ADVERTISEMENT

Minnesota football players suspended due to sex crime

KnightSlayer said:
You seem to be taking this a bit too personally. Did you have some past issue with consent? Did you hop on a train you weren't invited to? Even if a girl gives consent to 4 guys, it doesn't give you the right to be number 5 just because she's too drunk to notice.
Click to expand...
You are 100% right on one count:

I take it VERY personally.

I take it VERY personally when self-interested, unaccountable, dim-witted, unethical, morally-vacuous, self-righteous, incompetent douchebags wield power over others.

If that's a vice.......I own it.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_(1988_film)
 
bjf1991 said:
You are 100% right on one count:

I take it VERY personally.

I take it VERY personally when self-interested, unaccountable, dim-witted, unethical, morally-vacuous, self-righteous, incompetent douchebags wield power over others.

If that's a vice.......I own it.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_(1988_film)
Click to expand...
Name the persons who fit that description at Minnesota, and detail your knowledge of their personal history that forms the basis of these adjectives as applied to them.
 
These brown-nosing star chambers have proven that they can't be trusted to act fairly or impartially, and they need to be taken out of the equation.
 
demlion said:
Name the persons who fit that description at Minnesota, and detail your knowledge of their personal history that forms the basis of these adjectives as applied to them.
Click to expand...
Be happy to......

Just as soon as you share your insight as to just who on the UMinn "Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action" Board (or, any of the folks identified at PSU) are qualified, authorized and accountable to adjudicate and render decisions and punishments for criminal actions.

Until then, you can jerk your circle solo.



1g3o7w.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: MtNittany
bjf1991 said:
Be happy to......

Just as soon as you share your insight as to just who on the UMinn "Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action" Board (or, any of the folks identified at PSU) are qualified, authorized and accountable to adjudicate and render decisions and punishments for criminal actions.

Until then, you can jerk your circle solo.



1g3o7w.jpg
Click to expand...
does this mean I wont need any more popcorn?? Man, just when things were getting good.
 
bjf1991 said:
Be happy to......

Just as soon as you share your insight as to just who on the UMinn "Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action" Board (or, any of the folks identified at PSU) are qualified, authorized and accountable to adjudicate and render decisions and punishments for criminal actions.

Until then, you can jerk your circle solo.



1g3o7w.jpg
Click to expand...
Nobody. But there are civil sanctions as well. These includes suspensions and expulsions from the University and they are IN ADDITION to and not in lieu of criminal sanctions. Way over your head.

You know, you can commit a crime and be fined and sent to jail, and then YOU CAN ALSO be sued and suffer other civil sanctions FOR THE SAME CONDUCT. A prosecutor can decline to prosecute criminal conduct because s/he does not think he can meet his burden of proof. But using the lower civil standards of proof, civil attorneys can take the EXACT SAME EVIDENCDE the prosecutor rejected as insufficient and bankrupt you with it, or (in this case) throw you out of a University. You just do not know what you are talking about.
 
There's much we don't know about this case. The only timeline I've seen on this issue is from Minnesota Daily newspaper by Mike Hendrickson-

A timeline of the events that led to the decision:

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2016/12/timeline-suspensions
 
psu00 said:
There's much we don't know about this case. The only timeline I've seen on this issue is from Minnesota Daily newspaper by Mike Hendrickson-

A timeline of the events that led to the decision:

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2016/12/timeline-suspensions
Click to expand...

YES!!!


Each item on this list throws off other questions, the most common of which sound like this: WTF happened?
 
psu00 said:
There's much we don't know about this case. The only timeline I've seen on this issue is from Minnesota Daily newspaper by Mike Hendrickson-

A timeline of the events that led to the decision:

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2016/12/timeline-suspensions
Click to expand...

It just won't go away. Charges are not brought in the fall and then players are hit with restraining orders. Restraining orders are lifted and then they are suspended.
 
demlion said:
YES!!!


Each item on this list throws off other questions, the most common of which sound like this: WTF happened?
Click to expand...
Darn I am going to need more pop corn. But according to this, she thinks said, 'I'll bang you 2 , but I draw the line at doing the other 4' or words to that affect.

According to police records released Wednesday, the woman told police she was drunk when she was sexually assaulted in Djam's apartment by several men, including some of the suspended players. She said her sexual contact with two men may have been consensual, but her contact with four of them was not. Several players told police it was consensual
 
demlion said:
So if their scholarship athletes are reinstated, and commit a rape at the bowl game, no liability on the school? You sure?
Click to expand...

Depends.

If it is in the locker room or team hotel or on the team charter then they would have liability because those areas are under their control or oversight. But that would be the same regardless to whether there were prior accusations or not.

If the player raped someone on the street or in a bar or in some other personal setting not under university control then the university wouldn't have the same liability.

And if that was a legitimate concern, then allowing the athletes to remain enrolled and in their dorms is significantly more of a risk than suspending them for a bowl game and practice. But the university from what I can tell hasn't expelled them yet, quite possibly because the issue hasn't be adjudicated before the University "court" yet.

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing that the players actions were moral or innocent, but rather that the notion that a bowl game suspension = administrative leave is silly. The players were previously suspended and then allowed to rejoin the team. That would have been the administrative leave if your analogy held. Now that Minnesota wants to expel them they want to get in front of it so they don't look like Baylor rather than to wait for their process to play out. This is more "early expulsion" just like Joe was "retired early".
 
demlion said:
YES!!!


Each item on this list throws off other questions, the most common of which sound like this: WTF happened?
Click to expand...


True but Minnesota has said they will not say what happened. I presume Minnesota reporters have filed for any information regarding the investigation that the district attorney decided to not press charges (on October 3). I assume they can't get any of that either (at least I haven't seen it yet).

The specifics of this case will likely never be fully known by the public which limits any final opinions or decisions any of us can make on this specific case.

That said, I think it's fair for people to discuss how proper it is for untrained (and potentially biased) university employees in an "equal opportunity and affirmative action committee" to make decisions on people's guilt.......especially when the police and the district attorney decline to press charges. I think that's a fair debate to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royal_Coaster, Bob78 and MtNittany
demlion said:
Nobody. But there are civil sanctions as well. These includes suspensions and expulsions from the University and they are IN ADDITION to and not in lieu of criminal sanctions. Way over your head.

You know, you can commit a crime and be fined and sent to jail, and then YOU CAN ALSO be sued and suffer other civil sanctions FOR THE SAME CONDUCT. A prosecutor can decline to prosecute criminal conduct because s/he does not think he can meet his burden of proof. But using the lower civil standards of proof, civil attorneys can take the EXACT SAME EVIDENCDE the prosecutor rejected as insufficient and bankrupt you with it, or (in this case) throw you out of a University. You just do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
So.......your answer is........no one? Gotcha.
(whether we are talking about a Criminal OR a Civil trial)

"And you want to be my Latex Salesman?"


Enjoy your "jerk" :rolleyes:

____________________


I don't know if you "....just do not know what you are talking about....", or if you just can't help yourself. But, in any case:

By the way......the Pythagorean Theorem is:

A2 + B2 = C2
Where "C" is the length of the Hypotenuse.....and "A" and "B" are the lengths of the two remaining sides......of a Right Triangle.

Just in case you wanted some additional inventory of irrelevant and off-point trivia to bewilder with. (BTW, as outlined in the previous sentence, it is NOT a rule of proper English grammar that you can not, or should not, end a sentence with a preposition. It is, in fact, preferable when writing in an infinitive structure - such as the sentence in question. So that's another free piece of trivia inventory for you!)

You're welcome! :)
 
sluggo72 said:
Darn I am going to need more pop corn. But according to this, she thinks said, 'I'll bang you 2 , but I draw the line at doing the other 4' or words to that affect.

According to police records released Wednesday, the woman told police she was drunk when she was sexually assaulted in Djam's apartment by several men, including some of the suspended players. She said her sexual contact with two men may have been consensual, but her contact with four of them was not. Several players told police it was consensual
Click to expand...

Sounds like He said she said. Not prosecutable.
 
bjf1991 said:
So.......your answer is........no one? Gotcha.
(whether we are talking about a Criminal OR a Civil trial)

"And you want to be my Latex Salesman?"


Enjoy your "jerk" :rolleyes:

____________________


I don't know if you "....just do not know what you are talking about....", or if you just can't help yourself. But, in any case:

By the way......the Pythagorean Theorem is:

A2 + B2 = C2
Where "C" is the length of the Hypotenuse.....and "A" and "B" are the lengths of the two remaining sides......of a Right Triangle.

Just in case you wanted some additional inventory of irrelevant and off-point trivia to bewilder with. (BTW, as outlined in the previous sentence, it is NOT a rule of proper English grammar that you can not, or should not, end a sentence with a preposition. It is, in fact, preferable when writing in an infinitive structure - such as the sentence in question. So that's another free piece of trivia inventory for you!)

You're welcome! :)
Click to expand...
well since we are 'schooling' people, your Pythagorean Theorem is ah... no,wrong
 
bjf1991 said:
So.......your answer is........no one? Gotcha.
(whether we are talking about a Criminal OR a Civil trial)

"And you want to be my Latex Salesman?"


Enjoy your "jerk" :rolleyes:


:)
Click to expand...
Actually you said, "qualified, authorized and accountable to adjudicate and render decisions and punishments for criminal actions." The only people qualified to do that are cops and judges and prosecutors. Nobody at any University is qualified to render decision or punishments for criminal activity. Just don't know what you are talking about.
 
BobPSU92 said:
It just won't go away. Charges are not brought in the fall and then players are hit with restraining orders. Restraining orders are lifted and then they are suspended.
Click to expand...


Yeah it seemed to drag on all season. No charges filed by police then restraining orders were requested on some....then some more... over a few days then removed on one 2 days later. Since the woman involved reportedly worked in 'gameday operations' that in effect caused an increase in player game suspensions (for home games).

The bottom line is that it's a 'he said, she said' situation and we will likely never the full unbiased truth.
 
Last edited:
demlion said:
Liability is the very reason given by toadie for suspending teachers with pay. I was responding to that to note that there could well be a similar claim here.
Click to expand...

If that's your argument then why haven't the players been suspending from appearing on campus? If the players are likely to rape someone else then it is exponentially more likely to happen in their dorm room or in a frat house or behind the library dumpster than then chance that they are going to do it at practice or the bowl game.

The CSA analogy you pose is not comparable because that allegation is directly impacts that teachers ability to perform their job. A more reasonable comparison would be if a teacher was accused of domestic assault. I don't think administrative leave would be the typical course of action for allegations, especially when the DA has declined to press charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royal_Coaster
sluggo72 said:
now wait a minute here, how old is the recruit??? Since RS admits to having sex with him, and if he is under age, shouldn't charges be filed against her?
Click to expand...
Depends on the age of consent in Minnesota.
 
demlion said:
This thread cracks me up. We do not know the first thing about the facts of this case. Nothing. Who was there, who wasn't, what anybody did, why they did it, who they did it to, whether they took pictures, who saw the pictures, why the prosecutor declined to file, whether the alleged victim wanted to prosecute, whether she didn't, whether she was threatened or not to induce her not to cooperate, what knowledge the coach had and when he had it, whether the coach was in agreement with the suspensions or not and so on and so forth ad nauseum, ad disgustum.
Yet we have posters who seem to know already, without any of these facts, exactly what should have been done, and what each party should do going forward. They are so certain of the facts that they even believe that it is proof that the college decision to suspend the 10 players is a biased product of a rigged system. Jebus! It is not a requirement of every public controversy that you have a complete answer in the first 5 minutes.

Concluding it is wrong to suspend them is just as haywire as concluding the opposite, in the absence of 99% of the actual facts.

Calm down and look at Title IX sometime. The federal law requires colleges to do this, or something like it. Unhappy? Contact your US Congressman.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that we don't know all the facts. I also agree with you that the players having obligations to the University under their Scholarship Agreements makes this case non-analogous to that of a member of the general student population. One of the key facts we don't know though is if the women in question is a Minny student or even a Minny employee. All of the articles I have seen state that she is a "stadium employee" and many of the "stadium employees" are supplied via subcontract by the University. I believe it makes a big difference if the party registering the complaint is not a Minny student (and the defendants are), has changed their story (which has been alleged as the case in many of the articles) and was deemed not to have a credible case by Law Enforcement Authorities who investigated the case (it has also been stated in articles that woman originally obtained a Restraining Order, but via adjudicated Court Settlement agreed ultimately to all parties maintaining their distance from one another - at least 20 feet - on all occasions). To the extent that the woman is a private citizen and all of the acts occurred off campus, would the event violate Scholarship Conduct Codes? Wouldn't this be dangerously close to legislating private "morality" that does not break the law? Didn't PSU argue in the diametric opposite direction in regards to the firing of Rene Portland in regards to how she administered her Scholarships as Director of the WBB program?
 
Last edited:
demlion said:
Actually you said, "qualified, authorized and accountable to adjudicate and render decisions and punishments for criminal actions." The only people qualified to do that are cops and judges and prosecutors. Nobody at any University is qualified to render decision or punishments for criminal activity. Just don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Yea.......and you raised the issue of Civil Actions.....which they are ALSO not "....qualified, authorized and accountable to adjudicate and render decisions and punishments for...."

You circle-jerking doofus.

You've entered the realm of the true Circle-Jerk Olympians........
We all know the names: GTASCA, CDW, GetMyJive and IronDoc.

Congratulations!!

And now, as with your cohorts......I shall bid you adieu, and wish you nothing but the greatest success on your "jerk"


1g3o7w.jpg
 
psu00 said:
There's much we don't know about this case. The only timeline I've seen on this issue is from Minnesota Daily newspaper by Mike Hendrickson-

A timeline of the events that led to the decision:

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2016/12/timeline-suspensions
Click to expand...

That's a very good rundown of the timeline in question although it is missing one important element imho.... Every article I have seen states that the AD acted unilaterally in issuing the additional sanctions earlier this week despite claiming publicly via formal Press Statement that the decisions were made in coordination, and conjunction, with Claeys who officially administers the Scholarships in question. Here is but one article and citation from many I have seen (HIT THIS HOTLINK) - see excerpt below:

According to the person who spoke to USA TODAY Sports, athletic director Mark Coyle decided unilaterally to suspend the 10 players, though he initially tried to characterize the decision as one made in conjunction with Claeys.
Click to expand...

Claeys has also made public statements which contradict the Minnesota AD's assertion of how the suspensions were enacted in his Press Release.
 
Franklin_Restores_TheTradition said:
I agree with you that we don't know all the facts. I also agree with you that the players having obligations to the University under their Scholarship Agreements makes this case non-analogous to that of a member of the general student population. One of the key facts we don't know though is if the women in question is a Minny student or even a Minny employee. All of the articles I have seen state that she is a "stadium employee" and many of the "stadium employees" are supplied via subcontract by the University. I believe it makes a big difference if the party registering the complaint is not a Minny student (and the defendants are), has changed their story (which has been alleged as the case in many of the articles) and was deemed not to have a credible case by Law Enforcement Authorities who investigated the case (it has also been stated in articles that woman originally obtained a Restraining Order, but via adjudicated Court Settlement agreed ultimately to all parties maintaining their distance from one another - at least 20 feet - on all occasions). To the extent that the woman is a private citizen and all of the acts occurred off campus, would the event violate Scholarship Conduct Codes? Wouldn't this be dangerously close to legislating private "morality" that does not break the law? Didn't PSU argue in the diametric opposite direction in regards to the firing of Rene Portland in regards to how she administered her Scholarships as Director of the WBB program?
Click to expand...
She's a cheerleader.

Jeebzus.
 
bjf1991 said:
She's a cheerleader.

Jeebzus.
Click to expand...

Well look what I found from a month and a half ago regarding the court adjudicated settlement between the parties from a local Minneapolis media outlet, MPR - HIT THIS HOTLINK TO ARTICLE.

Would seem much of the information contained herein is relevant to the current discussion - especially the women's statement issued by her attorney after the civil proceeding:

The agreement also stipulated a "full and complete release of all civil claims against one another," as Dickstein described it in court. He also said the U agreed to tell the University of Minnesota police about the agreement and take "all reasonable steps" to enforce the order.
Click to expand...

The woman made a brief statement after the hearing. Amy Isenor, her attorney, said that the woman was "relieved it was over. She never wanted it to be punishment for anybody. She just wanted to feel safe, and this agreement is about making her feel safe."
Click to expand...

The additional factual details discussed in this article seem highly relevant imho.
 
dem and bjf,

since you two "circle jerkers" :oops: can't agree on Criminal vs. Civil, can you two just agree that they were "Student Conduct Infractions" for which the EOAA has some authority, albeit overreaching?:)
 
Peetz Pool Boy said:
dem and bjf,

since you two "circle jerkers" :oops: can't agree on Criminal vs. Civil, can you two just agree that they were "Student Conduct Infractions" for which the EOAA has some authority, albeit overreaching?:)
Click to expand...
Disagreement on "civil vs criminal"?

That ain't even an issue......certainly not a "disagreement", at least not one that I'm involved in


I've stayed my concerns clearly and repeatedly.

Case closed - as far as I am concerned

I don't have time to "debate" ALL of the jerkers.
 
Franklin_Restores_TheTradition said:
Well look what I found from a month and a half ago regarding the court adjudicated settlement between the parties from a local Minneapolis media outlet, MPR - HIT THIS HOTLINK TO ARTICLE.

Would seem much of the information contained herein is relevant to the current discussion - especially the women's statement issued by her attorney after the civil proceeding:



​

The additional factual details discussed in this article seem highly relevant imho.
Click to expand...

Here is another local article which predates the 11/2/2016 article and in fact, contains much of the information that led to the Court Settlement discussed in 11/2/2016. Apparently, the Restraining Order was requested and asked for AFTER the criminal investigation was dropped without any charges or indictments. According to THIS ARTICLE the Restraining Orders were granted and served on Friday, 10/21/2016. Additionally, it is unclear precisely what the women's relationship to the University is - this information has not been disclosed. Here is how her relationship was disclosed according to the article:

The restraining orders were filed by a woman involved in game-day operations at TCF Bank Stadium and are related to a Sept. 2 incident that resulted in a sexual assault investigation by the Minneapolis Police Department, according to department records and spokespersons.
Click to expand...

From another article I read, the original Restraining Order specifically listed the women's place of residence as well as her "place of employment" - the Stadium was listed as her "place of employment" apparently.
 
bjf1991 said:
Disagreement on "civil vs criminal"?

That ain't even an issue......certainly not a "disagreement", at least not one that I'm involved in


I've stayed my concerns clearly and repeatedly.

Case closed - as far as I am concerned

I don't have time to "debate" ALL of the jerkers.
Click to expand...

Believe this is "extra-judicial" (i.e., the Criminal or Civil Courts - other than the Restraining Order. I've linked the articles regarding that issue with all of the facts regarding the original Restraining Order issued 10/21/2016 and the subsequent mutually-agreed Court Settlement of the issue on 11/2/2016). This is completely an "internal" matter to the University, its Complaint Process and its "Disciplinary Hearing Process" I believe.
 
Franklin_Restores_TheTradition said:
Believe this is "extra-judicial" (i.e., the Criminal or Civil Courts - other than the Restraining Order. I've linked the articles regarding that issue with all of the facts regarding the original Restraining Order issued 10/21/2016 and the subsequent mutually-agreed Court Settlement of the issue on 11/2/2016). This is completely an "internal" matter to the University, its Complaint Process and its "Disciplinary Hearing Process" I believe.
Click to expand...
Franklin_Restores_TheTradition said:
Here is another local article which predates the 11/2/2016 article and in fact, contains much of the information that led to the Court Settlement discussed in 11/2/2016. Apparently, the Restraining Order was requested and asked for AFTER the criminal investigation was dropped without any charges or indictments. According to THIS ARTICLE the Restraining Orders were granted and served on Friday, 10/21/2016. Additionally, it is unclear precisely what the women's relationship to the University is - this information has not been disclosed. Here is how her relationship was disclosed according to the article:

​

From another article I read, the original Restraining Order specifically listed the women's place of residence as well as her "place of employment" - the Stadium was listed as her "place of employment" apparently.
Click to expand...
The women is a Minny student. It's all in the links Peetz pool boy linked

he EOAA report states you engaged in

sexual misconduct by sexually assaulting and harassing another University of Minnesota student. This incident involved several University o f Minnesota students and a football recruit.
 
Franklin_Restores_TheTradition said:
Believe this is "extra-judicial" (i.e., the Criminal or Civil Courts - other than the Restraining Order. I've linked the articles regarding that issue with all of the facts regarding the original Restraining Order issued 10/21/2016 and the subsequent mutually-agreed Court Settlement of the issue on 11/2/2016). This is completely an "internal" matter to the University, its Complaint Process and its "Disciplinary Hearing Process" I believe.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they generally apply a civil standard of proof. Sounds like some of the players are caught up in claims that they lied to the University investigators, and the videos or other proof caught them up. It ain he said she said if a video makes a liar out of you.
 
NitNE73 said:
Mr. Vicky Triponi, had she lasted long enough, would have been a trend-setter in stomping on students' constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

And that very concept is really at the heart of this. Players and now coaches and even admin calling for due process.... just what JVP advocated for and Triponi was against. and that meant JVP ran the whole state to the simple-minded.

Someone should interview her about her take on this, or Emmert's, and reference what they said about this wrt PSU. Would open the eyes of anyone paying attention. This issue at Minn. drives home the need for something more compliant legally than what the campus processes are where they seemingly often assume guilt first.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Royal_Coaster and bjf1991
demlion said:
Yes, but they generally apply a civil standard of proof. Sounds like some of the players are caught up in claims that they lied to the University investigators, and the videos or other proof caught them up. It ain he said she said if a video makes a liar out of you.
Click to expand...

Yea, I see what you're saying - I think they'd be walking a fine line if they started legislating sexual morality, but if any part of the players' original stories as told to the Athletic Department and Claeys in early September have proven to be deceitful (especially given that a "recruit" making an official recruiting visit was apparently involved - assume that makes it Official University business and an obligation under their scholarships's code of conduct provisions), I think they would be hard pressed to defend their actions.
 
demlion said:
Yes, but they generally apply a civil standard of proof. Sounds like some of the players are caught up in claims that they lied to the University investigators, and the videos or other proof caught them up. It ain he said she said if a video makes a liar out of you.
Click to expand...

Again, a "recruit" being present and the recruit being taken there by these players is almost certainly "fatal" relative to these players defending their actions, no?
 
psuro said:
As enjoyable as all of this is I guess it's too much to ask the two Clarence Darrows to wait until more info comes out.
Click to expand...
I don't know - nor will I assume - who you believe "Clarence Darrow" might be.

But I will say, from my vantage point, it doesn't matter.

What does matter, from my vantage point, is that at UMinn (and PSU, and most major Universities).......a system by which wholly unqualified, unaccountable folks are running wild......and usurping the accountable, responsible criminal justice system.
Because? Why?




And now, as just a "for instance", a handful of young men - despite the adjudication of the criminal justice system - are PERMANENTLY TAGGED AS SEXUAL ASSAULT PERPETRATORS........because of?

Because of her: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharon-dzik-307b0412
(and her equally unaccountable colleagues)


I don't need to know the "details" of this particular case to know that - as far as I am concerned - that is horrendously WRONG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richie O

FB Recruiting 2025 Penn State Football Transfer Portal Tracker (1/08: DB Target Set To Visit Soon)

Replies
161
Views
25K
The Lions Den
Richie O
Richie O
TN Lion

Michigan Gov Whitmer undercounted nursing home deaths by up to 40 percent.

Replies
5
Views
662
Current Events Board
PSUEngineer89
P
Richie O

FB Recruiting PSU Football Transfer Portal Thread (UPDATE 4/14: New WR of interest)

Replies
48
Views
15K
The Lions Den
Richie O
Richie O
Ryan Snyder/BWI Staff

Recruiting: James Franklin & staff set to hit the road for bye week (UPDATED: Friday 10:45 AM)

Replies
38
Views
5K
The Lions Den
Ryan Snyder/BWI Staff
Ryan Snyder/BWI Staff
sluggo72

fc OT U of Minny players fight back, sue school for $45 million ...

Replies
19
Views
2K
Penn State Football
BobPSU92
BobPSU92
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back