View Poll Results: DOES THE 11TH AMENDMENT REFUTE SAVING TO SUITORS?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, you are an abscounding debtor and have no immunity against the state as a trustee/

    0 0%
  • No. Davids Saving to Suitors Trumps the 11th amendment and grantee/trustee equity law

    3 100.00%
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 90

Thread: Why saving to suitors is an asine methodology

  1. #31
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    David Merrill this is very timely. I am studying Ezra and Nehemiah currently. I will look now with new eyes. In fact, i will be tracing every word in the manuscripts to see.

    Nehemiah looked to rebuild the Wall; yet, Under Persia as International Sovereign - I believe actually Esther was the Queen spoken of in :

    Neh 2:6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
    That would mean that Jerusalem would be a province of Persia. And that Nehemiah while being elected to be in charge was also bound to keep the king's law and extract tribute for the king as well. We find also that some are extracting Usury from their brothers and Nehemiah makes them agree to stop.

    Neh 5:1 And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews.

    Neh 5:3 Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth.

    Neh 5:4 There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards.

    Neh 5:5 Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards.
    Yisra'el was not allowed to take another in Yisra'el as slave [bondman] unless there was consent. And then the bondman was to be released in the 7th year.

    Neh 5:7 Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.

    Neh 5:8 And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer.

    Neh 5:9 Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?
    Comment: These knew Torah. Nehemiah did not have need to remind them. They were just not keeping it.

    Neh 5:10 I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

    Neh 5:12 Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise.

    Comment: These knew of Torah and they of free will made a promise and took an oath before men and before Yehovah.

    Neh 5:13 Also I shook my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out, and emptied. And all the congregation said, Amen, and praised the LORD. And the people did according to this promise.
    Comment: Nehemiah appeals to a higher Court - Let Yehovah deal with the unrighteous.

    Neh 5:18 Now that which was prepared for me daily was one ox and six choice sheep; also fowls were prepared for me, and once in ten days store of all sorts of wine: yet for all this required not I the bread of the governor, because the bondage was heavy upon this people.
    H6346
    פּחה
    pechâh
    peh-khaw'
    Of foreign origin; a prefect (of a city or small district): - captain, deputy, governor.


    Again, I say thanks I hope to study with this new perspective.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-23-11 at 01:34 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  2. #32
    Comment: These knew of Torah and they of free will made a promise and took an oath before men and before Yehovah.
    Albeit it might have been agreeable to abide in the Torah, the Israelites never had a choice of free will. It was and still is in the theology of Judaism - abide in Torah or perish. (The Golden Calf Imagery.)

    That aside though, the Israelites had just been conquered by the Babylonian Jew. That was the civil war that evolved around a Persian king coming into Jerusalem to rebuild the walls. So even then, the constitution of Nehemiah 10 made the Laws of Moses mandatory.


    Shabbat Shalom,

    David Merrill.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    That in context means that the bloodline of the Representatives of the Twelve States are the only Parties to the Constitution in Padelford. - Absurd; Asenine.

    The parties to the Constitution are the Signatories. The Signatories are Offices validated by the Officials seated. The original 39 Signers were not men, they were States. The men signing were signing for the States.

    Regards,

    David Merrill.



    There is an inconsistency here in my mind in regard to the Declaration. For it says "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

    The people pledge to a flag today.

    Furthermore, when it becomes necessary for "one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station".......

    This begs the question - who were these one People? Were they the King's subjects? What of the King's subjects in the Commonwealth of Great Britain? What makes these "one People" so special?

    ---------------------

    So then we go to Capacity. Men seated as representatives of the States. But then we got a big problem with the PREAMBLE for the things was done for another.

    The Articles of Confederation styled "The United States of America" - bound the States in Union. But here we find a new thing United States doing a thing for another. And it says there is even another corporation "We the People".

    Now if the Union of the States under the Art. of Confed. was falling apart then, how could something arise "out of that estate" to cure itself? That does not make any sense at all.

    The principle is the debtor is slave to the lender - how then can a slave have the capacity to redeem itself? I mean if the capacity existed prior, then why would another need to come along? Because clearly Ensminger tells us the claim is the UNITED STATES not UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  4. #34
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    I would say for many circumstance quit the contrary about Liber Code and it's other attachments associated with usufructuary which govern commercial warfare:

    International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents

    Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863.
    In t r o d u c t i o n

    The "Lieber Instructions" represent the first attempt to codify the laws of war. They were prepared during the American Civil War by Francis Lieber, then a professor of Columbia College in New York, revised by a board of officers and promulgated by President Lincoln. Although they were binding only on the forces of the United States, they correspond to a great extend to the laws and customs of war existing at that time. The "Lieber Instructions" strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907.

    Date of adoption 24.04.1863
    Number of articles 157
    Authentic text English
    Source D.Schindler and J.Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nihjoff Publisher, 1988, pp.3-23.
    http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d1...5?OpenDocument

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
    Part IV : Civilian population #Section I -- General protection against effects of hostilities #Chapter VI -- Civil defence
    [p.791] Article 67 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1. All treaties \1.2. Articles' - Members of the armed forces and military units assigned to civil defence organizations

    2761 On the other hand, immovable property of the enemy is not war booty. Nevertheless, the Occupying State may make use of buildings, though only as administrator and usufructuary, and still subject to the second sentence.

    Source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750085?OpenDocument

    on that same page it shows this:

    " 2757 The reference to the "laws of war" was contested, and one delegate stated that the term "war" had "been generally replaced by the term "armed conflict". (55) However, others raised the point that this expression "was a standard formula which was to be found in all legal handbooks on the subject and appeared also in paragraph 33 of the first Geneva Convention of 1949", and that it had already been discussed in connection with Article 23 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1. All treaties \1.2. Articles' ' (Other medical ships and craft), ' paragraph 2, of the Protocol. (56) "

    The point here above is that the old intents STILL exists, it is not beneath them to change names and re-codify them. Another example hypothetically is instead of a perpetual National Emergency, they may have re-codified it to Emergency Preparedness and integrate themselves into local authorities of all the states.

    What I have done for most things is just pull open the proverbial curtain and calling it for what it is, taking a simple approach to a broader illusion. Who was put on this earth first, man in the flesh or the Kings and their surveys? .. Then who has first claim of equitable interest in all the natural resources? I am not making claims in a legal sense for myself, but rather then the paper and ink itself came from the natural resources of the original gift given to man. Any use of even lawful money is for the basic necessity of life liberty and happiness and again not by legal construct but rather then the same as a fish who swims in a stream, a plant that grows, the bird that flies e.t.c. Not dead pieces of paper that certain entities claim that is me.
    Name:  events-not-people.jpg
Views: 508
Size:  46.5 KB

    I could be wrong, but it seems that Suitors Clause attempts to put away equitable claims and it's courts for love of mammons law, the want for operating in admiralty?

  5. #35
    So are you Saying you Are SOVEREIGN UNDER GODS DOMINION BY YOUR REFUSAL TO BE RECOGNIZED AS AN ESTATE AND EQUAL STATION AMONG THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
    DO YOU HAVE SOVERIEGN AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY TO TRAVEL THE GLOBE WITH PURE IMMUNITIES AS HAVING EQUAL STATION / STANDING?
    OR ARE YOU PROCLAIMING YOUR FREEDOM TO NOT CONTRACT WITH THE KINGS OF THE EARTH AND RESIDE ONLY IN YOUR HUMAN BODY, AND CLAIM NO OWNERSHIP
    OF NO PROPERTY- AND THUS NOT STANDING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW? YOUR BASICALLY A NOMAD WITHIN THE SURVEY OF THE US, UNLESS THE KING GIVES YOU PERMISSION
    TO TRAVEL THE 7 SEAS?

  6. #36
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by MYSTICONE View Post
    Read the Lieber Code. Read Case Law... The Lieber Code implicity States you are not to question the Debts of the United States.
    You are a Trustee/ grantee.. YOu are not signatory or Posterity to the Original Compact/Constiution, thus you have no access to Article 3.
    Read the Law of Nations and the right of Self Determination. You are a Citizen and you can not question the Debt, nor Sue the State
    you are a Citizen of.
    For the sake of exploration, if you accept, might you explain the nature of Trustee/grantee?

    It appears to me that the Equitable Title is in Cestui Que Vie Trust in Legal Name. Now, CQVT has right of use and can even grant the right of use to another but it appears to me that Never is the MANAGEMENT of the Right of Use ever conveyed without the State.

    But let us be blunt - the State cannot manage use rights without its borders and boundaries. So there may be and in fact are concurrent jurisdictions over the same land. And while the United States is an independent State there appears to be other independent states that share the land in regard to concurrent jurisdiction.

    I like to model it like this:

    The US is at x,y,1 and other state is at x,y,2. Both have the Use of the Land according to their individual survey and boundary. But just because someone might say I am on the county Wake or the county Johnston does not mean that I am.

    The CQVT may be on WAKE or JOHNSTON but that is INTERNAL affairs of the Trustee.

    If a person is created in order to match up like to like, in the end, if I will not usurp the trustee and I will not be fiduciary, that construction fails.

    So in reality, what you really mean is that IF you engage the Trust/State, THEN all of the formations you express, and I might say correctly, are in fact a reality.

    That is just trust law 101. Else, remain without the State - forage and be upon husbandry. For what is a trust if there is no one trusting in it?
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-23-11 at 04:18 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  7. #37
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    I don't know who MYSTICONE is or where he came from, but he sounds like a typical agent provocateur or another "guru" who thinks he knows what's what and will use NLP-type programming and leading poll-questions in an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the simple remedy in law that is at the source of all bondage...

    "...they shall be redeemed in lawful money by demand..."

    It is obvious this "MYSTICONE" is cluless as to the actual reason behind filing the LoR; it is solely to establish an evidence repository whereby we form the true and correct record of events of our own affairs. We exercise that lawful court and competence in our own right as free, immune and peaceful inhabitants on the land who will not consent, agree or acquiesce to be chattel against the debt of other men and their repugnant creations. Winning the "suit" is not the goal; in fact, we expect that it will be thrown out and dismissed. What we are left with is all we wanted in the first place, our own case jacket, paid for in lawful money, in order to form the lawful, true and correct record of our affairs as courts of competent jurisdiction.

    Nowhere is there any "questioning of the debt of the United States". Their debt is their debt, who is questioning that? We don't challenge it, we simply instruct them to settle it themselves since it is their own responsibilty and liability absent a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden.

    To be a "citizen" or "resident" requires our knowing and willing consent, agreement or acquiescence. If we grant none of these, we are absent that character. The refusal to be the bond, surety or fiduciary is in our own right. That is evidenced by the remedies from that fealty and servitude written into all of their laws. If that were not so, then the crime of true tyranny and forced bondage could be levied against those who attempt to ensnare the people at large into debt slaves. Instead, the "legality" of contracts provides the cover and protection of would-be tyrants. Cowardly and dishonorable at their core, they utilize their legal jargon, code and intentionally misleading "agreements/contracts" to deceive the masses into voluntary servitude.

    They have no rightful or lawful standing or character to claim any rights or title to any land or property while they continue their unrighteous and dishonorable maintenance of a repugnant and abominable trust formation/mechanism which has become nothing more than a harnesser and harvestor of the energy and sweat equity of every innocent living soul born on this land.

    There is NO rightful and lawful claim that can be made from that standing and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. The chattelizing of human flesh and bone is one of the most repugnant and dispicable acts before the Almighty Creator since it is, in reality, a theft and kidnap of His sons and daughters for purposes completely contrary to His Divine Will and Plan.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by MYSTICONE View Post
    So are you Saying you Are SOVEREIGN UNDER GODS DOMINION BY YOUR REFUSAL TO BE RECOGNIZED AS AN ESTATE AND EQUAL STATION AMONG THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
    DO YOU HAVE SOVERIEGN AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY TO TRAVEL THE GLOBE WITH PURE IMMUNITIES AS HAVING EQUAL STATION / STANDING?
    OR ARE YOU PROCLAIMING YOUR FREEDOM TO NOT CONTRACT WITH THE KINGS OF THE EARTH AND RESIDE ONLY IN YOUR HUMAN BODY, AND CLAIM NO OWNERSHIP
    OF NO PROPERTY- AND THUS NOT STANDING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW? YOUR BASICALLY A NOMAD WITHIN THE SURVEY OF THE US, UNLESS THE KING GIVES YOU PERMISSION
    TO TRAVEL THE 7 SEAS?
    I do see your point, and I do travel freely and when stopped and questioned why no papers at the end of the day, I have been met with smiles all around. But one may ask, why go thru the headache at all? Why not just establish a new Trust and Declare its standing.

    According to OAS the Sovereignty of a Trust exists the moment it is created. Now clearly my wife and I form a moral person. Should we ascribe the bylaws of our union? What if we adopt Scripture? Has there been a claim on Scripture too? I jest, I know the answer is yes. But just follow along.

    I am not Sovereign at all - I am just a man. But lets just say that I effect a new State [moral person under Laws of Nations]. Lets call it THE PLACE TO BE; and I, michael joseph and my wife are Settlor/Trustor and First Trustees and co-beneficiaries. Lets say we make a survey over all of North America and we claim from 12 miles out into Pacific and Atlantic and we hold the Southern and Norther boundaries of Mexico and Canada as boundaries. And within those boundaries we express other boundaries until we come to finally to the metes and bounds of some Property.

    Now let us be clear - Property is NOT land. Property is Right of Use. So the Survey is made and then the Claim is made BASED on the Survey and then the Claim is placed into Trust and the Use is Split in regard to Titles. Lets say I create a Constitution for THE PLACE TO BE and michael joseph holds many offices but one in particular is Secretary of State.

    Now, I might "sign up" THE PLACE TO BE upon international travel agreements such that now I can move about upon the roads such that other States using the same roads can now see me and know we are now on the same level geometric plane. And I might do the same thing for Banking, and other Treaties that I might be able to negotiate on behalf of THE PLACE TO BE.

    Based on the foregoing, have the asphalt or the travel paths changed in any way? I just made my claim based on my survey of the travel path so that I now move along IN my survey; yet on the very same travel path that maybe you use on a different survey.

    Now imagine that every man and woman did the same thing. Everyone has their own survey and everyone is moving about according to their own constitution and everyone is using the same stuff. What then of State? 3Billion States - assuming each State is made of two [man and wife].

    What then of a King?

    While i can completely see your position - most men will NEVER take full liability for themselves and as such, are destined to be governed. And if governed by what laws? And if destined to be governed, then that one has by his actions or lack thereof has agreed to be governed. I get it it is implied trust.

    Yet, Trust has NOTHING to do with actual matter or thought. And has everything to do with Uses. So you are correct those laws are Copyrighted. That means they [those laws] are Private.

    A trust is a private thing. Now, Michael Joseph being a name might even be a member of a family; yet if Michael Joseph refuses to USE Trust Property, then Michael Joseph can remain without the State.

    Does it come to this? Joseph was alone and therefore thought to be a slave such that the Ishmaelites took him as Slave? Joseph could have said I am of Yisra'el. Even the Ishmaelites knew something was up; but questioned it not as Joseph kept his mouth shut. Ever read the Testament of Joseph?

    I think there is a higher principal. Say what you are gonna do and then do it. I do not seek to trespass my brother by calling myself Sovereign. I am not. And in fact, even if I held that Title as Settlor, if I hurt another, I am bound by Higher Law to make restitution. So in no way is Yehovah's Law subordinate to Man's Trusts.

    Are you sure I am within the Survey of the United States? Why would you say that?


    What is Ownership within a Trust Structure?


    The Registered Owner is the CESTUI QUE TRUST; wherein resides Equitable Title. The Legal Title remains with the Trustee. Therefore to Claim Ownership is to be upon Trust Structure. And that begs the question - wherein does the Claim reside? Border and Boundary?

    The principal is really quite simple - who has the Rightful Claim? The so called Kings of the Earth can either trace lineage to David in case of Yisra'el and Yehudah. Or have other lineages or are Settlors of a new eState.

    But here is the kicker - that new eState comes into existence as per a higher law - settled before the fact - and is therefore subject to and will be governed by said law and trustees of a higher eState and therefore, the new eState is also cestui que trust by its very nature.

    Yet I can see your point and it is a good point.

    -------------------------
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-23-11 at 04:11 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    There is an inconsistency here in my mind in regard to the Declaration. For it says "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

    The people pledge to a flag today.

    Furthermore, when it becomes necessary for "one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station".......

    This begs the question - who were these one People? Were they the King's subjects? What of the King's subjects in the Commonwealth of Great Britain? What makes these "one People" so special?

    ---------------------

    So then we go to Capacity. Men seated as representatives of the States. But then we got a big problem with the PREAMBLE for the things was done for another.

    The Articles of Confederation styled "The United States of America" - bound the States in Union. But here we find a new thing United States doing a thing for another. And it says there is even another corporation "We the People".

    Now if the Union of the States under the Art. of Confed. was falling apart then, how could something arise "out of that estate" to cure itself? That does not make any sense at all.

    The principle is the debtor is slave to the lender - how then can a slave have the capacity to redeem itself? I mean if the capacity existed prior, then why would another need to come along? Because clearly Ensminger tells us the claim is the UNITED STATES not UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    I have to watch what I am doing so not to lose the readers MJ;


    You should stop and consider what would a man drive over 100 miles to get Ensminger published at the center and source of Fiat Currency in America about? Additionally, when I got to the ornate Denver Courthouse they treated me like a criminal just because I have no Government-Issued ID! So I pulled my cell phone and called the clerk there through the window. She was particularly happy it seemed, to take my $10 and do business in front of the 5 guards, who were particularly sourpuss-faced that not one of them could form the proper objection - that if I could not get in; that if I was not one of the (official) citizens of the US, then it was just 'not right' that I could do business in the face of their 911 suppression, right over the metal detector/x-ray conveyor belt like that! Pussys! The clerk and I were particularly pleasant with one another, just for their benefit.


    http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_1.jpg
    http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_2.jpg
    http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_3.jpg



    The discrepancy is solved, like I said (or at least tried to) in that the Israelites were vanquished but the real signatories to the Constitution were 56 in number and that 1776 Declaration is the real testamentary trust in place today. We are the victorious. We won the Revolutionary War. Page 1, Page 2, Page 3. That is the REAL Invention of America (Re: Garry WILLES - Inventing America.)

    You will probably need to rest up for an entire day - one in seven - just to absorb this next part fully. You, Motla68 and now Mysticone are giving 98% of the readers here a headache with all this trust tier composition. The other two are getting excited over the fact that they will have to read an ancient book or two first, before they can begin to follow and be 'head and shoulders' above the rest...

    If you try it in court the judge will say, I have read enough in modern textbooks when I was in law school to know what you are trying to say about trust law has no context within the rules of this courtroom. I am doing my best to entertain the prosecution's request for a trial here. Should the appeals court agree with your objections, then fine - I have to live with proceeding without jurisdiction... LLOY (Last Laugh on You - prerequisites of court-martial jurisdiction).

    You are considered a signatory to the Constitution in the courtrooms. You are a citizen until you fail to take up that position as trustee for FIRST MIDDLE LAST and volunteer for Arraignment by Answering for IT. Or NOT.

    Or just settle the account by discharging the instrument (charges on the Ticket) like I did. [As district judge GILBERT read me Miranda in the courtroom - a true prosecutor/judge, he must have detected my smile as he was forming my jury. I mean the men and women too - not the box of corporations. Imagine that! Just look at that link! Talk about Competence; I was approving the payment ahead of settling my $20M lien, to for my estate to pay Kaye BARON to do my competency evaluation!) They have no choice these days but to wonder if you are one of those crazy ecclesia-folks; touched by God! Ex visitation Dei - visiting from God.

    Meanwhile we get Motla68 and Mysticone chuckling because they think, Look at all the Registration of Appearance here! They must all agree - the 'saving to suitors' clause is completely asine.

    That's not even a word. They really saw us coming! It is amazing to me that people seem particularly attracted to a thread started with such recklessness. Is the flexible version of the truth that attractive? I guess!



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-23-11 at 07:39 AM.

  10. #40

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •