Monday, March 05, 2007

Closing argument

Humor me.

I've been studying the subject of the legality/illegality of income taxes for about 12 years now, and have learned a great deal of good information.

It is not possible, in my view, to discredit many of the conclusions to which the evidence presented by Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, and Tommy Cryer lead. But the evidence is complex and comprehensive and requires a thorough and in-depth examination before the logical conclusion can be reached and, even then, the conclusion is neither indelibly clear nor conspicuous nor self-evident to the "man-on-the-street." If presented to a jury, the evidence would do little more than confuse 99% of them, and the conclusions they would reach would be more influenced by their "everybody-knows" conventional wisdom than by the gravity of the facts presented to them.

Here is an explanation I have used in private conversations, but have never seen presented elsewhere, and is one I believe juries would understand:

Addressing the jury:
1. The claim that there is no law....requiring the average American to pay income taxes and file tax returns.... has been made as far back as the early 1960's at least, perhaps even earlier. Those who made the claim were typically labeled as "kooks," "conspiracy theorists," and "tax cheats."

2. Yet the claim persisted, and re-surfaced year in and year out, albeit from a small number of people who had labored through the endless turning of pages at law libraries.

3. Many such people challenged the IRS with their research and the IRS's response was not to show them the law but, instead, to put them in jail to silence them. The victims of that ruthless tactic went to jail without having seen a law.

4. Then people began formally writing the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, the Attorney General, 535 members of Congress, the administrators of the Federal Register, Law Professors, and so-called legal scholars everywhere. Though a few members of Congress, and the keepers of the Federal Register, HAVE responded on rare occasions in earlier years by stating in writing that no entry in the Federal Register has ever identified a specific law requiring the paying of income taxes or filing of tax returns, no such admission has ever been made by the IRS, Treasury, or DOJ. There has been no such response by ANYONE in government in recent years.

5. Meanwhile, the IRS and DOJ has continued to discredit and put in jail the people who spoke out and insisted "there is no law."

6. There can be no question that the senior key people in all these government agencies have long known of the alleged "controversy." They have chosen to remain silent on the subject, speaking out only sufficiently to acknowledge that the tax code is "confusing," but insist that the claim, and the alleged evidence upon which it was founded, is ridiculous, frivolous, anti-American, and is only asserted by dishonest people who don't want to pay their "fair share."

7. Since the Internet has made researching the law relatively easy....as compared to the physical turning of pages in law libraries....and has made the results achieved more reliable than ever before, the number of people insisting there is no law has grown from a few to a few hundred thousand. This steadily expanding body of citizens includes educated people, professional people, doctors, dentists, businessmen and women, CPA's, former IRS agents, and a growing number of lawyers. These people are NOT kooks, they are NOT conspiracy theorists, they are NOT dishonest, and they don't wish to avoid paying any obligation they legitimately owe. They believe that if you see someone stealing from your neighbor, you ought to tell him.

8. After "government" has been painfully aware of the "confusion" and "controversy" for several decades, a prudent person would expect that the Congress would simply pass legislation that would clarify the issue and make the requirement (that most Americans are liable to pay income taxes and file returns) clear and unambiguous, eliminate the confusion, and put the "controversy" to rest, once and for all. They certainly would do that if there were any question as to the legality or illegality of murder or armed robbery or rape or child molestation.

9. But they haven't. The Congress has been tight-lipped and has said nothing. The DOJ and IRS have said, when accused of not answering the people's questions, "We ARE answering the questions. We're answering them with prosecutions." Instead of explaining their position to the people they profess to serve, they pull out a club and beat them over the head and say "You have to pay taxes and file returns because we SAY you do, and that's all you need to know."

10. Fifty years. Five decades. Two score and ten years. Half a century. In all that time, consider how much money the federal government has spent on investigations, raids of people's homes and offices, prosecutions, costs of trials, incarcerations, paying welfare to families left unsupported when heads of households go to prison, feeding and clothing and providing health care for those who they have incarcerated, and on and on the list of expenses goes, to say nothing of the untold numbers of people who have committed suicide because of IRS harassment, threats, and persecutions. That tactic has been a very expensive "non-solution" to a problem they could have easily solved 40 or 50 years ago by simply passing into law an amendment that would need be no more than two or three paragraphs printed on a piece of paper. There are many taxes legitimately required by the tax code that are unequivocal and are plainly stated in simple language any reader can understand, but that is not the case with regard to the individual income tax. Why the law continues to imply, but deliberately not state a requirement, remains a mystery clouded in secrecy.

11. That brings up the question "WHY?" Why has Congress not amended the tax code to eliminate the "confusion" and the attendant "controversy," once and for all time?

12. Permit me to suggest the answer:...the only answer that makes any sense. "Because to pass such an amendment, clearly imposing a tax upon the wages and salaries, upon the labor and private property of U.S. Citizens, would violate the CONSTITUTION, and they aren't about to do that. It's much more profitable to just keep on extorting a TRILLION DOLLARS each year from an uninformed and gullible public, by using brute POWER and the force of arms to intimidate and terrorize the general population, and drive ever-increasing numbers of them to suicide.

In closing, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today YOU are the LAW. Today you can begin to turn the tide that will eliminate the illegal and unconstitutional taxes you and most Americans have been intimidated into paying since your first job at McDonald's, or wherever you began your earning life. As a jury, you have more power today than the Supreme Court of the United States, more power than all the lawyers, all the federal prosecutors and all the federal judges combined. Today you can return a verdict of NOT GUILTY that no power on earth can overturn, a verdict that you need never explain or justify to ANYONE, inside or outside of government, and a verdict that no one and no government agency can ever retaliate against you for rendering. Your decision can be questioned only by your own conscience and by God Almighty.

Today you can do your civic duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America....when these representatives of government WILL NOT....and you can join for posterity those 56 brave men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. As Jesus Christ has said "I go to prepare a place for you," so too can you tell your children and grandchildren "I have helped to prepare a better place for you and your children." You can display and preserve your sacred honor TODAY for the whole world to see! You can do more today than all the juries which have gone before you in the past 50 years. And you can forever hold your heads high, for you will truly be heroes. This defendant CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY, unless and until someone SHOWS US THE LAW.

Thank you.
Fred Marshall

8 Comments:

Blogger lifetimenonfiler said...

good post Fred! most exellent

5:54 PM  
Blogger The Greek said...

Well Put!
Now how do we get the somnabulant nation to wake up, to their RIGHTS and Responsibilities?

The Greek

6:19 PM  
Blogger Mark Yannone said...

Thank you, Fred. Very well said!

6:40 PM  
Blogger whynot said...

Superb!! My thoughts exactly. Just within the last month we have all witnessed the Judicial System's insidious "jury tampering" method. I asked my mon [born 1930] if she remembers her parents ever stressing over TAX Forms, and she said NO. I asked her when did she find it necessary, and how did the scam/lie start.Probably after WWII, is all she said. The FEAR that exists in that generation is more frightening, to me, than the future of this country. They[1925-1935] all claim to have lived in the best of times; and would hate to be apart of the craziness of today. I'd like to say "thanks, look what's left; your ignorance has created a mess!" BUT we will forge ahead, and do clean-up.
-
-
Dear the Greek,
Lets start by putting the "REAL JURY INFORMATION" in every Pennysaver/ Gazette/ Review ...in the entire uSA. That's maybe the most quiet way of waking people up.They don't want to be seen talking to people like us but they will read in the privacy of their own home.
Just a thought!

6:47 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Fred... I Believe you have Outdone Yourself with this Masterpiece. Have you NAMED it yet?

Very well spoken on behalf of yourself and WE THE PEOPLE...

I... We... Thank you.

Please Post this elsewhere on the Web, and let others be Proud when they read the Words they've always known were True, but have been hidden from their Sight.

7:27 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

I've polished it up a bit:

Humor me.

I've been studying the subject of the legality/illegality of income taxes for about 12 years now, and have learned a great deal of good information.

It is not possible, in my view, to discredit many of the conclusions to which the evidence presented by Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, and Tommy Cryer lead. But the evidence is complex and comprehensive and requires a thorough and in-depth examination before the logical conclusion can be reached and, even then, the conclusion is neither indelibly clear nor conspicuous nor self-evident to the "man-on-the-street." If presented to a jury, the evidence would do little more than confuse 99% of them, and the conclusions they would reach would be more influenced by their "everybody-knows" conventional wisdom than by the gravity of the facts presented to them.

Here is an explanation I have used in private conversations, but have never seen presented elsewhere, and is one I believe juries would understand:

Addressing the jury:
1. The claim that there is no law....requiring the average American to pay income taxes and file tax returns.... has been made as far back as the early 1960's at least, perhaps even earlier. Those who made the claim were typically labeled as "kooks," "conspiracy theorists," and "tax cheats."

2. Yet the claim persisted, and re-surfaced year in and year out, albeit from a small number of people who had labored through the endless turning of pages at law libraries.

3. Many such people challenged the IRS with their research and the IRS's response was not to show them the law but, instead, to put them in jail to silence them. The victims of that ruthless tactic went to jail without having seen a law.

4. Then people began formally writing the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, the Attorney General, 535 members of Congress, the administrators of the Federal Register, Law Professors, and so-called legal scholars everywhere. Though a few members of Congress, and the keepers of the Federal Register, HAVE responded on rare occasions in earlier years by stating in writing that no entry in the Federal Register has ever identified a specific law requiring the paying of income taxes or filing of tax returns, no such admission has ever been made by the IRS, Treasury, or DOJ. There has been no such response by ANYONE in government in recent years.

5. Meanwhile, the IRS and DOJ has continued to discredit and put in jail the people who spoke out and insisted "there is no law."

6. There can be no question that the senior key people in all these government agencies have long known ofthe alleged "controversy." They have chosen to remain silent on the subject, speaking out only sufficiently to acknowledge that the tax code is "confusing," but insist that the claim, and the alleged evidence upon which it was founded, is ridiculous, frivolous, anti-American, and is only asserted by dishonest people who don't want to pay their "fair share."

7. Since the Internet has made researching the law relatively easy....as compared to the physical turning of pages in law libraries....and has made the results achieved more reliable than ever before, the number of people insisting there is no law has grown from a few to a few hundred thousand. This steadily expanding body of citizens includes educated people, professional people, doctors, dentists, businessmen and women, CPA's, former IRS agents, and a growing number of lawyers. These people are NOT kooks, they are NOT conspiracy theorists, they are NOT dishonest, and they don't wish to avoid paying any obligation they legitimately owe. They believe that if you see someone stealing from your neighbor, you ought to tell him.

8. After "government" has been painfully aware of the "confusion" and "controversy" for several decades, a prudent person would expect that the Congress would simply pass legislation that would clarify the issue and make the requirement (that most Americans are liable to pay income taxes and file returns) clear and unambiguous, eliminate the confusion, and put the "controversy" to rest, once and for all. They certainly would do that if there were any question as to the legality or illegality of murder or armed robbery or rape or child molestation.

9. But they haven't. The Congress has been tight-lipped and has said nothing. The DOJ and IRS have said, when accused of not answering the people's questions, "We ARE answering the questions. We're answering them with prosecutions." Instead of explaining their position to the people they profess to serve, they pull out a club and beat them over the head and say "You have to pay taxes and file returns because we SAY you do, and that's all you need to know."

10. Fifty years. Five decades. Two score and ten years. Half a century. In all that time, consider how much money the federal government has spent on investigations, raids of people's homes and offices, prosecutions, costs of trials, incarcerations, paying welfare to families left unsupported when heads of households go to prison, feeding and clothing and providing health care for those who they have incarcerated, and on and on the list of expenses goes, to say nothing of the untold numbers of people who have committed suicide because of IRS harassment, threats, and persecutions. That tactic has been a very expensive "non-solution" to a problem they could have easily solved 40 or 50 years ago by simply passing into law an amendment that would need be no more than two or three paragraphs printed on a piece of paper. There are many taxes legitimately required by the tax code that are unequivocal and are plainly stated in simple language any reader can understand, but that is not the case with regard to the individual income tax. Why the law continues to imply, but deliberately not state a requirement, remains a mystery clouded in secrecy.

11. That brings up the question "WHY?" Why has Congress not amended the tax code to eliminate the "confusion" and the attendant "controversy," once and for all time?

12. Permit me to suggest the answer:...the only answer that makes any sense. "Because to pass such an amendment, clearly imposing a tax upon the wages and salaries, upon the labor and private property of U.S. Citizens, would violate the CONSTITUTION, and they aren't about to do that. It's much more profitable to just keep on extorting a TRILLION DOLLARS each year from an uninformed and gullible public, by using brute POWER and the force of arms to intimidate and terrorize the general population, and drive ever-increasing numbers of them to suicide.

In closing, ladies and gentlemen of the jury....TODAY....YOU are the LAW. Today you can begin to turn the tide that will eliminate the illegal and unconstitutional taxes you and most Americans have been intimidated into paying since your first job at McDonald's, or wherever you began your earning life. As a jury, you have more power today than the Supreme Court of the United States, more power than all the lawyers, all the federal prosecutors and all the federal judges combined. Today you can return a verdict of NOT GUILTY that no power on earth can overturn, a verdict that you need never explain or justify to ANYONE, inside or outside of government, and a verdict that no one and no government agency can ever retaliate against you for rendering. Your decision can be questioned only by your own conscience and by God Almighty.

Today you can do your civic duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America....when these representatives of government WILL NOT....and you can join for posterity those 56 brave men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. As Jesus Christ has said "I go to prepare a place for you," so too can you tell your children and grandchildren "I have helped to prepare a better place for you and your children." You can display and preserve your sacred honor TODAY for the whole world to see! You can do more today than all the juries which have gone before you in the past 50 years. And you can forever hold your heads high, for you will truly be heroes. This defendant CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY, unless and until someone SHOWS US THE LAW.

Thank you.

10:55 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Hell of a Closing Argument. Think of all the Indictments and the Job openings to be had within our Judicial System as a Result.

Brings a Smile to My Face Fred.

We need Judges who are Behind the People, Behind the Bench.

Any Judge who would allow the Jury to be Manipulated, and any Judge who would allow the Un-Lawful Federal Prosecution by means of such Manipulation or otherwise... Is a Traitor to the People, to the Constitution, and to the Flag... As well as to all Those who have Died Defending them.

Any Judge who would allow this should be immediately Dis-BARRED, and Indicted for Crimes against all of the above Mentioned.

Any Judge who would allow the Federal Government and the IRS to put themselves Above the Authority of his/Our Court, Mock the LAW in his/Our Court, and Manipulate the entire Proceeding of a fair and Just Trial in his or Our Court...

Then He is either Corrupt, or He is the Weakest, Most Spineless of Court Officials.

The Judges very Duty is to prevent federal authorities, and Agencies such as the IRS from Abusing Citizen's Constitutional Rights... Not to help them unlawfully Convict us.
And the Judges Duty is to Ensure that the Jury DOES DET TO SEE, all the facts presented by both the Prosecution, and the Defense... and that the Prosecution and the Defense Swap Evidence as well.

These facts would include All past applicable Case Law, any previous Superior Court Rulings, The Internal Revenue Code itself... and Lastly, but most importantly... ALL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS FROM WHICH THE (IRC) DERIVES ALL IT"S LEGAL POWER AND AUTHORITY.

The Truth about the Un-justified, Un-Constitutional, Un-Lawfull and Un-American Persecution of Ed and Elaine Brown is one of the Clearest, most Profound, and easy to see Truth's about America Today.

Thank you.

11:28 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
By Frank Morales

October 26, 2006

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.

Source:

(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122

(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.

(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

:: Article nr. 27769 sent on 27-oct-2006 03:18 ECT



Here is the Source Link:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/27/bush-moves-toward-martial-law/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uruknet.biz%2F%3Fp%3Dm27769%26hd%3D0%26size%3D1%26l%3De&frame=true

11:57 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 

SITEMETER