Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay

Ethereal · Oct 28, 2019

kazenatsu said: ↑

Well, actually, from what I've researched into, it looks like the "sexual violation" thing may purely have been a coincidence and not had anything directly to do with other countries wanting him. (The two Swedish women were each angry when they found out he had been two-timing them with the other).
Click to expand...

Right, but the legal process that came about as a result of their anger was clearly manipulated and influenced by the US.

kazenatsu · Oct 28, 2019

Ethereal said: ↑

Right, but the legal process that came about as a result of their anger was clearly manipulated and influenced by the US.
Click to expand...

Well that has still not been proven, but it looks suspicious.

Bush Lawyer · Oct 28, 2019

Eleuthera said: ↑

The rule of law in the US and most western jurisdictions is dead in the water. It has been for years, thanks in part to your hero John Yoo and other unprincipled men like him.

If the rule of law were operable, Britain would have released Assange after the UN declared his detention in violation of international law several years ago.

The Swedish police told Assange he was free to leave the country regarding the rape matter, and he did. The rest is history.

Your faith is grossly misplaced. How can you have faith in a system operated by pathological liars and torturers?
Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. You are way off the mark with the John Yoo reference. Google Bush Lawyer.

Ethereal · Oct 28, 2019

kazenatsu said: ↑

Well that has still not been proven, but it looks suspicious.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon...

Ethereal · Oct 28, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. You are way off the mark with the John Yoo reference. Google Bush Lawyer.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory = anything I don't agree with

alexa · Oct 28, 2019

A bit more on the situation of Assange and support in Australia.

The Australian parliament has formally recognized a parliamentary group advocating for the return of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. On October 22, Andrew Wilkie, an independent member of parliament from Tasmania, announced over social media that the presiding officers of the two houses of the Australian parliament had given approval to the Bring Assange Home Parliamentary Group. Presently, the group consists of 11 members from across party lines, and is co-chaired by Wilkie and the Queensland MP of the Liberal National Party, George Christensen.
......
Politicians and activists alike have argued that there are no grounds for Assange to be extradited to the United States. Wilkie, who has long advocated for consular support to Assange, claimed in the House of Representatives earlier that, “Assange is too ill to prepare a case against his extradition, let alone to be shipped off to a foreign country to be secretly tried for exposing war crimes.”

He also blamed the governments of the UK, the United States and Australia for doing “their best to break him”, at which they have “almost succeeded”. He claimed that his advocacy for Assange’s release is based on Australia’s sovereignty. It has been pointed out that Assange, who is an Australian citizen, was not in the US at the time of his supposed crimes.

“This has serious implications for freedom of speech and freedom of the press here in Australia, because if we allow a foreign country to charge an Australian citizen for revealing war crimes, then no Australian journalist or publisher can ever be confident that the same thing won’t happen to them,” Wilkie told the House.

Similar concerns of sovereignty were also shared by the senior government coalition MP, Barnaby Joyce. Earlier this month, Joyce joined Bob Carr, a senior Labour politician and former foreign minister, to speak out against US attempt to prosecute Assange. The leaders have asserted that the extradition of Assange to the US would be a move against Australian sovereignty.
Click to expand...

https://citizentruth.org/australian-parliamentary-group-advocates-for-assanges-return/

I remember that at the time the US released what its charges were, there was a round up of journalists in Australia who had provided information the Government did not like. That looks like what is being set in motion and why the UK and Australia are going along with this.

Bush Lawyer · Oct 28, 2019

Ethereal said: ↑

Conspiracy theory = anything I don't agree with
Click to expand...

Come on. What do you expect as a response to this:

How can you have faith in a system operated by pathological liars and torturers?
Click to expand...

Name these people operating what specific system who are pathological liars and torturers.

Ethereal · Oct 28, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

Come on. What do you expect as a response to this:

Name these people operating what specific system who are pathological liars and torturers.
Click to expand...

Well, it's already an established fact that both the US and UK governments maintained programs that used and facilitated torture.

And it's already an established fact that the US and UK governments lied about the war in Iraq.

So calling labeling the individuals that comprise such institutions as liars and torturers doesn't appear to be a "theory" at all.

Bush Lawyer · Oct 28, 2019

Ethereal said: ↑

Well, it's already an established fact that both the US and UK governments maintained programs that used and facilitated torture.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the UK but I do concede Gitmo in the case of the US.

And it's already an established fact that the US and UK governments lied about the war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

This was your Mission, and you did not start it let alone complete it.

Name these people operating what specific system who are pathological liars and torturers

kazenatsu · Oct 28, 2019

alexa said: ↑

“This has serious implications for freedom of speech and freedom of the press here in Australia, because if we allow a foreign country to charge an Australian citizen for revealing war crimes, then no Australian journalist or publisher can ever be confident that the same thing won’t happen to them,” Wilkie told the House.

Similar concerns of sovereignty were also shared by the senior government coalition MP, Barnaby Joyce.
Click to expand...

Glad the issue of individual jurisdictional claims and sovereignty is being brought up.

Ethereal · Oct 29, 2019

Not sure if it's already been posted, but here is the best summary I've read on what is happening to Assange.

Note to moderation: The author of this article has given express permission to reproduce and republish his article in full.

Assange in Court

I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.

Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.

But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.

Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.

The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.

The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.

The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access, and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.

Furthermore, the defence argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid which would provide vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defence against these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010. In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the extradition proceedings dismissed. Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA, specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I discussing various matters.

The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings.

For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps.

What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates.

After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.

At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.

The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.

Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 in full:

On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offence – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.

Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here, Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a “guillotine should be applied” (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps of five hours for the defence. The defence had suggested they would need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it once she had received the evidence bundles.

(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive hearing short).

Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.

Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American initiative.

Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite smirk.

Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. Then he seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:

I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources.

The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court.

The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass, and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognising anybody. He gave no indication that he did.

In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.

I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonisation and dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society.

Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?
Click to expand...

Eleuthera · Oct 29, 2019

In case anybody hasn't yet seen this from ABC Australia, it's the best summation of Julian's case in Sweden

https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/sex-lies-and-julian-assange/4156420

Eleuthera · Oct 29, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. You are way off the mark with the John Yoo reference. Google Bush Lawyer.
Click to expand...

Sorry, most people DO subscribe to conspiracy theories, whether official or unofficial. It's a high probability that you subscribe to the former.

Sorry again, when I see "Bush Lawyer" I cannot help but think of John Yoo, Anthony Gonzalez, and Jay Bybee.

Poohbear · Oct 29, 2019

Eleuthera said: ↑

In case anybody hasn't yet seen this from ABC Australia, it's the best summation of Julian's case in Sweden

https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/sex-lies-and-julian-assange/4156420
Click to expand...

Of course, Assange's point of view.
Despite its charter to be politically neutral, the Australian ABC
is quite leftist in its outlook. I couldn't help but hear Assange's
voice in each sentence O'Brien here was saying. Sad really.

Bush Lawyer · Oct 29, 2019

Eleuthera said: ↑

Sorry, most people DO subscribe to conspiracy theories, whether official or unofficial. It's a high probability that you subscribe to the former.

Sorry again, when I see "Bush Lawyer" I cannot help but think of John Yoo, Anthony Gonzalez, and Jay Bybee.
Click to expand...

And they are people I have never heard of.

TedintheShed · Oct 29, 2019

Ethereal said: ↑

Not sure if it's already been posted, but here is the best summary I've read on what is happening to Assange.

Note to moderation: The author of this article has given express permission to reproduce and republish his article in full.
Click to expand...

So, he has obviously been tortured and drugged and railroaded by the legal system.

Again, another reason to maintain my anarchist tendencies...

Eleuthera · Oct 30, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

And they are people I have never heard of.
Click to expand...

I suspected that was the case. I'm guessing you're not yet 30 years old.

In a nutshell, those men were all Bush lawyers in the White House. They enabled the torture the US practiced. Bybee is teaching law school at Stanford, so that young lawyers can be trained to ignore the rule of law.

Giftedone · Oct 30, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

Come on. What do you expect as a response to this:

"How can you have faith in a system operated by pathological liars and torturers?"

Name these people operating what specific system who are pathological liars and torturers.
Click to expand...

You are acting like a kid who does nothing but say "why why" to anything said. That and the "denial of the obvious" tactic. Not just this post -but in general in this thread.

"what specific system" - Our Justice system
"Who are Pathological liars" The Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence agencies, Mainstream Media ...
"Who are torturers" Pentagon, State Department, CIA ... never heard of Extraordinary rendition ? aka (Torture program)

We have this tool now called the internet .. you can search any topic and get information. You can type in things like "CIA - Torture" and it will give you information.

Bush Lawyer · Oct 30, 2019

Eleuthera said: ↑

I suspected that was the case. I'm guessing you're not yet 30 years old.
Click to expand...

Why?

In a nutshell, those men were all Bush lawyers in the White House. They enabled the torture the US practiced. Bybee is teaching law school at Stanford, so that young lawyers can be trained to ignore the rule of law.
Click to expand...

So, why would you expect that I would know them?

Bush Lawyer · Oct 30, 2019

Giftedone said: ↑

You are acting like a kid who does nothing but say "why why" to anything said. That and the "denial of the obvious" tactic. Not just this post -but in general in this thread.

"what specific system" - Our Justice system
"Who are Pathological liars" The Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence agencies, Mainstream Media ...
"Who are torturers" Pentagon, State Department, CIA ... never heard of Extraordinary rendition ? aka (Torture program)

We have this tool now called the internet .. you can search any topic and get information. You can type in things like "CIA - Torture" and it will give you information.
Click to expand...

They do not run the Justice System.

Giftedone · Oct 30, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

They do not run the Justice System.
Click to expand...

I did not say they did ? The administration is a bunch of liars as well - and they choose the Attorney General.

Bush Lawyer · Oct 30, 2019

Giftedone said: ↑

I did not say they did ? The administration is a bunch of liars as well - and they choose the Attorney General.
Click to expand...

Ummmm... Yes you did.

"what specific system" - Our Justice system
"Who are Pathological liars" The Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence agencies, Mainstream Media ...
"Who are torturers" Pentagon, State Department, CIA ... never heard of Extraordinary rendition ? aka (Torture program)
Click to expand...

Giftedone · Oct 30, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

Ummmm... Yes you did.
Click to expand...

We have a system that is run by Pathatlogical liars and torturers. The groups I mentioned are part of the system of Gov't - a part of which is the Justice system ...and while the groups mentioned do not run the Justices system - they work in conjunction with the people that do. The Pentagon has its own justice system -

If you want closer to the source ... I gave that to you Attorney General - FBI is involved in our Justice System Shall we delve into Mueller's history ? That is an example that was a clown show full of kangaroos - pathalogical liars and torturers .. Who authorizes the CIA to engage in Extraordinary Rendition - if not someone associated with our Judicial system.

Your just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

Bush Lawyer · Oct 30, 2019

Giftedone said: ↑

We have a system that is run by Pathatlogical liars and torturers. The groups I mentioned are part of the system of Gov't - a part of which is the Justice system ...and while the groups mentioned do not run the Justices system - they work in conjunction with the people that do. The Pentagon has its own justice system -

If you want closer to the source ... I gave that to you Attorney General - FBI is involved in our Justice System Shall we delve into Mueller's history ? That is an example that was a clown show full of kangaroos - pathalogical liars and torturers .. Who authorizes the CIA to engage in Extraordinary Rendition - if not someone associated with our Judicial system.

Your just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I am trying to urge you to cease with your very broad brush use. You throw all those pigeonm holes around as if they genuinely exist and are accommodating genuinely corrupt evil bastards all over the place. That is far too large a bow to be drawing for my liking.

Giftedone · Oct 31, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

Not at all. I am trying to urge you to cease with your very broad brush use. You throw all those pigeonm holes around as if they genuinely exist and are accommodating genuinely corrupt evil bastards all over the place. That is far too large a bow to be drawing for my liking.
Click to expand...

They do genuinely exist - and I gave you an example of one Mueller - who is part of the Justice system .. In addition - I have you examples of other departments ... some related to the Justice system .. up to and including the Admin that are are run by "evil bastards".

What else would you like ? How many examples of dirty deeds would you like ?

How about we quantify the number of Evil Bastards in Congress .. would that not be fun ?

Log in or Sign up

Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay

Ethereal Well-Known Member

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

TedintheShed Banned

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay

Ethereal Well-Known Member

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

TedintheShed Banned

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches