International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Michael Avenatti thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329650)

acbytesla 9th July 2018 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12355514)
Thirsty got sued by the woman that Broidy allegedly knocked up.

the complaint is under seal, so I cannot say with assurance why Avenatti was named as a defendant. Of course Avenatti rushed right to Twitter to complain about it, and got destroyed by one of the plaintiff's lawyers in reply.

Here is some info. https://twitter.com/PeterStris/statu...14117622521856

If I were a betting man, I would lay 2-1 odds that the woman/plaintiff went to Avenatti for advice about her NDA and Thirsty managed to breach it causing Broidy to stop payments.

Time will tell, but I think we can all agree that Avenatti is a complete bozo.

What for? Playing into Avenatti's hands. If I were a betting man, I'd say it is frivolous.

The Big Dog 10th July 2018 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12355514)
Thirsty got sued by the woman that Broidy allegedly knocked up.

the complaint is under seal, so I cannot say with assurance why Avenatti was named as a defendant. Of course Avenatti rushed right to Twitter to complain about it, and got destroyed by one of the plaintiff's lawyers in reply.

Here is some info. https://twitter.com/PeterStris/statu...14117622521856

If I were a betting man, I would lay 2-1 odds that the woman/plaintiff went to Avenatti for advice about her NDA and Thirsty managed to breach it causing Broidy to stop payments.

Time will tell, but I think we can all agree that Avenatti is a complete bozo.

Avid readers of this thread were no doubt waiting for the other shoe to drop, and boy howdy, did it ever. In response to Avenatti's thirsty decision to run litigation through his twitter account, the plaintiff's lawyer dropped this thermonuclear own:

Quote:

Putting lies in legal documents doesn’t make them true. When YOU inevitably leak our complaint, it will be very clear why Judge Kwan provisionally sealed it for 20 days. Your media sideshow is a disgrace.:
Damn.....

https://twitter.com/PeterStris/statu...11156830834689

CapelDodger 10th July 2018 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12356819)
Avid readers of this thread were no doubt waiting for the other shoe to drop, and boy howdy, did it ever. In response to Avenatti's thirsty decision to run litigation through his twitter account, the plaintiff's lawyer dropped this thermonuclear own:



Damn.....

https://twitter.com/PeterStris/statu...11156830834689

I fear your new hero will prove to have feet of clay. He comes across as a complete dick.


The seal will come off in twenty days, so we'll soon see what it's all about.

The Big Dog 10th July 2018 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 12356879)
I fear your new hero will prove to have feet of clay. He comes across as a complete dick.


The seal will come off in twenty days, so we'll soon see what it's all about.

You do realize that all the lawyer is doing is replying to Thirsty's attacks on twitter right?

Avenatti went into court today without notice and claiming to represent the plaintiff to get the seal lifted. Seems like Thirsty failed again.

CapelDodger 10th July 2018 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12356883)
You do realize that all the lawyer is doing is replying to Thirsty's attacks on twitter right?

I've read what Avenatti has said too, and he doesn't come across as a dick. Your new hero does.


Quote:

Avenatti went into court today without notice and claiming to represent the plaintiff to get the seal lifted. Seems like Thirsty failed again.
Avenatti was acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one, so he was a plaintiff. Who did you think "the plaintiff" referred to?

CapelDodger 10th July 2018 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12355531)
What for? Playing into Avenatti's hands. If I were a betting man, I'd say it is frivolous.

It's definitely bizarre.

The Big Dog 10th July 2018 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 12356907)
I've read what Avenatti has said too, and he doesn't come across as a dick. Your new hero does.

Hmmm, you think that your hero is not acting like a dick, but the guy replying to him is? Ok

Quote:

Avenatti was acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one, so he was a plaintiff. Who did you think "the plaintiff" referred to?
wait, "acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one" in a suit brought against the defendants by a plaintiff makes a defendant a "plaintiff"? that is hilarious!! Oh man, thanks for the laugh!

the fact that Thirsty put that on his pleading means he is either dishonest or spectacularly incompetent.

Squeegee Beckenheim 10th July 2018 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12356883)
Avenatti

Are you feeling okay?

acbytesla 10th July 2018 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12356915)
Hmmm, you think that your hero is not acting like a dick, but the guy replying to him is? Ok



wait, "acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one" in a suit brought against the defendants by a plaintiff makes a defendant a "plaintiff"? that is hilarious!! Oh man, thanks for the laugh!

the fact that Thirsty put that on his pleading means he is either dishonest or spectacularly incompetent.

You're spinning. And it is funny.

Bechard is suing him for what? Seriously.

Avenatti was never ever Bechard's attorney so how has he breached any privilege? The answer is he hasn't. If Bechard has a complaint, she needs to take it up with her former attorney, Davidson.

What this proves is you can sue anybody for anything and totally without grounds. You may not win, but you definitely can sue.

The Big Dog 10th July 2018 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12356925)
Are you feeling okay?

I feel terrific, thanks ever so much for asking.

Michael Avenatti just showed again what a sloppy, incompetent lawyer he is, and got his ass handed to him.

Joecool 10th July 2018 11:18 AM

I wonder if Avenatti planned this?

Quote:

Trump exercised his power by nominating Brett Kavanaugh Monday night at the White House, adult film star Stormy Daniels exercised hers about a mile away, wearing nothing but black heels.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/0...r-white-house/

acbytesla 10th July 2018 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12356962)
I feel terrific, thanks ever so much for asking.

Michael Avenatti just showed again what a sloppy, incompetent lawyer he is, and got his ass handed to him.

What the hell are you talking about when you say he had his ass handed to him? So Bechard sued him. Big deal. You keep making the mistake of confusing suing and winning a case. Huge difference.

The Big Dog 10th July 2018 11:48 AM

Motion to unseal: denied.

It was a conditional sealing order so the lawsuit should be unsealed in 20 days, unless there are further motions to keep it sealed.

Chalk up yet another loss for Mike (although I expect he will be blathering about the contents of the complaint soon enough, because thirsty.)

acbytesla 10th July 2018 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12357038)
Motion to unseal: denied.

It was a conditional sealing order so the lawsuit should be unsealed in 20 days, unless there are further motions to keep it sealed.

Chalk up yet another loss for Mike (although I expect he will be blathering about the contents of the complaint soon enough, because thirsty.)

So what? The motion was denied. This hardly qualifies as getting his ass handed to him.

Squeegee Beckenheim 10th July 2018 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12356962)
Michael Avenatti

Are you sure you don't need a lie down?

CapelDodger 10th July 2018 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12356915)
Hmmm, you think that your hero is not acting like a dick, but the guy replying to him is? Ok

Your new hero claimed that Avenatti has been begging him not to sue, which doesn't approach credibility - the action of a dick. Avenatti replies that Stris is lying, which is entirely credible since that's the sort of thing dick's do.


Quote:

wait, "acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one" in a suit brought against the defendants by a plaintiff makes a defendant a "plaintiff"? that is hilarious!! Oh man, thanks for the laugh!
The motion to remove the seal on the secret suit is not the secret suit itself. It is a different thing. Avenatti is the plaintiff in the motion, and a defendant in the secret suit.


Quote:

the fact that Thirsty put that on his pleading means he is either dishonest or spectacularly incompetent.
It's more likely that you're rather confused, isn't it?

The Big Dog 10th July 2018 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 12357235)
The motion to remove the seal on the secret suit is not the secret suit itself. It is a different thing. Avenatti is the plaintiff in the motion, and a defendant in the secret suit.

It's more likely that you're rather confused, isn't it?

:eye-poppi

A person bringing a motion is called a "movant." Indeed the actual motion that Thirsty filed and which I linked to earlier refers to the actual plaintiff as the plaintiff and Avenatti as "Defendant."

The absolute cherry on top of that fail sundae was this: "It's more likely that you're rather confused, isn't it."

Pride goeth before the fall....

Fantastic. :thumbsup::D:thumbsup:

acbytesla 10th July 2018 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12357248)
:eye-poppi

A person bringing a motion is called a "movant." Indeed the actual motion that Thirsty filed and which I linked to earlier refers to the actual plaintiff as the plaintiff and Avenatti as "Defendant."

The absolute cherry on top of that fail sundae was this: "It's more likely that you're rather confused, isn't it."

Pride goeth before the fall....

Fantastic. :thumbsup::D:thumbsup:

Hmmmm. Pride goeth before fall. Can we quote you on that?

The Big Dog 10th July 2018 03:11 PM

Scene: courtroom

Bailiff: Smith v. Jones
Attorney 1: Good morning, Fred Doe for plaintiff
Attorney 2: Hello Judge, Dred Foe for Plaintiff
Judge: Oh, where is defendant?
2: Oh I represent the defendant, but it is my motion, so I am Plaintiff.
Judge: falls off chair laughing, holds 2 in contempt.

Fin

acbytesla 10th July 2018 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12357265)
Scene: courtroom

Bailiff: Smith v. Jones
Attorney 1: Good morning, Fred Doe for plaintiff
Attorney 2: Hello Judge, Dred Foe for Plaintiff
Judge: Oh, where is defendant?
2: Oh I represent the defendant, but it is my motion, so I am Plaintiff.
Judge: falls off chair laughing, holds 2 in contempt.

Fin

Some people amuse themselves. I wish I was that clever.

:rolleyes:

CapelDodger 10th July 2018 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12357248)
:eye-poppi

A person bringing a motion is called a "movant." Indeed the actual motion that Thirsty filed and which I linked to earlier refers to the actual plaintiff as the plaintiff and Avenatti as "Defendant."

I missed your link to the motion; could you re-post it? Meanwhile there's an excerpt shown here https://twitter.com/michaelavenatti/...50791568830464 which bears the title "Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Applicant". Is that an error? Should it be "Movant's Memorandum"? I live to learn.

The Big Dog 10th July 2018 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 12357329)
I missed your link to the motion; could you re-post it? Meanwhile there's an excerpt shown here https://twitter.com/michaelavenatti/...50791568830464 which bears the title "Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Applicant". Is that an error? Should it be "Movant's Memorandum"? I live to learn.

That is what I linked to earlier. Avenatti ********** up again when he erroneously wrote that it was plaintiff's motion.

Spectacular incompetence.

acbytesla 10th July 2018 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12357394)
That is what I linked to earlier. Avenatti ********** up again when he erroneously wrote that it was plaintiff's motion.

Spectacular incompetence.

Incompetent eh?

That lawyer has won lots of cases and made more money than you could dream of. And unlike Trump, Avenatti was born of modest means. Talk to us when you've pleaded and won a case in court. Because this Internet lawyering from the cheap seats seems pretty absurd.

CapelDodger 11th July 2018 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12357394)
That is what I linked to earlier. Avenatti ********** up again when he erroneously wrote that it was plaintiff's motion.
Spectacular incompetence.

Incredible incompetence. Which is to say, not credible.

A plaintiff is someone who initiates a legal action - in this case, a request for the seal to be removed from the secret suit. Avenatti was the plaintiff, and the case for that request being granted was set out in the Plaintiff's Memorandum.

Avenatti is apparently a defendant in the secret suit, but the secret suit and the request for the seal on the secret suit to be lifted are different things. In the latter thing, Avenatti was the plaintiff.

CapelDodger 11th July 2018 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12357407)
Incompetent eh?

That lawyer has won lots of cases and made more money than you could dream of. And unlike Trump, Avenatti was born of modest means. Talk to us when you've pleaded and won a case in court. Because this Internet lawyering from the cheap seats seems pretty absurd.

Yup.

The Big Dog 11th July 2018 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 12358337)
Incredible incompetence. Which is to say, not credible.

A plaintiff is someone who initiates a legal action - in this case, a request for the seal to be removed from the secret suit. Avenatti was the plaintiff, and the case for that request being granted was set out in the Plaintiff's Memorandum.

Avenatti is apparently a defendant in the secret suit, but the secret suit and the request for the seal on the secret suit to be lifted are different things. In the latter thing, Avenatti was the plaintiff.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

say, maybe you will understand this if 'super' lawyer Mikey avenatti explains it!

Here is the motion he filed:

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/...50791568830464

Click on the image!

You see the first line, he refers to "Plaintiff Sarah Bechard." In line two its says "defendant Michael Avenatti ("Defendant")."

ya following here??

Now, on the bottom he wrote "Plaintiff's Memorandum." Why did he do that? Because he is an incompetent hack of an ambulance chaser.

BASTA!

CapelDodger 11th July 2018 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12358361)
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/...50791568830464

Click on the image!

You see the first line, he refers to "Plaintiff Sarah Bechard." In line two its says "defendant Michael Avenatti ("Defendant")."

With reference to the secret suit, in which Bechard is the plaintiff and Avenatti apparently one of the defendants.

Quote:

ya following here??

Now, on the bottom he wrote "Plaintiff's Memorandum." Why did he do that? Because he is an incompetent hack of an ambulance chaser.

BASTA!
The memorandum is the case for the request that the seal on the secret suit be lifted : in that legal action (which is not the secret suit) Avenatti is the plaintiff and the memorandum is the Plaintiff's Memorandum.

So the very successful lawyer did not make an egregious error, and you did not catch him out on it. The seal was not lifted, but not because Avenatti was confused as to his role or standing in the case. And in a less than three weeks it'll come off anyway, unless some effort is made to keep it secret, at which point one would have to wonder why.

Why is it being kept secret now, for that matter? What's the word in the treehouse?

The Big Dog 11th July 2018 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 12358393)
The memorandum is the case for the request that the seal on the secret suit be lifted : in that legal action (which is not the secret suit) Avenatti is the plaintiff and the memorandum is the Plaintiff's Memorandum.

So the very successful lawyer did not make an egregious error, and you did not catch him out on it.

Let me let you down easy. Either Avenatti was wrong in his motion where he called himself "defendant" (repeatedly) or (are ya following?) he was wrong when he referred to it as "plaintiff's memorandum" on the bottom of the page. (as I have repeatedly and expertly explained, his ****up was referring to it as "plaintiff's memorandum" on every page of his motion (that he lost)) There ain't no way your incompetent hero is coming out of this competently.

By the way, the ex parte application was filed in the suit where the Plaintiff is Sarah Bechard and a defendant is Michael Avenatti.

Yeah, TBD caught the incompetent bankrupt lawyer out on an egregious error. Because TBD is just that good.

acbytesla 11th July 2018 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12358403)
Let me let you down easy. Either Avenatti was wrong in his motion where he called himself "defendant" (repeatedly) or (are ya following?) he was wrong when he referred to it as "plaintiff's memorandum" on the bottom of the page. (as I have repeatedly and expertly explained, his ****up was referring to it as "plaintiff's memorandum" on every page of his motion (that he lost)) There ain't no way your incompetent hero is coming out of this competently.

By the way, the ex parte application was filed in the suit where the Plaintiff is Sarah Bechard and a defendant is Michael Avenatti.

Yeah, TBD caught the incompetent bankrupt lawyer out on an egregious error. Because TBD is just that good.


You still going on about this? Getting mighty boring. Avenatti is a highly successful attorney. Are you?

The Big Dog 12th July 2018 07:40 AM

A federal bankruptcy judge issued a restraining order late Wednesday to block the firm of
Quote:

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels, from spending any fees it collects while it owes more than $10 million in unpaid debts and back taxes.

The move by Judge Catherine Bauer of U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Santa Ana was a severe blow to Avenatti, whose personal financial troubles have deepened as his star has risen on cable news.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...711-story.html

Notice that contemptible and inept knucklehead said "that was what we wanted."

Yeah, having a Judge oversee every single dime of collection from 54 cases is what thirsty wanted.

Bwhahaha!!

Basta baby!

acbytesla 12th July 2018 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12359062)
A federal bankruptcy judge issued a restraining order late Wednesday to block the firm of

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...711-story.html

Notice that contemptible and inept knucklehead said "that was what we wanted."

Yeah, having a Judge oversee every single dime of collection from 54 cases is what thirsty wanted.

Bwhahaha!!

Basta baby!

Is someone here obsessed? I think so.

The Big Dog 21st July 2018 02:10 PM

Thirsty admits, nay brags about conduct that is in clear violation of Rule 2-100 of the California Ethics rules by engaging in a discussion with Cohen who is represented by counsel.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/C...les/Rule-2-100

This guy is not just scumbag, he is a *********** dumbass.

acbytesla 21st July 2018 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12369765)
Thirsty admits, nay brags about violating Rule 2-100 of the California Ethics rules by engaging in a discussion with Cohen who is represented by counsel.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/C...les/Rule-2-100

This guy is not just scumbag, he is a *********** dumbass scumbag.


Rule 2-100 Communication With a Represented Party

(A) While representing a client, a member shall not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation with a party the member knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the member has the consent of the other lawyer.

Rule 2-100 Communication With a Represented Party
(A) While representing a client, a member shall not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation with a party the member knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the member has the consent of the other lawyer.

(B) For purposes of this rule, a "party" includes:

(1) An officer, director, or managing agent of a corporation or association, and a partner or managing agent of a partnership; or

(2) An association member or an employee of an association, corporation, or partnership, if the subject of the communication is any act or omission of such person in connection with the matter which may be binding upon or imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability or whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization.

(C) This rule shall not prohibit:

(1) Communications with a public officer, board, committee, or body; or

(2) Communications initiated by a party seeking advice or representation from an independent lawyer of the party's choice; or

(3) Communications otherwise authorized by law.

Discussion:

Rule 2-100 is intended to control communications between a member and persons the member knows to be represented by counsel unless a statutory scheme or case law will override the rule. There are a number of express statutory schemes which authorize communications between a member and person who would otherwise be subject to this rule. These statutes protect a variety of other rights such as the right of employees to organize and to engage in collective bargaining, employee health and safety, or equal employment opportunity. Other applicable law also includes the authority of government prosecutors and investigators to conduct criminal investigations, as limited by the relevant decisional law.

Rule 2-100 is not intended to prevent the parties themselves from communicating with respect to the subject matter of the representation, and nothing in the rule prevents a member from advising the client that such communication can be made. Moreover, the rule does not prohibit a member who is also a party to a legal matter from directly or indirectly communicating on his or her own behalf with a represented party. Such a member has independent rights as a party which should not be abrogated because of his or her professional status. To prevent any possible abuse in such situations, the counsel for the opposing party may advise that party (1) about the risks and benefits of communications with a lawyer-party, and (2) not to accept or engage in communications with the lawyer-party.

Talking to another lawyer does not constitute a violation of professional ethics.

Try another tack to smear Avenatti This one is off by a mile.

The Big Dog 21st July 2018 03:09 PM

I notice that a bunch of Thirsty Fans have been claiming that Thirsty did not violate the rule because Cohen is a lawyer.

Notably, the fact that the other party represented by counsel is a lawyer does not in any way, shape or form abrogate the violation of the Rule.

Lawyers hire lawyers to represent them in litigation, and they are not entitled to less protection than any other client.

NoahFence 21st July 2018 03:25 PM

:dl:

Please, continue.

acbytesla 21st July 2018 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12369815)
I notice that a bunch of Thirsty Fans have been claiming that Thirsty did not violate the rule because Cohen is a lawyer.

Notably, the fact that the other party represented by counsel is a lawyer does not in any way, shape or form abrogate the violation of the Rule.

Lawyers hire lawyers to represent them in litigation, and they are not entitled to less protection than any other client.

You simply don't understand the rule. This is not surprising since you are a couch potato attorney with zero experience in the law and you have a hard on for Avenatti.

Why don't you wait for Lanny Davis to assert that Avenatti was out of bounds before you start your vilification of Avenatti on this?

No, you'd rather display a faux outrage.

The Big Dog 21st July 2018 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahFence (Post 12369833)

Please, continue.

Happy to continue:

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/...34481839210496

https://twitter.com/ScottGreenfield/...04160741740544

Oh look actual lawyers agreeing with TBD's analysis

/Ah, the laughing dog, that is level of discourse I have come to expect.

NoahFence 21st July 2018 03:56 PM

The laughing dog is all you deserve.

CapelDodger 21st July 2018 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12358403)
Let me let you down easy. Either Avenatti was wrong in his motion where he called himself "defendant" (repeatedly) or (are ya following?) he was wrong when he referred to it as "plaintiff's memorandum" on the bottom of the page. (as I have repeatedly and expertly explained, his ****up was referring to it as "plaintiff's memorandum" on every page of his motion (that he lost)) There ain't no way your incompetent hero is coming out of this competently.

As I've explained, Avenatti is a defendant in the secret suit but the plaintiff in the application to have the seal lifted.

Quote:

By the way, the ex parte application was filed in the suit where the Plaintiff is Sarah Bechard and a defendant is Michael Avenatti.
What do you think you mean by "filed in the [secret] suit"? The secret suit and the ex parte application are distinct entities. In the former Avenatti is a defendant. In the latter he is the plaintiff.

Quote:

Yeah, TBD caught the incompetent bankrupt lawyer out on an egregious error. Because TBD is just that good.
I don't imagine anything will ever shake your belief in that.

acbytesla 21st July 2018 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12369847)
Happy to continue:

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/...34481839210496

https://twitter.com/ScottGreenfield/...04160741740544

Oh look actual lawyers agreeing with TBD's analysis

/Ah, the laughing dog, that is level of discourse I have come to expect.

I'm still laughing. Opinions are like anuses . Everyone has one. And when it comes to something political, the anuses come out like a mooning party.

As I said. Why don't you wait for Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's attorney to complain? We really don't know the specifics of their conversation and as always the devil is in the details.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.