myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
right wing supreme court right wing activism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13056
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ya we know they believe they are above the law look at the idiot chief justice saying they do not need to show their conflict of interests. BS impeach the idiot for being for criminal activity.

Senators ask Marshals Service for information on past Supreme Court justice travel

GOP congressman served with lawsuit over role in Capitol assault
Capitol Police 'was aware of the potential for violence' and other takeaways from…

WASHINGTON – Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are asking the Justice Department to provide information about where Supreme Court justices have traveled, asserting that the disclosure would improve transparency on the high court.

"The justices of our highest court are subject to the lowest standards of transparency of any senior officials across the federal government," wrote Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and John Kennedy, R-La., in a June 4 letter made public Tuesday.

The request is directed at the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides judicial security – including assisting with security for Supreme Court justices when they travel domestically outside of Washington, D.C., the senators wrote in the letter.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

Outside groups have pressed the court for additional travel disclosures. That push received renewed attention after the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016 at a Texas ranch owned by an attorney who previously had business at the court. The owner told the Washington Post then that Scalia was a guest and, like all the other guests at his ranch, did not pay for his stay.

Like others in the government, the justices do disclose trips that are reimbursed by outside entities. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, for instance, frequently notes his travel to New York to judge the Pritzker Architecture Prize, paid for by a foundation that sponsors that award. Other justice routinely note their travel to speak at law schools.

But outside groups seeking additional transparency say the disclosure requirements do not include the cost of the trip or other attendees. The requirement also exempts justices from disclosing lodging and entertainment received as "personal hospitality."

The senators want the Marshals Service, which is part of the Justice Department, to disclose information about trips taken outside of the nation's capital, the dates of the trip and the cost to the agency for providing security.

John Roberts wearing a suit and tie: Chief Justice John Roberts.© Erin Schaff, Pool Chief Justice John Roberts.
Progressive groups have been pressing the Supreme Court for additional ethics measures, such as a code of conduct or requiring justices to be more forthcoming about the reasons they recuse themselves from cases. Some of those ideas have generated bipartisan interest – though few of them have gained real momentum in Congress.

Whitehouse is the chairman of the subcommittee with oversight of federal courts. Kennedy is the top-ranking Republican on that subcommittee.

Chief Justice John Roberts asserted in 2011 that Congress has no constitutional authority to impose a code of ethics on the high court. Associate Justice Elena Kagan told lawmakers in 2019 that Roberts was weighing a code of conduct but it's not clear what, if any, progress has been made in the two years since.

Nodding to the fact that federal security agencies are generally unwilling to disclose any information about that work, Whitehouse and Kennedy said they would honor requests to redact personally identifiable information about the justices and their families.
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.

Last edited by real-human on Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13056
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

again they want the ultra rich and russians and chinese to be able to have a hidden voice...

no one stopping free speech just behind your back speech. IE where the lies and fake news comes from, hidden speech.

again 6 to 3 all liberals against KKK masked speech.

Supreme Court ruling opens door to more campaign finance challenges

he Supreme Court's recent donor disclosure ruling could embolden future challenges to campaign finance rules, experts say.

a large stone statue in front of a building: The Supreme Court is seen at sunset on June 7© Greg Nash The Supreme Court is seen at sunset on June 7
In Thursday's 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, justices struck down a California statute requiring charities to reveal their donors to state officials. The court's conservative wing said the rule had a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.

The ruling doesn't apply to publicly disclosed donors or political groups. But in the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that disclosure laws must be "narrowly tailored" to important government interests.

Experts say Roberts's opinion effectively toughens the standard of review for all laws that compel disclosure, including election rules. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the ruling "marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull's-eye."

Tara Malloy, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, which backed California's rule, told The Hill that the ruling could spark further challenges to campaign finance laws. Still, she noted the court has consistently affirmed that disclosure of political contributions and spending advances the government's interest in preventing corruption.

"Even if the standard of review is slightly heightened, there's no reason to think that election transparency laws can't clear it," Malloy said.

David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, which filed its own lawsuit against California's disclosure law, said the ruling could increase his organization's challenges to "unreasonable" campaign finance rules.

"It definitely makes it easier for us to persuade courts that certain disclosure laws are unconstitutional," Keating said. "With that said, laws that require disclosure of large campaign contributions to politicians, political parties, PACs ... I don't think they are in any danger from this ruling."

Watchdog groups that advocate for stricter campaign finance rules, including the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, have insisted the ruling will not impact regulation of political groups.

"[T]his was not a campaign finance disclosure case, and campaign finance laws remain constitutional and vitally important despite the Court's decision today," Common Cause President Karen Hobert Flynn said in a statement Thursday.

Other campaign finance reform groups have expressed more concern. Meredith McGehee, executive director of Issue One, said the decision "threatens the future of robust disclosure regimes."

"We hope that in the aftermath of this decision, the Court does not apply this reasoning to disclosure associated with politically active groups," McGehee said in a statement.

Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert in campaign finance law, wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the ruling "calls into question a number of campaign finance disclosure laws" and even limits on the amount of money donors can give to political candidates.

"Lower courts can now find that such laws are not narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or its appearance or do not provide voters with valuable information - two interests the court recognized in the past to justify campaign laws," Hasen wrote.

Democratic lawmakers said the ruling signaled that the high court would not uphold laws to crack down on "dark money," undisclosed political spending on ads and other messages that surpassed $1 billion in the 2020 election.

"We are now on a clear path to enshrining a constitutional right to anonymous spending in our democracy, and securing an upper hand for dark-money influence in perpetuity," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a statement Thursday.

Democrats argue that the public cannot hold politicians accountable without knowing the identity of individuals or corporations bankrolling their campaigns. Republicans say measures to unmask secret donors discourage individuals from making donations for fear of harassment, effectively chilling their free speech rights.

A sweeping election overhaul bill, passed by the House before being blocked by Senate Republicans, would require any group that spends $10,000 or more to influence elections to disclose its donors. Those include politically active 501(c)(4) nonprofits, which are currently permitted to keep their funding sources hidden.

Keating said the legislation, known as the For the People Act, would be met with increased scrutiny from federal courts if implemented.

"I think even before this decision, it would have been vulnerable," Keating said, referring to the bill. "With the decision, it's even more vulnerable."

Some campaign finance reform advocates have pointed to what they see as positives in Thursday's ruling. Malloy noted that Justice Clarence Thomas was the only justice to suggest that the court should have extended its review to all disclosure rules.

"Even [Samuel] Alito and [Neil] Gorcush did not seem to have much interest in reconsidering electoral disclosure laws in terms of the standard of scrutiny," Malloy said.

She added that the plaintiffs in the case, conservative nonprofits Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center, specifically stated that they were not challenging campaign finance rules.

The lawsuit was backed by a diverse group of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, that urged justices to keep the ruling specific to the case, even as some political groups filed briefs in the case pushing the court to dismantle election-related disclosure laws.

The Supreme Court has frequently affirmed support for campaign finance disclosure. In its 2010 Citizens United ruling that struck down a ban on corporate political spending, justices voted 8-1 to uphold disclosure laws. Thomas was the lone dissenter.

In 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed rules mandating that groups running candidate-focused ads shortly before an election must disclose their donors and details about their spending. The court has consistently declined to take up challenges to campaign finance disclosure laws.

when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13056
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

great point to this blind right wingers in control of the court.


This week, a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court that has dedicated itself to making it more difficult for Americans to vote struck again and drove a nail further into the heart of the already-gutted Voting Rights Act. As Republican state legislatures nationwide continue to pass restrictive laws that place additional burdens especially on voters of color, this Court, over a decade of shameful, pinched jurisprudence, has slowly eviscerated the crucial tools enacted to curb the worst instincts of lawmakers.

In a 6-3 decision that broke along sadly predictable partisan lines, the Court upheld on Thursday a pair of voter suppression laws from Arizona that banned ballot collection and severely regulated out-of-precinct voting, despite clear evidence that these laws disproportionately burdened minority voters.

The burdens and racial intent in these cases were clear to lower courts and less determined partisan judges. Arizona officials relocate the voting precincts of Black and Latino residents at a wildly higher rate than white precincts, resulting in considerable and predictable confusion. And Native American and rural Arizonans — where household mail service is rare and often unreliable — rely on volunteers and community members to return their ballots. There has been no — zero — proof of fraud in this important service.

None of that mattered to this Court, and indeed, the decision is not surprising to those following the Roberts Court's steady trajectory rightward in voting cases and other civil rights.

What this decision reinforces, however, is that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will no longer serve as a necessary protection against legislation designed to suppress the vote of racial minorities. Even when the facts are as clear as they are here. And even in states like Arizona, where lawmakers have a century of experience in designing voting restrictions carefully crafted to preserve white political power.

when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13056
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ohh the supreme idiot is the victim of his right-wing ruling allowing dark money in politics and he cannot be intellectually honest.

Justice Alito complains, but the evidence is clear: This Supreme Court was built by dark money

Justice Samuel Alito wants desperately for us to believe that everything is just fine at the Supreme Court. Indeed, in his view the court is a victim.

Before an audience at Notre Dame on Sept. 30, Alito denounced "unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court." He aimed his outrage at the media, at leading legal academics, and at people like me who are concerned about, as he put it, the Supreme Court "deciding important issues in a novel, secretive, improper way in the middle of the night, hidden from public view."

The problem for Justice Alito's sense of grievance is that the evidence supports our concerns. Alito has participated in a pattern of decisions — like the court's recent "shadow docket" ruling suspending abortion rights in our second-biggest state — that deliver wins for big Republican donors. Americans' perception that the court lacks independence, and the court's related drop in approval, doesn't flow from some left-wing conspiracy. It's a recognition that the evidence shows a pattern whenever certain interests come before the court.

How strong a pattern? During Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure, the Court has issued more than 80 partisan decisions, by either a 5-4 or 6-3 vote, involving big interests important to Republican Party major donors. Republican-appointed justices have handed wins to the donor interests in every single case. The decisions greenlit rampant voter suppression and bulk gerrymandering (Shelby County v. Holder and Husted v. Randolph Institute); closed courthouse doors to workers wronged by their employers (Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis); unleashed floods of dark money to corrupt our politics and foul our democracy (Citizens United v. FEC and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta); and more. Eighty to zero is a pattern so strong that it could serve as compelling evidence in a trial alleging bias and discrimination.

This pattern did not just happen. It is the fruit of a half-century-long operation by right-wing donors to win through the Supreme Court what they can't win through elected branches of government. In 1971, a corporate attorney from Virginia named Lewis Powell wrote a memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce laying out a game plan for corporations and right-wing ideologues to use "an activist-minded Supreme Court" as an "instrument for social, economic, and political change." (Within months, Powell himself would be appointed by Richard Nixon to the court to advance the plan from within. His memo was never disclosed to the Senate.)

Powerful interests have a long, sordid history of "regulatory capture." Volumes have been written on that history. For big donors, turning the techniques of regulatory capture to the Supreme Court was a short leap. Of course it can't be obvious, so the court-capture operation would obscure its influence using front groups and anonymous secret funding.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The Federalist Society emerged as gatekeeper, monitoring Republican-appointed judges for allegiance to right-wing donor interests, while accepting gobs of anonymous donations. The Judicial Crisis Network and its offshoots sprang up as political attack dogs in the confirmation fights for Federalist Society-approved judges, funded by anonymous donations as big as $17 million. Other front groups groomed convenient plaintiffs to manufacture controversies to give the selected justices cases that would generate precedent favorable to donor interests. Secretly-funded groups also began to lobby the court in orchestrated flotillas — through so-called "friend of the court" briefs — signaling which cases are important to donor interests and advising judges which way the donors want them to rule. They have a perfect winning record.

All of this required boatloads of anonymous money; what people who study this clandestine activity call "dark money." The Washington Post has exposed how the right-wing donor network spent upwards of $250 million in dark money on its judicial influence operation; testimony before my Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee has since upped that dark money figure to $400 million. Because the funding is covert, we do not know exactly who contributed that money or what interests they have before the court. But rarely do people spend $400 million for no reward.

The success of this operation is undeniable. And it is not legal conservatism at work. To reach the desired results, Republican justices often abandon the principles and doctrines of legal conservatism, like textualism and originalism. Take last term's Americans for Prosperity Foundation decision, which created sweeping First Amendment protections for the funders behind dark-money political groups, like the Koch-backed plaintiff in the case. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, the "decision discards decades of First Amendment jurisprudence" to produce a novel, activist creation in the law: constitutional protection for dark money. Good luck finding support for massive dark-money, special-interest spending in the debates at the Constitutional Convention.

Perhaps Justice Alito is so touchy because his fingerprints are all over this pattern of Republican judicial activism. Consider his decades-long judicial campaign against public sector unions, a prime political target of major Federalist Society donors like the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. In a series of cases over a few short years (Knox v. SEIU Local 100, Harris v. Quinn, and Janus v. AFSCME), Alito invited successive challenges to a bedrock 40-year-old precedent protecting unions. Anti-labor front groups with financial ties to the Federalist Society and Bradley Foundation eagerly rushed cases to the court tailored to that invitation, and Alito delivered new First Amendment rights to strike the precedent and gut the unions. Textualist or originalist principles were nowhere to be found in his opinion.

If Alito and the Republican majority on the Supreme Court want the public to believe the court is not a secretive political "cabal" (his word) doing the bidding of big donors who helped put them there, they should deal with the evidence. Explain the 80-0 donor win record. Disclose who's behind the dark-money briefs. Stop the special-interest fast lane around the "case or controversy" requirement. Report gifts and hospitality — not worse than the other branches of government do, but better. Take precedent seriously when it doesn't suit you, not just when it does. Ditto recusal. Put yourself under a code of ethics, like every other federal judge. And understand that you have fouled your nest, not us, and that the Supreme Court must now at least match every other political institution with a renaissance of transparency. Democracy demands it. And the Court That Dark Money Built has squandered the benefit of the doubt.

when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13056
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Private SCOTUS files that could reveal what happened in Bush v. Gore remain locked up

Internal Supreme Court documents that could enhance public understanding of the Bush v. Gore election battle and other significant cases of the late 1990s and early 2000s were to be opened last year under a deal forged by a long-serving justice, but the high court has delayed release of the materials, citing the pandemic.

If You Are Above 30, this Strategy Game is a Must-Have. No Install.
Forge of Empires - Free Online Game
If You Are Above 30, this Strategy Game is a Must-Have. No Install.
The late Justice John Paul Stevens, whose tenure spanned 35 years, planned for most of his case files to be opened and "freely available" at the Library of Congress by October 2020. His arrangement with the library -- the details of which have not been previously reported -- covers cases up to October 1, 2005.

Along with the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision that continues to reverberate in election-law controversies, the trove would include documents related to two groundbreaking gay-rights decisions, a seminal University of Michigan affirmative action dispute and several post-9/11 Guantanamo detainee appeals.

The release of once-private files can help illuminate one of the country's most secretive institutions, even as the open files often spawn tensions among still sitting justices. The justices keep many of their procedures confidential and all their negotiations occur behind closed doors. Historians, law professors and journalists mine the papers to understand how the nine operate.

The files, which typically include draft opinions and memos written among justices, can shed light on the strategies of individual justices and nature of deliberations, why some appeals were taken, others rejected, and whether justices may have switched votes in cases heard. Such behind-the-scenes vote changes have made a difference in abortion disputes as documents from other justices' collections have revealed.

The new Stevens files could reveal private conversations around a separate social policy dilemma, related to LGBTQ rights. He was the senior justice in the majority when the court in 2003 struck down a Texas ban on private sexual conduct between gay adults, and earlier in 1996, when it blocked a Colorado measure that prevented cities from passing antidiscrimination laws to protect gay people.

Yet archives that augment the historical record have in the past created internal conflict.

In 1993, when the papers of Justice Thurgood Marshall were opened at the Library of Congress just months after his death, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist became furious with Library officials, questioning whether Marshall indeed wanted all his files opened so quickly. Rehnquist wrote a letter of rebuke to then-Librarian of Congress James Billington on behalf of the court majority.

Rehnquist had tried but failed to induce all eight associate justices to sign the letter, but in the end had to say he was writing for a "majority of the active Justices." Some of the justices who declined to join in said they believed Marshall had wanted his papers to be released after his death.

Marshall indeed had set the terms of the release of the materials that covered his tenure through 1991.

Rehnquist also tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade colleagues to agree for the future to withhold private documents for set periods, for example, as long as all justices with whom an individual served had retired or died.

The files of Justice Harry Blackmun, later turned over with his archive to the Library of Congress, show that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor strongly agreed with Rehnquist in 1993 that the justices should set timelines for the release of papers. According to Blackmun's notes, the vote was 6-3 and Rehnquist did not want to impose any rule without unanimity.

The three justices who voted against the proposed limits were Blackmun, Stevens and Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016 and whose files are now housed at Harvard but closed for the near future.

The Supreme Court public information office said Stevens' papers were still being organized for transfer and that the Covid-19 pandemic had slowed the effort. Library officials said they have no date for when the materials would be turned over. Once in hand, the library would sort and catalog the materials for public access.

Stevens, who died in 2019, finalized the agreement for his papers with Librarian of Congress Billington on January 3, 2005, Library officials told CNN. A supplemental agreement was signed on April 20, 2010, which happened to be the day Stevens turned 90 and the year he retired. He was the third longest serving justice in court history. (Billington died in 2018.)

The opening of justices' archives flow from special arrangements by individual justices with the Library of Congress and various universities.

The late Justice Blackmun arranged to have his extensive files opened in 2004. That move further riled sitting justices. Blackmun had saved just about everything he ever wrote or received from a colleague.

Under court practice, a justice sends copies of memos directed to an individual justice during case negotiations to the whole group. Some justices plainly want greater control for posterity over the correspondence they write.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a recent conversation with CNN related to his new book, "The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics," said he had not yet decided whether to turn his papers over to a library.

Breyer said the justices have an "informal understanding" that certain documents, such as draft opinions and memoranda among justices, would be withheld from public view until after the death of other justices who served on the cases. Breyer acknowledged that such a pact might conflict with individual justice's wishes regarding their papers.

The court's Public Information Office did not respond to questions about whether any formal or informal agreement for the release of confidential files is in place under Chief Justice John Roberts, who succeeded Rehnquist in 2005. The PIO also declined to answer questions related to any screening of Stevens' files or possible removal of documents.

Susan Stevens Mullen, a daughter of the late justice, said she was not concerned about any culling of his files. In an email exchange with CNN, she attributed the delayed transfer of her father's materials "to COVID and the impact that closures and work-from-home has had on final review and organization of the papers."

The Library of Congress is also awaiting the transfer of files belonging to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Court officials said that release has also been slowed because of the pandemic. Although Ginsburg's case files are all scheduled to be housed at the Library, case files will be closed to most researchers as long as any justice who participated in the decision in the matter is alive.

Stevens' role in a historical age
Stevens, a 1975 appointee of Republican President Gerald Ford, was known for an independent approach and became a leading liberal of the bench. The Chicago native whose work in Naval intelligence during World War II earned him a Bronze Star, had lone legal career, beginning with a Supreme Court clerkship in 1947-48, then becoming a specialist in antitrust law, before appointment to a US appellate court seat in 1970 and then the Supreme Court.

He retired at the age of 90 and continued to write books and essays until his death at age 99.

when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13056
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

look how stupid right wing supreme court idiots are...

Justice Neil Gorsuch Slammed After He Suggests Flu Kills 'Hundreds of Thousands' Each Year

Many on social media criticized and mocked Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch after he incorrectly suggested on Friday that the seasonal flu kills "hundreds of thousands" each year in the United States.

The Supreme Court on Friday heard oral arguments for and against President Joe Biden's mandate that large companies require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly for the novel coronavirus. The mandate would be monitored and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). While the court's liberal justices appeared supportive of the Biden administration's requirements, some of the court's conservative justices appeared more skeptical of the mandate.

Gorsuch, who was nominated to the top court by former President Donald Trump in 2017, drew widespread criticism on Twitter after he showed ignorance of the massive discrepancy between deaths caused by COVID-19 and the seasonal flu during the Friday hearing.

"The flu kills people every year," Gorsuch said. "Traditionally OSHA does not regulate in this area."

"COVID-19 is unprecedented," U.S. solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar responded.

"We have flu vaccines. Flu kills—I believe—hundreds of thousands of people every year," the conservative justice said in an incorrect assertion. "How do we regulate that?" he asked.

In reality, the flu kills, at most, tens of thousands each year—not hundreds of thousands. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the flu kills between 12,000 and 52,000 Americans annually.

Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic killed nearly 800,000 Americans from 2020 through 2021. In September 2018, then CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said that the previous winter's flu season had been the worst in some four decades, resulting in an estimated 80,000 deaths.

when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16
Page 16 of 16

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group