What NZ criminal offence is Dotcom accused of having committed?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Donchano, Feb 11, 2012.

  1. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
    offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
    he's accused of having committed? TIA.
    Donchano, Feb 11, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Donchano

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:12:16 +1300, Donchano wrote:

    > I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
    > offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
    > he's accused of having committed? TIA.



    According to the FBI indictment, Dotcom and his associates have
    already stated in intercepted documents that they have materially
    profited from unauthorised trafficking in copyrighted material. Under NZ
    copyright law profiting from such trafficking is a criminal offence which
    carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. This is more than the
    four years maximum required to justify the laying of criminal conspiracy
    charges -"participation in organised criminal group"- under the Crimes
    Act. If the intercepted documents are allowed as evidence and are as the
    FBI claims then Dotcom and his buddies are in trouble.

    With all of the money in play, money laundering charges are also
    likely. Potentially 7 years in prison for the principals and 5 years for
    being accessory to an offence.

    Several potentially serious charges here, without needing to deal
    with the messy details about how many users have links to any particular
    file and whether or not some or all or none of those links are authorised
    by NZ law.
    Roger_Nickel, Feb 11, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:12:16 +1300, Donchano
    <> wrote:

    >
    >I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
    >offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
    >he's accused of having committed? TIA.




    Na he was Born, no its the US that runs this Country..

    How are they confiscating his stuff even before he has been tried.

    Seems to me that the NZ gov has been stood over..
    Frank Williams, Feb 11, 2012
    #3
  4. On 11 Feb 2012 21:57:56 +1300, Roger_Nickel <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:12:16 +1300, Donchano wrote:
    >
    >> I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
    >> offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
    >> he's accused of having committed? TIA.

    >
    >
    > According to the FBI indictment, Dotcom and his associates have
    >already stated in intercepted documents that they have materially
    >profited from unauthorised trafficking in copyrighted material. Under NZ
    >copyright law profiting from such trafficking is a criminal offence which
    >carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. This is more than the
    >four years maximum required to justify the laying of criminal conspiracy
    >charges -"participation in organised criminal group"- under the Crimes
    >Act. If the intercepted documents are allowed as evidence and are as the
    >FBI claims then Dotcom and his buddies are in trouble.
    >
    > With all of the money in play, money laundering charges are also
    >likely. Potentially 7 years in prison for the principals and 5 years for
    >being accessory to an offence.
    >
    > Several potentially serious charges here, without needing to deal
    >with the messy details about how many users have links to any particular
    >file and whether or not some or all or none of those links are authorised
    >by NZ law.




    Seems like you are one of those Corrupt FBI officials, believe in 1/2 of
    what you read, its a total Frame up, he has not committed any thing at
    all, it was because he was going to provide a Legit Music Dnload service
    what put the wind up of the RIAA and money would go direct to the
    Artist.

    You should watch CH7 Media Watch.

    Just don't post what you saw on the News Its Total US Crap..
    Frank Williams, Feb 11, 2012
    #4
  5. Donchano

    nospam Guest

    On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:42 +1300, Frank Williams
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Seems like you are one of those Corrupt FBI officials, believe in 1/2 of
    >what you read, its a total Frame up, he has not committed any thing at
    >all, it was because he was going to provide a Legit Music Dnload service
    >what put the wind up of the RIAA and money would go direct to the
    >Artist.
    >
    >You should watch CH7 Media Watch.
    >
    >Just don't post what you saw on the News Its Total US Crap..
    >


    Seems like you're an idiot. The NZ Police and Govt believe it too and
    so does anyone with more than two brain cells.
    nospam, Feb 11, 2012
    #5
  6. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On 11 Feb 2012 21:57:56 +1300, Roger_Nickel <> shouted
    from the highest rooftop:

    >On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:12:16 +1300, Donchano wrote:
    >
    >> I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
    >> offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
    >> he's accused of having committed? TIA.

    >
    >
    > According to the FBI indictment, Dotcom and his associates have
    >already stated in intercepted documents that they have materially
    >profited from unauthorised trafficking in copyrighted material. Under NZ
    >copyright law profiting from such trafficking is a criminal offence which
    >carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. This is more than the
    >four years maximum required to justify the laying of criminal conspiracy
    >charges -"participation in organised criminal group"- under the Crimes
    >Act. If the intercepted documents are allowed as evidence and are as the
    >FBI claims then Dotcom and his buddies are in trouble.


    Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
    offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?

    > With all of the money in play, money laundering charges are also
    >likely. Potentially 7 years in prison for the principals and 5 years for
    >being accessory to an offence.
    >
    > Several potentially serious charges here, without needing to deal
    >with the messy details about how many users have links to any particular
    >file and whether or not some or all or none of those links are authorised
    >by NZ law.
    Donchano, Feb 11, 2012
    #6
  7. Donchano

    nospam Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
    >offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
    >


    None
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
    nospam, Feb 11, 2012
    #7
  8. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
    >>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
    >>

    >
    >None
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition


    Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
    trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.

    But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
    in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
    arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
    specified on the arrest warrant/s?
    Donchano, Feb 11, 2012
    #8
  9. Donchano

    nospam Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:27:11 +1300, Donchano
    <> wrote:

    >
    >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
    >shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >
    >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
    >>>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
    >>>

    >>
    >>None
    >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

    >
    >Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
    >trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.
    >
    >But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
    >in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
    >arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
    >specified on the arrest warrant/s?


    I already answered you. None. Guess you didn't read the article on
    extradition.
    nospam, Feb 11, 2012
    #9
  10. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:07:52 +1300, whoisthis <>
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >In article <>,
    > Donchano <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
    >> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >>
    >> >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
    >> ><> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
    >> >>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >None
    >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

    >>
    >> Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
    >> trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.
    >>
    >> But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
    >> in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
    >> arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
    >> specified on the arrest warrant/s?

    >
    >It does not require a NZ crime to be committed to be extradited, so your
    >question is irrelevant.


    But he hasn't be extradited ... he's been arrested.
    Donchano, Feb 12, 2012
    #10
  11. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:52:22 +1300, nospam <>
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:27:11 +1300, Donchano
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
    >>shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
    >>>>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>None
    >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

    >>
    >>Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
    >>trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.
    >>
    >>But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
    >>in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
    >>arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
    >>specified on the arrest warrant/s?

    >
    >I already answered you. None. Guess you didn't read the article on
    >extradition.


    On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
    of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
    this specific case.

    So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
    arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
    violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
    arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
    still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
    anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
    arrest?
    Donchano, Feb 12, 2012
    #11
  12. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:09:12 +1300, whoisthis <>
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >In article <>,
    > Donchano <> wrote:
    >
    >> I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
    >> offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
    >> he's accused of having committed? TIA.

    >
    >Its does not require a crime to be committed in NZ to be extradited for
    >crimes in other countries. So the question is irrelevant.


    But Dotcom and co have not been extradited. They've been arrested.
    Donchano, Feb 12, 2012
    #12
  13. Donchano

    nospam Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:32:19 +1300, Donchano
    <> wrote:

    >
    >On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
    >of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
    >this specific case.
    >
    >So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
    >arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
    >violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
    >arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
    >still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
    >anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
    >arrest?


    It was a provisional arrest. I'm sure you can google as well as I
    can.

    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ody-as-new-zealand-awaits-extradition-request

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/whole.html#DLM26216
    nospam, Feb 12, 2012
    #13
  14. Donchano

    nospam Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:18:25 +1300, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:32:19 +1300, Donchano
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
    >>of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
    >>this specific case.
    >>
    >>So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
    >>arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
    >>violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
    >>arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
    >>still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
    >>anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
    >>arrest?

    >
    >It was a provisional arrest. I'm sure you can google as well as I
    >can.
    >
    >http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ody-as-new-zealand-awaits-extradition-request
    >
    >http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/whole.html#DLM26216



    Some comments from a lawyer
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10784190
    nospam, Feb 12, 2012
    #14
  15. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:25:07 +1300, nospam <>
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:18:25 +1300, nospam <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:32:19 +1300, Donchano
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
    >>>of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
    >>>this specific case.
    >>>
    >>>So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
    >>>arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
    >>>violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
    >>>arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
    >>>still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
    >>>anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
    >>>arrest?

    >>
    >>It was a provisional arrest. I'm sure you can google as well as I
    >>can.
    >>
    >>http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ody-as-new-zealand-awaits-extradition-request
    >>
    >>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/whole.html#DLM26216

    >
    >
    >Some comments from a lawyer
    >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10784190


    Thank you. I use Google a lot and tried posing the question but got no
    answers.

    Now I'm going to try and find out how the NZ authorities are
    justifying the seizing of Dotcom's property. If he hasn't violated a
    NZ law then how can they use the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act?
    Donchano, Feb 12, 2012
    #15
  16. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:58:01 +1300, whoisthis <>
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >In article <>,
    > Donchano <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:52:22 +1300, nospam <>
    >> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >>
    >> >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:27:11 +1300, Donchano
    >> ><> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
    >> >>shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >> >>
    >> >>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
    >> >>><> wrote:
    >> >>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
    >> >>>>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>>None
    >> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
    >> >>
    >> >>Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
    >> >>trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.
    >> >>
    >> >>But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
    >> >>in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
    >> >>arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
    >> >>specified on the arrest warrant/s?
    >> >
    >> >I already answered you. None. Guess you didn't read the article on
    >> >extradition.

    >>
    >> On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
    >> of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
    >> this specific case.
    >>
    >> So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
    >> arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
    >> violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
    >> arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
    >> still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
    >> anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
    >> arrest?

    >
    >Tell me what happens then if it is murder, rape ?
    >The crime was not committed here in NZ, so police obviously can not
    >arrest hime and charge him with a c rime in NZ, do we just say "meh" and
    >walk away ?


    Interesting point, but murder and rape are criminal offences in New
    Zealand. I may be wrong, but I don't think copyright infringement is
    .... yet.
    Donchano, Feb 12, 2012
    #16
  17. Donchano

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-02-11, Donchano <> wrote:
    >
    > I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
    > offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
    > he's accused of having committed? TIA.
    >

    Making *my* money, for he has not killed anyone or tortured them.
    Gordon, Feb 12, 2012
    #17
  18. In article <>,
    r says...
    >
    > Tell me what happens then if it is murder, rape ?
    > The crime was not committed here in NZ, so police obviously can not
    > arrest hime and charge him with a c rime in NZ, do we just say "meh" and
    > walk away ?
    >


    Absolutely not. That's fair comment.

    Vice versa, if the Iranian religious police would demand a woman be
    extradited for having an extramarital relationship and sleeping with an
    X-tian hence being eligible for stoning to death under sharia law -- how
    would we feel about that? Should we clap her in jail with no bail? Send
    her to Teheran, gift wrapped? Sleeping around is not a crime in this
    country.

    Would the cops rush in with swat teams and black helicopters?

    There are countless so called business people in NZ who have done worse
    to their investors than that Mr. Dotcom has to the entertainment
    industry (assuming that the allegations against him are true, which I
    think has to be taken with significant doubt: ffs, the guy was employing
    high powered lawyers to make sure he was NOT getting into hot water) and
    I don't see _them_ being held in prison without bail. There's clearly an
    'example' being set up for a witch-burning here, regardless of how
    guilty or innocent he is.

    What *particularly galls* is that when we, the citizens, need the cops,
    they aren't there. The convicted pedophile from up the road, stalking a
    13 year old girl, the cop didn't want to know when the parents reported
    it. The kids with guns walking around on my place shooting at livestock,
    the cop didn't want to know about. A friend had his house cleaned right
    out, the cop said: "why did you come to US?" when the friend said he
    didn't need the piece of paper for the insurance. I kid you not.
    Some louts came in and shot some of my stock and took them away, the
    cops didn't want to know until I went to the area commander. Then the
    cop denied the perpetrators had had a gun when 3 of my neighbours had
    seen them. Didn't even bother to interview the eyewitnesses. I called
    111 on the cell when I saw a guy getting the shit kicked out of him,
    covered in blood on the ground outside a pub, no cops ever showed up in
    over 1/2 an hour that I stayed near by (hey, I wasn't getting mixed up
    in THAT) ... by the same token I've seen a couple of cops pepperspraying
    a handcuffed intellectually handicapped guy in the streets of Kaikohe
    who was not offering them any resistance (although he had rolled himself
    out of the cop-car at an intersection). All of this in the last 10
    years.

    But the FBI whistles and they bring out the Big Guns. Literally. I am
    PISSED OFF with those arseholes. I have no respect left for the nz
    police. None. I will not be surprised if the whole thing turns out like
    that 'east coast terrorists' debacle, in the end.

    Not saying Dotcom is guilty or innocent, I haven't a clue. But I do know
    that the 'armed offenders' are looking more and more like terrorists
    than like the 'good guys'. The mere fact of how they go about hiding
    their identity and their faces really says it all.


    Ffs.
    Peter Huebner, Feb 12, 2012
    #18
  19. Donchano

    nospam Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:38:47 +1300, Peter Huebner
    <> wrote:

    >There are countless so called business people in NZ who have done worse
    >to their investors than that Mr. Dotcom has to the entertainment
    >industry (assuming that the allegations against him are true, which I
    >think has to be taken with significant doubt:


    Countless? I don't think so. How many can you name?


    >ffs, the guy was employing
    >high powered lawyers to make sure he was NOT getting into hot water) and


    This is rubbish. Please provide some evidence to support this
    statement.
    nospam, Feb 12, 2012
    #19
  20. Donchano

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:32:19 +1300, Donchano wrote:

    > On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:52:22 +1300, nospam <>
    > shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >
    >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:27:11 +1300, Donchano
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
    >>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
    >>>><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
    >>>>>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>None
    >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
    >>>
    >>>Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
    >>>trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.
    >>>
    >>>But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
    >>>in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
    >>>arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
    >>>specified on the arrest warrant/s?

    >>
    >>I already answered you. None. Guess you didn't read the article on
    >>extradition.

    >
    > On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job of
    > summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address this
    > specific case.
    >
    > So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were arrested
    > in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having violated any NZ
    > laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an arrest warrant
    > authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police still need an
    > arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does anyone know what
    > the warrant stated as being the justification for the arrest?


    My understanding is that the communications intercepted by the FBI
    include records of them talking to each other about how much money they
    were making on the back of illegal downloads and of them making
    arrangements to operate the business. In other words that they admit in
    their own communication with each other to criminal conspiracy. It is
    enough to prove criminal intent to get a conviction on criminal
    conspiracy charges. Cops love conspiracy charges and bring them whenever
    they can. I think that it sucks, Dotcom and his friends are hardly
    gangsters and civil prosecution would be quite enough.
    Roger_Nickel, Feb 12, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bartosz Piec
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    598
    Bartosz Piec
    Oct 10, 2005
  2. Mick.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    414
    Mick.
    Sep 6, 2004
  3. Re: Woman accused of raping infants

    , Jan 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    386
  4. Allan
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    512
    Allan
    Oct 19, 2005
  5. Modemac

    MPAA accused of hiring hackers

    Modemac, May 25, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    595
    trippy
    May 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page