• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Video

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
pullnshoot25 wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
pullnshoot25 wrote:
dirtykoala wrote:
I think you can defend yourself from them, but you will not win.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
Very interesting read. I wonder how many CA LEA's and LEO's know about this?
About as many as actually do their jobs correctly, which is very few...

California has outlawed resisting an unlawful arrest by a police officer though, only one of 5 states to do so and, as usual, unconstitutional.
Why am I not surprised.
You should not be surprised. If you are unlawfully arrested, there is always the civil route. Lots of people have collected lots of money over the years.

It is not up to the arrestee to determine the lawfulness of the arrest at the time of arrest. There are dozens of factors involved that cannot be addressed in that few moments.

1) Do you have the right to resist an arrest that is lawful, but you feel is unconstitutional.

2) Do you think that the officer has to explain his entire investigation and fact pattern before he arrests you?

3) Say you think that "youdid not do anything wrong". Do you have the right to resist? How do you think that alcohol, high emotions or drugs may play a role in your perception of the facts at the time?

4) What if an officer responds to a bank robbery in progress and a citizen points you out as the armed robber? Do you have a right to resist or should you go along and cooperate until the situation is cleared up?

Do not physically resist an arrest. Seek civil remedy.

Let's not even bring into the equation the difference between an arrest and a detention.
 

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
imported post

greg36f wrote:
snip

You should not be surprised. If you are unlawfully arrested, there is always the civil route. Lots of people have collected lots of money over the years.

It is not up to the arrestee to determine the lawfulness of the arrest at the time of arrest. There are dozens of factors involved that cannot be addressed in that few moments.

1) Do you have the right to resist an arrest that is lawful, but you feel is unconstitutional.

2) Do you think that the officer has to explain his entire investigation and fact pattern before he arrests you?

3) Say you think that "youdid not do anything wrong". Do you have the right to resist? How do you think that alcohol, high emotions or drugs may play a role in your perception of the facts at the time?

4) What if an officer responds to a bank robbery in progress and a citizen points you out as the armed robber? Do you have a right to resist or should you go along and cooperate until the situation is cleared up?

Do not physically resist an arrest. Seek civil remedy.

Let's not even bring into the equation the difference between an arrest and a detention.
your FBI record will show your original arrest though, regardless of what acourt determines. it can screw you for security clearance, or jobs that do really thorough background checks. what i dont like is that lets say in your bank robbery scenario, if you start saying that it wasnt you and youre not going to jail for something you didnt do, the arrest is BS... they will add PC148 to a crime you didnt commit. If PNS is right, the PC148 charge could stick, even though it says it does not apply to unlawfull detentions. I would hope that all charges would be dropped if they found outit was a false arrest, but i wouldnt be surprized ifsomehow the court said "well, you shouldnt have been arrested in the first place, but you did resist, so you still get charged with thtat"
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

dirtykoala wrote:
greg36f wrote:
snip

You should not be surprised. If you are unlawfully arrested, there is always the civil route. Lots of people have collected lots of money over the years.

It is not up to the arrestee to determine the lawfulness of the arrest at the time of arrest. There are dozens of factors involved that cannot be addressed in that few moments.

1) Do you have the right to resist an arrest that is lawful, but you feel is unconstitutional.

2) Do you think that the officer has to explain his entire investigation and fact pattern before he arrests you?

3) Say you think that "youdid not do anything wrong". Do you have the right to resist? How do you think that alcohol, high emotions or drugs may play a role in your perception of the facts at the time?

4) What if an officer responds to a bank robbery in progress and a citizen points you out as the armed robber? Do you have a right to resist or should you go along and cooperate until the situation is cleared up?

Do not physically resist an arrest. Seek civil remedy.

Let's not even bring into the equation the difference between an arrest and a detention.
your FBI record will show your original arrest though, regardless of what acourt determines. it can screw you for security clearance, or jobs that do really thorough background checks. what i dont like is that lets say in your bank robbery scenario, if you start saying that it wasnt you and youre not going to jail for something you didnt do, the arrest is BS... they will add PC148 to a crime you didnt commit. If PNS is right, the PC148 charge could stick, even though it says it does not apply to unlawfull detentions. I would hope that all charges would be dropped if they found outit was a false arrest, but i wouldnt be surprized ifsomehow the court said "well, you shouldnt have been arrested in the first place, but you did resist, so you still get charged with thtat"
And you SHOULD be charged with 148PC then,,,,,,, Because you DID resist arrest.....In the bank robbery scenario, the officer is acting reasonably when a citizen points to you and says "that's the armed robber".......What would you do in that situation?. It sucks to be you in that situation, but it's not the officer’s fault.

Hopefully it will all be cleared up on scene and you will never be charged, but don't compound someone else’s mistake (the citizen's) with your own mistake.

I have seen 148 PC charges dropped in cases where the resisting was not violent (running away or refusing to cooperate) when the original charges were dropped.
 

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
imported post

im not arguing with you, i see/understand with what youre saying. its just BS that you pretty much have to give up your rights as soon as aperson in a blueconstumewearing a badgeconfronts you.

i dont think you should have to agree to be arrested for something you didnt do, just because one of your civil servants tells you youre under arrest.

youre right though, you pretty much have to get arrested, and sue later. that or you can defend yourself and yourfreedom and risk being beat, tazed, and/or shot.
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

dirtykoala wrote:
im not arguing with you, i see/understand with what youre saying. its just BS that you pretty much have to give up your rights as soon as aperson in a blueconstumewearing a badgeconfronts you.

i dont think you should have to agree to be arrested for something you didnt do, just because one of your civil servants tells you youre under arrest.

youre right though, you pretty much have to get arrested, and sue later. that or you can defend yourself and yourfreedom and risk being beat, tazed, and/or shot.
Then we can both agree that there is much unfairness built into the system. It is something to work on.

What really bugs me is people who come on here and repeatedly quote legal cases that seem to allow people to use deadly force to resist arrest.

Not only is this not the case, but imagine the blow that would be dealt to open carry / shall CCW issuance if an open carry person shot a police officer because he thought that his 'E check detention" was an "illegal arrest".

Or a police officer got shot taking an open carry person into custody for a school zone violation because the open carry person thought that the arrest was unlawful or unconstitutional.

That kind of talk on this forum can really come back to haunt the cause.

Everyone gets very upset (rightfully so) when an officer threatens open carriers on face book, but it's all good when people here point out how to lawfully resist arrest up and to using deadly force.

That is a statement / position that kinda looks like “Open carriers want to kill cops”…..”As seen on popular open carry forum”.

At least that what the news headline will say………
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

greg36f wrote:
And you SHOULD be charged with 148PC then,,,,,,, Because you DID resist arrest.....In the bank robbery scenario, the officer is acting reasonably when a citizen points to you and says "that's the armed robber".......What would you do in that situation?. It sucks to be you in that situation, but it's not the officer’s fault.
Fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The way arrests are supposed to work (but don't thanks to the courts and the police) is that the witness would go to a judge with his affirmation that said person was a bank robber, then a warrant would be issued for his arrest, and upon his arrest, the warrant would be presented to the arrestee to certify that the arrest is valid.

Today it's quite easy for a police officer to arrest people illegally, and in this state, the arrested individual has no recourse to prevent the security of his person or his effects. It's also quite easy for anybody to dress in a police uniform, walk up to anybody else, say they are under arrest and put handcuffs on them, and kidnap them.

Lets see if the fourth amendment addresses greg36f's concerns:

1) Do you have the right to resist an arrest that is lawful, but you feel is unconstitutional.
If an arrest was made with a warrant which wasn't signed by a judge and didn't have an Oath or affirmation, then it would be perfectly acceptable to resist arrest since the arrest would be unlawful.

2) Do you think that the officer has to explain his entire investigation and fact pattern before he arrests you?
This wouldn't be necessary since the signed warrant with an affirmation is all that is required under the fourth.

3) Say you think that "you did not do anything wrong". Do you have the right to resist? How do you think that alcohol, high emotions or drugs may play a role in your perception of the facts at the time?
If a warrant were presented, and you indeed didn't do anything wrong, you would still be obligated to allow the arrest to occur since the warrant is valid. Any resistance after being presented with a valid warrant would be unlawful.

4) What if an officer responds to a bank robbery in progress and a citizen points you out as the armed robber? Do you have a right to resist or should you go along and cooperate until the situation is cleared up?
This isn't worded that great. If a police officer responded to a robbery in progress, it should be readily obvious who the robber is. From my reading on this topic, there was a commonly held belief that anybody presenting a clear and present danger could be arrested immediately without a warrant in order to prevent further harm to the public. Would a bank robbery be a clear and present danger? I guess it depends on the manner of the robbery. If an officer shows up after the robbery has ended, then the warrant route would be the correct way to go.

A usual complaint about this method of arresting people is that criminals can get away easily and we have to let them escape, go get a warrant, and then go find them. This would be true if the populace was prevented from carrying means to defend itself (like...gasp...today). Otherwise what crime could occur? If somebody tries to rob me, I use my right to self defense. If somebody is beating another person, I arrest them (clear and present danger) and call for an officer.

The second and fourth amendments need to both be in full effect in order to keep the maximum amount of order in society. In an armed society, criminals would be afraid to act. In a society where police officers could only effect an arrest in two ways, people would respect police officers a great deal more.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

greg36f wrote:
Everyone gets very upset (rightfully so) when an officer threatens open carriers on face book, but it's all good when people here point out how to lawfully resist arrest up and to using deadly force.
We get upset when police officers violate our rights. If police officers threaten to shoot us for practicing our right to keep and bear arms, we'll get upset. If police officers threaten to violate our fourth amendment right to be secure in our person and effects, we'll get upset.
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
greg36f wrote:
And you SHOULD be charged with 148PC then,,,,,,, Because you DID resist arrest.....In the bank robbery scenario, the officer is acting reasonably when a citizen points to you and says "that's the armed robber".......What would you do in that situation?. It sucks to be you in that situation, but it's not the officer’s fault.
Fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The way arrests are supposed to work (but don't thanks to the courts and the police) is that the witness would go to a judge with his affirmation that said person was a bank robber, then a warrant would be issued for his arrest, and upon his arrest, the warrant would be presented to the arrestee to certify that the arrest is valid.

Today it's quite easy for a police officer to arrest people illegally, and in this state, the arrested individual has no recourse to prevent the security of his person or his effects. It's also quite easy for anybody to dress in a police uniform, walk up to anybody else, say they are under arrest and put handcuffs on them, and kidnap them.

Lets see if the fourth amendment addresses greg36f's concerns:

1) Do you have the right to resist an arrest that is lawful, but you feel is unconstitutional.
If an arrest was made with a warrant which wasn't signed by a judge and didn't have an Oath or affirmation, then it would be perfectly acceptable to resist arrest since the arrest would be unlawful.

2) Do you think that the officer has to explain his entire investigation and fact pattern before he arrests you?
This wouldn't be necessary since the signed warrant with an affirmation is all that is required under the fourth.

3) Say you think that "you did not do anything wrong". Do you have the right to resist? How do you think that alcohol, high emotions or drugs may play a role in your perception of the facts at the time?
If a warrant were presented, and you indeed didn't do anything wrong, you would still be obligated to allow the arrest to occur since the warrant is valid. Any resistance after being presented with a valid warrant would be unlawful.

4) What if an officer responds to a bank robbery in progress and a citizen points you out as the armed robber? Do you have a right to resist or should you go along and cooperate until the situation is cleared up?
This isn't worded that great. If a police officer responded to a robbery in progress, it should be readily obvious who the robber is. From my reading on this topic, there was a commonly held belief that anybody presenting a clear and present danger could be arrested immediately without a warrant in order to prevent further harm to the public. Would a bank robbery be a clear and present danger? I guess it depends on the manner of the robbery. If an officer shows up after the robbery has ended, then the warrant route would be the correct way to go.

A usual complaint about this method of arresting people is that criminals can get away easily and we have to let them escape, go get a warrant, and then go find them. This would be true if the populace was prevented from carrying means to defend itself (like...gasp...today). Otherwise what crime could occur? If somebody tries to rob me, I use my right to self defense. If somebody is beating another person, I arrest them (clear and present danger) and call for an officer.

The second and fourth amendments need to both be in full effect in order to keep the maximum amount of order in society. In an armed society, criminals would be afraid to act. In a society where police officers could only effect an arrest in two ways, people would respect police officers a great deal more.
This is still how arrest warrants are obtained; however, most arrests are conducted at or near the time of the crime (DUI, Domestic abuse, crime in progress, "hey, that guy just robbed me" ect.).

After an arrest is made, there are still a lot of protections in place (Arraignment, preliminary hearing, trial ect.. That’s after it gets by the detective, DA then the Judge that may or may not hold the person over or issue a warrant.

Our system is not perfect, but expecting an officer to go to a judge and bring along all the witnesses before he makes an arrest is not practical or even slightly workable. Our society has changed too much for that (illegal aliens with no ID, over 100 million people, no one knows their neighbors. ect).

