DUI

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: DUI

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

     

     



    So, what you're saying is, OJ never denied killing his wife?

     

     



    No.  You asked me if OJ took the stand. Anyone alive in the last 25 years would know the answer to that question, where it allowed his defense to deflect and make up preposterous non-sensical claims as a way to hope for an acquittal. Hence, the glove situation, which was infamously his only contribution in his own case.

     

    You know, sort of like how our own BBWs here or your as a loser Jets fan, try to deflect to make it seem like something isn't true when it is x 1000.

    The fact you didn't know that OJ didn't take the stand, as you JUST asked me if he did, means you continue to prove yourself as a victim of inbreeding.

    What's even funnier is how you somehow think OJ Simpson is comparable to Alfonzo Dennard.

     

     

     



    So, what you're saying now is that OJ took the stand, but did not deny killing his wife?  

    The only comparrison is that you thought it was relevant the Dennard denied hitting the cop.  

     

     



    I said he DID NOT take the stand. Very clearly, troll.

     

     




     

    Really?  OJ didn't take the stand and testify that he didn't kill his wife?  Are you sure about this Queenie?  Are you as sure as Brady's 4th quarter incerceptions giving the Raven's short fields to score TDs?

    How about this, Queenie.  If OJ did take the stand, you leave here and never ever come back under any of your hundreds of names?  If he didn't, I do.  



    Everyone knows OJ did not take the stand. He denied killing his wife by virtue of entering a not guilty plea. You know, the whole reason there was a trial. His lawyers would have been insane to have put him on the stand and thus didn't.

    I assume you're a man of your word and so we've then seen your last post.

    It's been fun.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: DUI

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

     

     



    So, what you're saying is, OJ never denied killing his wife?

     

     



    No.  You asked me if OJ took the stand. Anyone alive in the last 25 years would know the answer to that question, where it allowed his defense to deflect and make up preposterous non-sensical claims as a way to hope for an acquittal. Hence, the glove situation, which was infamously his only contribution in his own case.

     

    You know, sort of like how our own BBWs here or your as a loser Jets fan, try to deflect to make it seem like something isn't true when it is x 1000.

    The fact you didn't know that OJ didn't take the stand, as you JUST asked me if he did, means you continue to prove yourself as a victim of inbreeding.

    What's even funnier is how you somehow think OJ Simpson is comparable to Alfonzo Dennard.

     

     

     



    So, what you're saying now is that OJ took the stand, but did not deny killing his wife?  

    The only comparrison is that you thought it was relevant the Dennard denied hitting the cop.  

     

     



    I said he DID NOT take the stand. Very clearly, troll.

     

     




     

    Really?  OJ didn't take the stand and testify that he didn't kill his wife?  Are you sure about this Queenie?  Are you as sure as Brady's 4th quarter incerceptions giving the Raven's short fields to score TDs?

    How about this, Queenie.  If OJ did take the stand, you leave here and never ever come back under any of your hundreds of names?  If he didn't, I do.  

     



     

    Everyone knows OJ did not take the stand. He denied killing his wife by virtue of entering a not guilty plea. You know, the whole reason there was a trial. His lawyers would have been insane to have put him on the stand and thus didn't.

    I assume you're a man of your word and so we've then seen your last post.

    It's been fun.

     



    I'm sorry, what were you saying?  Can we agree that you and Queenie are taking the same deal?

     

     

    EPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
    NOVEMBER 22, 1996

    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

    VS.

    ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

    SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
    FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1996
    9:10 A.M.

    DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
    HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

    (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

    (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)

    THE COURT: Somebody has a motion?

    MR. BLASIER: I have two brief motions I'd like to make.

    As the Court is aware, Lawrence Schiller has written a book that purports to contain a great deal of information provided to him by Robert Kardashian, who is one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys.

    Much of that material concerns privileged communications between various members of the defense team and Mr. Simpson. In November -- November 28 of 1995, Mr. Simpson wrote a letter to all members of the defense team, and the letter itself is privileged, but I've been authorized to read a short portion, which states:

    "I require that all information you have gained in the course of our professional relationship be held inviolate. Unless and until you receive express and written permission from me, any written authorization shall be limited to specific communications described in the authorization, shall not be construed as a broad or blanket authorization or waiver; therefore, it is essential that any draft manuscript be reviewed by me before it is shared with others, by others or . . ." perhaps "others."

    This was not complied with with respect to that particular book.

    My motion that the plaintiffs be precluded from asking questions about excluded material in this book, as Mr. Simpson does not waive, has not waived his attorney-client privilege.

    To do so -- To ask such questions in front of a jury would be improper, require him to assert privilege in front of the jury.

    My second motion is that they also be precluded from asking any questions about his not testifying at the criminal trial, as that is also privileged -- I think it's 913 of the Evidence Code -- would be improper to ask any questions or comment about that in front of a jury.

    MR. PETROCELLI: This motion is totally improper. We've heard nothing about it until just now, five minutes before Mr. Simpson is going to take the stand. I don't have a clue what information they're talking about, what they contend is privileged, what is not privileged, what has been previously disclosed, what has been disclosed, and public sources and depositions and statements by the defendant.

    I don't know how to deal with this, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Well, you do know how to deal with that motion with regards to his exercise of his right from self-incrimination from the criminal trial.

    MR. PETROCELLI: No problem with that.

    THE COURT: That motion is granted.

    The rest of it is denied without prejudice.

    I don't see any basis on which I should grant a motion at this late stage. There was ample opportunity to exercise that privilege at the time the book was published. You should have had a motion at that time.

    MR. BLASIER: Mr. Simpson wasn't planning to testify at that time.

    He's now testifying. He's making the motion. We are not waiving the privilege. He should not be asked questions to assert it in front of a jury.

    THE COURT: He has testified at the time of deposition --

    MR. BLASIER: No problem with anything he testified at deposition. We're talking about this material in the book he has not already testified to.

    THE COURT: As far as I'm concerned, he's already published it; I think he's waived it.

    MR. BLASIER: He didn't publish anything, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: He didn't bring any action to suppress it at that time.

    MR. BLASIER: That's being considered at this time.

    THE COURT: It's a little bit late.

    MR. BLASIER: No, it's not late.

    THE COURT: For the record, motion denied.

    MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, for clarification, the first motion that you did grant precluded me from asking Mr. Simpson -- or eliciting that he did not testify at the criminal trial?

    THE COURT: That's correct.

    MR. PETROCELLI: No problem.

    THE COURT: Okay. Bring in the jury.

    (The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

    (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

    THE COURT: Morning.

    JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Plaintiff may proceed.

    MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

    Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 776, we call to the stand, the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson.

    ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, called as a witness pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 776 by the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and examined as follows:

    THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

    THE WITNESS: I do

    THE CLERK: Please be seated.

    And would you please state your name for the record.

    THE WITNESS: Orenthal James Simpson.



    Sorry man you've got the wrong Court proceeding. That's from the civil matter. You'll note the lawyers are different people than the criminal trial and the reference to the issue of self-incrimination from the criminal trial.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: DUI

    I just glanced at it but it seems he's posted an excerpt that relates to a pre-trial motion on the civil matter regarding whether OJ had impliedly waived solicitor/client privilege.

    The Style of Cause at the start would say "The People v. ...if it was the criminal proceeding.

    It would also have terms like Prosecution or Defense as opposed to Plaintiff, etc.

    Not to mention it would be people like Johnnie Cochran or Marsha Clark speaking instead of the other lawyers in the excerpt.

    I remember watching that verdict live on tv and thinking the look on OJ's face was not that of an innocent man set free but rather a guilty man who was shocked he was going to walk out of that courtroom.

    I live in Canada but I think that case fascinated people world wide. It was both an example of the problems with televising those proceedings and also that anything can happen with a jury.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: DUI

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

     

     



    So, what you're saying is, OJ never denied killing his wife?

     

     



    No.  You asked me if OJ took the stand. Anyone alive in the last 25 years would know the answer to that question, where it allowed his defense to deflect and make up preposterous non-sensical claims as a way to hope for an acquittal. Hence, the glove situation, which was infamously his only contribution in his own case.

     

    You know, sort of like how our own BBWs here or your as a loser Jets fan, try to deflect to make it seem like something isn't true when it is x 1000.

    The fact you didn't know that OJ didn't take the stand, as you JUST asked me if he did, means you continue to prove yourself as a victim of inbreeding.

    What's even funnier is how you somehow think OJ Simpson is comparable to Alfonzo Dennard.

     

     

     



    So, what you're saying now is that OJ took the stand, but did not deny killing his wife?  

    The only comparrison is that you thought it was relevant the Dennard denied hitting the cop.  

     

     



    I said he DID NOT take the stand. Very clearly, troll.

     

     




     

    Really?  OJ didn't take the stand and testify that he didn't kill his wife?  Are you sure about this Queenie?  Are you as sure as Brady's 4th quarter incerceptions giving the Raven's short fields to score TDs?

    How about this, Queenie.  If OJ did take the stand, you leave here and never ever come back under any of your hundreds of names?  If he didn't, I do.  

     



     

    Everyone knows OJ did not take the stand. He denied killing his wife by virtue of entering a not guilty plea. You know, the whole reason there was a trial. His lawyers would have been insane to have put him on the stand and thus didn't.

    I assume you're a man of your word and so we've then seen your last post.

    It's been fun.

     



    I'm sorry, what were you saying?  Can we agree that you and Queenie are taking the same deal?

     

     

    EPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
    NOVEMBER 22, 1996

    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

    VS.

    ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

    SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
    FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1996
    9:10 A.M.

    DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
    HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

    (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

    (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)

    THE COURT: Somebody has a motion?

    MR. BLASIER: I have two brief motions I'd like to make.

    As the Court is aware, Lawrence Schiller has written a book that purports to contain a great deal of information provided to him by Robert Kardashian, who is one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys.

    Much of that material concerns privileged communications between various members of the defense team and Mr. Simpson. In November -- November 28 of 1995, Mr. Simpson wrote a letter to all members of the defense team, and the letter itself is privileged, but I've been authorized to read a short portion, which states:

    "I require that all information you have gained in the course of our professional relationship be held inviolate. Unless and until you receive express and written permission from me, any written authorization shall be limited to specific communications described in the authorization, shall not be construed as a broad or blanket authorization or waiver; therefore, it is essential that any draft manuscript be reviewed by me before it is shared with others, by others or . . ." perhaps "others."

    This was not complied with with respect to that particular book.

    My motion that the plaintiffs be precluded from asking questions about excluded material in this book, as Mr. Simpson does not waive, has not waived his attorney-client privilege.

    To do so -- To ask such questions in front of a jury would be improper, require him to assert privilege in front of the jury.

    My second motion is that they also be precluded from asking any questions about his not testifying at the criminal trial, as that is also privileged -- I think it's 913 of the Evidence Code -- would be improper to ask any questions or comment about that in front of a jury.

    MR. PETROCELLI: This motion is totally improper. We've heard nothing about it until just now, five minutes before Mr. Simpson is going to take the stand. I don't have a clue what information they're talking about, what they contend is privileged, what is not privileged, what has been previously disclosed, what has been disclosed, and public sources and depositions and statements by the defendant.

    I don't know how to deal with this, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Well, you do know how to deal with that motion with regards to his exercise of his right from self-incrimination from the criminal trial.

    MR. PETROCELLI: No problem with that.

    THE COURT: That motion is granted.

    The rest of it is denied without prejudice.

    I don't see any basis on which I should grant a motion at this late stage. There was ample opportunity to exercise that privilege at the time the book was published. You should have had a motion at that time.

    MR. BLASIER: Mr. Simpson wasn't planning to testify at that time.

    He's now testifying. He's making the motion. We are not waiving the privilege. He should not be asked questions to assert it in front of a jury.

    THE COURT: He has testified at the time of deposition --

    MR. BLASIER: No problem with anything he testified at deposition. We're talking about this material in the book he has not already testified to.

    THE COURT: As far as I'm concerned, he's already published it; I think he's waived it.

    MR. BLASIER: He didn't publish anything, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: He didn't bring any action to suppress it at that time.

    MR. BLASIER: That's being considered at this time.

    THE COURT: It's a little bit late.

    MR. BLASIER: No, it's not late.

    THE COURT: For the record, motion denied.

    MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, for clarification, the first motion that you did grant precluded me from asking Mr. Simpson -- or eliciting that he did not testify at the criminal trial?

    THE COURT: That's correct.

    MR. PETROCELLI: No problem.

    THE COURT: Okay. Bring in the jury.

    (The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

    (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

    THE COURT: Morning.

    JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Plaintiff may proceed.

    MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

    Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 776, we call to the stand, the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson.

    ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, called as a witness pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 776 by the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and examined as follows:

    THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

    THE WITNESS: I do

    THE CLERK: Please be seated.

    And would you please state your name for the record.

    THE WITNESS: Orenthal James Simpson.



    Get a clue, nitwit!

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: DUI

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

     

     



    So, what you're saying is, OJ never denied killing his wife?

     

     



    No.  You asked me if OJ took the stand. Anyone alive in the last 25 years would know the answer to that question, where it allowed his defense to deflect and make up preposterous non-sensical claims as a way to hope for an acquittal. Hence, the glove situation, which was infamously his only contribution in his own case.

     

    You know, sort of like how our own BBWs here or your as a loser Jets fan, try to deflect to make it seem like something isn't true when it is x 1000.

    The fact you didn't know that OJ didn't take the stand, as you JUST asked me if he did, means you continue to prove yourself as a victim of inbreeding.

    What's even funnier is how you somehow think OJ Simpson is comparable to Alfonzo Dennard.

     

     

     



    So, what you're saying now is that OJ took the stand, but did not deny killing his wife?  

    The only comparrison is that you thought it was relevant the Dennard denied hitting the cop.  

     

     



    I said he DID NOT take the stand. Very clearly, troll.

     

     




     

    Really?  OJ didn't take the stand and testify that he didn't kill his wife?  Are you sure about this Queenie?  Are you as sure as Brady's 4th quarter incerceptions giving the Raven's short fields to score TDs?

    How about this, Queenie.  If OJ did take the stand, you leave here and never ever come back under any of your hundreds of names?  If he didn't, I do.  

     



     

    Everyone knows OJ did not take the stand. He denied killing his wife by virtue of entering a not guilty plea. You know, the whole reason there was a trial. His lawyers would have been insane to have put him on the stand and thus didn't.

    I assume you're a man of your word and so we've then seen your last post.

    It's been fun.

     



    I'm sorry, what were you saying?  Can we agree that you and Queenie are taking the same deal?

     

     

    EPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
    NOVEMBER 22, 1996

    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

    VS.

    ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

    SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
    FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1996
    9:10 A.M.

    DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
    HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

    (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

    (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)

    THE COURT: Somebody has a motion?

    MR. BLASIER: I have two brief motions I'd like to make.

    As the Court is aware, Lawrence Schiller has written a book that purports to contain a great deal of information provided to him by Robert Kardashian, who is one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys.

    Much of that material concerns privileged communications between various members of the defense team and Mr. Simpson. In November -- November 28 of 1995, Mr. Simpson wrote a letter to all members of the defense team, and the letter itself is privileged, but I've been authorized to read a short portion, which states:

    "I require that all information you have gained in the course of our professional relationship be held inviolate. Unless and until you receive express and written permission from me, any written authorization shall be limited to specific communications described in the authorization, shall not be construed as a broad or blanket authorization or waiver; therefore, it is essential that any draft manuscript be reviewed by me before it is shared with others, by others or . . ." perhaps "others."

    This was not complied with with respect to that particular book.

    My motion that the plaintiffs be precluded from asking questions about excluded material in this book, as Mr. Simpson does not waive, has not waived his attorney-client privilege.

    To do so -- To ask such questions in front of a jury would be improper, require him to assert privilege in front of the jury.

    My second motion is that they also be precluded from asking any questions about his not testifying at the criminal trial, as that is also privileged -- I think it's 913 of the Evidence Code -- would be improper to ask any questions or comment about that in front of a jury.

    MR. PETROCELLI: This motion is totally improper. We've heard nothing about it until just now, five minutes before Mr. Simpson is going to take the stand. I don't have a clue what information they're talking about, what they contend is privileged, what is not privileged, what has been previously disclosed, what has been disclosed, and public sources and depositions and statements by the defendant.

    I don't know how to deal with this, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Well, you do know how to deal with that motion with regards to his exercise of his right from self-incrimination from the criminal trial.

    MR. PETROCELLI: No problem with that.

    THE COURT: That motion is granted.

    The rest of it is denied without prejudice.

    I don't see any basis on which I should grant a motion at this late stage. There was ample opportunity to exercise that privilege at the time the book was published. You should have had a motion at that time.

    MR. BLASIER: Mr. Simpson wasn't planning to testify at that time.

    He's now testifying. He's making the motion. We are not waiving the privilege. He should not be asked questions to assert it in front of a jury.

    THE COURT: He has testified at the time of deposition --

    MR. BLASIER: No problem with anything he testified at deposition. We're talking about this material in the book he has not already testified to.

    THE COURT: As far as I'm concerned, he's already published it; I think he's waived it.

    MR. BLASIER: He didn't publish anything, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: He didn't bring any action to suppress it at that time.

    MR. BLASIER: That's being considered at this time.

    THE COURT: It's a little bit late.

    MR. BLASIER: No, it's not late.

    THE COURT: For the record, motion denied.

    MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, for clarification, the first motion that you did grant precluded me from asking Mr. Simpson -- or eliciting that he did not testify at the criminal trial?

    THE COURT: That's correct.

    MR. PETROCELLI: No problem.

    THE COURT: Okay. Bring in the jury.

    (The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

    (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

    THE COURT: Morning.

    JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Plaintiff may proceed.

    MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

    Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 776, we call to the stand, the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson.

    ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, called as a witness pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 776 by the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and examined as follows:

    THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

    THE WITNESS: I do

    THE CLERK: Please be seated.

    And would you please state your name for the record.

    THE WITNESS: Orenthal James Simpson.

     



    Sorry man you've got the wrong Court proceeding. That's from the civil matter. You'll note the lawyers are different people than the criminal trial and the reference to the issue of self-incrimination from the criminal trial.

     

     



    Wrong court proceeding?  Who the flook are you and who ever mentioned any particular court proceeding.  Queenie said that OJ never said he didn't kill his wife.  Then he changed it to never testified that he did not killed his wife.  The above is proof that OJ, did absolutely testify and state that he did not kill his wife.  You are as big of an idiot as he is. 

     



    You're the one who issued the challenge not me. It's pretty clear given the thread title and reference to Dennard's matter it was the criminal proceeding. I can't help it if you can't tell the difference.

    Look, this is just a football forum. You're the only one who can decide what's more important between maintaining your word or going against your word to stay on a Pats forum.

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: DUI

    He's building a resume of his troubles with the law, drugs and alcohol. It will probalby make a few teams stay away from him. Dennard never had any problems until his alleged assault of a police officer and hasn't shown any other history of problems. 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: DUI

    It's clear the context was OJ's criminal case given the original post related to another player's criminal matter and the comparisons to Dennard, also a criminal matter.

    But whatever. I didn't really think he'd leave regardless of what he said.

    It's all a bit silly since the original post had nothing to do with either Dennard or OJ.

    Unfortunately these threads get hijacked. I'd have no problem talking football with a Jets fan or any other team's fan if they'd just stick to that.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share