Automotive

Ask me anything about fighting your traffic ticket (Speeding, Parking, etc.)

Newbie
Apr 3, 2015
71 posts
33 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
BlackAced wrote: Hi there. I've received my 3rd ticket earlier this week and need some advice. I'm 20 years old and I'm a male.. so my insurance is already outrageous. I have 2 demerits and am looking at another 4 if this ticket goes through. I was tagged doing 139kmh in a 100 zone. This of course was the first nice day of the year, I just had my car repaired and made some adjustments to my audio equipment. None of these are things I would mention in court of course, however. the story is as follows: I got on an on-ramp following a van. I proceeded to follow this van for nearly 50 km doing 115 kmh the entire time (I know this because I had cruise control on), the van then slowed down to about 90 kmh.. seeing as this was a 100 kmh highway, I sped up and changed lanes (safely) to pass The vehicle. The person (now) behind me sped up and began tailgating my car. The van that I was attempting to pass increased their speed back up to about 120kmh. Nervous about the car behind me, I sped up to pass the van, who then kept the same speed as myself. Getting frustrated, I sped my vehicle up to 139kmh (says the officer), and just as I passed the van, I saw the officer pulling out of his spot. I knew it was for me so I proceeded to ease off the highway (seeing as there was heavy traffic, there was a short time delay). The officer was relatively polite, however, didn't lay off one bit despite my attempt at being an honest, polite, young adult. I was given a ticket for breaking the highway traffic act section 128 for going 139 kmh in a *posted* 100kmh zone. Now, I have driven this highway everyday for nearly 2 years now as I commute to work. And i know for a fact (I confirmed this for myself today) that this is not a posted zone. There is no legal speed limit sign for nearly 25 km from where I was pulled over in either direction. I'm looking at 4 demerits and nearly $300. I'm not worried about the money.. but I'm scared for my insurance costs. I need to know how to approach this situation and save my driving record. I reviewed the ticket and everything is in order so I have no luck there. Please help!
First, calm down and focus.

Here's what you should do:
  • When you get stopped by police, shut your mouth. Everything you say can be used in court, for the most part. It's too late now. I can only imagine what you said, and his notes might reflect that. You incriminated yourself, didn't you son? Don't ever do that again. In law, when you don't want something used against you in court, you say "WITHOUT PREJUDICE". Anyway, you opened your mouth so let's move on here;
  • If you research caselaw, you'll see the argument of not having a posted speed limit isn't always the best defence. The courts rely on judicial notice and typically don't need to even demonstrate there was a posted speed limit sign in an area. Second, just because there wasn't a posted speed limit sign for 25 km... doesn't mean there's no speed limit. There are speed limit signs posted before and after where you were stopped, so that would be the speed limit, unless the bylaw says different. You could challenge this. It's weak because they'll shove judicial notice down your throat and say that they don't have to prove it. But if you go this route, you must argue relentlessly. You must argue that there were so many twists and turns, you had traveled many kilometers, and there wasn't any posted speed limit sign. Also don't admit to even seeing a speed limit sign at all. However, this line of arguing is tough because you were clocked going so far over the speed limit and again they'll use judicial notice to shut you down;
  • You must create reasonable doubt that you were BREAKING THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. This means, for starters, you need to attack the credibility and skill of the police officer and the fitness of the LIDAR. All the standard stuff applies here that we've all written about in this thread. Request disclosure, find holes in anything the officer did or didn't do (did he test the LIDAR according to the manual?), is he sure it was you that he was clocking, etc.; and
  • Another line of argument: that you were exercising due diligence in speeding up because you had NO OTHER CHOICE to secure your safety. I was observing traffic court last week (yes, I'm a traffic court geek), and a person lost his case because... he tried to argue he sped up to pass a vehicle for his own safety. Then the officer cross examined him, and asked him if he also had the option of slowing down. He said he did. Stupid, stupid, stupid. He lost his case because he had the option to slow down. If he didn't have the option to slow down, and only to speed up, then it starts to work better to argue this. So here it goes: you were passing a van who had slowed down to 90 KM/H. You were passing him at just under 100 KM/H, say 98 KM/H from what you recall. Traffic quickly followed and came behind you. The driver in the van sped up to try and match your speed. The car directly behind you was literally touching your bumper. You were quickly running out of room with something in front of you so you had to speed up further to pass the van and then move back in front of the van. DO NOT EVER say that you could have slowed down. Let the officer eat shxt. He will say his account of the events and you need to stick to a story. He might not "remember" seeing anyone in front of you when you were passing, or an obstacle in front of you, or whatever. But you were trying to avoid an oncoming obstacle, or another car, etc. and to avoid getting hit from behind. And you can say that the car behind you actually hit you as you felt and saw that happen, and your car jerked forward. Whatever you gotta do...
Remember, if you go for the due diligence argument, you basically stating how fast you were going, and admitting to speeding. You need to think about what I've said and make some decisions on your angle in court.
Newbie
Apr 16, 2015
3 posts
Barrie
mapledude wrote: First, calm down and focus.

Here's what you should do:
  • When you get stopped by police, shut your mouth. Everything you say can be used in court, for the most part. It's too late now. I can only imagine what you said, and his notes might reflect that. You incriminated yourself, didn't you son? Don't ever do that again. In law, when you don't want something used against you in court, you say "WITHOUT PREJUDICE". Anyway, you opened your mouth so let's move on here;
  • If you research caselaw, you'll see the argument of not having a posted speed limit isn't always the best defence. The courts rely on judicial notice and typically don't need to even demonstrate there was a posted speed limit sign in an area. Second, just because there wasn't a posted speed limit sign for 25 km... doesn't mean there's no speed limit. There are speed limit signs posted before and after where you were stopped, so that would be the speed limit, unless the bylaw says different. You could challenge this. It's weak because they'll shove judicial notice down your throat and say that they don't have to prove it. But if you go this route, you must argue relentlessly. You must argue that there were so many twists and turns, you had traveled many kilometers, and there wasn't any posted speed limit sign. Also don't admit to even seeing a speed limit sign at all. However, this line of arguing is tough because you were clocked going so far over the speed limit and again they'll use judicial notice to shut you down;
  • You must create reasonable doubt that you were BREAKING THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. This means, for starters, you need to attack the credibility and skill of the police officer and the fitness of the LIDAR. All the standard stuff applies here that we've all written about in this thread. Request disclosure, find holes in anything the officer did or didn't do (did he test the LIDAR according to the manual?), is he sure it was you that he was clocking, etc.; and
  • Another line of argument: that you were exercising due diligence in speeding up because you had NO OTHER CHOICE to secure your safety. I was observing traffic court last week (yes, I'm a traffic court geek), and a person lost his case because... he tried to argue he sped up to pass a vehicle for his own safety. Then the officer cross examined him, and asked him if he also had the option of slowing down. He said he did. Stupid, stupid, stupid. He lost his case because he had the option to slow down. If he didn't have the option to slow down, and only to speed up, then it starts to work better to argue this. So here it goes: you were passing a van who had slowed down to 90 KM/H. You were passing him at just under 100 KM/H, say 98 KM/H from what you recall. Traffic quickly followed and came behind you. The driver in the van sped up to try and match your speed. The car directly behind you was literally touching your bumper. You were quickly running out of room with something in front of you so you had to speed up further to pass the van and then move back in front of the van. DO NOT EVER say that you could have slowed down. Let the officer eat shxt. He will say his account of the events and you need to stick to a story. He might not "remember" seeing anyone in front of you when you were passing, or an obstacle in front of you, or whatever. But you were trying to avoid an oncoming obstacle, or another car, etc. and to avoid getting hit from behind. And you can say that the car behind you actually hit you as you felt and saw that happen, and your car jerked forward. Whatever you gotta do...
Remember, if you go for the due diligence argument, you basically stating how fast you were going, and admitting to speeding. You need to think about what I've said and make some decisions on your angle in court.
Thanks a lot for the advice. I'll keep all of this in mind while preparing my defence. However, I was raised well and know when to keep my mouth shut. I was as polite and honest as I could be to the officer and I did not say anything that would have been a problem in court.
Newbie
Apr 3, 2015
71 posts
33 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
You said you were honest with him. That implies you admitted you were speeding. That incriminates you. This will be in his notes. Because of this, you're going to have a rough time in court.
Newbie
Apr 3, 2015
71 posts
33 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
toyota2772 wrote: Hi djino, first off thanks so much for offering to help the average joe. Of course we don't know how the system works and I often feel its that way on purpose.
Anyways, I was involved in an accident on March 19th, 2005 in Calgary and strongly feel that the other driver may have been driving distracted (and likely in my mind was the cause of the accident even though I was blamed for it). He said he was in 4 accidents this year already (my last and at fault accident was in my mid 20's and Im now 42), that the yield where the accident happened was a "tricky spot" when it was a very easy to navigate part of the road with dry roads and a clear sunny day (2:25pm). He also said he called 911 on his way driving up the road (after he left the scene and then came back) and I noticed his phone was in his shirt pocket. The thing is that he had multiple times were it should have been reasonable for him to proceed (he even did start to move but obviously stopped again with no traffic around at all). The officer who came was not at all interested in any of those things and didn't even ask the other driver if he had hands free or check his vehicle. He then gave me a $410 careless driving ticket (having not been there to see anything happen), then told me I should go to court and have it reduced. I got the ticket March 19 and a court date of Apr 20 on it. I went to the court house to get it reduced (before I found your port here) on March 31, waited in line for 20 min, then sat and waited again for another 20 min only to have the lady tell me that the officer had not dropped the ticket off there yet so they didn't have it. She stamped my ticket and told me I would have to come back again!
So now I read your post and feel its likely to late for me to request Disclosure or proceed in any way as the officer didn't give enough time.
Is there any recourse?
Thank you in advance for your reply.
There's a lot going on in this post. Let's focus.

You got in an accident... that's a little outside the scope of this thread which is primarily focused on parking and traffic tickets. Accidents are tough to advise because they typically involve a lot of moving parts to get to the core of what really happened and where liability falls.

Anyway, in all that you wrote, there's a Motor Vehicle Act violation in there that you were cited on. Careless Driving. Do this:
  • Research the MVA for Careless Driving. Is this what you were doing? Could you argue it doesn't apply to you? Go to Canlii and look up caselaw in your jurisdication regarding the keywords "careless driving" and also the keyword for the section of the MVA that you violated. Try and find caselaw that effectively gives some definition to what careless driving has been determined to be and not to be by the courts;
  • Always ask for disclosure, no matter when in the process. Ask for it. It's never too late. Standard disclosure applies;
  • Never admit you were speeding (unless you're advancing a due diligence argument) and don't discuss anything with the cops/the Crown. Keep your mouth shut and do your research. Do not talk to them about your case or the incident, at all. Just hit them with your trial requests. Simple, and dry;
  • Since it appears as though the officer was not on the scene to witness what happened, how could he have cited you for a motor vehicle violation? Your line of argument should be as follows: you were not speeding, you obeyed all road signs, and the accident happened. Put the blame on the other party for the accident. And that there is no evidence before the court that you were careless driving, neither was the police officer on the scene to witness this. In the absence of any other witnesses, the ticket should be tossed because it should have never been issued in the first place. You should argue that on this basis alone the ticket should be invalid, and no further proceedings be held on the matter of the ticket. No further arguments. No further anything. The trial should not happen. You put forward this motion right when you're called up to be arraigned. You state in your Motion, "My Worship, I motion to QUASH the citation for careless driving on the account that there is no basis for the ticket. The officer was not present during any supposed "violation" of the law, there are no witnesses, and I affirm I did not violate any aspect of the motor vehicle act at the time in question. I affirm that I was not careless driving." If it goes any further, motion to have the ticket quashed citing lack of any evidence and lack of sufficient evidence in the trial after you cross examine the police officer.
Remember what you're doing here. You're casting reasonable doubt on the charge that you broke the law. You are entering into a theatre. There's you, the guy charged. The Officer, the guy with the power to give you violation tickets. And there's witnesses and the guy the accident happened with. This trial will not be about the accident. It will be about the motor vehicle violation. Chances are, the Crown won't call the person you got into an accident with for traffic court as a witness. So it'll likely be you against the cop. That's where the problems come up for the Crown: it's now just you and the cop.

You were there when the shxt happened, the cop wasn't. They must be fair and impartial: they can't just believe the cop over you. You MUST affirm in court that you were NOT careless driving. That you were NOT doing what the cop said you did. Once you understand that, you now move to phase 2: exposing the weakness in the prosecution. They weren't there! They weren't witnesses to it! They have no direct evidence, and likely no affidavits supporting the charge that you were careless driving, or breaking any motor vehicle act whatever. On this basis, with there being NO evidence from the Crown that you broke any law, the ticket should be immediately quashed, and the case dismissed. To end the charade.

Let the Crown eat shxt.
Sr. Member
Dec 27, 2009
626 posts
14 upvotes
Hey guys - need your help.

I was snap chatting an accident on highway 403 in mississauga - yes I know, I'm an idiot...

The cop pulled me over and gave me a ticket for driving with a hand held device.. but I think he wanted to be nice so he told me that he "accidently" put the fine on the wrong ticket. ie. the ticket was issued on a halton peel ticket which I had to mail to 100 Nipissing Road in Milton...

The officer was kind enough to tell me his mistake and said that I will probably get out of the ticket if I point it out..

I just received the letter for early resolution with a date in September..

What EXACTLY should I point out/say? Can't I resolve this over the phone or something?
Jr. Member
Feb 23, 2010
174 posts
12 upvotes
failed to stop

The cop wrote down wrong name of streets will that be good enough to get charges tossed with fatal flaw tactics?


Or should i not mention it until trial and during questioning after cop repeats false name of streets accuse him of perjury and show perleys map with no such name?

How do you prove street doesnt exist? Just show perleys and show street not there??

If i show real name they'll use provincial law #24 and change name like they do to speeders who argue they werent going 80 in 50 but 80 in 60 zone.
Thx
Newbie
User avatar
Apr 28, 2014
31 posts
1 upvote
Brampton ON
Has anyone in Ontario had a look at this yet?

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... tation.asp

Basically, the Ontario Liberal Government is trying to abolish the current court system that is in place the for all Provincial Offences Acts and replace it with an "administrative monetary penalty system". Basically, you will lose your right to go to a trial and have some government employee decide how guilty you are and how much your fine will be if you challenge your charge

I highly urge you to email your responses to poa-amp.feedback@ontario.ca and let them know what you think of this change.

Also, contact your Member Of Provincial Parliament. You can find a list of them here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/memb ... ?locale=en

We need to stop this change!
Banned
Apr 18, 2015
160 posts
13 upvotes
ON
djino wrote: Totally false. That is soo wrong. I just wish you were able to serve them with a copy of Section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act. I provided the link in my reply to you. No where is any of those crap they said in there.


djino
jino this is a common tactic that is used by the prosecutors. I too had a female prosecutor argue that because the risk of imprisonment is not there section 7 does not apply and the 4F form is invalid.

What to do when they try this?
Newbie
Apr 20, 2015
1 posts
Brampton, ON
Hello all,

Just registered here to post about an incident last Friday at Trillium Hospital, Mississauga.

I was given a $350 ticket for "Park vehicle in a designated parking space without displaying a permit".
The problem was I had a blue permanent disabled permit for my daughter and it was displayed, but I did not realise they expired. I always thought permanent meant permanent.
Later that day I renewed my daughter's permit. Lesson learned.

Feeling a bit aggrieved and also disappointed in myself I have been doing some research.

I found an interesting aspect that may make it easier for me to get out of than to go to trial and try to appeal to someone's good nature.
I was quoted as violating Mississauga by-law 1-09 section 6(1).

The Mississauga by-law 1-09 is an interesting read, because the by-law also indicates that to be considered an accessible parking space, or as they call it a "designated space", there are some conditions.
The one that jumped right out to me was section 3.

It states:
"3. Each and every designated parking space shall:
(1) be distinctly indicated by a sign which is in a form and content as prescribed by the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8, as amended and the regulations made thereunder as illustrated in Schedule 2 to this By-law;
(2) have the sign prescribed in subsection 3(1) of this By-law mounted at the following height: no less than 152.4cm (60 inches) from ground level to the bottom of the sign and no more than 243.8cm (96 inches) from ground level to the top of the sign.
(3) have a 15cm x 30cm (6 inches x 12 inches) sign, on the same sign post and located immediately below the sign described in sub sections (1) and (2), with the words “Maximum Fine $5,000.00”, as illustrated in Schedule 3 to this By-law.
(4) have both the signs prescribed in subsection 3(1) and 3(3) of this By-law installed in a permanent manner at the centre of the designated parking space"

Now at Trillium I noticed (went back after and took photos and video) that every single disabled parking spot was missing the Maximum Fine $5,000 sign.
Additionally I only inspected a handful of parking spaces but I found that there were spaces where the sign was installed below the mandatory height. I measured the bottom of one sign at 55 inches above ground level and another at 52 inches above ground.

Now my thought of the way the law works is that if they are in breach of their own by-law, they have absolutely no possibility of charging me with breaching the same by-law? (Similar to the rule of 'clean hands' ie: that you can't steal something then take someone to court if they then steal it off you)
After all I have been charged with parking in a "designated parking space" without a permit, but their own by-law defines a "designated parking space" as one that has to have the signage described above. Where the signs do not meet the by-law standards surely it cannot be considered a "designated parking space"?

I decided to go to the court house today to take up the "First Attendance Option", but the prosecutor didn't seem convinced by my arguments leading me to wonder whether I am just barking up the wrong tree. He mentioned that by-laws are getting constantly updated and that there is a grace period for people to amend signs (By-law 1-09 came into effect in January 2009, so that's one hell of a grace period!)

After persisting with my point about the non-compliant sign, the prosecutor did relent by telling me that if I go to my family doctor and get him to write a note to confirm that my daughter was still disabled (its a permanent blue permit for heaven's sake!) during the period that covered the expiry of the old one and my new one that I now have, that he would be willing to quash the ticket.

Just wondering though how things stand with improper and non-compliant signs in cases like this, and whether indeed it does afford a way out of the ticket.

Thank you for any information
Newbie
Apr 20, 2015
2 posts
Markham
Hi new member here, got a traffic ticket recently at yorkdale lawrence ave and allen road intersection.

What happened was I was trying to left turn when the yellow signal just ended, then the police pulled me over stating failed to stop at red light, its a bit too late but I chose the 2nd option the the ticket which is meeting the prosecuter, havent received a date yet. Just want to ask what to say when i'm meeting the officer?
Sr. Member
Apr 16, 2007
858 posts
173 upvotes
Toronto
I received my first offence notice ever, 76 in a 50. I want to request a trial. It says 15 days on the back. Question:

Is the 15th day the last day I have to take it to trial, or, will I get a notice in the mail similar to a parking ticket notice that says "final notice - you have until X day to pay or take this to trial or you will be convicted"?

Also, the officer was really nice. He made small talk about hockey history as he could see I was on my way to a hockey practice. He explained that I could take it to trial and often see the charge reduced with no points. Given that he was so nice, I am thinking of phoning him tomorrow and asking if he would be willing to not file the charge, if I volunteer to do some sort of police or road safety community service? Has anyone ever tried this, and, would you recommend against it? If so, why?

My thought is that he may not file the charge anyway, given that we had a nice conversation and it was a small charge ($115 only) and if I phone him to offer my volunteer service, he will then remember my name and make an especially big deal to see me convicted.
Newbie
Feb 20, 2009
84 posts
Toronto
Hi

I received a parking ticket for $30. It is for parking a vehicle in s city park when it is closed. Section 20B(2)(A)
I did leave the car overnight in the park. As well, the park website does show that timings only extend till 7pm.
So far, I have submitted an online screening request and have received an appointment.
Any advice? Thanks in advance.
Newbie
Mar 19, 2015
5 posts
Calgary, AB
Hi mapledude, thanks so very much for helping me the best you could. Sorry it took a while to get back to you (a lot on my table with this accident stuff, taxes, etc.). In the end I found I was a little over my head and found a guy here in Calgary to help me out. Very nice guy too, flat fee for helping me and its quite low compared to a lawyer. He is not a lawyer but he knows his stuff. Saw him today and he thinks there are errors on the ticket and it should be able to be withdrawn. His name is Emmerson Brando (you can find him by searching the net as Im not sure what the rules are about posting peoples info for biz). He is in Calgary for anyone who might find things a bit too much to figure out like I did.
Again thanks mapledude for helping me and others on here.
Cheers and take care! :-)
Sr. Member
Apr 16, 2007
858 posts
173 upvotes
Toronto
I just noticed my Toronto speeding ticket doesn't have a specific cross street or address on it. It just says "N/B Mt. Pleasant Road".

The thing is, is that Mt. Pleasant has sections which are both 50 and 60 KM/H. Since a more specific area of the offence isn't stated, would this be a way to force a fatal error? I was ticketed in the 50 KM/H zone, but if it were in the 60, this would be a different fine.

Or would the charge be valid if the specific location ends up being disclosed in a disclosure request after I request trial?

Anyone else ever get a ticket that gives a very vague location?
Deal Expert
Aug 26, 2002
15719 posts
7445 upvotes
Toronto, ON
mark2000 wrote: I just noticed my Toronto speeding ticket doesn't have a specific cross street or address on it. It just says "N/B Mt. Pleasant Road".

The thing is, is that Mt. Pleasant has sections which are both 50 and 60 KM/H. Since a more specific area of the offence isn't stated, would this be a way to force a fatal error? I was ticketed in the 50 KM/H zone, but if it were in the 60, this would be a different fine.

Or would the charge be valid if the specific location ends up being disclosed in a disclosure request after I request trial?

Anyone else ever get a ticket that gives a very vague location?
Not having a complete address is not a fatal error.

And in the disclosure, the officer will likely note down what the posted speed limit is where he was set up. Get disclosure and see what is written in his notes.
Sr. Member
Apr 16, 2007
858 posts
173 upvotes
Toronto
Thank you for that response. I will request disclosure and hope that they either don't send it, or, the specific location isn't on it - then I could at least discredit the officer.

Once I get a trial date, is there any way of getting my court date delayed further and further into the future? I don't mind going to court multiple times to do this. My rationale is that I would like to keep pushing it into the future so the officer may not show up at the trial when it finally happens.
Deal Addict
Aug 27, 2011
3048 posts
322 upvotes
Toronto
mark2000 wrote: Thank you for that response. I will request disclosure and hope that they either don't send it, or, the specific location isn't on it - then I could at least discredit the officer.

Once I get a trial date, is there any way of getting my court date delayed further and further into the future? I don't mind going to court multiple times to do this. My rationale is that I would like to keep pushing it into the future so the officer may not show up at the trial when it finally happens.
That won't work, as all you're going to do is postponing your trial until the next time that the officer will show up in court. They don't just give you some random court date - they lump all the officer's tickets together into ticket windows.
Deal Addict
Aug 27, 2011
3048 posts
322 upvotes
Toronto
mark2000 wrote: I received my first offence notice ever, 76 in a 50. I want to request a trial. It says 15 days on the back. Question:

Is the 15th day the last day I have to take it to trial, or, will I get a notice in the mail similar to a parking ticket notice that says "final notice - you have until X day to pay or take this to trial or you will be convicted"?

Also, the officer was really nice. He made small talk about hockey history as he could see I was on my way to a hockey practice. He explained that I could take it to trial and often see the charge reduced with no points. Given that he was so nice, I am thinking of phoning him tomorrow and asking if he would be willing to not file the charge, if I volunteer to do some sort of police or road safety community service? Has anyone ever tried this, and, would you recommend against it? If so, why?

My thought is that he may not file the charge anyway, given that we had a nice conversation and it was a small charge ($115 only) and if I phone him to offer my volunteer service, he will then remember my name and make an especially big deal to see me convicted.
There's no reason why the officer won't file the charges. Based on what you've written so far, all you're going to do is make it easy for the officer to remember who you are and for you to get convicted easily.
Sr. Member
Apr 16, 2007
858 posts
173 upvotes
Toronto
guys,
Why do we do all this? It seems to me, based on what I read here, that even if you do go thru all the right steps, your chance of getting off on anything other than reduced charges, is very slim. It seems most people who request disclosure, get it. And usually those that do get it - can't find anything in the disclosure to quash the case.

So, why do we do this, I'm just trying to figure out what the most LIKELY outcome is. Because it seems to me, in many cases, it's a lot more work, for a reduced charge which you would get if you pleaded guilty with an explanation anyway.

I mean, I'm going to go thru with it - luckily I live and work close to the court and prosecutor's office, so it's lunch breaks for me - no skin off my back, but what's the best case scenario in a 26 over speeding ticket? That I don't receive disclosure? That the disclosure isn't complete?

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)