United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump Lawyer Warns New York Times of Tax Story ‘Defamation,’ ‘Substantial Liability (Just Do It!!!!)’
Source:
CNS
URL Source: https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig- ... famation-substantial-liability
Published: Oct 3, 2018
Author: Craig Bannister
Post Date: 2018-10-03 11:31:21 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 1890
Comments: 31
The lawyer who won a multi-million dollar libel settlement for Melania Trump is now warning The New York Times about a story suggesting her husband, President Donald Trump, may have committed tax fraud. On Tuesday, the Times published a story, “Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches from His Father,” in which it claims to have obtained confidential tax records and says Trump committed “outright fraud”: “President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found.” .... “But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.” …. “While the records do not include the president’s personal tax returns and reveal little about his recent business dealings at home and abroad, dozens of corporate, partnership and trust tax returns offer the first public accounting of the income he received for decades from various family enterprises.” In its story, the Times links to a statement from Charles J. Harder, a lawyer for Pres. Trump, declaring the story’s allegations are “100% false, and highly defamatory” – and based on “extremely inaccurate” claims. Harder warns that the Times allegations expose it to “substantial liability and damages for defamation”: Statement to The Times from Charles J. Harder, a lawyer for President Trump The New York Times’ allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100% false, and highly defamatory. There was no fraud or tax evasion by anyone. The facts upon which the Times bases its false allegations are extremely inaccurate. All estate matters were handled by licensed attorneys, licensed CPAs and licensed real estate appraisers who followed all laws and rules strictly. All matters were filed with the IRS and New York taxing authorities. The returns and tax positions that the Times now attacks were examined in real time by the relevant taxing authorities. The taxing authorities requested a few minor adjustments, which were made, and then fully approved all of the tax filings. These matters have now been closed for more than a decade. President Trump had virtually no involvement whatsoever with these matters. The affairs were handled by other Trump family members who were not experts themselves and therefore relied entirely upon the aforementioned licensed professionals to ensure full compliance with the law. Should the Times state or imply that President Trump participated in fraud, tax evasion, or any other crime, it will be exposing itself to substantial liability and damages for defamation. In 2017, Mr. Harder won a multi-million dollar settlement and obtained a full retraction and apology for the First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, in a libel action against the Daily Mail. The Wall Street Journal reports that the publication paid the First Lady Melania Trump $2.9 million to settle the lawsuit. As The New York Times reported on April 12, 2017: “The Daily Mail apologized to Melania Trump on Wednesday and agreed to pay damages to settle two lawsuits she had filed over an article last year asserting that the professional modeling agency she worked for in the 1990s had also been an escort service.”
Poster Comment: Sue them for enough to put them out of business. Trump will own the rag and rename it TRUMP TIMES! 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: IbJensen (#0)
the Daily Mail? The Weekly World News, and the Enquirer are more believable! But more Importantly.....we can add "TAX CHEAT" to the Toad's Twitter profile: "Degenerate, Lying sack-of-shit, Ass-Clown, TAX CHEAT". A few more details on The Time's year-long investigation: "... The Times’s investigation of the Toad family’s finances is unprecedented in scope and precision, offering the first comprehensive look at the inherited fortune and tax dodges that guaranteed The Toad a gilded life..." "...The manipulation of values to evade taxes was central to one of the most important financial events in The Toad’s life. In an episode never before revealed, The Toad and his siblings gained ownership of most of their father’s empire on Nov. 22, 1997, a year and a half before The Toad's father's death. Critical to the complex transaction was the value put on the real estate. The lower its value, the lower the gift taxes. The Trumps dodged hundreds of millions in gift taxes by submitting tax returns that grossly undervalued the properties, claiming they were worth just $41.4 million. The same set of buildings would be sold off over the next decade for more than 16 times that amount..." "... a documentary short on the process, entitled “The Family Business: The Toad and Taxes,” will air Sunday on Showtime..."
EXCELLENT. BURY THEM.
