notably O’Connell (1967: 459), treat this aspect as implicit in Sack’s formulation.


_______________________________________________

1 See also the discussion of illegitimate debt in New Economics Foundation, Odious Lending: Debt Relief

As If Morals Mattered, (2005): illegal debt, onerous debt, odious debt, unsustainable debt, moral debt,

environmental debt, historical debt.

2 Currently a member of the International Court of Justice.

3 Ninth Report on the Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, 1977 Yearbook of the

International Law Commission, Vol. 2 (Part 1): 68 and 70.

 

 

Jane Birkby

 

 



All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

Date: 1 August 2016 at 13:00
Subject: Referendum wash up!

Dear All


Please see below my draft note on the referendum and the lack of any governmental advice as to the costs of staying in an organisation with such loss making potential. I believe the government ministers seriously misled the public and the voters by not making clear the horrendous financial consequences of staying in. They were all in my opinion guilty of malfeasance in office.

 

Please read my note below and let me have ASAP any comments etc particularly on the actions called for in the conclusions.

 

Best regards

Jerry Wraith

 

GET THE UK OUT OF THE EU NOW!

 

 


The hypocrisy of our politicians knows no bounds. David Cameron who said “he loves his country” was given a standing ovation in parliament by the Conservative Party members when he finally resigned as Prime Minister. Yet he and his followers in the “remain” campaign comprehensively deceived the UK voters by not telling them their commitment to staying in the EU was making UK taxpayers currently liable for:

 

 

 

PAYMENTS TO THE EU OF OVER 1 TRILLION EUROS

 

 


And, in the future:

 

 

 

SUPPORTING THE 30+ TRILLION EURO COST OF EU PENSIONS

 

 


1 CURRENT UK LIABILITIES TO THE EU

 

 


In his report, “The UK’s liabilities to the financial mechanisms of the EU” published by the Bruges Group, Bob Lyddon, of Lyddon Consulting Services Ltd., concludes that:


 
“The net effect (of leaving the EU) would be a need to refinance GBP30 billion via the UK Debt Management Office, thus increasing the UK’s direct national debt whilst releasing the UK from contractual commitments up EUR1.23 trillion and the inferred obligation to offer “extraordinary support” of an unlimited amount above that.” (My emphasis.)


 
The case for leaving the EU immediately to avoid heavy payments to the EU is therefore overwhelming.

 

 


The best way this can be achieved is by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. In doing so it would be mainly to the EU’s advantage for the UK to offer to retain existing tariff free trading arrangements for, say, 5 years or until formal trading arrangements are agreed. This offer will in fact cost the UK £billions as the UK will lose the import duty on goods imported from the EU. (NB It should be noted that there are strong arguments to support the contention that joining the EEC in 1973 was in any event illegal, making all subsequent EU treaties signed by the UK invalid.)1

 

 


2 ADDITIONAL UK LIABILITY FOR EU PENSIONS

 

 


Young people agitating against the Leave vote are totally and completely misguided. Their future prospects due to staying in the EU would have surely resulted in an obligation to help support millions of EU pensioners resulting in massive debt for all their working lives.

 

This is because there is a massive “hole” looming in the pension funding for many EU countries according to a study commissioned by the European Central Bank. The 18 EU countries examined in the report compiled by the Research Center for Generational Contracts at Freiburg University in 2009 had almost 30 trillion euros, (equivalent to1 million euros/UK taxpayer), of projected obligations to their existing populations. As the UK generally pays about 16% of the EU’s total contributions this implies that the UK would be exposed to contributing a minimum 160,000 euros for each UK taxpayer over their working life to support the EU’s pension liability.

 

Germany accounted for 7.6 trillion euros and France 6.7 trillion euros of the liabilities, authors Christoph Mueller, Bernd Raffelhueschen and Olaf Weddige said in the report. The largest pension liabilities in %GDP can be found in France (362.2%), (361.1%), Austria (359.9%) and Germany (329.6%). This was before the massive influx of immigrants into Germany and the EU generally.

 

The UK had the lowest pension liability of those examined at 91.2%. Despite this the UK pensionable age is likely to rise to 68 from 60 in a few years. What does that say about the pension prospects for countries like France, Poland, Austria and Germany with pension liabilities which are over 3 times their GDP? In addition, it is predicted that whilst there are currently 4 people working in the UK for every pensioner this will drop to 2 people/pensioner by 2050, thus doubling their liability.


