Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 514

Thread: Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011

    In what will ultimately be understood as a very good thing, this will proceed to trial as scheduled on June 21st.

    Today several motions were heard, amongst which was one by Skid's attorney (User) requesting dismissal w/prejudice. In response Mr Poindexter, the commonwealth attorney, whimpered (I am told) a motion that the sole charge remaining (brandishing) be nolle prossed unless User would apologize for verbiage (in motions) not favorable to certain plaintiffs - that would have been a hanging sword. The judge did not permit the charges to be withdrawn.

    I would expect that the judge has experienced some frustration (irritation) over the lack of timely response from the prosecution. not having the clerk's files complete and the high profile exposure from a case that should never have been pursued. The bench intimated that the defense has a valid case and it should/would be heard. Overall, User indicated that he was quite pleased with the outcome today. I am too.

    It was a long, but interesting day - left home at 7:00 AM and just got back a short while ago.

    Reference to previous thread:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86931-Surry-Saga-%28Skidmark%29-amended-to-4-19-!!!!&p=1512511&posted=1#post1512511

    On May 17th edited to reflect new trial date of Oct 11, 2011

    As of may 18th, new trial date is Sept 13th, 2011.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 04-20-2011 at 04:47 PM. Reason: fixed
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Thanks for the information Grapeshot. This sounds as though the judge has heard some information that has piqued his interest regarding the mis-behavior of the prosecution and the prosecution's witnesses and wants to hear the full discussion so that it becomes a part of court record (if it isn't already).

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    No weapons in undefined area of Surry Municipal Bldg.

    Several hours after arriving and inside talking to Skid outside the security perimeter (not past the metal detector, court room security point and sitting on a bench in the public area) I was called over by a Deputy and told you can't have a gun in here.

    No argument from me - I just requested a supervisor. Was told that he would get the Sheriff. After waiting for about 10 minutes, the Deputy came back and told me that he owed me an apology and that indeed I was OK there, outside the court room waiting area and not passed the security check point. Note there is a sign that reads in part: No Weapons In Courtroom.

    But that it NOT the end of the story.

    When court commenced, Mr. Poyndexter requested that the judge clarify where weapons were to be restricted with the comment, "There are armed men out there!"

    The judge apparently decided that the entire end of the building closest to the courtroom should be weapons free - indicating that a physical barrier should be the determination. Isn't that what the security check point is? There is no other barrier.

    Note that entering through this public entrance there is no sign listing what is not allowed. Anyone can come in, turn left to other offices or wait in the hall (several benches) w/o passing through the security check.

    The next available entrance is about 200 ft away and requires one to pass through a set of doors (physical barrier) which takes you right back to the courtroom hall to get to restrooms. You end up about 30 ft. from where you started and seemingly now illegal, even though you have not breached the secured area.

    Then there is the question of what else is not allowed in that 1/2 of the building - are all items that are restricted from the courtroom/past the security check point i.e. cell phones, cameras, knives, recorders so restricted too? Where is the yellow line?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Several hours after arriving and inside talking to Skid outside the security perimeter (not past the metal detector, court room security point and sitting on a bench in the public area) I was called over by a Deputy and told you can't have a gun in here.

    No argument from me - I just requested a supervisor. Was told that he would get the Sheriff. After waiting for about 10 minutes, the Deputy came back and told me that he owed me an apology and that indeed I was OK there, outside the court room waiting area and not passed the security check point. Note there is a sign that reads in part: No Weapons In Courtroom.

    But that it NOT the end of the story.

    When court commenced, Mr. Poindexter requested that the judge clarify where weapons were to be restricted with the comment, "There are armed men out there!"

    The judge apparently decided that the entire end of the building closest to the courtroom should be weapons free - indicating that a physical barrier should be the determination. Isn't that what the security check point is? There is no other barrier.

    Note that entering through this public entrance there is no sign listing what is not allowed. Anyone can come in, turn left to other offices or wait in the hall (several benches) w/o passing through the security check.

    The next available entrance is about 200 ft away and requires one to pass through a set of doors (physical barrier) which takes you right back to the courtroom hall to get to restrooms. You end up about 30 ft. from where you started and seemingly now illegal, even though you have not breached the secured area.

    Then there is the question of what else is not allowed in that 1/2 of the building - are all items that are restricted from the courtroom/past the security check point i.e. cell phones, cameras, knives, recorders so restricted too? Where is the yellow line?
    Very strange indeed.

    I bet Peter, and maybe even VCDL, will make their life hell for this transgression. Carry into a courthouse is a big deal.

    Problem is we really need a precise definition of what a courthouse is and is not.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Glad I had my lightning bolt with me this time!

    The Commonwealth's Attorney was pretty disconcerted by the motion to dismiss, and was set to either nolle pros. the case in order to bring it back in a new and different way (thus starting this process all over), or alternatively, to move to have the charge amended to assault (on the theory that the security guard believed that it was likely that Paul might actually have touched him with the finger, again, starting the process all over again). The Judge decided to suspend consideration of the Commonwealth's motion to nolle pros., and continued to my motion to dismiss. He decided that this case is very much like the "flare gun" case, Morris v. Commonwealth, and said he was obligated to follow precedent. I argued that the point I had made in my motion regarding the definition of the word, "brandishing", had not been considered by the Morris court, and Morris had been actively engaged in threatening people and he showed off the flare gun in order to demonstrate that he had the present and available means to carry out his verbal threats, while in this case, the Defendant was basically passive - even if you believe everything stated in the Commonwealth's bill of particulars, the facts don't picture the Defendant as actively engaged in attacking anyone. He was told to leave (the public highway) and refused to do so (because the Sheriff's office had been called and he wasn't dumb enough to believe that the deputies would consider his side favorably if he'd split before they go there). Even if Skidmark had been challenging the security guard, it was a passive challenge - the challenge to the guard, according to the bill of particulars, was the invitation to, "move me, big boy.". Skidmark was not alleged to have made any threat or gesture other than the allegation that he pointed his finger and he "touched his gun" during the conversation. Because the case is distinguishable from Morris, that case is NOT precedent - the facts central to the holding in the case are not the same as the facts in this case, and the definition of "brandishing" didn't get the same analysis as that presented in the motion.

    However, we decided that the judge had made a good decision, because going to trial in June is better than having to worry about starting over.
    Last edited by user; 04-19-2011 at 07:41 PM.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Very strange indeed.

    I bet Peter, and maybe even VCDL, will make their life hell for this transgression. Carry into a courthouse is a big deal.

    Problem is we really need a precise definition of what a courthouse is and is not.
    There is a court definition Thundar.
    I think the Judge settled it though. Carry is prohibited beyond the metal detector.

    Poindexter did a lot of nitty bitching today and behaved almost like a child having temper tantrums.

    There was really a lot of ground covered the Judge handled it pretty well.

    I have 3500 stills to look through including some pictures I've been trying to get for months, and 150 video clips.
    Jane took pages of notes in the courtroom and I'm beat.

    Grapeshot did his usual good job of covering the high ground. We had a number of locals come up to us and offer support. Apparently more than the Administration are following these threads.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Very strange indeed.

    I bet Peter, and maybe even VCDL, will make their life hell for this transgression. Carry into a courthouse is a big deal.

    Problem is we really need a precise definition of what a courthouse is and is not.
    From my understanding there is existing Virginia case law regarding the defined area of a courthouse which is off limits to firearms carry by the general public. I've been searching this dang forum for a few minutes and I can't find it. It seems that Skidmark brought it up maybe a year ago in some post where there was a question of this same sort.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    From my understanding there is existing Virginia case law regarding the defined area of a courthouse which is off limits to firearms carry by the general public. I've been searching this dang forum for a few minutes and I can't find it. It seems that Skidmark brought it up maybe a year ago in some post where there was a question of this same sort.
    Grapeshot brought it up there too (It's a court of appeals ruling I think)

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    I was right, but I was a couple years off.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...the-courthouse

    THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LEE COUNTY V. EDGAR BACON, COMMISSIONER OF ACCOUNTS OF LEE COUNTY, April 28, 1975, Record No. 740711.

    "... we held that the building was not in its entirety the courthouse; that only that portion of the building appointed for the use of the circuit court constituted the courthouse...."
    Last edited by jmelvin; 04-19-2011 at 08:16 PM.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Grapeshot brought it up there too (It's a court of appeals ruling I think)
    What is the courthouse?

    we held that the building was not in its entirety the courthouse; that only that portion of the building appointed for the use of the circuit court constituted the courthouse; and that the council of the city of Hopewell was authorized and empowered to control the use and occupancy of all other parts of the building.
    The present case is controlled by our holding in Egerton. Here the undisputed facts show that the courthouse building, as in Egerton, was occupied jointly by the circuit court and various county officials and employees, and the office occupied by the Commissioner was not located in that part of the building appointed for the use and occupancy of the circuit court.

    Only that part of the courthouse building necessary for the use and occupancy of the circuit court constituted the courthouse, and the court has control over the assignment of space in such area. The governing body of the county has control of the use and occupancy of all other areas of the building. Thus, the 1958 order of the circuit court assigning office space to the Commissioner in that part of the building which did not constitute the courthouse was not binding. Moreover, to hold that the court had the authority and power to assign offices to certain county officials in the courthouse building would nullify the provisions of Code § 15.1-258, which require the governing body of the county to provide the Commissioner and other officials named in the statute with offices in the courthouse, if space is available.
    http://www.virginia1774.org/CourthouseArea.html
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    The Securiguard Lawyer had a long talk with one of the Deputies before Grapeshot was told he couldn't wear his gun there.

    Notice the look when he left. As he drove by he took pictures with his cell phone.


  13. #13
    Regular Member crazydude6030's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fairfax, va
    Posts
    512
    I was really hoping this would be the end of it. Shame resources have to be spent on something like this

  14. #14
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    <snip>......However, we decided that the judge had made a good decision, because going to trial in June is better than having to worry about starting over.
    So in the judges opinion the reason he denied the motion to dismiss was that he thought a precident was established??? Based on the facts and lack of competency in the prosecution he would be happy to grant the motion and put this thing to rest.

    I hate our legal systems "grinding" slowness. While June isn't that far away an innocent man still has this affecting his life daily!!! Doesn't seem like justice to me... yet!

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    The Securiguard Lawyer had a long talk with one of the Deputies before Grapeshot was told he couldn't wear his gun there.

    Notice the look when he left. As he drove by he took pictures with his cell phone.
    Hope he got my "good" side.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    OK, just spent thirty minutes typing this up, then lost it all. Short version.

    One supporter was turned away from the courtroom for wearing shorts. He went out and bought a pair of jeans!

    Commonwealth's Attorney tried to get the Sheriff to remove OC'ing supporters from in front of the CH. Judge said we were ok where we were, I think.

    CA wanted more time to review User's motions; judge would have none of that. CA stated had been on vacation last week.

    Judge shot down User's motion to dismiss on various technical matters (User's technicalities). Judge would have none of that, said CA's paperwork was close enough.

    Conjecture here. I think the hearing was originally about trying to quash User's supeona's to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to produce security camera tapes; the motion to dismiss was an opportunity. Conjecture off.

    Outcome of the above was User and an assistant from the Attorney General's office, representing VDOT who operates the ferry, agreed that security tapes of the incident were unrecoverable, no matter what demands User filed. Some other things about witness lists, also.

    As to adressing the facts in the motion to dismiss, the Judge apparently thought those issues would be determined at trial. Here is the statute.

    § 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

    It seemed that the Judge agreed with User's claim, and the CA did not object, that no person "pointed or held any firearm".
    That leaves the part "or brandish... in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm....in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured." No firearm was pointed or held so I think the case will be tried as to this latter part of the code, maybe defining brandish?

    The complainant's statement said he was fearful, the most fearful he had ever been as a security guard. This was an interesting statement, as at no time was any evidence ever given in the complaint that any gun, not Skid's or the complainants, nor two deputies, nor other security guards who were present, was ever drawn. Conclusion by me: not that darned scared or Skid would have been cuffed and stuffed, or at least disarmed at some time during the encounter.

    At one point near the end, the CA pointed his finger! (gasp!) at Skidmark and stated "If this was (another VA locality) he would have been shot!" Hyperbole, IMO. This was interesting. The assertion leads to the questions: Are they just nicer and more tolerant in Surry? and also Does Surry enforce the law differently than other localities in VA? Glad the CA's scenario DID NOT HAPPEN! Whew!

    There may be more, but I am beat. Best of luck to Skid. I am a bit ashamed to admit, it was a very entertaining day for me personally; I feel a bit guilty about that. Learned a lot.

    Oh, talked to a local on the way out of town. They were unaware of the case. Gave them a thumbnail. Woman said her husband traveled the ferry daily for work and had had his own problems with security.
    Last edited by riverrat10k; 04-20-2011 at 12:01 AM. Reason: fer spelling, as usual, probably still some

  17. #17
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    So in the judges opinion the reason he denied the motion to dismiss was that he thought a precident was established??? Based on the facts and lack of competency in the prosecution he would be happy to grant the motion and put this thing to rest.

    I hate our legal systems "grinding" slowness. While June isn't that far away an innocent man still has this affecting his life daily!!! Doesn't seem like justice to me... yet!
    CA attempted to nolle prosse (sp?) the charge, which would have given him until Oct. 29 to refine and refile the charge, or change the charge entirely. User objected and the Judge agreed. The CA backpedaled some in court trying to change the charge to assault. Apparently this was a proceedural faux pas as the judge would have none of it.

    LOL on your second comment. I felt like I was watching a TV soap opera or reading the Mark Trail comic strip, where it takes a week for a character to fart. Not to make light. After watching this, IMO, "justice" is time consuming and expensive.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by riverrat10k View Post
    After watching this, IMO, "justice" is time consuming and expensive.
    That is what they (Sheriff's Dept., Securiguard, VDOT, magistrate and CA ) where counting on -what can one person do against their "Authority."

    Guess what Surry - there's more than one of us and we stand together ...........and we do things the RIGHT way.

    There never was any intent to do other than enjoy a ride and see the fall foliage. Any discomfort felt by those in "Authority" is a direct result of their own ineptitude. They could have ended this charade some time ago.

    Justice will be no less sweet in June.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by crazydude6030 View Post
    Shame resources have to be spent on something like this
    On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to clog the courts.

    The New Hampshire Courtroom Legal Opposition Group ("NH-Clog") website is out of date, but the spirit is still alive and in effect. They're part of the "Never Take a Plea"movement. The underlying theory is, government "efficiency" is essential to the mass violation of rights seen in American courts every single day.

    Just like you "shouldn't talk to cops", you also "shouldn't take a plea" and "shouldn't cooperate".

    Shut up, stand firm, and make them prove it.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Aw man... But hopefully it'll set some precedent where the judge falsely thinks it already exists...

    No threats were made, Flare Gun case does not apply. Entirely different facts, so the 'precedent' of it does not apply.

    How often do they get it wrong on purpose? Surry is starting to look like Circus...
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to clog the courts.

    The New Hampshire Courtroom Legal Opposition Group ("NH-Clog") website is out of date, but the spirit is still alive and in effect. They're part of the "Never Take a Plea"movement. The underlying theory is, government "efficiency" is essential to the mass violation of rights seen in American courts every single day.

    Just like you "shouldn't talk to cops", you also "shouldn't take a plea" and "shouldn't cooperate".

    Shut up, stand firm, and make them prove it.
    Try that attitude where I live and see what happens to you... I'm glad there is a place where people stand together. Maybe I'll get to visit someday.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to clog the courts.

    The New Hampshire Courtroom Legal Opposition Group ("NH-Clog") website is out of date, but the spirit is still alive and in effect. They're part of the "Never Take a Plea"movement. The underlying theory is, government "efficiency" is essential to the mass violation of rights seen in American courts every single day.

    Just like you "shouldn't talk to cops", you also "shouldn't take a plea" and "shouldn't cooperate".

    Shut up, stand firm, and make them prove it.
    Please tell me that you are not spamming this thread - would seem to be totally OT and not directly related to RKBA.

    Had you read this thread at all, you would know that there is an attorney of record.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Please tell me that you are not spamming this thread - would seem to be totally OT and not directly related to RKBA.

    Had you read this thread at all, you would know that there is an attorney of record.
    ???

    I'm not sure how you would even think I was. I was responding to (and directly quoted) someone who lamented that "resources have to be spent on something like this."

    Attorneys of record have nothing to do with it. Many of the "don't take a plea" folks have attorneys. The point is: don't take a plea, make the government prove their case!

    Grapeshot, I know you might be stretched a little thin at this point on the day of this very important case, but my previous posts should make it clear that I'm 100% supportive of Skidmark, User, and Peter Nap. Skidmark could have taken a plea but didn't, which is why all the Surry system seems to be in an uproar of consternation. They expected him to bow down and thank them for their mercy, and he didn't. Hoorah!
    Last edited by KBCraig; 04-20-2011 at 05:15 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806
    So... has anyone considered calling some official in Surry Country and asking why the hell they're wasting our tax dollars on this mess?
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by AbNo View Post
    So... has anyone considered calling some official in Surry Country and asking why the hell they're wasting our tax dollars on this mess?
    No, but I interviewed members of the Tea Party on Monday and asked that exact question. I'll leave their answer to your imagination.

Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •