Weare PD seizes Copwatch cameras - Police abuse

[borderraven]

Cops are among the class of people who volunteer to serve in government, and they swear under oath to serve the public. We the People delegate certain authority to our public servants, but we never give up our 10th Amendment power over them. We have protected rights to monitor our government.

See

O'grady vs Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Glik v Cunniffe 2011

[HK3StarGeneral]

Why do I need to site a specific case when any and all instances of surreptitiuse recording give an officer the right to sieze the camera and or video footage. Legal statues work just as well as case law. Again, if you want to continue to ignore that I gave you the actual reason under which it can be siezed then that's your problem, ignorance seems to be you and your fellow thinkers specialty in conversations such as this.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral said: "Why do I need to site a specific case "?

Because you made a statement of fact that I disbelieve You are of course free to refuse to provide proof, but your refusal leaves me to continue to believe that your statement is not true.

My repeated asking for proof helps me to show others your refusal.

Now you say "ignorance seems to be you and your fellow...". Please do not resort to ad hominum attacks. There's nothing to gain by trying to blame me for your mistake.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1

w w w . wingfieldaudio . c o m /surreptitious-recording.html

Despite the actual video itself being ok, the conversation recorded on it is not, since the Officer never consented to being taped. If you look up the federal surreptitious recording law you will find dozens of examples. Also, many states have furthered the federal statue to include both secret and public recordings. Lastly, sight example of what he was charged with, violation of wiretapping laws....

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: You cite is not a law, court decision, or statute; and doesn't even say a thing about law enforcement seizures.

How far are you going to go here to keep proving that your comment was false?

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 So your saying the Federal Surreptitious Law is fake and I just made it up? The federal wiretap law passed in 1968, Did I make that up as well, because the guy in the vido got charged with illegal wiretapping. So tell me, how have I not provided proof? I've given you enough evidence to support my claim, yet you do nothing other then sit there and say the same thing over and over again.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral said: "So your saying the Federal Surreptitious Law is fake "

I never said any such thing. I asked you to provide proof of your comment...

Not just more of your words.

And said: "how have I not provided proof?"

By not citing and quoting the statute/case law that specifically states that "If you film a police officer without his permission they have the right to sieze the footage."

The only info you've provided so far doesn't agree with your guess.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 The prove I provided did agree with my original statement, because if the officer does not consent to the taping then the person taping is then in violation of Federal Wiretapping Laws. I don't need to site a specific case law because this federal law has never been overturned in court. You can throw case law around all day if you want, the fact still remains that the law on the books pertaining to this has held up in court every time, as it should.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral said: "The prove I provided did agree with my original statement, "

No, they did not. There was not a single quote in any of your cites that said an officer can confiscate a camera just because he didn;t want to record.

Then you said: "if the officer does not consent to the taping then the person taping is then in violation of Federal Wiretapping Laws. "

Like I keep saying, please cite and quote the law or statute that says this.

So far, you're just blowing hot air.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 Can you not make the connection that if an officer does not want to be filmed, he can charge someone with plenty of offenses in order to obtain said video tape, one of those charges being Surrpetitious recordings. I never said it was right, but they can do it, and any thought to the contrary is just ignorance.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: I never said they couldn't, but that's not what we are talking about.

I have never seen a legal backing behind your comment that an officer can confiscate a camera just because he doesn't want to be recorded.

So far, you have verified that such a law doesn't exist.

"Surrpetitious recordings"? I've never heard of that particular statute. Doesn't matter. It can't be surreptitious if the officer had a chance to refuse consent, now could it?

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 my original comment was ment to portray the fact that a cop "can" confiscate your camera in the aspect that if they want it, they will find a way to get it. So you and me have been talking about to different things the entire time. Also, I understand the Federal law pertains to secretly recording someone, but states have admended the federal statue to include openly recording devices.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: "Convey"? Doesn't matter what you tried to convey. What matters is that you made a statement as fact, that wasn't.

Talking about two different things? Nope. We're both talking about your untrue comment.

What matters is the fact that you said "If you film a police officer without his permission they have the right to sieze the footage."

And you have spent a full day now doing everything but actually admitting that this statement of yours is false.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 Coney does matter, especially when its during a discussion thats not face to face. by right, I ment right under the law, and such laws I have already mentioned give them that right. You can twist my words as much as you want, you and me both know what I ment.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: Doesn't matter what you 'meant to say", What matters is what you said.

You yourself enforced this by trying to justify what you said instead of admitting it was wrong and restating it in a correct manner.

I'm not twisting your words at all. Quite the opposite as I've been quoting your exact words over and over.

We've already verified that your comment is not factual. All I'm doing now is seeing just how far your ego will go to keep from admitting that you were wrong.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 I wasn't wrong. I've said the exact same thing in these types of conversations before, and people have understood what I ment. Just because you did not read it as intended does not mean that I was wrong, it means I should perhaps word it better in the future as to not confuse others of my actual meaning. Also, my ego is not the one that needs checked, it is yours kid.You quote my words and then make it seem that I ment how you wanted me to mean, in order to get your point across.

[HK3StarGeneral]

I gave you 2 different instances in which an officer can take your camera, two different instances that can prove that its a fact a cop can take your camera. If a cop wants you to stop filming them they can find a reason to take the camera. If you don't want to look at the info I put down then that's your problem, but the explination is there.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral said: "I gave you 2 different instances in which an officer can take your camera"

That's not what I asked for. I asked you to justify your belief that "If you film a police officer without his permission they have the right to sieze the footage."

or look beyond your ego and admit that this is not true.

Let's see, 5 comments and you have yet to do either.

[2wheels88]

How does he get disoderly conduct for not moving your car,that's got me beat LOL. These cops have know imagination, they use disorderly for everything.When are they going to get it that it's not illegal to tape,the must know this by now so I have to come to the conclusion that they just want you to know your a SLAVE!!! illegal use of the wire tap law is going to bite them in the ass soon.You don't need to OBEY if it's unconstitutional,they seem to forget they are the servants!!!

[TheEodtch]

Carla is ugly as hell. Sorry for your misfortune.

[BunkerGearGal]

NH is actually a facist police state.

[russelljds]

COPWATCHELLENSBURG or russelljds As long as vidoeing was in the public view and a safe distance they got nothing. Always have a witness with you.

[2xtream]

Take the cop and place them under citizens arrest... You arrest the cop....

[Giverney13]

it is the march to the wickedest nanny-CONtrol ORDER-seems it is across the board in this country,nh is rather independent-so the SQUEEZE to deprive many of any freedom is happening-in the hopes many will ACCEPT RFID implanted(listed as "medical device"healthcare "Bill"-all data on it will allow those accepting it "...to buy or sell..." ALL data will be on it:financial, medical, legal, philosophical,HAPLO group for organ harvesting, threatNumber,etc...Looking ahead...a dark sail on horizon

[gotgank]

If a recording device may contain evidence of a crime, it may be confiscated as evidence. U'll get it back after court.

[Pafoofnik1]

@gotgank: Please cite the law you say exists that allows this. After you don't find it, look up the use of a 'subpoena'. Finally, Google carlosmiller for more info about why you were mistaken.

“In general, police cannot confiscate cameras or media without some sort of court order. One exception is when a camera is actually being used in the commission of crime (e.g., child pornography, counterfeiting, upskirting).”

[gotgank]

@Pafoofnik1 Depends what state ur in.

[Pafoofnik1]

@gotgank: OK. The please cite the state law you say exists that allows this... etc.

[gotgank]

@Pafoofnik1 CBA to look for in now. How it works, Im allowed to collect "evidence" of a crime. If you dont like it u can sue me. if the judge agrees, u get paid. HOWEVER, the the bad guy goes to jail. 20 yrs, and Ive never lost one bit of evidence. Gee, i guess i know what Im doin after all.

[Pafoofnik1]

@gotgank: So you couldn't find a law then?

[gotgank]

@Pafoofnik1 And ur homepage isnt available? Hiding much? Ur credibility just went into the toilet.

[Pafoofnik1]

@gotgank: Not to worry, I have absolutely no interest in your opinion of my 'credibility'. I am interested in the law.

[xxbrockloverxx]

@Pafoofnik1 not the law. your wrong.

[Pafoofnik1]

@xxbrockloverxx: What are you talking about? Please quote any statement I made here that is 'wrong', and a the source of independently verifiable proof otherwise.

[DavidForthoffer]

Did the police ever give an explanation why they took the cameras?

I could understand seizing and copying camera chips or tapes, but how on earth could CAMERAS be needed for any investigation???

[ASeventhSign]

Where is the video? Is this fake?

[uniquerestorations]

GODAMN MOTHERUCKING PIGS.....

[jbudd]

"REAL AMERICAN HEROES",,, "Mr... FUck you COPS I im going to film you!!!!!!"

(music plays)

thanks to you sir we are able to see these videos on youtube and keep oursleves informed of the police state we live in and

are also able to sometimes identify these PIGS who enforce these thug lawz and have sold out their 0own people.

[Beamdiddy]

So, would you rather have a police department that is predictable, is going to follow their job description and most importantly: do what they are told OR would you rather have a PD that exercises "discretion" when they feel its appropriate? It seems to me that the latter is much less desirable and invites unequal treatment. Also, remember that YOU have the power to change the system. If you don't like how the game is played, you've got to change the rules of the game, not the score.

[coneil21]

crazy. i live in weare.

[jnkolbe]

My brother is a cop in Indiana and said they can take a camera as evidence if it is in "plain view".

[Pafoofnik1]

@jnkolbe: Could he cite a law to back his opinion?

[Beamdiddy]

@Pafoofnik1 Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)

[Pafoofnik1]

@Beamdiddy:

480 U.S. 321 (1987 has to do with taking a camera as evidence, it has to do with recoding serial numbers ("the mere recording of the serial numbers did not constitute a "seizure,""), and that "moving of the equipment" to get the number "was a search".

[Beamdiddy]

@Pafoofnik1The decision was in favor of the D, however the court established the rule that plain view warrantless searches/seizures are allowed if they are supported by probable cause(PC). The hitch is that now PC is determined by the PO right then and there, instead of by a judge as it is in a warrant. The PO admitted that he didn't have PC to support his search, which is why the court ruled for the D. This decision gave more power to PO's to get around 4th,5th, and 14th Amendment protections.

[Pafoofnik1]

@Beamdiddy:

Plain view searches have been legal for some time. But that's not what I was asking about.

This case has nothing to do the supposed power of an officer to "take a camera as evidence if it is in "plain view"".

[hallmobility]

@jnkolbe But it's _obstruction of justice_ if they're taking and hiding evidence that can be used against them.

[Elephantintheroom01]

If i were those porcupines i would take em to small claims court, and demand re-embursment for my time, and donate it to the FSP.

They may try to say they didnt like the gun, but the cameras? Thats like an admission of guilt.

[Jeff000000000000000]

An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter. Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,241P 2d 447

[SSILENTNATION]

Arrest's are made based on probable cause, cops don't write affidavits until AFTER an arrest and warrants are issued by judges, so - then the proper medium in which to duke things out is in court. I hardly think KILLING another human being is the solution/spirit that any court would ever desire. Otherwise, every Tom, Dick and Harry would be resisting every arrest every day.....get pulled over for DUI but think you're not.....KILL the cop. - So ridiculous.

[ericdahlen]

@SSILENTNATION who is advocating killing cops?

[SSILENTNATION]

@ericdahlen The comment above me left by Jeff000000 - it is pretty clear what he is trying to say - don't pretend you don't know it either.

[ericdahlen]

@SSILENTNATION didn't see that one sorry. I guess I would have to say if an officer is going beyond the law a citizen has every right to resist. I would have to say the majority of cases would not result in death but I do understand there will be times when it happens.I am not advocating it but I guess if it comes down to him or me and that's the only option I would have to say I would do the same.Keep in mind this is very rare.I support cops most of the time but we both know there are bad ones.

[SSILENTNATION]

@ericdahlen I agree - I am not so naive to think there aren't bad apples in the bunch, just like any occupation I would suppose. I always support police; however, I too, am not immune to having been stopped by some real dickheads for sure. There is always room for improvement - but I also think taking an immediate adversarial position such as freestaters do when stopped just adds fuel to any ego's fire.

[ericdahlen]

@SSILENTNATION Yeah they or we can be very forward sometimes. But I can see how our government doesn't listen to us and I think they are just trying to get the message across. It is a very hard time right now to figure out how to fix the problems we have right now. I really don't think anybody knows exactly how to fix it yet. Close but not there yet.

[ericdahlen]

@SSILENTNATION And killing a cop over a simple traffic stop is never right. Courts are there for that problem and you don't need a lawyer.

[Elephantintheroom01]

It will be more than involuntary, it will be sad. If you fight like the enemy you become the enemy.

[Jeff000000000000000]

Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary. Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction,

[Elephantintheroom01]

No matter what you think or what they tell you the law cannot be used to wrong. Common law states; cause no harm or loss.

However if it were me, i may ask to see the warrant before handing over a gun that could be traced to me, and if the officer reached for his first, then that would be a bad move.

[Ericson578]

Hit em where it counts, in their budget!

[JRRULESO]

I'm in the Northwest, Washington State, a few days ago we had a citizen in Vancouver, Wa. who was open carrying, arrested and his gun confiscated. We are an Open Carry state, I don't see how the cops can justify this! This is a very corrupt area as far as Law Enforcement goes, people complain but it falls on deaf ears. We need help.

[nedmorlef]

this is going on all over america....with the blessing of congress. all you have is a gun and a vote. the vote ain;t workin'.

[Elephantintheroom01]

You also have free speach.

[samten10a]

@JRRULESO That is simple Hire a attorney at law from out side your county and sue (county, city, officer, chief, sheriff, county - city fathers )

Some times NRA will or at least use to help defend you in court.

[SOLIE6226]

Sounds like these cops should read Sheriff Richard Mack's book real bad to learn whats Right & Wrong and what their jobs are !!

[andytnboy]

does anyone hear the MIDNIGHT KNOCK CREEPING CLOSER AND CLOSER?

[nhnet]

Weare cops lied & said I was dui. Have disability could not do walking test. What a joke, making criminals out of the disabled. Isn't life hard enough already for us? He stood in front of the camera so it couldn't see me. I do not drink and have never abused my meds. They are the Dukes of Hazard of NH. Don't drive in Weare. They have harassed my whole family.

[SSILENTNATION]

Yeah - I am sure they made you either refuse to take the breath test - or blew in the tube for you. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and making shit up for applause and tears.

[nhnet]

Corrupt PD I am disabled & they made me take a dui walking test & I lost in court because they lied. What a disgrace. Just because you are disabled they accuse you of being dui. Cop stood in front of camera so they couldn't see me. I wrote 2 WH Justice Dept had a great lawyer. You don't win with cops ever!

[hallmobility]

@nhnet I thought you were the dude in the video but I guess you're one who got hassled before. When did this happen? I'm quickly learning they do this a lot, armed robbery.

[haze42082]

Very brave. The porcupine411 seems to be working nicely

[MedicalMarijuanaMini]

sic semper tyrannis

[jake4569]

Freedom of press! Thanks for upload Dave! I hope he did not consent.

[ericdahlen]

I don't understand how police confiscating personal property is constitutional????? They cannot deprive you of my property until due process is complete. Go after them for that. Stick to the constitution.

[Beamdiddy]

@ericdahlen Actually can. In fact, it is specifically supported by the Constitution under the doctrine of Eminent Domain and Takings. The instant you use your property in the commission of the crime, title to your property immediately vests to the government....

[Beamdiddy]

@ericdahlen Its not the police's fault, they are only doing their jobs. In fact, when the PD uses "discretion" like so many liberty fighters advocate for, the police are accused of playing favorites, discrimination, and/or ignoring their responsibilities as police officers.

[ericdahlen]

@Beamdiddy Well I would have to say I disagree. Until a judge finds me guilty of a crime they cannot deprive me of my property. It is plain and simple and if you say otherwise you are trying to corrupt the system my friend

[Beamdiddy]

@ericdahlen In a way your right... They cannot PERMANENTLY deprive you of your stuff (as long as its "legal" stuff), but they can take it from you if its reasonable for them to think that it was used in/for the commission of a crime. For example: they THINK you have a huge grow operation in your house. There gonna come & take you AND your house until otherwise is proven. If its true then you've just lost your house. If not, u get it back when there DONE their investigation

[ericdahlen]

@Beamdiddy You made a good point for me to use. Say my house is a grow op but the plants im growing are legal but a neighbor thinks it's pot. I am innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. I know what they have been doing and I believe they have been going against the Constitution. The same as taking a car from someone who is suspected of DUI. The car should not be impounded until after a judge finds the person guilty. And yes we are in the process of restoring just laws here

[Beamdiddy]

@ericdahlen Yes, your right. The problem is w/ practicality, how would the state enforce something if they had to prove it before they could act on it? If someone is thought to be drunk driving, what should the police do? IF they are allowed to make a spot decision right then and there, what rule do we make for PO's to follow? How do we enforce it? What if they're wrong? Unfortunately, the only way to make this all efficient is to impound, and then req' the state to PROVE that person guilty

[ericdahlen]

@Beamdiddy well if an officer believes you are DUI they stop you and if you fail their test you get arrested. If you have a way to get your vehicle to a safe place until you get out or you have someone to get it then leave it, if you are on the freeway then it has to be impounded but you can get it back. I have no problem with enforcing the laws, just the taking of private property with a judges consent. The problem is they take the vehicle and try to keep it to sell at auction. I

[Beamdiddy]

@ericdahlen This also brings up another question... So, there is a suspected bank robber in the bank, (its really just a pissed off guy with a gun on his hip who has a permit for it) should the state be req'd to PROVE him guilty before they go arrest him? Or should they be able to arrest him (infringing a little upon his liberty), and THEN (when we know that everyone is safe and that he was only pissed about forgetting the milk) let him explain? what if it really was robber?

[ericdahlen]

@Beamdiddy in that instance if the officer believes there is something going on then by by all means he must act. I never said had to prove guilt to detain an individual. I am advocating not taking private property without a warrant or a judges permission after guilt was proved. You have strayed from the original intent of this conversation.

[Beamdiddy]

@ericdahlen also, what I said here was an explanation of the law. Me stating what the law is, is not "corrupting" the system but actually the reverse; preserving it. If you don't like what the law says then vote and get your legislator to change it. You have the power to do that.

[ericdahlen]

@Beamdiddy This is where we think diff. I think the way people have bee taught and read the Constitution has been corrupted. We have had so many lawyers twist and bend the laws trying to find and prove loopholes that we have gone away from the original intentions of the Constitution. All I am trying to say is yes we have been interpreting the laws the way you state for far to long. This November will be the start to the restoring of the USA and individual states rights.

[Beamdiddy]

@ericdahlen I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! You should look into Supreme Court Justice Scalia's book titled: A matter of Interpretation. He advocates for originalism,which is the idea that we should interpret the C as it was meant. Here's an excerpt: "it is the law that [should] governs, not the INTENT of the lawgiver That seems to me that the essence of the famous American ideal set forth in MA constitution: A government of LAWS, not of Men. Men may intend what they will; but it is only law thatbinds us

[ericdahlen]

@Beamdiddy Yes I agree. somehow the conversation changed from property rights to this. I like being a nation of law not men.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@ericdahlen If you film a police officer without his permission they have the right to sieze the footage. Also I doubt anyone here noticed he says "ordering us off of school grounds" at 1:34. If he were on school grounds taping, and an officer asks him to leave, he can be arrested for trespassing in some cases, along with being arrested for DC. I know many of you think its "cool" to hate police officers, but I wonder how you'de feel when you need them and they arn't there.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral said: "If you film a police officer without his permission they have the right to sieze the footage. "

He does? I'd sure like to see the case law or statute behind this rule you just made up.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir.2000); Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D.Pa.2005).]

If a police officer feels that the person photographing or video taping is hindering them or distracting them from doing thier job, they have the right.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: You cited, but neglected to quote. I'll bet it's because the cases don't agree with you...

Let's look at the first one: "...found that the plaintiffs enjoyed a right, as private citizens, to videotape public police action..". Your second cite agrees as well.

Nice try.

Your last sentence is almost correct, and it also is not what you originally said.

So I'd still like to see the legal backing behind this rule you just made up.

Looks like you won't be providing it though.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 I didn't fail to mention anything. What I described is known as Surreptitious Recording. There are federal laws and then every state has adopted the federal law and some have made it tougher. Most states you have to notify at least one member in the party they are being recorded. Some states all parties have to be notified and some even have it tougher that if it's recorded to be broadcast all have to be notified of it's purpose for broadcast.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@HK3StarGeneral There are of course exceptions to this rule and those include police cruiser cams as they are used to protect all of those involved in the incident and not intended to harm anyone. It can be done for numerous reasons and the main one in Ohio is called inciting to violence. If a suspect of a crime does not want to be recorded the act of recording them may agitate them to the extent that they could cause harm to the officer. In PA a cop can nail you for loitering.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@HK3StarGeneral Every state law differs a bit, but all have laws that can allow the Police to sieze a camera if you are recording them. Now note if you are detained and/or arrested, you probley won"t be charged with an actual offense, atleast in most instances. However, more times then not the police will keep the camer and/or the footage obtained with it.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: Restating something that is not true does not make it true.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral said: "There are federal laws and then every state has adopted the federal law and some have made it tougher."

Then you should have no problems quoting and citing these statutes you say exist; something you have failed to do in you last 3 comments.

Thanks for the notification info. Please stay on topic and provide your proof that "If you film a police officer without his permission they have the right to sieze the footage."

Because I don't think such a 'right' exists

[TheGrayman1234]

I am glad that I live in a place that does not require consent of the officer to sound record. As long as one party being recorded knows of the recording and consents (that would be me) you can record all you want.

Different from state to state though.

[Anothercoilgun]

To protect and serve The State. Generate revenue by any means necessary. How do these people look at them selves in the mirror if ever.

[videocruzer]

@Anothercoilgun

the mind control is very deep...

[deathmarch5]

They do it like they did it like in the novel 1984. 2+2=5 to all bureaucrats.... What else is new.

[MEpianist]

Good work sir! These peace officers need to know their role.

[fczwartek]

William Kostric? lol!

Shouldn't he be busy watering the tree of liberty with buckets of blood (from time to time)?

This is like Tim Mcveigh getting rousted by a fascist ("don't do drugs in my town!") police force.

Where's my f*n popcorn??

[braingain1]

how much cooperation do weare pd expect from local citizens with behavior like that-------they sound like an occupying force-----when they need help on a serious matter i suggest they be told go screw----civil disobedience is easy----never got your letter----sorry gave you wrong phone number------garbage the streets at 3 am etc

[theoriginalanomaly]

Political persecution... And people only thought that happened in "third" world countries.

[aceofdiamonds2012]

number 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!