Hi there - it's been quite some time since my last post, but I look forward to increased posts as we move into late 2013.
The Middle East has been a quagmire for the US and its Allies for the past 50 years or more. When Israel became an independent state in 1948, the region harshly condemned the Allies' determination to place a Jewish state in the area. Many believe that the Arab people were strongly united in their hatred for Israel and their desire to remove the Jewish state, and claim it as a Palestinian nation.
The Israeli-Arab conflict has been, but one of a number of issues that identifies the area. Arab nations have, for years, been torn among their own conflicts. Indeed, while democracy "rules the roost" in most civilized nations around the world, the Arab nations are conflicted between a sense of ancient culture and the modern technology and growing sense of releasing freedoms to their citizens. Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar ... these countries have, for years, been ruled by one family and/or governmental figure. Iran, which has "elections" and a political system that is quite modern compared to the rest of the Middle East is, of course, controlled by a religious radicalism head and clerics, with staunch anti-West sentiments. The recent "Arab Spring has seen much violence, as the heads of state have battled for power, and the youth-driven freedom fighters are still not well-organized.
And now, as the world turns its attention to Syria, and its alleged use of chemical weapons, we find ourselves being pulled into military action which appears to be opposed both, by our Allies as well as by our own citizens. Even if chemical weapons were used, what gives the US the power to dictate to the world how best to respond? Does the US (or the rest of the world) have any legal obligation to respond to Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens? Is there any legal restriction placed on the US before moving against a country who has not attacked anyone outside of its own borders?
The United Nations Charter identifies the general rule that a nation cannot attack another nation, unless (1) such attack is first approved by the members of the UN Security Council, or (2) the nation has come under attack by the other nation (self-defense / response). That's it. However, there are other "informal" reasons, with the primary rationale presently being discussed as a humanitarian rationale to save helpless lives.
I have several concerns about the US decision to unilaterally attack Syria, purportedly over Syria's use of chemical weapons that killed nearly 1,500 of its own citizens. First, why have we waited, when more than 100,000 Syrians have already lost their lives due to non-chemical weapon attacks? Second, why Syria - in other words, if the US attacks Syria for killing 1,500 of its own people, what about all of the other countries where dictators have authorized the killing of their own citizens ... how do we draw the line or, when do we decide to attack, and when do we decide not to? Third, if the US acts (whether with Congressional approval or not), how do we stop another country from using the same arguments down the line - ie, Russia, China, or Iran - to attack a nation without a UN resolution supporting such conduct?
And, doesn't the US decision to circumvent the UN Security Council, not to mention its own Allies' decision not to participate in any such attack, defeat the notion of a United Nations?
Those are my points today. What are your thoughts?
Abe
September 9, 2013
September 29, 2011
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
I had the pleasure of discussing the Jewish holiday, Rosh Hashanah, New Year for Jews around the globe, with my children this morning. The celebration of the entry of another year, and our hope that it brings us much joy and happiness; that we taste the sweetness that life brings to us. Good times! It was nice to see that they were appreciative of the holiday and the joy surrounding it.
From another perspective, it is interesting that Jews celebrate the New Year before observing the Day of Atonement about 10 days later, Yom Kippur. Some would think that we should atone for the sins of the prior year before the beginning of the new year - to begin the year with a clean slate. Yet, to some degree, it serves as a reminder that, sin or no sin, life moves forward. New beginnings and new opportunities will arise, and we must strive to create those opportunities based on our past experiences, good or bad. Thus, the new year arrives, and with it, the sense of better results ahead. Yet, as we proceed down this different, and hopefully better course of action, God reminds us that we must look to the past to better understand how we intend to go forward.
So, HAPPY NEW YEAR! Let us celebrate good times and the hope that we may experience better roads ahead. And, as Yom Kippur arrives late next weekend, let us further recall what has shaped us to this point, good or bad, and learn from those experiences, to better our Year!
What are you looking forward to in this New Year?
From another perspective, it is interesting that Jews celebrate the New Year before observing the Day of Atonement about 10 days later, Yom Kippur. Some would think that we should atone for the sins of the prior year before the beginning of the new year - to begin the year with a clean slate. Yet, to some degree, it serves as a reminder that, sin or no sin, life moves forward. New beginnings and new opportunities will arise, and we must strive to create those opportunities based on our past experiences, good or bad. Thus, the new year arrives, and with it, the sense of better results ahead. Yet, as we proceed down this different, and hopefully better course of action, God reminds us that we must look to the past to better understand how we intend to go forward.
So, HAPPY NEW YEAR! Let us celebrate good times and the hope that we may experience better roads ahead. And, as Yom Kippur arrives late next weekend, let us further recall what has shaped us to this point, good or bad, and learn from those experiences, to better our Year!
What are you looking forward to in this New Year?
August 25, 2011
JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU KNOW IT ALL ...
Do you realize how much the education system in this country (and elsewhere, I presume) prepares you for 'life'? Today is Orientation Day for my oldest child, who enters middle school shortly after Labor Day. I'm sure most of us can look back (way back) to that day and recall the anxiety we faced. Suddenly, class sizes grew, the entire grade's population grew, and importantly, rather than being part of the top grade in elementary school, we were thrust into the lowest rung at a new school.
Thankfully, the year progressed, and soon we were the top rung (or at least, no longer the 'newby' on the block, as it were). We figured out changing classes, locker combinations, and how to take very quick showers after Phys. Ed. Heck, I even learned how to square dance which, while I have not had the opportunity to participate in since then, I'm sure would be just like riding a bike if I ever had the chance to participate in such dancing again.
But, the creme de la creme only lasts so long, right? In just 1-2 years we were thrust back to the lowest rung again, this time in high school - and, of course, it took longer to climb back to the top in high school; or at least it felt that way.
Ah, 12th grade ... graduation from high school and you're on top of the world, right? But, whether you head off to college, a trade school, the military, or simply a starting position at some job, you get thrust right back down to the bottom rung. And, depending on which path you decided to take, that rung may have seemed much further down than the last time.
In time, again, we learn, we experience, and we climb the ladder of life. What the education system does, is it lessens our psychological "defeat", if you will, to the repeating "slam" back to the lower rungs. Because, of course, that is how life treats us. We graduate college or serve our four years in the military or perhaps our company goes out of business, and then we must pick ourselves up and go look for another opportunity. And, our background gives us the experience to understand that we can do it. We can achieve our goals, even if we get knocked around every so often.
I know, nothing really on the legal front in this blog, but I thought the issue presented was timely.
Have a Great Day!
Thankfully, the year progressed, and soon we were the top rung (or at least, no longer the 'newby' on the block, as it were). We figured out changing classes, locker combinations, and how to take very quick showers after Phys. Ed. Heck, I even learned how to square dance which, while I have not had the opportunity to participate in since then, I'm sure would be just like riding a bike if I ever had the chance to participate in such dancing again.
But, the creme de la creme only lasts so long, right? In just 1-2 years we were thrust back to the lowest rung again, this time in high school - and, of course, it took longer to climb back to the top in high school; or at least it felt that way.
Ah, 12th grade ... graduation from high school and you're on top of the world, right? But, whether you head off to college, a trade school, the military, or simply a starting position at some job, you get thrust right back down to the bottom rung. And, depending on which path you decided to take, that rung may have seemed much further down than the last time.
In time, again, we learn, we experience, and we climb the ladder of life. What the education system does, is it lessens our psychological "defeat", if you will, to the repeating "slam" back to the lower rungs. Because, of course, that is how life treats us. We graduate college or serve our four years in the military or perhaps our company goes out of business, and then we must pick ourselves up and go look for another opportunity. And, our background gives us the experience to understand that we can do it. We can achieve our goals, even if we get knocked around every so often.
I know, nothing really on the legal front in this blog, but I thought the issue presented was timely.
Have a Great Day!
July 6, 2011
OUR JURY SYSTEM - TIME FOR THE SCRAP PILE?
Not Guilty!
We, as a society, have learned to expect shocking verdicts after well publicized criminal trials. The recent "not guilty" verdict in the Casey Anthony trial is just the most recent example. Whenever I counsel clients with respect to potential civil lawsuits, I almost always reference the fact that, assuming the case will be tried by a jury (or by the court - judge), there is a chance, a good chance, that the case will result in an incorrect verdict - my "OJ Factor". There are simply times when a jury does not interpret the facts with the correct "interpretation" or understanding of the law that guides them.
Our jury system, at least in the criminal court, is based on the constitutional right to a trial by our peers. Who ends up being in that "peer" description, however, is often a toss up. Our system generally requires a unanimous "guilty" verdict. As most juries are comprised of between 9-12 jurors, that can seem daunting, especially considering that one can only be found guilty if the jury finds that person responsible for the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Beyond a reasonable doubt ... the description of this phrase can take up 3-4 weeks of intense discussion in law school; yet, layperson (non-lawyer) jurors are often required to understand its meaning in hours after being handed the case upon completion of closing arguments. Or at least, they are supposed to understand the terminology after receiving the case and determining the facts in light of such law (among others).
I recall vividly my criminal law and criminal procedure classes in law school because both occurred around the time that OJ was tried and found innocent - much to the dismay of LA DA, who I recall, adamantly confirmed that Mr. Simpson was guilty (prior to any criminal court proceedings). The elements of various crimes appear straight forward, and yet, the specificity of the various elements is critical in understanding how those elements either exist or not in any particular set of facts. Again, each of these courses was an entire semester. We expect our juries to understand the nuances of the law and how to interpret the facts in light of such nuances.
After once again observing a case that, frankly, should have resulted in a "guilty" verdict, be absolutely muddled by the jury, I renew my opinion that a jury should not be of one's peers, but should be a group of professional jurors, with the knowledge and, importantly experience, to handle the often intricate issues surrounding criminal law. We already allow civil matters to be heard by a judge; other countries have done away with the jury system (Israel, for instance). Some states have grand jury systems which stay "in session" for one year. The issue is not a new one.
What are your thoughts? I will provide more of my own in the near term.
We, as a society, have learned to expect shocking verdicts after well publicized criminal trials. The recent "not guilty" verdict in the Casey Anthony trial is just the most recent example. Whenever I counsel clients with respect to potential civil lawsuits, I almost always reference the fact that, assuming the case will be tried by a jury (or by the court - judge), there is a chance, a good chance, that the case will result in an incorrect verdict - my "OJ Factor". There are simply times when a jury does not interpret the facts with the correct "interpretation" or understanding of the law that guides them.
Our jury system, at least in the criminal court, is based on the constitutional right to a trial by our peers. Who ends up being in that "peer" description, however, is often a toss up. Our system generally requires a unanimous "guilty" verdict. As most juries are comprised of between 9-12 jurors, that can seem daunting, especially considering that one can only be found guilty if the jury finds that person responsible for the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Beyond a reasonable doubt ... the description of this phrase can take up 3-4 weeks of intense discussion in law school; yet, layperson (non-lawyer) jurors are often required to understand its meaning in hours after being handed the case upon completion of closing arguments. Or at least, they are supposed to understand the terminology after receiving the case and determining the facts in light of such law (among others).
I recall vividly my criminal law and criminal procedure classes in law school because both occurred around the time that OJ was tried and found innocent - much to the dismay of LA DA, who I recall, adamantly confirmed that Mr. Simpson was guilty (prior to any criminal court proceedings). The elements of various crimes appear straight forward, and yet, the specificity of the various elements is critical in understanding how those elements either exist or not in any particular set of facts. Again, each of these courses was an entire semester. We expect our juries to understand the nuances of the law and how to interpret the facts in light of such nuances.
After once again observing a case that, frankly, should have resulted in a "guilty" verdict, be absolutely muddled by the jury, I renew my opinion that a jury should not be of one's peers, but should be a group of professional jurors, with the knowledge and, importantly experience, to handle the often intricate issues surrounding criminal law. We already allow civil matters to be heard by a judge; other countries have done away with the jury system (Israel, for instance). Some states have grand jury systems which stay "in session" for one year. The issue is not a new one.
What are your thoughts? I will provide more of my own in the near term.
June 28, 2011
POLITICS - WHEN LOBBYING GOES TOO FAR
As I am sure you are aware, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was convicted yesterday on 17 of 20 felony counts stemming from his illegal use of his power as governor to influence (or attempt to) political outcomes - such as the selection of a replacement for now President Obama's former Illinois Senate seat. In summary, Mr. Blagojevich apparently felt he could sell the seat to the highest bidder, or otherwise obtain some form of compensation, whether through monetary gain or otherwise, as consideration for his appointment to the Senate seat.
Let's back up - lobbying in politics is as old as politics itself. Lobbyists are an important function within a democratic system whereby constituents elect representatives to their government to create and enforce laws that affect those very constituents. Lobbyists are individuals or groups of individuals that represent various specific positions relating to those laws/affects, and who attempt to influence politicians so that those politicians will support those positions in the formation and enforcement of such laws. How lobbyists "influence" the voting is key and has long been a source of concern for the government.
The US Federal Government has long attempted to restrict lobbying from being viewed as having an undue influence or "backdoor" political favoritism, which is of course, looked down upon by constituents. In 2007, Congress passed a major modification to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 - the revised law became known as the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007." The primary mission of the law was to "provide greater transparency in the Legislative process." In summary, the law attempts to regulate lobbying by requiring several different stages of disclosure for those in the lobby business. It also restricts former legislators and senators from certain activities upon their departure from Congress.
In short, the effect is to minimize the ability of lobbyists to have an undue influence over politicians through the use of favors, gifts, bribes, jobs, etc. Why? Because politicians should be elected (or in the rare cases appointed) based upon skill, experience, knowledge, and their ability to provide for their constituents based objectively on various factors, not bought to serve those in powerful positions.
Politics have long been looked down upon because of these very virtues - the fact that if you rub my back, I'll have yours down the road. But, while certain tit for tat is normal, when the parties up the ante by suggesting that an interested person need only pay someone else, then it becomes more than favoritism - it becomes bribery, extortion, or simply fraud of the system.
Former Governor Blagojevich thankfully has a big mouth, as well as the underlying belief that he was too powerful to get caught. The latter belief is quite common with white collar criminals, and organized crime comes to mind. Unfortunately, it is also quite common that politicians believe that they have the ability to trade their use of politics to favor individuals, groups, or organizations over others in exchange for monetary gain. Governor Blagojevich is not the first to be caught, and he certainly will not be the last. Indeed, in California, there are several recent incidents of local governing officials being indicted for similar conduct.
Hopefully, Governor Blagojevich will be sentenced to a long prison sentence; unfortunately, I do not believe that the sentence will deter future conduct, because governmental power - the feeling of being above the law - is too great of a drug.
What are your thoughts?
Let's back up - lobbying in politics is as old as politics itself. Lobbyists are an important function within a democratic system whereby constituents elect representatives to their government to create and enforce laws that affect those very constituents. Lobbyists are individuals or groups of individuals that represent various specific positions relating to those laws/affects, and who attempt to influence politicians so that those politicians will support those positions in the formation and enforcement of such laws. How lobbyists "influence" the voting is key and has long been a source of concern for the government.
The US Federal Government has long attempted to restrict lobbying from being viewed as having an undue influence or "backdoor" political favoritism, which is of course, looked down upon by constituents. In 2007, Congress passed a major modification to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 - the revised law became known as the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007." The primary mission of the law was to "provide greater transparency in the Legislative process." In summary, the law attempts to regulate lobbying by requiring several different stages of disclosure for those in the lobby business. It also restricts former legislators and senators from certain activities upon their departure from Congress.
In short, the effect is to minimize the ability of lobbyists to have an undue influence over politicians through the use of favors, gifts, bribes, jobs, etc. Why? Because politicians should be elected (or in the rare cases appointed) based upon skill, experience, knowledge, and their ability to provide for their constituents based objectively on various factors, not bought to serve those in powerful positions.
Politics have long been looked down upon because of these very virtues - the fact that if you rub my back, I'll have yours down the road. But, while certain tit for tat is normal, when the parties up the ante by suggesting that an interested person need only pay someone else, then it becomes more than favoritism - it becomes bribery, extortion, or simply fraud of the system.
Former Governor Blagojevich thankfully has a big mouth, as well as the underlying belief that he was too powerful to get caught. The latter belief is quite common with white collar criminals, and organized crime comes to mind. Unfortunately, it is also quite common that politicians believe that they have the ability to trade their use of politics to favor individuals, groups, or organizations over others in exchange for monetary gain. Governor Blagojevich is not the first to be caught, and he certainly will not be the last. Indeed, in California, there are several recent incidents of local governing officials being indicted for similar conduct.
Hopefully, Governor Blagojevich will be sentenced to a long prison sentence; unfortunately, I do not believe that the sentence will deter future conduct, because governmental power - the feeling of being above the law - is too great of a drug.
What are your thoughts?
June 15, 2011
DO I NEED TO FILE A LAWSUIT TO REMOVE A DEADBEAT?
Landlords often find that the law is not necessarily in their favor when it comes to removing a tenant who fails to perform under the terms of the lease agreement - ie, fails to pay the rent. In most cases, a landlord will be required to serve the tenant with a 3 day Notice to Pay/Cure or Quit; thereafter, should the tenant still fail to pay/cure, the landlord will be required to file a lawsuit, known in California (and most other states) as an Unlawful Detainer. While the civil procedure requirements are special, and such cases proceed much more quickly than the usual civil lawsuit, it still takes time before the landlord ultimately receives an order to kick the tenant out - most times, it takes at least 3-6 weeks, depending on various factors, though I have seen it take up to 3 months in the past.
However, there is an instance where a lawsuit is not required, where the landlord may be able to evict the tenant/lodger without court action. Civil Code section 1946.5 states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"(a) The hiring of a room by a lodger on a periodic basis within a dwelling unit occupied by the owner may be terminated by either party giving written notice to the other of his or her intention to terminate the hiring, at least as long before the expiration of the term of the hiring ... The notice shall be given in a manner prescribed in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by certified or registered mail; ...
(b) Upon expiration of the notice period provided in the notice of termination given ... any right of the lodger to remain in the dwelling unit or any part thereof is terminated by operation of law. The lodger's removal from the premises may thereafter be effected pursuant to the provisions of Section 602.3 of the Penal Code or other applicable provisions of law.
(c) ... "lodger" means a person contracting with the owner of a dwelling unit for a room or room and board within the dwelling unit personally occupied by the owner, where the owner retains a right of access to all areas of the dwelling unit occupied by the lodger and has overall control of the dwelling unit.
(d) This section applies only to owner occupied dwellings where a single lodger resides. ..."
Thus, where an owner of a residence (not a tenant) resides at that residence and allows a lodger/tenant (a single lodger/tenant) to occupy a portion of that residence, the landlord has special rights which, as long as the requirements of Section 1146.5 are complied with, allows the landlord to treat the terminated tenant/lodger as a trespasser, and may remove the person without a court order - by simply contacting the police.
An example would be if you let your "friend" who recently moved out of his parents' house, crash on your couch for a few days or weeks until he finds a suitable place to live. If you become tired of your friend, and cannot otherwise get him to leave, you could resort to formally dispatching his person via Section 1946.5.
Have a great day!
However, there is an instance where a lawsuit is not required, where the landlord may be able to evict the tenant/lodger without court action. Civil Code section 1946.5 states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"(a) The hiring of a room by a lodger on a periodic basis within a dwelling unit occupied by the owner may be terminated by either party giving written notice to the other of his or her intention to terminate the hiring, at least as long before the expiration of the term of the hiring ... The notice shall be given in a manner prescribed in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by certified or registered mail; ...
(b) Upon expiration of the notice period provided in the notice of termination given ... any right of the lodger to remain in the dwelling unit or any part thereof is terminated by operation of law. The lodger's removal from the premises may thereafter be effected pursuant to the provisions of Section 602.3 of the Penal Code or other applicable provisions of law.
(c) ... "lodger" means a person contracting with the owner of a dwelling unit for a room or room and board within the dwelling unit personally occupied by the owner, where the owner retains a right of access to all areas of the dwelling unit occupied by the lodger and has overall control of the dwelling unit.
(d) This section applies only to owner occupied dwellings where a single lodger resides. ..."
Thus, where an owner of a residence (not a tenant) resides at that residence and allows a lodger/tenant (a single lodger/tenant) to occupy a portion of that residence, the landlord has special rights which, as long as the requirements of Section 1146.5 are complied with, allows the landlord to treat the terminated tenant/lodger as a trespasser, and may remove the person without a court order - by simply contacting the police.
An example would be if you let your "friend" who recently moved out of his parents' house, crash on your couch for a few days or weeks until he finds a suitable place to live. If you become tired of your friend, and cannot otherwise get him to leave, you could resort to formally dispatching his person via Section 1946.5.
Have a great day!
June 9, 2011
PREVENTION - THE WRITTEN CONTRACT
How often do we make contracts in life? Quite often, actually. In fact, most all of us make daily contracts with so many different people, it is hardly difficult to think of your last one.
Let's take an average day. You get up in the morning, head out the door, and go get that first cup of Joe. $2-$3 at the local coffee shop. In reality, that's a contract, right? The coffee shop offers a cup of good coffee for $2; you agree to pay that price, hand over your $2, and wait while the coffee clerk makes your steaming cup o'Joe. When you receive your cup, the deal is fully performed. You go about your day. If you take the bus/train/toll road, you pay $$ to use that type of transportation and, in return, the city, county, state, etc. allows you to use the bus, train, toll road. You turn on the TV in the evening to watch the latest Fake Housewives show, and guess what, you get cable TV because you and the cable company previously agreed that, in exchange for $$, you get the shows. Thus, we make contracts all day long, usually without thinking seriously about the terms of the contract.
Sometimes, there is "fine print" or other written verbage that defines the terms. Usually, however, we simply agree to pay a price in consideration of receiving the goods or services sold, without thinking too heavily about conditions on the agreement.
Sometimes, however, an agreement must be in writing, with specific terms outlined in writing, and signed by the parties to the agreement. Public policy outlines many of these types of writings: Promissory notes, real property transactions, and purchases of goods worth more than $500 are the most common. The rationale is that a written agreement provides proof, more than just testimony/memory, but actual written terms for the parties to follow. Should something not go according to plan, you can take the writing into court and the court can interpret the meaning of the contract. Think of a dispute as a tornado. Think of insurance as the written contract that existed prior to the dispute. Your life will be turned upside down by the tornado's impact; but, you will be able to get through it with the insurance. Same with a dispute between parties to an agreement. With the written contract, you will have a much better chance of righting the ship than if you risked a dispute without such written agreement.
If you do business, you need to review your written contracts at least annually to insure that they comply with laws, are simple to understand, and specifically, protect your interests should a dispute over that agreement arise.
Have a Great Day!
Let's take an average day. You get up in the morning, head out the door, and go get that first cup of Joe. $2-$3 at the local coffee shop. In reality, that's a contract, right? The coffee shop offers a cup of good coffee for $2; you agree to pay that price, hand over your $2, and wait while the coffee clerk makes your steaming cup o'Joe. When you receive your cup, the deal is fully performed. You go about your day. If you take the bus/train/toll road, you pay $$ to use that type of transportation and, in return, the city, county, state, etc. allows you to use the bus, train, toll road. You turn on the TV in the evening to watch the latest Fake Housewives show, and guess what, you get cable TV because you and the cable company previously agreed that, in exchange for $$, you get the shows. Thus, we make contracts all day long, usually without thinking seriously about the terms of the contract.
Sometimes, there is "fine print" or other written verbage that defines the terms. Usually, however, we simply agree to pay a price in consideration of receiving the goods or services sold, without thinking too heavily about conditions on the agreement.
Sometimes, however, an agreement must be in writing, with specific terms outlined in writing, and signed by the parties to the agreement. Public policy outlines many of these types of writings: Promissory notes, real property transactions, and purchases of goods worth more than $500 are the most common. The rationale is that a written agreement provides proof, more than just testimony/memory, but actual written terms for the parties to follow. Should something not go according to plan, you can take the writing into court and the court can interpret the meaning of the contract. Think of a dispute as a tornado. Think of insurance as the written contract that existed prior to the dispute. Your life will be turned upside down by the tornado's impact; but, you will be able to get through it with the insurance. Same with a dispute between parties to an agreement. With the written contract, you will have a much better chance of righting the ship than if you risked a dispute without such written agreement.
If you do business, you need to review your written contracts at least annually to insure that they comply with laws, are simple to understand, and specifically, protect your interests should a dispute over that agreement arise.
Have a Great Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)