THE ACCURATE RELOADING POLITICAL CRATER

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading  Hop To Forums  The Political Forum    Texas Speaker of the House drunk as a skunk on the floor of the House
Page 1 2 

Moderators: DRG
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Texas Speaker of the House drunk as a skunk on the floor of the House Login/Join 
One of Us
Picture of Schrodinger
posted Hide Post
It’s interesting Lane that you make pronouncements about Hunter Biden, yet to find this man drunk, since he is a Republican, you demand absolute proof, whatever absolute proof is. I assume by absolute proof you are really talking about objective proof, ie the intoxilizer. First, when I used to defend DUII’s, if a bad blow was the issue, in jury selection, I would always ask, “If you had a $100,000 in cash would you deposit the money in a bank atm.” I am yet to have a person answer in the affirmative. Machines aren’t infallible, but more to the point as Mjines. Mitchell have tried to tell you, one has look at the totality of the evidence.
This drunkenness allegation is a big deal, at least politically. Don’t suspend your common sense (you consider yourself as we have been told by you many times, to be a pragmatic thinker). I submit, his failure to provide a contrary explanation in the face of this allegation of drunkedness, although circumstantial is as strong as evidence, coupled with his bizzaro behavior, as an any intoxilizee.
 
Posts: 8635 | Location: Oregon  | Registered: 03 June 2018Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
A PBT test is not admissible in KY. Thus, not proof. It gives LE probable cause to arrest.

Physical Manifestations and film of those manifestations are admissible. They are sufficient to convict.

The burden of proof is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Not all doubt is reasonable.

No state requires all found to be defeated, not all shadow of doubt. Absolute doubt is not required. That belief gets you struck for cause. I do lot even have to use a strike.

I am surprised LE at the Capital did not arrest him for Public Intoxication, or wait until he got behind the wheel and arrest him for dui.

Now, if he had a doctor and certified medical records of some condition that causes this, I would listen.
 
Posts: 12633 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.


I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?


As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38438 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
He is most likely drunk.
 
Posts: 12633 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Schrodinger
posted Hide Post
No”most likely about it; the dude was brewed.
 
Posts: 8635 | Location: Oregon  | Registered: 03 June 2018Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.


I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?


As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.


You were not asked if he looks impaired. You think he possibly could be impaired do to a medical condition.

The question is does he look drunk to you? Yes or no?

Funny you can tell how healthy a homeless person is just driving by him, but you cssnmot tell if someone is under the influence of intoxicants.

I do not believe a PNT test is even admissible in Texas, but that video and how he acts are proof.
 
Posts: 12633 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.


I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?


As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.


You were not asked if he looks impaired. You think he possibly could be impaired do to a medical condition.

The question is does he look drunk to you? Yes or no?

It is a possibility for sure.

Funny you can tell how healthy a homeless person is just driving by him, but you cssnmot tell if someone is under the influence of intoxicants.

I do not believe a PNT test is even admissible in Texas, but that video and how he acts are proof.

Not if I was a juror.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38438 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Schrodinger:
It’s interesting Lane that you make pronouncements about Hunter Biden, yet to find this man drunk, since he is a Republican, you demand absolute proof, whatever absolute proof is.

The Republican is owed the benefit of the doubt. The Democrat is already proven a reprobate by signing onto the Democratic platform. Cool

I assume by absolute proof you are really talking about objective proof, ie the intoxilizer. First, when I used to defend DUII’s, if a bad blow was the issue, in jury selection, I would always ask, “If you had a $100,000 in cash would you deposit the money in a bank atm.” I am yet to have a person answer in the affirmative. Machines aren’t infallible,

If you appeared hypokalemic from GI disease would you prefer I just administer IV potassium and hope? Or, would you rather I measure your serum electrolytes on a machine for some objective data prior?


but more to the point as Mjines. Mitchell have tried to tell you, one has look at the totality of the evidence.
This drunkenness allegation is a big deal, at least politically. Don’t suspend your common sense (you consider yourself as we have been told by you many times, to be a pragmatic thinker). I submit, his failure to provide a contrary explanation in the face of this allegation of drunkedness, although circumstantial is as strong as evidence, coupled with his bizzaro behavior, as an any intoxilizee.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38438 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
This is why the term deplorable gets used.

The Republican is owed the benefit of the doubt. The Democrat is already proven a reprobate by signing onto the Democratic platform. Cool
 
Posts: 12633 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.


I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?


As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.


You were not asked if he looks impaired. You think he possibly could be impaired do to a medical condition.

The question is does he look drunk to you? Yes or no?

It is a possibility for sure.

Funny you can tell how healthy a homeless person is just driving by him, but you cssnmot tell if someone is under the influence of intoxicants.

I do not believe a PNT test is even admissible in Texas, but that video and how he acts are proof.

Not if I was a juror.


You nor any Juror get to decide the PDT is admissible. By law it is a mistrial for a PBT to even be mentioned to the Jury. You are not allowed to even hear about it.

You would be struck for cause. No one would even have to use a strike on you. For someone who claims to be around the Legal System as much as you, you could not pass a basic civics test.

Not all doubt is reasonable. The standard is not all doubt or a shadow of a doubt.

You as a juror have no say on what is admissible evidence. That video is.
 
Posts: 12633 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
The guy is shithouse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U8OAIRFP7Q


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Watch him. He is impaired.

I wouldn’t care about the specifics, he was trying to do the people’s business in an impaired state. He hasn’t apologized or offered a rationale as to why he shouldn’t be impeached.

Go ahead with removal.
 
Posts: 11200 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
I would have to say at the very least he has been to the Joe Biden School of Public Speaking......

Definitely impaired, kinda like Biden, Fetterman and Fienstien....


jumping
 
Posts: 42463 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.


I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?


As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.


You were not asked if he looks impaired. You think he possibly could be impaired do to a medical condition.

The question is does he look drunk to you? Yes or no?

It is a possibility for sure.

Funny you can tell how healthy a homeless person is just driving by him, but you cssnmot tell if someone is under the influence of intoxicants.

I do not believe a PNT test is even admissible in Texas, but that video and how he acts are proof.

Not if I was a juror.


You nor any Juror get to decide the PDT is admissible. By law it is a mistrial for a PBT to even be mentioned to the Jury. You are not allowed to even hear about it.

You would be struck for cause. No one would even have to use a strike on you. For someone who claims to be around the Legal System as much as you, you could not pass a basic civics test.

Not all doubt is reasonable. The standard is not all doubt or a shadow of a doubt.


You as a juror have no say on what is admissible evidence. That video is.


This flew right over your head.

Let me help simplify it for you. Please read below.

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
but that video and how he acts are proof.

Not if I was a juror.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38438 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
What additional evidence would you need?

Don't get me wrong--I agree with you. I'm asking myself the same question.
 
Posts: 7027 | Location: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, USA | Registered: 08 March 2013Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
The fellow was impaired. In a trial if he had a plausible explanation for impairment, I would accept it unless there was objective proof he was under the influence of alcohol.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38438 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Impaired the evidence is there.

Drunk?

Witnesses stating they saw him drinking.

Witnesses stating the smelled alcohol on his breath.

A blood alcohol test showing levels close to or above the legal limit of impairment relatively proximate to his acts.

Disprove?

A good clinical diagnosis of a state that can cause alteration and proof that he has it would make me feel that he may not be at fault for his impairment, but the film itself speaks that he was impaired... He would need to prove to me that it was not his fault he was impaired to get me to consider a lesser punishment by mitigation.
 
Posts: 11200 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
LHeym, is the charge alcohol intoxication or is it driving under the influence of a substance?

If its driving under the influence, what the substance is is irrelevant, its if he is impaired. Folks are claiming he's drunk on alcohol. I don't know that... but I certainly see impairment.

Maybe its the scientific mindset... but you need to state the question correctly to get scientific types to agree.

Lane, is the speaker impaired?

That is as good an answer as you can get from a scientific type from that video.

Are the odds pretty good that it is alcohol? I would say so given the guy isn't usually that way, but that's a supposition, not a fact.
 
Posts: 11200 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
LHeym, is the charge alcohol intoxication or is it driving under the influence of a substance?

If its driving under the influence, what the substance is is irrelevant, its if he is impaired. Folks are claiming he's drunk on alcohol. I don't know that... but I certainly see impairment.

Maybe its the scientific mindset... but you need to state the question correctly to get scientific types to agree.

Lane, is the speaker impaired?

That is as good an answer as you can get from a scientific type from that video.

Are the odds pretty good that it is alcohol? I would say so given the guy isn't usually that way, but that's a supposition, not a fact.


If he wasn't driving, he couldn't be charged with DUI.

The standard is what more is needed for impeachment--which is largely a political decision.

Unless he has a reasonable explanation for his condition as shown on the video, I would vote for impeachment.
 
Posts: 7027 | Location: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, USA | Registered: 08 March 2013Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
LHeym, is the charge alcohol intoxication or is it driving under the influence of a substance?

If its driving under the influence, what the substance is is irrelevant, its if he is impaired. Folks are claiming he's drunk on alcohol. I don't know that... but I certainly see impairment.

Maybe its the scientific mindset... but you need to state the question correctly to get scientific types to agree.

Lane, is the speaker impaired?

That is as good an answer as you can get from a scientific type from that video.

Are the odds pretty good that it is alcohol? I would say so given the guy isn't usually that way, but that's a supposition, not a fact.


If he wasn't driving, he couldn't be charged with DUI.

The standard is what more is needed for impeachment--which is largely a political decision.

Unless he has a reasonable explanation for his condition as shown on the video, I would vote for impeachment.


I would agree with that.
 
Posts: 11200 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
My defense lawyer is DUI.

This House Speaker should have been arrested for PI, or better yet, let him get behind the shell of his car. When he turns the engine on stop him for DUI. Then you can field sobriety test him which is admissible and PBT him to get a warrant for his blood. TX probably still has implied consent. This, after the PBT or Field Sobriety Test the officer does not have to get a warrant to take his blood. Yes, he can refuse. However, in implied consent states the refusal is permissible evidence in the case in chief of guilt.
 
Posts: 12633 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of DuggaBoye
posted Hide Post
quote:
My defense lawyer is DUI .

Currently
or in the past,
or is it the first or last name?


DuggaBoye-O
NRA-Life
Whittington-Life
TSRA-Life
DRSS
DSC
HSC
SCI
 
Posts: 4594 | Location: TX | Registered: 03 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Don't pick on his grace! We all know he is functionally illiterate.... Of course he blames it on his,phone.....

Where is the evidence????

animal
 
Posts: 42463 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Good bye Paxton

Not concerning about the guy who does not use any sentences nor punctuation.

Go try to overturn a due election JTex.

The 2020 and 2022 elections went so well for you.

Dr. Butler we know what illegal violence the Nazis used and not just the Pusch. It is not revisionist. You are flat out wrong.

You are trying to be revisionist. Go read a book if you want to know all the illegal ways the Nazis and Fascist came to pier. It Bette yet, take a 21 century history class.


The Nazis and Fascist takeover is not equivalent to your examples. Certainly it is not equivalent to your FDR example.

JTex, your man Dugga did not write or type a complete sentence.
 
Posts: 12633 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
The fellow was impaired. In a trial if he had a plausible explanation for impairment, I would accept it unless there was objective proof he was under the influence of alcohol.


Objective proof beyond the video? 2020

To be fair, here's what I see you saying: if he brought a doctor to the trial who said he had stroked out, suffered some sort of medical neurological impairment...or, if there was some other sort of medical reason for him acting like he was totally shit-faced, that would give you an excuse to say he wasn't totally shit-faced.

Right?

BTW, still waiting for that statement from Phelan's office about that stroke or whatever it was. Been more than a week and not one word. What do you think that means, Lane? Maybe that there wasn't a medical excuse? Because if there was, we would have heard about it the next day, if not sooner?

2020


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Scott King
posted Hide Post
Is there a reason to show up for a legislative session sober?

I'm not sure I e seen anything more useless that a 21st century legislature, why not tie on a good one in advance? Big Grin
 
Posts: 9654 | Location: Dillingham Alaska | Registered: 10 April 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
Is there a reason to show up for a legislative session sober?

I'm not sure I e seen anything more useless that a 21st century legislature, why not tie on a good one in advance? Big Grin


The back story I'm seeing on this is that it was a light-night session and it is a long tradition in the Texas House to booze during late-night sessions. They even have a bar in the legislative chamber.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Scott King
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
Is there a reason to show up for a legislative session sober?

I'm not sure I e seen anything more useless that a 21st century legislature, why not tie on a good one in advance? Big Grin


The back story I'm seeing on this is; that it was a light-night session and it is a long tradition in the Texas House to booze during late-night sessions. They even have a bar in the legislative chamber.


So the intent and design is to show up hammered.

Texas is forward thinking, I like it! Big Grin
 
Posts: 9654 | Location: Dillingham Alaska | Registered: 10 April 2006Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading  Hop To Forums  The Political Forum    Texas Speaker of the House drunk as a skunk on the floor of the House

Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia

Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: