Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    23,511

    Prominent Attorny Asks the SCOTUS to Let Companies off the Hook for Child Slavery

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court confronted a seemingly simple question: If an American corporation aids and abets child slavery in a foreign country, can its victims sue the company in an American court? Given that SCOTUS has repeatedly granted corporations the same rights as actual humans, you might think the answer is obvious. But it isn’t, because the same justices who think corporations deserve free speech and religious liberty do not believe they should be saddled with the same legal responsibilities as real people. Neal Katyal, who defended the companies accused of abetting child slavery, proposed an extreme theory that would shield all corporations from lawsuits under a crucial federal law. A majority of justices might not be ready to endorse this radical position. But they may still find a way to let Katyal’s clients off the hook.

    Although Katyal is a staunch critic of Donald Trump who frequently represents progressive causes, he sided with corporate interests—and the Trump administration—on Tuesday. The case involves a class-action lawsuit filed by six citizens of Mali. These individuals were allegedly trafficked to the Ivory Coast between the ages of 12 and 14. Once there, they were allegedly forced to work on cocoa plantations for no pay and little food. They say they were regularly whipped and tortured by overseers who routinely inflicted sadistic punishments. One plaintiff tried and failed to escape; when he was caught, his overseers allegedly cut the soles of his feet, rubbed chile pepper into the wounds, then tied him to a tree and beat him until he sustained severe, permanent injuries. Such atrocities on the Ivory Coast’s cocoa plantations are well documented.

    The plaintiffs also claim that two U.S. corporations, Nestle and Cargill, aided and abetted their enslavement. They assert that both companies knew their suppliers enslaved children yet continued to provide “financial and technical assistance to cocoa plantations.” The companies allegedly exerted substantial influence over the plantations to maintain the supply of cheap cocoa even after discovering human rights abuses.

    This complicity, the plaintiffs allege, renders the companies liable under the Alien Tort Statute. First passed in 1789, the ATS gives federal courts authority to hear lawsuits filed by foreigners alleging a violation of international law. In theory, the ATS should put America at the vanguard of human rights protection, opening the nation’s courthouse doors to noncitizens who seek accountability for violators of the law of nations. In practice, the law barely exists anymore, because the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have relentlessly hacked away at it. Time and again, the court has strictly limited the ATS’ application, despite strong evidence that it was meant to be interpreted broadly.

    Two years ago, by a 5–4 vote, the conservatives granted foreign corporations immunity from ATS lawsuits. On Tuesday, Katyal asked the court to expand this immunity to American corporations—meaning, in effect, that no corporations, foreign or domestic, can be sued under the statute. (He was joined by the Trump administration, which sided with Nestle and Cargill.) In his brief, Katyal argued that allowing corporate liability would “place U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies in countries” with a law similar to the ATS. And he argued that liability “would discourage foreign investment in the United States by foreign firms concerned about triggering expansive ATS liability.” Katyal also claimed that the “international community” does not support holding corporations responsible for violations of international law. For support, he pointed out that the Nuremberg prosecutors declined to prosecute “the firm that supplied Zyklon B gas, which the Nazis used to kill millions.”

    Katyal’s arguments had a surprisingly chilly reception at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas, no friend of the ATS, noted that while “there may not be an international norm” allowing corporate liability, the plaintiffs say there is an international norm against slavery. Katyal retorted: “I think that the norm that they’re asserting is not child slavery, but aiding and abetting child slavery.” And the plaintiffs “have not a single case” that holds there is an international norm against such conduct.

    Justice Elena Kagan later drilled down on Katyal’s theory that no corporation can ever be sued under the ATS. Kagan asked Katyal if a former child slave could sue an individual slaveholder under the law; Katyal said yes. Kagan then asked if a former child slave could sue 10 slaveholders under the law; Katyal said yes. Finally, Kagan asked, if those 10 slaveholders form a corporation, could a former child slave sue it? Katyal said no—a corporation of slaveholders would be immune, because there is no “specific norm” of liability “under international law.”

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court confronted a seemingly simple question: If an American corporation aids and abets child slavery in a foreign country, can its victims sue the company in an American court? Given that SCOTUS has repeatedly granted corporations the same rights as actual humans, you might think the answer is obvious. But it isn’t, because the same justices who think corporations deserve free speech and religious liberty do not believe they should be saddled with the same legal responsibilities as real people. Neal Katyal, who defended the companies accused of abetting child slavery, proposed an extreme theory that would shield all corporations from lawsuits under a crucial federal law. A majority of justices might not be ready to endorse this radical position. But they may still find a way to let Katyal’s clients off the hook.

    Although Katyal is a staunch critic of Donald Trump who frequently represents progressive causes, he sided with corporate interests—and the Trump administration—on Tuesday. The case involves a class-action lawsuit filed by six citizens of Mali. These individuals were allegedly trafficked to the Ivory Coast between the ages of 12 and 14. Once there, they were allegedly forced to work on cocoa plantations for no pay and little food. They say they were regularly whipped and tortured by overseers who routinely inflicted sadistic punishments. One plaintiff tried and failed to escape; when he was caught, his overseers allegedly cut the soles of his feet, rubbed chile pepper into the wounds, then tied him to a tree and beat him until he sustained severe, permanent injuries. Such atrocities on the Ivory Coast’s cocoa plantations are well documented.

    The plaintiffs also claim that two U.S. corporations, Nestle and Cargill, aided and abetted their enslavement. They assert that both companies knew their suppliers enslaved children yet continued to provide “financial and technical assistance to cocoa plantations.” The companies allegedly exerted substantial influence over the plantations to maintain the supply of cheap cocoa even after discovering human rights abuses.

    This complicity, the plaintiffs allege, renders the companies liable under the Alien Tort Statute. First passed in 1789, the ATS gives federal courts authority to hear lawsuits filed by foreigners alleging a violation of international law. In theory, the ATS should put America at the vanguard of human rights protection, opening the nation’s courthouse doors to noncitizens who seek accountability for violators of the law of nations. In practice, the law barely exists anymore, because the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have relentlessly hacked away at it. Time and again, the court has strictly limited the ATS’ application, despite strong evidence that it was meant to be interpreted broadly.

    Two years ago, by a 5–4 vote, the conservatives granted foreign corporations immunity from ATS lawsuits. On Tuesday, Katyal asked the court to expand this immunity to American corporations—meaning, in effect, that no corporations, foreign or domestic, can be sued under the statute. (He was joined by the Trump administration, which sided with Nestle and Cargill.) In his brief, Katyal argued that allowing corporate liability would “place U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies in countries” with a law similar to the ATS. And he argued that liability “would discourage foreign investment in the United States by foreign firms concerned about triggering expansive ATS liability.” Katyal also claimed that the “international community” does not support holding corporations responsible for violations of international law. For support, he pointed out that the Nuremberg prosecutors declined to prosecute “the firm that supplied Zyklon B gas, which the Nazis used to kill millions.”

    Katyal’s arguments had a surprisingly chilly reception at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas, no friend of the ATS, noted that while “there may not be an international norm” allowing corporate liability, the plaintiffs say there is an international norm against slavery. Katyal retorted: “I think that the norm that they’re asserting is not child slavery, but aiding and abetting child slavery.” And the plaintiffs “have not a single case” that holds there is an international norm against such conduct.

    Justice Elena Kagan later drilled down on Katyal’s theory that no corporation can ever be sued under the ATS. Kagan asked Katyal if a former child slave could sue an individual slaveholder under the law; Katyal said yes. Kagan then asked if a former child slave could sue 10 slaveholders under the law; Katyal said yes. Finally, Kagan asked, if those 10 slaveholders form a corporation, could a former child slave sue it? Katyal said no—a corporation of slaveholders would be immune, because there is no “specific norm” of liability “under international law.”

    “I guess what I’m asking is, like, what sense does this make?” Kagan responded. She then cited an amicus brief by Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway demonstrating that Katyal is wrong: When combating the slave trade throughout the 19th century, countries frequently held trading companies liable under international law. Anti-slavery tribunals penalized these companies, which were analogues of modern corporations, for violating the law of nations. Katyal is asking the court to let corporations off the hook on the basis of revisionist history.

    Even Justice Samuel Alito, another ATS skeptic, told Katyal that “your arguments lead to results that are pretty hard to take.” The justice then gave Katyal a hypothetical to test the limits of his theory. If an American corporation hired foreign agents to kidnap children and hold them in bondage on a plantation in Africa, Alito asked, could those children sue the corporation in U.S. courts under the ATS? Katyal responded that, no, an American corporation that enslaves children overseas has no liability under the statute.

    Despite this fierce questioning, Katyal probably still holds the winning hand. In other contexts the conservative justices have been extremely hesitant to allow lawsuits involving international crimes that might implicate U.S. foreign policy. Paul Hoffman, lawyer for the plaintiffs, faced withering questions from the conservatives, who zeroed in on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a federal law that imposes criminal liability on American corporations complicit in child slavery. Thomas, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggested that the TVPA represents America’s official response to the problem. Congress, they mused, would not want courts to give victims another way to hold corporations accountable.

    These justices also appeared uncertain that anyone, corporation or person, can be held liable for aiding and abetting a crime against humanity if they did not commit it themselves. And Alito strongly implied that he does not think the plaintiffs put forth enough persuasive evidence of Nestle’s or Cargill’s complicity to continue with the suit. The conservatives seemed to be looking for a way to avoid a sweeping decision—no corporate immunity under the ATS under any circumstances—while still throwing out this particular lawsuit. If so, they will surely find one, and Katyal can claim his victory.

    Given his pedigree and prominence as a center-left advocate throughout the Trump years, Katyal is almost certainly a candidate for a major position in the Biden administration. So it was somewhat surreal to hear him defending corporations accused of abetting child slavery. But such distasteful cases make up the bread and butter of a Big Law lawyer’s practice. Katyal served as acting solicitor general under Barack Obama, but he is also a partner at Hogan Lovells, where he routinely represents corporate clients. He has helped companies crush labor rights
    and consumer rights—while maintaining an active pro bono practice, often suing the Trump administration and defending death row inmates.

    The private law firms that aided Trump’s assault on democracy have been rightly pilloried by by the Left. But corporate attorneys like Katyal will present a challenge for Joe Biden. Many, including Katyal, have done genuinely noble work for free, while actively harming workers, consumers, and vulnerable communities for pay. Do these lawyers deserve a position in a progressive administration? Obama certainly thought so. Soon, Democrats will have to decide whether they will still invite such attorneys into the federal government. It is a shame that Big Law’s many victims—including, most likely, the six former child slaves behind Tuesday’s case—will not have a voice in that conversation.

    (Source)


    Nestle and Chargill are apparently big time fans of slavery, particularly child slavery. And have hired a fairly prominent attorney in Neal Katyal who has risen, possibly after summoning the spirit of Jefferson Davis via Quiji Board, to defend Nestle and Chargill from the possibility of consequences for the widely illegal practice of slavery. Katyal is defending multinational corporations' desire to own child slaves before the Supreme Court right now in the consolidated cases of Nestlé USA v. Doe I and Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I.

    Justices Sotomayor, Kagan as well as Gorsuch do not seem all that convinced by the slavery case, even Clarence Thomas who has never seen a corporations claim to property he didn't like had some questions about the curious defense of child slaves. Heck even Alito was skeptical:

    Third, Alito (!) asks Katyal: If a U.S. corporation hired foreign agents to kidnap children and hold them in bondage on a plantation in Africa, could those children sue the corporation in U.S. courts under this law?

    Katyal says: Nope.
    [1]

    Kagan Asked Katyal:
    Q: Could you sue a slave holder under ATS?
    A: yes
    Q: Could you sue 10 slave holders?
    A: Yes
    Q: So why does it matter if those ten form a corp.
    A: Umm... norms don't allow corporate liability...
    Q: What sense does that make?

    New SCOTUS critter Barrett asked
    Q: So could you sue on torture?
    A: Yes
    Q: But not if it was a corporation?
    A: Yes

    Man this Neal Katyal is, interesting, in that "OMG a Literal Demon" kinda way.
    Last edited by Theodarzna; 2020-12-02 at 05:02 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Tankie Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics / Socialism with My Chemical Romance characteristics. Caramelldansen Nationalism. Liberalism is the Pandemic. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. When that Polka hits!. Ceterum et dare nobis duo milia dollariorum!

  2. #2
    I am Murloc! Pro-Violence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In your swimming pool after midnight
    Posts
    5,616
    Third, Alito (!) asks Katyal: If a U.S. corporation hired foreign agents to kidnap children and hold them in bondage on a plantation in Africa, could those children sue the corporation in U.S. courts under this law?

    Katyal says: Nope.
    That is what happens when you start shoving through laws that protect corporations from liability. As far as I'm aware mostly the Republican Party is responsible for pushing through a bunch more of those laws the past few years.
    - The One and Only, the Legendary, the Mighty - You might recognize me from the forum signatures of lesser mortals obsessed with me. -
    Vexing little man-babies and normies on the internet since before you were born.

  3. #3
    Been following this over some twitter threads (yes yes i know...).
    What a fucking shitshow. Nestle needs to fuck off and go bankrupt. And the people that reject law reform. And this Kaytal dude is slime, how can he still be a respected lawyer after this presentation? Then again, Dershowitz, Sekulow, Giuliani...
    Last edited by Sorshen; 2020-12-02 at 09:56 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    I can't believe you idiots banned my main forum account because I was only showing you proof of your trolling. I will keep posting here and I will not stop this war. Just stop disrupting roleplay. You have done enough damage already.

  4. #4
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    26,935
    Just goes to show how slimey some lawyers can get.

  5. #5
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,769
    1> Limited liability shouldn't be a thing that exists. Period. Corporations are tools run by people, those people should bear the responsibility for their decisions.

    2> Citizens of and companies based (in any manner, not exclusively; a multinational with regional HQs in the nation would qualify) in a given nation should be beholden to that nation's laws for actions outside of that nation. If an American goes to Thailand for the child sex trafficking, they should be charged with those crimes on returning to the USA. Same for enslavement, as in this case.

    Sure, while #2 won't kill a multinational, directly, you can render them bankrupt within your own nation and arrest any of their local executives.

  6. #6
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    23,511
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    Just goes to show how slimey some lawyers can get.
    Part of his defense even cites Zyklon B manufacturers during the 2nd World War.



    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorshen View Post
    Been following this over some twitter threads (yes yes i know...).
    What a fucking shitshow. Nestle needs to fuck off and go bankrupt. And the people that reject law reform. And this Kaytal dude is slime, how can he still be a respected lawyer after this presentation? Then again, Dershowitz, Sekulow, Giuliani...
    Well, I guess unlike Dershowitz, Katyal is only advocating for Child Slavery of the "Work them to death" variety, unlike Dershowitz who was more into the Jeffrey Epstein model of Child Slavery. Though even Dershowitz gets to still live in public.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Tankie Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics / Socialism with My Chemical Romance characteristics. Caramelldansen Nationalism. Liberalism is the Pandemic. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. When that Polka hits!. Ceterum et dare nobis duo milia dollariorum!

  7. #7
    It's the lawyer's job in an adversarial system to present the best case they can, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter.

    The problem here lies in the liability protections granted to corporations, not a lawyer doing their job.

  8. #8
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    23,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    It's the lawyer's job in an adversarial system to present the best case they can, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter.

    The problem here lies in the liability protections granted to corporations, not a lawyer doing their job.
    Lawyers are however free to not take a case; and given this lawyers previous history of corporate service, this seems like something he does on the regular.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Tankie Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics / Socialism with My Chemical Romance characteristics. Caramelldansen Nationalism. Liberalism is the Pandemic. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. When that Polka hits!. Ceterum et dare nobis duo milia dollariorum!

  9. #9
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    26,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    It's the lawyer's job in an adversarial system to present the best case they can, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter.

    The problem here lies in the liability protections granted to corporations, not a lawyer doing their job.
    Its a choice to work for these corperations, it really does not matter whether its his job or not, a job is a choice.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Lawyers are however free to not take a case; and given this lawyers previous history of corporate service, this seems like something he does on the regular.
    Wholly irrelevant. The system is designed around the idea that two advocates argue their case and an impartial body rules after hearing arguments. Whether or not the lawyer agrees with the position they are arguing doesn't matter.

  11. #11
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    23,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    Wholly irrelevant. The system is designed around the idea that two advocates argue their case and an impartial body rules after hearing arguments. Whether or not the lawyer agrees with the position they are arguing doesn't matter.
    They agreed to argue this case; I have little sympathy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Tankie Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics / Socialism with My Chemical Romance characteristics. Caramelldansen Nationalism. Liberalism is the Pandemic. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. When that Polka hits!. Ceterum et dare nobis duo milia dollariorum!

  12. #12
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    26,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    Wholly irrelevant. The system is designed around the idea that two advocates argue their case and an impartial body rules after hearing arguments. Whether or not the lawyer agrees with the position they are arguing doesn't matter.
    I don't care how the system is designed, corperate lawyers had the choice to become a different kind of lawyers, you got plenty of choices in that. Not all jobs are ethical, like working for Nestle.

  13. #13
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Part of his defense even cites Zyklon B manufacturers during the 2nd World War.

    I am actually ok with the precedent here. It notes that the corporation wasn't held liable, but the individuals responsible within that corporation were. So lets charge a couple Nestle execs with facilitating child slavery instead. After all, slapping a financial fine on Nestle won't do much, lets toss a couple of their executives in jail for a few decades instead.
    "We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine." DJT- Jan 22, 2020
    "And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done." DJT- Feb 26, 2020
    “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.” DJT- Feb 27, 2020

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    Wholly irrelevant. The system is designed around the idea that two advocates argue their case and an impartial body rules after hearing arguments. Whether or not the lawyer agrees with the position they are arguing doesn't matter.
    So nazi soldiers are innocent in your eyes? They were only doing their job after all.

    Surely you understand the concept of personal responsibility?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    I am actually ok with the precedent here. It notes that the corporation wasn't held liable, but the individuals responsible within that corporation were. So lets charge a couple Nestle execs with facilitating child slavery instead. After all, slapping a financial fine on Nestle won't do much, lets toss a couple of their executives in jail for a few decades instead.
    I'm actually pretty down with this, though I know the Nestle execs would never face these kinds of charges. Going after companies is usually sadly pointless, since the fines and penalties are usually a pittance (capped by law) compared to the violations in question.

    However...start throwing executives of those companies in jail and holding them personally responsible, and we may have a good angle to go after corporate wrongdoing that could put some fear into the hearts of the C-suite.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Lawyers are however free to not take a case; and given this lawyers previous history of corporate service, this seems like something he does on the regular.
    Your concern trolling is irrelevant.

    Everyone deserves proper legal representation. Period. No ifs, no ands, no buts. I know as a GOP supporter you have a great deal of trouble understanding the idea of a single tier justice system but at least try to keep up.

    No matter how shitty the client (and Nestle is shitty), I never ever attack the lawyer as long as they uphold the law while trying to provide the best representation they can.

  17. #17
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    26,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Your concern trolling is irrelevant.

    Everyone deserves proper legal representation. Period. No ifs, no ands, no buts. I know as a GOP supporter you have a great deal of trouble understanding the idea of a single tier justice system but at least try to keep up.

    No matter how shitty the client (and Nestle is shitty), I never ever attack the lawyer as long as they uphold the law while trying to provide the best representation they can.
    Thats great, its still a choice to work as a corperate laywer instead of defending those lower on the scale who actually need it instead of being a dickhole who defends mass-scale child slavery.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    However...start throwing executives of those companies in jail and holding them personally responsible, and we may have a good angle to go after corporate wrongdoing that could put some fear into the hearts of the C-suite.
    I haven't decided how I feel about limited liability. Its not as simple as it being shitty.

    However corporate punishments should be much, much more stringent and include revoking their corporate charter if its especially egregious. Unfortunately hammering a corporation like that takes work and there's a reason why bodies like the SEC and IRS are underfunded. Can't land the big cases without the people to do them.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    I haven't decided how I feel about limited liability. Its not as simple as it being shitty.

    However corporate punishments should be much, much more stringent and include revoking their corporate charter if its especially egregious. Unfortunately hammering a corporation like that takes work and there's a reason why bodies like the SEC and IRS are underfunded. Can't land the big cases without the people to do them.
    And the laws so restrictive on the penalties that corporations can face. It's why I remain a huge proponent of campaign finance reform, which should hopefully nudge these elected officials a bit away from business so they're not so reliant on their money to win re-election.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    Thats great, its still a choice to work as a corperate laywer instead of defending those lower on the scale who actually need it instead of being a dickhole who defends mass-scale child slavery.
    Somebody still has to be their defense. That's how the system works. Everyone from the very poor to the very rich. No exceptions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •