Perhaps those people (if F Lee B) understood -- Philly Talk Radio Online

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:05:55 06/27/03 Fri
Author: Mike Powers
Subject: Perhaps those people (if F Lee B) understood
In reply to: F. Lee B. 's message, "Perhaps those people understood the language of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes," and determined that Irwin Schiff is a loon who can't comprehend and hence, should be institutionally committed." on 10:56:49 06/25/03 Wed

Perhaps if you just understood without arguments from fractured and isolated statements of misunderstanding.

I will summarize for you for in a moment mathematically a real very simple explanation to the tax problem. 1 + 1 = 2 AND THIS PROBLEM CANNOT BE WRITTEN INTO THE MAKING OF ANY LAW. Politician thinks and comes up with a + a = b. The House, Senate and President pass this new law. Of course a =1 and b = 2. Courts confirm that this is legal and lawful for years. Finally, a good court sees the obvious and says nay, nay no more. Lawmakers get together again and come up with a� + a� = (b� / b�) * b. Again, the House, Senate and President pass this new law. Do you get the formula yet? I certainly get it. It is simply an end around the basic law 1 + 1 = 2 may not be used. You and I can make this formula so large as to attempt to stymie a college mathematics professor. At the end of it he will still say for all you have written 1 + 1 = 2 and you can�t use it no matter how big you make the problem.

So that this will make sense to you please see the following:

US Tax 101

Direct and indirect are the ONLY TWO classification of taxes according to the Constitution.

You can tax anything you want to as long as if it is DIRECT by APPORTIONMENT and if it is INDIRECT it must be UNIFORM. That's it end of 101.

Now several attempts have been made to do an end around the APPORTIONMENT provisions of our constitution. My question to you is an "income" tax a direct tax or and indirect tax? Which is it and how do you support your conclusion?

There is great clarity in the following quotes from the Brushaber Supreme Court decision as to what the "income" tax is:

�[�] the Amendment (16th) contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case [�] But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. [�] In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.� It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted. In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions. [�]

It seems here that the court tip its� hat far and long, by what has been quoted above, to the apportionment and uniformity provisions of our Constitutions and now somehow it is turned around again and 1 + 1 = 2 is being used in our laws. How is it, that in the face of the language quoted above and the Pollock decision that has never been reversed, we have out present arbitrary, oppressive and lawlessly (often times with criminal intent) applied and administered tax system? There is more from Brushaber and history of the 16th Amendment.

�This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.�

Yes, I agree that it was the �intent� of the 16th Amendment to make a �direct� tax on incomes. It clearly shows that the original intent was adverted because of the �apportionment� provisions of the constitution.

Our lawmakers can only make up laws for either direct or indirect taxes as outlined previously by the Brushaber, Pollock and the Constitution. Now can you tell me, are the taxes endorsed by a 1040 are they �income� (the common term, not the constituitonal term) or �excise� taxes? If they are an 'income' (direct) taxes then why are they not apportioned and if an excise (indirect) why are they not �uniform� as in Art 1, Section 8 of our Constitution? Ask the courts whether the tax is �income� or �excise�. They are not sure either depending on the district or decision. I do believe there will be a time when court decisions will be necessary to determine that oxygen and water is needed to live or that the sky is indeed blue. In the mean time I guess I�ll stop breathing and drinking.

(If the word "income" has not thoroughly confused you then you understand that it has at least 2 definitions: 1) The everyday definition 2) Supreme Court definition considered to be the Constitutional definition. Otherwise, a reliance from someone who wants your money and also helped write or support the laws to interpret them in the way they want you to believe for their own misguided or outright deceitful purposes is the final outcome. When you read the IRC laws you in fact cannot find the definition for the word income. Please explain to me how a definition or �income� �finally� settled by the Supreme Court cannot makes it�s way into Section 7701? Section 61 defines Gross Income and that is another story. Suffice it to say that most people ask for an �income tax� form not a �Gross Income Tax� form. It is the obvious lack of a definition to income that is perplexing. �[�] gross income means all income [�]� Using a word in the definition to define itself? You would have to be brain dead, drunk, drugged or just plain stubborn to not question these clear and obvious problems.)

Can you or someone explain to me what is the classification of tax that appears to be neither uniform or apportioned that requires someone to complete a 1040 that is not in-between the two great classifications taxes called for in the Brushaber decision quoted above?

To the uninitiated Eisner vs. Macomber would seem to say it all as is usually misquoted. However, the quote normally used does not go far enough. Let me expand, "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined", provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case pp. 183, 185.

What is the ��gain derived from �labor�� that would ��include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets��? What is the profit gained that is taxable? Labor is normally undervalued to promote a profit or gain for someone other than the laborer, is that not true? In fact, if someone �volunteers� to do work for you an undeclared value, benefits you as an undeclared gain or profit. Do you claim that as income? You certainly realized a gain with no investment or trade. Of course I�m talking in common sense terms which normally has nothing to do with most court decisions so I will move on.

To quote �Eisner� then the following should also be quoted, as it is more recent. Please note the part of the last sentence with red letters. It seems to say that the definition of income is definitely settled. Notice how it refers to the latter half of the �Eisner� quote I used previously and then conclusively defines the meaning of income which is stated obviously a �corporate profit� as an excise tax.

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

The following reiterates the previous.

Burnet vs. Harmel, 287 US 103 ... and before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated ... what it later held, that "income," as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.

These are a few of this type of decision and all of them seem to refer back to Pollock and Brushaber. All of them claim �income� as a corporate profit.

The reference to Section 61 as the one that makes someone liable is extremely ambiguous. Furthered research indicates that the language using words like �wages� included in the 1939 Code has been omitted in the 1954 code.

Section 22, 1939 Code
�Gross Income�(a) General Definition. �Gross Income� includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service[�]� (These terms are missing below) (emphasis added)

�TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (note. January 22, 2002 based on 1954 Code)
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter B - Computation of Taxable Income
PART I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE
INCOME, ETC.

Sec. 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, (note. Is this the same as personal services)
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.�

All that remains is mostly a list for a corporate profit and loss statement. Even so is there something in Section 61 in my 2002 IRC that I�ve missed telling me I�m liable and then points me to Section 1 as will be demonstrated further in the next paragraph? For a moment it seemed that the DOJ, IRS and the Treasury were about to reveal all to Mr. Schulze, however they failed on their promise to show and tell. Go figure.

You should consider reading the 1040 Instruction Booklet you referred to. There is only three code sections mention in this booklet in its direction for completing a 1040? Of the three, these two Code Sections 6001 and 6011 use the words...�liable for any tax imposed��in both sections. It�s also clear that in Code Sections 5054, 5703, etc. tells who is liable and respectively point to sections 5051, 5703 etc. for the tax imposed. The laws refer from the code section of liability to the code section imposed. Can you point to the code section that makes anyone liable for the tax imposed by Section 1? If you find the code section that does please inform me as well as the Congressional Research Service as they couldn�t find it either. How is anyone legally or lawfully directed to even read Code Section 1 unless directed to do so as shown? I really don�t understand. To do otherwise would seem to require magic math as I used to tell my daughter regarding her early math skills. Do you really need a court decision to see there is a problem?

For all that has been written here 1 + 1 = 2 and although it is not to be used in any law that is exactly what we have.

Since your house of cards is built on some arbitrary reasoning regarding "income", and now that I have sorely corrected you, there is no other misunderstanding to correct until you can answer some rather pointed questions placed before you in this post. Time for you to get a new deck of cards. Try getting a fresh pack without folded corners in some of the cards.

It is absolutely stubborn for anyone to argue a definition of �income� while vaulting over the many Supreme Court decisions that tell you clearly what it has been defined as. If fact the Supreme Court can really only verify what it is. The Constitution has really already defined how and when income can be taxed.

Mike Powers

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Nothing is more boring to read that a long winded diatribe from an attorney wannabe to support their impossible agenda. -- Jackie Chiles, 17:52:14 06/28/03 Sat

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Glad you were bored -- Mike Powers, 18:58:52 06/28/03 Sat

>;-)Of course you can't refute or disprove anything so why don't you try cheap shots or character assassination next time if it makes you feel better. That takes great insight and thought.

Mike Powers

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Wannabe fake -- Mike Powers, 19:15:12 06/28/03 Sat

"Jackie Chiles" is a fictitious wannabe like attorney Johnnie Cochran on the sitcom "Seinfeld". You�re laughable to chicken to use your real name. Just a fakes fake. I was right you want to be a wannabe fake and you are.

Mike Powers

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> George Castanza aka Jackie Chiles -- Mike Powers, 21:37:54 06/29/03 Sun

Hey George where are you. I love your short winded, George Castanza, type logic. What was it too cold for you and your brain shrunk too. Double the embarrassment. You�re a funny guy. I miss you. Caught you with your pants down so to speak. HA HA

Mike Powers

Mike Powers

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> If libertarians ever expect to be embraced by the mainstream of America they need to stop leading these freak fringe causes that will go no where. Having a convicted felon leading their cause doesn't help, either. Oh well, America needs comic relief, it might as well be you guys plus the black helicopter/cattle mutilation crowd. -- "Art Van DeLay", 22:16:29 06/29/03 Sun

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> What a clown -- Mike Powers, 01:01:44 06/30/03 Mon

George,

1) I'm a registered Republican

2) If your mechanic gives you a bill that includes charges you don't understand, do you have the right to question the bill?

a) Do you need a court order to know you have that right?

b) If the mechanic sues you in court, should you have the opportunity to challenge the charges in the bill? Shouldn't the court attempt to get your legitimate challenges answered? In fact isn't the burden of proof placed upon the accuser or the one that sues?

c) If you went to jail because you wanted proof or verification of the mechanics' and were labeled a felon that would be OK with you?

d) That�s how Irvin Schiff as you say became the dark, sinister felon. He asks a court to show him the law that he couldn't find. THE COURTS ANSWER WAS, YOU ARE A FELON FOR ASKING?

3) You�ve employed a typical liberal or political ploy.

a) Don�t address the questions. (Which you sorely are incapable of)

b) Label and name call.

c) Then dismiss.

Wow isn't that original.

4) Your favorite leader is Bill Clinton a certified liar. (So the court said) That makes me want to be a Democrat.

5) You are now dismissed George. Stick to being a clown.

Mike Powers

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Comparing the fed govt to a car repair shop is a joke. I didn't know that employees of car repair shops are elected representatives that assemble to pass to create and vote on legislation that affects this nation's citizens. -- Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen, 10:22:58 07/01/03 Tue

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There ARE Differences Between Car Repair Shops And The Federal Government! -- billstoddard, 16:33:01 07/01/03 Tue

Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen is correct. There are MAJOR differences between auto repair shops and the gubmit:

1) Auto repair shops provide a useful and necessary service to the general population.

2) Auto repair shops don't have the power to forcibly extort money from citizens at the point of a gun.

Mr. Powers did not say that the two entities were identical. He is explaining the difference between the LAWFUL actions of a retail establishment (in his example he used an auto repair shop, but it could be any other type of service oriented business as well) which has to provide to their customers an explanation of what they expect their customers to pay for services rendered, while the gubmit merely announces that Mr. Schiff has said things the gubmit doesn't like and so uses the power they wield to silence him WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION!

What Mr. Powers illustrated above is called a COMPARISON, LATPC. I realize that the teaching of reasoning and logic (as well as most other useful subjects) was long ago abandoned in the public (gubmit) schools, and the responses to me and Messrs. Powers confirm this sad truth, but like Vince of Villanova, you're missing the point.

Maybe you could answer this question LATPC: as a "Law Abiding Taxpaying Citizen", I assume that you pay all taxes that you are liable for, correct? The important question is: do you pay taxes that you ARE NOT LIABLE for as well?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Keep wavin' that freak flag! This is the problem when people take Ayn Rand's "philosophy" too seriously. But I must ask .... -- Law Abiding Tax Payer (and proud Neo-Con), 21:55:07 07/01/03 Tue

....are these the pithy subjects discussed at meetings of the Libertarian Futurists Society? (insert laughs here) The purpose of pointing out Powers' lunatic assertion is that the government can't be thought of as a service oriented business designed to serve your individual wants and needs. It's to serve the broader needs of the nation's huge industial complex and provide for a strong military presence. As long as the government (by the guiding influence of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol, along with Cheyney, Rove and Bush) promotes a strong military force to go over to the Middle East and kick as much towel headed ass as possible so we can control the oil, I'm happy with what that. Bullets cost bucks, sparky. So does national security. Your whining about taxes is way way down on the this government's priority scale. So sit back and enjoy the ride. No one that can do anything about it is paying attention to you.
If you don't like it, I'm sure some third world countries with relatively low taxes would accept you for citizenship. Perhaps a few years of gnawing on on boiled grapefruit rinds for dinner would temper your whining somewhat.

The concept of true "freedom" in America does not mean freedom to do what you what when you want. Some of you need to learn that the Constitution shouldn't be taken so literally. It is interpreted as certain groups see fit to interpret it. It's up to the group with the most power that gets to interpret it the way they want. So far, the neo-cons are in control and hopefully will be for years to come.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are You For Real? -- billstoddard, 01:06:07 07/03/03 Thu

So far LATP (Neo-Con), you've completely ignored the issues I've validly put before the readers of this message board, specifically, WHAT LAW REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF "INCOME TAXES", AND WHAT LAW HAS IRWIN SCHIFF BROKEN THAT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO TRASH THE CONSTITUTION AND SUBVERT HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

Instead, you're professing your love of big oppressive government that commits any illegal acts against US citizens it wants to in the name of "national security". Howzabout "NATIONAL FREEDOM"? Does "freedom" mean anything to you?

The same "strong military force" that we sent to Iraq can be used against YOU if the government decides that it either doesn't like what you say, or decides that it wants to extract more money from you!

You are a truly sorry character, LATP! You have absolutely no understanding of the principles that this country was founded on. The Colonists who founded this country went to war to be free from England because England was taxing them at only a SMALL FRACTION (I think 7% or so) of what Americans pay today!

I believe the reason that you're not bothered by the fact that American taxpayers currently have to work until the middle of JUNE every year to pay all of the "Income Taxes" supposedly "owed" to the government is because you yourself are probably on some sort of public assistance and do not contribute anything to society!

The third world countries that you claim I would be more happy residing in don't take THEIR Constitutions "so literally", as you put it, either. Oh, I forgot: these other countries don't HAVE Constitutions, or any sets of laws that protect their citizens from their oppressive governments. In all the communist countries, the laws are whatever their dictators SAY the laws are, at any given time. Our Constitution, along with the Bill Of Rights are what protect us from being enslaved by LIMITING the power government can exercise over us! That's why we became a world power in the first place: FREEDOM!

You call yourself a "neo-con", but in reality you are truly clueless as to what ANY form of conservatism really entails! You value "security" more than you do FREEDOM, so eventually you will lose BOTH!

You speak glowingly of "national security". HOW MUCH "NATIONAL SECURITY" IS THERE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN ARBITRARILY DECIDE THAT SOMEONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH HIS WELL DOCUMENTED BELIEFS, AND THEY DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO GIVE VALID (OR ANY) REASONS WHY? HOW MUCH "NAIONAL SECURITY" IS THERE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN CLAIM YOU OWE THEM 50% OF WHAT YOU EARN, NOT POINT TO A LAW TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM, AND THEN SEND ARMED JACKBOOTED THUGS TO YOUR PROPERTY TO CONFISCATE WHAT YOU OWN, AND WITHOUT A COURT ORDER?

That someone like you has the same vote as I do is not only pathetic, it's scary!

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cheerleading again, oh how wonderful! -- Mike Powers, 23:55:15 07/01/03 Tue

If you could see me laughing now? You're funny. You completely vaulted over "The Federal Crop Insurance Case" Supreme Court decision is probably too technical for you, so I made a simple comparison for a man of the law like yourself. Law abiding means you know the law, well thank you.

Well "Mr. Man O'Law" what does the case cited above say that would allow or confirm my right to know if the IRS agent attempting to enforce something has the authority to do so and/or and my right to know the law he believes applies to me. Wow that sounds like common sense, just the same as if I question a charge on a bill I don't understand. If I wave the flag will it make more sense to you?

Oh, by the way, I'm forwarding your email to the IRS, Department of Treasury. I'll suggest to them that any bill or penalty you receive will willingly (and will not be questioned) to be paid by you and double if you wave the flag and sing God Bless America.

I thought it was "government for the people and by the people"? How does the obvious escape you so badly? I suggest to you Mr. Man O'Law you re-read "A Declaration" a.k.a.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well as the case cited.

Further Mr. Man O'Law I need this question answered. I'm sure you understand terms like 'direct', indirect, apportionment, uniformity, The Pollock, Brushaber, Eisner, Merchants, and Burnett US Supreme Court decisions and will happily put me in my place when you answer it. Here goes.

Can you or someone explain to me what is the classification of tax that appears to be neither uniform or apportioned that requires someone to complete a 1040 that is not in-between the two great classifications taxes called for in the Brushaber decision and the other decisions that support the Pollock decision (still holding) through the Brushaber decision?

I'm sure that is not a tuffy for you Mr., Man O'Law. Have you considered cheerleading, as a career I believe it doesn�t require much thought either you just go along with everything your told I think?

Mike Powers

PS. Why don't you read the post at the very end titled "Is the IRS the final word? Then read this." Then let's see you cheerlead your way out of that one too. Yes, Santa Claus is traditional fiction too.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.