- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Corpse media shouldn't call Pedo Guy, Eon Musk a member of the Pay pal Mafia
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

Brownoser cowardly conformist and creepy Corpse Media shouldn't call Pedo Guy, Eon Musk a member of the Pay pal Mafia - Zombie Moron reporting https://www.dlnews.com/articles/people-culture/are-crypto-mafia-bosses-bett… Reposts designed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable - you're welcome!

1 0

Some Senate Democrats Move to the Dark Side for Jamie Dimon & Company’s Front Group
by Gunnar Larson 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/12/some-senate-democrats-move-to-the-da… ← The New York Fed Has Extended Its Half Trillion Dollar Bailout Facility to a Sprawling Japanese Bank You’ve Never Heard OfThree Wall Street Mega Banks Hold $157.3 Trillion in Derivatives – That’s $56.7 Trillion More than the Entire World’s GDP Last Year → Some Senate Democrats Move to the Dark Side for Jamie Dimon & Company’s Front Group By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: December 15, 2023 ~ A Wall Street cartel of lobbying groups has launched their fiercest anti-regulation battle with Congress since it was in the midst of writing the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010. That legislation hoped to address the worst Wall Street abuses and corruption that brought on the crash of 2008 – the most devastating financial meltdown since 1929 and the Great Depression. (See our report: Meet the Banking Cartel that Is Planting the Seeds for the Next Banking Panic and Bailout.) One tentacle of the cartel is the Financial Services Forum, whose total membership consists of the CEOs of the eight Wall Street mega banks: Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase; Brian Moynihan of Bank of America; Charles Scharf of Wells Fargo; Jane Fraser of Citigroup; David Solomon, Goldman Sachs; James Gorman, Morgan Stanley; Robin Vince, Bank of New York Mellon; and Ronald O’Hanley, of State Street. The Financial Services Forum has the Big Law firm of Akin Gump on its payroll to regularly lobby Congress to get its way; it is currently running deceptive ads during national television news programs in an effort to gut proposed new rules for higher capital at the mega banks that engage in high risk trading activities; and it has its own Political Action Committee (PAC) to funnel campaign contributions to members of Congress to get them to see things its way. Of late, it has been sluicing money to Democrats sitting on the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee which have oversight of the Wall Street mega banks and their regulators. (Other tentacles of the cartel that are also funneling money to these exact same members of Congress are the Bank Policy Institute and Securities and Financial Markets Association, more commonly known as SIFMA.) Now, coincidentally, or not, some of the recipients of this cash have shown up in a video ad attacking the very rules that their Democratic colleagues are struggling hard to get approved. The clips in the video come from recent Congressional hearings on the proposed capital rules. Senator Jon Tester, Democrat from Montana, states in the ad that he is concerned about the impact on small businesses. Senator David Scott, Democrat from Georgia, states that he is worried about the proposal’s impact on hedges for farmers. Senator Mark Warner, Democrat from Virginia, states he is concerned this could trigger the “perfect storm,” coming at a time of rising “geopolitical risks.” (In fact, a time of rising geopolitical risks following the largest bank runs since 2008 this past spring is exactly when casino trading banks should be holding more capital against their riskiest exposures.) Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat from Maryland, only mentions in the video clip that he is concerned about the treatment of clean energy tax credits in the proposed regulation – which has nothing to do with the increase in capital requirements. We reached out to a spokesperson at Senator Van Hollen’s office for a comment on this video ad. We were told the following: “Senator Van Hollen supports enhanced capital requirements. As he made clear in the hearing, he simply wants to ensure that the final rule does not result in unintended consequences that harm our clean energy investments. The inclusion of his remarks in this ad – which is designed to discredit the broader effort on capital requirements – is an outrageous misrepresentation of his views.” Democratic House Reps from the House Financial Services Committee are also featured in the ad, with clips of their statements from a recent hearing, that make it appear they are questioning the need for higher capital at the mega banks. Those House Reps include: Bill Foster (D-IL); Jim Himes (D-CT); Sean Casten (D-IL); and House Rep Gregory Meeks (D-NY). The most shocking clip in the video comes from House Rep Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California, who has typically in the past been able to see through the subterfuge from high-powered Wall Street lobbyists. But in this instance, he delivered their talking points like a paid shill. According to Federal Election Committee data tracked at OpenSecrets.org, Sherman’s 2022 political campaign coffers included $278,650 from the “Securities and Investment” industry – his largest donor base. Sherman is up for reelection next year. On September 27 of this year, SIFMA wrote out a check for $5,000 to Sherman’s campaign coffers, earmarked for next year’s primary, according to the Federal Election Commission database. Sherman’s office did not respond to our request for a comment on him appearing to shill for Wall Street mega banks in their ad. When it comes to knowledge of the dangerous underpinnings and history of the Wall Street mega banks, the two most knowledgeable individuals on the Senate Banking Committee are former Harvard Law Professor Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), the Chair of the Committee. Senator Elizabeth Warren cut to the chase on the proposed increase in capital for the mega banks during the Senate Banking Committee’s hearing with regulators on November 14. Warren stated the following: “Last spring, the second and third and fourth biggest bank failures in the United States’ history occurred. Those failures cost the FDIC over $30 billion. In other words, the investors and executives took on big risks, they made big money and then they left the U.S. government on the hook when they couldn’t cover the outstanding deposits. “That’s not supposed to happen. After the crash of 2008, regulators were supposed to put in place rules to require big banks to have enough capital to cover financial shocks so that taxpayers won’t have to do that. And now here we are, fifteen years later, and regulators are finally, finally, near the finish line. “In July, they put out proposed rules for stronger capital requirements, including the so-called Basel III Endgame rules. But Wall Street executives don’t want to have to put up more capital. “Higher capital standards make banks safer but they also nip into profits and make it harder for CEOs to pull in multi-million-dollar bonuses. So the CEOs and their big-time investors have hired an army of lobbyists to stop the new capital standards from ever seeing the light of day. “Their leading argument right now is that higher capital requirements would hurt lending to small businesses all across America. I think we’ve heard some of that this morning.” Senator Warren then turns to one of the federal bank regulators appearing at the hearing, the Vice Chair for Supervision at the Federal Reserve, Michael Barr, and asks him: “How many insured depository institutions would the rule apply to.” Barr responds that the proposed new capital rules would apply to just 37 banks. Warren continues: “So there are almost 4,700 insured depository institutions in the United States, if I have my math right. [She does.] That means the capital rules for more than 99 percent of the nation’s banks, including the community banks that serve small businesses, farms and American families, those rules are not going to change one bit.” Senator Warren’s arguments were further backed up at the start of the Senate Banking Committee hearing on November 6 with the CEOs of the eight largest banks on Wall Street when Senator Sherrod Brown opened the hearing with this: “…anyone who had any doubt about whether Wall Street could be trusted to use its power responsibly need only look at the current lobbying fight on this. If you’ve watched the local news in Washington, if you’ve waited at a bus stop in Washington, if you’ve flown out of Washington national airport, you’ve probably seen ads urging people to, quote, ‘Stop Basel Endgame.’ “The eight of you surely know your audience. And you haven’t stopped there – you’ve even gone national, pouring money into ads for Sunday night football. It’s a campaign waged by your lobbyists to prevent financial watchdogs from putting in place these stronger capital requirements to protect our banking system and our economy. “Listening to these ads, you hear all kinds of claims about how stronger rules will raise the cost of mortgages and stop small businesses from getting loans. “Wall Street banks are actually saying that cracking down on them will, quote, ‘hurt working families.’ Really? You’re saying that cracking down on Wall Street is going to hurt working families? You’re going to claim that? “The economic devastation of 2008 hurt working families. The uncertainty and turmoil from the failure of Silicon Valley Bank hurt working families – when small businesses and their employees in Ohio and Utah and across the country didn’t know if they could get access to their money and make payroll. And of course, the claims in this ad campaign aren’t true. “Your game is to try to confuse people. Most Americans probably think of a bank’s capital – if you force people to think about it at all – as money stashed away in a vault. But that’s not what it means. Capital is just a way to fund loans and investments and risky activities in a way that can absorb losses if things go south. It means shareholders and investors are on the hook – not taxpayers.” Wall Street mega banks and their lobbyists are likely to win this battle unless you pick up your phone today and call your U.S. Senators and demand that they hold the line on increasing capital requirements for the high-risk trading activities of the mega banks.

1 0

From 2010 through 2014, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Focused on Crime on Wall Street; Since Then – Head in the Sand
by Gunnar Larson 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/12/from-2010-through-2014-the-senates-p… ← Three Wall Street Mega Banks Hold $157.3 Trillion in Derivatives – That’s $56.7 Trillion More than the Entire World’s GDP Last YearThese Are the Bank Bailout Charts the Fed Hopes You’ll Never See in One Place → >From 2010 through 2014, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Focused on Crime on Wall Street; Since Then – Head in the Sand By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: December 19, 2023 ~ Senator Richard Blumenthal, Chair of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations >From 2010 through 2014, the most intractably corrupt industry in America – Wall Street – was the perpetual focus of the Senate Permanent Subcomittee on Investigations. The late Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Chaired that Subcommittee throughout that span of time. Then Levin retired from the Senate in January 2015 and Wall Street’s name disappeared from hearings of that critical Subcommittee from 2015 through 2023 – a span of nine years. Wall Street did not become less corrupt from 2015 through 2023 to warrant it falling off the hearing schedule of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In fact, Wall Street became more corrupt. Financial watchdog, Better Markets, wrote the following in its detailed report in October on Wall Street mega banks’ unending crime spree: “For years, Better Markets has been tracking the enforcement actions against the nation’s six largest banks (the ‘Six Megabanks’) [JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup/Citibank, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley], along with some of the most prominent civil cases. The number of actions and the dollar amounts of penalties and damages imposed on the banks have grown with each passing report. And the violations and fines keep piling up, apparently having no impact on the lawbreaking habits at these banks. “Over the past 15 months, since the most recent report in May 2022, the pattern of illegal conduct by the Six Megabanks has continued. Their RAP Sheets now include 60 more new cases, which have resulted in over $9 billion in additional fines arising from the banks’ ripping off, discriminating against, or financially endangering their customers. That means the totals from last year’s RAP Sheet report have risen from 430 to 490 actions and more than $198.5 billion in monetary sanctions to $207.7 billion in monetary sanctions….” How is it possible that the United States Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations cannot see that the criminal activities of Wall Street’s mega banks threaten the national security of the United States? That reality certainly didn’t get past Senator Carl Levin after these same banks blew up the U.S. financial system in 2008 and unleashed the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. More than 10 million Americans fell into poverty and more than 6 million families lost their homes to foreclosure as a result of Wall Street’s crime spree. The leader of the crime pack is the largest federally-insured bank in the United States – JPMorgan Chase – whose co-opted Board of Directors has allowed the same Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, to remain at the helm despite the bank admitting to five criminal felony counts since 2014 and racking up a rap sheet that is unprecedented in U.S. banking history. According to the official website of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, its mandate includes “investigating all aspects of crime and lawlessness within the United States which have an impact upon or affect the national health, welfare and safety, including syndicated crime, investment fraud schemes, commodity and security fraud, computer fraud, and the use of offshore banking and corporate facilities to carry out criminal objectives.” Let that last phrase linger in your mind for a moment: “the use of offshore banking and corporate facilities to carry out criminal objectives.” This year four separate parties filed federal lawsuits against JPMorgan Chase for its active involvement in facilitating the sex trafficking of minors by Jeffrey Epstein. In addition to his own sexual assaults of these underage girls, Epstein pimped them out to his wealthy pals in what appears to have been a honey trap to gain valuable information, including, potentially, espionage information. (Epstein was closely aligned with a number of key political figures in Israel. Epstein’s largest financial backer was Leslie Wexner, former Chairman and CEO of the retailing conglomerate, L Brands, and a major supporter of Israel. Wexner’s mansion in Manhattan and one of his corporate jets ended up being owned by Epstein. Even more bizarre, Wexner gave Epstein a full power-of-attorney over his financial affairs.) As a result of the lawsuits, internal emails from executives and staff of JPMorgan Chase were released, showing how the bank pampered this sexual predator in exchange for referrals of wealthy clients. It also appears that the bank was laundering money for Epstein by not filing the legally required Suspicious Activity Reports for more than a decade. A former FBI agent, Shaun O’Neill, was prepared to testify at trial as an expert witness that JPMorgan Chase had “impeded” the investigation of Epstein and provided the following vast sums of hard cash to him: “Epstein was able to withdraw large amounts of cash from his JPMC accounts for years [Redacted]. In the year 2003, Epstein was able to withdraw highly suspicious amounts of cash totaling $175,311. In 2004, he withdrew $840,000. In 2005, he withdrew $904,337. In 2006, he withdrew $938,625. In 2007, he withdrew $526,000. In 2008, he withdrew $469,000. In 2009, he withdrew $165,011. In 2010, he withdrew $253,397. In 2011, he withdrew $260,000. In 2012, he withdrew $290,000. In 2013, he withdrew $197,152.” Despite JPMorgan Chase being charged in 2014 by the U.S. Department of Justice, and admitting to, two felony counts for decades of laundering money for Ponzi kingpin Bernie Madoff, and also ignoring its legal requirement to file Suspicious Activity Reports, there has been no criminal case brought against JPMorgan Chase in this matter by the U.S. Department of Justice, nor has the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing on the matter. (See our report: New Court Documents Suggest the Justice Department Under Four Presidents Covered Up Jeffrey Epstein’s Money Laundering at JPMorgan Chase.) All of which leads us to the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), a former federal prosecutor himself and Connecticut’s Attorney General for five terms, from 1991 to 2011. Why has a man so imminently qualified to root out crime failed to hold one single hearing dealing with crime on Wall Street? Naturally, that question took us straight to Blumenthal’s largest campaign donors. It’s not a pretty picture. The campaign money watchdog, OpenSecrets.org, shows that lobbyists for Israel and law firms representing Wall Street mega banks were the largest donors to Blumenthal for election cycles 2019 through 2024. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is Blumenthal’s number one donor, giving $140,113 in that time span. Paul Weiss, the Big Law firm that gets Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase out of criminal charges, is Blumenthal’s second largest donor, giving $83,625 in that time span. Blumenthal’s third largest donor is Apollo Global Management, a private equity firm whose former Chairman and CEO, Leon Black, has been sued by a woman who charged that he raped her in Epstein’s mansion in Manhattan. Black is under investigation for his ties to Epstein by the Senate Finance Committee, which wants to know why Black paid Epstein $158 million. Blumenthal’s fourth largest donor is Pro-Israel America Political Action Committee (PAC), which provided $51,600 to his campaign from 2019 through 2023. In the case of corporate donors, the money comes from employees or their spouses, not the corporation itself. Below are the hearings involving Wall Street that were convened by the Senate’s Permanent Subcomittee on Investigations while Senator Carl Levin was Chair. Since then — zero.

1 0

United States: Reserving Goodwill Claims
by Gunnar Larson 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/real-estate/1403290/reserving-goodwill-… United States: Reserving Goodwill Claims 20 December 2023 by Kristin L. Mendenhall Nossaman LLP Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors View Kristin L. Mendenhall Biography on their website In California, a business operating on real property being acquired, in whole or in part, for a public project may make a claim for loss of goodwill and be entitled to compensation if the business operator establishes the foundational elements: (1) the taking caused the loss, (2) the loss could not be prevented by relocation or other reasonable mitigation measures, (3) the loss is not includable as a reimbursable relocation expense, and (4 ) the loss does not duplicate other compensation being paid. (Code Civ. Proc. §1263.510(a).) As part of its affirmative duty to mitigate damages, a business often relocates its operations to a new site to preserve its goodwill. Appraisers retained by the business and agency typically compare the business' goodwill in the "before condition" (at the subject property) and in the "after condition" (at the replacement property) to determine the amount of loss, if there is any loss. This comparison can be difficult when appraisals must be exchanged at a time when the business has little to no operating results at the replacement property because it has not yet moved or is still in a start-up period. When the replacement property selected by the business has many of the same characteristics as the subject property and the project impacts are well understood from detailed construction plans, the parties usually choose to resolve the goodwill claim along with the real property claims in the existing litigation. The appraisers are able to use historical data to determine goodwill in the before condition and compare it to the goodwill in the after condition, which they usually determine by making adjustments for the impacted condition. The appraisers' adjustments take into consideration the project plans, the owner's testimony, other expert opinions, paired sales if available, and their own expertise. Subjectivity obviously creeps in with so many unknowns at play. However, if the adjustments are substantiated and the appraisal testimony credible, goodwill claims often settle, and sometimes go to trial, without the need of actual performance at the replacement property to compare with their performance (unimpacted) before the relocation.

1 0

Turkey: Limitation Periods In Air Transportation In Turkey
by Gunnar Larson 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

https://www.mondaq.com/turkey/aviation/1403252/limitation-periods-in-air-tr… Turkey: Limitation Periods In Air Transportation In Turkey 20 December 2023 by Özgün Önal , Büşra Erman , Bilgenur Muslu and Fatih Yildiz MGC Legal Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors View Özgün Önal Biography on their website The popularity of air travel brings along certain legal issues. How passengers should claim their rights in the face of problems such as flight cancellations, delays, or lost baggage, which mechanisms come into play, and how these processes are operated are frequently encountered issues in civil aviation. In this article, we delve into the procedures when the Air Transport Enterprise violates passenger rights regulations, how to apply to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and the legal processes to be applied in cases taken to the judiciary. Applications to The Directorate General of Civil Aviation in Case The Air Carrier Fails to Fulfill its Obligations Under The Regulation Under passenger rights, passengers may file a complaint to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. A draft instruction regulating the procedures and principles of the applications to be made in this regard has been published. According to this draft, the passenger must submit the applications in person or by their authorized representative to the air transport operator and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation within six months from the flight date. Applications for denied boarding, flight delay, flight cancellation, and assignment to a lower/upper class shall first be addressed to the air transport operator operating the flight subject to the complaint. If the air operator fails to provide an adequate response to the complaint, fails to obtain results from the complaint, or fails to respond to the complaint within ten days, the application shall be directed to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.

1 0

United States: New York Officially Eliminates Ban On Surcharges
by Gunnar Larson 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/product-liability--safety/1403384/new-y… United States: New York Officially Eliminates Ban On Surcharges 20 December 2023 by Johnathan Holbrook Bass, Berry & Sims View Johnathan Holbrook Biography on their website This week, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Assembly Bill No. 2672, which amends Section 518 of the New York General Business Law. The law previously prohibited merchants from imposing a surcharge on customers who elect to pay for goods or services using a credit card. As amended, merchants now are expressly permitted to impose a surcharge in any transaction in which a customer elects to pay using a credit card so long as the merchant does both of the following: Clearly and conspicuously posts the total price for an item if paying by credit card (i.e., the sticker price must reflect the total price for the item plus the applicable surcharge imposed if the customer pays using a credit card). Does not impose a surcharge in excess of the amount of the surcharge charged to the merchant by the applicable credit card company for processing a card transaction. This amendment codifies the decision by the Court of Appeals of New York in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 117 N.E.3d 730, 737 (N.Y. 2018), in which the court held that a higher price charged to customers paying by credit card must be posted in total "dollars-and-cents" form, rather than presented as a separate surcharge. This law explicitly allows a merchant to offer a "two-tier pricing system," in which a merchant posts two different prices for a good or service: one for the credit card price (inclusive of any surcharge) and one for the cash price (which excludes the surcharge). As a result of this structure, merchants often raise prices on all goods and services to include the applicable surcharge, but offer a discount equal to the surcharge amount if the customer pays using cash, check, or debit card.

1 0

United States: Nationwide Online Sports Betting Tracker
by Gunnar Larson 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/gaming/1403840/nationwide-online-sports… United States: Nationwide Online Sports Betting Tracker 19 December 2023 by Jonathan L. Israel , Gregory A. Marino , Zachary A. Flagel , Samuel J. Fishman and Quinn N. D'Isa Foley & Lardner Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors View Jonathan L. Israel Biography on their website On behalf of Foley's Sports & Entertainment Group, I am pleased to announce the establishment of the Sports Betting and Gaming Task Force and its Nationwide Online Sports Betting Tracker—a one stop compilation and summary of state online sports wagering laws and regulations. In 1992, Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) which effectively prohibited sports betting where the practice was not already legal under state law. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down PASPA in its entirety, allowing each state to address the legality of sports betting on its own terms. Thirty states in the U.S. have now legalized sports betting in some form or another.

1 0

Switzerland: Swiss Surveillance Law: New Instruments – But Who Is Affected?
by Gunnar Larson 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

https://www.mondaq.com/telecoms-mobile--cable-communications/1402650/swiss-… Switzerland: Swiss Surveillance Law: New Instruments – But Who Is Affected? 19 December 2023 by Jonas Gassmann (VISCHER) Vischer AG View Jonas Gassmann (VISCHER) Biography on their website On 1 January 2024, three partially revised implementing ordinances to the Swiss Federal Act on the Surveillance of Post and Telecommunications (SPTA) will enter into force. These provisions are related to 5G technology: the declared aim is to prevent gaps in surveillance by introducing new types of information and surveillance. This (first) revision package raises some fundamental questions. It is still largely unclear which providers are affected by the changes. What It's About The Swiss Federal Council at last divided the revision of surveillance law into two parts: First revision package: provisions for adapting three SPTA ordinances (VÜPF; VD-ÜPF and VVS-ÜPF) to 5G technology. These provisions will enter into force on 1 January 2024. Second revision package: new definition of those providers obliged to co-operate under surveillance law ("Affected Providers"). This part is still pending. The Swiss trade association of the ICT and online industry (Swico) and the Swiss Social Democratic Party (SP) criticised this division of the revision into two parts during the consultation process. They argued that the current amendments would lay down obligations without specifying who would be subject to these obligations. However, their request to withdraw the first package of amendments and draw up a new proposal which also includes the second package was not honoured.

1 0

Cyprus: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Comparative Guide
by Gunnar Larson 21 Dec '23

21 Dec '23

https://www.mondaq.com/cyprus/litigation-mediation--arbitration/1360798/enf… Cyprus: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Comparative Guide 19 December 2023 by Ioannis Economou Loizides & Economou LLC View Ioannis Economou Biography on their website Do you want to compare other jurisdictions?... Click here 1 Legal and judicial framework 1.1 Which legislative and regulatory provisions govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in your jurisdiction? The legislative and regulatory provisions governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Cyprus are mainly a combination of various instruments, such as bilateral treaties, domestic legislation and EU regulations. In addition, the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Law (Cap 10), modelled on the corresponding English legislation (the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1993, applies to judgments obtained in the courts of the United Kingdom and of its dominions.

1 0

Arizona Man Arrested for Making Online Threats Against Federal Agents and Employees
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 20 Dec '23

20 Dec '23

Solidarity and support for Michael Lee Tomasi. " Where does it say you can't kill a cop? " Michael Corleone All USG agents have earned killing. Especially Karl Semich and the POTUS. https://stiffs.com/celebrity/joebiden Lets go Brandon!

1 0