3 UK TRADE WITH THE EU

 

 


It is totally incomprehensible why politicians from three of the main political parties were, and many still are, determined to subject the UK taxpayers to paying the EU vast sums of money on demand by the EU and over which the UK has no control whatsoever for “trade”. 


 
This is even more incomprehensible considering how much trade with the EU has already cost the UK. For example, in 2014:


 
·        The UK exported £228 billion worth of goods and services to the EU.


·        But, it cost the UK economy in the region of £190 billion2 to be in the EU.


·        UK trade with the EU resulted in a balance of payments deficit of £61.6 billion.


 
Hence, in 2014 alone it could have cost the UK over £23 billion more to be in the EU and trade with the EU than the UK’s total exports in goods and services to the EU!

 

 


Since the UK joined the EEC in 1973:

 

 


·        The total current accumulated balance of payments in UK/EU trade is a deficit of over £1.25 trillion.


·        Whereas the UK has had a surplus in its trade with the rest of the world.


·        Not only that, the UK has so far paid the EU net budgetary contributions currently worth £415 billion.


 
Is it any wonder therefore that the UK has a national debt of over £1.75 trillion?


 
Furthermore, Michael Burrage, in his report “Where’s the insider advantage?” published by Civitas showed that there is NO CASE that EU membership is good for UK exports or for foreign direct investment. EU membership for the UK is therefore a colossal waste of our time and money!

 

4 CONCLUSIONS

 

Politicians, like Cameron, Osborne, Theresa May, Nichola Sturgeon etc. all vigorously promoted the UK’s membership of the EU in the recent referendum. Not once did any of them make clear to the general public the vast costs involved in continued EU membership or the huge losses we incurred through trading with the EU. As government representatives they were all allegedly wilfully and deliberately deceiving the UK public and the voters. They should all therefore be tried for malfeasance in public office

 

The legality of joining the EEC in 1973 is also highly questionable. Lord Kilmuir’s letter to PM Edward Heath in 1972, referred to in Petition No 122770 must be thoroughly investigated by means of a Royal Commission and action taken against the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties for perpetuating our EU membership if this is confirmed to have been illegal.

 

J Wraith

 

1st Aug 2016

 

References.

 

1 See Freenations article by Rodney Atkinson http://freenations.net/leaving-the-eu-we-joined-illegally/

 

2 “How much does the European Union cost Britain” by Tim Congdon. 2015 version.

 

 
<The Concept of Odious Debt in Public International Law 2007 osgdp20074_en.pdf>


 

« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 09:58:53 AM by the leveller »

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4107
  • +75/-0
Re: Referendum wash up!
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2016, 07:21:20 PM »
CHILD ABUSE & BREXIT 
 



http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/child-abuse-cover-police-whistleblower-speaks





The bottom line is this goes right to the top.To expose this you could organise a live media conference. Not to mention the child abuse which allows the Kilmuir letter to be kept secret but to expose the fact that 12 separate Chief Constables accepted the treason crime complaints against Francis Maude, John Major and Douglas Hurd which were sent to Bernard Hogan Howe to investigate. About that time he submitted his resignation to Theresa May as Home secretary. According to press reports she refused to accept it.

So there you have hard documented evidence that these crimes were accepted but not investigated. You Rodney came up against the same wall when the attorney general blocked your case as not being in the public interest. I'm sure now that if before that you did not realise what you are up against, the fact that your friends disagree with you must demonstrate the power that silences them. Just excusing them by saying that they disagree with you is a form of assisting the fact that they will not accept the truth. They, you, or anyone else cannot argue if challenged that giving away our sovereignty to another country is treason. 12 Chief constables have accepted this fact. If David Davis will not expose this he has committed misprision of treason.

I suspect that you three, Rodney Caroline and Justin know of others who know the true situation. With or without their help you could expose the truth by going live in front of the media. That should protect you from harm, particularly if you were to stay in a very public hotel or even join Julian Assange in the Ecuador Embassy.This of course would give added publicity. This should not be necessary for long because once the door had been opened, many such as MP Frank Field who must have very troubling consciences would come out to support you. That's it. You could carry on with your lives, no doubt with nagging consciences, but to all appearances life would go on as before; or you could change the way this country is run. I will be circulating this in the hope that others of a similar mind can give you at least moral support.Please you do have the power to save this country and those kids who are abused to satisfy corrupt establishment figures whose  crimes allow the whole stinking mess to continue. Sincerely JohnT.


 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk