|
Kalman posted:It cant be done. You can opt out and sue separately, or you can stay in the class. Or opt out and not sue, I guess. Judging by his mention of Prenda Law, it sounds like his plan is to threaten to object to the settlement of the class-action suit unless the class attorneys agree to give him money. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't strike me as an excellent plan.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Thuryl posted:Judging by his mention of Prenda Law, it sounds like his plan is to threaten to object to the settlement of the class-action suit unless the plaintiffs' attorneys agree to give him money. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't strike me as an excellent plan. Well, I hadn't considered that. You could do that. And you will, sooner or later, get sanctioned for it. Probably sooner than later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:Judging by his mention of Prenda Law, it sounds like his plan is to threaten to object to the settlement of the class-action suit unless the class attorneys agree to give him money. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't strike me as an excellent plan. Could you imagine the anarchy that would result from class actions if this were possible?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
So, my youtube channel has become quite popular in the last few months which means I've been approached by a bunch of digital networks to partner with them for promotion, collaboration and stuff (I'm making about $5k from my channel, not huge, but it's growing slowly). Anyway, contracts and term sheets are being sent and it's trouble to read these things without feeling that somewhere in them there's a secret clause that will doom me to digital slavery. Most of these sound like traditional entertainment contracts with the agency taking a cut, and hopefully providing some sort of services to improve the overall revenue generation etc etc. So, anyway, a few questions: 1) Do I gain or lose anything in legal protection by signing up with a company that's In California (where myself and youtube are both locates) vs out of state or even out of the country. 2) How commited am I if I sign a term sheet with broadly agreeable terms? Can I still back out if details in the contract are dealbreakers? illectro fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jun 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 00:49
|
|
ROCKET SCIENCE
|
You can afford a lawyer, dummy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
As an individual class member, you can go ahead and opt-out following the directions in the notice. You are then free to bring a lawsuit against a multinational corporation all by yourself for the $5 you got screwed out of. You also don't get your free can of Pringles. The lawyers representing the class will not give a poo poo. As others have mentioned, there is a small sub-specialty of class action settlement objectors. Technically you could show up as a non-lawyer class member and object, but settlement objectors are pretty much exclusively lawyers for obvious reasons. Some do it for ideological reasons, some do it because they genuinely feel the settlement is unfair to the class, but the vast, vast, vast majority do it because they think it is a quick way to make a buck by being a nuisance. For the most part, settlement objectors are pariahs and even judges don't want some random rear end in a top hat coming in to blow up a settlement. Unless you have a LEGITIMATE reason for thinking the settlement is unfair, it is unlikely that a judge will even let you speak. I'm not saying there aren't instances in which objectors serve a valid purpose, but in those instances the objectors are usually sophisticated parties or competent class action lawyers and not some Joe-schmoe. I'll readily admit that there are a ton of lovely settlements (especially when it comes to non-monetary awards), but those lovely settlements have more to do with the calculus that goes into determining a settlement value then some nefarious plot by lawyers. The bigger the settlement, the more money the class action lawyers make. When you get .05c and coupon it is usually because the underlying case is so incredibly weak/low value that you should be glad you managed to get anything. I don't want to go on some huge rant, so let me just say that if the class action doesn't work out, the lawyers that bring the case get absolutely nothing. They could have spent hundreds of hours and millions of dollars pursuing an entirely legitimate case, but if it doesn't work out because the class doesn't get certified or the jury just doesn't break right, the lawyers are completely hosed. That is partly why the fees can seem so gaudy -- they have to account for the significant chance of zero recovery for the effort spent. Additionally, the money that goes to lawyers is a form of deterrence. Sure, .05c and a coupon means nothing to you, but a corporation is going to think twice before pulling some bullshit if they know they are going to have some rear end in a top hat lawyers all over them looking for .05c for ever can of Pringles ever sold and millions of dollars in legal fees. Edit: As someone else mentioned, unless you know what you are doing you are more likely to be sanctioned then to make money. It takes actual work to mount a successful objection. I know people who have been successful just showing up, but you usually have to expend considerable resources/effort just briefing before a judge will even hear your objections. As far as I know, the only way to make money as an objector is to be a lawyer. You either capture some sort of nuisance side agreement or the judge grants you a percentage of the difference between the original settlement and the settlement that occurred because of your genius objection. If you are a class member and you somehow manage to double the recovery, you get .10c and two coupons as opposed to .05c and one coupon. All that being said, if anyone has a lovely settlement they want to object to, I'm all ears. MayakovskyMarmite fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Jun 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
While that's true, I get the feeling a lot of class action suits go like this: Company realizes they did something that might cause class action liability, and discusses it with their counsel at Law Firm A. Later, a partner at Law Firm A plays a round of golf with his good friend, a partner from Law Firm B. Law Firm B then gets a token plaintiff and files a class action suit against Company, in a jurisdiction that Law Firms A and B are familiar with. Company hires Law Firm A to defend them, and settlement negotiations go smoothly. They present a settlement offer that is tailored specifically to the judge's individual preferences in such matters, which is approved. Company pays an amount that is easily predicted to Law Firm B, as well as their fee to Law Firm A, and sends a bunch of worthless coupons to the class. They are able to protect themselves from all future liability and the matter is closed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
Maybe I'm naive, but I feel like that is pretty rare and limited to small value claims. Anything with real dollars attached will have a slew of copy-cat complaints. All you need to do is find a plaintiff and copy/paste the original complaint to screw that sort of deal up. Most big money actions end up as MDLs these days or have multiple competing firms fighting for control. The only "sweat heart" deal I can think of at the moment is the BNY Mellon/Countrywide settlement where some institutional investors allegedly cut a deal with an investment bank. But even that has been fought over for years now and has entities like AIG on the objecting side. The more money at stake, the more likely someone is going to make a stink. Class action defense/plaintiffs attorneys are not natural friends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
illectro posted:So, my youtube channel has become quite popular in the last few months which means I've been approached by a bunch of digital networks to partner with them for promotion, collaboration and stuff (I'm making about $5k from my channel, not huge, but it's growing slowly). Anyway, contracts and term sheets are being sent and it's trouble to read these things without feeling that somewhere in them there's a secret clause that will doom me to digital slavery. Most of these sound like traditional entertainment contracts with the agency taking a cut, and hopefully providing some sort of services to improve the overall revenue generation etc etc. Not a lawyer, don't have a youtube channel, but http://www.rocketjump.com/blog/youtube-networks-7-things-you-need-to-know by Freddie Wong is good reading, if you haven't seen it already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Regarding Class Actions: The laypersons aren't aware of this, but the purpose of having Class Action suits is to protect the Defendant Corporations, not the potential plaintiffs. This seems counter-intuitive, unless you consider something like the recent Verizon settlement. What if Verizon had to conduct an individual lawsuit, with 100,000 different people, in 100 different courts, all at once; over $150.00 each. Verizon would immediately go bankrupt. So, instead of bankrupting every major corporation that employs thousands of people, the Class Action process was created. So if you are planning to subvert the class action process to your own end, understand that if your decisions threaten to impact the defendant's procedural rights or the class action suit itself in any negative way, then what you're planning on doing will almost certainly not be permitted, and absolutely won't net you any greater individual benefit than had you followed the class action process. So there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
illectro posted:So, my youtube channel has become quite popular in the last few months which means I've been approached by a bunch of digital networks to partner with them for promotion, collaboration and stuff (I'm making about $5k from my channel, not huge, but it's growing slowly). Anyway, contracts and term sheets are being sent and it's trouble to read these things without feeling that somewhere in them there's a secret clause that will doom me to digital slavery. Most of these sound like traditional entertainment contracts with the agency taking a cut, and hopefully providing some sort of services to improve the overall revenue generation etc etc. Lawyer up, now. $1,600.00 - $2,500.00 retainer to review and advise you on the contracts, and have him eat it up hourly as you hve questions for him. Doing this will make you money in the future. He will pay for himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
Well, it's also to make it worthwhile to litigate millions of 10 dollar cases. Litigation is expensive and, absent class representation, Verizon could quite easily decide to cheat every single customer of five bucks, secure in the knowledge that no one customer is going to sue for five dollars when it would cost them $500k to prove their case. Class actions are an improvement for both sides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
illectro posted:1) Do I gain or lose anything in legal protection by signing up with a company that's In California (where myself and youtube are both locates) vs out of state or even out of the country. 99% of contracts contain a "Choice of Forum"/"Choice of Law" clause in them. This is a simple statement that "this contract will be governed by the laws of (state)." The insane amount of variables here make answering your question impossible without having to bill you. CA compared to what state? multiple states?, now compare CA and X state's rules of contractual interpretation, statutes of frauds, common law duties. Now decide which state's laws are better suited to my protection. Would I prefer federal court or local venue.... Nightmare. Get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Well, it's also to make it worthwhile to litigate millions of 10 dollar cases. Litigation is expensive and, absent class representation, Verizon could quite easily decide to cheat every single customer of five bucks, secure in the knowledge that no one customer is going to sue for five dollars when it would cost them $500k to prove their case. Plus the advantage to the court system. The practical consequence of 100,000 people suing in 100 different courts would be the collapse of the judicial system, not Verizon. But yes, more likely they simply wouldn't sue at all. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Jun 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Plus the advantage to the court system. The practical consequence of 100,000 people suing in 100 different courts would be the collapse of the judicial system, not Verizon. But yes, more likely they simply wouldn't sue at all. Interesting that you should post that just after the SCOTUS American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant opinion came out. What's funny is that AT&T won a similar case back in 2011 to force class litigants into individual arbitration. About 1000 arbitration cases were filed and AT&T cried foul. They wanted their class action back. The firm behind the mass arbitration scheme was Faruqi & Faruqi. They are one of the law firms that "investigates" large corporate mergers. They race to be the first to file a shareholder action in opposition. They then stall the merger until paid off. The point is that there are a lot of class actions and similar litigations wherein a person can find themselves shoved in a class and represented by shysters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Suppose you're negotiating on your own behalf against a business and they assume you are a lawyer. You are not a lawyer and do not claim you are a lawyer, but do not correct them when they say something like "You're a lawyer, you know how this goes." Could you have any problems resulting from their uncorrected assumption?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Suppose you're negotiating on your own behalf against a business and they assume you are a lawyer. You are not a lawyer and do not claim you are a lawyer, but do not correct them when they say something like "You're a lawyer, you know how this goes." Could you have any problems resulting from their uncorrected assumption? Falsely making youself out to be a lawyer is a crime (this is virtually if not literally universal). Not correcting an offhand mistake is probably harmless as far as it goes. But if the business negotiates with you on the basis that you are a lawyer and then realises you are not and has a paper trail of you stringing them along in that belief, then you are in a very bad place. Do not do this, it is a Bad Idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Falsely making youself out to be a lawyer is a crime (this is virtually if not literally universal). Not correcting an offhand mistake is probably harmless as far as it goes. But if the business negotiates with you on the basis that you are a lawyer and then realises you are not and has a paper trail of you stringing them along in that belief, then you are in a very bad place. I agree with this statement in general. However, unless you are providing legal advice or services to the other party, that other party just simply made a mistake. It would be illegal in all US States (and probably almost everywhere else, as noted above) to represent that you are a lawyer and then actually provide advice or services that are relied upon by another party, or to perform an act that the jurisdiction's Bar dictates may only be performed by a lawyer (represent another party in court, represent your corporation if you are a non-lawyer, etc.). That's generally referred to as 'Unauthorized Practice of Law (or UPL).' It would also include advertising yourself as a lawyer, obviously. However, barring any actual easy-to-define UPL, if the opposing party in a negotiation (in this case, a business) just offhandedly makes the assumption that you are a lawyer, that's a unilateral mistake (again, unless you have misled them, or they have been otherwise falsely informed). That's their problem. From a strict contract perspective that's a problem if it somehow gives you an unfair advantage in negotiation and you knew about it at the time, or at any time where it would have made a difference to the other party during formation or maybe performance of the agreement. From a tort perspective, it would be problematic if there was some bad faith act on your part that would create liability for some kind of fraud or deceit which is relied upon by the other party, and that reliance was the reason they acted in some way that was disadvantageous to them and that they otherwise would not have done...it goes on and on. It's fact-specific. I guess what I'm trying to say is "it depends." But, if you think it's an issue, you should correct their assumption just for your own moral well-being. If you think they've acted the way they have because you are a lawyer (when you are not), you should correct them. If it ever happens again in the future, correct them. But, if it was just an offhand remark made in the past during a discrete transaction, just blow it off; you haven't done anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
illectro posted:So, my youtube channel has become quite popular in the last few months which means I've been approached by a bunch of digital networks to partner with them for promotion, collaboration and stuff (I'm making about $5k from my channel, not huge, but it's growing slowly). Anyway, contracts and term sheets are being sent and it's trouble to read these things without feeling that somewhere in them there's a secret clause that will doom me to digital slavery. Most of these sound like traditional entertainment contracts with the agency taking a cut, and hopefully providing some sort of services to improve the overall revenue generation etc etc. wow, yes; as the first reply said: you need a lawyer and additionally you probably need to incorporate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
buzzsaw.gif posted:I guess what I'm trying to say is "it depends." But, if you think it's an issue, you should correct their assumption just for your own moral well-being. If you think they've acted the way they have because you are a lawyer (when you are not), you should correct them. If it ever happens again in the future, correct them. But, if it was just an offhand remark made in the past during a discrete transaction, just blow it off; you haven't done anything wrong. I agree with you (although in the UK it's a crime outright to dishonestly claim to be a lawyer because that is making yourself out to be an officer of the court, there may be equivalents depending on jurisdiction). The short and sweet answer is 'if this was enough of a deal that it occurred to you to come to this thread and ask, then it's probably a big enough deal to get you in trouble if you don't play things straight'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Is it standard protocol for defense lawyers to ask their clients if they are guilty? Or is that taboo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Buckhead posted:Is it standard protocol for defense lawyers to ask their clients if they are guilty? Or is that taboo? In my experience that's question number zero. "I'm here to defend you, but I need to know the whole truth so I can figure out how best to do that. Tell me what really happened and don't get hung up on guilty or innocent right now."
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Buckhead posted:Is it standard protocol for defense lawyers to ask their clients if they are guilty? Or is that taboo? It's basically taboo in England, as I understand it. If your client admits he committed the crime, you would then be misleading the court if you ran any kind of defence positively asserting his innocence, although I think you may still be able to run the minimal "just say nothing and knock any weak points in the prosecution's case you can" defence. If he wants to plead guilty or insists on telling you the truth, you work with what comes with that, but you wouldn't actually ask him to do this. He tells you what he wants to tell you, and you defend him on the basis of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Buckhead posted:Is it standard protocol for defense lawyers to ask their clients if they are guilty? Or is that taboo? "Are you guilty?" No, never. "What happened, down to the smallest detail" Yes. (After explaining the attorney client relationship and its implications, and that I don't care and it doesn't make a difference to me if you are guilty.) Defense lawyers don't have to prove that someone is innocent. All they have to do is convince 12 people that the prosecutor has failed to present evidence sufficient to prove the client guilty; and not just guilty but guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is immaterial; probably guilty is immaterial; all that matters is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense lawyers don't have to prove anything; that's the prosecutor's job - we poke holes, call attention to lies and inconsistencies, show impossibilities etc. in the State's case. The State presents evidence, defense counsel put it to the test. If my client didn't tell the police that he robbed the convenience store, but tells me that he did? Not only have I no duty to reveal that information, I have a duty to not reveal it. Since that information will not be part of the State's proof, it plays no part in my attack on the State's proof. If my client tells me he's going to testify and that he's going to lie? That's a problem. "Then you're not testifying" has always worked for me, but there are a couple more steps if he insists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Buckhead posted:Is it standard protocol for defense lawyers to ask their clients if they are guilty? Or is that taboo? Depends on the lawyer and the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If my client tells me he's going to testify and that he's going to lie? That's a problem. "Then you're not testifying" has always worked for me, but there are a couple more steps if he insists. Like what? Just curious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Hey all, I have an update to my predicament with this photographer who didn't pay my invoices and with whom I had an unpaid "internship." He e-mailed me a letter with all kinds of good stuff in it (nothing on paper...). Join in on the fun here: Freelance FTW: Unpaid Invoices and Unpaid Internships
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Like what? Just curious. Ask the judge to let you withdraw from the case, though you can't tell him/her why. (The judge will know why) That request will be denied. If your guy still insists on testifying and you know he'll lie, you can't take part in the testimony. You'll tell the judge beforehand that your client will be testifying in narrative form. Instead of asking specific, discrete questions of your client to develop his testimony, either you or the judge will lead off with, "Mr. Bagadonuts, this is your chance to speak to the jury. Is there anything you'd like to say?" And that's it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Ask the judge to let you withdraw from the case, though you can't tell him/her why. (The judge will know why) You should also insist on getting your instructions in writing and signed because when it all goes horribly wrong mr-client-now-facing-5-years is going to try to pin the blame for his disastrous testimony all on you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
I posted a thread in the BFC subforum (where anyone who is interested can read for more information), but I want to ask a more specific question here about the following portion of a letter (PDF e-mail) I received from the photographer who is a now-former client of mine.The Photographer posted:You agreed to received professional one-on-one training on Adobe Lightroom and Before I ask my question, here is a list points for consideration (I'm being redundant and pedantic for the sake of clarity): 1) I worked for him as an independent contractor (when he would book me for shoot dates as well as time to help him maintain his studio) and then in April, we began an unpaid "internship" situation alongside that (retouching wedding images). 2) I got paid for my IC work, but not the internship work. 3) During the unpaid internship, I worked on photos which he still had to submit to his clients (for free) 4) During the unpaid internship, the photographer guided me to produce the images to his standards and to his liking until he was satisfied with the work before he would submit them to his clients. 5) The unpaid internship had no written contract 6) The unpaid internship, as I understood* it, was for some number of projects (4, 5, 6?) or indeterminate length of time (1 month? 2, 3, 4?) until the photographer decided he was satisfied with my work and then being able produce work for him for pay. 7) The photographer (until I received this letter) was in agreement with those undetermined number of projects an length of time. 8) The photographer also had in mind that I was required finish the internship when it was deemed to be complete (see 6 and 7) 9) As you can see above, the photographer now states that the internship was only supposed to be for 4 projects. I completed 3. 10) If I had been aware of the number of projects or length of time to complete the internship, I would not have quit the internship (or would be much much less likely to quit it). 11) When I quit the internship, the photographer told me that I was required to complete the internship ("the big wedding season is coming up and now I have to find someone else" was an additional thing he threw into that conversation), and I told him that, sure, I could help him out and do this next project and the one after that. The photographer obviously did not accept that offer. So now, as you can read above, he wants me to either do more free work for him or to pay him for the "training" he has given me. That seems bogus, but I could be wrong. However, my question is: What kind of recourse does the photographer have for me immediately quitting the internship (i.e. without notice)? *I use the past tense here, because he is contesting my understanding of the scope of the internship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
I'm not giving you legal advice here, but this is how I see it: Employers don't get compensated for internships. An internship is a relationship with a student that is actually, in many cases, a burden to the entity supplying instruction. They don't charge you for them, and federal guidelines on what constitutes an internship state that if they're relying on you for their business, you aren't an intern. You're an employee, or IC. Of course there could be legal facets of this I don't understand, because otherwise rofl “The Photographer" is a loving moron. Yeah your honor I'm suing because this guy didn't compete stuff I needed done for my business in exchange for an internship. I imagine he might be questioned on why he was trying to classify you as an intern when your work was necessary to the operation of his business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Dawww, he's trying to claim that you have an obligation to be an independent contractor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
My favorite part of that letter (you can read the whole thing at the bottom of the first page of the thread he linked) is this:quote:In addition, you have agreed to not distribute or share or otherwise disseminate "I'm going to sue you for copyright violations that I assume are going to happen in the future!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
I mean, you shouldn't do this, but I'm about 95% sure that my reaction to that would be to just make fun of him until he got mad then to take him to small claims court. I guess I'd consider one-upping him and replying telling him that I only consent to a trial in an Admirality Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:I guess I'd consider one-upping him and replying telling him that I only consent to a trial in an Admirality Court. You your person or you the fictitious legal entity? Be sure to mention not establishing joinder. Also, demand a copy of his "berth" certificate while you're at it. e: Nevermind, I see your username is all caps, so you're obviously referring to the fictitious legal entity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Hahaha. Not a lawyer at all, but in Canada that unpaid 'internship' would be bullshit. Along with the other tests, you have to basically be providing labour of no or negligible value to the employer. If he was sending things you did out to clients then you were doing actual work, even if it wasn't the best quality. I know the US tests are slightly less stringent but they still have generally the same thrust. So theoretically, he probably owes *you* money. edit: Yeah, reading that other thread it's very much not an internship. T.C. fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jun 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:e: Nevermind, I see your username is all caps, so you're obviously referring to the fictitious legal entity. This name was forced upon me by an UNJUST MOD I did not consent to this name my naturalized name is mattmatt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
I just want to say that while I know practically nothing useful about law, freemen on the land are one of my top two groups to follow for their crazy antics. The other being bitcoiners, so of course there's like 60% overlap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
The specific state is MN dealing with customers that are in the US and Canada, but I'm wondering if and how this is legal anywhere in the US. MN company AAA sends a bill for parts and labor to customer BBB. Customer BBB (US or Canada) accidentally overpays AAA. Customer BBB notices the error and asks AAA to refund them the amount of overpayment. Company AAA says, "We will credit the overage to your account and you can use that towards future services. After one year, we will send you a check for the difference."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
US credit card companies do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:24
|
|