| Author | Post |
|---|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 07:24 pm |
|
I have a couple of comments for Judge O'Neill and for those of you who rally around the arrogant Dale Bell:
1. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a good hamburger and a tall brew close to home is more important than integrity or the property rights of their neighbors (to some posters).
2. Jeff's right on target. This isn't over. Winning a battle does not insure winning the war. I'd say Dale's real troubles just began!
Regards,
Anne
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 07:18 pm |
|
The battleground moved to the QC forum:
http://www.newszapforums.com/forum27/58500.html
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
| Eerily quiet on this topic today. Do the BLC folks have their proverbial tail between their legs?
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 270 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 05:43 pm |
|
gk wrote: still outstanding is the noise pollution issue. It has been stated several times that he never exceded the stipulated levels.........well....that's not true
Wow. I mean really, wow. You know, Pinal County had really better hope that this is actually not true. I mean if there is solid proof of a real law being broken (noise ordinances) and yet the geniuses in the county instead decided to pursue this insane dance charges, well that would make these people far stupider than I had thought.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 02:11 pm |
|
gk wrote: still outstanding is the noise pollution issue. It has been stated several times that he never exceded the stipulated levels.........well....that's not true
Straight from the article "County records show the restaurant has never violated the county's noise ordinance."
As bigwavedave said, if you know differently then bring forward the PROOF. If you can't then leave him alone. His is operating according to the laws of the land. The rules according to GK and the BLC are not binding.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 02:01 pm |
|
gk wrote: still outstanding is the noise pollution issue. It has been stated several times that he never exceded the stipulated levels.........well....that's not true
If this was true then the silly dancing ban would never have been used. Save the tax payers money and drop this issue
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 02:00 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: Dear JJ:
The County Attorney and staff are on salary and get the same compensation whether they work or play. Your unique sense of justice, and your concerns about the reputation of Pinal County (nationwide) are touching. I've heard it said that any publicity is good publicity. Pinal will be vindicated as they have done no wrong. As for the lot of deceiptful realtors and stockbrokers, I think Michael Milliken and Charles Keating might appreciate the value of honesty after their extended stays in prison. Money is nice, but, it is trumped by freedom every time.
You're way off base, JJ. I am not a party to this suit and resultantly have no standing in a court of law. I am only a witness to the deception that Bell used to get his zoning change.
Just because they are on salary does not mean they are your personal attorney. For civil matters you need to hire your own law firm. I would rather see that attorney spend his time prosecuting criminals. If they have all of that handled then maybe they need to reduce the size of the county attorney's office. Is this another waste of our tax money.
Despite not being a party to this problem you seem to be an awefully big mouthpiece for the others. Why is it that on all contraversial matters you are so inimately knowledgeable but you step back and say you are not really part of the group? You continue to try and have it both ways. Either be with them or don't.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 01:56 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: JJ:
For someone who hasn't been around long and bases his opinions on second hand information and innuendo, you sure have some strong (if not outrageous) ideas about historical facts for this area.
Regards,
Anne
Anne,
One does not need to even live here to understand what is going on. It is all well documented in the media. I have eaten there once. Nice place but not really my cup of tea. I just think that you guys got beat at your own game and you don't like the tables turned on you. Live with it now or move.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 01:53 pm |
|
gk wrote: Star....it depends on the night. Not every night is too loud. Usually it is weekends and not every weekend.
I'm pretty sure that they have a scanner and monitor noise complaints, and turn it down when they hear them. I have parked several blocks to the south and have heard music that I have no doubt could be heard inside the homes there.
There is more to the story than what you hear
Everybody needs to pull out their foil hats again because the alien Dale Bell has begun its invasion on the BLC members again. there is no way Dale would take a chance like that. PCSO could easily setup a sting operation and find out if this is happening. Aren't the PICSO sherrifs using some sort of digital communication system? If so those signals are usually not scannable like the old analog ones used to be. Plus he would have to hire someone to stand by the radio and listen for the police call. That cost would be silly.
|
bigwavedave
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 04:18 am |
|
gk wrote: still outstanding is the noise pollution issue. It has been stated several times that he never exceded the stipulated levels.........well....that's not true
GK, where is the proof? You make a blanket statement so you either have the proof or you don't. If you have the proof, you can put this question to rest and shut us up......so, where is it? Time to put up or shut up! Many of us eagerly await your proof.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1708 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 03:55 am |
|
Star....it depends on the night. Not every night is too loud. Usually it is weekends and not every weekend.
I'm pretty sure that they have a scanner and monitor noise complaints, and turn it down when they hear them. I have parked several blocks to the south and have heard music that I have no doubt could be heard inside the homes there.
There is more to the story than what you hear
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 02:31 am |
|
gk wrote: still outstanding is the noise pollution issue. It has been stated several times that he never exceded the stipulated levels.........well....that's not true
I stood in the neighborhood to the south of the Flats, just to listen...and the noise I heard was from the Elllsworth/Hunt traffic. The lights fron the Flats paled in comparison to some of the haughty homes perched high, and the southbound headlights.
This area is clearly in transition, and clearly a major through way from J. Ranch. While I appreciate the dissent from the nearby residents I also understand the need to progress for the good of the nearby community. Traffic flow issues are a bigger conundrum than noise/lights from the Flats.
If I lived in that area I would push for an alternate route from Hunt to Ellsworth; down Empire or something. I wouldn't try to push water upstream and damage a good neighbor, the Flats. Divert the traffic, don't ruin a business.
|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 01:57 am |
|
I seriously hope Dale finds the means to countersue Pinal County for this embarassment.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1708 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 01:47 am |
|
| still outstanding is the noise pollution issue. It has been stated several times that he never exceded the stipulated levels.........well....that's not true
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 01:33 am |
|
truly... there was never any real threat of the County collecting $750 per day from him. there was no TRUE threat to his income.
and while the County handled this entire matter incorrectly and inappropriately and it was NEVER truly about dancing.
so... now we STILL have a problem. STF has apparently prevailed on the dancing issue... but the problem of the noise... that is to say the REAL problem of the disturbance to neighbors who were there way before STF and used to have dark and quiet at night... and who had assurances (by their own accord and from records from the meetings) from Dale Bell to operate the place so as to minimalize impact to surrounding properties... well, that problem continues.
Town of Queen Creek sent letters to Pinal County on the incompatible nature of the uses... but alas, tragically so, those letters went entirely unheeded.
Last edited on Thu May 1st, 2008 01:36 am by QCVillager
|
surferdude
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 01:22 am |
|
Judge OKs San Tan Flat dancing.. Congrats to Dale Bell
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/115201
|
mike85220
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 01:01 am |
|
My wife just told me that the judge said dancing is PERMITTED in STF!
ITS ABOUT TIME PINAL COUNTY JOINED THE 21ST CENT.
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 380 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 1st, 2008 12:30 am |
|
I highly doubt that he would want to continue this for advertisement. What was the fee per day? I think it was $750--that is alot to pay for advertisement. Not to mention all the stress--this is his lively hood that they are trying to diminish.
Yes I know that they asked for the waive of fees while in court, but it is still a threat to his income.
Last edited on Thu May 1st, 2008 12:44 am by azsunshine
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 11:23 pm |
|
I've heard it said that any publicity is good publicity.
some have said they figure the owner of STF is relishing the free publicity and the notoriety. i don't know him personally so can't say.
but i can imagine that the publicity and notoriety would be a motivation to keep pushing this as far as it will go. especially if the legal bills are funded by others such as the Institute for Justice.
Last edited on Wed Apr 30th, 2008 11:24 pm by QCVillager
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 10:33 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote:
JJohnson wrote: Anne,
Then would you please get your buddies together and sue him for this on your own dime. Pinal County is $13mil upside down on its budget and he has followed all of the county ordinances except for the possibility of this silly dance hall law. When the county loses he is apt to sue the county costing us even more in the future.
If you have a personal gripe then hire your own lawyer. The Pinal County Attorney is not your personal law firm. The county is sueing on your behalf with my tax dollars. This has to end.
JJohnson - be careful what you wish for. the neighbors could just as easily file suit against the county for being derelict in their duties. i am not taking a position as to whether they would be right or wrong, or whether they would prevail or not... but it would cost the County a bunch of money to fight regardless.
this is a no win situation that easily could have been prevented up front, but it wasnt'. now, the only way out would seem to be a compromise. if Anne and her buddies (aka - affected/impacted residents) do all the compromising, then that isn't really a compromise at all. that would be "taking it on the chin".
time for creative solutions to a very real problem.
Dear QC:
 I wish you'd been there for the award winning performance given to neighbors and the BOS by Bell, you'd be steamed, too.
There is no way to "unring" Dale's bell but I, for one, hope that our courts will uphold the role of honesty and decency in our communities and hold him to the letter of his promises to his neighbors.
Regards.
Anne
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
JJ:
For someone who hasn't been around long and bases his opinions on second hand information and innuendo, you sure have some strong (if not outrageous) ideas about historical facts for this area.
Regards,
Anne
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 10:04 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote:
Anne,
Then would you please get your buddies together and sue him for this on your own dime. Pinal County is $13mil upside down on its budget and he has followed all of the county ordinances except for the possibility of this silly dance hall law. When the county loses he is apt to sue the county costing us even more in the future.
If you have a personal gripe then hire your own lawyer. The Pinal County Attorney is not your personal law firm. The county is sueing on your behalf with my tax dollars. This has to end.
Dear JJ:
The County Attorney and staff are on salary and get the same compensation whether they work or play. Your unique sense of justice, and your concerns about the reputation of Pinal County (nationwide) are touching. I've heard it said that any publicity is good publicity. Pinal will be vindicated as they have done no wrong. As for the lot of deceiptful realtors and stockbrokers, I think Michael Milliken and Charles Keating might appreciate the value of honesty after their extended stays in prison. Money is nice, but, it is trumped by freedom every time.
You're way off base, JJ. I am not a party to this suit and resultantly have no standing in a court of law. I am only a witness to the deception that Bell used to get his zoning change.
Last edited on Wed Apr 30th, 2008 10:26 pm by anne.reed
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 08:40 pm |
|
I suppose you could have a point but Pinal County is obviously taking this fight as far as they have due to the people involved. They negotiated the deal and now they don't like the outcome. I wish i could tell my stock broker and real estate agent the same thing.
Even if Dale talked to these people in bad faith it does not mean that the county should be paying for the fight. Dale has agreed to what the county told him he must do. In a legal sense he has no further obligations. From a human/political perspective he should help with the problem. Unfortunately, this has gone too far and a negotiated settlement is not realistic at this point. Getting the county out of a law suit from the BLC folks would be much easier and less costly than what has happened so far. Not only are we wasting our money in the court system but our regional and national reputation is severely damaged.
It is just plain embarassing
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote: Anne,
Then would you please get your buddies together and sue him for this on your own dime. Pinal County is $13mil upside down on its budget and he has followed all of the county ordinances except for the possibility of this silly dance hall law. When the county loses he is apt to sue the county costing us even more in the future.
If you have a personal gripe then hire your own lawyer. The Pinal County Attorney is not your personal law firm. The county is sueing on your behalf with my tax dollars. This has to end.
JJohnson - be careful what you wish for. the neighbors could just as easily file suit against the county for being derelict in their duties. i am not taking a position as to whether they would be right or wrong, or whether they would prevail or not... but it would cost the County a bunch of money to fight regardless.
this is a no win situation that easily could have been prevented up front, but it wasnt'. now, the only way out would seem to be a compromise. if Anne and her buddies (aka - affected/impacted residents) do all the compromising, then that isn't really a compromise at all. that would be "taking it on the chin".
time for creative solutions to a very real problem.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 06:25 pm |
|
Anne,
Then would you please get your buddies together and sue him for this on your own dime. Pinal County is $13mil upside down on its budget and he has followed all of the county ordinances except for the possibility of this silly dance hall law. When the county loses he is apt to sue the county costing us even more in the future.
If you have a personal gripe then hire your own lawyer. The Pinal County Attorney is not your personal law firm. The county is sueing on your behalf with my tax dollars. This has to end.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 02:42 pm |
|
gsbill wrote:
I have seen the approved plans for San Tan Flat, stamped by Pinal County that clearly show the stage and round dance area directly in front of it. The place was built exactly to what the stamped approved plans show as I have seen the place in person. How does one explain that?
Typically, plans submitted for zoning change are conceptualizations and there are almost always changes from the original plans to "as-builts". In this case, Dales' public statements were weighed more heavily than the patio plans (not anticipated to be an issue because of his statements of intention).
You can't really believe adjacent property owners would have approved any zoning change that devalued their property, interrupted the ability for peaceful use of their homes and yards, frightened their livestock, kept their children awake long past bedtime on school nights, and robbed them of much needed sleep for their long commute? Let's apply "reasonability" to this situation. If you think Bell's conduct is appropriate, and would like the Flats next door to your family, I can probably set you up with someone who'd just love to sell their "Environmentally sensitive" (forever residential) ranch at the peaceful base of the San Tans.
Regards,
Anne
|
gsbill
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 12:00 am |
|
| I have seen the approved plans for San Tan Flat, stamped by Pinal County that clearly show the stage and round dance area directly in front of it. The place was built exactly to what the stamped approved plans show as I have seen the place in person. How does one explain that?
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 29th, 2008 06:15 pm |
|
Bambi wrote:
anne.reed wrote: It's really too bad that many of you were not at the public meetings where Bell completely misrepresented his business plan to the Board of Supervisors and the local residents for his profit. This is not a good precedent to set in our courts, that promises made to the County and neighbors cannot be relied upon, it will become increasingly difficult to hold developers responsible for their breaches and self motivated lies to obtain zoning or circumvent other policies.
Regards,
Anne
I was there Anne. I don't remember any misrepresentations at the Planning and Zoning meeting or the BOS Meeting. It had to occur either one on one or at a neighborhood meeting. If he had mentioned in his presentation that there was or wasn't going to be a band or dancing, I didn't hear it. One (you?) should have "brought it up" if they knew about it from a previous meeting, so that could have been a stipulation added to the requirements.....if there was a law forbidding dancing, it should have been disclosed by the County at that time, so Dale would have been held accountable. But to research and bring it up "after the fact" is unfair and unlawful, as the Full Disclosure Law was breached by the County, not Dale. Anytime in real estate law, you lie or "fail to disclose" a pertinent item on your Full Disclosure Statement, the contract is voidable.
I've learned one thing in real estate law that has held water for me and my clients for many many years. "Be sure to get all "things" in writing. Meaning promises and committments. Contractractual agreements for real estate must be in writing to be valid, in the State of Arizona......"all contracts must be in writing except for a lease of one year or less." There was a reason for making that a law. Handshakes and oral promises mean nothing in todays world.
It did happen at the neighborhood meetings, but, the BOS, P & Z Staff, and a dozen other witnesses heard the promises Dale made, and granted that his zoning application contingent to stated stipulations. You didn't hear anyone mention a band or outdoor dancing because if there were mention of it, his zoning would have been denied.
Real estate is an area where oral agreements are not binding. However, Az law does recognize verbal agreements in most cases, particularly those that are witnessed. Pinal had no obligation to inform Bell of a law prohibiting outdoor dancing. Bell gave no hint that that was his intent. In fact, he agreed to build a substantial berm to reduce the noise of Hunt Highway for those he later blasted with music, and criticized in the press for their alleged complaints.
If Dale does manage to prevail in court, which I very much doubt, it will be unfortunate for future developers that wish to build in this area. Just another mountain of paperwork for them to complete before the process is complete. Surely the County cannot be expected to turn it's cheek when it has been misled and it's citizens have been damaged?
I think we should stop zoning changes completely unless they are submitted with an enforceable PAD or by special use permit. That way, if the developer spins the property to another developer, community sentiment can't be ignored and the zoning reverts to the underlying.
Everybody likes a good hamburger and an occasional brew, but, nobody wants their home devalued by noise pollution.
Don't you think that citizens should have a right to reliable input from developers who plan to build in their area?
Regards,
Anne
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 29th, 2008 01:52 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote: It's really too bad that many of you were not at the public meetings where Bell completely misrepresented his business plan to the Board of Supervisors and the local residents for his profit. This is not a good precedent to set in our courts, that promises made to the County and neighbors cannot be relied upon, it will become increasingly difficult to hold developers responsible for their breaches and self motivated lies to obtain zoning or circumvent other policies.
Regards,
Anne
I was there Anne. I don't remember any misrepresentations at the Planning and Zoning meeting or the BOS Meeting. It had to occur either one on one or at a neighborhood meeting. If he had mentioned in his presentation that there was or wasn't going to be a band or dancing, I didn't hear it. One (you?) should have "brought it up" if they knew about it from a previous meeting, so that could have been a stipulation added to the requirements.....if there was a law forbidding dancing, it should have been disclosed by the County at that time, so Dale would have been held accountable. But to research and bring it up "after the fact" is unfair and unlawful, as the Full Disclosure Law was breached by the County, not Dale. Anytime in real estate law, you lie or "fail to disclose" a pertinent item on your Full Disclosure Statement, the contract is voidable.
I've learned one thing in real estate law that has held water for me and my clients for many many years. "Be sure to get all "things" in writing. Meaning promises and committments. Contractractual agreements for real estate must be in writing to be valid, in the State of Arizona......"all contracts must be in writing except for a lease of one year or less." There was a reason for making that a law. Handshakes and oral promises mean nothing in todays world.
Last edited on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 02:04 pm by Bambi
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 29th, 2008 07:52 am |
|
It's really too bad that many of you were not at the public meetings where Bell completely misrepresented his business plan to the Board of Supervisors and the local residents for his profit. This is not a good precedent to set in our courts, that promises made to the County and neighbors cannot be relied upon, it will become increasingly difficult to hold developers responsible for their breaches and self motivated lies to obtain zoning or circumvent other policies.
Regards,
Anne
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 29th, 2008 01:25 am |
|
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/115012
April 28, 2008 - 12:48PM
San Tan Flat dancing issue going to court
Sarah J. Boggan, Tribune
Popular Pinal County steakhouse San Tan Flat will take another spin in court this week.
Court date on dancing set for San Tan Flat
A hearing is scheduled Wednesday before Pinal County Superior Court Judge William O’Neil to determine if a 1960s dance hall ordinance applies to the restaurant, which was found in violation of the law by the County Board of Supervisors and a county hearings officer.
Institute for Justice attorney Jennifer Perkins, who represents San Tan Flat owner Dale Bell, said attempts by Pinal County to portray San Tan Flat as a dance hall are “irrational” and “speak to the government’s abuse of power.”
“All of us have in our minds what a dance hall is,” she said. “It’s an antiquated term. San Tan Flat is not a dance hall.”
She said county officials are “creatively interpreting an ordinance to harass a business.”
The open-air venue is south of Queen Creek along Hunt Highway and 99.75 percent of the establishment’s total sales come from food and beverage, Bell said. The other small percentage of revenue comes from pool table use and T-shirt sales, but nothing is charged for dancing or music, he said.
Perkins said if the court upholds the Board of Supervisors’ decision that San Tan Flat is a dance hall, it could have broader implications because there are many venues in Pinal County that would fall under the “dance hall ordinance.”
“As the county says, they could morph, evolve or transform into a dance hall without ever hoping or intending to do so,” she said.
Pinal County spokeswoman Heather Murphy has said this issue is not about dancing, but rather the specific type of zoning that was applied for by San Tan Flat. Pinal County has concerns about compatibility issues between the business and surrounding property owners, she said.
People living in the area have long complained about noise during live music performances at San Tan Flat, but noise is not a part of the charge against Bell, and San Tan Flat has never violated the county’s noise ordinance.
In October, O’Neil stayed a $700-a-day fine the restaurant owners could have faced for every day someone dances in their outdoor courtyard.
For now, San Tan Flat patrons can dance legally.
The hearing is expected to be about an hour with 30 minutes given to Perkins and the other 30 minutes given to deputy county attorney Seymour Gruber to make arguments. A ruling is not expected Wednesday.
Perkins said if O’Neil rules in San Tan Flat’s favor that would mean San Tan Flat is not a dance hall in the eyes of the county and then she, along with her client, would determine if there’s anything left to their constitutional claims.
If O’Neil rules in favor of the county, Perkins said they will explore the constitutionality of the dance hall ordinance and the county’s treatment of Bell.
|
Current time is 07:23 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|