# An anarchist critique of the freeman movement



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2011)

http://www.wsm.ie/c/anarchist-critique-freeman-movement

From Irish Anarchist Review. I found this to be helpful and interesting. Leads in too quickly with the not very substantiated anti semite accusations for my liking though, no matter how justified they may be. No reason why they couldn't have been left till later. I remain convinced that a lot of people who think they are "woken up" by this and "truth" info could be won over to left / anarchist thinking, indeed it is something of a failing that it wasn't the case in the first place. But slagging them off out of hand aint the way to do it. Critique such as this is.


----------



## krink (Nov 2, 2011)

just working my way through this article. how big is the freeman movement in the uk?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 2, 2011)

whoever wrote that article is taking their "beliefs" far too seriously.  Taking them seriously implies that they're worth engaging with on some level.  They should be dismissed out of hand, derided and belittled.  The only reasonable response to hearing what they have to say is "you believe _what_?", followed by a smirk and then totally ignore them.

Here is a more succinct critique - They are fucking loons.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> whoever wrote that article is taking their "beliefs" far too seriously. Taking them seriously implies that they're worth engaging with on some level. They should be dismissed out of hand, derided and belittled. The only reasonable response to hearing what they have to say is "you believe _what_?", followed by a smirk and then totally ignore them.
> 
> Here is a more succinct critique - They are fucking loons.



In point of fact, some of what they say appears to be true though.



krink said:


> just working my way through this article. how big is the freeman movement in the uk?



Not very, but growing and with a somewhat fresh appeal. They are in and around the occupy movement.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2011)

What appears to be true?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 2, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> In point of fact, some of what they say appears to be true though.



Yeah, what Blagsta said - what do they say that is true?  Nothing that I've ever heard.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2011)

That stuff about names in capital letters, birth certs contracts and the like appear to be plausible. Driving licences being about registering for a commercial vehicle. Little stuff on the whole but not un interesting. I find it sad though that such a large amount of intelligence, research and propaganda goes into something so grandiose sounding only for people to rather petulantly dispute parking fines and the like with the knowledge.

They also get a bit smart arsed. A rather vulnerable bloke I know was up for some public order stuff and they were telling him he didn't have to show up for court and various other stuff that could have put him in even more jeapody. He had already "submitted" in any case.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Nov 2, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What appears to be true?


Not Clause 61, that's for sure  Repealed in 1297. 

.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 2, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That stuff about names in capital letters, birth certs contracts and the like appear to be plausible.





Doesn't appear to be plausible to me...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> *That stuff about names in capital letters, birth certs contracts and the like appear to be plausible.* Driving licences being about registering for a commercial vehicle. Little stuff on the whole but not un interesting. I find it sad though that such a large amount of intelligence, research and propaganda goes into something so grandiose sounding only for people to rather petulantly dispute parking fines and the like with the knowledge.
> 
> They also get a bit smart arsed. A rather vulnerable bloke I know was up for some public order stuff and they were telling him he didn't have to show up for court and various other stuff that could have put him in even more jeapody. He had already "submitted" in any case.



are you nuts?


----------



## captainmission (Nov 2, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That stuff about names in capital letters, birth certs contracts and the like appear to be plausible.



So it's plausible that there's a distinction between 'legal' and 'true' people? and every magistrate, justice and JP in any common law juristiction secretly know this? And they're waiting for the correct legal incantation to be preformed at which point they're rendered powerless like runplestitskin hearing his true name? And not one of them has broken ranks and revealed this? And not a single lawyer, solicitor or legal advisor out of the millions there are in the world have ever stumbled across this fact?

That's plausable?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 2, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> Not Clause 61, that's for sure  Repealed in 1297.
> 
> .



Possibly repealed in 1216! defintely not the 1297 version.

Freeman = utter lunacy, and there's no apparent reasoning with them.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 2, 2011)

Foaming gibberers.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Nov 2, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Possibly repealed in 1216! defintely not the 1297 version.


I learn something new every day 



			
				BigTom said:
			
		

> Freeman = utter lunacy, and there's no apparent reasoning with them.


And oddly there's Freemunacy on both left and right of the linear political spectrum. I only ever really noticed it in BNP/EDL members' comments online until now, but I'm told it has a lefty manifestation too. Someone signed themself to me in a letter recently with X of the family Y. I've no time for a dead-end movement like the Freemen movement.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2011)

I think these people aren't worth bothering arguing with. And that article didn't. It just said that they're not anarchists. That's not really a critique is it?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That stuff about names in capital letters, birth certs contracts and the like appear to be plausible.



No they don't.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 2, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> *That stuff about names in capital letters, birth certs contracts and the like appear to be plausible. Driving licences being about registering for a commercial vehicle.* Little stuff on the whole but not un interesting. I find it sad though that *such a large amount of intelligence*, research and propaganda goes into something so grandiose sounding only for people to rather petulantly dispute parking fines and the like with the knowledge.
> 
> They also get a bit smart arsed. A rather vulnerable bloke I know was up for some public order stuff and they were telling him he didn't have to show up for court and various other stuff that could have put him in even more jeapody. He had already "submitted" in any case.



You're trolling right?


----------



## dylans (Nov 3, 2011)

captainmission said:


> So it's plausible that there's a distinction between 'legal' and 'true' people? and every magistrate, justice and JP in any common law juristiction secretly know this? And they're waiting for the correct legal incantation to be preformed at which point they're rendered powerless like runplestitskin hearing his true name? And not one of them has broken ranks and revealed this? And not a single lawyer, solicitor or legal advisor out of the millions there are in the world have ever stumbled across this fact?
> 
> That's plausable?


So its basically a conspiracy theory that believes magistrates etc have possession of some secret legal knowledge, kept from the rest of us and by speaking the magic words you can tap into it and force them to reveal the truth and obey the hidden rules?


----------



## captainmission (Nov 3, 2011)

dylans said:


> So its basically a conspiracy theory that believes magistrates etc have possession of some secret legal knowledge, kept from the rest of us and by speaking the magic words you can tap into it and force them to reveal the truth and obey the hidden rules?



basically yeah. They also like to engage in a whole lot of other magical thinking- whether a judge stands at the begin of a hearing, whether there's a frilly gold outline round a coat of arms- all this apparently means you can reject there legal powers. Utter loonspuddery.

And it's catching on. I work advice centre; one of my co-workers has come across a couple freemen in last 6 month wanting to use the freeman 'defense' aginst possesion hearings, liability orders


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 3, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Here is a more succinct critique - They are fucking loons.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 3, 2011)

I think they are worth taking seriously in that if you were to have a large number of people becoming politically involved who hadn't been so before then there is the potential for some of them to get side-tracked into this kind of stuff. And there's obviously something in it that's beguiling to the legalistic mindset of a certain demographic within the bourgeoisie.

Hopefully it will be tactically hampered somewhat by the fact that it is fucking nonsense on stilts.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 3, 2011)

Allowing them to pursue their loonery to it's ultimate conclusion (ie them uttering magic words to courts/tribunals etc and then being locked up or forced to pay their fine anyway or whatever) seems the best way to show them they're being led up the garden path.  Engaging with them reasonably, as with all other loons, only encourages them.


----------



## dylans (Nov 3, 2011)

I was just reading up on their claim that statutory law is admiralty law or the law of the sea. Apparently this leads them to the bizarre claim that anything ending in the word "ship" means it is admiralty law. Hence ownerSHIP citizenSHIP and anything else ending in SHIP. Evidence of this is in any nautical sounding terms used in court or legal parlance such as dock,  BIRTH certificate etc.

They are raving mad.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 3, 2011)

Ha ha ha, that is so awesome.

Further evidence of their loonspudship.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 3, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> are you nuts?


I think you know the answer to that.


----------



## october_lost (Nov 3, 2011)

Looks like conspiracy theories are making huge in-roads at the minute, what with the Zeitgeist Movement, 9-11 truthers.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> So its basically a conspiracy theory that believes magistrates etc have possession of some secret legal knowledge, kept from the rest of us and by speaking the magic words you can tap into it and force them to reveal the truth and obey the hidden rules?


The Clerk Of The Court!


----------



## past caring (Nov 7, 2011)

captainmission said:


> And it's catching on. I work advice centre; one of my co-workers has come across a couple freemen in last 6 month wanting to use the freeman 'defense' aginst possesion hearings, liability orders



I work in an advice centre too, but we don't get a lot of this stuff in Brixton - is it confined to certain areas of the country? Anyway, why are these loony cunts coming to you in the first place if they're so sure of their stuff?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> I was just reading up on their claim that statutory law is admiralty law or the law of the sea. Apparently this leads them to the bizarre claim that anything ending in the word "ship" means it is admiralty law. Hence ownerSHIP citizenSHIP and anything else ending in SHIP. Evidence of this is in any nautical sounding terms used in court or legal parlance such as dock,  BIRTH certificate etc.
> 
> They are raving mad.


I'll have to remember that one - it's as good as the "four corners rule".


----------



## bart in brum. (Nov 12, 2011)

Not all Freemen are what they seem. many have a religous faith which goes where ???............


----------



## bart in brum. (Nov 12, 2011)

The freemen of canada "peace officers" must believe in god. This is accurate the last time i looked.


----------



## Giles (Nov 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That stuff about names in capital letters, birth certs contracts and the like appear to be plausible. Driving licences being about registering for a commercial vehicle. Little stuff on the whole but not un interesting. I find it sad though that such a large amount of intelligence, research and propaganda goes into something so grandiose sounding only for people to rather petulantly dispute parking fines and the like with the knowledge.
> 
> They also get a bit smart arsed. A rather vulnerable bloke I know was up for some public order stuff and they were telling him he didn't have to show up for court and various other stuff that could have put him in even more jeapody. He had already "submitted" in any case.



This capital letters / lower case stuff is plain silly, as is the rest of the "law of the sea" / birth / berth / ship nonsense.

These people are insane. Do not listen to them, or try to reason with them.

Giles..


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Nov 15, 2011)

I think we need at least one here.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 16, 2011)

What is interesting about the f-ree m-an movement is its real willingness to question the whole language game of con-troll that has been used by those in power for hundreds of years.

The rejection of under-standing as no person is under the law is  redolent of a rastafarian subversion of the dominant discourse. It can also be amusing. I have time for f-ree-mans because I think the thoughts they provoke outweigh the negatives- they are also willing to listen and share their ideas.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 16, 2011)

con-troll?  Puhlease!


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2011)

edit - what blagsta said...


----------



## kenny g (Nov 16, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> edit - what blagsta said...



Maybe you should go into part yes ship? ?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2011)

kenny g said:


> Maybe you should go into part yes ship? ?



Brilliant!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 17, 2011)

kenny g said:


> What is interesting about the f-ree m-an movement is its real willingness to question the whole language game of con-troll that has been used by those in power for hundreds of years.
> 
> The rejection of under-standing as no person is under the law is redolent of a rastafarian subversion of the dominant discourse. It can also be amusing. I have time for f-ree-mans because I think the thoughts they provoke outweigh the negatives- they are also willing to listen and share their ideas.



in it's naive attempt to reject authority as it is and hark to some idealised older 'fairer' forms of authority (that never existed anyway) the freeman movement shows it's inherently conservative and bourgeois nature


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 17, 2011)

Pooterish scientology.


----------



## Picadilly Commando (Nov 17, 2011)

*looks up plausible in dictionary*

Nope. It hasn't changed. Are you nuts?


----------



## kenny g (Nov 17, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> in it's naive attempt to reject authority as it is and hark to some idealised older 'fairer' forms of authority (that never existed anyway) the freeman movement shows it's inherently conservative and bourgeois nature


Thank you for that summary of the anarchist critique linked to at the beginning of the thread. Do you have anything new to add?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2011)

Picadilly Commando said:


> *looks up plausible in dictionary*
> 
> Nope. It hasn't changed. Are you nuts?


 He is indeed, nuts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 17, 2011)

kenny g said:


> Thank you for that summary of the anarchist critique linked to at the beginning of the thread. Do you have anything new to add?


 
I didn't read the full article, I got bored halfway through- it's not the first time I've made that sort of critisism of the movement though. They're legal fetishists with a fixation on tax avoidance. Like the mystic wing of UKIP ffs.


----------



## Bleh (Nov 21, 2011)

I know lots of Freeman types in Northern England and Scotland, non that i know are right wing nutters, most have what i would describe as anarchist tendencies, and all the ones i know are lovely people.
Im amazed by the rancour most posters seem to display to them.
Is this based on some sort of omniscient certainty and ideological purity?

I read the critique, and it is true that all it does, is explain to the non ideologically omniscient, why Freemen are not Anarchists.  Someone pointed me to it since they know im looking for a good critique to refute (or confirm) some or all of their legal arguments (so i was a bit disappointed).

One of my friends has spent the last several months in prison for the sake of a driving offence that escalated spectacularly due to his insistence on  trying a freeman defence. The last two hearings have been held in private preventing me from attending despite turning up at court, previous hearings have resulted in the local sheriff losing his cool big time. If it wasnt so serious in its outcomes it would be very funny to watch.

Im amazed that some would advocate no dialogue with Freemen, surely this just make Anarchos look like  ideological puritans.

Lots of people think Anarchists are nutters too.

Puts me in mind of the mad disputes non conformists had centuries ago that made them such easy pray to the High/State church.

Surely dialogue is everything.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 21, 2011)

Bleh said:


> I know lots of Freeman types in Northern England and Scotland, non that i know are right wing nutters, most have what i would describe as anarchist tendencies, and all the ones i know are lovely people.
> Im amazed by the rancour most posters seem to display to them.
> Is this based on some sort of omniscient certainty and ideological purity?
> 
> ...



The bit in bold is why it's absolute bollocks in a nutshell. The whole point to their argument is that this won't happen - some of them still claim that the freeman shit actually works in court even though what happened to your mate is exactly what will happen to anyone else trying it on.

The language stuff is laughable but even if it wasn't the above would still be true.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2011)

Bleh said:


> I know lots of Freeman types in Northern England and Scotland, non that i know are right wing nutters, most have what i would describe as anarchist tendencies, and all the ones i know are lovely people.
> Im amazed by the rancour most posters seem to display to them.
> Is this based on some sort of omniscient certainty and ideological purity?
> 
> ...


 
They are dissidents, no two ways about it. They reject the authority placed over them. So far, happy days, come into the tent comrade we need more bodies and somebody has pissed in the tea urn so can two of you stronger lads help us haul it out and clean it?

The how is important as it is driven by the why. These people in the how reject authority of the state by appeals to a made-up version of the state when it was supposedly fairer. It's like claiming you've won a game by referring to an older rulebook when the game runners are using a more recent system. And you have more or less written the older rulebook yourself.

The why, well the why is what is so annoying. These people play at dissidence to avoid car fines and taxes! Even if the method was not madness the reasons driving it are just fucking self interest and 'no mum, I shan't eat my peas'

I don't lay claim to omniscience or ideological purity but I do lay claim to my own ability to describe why these people are actually idiots, and worse, self interested individualist idiots whose cry for freedom extends no further than their own bank accounts. It's fucking offensive in the same manner that right wing anti state libertarianism is offensive. To me anyway.

I am interested in dialouge, but not particularly with people who think they can read law from the stones to wiggle out of a council tax bill.


----------



## Giles (Nov 21, 2011)

Arguing with "Freemen" is as pointless as arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses or other loons. Waste of time.

Did your friend insist on telling the police and the courts that his car was not in fact a car but a "Private Automobile" and that he was therefore allowed to drive around uninsured, with no number plates, road tax or driving licence? I saw something about some other "Freeman" trying this and objected when the cops confiscated his "unregistered" vehicle.....

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 22, 2011)

Bleh said:


> I know lots of Freeman types in Northern England and Scotland, non that i know are right wing nutters, most have what i would describe as anarchist tendencies, and all the ones i know are lovely people.
> Im amazed by the rancour most posters seem to display to them.
> Is this based on some sort of omniscient certainty and ideological purity?
> 
> ...



Dialogue with people whose only wish is to be so parasitical and self interested as to try and avoid paying their way in society?  Are you having a laugh?

That's not to mention the appeal to a bizarre form of legalism, the appeal to royalty etc and the totally delusional interpretation of language.  Jokers, the lot of you.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 22, 2011)

This;



Bleh said:


> One of my friends has spent the last several months in prison for the sake of a driving offence that escalated spectacularly due to his insistence on trying a freeman defence.



refutes this;



Bleh said:


> all of their legal arguments


----------



## likesfish (Nov 22, 2011)

freeman vs anarchism equates to intelligent design vs evolution

one is a rather vague set of Utopian political ideals and the other is complete and utter bollocks


----------



## kenny g (Nov 22, 2011)

There does appear to be a hatred of individualist anarchist thoughts from some so-called radicals that is disproportionate.

Free-min do have parallels with some individualist approaches- but that does not mean that they can be dismissed as anarcho-caps. Is their mythical pre-world of rule of common law any more objectionable than primitivists attempts to paint tribal life as some non-heirachical proto-anarchist bliss?

I find free-min strains interesting and thought provoking. It seems to be part of a genuine search for truth that is willing to challenge hierarchies  and current law/ systems of Oh pression. Maybe it is not part of what some conservative radicals consider as on the anarchist/ radical continuum. So be it- their time may well be past.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2011)

Rejoin the he-he-spgb.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 22, 2011)

kenny g said:


> There does appear to be a hatred of individualist anarchist thoughts from some so-called radicals that is disproportionate.
> 
> Free-min do have parallels with some individualist approaches- but that does not mean that they can be dismissed as anarcho-caps. Is their mythical pre-world of rule of common law any more objectionable than primitivists attempts to paint tribal life as some non-heirachical proto-anarchist bliss?
> 
> I find free-min strains interesting and thought provoking. It seems to be part of a genuine search for truth that is willing to challenge hierarchies and current law/ systems of Oh pression. Maybe it is not part of what some conservative radicals consider as on the anarchist/ radical continuum. So be it- their time may well be past.



lol


----------



## kenny g (Nov 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Rejoin the he-he-spgb.



What are you on about? The last century was almost 12 years ago. My whole point is that it is time to start re-writing and re-defining, we need as many approaches and perspectives on board if we are going to get anywhere.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 22, 2011)

kenny g said:


> What are you on about? The last century was almost 12 years ago. My whole point is that it is time to start re-writing and re-defining, we need as many approaches and perspectives on board if we are going to get anywhere.



When do we get David Icke involved?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2011)

kenny g said:


> What are you on about? The last century was almost 12 years ago. My whole point is that it is time to start re-writing and re-defining, we need as many approaches and perspectives on board if we are going to get anywhere.


 That's your point? That we _need_ pointless cul-de-sacs to go up if we are to go anywhere?

Let a thousand flowers bloom - doesn't mean you have to water 'em.

Or do some weeding.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 22, 2011)

kenny g said:


> What are you on about? The last century was almost 12 years ago. My whole point is that it is time to start re-writing and re-defining, we need as many approaches and perspectives on board if we are going to get anywhere.



even ones as obviously batshit and reactionary as FotL?


----------



## kenny g (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't accept that FotL is purely reactionary.

I have argued and discussed with FotL. I think their approach can be interesting and I have broadened my perspective by speaking with some people who were interested in fotl.

On one level they are challenging the social contract- by doing so they bring out interesting points about how the state operates its control mechanisms.

Direct action challenging the legitimacy of legal controls is quite fresh when done with the approach they have been taking.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 22, 2011)

Right, so a movement which seeks to help people like Roger Hayes avoid paying taxes, by appealing to a clause in the Magna Carter which allows twenty five Barons to overthrow the King, is not reactionary?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2011)

kenny g said:


> Direct action challenging the legitimacy of legal controls is quite fresh when done with the approach they have been taking.



By that you mean through the courts? Or did you have some actual direct action in mind?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 22, 2011)

they are challenging it by bringing a bullshit old rules gamebook to the table. They are challenging it in order to feather their own nests by attempted dodging of tax. Give farange a tab of strong acid and he'd become these lots ideologue and messiah


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 22, 2011)

no movement is "purely reactionary" ffs if you're using that to say that it contains ONLY people with dodgy views, it almost never does. you could use that exact same arguement with the BNP and the EDL, islamist groups, etc on the grounds that some of their members have been on strike or to various non-far right protests. by the same token something doesnt become fash or far right just because a person with those opinions went to a demo.you can engage with some people in fotl? true. you can also engage with some bnp and edl members on issues such as immigration etc. doesn't mean you want those entire movements co-opting your movement or thinking the organisation itself is a positive and progressive thing and something to work with because censorship is oppressive maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2011)

There is no movement. There are knobheads who events will push 'our' way or not.The correct analysis that there's different things within movements breaks down when it's not a movement. When it's a pointless individual hobby. There's no broad social trends that it's an expression of. I like oddballs.

More oddballs the better. Are we oddballs though?

(sorry kenny  - hod-balls)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 23, 2011)

Good bit on Radio 4 this afternoon about crowd psychology by Clifford Stott (yes that one, lol!) quite interesting and covers some of this sort of stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2011)

Ixm he


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 23, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Good bit on Radio 4 this afternoon about crowd psychology by Clifford Stott (yes that one, lol!) quite interesting and covers some of this sort of stuff.



what was the programme called?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ixm he



ok??


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 23, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> what was the programme called?



Can't remember it was about 3.30pm


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 23, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Can't remember it was about 3.30pm


ta


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2011)

kenny g said:


> There does appear to be a hatred of individualist anarchist thoughts from some so-called radicals that is disproportionate.
> 
> Free-min do have parallels with some individualist approaches- but that does not mean that they can be dismissed as anarcho-caps. *Is their mythical pre-world of rule of common law any more objectionable than primitivists attempts to paint tribal life as some non-heirachical proto-anarchist bliss*?
> 
> I find free-min strains interesting and thought provoking. It seems to be part of a genuine search for truth that is willing to challenge hierarchies and current law/ systems of Oh pression. Maybe it is not part of what some conservative radicals consider as on the anarchist/ radical continuum. So be it- their time may well be past.



Primitivists are cunts too.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 24, 2011)

xcellent thred. I new It wood b frromm the tytel.


----------

