28-Apr-2024 17:42 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[News] 4 New Filings in the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc CaseANN.lu
Posted on 21-Dec-2003 02:32 GMT by samface250 comments
View flat
View list
There are 4 new filings in the civil docket for the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc case, including:

RESPONSE by Defendant Amiga Inc. (Entered: 12/19/2003)
AMENDED REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs (Entered: 12/16/2003)
DECLARATION of Bill Buck filed by Plaintiff Thendic Electronics Components (Entered: 12/16/2003)
ORDER by Judge Robert S Lasnik granting in part 31 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Entered: 12/19/2003) A highlight from the latest ruling by Judge Lasnik:

Defendant's counterclaim is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute. However, the Court declines to rule on plaintiffs' request for specific performance at this time. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is renoted for 1/16/2004. Plaintiffs shall have until Monday, January 12, 2004 to submit a memorandum in response to the issues and concerns raised in this Order. Defendant, if and only if it retains counsel in the interim, may file a reply memorandum no later than 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2004. No extensions shall be given.

Visit the Civil Docket for the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc case here.
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Anonymous21-Dec-2003 02:25 GMT
Comment 2Anonymous21-Dec-2003 02:38 GMT
Comment 3STRICQ21-Dec-2003 02:38 GMT
Comment 4bbrvRegistered user21-Dec-2003 03:33 GMT
Comment 5James Carroll21-Dec-2003 03:47 GMT
Comment 6James Carroll21-Dec-2003 06:37 GMT
Comment 7Hygen21-Dec-2003 08:23 GMT
Comment 8Don CoxRegistered user21-Dec-2003 08:46 GMT
Comment 9Don CoxRegistered user21-Dec-2003 08:47 GMT
Comment 10Anonymous21-Dec-2003 09:38 GMT
Comment 11JoannaK21-Dec-2003 09:41 GMT
Comment 12Anonymous21-Dec-2003 10:11 GMT
Comment 13Outcast21-Dec-2003 10:51 GMT
Comment 14Anonymous21-Dec-2003 11:16 GMT
Comment 15Anonymous21-Dec-2003 11:31 GMT
Comment 16John21-Dec-2003 12:15 GMT
Comment 17smithy21-Dec-2003 12:22 GMT
Comment 18André Siegel21-Dec-2003 12:23 GMT
Comment 19John Block21-Dec-2003 12:40 GMT
Comment 20Troels E21-Dec-2003 12:41 GMT
Comment 21Kronos21-Dec-2003 12:49 GMT
Comment 22Daniel Miller21-Dec-2003 13:33 GMT
Comment 23Don CoxRegistered user21-Dec-2003 14:28 GMT
Comment 24Thomas Wurgler/Pagan21-Dec-2003 14:49 GMT
Comment 25smithy21-Dec-2003 15:17 GMT
Comment 26Jack Me21-Dec-2003 15:42 GMT
Comment 27Tigger21-Dec-2003 15:51 GMT
Comment 28dslcc21-Dec-2003 16:31 GMT
Comment 29Gregg21-Dec-2003 16:37 GMT
Comment 30samface21-Dec-2003 17:02 GMT
Comment 31samface21-Dec-2003 17:11 GMT
Comment 32samface21-Dec-2003 17:24 GMT
Comment 33Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 17:28 GMT
Comment 34smithy21-Dec-2003 17:34 GMT
Comment 35dslcc21-Dec-2003 17:49 GMT
Comment 36Matt ParsonsRegistered user21-Dec-2003 18:28 GMT
Comment 37bbrvRegistered user21-Dec-2003 18:35 GMT
Comment 38anon21-Dec-2003 19:44 GMT
Comment 39Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 20:10 GMT
Comment 40Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 20:29 GMT
Comment 41bbrvRegistered user21-Dec-2003 20:41 GMT
Comment 42Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 20:50 GMT
Comment 43Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 20:58 GMT
Comment 44Anonymous21-Dec-2003 21:00 GMT
Comment 45bbrvRegistered user21-Dec-2003 21:02 GMT
Comment 46Anonymous21-Dec-2003 21:03 GMT
Comment 47bbrvRegistered user21-Dec-2003 21:03 GMT
Comment 48Anonymous21-Dec-2003 21:04 GMT
Comment 49Anonymous21-Dec-2003 21:08 GMT
Comment 50Anonymous21-Dec-2003 21:14 GMT
Comment 51Anonymous21-Dec-2003 21:18 GMT
Comment 52Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 21:20 GMT
Comment 53Anonymous21-Dec-2003 21:29 GMT
Comment 54Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 21:31 GMT
Comment 55samface21-Dec-2003 21:38 GMT
Comment 56Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 21:52 GMT
Comment 57Matt ParsonsRegistered user21-Dec-2003 22:09 GMT
Comment 58Anonymous21-Dec-2003 22:21 GMT
Comment 59greenboyRegistered user21-Dec-2003 22:26 GMT
Comment 60Matt ParsonsRegistered user21-Dec-2003 22:30 GMT
Comment 61Bill Hoggett21-Dec-2003 22:53 GMT
Comment 62BuckLies21-Dec-2003 23:36 GMT
Comment 63Johan Rönnblom21-Dec-2003 23:38 GMT
Comment 64samface21-Dec-2003 23:40 GMT
Comment 65hammer22-Dec-2003 00:13 GMT
Comment 66Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 00:16 GMT
Comment 67samface22-Dec-2003 00:20 GMT
Comment 68NekoRegistered user22-Dec-2003 00:33 GMT
Comment 69Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 00:42 GMT
Comment 70Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 00:48 GMT
Comment 71MarkTime22-Dec-2003 00:48 GMT
4 New Filings in the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc Case : Comment 72 of 250ANN.lu
Posted by Brutus on 22-Dec-2003 01:06 GMT
Air France's broken arms.

Tax evasion, dubious recruitment, shareholders flight, boss sacked. The methods of Pretory, charged with security on Air France flights, deserve the attention of the law.

By Cedric Mathiot, 28th November 2003 (Libération)

14th September 2001... Over and over again on TV screens, pictures of planes crashing into the twin towers.

For two days, panic and fear of flying emptied the planes. In full torment, Air France is the first company to put security guards on its flights. Pretory, American-financed private security company that already works for Air France gets the contract. Codename for the new recruits: “Suraf (“Sûreté Air France”). In dark suits, armed with plastic handcuffs, their brief is to sit in business class behind the cockpit and prevent terrorist attacks. They are the French cousins of the “Sky Marshals” that the US government promised at the time to put in force on planes.

A little over 2 years later, the assessment of this operation, which should have reinforced the reputation for reliability of Air France, is deplorable. Pretory was put in receivership 17th November. Financially bled dry, it awaits a new owner and the outcome of the lawsuits involving it. For eighteen months, under cover of guaranteeing the safety/security of Air France passengers, Pretory had profited from an incredible passiveness of the company that thanks to the “Suraf project put in place a system of tax evasion. Today, the muscle-men from Pretory, who in 2002 travelled up to 1000 flying hours daily (to the US, Middle East etc), rarely enter the cabins. They spend their time between industrial tribunals and the fraud squad who have called them one by one as witnesses. The founder of Pretory, Jacques Gaussens, has been fired. The majority shareholders have flown to the US. Posing as victims, they are denouncing an affair that is “way beyond
Pretory's management”.

Mercenaries and bodyguards.

Pierre (1), ex soldier turned bodyguard, was contacted 20 September 2001: “A relation rang me 'Pretory, a private company, is building a team to ensure security on board Air France flights'”
In the small world of security, the news got around fast. The majority of the troops (who reached nearly 200 agents at the height of the activity) were made up of mercenaries, bodyguards, ex-sportsmen or simply nightclub bouncers. Pierre did his first flight 2 days later. He has now built up more than 4000 flying hours on Air France flights. “At the start, there really was fear, a post-11-september effect, everyone was on edge. Then, fairly quickly, we were aware it was nonsense... We were not trained. We had to do outward and return flights, without stopovers and almost without sleep. Obviously, on the return flights, sometimes we slept.

It had to wait 6 months before the “surafs” were sent in pairs in order to take turns, more than a year before training was established. Another “suraf” says “Half the guys were serious and competent. But there were also shirkers, those who couldn't give a damn”. A trainer agreed he left “horrified”: “Some of them didn't speak French”... But overall it is the pay that is intriguing. The agents, working over the limit for hours for flying personnel, sometimes worked more than 200 hours a month. But the employees were only paid up to 15 hours by Pretory. The rest was paid by a sub-contractor company, via a bank transfer from a mysterious account, Navarac.

Pretory had already resorted to third-party companies for its ground-based operations for Air France since 1999 (baggage and passenger search etc), but in the case of the “surafs”, the recourse to sub-contracting reached an unprecedented extent.
Behind Navarac, registered in Tortola (in the British Virgin Islands, Antilles), several other front companies were identified. From an internal source, Pretory billed Air France about 30 euros per hour of flight, sub-contracting to two companies, Vortex and ATR, at 25 euros. These companies, which are associated with Pascal Jumel, ex-investigator of the bandit squad, condemned to 17 years prison for 8 armed robberies, then paid the employees 15 euros per hour, without deducting any charges. Where did the difference go? Who benefited? This went on for more than 18 months. In 2002 alone, the sums transferred to Vortex, based in Guernsey, reached 7 million euros.

Air France did not immediately this suspected robbery. However Joel Cathala, powerful and renowned director of security at Air France, knew the company well. Seconded from the upper ranks of the police, he was the witness at the marriage of the stockholders of Pretory, Raquel Velasco, a former stewardess with UTA, and Bill Buck, ex-US serviceman. This close relationship between the buyer and the subcontractor had already fed rumours about the security market at the heart of the national company. Even before the “surafs”, an internal audit at Air France from 2000 suggested that the management of security could have “favoured certain companies”... Including Pretory. In 2002, the security company published business figures of more than 22 million euros, 80% of which was from the airline company. Questioned by Libération, Joel Cathala denied any favouritism.

It had to wait until December 2002 and the angry injunctions of the work inspector before Air France decided finally to react. The company demanded the management of Pretory to clean up. Three months later, in March 2003, one head fell, that of Jacques Gaussens, the founder of Pretory. Air France placed all responsibility for the setup upon him. For the shareholders, Buck promised a new beginning for Pretory. The 1st April, in a letter to Jean-Cyril Spinetta, the CEO of Air France, Buck, who recognised “the existence of an illicit and illegal sub-contracting system” put into place “to his knowledge”, assured “everything will be done to give you full satisfaction and clear your name”.

Two new directors were hired and plunged, according to them, “into the deep sh*t” of this business. The sub-contract was halted. Air France tried to clean up a bit. “Last April, Air France requested from us lists of the agents who had flown”, said one of the new directors. “Out of about 120 'surafs', 77 were unknown to the company, who therefore did not know who had been on its aeroplanes! After inquiries into their background, the management of security asked us to forbid about 30 of them from flight”...
Amongst these agents, some “had criminal records”. Thus began the incredible revolt of the “club of 32” which says a lot about the atmosphere of amateurishness: for a month these “surafs” stirred up ill-feeling at the headquarters of Pretory. “We were threatened, surrounded. And when you see the size of these beasts, you're scared” said one of the current managers of the company. Panicked, the American shareholders called upon a “mediator” for help. Between May and June, an ex-legionnaire (who was armed) tried to calm the protestors, while four burly guards protected the headquarters. Finally, some of these “surafs” received several thousand euros in exchange for a signature promising that they would not sue Pretory.

4.4 million tax recovery.

However, the attempt to bring Pretory back into line appeared already doomed to failure. The end of subcontracting had increased costs: from April, the “suraf” project lost money. Processes filed by the industrial tribunal cost the company more than 2 million euros. Added to that, there are 4.4 million euros of recovered tax, from irregular bills to the sub-contractors. Worried by rumours of drained assets, the unions filed an injunction for access to the company accounts. Finally, Air France used Pretory less and less, arguing that the increased presence of armoured cockpits “allows us to reduce reliance on surafs”. Unable to balance the accounts after eighteen months of fiddling, Pretory collapsed. At the end of July, the US shareholders left. A director said “They told us: 'we are going on vacation to the US. We'll return in August'”... They have never returned to France. On leaving, Bill Buck and Raquel Velasco forgot to reimburse Pretory, despite their promise, nearly 2.5 million euros transferred to a subsidiary, Thendic, managed by Raquel Velasco's brother. The unions viewed this as theft, knowing that Thendic had just been merged with a German company to make Genesi, an IT enterprise based in Luxembourg, directed by Bill Buck. The day after the announcement of Pretory going into receivership, Buck announced on the Internet the transfer of shares from Thendic to Genesi.

Questioned by Libération, Bill Buck did not want to explain. Posing as a victim of an “incredible business”, he confirmed only that from the member when Pretory was put back in order, he had had to “fight against a system that didn't allow him to survive”... Pretory had until 31 December to find a new owner.
More than 500 employees' jobs are at risk, the majority on the ground; some have been employed right from the start, long before the millions of euros of the “suraf” project triggered the fall of the company. The preliminary enquiry is underway. Air France has refused to reply to our questions on the demise of their subcontractor.
Jump...
#73 Bill Hoggett #75 samface #98 Outcast
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 73Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 01:16 GMT
Comment 74samface22-Dec-2003 01:37 GMT
Comment 75samface22-Dec-2003 01:49 GMT
Comment 76Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 01:55 GMT
Comment 77Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 01:57 GMT
Comment 78Mr. Anonymous22-Dec-2003 02:14 GMT
Comment 79Tigger22-Dec-2003 02:50 GMT
Comment 80Tigger22-Dec-2003 03:10 GMT
Comment 81Anonymous22-Dec-2003 03:12 GMT
Comment 82Anonymous22-Dec-2003 03:30 GMT
Comment 83samface22-Dec-2003 06:07 GMT
Comment 84samface22-Dec-2003 06:20 GMT
Comment 85samface22-Dec-2003 06:43 GMT
Comment 86Tigger22-Dec-2003 07:21 GMT
Comment 87hooligan/dcsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 07:49 GMT
Comment 88Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 08:10 GMT
Comment 89Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 08:24 GMT
Comment 90samface22-Dec-2003 08:26 GMT
Comment 91samface22-Dec-2003 08:29 GMT
Comment 92Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 08:32 GMT
Comment 93Don CoxRegistered user22-Dec-2003 08:43 GMT
Comment 94samface22-Dec-2003 08:48 GMT
Comment 95samface22-Dec-2003 09:02 GMT
Comment 96Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 09:04 GMT
Comment 97Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 09:05 GMT
Comment 98Outcast22-Dec-2003 09:16 GMT
Comment 99samface22-Dec-2003 09:17 GMT
Comment 100samface22-Dec-2003 09:24 GMT
Comment 101Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 09:30 GMT
Comment 102Kronos22-Dec-2003 09:41 GMT
Comment 103Anonymous22-Dec-2003 09:42 GMT
Comment 104Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 09:50 GMT
Comment 105Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 10:11 GMT
Comment 106Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 10:12 GMT
Comment 107hooligan/dcsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 10:13 GMT
Comment 108Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 10:14 GMT
Comment 109Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 10:16 GMT
Comment 110Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 10:21 GMT
Comment 111Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 10:28 GMT
Comment 112samface22-Dec-2003 10:47 GMT
Comment 113samface22-Dec-2003 10:50 GMT
Comment 114Amon_ReRegistered user22-Dec-2003 10:52 GMT
Comment 115Anonymous22-Dec-2003 10:56 GMT
Comment 116samface22-Dec-2003 11:18 GMT
Comment 117Anonymous22-Dec-2003 11:34 GMT
Comment 118Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 11:50 GMT
Comment 119samface22-Dec-2003 12:01 GMT
Comment 120Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 12:06 GMT
Comment 121Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 12:15 GMT
Comment 122samface22-Dec-2003 12:19 GMT
Comment 123Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 12:24 GMT
Comment 124samface22-Dec-2003 12:26 GMT
Comment 125Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 12:28 GMT
Comment 126Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 12:30 GMT
Comment 127Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 12:38 GMT
Comment 128Johan Rönnblom22-Dec-2003 12:39 GMT
Comment 129Anonymous22-Dec-2003 12:42 GMT
Comment 130Johan Rönnblom22-Dec-2003 12:45 GMT
Comment 131Gregg22-Dec-2003 12:45 GMT
Comment 132Anonymous22-Dec-2003 12:48 GMT
Comment 133samface22-Dec-2003 12:50 GMT
Comment 134Anonymous22-Dec-2003 12:50 GMT
Comment 135samface22-Dec-2003 12:57 GMT
Comment 136samface22-Dec-2003 13:01 GMT
Comment 137Anonymous22-Dec-2003 13:04 GMT
Comment 138Daniel Miller22-Dec-2003 13:10 GMT
Comment 139Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user22-Dec-2003 13:13 GMT
Comment 140Anonymous22-Dec-2003 13:15 GMT
Comment 141Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user22-Dec-2003 13:16 GMT
Comment 142samface22-Dec-2003 13:19 GMT
Comment 143Anonymous22-Dec-2003 13:19 GMT
Comment 144Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user22-Dec-2003 13:20 GMT
Comment 145Anonymous22-Dec-2003 13:23 GMT
Comment 146samface22-Dec-2003 13:23 GMT
Comment 147Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user22-Dec-2003 13:26 GMT
Comment 148samface22-Dec-2003 13:32 GMT
Comment 149samface22-Dec-2003 13:34 GMT
Comment 150Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user22-Dec-2003 13:38 GMT
Comment 151MarkTime22-Dec-2003 13:39 GMT
Comment 152Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user22-Dec-2003 13:42 GMT
Comment 153Anonymous22-Dec-2003 13:52 GMT
Comment 154Kronos22-Dec-2003 13:54 GMT
Comment 155Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 14:02 GMT
Comment 156Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 14:04 GMT
Comment 157samface22-Dec-2003 14:15 GMT
Comment 158Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user22-Dec-2003 14:18 GMT
Comment 159samface22-Dec-2003 14:21 GMT
Comment 160Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user22-Dec-2003 14:25 GMT
Comment 161samface22-Dec-2003 14:27 GMT
Comment 162samface22-Dec-2003 14:30 GMT
Comment 163Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user22-Dec-2003 14:33 GMT
Comment 164anon22-Dec-2003 15:33 GMT
Comment 165Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user22-Dec-2003 16:01 GMT
Comment 166Tigger22-Dec-2003 16:09 GMT
Comment 167Gregg22-Dec-2003 16:10 GMT
Comment 168Gregg22-Dec-2003 16:16 GMT
Comment 169Tigger22-Dec-2003 16:20 GMT
Comment 170Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 16:58 GMT
Comment 171Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 17:15 GMT
Comment 172Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 19:13 GMT
Comment 173Tigger22-Dec-2003 19:27 GMT
Comment 174Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 19:33 GMT
Comment 175Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 19:41 GMT
Comment 176Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 19:42 GMT
Comment 177Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 19:46 GMT
Comment 178Rich Woods22-Dec-2003 19:50 GMT
Comment 179MIKE22-Dec-2003 20:14 GMT
Comment 180Matt ParsonsRegistered user22-Dec-2003 20:14 GMT
Comment 181Don CoxRegistered user22-Dec-2003 20:19 GMT
Comment 182Tigger22-Dec-2003 20:26 GMT
Comment 183samface22-Dec-2003 21:21 GMT
Comment 184Bill Hoggett22-Dec-2003 21:42 GMT
Comment 185Tigger22-Dec-2003 23:04 GMT
Comment 186Anonymous22-Dec-2003 23:20 GMT
Comment 187Bill Hoggett23-Dec-2003 00:08 GMT
Comment 188Ketzer23-Dec-2003 01:12 GMT
Comment 189MIKE23-Dec-2003 01:44 GMT
Comment 190MarkTime23-Dec-2003 02:07 GMT
Comment 191Stew23-Dec-2003 03:19 GMT
Comment 192Bill Hoggett23-Dec-2003 04:46 GMT
Comment 193Bill Hoggett23-Dec-2003 04:52 GMT
Comment 194samface23-Dec-2003 07:10 GMT
Comment 195hammer23-Dec-2003 08:08 GMT
Comment 196Johan Rönnblom23-Dec-2003 08:20 GMT
Comment 197samface23-Dec-2003 08:39 GMT
Comment 198samface23-Dec-2003 08:48 GMT
Comment 199Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 08:49 GMT
Comment 200Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 08:52 GMT
Comment 201samface23-Dec-2003 09:16 GMT
Comment 202Outcast23-Dec-2003 09:21 GMT
Comment 203samface23-Dec-2003 09:26 GMT
Comment 204samface23-Dec-2003 09:29 GMT
Comment 205Don CoxRegistered user23-Dec-2003 09:44 GMT
Comment 206Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 09:45 GMT
Comment 207Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 09:51 GMT
Comment 208Anonymous23-Dec-2003 10:08 GMT
Comment 209Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 10:25 GMT
Comment 210jules_s23-Dec-2003 10:28 GMT
Comment 211jules_s23-Dec-2003 10:33 GMT
Comment 212Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 10:35 GMT
Comment 213Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 10:38 GMT
Comment 214Anonymous23-Dec-2003 10:46 GMT
Comment 215Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 11:14 GMT
Comment 216Anonymous23-Dec-2003 11:31 GMT
Comment 217Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 11:35 GMT
Comment 218Anonymous23-Dec-2003 11:55 GMT
Comment 219samface23-Dec-2003 11:56 GMT
Comment 220Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 12:03 GMT
Comment 221Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 12:05 GMT
Comment 222Anonymous23-Dec-2003 12:09 GMT
Comment 223samface23-Dec-2003 12:20 GMT
Comment 224Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 12:30 GMT
Comment 225Anonymous23-Dec-2003 12:32 GMT
Comment 226Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 12:34 GMT
Comment 227Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 12:38 GMT
Comment 228samface23-Dec-2003 12:40 GMT
Comment 229samface23-Dec-2003 12:41 GMT
Comment 230samface23-Dec-2003 12:44 GMT
Comment 231Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 12:49 GMT
Comment 232Anonymous23-Dec-2003 12:55 GMT
Comment 233Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 12:59 GMT
Comment 234samface23-Dec-2003 13:00 GMT
Comment 235Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 13:05 GMT
Comment 236samface23-Dec-2003 13:09 GMT
Comment 237Tigger23-Dec-2003 17:35 GMT
Comment 238Rich Woods23-Dec-2003 19:30 GMT
Comment 239Anonymous23-Dec-2003 21:41 GMT
Comment 240Matt ParsonsRegistered user23-Dec-2003 22:34 GMT
Comment 241Darrin24-Dec-2003 13:00 GMT
Comment 242Virgil24-Dec-2003 16:02 GMT
Comment 243Matt ParsonsRegistered user24-Dec-2003 16:05 GMT
Comment 244Rich Woods25-Dec-2003 04:57 GMT
Comment 245Rich Woods25-Dec-2003 05:03 GMT
Comment 246Virgil25-Dec-2003 14:52 GMT
Comment 247Rich Woods25-Dec-2003 15:52 GMT
Comment 248Virgil27-Dec-2003 09:15 GMT
Comment 249Anonymous27-Dec-2003 10:07 GMT
Comment 250Rich Woods28-Dec-2003 19:11 GMT
Back to Top