SCOTUS news and opinions

Scary ****
 
Remember kids, "Originalism" in Constitutional interpretation means "Making up whatever lunatic **** gives my party a win".
 
"The founding fathers definitely agreed with all of my opinions trust me bro"
 
So Gorsuch is basically agreeing with the ATF and saying that parts which could be assembled into a firearm is, in effect, that firearm.
?
This sounds strange coming from the same court that recently struck down the regulation on bump stocks which purportedly "convert" semi-autos into full-autos, on similarly quite technical grounds.
...
I'm led to believe he also thinks that anyone with an AR-15 now may, potentially, in essence also be carrying an M16. Because they could very well convert it into one if given the right tools!
 
What really need the court to weigh in on is regulations on people named Luigi owning guns!
 

A Supreme Court case about abortion could destroy Medicaid​

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood asks the justices to render much of federal law unenforceable, in order to spite abortion providers.

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is one of the most straightforward cases the Supreme Court will hear this year. It involves a federal law that requires every state’s Medicaid program to ensure that “any individual eligible for medical assistance” may obtain that care “from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.”
Thus, Medicaid patients, and not the state, clearly have a right to choose their own health providers, with only one exception. The provider must be “qualified,” which, as the federal appeals court that heard this case explained, means that the provider is “professionally competent” to provide the care that the patient seeks.

Nevertheless, South Carolina, along with several other states, attempted to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in violation of this statute. The reason, of course, involves abortion.
In 2018, Republican Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order forbidding “abortion clinics” from being paid to provide care to Medicaid patients. Though the state is permitted to ban abortion outright under the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), South Carolina permits abortions up to the sixth week of pregnancy.
But the state is not allowed, under the Medicaid statute at the heart of Kerr, to prevent Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood for non-abortion-related care — at least as long as Planned Parenthood’s providers are competent to provide this care. And the state admits in its brief that it did not cut off Planned Parenthood because it believes that its doctors are professionally incompetent. According to that brief, Planned Parenthood could “restore Medicaid funding if it stops performing abortions — but it has chosen not to do so.”

So how on Earth did this straightforward case wind up before the highest Court in the country? The answer to that has two parts, one legal, the other political.

The legal issue is that South Carolina claims that the federal law allowing Medicaid patients to choose their health providers is virtually unenforceable. And the state is correct that the Supreme Court’s rules governing when individual patients may sue to enforce federal Medicaid law are complicated, although not nearly as complicated as its lawyers claim.
The political issue is that this case involves abortion, an issue that often causes judges to place politics above law. And so, while most federal appeals courts have concluded that the choice-of-provider law is enforceable, two GOP-dominated courts did not. The Supreme Court typically steps in to resolve legal questions that have divided federal appeals courts.
Notably, however, both of the lower courts that ruled against Medicaid patients did so before the Supreme Court decided Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski (2023), a significant decision clarifying which provisions of federal Medicaid law can be enforced through private lawsuits. The Talevski case cuts strongly in favor of Medicaid patients, and against South Carolina’s position in this case.
So it’s likely that even this Supreme Court will reject South Carolina’s attack on Planned Parenthood. The law in this case is simply too clear, and it was recently reaffirmed in Talevski, a decision that is less than two years old.
Still, nothing is ever certain when an abortion-related case reaches this Court, as most of its Republican members have a history of handing down preposterous interpretations of the law in order to restrict abortion rights. If the six Republicans on the Supreme Court were to abandon longstanding law, that could have disastrous consequences for Medicaid patients, and for thousands of other Americans.

The specific legal issue in​

A federal law known as “Section 1983” is probably the most important civil rights statute ever enacted by Congress. It permits state officials to be sued in federal court if they deprive someone of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Without this law, many federal laws and even many provisions of the Constitution would be unenforceable, because there would be no way to bring a lawsuit vindicating the rights protected by those legal provisions.
Notably, Section 1983 does not permit anyone to bring a lawsuit challenging any violation of any federal law whatsoever. Instead, as the Court said in Blessing v. Freestone (1997), “a plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law.”
Talevski, meanwhile, laid out the Court’s framework for determining whether a particular federal law creates a right that may be enforced through private lawsuits. The key question is whether “the provision in question is ‘phrased in terms of the persons benefited’ and contains ‘rights-creating,’ individual-centric language with an ‘unmistakable focus on the benefited class.’”
Thus, if Congress passed a law stating that “no state may prevent a hungry person from eating at Taco Bell,” that statute would be enforceable through private lawsuits because its language focuses on the people who benefit from it (people who are hungry). A similar statute stating that “states shall not impede access to cheap burritos” would likely not be enforceable through such lawsuits, because this hypothetical law is silent regarding who is supposed to benefit from it. The second version of this law would, at the very least, need to have some language focused on the people the law was supposed to protect in order to authorize private suits.
And so, with Talevski’s framework in mind, consider the statutory language at issue in the Kerr case:

A State plan for medical assistance must … provide that … any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required (including an organization which provides such services, or arranges for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertakes to provide him such services.

This law is riddled with the kind of “individual-centric language” with an “unmistakable focus on the benefited class” demanded by Talevski. It provides a right to “any individual” eligible for Medicaid benefits. It provides that these individuals “may obtain” care from their choice of provider. And it concludes with a pronoun (“him”) which refers back to the individuals who benefit from the law.
South Carolina’s lawyers — most of whom work for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Christian right law firm that unsuccessfully tried to get the Supreme Court to ban the abortion drug mifepristone — essentially ask the justices to replace Talevski with a new rule that would drastically limit private lawsuits enforcing Medicaid statutes, and many other laws that are enforced through Section 1983 lawsuits.

Specifically, they claim that the Court has heard only four cases where it ultimately concluded that a federal law contains the kind of language that Talevski requires, two of which explicitly used the word “right,” and two of which used language that “closely mirrors the text of the Fifth Amendment.” Based on this claim, they then allege that the Supreme Court “has limited ‘clear rights-creating language’ to statutes where Congress explicitly uses the label ‘right’ or lifts language from the rights-creating provisions of the Constitution.”
But that is not what the Court said in Talevski. Again, Talevski did not hold that Congress must use certain magical words or a statute is unenforceable. It held that federal laws may be enforced by private lawsuits if they focus on the individuals who benefit from the law, regardless of which specific words Congress used when it wrote that law.
If the Court were to impose such a magic words requirement in Kerr, moreover, that would have disastrous consequences for Medicaid beneficiaries and for many other Americans.
Congress could not possibly have known, when it wrote the original Medicaid law in 1965 or when it wrote any of the various amendments to it, that the Supreme Court would later require it to use very specific language if it wanted the law to be enforceable. Nor could it have known that the Court would impose a magic words requirement when it wrote countless other federal laws.
Because the laws governing Medicaid were not written with the ADF’s proposed new rule in mind, huge swaths of that law could cease to function if the Court agrees with ADF in this case.
In fairness, federal law does provide one alternative remedy if the Supreme Court does shut down private lawsuits enforcing Medicaid law — the federal government can cut off Medicaid funding to states that violate this law. But the government rarely uses this power, because it effectively punishes Medicaid patients and providers for a legal violation by the state. And, in any event, there’s little chance that the Trump administration will use this power to protect abortion providers.
So, Medicaid patients of all kinds should hope that the Supreme Court does not, in its zeal to restrict abortion rights, embrace the Alliance Defending Freedom’s arguments in the Kerr case. Because if the Court does, much of federal law will become unenforceable overnight.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/405010/s...ed-parenthood?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
 

US Supreme Court halts deportation of detained Venezuelans​

The US Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to pause the deportation of a group of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The men are being held in detention in north Texas under an 18th-Century wartime law, and a civil liberties group has sued the government saying they have not had a chance to contest their case in court.

Donald Trump has sent accused Venezuelan gang members to a notorious mega-jail in El Salvador, invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act which gives the president power to order the detention and deportation of natives or citizens of "enemy" nations without usual processes.

The act had previously been used only three times, all during war.

It was last invoked in World War Two, when people of Japanese descent were imprisoned without trial and thousands sent to internment camps.

Since taking office in January, Trump's hard-line immigration policies have encountered a number of legal hurdles.

Trump had accused Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua of "perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion" on US territory.

Out of 261 Venezuelans deported to El Salvador as of 8 April, 137 were removed under the Alien Enemies Act, a senior administration official told CBS News, the BBC's US news partner.

A lower court temporarily blocked these deportations on 15 March.

The Supreme Court initially ruled on 8 April that Trump could use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members, but deportees must be given a chance to challenge their removal.

The lawsuit that resulted in Saturday's order said the Venezuelans detained in north Texas had been given notices about their imminent deportation in English, despite one detainee only speaking Spanish.

The challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also said the men had not been told they had a right to contest the decision in court.

"Without this Court's intervention, dozens or hundreds of proposed class members may be removed to a possible life sentence in El Salvador with no real opportunity to contest their designation or removal," the lawsuit read.

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented on Saturday.

In his second inaugural address in January, Trump pledged to "eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to US soil".

In the highest-profile case, the government admitted it mistakenly deported El Salvador national Kilmar Ábrego García, but contends he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which his lawyer and family denies. Mr Ábrego García has never been convicted of a crime.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government should facilitate bringing back Mr Ábrego García, but the Trump administration has said he will "never" live in the US again.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, visited Mr Ábrego García in El Salvador and said he had been moved from the mega-jail Cecot (Terrorism Confinement Centre) to a new prison.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd3rdjn81lo
 
I recently finished reading Stephen Breyer's (retired Supreme Court justice) recent book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism Over Textualism. While I feel he was overly polite about it, and the writing was so dry only a lawyer could love it, he made a lot of good points. And what it really comes down to is that textualism is a fraud. It can't do what it's proponents claim for it to do. All it can do is give the proponents intellectual cover for legislating from the bench.
 

US Supreme Court lets Trump end deportation protections for 350,000 Venezuelans​

The US Supreme Court has said it will allow the Trump administration to terminate deportation protections for some 350,000 Venezuelans in the US.

The ruling lifts a hold that was placed by a California judge that kept Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in place for Venezuelans whose status' would have expired last month.

Temporary Protected Status allows people to live and work in the US legally if their home countries are deemed unsafe due to things like countries experiencing wars, natural disasters or other "extraordinary and temporary" conditions.

The ruling marks a win for US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly tried to use the Supreme Court to enact immigration policy decisions.

The Trump administration wanted to end protections and work permits for migrants with TPS in April 2025, more than a year before they were originally supposed to end in October 2026.

Lawyers representing the US government argued the California federal court, the US District Court for the Northern District of California, had undermined "the Executive Branch's inherent powers as to immigration and foreign affairs," when it stopped the administration from ending protections and work permits in April.

Ahilan Arulanantham, who represents TPS holders in the case, told the BBC he believes this to be "the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern US history".

"That the Supreme Court authorized this action in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking," Mr Arulanantham said. "The humanitarian and economic impact of the Court's decision will be felt immediately, and will reverberate for generations."

Because it was an emergency appeal, justices on the Supreme Court did not provide a reasoning for the ruling.

The court's order only noted one judge's dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In August, the Trump administration is also expected to revoke TPS protections for tens of thousands of Haitians.

The ruling on Monday by the Supreme Court marks the latest in a series of decisions on immigration policies from the high court that the Trump administration has left them to rule on.

Last week, the administration asked the Supreme Court to end humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuela immigrants.

Along with some of their successes, the Trump administration was dealt a blow on Friday when the high court blocked Trump from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants in north Texas.

Trump had wanted to use the centuries-old law to swiftly deport thousands from the US, but Supreme Court judges questioned if the president's action was legal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg78471n85o
 
Broken_Erika said:

US Supreme Court lets Trump end deportation protections for 350,000 Venezuelans​

The US Supreme Court has said it will allow the Trump administration to terminate deportation protections for some 350,000 Venezuelans in the US.

The ruling lifts a hold that was placed by a California judge that kept Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in place for Venezuelans whose status' would have expired last month.

Temporary Protected Status allows people to live and work in the US legally if their home countries are deemed unsafe due to things like countries experiencing wars, natural disasters or other "extraordinary and temporary" conditions.

The ruling marks a win for US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly tried to use the Supreme Court to enact immigration policy decisions.

The Trump administration wanted to end protections and work permits for migrants with TPS in April 2025, more than a year before they were originally supposed to end in October 2026.

Lawyers representing the US government argued the California federal court, the US District Court for the Northern District of California, had undermined "the Executive Branch's inherent powers as to immigration and foreign affairs," when it stopped the administration from ending protections and work permits in April.

Ahilan Arulanantham, who represents TPS holders in the case, told the BBC he believes this to be "the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern US history".

"That the Supreme Court authorized this action in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking," Mr Arulanantham said. "The humanitarian and economic impact of the Court's decision will be felt immediately, and will reverberate for generations."

Because it was an emergency appeal, justices on the Supreme Court did not provide a reasoning for the ruling.

The court's order only noted one judge's dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In August, the Trump administration is also expected to revoke TPS protections for tens of thousands of Haitians.

The ruling on Monday by the Supreme Court marks the latest in a series of decisions on immigration policies from the high court that the Trump administration has left them to rule on.

Last week, the administration asked the Supreme Court to end humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuela immigrants.

Along with some of their successes, the Trump administration was dealt a blow on Friday when the high court blocked Trump from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants in north Texas.

Trump had wanted to use the centuries-old law to swiftly deport thousands from the US, but Supreme Court judges questioned if the president's action was legal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg78471n85o
Click to expand...
None of it makes sense of course, the fastest way to deport them and not cost taxpayers zillions of dollars would be to let their legal statuses expire at the exact speed they would have in the first place.
 
Prepped my family on what to do if/when they haul me away... fudge Israel. free Palestine. America is the bad guy
 

Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke legal status for 500,000 migrants​

President Donald Trump's administration can temporarily revoke the legal status of over 500,000 migrants living in the US, the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

The ruling put on hold a previous federal judge's order stopping the administration from ending the "parole" immigration programme, established by former President Joe Biden. The programme protected immigrants fleeing economic and political turmoil in their home countries.

The new order puts roughly 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela at risk of being deported.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, two of the court's three liberal justices, dissented.

The parole programme allows immigrants temporary status to work and live in the US for two years because of "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit", according to the US government.

The Trump administration had filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the administration from ending the programme, also known as CHNV humanitarian parole.

The White House "celebrated" the opportunity to deport 500,000 "invaders", White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told CNN. "The Supreme Court justly stepped in".

In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the court's order would "have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims".

On the day he took office, Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to get rid of parole programmes. Then, in March, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the end of CHNV humanitarian parole.

Several immigrants rights groups and migrants from the programme sued the Trump administration over the decision, arguing they could "face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death" if deported back to their home countries.

The ruling comes after the Supreme Court earlier this month allowed Trump officials to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) - a separate programme - for some 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants living and working in the US.

Humanitarian parole programmes have been used for decades to allow immigrants fleeing war and other tumultuous conditions in their home countries to come to the US, including Cubans in the 1960s following the revolution.

The Biden administration also established a parole programme in 2022 for Ukrainians fleeing after Russia's invasion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8d21zmm88o
 

US Supreme Court allows Trump to resume deportations to third countries​

The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Donald Trump's administration to resume deportations of migrants to countries other than their homeland.

By a majority of 6-3, the justices reversed a lower court order requiring the government to give migrants a "meaningful opportunity" to tell officials what risks they might face in being deported to a third country.

The Supreme Court's three liberal justices issued a scathing dissent from the ruling in the case of eight migrants, convicted of serious crimes in the US, who were removed on a plane bound for South Sudan in May.

The decision hands the Republican president another victory in his pursuit of mass deportations.

The case involves a group of migrants from Myanmar, South Sudan, Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam, who were deported by the Trump administration two months ago on a plane heading for South Sudan.

Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy issued an order that the migrants must be allowed to challenge their removal to third countries.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson criticised the majority's decision on Monday, calling it "gross abuse".

"Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled," Sotomayor wrote.

"That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy5wkrn99qpo
 

What to know about the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case​

The Supreme Court is expected to decide one of the most consequential cases in modern US history on Friday - whether a single federal judge can block an order from the US president from taking effect nationwide.

The case stems from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, which has been frozen by multiple lower courts.

The Supreme Court is not likely to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. It will instead focus on federal judges' use of nationwide injunctions, which have stunted key aspects of Trump's agenda.

The Trump administration has argued that the judges have overstepped their power, but others say the injunctions are needed to avoid "chaos".

A quick road to the Supreme Court​

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".

The move was instantly met by a series of lawsuits that ended in judges in district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect.

In Washington, US District Court Judge John Coughenour called Trump's executive order "blatantly unconstitutional".

Trump's Department of Justice responded by saying the case did not warrant the "extraordinary measure" of a temporary restraining order and appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Injunctions have served as a check on Trump during his second term, amid a flurry of executive orders signed by the president.

Roughly 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts that blocked the Trump administration from banning most transgender people from the military, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be enforced.

So the case being heard at the nation's highest court is not about birthright citizenship directly - but about whether lower courts should have the authority to block nationwide presidential orders with injunctions.

The argument against court injunctions​

The issue of nationwide injunctions has long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum.

Conservative and liberal justices alike have argued that a judge in one district should not be able to unilaterally decide policy for the entire country.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022: "It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."

Similarly, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote that "universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious".

Injunctions are also criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping - the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is likely.

Another critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact.

The Trump administration is arguing in the birthright citizenship case that lower judges did not have the right to put time-consuming legal obstacles in front of the Trump's agenda.

The arguments for nationwide injunctions​

Without nationwide injunctions, backers of the measure say the power of the executive branch could go unchecked and leaves the burden of protection from potentially harmful laws on individuals who would need to file separate lawsuits.

Injunctions are often the only legal mechanism to prevent Trump's executive orders from taking immediate legal effect. Such orders are a marked contrast from laws passing through Congress, which takes longer and subjects them to additional scrutiny.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument advocated for a "catch me if you can" justice system.

"Your argument says 'we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc,'" Jackson said.

"I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law," she said.

The other argument for injunctions is that it allows for consistency in the application of federal laws.

Lawyers arguing against the Trump administration have said that, in the birthright citizenship case, there would be "chaos" in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship.

What are the arguments around birthright citizenship?​

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution establishes the principle of birthright citizenship.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

However, the Trump administration's arguments rest on the clause in the 14th Amendment that reads "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It argues that the language excludes children of non-citizens who are in the US unlawfully.

Most legal scholars say President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.

At the 15 May hearing, Justice Kagan noted that the administration had lost on the birthright citizenship issue in every lower court and asked: "Why would you ever take this case to us?"

Here are some of the ways the justices could rule​

On nationwide injunctions, the justices could say injunctions can only apply to the people who sued, including class actions, as government lawyers have advocated for.

The justices could also say injunctions can only apply in the states where the cases are brought, or that injunctions can only be issued on constitutional questions (like birthright citizenship).

Constitutional questions, though, concern the bulk of the cases with nationwide injunctions that the Trump administration is appealing.

If the court rules the injunctions should be lifted, then the Trump administration could deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants while the court cases proceed.

If the injunctions hold, the individual court cases challenging the birthright citizenship order will likely work their way to the Supreme Court.

The high court could decide on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, but justices have indicated they would prefer a separate, full hearing on the question.

They could also give indications or hints in their written opinion on which way they are leaning on the citizenship question, without ruling directly on it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrl7dd1dp9o
 
And that went about exactly as expected, at the hand of the usual traitors to humanity.

Best as I can see their logic to sum up to "All that matter is that that actual plaintiff get relief, any relief beyond that is outside the authority of the court" which is such a flabergasting lack of the last shred of intelectual honesty that it would be entirely unimaginable coming from anyone but those six presidential lapdogs.
 
The destruction of law and order continues.
 
They sidestepped the broader question by only ruling on scope, so naturally the strategy should be to jam every circuit with cases to frustrate attack on the 14th amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Ohio Supreme Court: boneless chicken wings are a cooking style and chicken obviously has bones
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
7K
Plains-Cow
Plains-Cow
Birdjaguar
General News Regarding Japan and Korea
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Takhisis
Takhisis
Klaus Hergersheimer
Drugs and the US market
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
5K
Hygro
Hygro
GoodEnoughForMe
Deep State Thugs Raid Honest American Veteran Homes
Replies
8
Views
712
Angst
Angst
Zardnaar
Counter Squatting a Squatter.
Replies
18
Views
936
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Back
Top Bottom