TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
pugboy wrote:wait til the next contract come up in court
and ramesh lm fighting that one
zoom rader wrote:Never said I worked on Northrop and not in Trinidad.jm3 wrote:you never worked on noc 5
I did Honeywell weather radar in late 1980s to early 1990s. To much hassle to get Avionics license so went in to Instrumentations and plant controls .
Habit7 wrote:The govt had the choice to use the executively outfitted Sikorsky S76D (to go nowhere necessary) along with the lease, insurance, maintenance, fuel and staff training cost. When they do, the UNC would say see, you are using the helicopter for executive travel just as we did.
Or run try to break the lease and settle damages. But the govt is to blame for not returning it as soon as possible.
Nevertheless, why did we need such large twin-engine helicopter for executive travel within T&T?
Habit7 wrote:The govt had the choice to use the executively outfitted Sikorsky S76D (to go nowhere necessary) along with the lease, insurance, maintenance, fuel and staff training cost. When they do, the UNC would say see, you are using the helicopter for executive travel just as we did.
Or run try to break the lease and settle damages. But the govt is to blame for not returning it as soon as possible.
Nevertheless, why did we need such large twin-engine helicopter for executive travel within T&T?
Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:Edmund dillion and small pin had enogh chance to undo the contract for the helicopter of they wasnt using it.
It was their time now. That 100m is on young.
“The proposed terms agreed to contained a net lease clause - basically this prevented us, the people of Trinidad and Tobago, from terminating this lease arrangement. So in other words from the day you sign this lease arrangement for five years, you are then bound to pay the full cost of the lease arrangement and you cannot terminate the contract if you terminated it two months, three months later you were then bound to pay the full extent of this contract,”
https://www.guardian.co.tt/news/young-w ... c7d8a7590a
The govt already had 4 AW139s and 2 other choppers. There was no need for a 5yr lease for a executively outfitted helicopter, worst yet to spend more to reoutfit it. This is not even considering the 3yr lease they cancelled and settled that never arrived anyway.toyota2nr wrote:Habit7 wrote:The govt had the choice to use the executively outfitted Sikorsky S76D (to go nowhere necessary) along with the lease, insurance, maintenance, fuel and staff training cost. When they do, the UNC would say see, you are using the helicopter for executive travel just as we did.
Or run try to break the lease and settle damages. But the govt is to blame for not returning it as soon as possible.
Nevertheless, why did we need such large twin-engine helicopter for executive travel within T&T?
So why didn’t this government re-outfit the helicopter for military or law enforcement use? They had five years. Would it have cost the 100 million that taxpayers now have to pay?
Habit7 wrote:The govt already had 4 AW139s and 2 other choppers. There was no need for a 5yr lease for a executively outfitted helicopter, worst yet to spend more to reoutfit it. This is not even considering the 3yr lease they cancelled and settled that never arrived anyway.toyota2nr wrote:Habit7 wrote:The govt had the choice to use the executively outfitted Sikorsky S76D (to go nowhere necessary) along with the lease, insurance, maintenance, fuel and staff training cost. When they do, the UNC would say see, you are using the helicopter for executive travel just as we did.
Or run try to break the lease and settle damages. But the govt is to blame for not returning it as soon as possible.
Nevertheless, why did we need such large twin-engine helicopter for executive travel within T&T?
So why didn’t this government re-outfit the helicopter for military or law enforcement use? They had five years. Would it have cost the 100 million that taxpayers now have to pay?
Type Rated wrote:Habit7 wrote:The govt already had 4 AW139s and 2 other choppers. There was no need for a 5yr lease for a executively outfitted helicopter, worst yet to spend more to reoutfit it. This is not even considering the 3yr lease they cancelled and settled that never arrived anyway.toyota2nr wrote:Habit7 wrote:The govt had the choice to use the executively outfitted Sikorsky S76D (to go nowhere necessary) along with the lease, insurance, maintenance, fuel and staff training cost. When they do, the UNC would say see, you are using the helicopter for executive travel just as we did.
Or run try to break the lease and settle damages. But the govt is to blame for not returning it as soon as possible.
Nevertheless, why did we need such large twin-engine helicopter for executive travel within T&T?
So why didn’t this government re-outfit the helicopter for military or law enforcement use? They had five years. Would it have cost the 100 million that taxpayers now have to pay?
That is another aircraft NHSL was supposed to get for a commercial contract as a SAR response aircraft.
Again NOC05 did NOT come or ever have a vip configuration. It came in utility and was used mainly for medical transport for it’s short usage .
Why the helicopter did not fly
Denyse Renne 18 hrs ago
Former head of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Ramesh Lutchmedial says the Sikorsky S76D helicopter did not have the relevant certification to be flown in this country and therefore had to remain grounded.
Contacted by the Sunday Express on January 4 and asked why the helicopter leased by the previous government never took to the skies, he said it “was never registered in the State Registry to the best of my knowledge”.
According to Lutchmedial, the CAA only has the power to deal with aircraft under the Civil Registry, “but in this case I don’t think an application was ever made to put it on the State Registry and if this were done then the CAA would say ok this is what we do, but no application was made”.
He said the CAA got involved when the lessor (Vertical Aviation) “wanted at the end of the five-year lease to be able to have the aircraft operate commercially with another lessee...” Lutchmedial said this was done to ensure the aircraft was maintained in accordance with the requirements of the state of design, which happens to be the United States.
“What they wanted was a letter of undertaking that the CAA will do oversight on the helicopter because it was being operated by the National Operations Centre (NOC) and helicopters being operated by the NOC are not subject to control by the CAA,” he said.
Lutchmedial said it was decided by the CAA to put the aircraft on the State Registry, but that never happened.
“When you look at the regulations, you will see that the CAA has the power to ensure all the mandatory modifications, inspections and so on are carried out on the helicopter. The second thing they wanted to do and this is a standard thing for all lessors, you give a letter of undertaking that you will not de-register the aircraft unless you have the prior approval of the owner/lessor, that was to protect the interest of the lessor. That was the extent of our involvement. We were not privy to the financial transaction. I don’t think we even inspected it and it was not put on the State Registry,” he said.
Lutchmedial added, “For us to do oversight, the helicopter had to be placed on the State Registry giving us the legal authority to inspect the aircraft and the pilots are qualified.”
Safety oversights
Lutchmedial also distanced the CAA from any “business transaction” in relation to the lease agreement of the S76D helicopter.
“I am familiar with the transaction and I can categorically state the CAA did not get involved in the business aspect of operations. That’s not our function.”
Lutchmedial, who is now an independent consultant, was asked to comment on what he recalled of the aircraft and the role of the CAA.
He said, “As far as I know, this was a direct transaction between the owners of the helicopter and the government, because there was a meeting held in my office.”
According to Lutchmedial, present at the meeting were NHSL personnel, a representative from Milestone Aviation, the NOC and an attorney acting on behalf of the State.
“That meeting would have been prior to the lease. My role as head of the CAA would have been to give an undertaking that the CAA would do safety oversights and so on,” he said.
The Sunday Express understands the S76D helicopter was to be used by the NOC.
The NOC, according to a Ministry of National Security media release dated April 7, 2014, was “created to become the national focal point for public safety and security joint operations in Trinidad and Tobago and within the region. The NOC therefore seeks to enhance inter-agency collaboration and improve the effectiveness of the arms of National Security through a more coordinated approach to operations”.
The NOC was the brainchild of then-national security minister Gary Griffith.
It was initially headed by Garvin Heerah and fell under the remit of the Office of the Prime Minister, with Kamla Persad-Bissessar as prime minister at the time.
T&T too small for all these copters
Making reference to when the government negotiated the agreement with AgustaWestland for the AW139 helicopters for the Air Guard, Lutchmedial said: “AgustaWestland insisted the helicopters be placed on the civil registry because the military did not have any military aviation regulations. Essentially they stated their concern about their reputation and wanted to ensure this aircraft is properly maintained, flown by qualified pilots, maintained by competent people and was placed on the civil registry, where we did a comprehensive oversight.”
Saying that Trinidad and Tobago is too small for the police, Air Guard and the NOC to all have a separate fleet of helicopters, Lutchmedial said: “Air assets are very expensive to acquire, operate and maintain. Therefore, air assets cannot be acquired willy-nilly, that is, in a haphazard or spontaneous manner. The mission for T&T law enforcement air assets must be clearly defined as it relates to national security objectives, priorities and user requirements. Thereafter, an air asset which clearly suits the mission and represents best value for money can be acquired based on due process.
Saying air assets do not always follow the rule of “one size fits all”, Lutchmedial added, “This means that an air asset that may be best suited for coastal surveillance, border protection and air interdiction may not be suitable for local police operations. This may require a mixed fleet of suitable air assets.”
