cassandra wrote:The first order of business at every new sitting of parliament is to vote in income tax. A new contract/agreement to pay is entered into by your representative. Everything else happens as an operation of law. Failure to pay without showing good cause is a breach of contract which will go up for review and enforcement in a civil court by an administrator - which is why he needs no oath. You need to get out of the contract or show good cause. Lawful rebellion is good cause.
Lawfulrebellion.info shows several successes in lawful rebellion's lawful and legal tax-refusing processes with all processes fully detailed and all successes fully documented.
Cassandra.
cassandra wrote:Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.
I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.
nimblereaper wrote:cassandra wrote:Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.
I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.
Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?
Thanks for the explanation of office.
Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)
Cheers
cassandra wrote:nimblereaper wrote:cassandra wrote:Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.
I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.
Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?
Thanks for the explanation of office.
Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)
Cheers
In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.
The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.
The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.
In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.
cassandra wrote:nimblereaper wrote:cassandra wrote:Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.
I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.
Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?
Thanks for the explanation of office.
Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)
Cheers
In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.
The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.
The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.
In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.
nimblereaper wrote:cassandra wrote:nimblereaper wrote:cassandra wrote:Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.
I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.
Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?
Thanks for the explanation of office.
Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)
Cheers
In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.
The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.
The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.
In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.
Sorry just to ask again, i have seen videos of people in civil court refusing to swear oath/affirm - so the court then just throw it out, but then other things i read say you can go to prison for it, so how does that work then? They are then basically forcing you to agree to their terms of business since it's a civil court, which as far as i am aware is unlawful because no man is supposed to be forced into anything under the magna carte. So if i went to civil court and refused to affirm and i went by my family name rather than the name of my straw man then i'm not breaking any law am i? So how can someone who hasn't broken the law go to prison? After all it's a civil court, and as you said that person is not a judge in this jurisdiction so it can't be contempt either since that person has no power over you until you make that oath/affirm.
right?
cassandra wrote:nimblereaper wrote:cassandra wrote:nimblereaper wrote:cassandra wrote:Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.
I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.
Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?
Thanks for the explanation of office.
Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)
Cheers
In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.
The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.
The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.
In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.
Sorry just to ask again, i have seen videos of people in civil court refusing to swear oath/affirm - so the court then just throw it out, but then other things i read say you can go to prison for it, so how does that work then? They are then basically forcing you to agree to their terms of business since it's a civil court, which as far as i am aware is unlawful because no man is supposed to be forced into anything under the magna carte. So if i went to civil court and refused to affirm and i went by my family name rather than the name of my straw man then i'm not breaking any law am i? So how can someone who hasn't broken the law go to prison? After all it's a civil court, and as you said that person is not a judge in this jurisdiction so it can't be contempt either since that person has no power over you until you make that oath/affirm.
right?
I think you are missing the point here - the judge is not under oath in the civil. You don't have togo to civil court but they might find against you and you will be liable. If you access the civil courts yourself then your paperwork must be sworn and signed. That's your oath. That the document is true, complete, correct and not meant to mislead. Without swearing to it you will not get a case started. Swearing makes you accountable and liable. Oath breaking is perjury - a common law offence.
Contempt of court puts you in jail in the common law jurisdiction. This protects the courts, which we need, from disruption, disobedience etc.
In the civil there is a contempt of court option for judgement debtors for not obeying the order of the court after a civil trial has occurred. It is found in The Debtors Act, 1835, section 5. You may be imprisoned for up to 6 weeks for not obeying the order of the court to pay the bill to a judgement creditor and it does not reduce the amount owed. In jail you are a civil prisoner and different prison rules apply.
Try to leave the freeman confusion behind you - it is filled with error, confusion, wrong thinking and wishful thinking. If you base your questions on freeman so-called knowledge or ideas you will become lost in endless self-contradictory and ever decreasing circles. The only freeman who ever did the research and gained the legal knowledge now found in this site have all left for other things. All the good minds have gone. The only ones left on here are the new intake who've yet to learn anything but think they see an opportunity to gain; those who just want to take take take; to be given without the effort of study, and those like Dreadlock who keep pushing a theory known not to work for anyone and something they admit they have never put into practice. The reward is in the journey, not the possession of a thing. To be in possession of a thing is to have one thing. To make the journey is to find experience and understanding. Those who made the journey have passed onwards. Those who merely want to be given are still here, still waiting, and are bound for disappointment at the last. They are diverted from reality. The freeman is a waking moment, no more, and we must move on from it as the wiser heads have done. Freeman is a heady mix of legal fact, pseudo commercial legal arguments and a vision of plenty just for the taking. Reading Mary Croft's book tells you nothing. Reading Menard tells you nothing. Reading Veronica tells you nothing. They talk of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and never tell you how to get there but appear every so often with the new fix because the last one did not work. Nothing is ever fixed by the freeman and nor will it ever be.
Cassandra.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest