ClassNotesCriminalLawGivelberFull

LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)


Criminal Law

Givelber

Mission this week: learn to log in to Westlaw. Go to TWEN, Criminal Law Givelber. Course home-page (currently has syllabus).

January 16: class will be 1:45-3:15pm.

Criminal law in this country is statutory, but instead of learning specific state law, learn the Model Penal Code (cb1165 or cs141). Need to know how model penal code applies to every situation, need to read it long before final exam. Read relevant sections through cases.

Differences between Criminal Law and Civil Law

Assignment for tomorrow: read 'the criminal act' in casebook.


Thursday, January 3, 2002

(Tuesday's Row: Adam to Carrie (front left))

Requirement of an Act

In theory, cannot be punished for thought alone. Requirement of a voluntary act.

Material in 111-136 might be worth rereading at a later date.

Proctor v. State

[176 P. 771]

Possession

At least some courts will hold possession on premises which you control to be illegal possession. Modal Penal Code would require 'awareness of control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.' Article 2, Section 2.01 (4).

Would probably come down to how much owner of premises tried to stop person from possessing illegal substance on premises.

Omissions

Basis for illegal omissions: pre-existing relationship between defendant and victim, contract, taken action towards victim, or statutory requirement.

Jones v. US

[308 F.2d 307] 1962 US Court of Appeals

Voluntariness

State v. Newton

[340 N.Y.S.2d 77] 1973 Supreme Court of NY (cb125)

Martin v. State

[17 So. 2d 427] 1944 Alabama Court of Appeals (cb127)

People v. Grant

[360 N.E.2d 809] 1977 Appellate Court of Illinois (cb128)


Tuesday, January 8, 2002 (Class 3)

People v. Grant

(continued)

[360 N.E.2d 809] 1977 Appellate Court of Illinois (cb128)

Robinson v. California

[370 U.S. 660] 1962 Supreme Court of the United States (cb136)

Powell v. Texas

[392 U.S. 514] 1968 Supreme Court (cb139)

Pottinger v. City of Miami

[810 F. Supp. 1551] 1992 Southern District of Florida (cb141)

Johnson v. State

[602 So.2d 1288] 1992 Florida Supreme Court (cb143)

Commonwealth v. Keller

[35 Pa. D & C. 2d 615] 1964 Common Pleas Court of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania (cb148)


Wednesday, January 9, 2002 (Class 4)

Commonwealth v. Keller

(continued)

[35 Pa. D & C. 2d 615] 1964 Common Pleas Court of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania (cb148)

Keeler v. Superior Court of Amador County

[470 p. 2d 617] 1970 Supreme Court of California (cb154)

People v. Van Alstyne

[46 Cal. App. 3d 900] 1975 California Appellate Court (cb161)

City of Chicago v. Jesus Morales Et Al.

[527 U.S. 41] 1999 Supreme Court of United States (cb162)

  1. Police officer identifies a gang member
  2. Gang member loitering with no apparent purpose.
  3. Police officer orders dispersal.
  4. Those ordered must disobey.

Thursday, January 10, 2002 (Class 5)

City of Chicago v. Jesus Morales Et Al.

(continued)

[527 U.S. 41] 1999 Supreme Court of United States (cb162)

Punishment

Alex Cabarga Case

Federal sentencing guidelines take away rehabilitation and reform functions. No parole system.


Tuesday, January 15, 2002 (Class 6)

8th Amendment

Rummell v. Estelle

Solem v. Helm

[463 U.S. 277] 1983 United States Supreme Court (cb84)

Harmelin v. Michigan

[501 U.S. 957] 1991 United States Supreme Court (cb90)

Federal Sentencing Guidlines

Tomorrow: guest speakers at 1:45pm.

Thursday: Mark to Melissa are 'on'.


Thursday, January 17, 2002 (Class 7)

Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Koon v. United States

[518 U.S. 81] 1996 United States Supreme Court (cb104)

Currently, jury does not need to hear evidence on all aspects used in sentencing. Apprende (sp?) may change this.

State of Mind (Mens Rea)

United States v. Balint

[258 U.S. 250] 1922 United States Supreme Court (cb185)

United States v. Dotterweich

[320 U.S. 277] 1943 United States Supreme Court (cb189)

United States v. Park

[421 U.S. 658] 1975 United States Supreme Court (cb192)

Next class: Julie to Rob are 'on'.


Tuesday, January 22, 2002 (Class 8)

State of Mind

(continued)

United States v. Park

Morissette v. United States

[342 U.S. 246] 1952 United States Supreme Court (cb193)

U.S. v. X-Citement Video

[513 U.S. 64] 1994 United States Supreme Court (cb195)

  1. Transport
  2. in interstate or foreign commerce
  3. any visual depiction if
    1. producing of video involves a minor in sexually explicit acts and
    2. depiction is of minor in sexually explicit acts

U.S. v. U.S.D.C.

[858 F.2d 534] 1988 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb196)

Whenever there is criminal statute that contains more than one element (always) there will always be problems with the state of mind requirement.

Regina v. Faulkner

[13 Cox C.C. 550] 1877 Court of Crown Cases Reserved (cb202)

Other standard for model penal code culpability: knowledge.

What if person is given $200 to carry backpack with heroine, but claims they do not know what they are transporting.

United States v. Jewell

[532 F.2d 697] 1976 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb219)

Next class: Kia to John, up to Stacy, over to Adam


Wednesay, January 23, 2002 (Class 9)

There is no generic definition of specific intent/general intent. Don't use them in this course!

United States v. Doe

[136 F.3d 631] 1998 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (cb223)

State v. Neuzil

[589 N.W.2d 708] 1999 Iowa Supreme Court (cb223)

Mistake Cases

Regina v. Prince

[L.R. 2 Crim. Cas. Res. 154] 1875 Court for Crown Cases Reserved (cb223)

  1. Taking
  2. any unmarried girl
  3. under sixteen
  4. out of possession
  5. and against will of parent/guardian

People v. Ryan

[626 N.E.2d 51] 1993 Court of Appeals of New York (cb230)

Jen to George-Marie will be 'on' tomorrow.


Thursday, January 24, 2002 (Class 10)

Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law

Model Penal Code 221.1: Burglary Defined

A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with purpose to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for burglary that the building or structure was abandoned.

In hypothetical where woman mistakenly enters other premises and takes jewelry after getting there, woman is not guilty of burglary, since she did not enter with intent to commit a crime.

Person enters what appears to be warehouse to steal for drug money, turns out it is someone's dwelling. This would be a burglary, but under Model Penal Code not of the second degree, since the same state of mind would apply to whether or not it was the dwelling of another at night (either purpose, or if that doesn't make sense, knowledge or recklessness).

Person notices open window to what appears to be a dwelling, breaks in, but discovers it is yarn factory and leaves empty handed. Probably guilty of burglary of the third degree and attempted burglary of the second degree.

If there is no state of mind associated with any element of a crime, then you need to move to rules of construction. Under Model Penal Code if there is any state of mind in any element of crime, then that applies to all elements. If there is no state of mind, then recklessness applies. Presumption against Strict Liability rules.

Mistake of Fact v. Mistake of Law: Model Penal Code draws no such distinction. 2.04:

  1. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if:
    1. the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or
    2. the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.

United States v. Learned

[26 F. Cas. 893] 1870 East Michigan District Court (cb245)

People v. Bray

[52 Cal. App. 3d 494] 1975 Court of Appeal of California (cb248)

Julio Marrero Case

United States v. Baker

[807 F.2d 427] 1986 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (cb252)

Smith case: tenant took and damaged electrical equipment he had installed in apartment, not knowing that property belonged to landlord. Mistake of non-governing law, exonerates defendant.

Cheek v. United States

[498 U.S. 192] 1991 United States Supreme Court (cb255)

Cathleen through Darren for next class.


Tuesday, January 29, 2002 (Class 11)

Julio Marrero Case

(continued)

Ratzslaff Case

Lambert v. California

[355 U.S. 225] 1957 United States Supreme Court

Long v. State

[65 A.2d 489] 1949 Delaware Supreme Court

Commonwealth v. Twitchell

[617 N.E.2d 609] 1993 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Hendershott v. The People

[653 P.2d 385] 1982 Colorado Supreme Court


Wednesday, January 30, 2002 (Class 11)

State v. Cameron

[514 A.2d 1302] 1986 New Jersey Supreme Court

Law does not want inhibition-reudcing activity to become reason for limiting seriousness of what someone does. Thus mental condition may be admissible, but inhibition may not. Intoxication as a defense would 'swallow' all of criminal law.

Montana v. Egelhoff

[518 U.S. 37] 1996 United States Supreme Court

Hypotheticals:

Under Egelhoff could have crime of 'drunken murder'. But this is unstable area of law now.

Causation

Regina v. Martin Dyos

Joseph Wood Case

(Robinson 65-69)

Jenny to Tarah for tomorrow.


Tuesday, February 5, 2002 (Class 13) (Assignments 13)

Lesson from Dyos case: can't hold someone criminally liable for death where multiple actors may have caused death but can't identify other actor. But if identities of all simultaneously contributing actors are known, then they can all be guilty of murder. They are then all substantially contributing cause of death (traditional doctrine).

On the other hand, if Dyos strikes with intent to kill, and then Tom strikes with intent to kill one minute later and speeds death, than Dyos is only guilty of attempted murder and then Tom is guilty to murder.

Dyos would have been liable in torts. Criminal law in this case comes to different result: if you don't know for sure that defendant's action caused injury then can't hold them liable.

Interaction of mens rea and causation. In torts, law will sometimes carry causation further in intentional torts than in unintentional torts. In criminal law, situation is reversed: crimes with higher mens rea standards may not allow for as long as chain of causation. Rationale: want to punish people for what they set out to do less than what they actually they did.

Commonwealth v. Rhoades

[401 N.E.2d 342] 1980 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (cb300)

Hypotheticals (cb303)

Commonwealth v. Root

[170 A.2d 310] 1961 Pennsylvania Supreme Court

People v. Kevorkian

[527 N.W.2d 714] 1994 Michigan Supreme Court

For tomorrow nobody in particular is 'on', but will cover murder and some of manslaughter.


Wednesday, February 6, 2002 (Class 14) (Assignments 13-14)

People v. Kevorkian

(continued)

[527 N.W.2d 714] 1994 Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Beardsley

[113 N.W. 1128] 1907 Michigan Supreme Court

Palmer (cb343) and Leg (cb344) cases:

Murder

Francis v. Franklin

United States Supreme Court

Row including Angela to April for tomorrow. Only responsible for Berry and Woo. Will get through all of provocation tomorrow.


Thursday, February 7, 2002 (Class 15) (Assignments 15-16)

History of Murder

People v. Walker

[204 N.E.2d 594] 1965 Illinois Court of Appeals (cb380)

Distinction between justification and excuse (both are partial):

Rowland v. State

[35 So. 826] 1904 Mississippi Supreme Court (cb386)

In 20th century, questions began to arise as to why there were only a few situations that could count as justificitino or excuse.

People v. Berry

[556 P.2d 777] 1976 California Supreme Court (cb402)

People v. Wu

[235 Cal. App. 3d 614] 1991 California Court of Appeal (cb415)

For next time, everyone from Jeanette back is 'on'.


Tuesday, February 12, 2002 (Class 16) (Assignments 16-17)

People v. Wu

(continued)

[235 Cal. App. 3d 614] 1991 California Court of Appeal (cb415)

Intentional killings are either murder or voluntary manslaughter--problems with voluntary manslaughter category, though.

Commonwealth v. Welansky

[55 N.E.2d 902] 1944 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Case of father who accidentally left child in car, who then died. Maybe no utilitaritarian justification for punishment, but what about retribution?

State v. Williams

[484 P.2d 1167] 1971 Washington Court of Appeals

For next time, Christina to Larry, and over to Anna (are 'on').


