Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the OCCUPY whatever category.

Locked out: Jeanette Finicum struggles with BLM after shooting death of her husband, LaVoy, by Oregon State Troopers

Agriculture, Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, cattle, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, LaVoy Finicum, Lawsuits, Liberty, OCCUPY whatever

Tri-State Livestock News

Back to: News

Her husband will never return to trail the cows to winter range again, but Jeanette Finicum is determined that she will get the job done, eventually.

Although she’s provided a check to fully cover fines assessed over the last year, the Arizona rancher continues to be locked out of both her winter and summer grazing ranges.

Jeanette, whose husband Robert “LaVoy” Fincium was shot and killed by Oregon State Troopers last January, has managed grazing decisions on their northern Arizona ranch alone since his Jan. 26, 2016 death.

Pounding staples, doctoring sick calves and putting out mineral are on Jeanette’s list of tasks to complete throughout the year. Those are the easy jobs. She can soon add a much more painful item to the list: filing suit against the Bureau of Land Management. She plans to file suit within the next two weeks.

“My husband is dead because he went out to help the Hammonds. He stood for them and now they (the federal government) are trying real hard to make an example out of my husband. This is what will happen if you dare stand up. It’s like they are saying ‘you get in your place and don’t get out of it again or we’ll put you in solitary confinement or we’ll kill you.’ That’s what I see happening — innocent people are in jail right now.” Jeanette Finicum

The Finicums manage two separate grazing permits – summer and winter. Their 16,000 acres of winter range is to be grazed between Oct. 15 and May 15.

During the fall of 2015, LaVoy decided to utilize one pasture of his of winter range that hadn’t been grazed in six years. “The grass was really tall and he said, ‘I’m going to let the cows use the grass.’” Although his range allotment agreement allows him 169 AUMs, LaVoy had never turned out more than 70 head of cows on his winter range – in fact, many years it was less than that. He put his cattle on this pasture about 40 days before Oct. 15.

In order to best utilize the grass, some of the 70 cows remained on that pasture throughout the winter, and others were moved “on top” to the “mountain” where the rest of the winter range is located.

“As ranchers we take into consideration all of these things – we want to use the grass in a way that is best for the grass,” Jeanette said.

Jeanette explains that the land that she and LaVoy always considered their “summer” range is actually a small allotment that allows for maintenance of 35 AUMS year round, but they only used the land in the summer.

“It wouldn’t serve that property well (to graze it year round). We want to be good stewards of the range,” she said. “I know there are bad apples out there but most ranchers want the land to be well taken care of to be able to produce and stay healthy.”

The Finicums’ grazing fees have always been paid in full, she explains. Before traveling to Oregon to join protesters in opposition to the arrest of federal land ranchers Steven and Dwight Hammond, LaVoy had announced his plan to begin to pay his grazing fees to the county rather then the feds. He believed that constitutionally the state and county should be managing the land. “He made the announcement that he was no longer going to sign the contract, but the contracts were still in effect.” Because of of LaVoy’s untimely death, the contract remained intact and grazing fees were paid, Jeanette said.

Jeanette said that the BLM fined her trespass fees for the days the cattle were on the winter allotment prior to Oct. 15, and fees continued to accrue, even after the Oct . 15 turn-out date came and went.

In an effort to reduce the trespass fees to a more reasonable figure, Jeanette negotiated with the BLM throughout the spring. It came to her attention that she would not be allowed to use her “summer” range and she began to look for alternative pasture. Finding none, she felt like she had “nowhere to go,” and finally decided to dry-lot her cows and calves, taking them off winter range the first weekend in July.

Although Tri-State Livestock News asked Arizona state BLM representatives a number of questions relating to this subject, their response was brief:

“The Bureau of Land Management has been in contact with attorneys representing Jeanette Finicum and LaVoy Finicum’s estate since May 2016, in an attempt to resolve fines associated with a nearly year-long grazing trespass on the Tuckup Allotment,” said Amber Cargile, director of communications for Arizona’s BLM department.

Jeanette continued negotiations with the BLM to not only lessen the trespass fines, but also to complete other paperwork the BLM was calling for because they were not recognizing her as the allotment owner.

Rather than allow Jeanette to take over the grazing allotments after LaVoy’s death, state BLM representatives said she was not considered the heir to the allotments, even though she was the widow of one. They told her the grazing permits terminated upon his death and that she would have to start at square one with the application process to graze her (their) cattle on the allotment. Jeanette said the BLM also told her that her grazing rights are not “inheritable,” but she and her attorney disagree. “It is property and an asset to our estate,” she said.

The BLM said an environmental impact study would have to be conducted to determine whether or not she was eligible to graze the allotments.

Jeanette’s attorney advised her that under BLM rule 43 CFR 4110.2-3, the BLM is required to provide her two years to meet any paperwork requirements, and must allow her to continue to graze her cattle during those two years. Jeanette said she and her attorneys brought this law to the attention of BLM representatives and were told, “we don’t do it that way.”

“The BLM recognizes that Mrs. Finicum is a personal representative of her late husband’s estate. The BLM has been working with Mrs. Finicum and her legal counsel on issues related to both the fees associated with her husband’s estate as well as the future of the permit. Due to the ongoing nature of these discussions, we’re not at liberty to provide additional details at this time,” said BLM’s Cargile.

Jeannette drylotted the cows and calves throughout the summer to avoid selling the entire herd. She worked to meet BLM requirements, planning to turn her cattle out on winter range at the proper time without incident. Fines of over $12,000 had mounted over the trespass and when negotiations continued to dead-end, Jeanette decided to pay those fines in full.

With a 50-mile trail to her winter range, Mrs. Finicum had begun moving cattle on Oct. 13, planning to make about 15 miles per day until she arrived. Her mother in law had agreed to deliver a check for $12,355.47, the amount of the trespass fines, and her application required for the BLM’s environmental impact study. “I was told we had a deal with the BLM,” she remembers.

About one full day into the trail, a messenger arrived telling her that the BLM would not take her check and that she would not be allowed to turn her cattle onto her BLM winter range allotment.

“They said they weren’t accepting my check I’m 14 miles into the middle of the desert with cows and calves and nowhere to go,” she recalls.

“I had to find another range. My attorney and I, at that point, were still trying to negotiate. We thought it would be less than 30 days and I’d be back on my range. Finally my attorney said, ‘Jeanette, this is ridiculous.’ They won’t even follow their own laws, you need to do something, you need to move forward.”

So she decided to file suit.

Jeanette said her sister in law stepped in and offered pasture for her cattle for now.

While she and her late husband always maintained a cordial working relationship with their local BLM office, the state office has now been in communication with her regarding all of these issues, Jeanette said. “My husband and I liked the local range conservationists. We always got along with them. But their hands are tied.” She said that the state BLM office only communicates vaguely, such as offering to negotiate but not following through. “They say they want to work with you but then they do nothing.

“They don’t want my cows back out there.”

She’s “a little angry,” at the whole situation. “My husband is dead because he went out to help the Hammonds. He stood for them and now they (the federal government) are trying real hard to make an example out of my husband. This is what will happen if you dare stand up. It’s like they are saying ‘you get in your place and don’t get out of it again or we’ll put you in solitary confinement or we’ll kill you.’ That’s what I see happening – innocent people are in jail right now,” she said, referencing Steven and Dwight Hammond and five members of the Bundy family.

LaVoy was shot to death during last January’s protest headquartered on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon. While traveling with a caravan of peaceful protesters to a community meeting about federal land issues in nearby John Day,

Oregon, state and federal officers arrested all members of the party except LaVoy, who they killed after he exited his vehicle at a police stop point. The Oregon State Police later claimed that LaVoy was reaching for a weapon.

The Oregon State Police were cleared of any wrongdoing in March when the local investigators determined that the state troopers’ fatal shots were justified. But two shots from FBI agents remain under investigation. Initially FBI agents denied taking the shots toward LaVoy as he exited the vehicle with his hands in the air, but it was later proven that the shells were deployed from FBI weapons.

Jeanette said she has filed an intent to sue for wrongful death over LaVoy’s murder.

Locked out: Jeanette Finicum struggles with BLM after shooting death of her husband, LaVoy, by Oregon State Troopers

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution

Agriculture, Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, cattle, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, FIRES, Lawsuits, Liberty, OCCUPY whatever, Oregon and Water, Oregon governments, Over-regulations, Police State or SWAT teams, PRAYER, Property rights, PROTESTS, Ranch life, Threats to agriculture, Water rights

PNP comment: This article on “The Conservative Tree House.com” blog provides the truthful time-line in the Hammond verses BLM situation and the federal agency’s egregious actions. It is plain to see that the feds have coveted the Hammond ranch land and persecuted the family for decades hoping to obtain the property. The situation has now been escalated by the Nevada Bundy ranch family, Oath Keepers and militia (typically U.S. retired military) in creating an extremely difficult situation. Federal courts will not be kind. They have proven that with the terrible “terror” accusation and verdict of 5 years in prison for Dwight and Steven Hammond. Please read this article as it will provide you with the nuances needed to understand these sad and frustrating events. Meanwhile, please PRAY there will be a peaceful solution. — Editor Liz Bowen

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

 

Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…

Grab a coffee, because this is soup-to-nuts.

Many people will awaken today to the news of approximately 100 to 150 armed militia taking control of a closed Wildlife Park Headquarters, and not know the full back-story – so here it is:

burns 4burns 5

The short summary is:  in an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,) who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) heavily armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve.  They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.

Here’s the long version: including history, details, links video(s) and explanations:

Hammond Family

Hammond Family

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.

(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

THERE  IS  MUCH  MORE  at:

Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Redding protesters wary of drone use

Federal gov & land grabs, OCCUPY whatever, State gov

PNP comment: Surprisingly, we do have something in common with “occupy.” We are concerned our government will use drones to spy on “we the people.” — Editor Liz Bowen

A small band of protesters spent Saturday morning on Airport Road, campaigning for the U.S. to stop using unmanned aircraft, which they said pose privacy and safety dangers.

Five people turned out to demonstrate against drones at the AirCover Integrated Solutions Corp., which builds and researches the remotely piloted aircraft.

AirCover’s president and CEO, James Hill, said Friday the concerns range from unfounded to “absurd.”

Laurie O’Connell, 57, said passing motorists were universally supportive of the protest, which she attributes to the message’s appeal across the political spectrum.

She said the use of drones create privacy issues for libertarians and conservatives, and safety issues for progressives. She became concerned after reading about a crashed drone.

Read it:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jul/14/protesters-wary-of-drone-use/?partner=newsletter_headlines

No Comments

Occupy expands its rudeness and arrogance

Forestry & USFS, Greenies & grant $, OCCUPY whatever, Property rights

PNP comment: If you are going to the Logging Conference on Saturday, be aware, there’s going to be a protest. Please be respectful and not provoke them/become violent. That’s what they want!

For the record, clearcutting does not destroy forests.  Clearcutting is what we do, when we harvest our vegetables in the garden or farm crops. Clearcutting stops disease. It is a useful tool for managing forests. Maybe these OCCUPIERS should try some real FREE THOUGHT! — Editor Liz Bowen

 Below is from Occupy activists —

Occupy The Forest – STOP CLEARCUTTING CALIFORNIA

http://occupyredding.org/2012/01/occupy-the-forest/

PSA

February 3, 2012

For Immediate Release

OCCUPY DEMONSTRATION AGAINST CLEARCUTTING

Saturday February 11, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 12 noon:

Join an OCCUPY DEMONSTRATION AGAINST CLEARCUTTING at the Sierra Cascade Logging Conference at the Shasta District Fairgrounds located at 1890 Briggs Street in Anderson, CA.

Several members of  Occupy Redding will meet at FreeThought Central (2675 Bechelli Lane #3 Redding, CA, behind 2665) between 9:15 and 9:30am to car pool to the demonstration.

See http://occupyredding.org/2012/01/occupy-the-forest/ for more info and for printable signs

For information call: Mike 604-2648

1 Comment