Jump to content
IGNORED

Tabitha Paine & Tim Robertson Engagement (includes sexual assault discussion)


JillyO

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, snickers34 said:

Ok. So I don't want this to come off in any way defending these crazy hateful people. It's awful to think he never served time for doing something so disgusting and clearly slut shamed this poor girl. But, let's say Tabitha knew about what he had done and she still loves him. Because someone had done something terrible like this, do they deserve to never find love and get married?

Bolded part is mine. Here is the standard. Would you be okay with a close family member (sister, aunt, daughter) marrying such a person? I had a cousin of a cousin who was engaged to a guy. He seemed decent enough. He had done 7 years for manslaughter ( a fight gone bad). The family didn't judge, we understand that things happen. We DID however judge him (harshly but in private) when we found out that his oldest son was the product of him sleeping with his sister. Who was in a mental institution as a result of this (she had a breakdown). Surprisingly not many of our family members attended the wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 559
  • Created
  • Last Reply
31 minutes ago, snickers34 said:

Ok. So I don't want this to come off in any way defending these crazy hateful people. It's awful to think he never served time for doing something so disgusting and clearly slut shamed this poor girl. But, let's say Tabitha knew about what he had done and she still loves him. Because someone had done something terrible like this, do they deserve to never find love and get married?

Personally I'd never marry an unrepentant rapist. From his "testimony" it's abundantly clear that he didn't understand the gravity of what he did, he didn't accept responsibility nor repented (she worked in a strip club, I drank, I ended up in a situation, her boyfriend came home early etc). This makes his engagement with a sheltered fundie woman with little knowledge of life outside her cult highly alarming imho.

Also we know that a rape change a victim's life forever, there's no going back as if it never happened. Even when a woman manages to overcome it and not be defined by what happened, it still is a defining turn in her life that she somehow managed to transform in something that strengthened her. So I feel no shame in thinking a rapist shouldn't be allowed to forget.  If he is someone with a conscience he will be the first one to be horrified by his own actions and repent, apologise and seek penance. Not what happened with Timmy it seems. 

Ymmv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have to truly repent for their crimes and show remorse and commitment to change. He does not show remorse and I question his repentance as it's very much "I was a sinner but I'm saved now" rather than I did a terrible thing that I wish I could take back. I'm not sure how committed to change he is either as he's marrying a wife who must submit to his every desire whether she wants to or not. 

In high school there was a gym teacher who had served time in jail for vehicular manslaughter that occurred while driving drunk. He spoke every year to our school about the tragedy and how much he wish he could take it back every day of his life and hopes we will learn from his mistake. He even showed us news footage of the family of the victims talking about the tragedy and the people who died. This was a man who embraced his mistake, genuinely felt remorse, and committed himself to change and attempted to take meaningful action regarding his crime to prevent others from committing it.  I'm pretty sure he committed to never drinking again but he's someone I believe should be able to still have life after the tragedy. 

Way different than tims case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, snarkopolis said:

We DID however judge him (harshly but in private) when we found out that his oldest son was the product of him sleeping with his sister.

Holy crap! Whatever competition there is for fucked up situations, your family would win it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snickers34 said:

Ok. So I don't want this to come off in any way defending these crazy hateful people. It's awful to think he never served time for doing something so disgusting and clearly slut shamed this poor girl. But, let's say Tabitha knew about what he had done and she still loves him. Because someone had done something terrible like this, do they deserve to never find love and get married?

If someone has truly done something horrible but can admit that they are the ones who caused the issue and they were the ones who made a mistake. They've had their therapy or gotten help for whatever the issue was surrounding it. Then maybe but I think with someone like Tim, you'd have to sleep on your back with a pillow between your legs. I find it hard to blieve that Tim is sorry, he just found a cult that lets him blame the victim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a judgmental biotch but I have  a very hard time taking many rapists' apologies seriously because there is often a clear self-serving motive and they can't quite keep themselves from victim blaming and telling people why it wasn't their fault really and even if it was their fault it wasn't so very bad because of reasons. 

I tend to think that most people who have the fundamental human decency required to show empathy and  respect for another human that are required for true remorse and feeling sorry for hurting others, would never rape anyone in the first place. 

If you don't have empathy and respect for another's autonomy to begin with, it's really really difficult to learn that later in life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a young twentysomething, I had a FWB relationship with a man who had spent time incarcerated as a teen for rape.  He was 15 when it happened.  This was in the era prior to google;   I wouldn't have known if he hadn't told me.  We'd been friends online for awhile, but when I happened to be coming to town and we had the first opportunity to meet face to face, he told me about it, took full responsibility.  He'd been sober/drug free since, but told me that he did not blame the alcohol or the drugs for what happened, only himself.  By that point he was a single dad (from another relationship) raising a daughter.    He was 25 when we first met.  He did not do public speaking or anything about it on a regular basis, but he was/is a writer who has written about it.  He's raised a very strong young woman and has been honest with her as well.

Meanwhile, two men who have sexually assaulted me personally, as well as committed domestic violence against me never faced any kind of sanction, are celebrated in their church communities, and even had I spoke up, it would have been brushed off I'm sure.  It may even be the case that my aforementioned friend might have also received that kind of benefit of the doubt legally but he's native american, which I'm sure factors in to him spending a year locked up (still not enough) vs. a white standford swim team member.

So yes, I think it is POSSIBLE to be reformed, but I don't think it's probable.  Especially in a culture like fundamentalist religion where to some degree sexual exploitation and non-consent is a key component in their culture.  (Wifely submission, women as gatekeepers of male sexual aggression, ect.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the above posters re: repentant vs. unrepentant sex offenders. 

I would also like to point out that I, in my professional capacity (clinical social worker w/a specialty in treating sexually victimized teenagers), have literally never encountered someone who was on the sex offender registry due to public urination or a normal high school relationship. My professional capacity includes a stint in the local county jail wherein I spent over a month digging through the files of literally every sex offender in my county (population: almost 250,000) and did not come across one single person falling into either one of those categories. And I would have known: public registries clearly show what the charges associated with the individual were. 

I did, however, come across multiple individuals who had, upon further research that was not available to the public, committed significantly worse crimes than what they'd actually pleaded guilty to. It is really, really common for people who have committed sex crimes against minors to be offered plea deals so as to not retraumatize the child by forcing them to testify in court (often while facing whoever assaulted them), meaning that individuals who had committed full-on violent rape would only have an "indecent liberties with a minor" charge on their records. 

As a result of that fun and exciting research project, I tend to have the view that, when it comes to convicted sex offenders who pleaded guilty (as opposed to going to trial), the story of what really happened is nearly always a lot worse than what their records show. I am therefore extremely suspicious of Mr. Robertson's accounting of events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Personally I'd never marry an unrepentant rapist. From his "testimony" it's abundantly clear that he didn't understand the gravity of what he did, he didn't accept responsibility nor repented (she worked in a strip club, I drank, I ended up in a situation, her boyfriend came home early etc). This makes his engagement with a sheltered fundie woman with little knowledge of life outside her cult highly alarming imho.

There's also the matter of the accusations against Tabitha's own father (while in the employ of Gothard) who approved of the match, and I think she's going to run into some problems with her future mother-in-law.  There have to be decent, hard-working fundie guys out there without a fraction of the baggage that this guy has.  I believe her "umbrella of protection" has sprung some major leaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the perspective, @JesusCampSongs

Of course it's in offenders' interests, and that of their families, to play up the "I urinated in public" when actually he was a flasher, or "the SOR is full of people who had consensual sex outdoors, or were teen lovers who sexed".

I know there's a lot of dog whistle stories about how awful the SOR is, but I would love some citations for the people saying it's jam-packed with totally innocent people, caught in Orwellian scenarios - with rates and numbers, because while I can imagine there are some at the far end of the spectrum, I don't believe it's as common as people suggest.

I dunno.  People never seem as quick to defend doctors who are struck off, and can't practice medicine, or people who come up against Financial Service Agencies for fraud, and have their qualifications revoked, as they are to defend random people on the SOA.  The idea that we should always give them the benefit of the doubt and the chance to speak, even when convicted/have plead guilty, is to say that their victims' stories are less important, and that even if the victim has been proved right in a court of law, they still might be lying after all - it makes me sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JesusCampSongs said:

I agree with the above posters re: repentant vs. unrepentant sex offenders. 

I would also like to point out that I, in my professional capacity (clinical social worker w/a specialty in treating sexually victimized teenagers), have literally never encountered someone who was on the sex offender registry due to public urination or a normal high school relationship. My professional capacity includes a stint in the local county jail wherein I spent over a month digging through the files of literally every sex offender in my county (population: almost 250,000) and did not come across one single person falling into either one of those categories. And I would have known: public registries clearly show what the charges associated with the individual were. 

I did, however, come across multiple individuals who had, upon further research that was not available to the public, committed significantly worse crimes than what they'd actually pleaded guilty to. It is really, really common for people who have committed sex crimes against minors to be offered plea deals so as to not retraumatize the child by forcing them to testify in court (often while facing whoever assaulted them), meaning that individuals who had committed full-on violent rape would only have an "indecent liberties with a minor" charge on their records. 

As a result of that fun and exciting research project, I tend to have the view that, when it comes to convicted sex offenders who pleaded guilty (as opposed to going to trial), the story of what really happened is nearly always a lot worse than what their records show. I am therefore extremely suspicious of Mr. Robertson's accounting of events. 

You may be right. I do know that it varies by state and at my current job in WI I'm required to report teenagers having consensual sex. Because anyone having sex under 18 is a crime in this state. I don't know if this means people are likely to end up on the registry or not but I know that it involves filing a police report and informing parents because one partner admitted having consensual sex. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

You may be right. I do know that it varies by state and at my current job in WI I'm required to report teenagers having consensual sex. Because anyone having sex under 18 is a crime in this state. I don't know if this means people are likely to end up on the registry or not but I know that it involves filing a police report and informing parents because one partner admitted having consensual sex. 

 

With respect, if you don't know that it results on people going on the Sex Offenders Registry, you probably shouldn't be suggesting they will end up there.  Reporting is one thing - but it doesn't mean there is an instant reaction where you report and they end up on the SOA for life, or that this is what happens with a large number of people on the SOA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slate has some maps about states in which you can end up on the registry for consensual under age sex or peeing in public

Not sure how accurate or up-to date it is

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/mapped_sex_offender_registry_laws_on_statutory_rape_public_urination_and.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Slate has some maps about states in which you can end up on the registry for consensual under age sex or peeing in public

Not sure how accurate or up-to date it is

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/mapped_sex_offender_registry_laws_on_statutory_rape_public_urination_and.htm

The economist has an article from a couple years back. http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

not defending sex offenders but my thought is that so many people who do terrible things never make the list and yet we automatically shame those on the list without knowledge of their crime. but maybe the registry does truly capture only people who have committed terrible sex offenses, I'm open to data supporting your perspective @Lurky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was he raised fundy? Or did he later "find God" and cleanse himself of all of his sins?

I wonder when Tabitha found out about his past. Did she know prior to courting him? I wonder this because if he didn't become fundy until recently, no one would have know about his criminal past unless he brought it up or someone researched him. How do you bring up, hey I want to court your daughter and I am also a rapist but found God so I am good? 

I wonder if the whole family is actually on board with this marriage? If Tabitha were to break off the relationship, would she be considered damaged goods because she could not accept a man who has changed his ways and found God? Would her lack of understanding to his "situation" make her undesirable to fundy men? I worry that she will go through with the marriage because she is already considered old in the fundy world and I think they will look down on her for courting this newly Godly man and then dumping him. Or worse, that this is a test from God to put her faith in he man he sent for her to marry. Tabitha may be in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. She wasn't raised to ever put herself first nor to do anything other than marry and easier fundy babies. She may consider this her only chance to marry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Slate has some maps about states in which you can end up on the registry for consensual under age sex or peeing in public

Not sure how accurate or up-to date it is

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/mapped_sex_offender_registry_laws_on_statutory_rape_public_urination_and.htm

I already knew my state wasn't on the list peeing in public sex offender registering. Because I knew TONS of guys in college that were cited for peeing in public. And none of them are on the sex offender registry. That's what happened when your friends had house parties filled with guys and there was only one bathroom in the house. They weren't whipping out their junk or anything. They just went to the fence in he back yard where no one was around. But the cops sometimes just drove around in the alleys and would catch them. It was so silly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

The economist has an article from a couple years back. http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

not defending sex offenders but my thought is that so many people who do terrible things never make the list and yet we automatically shame those on the list without knowledge of their crime. but maybe the registry does truly capture only people who have committed terrible sex offenses, I'm open to data supporting your perspective @Lurky

Except that this thread is dedicated to speaking of a man who raped a woman, got caught, plead guilty and was on the SOR until when playing the Jesus card got him out of it. Moreove, according to his own words, he didn't have an ounce of awareness of the seriousness of he did to his victim. And now wants to marry into a cult that subjugates women. 

Can you understand that in this case your repeated telling us that we can't judge by the SOR just doesn't apply? Because we.aren't.doing.it. He didn't pee in public,  he wasn't a teen. He fucking RAPED a woman! And your calling for "be careful to judge" (or whatever you're trying to say) is very out of place in this.specific.case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

The economist has an article from a couple years back. http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

not defending sex offenders but my thought is that so many people who do terrible things never make the list and yet we automatically shame those on the list without knowledge of their crime. but maybe the registry does truly capture only people who have committed terrible sex offenses, I'm open to data supporting your perspective @Lurky

Stop with the apologia for sex offenders, okay.

WE KNOW what this guy's crime is. It's on the record for all to see. At this point, you're deflecting and it's suspicious to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I actually happen to think that people being on the Sex Offender Registry for crap like peeing in public or (the horror) consensual sex between underage teenagers is a serious problem (even if it's not a very wide-spread one, it does destroy lives), and I am all for addressing this issue. So please. @Snarkle Motion, go ahead and open a thread on this topic, and I am sure there are many posters happy to discuss with you. This thread, however, is not the place. This is not a case where an 18 year-old guy was put on the SOR for having consensual sex with his 16 year-old girlfriend. This is a case where a grown-ass man anally raped an intoxicated woman, was caught, and pled guilty. So quit trying to deflect with your statistics about people who shouldn't be on the SOR. That doesn't contribute anything to the discussion and does make me think you are trying to deflect. And for the record, this is not normal thread drift. This is you trying to make it seem like Tim Robertson did not sexually assault a women, which HE DID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that it's a regular occurrence for at least one person in any discussion about rape to deflect to the False Allegation crocodile tear bullshit, as though it's some greater epidemic than actual rape, serves as yet another not-so-little reminder to a lot of survivors like myself that our experiences really, truly don't count to a lot of people nearly as much as the perpetrators and accused and their persecution narratives do.

Though I don't think people always hyper-focus on False Allegations with malicious intent (though a significant chunk do -- I just don't see that being the case here by any means), the message still comes across to survivors every time that the injustice of false allegations is far more important and relevant to people than the injustice of being raped/sexually abused/assaulted is.

As if we don't get the message enough, it just further cements the feeling that our experiences just aren't significant enough for folks to just focus on that injustice, and when you bring up false allegations on a subject about a convicted sex offender whose conviction has nothing to do with the issue you're derailing with? That says to me, as a survivor, that you're more upset over the injustice of some men being falsely accused than you are with men who rape -- and this type of derailing also completely ignores the fact that literally EVERY. SINGLE. RAPIST. who is EVER - EVER - outed, will try this narrative in some way at least once. Every time. I've seen it happen to myself and to several others already and I'm only 22.

Even when you're talking about an assault that very obviously occurred, folks will still find a way to make it about false allegations. Doesn't matter how violent the crime was, how innocent the victim is, or whether or not the rapist owns what they did -- without fail, someone starts concern trolling about needing to ~spread awareness~ on false allegations.

At what point do you stop derailing to this and start actually focusing on the topic at hand? Why do people constantly do this in threads where survivors trying to find answers are likely to be reading because the topic is about rape? Why can't you reserve this degree of rage over the injustice of having your life derailed by sexual assault/abuse?  This kind of derailing hurts survivors who desperately need supportive space, and when we make every discussion on rape about false allegations, you detract from that space. 

Not trying to be a bitch, but I do feel like some folks need to keep this in mind going forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah, I wasn't trying to defend him. If you look at my past posts I've been critical of him from the start.

I do not defend rapists. My point was purely that the sex offender registry is not an effective system for actually preventing sexual abuse. I'm not crying crocodile tears over the people on it who deserve it. It's actually that I think so many people who need to be on it are not on it that it's pretty much arbitrary. Believe me I know plenty of people who are not on it who should be on it 

i finally found the article that actually swayed my thinking from Jezebel awhile back discussing how data suggests registries are actually counter productive. 

http://jezebel.com/5836093/sex-offender-registries-may-not-be-very-effective

Maybe it's that I know people who should be on it and are not, but it's my thought that this list makes us feel safe when the majority of sex offenders, rapists, and child abusers will never be on this list because they won't be caught. So we are led to possibly believe that someone on the list is a threat when it's the people not on the list that are potentially more threatening. But I may also be letting personal experiences/perspectives bias me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snarkle Motion said:

Woah, I wasn't trying to defend him. If you look at my past posts I've been critical of him from the start.

I do not defend rapists. My point was purely that the sex offender registry is not an effective system for actually preventing sexual abuse. I'm not crying crocodile tears over the people on it who deserve it. It's actually that I think so many people who need to be on it are not on it that it's pretty much arbitrary. Believe me I know plenty of people who are not on it who should be on it 

i finally found the article that actually swayed my thinking from Jezebel awhile back discussing how data suggests registries are actually counter productive. 

http://jezebel.com/5836093/sex-offender-registries-may-not-be-very-effective

Maybe it's that I know people who should be on it and are not, but it's my thought that this list makes us feel safe when the majority of sex offenders, rapists, and child abusers will never be on this list because they won't be caught. So we are led to possibly believe that someone on the list is a threat when it's the people not on the list that are potentially more threatening. But I may also be letting personal experiences/perspectives bias me. 

Or maybe hadn't the SOR been public Tabitha Paine wouldn't have known the true extent of Tim's actions before marrying him. Thanks to the often repeated narration that you can be on the SOR for insignificant things it's easier to accept a "testimony" where he says that it was the alcohol's, the woman's (a slut you know), the boyfriend's, the world's, Satan's fault and anyway it was just "a situation" he ended up in with a woman. No it wasn't, he anally raped a woman and was rightfully prosecuted and put on the SOR. 

My beef is that spreading this sort of narration makes it easier to brush aside serious crimes. I agree that nobody should be on the SOR for peeing in public nor for consensual sex among teens, but there was absolutely no reason to bring up this issue in this specific case.

If anything you can thank the same people who would like to marry their sheltered daughters to unrepentant rapists (as long as they wave the Jesus banner) for laws that compare peeing in public and sex among teens to true sexual crimes.

ETA You should also choose what your issue is: is it that in the SOR can be found public peeing offenders and sexually active teens or that SOR doesn't prevent sexual crimes from happening?

Because if your problem is the latter the papers quoted in the article you linked say this

Quote

We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders. As we predict from a simple model of criminal behavior, this decrease in crime is concentrated among “local” victims (e.g., friends, acquaintances, neighbors), while there is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers. We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results suggest that community notification deters first-time sex offenders, but may increase recidivism by registered offenders by increasing the relative attractiveness of criminal behavior.

It clearly states that community notification  DOES deter first time offenders but MAY (data are weak on this point) increase recidivism by those who alreay are on the registry, basically the contrary of what you were worring about in the above quoted post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Or maybe hadn't the SOR been public Tabitha Paine wouldn't have known the true extent of Tim's actions before marrying him. Thanks to the often repeated narration that you can be on the SOR for insignificant things it's easier to accept a "testimony" where he says that it was the alcohol's, the woman's (a slut you know), the boyfriend's, the world's, Satan's fault and anyway it was just "a situation" he ended up in with a woman. No it wasn't, he anally raped a woman and was rightfully prosecuted and put on the SOR. 

My beef is that spreading this sort of narration makes it easier to brush aside serious crimes. I agree that nobody should be on the SOR for peeing in public nor for consensual sex among teens, but there was absolutely no reason to bring up this issue in this specific case.

If anything you can thank the same people who would like to marry their sheltered daughters to unrepentant rapists (as long as they wave the Jesus banner) for laws that compare peeing in public and sex among teens to true sexual crimes.

ETA You should also choose what your issue is: is it that in the SOR can be found public peeing offenders and sexually active teens or that SOR doesn't prevent sexual crimes from happening?

Because if your problem is the latter the papers quoted in the article you linked say this

It clearly states that community notification  DOES deter first time offenders but MAY (data are weak on this point) increase recidivism by those who alreay are on the registry, basically the contrary of what you were worring about in the above quoted post.

Maybe I'm wrong. You are right that it helped in this case in outing tabitha's fiancé. 

Again it may be my personal issues that I feel those most dangerous were not on sex offender lists and still not on them. Which makes me doubt the whole system of who we are taught to fear and how much it really does. 

Also im not against keeping registries I'm against publicly shaming people without knowledge of their crime. I don't think it's useful method of deterrence or necessarily effective for rehabilitation.  I understand the sentiment behind it believe me. But I'm not sure it's actually useful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Or maybe hadn't the SOR been public Tabitha Paine wouldn't have known the true extent of Tim's actions before marrying him. Thanks to the often repeated narration that you can be on the SOR for insignificant things it's easier to accept a "testimony" where he says that it was the alcohol's, the woman's (a slut you know), the boyfriend's, the world's, Satan's fault and anyway it was just "a situation" he ended up in with a woman. No it wasn't, he anally raped a woman and was rightfully prosecuted and put on the SOR. 

My beef is that spreading this sort of narration makes it easier to brush aside serious crimes. I agree that nobody should be on the SOR for peeing in public nor for consensual sex among teens, but there was absolutely no reason to bring up this issue in this specific case.

If anything you can thank the same people who would like to marry their sheltered daughters to unrepentant rapists (as long as they wave the Jesus banner) for laws that compare peeing in public and sex among teens to true sexual crimes.

ETA You should also choose what your issue is: is it that in the SOR can be found public peeing offenders and sexually active teens or that SOR doesn't prevent sexual crimes from happening?

Because if your problem is the latter the papers quoted in the article you linked say this

It clearly states that community notification  DOES deter first time offenders but MAY (data are weak on this point) increase recidivism by those who alreay are on the registry, basically the contrary of what you were worring about in the above quoted post.

So you really believe that first time offenders looked into laws about sex registration before offending? That that was the difference between places with sex offender registries and without? Or that maybe putting people on a registry actually scared juries or judges into feeling bad and not convincting or reducing sentences? I know that the idea of someone being labeled a sex offender forever, even when they should, be scares juries and judges and this can have unintended consequences. It's more complicated and complex an issue than it seems.  My point is that I'm not sure registries are helpful. They are mostly for reassuring the public but not necessarily effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • choralcrusader8613 locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.