Wednesday, February 13, 2002 (Class 17) (Assignments 17-18)

State v. Williams

(continued)

[484 P.2d 1167] 1971 Washington Court of Appeals

Reckless Homicide

Mayes v. People

[106 Ill. 306] 1883 Illiniois Supreme Court

Commonwealth v. Malone

[47 A.2d 445] 1946 Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Commonwealth v. Woodward

[1997 WL 694119] 1997 Massachusetts Superior Court (cb455)

Dog Cases

People v. Stamp

[2 Cal. App. 3d 203] 1969 California Court of Appeal

Max to Ariel are 'on' tomorrow.


Thursday, February 14, 2002 (Class 18) (Assignments 18-19)

People v. Stamp

(continued)

[2 Cal. App. 3d 203] 1969 California Court of Appeal

Why felony murder rule?

  1. Extreme recklessness
  2. Bad people should be strictly liable
  3. Safer felonies
  4. Deter felony to begin with

People v. Gladman

[359 N.E.2d 420] 1976 New York Court of Appeals

Bethany to Michelle are 'on' for Tuesday.


Tuesday, February 19, 2002 (Class 19) (Assignment 19)

People v. Hickman

[297 N.E.2d 582] 1973 Illinois 3d District Appellate Court

DeSean? McCarthy?

People v. Washington

[402 P.2d 130] 1965 California Supreme Court

Taylor v. People

[477 P.2d 131] 1970 California Supreme Court

Hypothetical Question

Adam to Carrie are 'on' for tomorrow (on death penalty material).


Wednesday, February 20, 2002 (Class 20) (Assignments 20-21)

Merger

People v. Moran

[158 N.E. 35] 1927 New York Court of Appeals (cb501)

History of Capital Punishment


Thursday, February 21, 2002 (Class 21) (Assignment 21)

Jones v. United States

[527 U.S. 373] 1999 United States Supreme Court (cb519)

Lockett v. Ohio

[438 U.S. 586] 1978 United States Supreme Court (cb538)

Tison v. Arizona

[481 U.S. 137] 1987 United States Supreme Court (cb546)

McCleskey? v. Kemp

[481 U.S. 279] 1987 United States Supreme Court (cb555)


Spring Break (February 23-March 2)

Notes are continued in ClassNotesCriminalLawGivelber2, which should load faster!


Tuesday, March 5, 2002 (Class 22) (Assignments 22-23)

McCleskey? v. Kemp

(continued)

[481 U.S. 279] 1987 United States Supreme Court (cb555)

Rape


Wednesday, March 6, 2002 (Class 23) (Assignment 23)

Brown v. State

[106 N.W. 536] 1906 Wisconsin Supreme Court (cb1081)

People v. Dorsey

[429 N.Y.S.2d 828] 1980 New York State Supreme Court (cb1087)

People v. Warren

[446 N.E.2d 591] 1983 Illinois Supreme Court (cb1093)

People v. Barnes

[721 P.d 110] 1986 California Supreme Court

State v. Smith

[554 A.2d 713] 1989 Connecticut Supreme Court

Question to ask: even with these different standards, would there be actually different results in these cases?

New York holds on to word 'resistance'; unless it is totally within the eyes of jury, might make it somewhat harder to get conviction in Smith and Barnes, although you can find elements of resistance in those cases.

Would have no problem getting conviction in Dorsey in Connecticut or California, however.

Deal with MTS and Fisher tomorrow.


Tuesday, March 12, 2002 (Class 25) (Assignment 25)

'Taking' Element of Theft

Lund v. Commonwealth

[232 S.E.2d 745] 1977 Virginia Supreme Court (cb1034)

People v. Sattlekau

[140 N.Y.S. 805] 1907 New York Supreme Court (cb1037)

Mail Fraud

Durland v. United States

[161 U.S. 306] 1896 United States Supreme Court (cb1043)


United States v. King

[860 F.2d 54] 1988 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (cb1045)

United States v. Regent Office Supply

[421 F.1d 1174] 1970 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (cb1047)

United States v. Starr

[816 F.2d 94] 1987 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb1047)

United States v. Walters

[997 F.2d 1219] 1993 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb1048)

Carpenter v. United States

[484 U.S 19] 1987 Supreme Court

Extortion

People v. Dioguardi

[203 N.Y.S.2d 870] 1960 New York Court of Appeals (cb1053)

State v. Harrington

[260 A.2d 692] 1969 (cb1059)

Blackmail

For tomorrow, Heather's row is 'on'.


Thursday, March 14, 2002 (Class 27) (Assignment 27)

McCormick? v. United States

[500 U.S. 257] 1991 United States Supreme Court (cb1063)

Evans v. United States

[504 U.S. 255] 1992 United States Supreme Court (cb1068)

United States v. Albertson

[971 F. Supp. 837] 1997 District Court of Delaware (cb1068)

Robbery

Burglary

Self-Defense

People v. La Voie

[395 P.2d 1001] 1964 Colorado Supreme Court (cb576)

For next class, Bob to Christina are 'on'.


Tuesday, March 19, 2002 (Class 28) (Assignments 28-29)

People v. La Voie

(continued)

[395 P.2d 1001] 1964 Colorado Supreme Court (cb576)

State v. Leidholm

[334 N.W.2d 811] 1983 North Dakota Supreme Court (cb581)

Julie to Rob are 'on' for next class.


Wednesday, March 20, 2002 (Class 29) (Assignments 29-30)

People v. Goetz

[497 N.E.2d 41] 1986 New York Court of Appeals (cb610)

People v. Abbott

(cb616)

United States v. Peterson

[483 F.2d 1222] 1973 United States Court of Appeals DC Circuit (cb618)

Tennessee v. Garner

[471 U.S. 1] 1985 United States Supreme Court (cb624)

Tomorrow Cathleen to Darren are 'on'.


Thursday, March 21, 2002 (Class 30) (Assignments 30-31)

Tennessee v. Garner

(continued)

[471 U.S. 1] 1985 United States Supreme Court (cb624)

People v. Couch

[439 N.W.2d 354] 1989 Michigan Court of Appeals (cb629)

People v. Ceballos

[526 P.2d 241] 1974 California Supreme Court (cb631)

The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens

[14 Q.B.D. 273] 1884 Queen's Bench Division (cb637)

Beth to Elizabeth are 'on' for next class, on 'duress'.


Tuesday, March 26, 2002 (Class 31) (Assignments 31-32)

People v. Unger

[362 N.E.2d 319] 1977 Illinois Supreme Court (cb649)

State v. Warshaw

[410 A.2d 1000] 1980 Vermont Supreme Court (cb655)

State v. Crawford

[861 P.2d 791] 1993 Kansas Supreme Court (cb664)

Michelle to April for tomorrow's class (first insanity class).


Wednesday, March 27, 2002 (Class 32) (Assignments 32-33)

United States v. Contento-Pachon

[723 F.2d 691] 1984 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb673)

Williams v. State

[646 A.2d 1101] 1994 Maryland Court of Appeals (cb675)

State v. Hunter

[740 P.2d 559] 1987 Kansas Supreme Court (cb677)

Insanity

People v. Serravo

[823 P.2d 128] 1992 Colorado Supreme Court (cb689)

Nicole to Helen are 'on' for tomorrow.


Thursday, March 28, 2002 (Class 33) (Assignments 33-34)

Three places in Criminal Justice system where mental situation comes into play:

Anyone who raises NGI defense has already passed competency test. Issue of forcing defendant to take anti-psychotic drugs in order to be competent to stand trial.

People v. Serravo

(continued)

[823 P.2d 128] 1992 Colorado Supreme Court (cb689)

Smith v. State

[614 P.2d 300] 1980 Alaska Supreme Court (cb712)


Tuesday, April 2, 2002 (Class 34) (Assignments 34-35)

Jordan Weaver Case

    1. Except as provided in Subsection (4) of this Section, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense.
    2. When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial.

Diminished Capacity

Jenny to Tara are 'on' for tomorrow.


Wednesday, April 3, 2002 (Class 35) (Assignment 36)

People v. Murray

[15 Cal. 160] 1859 California Supreme Court (cb765)


Thursday, April 4, 2002 (Class 36) (Assignment 36)

McQuirter? v. State

[63 So. 2d 388] 1953 Alabama Court of Appeals (cb769)

People v. Rizzo

[158 N.E. 888] 1927 New York Court of Appeals (cb772)

United States v. Jackson

[520 F.2d 112] 1977 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb776)

United States v. Buffington

[815 F.2d 1292] 1987 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb777)

Walters v. Maass

[45 F.3d 1355] 1995 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb778)

People v. Staples

[6 Cal. App. 3d 61] 1970 California Court of Appeals (cb780)

Rebecca to Larry are 'on' for Tuesday.


Tuesday, April 9, 2002 (Class 37) (Assignment 37)

Impossibility

Booth v. State

[398 P.2d 863] 1964 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

People v. Dlugash

[363 N.E.2d 1155] 1977 New York Court of Appeals (cb809)


Wednesday, April 10, 2002 (Class 38) (Assignment 38)

Accomplice Liability

State v. Ochoa

[72 P.2d 609] 1937 New Mexico Supreme Court (cb823)


Thursday, April 11, 2002 (Class 39) (Assignment 39)

State v. Ochoa

[72 P.2d 609] 1937 New Mexico Supreme Court (cb823)

Gains v. State

[417 So. 2d 719] 1982 Florida Appellate (cb834)

State v. Tally

[15 So. 722] 1894 Alabama Supreme Court (cb838)

People v. Beeman

[199 Cal. Rptr. 60] 1984 California Supreme Court (cb851)

Wilson v. People

[87 P.2d 5] 1939 Colorado Supreme Court (cb861)


Tuesday, April 16, 2002 (Class 40) (Assignments 40-41)

Wilson v. People

[87 P.2d 5] 1939 Colorado Supreme Court (cb861)

State v. Hohensee

[650 S.W.2d 268] 1982 Missouri Court of Appeals (cb865)

State v. Etzweiler

[480 A.2d 870] 1984 New Hampshire Supreme Court (cb866)

State v. Foster

[522 A.2d 277] 1987 Connecticut Supreme Court (cb869)

United States v. Short

[493 F.2d 1170] 1974 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb870)

Yusuf Hawkins Case


Wednesday, April 17, 2002 (Class 41) (Assignments 41-42)

People v. Sadacca

[489 N.Y.S.2d 824] 1985 New York Court of Appeals (cb885)

United States v. Ruffin

[613 F.2d 408] 1979 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb886)

Commonwealth v. Donoghue

[63 S.W.2d 3] 1933 Kentucky Supreme Court (cb902)


Thursday, April 18, 2002 (Class 42) (Assignment 42)

Griffin v. State

[455 S.W.2d 882] 1970 Arkansas Supreme Court (cb905)

United States v. Cepeda

[768 F.2d 1515] 1985 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb907)

United States v. Rahman

[189 F.3d 88] 1999 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb909)

People v. Lauria

[251 Cal. App. 2d 471] 1967 California Court of Appeals (cb914)

United States v. Feola

[420 U.S. 671] 1974 United States Supreme Court (cb923)


Tuesday, April 23, 2002 (Class 43) (Assignment 43)

Pinkerton Doctrine

United States v. Diaz

[864 F.2d 544] 1988 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb926)

United States v. Alvarez

[755 F.2d 830] 1985 (cb930)


Wednesday, April 24, 2002 (Class 44) (Assignments 44-45)

Kotteakos v. United States

[328 U.S. 750] 1946 United States Supreme Court (cb949, 952)

Blumenthal


Thursday, April 25, 2002 (Class 45) (Assignment 46)

Armored Car (Problem 2)



LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)

This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited April 28, 2002 1:53 pm ET (diff)
Search: