FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  »Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: More Reznick, Oakley & waterloo nonsense
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

In 2009, Rozewski received a letter from her current counsel, James Shaw, who inquired if a court officer named Robert Reznick had come to her home and that "if you feel like you were violated or treated uncourteously in any way, to please contact the law office." (Rozewski Dep., pp. 48-49) Rozewski testified that she had never had any contact with anyone at Weber and Olcese but that she was suing them because "they were the people who sent him to do this." (Rozewski Dep., pp. 56-57) Rozewski filed the instant suit after contacting Mr. Shaw's office.

====================================================

This may be why so many of the cases against Reznick had the same attorney!
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:02 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Michigan Attorney Discipline Board




PDF
SHAW, James R.--Effective September 20, 1995 9/20/1995

James R. Shaw, P-49003, Detroit, Michigan, by Attorney ... 1) Reprimand; ... Respondent was retained to file bankruptcy petitions on behalf of nine individuals.

Concepts: respondent ; bankruptcy ; law ; legal education ; parties stipulated ; Michigan Rules ; amount ; Costs ; allegations
Type: Notice

http://www.adbmich.org/coveo/notices/1995-09-20-95n-166.pdf - 1 page

Quick View | Details |




PDF
SHAW, James R.-Notice Of Suspension (By Consent)-Effective June 15, 1999 7/1/1999

(By Consent) ... James R. Shaw, P-49003, Dearborn Heights, Michigan, by ... Respondent was appointed as appellate counsel for 15 separate criminal defendants.

Concepts: respondent ; Michigan Rules ; parties stipulated ; criminal defendants ; practice of law ; amount ; Costs ; violation ; allegations
Type: Notice
City: Dearborn Heights
County: Wayne

http://www.adbmich.org/coveo/notices/1999-07-01-98-137.pdf - 1 page

Quick View | Details |




PDF
SHAW, James R.-Notice Of Automatic Reinstatement-Effective October 14, 1999 10/1/1999

James R. Shaw, P-49003, Dearborn Heights, Michigan. ... Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Michigan for 120 days effective ...

Concepts: respondent ; Michigan ; Dearborn Heights ; affidavit of compliance ; practice of law ; suspension ; accordance ; Shaw
Type: Notice
City: Dearborn Heights
County: Wayne

http://www.adbmich.org/coveo/notices/1999-10-01-98-137a.pdf - 1 page

Quick View | Details |




PDF
SHAW, James R. - Notice of Suspension (By Consent) - Effective July 1, 2013 7/3/2013

James R. Shaw, P 49003, Detroit, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County ... In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that ...

Concepts: hearing panel ; respondent ; violation ; amount ; accordance ; stipulation ; Total costs ; practice law ; service charges ; client trust ; formal complaint ; Attorney Grievance Commission ; allegations
Type: Notice
City: Detroit
County: Wayne

http://www.adbmich.org/coveo/notices/2013-07-03-12n-125.pdf - 1 page

Quick View | Details |




PDF
SHAW, James R. - Notice of Automatic Reinstatement - Effective August 2, 2013 8/16/2013

Notice Issued: August 5,2013 ... James R. Shaw, P 49003, Detroit, Michigan. ... Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective ...

Concepts: Michigan Supreme ; respondent ; affidavit of compliance ; practice of law ; suspension ; accordance ; ORG
Type: Notice
City: Detroit
County: Wayne

http://www.adbmich.org/coveo/notices/2013-08-05-12n-125a.pdf - 1 page
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:05 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

A Default Judgment was entered by the 37th District Court in Warren, Michigan, against Rozewski in the amount of $941.26 on behalf of Weber and Olcese's client, People's State Bank. (Motion, Ex. 4) After submitting the standard request for an Order to Seize Property to satisfy the Default Judgment, the court entered the Order on May 24, 2007. (Motion, Ex. 5) The Order to Seize Property authorized a sheriff, deputy sheriff, or court officer to seize "personal property . . . includ[ing], but not limited to . . . money, wherever located" to satisfy the judgment. (Motion, Ex. 5) Reznick was sent to the home by the Weber and Olcese law firm to execute an Order to Seize Property following an entry of civil judgment against Rozewski. (Comp., ¶ 13)

Reznick, accompanied by two other men, went to the home of Rozewski in Warren, Michigan on August 1, 2007 at about 10:00 p.m. (Comp., ¶ 12) Rozewski's sister told her that there was "a police officer wanting to talk to her." (Rozewski Dep., pp. 15, 22) Rozewski went outside through the house's side door and saw Reznick and another man standing in the driveway. (Rozewski Dep., p. 22) Reznick was dressed in casual clothes and told Rozewski, "My name is Robert Reznick. I'm a deputy sheriff here to collect a debt." (Rozewski Dep., p. 23) Reznick was holding up the Request and Order to Seize Property. (Rozewski Dep., p. 24) Reznick told Rozewski that if she did not pay him $1,200 to satisfy the debt then he would seize her property, including her 1997 Buick Regal. (Rozewski Dep., pp. 28-30)

Rozewski then told Reznick she was going inside the house to get her mother, shutting the door behind her. (Rozewski Dep., pp. 26-27) While her mother was coming up the stairs from the basement, Rozewski heard the side door open and Reznick and his companion came into the home. (Rozewski Dep., p. 27) Rozewski asked Reznick what he was doing in the house and he responded, "I'm not leaving until you pay me my debt." (Rozewski Dep., p. 2Cool Rozewski told Reznick she did not have that kind of money and he responded by telling her to start calling friends and family to get the money. (Rozewski Dep., p. 32) When Rozewski asked Reznick what he was doing in the house, he responded by going back outside into the backyard. (Rozewski Dep., p. 34)
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:09 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

A common theme in these lawsuits is that Reznick represents himself as a sheriff deputy.

"First, Reznick is a sheriff's deputy, although not in the jurisdiction where he was serving this particular order. And a 'finding of trespass cannot be sustained on grounds of misrepresentation' American Transmissions Inc. v Channel 7 of Detroit., 239 Mich. App. 695, 70 (2000)."

Page 11 of21 Elizabeth Orzechowski v law Firm of Weber & Olcese PLC, 20th Distrisct Court , et al.


Doc #60 Brief in Support of defendant's Due process of Michigan, Inc.s and Robert Reznick's Motion for Summary judgment
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:48 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

ibid page 13

"He work as a sheriff's deputy for the Coleman police department, the Village of Mt. Morris police department, and the City of Perry police department. He is also deputized by the Gladwin County Sheriff's department and the Midland County Sheriff's department .

(Reznick dep. pp.40-42, 63-65 Exhibit 7 to Docket Item 45) Thus Reznick's statement that he was a sheriff was not false. Plaintiff's fraud claim on the statement fails. "
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:00 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Judgment Lien Overview - Michigan Court Officers, Deputy ...


www.mcodsa.com/?132

Michigan’s judgment lien law, P.A. 136, ... If the judgment is still valid, a new Writ of Execution (Order for Seizure of Property) may be filed, ...
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:28 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

. Tenancy by the Entireties

Section 2807 (1) provides that a judgment lien does not attach to entireties property unless the judgment is entered against both husband and wife.
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:33 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

II. Comparison with Orders for Seizure of Property

A. In General

Although both Judgment Liens and Orders for Seizure of Property are post judgment remedies, the former is a simpler and less expensive process. Orders for Seizure of Property require involvement of a court officer or other person authorized under MCR 3.106, i.e. court officers, bailiffs, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, and police officers (collectively referred to below as officers.) Judgment liens may be filed with the court and recorded with the register of deeds by an attorney or the judgment creditor.

B. Orders for Seizure Require Personal Property First Be Levied Upon. Judgment Liens Do Not Have this Requirement

An Order for Seizure of Property may be issued by the court clerk 21 days after entry of a judgment. It is also known as a writ of execution and is authorized pursuant to MCL 600.6004. This statute provides for execution and levy upon the debtor’s property to enforce judgments, however it requires that the officer first seize and sell personal property. Real property may only be levied upon if the personal property is insufficient to meet the sum of money and costs for which the judgment was rendered.

Judgment liens do not permit or require seizure and sale of personal property. They may be filed with the court that issued the judgment, certified by the clerk and then recorded with the register of deeds.

C. Officer Involvement Required for Orders for Seizure, But Not for Judgment Liens

MCR 3.106 sets forth procedures for officers serving Orders for Seizure of Property. It requires inventory, receipts, disposition of personalty, payment into a court trust account, retention of bills and receipts by the officer, and a report by the officer summarizing collection activities and accounting of all money or property collected.

These procedures are mandated because writs of execution require the taking and selling of personal property. Accordingly, there is a need to track the disposition of the personalty and the proceeds from sale. Equally important, since an officer may personally confront the judgment debtor, demand payment and confiscate personal property, there is a need to insure professionalism to avoid a breach of the peace.

Judgment liens may simply be filed and recorded by an attorney. There is no personal confrontation with the defendant and no personal property is seized. Service of the judgment lien on the judgment debtor is by certified mail if the judgment is less than $25,000. If the judgment is more than $25,000, service must be personal, but it may be made by a process server and does not require service by an “officer.”