He recalled that on June 29, 2017, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley announced that Cabinet had decided T&T could not afford to spend $200 million a year to maintain four helicopters, which resulted in the temporary grounding of the AW139 helicopters.
“Dr Rowley was quite correct in questioning why the NHSL was not playing a role in supporting the Air Guard’s AW139 helicopters. NHSL at that time was in the process of acquiring AW139 helicopters for its offshore operations and was gearing up its operations and maintenance facilities to support AW139 helicopters. This underscores National Security Minister Stuart Young’s apt call for an integrated air unit to achieve more cost-effective operations,” Lutchmedial said.
He indicated that at the initiative of the then-minister of national security, the local civil aviation regulations were finally amended in 2016 to permit armed personnel to be carried on board civil aircraft during law enforcement operations.
“It is important to note that there is no need for aircraft acquired for T&T law enforcement purposes to be operated on the basis of an air operator’s certificate based on civil aviation regulations. The aircraft can be operated under a different regulatory arrangement that can achieve civil equivalency in safety standards at a much reduced cost. Decision-makers need to seriously consider this fact due to the very costly implications of the status quo,” he said.
“Previous decision-makers frowned upon unsolicited pro bono advice from experts, especially when the advice was not congruent with their objectives. The result was that, with time, the failure to heed well-informed expert advice resulted in the wastage of hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars.”
Documents filed on behalf of Vertical Aviation No 1 LLC (formerly known as Milestone Aviation Asset Leasing No 25 LLC) at the New York Supreme Court on December 17, 2020, in the New York Southern District Court before Justice Mary Kay Vyskocil state that the aviation company is seeking close to US$13 million (TT$88 million) in compensation from the T&T Government for breach of contract for a helicopter under the Kamla Persad-Bissessar regime in 2014.
The figure could rise to TT$100 and more if pre-judgment and post-judgment interest are added, should the court rule in favour of Vertical Aviation LLC.
The helicopter in question is owned by Vertical Aviation LLC and retails for US$15 million.
At a news conference held last week, National Security Minister Stuart Young indicated his intention to write to the United States’ Department of Justice, requesting a criminal probe into the leasing of a Sikorsky S76D helicopter by the former government.
He submitted that the aircraft was not utilised because it had been configured for executive use, not for law enforcement or military use, and costs to modify it would have been exorbitant.
The Sikorsky-S76D brochure describes the helicopter as a VIP luxury travel asset, “The large, comfortable and quiet cabin has been refined to meet the exacting needs of the Fortune 500 business traveller,” it adds.
In its case for breach of contract, the court documents filed state as follows:
• Vertical Aviation (VA) purchased a Sikorsky model S-76D helicopter bearing manufacturer’s serial number 761027. VA then leased the aircraft to the government of T&T.
• On December 19, 2014, VA and the T&T government executed an aircraft Lease agreement for the aircraft.
• The T&T government took acceptance of the aircraft on December 29, 2014.
Under the lease, upon accepting the aircraft, the T&T government was required to pay $139,500 per month in basic rent.
• The T&T government also agreed to pay a security deposit, pay interest due for late payments, enrol the aircraft in certain maintenance programmes, and procure and maintain insurance for the aircraft.
• The T&T government refused to honour its contractual obligations and defaulted on the lease.
• The T&T government failed to satisfy its obligations under the lease by failing to pay rent, to pay interest due for late rent payments, to replenish the security deposit after VA applied the deposit funds to late rent payments, to enrol the aircraft in a tip-to-tail maintenance programme, and to maintain insurance for the aircraft.
• The T&T government failed to remedy these defaults upon notice from VA.
• Under the lease, if the T&T government defaults, among other remedies, VA is entitled to exercise its put right and sell the aircraft to the T&T government at an agreed value of US$14,245,000.
• After the T&T government defaulted, VA exercised its put right in a letter to defendant dated May 16, 2018.
• The T&T government failed to respond to the letter and refused to purchase the aircraft as agreed under the lease.
• The T&T government also failed to pay the outstanding unpaid rent amounts and amounts incurred by VA to maintain and repair the aircraft.
