December 15, 2019, 08:45:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Caylee Marie Anthony - JUSTICE DENIED #2 7/09 - 7/10/11  (Read 229446 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yoder1
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 757


« Reply #340 on: July 09, 2011, 08:31:07 PM »


Keep in mind, this article was posted before the verdict was handed down, which means everyone still thought she'd be convicted of "something".  She was acquitted of everything but lying to police.  "Florida law prohibits a person convicted of a crime from profiting from the case."  She was not convicted of murder, manslaughter, or child abuse / neglect.  It will be perfectly legal for her to discuss and profit off these charges.
This might seem silly to ask, but isn't lying to police a "crime"? She was convicted and had to serve jail time..  why doesn't that count?    Does the law specifically state which crimes a person has to be convicted of?

No one will want to interview her or make a movie about lying to the police.  Any offers will concern the murder.







Casey will NEVER talk about the murder. She won't even say Caylee's name. She just changes the subject. Boy will the big bucks be disappointed.
Logged
shutterblog
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #341 on: July 09, 2011, 08:36:47 PM »

http://m.ibtimes.com/casey-anthony-casey-anthony-verdict-cnn-nancy-grace-twitter-nancy-grace-casey-anthony-trial-casey-an-175889.html

 ::snipping2::

Future Millionaire

On the contrary, analysts say Anthony could be the future millionaire as she could profit from the extraordinary publicity of the case.

Anthony is expected to be approached by TV channels, magazines for interviews and she may earn big bucks as such offers will pay her millions.

 "I would not be surprised, given the notoriety and infamy of the case, if Casey gets $1 million to give a full interview," California defense attorney and legal analyst David Wohl told Fox News.

Even the Florida law may not be able to stop Anthony from profiting from her crime. Typically, Florida law prohibits a person convicted of a crime from profiting from that crime. But in the Anthony case, law couldn't prohibit her as she wasn't convicted of murder.  Moreover, nothing stops her from writing a book or signing a movie deal that may earn her more money.
Edit to change red color to navy.
There is a solid chance that Casey Anthony's memoir could be a best-seller as people may buy it to know what exactly happened to Caylee. If any company wants to make a movie out of it, then Anthony could really strike gold.

On the other hand, public may boycott interviews, books, or movies of Casey Anthony due to the emotional response people have expressed to the verdict.

 ::snipping2::

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0944/Sec512.htm&StatuteYear=2004

944.512  State lien on proceeds from literary or other type of account of crime for which convicted.--

(1)  A lien prior in dignity to all others shall exist in favor of the state upon royalties, commissions, proceeds of sale, or any other thing of value payable to or accruing to a convicted felon or a person on her or his behalf, including any person to whom the proceeds may be transferred or assigned by gift or otherwise, from any literary, cinematic, or other account of the crime for which she or he was convicted. A conviction shall be defined as a guilty verdict by a jury or judge, or a guilty or nolo contendere plea by the defendant, regardless of adjudication of guilt. The lien shall attach at the time of the conviction in county or circuit court. In the event of an appeal, the funds will be held in the Revolving Escrow Trust Fund of the Department of Legal Affairs until the appeal is resolved.

 ::snipping2::

So even though she was a convicted felon from the check charges, the law here for this trial applies to the crimes she was not convicted of (murder, manslaughter, child neglect / abuse) - and as mentioned previously, the lying to police charges were just misdemeanors - not felonies.
Edit to change red color to navy, with red and maroon reserved for use by admin & moderators
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 07:46:25 PM by MuffyBee » Logged
Titch
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4433



« Reply #342 on: July 09, 2011, 08:36:56 PM »

Sooo...Who were the fricken jurors that wouldn't vote Casey guilty no matter what?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/07/2305907_p2/casey-anthony-juror-says-the-jury.html
Snipped:
But Juror No. 2 didn’t buy that.

“The six that voted guilty said it didn’t matter at what point in time she came home and found out her daughter was missing,” he said. “She had to report it in some way, shape or form, and that’s where the negligence came in.”

But some jurors, he said, had decided not to convict Casey Anthony of any charge in the girl’s death. By lunch Tuesday, the guilty side started to lose votes.
Logged
Yoder1
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 757


« Reply #343 on: July 09, 2011, 08:42:18 PM »



 ::snipping2::

So even though she was a convicted felon from the check charges, the law here for this trial applies to the crimes she was not convicted of (murder, manslaughter, child neglect / abuse) - and as mentioned previously, the lying to police charges were just misdemeanors - not felonies.
[/quote]
 ::snipping2::


Didn't want to see this.
Logged
Gypsy DD
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4724



« Reply #344 on: July 09, 2011, 08:45:32 PM »

I found this also.  This was asked prior to being found not guilty (which doesn't mean innocent) anyhow, does this mean she cannot mention the lies or cannot profit at all?

Looking to the future, is there any way to keep the entire family from profiting off of books, movies, interviews, etc.? -- Lois, Dunnellon


Florida law prohibits a person convicted of a crime from profiting from the case. Any money or royalties received by the convicted criminal must be paid to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund. Anyone else can profit without government interference. I plan on playing myself in the movie. -- Judge O.H. Eaton

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28441900/detail.html#ixzz1RebwP4nU

self edit

This is very important.  It means that if Casey tried to profit from this case in the form of interviews or books about the case or a Lifetime movie deal she could not.

However I am sure Mason and Baez will make it a caveat that she is not allowed to talk about the case.  Her life before..her life after..but not the case itself.  There are loopholes and they will find them.  Also they may try to set up a dummy corp that would funnel the profits through it to her. 

This maybe the reason that Jerry Springer backed out..what would he talk about with the A's and Casey ..they are only famous because of this case. 

I hope the State gets Cindy for perjury then she couldn't talk about the case either. 

Casey is free to do anything she wants come July 17th. She was found Not Guilty, so she can sign a contract for a movie, book, interview, etc. The only thing she was found guilty of was the check fraud which was time credited, and guilty on those 4 counts of lying to cops which is a misdemeanor.

Sickening isn't it?



Yes very..and even more sickening that not only she ..but the people willing to produce these shows, movies or books will be making a profit off of a dead child.

Even though she is found guilty of lying..couldn't the State of Florida say that  lying was part of this case..and since she was guilty in that part of this case she can not profit from any part of the case.
Logged

"Commit a crime and the world is made of glass."
Ralph Waldo Emerson  1841
Jazzy
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #345 on: July 09, 2011, 08:49:38 PM »

Sooo...Who were the fricken jurors that wouldn't vote Casey guilty no matter what?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/07/2305907_p2/casey-anthony-juror-says-the-jury.html
Snipped:
But Juror No. 2 didn’t buy that.

“The six that voted guilty said it didn’t matter at what point in time she came home and found out her daughter was missing,” he said. “She had to report it in some way, shape or form, and that’s where the negligence came in.”

But some jurors, he said, had decided not to convict Casey Anthony of any charge in the girl’s death. By lunch Tuesday, the guilty side started to lose votes.
If he felt that strongly I would of never changed my vote of guilty to manslaughter or child neglect, I dont feel sorry for him at all due to he had crumbled fast and gave in to the others, If they didnt want to do the job a hung jury would of at least got it to be retried in court.
Logged
Titch
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4433



« Reply #346 on: July 09, 2011, 08:52:03 PM »

I wish the law was like that, Gypsy, unfortunately it isn't.

Stinks worse than third world sewage.
Logged
Monken
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3600



« Reply #347 on: July 09, 2011, 08:53:07 PM »

Hey Everyone! 
I found this in my legal question & answer book. Why would this not apply to this case or would it?



Question:
Can a person be put on trial for the same crime in both federal and state courts?

Answer:
Yes. If a person is accused of something that is a crime under both state and federal law, he can be tried in both a state and a federal court. The state and federal governments are seperate entities, and a conviction or acquittal in one court does not prevent a subsequent prosecution in th other. The same holds true for the punishment imposed. However, the sentence in one court might be taken into consideration in fixing the punishment in the other court-----for example, one sentence might be suspended. Being prosecuted for violating the laws of two different governments (federal and state) does not result in double jeopardy(being tried twice for the same crime), which is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The prohibition of double jeopardy is aimed solely at preventing prosecutors from bringing someone to trial again in the same court system for the same offense.
Logged

"Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden."
Phaedrus
Titch
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4433



« Reply #348 on: July 09, 2011, 08:54:01 PM »

Sooo...Who were the fricken jurors that wouldn't vote Casey guilty no matter what?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/07/2305907_p2/casey-anthony-juror-says-the-jury.html
Snipped:
But Juror No. 2 didn’t buy that.

“The six that voted guilty said it didn’t matter at what point in time she came home and found out her daughter was missing,” he said. “She had to report it in some way, shape or form, and that’s where the negligence came in.”

But some jurors, he said, had decided not to convict Casey Anthony of any charge in the girl’s death. By lunch Tuesday, the guilty side started to lose votes.
If he felt that strongly I would of never changed my vote of guilty to manslaughter or child neglect, I dont feel sorry for him at all due to he had crumbled fast and gave in to the others, If they didnt want to do the job a hung jury would of at least got it to be retried in court.

I agree. A hung jury would have made a mistrial & she would have remained in jail & tried again.

Incompetent gutless fools.
Logged
Aurelia7
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 584



« Reply #349 on: July 09, 2011, 08:56:41 PM »

Monkeys, I need help if you would be so kind.  On another forum I visit (not crime - more music related) someone posted this:

The jury did their job. There simply wasn't enough evidence to place it "beyond a reasonable doubt." She's obviously a terrible mother, but there needed to be more to prove murder.

I want to respond, but not only am I angry to the point of seizure, but when I try to think of the best way to state what I feel, my head is a tornado of thoughts.  I can't pull it together to come up with a concise argument.  I really like that analogy from NG in which she said that if you were to go outside and see puddles and people walking with umbrellas, it would be obvious that it had rained and there'd be no reason to ask for proof of rain.  (Or something like that).

Again, my head is spinning; I can't corral my thoughts!  Is there a post here or an article that really sums things up?  This is embarrassing, my having a brain-fart like this.  I've read so many opinions about the jury that I agree with, but I can't organize them.  I feel so lame.
Logged
Tamikosmom
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 37187



« Reply #350 on: July 09, 2011, 08:56:43 PM »

http://m.ibtimes.com/casey-anthony-casey-anthony-verdict-cnn-nancy-grace-twitter-nancy-grace-casey-anthony-trial-casey-an-175889.html

 ::snipping2::

Future Millionaire

On the contrary, analysts say Anthony could be the future millionaire as she could profit from the extraordinary publicity of the case.

Anthony is expected to be approached by TV channels, magazines for interviews and she may earn big bucks as such offers will pay her millions.

 "I would not be surprised, given the notoriety and infamy of the case, if Casey gets $1 million to give a full interview," California defense attorney and legal analyst David Wohl told Fox News.

Even the Florida law may not be able to stop Anthony from profiting from her crime. Typically, Florida law prohibits a person convicted of a crime from profiting from that crime. But in the Anthony case, law couldn't prohibit her as she wasn't convicted of murder.  Moreover, nothing stops her from writing a book or signing a movie deal that may earn her more money.
Edit to change red color to navy
There is a solid chance that Casey Anthony's memoir could be a best-seller as people may buy it to know what exactly happened to Caylee. If any company wants to make a movie out of it, then Anthony could really strike gold.

On the other hand, public may boycott interviews, books, or movies of Casey Anthony due to the emotional response people have expressed to the verdict.

 ::snipping2::

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0944/Sec512.htm&StatuteYear=2004

944.512  State lien on proceeds from literary or other type of account of crime for which convicted.--

(1)  A lien prior in dignity to all others shall exist in favor of the state upon royalties, commissions, proceeds of sale, or any other thing of value payable to or accruing to a convicted felon or a person on her or his behalf, including any person to whom the proceeds may be transferred or assigned by gift or otherwise, from any literary, cinematic, or other account of the crime for which she or he was convicted. A conviction shall be defined as a guilty verdict by a jury or judge, or a guilty or nolo contendere plea by the defendant, regardless of adjudication of guilt. The lien shall attach at the time of the conviction in county or circuit court. In the event of an appeal, the funds will be held in the Revolving Escrow Trust Fund of the Department of Legal Affairs until the appeal is resolved.

 ::snipping2::

So even though she was a convicted felon from the check charges, the law here for this trial applies to the crimes she was not convicted of (murder, manslaughter, child neglect / abuse) - and as mentioned previously, the lying to police charges were just misdemeanors - not felonies.
Edit to change red color to navy, with red and maroon reserved for admin & moderators use.


Casey Anthony was found guilty as charged of FALSE INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Does that imply Casey cannot include her lies to law inforcement in her story to the major networks?

Janet

++++++  

Jury instuctions + charges in the Casey Anthony murder trial
Jul-4-11 10:23am


JURY INSTRUCTIONS

INTRODUCTION TO FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

Members of the jury, I thank you for your attention during this trial. Please pay attention to the instructions I am about to give you.

<snipped>

FALSE INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

§ 837.055,Fla.Stat.

To prove the crime of False Information to Law Enforcement, the State must prove the following five elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Yuri Melich was conducting a missing person investigation.

2. Yuri Melich was a law enforcement officer.

3. Casey Marie Anthony knew that Yuri Melich was a law enforcement officer.

4. Casey Marie Anthony knowingly and willfully gave false information to Yuri Melich.

5. Casey Marie Anthony intended to mislead Yuri Melich or impede the investigation.

“Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly and purposely.

<snipped>

http://www.zimbio.com/Casey+Anthony/articles/Q6sfyR2oKyr/Jury+instuctions+charges+Casey+Anthony+murder
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 07:48:10 PM by MuffyBee » Logged

Loving Natalee - Beth Holloway
Page 219: I have to make difficult choices every day.  I have to make a conscious decision every morning when I wake up not to be bitter, not to live in resentment and let anger control me.  It's not easy.  I ask God to help me.
_____

“A person of integrity expects to be believed and when he’s not, he let’s time prove him right.” -unknown
Titch
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4433



« Reply #351 on: July 09, 2011, 08:56:54 PM »

Hey Everyone! 
I found this in my legal question & answer book. Why would this not apply to this case or would it?



Question:
Can a person be put on trial for the same crime in both federal and state courts?

Answer:
Yes. If a person is accused of something that is a crime under both state and federal law, he can be tried in both a state and a federal court. The state and federal governments are seperate entities, and a conviction or acquittal in one court does not prevent a subsequent prosecution in th other. The same holds true for the punishment imposed. However, the sentence in one court might be taken into consideration in fixing the punishment in the other court-----for example, one sentence might be suspended. Being prosecuted for violating the laws of two different governments (federal and state) does not result in double jeopardy(being tried twice for the same crime), which is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The prohibition of double jeopardy is aimed solely at preventing prosecutors from bringing someone to trial again in the same court system for the same offense.

This was answered some pages ago I think. Ask The Judge, or whatever it's called, said that what you've referenced above would pertain to crossing state lines and/or drug trafficking...not this case of Caylee's death.

Very disheartening.
Logged
Yoder1
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 757


« Reply #352 on: July 09, 2011, 08:57:42 PM »

Hey Everyone! 
I found this in my legal question & answer book. Why would this not apply to this case or would it?



Question:
Can a person be put on trial for the same crime in both federal and state courts?

Answer:
Yes. If a person is accused of something that is a crime under both state and federal law, he can be tried in both a state and a federal court. The state and federal governments are seperate entities, and a conviction or acquittal in one court does not prevent a subsequent prosecution in th other. The same holds true for the punishment imposed. However, the sentence in one court might be taken into consideration in fixing the punishment in the other court-----for example, one sentence might be suspended. Being prosecuted for violating the laws of two different governments (federal and state) does not result in double jeopardy(being tried twice for the same crime), which is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The prohibition of double jeopardy is aimed solely at preventing prosecutors from bringing someone to trial again in the same court system for the same offense.






I know we have talked all this to death, but does the above post relate to murder, or just certain crimes?
Logged
Titch
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4433



« Reply #353 on: July 09, 2011, 08:58:31 PM »

Janet, the lies to OCSO were a misdemeanor, not a felony murder. She is free to talk about anything she wants after 7/17/11.
Logged
Titch
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4433



« Reply #354 on: July 09, 2011, 09:02:48 PM »

Hey Everyone! 
I found this in my legal question & answer book. Why would this not apply to this case or would it?


Question:
Can a person be put on trial for the same crime in both federal and state courts?

Answer:
Yes. If a person is accused of something that is a crime under both state and federal law, he can be tried in both a state and a federal court. The state and federal governments are seperate entities, and a conviction or acquittal in one court does not prevent a subsequent prosecution in th other. The same holds true for the punishment imposed. However, the sentence in one court might be taken into consideration in fixing the punishment in the other court-----for example, one sentence might be suspended. Being prosecuted for violating the laws of two different governments (federal and state) does not result in double jeopardy(being tried twice for the same crime), which is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The prohibition of double jeopardy is aimed solely at preventing prosecutors from bringing someone to trial again in the same court system for the same offense.


I know we have talked all this to death, but does the above post relate to murder, or just certain crimes?

This was posted by labubske a couple pages back.

Snipped:
Dear Judge Eaton: Many people are prosecuted both by the federal government and the state for the same crime, and this is not considered double jeopardy. This often happens with drug crimes. Is it possible for this to happen to Casey Anthony? -- Robbie


Very unlikely. Most federal crimes involve some federal interest such as interstate commerce or incidents occurring on federal land. Bank robberies and some drug crimes can be prosecuted in state and federal courts because the charges are brought by two separate sovereigns, The United States of America and the state of Florida. The federal interest in bank robberies is the fact that the banks are regulated by the federal government. The federal interest in drug cases is grounded on interstate commerce. -- Judge O.H. Eaton

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28475339/detail.html#ixzz1ReZXiweP
Logged
Yoder1
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 757


« Reply #355 on: July 09, 2011, 09:02:58 PM »

 ::snipping2::

This was answered some pages ago I think. Ask The Judge, or whatever it's called, said that what you've referenced above would pertain to crossing state lines and/or drug trafficking...not this case of Caylee's death.

Very disheartening.
[/quote]
 ::snipping2::






Several years ago a couple of brothers murdered a banker in Missouri and dumped his body in Grand Lake in Oklahoma. They are in prison. Think both states got them but for different things.
Logged
Monken
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3600



« Reply #356 on: July 09, 2011, 09:03:09 PM »

Thanks Yoder & Titch, my husband just asked if murder is a federal crime? i so wish she could charged through a federal court! 
Logged

"Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden."
Phaedrus
anothermonkey
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6219



« Reply #357 on: July 09, 2011, 09:04:06 PM »

Monkeys, I need help if you would be so kind.  On another forum I visit (not crime - more music related) someone posted this:

The jury did their job. There simply wasn't enough evidence to place it "beyond a reasonable doubt." She's obviously a terrible mother, but there needed to be more to prove murder.

I want to respond, but not only am I angry to the point of seizure, but when I try to think of the best way to state what I feel, my head is a tornado of thoughts.  I can't pull it together to come up with a concise argument.  I really like that analogy from NG in which she said that if you were to go outside and see puddles and people walking with umbrellas, it would be obvious that it had rained and there'd be no reason to ask for proof of rain.  (Or something like that).

Again, my head is spinning; I can't corral my thoughts!  Is there a post here or an article that really sums things up?  This is embarrassing, my having a brain-fart like this.  I've read so many opinions about the jury that I agree with, but I can't organize them.  I feel so lame.
  Don't feel lame.  This whole thing is just too much to wrap one's brain around.   HUGS!
Logged

Denial- turning people crazy all over the world! 
theboyzmom
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3465


Brandi is making sure I get around!


WWW
« Reply #358 on: July 09, 2011, 09:10:52 PM »

Thanks Yoder & Titch, my husband just asked if murder is a federal crime? i so wish she could charged through a federal court! 

Murder is generally not a federal crime. That changes only when the crime includes crossing state lines, happens in DC, happens on a Military base or in the commission of a federal felony (bank robbery ect). Other than that the states are left to prosecute. Too bad KC did not take a trip over the state line, even for a minute - then both places could have attempted to try her and the Feds could have gotten her.
Logged

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. - John Stuart Mill On Liberty, 1859
- George Bernard Shaw
Yoder1
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 757


« Reply #359 on: July 09, 2011, 09:13:51 PM »

Monkeys, I need help if you would be so kind.  On another forum I visit (not crime - more music related) someone posted this:

The jury did their job. There simply wasn't enough evidence to place it "beyond a reasonable doubt." She's obviously a terrible mother, but there needed to be more to prove murder.

I want to respond, but not only am I angry to the point of seizure, but when I try to think of the best way to state what I feel, my head is a tornado of thoughts.  I can't pull it together to come up with a concise argument.  I really like that analogy from NG in which she said that if you were to go outside and see puddles and people walking with umbrellas, it would be obvious that it had rained and there'd be no reason to ask for proof of rain.  (Or something like that).

Again, my head is spinning; I can't corral my thoughts!  Is there a post here or an article that really sums things up?  This is embarrassing, my having a brain-fart like this.  I've read so many opinions about the jury that I agree with, but I can't organize them.  I feel so lame.
  Don't feel lame.  This whole thing is just too much to wrap one's brain around.   HUGS!







MOTIVE: Casey is the only one who could profit from Caylee's death. She wanted Caylee out of the way. Caylee inconvenienced her. Casey also wanted to punish her domineering mother. Caylee is the only thing in Casey's life, over which she had complete control.

OPPORTUNITY:  Geroge was at work, Cindy was at work, Lee was at work. Casey is the only person to have access to the house, computer, duct tape, her car, cloroform, laundry bags and everything else associated with the murder.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Duct tape. And only a demented mother would add a heart shaped sticker.

MANNER OF DEATH: Suffocation.

Tidy package, tied up with a bow. The prosecution presented the jury with a "gift" and the they thew it back unopened.

Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 6.162 seconds with 21 queries.