Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
zybathegeek

Rangel Case Poised To Go To Ethics Panel

Rate this topic

26 posts in this topic

From NPR news.

 

Rangel is one of the many politicians who hold the American people and the nation's legal system in utter contempt, the outcome of this Ethics Panel will be a clear statement of whether this administration is healthy or not, and capable of administering.

 

Rangel Case Poised To Go To Ethics Panel

 

by NPR Staff and Wires

 

rangel.jpg?t=1279833106&s=2

 

Cliff Owen/AP Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), shown during a meeting on Capitol Hill on May 26, has been charged with multiple ethics violations.

 

 

July 29, 2010

Barring a last-minute deal, Rep. Charles Rangel's fate will be in the hands of a congressional panel that is scheduled to meet Thursday to hear ethics charges against the powerful New York Democrat.

 

Beginning Thursday afternoon, eight House lawmakers - four Republicans and four Democrats - will sit in judgment of the former Ways and Means Committee chairman, who could face censure or expulsion from the chamber if found guilty. Rangel, 80, is tied for fourth in House seniority, having served for 40 years.

 

Last-minute pleas for Rangel to cut a deal and resign have met resistance despite fellow Democrats calling for their colleague to step down.

 

Rangel has repeatedly said he looked forward to a public discussion of the allegations, which involve alleged failure to pay taxes on a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic, use of his office to raise money for a New York college wing named in his honor, violations of New York city rules regarding use of rent-controlled property there and failure to disclose $500,000 in personal financial assets.

 

At a news conference last week in Harlem, Rangel sounded defiant. "I'm in the kitchen and I'm not walking out," he said.

 

But by Thursday morning, he sounded less upbeat. Speaking to reporters, Rangel said he survived a Chinese attack in North Korea 60 years ago while serving in the military. As a result, he says, "I haven't had a bad day since." But Rangel said, "Today I have to reassess that statement."

 

Rangel's alleged misdeeds, and what Congress will do if he's found guilty, is a politically delicate issue for Democrats in an especially tough election year. Two Democrats, Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio and Walt Minnick of Idaho, have called openly for Rangel to resign. Others were waiting to see more evidence before making a decision.

 

"I think everyone is looking forward to getting all the facts out in the open and people will have to react once we know what we're dealing with," said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill).

 

On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said of the Rangel situation that "everybody would like to have it go away."

NPR news analyst Juan Williams said there's been "tremendous pressure" from Democrats for Rangel to spare the House from disciplinary proceedings. The last time such hearing was held in 2002, when then-Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) was expelled after being found guilty of corruption. He subsequently served a seven-year prison sentence.

 

"I think what you're seeing here is a very proud man, Charlie Rangel, who doesn't want to admit to such broad charges because it would literally besmirch his legacy," Williams said on Morning Edition.

 

Rangel stepped down as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means committee in March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case, saying he should have known that corporate money paid for two trips to Caribbean conferences.

 

On Thursday, chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) will head the "adjudicatory subcommittee" that will hear the charges, with Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) the ranking minority member.

 

The hearing acts as an arraignment in which charges are formally read. Rangel's appearance is optional, but the panel will issue a report detailing the alleged misdeeds. A full trial would take place in September, following a seven-week summer recess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Posteither way; a decision by a House Subcommittee of 4 Ds and 4 Rs which are duly elected representitive with no connection to the administration probably won't as say much about the administration as you think it will

 

 

Fixed it for you.wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Posteither way; a decision by a panel of 4 Ds and 4 Rs probably won't as say much about the administration as you think it will

 

 

I regard the administration to mean the entire government.

 

Since this is representative of the Government, then I will judge the Ethics Panel to be representative of my interpretation of the administration, and the decisions as to an outcome, it's health as a government.

 

Rangel's demeanor suggests he believes he is above the law and will get away with this with a "slap on the wrist" and a deal to retire with full benefits.

 

It will be telling if the Justice department does not proceed with tax evasion charges, a Federal crime:

 

According to section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), it is a federal crime for anyone to willfully attempt to evade or defeat the payment of federal income taxes. A taxpayer can be found guilty of that offense when all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

  1. The DEFENDANT owed substantial INCOME TAX in addition to that declared in the defendant's tax return

  2. The defendant knowingly and willfully attempted to evade or defeat the tax
The prosecution need not show the exact amount of the taxes due, but it must prove that the defendant knowingly and willfully attempted to evade or defeat a substantial portion of the additional tax charged in the INDICTMENT.

In this context, the word "attempt" means that the defendant knew or understood that he had TAXABLE INCOME which he was required by law to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the particular tax year or years involved. Nevertheless, the defendant attempted to evade or defeat the tax, or a significant part of the tax on that income, by willfully failing to report all of the income the defendant earned during that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostI regard the administration to mean the entire government.

 

 

For what it's worth, here in America, "the administration" refers to the executive branch of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostFor what it's worth, here in America, "the administration" refers to the executive branch of the government.

 

 

Then do you agree that the Ethics Panel is representative of government?

 

If not, then what is it representative of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostThen do you agree that the Ethics Panel is representative of government?

 

If not, then what is it representative of?

 

 

Of course a House Subcommittee is representitive of government as it is the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostOf course a House Subcommittee is representitive of government as it is the government.

 

 

With that in mind, any decisions by the Ethics Panels are government decisions.

 

So if they let Rangel quietly resign without bringing Rangel to a court of law to answer charges of corruption and tax evasion, then the government is ipso facto condoning Rangels corruption and tax evasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostWith that in mind, any decisions by the Ethics Panels are government decisions.

 

 

Yes, I will freely agree that decisions made by the government are government decisions.

 

As far as no criminal charges and the condoning thing. That's quite a stretch. I didn't see anything criminal (keep in mind you need to understate your tax liability by 50% or more for it to be criminal) in Rangel's dealings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostAs far as no criminal charges and the condoning thing. That's quite a stretch. I didn't see anything criminal (keep in mind you need to understate your tax liability by 50% or more for it to be criminal) in Rangel's dealings.

 

 

We'll see what happens, in the absence of a deal, the Ethics Panel is supposed to air the charges today.

 

Best not hold our breaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostWe'll see what happens, in the absence of a deal, the Ethics Panel is supposed to air the charges today.

 

Best not hold our breaths.

 

 

From Politico July 29, 2010:

 

"A scathing House ethics report charges that Rep. Charles Rangel, an iconic New York powerbroker, violated 13 ethics and federal regulations covering public officials, including pressuring lobbyists and corporations to cough up millions for a New York college building bearing Rangel's name.

 

In releasing a "Statement of Alleged Violation" of against Rangel, investigators drew a portrait of a veteran lawmaker who used his office and staffers for his own personal benefit and aggrandizement, repeatedly running afoul of House financial disclosure rules. He now faces an ethics "trial" unless he's able to cut a deal with the ethics committee..."

 

 

The list of Rangle's alleged ethics violations:

 

Conduct in violation of the solicitation and gift ban;

 

conduct in violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service;

 

conduct in violation of the House Gift Rule;

 

conduct in violation of Postal Service laws and Franking Commission regulations;

 

conduct in violation of Franking Statute;

 

conduct in violation of House Office Building Commission regulations;

 

conduct in violation of the Purpose Law and the member's Congressional Handbook;

 

conduct in violation of the Letterhead Rule;

 

conduct in violation of the Ethics in Government Act and House Rule XXVI;

 

conduct in violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl. 5;

 

conduct in violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl.2;

 

conduct in violation of the Code of Conduct: letter and spirit of House rules;

 

conduct in violation of the Code of Conduct: conduct reflecting the discreditably of the House.

 

In painstaking detail, The House Ethics Committee substantiates Rangel's alleged violations in connection with THE CHARLES B. RANGEL CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AT THE CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK:

 

Statement of Facts in Support of Alleged Violations

 

I. SOLICITATION OF POTENTIAL DONORS TO THE CHARLES B. RANGEL CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AT THE CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK.

 

1. In 2004, Respondent became interested in creating an institution, similar to the Clinton Presidential Center, in part, to preserve Respondent's legacy.

 

2. Respondent discussed the idea with Gregory Williams, the president of City College of New York ("CCNY").

 

3. In December 2004, Respondent wrote Williams and stated:

 

As I informed you, during our participation in the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center several colleagues encouraged me to begin to think of the creation of an institution that would preserve the work of my public life and make it available to the public, especially to students and scholars. I am receptive to this idea if it pennits me to locate these aspects of my legacy in my home Harlem community at the City College. The creation of a Rangel Center at the City College of New York would pennit me to continue my career long interest in the promotion of education and the motivation of young people towards careers in public service.