Yeah -- but then all three are more credible than MSNBC and CNN, and the NewYork Times and WaPo.
Here's you opportunity. Prove this story is a fabrication. Prove that the journalists who investigated the facts and wrote the story are liars. DAVID BARSTOW, SUSANNE CRAIG and RUSS BUETTNER Put up or shut-up time You should watch the documentary that was produced during the course of the investigation - it's on Showtime this Sunday
As before: I don't care. As long as the Democrats don't purge the Clintons, the corruption of Republicans is not of concern to me. It's a question of who will be master, that is all. It did not have to be this way. I am naturally a fair person. I want the rules to apply to both sides. But the way things have broken out, they don't. The Left does not apply the rules to their side, and they have made great strides by that. Therefore, because I am fair, I have ceased to apply any rules to my own side either. So, now we're all on the same battlefield, one in which victory goes to the strong. My side is stronger, so as long as we don't complicate our lives with rules the other side doesn't obey, we win. Ultimately, I care about winning. The ends justify the means. That's the way the Democrats play. Ok. I can play that way too. Just like World War II, really. You firebomb London and Manchester? We firebomb Hamburg and Dresden. You bomb Pearl Harbor? We nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You chose the means when you started it. We're stronger and better, so we use the same means to clobber you. Easy. America is more conservative than it is liberal. Therefore, if there are no rules, conservatives rather violently throw down liberals. Ok. I'd prefer that the game not be played like that, but the Left does, so that liberates the Right to do the same. And morality and God? God is on the side of the bigger battalions.
Prove that the journalists who investigated the facts and wrote the story are liars. Who needs to "prove" the New York Times -- "The Fish-Wrap of Record" of "Lies Fit To Print" can tell the truth? They've who've already been busted repeatedly lying, defaming Trump, and colluding with "un-named sources". The New York Times (and Washington Post) are mere vicious propaganda organs and outlets for the Democrat-Communist Resistance Party. Everyone knows The New York Times entire agenda and sole reason for being is dirt-digging, mud-slinging, politics of personal destruction, defamation of conservatives and Republicans, and advancing Marxist-Alinsky-ism, LYING and CREATING DIVISION. And for THAT you are proud? Sad. To answer your question, N-O-P-E. The onus is on YOU and your co-lying pathological, sociopathic liars and haters to prove they are capable of truth-telling. IN PROPER CONTEXT. (and not put retractions of their libel and lies on page 51.)
Therefore, because I am fair, I have ceased to apply any rules to my own side either. Well articulated. THE MASK IS OFF. The Left has ceased pretending to play by ANY rules, ANY laws, ANY terms of mutual, fundamental fairness and ethics. Ergo now that we are in a no-holds-barred political brawl, the GOP and conservatives must now consider politics a street fight...or else they and we will be steamrolled by WWF wrestling "rules" and dirty players.
Ultimately, I care about winning. The ends justify the means. I'm not sure what this has to do with the NYT investigation of the Toad's greasy tax cheating, but I hope you're feeling better now. I'll only take issue with one of your comments.... "...America is more conservative than it is liberal..." It's my experience that the overwhelming majority of Americans couldn't define the word conservatism, have no idea what is meant by the free market, and have never heard of Milton Friedman, or William F Buckley. What most of America cares about is how they, (themselves, their family, and their community) are doing. They don't want conflict, higher prices, or being told what to do. They want the security of knowing that they'll be ok financially and that they will leave a better life for their children. I don't believe most Americans give a shit about "the left" or "the right" And most Americans are fed-up with what they're seeing in DC. But, please rant on! you've earned it.
It means that as long as the Clintons are not thrown down by the Democrats, I am deaf to complaints about morality on the Right, and simply DO NOT CARE about criminality or corruption or any other activity by the people who are mostly on my side of things
So, what would it take for you to feel that the "democrats" have properly "thrown down" the "clintons"? Serious question! In reality, neither of the clintons are in a position of power or representation, and it's a safe bet that they're both finished in government. And please understand my position, I have never supported either clinton and I never will. I have no need to defend them or their actions. I also realize that neither represents any threat to me or to US. Because I believe in Karma, I'm confident that there is ultimately some nasty retribution in store for those who deserve it... So, anyway - what would you have "the democrats" do?
