Berkeley 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:57 am

5ky wrote:
He didn't do anything illegal. He may have done something unethical. The two are not the same.

Researching the law and writing a memo about what you find is not an illegal act.

All too often I see the discussion around Yoo hinge on conflating the two -- illegal and unethical -- and it doesn't do anything to further the discussion.


+1. I tend to agree with you here. Just because he argued that a particular action was legal and protected by the law of the land doesn't mean he is guilty of a crime. Sure, President Bush might have used Yoo as political and legal cover to do what he wanted, but it was the President and not Yoo that did it.

Of course, there may be some nebulous crime of association here of which I am not aware. But still.


On Law & Order they charged the memo-writer with conspiracy to commit torture. To make the indictment stick, they had to also name every single person in the chain; from the policy advisors who read the memo to the officers at Gitmo who issued the orders.

Just FWIW, lol.

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Cupidity » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:07 am

Last time I checked torture is a crime, under both internal and international law. If the actions carried out under the Bush administration were torture, than Yoo is guilty of Conspiracy to committ.

User avatar
Legacy316
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 5:57 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Legacy316 » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:09 am

of Yoo
Last edited by Legacy316 on Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:10 am

Cupidity wrote:Last time I checked torture is a crime, under both internal and international law. If the actions carried out under the Bush administration were torture, than Yoo is guilty of Conspiracy to committ.


LOL There is so much dumb in these sentences... I am in awe! You covered content, grammar, and spelling. Impressive. Very impressive...

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6392
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby 5ky » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:12 am

.
Last edited by 5ky on Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby SanBun » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:14 am

Berkeley, give us those acceptances....

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:14 am

For the record, I don't disagree with Berkeley's right to have him on faculty. I absolutely do not support his ideas and my own convictions are 180 degrees away from his, but the importance of diversity - of all forms including ideological - cannot be overstated.

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:17 am

Btw... Yoo is an amazing professor. His classes fill up instantly and have massive waitlists. Yes, even among the liberals of boalt...

For those who say he did something illegal, you likely couldn't even name what exactly he did, or under what authority and rules he acted, or explain how/why a lawyer giving legal advice (even if you disagree with it politically) is guilty of any crime. Or why offering a legal opinion interpreting case law precedent has moral implications, much less criminal ones.

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby SanBun » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:20 am

Danneskjöld wrote:Btw... Yoo is an amazing professor. His classes fill up instantly and have massive waitlists. Yes, even among the liberals of boalt...

For those who say he did something illegal, you likely couldn't even name what exactly he did, or under what authority and rules he acted, or explain how/why a lawyer giving legal advice (even if you disagree with it politically) is guilty of any crime.


Nope, I couldn't. But there are a bunch of international courts that are convinced they can.

btw, i don't doubt he's an amazing professor.

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:25 am

SanBun wrote:
Danneskjöld wrote:Btw... Yoo is an amazing professor. His classes fill up instantly and have massive waitlists. Yes, even among the liberals of boalt...

For those who say he did something illegal, you likely couldn't even name what exactly he did, or under what authority and rules he acted, or explain how/why a lawyer giving legal advice (even if you disagree with it politically) is guilty of any crime.


Nope, I couldn't. But there are a bunch of international courts that are convinced they can.


Orly? Link please for one charge being brought against him, anywhere?

Or did you just hear some random comment or read some non-legal journalist hack's opinion about someone saying something about John Yoo and you think you know more than you do?

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28282
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:39 am

Danneskjöld wrote:Orly? Link please for one charge being brought against him, anywhere?

Or did you just hear some random comment or read some non-legal journalist hack's opinion about someone saying something about John Yoo and you think you know more than you do?


I like how you correct someone's grammar and then use the word "Orly?" Interesting.

Either way, Yoo didn't do anything illegal, but that doesn't mean he isn't an idiot. All torture is good for is making people confess to crimes they didn't commit. To defend someone's right to engage in a practice that is damaging not only to individuals, but arguably to national security as well, makes someone a grade-A dolt.

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:48 am

VoidSix wrote:Either way, Yoo didn't do anything illegal, but that doesn't mean he isn't an idiot. All torture is good for is making people confess to crimes they didn't commit. To defend someone's right to engage in a practice that is damaging not only to individuals, but arguably to national security as well, makes someone a grade-A dolt.


Aside from being immoral, the biggest problem with torture seems to be that it's impossible to confine any justification or application of it in a way that successfully prevents gross widespread atrocities. If you make it part of a national policy and leave it to the discretion of individuals, those individuals will evidently abuse it horribly. I think we can probably all dream up one imaginary scenario in which we'd have to rethink firmness of our anti-torture position (i.e. you manage to capture a sexual sadist who has your wife buried alive in an underground dungeon with hours to live). I mean, what would Jack Bauer do?
Last edited by Lieut Kaffee on Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:49 am

VoidSix wrote:
Danneskjöld wrote:Orly? Link please for one charge being brought against him, anywhere?

Or did you just hear some random comment or read some non-legal journalist hack's opinion about someone saying something about John Yoo and you think you know more than you do?


I like how you correct someone's grammar and then use the word "Orly?" Interesting.

Either way, Yoo didn't do anything illegal, but that doesn't mean he isn't an idiot. All torture is good for is making people confess to crimes they didn't commit. To defend someone's right to engage in a practice that is damaging not only to individuals, but arguably to national security as well, makes someone a grade-A dolt.


You seem like a smart guy. While what you said is true about torture leading to false confessions, that's not really relevant here. Yoo wrote a memo defining what torture was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_Memo so as to ensure that torture was avoided. He did not authorize torture. Some think his definition was too narrow, and if followed (remember this is just a legal analysis, the President orders/authorizes whatever he will, the memo simply analyzes where the outer boundaries of Presidential authority under the law are) would result in bad stuff. The purpose also wasn't to get anyone to confess to a crime, but to obtain intelligence from terrorists on other terrorists planning acts of terror--the purpose being to stop acts of terror, not charge anyone with anything. Also, the guy is likely not an idiot, all things considered.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28282
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:49 am

Danneskjöld wrote:Or did you just hear some random comment or read some non-legal journalist hack's opinion about someone saying something about John Yoo and you think you know more than you do?



I should've LMGTFY'd this, but

--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
bighead715
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:02 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby bighead715 » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:53 am

VoidSix wrote:
Danneskjöld wrote:Orly? Link please for one charge being brought against him, anywhere?

Or did you just hear some random comment or read some non-legal journalist hack's opinion about someone saying something about John Yoo and you think you know more than you do?


I like how you correct someone's grammar and then use the word "Orly?" Interesting.

Either way, Yoo didn't do anything illegal, but that doesn't mean he isn't an idiot. All torture is good for is making people confess to crimes they didn't commit. To defend someone's right to engage in a practice that is damaging not only to individuals, but arguably to national security as well, makes someone a grade-A dolt.


+1

cue intense debate spanning 6 pages of berkeley thread, which will freak people out thinking there was another wave only to find discussion of torture, Yoo, and Berkeley's intentions...

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28282
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:54 am

Danneskjöld wrote:You seem like a smart guy. While what you said is true about torture leading to false confessions, that's not really relevant here. Yoo wrote a memo defining what torture was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_Memo so as to ensure that torture was avoided. He did not authorize torture. Some think his definition was too narrow, and if followed (remember this is just a legal analysis, the President orders/authorizes whatever he will, the memo simply analyzes where the outer boundaries of Presidential authority under the law are) would result in bad stuff. The purpose also wasn't to get anyone to confess to a crime, but to obtain intelligence from terrorists on other terrorists planning acts of terror--the purpose being to stop acts of terror, not charge anyone with anything. Also, the guy is likely not an idiot, all things considered.


I'm pretty familiar with it, and I realize that technically he isn't any worse than a public defender who defends someone to the extent of the law that he or she knows to be guilty. The difference is that doing so is the public defender's job, and public defenders exist as a public service to people who cannot otherwise afford a lawyer. That's the reasoning behind it.

I can't find any reasoning for providing a "narrow" definition of torture that would condone acts such as waterboarding. At a certain point, a person should click out of analysis-mode and realize the consequences of their actions.

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:56 am

VoidSix wrote:
Danneskjöld wrote:Or did you just hear some random comment or read some non-legal journalist hack's opinion about someone saying something about John Yoo and you think you know more than you do?



I should've LMGTFY'd this, but

--LinkRemoved--


That article says they are considering it... It was written by the daily cal, a student authored newspaper. That was just an overzealous Spanish prosecutor trying to make a name for himself, no charges filed, nothing ever came of it. Look at the title "May be charged", read the first sentence of the article...

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:01 am

VoidSix wrote:
Danneskjöld wrote:You seem like a smart guy. While what you said is true about torture leading to false confessions, that's not really relevant here. Yoo wrote a memo defining what torture was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_Memo so as to ensure that torture was avoided. He did not authorize torture. Some think his definition was too narrow, and if followed (remember this is just a legal analysis, the President orders/authorizes whatever he will, the memo simply analyzes where the outer boundaries of Presidential authority under the law are) would result in bad stuff. The purpose also wasn't to get anyone to confess to a crime, but to obtain intelligence from terrorists on other terrorists planning acts of terror--the purpose being to stop acts of terror, not charge anyone with anything. Also, the guy is likely not an idiot, all things considered.


I'm pretty familiar with it, and I realize that technically he isn't any worse than a public defender who defends someone to the extent of the law that he or she knows to be guilty. The difference is that doing so is the public defender's job, and public defenders exist as a public service to people who cannot otherwise afford a lawyer. That's the reasoning behind it.

I can't find any reasoning for providing a "narrow" definition of torture that would condone acts such as waterboarding. At a certain point, a person should click out of analysis-mode and realize the consequences of their actions.


Exactly. And perhaps this is why it would be great to able to ask him yourself, no? Maybe he can explain it to you. If only he were a professor or something, with office hours where he could answer questions ;-) Why not come to Berkeley and ask him yourself, eh?

User avatar
bighead715
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:02 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby bighead715 » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:03 am

Danneskjöld wrote:
VoidSix wrote:
Danneskjöld wrote:You seem like a smart guy. While what you said is true about torture leading to false confessions, that's not really relevant here. Yoo wrote a memo defining what torture was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_Memo so as to ensure that torture was avoided. He did not authorize torture. Some think his definition was too narrow, and if followed (remember this is just a legal analysis, the President orders/authorizes whatever he will, the memo simply analyzes where the outer boundaries of Presidential authority under the law are) would result in bad stuff. The purpose also wasn't to get anyone to confess to a crime, but to obtain intelligence from terrorists on other terrorists planning acts of terror--the purpose being to stop acts of terror, not charge anyone with anything. Also, the guy is likely not an idiot, all things considered.


I'm pretty familiar with it, and I realize that technically he isn't any worse than a public defender who defends someone to the extent of the law that he or she knows to be guilty. The difference is that doing so is the public defender's job, and public defenders exist as a public service to people who cannot otherwise afford a lawyer. That's the reasoning behind it.

I can't find any reasoning for providing a "narrow" definition of torture that would condone acts such as waterboarding. At a certain point, a person should click out of analysis-mode and realize the consequences of their actions.


Exactly. And perhaps this is why it would be great to able to ask him yourself, no? Maybe he can explain it to you. If only he were a professor or something, with office hours where he could answer questions ;-) Why not come to Berkeley and ask him yourself, eh?


weaaaaaaak

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby SanBun » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:04 am

sorry for the long reply, but Danneskjöld asked for proof. This should be a good summary

Danneskjöld wrote:
Orly? Link please for one charge being brought against him, anywhere?

Or did you just hear some random comment or read some non-legal journalist hack's opinion about someone saying something about John Yoo and you think you know more than you do?


Article by Phillip Sands, Professor of International Law at University of London
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... rentPage=2

On page 2: "The Yoo-Bybee Memo was not simply some theoretical document, an academic exercise in blue-sky hypothesizing, but rather played a crucial role in giving those at the top the confidence to put pressure on those at the bottom. And the practices employed at Guantánamo led to abuses at Abu Ghraib."

p 3: "Addington, Bybee, Gonzales, Haynes, and Yoo became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse."

p 8: " For some of those involved in the Guantánamo decisions, prudence may well dictate a more cautious approach to international travel. And for some the future may hold a tap on the shoulder.
“It’s a matter of time,” the judge observed. “These things take time.” As I gathered my papers, he looked up and said, “And then something unexpected happens, when one of these lawyers travels to the wrong place." "


But if a Professor of international law is not authoritative enough for you, how about a post by Scott Horton, a prominent NYC lawyer in reference to international precedent established by the Nuermberg trial in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Horton_%28lawyer%29):

"Confronted with such claims, a truly independent prosecutor would have to consider the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. Altstötter, the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous “Night and Fog Decree.” " (Taken from http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/retu ... hmitt.html, website created by in 2003 by Jack Balkin, a professor of U.S. constitutional law at Yale Law School)

here's a nice summary of Baltazar Garzón's case (Garzon is widely acclaimed for successfully bringing Pinochet to trial in front of the British House of Lords after issuing an international warrant for the arrest of the former president Augusto Pinochet.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bush_Six

On 29 April 2009, Garzon opened an investigation into an alleged "systematic programme" of torture at Guantánamo Bay, following accusations by four former prisoners. [i]

"According to historian Andy Worthington, writing in the Huffington Post, Spanish newspaper Público reported in September 2009 that Garzón was proceeding to the next phase of his investigation."


Again, I'm not a lawyer (yet) and can't argue for anything myself, but if a professor of law and a prominent international judge are not authoritative enough for you, then who is? Oh well, maybe John Yoo
Last edited by SanBun on Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:11 am

Pretty confident none of that included any mention of charges being brought or having been brought, or any actual criminal proceeding begun against him. Just a bunch of people getting their names in the headlines for political reasons.

Or is there some reason that I'm missing that the case is rock solid, but no charges have been brought?

User avatar
bighead715
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:02 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby bighead715 » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:12 am

im pretty sure Brad Roth - prof. at WSU law has battled with Yoo over the issue...hmmm, id like to find some of these battles

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:16 am

bighead715 wrote:im pretty sure Brad Roth - prof. at WSU law has battled with Yoo over the issue...hmmm, id like to find some of these battles


Sure, lots of dialog. Even impassioned dialog, debate, and political/moral rhetoric. People are free to voice their opinions. My comment was directed to those who claimed he did something illegal, yet there is a complete absence of any criminal charges anywhere in the world (even the most anti-John Yoo places). And, I said to link to a single instance of charges being brought. Instead, the response was just political rhetoric from people who disagree with what he did, which is nonresponsive... :(

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby SanBun » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:20 am

Danneskjöld wrote:
bighead715 wrote:im pretty sure Brad Roth - prof. at WSU law has battled with Yoo over the issue...hmmm, id like to find some of these battles


Sure, lots of dialog. Even impassioned dialog, debate, and political/moral rhetoric. People are free to voice their opinions. My comment was directed to those who claimed he did something illegal, yet there is a complete absence of any criminal charges anywhere in the world (even the most anti-John Yoo places). And, I said to link to a single instance of charges being brought. Instead, the response was just political rhetoric from people who disagree with what he did, which is nonresponsive... :(



The Guardian reported on April 29, 2009, that Garzón initiated a formal investigation into whether confessions from four former Guantanamo captives was the result of the use of abusive interrogation techniques. The four men: Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, Lahcen Ikassrien, Jamiel Abdul Latif al Banna and Omar Deghayes, had previously faced charges in Spanish courts, based on confessions they made while in US custody. Their charges had been dropped based on their claims that their confessions were false and were the result of abusive interrogation techniques.

On May 5, 2009, Investigating Magistrate Eloy Velasco formally requested the USA to indicate whether they were going to conduct a domestic inquiry into the six men's conduct (the six men being Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Douglas Feith, William Haynes II, Jay Bybee,David Addington) Spain's principle of universal justice allows third party states to charge non-citizens, and request their extradition, only when their country of citizenship has not conducted its own investigation.


From what I understand, Garzon first has to approach the US curt to see if they will prosecute the case. If they decline and Garzon still believes he has a case, he himself can issue charges based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. In April 2009, Garzon initiated the first stage.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bush_Six


as smart as I'm sure you are, I trust the man that initiated the Pinochet case more- the man knows what he's doing and, unlike us anonymous posters on a thread, has a reputation to lose. And wrong, he is not merely a political dissenter, he's a very acclaimed judge in the international arena (if you research the Pinochet case you will see that it was a landmark case in international law)

If you're impatient about the procedures of international jurisdiction- well, that's really another issue. These things take time, and Garzon only initiated the first step
Last edited by SanBun on Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Danneskjöld
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Danneskjöld » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:28 am

SanBun wrote:
Danneskjöld wrote:
bighead715 wrote:im pretty sure Brad Roth - prof. at WSU law has battled with Yoo over the issue...hmmm, id like to find some of these battles


Sure, lots of dialog. Even impassioned dialog, debate, and political/moral rhetoric. People are free to voice their opinions. My comment was directed to those who claimed he did something illegal, yet there is a complete absence of any criminal charges anywhere in the world (even the most anti-John Yoo places). And, I said to link to a single instance of charges being brought. Instead, the response was just political rhetoric from people who disagree with what he did, which is nonresponsive... :(



The Guardian reported on April 29, 2009, that Garzón initiated a formal investigation into whether confessions from four former Guantanamo captives was the result of the use of abusive interrogation techniques. The four men: Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, Lahcen Ikassrien, Jamiel Abdul Latif al Banna and Omar Deghayes, had previously faced charges in Spanish courts, based on confessions they made while in US custody. Their charges had been dropped based on their claims that their confessions were false and were the result of abusive interrogation techniques.

On May 5, 2009, Investigating Magistrate Eloy Velasco formally requested the USA to indicate whether they were going to conduct a domestic inquiry into the six men's conduct. Spain's principle of universal justice allows third party states to charge non-citizens, and request their extradition, only when their country of citizenship has not conducted its own investigation.


From what I understand, Garzon first has to approach the US curt to see if they will prosecute the case. If they decline and Garzon still believes he has a case, he himself can issue charges based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. In April 2009, Garzon initiated the first stage.

And as back-up for my assertion above about the stages of international prosecution: On May 5, 2009, Investigating Magistrate Eloy Velasco formally requested the USA to indicate whether they were going to conduct a domestic inquiry into the six men's conduct. Spain's principle of universal justice allows third party states to charge non-citizens, and request their extradition, only when their country of citizenship has not conducted its own investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bush_Six


as smart as I'm sure you are, I trust the man that initiated the Pinochet case more- the man knows what he's doing and, unlike us anonymous posters on a thread, has a reputation to lose. And wrong, he is not merely a political dissenter, he's a very acclaimed judge in the international arena

If you're impatient about the procedures of international jurisdiction- well, that's really another issue. These things take time, and Garzon only initiated the first step


"On April 16, 2009, the Spanish Attorney General stated he thought the Spanish investigative magistrate should drop the consideration of charges against the six men."

"On May 20, 2009, the New York Times reported that some Spanish legislators were proposing a law to strip investigating magistrates of the authority to pursue international human rights cases."

Ok. So one prosecutor proposing to consider charges, and in response the legislature proposes to strip all magistrates of their authority to prosecute and the attorney general says it should be stopped. Sounds rock solid to me.
Last edited by Danneskjöld on Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elcamino4, Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], hellohalo, Kaziende, proteinshake and 17 guests