| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 May 2004 02:59:44 PM |
| Object: |
DOI NOT LAW |
PART II
Some have claimed that the Declaration of Independence was/is Organic Law
of the United States. When certain people say it, it is said for a
particular reason.
The reason goes something like this:
Common Law:
Blackstone and Joseph Story, claimed that . Christianity is part and
parcel of the English Common Law. The basis of American Law is English
Common Law. That foundation is further reinforced by the organic laws of
this nation:
Declaration of Independence claims all our rights come from God
Articles of Confederation refer to God and Congress passed various
religious orientated acts under the A.O.C. Also Cont had Chaplains, dated
In Year of Our Lord
Northwest Ordinance, first sentence of Article III metnions religion
Constitution exempted Sundays and said In year of Our Lord First Congress
appointed chaplains
USSC "said" this was a "Christian Nation" in the Holy Trinity case
*********************************************************
The above is the in part or full formula of "proof" that some
people have
offered over the years in articles, books, letters to editors,
discussions
and debates, especially in various forums on the net.
**********************************************************
ALONG THE SAME LINES
http://www.witchvox.com/cases/10c_amendment.html
Posted: 6/21/1999
The Text of Amendment No.28:
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in part A of House Report 106-186. (H4364-4469)
AMENDMENT NO. 28 OFFERED BY MR. ADERHOLT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text
of the amendment is as follows: Part A amendment No. 28 offered by Mr.
Aderholt:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE XX--RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
SEC. XX. FINDINGS.
EC. XX. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are
instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by
their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of
nature's God.
(2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions
of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of
the blessings of liberty.
(3) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the United States Government.
(4) The rights secured under the First Amendment have been
interpreted by courts of the United States Government to be included among
the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(5) The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States respectively the
powers not delegated to the United States Government nor prohibited to the
States.
(6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public displays
of the Ten Commandments and to other public expression of religious faith.
(7) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants the Congress power
to enforce the provisions of the said amendment.
(8) Article I, Section 8, grants the Congress power to constitute
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and Article III, Section 1, grants
the Congress power to ordain and establish courts in which the judicial
power of the United States Government shall be vested.
SEC. XX. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.
(a) Display of Ten Commandments: The power to display the Ten
Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several
States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby declared to be among the
powers reserved to the States respectively.
(b) Expression of Religious Faith: The expression of religious faith
by individual persons on or within property owned or administered by the
several States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby"
(1) declared to be among the rights secured against laws
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of
religion made or enforced by the United States Government or by any
department or executive or judicial officer thereof; and
(2) declared to be among the liberties of which no State shall
deprive any person without due process of law made in pursuance of powers
reserved to the States respectively.
(c) Exercise of Judicial Power: The courts constituted, ordained, and
established by the Congress shall exercise the judicial power in a manner
consistent with the foregoing declarations.
******************************
THE DOI AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
We were asked the following questions
(1) More importantly, the text of the Constitution - and the deliberations
leading to it - contradict what is being asserted. During the
constitutional debates, one finds minimal mention of God, the Bible,
Jesus, the Ten Commandments or even the Declaration of Independence.
Rather, one sees a remarkable lack of significant references to any of
those entities, and a resulting document staggering for its secularity. In
the state ratification conventions, the decision to omit God was discussed
and upheld [refs needed], consistent with fact that despite references to
the Almighty and sectarianism in virtually every state constitution, the
national constitution has neither.
Can you supply me with cites for the above that I was told?
(2) Are you aware of any mention of the DOI in the deliberations that gave
rise to the Bill of Rights? (Or, for that matter, in the deliberations
that gave rise to the Constitution, itself? Although I imagine there must
have been some there."
Our reply was:
There are no references for the word Bible. There are approx eleven
references for the word religion. None for Jesus. I only find three
references for The Declaration of Independence, one during the debates, one
during the ratification debates in Penna, and on in a letter in 1788.
Monday, June 18, 1787
.. . . If the States therefore retained some portion of their sovereignty,
they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it. If they
formed a confederacy in some respects-they formed a Nation in others-The
Convention could clearly deliberate on & propose any alterations that Cong!
could have done under ya federal articles, and could not Cong• propose by .
virtue of the last article, a change in any article whatever: and as well
that relating to the equality of suffrage, as any other. He made these
remarks to obviate some scruples which had been expressed. He doubted much
the practicability of annihilating the States; but thought that much of
their power ought to be taken from them.
Mr. MARTIN, said he considered that the separation from G. B.
placed the 13 States in a state of Nature towards each other; that they
would have remained in that state till this time, but for the
confederation; that they entered into the confederation on the footing of
equality; that they met now to to amend it on the same footing; and that he
could never accede to a plan that would introduce an inequality and lay Io
States at the mercy of V• Mass!-and Penn•
Mr. WILSON, could not admit the doctrine that when the Colonies
became independent of G. Britain, they became independent also of each
other. He read the declaration of Independence, observing thereon that the
United Colonies were declared to be free & independent States; and
inferring that they were independent, not individually but Unitedly and
that they were confederated as they were independent, States.
SOURCE: Bicentennial Edition, Notes of the Debates i the Federal Convention
of 1787, Reported by James Madison With an introduction by Adrienne Koch W.
W. Norton & Company (1987) p. 153
******************************
[EXCERPT]
But the gentleman takes pride in the superiority of this short
preamble when compared with magna charta;-why, Sir, I hope the rights of
men are better understood at this day, than at the framing of that deed,
and we must be convinced that civil liberty is capable of still greater
improvement and extension, than is known even in its present cultivated
state. True, Sir, the supreme authority naturally rests in the people, but
does it follow, that therefore a declaration of rights would be
superfluous? Because the people have a right to alter and abolish
government, can it therefore be inferred that every step taken to secure
that right would be superfluous and nugatory? The truth is, that unless
some criterion is established by which it could be easily and
constitutionally ascertained how far our governors may proceed, and by
which it might appear when they transgress their jurisdiction, this idea of
altering and abolishing government is a mere sound without substance. Let
us recur to the memorable declaration of the 4th of July, 1776. Here it is
said:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the pow-ers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the laws of nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying
its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Now, Sir, if in the proposed plan, the gentleman can shew any
similar security for the civil rights of the people I shall certainly be
relieved from a weight of objection to its adoption, and I sincerely hope,
that as he has gone so far, he will proceed to communicate some of the
reasons (and undoubtedly they must have been powerful ones,) which induced
the late federal convention to omit a bill of rights, so essential in the
opinion of many citizens to a perfect form of government.
SOURCE: John Smilie Responds to James Wilson on the Lack of a Bill of
Rights. Penna Constitutional Ratification Convention, November 28, 1787,
The Debates on the Constitution, Part One The Library of America, Second
Printing (1993) p. 805
******************************
[EXCERPT]
Dear Sir New York Sept. 21. 1788
.. . . Congress have at length finished the preparations necessary to give
the New Government Effect after a great deal of debating & perhaps some
warmth; occasioned by the indecision, or rather division of the Members
about a place the most proper for the first meeting &c &c. This Question,
Sir, had the power to collect all the delegations from the different parts
of the Union, so that there has not been a fuller Congress since the
declaration of Independence.
SOURCE: Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December
31, 1789
John Swann to James Iredell, page 381
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_gy5w::
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2CB11048
******************************
With regards to the BORs I can steer you in the direction of a book, which
I always wanted to buy but at 136.00 new or 90.00 used it is not something
that will happen anytime soon.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019510322X/ref=ase_rkbabooksinassocA/102-8912
202-4995310
The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins by
Neil H. Cogan (Editor)
.
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: DOI NOT LAW |
11 May 2004 07:30:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
PART II
The DoI can't be "law," because there wasn't a government in place to
make it law. Everything beyond that is superfluous -- but the history
lesson is a worthwhile one. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: DOI NOT LAW |
11 May 2004 12:55:40 PM |
|
|
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> PART II
:|
:| The DoI can't be "law," because there wasn't a government in place to
:|make it law. Everything beyond that is superfluous -- but the history
:|lesson is a worthwhile one. :)
The compliment and the :) doesn't exactly erase the following:
[You said]
"All you can do is clip my argument, declare victory, and run like a
chicken-***** toad?
If I'm wrong, you ought to be able to address my arguments directly
and tell me why.
[Reattached material buck was too chicken-***** to respond to]"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you always get into name calling so early in exchanges with people who
disagree with you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: DOI NOT LAW |
11 May 2004 03:30:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> PART II
:|
:| The DoI can't be "law," because there wasn't a government in place to
:|make it law. Everything beyond that is superfluous -- but the history
:|lesson is a worthwhile one. :)
The compliment and the :) doesn't exactly erase the following:
[You said]
"All you can do is clip my argument, declare victory, and run like a
chicken-***** toad?
If I'm wrong, you ought to be able to address my arguments directly
and tell me why.
[Reattached material buck was too chicken-***** to respond to]"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you always get into name calling so early in exchanges with people who
disagree with you?
When you bust off arrogant comments like yours, you shouldn't be that
surprised when you receive such a reply. (I note, for the record, that
you still haven't addressed the Pierson v. Ray problem.)
I will compliment you when it is warranted -- and slam you when it is
deserved. Fortunately, I don't have to whack you often. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: DOI NOT LAW |
12 May 2004 07:15:16 AM |
|
|
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|> PART II
:|>>:|
:|>>:| The DoI can't be "law," because there wasn't a government in place to
:|>>:|make it law. Everything beyond that is superfluous -- but the history
:|>>:|lesson is a worthwhile one. :)
:|>
:|> The compliment and the :) doesn't exactly erase the following:
:|>
:|> [You said]
:|> "All you can do is clip my argument, declare victory, and run like a
:|> chicken-***** toad?
:|> If I'm wrong, you ought to be able to address my arguments directly
:|> and tell me why.
:|> [Reattached material buck was too chicken-***** to respond to]"
:|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|> Do you always get into name calling so early in exchanges with people who
:|> disagree with you?
:|
:| When you bust off arrogant comments like yours, you shouldn't be that
:|surprised when you receive such a reply.
Arrogant? Hmmmmm, seems that is in the eye of the beholder. Why were you
upset by those comments. They are factual. They were supported cites and
quotes. You jumped into a discussion that had nothing to do with you and
toss out comments and you decided I was arrogant? LOL
BTW. to set the record straight, this has been an ongoing discussion with
Alberto at least a year or more old.
I can be as rude and crude as the best of them, I can insult, name call lay
personal attacks with the best of them, but even I don't engage in such
with the first couple replies I make to someone.
Now there are some people I insult every time I reply to them on purpose.
However, was a process over a long period of time to come to that point.
A process that usually consists with fairly frequent, sometimes daily,
interaction with them over at least 6 months to a year, usually longer
than that.
You will also find that I am not the only person who treats them that way.
So, no, I don't expect such from a reasonable intelligent person especially
that early in a exchange of posts and replies.
I don't know you, I have read very few of your posts or replies prior to
this. I had no opinion of you whatsoever.
:|(I note, for the record, that
:|you still haven't addressed the Pierson v. Ray problem.)
I have no intention of addressing such.
:|
:| I will compliment you when it is warranted --
in you not so humble opinion, right
:|and slam you when it is
:|deserved.
in your opinion
:|Fortunately, I don't have to whack you often. :)
Your whacking, if it follows the lines of what you have offend with regards
to courts making law is pretty irrelevant to me. At no point in time did
you show or establish that my list of sources were making it up, lying,
misrepresenting, it. The mere fact that "case law" is law puts you in a
awkward position.
Do have fun, and in the meantime you go on my ignore list. Someone that has
a need to imitate Richard Gardiner I have no interest in. Richard Gardiner
would resort to personal attacks and insults within a post/reply or two if
someone was disagreeing with him. The more one dealt with him the more
common his attacks became until it reached a point, at times. that there
was little or no substantive discussion going on at all, It was pure
insults, attacks, etc.
One Gardiner is enough per decade
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: DOI NOT LAW |
12 May 2004 08:43:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
:|>>:| wrote:
:|>>:|> PART II
:|>>:|
:|>>:| The DoI can't be "law," because there wasn't a government in place to
:|>>:|make it law. Everything beyond that is superfluous -- but the history
:|>>:|lesson is a worthwhile one. :)
:|>
:|> The compliment and the :) doesn't exactly erase the following:
:|>
:|> [You said]
:|> "All you can do is clip my argument, declare victory, and run like a
:|> chicken-***** toad?
:|> If I'm wrong, you ought to be able to address my arguments directly
:|> and tell me why.
:|> [Reattached material buck was too chicken-***** to respond to]"
:|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|> Do you always get into name calling so early in exchanges with people who
:|> disagree with you?
:|
:| When you bust off arrogant comments like yours, you shouldn't be that
:|surprised when you receive such a reply.
Arrogant? Hmmmmm, seems that is in the eye of the beholder. Why were you
upset by those comments. They are factual.