 

1. In the December 2004 letter to Williams, Respondent further stated that "I will be exploring with my Congressional colleagues how best to move this idea through the appropriations process ...."

 

2. In early 2005, fundraising efforts for the Charles B. Rangel Center at the City College of New York ("Rangel Center") began.

 

3. CCNY prepared a 20-page glossy brochure for use in fundraising for the Rangel Center. That brochure includes a description of the Rangel Center Building. It described the Rangel Center Building as including a library to house and archive the Respondent's congressional papers, an archivist/librarian, and a "well-furnished office for Congressman Rangel."

 

7. The brochure estimated the cost ofthe archivist/librarian to be $46,550 per year.

 

8. In April 2005, a memo to Respondent was prepared by Jim Capel, his district director, regarding the proposal prepared by CCNY for the Rangel Center. The memo states,

"[iln the proposal, the last page is a request for $30 million or $6 million each year for the next

five years. Do we need more to advance to our Appropriations process?"

 

1. In May 2005, Respondent sent letters to members of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development requesting eannarks in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

 

2. An eannark in the amount of approximately $445,000 to the City College of New York for the planning, design, and construction of the Center for Public Service was included in the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2397 (2006). That bill became law on November 30, 2005.

 

3. In May 2005, Respondent sent letters regarding the Rangel Center to individuals who served as co-trustees of the Am1 S. Kheel Charitable Trust ("Kheel Trust"). Each of the letters states, "Since we are developing a relationship between the Ann Kheel Charitable Trust and the City College and City University of New York, I want to make you aware, tlu'ough this letter and the enclosed proposal, of the Rangel Center for Public Service as another promising development at the City College."

 

4. The May 2005 Kheel Trust letters were sent on congressional letterhead, bearing the words "Congress of the United States" and "House of fRepresentatives."

 

5. Respondent has been a trustee of the Atm S. Kheel Charitable Trust since its inception in February 2004. The Kheel Trust is a private foundation as defined by 26 U.S.c. § 509(a).

 

14. The trustee agreement for Kheel Trust contains a prohibition against self-dealing.

Respondent signed that agreement.

 

1. Members of Respondent's congressional staff worked with CCNY officials to obtain the grant from the Kheel Trust for the Ann S. Kheel Scholars Program.

 

2. Respondent knew his staff was working with CCNY officials to obtain funds fi'om the Kheel Trust.

 

3. Respondent was present at all meetings of the Kheel Trust Board of Trustees from its first meeting on February 19, 2004, tlu'ough June 3,2005.

 

4. At various board meetings, the trustees of the Kheel Trust discussed tile CCNY proposal and the Rangel Center.

 

5. The Kheel Trust Board of Trustees approved a grant to CCNY to fund the AIm S. Kheel Scholars on June 3, 2005.

 

6. The Ann S. Kheel Scholars Program has consistently been listed under the "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" section of the CCNY web site.

 

7. CCNY officials consistently represented to Respondent and his staff, potential donors, and tile public the donation from the Kheel Trust as a grant to the Rangel Center in its fimdraising for the Rangel Center.

 

8. In 2005, Respondent directed that his congressional staff develop a list of potential donors to the Rangel Center. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

 

9. In June 2005, Respondent's staff prepared a fonnletter (the "June 2005 letter") to be sent under Respondent's signature to potential donors to the Rangel Center. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

 

1. In the June 2005 letter Respondent stated, "I will be exploring with my Congressional colleagues how best to move this idea through the appropriations process and am optimistic about securing funds for the plmming phase of the creation of the Center. I request your advice mId assistance conceming how to approach the donor community, particularly private and corporate foundations interested in education. I look fOlward to entering into a dialogue with you on the funding of the Rangel Center concept in the coming weeks atld months."

 

2. The June 2005 letter was sent to over 100 foundations, including, inter alia, the Verizon Foundation, New Yor1e Life Foundation, The Starr Foundation, Ford Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Citi Foundation, JPMorgml Chase Foundation, Merrill Lynch & Co. Foundation, MetLife Foundation, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation, Goldman Sachs Foundation, and Wachovia Foundation.

 

3. The ltme 2005 letter was sent to several foundations that serve as the philanthropic arm of related corporations, including, inter alia, Verizon COlllinunications, Inc. and New York Life Insurance CompmlY.

 

27. Respondent personally signed each of the June 2005 letters.

 

28. The June 2005 letters were written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each of the letters was a 20-page glossy brochure that requested a gift of "$30,000,000 or $6,000,000/year for five years."

 

29. The June 2005 letters, with enclosed brochures, were sent through the United

States mail using Respondent's frank.

 

1. In June 2005, the Ford Foundation expressed to Respondent its interest in leanling more about the Rangel Center.

 

2. In August 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Roger Balmik of The Balmik Foundation regarding the Rangel Center (the "Bahnik letter").

 

3. The Bahnik letter was written on congressional letterhead. The letter stated, "[ w ]hile I am disappointed that you will not be able to fund the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, I thank you for consideration ofmy request."

 

4. In August 2005, Respondent sent another round of letters (the "August 2005 letters") to foundations, which were similar in content to the June 2005 letters.

 

5. The August 2005 letters were written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each letter was a "presentation."

 

6. In September 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Senator Robert Byrd seeking an earmark in the amount of $3 million in order "to launch the Charles B. Rangel Center at the City College of the City University of New York."

 

7. In September 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Donald Trump (the "Trump letter") requesting a meeting to discuss the Rangel Center.

 

8. The Trump letter was sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion ofthe Great Seal ofthe United States and the words "House of Representatives."

 

 

38. In September 2005, Respondent sent letters to the Carnegie Corporation of New

York and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (the "September 2005 letters"), which were similar in content to the June 2005 letters.

 

1. The September 2005 letters were sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion of the Great Seal of the United States and the words "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each letter was a "presentation."

 

2. In September 2005, a meeting occUlTed between Respondent, representatives of the Ford Foundation, and CCNY officials.

 

3. In December 2005, CCNY submitted a proposal to the Ford Foundation (the "December 2005 Ford Foundation proposal") regarding a potential contribution to the Rangel Center.

 

4. The December 2005 Ford FOUlldation proposal stated that "City College anticipates that the United States Congress will suppOli this initiative with a seed grant."

 

5. The Ford Foundation tentatively scheduled a lUllcheon for other foundations regarding the Rangel Center for May 5, 2006.

 

6. In March 2006, the Ford Foundation postponed the luncheon due to concerns about the lack of funding, including congressional appropriations, for the Rangel Center.

 

7. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the Subcommittee on Transpoliation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development requesting earmarks in the amoUllt of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

 

8. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the SubcOlmnittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education requesting earmarks in the amount of $6 million to "help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my

Congressional District."

 

1. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the Senate seeking support for an earmark in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

 

2. In early 2006, Respondent suggested that CCNY officials contact AIG regarding the Rangel Center.

 

3. In July 2006, Respondent sent another letter (the "July 2006 letters") to approximately 47 ofthe foundations he previously solicited, including the Ford Foundation.

 

4. The July 2006 letters were prepared by Respondent's staff. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

 

5. The July 2006 letters were also written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." The letters infonned potential donors that Respondent had secured eannarks of $3.6 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center project.

 

52. Respondent personally signed each of the July 2006 letters.

 

1. As of July 2006, Respondent had secured, in 2005, one eannark in the amount of $445,000 for the Rangel Center.

 

2. As of July 2006, earmarks in the total amount of $3,150,000 for the Rangel Center for fiscal year 2007 were included in appropriations bills coming out of the respective subcommittees of jurisdiction. Those eannarks were ultimately not included in any appropriations bills for fiscal year 2007.

 

3. In September 2006, Respondent met with CCNY officials and Eugene Isenberg, CEO of Nabors Industries, in the offices of Robert Morgenthau, then District Attomey for New York County to discuss the Rangel Center.

4. In November 2006, Isenberg pledged a personal contribution of $500,000 to the Rangel Center. Nabors Industries pledged a matching contribution of $500,000.

 

5. In February 2007, Respondent met with Eugene Isenberg and KelU1eth Kies, a federally-registered lobbyist, at the Carlyle Hotel in New York. They discussed tile issue of retroactivity of tax provisions related to inverted companies.

 

6. In June 2007, Respondent met with Eugene Isenberg at Respondent's office to again discuss the issue ofretroactivity of tax provisions related to inverted companies.

 

7. In October 2006, CCNY officials represented to the Ford Fonndation that tiley had obtained "the seed money the Congressman promised."

 

8. In October 2006, the Ford Foundation encouraged CCNY to submit a proposal for $1 million to fund academic programs at the Rangel Center.

