 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / January 2008Robbed at Gunpoint. Tmobile refused Law Enforcement's request for assistance
Hello, I was robbed at gunpoint earlier this evening and the theives took my Tmobile phone. Officers responded immediately and contacted Tmobile in an attempt to have the armed theives tracked. They used the phone soon after robbing me according to my usage records. The officer told me "Tmobile refused to help. They said that your situation of having a gun pointed in your face was not, 'Life threatening'". These guys threatened my life and are threats to society and Tmobile refused to help. I called customer support and they stonewalled me, saying they cannot do anything or provide me with contact information to discuss my situation. I am trying to work my way up the chain at Tmobile and will try other was Has anyone else experienced this type of thing with Tmobile? I am seriously considering suing Tmobile for their refusal to help. I would be happy to join with others who might be considering the same. Thank you, r.a.g. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > r.a.g. I guess T stands for TURD.  SignatureCockamamie Khomeini Leader of the known (Islamic) world. robbed_at_gunpoint@yahoo.com wrote in news:1183961077.139059.57830 @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > Has anyone else experienced this type of thing with Tmobile? I am > seriously considering suing Tmobile for their refusal to help. I > would be happy to join with others who might be considering the same. One would hope, at the very least, you have sent Tmobile their last dime. Larry SignatureWhile in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish. While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either. It just isn't fair. > robbed_at_gunpo...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1183961077.139059.57830 > @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Larry I am taking steps to make sure this costs Tmobile far more than my last dime. >> robbed_at_gunpo...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1183961077.139059.57830 >> @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am taking steps to make sure this costs Tmobile far more than my > last dime. The officer was trying to get T-Mo to help you while you still had a gun pointed at your head? (just clarifying) hahahahaahhaahahah that was funny (the last post) what exactly was th police officer trying to do? We have a Law enforcement department, wa having tmobile help you would it have stopped you from being robbed? o where you just trying to track the phone? becuase believe me no one ca track those phones, unless it was like an amber alert or it wa subpeonead. wrote in alt.cellular > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > These guys threatened my life and are threats to society and Tmobile > refused to help. It was life threatening when the gun was pointed at your face. Once they left with your phone your life is no longer being threatened. > I called customer support and they stonewalled me, saying they cannot > do anything or provide me with contact information to discuss my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seriously considering suing Tmobile for their refusal to help. I > would be happy to join with others who might be considering the same. Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the constitution. All the police have to do is get a warrant for your records. Or you should be able to log online and get them your self. But the police have to get a warrant. If they do not then the case quite likely would be thrown out. > Thank you, > > r.a.g. SignatureDick #1349 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dickcr@comcast.net > Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the > constitution. You're going to have to explain to us how T-Mobile could violate the (presumably) US Constitution. SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com > You're going to have to explain to us how T-Mobile could violate the > (presumably) US Constitution. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect T-Mo needs more than "robbed at gunpoints'" word that the phone was, indeed, stolen, and that he isn't trying to trick T-Mo into helping him track down an ex-wife or girlfriend. My guess is that T-Mo needs something "official" like a warrant before they'll hand location information to anyone- even a police officer claiming to be investigating a case. I remember once back about fifteen years ago when I managed a Radio Shack store in Kansas, a police officer brought in a police scanner found at the scene of a crime. Knowing that (in those days) we asked customers their names and addresses at the point of purchase, he asked me to pull the records of everyone who bought that model scanner recently. I told him I wouldn't do it without a warrant- my customers gave me that info to be placed on a mailing list for catalogs and sales flyers- not to be potential suspects in a police investigation. (He never returned with a warrant, for whatever reason.) I'm sure T-Mo will comply with the law (they aren't stupid) but I'm guessing a CSR is trained not to give that information to ANYONE over the phone even they if they say they're a police officer. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Todd Allcock schrieb: > [...] I'm > guessing a CSR is trained not to give that information to ANYONE over the > phone even they if they say they're a police officer. Haven't you noticed that CSRs are always trained not to give ANY useful information to anyone on the phone? SCNR, Andreas > Todd Allcock schrieb: >> [...] I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Haven't you noticed that CSRs are always trained not to give ANY useful > information to anyone on the phone? I don't want people giving out my personal info without a warrant, period. >I'm no lawyer, but I suspect T-Mo needs more than "robbed at gunpoints'" >word that the phone was, indeed, stolen, and that he isn't trying to >trick T-Mo into helping him track down an ex-wife or girlfriend. As someone else has pointed out, there are usually procedures that law-enforcement officials can use to contact the people at the cellular companies who are actually trained and authorized to deal with them, and to authenticate themselves to those people. Furthermore, as the owner of the phone, the OP was legally entitled to ask T-Mobile to reveal its present location regardless of who was carrying it. On the other hand, keep in mind that the OP only has the police officers' word that they tried to contact T-Mobile; they could have been lying. They could also have been lying when they said that T-Mobile "refused to help;" perhaps T-Mobile just told them that they needed to go to the on-call judge and get an emergency warrant for the information, a perfectly reasonable request, and they didn't want to bother. SignatureHelp stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/ > As someone else has pointed out, there are usually procedures > that law-enforcement officials can use to contact the people > at the cellular companies who are actually trained and > authorized to deal with them, and to authenticate themselves > to those people. Probably. The OP could also just be a big ol' troll, and/or just have an axe to grind w/T-Mo... I was going to point out that evening that "Robbed" was relatively calm (although angry) for someone robbed at gunpoint just a couple of hours before. Ever file a police report? They keep you tied up for quite awhile. So Robbed's life was threatened, he was questioned by the police, finally gets home and the first thing he thinks of is rushing to usenet and posting an anti-T-Mobile rant USING A "ROBBED AT GUNPOINT" pseudonym. Pretty clever for someone who's life was threatened just hours before! That post was uber-fishy, and the only reason I didn't call him on it that night was I didn't want to actually upset a guy who'd been through that in the 2% chance the story was true. > Furthermore, as the owner of the phone, the OP was legally > entitled to ask T-Mobile to reveal its present location > regardless of who was carrying it. Perhaps, but I'm still not sure T-Mo is _obligated_ to tell him, (or can even obtain that info easily!) It's funny- prior to "Robbed's" posts, the only "handset tracking" posts I recall were the the usual tin-foil crowd type: "with E911 the cell company/Government/Tri-lateral Commission/Starbucks is keeping a giant database of all of our movements- where we live, where we shop, etc." So, while we're all offended that the Powers That Be can tell where we are at the touch of a button, the minute a handset is lost or stolen, or we want to find where our exes are spending the alimony checks we demand a phone's movements to be tracked at the touch of a button! What if- just guessing here- that T-Mo actually made a passing stab at protecting privacy, (or, more likely, was cheap and lazy enough that they only complied minimally with E911 requirements) and set up the system so that a typical CSR COULDN'T access location info? Perhaps it's designed so that location info is automatically transmitted ONLY to 911 dispatchers when a 911 call is placed? Sure, we're all envisioning some "War Games"-esque control room deep underground with little colored icons representing every cellphone in the world on the Jumbotron map on the wall, or perhaps a dimly-lit "CSI" style lab (BTW, why do the CSI guys always work in total darkness? They have the latest hi-tech gear but the budget doesn't allow for overhead lighting?) where a Gen Y guy in a lab coat and great hair clacks at high speed on the keyboard and says "there- I've tracked the Nokia 6030 leaving Zio's Pizza on 56th and Broadway... ...seems to be heading for Central Park!" In reality, the location info is probably accquired by some relatively autonomous equipment designed to collect and report it when a 911 call is placed. And, probably, it's a complete PITA for them to get that info manually or on-demand. The above is obviously also just a guess, but I'll tell yu why it's a good one- if T-Mo had easy access to location tracking information, they'd sell to us like Boost Mobile does in some cheesy "find your friends/faves" mobile "social networking" app. > On the other hand, keep in mind that the OP only has the > police officers' word that they tried to contact T-Mobile; [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > judge and get an emergency warrant for the information, a > perfectly reasonable request, and they didn't want to bother. That's as likely as anything-Even so, I'm sure in the officer's mind T-Mo WAS unhelpful if they requested the officer get a warrant rather than solve the problem right there. (I assume it's probably frustrating for an officer to hear "get a warrant" everytime they make what in their mind is a perfectly reasonable request.) But my money is still on "big ol' troll" for most likely scenario. "Robbed" hasn't been around since that night. He's probably moved on to alt.convenience_stores.7-11 complaining he was robbed at gunpoint inside a 7-11 and they won't hand over the security camera surveillance tapes of the robbery to the police... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Todd Allcock wrote in alt.cellular > In reality, the location info is probably accquired by some relatively > autonomous equipment designed to collect and report it when a 911 call is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they'd sell to us like Boost Mobile does in some cheesy "find your > friends/faves" mobile "social networking" app. I don't think that average csr is trained to use any app that will locate a phone. That is probably handled by a different department, and the police most likely have a direct line to it. And I doubt that a cell carrier would do much to put out the information, because they would be liable for all sorts of privacy rights issues and law suits. >> On the other hand, keep in mind that the OP only has the >> police officers' word that they tried to contact T-Mobile; [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> judge and get an emergency warrant for the information, a >> perfectly reasonable request, and they didn't want to bother. Strangely enough, some police just do not get the concept that they do not have the right to search or sieze equiptment without a warrant. A few years ago someone said they saw some child porn being printed out at a public library. They called the police, and the officers responding demanded that the librarian turn over the computers to the police. The librarian told them to get a warrant, and proceeded to shut down the pc's and move them into a back room to make sure that nothing was erased. The police officers got mad, and someone called the newspapers. And it became quite a hot discussion topic. However, the library system's lawyer said that what they did was required by the constitution, and it also protected any case the police might have devoloped, because without the warrant the case would be tossed out because the evidence was gathered illegally. Rather important point. The upshot was that the police never got a warrant. Whether the did not put out the effort, or could not convince a judge that there was sufficient evidence of a crime, I have no way of knowing. > That's as likely as anything-Even so, I'm sure in the officer's mind > T-Mo WAS unhelpful if they requested the officer get a warrant rather > than solve the problem right there. (I assume it's probably frustrating > for an officer to hear "get a warrant" everytime they make what in their > mind is a perfectly reasonable request.) Of course, it seems perfectly reasonable. But the constitution is very explicit in the matter. And, as I mentioned above, without the warrant it can be claimed that the evidenced was obtained illegally. SignatureDick #1349 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dickcr@comcast.net >A few >years ago someone said they saw some child porn being printed out at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >However, the library system's lawyer said that what they did was >required by the constitution, There is, admittedly, a debatable legal point here. A search warrant is not required when the target of the warrant has no reasonable expectation of privacy, and I honestly can't imagine that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy for a public-access PC in a public library. Once the librarian refused to allow the police to seize the computers, a warrant *was* required, because police can't search property without a warrant if the owner (in this case the library, represented by the librarian) refuses. But if the librarian had *not* refused, i.e., s/he had voluntarily allowed the police to examine the computers, the evidence would have been admissible. Anyone can voluntarily consent to be searched without a warrant. Similarly, in the case we are discussing, the owner of the phone voluntarily consented to allow its location to be revealed to the police, so said evidence would have been admissible in court of T-Mobile had chosen to reveal it. SignatureHelp stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/ Jonathan Kamens wrote in alt.cellular >>A few >>years ago someone said they saw some child porn being printed out at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reasonable expectation of privacy for a public-access PC in a public > library. Wrong, libraries work very hard to protect the privacy of their patrons. And, if I am on a pc at a library, you can only see what I am looking at when you stand behind me. You can not see what i have looked at. And when I log off, and you log on, you do not have access to anything I did. You also do not have access to any of my information in the library system. Libraries have a policy regarding privacy. A very strict policy. Nobody views anyone's info without proper authority, such as a search warrant. This link goes to the American Library Association's page statement on privacy. http://tinyurl.com/23bdhc If you don't know who they are ask a librarian. > Once the librarian refused to allow the police to seize the computers, > a warrant *was* required, because police can't search property without > a warrant if the owner (in this case the library, represented by the > librarian) refuses. That is right. > But if the librarian had *not* refused, i.e., s/he had voluntarily > allowed the police to examine the computers, the evidence would have > been admissible. Anyone can voluntarily consent to be searched > without a warrant. However, it is the policy of almost every library in the U.S. to require a warrant in such instances. FYI, I worked in library system when this happened. And the policy was, and most likely still is, that a warrant is needed for any search of equiptment or records. Period. > Similarly, in the case we are discussing, the owner of the phone > voluntarily consented to allow its location to be revealed to the > police, so said evidence would have been admissible in court of > T-Mobile had chosen to reveal it. Maybe it would have been admissable. There are all sorts of cases discussed, and many thrown out, when the police thought that they had the permission of the owner. If you rent an apartment, the police cannot search it just because your landlord says they can. Nor can the police get phone records without a warrant. If there is a justifiable need, and reason to get a warrant, then a judge will sign off on it. The safest thing for the police to do anytime they want to search something is to get a warrant. Especially if they are dealing with electronic info. Oh, and by the way, we only have the op's word that a, she owned the phone, and that b, it was taken from her. Another possibility is that she wanted to find out where her lover/exlover was and harass them. It is very easy to verify an account. All you need is some easy to obtain info, especially easy if you live/lived with the person SignatureDick #1349 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dickcr@comcast.net >> Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the >> constitution. > > You're going to have to explain to us how T-Mobile could violate the > (presumably) US Constitution. *ahem* T-Mobile USA is a US company headquartered in Seattle. The *parent* company is a foreign company. >>> Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the >>> constitution. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > T-Mobile USA is a US company headquartered in Seattle. The *parent* > company is a foreign company. You're going to have to explain to us how any corporation could violate the (presumably) US Constitution. SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com > You're going to have to explain to us how any corporation could > violate the (presumably) US Constitution. Of course the corp can't, but the officers and employees can and the corp can be held liable. >> You're going to have to explain to us how any corporation could >> violate the (presumably) US Constitution. > >Of course the corp can't, but the officers and employees can and the corp >can be held liable. No, they can't. The US Constitution restricts government. It does not restrict private individuals or corporations. SignatureHelp stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/ > No, they can't. > > The US Constitution restricts government. It does not restrict > private individuals or corporations. Um. *going back and reading thread again* Duh. >> You're going to have to explain to us how any corporation could >> violate the (presumably) US Constitution. > > Of course the corp can't, but the officers and employees can and > the corp can be held liable. Please explain how the officers or employees of any private business in the US can violate any terms of the US Constitution. SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com > Please explain how the officers or employees of any private business > in the US can violate any terms of the US Constitution. Yeah, sorry, answered already (stupid mistake on my part) Hi, this post is very informative; however I would like some specifi information. If someone can help me then please send me a privat message. Best Regards -- sharrychrist Bert Hyman wrote in alt.cellular >> Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the >> constitution. > > You're going to have to explain to us how T-Mobile could violate the > (presumably) US Constitution. You are right about that, T-mo cannot, per se. But by willing giving out the information in a criminal case will jeopardize any case the police might have. And the police are obligated to get a search warrant to get the information. That will prevent the case from being thrown out of court, if it ever comes to that. SignatureDick #1349 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dickcr@comcast.net >You are right about that, T-mo cannot, per se. But by willing giving out >the information in a criminal case will jeopardize any case the police >might have. No, it won't. >And the police are obligated to get a search warrant to get the >information. No, they're not. SignatureHelp stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/ > wrote in alt.cellular > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It was life threatening when the gun was pointed at your face. Once > they left with your phone your life is no longer being threatened. And two guys who rob people by pointing gun in their faces is not 'life threatening'? > Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the > constitution. Bullshit. I reported the phone stolen at gunpoint and was working with Law Enforcement to find the armed thugs. > All the police have to do is get a warrant for your > records. Or you should be able to log online and get them your self. I didn't need records. What was needed of the location of armed theives who definitely pose a clear and present danger to society. > But the police have to get a warrant. If they do not then the case > quite likely would be thrown out. It is my phone, they didn't need a warrant. Tmobile's policy is bad in this case. > And two guys who rob people by pointing gun in their faces is not > 'life threatening'? Your life isn't being threatened once they've left. Which is why I asked the question I just asked. > It is my phone, they didn't need a warrant. Wrong. >> And two guys who rob people by pointing gun in their faces is not >> 'life threatening'? > >Your life isn't being threatened once they've left. Which is why I asked >the question I just asked. The point you seem to be missing is that the people now presumably in posession of the cell phone have shown themselves to be armed and dangerous by already holding up one person at gunpoint, and the cops therefore obviously want to catch them to protect *other* people, not the OP, from them. >> It is my phone, they didn't need a warrant. > >Wrong. I'm not convinced. Any individual or corporation can *voluntarily* provide information to the police without the need for a warrant and without that information being thrown out of court. The purpose of a warrant is to *compel* cooperation and to permit evidence thus obtained to be used when it was obtained *against the will* of the people who had possession of it. The thieves who stole the cell phone are not the ones in possession of the information the cops want, i.e., the location of the cell phone. Therefore, if T-Mobile were to voluntarily provide that information, they would have no grounds to suppress the evidence. Now, I suppose you could claim tht asking T-Mobile to provide information about the location of a cell phone constitutes a wiretap, and wiretaps require a warrant. The problem with that claim is that I doubt a warrant is required when the owner of a phone *agrees* to have a tap put on it. Since the OP is the only person who has the legal right to object to a tap on his cell phone, if he agrees to it, there's no reason for T-Mobile not to provide the requested information. Also, I seem to recall that there have been court decisions that location information provided by a cell phone is not protected by wiretamp statutes. Here's a question for you: If a thief steals a car with lojack, do the police need to get a warrant before using the lojack transmitter to locate the car? SignatureHelp stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/ > Any individual or corporation can *voluntarily* provide information to > the police Yes. And any company I do business with that gives up my personal information to someone claiming to be law enforcement, without any proof of anything, without paperwork, is going to lose my business and maybe get hauled into court. I am *completely* in favor of the policy most businesses have that they will not give out personal info without the proper legal paperwork. > Now, I suppose you could claim tht asking T-Mobile to provide > information about the location of a cell phone constitutes a wiretap Probably, but I'm not going to. > and wiretaps require a warrant. The problem with that claim is that I > doubt a warrant is required when the owner of a phone *agrees* to have > a tap put on it. Since the OP is the only person who has the legal > right to object to a tap on his cell phone, if he agrees to it, there's > no reason for T-Mobile not to provide the requested information. And what proof does T-Mo have that the person calling is not lying? > Here's a question for you: If a thief steals a car with lojack, do the > police need to get a warrant before using the lojack transmitter to > locate the car? No. Of course, in such a situation the police don't have to get any info from private individuals or companies, either. >Yes. And any company I do business with that gives up my personal information >to someone claiming to be law enforcement, without any proof of anything, >without paperwork, is going to lose my business How do you know there was no proof of anything? How do you know there was no paperwork? >and maybe get hauled into >court. On what grounds? >And what proof does T-Mo have that the person calling is not lying? As I mentioned in another posting, law-enforcement authorities usually have a way of authenticating themselves in situations like this. Whether they did that properly in this case is an interesting question, one which we can't possibly answer. >> Here's a question for you: If a thief steals a car with lojack, do the >> police need to get a warrant before using the lojack transmitter to >> locate the car? > >No. Of course, in such a situation the police don't have to get any info >from private individuals or companies, either. Of course they do. The lojack vehicle locating service comes *from lojack*. From the company. And, as far as I know, lojack doesn't require the police to get a warrant before allowing them to use the lojack equipment to locate a stolen vehicle. They *may* require the owner of the vehicle to authorize the search (and in fact I hope they do), but that's exactly analogous to the situation we're talking about here, i.e., the owner of the cell phone authorizing T-Mobile to provide tracking information to the police. SignatureHelp stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/ > Of course they do. The lojack vehicle locating service comes > *from lojack*. From the company. And, as far as I know, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > i.e., the owner of the cell phone authorizing T-Mobile to > provide tracking information to the police. No it's not analogous- LoJack is a vehicle location service purchased by the vehicle owner, so the owner "owns" the location info. T-Mo's phone location info isn't paid for by the phone's owner, and is specifically acquired for onepurpose- E911 emergency location calls placed from the phone. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com wrote in alt.cellular >> wrote in alt.cellular >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And two guys who rob people by pointing gun in their faces is not > 'life threatening'? hey, it was at the time. But by the time you called t-mo the threat was past. A more realistic request that they would get would be that the caller had been in a traffic accident, had run off the road and did not know where they were. And was injured and trapped. >> Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the >> constitution. > > Bullshit. I reported the phone stolen at gunpoint and was working > with Law Enforcement to find the armed thugs. Ok, but the police have the proper numbers, and the know the procedure, and have the authority to apprehend. >> All the police have to do is get a warrant for your >> records. Or you should be able to log online and get them your self. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It is my phone, they didn't need a warrant. Tmobile's policy is bad > in this case. Yes, they do. Assuming the U.S., the police need to get a warrant simply to protect the case. A good lawyer could make a case that since the phone was in their possesion you do not have the right to give that kind of permission. Also, a far easier and simpler thing to do would have been to work with the police in setting up a sting operation. Call the theives and offer them a reward for the phone, arrange to meet the, all with the full knowledge of the police, and let the police arrest them. That way the police will be able to make a rock solid case. The thieves would be caught with the phone, and they charges would have extortion added on to them. SignatureDick #1349 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dickcr@comcast.net Don't the police have a special liaison they contact to get such information -- someone who had been pre-authorized by the phone carriers to receive it under certain circumstances? "Customer Support" is the wrong department to call. >Don't the police have a special liaison they contact to get such >information -- someone who had been pre-authorized by the phone carriers >to receive it under certain circumstances? > >"Customer Support" is the wrong department to call. Back in the old days, when I did such things, we had a contact in the phone companies security department. I suppose most cellular companies have a security department, but don't know for sure. Hi, This post is very informative, however I would like some specifi information. If someone can help me then please send me a privat message. Best Regards -- Sabi 'Property Directory' (http://www.propertydir.com) | 'Wholesal Billiards' (http://www.wholesalebilliardcues.com) 'Wholesale Batteries' (http://www.battery4sale.com) |'Stock Broker Directory' (http://www.activetrader-links.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.