They aren't factual or even true, for that matter. That someone said
something is not at issue; what is at issue is whether said rules work.
Failing to address the substance of my posts, refuting the
kindergarten exposition of law you have offered, reasonably qualifies as
arrogance.
They were supported cites and quotes.
Tertiary source material, only used by lawyers when they have NO
other authority to back up their claims. Simplistic, slipshod, sad.
You jumped into a discussion that had nothing to do with you and
toss out comments and you decided I was arrogant? LOL
No. I tossed out comments, which you snipped and failed to address,
pretending that the substance did not exist. You argue just like Bill
O'Reilly. I find his style disingenuous, at best.
BTW. to set the record straight, this has been an ongoing discussion with
Alberto at least a year or more old.
And Alberto seems to be having the better of it. He may be
untutored, but his common sense shone through.
I can be as rude and crude as the best of them, I can insult, name call lay
personal attacks with the best of them, but even I don't engage in such
with the first couple replies I make to someone.
Now there are some people I insult every time I reply to them on purpose.
However, was a process over a long period of time to come to that point.
A process that usually consists with fairly frequent, sometimes daily,
interaction with them over at least 6 months to a year, usually longer
than that.
You will also find that I am not the only person who treats them that way.
So, no, I don't expect such from a reasonable intelligent person especially
that early in a exchange of posts and replies.
Nor do I normally expect people to snip everything I write, repost
the same incontinent crap, and declare "victory." No wonder you and
Alberto have been going at this for a year or more -- you have no
intention of listening.
I don't know you, I have read very few of your posts or replies prior to
this. I had no opinion of you whatsoever.
:|(I note, for the record, that
:|you still haven't addressed the Pierson v. Ray problem.)
I have no intention of addressing such.
Of course not! It refutes your position utterly -- and we can't have
that, now can we? LOL!
:|
:| I will compliment you when it is warranted --
in you not so humble opinion, right
:|and slam you when it is deserved.
in your opinion
:|Fortunately, I don't have to whack you often. :)
Your whacking, if it follows the lines of what you have offend with regards
to courts making law is pretty irrelevant to me. At no point in time did
you show or establish that my list of sources were making it up, lying,
misrepresenting, it. The mere fact that "case law" is law puts you in a
awkward position.
Hardly. That we call it "case law" as shorthand for a infinitely
more "obscure and complex process" (Gilmore) does not change the
substance of what it is. What you are doing is intellectually
dishonest, even though it is consonant with what they teach in law school.
Do have fun, and in the meantime you go on my ignore list.
Fine. "He who speaks before hearing, it is folly and shame to him."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana whatsittoya" |
|
| Title: Re: DOI NOT LAW |
12 May 2004 07:53:13 PM |
|
|
"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:40A21F1E.2050705@it.com...
Ken.
I have read your documents relating to your court case out there in Co,
about you not being allowed on the bar.
What ever happened, and since last I saw the federal district court claims
not to have the authority to hear your case, can you take it to the USSC.
Seems you had all your ducks in a row there, and it should have been a win
for your argument.
Are you able to find any links between the judges and that evangelist. Can
you take a Bar exam in another state??
Good luck in your fight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: DOI NOT LAW |
12 May 2004 09:36:20 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:40A21F1E.2050705@it.com...
Ken.
I have read your documents relating to your court case out there in Co,
about you not being allowed on the bar.
What ever happened, and since last I saw the federal district court claims
not to have the authority to hear your case, can you take it to the USSC.
Yes and no. First and foremost, you *NEVER* want to take anything to
SCOTUS unless there is NO alternative -- they only hear about a hundred
cases a year, and almost never hear unpublished cases. [I did send one
narrow argument to the Court, but the odds are more than 100-1, unless
your name is George Bush.] Second, you have to exhaust all state court
remedies before you can even get heard [which could have been a reason
why I didn't get cert on my narrow issue; I realized that it was a risk,
but since I did it myself and it was a good experience...]. As long as
I can get something done in state court, SCOTUS doesn't need to touch it
-- that's why I filed the placeholder action in Colorado.
This will have to work its way through Colorado's court system, and I
still have a few tricks up my sleeve. :)
Seems you had all your ducks in a row there, and it should have been a win
for your argument.
It's a slam-dunk. Even the damage actions are strong -- I've had
them vetted by First Amendment experts. I won't tell you who (to
preserve my A/C privilege), but one is a nationally known commentator.
The problem is that I am fighting an institutional corruption that is
almost unfathomable. (The original game plan was to file the suit, get
the justices to talk, and cut a deal.) But judges are like mobsters, in
the sense that they will circle the wagons when need be. They will lie
to protect the institution, not unlike Bernard Cardinal Law did when he
covered up the sex abuse scandal.
The corruption in our courts is staggering -- it's like entering the
gates of Dante's hell. And if you don't believe me, take it from Gerry
Spence.
I recognize that the *only* way I can win this battle is to wage it
in the media. If you are able to train the cameras on them -- and I
have a few favors to call in from my days exposing televangelists --
they will play by the rules. But the story has to be shocking, and it
has to be a cautionary tale for everyone. It's getting there....
Are you able to find any links between the judges and that evangelist. Can
you take a Bar exam in another state??
While I am able to take a bar exam in another state, there is honor
among thieves. I'd get harassed if I went anywhere -- you can take it
to the bank. And I'd likely be a marked man in any event. I have but
two choices: to fight and perhaps get something, or capitulate and be
destroyed. Besides, if I win, they'll be too scared to screw with me.
It's a practical application of Pascal's Wager. :)
Good luck in your fight.
Gracias. Keep your ears open for a 20/20 or Inside Edition report.
At this point, it could happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana whatsittoya" |
|
| Title: Re: DOI NOT LAW |
12 May 2004 10:58:05 PM |
|
|
"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:40A2DE95.3020309@it.com...
Dana wrote:
"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
news:40A21F1E.2050705@it.com...
Ken.
I have read your documents relating to your court case out there in Co,
about you not being allowed on the bar.
What ever happened, and since last I saw the federal district court
claims
not to have the authority to hear your case, can you take it to the
USSC.
Yes and no. First and foremost, you *NEVER* want to take anything to
SCOTUS unless there is NO alternative -- they only hear about a hundred
cases a year, and almost never hear unpublished cases. [I did send one
narrow argument to the Court, but the odds are more than 100-1, unless
your name is George Bush.] Second, you have to exhaust all state court
remedies before you can even get heard [which could have been a reason
why I didn't get cert on my narrow issue; I realized that it was a risk,
but since I did it myself and it was a good experience...]. As long as
I can get something done in state court, SCOTUS doesn't need to touch it
-- that's why I filed the placeholder action in Colorado.
Ok, good explanation for us laymen
This will have to work its way through Colorado's court system, and I
still have a few tricks up my sleeve. :)
Great.
Seems you had all your ducks in a row there, and it should have been a
win
for your argument.
It's a slam-dunk. Even the damage actions are strong -- I've had
them vetted by First Amendment experts. I won't tell you who (to
preserve my A/C privilege), but one is a nationally known commentator.
The problem is that I am fighting an institutional corruption that is
almost unfathomable. (The original game plan was to file the suit, get
the justices to talk, and cut a deal.) But judges are like mobsters, in
the sense that they will circle the wagons when need be. They will lie
to protect the institution, not unlike Bernard Cardinal Law did when he
covered up the sex abuse scandal.
On this I can agree with 100%.
I have seen similar corruption with public officials.
The corruption in our courts is staggering -- it's like entering the
gates of Dante's hell. And if you don't believe me, take it from Gerry
Spence.
And it is not just the Courts, it is the local police departments as well.
Cape Coral PD would not press charges against the drunk driver that murdered
my mother, because the drunk driver was a friend to the cops. Hell the lady
had an open bottle of Seagram 7 in the front seat, and the cops never even
gave her a breath test, let alone a BAC.
I recognize that the *only* way I can win this battle is to wage it
in the media. If you are able to train the cameras on them -- and I
have a few favors to call in from my days exposing televangelists --
they will play by the rules. But the story has to be shocking, and it
has to be a cautionary tale for everyone. It's getting there....
Are you able to find any links between the judges and that evangelist.
Can
you take a Bar exam in another state??
While I am able to take a bar exam in another state, there is honor
among thieves. I'd get harassed if I went anywhere -- you can take it
to the bank. And I'd likely be a marked man in any event. I have but
two choices: to fight and perhaps get something, or capitulate and be
destroyed. Besides, if I win, they'll be too scared to screw with me.
It's a practical application of Pascal's Wager. :)
Good luck in your fight.
Gracias. Keep your ears open for a 20/20 or Inside Edition report.
At this point, it could happen.
Good, keep on fighting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
