justice4nifong: When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

Saturday, October 5, 2013

When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

652 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 652 of 652

Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Face it, the laws of the land are not sacred. Many are unjust and immoral. Those that are not fair and just are the ones that need to be challenged by all civic minded citizens who want to make a positive improvement in society."

Face it yourself. The laws which you define as unjust and unfair are laws like the ones which preven you from extorting money from people with your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits.; October 23, 2013 at 7:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I am curious, Walt. Did Harr have a right to record the conversation with the security guard and Coleman? Was he obligated to tell each one of them that he was recording their voices? I wonder if Coleman knew he was being recorded.
It was clear that Coleman wanted nothing to do with the situation in which Harr entangled him. That was obvious.
And, I wonder how Coleman feels, knowing that he was recorded and that the recording was published on this web site. In fact, I wonder if he knows it is here.???

I made no effort to conceal the recorder and in fact held in right in the face of the security guard as though I was conducting an interview. All concerned knew that I was recording the conversation.

And, I have no intention of making a profit off of the recording... just in case you're interested.; October 23, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The Duke Lacrosse defendants are the ones who extorted money out of Duke."

No they didn't. Duke settled with them rather than defend against lawsuits they would have filed. That is a de facto, if not a formal, admission of wrongdoing. It is also a motivator of your suit against Duke. You had dreams of shaking down Duke for millions.

"Assuming that you are referring to me in you comment, Duke discriminated against me and tried to have me arrested... all with malice and premeditation. I have suffered as a result of its diabolical actions and I deserve compensation for it. It's really very simple."

No they did not and no you have not. You have heartburn because you could not shake down Duke the way you delusionally imagined the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players did.

"Let me know if further edification is required."

A delusional megalomaniac is incapable of elucidating anyone, especially himself.; October 23, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
And, let's remember when Carter murdered Demitrius Greene, Carter was a convicted felon. That means he forfeited his right to even posses a firearm. So when Sid says that somehow Carter had the right to self defense, he did not have the right to use a firearm in self defense. That's one of the rights you lose by being a felon.

Further, Carter was committing felonies when this all took place. Drug dealing on the streets of Wilmington. Using a firearm to protect your corner isn't legal, and it certainly isn't justice.

Walt-in-Durham

C'mon, Walt. Get real. Shan wasn't using the firearm to protect "his corner." He used it to save his life.

So, according to your interpretation of the law, it would've been okay for Carter to defend himself by using a knife or garrotte... just so long as it wasn't a firearm... Right?; October 23, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You and your garage sale and Duke holding a conference open to the public are two entirely different things. Let me repeat, I was in the process of leaving the campus when I was intercepted by the security guard and repeatedly threatened with arrest."

The recording you posted clearly shows you picked a fight with the guard. Why did you not just say you were leaving instead of getting belligerent?

"I certainly did deserve an answer as to why I was being asked to leave when there was no reason for the guard to do so."

Again, why did you not just go ahead and leave rather than get belligerent with him?

"I'm sure that if you were in a store and were asked, without reason, to leave, the first thing out of your mouth would be, 'Why?'"

As for me, no it wouldn't. I would think, if they don't want my business, so be it. I'll go elsewhere. I am not a deluded megalomaniac like SIDNEY HARR.; October 23, 2013 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Brubaker needs to direct his warning to Dr. Nichols. I'm not the person who authored a perjured autopsy report."

Another straw fisherman holding up a red herring.

I hope Dr. Nichols files suirt against you. You would be forced yo prove your allegations. Being an untrained incompetent physician, you will be unable to do so. When he wins a big judgment against you, will your J$N gang pay it? No.; October 23, 2013 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"

"I made no effort to conceal the recorder and in fact held in right in the face of the security guard as though I was conducting an interview. All concerned knew that I was recording the conversation.

And, I have no intention of making a profit off of the recording... just in case you're interested."

You are still too delusional and megalomaniacal to realize that recording establishes that you were out of line with the guard.

You are interested in getting a windfall from the courts.

At least you realize no one sane would pay money for your ravings.; October 23, 2013 at 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"C'mon, Walt. Get real. Shan wasn't using the firearm to protect 'his corner.' He used it to save his life.

So, according to your interpretation of the law, it would've been okay for Carter to defend himself by using a knife or garrotte... just so long as it wasn't a firearm... Right?"

Except Shan Carter was not acting in self defense as the law defines it. He was committing felonies. He was in illegal possession of a firearm. He killed Tyrone Baker as Tyrone Baker was fleeing. And he provoked the conflict in the first place.

You have not answered the question, how could a man with a .357 magnum slug in his leg and a .357 slug in his torso have fled/

Why do you say Shan Carter hit him with his first two rounds when Shan Carter testified he aimed the first two rounds at the ground, not at Tyrone Baker?

How is going out on the street to deal illegal drugs while packing an illegally possessed firearm just minding your own business?

The facts indicate Shan Carter's mindset was, if Tyrone Baker tries to get his money back, I will blow him away.

Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker and Demetrius Green because he wanted to keep the money he stole from Tyrane Baker.; October 23, 2013 at 8:22 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "So, according to your interpretation of the law, it would've been okay for Carter to defend himself by using a knife or garrotte... just so long as it wasn't a firearm"

Sid -- According to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), federal law bans convicted felons from possessing firearms or ammunition.

It doesn't matter what he was using it for...; October 23, 2013 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: No, the garage sale example and the Duke incident are just the same. both private property. And, no, neither duke nor I have to give you an answer to a "why" question. I can ask you to leave.......and if you do not, I can call the police and have you removed. simple as that. the fact that you don't like it is not relevant.
If you were in the process of leaving the campus, then you should have just continued on your way. That is not what you did. You began to ask questions, get upset, stop Coleman, argue, demand answers and generally become a disturbance. Having been asked to leave, and not doing so, at that moment you were tresspassing.
Duke has a very clear nonsolictation policy and you violated it.
I have the same policy on my private property. If you came to my garage sale and tried handing out your cards, I would tell you to leave.......and if you did not do so immediately, I would call the police and have your sorry ass taken to the curb.; October 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...: It is stupid and a waste of time to argue about Carter. This guy is going to rot in prison........and I hope he is miserable for rest of his rotten life
Oh, and sign me up, too........; October 23, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: One does wonder why Harr just happened to have a recorder on him???? Perhaps because he knew he was going to create his little scene....and wanted to manufacture some idiotic grounds for extorting money.....; October 23, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: ""So, according to your interpretation of the law, it would've been okay for Carter to defend himself by using a knife or garrotte [sic]... just so long as it wasn't a firearm"

Demetrius Greene would still be alive if Carter had used a knife or garrote to kill Tyrone Baker.; October 23, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: to Lance

Sometimes I wonder why SIDNEY did not blame Tyrone Baker for the death of Demetrius Green. Tyrone Baker ran in front of the Green family's car while fleeing Shan Carter.; October 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction of typos:

SIDNEY HARR:

"Brubaker needs to direct his warning to Dr. Nichols. I'm not the person who authored a perjured autopsy report."

Another straw fisherman holding up a red herring.

I hope Dr. Nichols files suit against you. You would be forced to prove your allegations. Being an untrained incompetent physician, you will be unable to do so. When he wins a big judgment against you, will your J4N gang pay it? No.; October 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: My questions about the recording device were not directed to you, wingnut. And, no, I could care less what you do with your silly recording. All it does is prove what a jackass you are...and how very much Coleman did NOT want any part of your little melodrama.; October 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...: poor little baby harr.....can't get any money? can't get any attention? waaaaaah....booohooo; October 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I'm not going to file any lawsuit against the Security guard or the Duke campus policeman because they were only doing what they were told by some unknown person who Duke refuses to identify... probably from Dean Levi or President Brodhead's office. The guard repeatedly said that he was only doing what he was told. There's no way that I'm going to attack in court a person who is only doing as instructed. (If he didn't, he wouldn't be employed for very long.) I have no ill will against him, and, in fact, I appreciate him for not following through with the initial plan to arrest me. My beef is not with the guard or the campus police."

That is, of course, your choice. However, had you filed against the DU Police officer, your § 1983 action would have survived rule 12(b)(6) and you would have gotten to the discovery phase. There, you would have found out who gave the order. But, you choice. You cannot then claim you were denied your day in court by anyone but yourself.

"Comprende?"

I fully comprehend. You fouled up the case and you are not man enough to admit it.

Walt-in-Durham; October 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Face it, the laws of the land are not sacred. Many are unjust and immoral. Those that are not fair and just are the ones that need to be challenged by all civic minded citizens who want to make a positive improvement in society."

Some are, most are not. The way to change laws you don't think are just is to first accept they are the law, second to understand the laws and third to articulate a rational reason for changing them. The laws you have challenged, § 1983 for example does not provide protection to supporters of Nifong. § 1983 does not provide for vicarious liability. Is that unjust? You never say why.

Walt-in-Durham; October 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: People like Harr are basically all the same.....looking for attention, pretending to be smarter than they are, trying to twist and bend rules because of their skin color, or their gender, or their status in life.......all the same. Just a loser trying to cover up his own failures by blaming others. Harr likes to run his mouth, pontificate, throw around his race as an excuse....and underneath he is nothing but a cheap fraud....trying to extort, trying to get money, trying to excuse his own failures. A failure, yes. A man, hardly.; October 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I made no effort to conceal the recorder and in fact held in right in the face of the security guard as though I was conducting an interview. All concerned knew that I was recording the conversation."

Duke just looks better and better. As much as I hate to admit that.

Walt-in-Durham; October 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "C'mon, Walt. Get real. Shan wasn't using the firearm to protect "his corner." He used it to save his life."

There was no evidence from which the jury could conclude that Carter had a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary. No on, not even Carter saw a gun. If a white police officer in a deadly force against a black man case made the same argument what would you be saying?

"So, according to your interpretation of the law, it would've been okay for Carter to defend himself by using a knife or garrotte... just so long as it wasn't a firearm... Right?"

Wrong, under no circumstances was Carter allowed to have, let alone use a firearm. That's the burden of his prior felony conviction.

Walt-in-Durham; October 23, 2013 at 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: yeah, right, hard. I can just see you jamming your nasty little recorder in the face of the security guard who was just "doing his job", as you put it......I can just see you getting your black obnoxious backside all bent up in a twist, trying to look all righteously wounded, trying to drum up a cause for your melodramatic indignation. bullshit. you are a cheap actor....a fraud....and a tired old man who wants nothing more than to get money out of white people.; October 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Walt said...: Well, Sid did file his response to NC's 12(b)(6) motion. Not a valiant effort. I am torn about commenting on the law and thus giving him some free legal research or just letting you read his filing. For the time being, I am not commenting. The response can be seen at http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/

Walt-in-Durham; October 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR's reply is another compendium of uncorroborated allegations. He repeatedly refers to himself as a retired physician as if that gives him standing to challenge the autopsy report. It does not. As have pointed out before, he has no residency training, no specialty board certification, and spent most of his post medical school years going broke and filing frivolous lawsuits.I am not a lawyer but I wonder if this opens the door to bringing up SIDNEY's background or lack thereof. Watching SIDNEY tell a court that his background is irrelevant and that anyone with a 5th grade education can see the autopsy report is fraudulent, twuol be worth watching.

It is all a restatement of SIDNEY's beliefs, that he is above the law, that he is a law unto himself.; October 23, 2013 at 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY actually believes he should be compensated for declaring Dr. Nichols' autopsy report on Reginald Daye fraudulent. And he denies he is a delusional megalomaniac.; October 23, 2013 at 5:15 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: I found Sidney's reply to be priceless. I particularly enjoyed the irony of a self-proclaimed "Nifong Supporter" defending the right of a defendant not to be deliberately framed.; October 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: One of North Carolina's arguments is that Sid's claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Sid's rather....unique counter to this argument is that he doesn't understand what this means. Apparently, since Sid doesn't understand it, it shouldn't apply.

Apparently, Sid is unable to perform a simple google search, even though he took a semester of classes at Wake Technical Community College.; October 24, 2013 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: One of SIDNEY's claims is that since he was representing himself in his lawsuit against Duke, he should have been considered a lawyer and allowed to access resources maintained by the State Bar Association for the use of lawyers.

As I recall, SIDNEY refused to avail himself of legal representation, claiming any lawyer he retained would take his money and sell him out to Duke.

It seems SIDNEY is like a man who shot himself in the foot and then wanted to be compensated for his pain and suffering.; October 24, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: People have criticizede for applying the terms Nazi and Nazi-istic to one of SIDNEY's followers.

The terms should have been applied to SIDNEY himself. It is obvious from his so called legal writings, SIDNEY egards himself as a law unto himself.

Well, that is how Uncle Adolf acted in Germany.; October 24, 2013 at 10:44 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Who knew? Godwin's law applies to Sid's legal motions...; October 24, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: How about Stalin-istic or Idi Amin-istic or Pol Pot-istic.

Like those not so worthy gentlemen, SIDNEY thinks something becomes legal when he proclaims it so, like Shan Carter acted in self defense.; October 24, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Lance Perfect.; October 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Who knew? Godwin's law applies to Sid's legal motions"...... And to kenhyderal's contention that Crystal was drugged sexually assaulted and robbed. I was not familiar with Godwin's Law but as my earlier protestations indicated I sensed this.; October 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Godwin's law is irrelevant to your contention that Crystal was drugged and raped. Your contention is nothing more than a presumption of guilt on the part of men whom you do not like.

Forensic exam of the rape kit, physical exam of Crystal showed no evidence that a rape had happened. What you have is not evidence but a piece of hearsay from a source whose existence has not been proven in over 7 years.

I think you cited a quote from Barry Scheck to the effect that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sheck got that seriously wrong. Absence of evidence is evidence of nothing.; October 24, 2013 at 2:50 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: " And to kenhyderal's contention that Crystal was drugged sexually assaulted and robbed."

Godwin's law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I was simply referring to the fact that Sid's numerous legal documents have now reached the point that he has involved comparisons to Nazis.; October 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: And Kenny was referring to the fact that his moronic mystery rape theory has also reached the point that he has been compared to Nazis.

I believe the same poster is guilty in both cases.; October 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: And it seems that, in practical terms, the "law" is sometimes invoked, as a rule, to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument. Dr. Harr will you invoke the law for such a purpose here?; October 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: If the analogy of Nazi-ism - whatever that might entail - which could be different for whoever is perceiving the Nazi hood - fits - than the person who makes the fitting analogy could indeed be seen to have won the argument of the correct analogy (for them) of their perception of Nazi hood in whatever invokes the Nazi-ism into the grand scheme of 'things'.

I wonder what conclusion duke scholars have determined to be the reason why so many people could be turned into Nazis, and if indeed this was a perpetual state of the human race - and therefore always something to be invoked as fitting and correct perceptions of other events, etc.

Duke itself - with its genetic research and medical development; lack of ethical leadership; gang mentality - duke is us wielded attitudes; and it’s very defined - everyone hates us since we are duke bb - but we have to convince donors that there is benefit to them for harming the public if need be, etc., because - after all - they hate us - and we get paid big bucks to harm people for research and for others in our conclusions and practices and general outlook and evil cloaked – oh but we’re savior devils – attitudes; and genetic research and development including with foods and the environment, in addition to their allegiance of computer based nsa cia like tracking of billions with ibm, etc., and their grooming and troll like harassing and fear mongering control of the media and judicial system and politics, the government, education and health, immunizations, contagious diseases, developed cures and diseases, and their nuclear and military research and practices, …

The list goes on that could be used for examples in a collection of perspective of duke that one could quite correctly state the appearance of Nazi-ism when considering all that duke ‘is’ and has become, and no amount of argument might persuade someone holding that view to change their mind unless those perceptions were shown not to be real in existence, and even then, if they were real in existence, the perception might very well be a part of who duke is and what it does and how it is perceived and used as example – like than it too could very well become duke-ism like nazi-ism in perceptive dialog of the human race or the environment, etc. Of course, if there were no harm to so many – or even some – than that could be considered as well in the duke-ism. But the possibility to be compared to the description of nazi-ism would probably still persist given the factors involved in what the nazis did – and what duke does that could be perceived as an example of nazi-ism, and what duke has the potential to do, and how they do what they do – and why perhaps.

But still, the comparison of duke-ism to nazi-ism would 'win an argument' based on the rightness of the comparison itself - if it were proven to be true in reality.; October 24, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Lance, loved your comment!; October 25, 2013 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"And it seems that, in practical terms, the "law" is sometimes invoked, as a rule, to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument. Dr. Harr will you invoke the law for such a purpose here?"

You do not like confrontation with your presumption of guilt on the part of innocent men.

That is an indication you can not defend your untenable position.; October 25, 2013 at 5:18 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "If the analogy of Nazi-ism - whatever that might entail - which could be different for whoever is perceiving the Nazi hood - fits - than the person who makes the fitting analogy could indeed be seen to have won the argument of the correct..."

You seem to misunderstand Godwin's Law and it's corollaries.

Basically, on any forum, as the discussion continues over a period of time, it's more likely that one of the posters will compare someone or something to Hitler and/or Nazis.

