|
http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0403/17b.html
When Kobe Bryant's alleged victim first accused the NBA star of rape, her
friends insisted that her motives were pure. And in court papers filed this
week, prosecutors said they have "no information regarding any plans to file
suit" against Kobe. The accuser's own lawyer also tells "CJ" that no such
plans have been made.
But now "CJ" has learned that a civil lawsuit has in fact been discussed.
Sources tell us that the accuser's lawyer has for months been working behind
the scenes in preparation for a multi-million dollar suit against Kobe.
Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer Steve Cron says that at this stage,
secrecy is key, since the accuser and her legal reps must avoid any
appearance that they're trying to cash in on Kobe.
"If it looks like she's after Kobe's money it will hurt the criminal case
because it looks like she's motivated by money," Cron tells us. "And they
definitely want a conviction in the criminal case because that will make the
civil case that much easier."
Kobe's defense team are themselves suggesting that the accuser is really
after a big payday. According to recent court papers, Bryant's lawyers have
inquired about any civil suit and a possible book deal. They also want to
know about any victim's compensation the accuser may have received from
local and state authorities, and who paid for her stay at a pricey rehab
center in Arizona.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:c3b6ip$klc@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0403/17b.html
When Kobe Bryant's alleged victim first accused the NBA star of rape, her
friends insisted that her motives were pure.
From the start it was clear they're a lying, conniving, shifty lot.
Those girls couldn't even remember not to mention her name.
And this JohnRay Strickland fellow...
And in court papers filed this
week, prosecutors said they have "no information regarding any plans to file
suit" against Kobe. The accuser's own lawyer also tells "CJ" that no such
plans have been made.
But now "CJ" has learned that a civil lawsuit has in fact been discussed.
Sources tell us that the accuser's lawyer has for months been working behind
the scenes in preparation for a multi-million dollar suit against Kobe.
It sounds like this case is unravelling under Hurlbert's feet.
Alex
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0403/17b.html
When Kobe Bryant's alleged victim first accused the NBA star of rape, her
friends insisted that her motives were pure. And in court papers filed this
week, prosecutors said they have "no information regarding any plans to file
suit" against Kobe. The accuser's own lawyer also tells "CJ" that no such
plans have been made.
But now "CJ" has learned that a civil lawsuit has in fact been discussed.
Sources tell us that the accuser's lawyer has for months been working behind
the scenes in preparation for a multi-million dollar suit against Kobe.
Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer Steve Cron says that at this stage,
secrecy is key, since the accuser and her legal reps must avoid any
appearance that they're trying to cash in on Kobe.
"If it looks like she's after Kobe's money it will hurt the criminal case
because it looks like she's motivated by money," Cron tells us. "And they
definitely want a conviction in the criminal case because that will make the
civil case that much easier."
Kobe's defense team are themselves suggesting that the accuser is really
after a big payday. According to recent court papers, Bryant's lawyers have
inquired about any civil suit and a possible book deal. They also want to
know about any victim's compensation the accuser may have received from
local and state authorities, and who paid for her stay at a pricey rehab
center in Arizona.
Even though this is all entirely plausible, I think I'll wait for a media
outlet that doesn't have the word 'Celebrity' in its name to verify the
story before I'm convinced.
|
| |
| |
Chainsaw <noone@inparticular.net> wrote in message news:<40596D70.1020809@inparticular.net>...
s_knight8 wrote:
Even though this is all entirely plausible, I think I'll wait for a media
outlet that doesn't have the word 'Celebrity' in its name to verify the
story before I'm convinced.
She's already received what she really wanted through all these lies.
She wanted attention and to be a celebrity. That's why she drove
3,000 miles to try out for American Idol, tried to commit suicide
twice, and accused Kobe of rape. In that way, she is going to win
even after they find Kobe innocent.
|
| |
| |
On 17 Mar 2004 22:55:05 EST, "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0403/17b.html
When Kobe Bryant's alleged victim first accused the NBA star of rape, her
friends insisted that her motives were pure. And in court papers filed this
week, prosecutors said they have "no information regarding any plans to file
suit" against Kobe. The accuser's own lawyer also tells "CJ" that no such
plans have been made.
But now "CJ" has learned that a civil lawsuit has in fact been discussed.
Sources tell us that the accuser's lawyer has for months been working behind
the scenes in preparation for a multi-million dollar suit against Kobe.
That is what all this is about.
No rape happened, she had consensual sex and then went to accuse him,
even the if the criminal case falls apart she has a good shot at a
multi-millon dollar law suit, you know, one of those "pain and
suffering" bull#@($.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3b6ip$klc@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0403/17b.html
When Kobe Bryant's alleged victim first accused the NBA star of rape, her
friends insisted that her motives were pure. And in court papers filed this
week, prosecutors said they have "no information regarding any plans to file
suit" against Kobe. The accuser's own lawyer also tells "CJ" that no such
plans have been made.
But now "CJ" has learned that a civil lawsuit has in fact been discussed.
Sources tell us that the accuser's lawyer has for months been working behind
the scenes in preparation for a multi-million dollar suit against Kobe.
Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer Steve Cron says that at this stage,
secrecy is key, since the accuser and her legal reps must avoid any
appearance that they're trying to cash in on Kobe.
"If it looks like she's after Kobe's money it will hurt the criminal case
because it looks like she's motivated by money," Cron tells us. "And they
definitely want a conviction in the criminal case because that will make the
civil case that much easier."
Kobe's defense team are themselves suggesting that the accuser is really
after a big payday. According to recent court papers, Bryant's lawyers have
inquired about any civil suit and a possible book deal. They also want to
know about any victim's compensation the accuser may have received from
local and state authorities, and who paid for her stay at a pricey rehab
center in Arizona.
Oh hell. Of course, there will be a civil suit. Even if kobe is
found NG, he will still be sued just like OJ was. This is all about
money.
|
| |
| |
On 18 Mar 2004 21:29:13 -0800, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote:
Oh hell. Of course, there will be a civil suit. Even if kobe is
found NG, he will still be sued just like OJ was. This is all about
money.
except in this case the coke-head skank ain't gettin' #@($.
|
| |
| |
agakhan wrote:
On 18 Mar 2004 21:29:13 -0800, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote:
except in this case the coke-head skank ain't gettin' #@($.
I don't know. Recalling what I learned from the OJ civil suit, the
standard of proof is merely "a preponderance of evidence" for the
plaintiff to win, as opposed to a criminal trial's "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt". Which is to say, in a civil trial, there can be
doubt, and the plaintiff can still win.
This doesn't mean Bryant still can't win a civil trial - and in fact, he
may have a good shot at winning a counter-suit - but it's still worth
noting that even if the Defense wins acquittal in a criminal case, the
lower standard for a civil trial may make Miss Fubar's case winnable.
I've tried not to overstep my understanding of the circumstances, but if
I have, those of you with legal expertise are welcome to chime in.
MMB
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:08:03 -0800, Miguel <MickBarr@juno.com> wrote:
agakhan wrote:
I don't know. Recalling what I learned from the OJ civil suit, the
standard of proof is merely "a preponderance of evidence" for the
plaintiff to win, as opposed to a criminal trial's "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt". Which is to say, in a civil trial, there can be
doubt, and the plaintiff can still win.
This doesn't mean Bryant still can't win a civil trial - and in fact, he
may have a good shot at winning a counter-suit - but it's still worth
noting that even if the Defense wins acquittal in a criminal case, the
lower standard for a civil trial may make Miss Fubar's case winnable.
I've tried not to overstep my understanding of the circumstances, but if
I have, those of you with legal expertise are welcome to chime in.
MMB
you are right, the standard of proof is much lower for a civil suit.
however, there is also no rape-shield law in civil suits, nor any
limitation as to what the defense can present. they can present
absolutely anything to discredit miss fiber, which makes it hard to
imagine that she has any chance in hell of being believed.
the hypocrisy of the rape-victim crowd in this respect is epic: they
keep whining about her being humiliated, but it's ok for her to
subject herself to boundless humiliation for the cash.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:58:36 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
however, there is also no rape-shield law in civil suits, nor any
limitation as to what the defense can present. they can present
absolutely anything to discredit miss fiber, which makes it hard to
imagine that she has any chance in hell of being believed.
You're wrong about the rape-shield law at least with respect to
whether it limits evidence in a civil suits. The federal
rules of evidence applies to both civil and criminal cases. If
Colorado's rules are based on the federal rules then there will
be limits. There will also not be as strong a constitutional
protection for the defendant's right to present evidence as in
a criminal case.
Under the federal rules, the evidence you describe is admissible if
it was relevant and if it outweighs the danger of harm to the victim.
Reputation evidence is only admissible if the victim makes her
reputation an issue.
the hypocrisy of the rape-victim crowd in this respect is epic: they
keep whining about her being humiliated, but it's ok for her to
subject herself to boundless humiliation for the cash.
Aren't you glad you were wrong and that there is no hypocrisy in the
rape-victim crowd with respect to this point.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:54:15 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:58:36 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're wrong about the rape-shield law at least with respect to
whether it limits evidence in a civil suits. The federal
rules of evidence applies to both civil and criminal cases. If
Colorado's rules are based on the federal rules then there will
be limits.
you sure about that?:
http://www.connsacs.org/library/civil.html
While Connecticut has a "rape shield" statute that prohibits
introduction of evidence concerning the sexual history of the victims
in criminal cases (Conn. Gen. Stats. 54-86(f)), that rule has not
been expressly extended to civil cases.
all courts are identical in this.
There will also not be as strong a constitutional
protection for the defendant's right to present evidence as in
a criminal case.
surely you're not suggesting that constitutional protections apply
less in civil cases?
Under the federal rules, the evidence you describe is admissible if
it was relevant and if it outweighs the danger of harm to the victim.
Reputation evidence is only admissible if the victim makes her
reputation an issue.
http://www.connsacs.org/library/civil.html
The new Federal Rules notwithstanding, in most cases there is no bar
to the use of sexual history and other private information in civil
cases.
as soon as she gets on the stand the accuser makes her own credibility
an issue; hell as soon as she brings the suit she does.
anyways, the federal rape-sheild laws are much less stringent than
most state laws. there is no "statutory presumption of irrelevance" as
in the colorado law, for example.
Aren't you glad you were wrong and that there is no hypocrisy in the
rape-victim crowd with respect to this point.
don't speak too soon.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:43:11 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:54:15 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
oops, forgot this:
http://www.connsacs.org/library/civil.html
Personal, educational and employment history can all be relevant to a
civil case, as well as any diaries or writings of the victim. There
are not yet any cases interpreting how the new Federal Rules of
Evidence will effect personal information that is claimed to have a
bearing on the victim's damages.
A survivor should also be aware that in a civil case, his or her
therapy will no longer be totally confidential. The therapists' notes
and records will be subject to disclosure in a civil suit.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:53:23 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:43:11 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
oops, forgot this:
http://www.connsacs.org/library/civil.html
Personal, educational and employment history can all be relevant to a
civil case, as well as any diaries or writings of the victim. There
are not yet any cases interpreting how the new Federal Rules of
Evidence will effect personal information that is claimed to have a
bearing on the victim's damages.
A survivor should also be aware that in a civil case, his or her
therapy will no longer be totally confidential. The therapists' notes
and records will be subject to disclosure in a civil suit.
and this:
http://www.nd.edu/~ucc/ucc_sexualvictimjudicial.html
It is important to note that in a civil case proceeding there is no
"rape shield provision". This means that the plaintiff's past sexual
behavior can become part of the public domain in quest of the truth.
do your homework next time.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:43:11 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:54:15 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
you sure about that?:
http://www.connsacs.org/library/civil.html
While Connecticut has a "rape shield" statute that prohibits
introduction of evidence concerning the sexual history of the victims
in criminal cases (Conn. Gen. Stats. 54-86(f)), that rule has not
been expressly extended to civil cases.
all courts are identical in this.
No the rules of evidence in each state are not all identical. Courts
which have modeled their rules after the federal rules or after the
uniform model rules of evidence vary widely with respect to which
version of Rule 412 they have adopted. Many states do not adopt the
model rule and follow some other statute.
I accurately quoted the federal rules of evidence. I also indicated clearly
that I had done so. It is possible that a state's rules of evidence are not
modeled after the federal rules, but so far you've quoted Connecticut for
some odd reason.
Quote me the Colorado rule and then you'll have proven your point.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:52:47 GMT, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:43:11 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
No the rules of evidence in each state are not all identical. Courts
which have modeled their rules after the federal rules or after the
uniform model rules of evidence vary widely with respect to which
version of Rule 412 they have adopted. Many states do not adopt the
model rule and follow some other statute.
I accurately quoted the federal rules of evidence. I also indicated clearly
that I had done so. It is possible that a state's rules of evidence are not
modeled after the federal rules, but so far you've quoted Connecticut for
some odd reason.
Quote me the Colorado rule and then you'll have proven your point.
One more issue. Since Kobe is not a citizen of Colorado, the accuser
might elect to try the case in a federal court in Colorado. In federal
court, even though Colorado substantive law would be used, the federal
procedural rules would be used. So the federal rules might be relevant,
but most assuredly the Connecticut rules will not be relevant.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:52:47 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
all courts are identical in this.
No the rules of evidence in each state are not all identical. Courts
which have modeled their rules after the federal rules or after the
uniform model rules of evidence vary widely with respect to which
version of Rule 412 they have adopted. Many states do not adopt the
model rule and follow some other statute.
I accurately quoted the federal rules of evidence. I also indicated clearly
that I had done so. It is possible that a state's rules of evidence are not
modeled after the federal rules, but so far you've quoted Connecticut for
some odd reason.
Quote me the Colorado rule and then you'll have proven your point.
Isaac
I brought up conn because it has the strictest rape-shield laws in the
country, more draconian than even colorado, both in statute and in
case law. for example in conn rape shield protection is even extended
to the preliminary hearing, unlike colorado, as you well know.
as to colorado:
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:rdXbk2NWMJ0J:www.ccasa.org/documents/CCASA%2520Newsletter%2520Feb%25202004%255B1%255D.pdf+civil+suit+rape+shield+colorado&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Although there are some rape shield protections, when a victim claims
emotional distress, it is hard to prevent a defendant from exploring
previous experiences that might contribute to the victims condition.
perhaps if you weren't a first year pre-law (at best) you would
understand that "accurately quoting" statutes means nothing without an
understanding of how these are applied in case law.
in civil litigation the credibility, conduct and character of an
accuser are always relevant because what is at issue is the "harm" or
"distress" that she allegedly suffered, not whether a crime occured.
The colorado rape-shield law's "statutory presumption of irrelevance,"
addresses whether a crime occured, not whether an accuser suffered
harm or distress. what that means, as the quote above tells you, is
that in practice most rape-shield protections do not extend to civil
litigations. a defense attorney might not be able to stand there and
simply recite a litany of the accuser's sexual exploit's for no
apparent reason, but that's about it. as long as it's vaguely
relevant, it's in.
the federal rule of evidence that you so proudly marshal is even
flimsier than any rape-shield law. it gives no presumption of
irellevance. it simply means that in practice, a federal judge can put
a limit to certain irrelevant testimony, but not that he has to.
so that's in response to your second post
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer Steve Cron says
Glad to see Cron has a Job
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmcollard@yahoo.com
"I'm going out with a homeless girl. It's pretty cool...after our
dates, I can drop her off anywhere." -- Raider Dave
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:10:04 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:52:47 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
all courts are identical in this.
I brought up conn because it has the strictest rape-shield laws in the
country, more draconian than even colorado, both in statute and in
case law. for example in conn rape shield protection is even extended
to the preliminary hearing, unlike colorado, as you well know.
as to colorado:
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:rdXbk2NWMJ0J:www.ccasa.org/documents/CCASA%2520Newsletter%2520Feb%25202004%255B1%255D.pdf+civil+suit+rape+shield+colorado&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Although there are some rape shield protections, when a victim claims
emotional distress, it is hard to prevent a defendant from exploring
previous experiences that might contribute to the victims condition.
So you imagine a theory where the court would agree that consensual
sex causes the same emotional distress as rape? I hope Kobe's lawyers
are a little better than that.
perhaps if you weren't a first year pre-law (at best) you would
understand that "accurately quoting" statutes means nothing without an
understanding of how these are applied in case law.
Yawn. Your bluster doesn't cover up the fact that you were completely
wrong. Let me itemize some of your errors...
1) Not all states have the same laws.
2) You claim that Conn. is the most strict, yet their rape shield law
does not apply to criminal cases while you now admit that Colorado law
does. Of course your claim is an admission that not all courts use the
same rules of evidence.
3) You've innaccurately characterized federal law which requires that
the probative effect outweigh the harm to the accuser. That really isn't
flimsy. In non sex offense cases the evidence is admitted if it
is relevant. I did point out that civil rule was weaker than the criminal
rule.
4) Not even the criminal presumption in Colorado is absolute. There is
a presumption of irrelevance and some case law suggesting that certain
arguments will not work, but there are arguments that will work, and it
appears likely that Kobe's defense has found some such arguments.
in civil litigation the credibility, conduct and character of an
accuser are always relevant because what is at issue is the "harm" or
"distress" that she allegedly suffered, not whether a crime occured.
You are quite mistaken. They federal rule in a civil sexual assault
case is that the accused character is only relevant if the accuser makes
them an issue. If the accuser does not claim to be pure as the driven snow,
then the defense does not get to prove that she is a skanky ho. Read the
rules dude. And if you have some case law that suggests that the plain
language of the rule is misleading let's hear about it.
For that matter for most civil and criminal matters, the victim's character
is not relevant. There are a few exceptions to the general rule mostly for
criminal cases. A defendant using self defense can introduce evidence of the
alleged victim's violent charater. But that is the exception rather than the
rule. Situations where the plaintiff's character is admissible in a civil
case relevant are even rarer.
And no I'm not a law student. Not that your ad hominem really addresses
the issue.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
n Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:47:17 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:10:04 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yawn. Your bluster doesn't cover up the fact that you were completely
wrong. Let me itemize some of your errors...
1) Not all states have the same laws.
2) You claim that Conn. is the most strict, yet their rape shield law
does not apply to criminal cases while you now admit that Colorado law
does. Of course your claim is an admission that not all courts use the
same rules of evidence.
3) You've innaccurately characterized federal law which requires that
the probative effect outweigh the harm to the accuser. That really isn't
flimsy. In non sex offense cases the evidence is admitted if it
is relevant. I did point out that civil rule was weaker than the criminal
rule.
4) Not even the criminal presumption in Colorado is absolute. There is
a presumption of irrelevance and some case law suggesting that certain
arguments will not work, but there are arguments that will work, and it
appears likely that Kobe's defense has found some such arguments.
You are quite mistaken. They federal rule in a civil sexual assault
case is that the accused character is only relevant if the accuser makes
them an issue. If the accuser does not claim to be pure as the driven snow,
then the defense does not get to prove that she is a skanky ho. Read the
rules dude. And if you have some case law that suggests that the plain
language of the rule is misleading let's hear about it.
here you go:
federal rules of evidence 412-415 were enacted as part of the VAWA
(Violence Against Women Act) which was struck down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IN CIVIL CASES by the us supreme court in a highly publicized case in
2000.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/scotus/articles/051600rape-victims.html
Women Lose Right to Sue Attackers in Federal Court
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- Declaring that "the Constitution requires a
distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local,"
the Supreme Court today invalidated a six-year-old provision of
federal law that permitted victims of rape, domestic violence and
other crimes "motivated by gender" to sue their attackers in federal
court.
The 5-to-4 decision, striking down the civil remedy provision of the
Violence Against Women Act, was the latest application of the court's
newly restrictive view of Congressional power and of the degree of
deference that Congress is owed by federal courts.
Although one of the most sweeping of the justices' decisions in this
area recently, it will almost certainly not be the last.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's majority opinion rejected each of
the two sources of constitutional authority that Congress had asserted
as the basis for the legislation. The majority concluded that the
civil remedy provision was neither a valid regulation of interstate
commerce nor a proper means of enforcing the equal protection
guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
The decision affirmed a ruling last year by the federal appeals court
in Richmond, Va., dismissing a suit brought by a college student
against two varsity football players whom she accused of raping her in
her dormitory room shortly after the start of her freshman year.
The plaintiff, Christy Brzonkala, withdrew from Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and brought her suit after learning that the football
players, Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, would not be disciplined
by the college.
When the defendants then challenged the constitutionality of the
Violence Against Women Act, the federal government intervened in the
suit to defend the law.
The law's supporters argued that widespread violence against women,
and fear of violence, had a negative effect on the nation's economy,
measured in the billions of dollars a year, by impairing the
productivity and the mobility of female employees and students. To
accept that reasoning, the chief justice said today, "would allow
Congress to regulate any crime as long as the nationwide, aggregated
impact of that crime has substantial effects on employment,
production, transit or consumption." But a general police power is
something "which the founders denied the national government and
reposed in the states," he added.
The Violence Against Women Act also has a criminal provision, making
it a federal crime to cross state lines to engage in domestic violence
or stalking. The Supreme Court last year refused to hear a challenge
to that provision, which was not at issue in the case today but which
the chief justice suggested in a footnote was constitutional because
of the explicit requirement of interstate conduct. The law also
provides federal money to the states for programs to prevent violence
and assist victims.
Much of the attention and debate surrounding the law has focused on
the civil damages provision at issue today, which the lower courts
have applied some 50 times, a number that would probably have been
larger had the law not been under a constitutional cloud. While most
states have laws permitting people, including victims of sexual
assaults, to seek damages against their attackers, Congress acted
after dozens of studies showed that women seeking such relief faced
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:44:33 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:47:17 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:33:13 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:44:33 -0800, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| |
| |
|
