Bitcoin Forum
March 25, 2019, 03:07:32 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 [2341] 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 ... 2459 »
  Print  
Author Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :)  (Read 3212467 times)
o0o0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1017


View Profile
September 27, 2016, 04:05:57 AM
Last edit: September 27, 2016, 05:01:45 AM by o0o0
 #46801

Hmm that needs archiving if its not already.  Any project getting the BadBitClown tick of approval should get a copy of that to show just how much that tick is worth

https://archive.is/http://www.badbitcoin.org/gaw.htm

Badbitcoin also was fond of such respectable businesses as scrypt.cc and LTCGear.

Are they just stupid or were they being paid to be scummy?

Remember by his words he can spot a scam a mile off... so therefore i guess he was complicit the entire time knowing it was a scam to self profit? That or gaw was 1.01 miles away?

While we're at it i was thinking guys and gals.... when homero gets out of jail or gets his suspended can't run a business for 10 odd years sentence and fines he'll need a way to support his family or families if that other chick had his kid so i think we should all come together to brainstorm the best jobs for him to help him on the right track.

I'm thinking maybe pizza delivery driver? Elon will give him another tesla so he's covered there. He'll have that free recharge thing so it might be suitable to him? Other thoughts?
Your Bitcoin transactions
The Ultimate Bitcoin mixer
made truly anonymous.
with an advanced technology.
Mix coins
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2790



View Profile
September 27, 2016, 12:39:03 PM
 #46802

Hmm that needs archiving if its not already.  Any project getting the BadBitClown tick of approval should get a copy of that to show just how much that tick is worth

https://archive.is/http://www.badbitcoin.org/gaw.htm

Badbitcoin also was fond of such respectable businesses as scrypt.cc and LTCGear.

Are they just stupid or were they being paid to be scummy?

There were scrypt.cc and GAW ads on the site and ViK had invested in both. Not sure about LTCGear.

https://archive.is/KRqmk#selection-1233.1-1233.82

favdesu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 27, 2016, 02:32:47 PM
 #46803

Hmm that needs archiving if its not already.  Any project getting the BadBitClown tick of approval should get a copy of that to show just how much that tick is worth

https://archive.is/http://www.badbitcoin.org/gaw.htm

Badbitcoin also was fond of such respectable businesses as scrypt.cc and LTCGear.

ah yeah badbitclown... what a funny fellow, too bad he blocked everyone on twitter

sirazimuth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1127


born once atheist


View Profile
September 28, 2016, 01:09:27 AM
 #46804

well, 2 years later,
watching this now .. I'm just at a loss for words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rmkSagiwss

remember folks,
the purple shirt and vest is mandatory for the homero halloween costume!  Cheesy

Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2790



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 01:30:58 AM
 #46805

well, 2 years later,
watching this now .. I'm just at a loss for words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rmkSagiwss

remember folks,
the purple shirt and vest is mandatory for the homero halloween costume!  Cheesy

Don't forget to check out some of the related videos youtube is suggesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH6boH3nsXs - prerecorded "Q&A" in January 2015 when the whole thing was collapsing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZpZdeJNSV0 - Mordica's spray paint "proof" of mining

RoomBot
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1091



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 01:32:11 AM
 #46806

First time I ever saw this Snake Oil Sales Pitch.

Pitiful.

WHY is it still up?  Who is "Bit n Mortar?"




Embarrassing!!!!

"Most Powerful....." CryptoLIAR in the World!"
Lord Of The Internet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 204
Merit: 100



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 02:28:27 AM
 #46807

Quote from: o0o0

While we're at it i was thinking guys and gals.... when homero gets out of jail or gets his suspended can't run a business for 10 odd years sentence and fines he'll need a way to support his family or families if that other chick had his kid so i think we should all come together to brainstorm the best jobs for him to help him on the right track.

I just got out of federal prison.  I was hoping i'd get to meet garza there so i could give him a warm welcome.  Sad

Quote
I'm thinking maybe pizza delivery driver? Elon will give him another tesla so he's covered there. He'll have that free recharge thing so it might be suitable to him? Other thoughts?

Come on now.  That's insulting to pizza delivery drivers.  I think he needs to be the jizz mopper on a porn set.






On a side note ... I wonder how many IONs he got for his infinite supply of paycoins.

RoomBot
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1091



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 03:16:45 AM
 #46808

First time I ever saw this Snake Oil Sales Pitch.

Pitiful.

WHY is it still up?  Who is "Bit n Mortar?"




Embarrassing!!!!

"Most Powerful....." CryptoLIAR in the World!"

Oh noez!  I just noticed the banner says, "...most powerful cryptominer [fake miner] in the the world."   

Such careless. So Garza.
o0o0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1017


View Profile
September 28, 2016, 04:08:38 AM
 #46809

Quote from: o0o0

While we're at it i was thinking guys and gals.... when homero gets out of jail or gets his suspended can't run a business for 10 odd years sentence and fines he'll need a way to support his family or families if that other chick had his kid so i think we should all come together to brainstorm the best jobs for him to help him on the right track.

I just got out of federal prison.  I was hoping i'd get to meet garza there so i could give him a warm welcome.  Sad

Quote
I'm thinking maybe pizza delivery driver? Elon will give him another tesla so he's covered there. He'll have that free recharge thing so it might be suitable to him? Other thoughts?

Come on now.  That's insulting to pizza delivery drivers.  I think he needs to be the jizz mopper on a porn set.






On a side note ... I wonder how many IONs he got for his infinite supply of paycoins.

I'd guess none... remember he basically admitted he didn't know how to use the wallet etc and had people set up bots for him to auto sell to market etc? Then he cried when the prime controllers were stolen even though he err had the private keys? They guy didn't understand anything.

The the idiot (see what i did there Smiley ) surprised me that he convinced people that far especially mr fraser.
maildir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 916
Merit: 1058


View Profile
September 28, 2016, 09:13:26 AM
 #46810

Uncle Stu's big day in court.  Cool

Quote
Tuesday, September 27, 2016

43  misc Affidavit  Tue 5:35 PM 

AFFIDAVIT re 42 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 41 MOTION to Dismiss Signed By Sarah L. Cave filed by Stuart A. Fraser.(Cave, Sarah)

 
  Att: 1   Exhibit A, 
  Att: 2   Exhibit B, 
  Att: 3   Exhibit C, 
  Att: 4   Exhibit D 

42  respm Memorandum in Support of Motion  Tue 5:24 PM 

Memorandum in Support re41 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Stuart A. Fraser. (Cave, Sarah)

 
41 motion Dismiss  Tue 5:22 PM
 
MOTION to Dismiss by Stuart A. Fraser. Responses due by 10/18/2016 (Cave, Sarah) 

vancefox
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1033
Merit: 1005



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 12:57:16 PM
 #46811

Uncle Stu's big day in court.  Cool

Quote
Tuesday, September 27, 2016

43  misc Affidavit  Tue 5:35 PM 

AFFIDAVIT re 42 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 41 MOTION to Dismiss Signed By Sarah L. Cave filed by Stuart A. Fraser.(Cave, Sarah)

 
  Att: 1   Exhibit A, 
  Att: 2   Exhibit B, 
  Att: 3   Exhibit C, 
  Att: 4   Exhibit D 

42  respm Memorandum in Support of Motion  Tue 5:24 PM 

Memorandum in Support re41 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Stuart A. Fraser. (Cave, Sarah)

 
41 motion Dismiss  Tue 5:22 PM
 
MOTION to Dismiss by Stuart A. Fraser. Responses due by 10/18/2016 (Cave, Sarah) 



So what's the outcome?  Dismissed or laughed at?

This space not for rent...
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2790



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 05:16:00 PM
Last edit: September 28, 2016, 05:29:34 PM by suchmoon
 #46812

So what's the outcome?  Dismissed or laughed at?

Fraser's lawyers submitted a huge "memorandum" explaining why they think this case should be dismissed. I guess now the other side has to respond by October 18.

Document here:

http://ia601502.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576.42.0.pdf

Other case documents here:

http://ia601502.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576.docket.html

Edit - some quotes for those who are too lazy to open the PDF:

Quote
Plaintiffs accuse Fraser, a minority investor in the Companies, of participating in an
alleged scheme by Garza and the Companies to defraud investors. They lard their accusations of
control person liability with references to Fraser’s occasional requests for information about the
Companies’ performance and business, his business relationship and friendship with Garza, and
conclusory catch-all allegations against Garza and the Companies, into which they conveniently
group Fraser. The correspondence between Garza and Fraser to which Plaintiffs point, however,
demonstrates that Fraser did not have the power to direct the management and policies of Garza
and the Companies. Rather, that correspondence reinforces Fraser’s limited role as a minority
investor who did not control the Companies’ daily operations, set their policies or determine how
their policies would be implemented. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not plead with the
requisite particularity that Fraser engaged in “culpable participation” in a primary securities
violation, which is also fatal to their Section 20(a) claim. Plaintiffs’ state law claims suffer
similar deficiencies. Accordingly, the claims against Fraser should be dismissed.

Quote
The article noted that Fraser
was “backing Mr. Garza” and was “a long-time backer of Mr. Garza’s projects,” but contains
no suggestion that Fraser held any role within the Companies other than that of a financial
investor.
(this is in reference to the WSJ blog shill piece)


Quote
The Complaint fails to state a claim against Fraser because Plaintiffs have not alleged,
with sufficient particularity, facts from which it could properly be inferred that Fraser controlled
a primary violator — here, Garza and the Companies — and culpably participated in the alleged
fraud.

Quote
Plaintiffs do not allege a single
policy, procedure or method of operation undertaken by Garza or the Companies that Fraser
directed or controlled, as the law requires. See In re Alstom, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 487. Plaintiffs
do not allege that Fraser held any voting rights in the Companies, nor do they allege that a
contract or other agreement exists between Defendants that would grant him any such power.
They do not allege that Fraser asked for — let alone received — any power, rights or position in
exchange for his minority investment in the Companies. See In re BioScrip, 95 F. Supp. 3d at
740 (having “a great deal of sway” did not “rise to the level of actual control”). In short,
Plaintiffs do not allege a single cognizable fact demonstrating that Fraser actually possessed the
ability to direct the actions of Garza or the management and policies of the Companies. See In re
Flag, 352 F. Supp. 2d at 458 (exercising “powers of persuasion” does not establish “actual
control”).

And it goes on like that.

skinnyboy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 223
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
September 28, 2016, 05:53:04 PM
 #46813

This saga never gets old.

BTW,  for followers of this thread, blatant plug here for BitStashers wallets (find our thread via search). Yes, I know, off topic etc, but I'm trying to get more folk interested in our products.

Back on topic, Fraser still removed from the Cantor website?

suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2790



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 06:06:25 PM
 #46814

This saga never gets old.

BTW,  for followers of this thread, blatant plug here for BitStashers wallets (find our thread via search). Yes, I know, off topic etc, but I'm trying to get more folk interested in our products.

Back on topic, Fraser still removed from the Cantor website?

Yes. But the above memorandum clearly states "Fraser, who lives and works in New York, serves as a Vice Chairman at Cantor
Fitzgerald, L.P. (“Cantor”), a well-known investment bank based in New York City."

favdesu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 28, 2016, 06:30:27 PM
 #46815

This saga never gets old.

BTW,  for followers of this thread, blatant plug here for BitStashers wallets (find our thread via search). Yes, I know, off topic etc, but I'm trying to get more folk interested in our products.

Back on topic, Fraser still removed from the Cantor website?

Yes. But the above memorandum clearly states "Fraser, who lives and works in New York, serves as a Vice Chairman at Cantor
Fitzgerald, L.P. (“Cantor”), a well-known investment bank based in New York City."

may be a typo, is there something like a vice chair man? some weird naming for a janitor maybe?

BitBanksy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 07:52:10 PM
 #46816

So what's the outcome?  Dismissed or laughed at?

Fraser's lawyers submitted a huge "memorandum" explaining why they think this case should be dismissed. I guess now the other side has to respond by October 18.

Document here:

http://ia601502.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576.42.0.pdf

Other case documents here:

http://ia601502.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576.docket.html

Edit - some quotes for those who are too lazy to open the PDF:

Quote
Plaintiffs accuse Fraser, a minority investor in the Companies, of participating in an
alleged scheme by Garza and the Companies to defraud investors. They lard their accusations of
control person liability with references to Fraser’s occasional requests for information about the
Companies’ performance and business, his business relationship and friendship with Garza, and
conclusory catch-all allegations against Garza and the Companies, into which they conveniently
group Fraser. The correspondence between Garza and Fraser to which Plaintiffs point, however,
demonstrates that Fraser did not have the power to direct the management and policies of Garza
and the Companies. Rather, that correspondence reinforces Fraser’s limited role as a minority
investor who did not control the Companies’ daily operations, set their policies or determine how
their policies would be implemented. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not plead with the
requisite particularity that Fraser engaged in “culpable participation” in a primary securities
violation, which is also fatal to their Section 20(a) claim. Plaintiffs’ state law claims suffer
similar deficiencies. Accordingly, the claims against Fraser should be dismissed.

Quote
The article noted that Fraser
was “backing Mr. Garza” and was “a long-time backer of Mr. Garza’s projects,” but contains
no suggestion that Fraser held any role within the Companies other than that of a financial
investor.
(this is in reference to the WSJ blog shill piece)


Quote
The Complaint fails to state a claim against Fraser because Plaintiffs have not alleged,
with sufficient particularity, facts from which it could properly be inferred that Fraser controlled
a primary violator — here, Garza and the Companies — and culpably participated in the alleged
fraud.

Quote
Plaintiffs do not allege a single
policy, procedure or method of operation undertaken by Garza or the Companies that Fraser
directed or controlled, as the law requires. See In re Alstom, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 487. Plaintiffs
do not allege that Fraser held any voting rights in the Companies, nor do they allege that a
contract or other agreement exists between Defendants that would grant him any such power.
They do not allege that Fraser asked for — let alone received — any power, rights or position in
exchange for his minority investment in the Companies. See In re BioScrip, 95 F. Supp. 3d at
740 (having “a great deal of sway” did not “rise to the level of actual control”). In short,
Plaintiffs do not allege a single cognizable fact demonstrating that Fraser actually possessed the
ability to direct the actions of Garza or the management and policies of the Companies. See In re
Flag, 352 F. Supp. 2d at 458 (exercising “powers of persuasion” does not establish “actual
control”).

And it goes on like that.

Thanks Suchmoon for the summary. So basically Fraser is dissociating himself from this mess...
owlcatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1193


BTC, XMR & VIA FTW


View Profile WWW
September 28, 2016, 08:28:50 PM
 #46817

Yes, and from reading that PDF, his lawyers seem to have done a decent job of it, IMO. I mean, they do bring up the fact that the guy was basically clueless as to what was going on. I can only imagine how burned that guy must feel. Maybe it's Homero's way of paying him back for something? It's all just so weird when you really look at the whole picture. Thanks for the links suchmoon!
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2790



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 09:07:33 PM
 #46818

Yes, and from reading that PDF, his lawyers seem to have done a decent job of it, IMO. I mean, they do bring up the fact that the guy was basically clueless as to what was going on. I can only imagine how burned that guy must feel. Maybe it's Homero's way of paying him back for something? It's all just so weird when you really look at the whole picture. Thanks for the links suchmoon!

Well, the lawyers of course had to try this motion to dismiss but it's not a done deal yet. IANAL but I hope the plaintiffs' lawyers can come up with a good enough response for the case to go forward. Would be weird if this gets thrown out. For one, Stu could have ended the whole thing if he just pulled the plug on Garza's finances at any point so he clearly "controlled the primary violator". Was he aware of the fraud or not - not sure if they can determine that without proper discovery, including depositions of Garza and everyone else involved. Unless Garza has been paid off or otherwise coerced to take the fall.

BitBanksy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 28, 2016, 09:51:22 PM
 #46819

Quote from: suchmoon
I hope the plaintiffs' lawyers can come up with a good enough response for the case to go forward. Would be weird if this gets thrown out.

Yeah it will move forward. The plaintiffs' lawyer (Susman and Godfrey) toke the case on a "no win no fee" basis and I doubt they would do so without a careful and thorough consideration of all the facts. At the end, if they loose against GARZA/FRASER, they don't just loose a possible compensation but credibility as the No. 1 boutique litigation law firm in the states. Looking forward to the plaintiff's motion now...
maildir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 916
Merit: 1058


View Profile
September 28, 2016, 10:13:31 PM
Last edit: September 28, 2016, 11:05:40 PM by maildir
 #46820

Thanks for securing the docs. bit disappointing in my view. Pretty much a whine-fest over and over, "minority share holder"  only "financial backer" over and over gain,  pretty clear their tactic to drill that home into the Judge's mind.

The thing is thought this is of course all after the fact. Before the picture was pretty clearly painted wall street blog, press releases words used "partner" "founder" [his own words], his linkedIN had "gaw miners" under current [cannot find or recall if it indicated a title] Homer's words my "best friend" "my partner" etc etc. All early on when it was used to rope people in. I even posted the blurb here from the email recently discovered Uncle Stu insisted he be called a partner or early founder or some shit like that.

So that is the picture that was painted to the public before it broke. Now whether after the fact suddenly Uncle Stu can throw his arms in the air and say well I had zero involvement whatsoever and was just a "minority shareholder" and only a "financial backer" seems to me to be a bit late.  It may very well be true and it may very well not be provable at all that he had any control over this primary whatever it is they call it. But isn't it too late? Are not the victims of the fraud a result of him the not saying strongly enough BEFORE they were roped in that they had zero control and zero input on the direction? The wsj blogs, the press releases, the others, sure didn't make it crystal clear back then before people invested and lost everything. He can't have his cake and eat it too.

I think that might be what it all hinges on. Yes now today, there is no proof at all that he had any control whatsoever, no but before, the picture sure was painted that he was deeply involved and more than a hands off financial backer. More than likely many people trusted it all thinking that "what could go wrong" with such a prominent experienced respected businessman involved.

I will be interested to see the outcome of this aspect. Technically and legally is it correct that under that specific, we find out only today, well after the fraud has been committed that indeed he had zero control and was indeed nothing more than a financial backer therefore it must be dismissed, or because before the fact, it was painted by himself and Homero that he was much more than that, more important and what really counts in this particular case and in the charge against him by the plaintiffs [actually have to read again what it is they charge him or accuse him of in this respect].

At the same time I am wondering if this too is nothing more than a tactic. Yes, lets accuse Uncle Stu of this outlandish claim that we all know is not true or correct and is definitely not provable, in order to make him vehemently deny it, which then will force Homero to come in and try to point the finger at Uncle Stu in order to share the blame? So they are intentionally pitting him against Homero  in order for Homero to spill the beans for them? Uncle Stu pleads complete ignorance, Homero enters the fray with "some" proof that Uncle Stu knew "somethings" etc. LOL. If so quite crafty.

One thing is for sure and I read them myself as I am sure many others did, its not as cut and dry as this defense makes it seem to be. Uncle Stu most certainly did not cut him 200,000 dollar check, fuck of to Cape Cod and twiddle his thumbs and "on occasion ask a for numbers" or whatever.

There are complicated discussions about shares in all of this, in GAW, in Zenminer, in Great AUK, in the town house he was renting out, all between Uncle Stu and Homero. Share swap talks, loan swap and debt between the business entities, etc. How to payback,  off-set, forgive one from another. Quite complicated and quite a lot more involved than just some silent partner who wrote a check once or twice and sat back and had no further involvement. Lot of information in those emails about all of this.

So on the one hand a lot more financial involvement than the defense makes out, a lot more involvement in creating an impression he was involved in it all vs. that specific law quoted where it must be shown that he was actually in control some way or another.

Overall in my view the defense is seems rather thin. Zero idea legally the importance of harping over and over again that that definition in that specific law of "control" cannot be met because it never was, is the crux of the matter. Again need to read the overall accusation whether plaintiff's claim is that he did have control and should have known better and nothing more. Which I don't think the charge is at all. Maybe a very small part of it.

Very interesting to see how it plays out. Lying Fucker Homero, still needs to appear and we have to see what he says about it all. So they have to respond to this by the 18 October. Cannot see immediately when Homero's time is up [it it is the 28th or 9th] which ever case plaintiffs wil delay in order for Homero to say what he has to say then proceed from there. Here one has to wonder if they are in cahoots.  Where Uncle Stu's lawyers have advised Homero not to say a single word about his involvement [pay off maybe? foot his legal bills?], do not implicate or fortify plaintiff's claims or else. Or if they really are completely disassociated and no longer on any terms and Homero will spill the or some beans, so that Uncle Stu shoulders some of the claimed funds, which for sure no matter what Homero's defence is, he will be liable for.

This aspect will be the drama we seek: what will Homero do?  Cheesy

edit: no edit - no apologies  Cool atrocious structure going on in that wall of text.
Pages: « 1 ... 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 [2341] 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 ... 2459 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!