This is a sign that the discussion on this particular topic has gone on too long.

When this Hitler/Nazi comparison occurs, you can safely assume at least 2 things:

1) If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult, the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.

2) If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the other side.

My (tongue in cheek) comment regarding Godwin's law and Sid's legal documents was just my way of saying that Sid's legal battles have gone on too long, and by mentioning Nazis in his latest legal document, he has lost his "battle" with the State, Duke, et al.

Of course, we've known all along Sid was fighting a losing battle.
After all, a person who represents himself at trial has a fool for a client.; October 25, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Thanks, Anonymous @ 4:58 AM!; October 25, 2013 at 6:08 AM
Walt said...: Kenny and Sid have maintained Nifong should not have lost his law license because the Grand Jury indicted. I have long reminded them of Rule 3.8's continuing applicability to the violation at hand. So, I would like to bring in another view: "Former prosecutor and law professor Karen Steinhauser said grand juries sometimes hear evidence that won't be admitted during trial that can form the basis of indictments. But she added that prosecutors must have a good faith belief that they could prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt before pursuing charges."

From the moment the first DNA analysis came in, the good faith belief he could prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt disappeared. When the DNASI results came in, there was only proof of innocence. That's why Nifong was disbarred and why he must stay disbarred.

Walt-in-Durham; October 25, 2013 at 6:11 AM
Anonymous said...: hmmm lance

well ...

the fool representing themselves may be very foolish indeed, so is therefore rightly called a fool - or foolish in their actions of course;

and therefore as well -

the nazi thing or person, event, establishment, etc. that can indeed be compared to nazi ism - can also, even though conversations have become repetitive or lost in argument options, be rightly compared to nazi ism without any additional burden of judgement or law placed upon such a descriptive perception, reality or stated being of nazi hood.

That is all i'm saying; October 25, 2013 at 6:39 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "the nazi thing or person, event, establishment, etc. that can indeed be compared to nazi ism - can also, even though conversations have become repetitive or lost in argument options, be rightly compared to nazi ism without any additional burden of judgement or law placed upon such a descriptive perception, reality or stated being of nazi hood.

That is all i'm saying"

I tried to decipher this and ended up with:

"the nazi thing...that can be compared to nazi ism - can also...be rightly compared to nazi ism without any additional burden of judgement or law placed upon such a descriptive perception, reality or stated being of nazi hood.

That is all i'm saying"

So...Basically, our anonymous poster is stating that the "nazi thing" that can be compared to Nazism can also be rightly compared to Nazism.

If that is indeed "all [you're] saying", I guess I'd have to agree with you.

I still strongly recommend you read Strunk and White's The Elements of Style.; October 25, 2013 at 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: knowing elements of writing style wouldn't help you in any way with the things you write lance - wafya; October 25, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "knowing elements of writing style wouldn't help you in any way with the things you write lance - wafya"

My posts are generally well-written (I admit to the occasional spelling errors and incorrect word usage).

My posts overall convey a message that most people with an average reading level can understand. I believe others who post here will agree -- even those who don't agree with the content of the post.

it's unfortunate that you cannot state the same. Thus the recommendation for Strunk and White's.

P.S.
I also avoid acronyms ("wayfa"?) that have no common meaning. You should do this as well.; October 25, 2013 at 9:03 AM
A Lawyer said...: Duke itself - with its genetic research and medical development; lack of ethical leadership; gang mentality - duke is us wielded attitudes; and it’s very defined - everyone hates us since we are duke bb - but we have to convince donors that there is benefit to them for harming the public if need be, etc., because - after all - they hate us - and we get paid big bucks to harm people for research and for others in our conclusions and practices and general outlook and evil cloaked – oh but we’re savior devils – attitudes; and genetic research and development including with foods and the environment, in addition to their allegiance of computer based nsa cia like tracking of billions with ibm, etc., and their grooming and troll like harassing and fear mongering control of the media and judicial system and politics, the government, education and health, immunizations, contagious diseases, developed cures and diseases, and their nuclear and military research and practices, …

Is that written in English?; October 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: A Lawyer --
It's like someone threw a bunch of words into a random sentence generator.; October 25, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9301196

Three more Shan Carter wannabes.; October 26, 2013 at 1:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Who's your daddy?; October 26, 2013 at 5:26 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 652 of 652 Newer› Newest»

Saturday, October 5, 2013

When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

652 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me