Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Politics
User avatar
vooke
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 10915
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Nairobbery

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by vooke » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:47 am

Kunadawa wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:17 am
Acqually SCORK was pretty clear that all it wanted were 'Read only' access. In my view the most damning allegation was that technology somehow influenced the outcome throught the nonsensical so-called algorithm. Clearly here will be hordes waiting to tear Maraga's ruling apart
Read+ copy. Maraga was particular.
Makes sense for how else would staring at logs help anyone?
"No warrior entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier." (2 Timothy 2:4)..

User avatar
Kunadawa
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 5871
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:50 am
Location: NBO, .ke

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by Kunadawa » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:54 am

vooke wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:47 am
Kunadawa wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:17 am
Acqually SCORK was pretty clear that all it wanted were 'Read only' access. In my view the most damning allegation was that technology somehow influenced the outcome throught the nonsensical so-called algorithm. Clearly here will be hordes waiting to tear Maraga's ruling apart
Read+ copy. Maraga was particular.
Makes sense for how else would staring at logs help anyone?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

for once you're funny. staring at logs lol

Baba JaKuon Ohangla is curiously making this 'refusal' of IEBC to 'obey court order' yet another excuse for his belligerence. In other words he is being angry on behalf of Maraga. Even before Maraga unleashes his detailed judgemen

hmmm...

User avatar
vooke
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 10915
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Nairobbery

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by vooke » Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:16 am

Kunadawa wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:54 am
vooke wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:47 am
Kunadawa wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:17 am
Acqually SCORK was pretty clear that all it wanted were 'Read only' access. In my view the most damning allegation was that technology somehow influenced the outcome throught the nonsensical so-called algorithm. Clearly here will be hordes waiting to tear Maraga's ruling apart
Read+ copy. Maraga was particular.
Makes sense for how else would staring at logs help anyone?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

for once you're funny. staring at logs lol

Baba JaKuon Ohangla is curiously making this 'refusal' of IEBC to 'obey court order' yet another excuse for his belligerence. In other words he is being angry on behalf of Maraga. Even before Maraga unleashes his detailed judgemen

hmmm...
Agreed. Only the court expert can lead SCOK on contempt of court charges by declaring that IEBC unreasonably failed to comply. Their report indicate this on some level but my gut feeling is there was no contempt. We'll find out tomorrow.

Funny thing is NAS still wishes to pursue those orders post SCOK ruling
"No warrior entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier." (2 Timothy 2:4)..

User avatar
Kunadawa
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 5871
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:50 am
Location: NBO, .ke

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by Kunadawa » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:09 am

vooke wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:16 am
Agreed. Only the court expert can lead SCOK on contempt of court charges by declaring that IEBC unreasonably failed to comply. Their report indicate this on some level but my gut feeling is there was no contempt. We'll find out tomorrow.

Funny thing is NAS still wishes to pursue those orders post SCOK ruling
Raila misinterprated winning the petition to winning the Presidency hence his litany of Executive Orders to IEBC :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

obienga
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 5138
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by obienga » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:23 pm

anonymousz thanks for shedding light on this subject which many Kenyans remain in the dark on and their only fountain of knowledge is the phrase vifaranga and the constantly evolving claims that Jakuon makes.

Justice must be seen to be fair at all times and equitable. It cannot aim to punish a party to the extent that it damages them to the extent of being unable to perform its duty to the public. Institutions are not individual. You cannot run to court for example against Safaricom and demand a long laundry list of items beyond that which is necessary to prove your case. The fact that they were brandishing around Wintel logs and it was brought to the judicial notice of the court should have warned the court that the party before them was unscrupulous and their deceit and mischief should not be rewarded by being granted a fishing expeditions. Indeed Maraga in his own authored papers notes that fishing expeditions should not be granted to a election petitioner where there is an absence of strong evidence.

We have a long way to go in Kenya before technology issues are handled the way they were when the theft of the software occurred. Meanwhile we await the ruling of the Maraga 4 tomorrow. Perhaps the website is down to delay the dissemination of the full ruling to wananchi. We will see!
anonymousz wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:20 am
@obienga;

The log file spiritedly exhibited as "smoking gun" by Baaba earlier on clearly demonstrated NASWA have given up hope of winning a fair election and resolved to embarked on a wild goose chase, secondly, that their technology group is totally incompetent in claiming a WinTel log file to be that of IEBC servers, even going further to insinuate crime that they are receiving stolen info from IEBC.

NASA ended up pushing their so called technology experts to SCORK, which has caused most tragic results.

I'm elated there are folks like you who fully understand the technology issues as they relate to Kenya elections, I'll take the back seat now without any guilt ...at the advent of cyber crimes, we had one of our key software stolen, and I had a chance to work with key national law enforcement agencies, I was very impressed with how key Engineers, lawyers, judges, worked to secure, preserve and present evidence, any possibility that the any evidence was tampered with was automatically thrown out ...
obienga wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:54 pm
You could not have said it any better. I read elsewhere about the analogy of a bank customer who suspects their bank is stealing from them. The customer goes to court and gets a court order. The bank is forced to disclose all its standard operating procedures, security measures (firewalls, rules etc) and everything that is required to show that it has not been stealing the bank customer's money. The only problem now is that the information needed to rob the bank cleanly and get away with it, is in the public domain. The only remedy the bank has to avoid such a problem is to retool their entire infrastructure and security procedures.

Such was the effect of the technologically challenged Maraga orders as he proposed. He did not order an independent ICT audit conducted by certified IT auditors, he ordered that which NASA asked for, but without regard to the irreparable harm it would pose to IEBC and which I believe their providers and IEBC later itself found to be judicial overreach.

In such matters of technological complexity, 10 minutes is hardly enough to explain the limits of compliance. What Maraga had ordered would be akin to helping any hacker break into IEBC for the repeat election he ordered. In one of the reports, it is noted that NASWA attempted to demand admin credentials for their access, their motive is obvious as to what they wanted to do.

The IEBC lawyers are also to blame for not having contested the same and demanded that independent IT forensic auditors with the requisite qualifications be appointed.

Unfortunately ICT in Kenya is assumed to be an all encompassing body of knowledge. The Kenyan ICT experts were not professionally qualified to conduct a certified internationally recognised audit. It is why the technologically challenged NASWA act with bewilderment and amazement when they hear that OT Morpho had its servers audited, forgetting that Morpho had its servers audited by two professionally recognised audit firms and that their mere words vs an international audit firms findings in an EU court will hold no water. It is the norm in these advanced economies for IT audits to take place unlike Kenya.

No organisation in this world would accept to commit operational suicide to meet NASWA's overreaching demands which among other things include the below. Such information is irrelevant pre-election and can only be used to fabricate new logs or to hack into IEBC and has little besides the logs, to do with verification of transmission of results. If I was IEBC, I would have a certified IT security firm scrutinize and respond to NASWA explaining each of the risks such disclosure poses pre-election.

The only thing that makes sense with such a pre-disclosure is to then rebuild the IEBC infrastructure from scratch to keep out would be hackers and mischief from interested parties. NASWA have already stated there will be no election, it is this precise information a saboteur would want to launch a crippling and widescale attack on IEBC infrastructure.
• Firewall configuration including ports configuration. - of what relevance is this except to allow for security exploits and DDOS attacks
• Disclose all database transaction logs including: alert logs, archive/redo logs, audit trail, data files, OS command history, network logs, sql.net logs database vault logs and trace files.
• Physical view and inspection of IEBC servers, portal access to the servers and IP addresses of all 20 servers. - IP addresses are precisely what is needed to conduct a DDOS attack or be a starting point for an external hacker intrusion
• Full access and copy of all servers and databases. it is using - a good way to clone the IEBC infrastructure elsewhere so data can be manipulated in its cloned copy to be later represented as factual data, this can be done after the fact
• Disclose all support partners with SLAs and escalation matrix.
• Entire enterprise architecture of the landscape. - of what relevance is this for? For hackers to find their way around?
• GPS coordinates of KIEMS.
• KIEMS sim card numbers for all kits - SIM cards can be cloned allowing for unauthorised access into the data network
• Telkom and network structure with all service providers (provide agreements and implementation details. - of what relevance is this
• Transaction logs of all databases and servers.
Kenyans will once again be taken for an even greater ride with these requests whose true motive does quite the opposite in guaranteeing the integrity of the election and any security measures in place. Were it after the fact in an attempt to establish if hacking did occur then yes, but such information should only be viewed by an independent professional audit firm that is at arms length from the contestants.
anonymousz wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:25 pm
technology is about simplifying work, you can count votes, if you will, with fingers/toes, stones, abacus, calculator, spreadsheets, applications ... so long as the votes are cast in a fair and credible manner and properly preserved, that's all what is important, you may count them several dozen ways to everyone's satisfaction. the results can be written on whatever is at folks disposal, on toilet paper, curved on stone, where the results are written is not an issue, what matters is verifiable accuracy, and finally, we MUST understand how diverse .KE is, those results can be sent via a donkey, camel, mkokoteni, on foot, air, sea, land ... what is important is that what is received can be verified with what was sent ...

ALL what we are hearing is lawyers and politicians noise clobbering and scapegoating "technology"

C.J. Maraga's/ SCORK demands on IEBC were most unreasonable, any worthy technology company would NEVER agree to those orders. I would never agree to setup a technology company in Kenya unless ALL those clobbering legal precedents were removed in their entirety. SCORK should never order a forced login to a system, details of a firewall, security features, audit, log files...

There are many types of log files: systems, applications ... logins are recorded in systems log file, also contained in log files are very dangerous information like ALL hardware information, ALL applications initialized on the system including Vendor, Version, Release, Build ... wonder how SCORK would order a technology company to surrender a log file "without showing applications" and system configuration...

IT is too confined in understanding full implications of SCORK orders, Professor Elijah I. Omwenga is basically an IT guy, his main focus is business applications, MicroSoft stuff, " Professor Elijah I. Omwenga holds a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Nairobi in the area of Information Systems. Given a secure server user/password, he may NEVER be able to even login" ( this may have happened at IEBC) I strongly doubt he understands systems or even IF he took an "Operating Systems" course as an undergraduate, the ONLY course an academician, read: PhD may have briefly come into contact with intricacies of stuff like Operating Systems, log files. My visit to UoN confirms there is NO possibility they understood the area they were rendering expertise in ...

Ditto Dr. Sevilla. Would love to see their transcripts ...

These two gentlemen MAY have mislead SCORK by standing as experts in areas they do NOT understand, do NOT have experience in, and never studied. It's the ONLY way a SCORK could have made such outrageous demands to a technology company and IEBC.

Also, the information obtained was mishandled to the extent it's inadmissible in a court of law ...

There is a number of experts including the original developers of FTP Software lurking in .KE that can provide consultancy in the area of file transfer, and many other software professionals who are at this time wholly drowned by politicians / lawyers.

Wonder if SCORK would make such orders for Supreme Court itself, CID, Central Bank, or even how folks secures their village hut!


User avatar
Mheshimiwa
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:40 am
Location: GEMA-Maa-Samburu-Rendille Confederation
Contact:

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by Mheshimiwa » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:35 pm

The CJ is very smart. By discrediting IEBC and then claiming the same IEBC will hold the next elections CJ knows he has made the next elections impossible. I don't think Jubilee supporters have fully come to grips with the amount of shafting here. Atleast this has finally woken up my young liberal okuyu friends who used to frolic and socialize with ojingas. I have been demanding this for years but finally inter-marriages and socializing has fallen to nearly 0%. There is a silver lining to every grey cloud after all. If the CJ ruling went Jubilee's way we would have carried on the path of fake friendship and appeasement. Now the lines have been drawn, total socio-political segregation in the liberal middle and upper classes is upon us, beautiful stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WtACoelZs

User avatar
Mheshimiwa
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:40 am
Location: GEMA-Maa-Samburu-Rendille Confederation
Contact:

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by Mheshimiwa » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:07 pm

Also why didn't Jubilee challenge the shortening of Uhurus term to 4 years. After March 2013 the next elections should have been held in March 2018. Its really difficult to support such a weak appeasing party.

User avatar
anonymousz
Level: Nobles
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by anonymousz » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:00 am

Why? did IEBC wait so long in seeking guidance and relief, while even lowly Nipate had pointed out these matters as urgent long time ago?
The Supreme Court will on Monday give directions in a case filed by the electoral commission that seeks to clarify how to treat discrepancies, in case they are noted during verification of the presidential results.

Parties were notified on Friday to appear before the court on Monday for directions on how the matter will proceed.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/IEBC-boss- ... index.html

anonymousz wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:26 am
IEBC MUST actively consult with SCORK to seek guidance and relief for the just ordered presidential re-run elections, they can use the court system to file "urgent matters". WE cannot afford to wait for SCORK decision write-up, what IF the guidance they need is NOT contained in the write-up?

At a minimum, the SCORK must give ( i) relieve to IEBC to use manual identification whereas electronic identification is not reliable / feasible / readily available (ii) relieve to do manual tallying where necessary (iii) relieve to use very basic / available means of transmission.

IEBC legal team MUST be boosted to get up to the task of re-election, they cannot wait for the SCORK decision write up for guidance / direction in election preparations/plans. They need to be proactive and conscientious. Already, there is precious time wasted waiting for guidance that may not be in the SCORK decision write-up ...
http://www.nipate.com/viewtopic.php?f=2 ... ce#p581000

nowayhaha
Level: Lord Barons
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:05 am

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by nowayhaha » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:56 am

anonymousz wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:26 am
IEBC MUST actively consult with SCORK to seek guidance and relief for the just ordered presidential re-run elections, they can use the court system to file "urgent matters". WE cannot afford to wait for SCORK decision write-up, what IF the guidance they need is NOT contained in the write-up?

At a minimum, the SCORK must give ( i) relieve to IEBC to use manual identification whereas electronic identification is not reliable / feasible / readily available (ii) relieve to do manual tallying where necessary (iii) relieve to use very basic / available means of transmission.

IEBC legal team MUST be boosted to get up to the task of re-election, they cannot wait for the SCORK decision write up for guidance / direction in election preparations/plans. They need to be proactive and conscientious. Already, there is precious time wasted waiting for guidance that may not be in the SCORK decision write-up ...
Anony, You have been right from the start, IEBC should have taken the game to the Courts door steps from the word go. The Courts decided to run IEBC by overuling IEBCs decisions and making the decisions for IEBC so the best way was to bombard the courts with all manner of clarifications so that the decisions are binding and the courts will not have reasons to overule the decisions or elections.

We are now seeing once IEBC went to courts seeking clarification on Chebukatis role in vote verification the pressure is now on the courts . Maraga and Mwilu acted as if they were not supposed to be roped in but they have no other way they have to give guidance on Chebukatis role as their Judgement has not only caused confusion but is almost tearing the country apart

User avatar
anonymousz
Level: Nobles
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by anonymousz » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:04 am

@nowayhaha; SCORK will claim that it's NOT their duty to interpret /give guidance forgetting that by the very essence of their ruling, they just did that ... it's a game that is wholly decided on which side of the fence you are in ...
nowayhaha wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:56 am
anonymousz wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:26 am
IEBC MUST actively consult with SCORK to seek guidance and relief for the just ordered presidential re-run elections, they can use the court system to file "urgent matters". WE cannot afford to wait for SCORK decision write-up, what IF the guidance they need is NOT contained in the write-up?

At a minimum, the SCORK must give ( i) relieve to IEBC to use manual identification whereas electronic identification is not reliable / feasible / readily available (ii) relieve to do manual tallying where necessary (iii) relieve to use very basic / available means of transmission.

IEBC legal team MUST be boosted to get up to the task of re-election, they cannot wait for the SCORK decision write up for guidance / direction in election preparations/plans. They need to be proactive and conscientious. Already, there is precious time wasted waiting for guidance that may not be in the SCORK decision write-up ...
Anony, You have been right from the start, IEBC should have taken the game to the Courts door steps from the word go. The Courts decided to run IEBC by overuling IEBCs decisions and making the decisions for IEBC so the best way was to bombard the courts with all manner of clarifications so that the decisions are binding and the courts will not have reasons to overule the decisions or elections.

We are now seeing once IEBC went to courts seeking clarification on Chebukatis role in vote verification the pressure is now on the courts . Maraga and Mwilu acted as if they were not supposed to be roped in but they have no other way they have to give guidance on Chebukatis role as their Judgement has not only caused confusion but is almost tearing the country apart

nowayhaha
Level: Lord Barons
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:05 am

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by nowayhaha » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:16 am

anonymousz wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:04 am
@nowayhaha; SCORK will claim that it's NOT their duty to interpret /give guidance forgetting that by the very essence of their ruling, they just did that ... it's a game that is wholly decided on which side of the fence you are in ...
nowayhaha wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:56 am
anonymousz wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:26 am
IEBC MUST actively consult with SCORK to seek guidance and relief for the just ordered presidential re-run elections, they can use the court system to file "urgent matters". WE cannot afford to wait for SCORK decision write-up, what IF the guidance they need is NOT contained in the write-up?

At a minimum, the SCORK must give ( i) relieve to IEBC to use manual identification whereas electronic identification is not reliable / feasible / readily available (ii) relieve to do manual tallying where necessary (iii) relieve to use very basic / available means of transmission.

IEBC legal team MUST be boosted to get up to the task of re-election, they cannot wait for the SCORK decision write up for guidance / direction in election preparations/plans. They need to be proactive and conscientious. Already, there is precious time wasted waiting for guidance that may not be in the SCORK decision write-up ...
Anony, You have been right from the start, IEBC should have taken the game to the Courts door steps from the word go. The Courts decided to run IEBC by overuling IEBCs decisions and making the decisions for IEBC so the best way was to bombard the courts with all manner of clarifications so that the decisions are binding and the courts will not have reasons to overule the decisions or elections.

We are now seeing once IEBC went to courts seeking clarification on Chebukatis role in vote verification the pressure is now on the courts . Maraga and Mwilu acted as if they were not supposed to be roped in but they have no other way they have to give guidance on Chebukatis role as their Judgement has not only caused confusion but is almost tearing the country apart

Anony true, As you said IEBC need to be proactive , I now believe the IEBC should also now go to court about the so called Railas " withdrawal" let the court give guidance so that the decision is binding. Raila and NASA now want to use the notion that because there were no fresh nominations then by virtue of having written a letter seeking withdrawal then its sufficient enough and there is no need to fill and submit Form 24A. NASA wants to use and file this after the elections so as to nullify the elections.

IEBC should have gone to the courts like yesterday, let it be clarified before elections and not after the elections.



Even the media is for the osame opinion of IEBC going to court to seek clarification . They need to throw this question to Maraga and Mwilu who told us to have an election in 60 days and lets see if they can rule otherwise
http://mobile.nation.co.ke/news/Kenya-e ... index.html

Will there be a vote on October 26?

That is the $100 million question.

The IEBC says logistical preparations are in place to hold the new election.

However, as it has not given its interpretation of what will happen if a candidate formally withdraws, anything is possible.

The commission — or any other party — could turn to the Supreme Court for clarification on the law, leading to more court battles.

Or the commission could push forward with the election, risking the wrath of the opposition on the streets.

User avatar
anonymousz
Level: Nobles
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Questions On The So Called Supreme Court Appointed Experts for The Presidential Petition

Unread post by anonymousz » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:39 am

@nowayhaha; we also know the courts, especially SCORK are NASA damu aka tibim ... it will be another way of "preempting" them ... in US courts you also can request for reliefs, not sure in .KE
nowayhaha wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:16 am
anonymousz wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:04 am
@nowayhaha; SCORK will claim that it's NOT their duty to interpret /give guidance forgetting that by the very essence of their ruling, they just did that ... it's a game that is wholly decided on which side of the fence you are in ...
nowayhaha wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:56 am


Anony, You have been right from the start, IEBC should have taken the game to the Courts door steps from the word go. The Courts decided to run IEBC by overuling IEBCs decisions and making the decisions for IEBC so the best way was to bombard the courts with all manner of clarifications so that the decisions are binding and the courts will not have reasons to overule the decisions or elections.

We are now seeing once IEBC went to courts seeking clarification on Chebukatis role in vote verification the pressure is now on the courts . Maraga and Mwilu acted as if they were not supposed to be roped in but they have no other way they have to give guidance on Chebukatis role as their Judgement has not only caused confusion but is almost tearing the country apart

Anony true, As you said IEBC need to be proactive , I now believe the IEBC should also now go to court about the so called Railas " withdrawal" let the court give guidance so that the decision is binding. Raila and NASA now want to use the notion that because there were no fresh nominations then by virtue of having written a letter seeking withdrawal then its sufficient enough and there is no need to fill and submit Form 24A. NASA wants to use and file this after the elections so as to nullify the elections.

IEBC should have gone to the courts like yesterday, let it be clarified before elections and not after the elections.



Even the media is for the osame opinion of IEBC going to court to seek clarification . They need to throw this question to Maraga and Mwilu who told us to have an election in 60 days and lets see if they can rule otherwise
http://mobile.nation.co.ke/news/Kenya-e ... index.html

Will there be a vote on October 26?

That is the $100 million question.

The IEBC says logistical preparations are in place to hold the new election.

However, as it has not given its interpretation of what will happen if a candidate formally withdraws, anything is possible.

The commission — or any other party — could turn to the Supreme Court for clarification on the law, leading to more court battles.

Or the commission could push forward with the election, risking the wrath of the opposition on the streets.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 18 guests