I would have the Democrats end their witch hunt, look at the FBI reports and judicial record just like the Republicans did for Kagan, Sotomator and Breyer, and resolve to never again play the witch hunt game they are playing with Kavanaugh and with Clarence Thomas. In a similar vein, I condemned the Tepublicans for their self-righteous witch hunt against Clinton, and was happy to see the Republican hypocrites who persecuted Clinton thrown down . The Democrats need to stop the insane over the top claims about what some guy did 37 years ago. It is absolutely ridiculous. I doubt there is one single Democrat in the Senate who could survive that degree of scrutiny. By doing this, they have raised my hatred, and caused me to cease to care about right and wrong. Whatever destroys them now is right, because they have become the personification of the Grand Inquisitors of old, and they all deserved to be burnt at the stake. All the Democrats can do now is lose, and they will. If they did it with some grace, they might be able to redeem themselves. But they will ok not. So Trump needs to unleash the IRS on each of them, and begin the proscriptions.
Well this just means the baby voiced Blasey Ford accusations are falling apart. So the deep state had to issue another big slice of juicy false press. Great meme by the way.
"... The Times’s investigation of the Toad family’s finances is unprecedented in scope and precision UNPRECEDENTED IN SCOPE AND PRECISION.... Journalistic douchebaggery.
So... I guess the whole justification you are using - regarding "throwing down" the clintons(???) was just ........well bull shit, right? You didn't say anything about the clintons.... That's ok, I had a feeling that is where you were going.... as it applies to "Bart" Kavenaugh.... I understand that you are now angry about what has happened..... but you don't even really realize what occurred> Was Bart a wild-ass drunken entitled party-boy who got his jollies by "grabbing them by the pussy" ??? I think we can both agree that "YES" he is that guy. Does that render him unfit for the highest court in the land? - You and everyone on your side would say, "NO! give that boy a pass! he was just fooling around!" That's your position, ok I don't agree but I get it. But here is what actually happened - the Dems on the committee, by making this "dick" behavior an issue, put Bart into the "lying under oath" box. and then Bart lied like the entitled POS that he was, and still is. and THAT is what will give 3 or 4 Senators enough of a reason to go thumbs down......less than a month from the mid-terms. I'd be pissed too if I were you. Here's one additional personal point. If a female member of my family made it known that a similar event happened to her, even if it were 30 years in the past. The responsible party would have some explaining to do, and very possibly some punishment to endure, one way or another. And any "man" who would NOT take the side of his wife, daughter, sister, mother, etc is a poor excuse for a man. Let the shoe fit.
Heh heh heh Perhaps they have enough "Evidence" without the Toad's hidden returns. Tell me, my 4th favorite attorney, can the state of New York subpoena the 1040's? How does that work? About a month until the mid-terms.... should be a good time!
I do not care what that man, or any man, did 37 years ago. The statute of limitations has long since expired. It is irrelevant to me. But I hate people who drill back that far into people's past. I hated the Republicans when they trotted out something about Obama's KINDERGARTEN papers. Really? And I hate the Democrats for doing this. Anybody can be destroyed this way. Show me the man and I'll show you the crime. So, it's simply a matter of power now. You and the Democrats think you have something that can take this guy out. I think that if you and they succeed, you will be able to do this same sort of thing to anybody. I do not think that people can be held accountable for anything outside of the statute of limitations, and I do not believe in unlimited statutes of limitations for anything except maybe murder, which this is not. It's too long ago. If this is true, this woman had her chance long ago. She let it past. Now she has nothing that I'm interested in to say. You bring your case within the statute. You think you've got something here. I think you're like the Grand Inquisitors. Your approach itself is far more destructive of liberty and security than anything that anybody did 37 years ago. I do not care what he did. I do care that this is being used to try to stop him. It's a power play. It's a raw test of power. It needs to be met with sheer power. And then, once Kavanaugh is seated, the people need to exercise more power and keep the Dems out, so that more and more of what they believe in can be dismantled by Trump's power. I don't caer if he lied under oath. I simply DO NOT CARE. It is imperative that the Democrats be defeated now. If it can be done by a vote, great. If it requires an overthrow of the whole system and a coup, then so be it. It's very much like 1861. They must not prevail.
If the victim had been your sister, or mother, or cousin... you wouldn't care? I don't believe you. YOU would be violently outraged (and righteously so!!) I don't care if he lied under oath. I understand, you and all the true believers of the Toad cult.... You no longer care about the principles upon which our nation was founded, the rule of law, or moral and human decency...... Read your own words, look into the mirror... are you pleased with the person you've become? Perhaps you're having a bad day, I wish only the best for you.
My friend, This "man" has a history of behavior that is unfitting for a justice of the highest court in the land. He's an entitled prick snowflake, and he CRIED when questioned about his behavior. bart the prick, is, at the age of 52, a man of means. Yet his defense is to cry and wail on national TV..... an innocent man, would have demanded a full investigation and funded it if necessary to prove his innocence. I would. I'm sure you would too! Then he fell back onto his lifelong crutch - I wasn't that drunk!! I swear!! I'll say one thing, this is exactly the type of "candidate" I would expect from the Toad. Take him out? The American people deserve better. I'm sure you would agree, right?
Of course they do. With precisely ZERO of the "president’s personal tax returns" and with "little about his recent business dealings at home and abroad," you already claim "The Times’s investigation of the Toad family’s finances is unprecedented in scope and precision." Why would you think they need more documents when you claim they have already exceeded all IRS investigation, and the IRS had ALL of Trump's tax return documents for the past 50+ years? Evidence? They don't need no stinkin' evidence. They buy ink by the barrel. Why would you think that the state of New York can subpoena the 1040s of Donald Trump based on a failing New York Times claim thet they have come into a tranche of stolen confidential tax returns and financial records, which "do not include the president’s personal tax returns and reveal little about his recent business dealings at home and abroad?" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html By David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner The failing New York Times claimed, "President Donald Trump, may have committed tax fraud." The failing New York Times, having claimed that it finds that the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump engaged in suspect tax schemes, and may have committed tax fraud, it should be noted that the failing New York Times has evidently published another suspect article and may have libeled the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump. should be a good time! It should be a very good time!!
That is true and I'm one of the sick/fed-up ones.
He's an entitled prick snowflake, and he CRIED when questioned about his behavior. bart the prick, is, at the age of 52, a man of means. I think he's 53 but no matter. He should have had a two minute response to the incident that didn't happen. As you say, he went on and on and on like a liar digging himself into a deeper hole. I don't think he'll make the cut. Plus, he helped cover up Vince Foster's murder.
So says the target.
Mitch filed for cloture. That means he has the votes. Maybe Jameson will take some pills.
No , he doesn't. What he is alleged to have done, long ago, is irrelevant. Whoever gets the majority of votes in the Senate is "fitting". There is no external test imposed by partisans that gets to decide that. Numbers - raw power - that's what decides who is fitting, and who is not. What is said about him is a pack of lies, the people saying it are liars, the people forwarding it are jackals. That's anger. Since I can't wipe them out with a twist of my mind, then they will have be to defeated on the battlefield, where power determines everything. The Republicans have more power. Unless they are cowards, they win. Good. Then let them wield their power to prosecute the leading Democrats, such as Feinstein, for every crime they have ever committed in the past 37 years. The majority in Congress can, after call, cast anybody out of Congress. Once the Republicans win the midterms, they should focus on that. In those places where there is a Republican governor who would appoint a replacement, or a Right-leaning electorate, focus on those Democrats, trump up morals charges, and vote to expel them from Congress, to be replaced by Republican appointees or specially elected replacements. Use the IRS to comb mercilessly through the personal finances of every important Democrat, find anything, reveal it to the media, and then expel them from Congress as frauds. Do the same thing to Democrat appointees who sit on the federal benches. Use power to crush out the other side. Install a one-party state and rule. All of through punctilious respect for legal niceties, most politely. And if hotheads lose their minds and do violent things, shoot them. Thin the opposition herd. They have declared war. Ok. Let's have a war. Of annihilation. The first battlefield of this war is seating Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. The second is using the tactics used on him to expel various Democrats from the Senate and from the Judiciary.
Kavanaugh will be confirmed. It is a test of raw power. Republicans have more. If they confirm him, they hold Congress and extend their lead in November. If they fail, they lose both houses and never hold power again in our lifetimes. Trump will be impeached, and the nation will become socialist. One either reconciles one's self to Kavanaugh and Trump, or one lives in a socialist republic. Now, as It happens, because of where I personally sit on the political spectrum, I will be reasonably happy either way. A Trump republic, or Sweden - both work for me. But the latter is a horror for the men of the farther-Right-than-me. Those men cannot have their way. They want a Bush Republic, a conservative, free trade, concentrate-the- wealth free trade republic with lightly regulated capitalism and strong police forces to keep hot polloi in line. They can't have that. They don't have enough men. So, it's either Trump Republic with Kavanaugh, or its socialism with Democrat witch hunts using the same tactics that took down Kavanaugh. If the Right knows what is good for them, they will stop dreaming of a return to Reagan/Bush that they cannot have, stop dreaming of a return to the comfortable deference to wealth they so desperately want to return to. They will either maintain their position by force - using their majoritarian power to win the battles. Or they will have their wealth redistributed by socialists. One or the other. No third way. I'm almost indifferent to that outcome. You're not. So back Kavanaugh, and thereby make it easier for your wavering Republican Senators to back him. You can never have the Bushes back. Or Reagan. It's Trump and Kavanaugh, or its Schumer, Pelosi, Sotomayor, and socialism. Choose wisely.
48 years ago, the victims was me. That was painful and degrading. It was also then. This is now. I do not care so much to dwell in the unalterable past that I am willing to sacrifice political control in the here and now in order to exact some sort of long-after-the-fact revenge, and thereby inflict new loss on myself today by letting the political enemy win. No. I don't think Kavanaugh actually did what he is accused of doing. I think this woman is a liar, and that the Democrats are manipulating lies in order to advance their power. If they advance their power in this way, they will have an effective tactic for destroying anybody. I do not want that tactic to succeed. I do not dwell on 48 years ago. The statute of limitations has long run. And I do not want to permit other people, women or men, to make the choice to disrupt the present by dredging up past events for which the statute of limitations has run. They had their chance, they did not avail themselves of it. Now it is too late. Ms. Ford is a doctor, a professor. She has succeeded in life. What happened to her did not destroy her. It is long past. I do not want to create the precedent of allowing people to destroy other people, and the tranquility of the present, for what happened long ago in the sexual past. If it were my sister, or mother, or cousin , I would say exactly the same thing that I tell myself: that is long past, it's over now, learn from it, suck it up and go on. Life is often cruel. It was cruel to you and cruel to me. We rose above it. We have no right to revenge. It is too long ago. Let it go. What was done to me was a hell of a lot worse than what was done to Ford. I am a victim too. She should suck it up, shut up, and get on with her successful life.
If you think she is a liar. Why are you calling her a victim?
I was not weighing my words carefully. I was making a hard emotional point. I don't care if she was a victim or not. If she was, I understand her pain, to the extent she still has any. But I do not support dredging up things four decades in the past for political power now, especially not for somebody who has clearly risen far, far above whatever shock and hurt that happened in the past. I don't doubt that she was groped or assaulted. Most women have been a some point. A lot of men too, especially as boys. I don't think that sexual assault actually destroys anybody such that they are still limping along about it 40 years after the fact. It's a card played for power and sympathy, not an actual life-altering bleeding wound, not after so much time. Ford transferred memories of an assault to Kavanaugh, and is letting herself be used to take him out. But even if he actually did outright sexually assault her, if he outright raped her, that was 37 years ago, the statute of limitations has long run, and it should be no bar to him serving on the Supreme Court. As a practical matter, Republicans will either choose to win this fight and hold Congress, or they will choose to lose it and lose Congress.
“President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found.” .... “But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.” It appears that the Times is dripping about Fred Trump allegedly undervaluing gifts to Donald Trump since Donald Trump was a toddler, 60 to 70 years ago, with the result of underpaid gift tax being paid due to fraud. Toddler Trump participated in the scheme as the recipient of the gifts. Assume arguendo that Fred Trump gave gifts received by Donald Trump, and Fred Trump knowingly undervalued the gifts in a scheme to defraud the government of the proper amount of gift tax. The gift tax is reported and paid by the one giving the gift. The giver, in this case Fred Trump, is the one liable for any underpaid gift tax. The gifting may have started when Donald Trump was a toddler, but it assuredly did not continue to this day. Fred Trump, who used to gift, and was potentially liable both civilly and criminally, died in 1999. I wish New York the best of luck in pursuing Fred Trump for allegedly evading the gift tax. Donald Trump, as the receiver of gifts, is not liable for any undervaluing by the donor on the donor's tax returns, resulting in the donor wrongfully evading full payment of gift tax obligations.
Whose Signature?
In 2017, Mr. Hard-on won a $2.9 million dollar settlement and obtained a full retraction and apology for the Toad's current spouse, in a libel action against the Daily Mail.
#2. To: IbJensen (#0)
#3. To: Jameson (#1)
The Weekly World News, and the Enquirer are more believable!
#4. To: Liberator (#3)
all three are more credible than NewYork Times
#5. To: (#4)
#6. To: Jameson (#4)
Prove this story is a fabrication.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
I am naturally a fair person. I want the rules to apply to both sides. But the way things have broken out, they don't. The Left does not apply the rules to their side, and they have made great strides by that.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
(Edited)
#9. To: Jameson (#8)
I'm not sure what this has to do with the NYT investigation of the Toad's greasy tax cheating, but I hope you're feeling better now.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
It means that as long as the Clintons are not thrown down by the Democrats
#11. To: Jameson (#10)
#12. To: IbJensen (#0)
#13. To: Jameson, IBJensen (#1)
A few more details on The Time's year-long investigation:
[Thread article] “While the records do not include the president’s personal tax returns and reveal little about his recent business dealings at home and abroad
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
I would have the Democrats end their witch hunt,
#15. To: nolu chan (#13)
do not include the president’s personal tax returns and reveal little about his recent business dealings at home and abroad
#16. To: Jameson (#14)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
I do not care what he did.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
You and the Democrats think you have something that can take this guy out.
#19. To: Jameson (#15)
Perhaps they have enough "Evidence" without the Toad's hidden returns.
Tell me, my 4th favorite attorney, can the state of New York subpoena the 1040's? How does that work?
Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father
New York Times
Oct. 2, 2018 About a month until the mid-terms....
#20. To: Jameson (#8)
And most Americans are fed-up with what they're seeing in DC.
#21. To: Jameson (#18)
This "man" has a history of behavior that is unfitting for a justice of the highest court in the land.
#22. To: Jameson (#14)
#23. To: Fred Mertz (#21)
I don't think he'll make the cut.
#24. To: Jameson (#18)
#25. To: Jameson (#18)
This "man" has a history of behavior that is unfitting for a justice of the highest court in the land.
#26. To: (#21)
#27. To: Jameson (#17)
If the victim had been your sister, or mother, or cousin... you wouldn't care?
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)
If you think she is a liar. Why are you calling her a victim?
#30. To: IbJensen, Jameson (#0)
On Tuesday, the Times published a story, “Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches from His Father,” in which it claims to have obtained confidential tax records and says Trump committed “outright fraud”:
#31. To: Jameson (#1)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]