 

9. In January 2007, the Ford Foundation hosted a luncheon (the "Ford Foundation lunch") to bring together Respondent and CCNY officials with other potential donors to tile Rangel Center.

 

10. Respondent made a presentation about the Rangel Center at the Ford Foundation lunch.

 

11. Other potential donors that attended the Ford Foundation lunch included, inter alia, Verizon Foundation, New York Community Trust, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

 

12. In March 2007, the Ford Foundation approved a grant in the amount of $1,000,000 for the Rangel Center.

 

13. In March 2007, Respondent sent letters to Donald Trump, David Rockefeller, and Maurice "Hank" Greenberg (the "March 2007 letters") requesting meetings to discuss the Rangel Center.

 

14. The March 2007 letters were sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion of the Great Seal of the United States and the words "House of Representatives. "

 

67. Respondent personally signed each of the March 2007 letters.

 

1. The March 2007 letters were prepared by Respondent's staff. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

 

2. In March 2007, Respondent wrote a letter to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education requesting earmarks in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

 

3. In March 2007, Respondent wrote a letter to the Chair of the Subconnnittee on TranspOliation and Housing and Urban Development requesting an eannark "to make structural and rehabilitation work a [sic] Center for Public Service."

 

4. An eannark in the amount of approximately $245,000 for the City College of New York for "the planning, design, construction, renovation and buildout of a multipurpose educational facility" was included in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat 1844 (2007).

 

5. An eannark in the amount of approximately $1.915 million for "the City College of New York for the Charles B. Rangel Center to prepare individuals for careers in public service, which may include establishing an endowment, library, and archives for such center" was included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007).

 

1. In May 2007, Respondent spoke with Melvin NOlTis, a fonner House employee in Respondent's district office. NOlTis was then working as a New York state lobbyist for Verizon Communications, Inc. Respondent requested an update on the status of the Verizon Foundation donation to the Rangel Center.

 

2. In June 2007, Respondent spoke with George Nichols, a federally-registered lobbyist for New York Life Insurance Corporation, at a breakfast campaign fundraiser. Respondent requested that New York Life consider contributing to the Rangel Center.

 

3. On June 4,2007, Respondent met with Hank Greenberg, Chainnan of the Board ofthe StalT Foundation regarding a possible donation to the Rangel Center.

 

4. On June 12, 2007, the StalT Foundation approved a grant to the Rangel Center in the amount of $5,000,000.

 

5. In August 2007, Verizon Foundation approved a grant to the Rangel Center in the amount of $500,000. NOlTis infonned Respondent that the grallt had been approved.

 

6. In APlil 2008, Respondent met with CCNY officials and AIG officials (the "AIG meeting"), including Edward "Ned" Cloonan, a federally-registered lobbyist, regarding the Rangel Center. The briefing memo prepared for Respondent by CCNY stated the objective of the meeting was to "close $1 OM gift for the Rangel Center to create AIG Hal1."

 

7. At the AIG meeting, a potential donation to the Rangel Center was discussed. AIG raised concems about a potential donation, including the potential headline risk. Respondent asked AIG, at least twice, what was necessary to get this done.

 

8. On numerous occasions during 2005 through 2008, Respondent attended several meetings with CCNY officials and potential donors. These potential donors included Eugene Isenberg, Hank Greenberg, David Rockefeller, Donald Trump, the Ford Foundation, and AIG.

 

81. In addition to the contributions noted above, the following entities and individuals solicited by Respondent made pledges and contlibutions to the Rangel Center:

 

1) Rhodebeck Chalitable Fund ($25,000); 2) David Rockefeller ($100,000); 3) New York Community Trust ($130,000); and 4) Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($50,000).

 

1. On numerous occasions during 2005 through 2008, Respondent and his staff used official House resources, including telephones, emails, and facsimile machines, to communicate with CCNY and others regarding fundraising for the Rangel Center

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostYes, I will freely agree that decisions made by the government are government decisions.

 

As far as no criminal charges and the condoning thing. That's quite a stretch. I didn't see anything criminal (keep in mind you need to understate your tax liability by 50% or more for it to be criminal) in Rangel's dealings.

 

 

Nothing to see here. These charges are so minor it's not funny. This maybe an emabarassment but nothing more. But I guess we'll see.

 

BTW, all you FOX network bashers, Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, two right wing stallworths, have come to the defense of Rangel on FOX news commentary 2 or 3 times in then last week. How do you reconcile your comments about FOX? These guys deal in facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.