Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Human Rights Alert: Baca (09-A827)

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    179 views9 pages
    10-08-01 Further Evidence for Fraud, Misprision of Felonies at the US Supreme Court, in re: Fine v Baca (09-A827) William Suter Clerk of the US Supreme Court Los Angeles, August 1 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) released additional evidence of fraud and misprision of felonies at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement of the 70 year old former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, who blew the whistle on “not permitted” payments (“bribes”) secretly taken by judges of Los Angeles County, California. [1] Records recently received by Joseph Zernik, PhD, from the Court included an April 29, 2010 letter, signed by Court Counsel Danny Bickell on behalf of Clerk of the Court William Suter, noting: “Your motion to intervene, received April 21, 2010, is herewith returned…”. The records also included the Motion to Intervene and related papers, [1] with stamp of US Marshals at the Court, indicating receipt of the records on March 20, 2010, and “RECEIVED” stamp of the Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the US, dated April 21, 2010. The April 29, 2010 letter by Mr Bickell documented that Mr Bickell held the records, filed in a timely manner, past the April 23, 2010 conference of the Court, where the case was purportedly reviewed. Furthermore, the letter documented that Mr Bickell denied review of the records by authorized Clerks and/or Justices of the court, and issued instead a letter, stating that the Motion and related papers were “returned”, with no authority and with no legal foundation at all. Human Rights Alert alleged that upon investigation and competent review, such conduct would be found as deprivation of rights by Mr Bickell, including, but not limited to the right to file petitions, access to the courts, equal protection, and due process of law. Conduct of Mr Bickell must be deemed particularly alarming, since papers, which were filed with the Motion to Intervene [2], [3] also documented the prior alleged fraud by Mr Bickell, related to an unsigned, unauthorized notice he had sent to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, falsely stating the March 12, 2010 denial of the Application by Justice Kennedy, with no legal foundation in the Court records in the case. The papers filed on April 20, 2010 with the Motion to Intervene requested that the Court initiated corrective actions relative to conduct of Mr Bickell in the matter. Human Rights Alert further alleged that upon investigation and competent review it would be found that conduct in the matter involved collusion and/or misprision of felonies by Mr William Suter – Clerk of the Supreme Court of the US. Combined, conduct of Counsel Bickell and Clerk Sutter was alleged as intended to cover up misconduct by other justice system agencies relative to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, which was also detailed in the papers filed with the Motion to Intervene. Such conduct facilitated the continued alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine. On April 21, 2010, Deputy Clerk of the Court acknowledged by phone receipt of the Motion to Intervene and related papers, but explained that the records failed to appear in the online docket of the Court, since they were held by Court Counsel Danny Bickell. On April 21, 2010, Mr Bickell by phone first attempted to deny that the Motion and related papers were received at all. Later he acknowledged that he was holding the records, and further explained that he would determine their disposition, although he consented that he was authorized neither as Clerk nor as a Deputy Clerk of the Court. Following the April 23, 2010, conference, disposition of the Application remained unknown. On April 26, 2010 a note appeared in the US Supreme Court online docket, [4] indicating denial of the Application. However, records, which were obtained from the Court file on July 26, 2010, showed no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 20

    Original Title

    10-08-01 Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - Further Evidence of Fraud, Misprision of Felonies - April 29, 2010 Letter by Court Counsel Bickell Indicating "Return" of Motion to Intervene and Related Papers s

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    10-08-01 Further Evidence for Fraud, Misprision of Felonies at the US Supreme Court, in re: Fine v Baca (09-A827) William Suter Clerk of the US Supreme Court Los Angeles, August 1 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) released additional evidence of fraud and misprision of felonies at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement of the 70 year old former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, who blew the whistle on “not permitted” payments (“bribes”) secretly taken by judges of Los Angeles County, California. [1] Records recently received by Joseph Zernik, PhD, from the Court included an April 29, 2010 letter, signed by Court Counsel Danny Bickell on behalf of Clerk of the Court William Suter, noting: “Your motion to intervene, received April 21, 2010, is herewith returned…”. The records also included the Motion to Intervene and related papers, [1] with stamp of US Marshals at the Court, indicating receipt of the records on March 20, 2010, and “RECEIVED” stamp of the Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the US, dated April 21, 2010. The April 29, 2010 letter by Mr Bickell documented that Mr Bickell held the records, filed in a timely manner, past the April 23, 2010 conference of the Court, where the case was purportedly reviewed. Furthermore, the letter documented that Mr Bickell denied review of the records by authorized Clerks and/or Justices of the court, and issued instead a letter, stating that the Motion and related papers were “returned”, with no authority and with no legal foundation at all. Human Rights Alert alleged that upon investigation and competent review, such conduct would be found as deprivation of rights by Mr Bickell, including, but not limited to the right to file petitions, access to the courts, equal protection, and due process of law. Conduct of Mr Bickell must be deemed particularly alarming, since papers, which were filed with the Motion to Intervene [2], [3] also documented the prior alleged fraud by Mr Bickell, related to an unsigned, unauthorized notice he had sent to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, falsely stating the March 12, 2010 denial of the Application by Justice Kennedy, with no legal foundation in the Court records in the case. The papers filed on April 20, 2010 with the Motion to Intervene requested that the Court initiated corrective actions relative to conduct of Mr Bickell in the matter. Human Rights Alert further alleged that upon investigation and competent review it would be found that conduct in the matter involved collusion and/or misprision of felonies by Mr William Suter – Clerk of the Supreme Court of the US. Combined, conduct of Counsel Bickell and Clerk Sutter was alleged as intended to cover up misconduct by other justice system agencies relative to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, which was also detailed in the papers filed with the Motion to Intervene. Such conduct facilitated the continued alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine. On April 21, 2010, Deputy Clerk of the Court acknowledged by phone receipt of the Motion to Intervene and related papers, but explained that the records failed to appear in the online docket of the Court, since they were held by Court Counsel Danny Bickell. On April 21, 2010, Mr Bickell by phone first attempted to deny that the Motion and related papers were received at all. Later he acknowledged that he was holding the records, and further explained that he would determine their disposition, although he consented that he was authorized neither as Clerk nor as a Deputy Clerk of the Court. Following the April 23, 2010, conference, disposition of the Application remained unknown. On April 26, 2010 a note appeared in the US Supreme Court online docket, [4] indicating denial of the Application. However, records, which were obtained from the Court file on July 26, 2010, showed no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 20

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    179 views9 pages

    Human Rights Alert: Baca (09-A827)

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    10-08-01 Further Evidence for Fraud, Misprision of Felonies at the US Supreme Court, in re: Fine v Baca (09-A827) William Suter Clerk of the US Supreme Court Los Angeles, August 1 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) released additional evidence of fraud and misprision of felonies at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement of the 70 year old former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, who blew the whistle on “not permitted” payments (“bribes”) secretly taken by judges of Los Angeles County, California. [1] Records recently received by Joseph Zernik, PhD, from the Court included an April 29, 2010 letter, signed by Court Counsel Danny Bickell on behalf of Clerk of the Court William Suter, noting: “Your motion to intervene, received April 21, 2010, is herewith returned…”. The records also included the Motion to Intervene and related papers, [1] with stamp of US Marshals at the Court, indicating receipt of the records on March 20, 2010, and “RECEIVED” stamp of the Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the US, dated April 21, 2010. The April 29, 2010 letter by Mr Bickell documented that Mr Bickell held the records, filed in a timely manner, past the April 23, 2010 conference of the Court, where the case was purportedly reviewed. Furthermore, the letter documented that Mr Bickell denied review of the records by authorized Clerks and/or Justices of the court, and issued instead a letter, stating that the Motion and related papers were “returned”, with no authority and with no legal foundation at all. Human Rights Alert alleged that upon investigation and competent review, such conduct would be found as deprivation of rights by Mr Bickell, including, but not limited to the right to file petitions, access to the courts, equal protection, and due process of law. Conduct of Mr Bickell must be deemed particularly alarming, since papers, which were filed with the Motion to Intervene [2], [3] also documented the prior alleged fraud by Mr Bickell, related to an unsigned, unauthorized notice he had sent to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, falsely stating the March 12, 2010 denial of the Application by Justice Kennedy, with no legal foundation in the Court records in the case. The papers filed on April 20, 2010 with the Motion to Intervene requested that the Court initiated corrective actions relative to conduct of Mr Bickell in the matter. Human Rights Alert further alleged that upon investigation and competent review it would be found that conduct in the matter involved collusion and/or misprision of felonies by Mr William Suter – Clerk of the Supreme Court of the US. Combined, conduct of Counsel Bickell and Clerk Sutter was alleged as intended to cover up misconduct by other justice system agencies relative to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, which was also detailed in the papers filed with the Motion to Intervene. Such conduct facilitated the continued alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine. On April 21, 2010, Deputy Clerk of the Court acknowledged by phone receipt of the Motion to Intervene and related papers, but explained that the records failed to appear in the online docket of the Court, since they were held by Court Counsel Danny Bickell. On April 21, 2010, Mr Bickell by phone first attempted to deny that the Motion and related papers were received at all. Later he acknowledged that he was holding the records, and further explained that he would determine their disposition, although he consented that he was authorized neither as Clerk nor as a Deputy Clerk of the Court. Following the April 23, 2010, conference, disposition of the Application remained unknown. On April 26, 2010 a note appeared in the US Supreme Court online docket, [4] indicating denial of the Application. However, records, which were obtained from the Court file on July 26, 2010, showed no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 20

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9

    Digitally signed

    by Joseph Zernik
    Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
    Zernik, o, ou,
    PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
    email=jz12345@e
    Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
    Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.08.01
    22:11:19 +03'00'
    Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

    10-08-01 Further Evidence for Fraud, Misprision of Felonies at the US Supreme Court, in re: Fine v
    Baca (09-A827)

    William Suter
    Clerk of the US Supreme Court
    Los Angeles, August 1 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) released additional evidence of fraud and misprision of
    felonies at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827)
    - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement of the 70 year old former US Prosecutor
    Richard Fine, who blew the whistle on “not permitted” payments (“bribes”) secretly taken by judges of Los
    Angeles County, California. [1]
    Records recently received by Joseph Zernik, PhD, from the Court included an April 29, 2010 letter, signed by
    Court Counsel Danny Bickell on behalf of Clerk of the Court William Suter, noting: “Your motion to
    intervene, received April 21, 2010, is herewith returned…”.
    The records also included the Motion to Intervene and related papers, [1] with stamp of US Marshals at the
    Court, indicating receipt of the records on March 20, 2010, and “RECEIVED” stamp of the Office of the
    Clerk, Supreme Court of the US, dated April 21, 2010.
    The April 29, 2010 letter by Mr Bickell documented that Mr Bickell held the records, filed in a timely
    manner, past the April 23, 2010 conference of the Court, where the case was purportedly reviewed.
    Furthermore, the letter documented that Mr Bickell denied review of the records by authorized Clerks and/or
    Justices of the court, and issued instead a letter, stating that the Motion and related papers were “returned”,
    with no authority and with no legal foundation at all.
    Human Rights Alert alleged that upon investigation and competent review, such conduct would be found as
    deprivation of rights by Mr Bickell, including, but not limited to the right to file petitions, access to the courts,
    equal protection, and due process of law.
    Conduct of Mr Bickell must be deemed particularly alarming, since papers, which were filed with the Motion
    to Intervene [2], [3] also documented the prior alleged fraud by Mr Bickell, related to an unsigned,
    unauthorized notice he had sent to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, falsely stating the March 12, 2010
    denial of the Application by Justice Kennedy, with no legal foundation in the Court records in the case.
    The papers filed on April 20, 2010 with the Motion to Intervene requested that the Court initiated corrective
    actions relative to conduct of Mr Bickell in the matter.
    Human Rights Alert further alleged that upon investigation and competent review it would be found that
    conduct in the matter involved collusion and/or misprision of felonies by Mr William Suter – Clerk of the
    Supreme Court of the US.
    Combined, conduct of Counsel Bickell and Clerk Sutter was alleged as intended to cover up misconduct by
    other justice system agencies relative to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, which was also detailed in the
    z Page 2/3 August 1, 2010

    papers filed with the Motion to Intervene. Such conduct facilitated the continued alleged false imprisonment
    of Richard Fine.
    On April 21, 2010, Deputy Clerk of the Court acknowledged by phone receipt of the Motion to Intervene and
    related papers, but explained that the records failed to appear in the online docket of the Court, since they were
    held by Court Counsel Danny Bickell.
    On April 21, 2010, Mr Bickell by phone first attempted to deny that the Motion and related papers were
    received at all. Later he acknowledged that he was holding the records, and further explained that he would
    determine their disposition, although he consented that he was authorized neither as Clerk nor as a Deputy
    Clerk of the Court.
    Following the April 23, 2010, conference, disposition of the Application remained unknown.
    On April 26, 2010 a note appeared in the US Supreme Court online docket, [4] indicating denial of the
    Application.
    However, records, which were obtained from the Court file on July 26, 2010, showed no legal foundation at
    all for the April 26, 2010 denial noted in the online Court docket. [4]
    Therefore, it was alleged that the case documented the repeated fraud in publication of false notes in the online
    US Supreme Court docket, fraud in the issuing of false, unauthorized notices by US Supreme Court Counsel
    Danny Bickell, all committed with collusion and/or misprision by US Supreme Court Clerk William Suter.
    Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles
    County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing on February 20, 2009 of
    "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges. Since March 4, 2009, he has been imprisoned in
    solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. Albeit, no warrant was ever issued, and no judgment/
    conviction/ sentencing was ever entered in his case.
    The case of Richard Fine documented a pattern of publication of false records in online public access systems,
    and denial of access to true judicial records:
    1) The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the
    Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case.
    2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate
    Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate
    Richard Fine.
    3) The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the
    NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and to the paper record, which
    was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly
    adulterated at the US District Court.
    4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the
    NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by
    respondents in the appeal.
    5) The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting denials on both March 12, 2010 and
    April 23/26, 2010, which were not supported by the Court records in the case. The US Supreme Court
    online “docket” further failed to list the Motion to Intervene and related papers in the case. Access to true
    dockets in the case management system of the Supreme Court was yet to be permitted.
    Therefore, Human Rights Alert submitted a request to the US Congress Judiciary Committees to establish by
    law the operation of the online public access systems and case management systems of the US Courts. [5]
    Notice of the newly discovered records of the US Supreme Court was also submitted to the US State
    Department and the United Nations.
    Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert as part of the pending review of
    Human Rights in the United States in the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the
    United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010. The April 2010 UPR report by Human
    z Page 3/3 August 1, 2010

    Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in
    the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems.
    Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights
    violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to
    the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of
    integrity of the justice system in the United States.
    LINKS
    [1] 10-04-29 letter by Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell and enclosed face pages showing receipt of the records by US Marshals
    at the Court on April 20, 2010, and “RECEIVED” stamp by Office of the Clerk, dated April 21, 2010 – attached.
    [2] 10-04-20 Motion to Intervene and related papers
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/
    [3] Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
    [4] 10-07-26 Human Rights Alert’s Request for Representation by Dean Minow at US Supreme Court Relative to Alleged Fraud in
    US Supreme Court Records s
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34940014/
    10-07-25 Fine v Baca (09 A827) Alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records in Fine v Baca (09-A827)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
    10-07-28 Fine v Baca (09-A827) Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court pertaining to purported denial of the
    Application in Conference
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
    [5] 01-07-31 Human Rights Alert s Request for the Judiciary Committees to Establish Case Management and Online Public Access
    System of the US Courts by Law
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/

    Contact:
    Joseph Zernik, PhD
    Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    OFFICE OF THE CLERK
    WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001

    April 29, 2010

    Joseph Zernik
    1853 Foothill Blvd
    La Verne, CA 91750

    RE: Fine v Sheriff, LA County


    Motion to Intervene

    Dear Mr. Zernik:

    Your motion to intervene, received April 21 ,2010, is herewith returned for the
    following reason:
    The Rules of this Court make no provision for an individual who was not a party to
    the proceedings in the lower courts to intervene in an application that is pending in
    this Court.
    If you are seeking to file a brief as an Amicus Curiae, or friend of the Court, your
    attention is directed to Rule 37 of the Rules of this Court.

    Sincerely,
    William K. Suter, Clerk
    BY:~bMJ
    Danny Bickell
    (202) 479-3024

    Enclosures
    1/259 O!tA"l1olgnldby
    ....... lIz......
    OM:_J!>M1lhH
    z...... o. .....
    )~~::u
    ~uVemo.
    <A_
    ~1010.cM~
    OUIIUJ_

    Case No 09-A827

    IN THE

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    RICHARD I. FINE,

    Petitioner,

    v.

    ..--
    .... SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

    .
    U' Respondent.
    ...
    •

    On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus


    to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

    AMENDED VERIFIED APPENDICES FOR MOTION TO INTERVENE

    JOSEPH ZERNIK
    In Pro Se
    1853 Foothill Blvd
    La Verne, CA
    Mail: PO Box 526
    ~ La Verne, CA 91750

    I f
    I ;P L'.S.
    i-.:t:
    "\"
    ~~\
    - Phone:323.515.4583
    Fax: 323.488.9697
    Email <jzI2345@earthlink.net
    20 A 3: 43
    ):

    I
    APR
    O,j
    Case No 09-A827

    IN THE

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    RICHARD I. FINE,

    Petitioner,

    v.

    --.....
    ....
    oJ

    •
    SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

    Respondent.

    On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus


    to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

    VERIFIED MOTION TO INTERVENE

    JOSEPH ZERNIK
    In ProSe
    1853 Foothill Blvd
    La Verne, CA
    Mail:PO Box 526
    La Verne, CA 91750
    Phone:323.515.4583
    Fax: 323.488.9697
    Email <jz12345@earthlink.net

    Digitally slgnPd by Joseph H


    Z....nik
    ON: cn=Joseph HIernile, o.
    , IJ 00,

    ) . ~L..
    U
    ~i1=Jz123~SPNnhlink,
    nel.t;US
    lOGltlon: La Verne. CalifornIa

    APR 2 i 20m Dalto: 2010.04.1 S 15:06:51


    -07'00'
    Case No 09-A827

    lNTHE

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    RICHARD 1. FINE,

    Petitioner,

    v.

    -.
    -'

    c.r
    •
    SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

    Respondent.

    On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus


    to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

    REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT OF THE US

    JOSEPH ZERNIK
    InPra Se
    1853 Foothill Blvd
    La Verne, CA
    Mail: PO Box 526
    La Verne, CA 91750
    Phone:323.515.4583
    Fax: 323.488.9697
    Email <jz12345@earthlink.net

    Digitally signed by Joseph H


    Zernlk
    ON: ensJoseph HZelnlk, o.

    . ~.
    O
    /J
    ~L. emilll-'W2]~soearthnnk.
    "
    ) net,c"US
    loc.llon: La Verne, ullfornl,1
    Date: 2010.04.15 15:12:03
    -0700'
    Case No 09-A827

    IN THE

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    RICHARD 1. FINE,

    Petitioner,

    -
    ;;;J

    .
    u-
    •
    ~
    v.

    SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

    Respondent.

    On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus


    to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

    REQUEST FOR LENIENCE BY PRO SE FILER

    JOSEPH ZERNIK
    In Pro Se
    1853 Foothill Blvd
    La Verne, CA
    Mail:PO Box 526
    La Verne, CA 91750
    Phone:323.515.4583
    Fax: 323.488.9697
    Email <jzI2345@earthlink.net

    Digi{;llly .Igned by Joseph H


    Z..,nik
    DN:cn_Jo.ephHZetn'k,o,

    ) ~
    '-::+..
    • U:::-
    ou, ..ma,I..JzI234S....nhlink.
    n.cI,c"U5
    Loc~llon; La V"rne, Callfoml.
    o..t~ 2010.0<4.15 15:ll95S
    <TOO'

    You might also like