Back when everyone in town knew each other and someone could bring a charge against “Joe the butcher” that worked fine. Now, sad to say, not so good.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

greg36f wrote:
Back when everyone in town knew each other and someone could bring a charge against “Joe the butcher” that worked fine. Now, sad to say, not so good.
This argument is predicated upon a premise which has not yet been demonstrated or proved.

Suffice it to say, I disagree.

You don't need identity to file charges. It isn't necessary for the witness to say it was "Joe, the butcher". It's sufficient for the witness to identify "that man, there".

He can be convicted without identity.

You think they didn't have cities back then? Everybody knew everybody else? Nobody committed crimes against strangers? C'mon. Get real.
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
greg36f wrote:
Back when everyone in town knew each other and someone could bring a charge against “Joe the butcher” that worked fine. Now, sad to say, not so good.
This argument is predicated upon a premise which has not yet been demonstrated or proved.

Suffice it to say, I disagree.

You don't need identity to file charges. It isn't necessary for the witness to say it was "Joe, the butcher". It's sufficient for the witness to identify "that man, there".

He can be convicted without identity.

You think they didn't have cities back then? Everybody knew everybody else? Nobody committed crimes against strangers? C'mon. Get real.

He cannot be convicted until you arrest, or at least detain and identify.

Judge, we want a warrant against a White male, 5-10', 180, Blk., Bro., approx. 40 years of age does not work.

I realize that some people will NEVER agree with me on this andI really am OK with that.

Having said that, police still need the warrant to arrest on a Misd. that they did not see occur (DUI and DV being exceptions). A felony arrest needs more that just a whimsy. The policestill need probable cause that the felony occured.

I am not a laywer, so take the above as myopinion.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

greg36f wrote:
After an arrest is made, there are still a lot of protections in place (Arraignment, preliminary hearing, trial ect.. That’s after it gets by the detective, DA then the Judge that may or may not hold the person over or issue a warrant.
It's nice that there are plenty of protections in place to prevent an innocent man from being thrown in jail. Unfortunately, the innocent person's rights have already been violated as soon as he has been arrested. He has been seized without a warrant.

Now if this idea is antiquated, I'd suggest you petition your representatives to amend the constitution to rip that bit out. Otherwise I believe the validity of the amendment stands.

Our system is not perfect, but expecting an officer to go to a judge and bring along all the witnesses before he makes an arrest is not practical or even slightly workable. Our society has changed too much for that (illegal aliens with no ID, over 100 million people, no one knows their neighbors. ect).

Back when everyone in town knew each other and someone could bring a charge against “Joe the butcher” that worked fine. Now, sad to say, not so good.
Our system isn't perfect. Our system is also not what was prescribed by the constitution. Give the people the ability to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, and we'll all be much better off. Personally, I'd much rather have some punk get away with stealing stuff a few times than to arrest an innocent man, even for a few minutes. Based on the wording of the supreme law of the land, our founding fathers felt the same way.

As Marshaul pointed out, the quaint notion that at one time everybody knew everybody else is patently false. In 1790 Boston had over 18,000 people, New York City had over 33,000. Either we've become increasingly bad at remembering names, or the right to be secure in one's person and effects was placed at a greater value than the desire to arrest criminals the very first time a law was broken.
 

Wild Horse

New member
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
8
Location
Orange, California, USA
imported post

One thing I noticed in that video is the accusation to "fail to ID". I know this must have been asked before but does California Law require one to carry ID at all times? (I thought "no" due to the presence of sterile carry).

If not, then is one really required to identify themselves to Police at all in California? (provided you're not operating a motor vehicle). There was a period of time I would just leave the car at home for the sake of being able to walk around without any ID, but i was screamed at by friends and family that I would wind up in jail for it.

Can someone post up the Penal Code sections that explains this?
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
imported post

I think we're off-topic. The video involves obvious misuse and abuse of LEO authority. I think the real question involves not what legal recourse dowe have, since many of these abuses involve life-altering consequences decided without the benefit of a fair and impartial court system.

The issue is what is to be done when LEO become the judge, jury, and executioner for someone that they just don't like. What do you do when your loved one, who has committed no crime, is shot dead or hauled off to jail and raped and evidential disclosure is not made by the LEA, a police review board concludes that policy was not violated, and the LEO brotherhood usurps the laws they are sworn to uphold? Or when you request a complaint form, you are dismissed, threatened with bodily harm, and/or arrested?

It seems to me that there comes a point at which answers of justice are not found in such a corrupted system.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Wild Horse wrote:
One thing I noticed in that video is the accusation to "fail to ID". I know this must have been asked before but does California Law require one to carry ID at all times? (I thought "no" due to the presence of sterile carry).

If not, then is one really required to identify themselves to Police at all in California? (provided you're not operating a motor vehicle). There was a period of time I would just leave the car at home for the sake of being able to walk around without any ID, but i was screamed at by friends and family that I would wind up in jail for it.

Can someone post up the Penal Code sections that explains this?
There is no "stop and identify" statute in California. So walk around as much as you want without an ID. Just don't jaywalk.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
imported post

Wild Horse wrote:
One thing I noticed in that video is the accusation to "fail to ID". I know this must have been asked before but does California Law require one to carry ID at all times? (I thought "no" due to the presence of sterile carry).

If not, then is one really required to identify themselves to Police at all in California? (provided you're not operating a motor vehicle). There was a period of time I would just leave the car at home for the sake of being able to walk around without any ID, but i was screamed at by friends and family that I would wind up in jail for it.

Can someone post up the Penal Code sections that explains this?
A SCOTUS decision upheld lower court decisions that Nevada's"stop and identify" statue did not violate the 4th and5th amendmentsin Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). However, California does not have a "stop and identify" statute. California's former "stop and identify" law found previously in PC 647(e) was struck down in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) and has not been replaced.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
Personally, I'd much rather have some punk get away with stealing stuff a few times than to arrest an innocent man, even for a few minutes. Based on the wording of the supreme law of the land, our founding fathers felt the same way.
This is not said enough. My god man,

+∞
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
imported post

greg36f wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
pullnshoot25 wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
pullnshoot25 wrote:
dirtykoala wrote:
I think you can defend yourself from them, but you will not win.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
Very interesting read. I wonder how many CA LEA's and LEO's know about this?
About as many as actually do their jobs correctly, which is very few...

California has outlawed resisting an unlawful arrest by a police officer though, only one of 5 states to do so and, as usual, unconstitutional.
Why am I not surprised.
You should not be surprised. If you are unlawfully arrested, there is always the civil route. Lots of people have collected lots of money over the years.

It is not up to the arrestee to determine the lawfulness of the arrest at the time of arrest. There are dozens of factors involved that cannot be addressed in that few moments.

1) Do you have the right to resist an arrest that is lawful, but you feel is unconstitutional.

2) Do you think that the officer has to explain his entire investigation and fact pattern before he arrests you?

3) Say you think that "youdid not do anything wrong". Do you have the right to resist? How do you think that alcohol, high emotions or drugs may play a role in your perception of the facts at the time?

4) What if an officer responds to a bank robbery in progress and a citizen points you out as the armed robber? Do you have a right to resist or should you go along and cooperate until the situation is cleared up?

Do not physically resist an arrest. Seek civil remedy.

Let's not even bring into the equation the difference between an arrest and a detention.
Yeah, because cops are always honest, right?

Feel free to tell that to the poor bastard who got shot in the back by SFPD, or the two guys sodomized by NYPD, or any number of people whose blood was spilt with reckless disregard by power-hungry police officers.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
imported post

dirtykoala wrote:
im not arguing with you, i see/understand with what youre saying. its just BS that you pretty much have to give up your rights as soon as aperson in a blueconstumewearing a badgeconfronts you.

i dont think you should have to agree to be arrested for something you didnt do, just because one of your civil servants tells you youre under arrest.

youre right though, you pretty much have to get arrested, and sue later. that or you can defend yourself and yourfreedom and risk being beat, tazed, and/or shot.
You forgot sodomized, raped, kidnapped, murdered, etc...
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

hammerhands32 wrote:
Welcome.... you are now entering the official state of "Us vs. them"
Yes you have and like I have said many times before, if you are more interested in fighting the fight rather than winning the battle, you are a menace to your cause......

People that are on the fence will look at stuff like this and feel that open carry advocatesare anti police or even hostile towards the police. They will define the open carry / shall issue CCW argument by this issue and most will come down on the side of the police.

Everything that you say here is permanent and shall be used against or for you in the court of public opinion when new laws restricting your right to carry are proposed.

Don't be your own worst enemy.
 
Top