| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
..
10 |
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Marie-Rose
| Quote: | Originally posted by Loretana
Muy bien dicho, Pam. |
I agree... very well said Pam. I remember in the early days of Loreto Bay when you were optimistic and hoping that all the hype was going to be
positive for the locals.
How very sad it is... not for the rich who will not have their way of life changed much, but for the poor workers that you described. |
thanks. sometimes I wonder about myself. I speak before thinking but that is something many can be guilty of at times.
Yes I was very optimistic for Loreto, for myself friends and family but then information started to come in. Observations, information, facts,
interviews, then the comments in person, verbal and in writing. I saw the start of their community wanting to create a sort of private club out of
this area, shutting local Loretanos out of what belongs to them. And it was and still is insulting. There are even those who have already said that
'now with all these workers out of jobs we'll finally get services at reasonable prices'! when in fact they are the very ones that drove said prices
up in the first place!
I'm no genius, I'm not rich and know nada about finances or investments I just work, like what I do and like who I work with and am serious about what
we do. I just don't get why so many of these buyers, the elite, and schooled in finance and investing, successful business people fell into this
trap. How could they tolerate the slow progress on those homes that were mostly paid for? Also isn't an investment a risk? It doesn't always pay
off and sometimes it can be lost.
Well as Jesse said this was a pyramid scheme. The ones that benefited the most were the ones that came up with this scheme and fled with millions
when they heard the echo in the well. And one of those same persons bid on the project and what's more shocking is that many of the owners were ready
to welcome him back! Why didn't they see what we saw?
know what else is frustrating? I have three family members who were enjoying their day off and were figuring for a regular monday morning back to
work at LB. I told them that there will probably not be a job when they get there tomorrow. and they had to find this out from me because after I
sent out boats this morning I read about it on the nomad board!
|
|
|
Von
Senior Nomad
Posts: 961
Registered: 10-1-2006
Location: Poway-Rosarito
Member Is Offline
Mood: getting ready!
|
|
lol
READY SET.....................
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BajaBruno
This is a heartrending situation for the homeowners at Loreto Bay and I wish them well. I know nothing of this development, other than seeing it as I
occasionally pass by, so I did a little reading.
Arizona is one of the states that requires foreign real estate advertisers to have their property inspected by the state. Arizona’s report is here:
http://services.azre.gov/publicdatabase/DetailDevelopment.as...
Click on “Public Report” to open the pdf document.
That report seems to read that Baja Developments and TSD Loreto Partners are the same people, though perhaps I am mistaken. Well, I must be mistaken,
because I read here (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-azdce/case_no-2:2009c... ) that two months ago Baja Developments sued TSD Loreto Partners in federal
district court for breach of contract.
I don’t know the details, of course, because you’d have to go to the clerk’s office with copy money in your hand to get the filings, but the timing
doesn’t seem accidental given what happened this week. |
From this article:
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/08/04/story4...
"Construction of the first residences is to start in September with the first homes ready for delivery as early as first-quarter 2004.
Financing for the project will be arranged by Baja Developments LLC, a New York company formed by The Trust for Sustainable
Development, a not-for-profit, federally chartered land and community development corporation active in Canada and the United States."
this is so twisted and incestuous they are suing themselves!
|
|
|
JESSE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by CaboRon
| Quote: | Originally posted by JESSE
| Quote: | Originally posted by CaboRon
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Man o man... how many saw this coming back in 2004?
Very sad that any advanced payments and money already invested are lost...
Like Puerto Escondido, another unfinished mess to blemish the once beautiful region! |
Well .... Suprise .... Suprise
Do NOT pay until the product is complete ....
When will we learn the truth about mexico ....
It is a lawless country .... you have NO protection ...
Do NOT buy or invest in mexico ....
As a gringo you are merely a target ...... |
We NEVER pay unless complete or backed by goverment agencies caboron, it is foreign companies who sell to foreigners using that pyramid scheme scam
that are to blame. If you don´t know how to play the game, then don´t, but don´t say things that are not true. |
It appears a lot of people did pay and did lose their money on this one.
And why is it that mexicans seem to think that this is all a game anyway..... |
Because from our standpoint, giving money to people you don´t know for a drawing of something that may or may not ever become real, seems crazy.
The Mexican legal system is far from perfect, but saying this nation is lawless, is plain ignorant.
|
|
|
Gypsy Jan
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4275
Registered: 1-27-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: Depends on which way the wind is blowing
|
|
Dear Jesse
Amen.
Cabo Ron (cabron?) can rant, but he doesn't know s.... about the people, the culture and the way things work in their own way, which is not his, but
has been working and developing for hundreds of years in a foreign country far apart from his own experience.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow mindedness.”
—Mark Twain
\"La vida es dura, el corazon es puro, y cantamos hasta la madrugada.” (Life is hard, the heart is pure and we sing until dawn.)
—Kirsty MacColl, Mambo de la Luna
\"Alea iacta est.\"
—Julius Caesar
|
|
|
arrowhead
Banned
Posts: 912
Registered: 5-5-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here's that lawsuit between BAJA DEVELOPMENTS LLC and TSD LORETO PARTNERS, S EN C. POR A. DE C.V. I don't thnk it will give the homebuyers any
comfort:
| Quote: |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
BAJA DEVELOPMENTS LLC, a New
York limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TSD LORETO PARTNERS, S EN C. POR
A. DE C.V., a Mexican entity,
Defendant.
))))))))))))
No.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff BAJA DEVELOPMENTS LLC, a New York limited liability company, hereby alleges as follows for its Complaint against TSD LORETO PARTNERS, S EN
C.POR A. DE C.V., a Mexican entity.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. BAJA DEVELOPMENTS LLC (hereafter “BAJA New York”) is a New York limited liability company that had and currently still has substantial operations
in Maricopa County, Arizona. BAJA New York is registered as a foreign limited liability company with the Arizona Corporation Commission. All members
of BAJA New York are citizens of states of the United States or corporations organized under the laws of states of the United States. At certain times
relevant to the Complaint, BAJA New York employed as many as 40 individuals in Maricopa County, Arizona, to provide services to the defendant on the
matters forming the basis of this Complaint. BAJA New York provided management and marketing services for a real estate development owned by defendant
and located in Baja, Mexico, hereafter referred to as the “Loreto Bay Development.” The Loreto Bay Development is an ecologically sound development,
on the edge of the famous Loreto Bay of Baja California Sur. Loreto Bay Development was developed, engineered and constructed so as to be
“sustainable,” and to follow the precepts of “New Urbanism.” In addition, BAJA New York provided financial and accounting services in Arizona, such as
maintaining a general ledger, accounts receivable, accounts payable and fixed asset records; provision of billing and collection services; preparation
of various types of income tax returns; preparation of financial statements; provision of tax and payroll records; provision of employee benefits;
provision of legal services; provision of information technology services, infrastructure and personnel; provision of construction management and
architectural design planning services; and other services – all on behalf of the defendant, as alleged below.
2. TSD LORETO PARTNERS, S EN C. POR A. DE C.V. (hereafter “Loreto Partners”) is an entity formed under Mexican law known as a sociedad en comandita
por acciones and carrying on business here in Arizona. A sociedad en comandita por acciones is a juridical person under Mexican law. Loreto Partners
owns certain real and other property that comprise the Loreto Bay Development. Loreto Partners’ office for the management of the Loreto Bay
Development is located at Mision San Ignacio S/N, Esquina Cabot, Fraccionamiento Nopolo, 23880, Loreto Bay, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Loreto
Partners marketed and sold real property that was a part of the Loreto Bay Development in Arizona, and the Loreto Bay Development and Loreto Partners
are registered with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
3. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00
and because alienage jurisdiction exists: plaintiff is a New York limited liability company, all members of which are citizens of states of the United
States or corporations organized under the laws of states of the United States and defendant is a foreign entity established under the laws of Mexico
and recognized as a juridical person under Mexican law.
4. Loreto Partners is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court through its entering into a long term services contract negotiated by it in Maricopa
County; executed by it in Maricopa, County, and which was and is being performed in Maricopa County, Arizona. The contract provides that its terms are
governed by the laws of the State of Arizona. Loreto Partners marketed and sold Loreto Bay Development real property in Arizona. The long term
services contract, which is the specific subject of this suit, governed the provision of an estimated $100,000,000 of services performed for Loreto
Partners in Maricopa County, and that required the employment of more than 40 people in Maricopa County, for the benefit of Loreto Partners, as the
party owed duties on the contract by plaintiff.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. Loreto Partners and BAJA New York entered into a contract titled the Intercompany Services Agreement (hereafter the “ISA”), as of May 10, 2004. The
ISA was negotiated and executed in Maricopa County, Arizona by all three of the parties. A copy of the ISA is attached as Exhibit 1.
6. Under the terms of the ISA, BAJA New York was to provide certain sales, marketing, administrative and other services related to the Loreto Bay
Development to Loreto Partners on a cost plus basis. These included financial and accounting services such as maintaining Loreto Partners’ general
ledger, accounts receivable, accounts payable and fixed asset records; provision of billing and collection services; preparation of various types of
income tax returns; preparation of financial statements; provision of tax and payroll records; provision of employee benefits; provision of legal
services Loreto Partners needed to run its business; provision of information technology services, infrastructure and personnel; provision of
construction management and architectural design planning services; and other services – all on behalf of defendant Loreto Partners.
7. BAJA New York, over the last several years, has provided such services to Loreto Partners, under the ISA, in these and other areas in amounts
totaling an estimated $100,000,000.
Loreto Partners’ Breach of Contract
8. The terms of the ISA contractually obligated Loreto Partners not only to reimburse BAJA New York for the direct and indirect cost of the provision
of such services, but also, pursuant to paragraph 3 of the ISA, to pay a fee of 5% of the cost of such direct and indirect services.
9. The ISA is governed by the laws of the State of Arizona.
10. Loreto Partners has not fully reimbursed BAJA New York for the cost of the provision of all the services provided Loreto Partners under the ISA.
As only one example, certain individuals and entities provided emergency funding to BAJA New York so that it could provide services to Loreto
Partners, which sums have not been reimbursed. A Canadian citizen named Norma Butterfield loaned BAJA New York $800,000 (Canadian), and upon
information and belief, those sums were used at least in part to provide services to Loreto Partners under the ISA. Loreto Partners has not reimbursed
BAJA New York for these sums. In addition, a British Columbia corporation named Fan Tan Alley Holdings, Ltd. loaned BAJA New York $200,000 (Canadian),
and upon information and belief, those sums were used at least in part to provide services to Loreto Partners under the ISA. Loreto Partners has not
reimbursed BAJA New York for these sums. Upon information and belief, there are other un-reimbursed expenditures that Loreto Partners is obligated to
reimburse BAJA New York under the ISA. These will be identified with particularity after discovery, and by means of the accounting that plaintiff is
requesting the Court to order in this action.
11. Upon information and belief, Loreto Partners has not paid any portion of the 5% fee it owes BAJA New York under the ISA.
12. BAJA New York has demanded that Loreto Partners pay the amounts owed to it on the ISA, but Loreto Partners has refused.
13. Loreto Partners has breached its contract with BAJA New York.
14. The precise sums owed to BAJA New York by Loreto Partners await more accounting information. Upon information and belief, the current amount due
exceeds $7,000,000.
15. Loreto Partners is indebted to the plaintiff BAJA New York by a sum estimated to exceed $7,000,000, in an amount to be proven at trial.
16. Plaintiff BAJA New York is also entitled to its costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01.
COUNT 1 -- BREACH OF CONTRACT
17. All allegations previously made in the Complaint are reasserted here as if set forth in their entirety herein.
18. Loreto Partners owes and owed plaintiff BAJA New York contractual duties under the ISA.
19. Loreto Partners has breached its contractual duties to plaintiff BAJA New York by failing to pay all the sums due and owing under the ISA,
including reimbursement for the cost of services, and the 5% fee on the provision of such services, as specified by the ISA.
20. Loreto Partners’ breach of contract has damaged plaintiff BAJA New York in an amount to be proven at trial, but currently estimated to be in
excess of $7,000,000.
21. Loreto Partners is indebted to plaintiff in an amount estimated to exceed $7,000,000 for breach of contract.
COUNT 2 -- ACCOUNTING
22. All allegations previously made in the Complaint are reasserted here as if set forth in their entirety herein.
23. Since August 2007, Loreto Partners has controlled the accounting functions that tracked the sums expended on the provision of services to it under
the ISA. It has possession of the books and records that are relevant and necessary to know with
precision the sums it owes to plaintiff.
24. Currently BAJA New York does not have access to information about the precise dollar amount of money it spent providing services to Loreto
Partners. Nor does it have accurate information about how much Loreto Partners has in fact reimbursed BAJA New York.
25. Loreto Partners should be ordered to render an accounting to BAJA New York on the use of funds that occurred in connection with the ISA, including
how much was expended in the provision of services on its behalf by BAJA New York; how much Loreto Partners has reimbursed BAJA New York for such
services; and how much, if any, it has paid for the 5% fee that is contractually due on all such sums.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant Loreto Partners as
follows:
A. For compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
B. For an order that Loreto Partners render an accounting to plaintiff on the use of funds relating to the ISA, and its payments under that contract.
C. For costs incurred in this action;
D. For reasonable attorneys’ fees in bringing and prosecuting this action; and
E. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
BAJA NEW YORK HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY.
DATED this 13th day of April 2009.
LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
By /s/ George L. Paul
George L. Paul
Thomas J. Morgan
Attorneys for Plaintiff
|
|
|
|
MikeLikeBaja
Nomad
Posts: 122
Registered: 2-25-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Loretana
Mike,
The Puerto Escondido that DK is referring to is a natural port south of Loreto that has been a well known "hurricane hole" for many years.
An ambitious port development that FONATUR started back in the 70's has been sputtering and fizzling out down there for years.
But hey man, I surfed Zipolite (near Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca) back in my hippy days in 1973. Wild! |
thanks so much for the update. Oaxaca is a great great place
|
|
|
redhilltown
Super Nomad
Posts: 1130
Registered: 1-24-2009
Location: Long Beach, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
sad situation and I wonder if it is just the beginning. I don't know nuttin about real estate laws and who is right or wrong but when I see the
hideous over building from TJ to Ensenada and around San Felipe I just can't help thinking: where in the HELL are they going to get all the water for
these developments?
|
|
|
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Peacefull
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Don Alley
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
So Americans scammed other Americans and the Mexicans will be seen as the evil doers. |
Well, yes, but remember, FONATUR was in on this from the beginning, and there were Mexican contractors involved. Did they scam the developers? I'm not
saying. |
This keeps happening over and over ....
[Edited on 6-8-2009 by CaboRon]
|
|
|
bajajudy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6886
Registered: 10-4-2004
Location: San Jose del Cabo,BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by CaboRon
[
And why is it that mexicans seem to think that this is all a game anyway..... |
I dont know Ron
Ask your fellow American, Bernie Madoff!
OH he isnt Mexican is he!
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18395
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by CaboRon
| Quote: | Originally posted by Don Alley
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
So Americans scammed other Americans and the Mexicans will be seen as the evil doers. |
Well, yes, but remember, FONATUR was in on this from the beginning, and there were Mexican contractors involved. Did they scam the developers? I'm not
saying. |
This keeps happening over and over ....
[Edited on 6-8-2009 by CaboRon] |
None of the Loreto Bay buyers hang out here with us trailer trash,... wondering why? Tis a funny development, from looks of starwood website appears
to be a bunch of naive dotcom diletatant buyers that bought into and eco resort and did their due diligence wearing rose colored reading glasses.
The Loreto Bay buyers should have come here and listened to the crusty old trailer trash like Caboron
Sounds like a typical real estate development --- was primarily self-financing development through sales, and when the great american depression
eliminated the flow of gringo buyers, the wheels came off and now we got BK.
|
|
|
Packoderm
Super Nomad
Posts: 2116
Registered: 11-7-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
If this turns out to where construction stops and the homeowners live in a partially completed development, then I'll say that Cabo Ron is wrong.
However, if they're kicked out, then it would appear to be essentially a lawless country where people should invest no more than they are prepared to
lose outright, and the society as a whole should learn to live with less than what would be possible with a system of laws. Nothing seems safe.
At the expense of the Mexican people and expatriates, the above scenario is the lawless, adventurous sort of nonsense that I love about Mexico and why
I keep coming back.
|
|
|
tripledigitken
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4848
Registered: 9-27-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Reading the suit, a question come to mind?
Where did the $100,000,000 go? Could have financed power plant, desal, hospital, fire............................
Yet it seems that a significant percentage of the construction costs where financed by the gringo owner's deposits.
So the majority of the $100,000,000 seems like it didn't stick in Loreto, surprize.
Ken
|
|
|
arrowhead
Banned
Posts: 912
Registered: 5-5-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajajudy
I dont know Ron
Ask your fellow American, Bernie Madoff!
OH he isnt Mexican is he! |
Well, if you are trying to draw a moral equivalency between Madoff and Loreto Bay, I think your thesis falls short. What Bernie Madoff did was illegal
under the laws of the US. He was tried, convicted and is now in jail. As near as I can tell, Loreto Bay did nothing illegal under Mexican laws. Watch.
Nobody is going to go to be charged, nobody is going to jail.
The real estate disclosure laws and requirements to escrow buyers deposits laws in virtually every state in the US would have prevented the losses you
are going to see in Loreto Bay. The primary problem is Mexico's extremely weak consumer protection laws. This is how the Trump Baja shysters made
their money too.
As a comparison, there is a huge condo project in San Diego next to the ball park. It was sold in 2004, at the height of the real estate boom. The
developer took buyers' deposits and the contract prices were way over market by the time the project was completed in 2009. The contract had a clause
that said the condo's had to be completed by a certain date. The developer missed the completion date. Every single buyer had, or will have, the
deposits returned from escrow and be released from the purchase contract. No buyer lost a penny.
That is the difference between a country with strong laws to protect consumers and Mexico.
|
|
|
bajajudy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6886
Registered: 10-4-2004
Location: San Jose del Cabo,BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Who Madoff with the money?
| Quote: | Originally posted by arrowhead
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajajudy
I dont know Ron
Ask your fellow American, Bernie Madoff!
OH he isnt Mexican is he! |
Well, if you are trying to draw a moral equivalency between Madoff and Loreto Bay, I think your thesis falls short. |
My thesis, as you call it, was that Ron says Mexicans think it is a game. So do Americans think Bernie is a.....what. I just really get annoyed with
generalizations.
How can you blame the Mexicans(not to mention the fact that I saw no MEXICAN names in that lawsuit) for some people's sad mistakes? It happens all
over the world....
I am sorry for these people's losses and also sorry for high jacking this important thread.
|
|
|
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Peacefull
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by arrowhead
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajajudy
I dont know Ron
Ask your fellow American, Bernie Madoff!
OH he isnt Mexican is he! |
Well, if you are trying to draw a moral equivalency between Madoff and Loreto Bay, I think your thesis falls short. What Bernie Madoff did was illegal
under the laws of the US. He was tried, convicted and is now in jail. As near as I can tell, Loreto Bay did nothing illegal under Mexican laws. Watch.
Nobody is going to go to be charged, nobody is going to jail.
The real estate disclosure laws and requirements to escrow buyers deposits laws in virtually every state in the US would have prevented the losses you
are going to see in Loreto Bay. The primary problem is Mexico's extremely weak consumer protection laws. This is how the Trump Baja shysters made
their money too.
As a comparison, there is a huge condo project in San Diego next to the ball park. It was sold in 2004, at the height of the real estate boom. The
developer took buyers' deposits and the contract prices were way over market by the time the project was completed in 2009. The contract had a clause
that said the condo's had to be completed by a certain date. The developer missed the completion date. Every single buyer had, or will have, the
deposits returned from escrow and be released from the purchase contract. No buyer lost a penny.
That is the difference between a country with strong laws to protect consumers and Mexico. |
And that IS the difference , when you move to mexico you give up most of your consumer rights .....
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by CaboRon
And that IS the difference , when you move to mexico you give up most of your consumer rights ..... |
Yes Ron, it's true, American consumer protection laws are not enforced in Mexico.
DUH!
Glad you're SLOWLY figuring things out.
|
|
|
rpleger
Super Nomad
Posts: 1087
Registered: 3-12-2005
Location: H. Mulegé, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Was good.
|
|
What a sad, sad story....we all saw it coming but that does not help the victims.
Richard on the Hill
*ABROAD*, adj. At war with savages and idiots. To be a Frenchman abroad is to
be miserable; to be an American abroad is to make others miserable.
-- Ambrose Bierce, _The Enlarged Devil\'s Dictionary_
|
|
|
Loretana
Senior Nomad
Posts: 825
Registered: 5-19-2006
Location: Oregon/Loreto
Member Is Offline
Mood: alegre
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
Reading the suit, a question come to mind?
Where did the $100,000,000 go? Could have financed power plant, desal, hospital, fire............................
Yet it seems that a significant percentage of the construction costs where financed by the gringo owner's deposits.
So the majority of the $100,000,000 seems like it didn't stick in Loreto, surprize.
Ken |
This is why Butterfield and Grogan own several gorgeous beachfront homes and at least 8 lots between them.
A little of the dough stayed in Loreto. At least the Municipal Government has gotten some infrastructure straightened out, and the Malecon is kept
clean.
"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."
-Nikola Tesla
|
|
|
vandenberg
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5118
Registered: 6-21-2005
Location: Nopolo
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow
|
|
Small update,
I was told yesterday that the golfcourse wouldn't cease operations immediately, but stay open for a few more weeks.
Apparently they changed their minds overnight. All the tee markers, flags and course cart direction signs were removed this morning. I know quite a
few folks keep their clubs at the course. I picked mine up yesterday, just in case.
I remember form past experience that lots of stuff, even golfcarts, disappeared from the clubhouse when Fonatur was running it. So, to whoever have
their equipment stored on the course, better retrieve it pronto.
When you get there tomorrow, let us know what story they're coming up with on this sudden closure.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
..
10 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
