If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS. Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the withholding order voluntarily. Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on this rollercoaster ride from hell. And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do about it. I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with the court's order. My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments (the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of 50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because the wage withholding made my payments go down. So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld and what the court order said. My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes an arrearage. Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by the short hairs. If they don't grant you a modification they have you by the short hair. I recall seeing a statistic a some point that indicated downward modifications are approved in less than 10% of the filings. As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a tendency to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next time you're standing in front of them. You can't judge shop where I live. The court rules say once a judge is assigned to your case they are on your case forever. You can ask a judge to recuse themselves for their previous bias, but unltimately the same judge you want recused decides whether they should be recused or not. Of course, they rule they weren't biased. Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges decision and move it up a notch. Appeals are a trickly issue. You can't appeal a decision because you don't like it. Appeals have to be based on legal reasons for failing to follow the law. In my state 85% of all appeals, including those in areas other than family law, are AWOP'd. AWOP stands for Affirmed Without Opinion. That means 85% of all appeals are rejected without any reason given. Unless you have a serious legal issue the appeals court decides to address you end up paying for the appeal and getting no comment back on why they won't consdier your arguments. Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can. One of the serious shortcomings in family law is the federal government sets up the broad guidelines for CS program administration. But the federal courts have refused to get invloved in CS cases because they consider those cases to be a state's rights issue. The feds want it both ways - In the game when they want to be in it, and out of the game when they don't want to be in it. There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they don't get it. The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town is an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and take it. It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that judges and politicians really can't stand. This is the area where an aggressive father gets sucked into their game. I raised a stink. I ended up paying over $20,000 in attorney fees for my ex's attorneys for raising the issues I raised. It's a no-win situation and they slam-dunk fathers for being assertive. I had the judge in my case tell me I would have been "better served to have spend my $5,000 on law school tuition instead of paying the attorney fees." The attorney fees for the issue before the court were more like $1,500 but I was forced to pay an extra $3,500 to clear off my ex's attorney fees for other legal work. So go make the biggest stink you can! It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies, bias and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while getting pelted with rocks from every angle. Not even close to the reality I went through. A feminist judge doesn't need a "bigger set of balls" to make you lose big time. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS. Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the withholding order voluntarily. Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on this rollercoaster ride from hell. And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do about it. I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with the court's order. My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments (the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of 50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because the wage withholding made my payments go down. So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld and what the court order said. My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes an arrearage. Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by the short hairs. If they don't grant you a modification they have you by the short hair. I recall seeing a statistic a some point that indicated downward modifications are approved in less than 10% of the filings. As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a tendency to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next time you're standing in front of them. You can't judge shop where I live. The court rules say once a judge is assigned to your case they are on your case forever. You can ask a judge to recuse themselves for their previous bias, but unltimately the same judge you want recused decides whether they should be recused or not. Of course, they rule they weren't biased. Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges decision and move it up a notch. Appeals are a trickly issue. You can't appeal a decision because you don't like it. Appeals have to be based on legal reasons for failing to follow the law. In my state 85% of all appeals, including those in areas other than family law, are AWOP'd. AWOP stands for Affirmed Without Opinion. That means 85% of all appeals are rejected without any reason given. Unless you have a serious legal issue the appeals court decides to address you end up paying for the appeal and getting no comment back on why they won't consdier your arguments. Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can. One of the serious shortcomings in family law is the federal government sets up the broad guidelines for CS program administration. But the federal courts have refused to get invloved in CS cases because they consider those cases to be a state's rights issue. The feds want it both ways - In the game when they want to be in it, and out of the game when they don't want to be in it. There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they don't get it. The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town is an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and take it. It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that judges and politicians really can't stand. This is the area where an aggressive father gets sucked into their game. I raised a stink. I ended up paying over $20,000 in attorney fees for my ex's attorneys for raising the issues I raised. It's a no-win situation and they slam-dunk fathers for being assertive. I had the judge in my case tell me I would have been "better served to have spend my $5,000 on law school tuition instead of paying the attorney fees." The attorney fees for the issue before the court were more like $1,500 but I was forced to pay an extra $3,500 to clear off my ex's attorney fees for other legal work. So go make the biggest stink you can! It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies, bias and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while getting pelted with rocks from every angle. Not even close to the reality I went through. A feminist judge doesn't need a "bigger set of balls" to make you lose big time. Indeed! Bigger guns are sufficient. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
OK, let's play the Legal System Game!
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob W" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... OK boys and girls, here's today's question.. What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..) Any one? Any one? OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few years back. Now for the real question.. What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42 it's teeth. Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in the USC-book! (ha!) I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you already know? 42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. 45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures to be followed. 15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581. The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment. So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross income", guess what? No, they can't. Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee of the Federal government, or in the military. Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html 5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR ALIMONY I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments. Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the employee. For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the garnishment can happen. The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else. What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS. Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus. Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support. In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation. I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants. Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the withholding order voluntarily. Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on this rollercoaster ride from hell. And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do about it. I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with the court's order. My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments (the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of 50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because the wage withholding made my payments go down. So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld and what the court order said. My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes an arrearage. Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by the short hairs. As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a tendency to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next time you're standing in front of them. Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges decision and move it up a notch. Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can. There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they don't get it. The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town is an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and take it. It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that judges and politicians really can't stand. So go make the biggest stink you can! It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies, bias and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while getting pelted with rocks from every angle. Bear in mind that even though you may "win" by continuing to play their game, you can never REALLY win (meaning defend your inherent rights) because they have BIGGER guns. Needless to say, it's extremely dangerous to appeal/challenge any judge's decision simply becaues (as you stated) one may find themself facing such judge once again; and vengence is a terrible thing! Even if you never again stand before that particular judge, their brotherhood is such that they make sure you pay the price by informing the new judge of your defiance. Usually, paying now is far better than paying later. Not unlike the guy in Tijuana who says he will guard your parked vehicle for a small fee. Think about it. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Divorce, the game anyone can play - even Grandma!! | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 09 10:37 AM |
Time Travel Role Play Game for Everyday Peacemakers | [email protected] | General | 0 | March 27th 07 11:03 PM |
Come and play the Spot the Spin game!! | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 8th 06 11:23 PM |
Come and play the Spot the Spin game!! | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 8th 06 10:08 PM |