Roggensack Announces Reelection Bid
Make no mistake... after the liberals in Wisconsin handily lost the recall election and the general election - they are going to pull out all the stops to try to flip the court. This will be one of the nastiest elections in state history.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack says she is running for re-election.
Roggensack announced her re-election campaign Wednesday. She says as a justice, she has “called the balls and strikes” as each case has required.
Roggensack also notes she is the only justice with the court who previously served as a state appeals court judge.
Roggensack is part of the conservative majority on the high court. She was elected to a 10-year term in 2003 and faces re-election next year.
Yep, it’s always the liberals’ fault when an election is nasty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 1203 hrs
I predict the wining side will declare an ideological mandate:)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 1237 hrs
She says as a justice, she has “called the balls and strikes” as each case has required.
Where did she go to law school, Cooperstown?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 1345 hrs
This statement could also be made about the upcoming election.
After the conservatives in Wisconsin handily lost the U.S. Senate election and the Presidential general election - they are going to pull out all the stops to try to maintain the conservative court. This will be one of the nastiest elections in state history.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 1537 hrs
On the plus side, both Roggensack and Sumi have excellent credentials. Sadly, we haven’t always been able to say that about recent candidates in these races - whether it’s that legal dunce Gableman or King of Traffic Court Louis Butler.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 29, 2012 at 1603 hrs
“This will be one of the nastiest elections in state history.”
That line seems to have been used a lot in the last year and a half.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 1659 hrs
“they are going to pull out all the stops to try to flip the court”
...and you, site-owner, are going to do anything to save her a$$.
(Provided she or her comrades send some $$$ your way to plug her and discredit the others).
Let’s not forget, money talks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 1826 hrs
Maryann Sumi’s or Ed Fallone’s first political ad!
“I am Patience Roggensack and I approve of this message…”
http://illusorytenant.blogspot.ca/2011/04/what-do-you-know-but-it-was-patrick.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 2004 hrs
Yep, it’s always the liberals’ fault when an election is nasty.
To be fair, it is usually the minority pulling out new tactics.
George Pyle, would it also then be equally fair to say: After losing the school board majority in Nabob… I mean, if we are going to compare federal to state, an equally apt comparison is state to local, right?
All the lame wrangling aside, (excepting RS), does Roggensack have a good record on the court? Does she have any bad history on the court, does she side with the conservative majority no matter what? i.e. has she performed poorly where she should be ousted? (I am asking, that is not rhetorical.)
GCM, I am not sure how that applies. Few intelligent people think Judge Maryann Sumi is incompetent to judge fairly on a routine conviction. What is questionable is how she will react to partisan bills from the State Gov’t. Will each be judged on its merits, or if she disagrees philosophically with a bill/Act, would she look for procedural errors, segues, anything to reject a bill just because of its conservative nature? It was really deceptive of IT(as usual) to make it sound like nonpartisan conviction cases are equal to partisan law changing bills. In the light of day, it is a spoiled child’s comparison…or that of a hack partisan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 30, 2012 at 0905 hrs
It was really deceptive of IT(as usual) to make it sound like nonpartisan conviction cases are equal to partisan law changing bills. In the light of day, it is a spoiled child’s comparison…or that of a hack partisan.
That much was obvious from intentionally calling people by the wrong first names. Childish is exactly the word that comes to mind. Reminded me of Steve Kagan & his “biggest insult to a man is to call his wife by the wrong name.”
Whatever. I gladly read around typos and other grammatical errors & am willing to work to get to the meaning of a person’s ideas. Intentional crap like that, I just turn off & move on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 30, 2012 at 1850 hrs
Tuerqas—“It was really deceptive of IT (as usual) to make it sound like nonpartisan conviction cases are equal to partisan law changing bills.”
Talk about deception, please do not automatically assume that the decisions rendered by Sumi were “nonpartisan conviction cases” and therefore a no-brainer for Roggesack to affirm the lower court’s decision. It most certainly is possible these cases were generic, but you (nor I) know for certain without delving into each case. The point is that there were appeals of Sumi’s decisions. Roggensack, the appellate judge at the time, reviewed her legal reasoning and found it consistent with the rule of law.
And since when are “partisan bills” only “overturned” by “liberal” judges? It can be reasonably argued that the ruling issued by Sumi that struck down Act 10 actually followed CONSERVATIVE principles.
“I [Ed Fallone] am a process conservative. My core criticism of the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald is that the Court chose to ignore the normal procedural process for taking up a petition for original jurisdiction, and instead invented a new form of jurisdiction called “supervisory/original” and rushed to decide questions of both statutory and constitutional interpretation. Undoubtedly Justice Prosser and some of the other members of the Court felt that following the normal process of original jurisdiction would have dragged on too long, as it did a few years ago in the case of Green for Wisconsin, and so they were determined to avoid the same delay here. However, if I had to choose between acting quickly, on the one hand, and the careful weighing all of the legal arguments, on the other, I would certainly choose the latter.”
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/05/27/judge-sumi-does-her-job/“A great deal of sloppy lawyering has been put forth over the past several weeks in an attempt to create the impression that Judge Sumi is an out of control jurist. Some of the bill’s advocates are guilty of cherry picking statutory provisions that they deem helpful, while conveniently ignoring contrary provisions. Others have purported to rely upon sixty year old Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, without first considering whether later statutory changes and constitutional amendments have rendered that precedent obsolete. Dicta from the more recent Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel case was relied upon by others in order to support the idea that the Legislative Reference Bureau had the authority to “publish” laws, however these same partisans ignored the holding of that same case when it proved inconvenient on the question of the jurisdiction of the court. Some advocates appeared willing to sacrifice basic principles of Administrative Law, if so doing would advance their argument that the law had been “published.””
Tuerqas—“Will each be judged on its merits, or if she disagrees philosophically with a bill/Act, would she look for procedural errors, segues, anything to reject a bill just because of its conservative nature?”Are you suggesting that the conservative based Wisconsin Supreme Court is incapable of “judicial activism”? Are you suggesting that liberal justices generally play “loosey-goosey” with the law? What, Roggensack and her cohorts are more likely to view legislation objectively, that they will refrain from outright rejecting the bill because of its liberal nature?
You’re better than that, Tuerqas.
Tueqas—“In the light of day, it is a spoiled child’s comparison…or that of a hack partisan.”As if Illy-T is any more, or any less, of a “hack partisan” than other blogging sites you or I (or even Locke) frequent. They have their own biases, but the key part is to separate their interpretations of the facts from the facts itself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2012 at 0704 hrs
I did not assume GCM, I read your damn link. Did you read down to the part on the reasonings for why Roggensack disagreed with Sumi on the two mentioned disagreements? They both concerned evidence of a trial. I know IT’s writings enough where if Roggensack agreed with a partisan decision of Sumi’s, it would have been in the story.
I never even implied that only liberal judges overturn bills, I only said we know Sumi is willing. I only read the one where she stalled a bill for months (awaiting the election outcome of Prosser/whoever) because the Legislature passed the bill using irregular tactics, but tactics with many precedents.
Do you remember what the ‘Green’ reference is that you referenced above? A shit panel denied Green use of perfectly legal campaign funds just long enough for Green not to be able to use them against Doyle in his last re-election. Then they put the law back the way it was. In cases like that, I’ll take speed every time. And anyone who still defends that whole debacle in any form(Ed Fallone in this case?) has no opinions I am interested in. Hopefully, you’re better than that, GCM.
Are you suggesting that the conservative based Wisconsin Supreme Court is incapable of “judicial activism”? Are you suggesting that liberal justices generally play “loosey-goosey” with the law? What, Roggensack and her cohorts are more likely to view legislation objectively, that they will refrain from outright rejecting the bill because of its liberal nature?
Eat your own strawman GCM, I never suggested any such thing. So I guess you are right, I am better than that. Again, I am accusing Sumi of it, because she has done it. Not all liberal judges or only liberal judges. If you would care to re-read my comment above, I asked questions about Roggensack because I don’t know(Generally, not hearing a judge’s name much is a very good thing). I figured if people like you had dirt, you would throw it. So far, what I have seen is proof from IT that Roggensack would not shoot down a judge with a different ideology.
As if Illy-T is any more, or any less, of a “hack partisan” than other blogging sites you or I (or even Locke) frequent. They have their own biases, but the key part is to separate their interpretations of the facts from the facts itself.
I agree 100% and that is why I pointed it out. IT routinely misrepresents facts to ‘prove’ his personal agenda and whenever I read them and see through the deception, I shoot it down. He did it there and you imported him here. Either you are taken in by his deception in this case or you are in on the deception. I like him less than other bloggers, because he crafts clever lies like this quite often and he is good at it. I don’t think Owen ever actually crafts deceptions like that. At worst, he copies a conservative deception and agrees with it. Maybe he saw through it, maybe he didn’t. IT is a progenitor of these types of deceptions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2012 at 0900 hrs
Tuerqas—“I know IT’s writings enough where if Roggensack agreed with a partisan decision of Sumi’s, it would have been in the story.”
And I know IT’s writings enough where if he did make such a statement, he would be accused of being a “progenitor of these types of deceptions”. A lose-lose.
Of course I’m in on his deception, because it seemingly doesn’t matter that Sumi’s reasoning in those cases would appear to be textbook conservative construction and restraint.
Tuerqas—“I only said we know Sumi is willing.” “Again, I am accusing Sumi of it, because she has done it.No, WE don’t know.
Tuerqas—“Do you remember what the ‘Green’ reference…In cases like that, I’ll take speed every time. And anyone who still defends that whole debacle in any form (Ed Fallone in this case?) has no opinions I am interested in.So, are you outright dismissing the legitimate arguments proffered regarding Sumi’s rationale in the Ozanne case merely because Fallone is challenging—if he indeed is “defending this debacle” in the Green case—conservative justices of not consistently following through with the tenets they espouse, that he lays out a reasonable assessment that Sumi’s decision followed the letter of the law despite assertions to the contrary?
Besides, why is the Green case even germane to Fallone’s analysis of Sumi? Who is this “shit panel” you refer to? Who are “they”?
And before you accuse me of “Mr. Schuenemann strawman” tactics, a caveat…when I say that “are you suggesting” or “are you implying”, I mean I am trying to ascertain your thought process. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not purposely putting words in your mouth and saying that is your position, I am merely seeking clarification of what you stated.
“IT routinely misrepresents facts to ‘prove’ his personal agenda and whenever I read them and see through the deception, I shoot it down.”Again, separate the interpretations of the facts from the facts itself. There are a number of occasions in which IT, whether you want to recognize it or not, hits the proverbial home run with a cogent analysis of an issue. Just because people have a problem with his style does not automatically mean that his writings lack any substance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2012 at 2259 hrs
And I know IT’s writings enough where if he did make such a statement, he would be accused of being a “progenitor of these types of deceptions”. A lose-lose.
No, that can be looked up. He doesn’t always lie, I am sure not even a quarter of the time. If one of the 13 cases included a decision that would show Sumi in a conservative light, he would have referenced it. The best he could do was show that a conservative supported her basic law decisions 11.5 out of 13 times. I do not doubt IT’s intelligence, do you? If he could have put Sumi in an even better light, he would have.
Similarly, I personally don’t question all of Sumi’s decisions and I am sure I could be wrong on the ones I have. However, when I first read about her initial reasoning for stalling Act 10, I read it directly and, as it happens, both Rick Esenberg’s and IT’s interpretations. Mr. Esenberg’s interpretation was very similar to mine, while I thought IT’s untenable. Now since that time she has been at the center of other decisions. I have not read all of them, maybe they are better, but if you accused a judge of conservatism in Dane County, they might just lynch you. Madisonites are proud of their liberal progressivism and you are trying to convince me Sumi uses textbook conservative construction and restraint just because you say so? I suppose she votes Republican(or Libertarian?) too.
So, are you outright dismissing the legitimate arguments proffered regarding Sumi’s rationale in the Ozanne case merely because Fallone is challenging—if he indeed is “defending this debacle” in the Green case
Not really, more like I am not taking the time to take him seriously. There are literally a million people I would like reading. I am dismissing his opinion on the importance of speed, because his words actually support what happened to Green. I called the GAB panel that ruled on the Green funds a shit panel because, among others, it had a Libertarian on it that swung the vote against Green for other political coin, proving that the panel had no interest whatsoever in following law.
When any judge or regulatory panel shows favortism, it sickens me more than any other partisanism. They are the final check to partisanism, not the last link in the partisan chain.
And before you accuse me of “Mr. Schuenemann strawman” tactics…
What?
1) I never mentioned KS.
2) I believe Sumi plays partisan judge. From this you accused me of saying/believing bills are only overturned by liberal judges, and asked a bunch of questions way over the top and out of the scope of my comments. The strawman there was that the ‘suggestion’ that I was better than that can only be made if your questions were cogent. If you were only asking, then don’t make any statements presuming guilt/belief at the end of the question. Are you in any way denying that your above comments were a strawman? You drew a conclusion based on your own questions, not my answers. That is a strawman. Therefore:I mean I am trying to ascertain your thought process. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not purposely putting words in your mouth and saying that is your position, I am merely seeking clarification of what you stated.
That is a false statement.
I can also say: IT routinely represents facts that do uphold his beliefs. He is certainly not always wrong, but he uses facts like a lawyer. Does that make it better enough? You seemed to believe his ‘analysis’ of Roggensack approving 11.5 out of 13 decisions was one of those home run analyses, or at least a double. Enough to make it a campaign ad. All I saw was that Sumi is competent enough to run a criminal court room and if I were to draw any conclusions, it would be that Roggensack does her job in an impartial manner.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 1116 hrs
“Madisonites are proud of their liberal progressivism and you are trying to convince me Sumi uses textbook conservative construction and restraint just because you say so?”
No, I’m not saying so, Ed Fallone states his case. YOU can determine if its compelling, but it appears you won’t even entertain his reasons—you dismiss his opinion entirely—because of his apparent support for another case.
Is it not possible that Sumi indeed followed the letter of the law?
How can you judge the merits of his argument if you are unwilling to take the time to at the very least read his position? Sorry, but IMO Shark’s legal explanations pales in comparison to Fallone’s work.
What, is my bias showing???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 2319 hrs
Well, now that we are on the actual subject of Sumi decisions, rather than the likely election between Roggensack and Sumi, or a deceptive case made by IT, the Fallone opinion is germane so I read it. Happy?
First, that the Open Meetings Law did not grant Judge Sumi the authority to enjoin the publication of the act. Clearly it did.
This is still the crux of the whole thing. Despite dozens(hundreds?, thousands?) of laws being passed that violate one or ten of the current legislature’s rules, the primary attack on Act 10 has been how it was passed, not actual content. This only makes sense if all laws that don’t pass legislature rules for making them are ruled against by judges. And to give an individual that power makes no sense at all.
Does the existence of such a statute – the Open Meetings Law – alter the separation of powers analysis that applies in the absence of such a statute?
There is a strong argument that it should.Fine, maybe it should, but nationwide there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands of precedents where it hasn’t and virtually none where it has. Why is this case a landmark? Because Dems left the State to shut down this bill and it sure seems like 90%+ of liberals today firmly believe that liberal actions should not have consequences. Who has been going for the ‘do over’ for two years now?
But let us turn to the issue of the separation of powers. It is undeniably true that making law falls within the core of the legislative function.
However, saying what the law is falls within core of the judicial function. That is what the courts do when they engage in the process of judicial review.I am not at all sure what Fallone was trying to prove with this statement, but I agree it is the real core. This whole line of denying a law because of Legislative process violations is not part of the judicial function. Should it be? Discuss that question all you want, but saying ‘let’s start (and maybe end) with this one law?’ I say fuck off to that. It looks like it has some disturbing similarities to the Green case. Number one is that the whole ‘judges can/should now deny laws based on process’ question will only last as long as Dems are not in power.
Yes, Sumi followed the letter of a law and that is precisely the problem. No(few) judges ever had before denied laws based on legislative rules for making laws violations. That is not “following conservative principles” and it is not “textbook conservative construction and restraint”. It is textbook obstruction and restraint.
Have you read through all of the little rules for making laws in this and other states? One state still has statutes concerning how horses are to be stabled while in session. The bottom line is that Legislatures still have the right to change their rules at any time. While that whole idea does not thrill me, it chills me much more deeply to think that one judge can stop up a state Government for years by combing through legislative rules and deny every law through those means.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2012 at 0845 hrs
Tuerqas—“Despite dozens(hundreds?, thousands?) of laws being passed that violate one or ten of the current legislature’s rules, the primary attack on Act 10 has been how it was passed, not actual content.”
Since when does the Wisconsin Legislature forgo on a routine basis the process it has established to create a law?
From what I gather, based on the statutory language of the Open Meetings Law, a court has the jurisdiction and authority to vet any and all legislation that failed to follow the proper procedures, even if the law on its face passes constitutional muster. In this specific instance the legislature was found to have violated its own rules when discussing Act 10, which fell under the jurisdiction of the Open Meetings Law. All other cases in which allegedly the “rules were not honored” hat you cite are therefore not applicable.
“Why is this case a landmark?”It would seem the case is only a landmark from the perspective of its historic significance regarding its impact on public employees, NOT because of the apparent violation of the legislative proceedings and the rules which are already put in place to pass that law. That is, the court intervened because it has authority to determine whether a statute was constitutionally enacted in a proper manner, and the statute happened to be one of monumental importance.
A quote from one of the sources I cited…
“For the most part, the judiciary should merely enforce the policy choices of the legislature on how best to satisfy the constitutional requirement. If, on the other hand, the legislature repealed all existing methods of publication, and substituted instead a provision stating that any law is considered to be published if a single copy is mailed to Ed Fallone, then, in a proper case, the judiciary would have no choice but to consider whether this specific procedure satisfies the constitution’s general requirement that the laws be “published.” This is the way the process is intended to work. What are the benefits of such a process? Certainty and stability.”
Tuerqas—“This whole line of denying a law because of Legislative process violations is not part of the judicial function. Should it be? Discuss that question all you want, but saying ‘let’s start (and maybe end) with this one law?’ I say fuck off to that.”Well, you can curse all you want, but the Open Meetings Law enables a court to indeed vet the legislative process IF there is substantial evidence that it was significantly compromised. I would venture to say that in past cases the burden of proof was not met for a court to render such a verdict. All I hear from conservatives is that the process must be strictly followed. It seems to me that the legislature is required, and does meet its obligation, to follow the established rules—the normal procedural process—in which a bill is passed. Only when those rules are observed can the bill be considered legitimate.
Tuerqas—“No(few) judges ever had before denied laws based on legislative rules for making laws violations.”Are you sure? Although, I haven’t found anything to support nor refute your statement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 0029 hrs
You do know the open meetings law is not the only rule that the Legislature gave itself to follow, right? As far as that specific law in this specific case is concerned, the only question is can the Legislature call pretty much any session they want a special session. Like it or not, the answer is yes. The legislature can legally redefine its rules at any time, just like they can raise their pay and per diem any time they want as long as they make no rules violating the constitution. Calling that meeting a special session was not unconstitutional, that is what a constructionist judge would say in my opinion. The currently held precedent is below:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that courts cannot invalidate laws for legislative violations of “procedural” statutes, unless the violation “constitutes a deprivation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
Unless it violates constitutional rights, a constructionist judge would not generally void a law based on how it was passed. If that was their job, they would have been given some smallest say in telling the Legislature how to pass a bill in the first place(or specifically, the rules would be in the constitution for them to rule on). Very specifically they have not been given that power. The Legislature sets its own rules on how to do business. A judge rules on the constitutionality of a law. Therefore, it is activist in nature to look for and use non-constitutional reasons to reject a law(or in this case, illegally, a bill).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 0857 hrs
“The legislature can legally redefine its rules at any time, just like they can raise their pay and per diem any time they want as long as they make no rules violating the constitution.” [or they make no rules that conflict with existing law].
That’s the key phrase, my friend, and I also added another stipulation.
“Therefore, it is activist in nature to look for and use non-constitutional reasons to reject a law(or in this case, illegally, a bill).”
Except Sumi’s ruling stated specific constitutional reasons rooted in judicial restraint as to why the process, i.e. the new rules put in place, was specious in nature and therefore the bill derived out of that process ought to be voided.
“The bottom line is that Legislatures still have the right to change their rules at any time. While that whole idea does not thrill me, it chills me much more deeply to think that one judge can stop up a state Government for years by combing through legislative rules and deny every law through those means.”Yes, these constitutional questions involving legislative process are rare. They are uncommon because the cases do not go to court because they do not meet the burden of proof necessary to warrant them to be decided. Judicial review is the appropriate step to take in these matters.
Now, I’m not saying that the Legislature should be prohibited from making process rules or to even change them mid-stream, but those rules must not be constitutionally compromised nor supersede established norms as called forth by statutes. That is, a law calls for certain rules to be followed by the legislature when discussing a particular issue; the legislature decides to rewrite those rules in a way to skirt the letter of law.
“Therefore, it is activist in nature to look for and use non-constitutional reasons to reject a law(or in this case, illegally, a bill).”Indeed, I refer to Fallone’s contention…“the Court chose to ignore the normal procedural process for taking up a petition for original jurisdiction, and instead invented a new form of jurisdiction called “supervisory/original” and rushed to decide questions of both statutory and constitutional interpretation.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 2045 hrs
“The legislature can legally redefine its rules at any time, just like they can raise their pay and per diem any time they want as long as they make no rules violating the constitution.” [or they make no rules that conflict with existing law].
Apparently you and I disagree on whether this law violated the constitution. That is exactly where I have always believed our differences lay.
Indeed, I refer to Fallone’s contention…“the Court chose to ignore the normal procedural process for taking up a petition for original jurisdiction, and instead invented a new form of jurisdiction called “supervisory/original” and rushed to decide questions of both statutory and constitutional interpretation.”
You make this sound like the overreach of jurisdiction, or at least the only one. Sumi went first, shall we say. There are no(that I have read cited) laws that judges have ‘failed’ for proces. She did this. If it was right and conservative and with precedent, I think there would be more citable instances than there are. Until/unless you begin citing a sizable list of them, there is no reason for me to change my mind, even if I can’t change yours.
I see her reasoning, but it does not sway me because she steps outside of what I believe is her purview to use it. If it was part of a judge’s job to rule on how bills were passed, she has a perfectly fine case. The legislature breakng their own rules is like you going to bed after your own self-imposed curfew. If you thought of a good idea after 10pm should you not write it down because you felt you should be sleeping. If you go out and plug a few shots in to your neighbors window, should you not be held accountable because you were really supposed to be in bed?
At the end of the day, if the law is unconstitutional, it should fail judges review. If it is constitutional, it should pass. The open meetings law is a fairly important rule in my book. However, there are a host of lesser rules. Do judges review all details of every bill (before it is even made a law) for legislative process failure before they rule on the law itself? That is a big can of slippery slope you are pushing there, Sisyphus.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 0914 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 46
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/18/2013 06:50 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Current Logged-in Members: Owen
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).