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... 90017.html
Habit7 wrote:I not beating up like some. These are the officeholders putting their credibility on the line and commenting on the press. For those who believe an anonymous tuner trumps them, then they really are as stupid as their contributions.Why the helicopter did not fly
Denyse Renne 18 hrs ago
Former head of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Ramesh Lutchmedial says the Sikorsky S76D helicopter did not have the relevant certification to be flown in this country and therefore had to remain grounded.
Contacted by the Sunday Express on January 4 and asked why the helicopter leased by the previous government never took to the skies, he said it “was never registered in the State Registry to the best of my knowledge”.
According to Lutchmedial, the CAA only has the power to deal with aircraft under the Civil Registry, “but in this case I don’t think an application was ever made to put it on the State Registry and if this were done then the CAA would say ok this is what we do, but no application was made”.
He said the CAA got involved when the lessor (Vertical Aviation) “wanted at the end of the five-year lease to be able to have the aircraft operate commercially with another lessee...” Lutchmedial said this was done to ensure the aircraft was maintained in accordance with the requirements of the state of design, which happens to be the United States.
“What they wanted was a letter of undertaking that the CAA will do oversight on the helicopter because it was being operated by the National Operations Centre (NOC) and helicopters being operated by the NOC are not subject to control by the CAA,” he said.
Lutchmedial said it was decided by the CAA to put the aircraft on the State Registry, but that never happened.
“When you look at the regulations, you will see that the CAA has the power to ensure all the mandatory modifications, inspections and so on are carried out on the helicopter. The second thing they wanted to do and this is a standard thing for all lessors, you give a letter of undertaking that you will not de-register the aircraft unless you have the prior approval of the owner/lessor, that was to protect the interest of the lessor. That was the extent of our involvement. We were not privy to the financial transaction. I don’t think we even inspected it and it was not put on the State Registry,” he said.
Lutchmedial added, “For us to do oversight, the helicopter had to be placed on the State Registry giving us the legal authority to inspect the aircraft and the pilots are qualified.”
Safety oversights
Lutchmedial also distanced the CAA from any “business transaction” in relation to the lease agreement of the S76D helicopter.
“I am familiar with the transaction and I can categorically state the CAA did not get involved in the business aspect of operations. That’s not our function.”
Lutchmedial, who is now an independent consultant, was asked to comment on what he recalled of the aircraft and the role of the CAA.
He said, “As far as I know, this was a direct transaction between the owners of the helicopter and the government, because there was a meeting held in my office.”
According to Lutchmedial, present at the meeting were NHSL personnel, a representative from Milestone Aviation, the NOC and an attorney acting on behalf of the State.
“That meeting would have been prior to the lease. My role as head of the CAA would have been to give an undertaking that the CAA would do safety oversights and so on,” he said.
The Sunday Express understands the S76D helicopter was to be used by the NOC.
The NOC, according to a Ministry of National Security media release dated April 7, 2014, was “created to become the national focal point for public safety and security joint operations in Trinidad and Tobago and within the region. The NOC therefore seeks to enhance inter-agency collaboration and improve the effectiveness of the arms of National Security through a more coordinated approach to operations”.
The NOC was the brainchild of then-national security minister Gary Griffith.
It was initially headed by Garvin Heerah and fell under the remit of the Office of the Prime Minister, with Kamla Persad-Bissessar as prime minister at the time.
T&T too small for all these copters
Making reference to when the government negotiated the agreement with AgustaWestland for the AW139 helicopters for the Air Guard, Lutchmedial said: “AgustaWestland insisted the helicopters be placed on the civil registry because the military did not have any military aviation regulations. Essentially they stated their concern about their reputation and wanted to ensure this aircraft is properly maintained, flown by qualified pilots, maintained by competent people and was placed on the civil registry, where we did a comprehensive oversight.”
Saying that Trinidad and Tobago is too small for the police, Air Guard and the NOC to all have a separate fleet of helicopters, Lutchmedial said: “Air assets are very expensive to acquire, operate and maintain. Therefore, air assets cannot be acquired willy-nilly, that is, in a haphazard or spontaneous manner. The mission for T&T law enforcement air assets must be clearly defined as it relates to national security objectives, priorities and user requirements. Thereafter, an air asset which clearly suits the mission and represents best value for money can be acquired based on due process.
Saying air assets do not always follow the rule of “one size fits all”, Lutchmedial added, “This means that an air asset that may be best suited for coastal surveillance, border protection and air interdiction may not be suitable for local police operations. This may require a mixed fleet of suitable air assets.”
He recalled that on June 29, 2017, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley announced that Cabinet had decided T&T could not afford to spend $200 million a year to maintain four helicopters, which resulted in the temporary grounding of the AW139 helicopters.
“Dr Rowley was quite correct in questioning why the NHSL was not playing a role in supporting the Air Guard’s AW139 helicopters. NHSL at that time was in the process of acquiring AW139 helicopters for its offshore operations and was gearing up its operations and maintenance facilities to support AW139 helicopters. This underscores National Security Minister Stuart Young’s apt call for an integrated air unit to achieve more cost-effective operations,” Lutchmedial said.
He indicated that at the initiative of the then-minister of national security, the local civil aviation regulations were finally amended in 2016 to permit armed personnel to be carried on board civil aircraft during law enforcement operations.
“It is important to note that there is no need for aircraft acquired for T&T law enforcement purposes to be operated on the basis of an air operator’s certificate based on civil aviation regulations. The aircraft can be operated under a different regulatory arrangement that can achieve civil equivalency in safety standards at a much reduced cost. Decision-makers need to seriously consider this fact due to the very costly implications of the status quo,” he said.
“Previous decision-makers frowned upon unsolicited pro bono advice from experts, especially when the advice was not congruent with their objectives. The result was that, with time, the failure to heed well-informed expert advice resulted in the wastage of hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars.”
Documents filed on behalf of Vertical Aviation No 1 LLC (formerly known as Milestone Aviation Asset Leasing No 25 LLC) at the New York Supreme Court on December 17, 2020, in the New York Southern District Court before Justice Mary Kay Vyskocil state that the aviation company is seeking close to US$13 million (TT$88 million) in compensation from the T&T Government for breach of contract for a helicopter under the Kamla Persad-Bissessar regime in 2014.
The figure could rise to TT$100 and more if pre-judgment and post-judgment interest are added, should the court rule in favour of Vertical Aviation LLC.
The helicopter in question is owned by Vertical Aviation LLC and retails for US$15 million.
At a news conference held last week, National Security Minister Stuart Young indicated his intention to write to the United States’ Department of Justice, requesting a criminal probe into the leasing of a Sikorsky S76D helicopter by the former government.
He submitted that the aircraft was not utilised because it had been configured for executive use, not for law enforcement or military use, and costs to modify it would have been exorbitant.
The Sikorsky-S76D brochure describes the helicopter as a VIP luxury travel asset, “The large, comfortable and quiet cabin has been refined to meet the exacting needs of the Fortune 500 business traveller,” it adds.
In its case for breach of contract, the court documents filed state as follows:
• Vertical Aviation (VA) purchased a Sikorsky model S-76D helicopter bearing manufacturer’s serial number 761027. VA then leased the aircraft to the government of T&T.
• On December 19, 2014, VA and the T&T government executed an aircraft Lease agreement for the aircraft.
• The T&T government took acceptance of the aircraft on December 29, 2014.
Under the lease, upon accepting the aircraft, the T&T government was required to pay $139,500 per month in basic rent.
• The T&T government also agreed to pay a security deposit, pay interest due for late payments, enrol the aircraft in certain maintenance programmes, and procure and maintain insurance for the aircraft.
• The T&T government refused to honour its contractual obligations and defaulted on the lease.
• The T&T government failed to satisfy its obligations under the lease by failing to pay rent, to pay interest due for late rent payments, to replenish the security deposit after VA applied the deposit funds to late rent payments, to enrol the aircraft in a tip-to-tail maintenance programme, and to maintain insurance for the aircraft.
• The T&T government failed to remedy these defaults upon notice from VA.
• Under the lease, if the T&T government defaults, among other remedies, VA is entitled to exercise its put right and sell the aircraft to the T&T government at an agreed value of US$14,245,000.
• After the T&T government defaulted, VA exercised its put right in a letter to defendant dated May 16, 2018.
• The T&T government failed to respond to the letter and refused to purchase the aircraft as agreed under the lease.
• The T&T government also failed to pay the outstanding unpaid rent amounts and amounts incurred by VA to maintain and repair the aircraft.
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... 90017.html
Type Rated wrote:And about it never flying....
Habit7 wrote:Type Rated wrote:And about it never flying....
Who said it never flew?
De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:Edmund dillion and small pin had enogh chance to undo the contract for the helicopter of they wasnt using it.
It was their time now. That 100m is on young.
“The proposed terms agreed to contained a net lease clause - basically this prevented us, the people of Trinidad and Tobago, from terminating this lease arrangement. So in other words from the day you sign this lease arrangement for five years, you are then bound to pay the full cost of the lease arrangement and you cannot terminate the contract if you terminated it two months, three months later you were then bound to pay the full extent of this contract,”
https://www.guardian.co.tt/news/young-w ... c7d8a7590a
In other words, "we go do fuh dem, we eh go use it, and we go still end up paying, only now plus damages!" IYMC UNC/PP/taxpayer!
These inane "arguments" are why I'm convinced that Poomcie and Plastic doesn't listen to they own selves
Type Rated wrote:Habit7 wrote:Type Rated wrote:And about it never flying....
Who said it never flew?
Maybe I’m mixing up articles. I think the one I read probably was referring to the S76C++ that never came. My apologies
sMASH wrote:i heard on a morning show, that the lease was renewed in 2016, which would fall under $10 housing minister's term. soooo, that was an opportune time to cancel it.
Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:i heard on a morning show, that the lease was renewed in 2016, which would fall under $10 housing minister's term. soooo, that was an opportune time to cancel it.
So someone just as uninformed as you call in on a program and that is your credible source of info? If somebody call in tomorrow and say govt leased a F16 you will believe that too?
sMASH wrote:Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:i heard on a morning show, that the lease was renewed in 2016, which would fall under $10 housing minister's term. soooo, that was an opportune time to cancel it.
So someone just as uninformed as you call in on a program and that is your credible source of info? If somebody call in tomorrow and say govt leased a F16 you will believe that too?
nope, the host said it. i was incognito since that time, so i could not get more details, to confirm.
sMASH wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:sMASH wrote:Edmund dillion and small pin had enogh chance to undo the contract for the helicopter of they wasnt using it.
It was their time now. That 100m is on young.
“The proposed terms agreed to contained a net lease clause - basically this prevented us, the people of Trinidad and Tobago, from terminating this lease arrangement. So in other words from the day you sign this lease arrangement for five years, you are then bound to pay the full cost of the lease arrangement and you cannot terminate the contract if you terminated it two months, three months later you were then bound to pay the full extent of this contract,”
https://www.guardian.co.tt/news/young-w ... c7d8a7590a
In other words, "we go do fuh dem, we eh go use it, and we go still end up paying, only now plus damages!" IYMC UNC/PP/taxpayer!
These inane "arguments" are why I'm convinced that Poomcie and Plastic doesn't listen to they own selves
so that lease contract was SOOOO iron clad that even if it rotten down, it would still be active?
i heard on a morning show, that the lease was renewed in 2016, which would fall under $10 housing minister's term. soooo, that was an opportune time to cancel it.
jess how kamala got the opv's to cancel, and get enough money to buy 12 boats, jess so the SUPER lawyer who worked for malcom jones to get out of the billion dollar debacle, jess so he could have negtiated his way out of the deal.
is only sycophants will tout that the contract was unnegotiable. and only idiots will believe that.
De Dragon wrote:9 year law school, 6 years as AG and Arse Wari still has that as the only case he ever "won"
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:9 year law school, 6 years as AG and Arse Wari still has that as the only case he ever "won"
Do you have evidence that the AG spent 9 years in law school or are you just like smash, too lazy to corroborate so you just repeat the lie?
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:9 year law school, 6 years as AG and Arse Wari still has that as the only case he ever "won"
Do you have evidence that the AG spent 9 years in law school or are you just like smash, too lazy to corroborate so you just repeat the lie?
De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:9 year law school, 6 years as AG and Arse Wari still has that as the only case he ever "won"
Do you have evidence that the AG spent 9 years in law school or are you just like smash, too lazy to corroborate so you just repeat the lie?
I had to do a double take to make sure it wasn't Plastic. None if you sheep don't have an LFDRFD PNM man crush?
pugboy wrote:off topic a
why did he change his name from johnny seukeran ?
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:9 year law school, 6 years as AG and Arse Wari still has that as the only case he ever "won"
Do you have evidence that the AG spent 9 years in law school or are you just like smash, too lazy to corroborate so you just repeat the lie?
I had to do a double take to make sure it wasn't Plastic. None if you sheep don't have an LFDRFD PNM man crush?
No surprise on the double take dragon.
You don't understand sheeiit when you read anyway.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 72 guests