D. Notices of Levy Require Legal Description. Notices of Judgment Lien Do Not.

If the officer cannot seize and sell sufficient personal property to pay the judgment, then the next step would be to file a Notice of Levy with the register of deeds pursuant to MCL 600.6051. This provision requires that the Notice of Levy contain a “description of the premises”, i.e. a legal description. If the judgment creditor does not know the exact legal description, this must be obtained by a title search, which costs money. The Notice of Levy is filed in the “tract index” of the register of deeds.

A notice of judgment lien does not require a legal description, but it does require the last four digits of the social security or Tax I.D. number to confirm the judgment debtor. It is recorded in the land title records of the register of deeds, typically in the “grantor/grantee” index, and may be searched by name. Title companies have always searched by name for tax liens.

Sections 2805 (a –f) of the Judgment Lien Act set forth the information that must be included on the judgment lien. (This information is required on the SCAO approved Judgment Lien form attached.)

•Current balance on the judgment (NOT the amount of “damages” on the judgment, but the amount due at the time of filing the Notice of Judgment Lien)
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:36 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

C. Officer Involvement Required for Orders for Seizure, But Not for Judgment Liens

MCR 3.106 sets forth procedures for officers serving Orders for Seizure of Property. It requires inventory, receipts, disposition of personalty, payment into a court trust account, retention of bills and receipts by the officer, and a report by the officer summarizing collection activities and accounting of all money or property collected.

These procedures are mandated because writs of execution require the taking and selling of personal property. Accordingly, there is a need to track the disposition of the personalty and the proceeds from sale. Equally important, since an officer may personally confront the judgment debtor, demand payment and confiscate personal property, there is a need to insure professionalism to avoid a breach of the peace.
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:37 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Rule 3.106 Procedures Regarding Orders for the Seizure of Property and Orders of Eviction.

(A) Scope of Rule. This rule applies to orders for the seizure of property and orders of eviction.
(B) Persons Who May Seize Property or Conduct Evictions. The persons who may seize property or conduct evictions are those persons named in MCR 2.103(B), and they are subject to the provisions of this rule unless a provision or a statute specifies otherwise.
(1) A court may provide that property shall be seized and evictions conducted only by
(a) court officers and bailiffs serving that court;
(b) sheriffs and deputy sheriffs;
(c) officers of the Department of State Police in an action in which the state is a party; and
(d) police officers of an incorporated city or village in an action in which the city or village is a party.
(2) Each court must post, in a public place at the court, a list of those persons who are serving as court officers or bailiffs. The court must provide the State Court Administrative Office with a copy of the list, and must notify the State Court Administrative Office of any changes.
(C) Appointment of Court Officers. Court officers may be appointed by a court for a term not to exceed 2 years.
(1) The appointment shall be made by the chief judge. Two or more chief judges may jointly appoint court officers for their respective courts.
(2) The appointing court must specify the nature of the court officer's employment relationship at the time of appointment.
(3) The appointing court must maintain a copy of each court officer's application, as required by the State Court Administrative Office.
(4) The State Court Administrative Office shall develop a procedure for the appointment and supervision of court officers, including a model application form. Considerations shall include, but are not limited to, an applicant's character, experience, and references.
(D) Conditions of Service as a Court Officer or Bailiff. Court officers and bailiffs must
(1) post a surety bond pursuant to MCR 8.204;
(2) provide the names and addresses of all financial institutions in which they deposit funds obtained under this rule, and the respective account numbers; and
(3) provide the names and address of those persons who regularly provide services to them in the seizure of property or evictions.
(E) Forms. The State Court Administrative Office shall publish forms approved for use with regard to the procedures described in this rule.
(F) Procedures Generally.
(1) All persons specified in MCR 2.103(B) must carry and display identification authorized by the court or the agency that they serve.
(2) A copy of the order for seizure of property or eviction shall be served on the defendant or the defendant's agent, or left or posted on the premises in a conspicuous place. If property is seized from any other location, a copy of the order shall be mailed to the defendant's last known address.
(G) Procedures Regarding Orders for Seizure of Property.
(1) Orders for seizure of property shall be issued pursuant to statute and endorsed upon receipt.
(2) No funds may be collected pursuant to an order for seizure of property prior to service under subrule (F)(2).
(3) An inventory and receipt shall be prepared upon seizure of property or payment of funds.
(a) The original shall be filed with the court within 7 days of the seizure or payment.
(b) A copy shall be
(i)provided to the parties or their respective attorneys or agents and posted on the premises in a conspicuous place; if the property is seized from any other location, a copy shall be mailed to the nonprevailing party's last known address, and
(ii)retained by the person who seized the property.
(4) Property seized shall be disposed of according to law.
(5) Within 21 days, and as directed by the court, any money that is received shall be paid to the court or deposited in a trust account for payment to the prevailing party or that party's attorney.
(6) Costs allowed by statute shall be paid according to law.
(a) Copies of all bills and receipts for service shall be retained for one year by the person serving the order.
(b) Statutory collection fees shall be paid in proportion to the amount received.
(c) There shall be no payment except as provided by law.
(7) Within 14 days after the expiration of the order or satisfaction of judgment, whichever is first, the following shall be filed with the court and a copy provided to the prevailing party or that party's attorney:
(a) a report summarizing collection activities, including an accounting of all money or property collected,
(b) a report that collection activities will continue pursuant to statute, if applicable, or
(c) a report that no collection activity occurred.
(H) Procedures Regarding Orders of Eviction. Copies of all bills and receipts for services shall be retained by the person serving the order for one year.

NOTES:
History:
Rule 3.106 adopted eff May 1, 2002.

Staff Comment:
The September 12, 2001 addition of MCR 3.106, effective May 1, 2002, was recommended by an ad hoc committee of judges, court administrators, court clerks, attorneys, and court officers. The rule incorporated existing practice while protecting against abuses. The September 12, 2001 amendments of MCR 4.201 and 4.202, effective May 1, 2002, made changes consistent with new MCR 3.106.
The staff comment is published only for the benefit of the bench and bar and is not an authoritative construction by the Court.
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:42 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Rules of Civil Procedure - PFI - Process Forwarding ...


https://www.pfiserves.com/rules/michigan.htm

MICHIGAN RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. In the state of Michigan, ... Only a person listed in MCR 2.103(B)(1), (2), or (3) may be designated. (F) Newspaper Defined.
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:45 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Rule 2.103 Process; Who May Serve



(A) Service Generally. Process in civil actions may be served by any legally competent adult who is not a party or an officer of a corporate party.

(B) Service Requiring Seizure of Property. A writ of restitution or process requiring the seizure or attachment of property may only be served by

(1) a sheriff or deputy sheriff, or a bailiff or court officer appointed by the court for that purpose,

(2) an officer of the Department of State Police in an action in which the state is a party, or

(3) a police officer of an incorporated city or village in an action in which the city or village is a party.

A writ of garnishment may be served by any person authorized by subrule (A).

(C) Service in a Governmental Institution. If personal service of process is to be made on a person in a governmental institution, hospital, or home, service must be made by the person in charge of the institution or by someone designated by that person.

(D) Process Requiring Arrest. Process in civil proceedings requiring the arrest of a person may be served only by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, or police officer, or by a court officer appointed by the court for that purpose.
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:47 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

UPDATE: Detroit lawyer charged in Jackson County with extortion, inciting perjury in connection with lawsuit

Danielle Salisbury | Danielle_Salisbury@mlive.com By Danielle Salisbury | Danielle_Salisbury@mlive.com
on August 03, 2011 at 12:45 PM, updated August 03, 2011 at 5:23 PM



A Detroit lawyer was arraigned Wednesday on charges of extortion and inciting perjury in connection with a pending lawsuit filed earlier this year in Jackson County Circuit Court.

James Roger Shaw, 46, threatened to affect a court officer’s business if he did not change his testimony or give false testimony in a lawsuit involving property seizure, said Jackson County Undersheriff Chris Kuhl.

The officer, Keith Bowers, who works in Wayne County, reported the allegations to authorities in June, the sheriff’s office reported.

Bowers executed orders in March to take items belonging to Shaw’s clients, Robert Adams Sr. and Robert Adams Jr. and Chantel Adams of Adams Poured Walls Inc. near Grass Lake. The three were found to have defaulted on loans from Comerica Bank, according to court records.

Kuhl would not speak to what Shaw is alleged to have tried to change or fake. Shaw wanted to sway the case in his favor, Kuhl said.

He tried to affect Bowers’ livelihood by threatening or attempting to ruin his reputation as a process server so no other firm or institutions would use him, Kuhl said.

Process servers deliver legal documents, such as writs, subpoenas, summons or complaints.

Bowers can enforce orders of eviction and seizure, according to the Michigan State Court Administrative Office.

Efforts to contact Bowers were not successful. A message left at Shaw’s office on Wednesday went unreturned.

In the lawsuit, filed in mid-March, Shaw and his clients allege the property, which included trucks, trailers, vans and other equipment and machinery, was illegally and improperly seized without proper authority. The business is unable to continue without the items and has been shut down, according to the suit.

Calls to Adams Poured Walls and the three Adams listed on the lawsuit went unanswered.

Bowers, who with Comerica Bank is named on the lawsuit and was carrying out the order on behalf of the bank, is not a a court officer or deputy in Jackson County, Shaw and his clients contend in the lawsuit.

In response, Bowers argued he is an officer throughout the state, he did have such authority and the goods were seized with a valid court order.

Shaw was given a $5,000 personal recognizance bond, which means he pays nothing to be free from jail on the condition he will appear in court as ordered.

The most serious of his alleged offenses, extortion, is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison.

He currently is a lawyer in good standing, according to the State Bar of Michigan.

In 1999, he was suspended from the practice of law for 120 days after he pleaded no contest to allegations he neglected 15 criminal defendants in appellate cases to which he was appointed, according to the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board.

Eaton Paving
May 13, 2013

DONT TRUST A WORD THAT KEITH BOWERS SAYS, HE'S A THIEF AND A CROOK...GOT ME FOR 1125.00 AND IF YOU DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON ...COURT OFFICER KEITH BOWERS YOU CAN SEE FOR YOUR SELF....


greenpoint
Aug 3, 2011
or a lawyer?

geek49203
Aug 3, 2011
How in the world would you ruin the reputation of a process server?
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:53 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Ripoff Report | Keith D. Bowers Complaint Review Garden ...

www.ripoffreport.com/.../Keith...Bowers/...Michigan.../Keith-D-Bowers-...

Nov 4, 2013 - Phone: 734-338-2344; Web: Category: Legal Process Servers ... *Author of original report: Keith Bowers Michigan Court Officer buy himself ...


Ripoff Report | keith d. bowers Search of Complaints ...
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:01 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Judge to decide whether case against Detroit lawyer accused of extortion belongs in Jackson County


Danielle Salisbury | Danielle_Salisbury@mlive.com By Danielle Salisbury | Danielle_Salisbury@mlive.com
on October 10, 2011 at 8:25 PM, updated October 10, 2011 at 8:26 PM


Jackson County District Judge Michael Klaeren is to decide whether a case against a Detroit lawyer charged with extortion and inciting perjury will continue in Jackson County.

“We are in the wrong court,” lawyer Phillip Comorski told Klaeren today at the end of a preliminary examination.

Comorski represents James Roger Shaw, 46, who is accused of threatening to destroy court officer Keith Bowers' career if Bowers did not change or give false testimony in a Jackson County lawsuit involving property seizure.

The alleged threats, however, were made at a Livonia gas station, where Shaw and Bowers met in May after Shaw told Bowers he had an offer Bowers “could not refuse,” Bowers testified. Bowers recorded the conversation with a cell phone placed in his ballistic vest, and days later, reported it to Jackson County court authorities.

Chief Assistant Prosecutor Mark Blumer argues Jackson County has jurisdiction because had Shaw been successful in his efforts, the impact would have been felt in Jackson County.

Klaeren told both lawyers to prepare briefs on the issue by Oct. 28. He will make a ruling at a hearing Nov. 4, he said.

Shaw wanted Bowers to testify Bowers told a large law firm he was not qualified or authorized to execute an order to take items belonging to Shaw’s clients, Blumer said. The lawyer said Bowers should testify the firm instructed him to "kick in the door" anyway, Blumer said.

Blumer alleges Shaw did this as part of an effort to go after the law firm’s liability coverage.

Bowers, a court officer in Wayne County, testified he believed he had the authority to seize possessions of Robert Adams Sr., Robert Adams Jr. and Chantel Adams of Adams Poured Walls Inc. near Grass Lake. The three were found to have defaulted on loans from Comerica Bank, represented by the large firm, according to court records. “As far as I was told, I could,” Bowers said.

In the lawsuit, filed in mid-March, Shaw and his clients allege the property, which included trucks, trailers, vans and other goods, was illegally and improperly seized. The business is unable to continue without the items, according to the suit.

Comorski argues Shaw did not do anything wrong. He merely encouraged Bowers to tell the truth, he said. “At no time did (Shaw) say, ‘I need a lie from you,’” Comorski said.

Blumer played Shaw’s conversation with Bowers in court, but it was difficult to fully hear and understand.

Comorski said Shaw was doing as many prosecutors do with offenders. They offer them a deal in exchange for their cooperation against others.

Shaw said he would remove Bowers’ name from the lawsuit if he did as Shaw instructed or suggested, Comorski said.
Post Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:27 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >