RFRA

February 6, 2011

When the United States government applies secular law to "religious observances and missionary services (viz., trademark law)," it opens the door for "an establishment of religion" by "neutral principles of law." Any religious corporation that invokes said law will ultimately "speak like a dragon." The effect is persecution via an unholy union of church and state.

This is really far out there and getting desperate. One of the reasons for the great prosperity in the United States is the private property protection the government affords. Trademark protection is a crucial part of this.

The Lord gave the name Seventh-day Adventist to the Seventh-day Adventist church. This is no different than the Lord giving broadcast equipment to 3ABN. Now when someone tries to steal our name or steal 3ABN's equipment, there is no immorality in calling the police and imploring the civil government to protect our private property.

There is a difference between an outsider wanting to use the term Seventh-day Adventist and an Adventist member in good standing wanting to use it. The court has ruled that an Adventist member has some rights to use the name, even without GC permission. Of course there is a difference between a supporting ministry of the church and a competing ministry of the church.

February 6, 2011

Shane,

Let me make it a lot simpler for you.

Nike, Coca Cola, Pepsi = Commercial trademarks, which sell products

Baptist, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist = Description of Religion belief.

What intellectual property are you talking about?

February 6, 2011

Now when someone tries to steal our name or steal 3ABN's equipment, there is no immorality in calling the police and imploring the civil government to protect our private property.

There is a difference between an outsider wanting to use the term Seventh-day Adventist and an Adventist member in good standing wanting to use it. The court has ruled that an Adventist member has some rights to use the name, even without GC permission. Of course there is a difference between a supporting ministry of the church and a competing ministry of the church.

Maybe you missed the court's finding on this one,Shane. If Chick's info is true then they concluded that NO ONE would confuse the CSDA church with the SDA church.Additionally, the names are not the same, as any SDA can also immediately recognize.So what exactly has been stolen?Not the name,not the doctrines,not the monies,not the building,... What warrants legal action by the SDA church? And if your assessment of competing ministries is correct on what moral basis did they go after Mark Price's Facebook site?

February 6, 2011

Maybe you missed the court's finding on this one,Shane.

February 6, 2011

If I understand this correctly...

1) The name Seventh-day Adventist was given to the pioneers years before there was a "General Conference," or, in fact, any Conference whatsoever.

2) It was given to them because of their beliefs, and to describe those beliefs.

3) You have changed beliefs since that time, and publicly stated that the said pioneers who received the name could not join your organization.

4) Yet you claim that the name was given to your (then non-existant) organization.

5) You further advise people who agree with the pioneer's views instead of your own to go get another name, despite the name being given to describe *their* faith, not your current one.

It seems to me that from a strictly logical standpoint, the SDA denomination is the one that has "stolen" the name. Of course, I would never seek to force you to cease using it, because I respect your right to identify yourself as whatever you believe you are.

Let me attempt another bulleted list:

1) By your words, neither you or anyone you know in your church has been inspired to say or do something by God.

2) It is apparently so unheard of that you have automatically made insinuations of psychiatric problems as the only possible cause of someone claiming such inspiration.

3) Yet, in the midst of such an admittedly uninspired group, you stand loyal to its uninspired actions contrary to the inspired words of Scripture and Mrs. White condemning them.

4) When asked for reasoning, "Thus saith the Court" is the authority on which you fall.

The heart of the issue is who has a right to judge who is or is not a Seventh-day Adventist, Christian, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc. By your recent posts, it would seem that you believe the U.S. Civil Courts have that right. I am not comfortable with the notion of the church deciding who is and is not a heretic, and then passing them to the civil authorities to either recant their beliefs or be imprisoned. Nor, should I think, would any Christian familiar with the dark ages be comfortable with such a notion.

The RFRA was legislation passed to prevent this very issue; that regardless of whether you *agree* with an individual's beliefs, they have the right to practice them freely. That the Courts can be hailed as arbiters of who does and does not have the right to a religious name - and thus which is the 'true church' - and thus who are the 'true believers' - undermines the very concepts the Constitution was meant to establish.

On a side note, you might be interested to know this is not the first time in history the Civil power has been appealed to regarding a religious name. A.T. Jones has a very pointed article in the May 8, 1900 R&H on this topic, speaking about what lead to the Papacy being established, united to the state, and becoming the beast.

To be specific, it was:

1) The Catholic church asking for a governmental interpretation of who the term "Christian" applied to.

2) The Catholic church asking for a governmental interpretation of who the true "Catholic Church" was.

3) The Bishop of Rome being given authority to call the civil authorities on anyone who diverged from the ruling of the Emperor that the only true Catholic church was the one in communion with Rome.

Sounds strikingly familiar, doesn't it? As Jones concluded, "Thus was formed the union of church and state, out of which came the Beast, and all that the papacy has ever been, or ever can be."

You can read a copy of the article at http://www.loudcry.eu/protest/article.htm

February 7, 2011

The RFRA was legislation passed to prevent this very issue

Wrong. The RFRA was passed to protect citizens from the government. It was not passed to allow one organization to steal the intellectual property of another under the guise of divine direction. If God tells me to go and steal a car, do I then have the right to steal? Religious liberty does not allow one citizen to steal from another because God told him or her to do it.

February 7, 2011

1/3 of new members in North America join because of media ministries like 3ABN, Hope Channel, It Is Written, Voice of Prophecy, etc. Many new members come into the church after leaving prison where they were introduced to the faith by dedicated souls working in prison ministries. Both of these groups are looking specifically for the Seventh-day Adventist church. The General Conference does well in trying to prevent off-shoots from stealing our name.

I see God working in this. We have seen mention here of Baptists, Methodists and Catholics not having a trademark on their names. I don't know if that is true or not but if so, it shows the genius of those in our organization to have enough foresight to trademark our name. Just as God used the Persian Empire to rebuild Jerusalem, God uses the civil government to help the church protect the name He gave them.

February 7, 2011

There was this little cloud in the sky, it came and went. All was quiet except for the continued bickering on the use of a name and the money continued to flow. It was asked by many in the cloud of the leader what was happening back from whence they came. The leader replied, I'm not really sure as this cloud only one way and it coming back!

Not sure some religious organizations want to spend so much time and money going after the name of another organization that they have disagreements with. Why the desire to copy should be the question...or maybe its all about harassment?

CoAspen,

Now, I like parables, but I need some help with this one. Thanks.

"desire to copy"?? "harassment"??

February 7, 2011

This question begs to be asked..

Other than raise funds to take on GC legal, and raised a lot of funds for that, what did this get accomplished??

AND on another note, not confrontational, where in Uganda are you? I have been there a couple of times, and follow the Ugandan Newspapers online daily.

February 7, 2011

The General Conference does well in trying to prevent off-shoots from stealing our name.

I see God working in this. We have seen mention here of Baptists, Methodists and Catholics not having a trademark on their names. I don't know if that is true or not but if so, it shows the genius of those in our organization to have enough foresight to trademark our name.

Shane,

Since you seem ignorant respecting the source of "the genius of those in [your] organization [who] have enough foresight to trademark [the] name," I will share some of the history with you.

The General Conference leaders were concerned about SDA Kinship International gay/lesbian support group gaining power in the 1970s. There was *fear* that the deviant ones would start forming other homosexual groups, calling them by the controverted name and staining the SDA reputation.

Said leaders consulted "the God of Ekron" (see 8T 69 and AA 290 in tandem) which amounted to "spiritualism." The Roman Catholic trademark attorney (whom they consulted) advised the leading men to trademark the name, declaring that such action would be sufficient to protect the name from the homosexuals.

You may be aware that the SDA Kinship International, a group of "homosexual Adventists" (an oxymoron), won the court battle in 1991, the same year the CSDA Church was formed.

Had "the genius" of your leaders been inspired of God (capital "G"), they would have been vindicated in San Francisco and not defeated.

The only trademark infringement case RE the name "Seventh-day Adventist" won by the GC in a court hearing was the Perez lawsuit. The historic SDAs declare a victory after mediation allowed them a byline using the name SDA under the name of their churches.

Though CSDA had demanded a jury trial, and the Court had agreed, another judge was selected for the case. The new District Court Judge decided to render a verdict without the jury. A strong basis for his decision was founded on the Perez court's opinion.

The CSDA lost on appeal because of an unusual interpretation of the RFRA. That is exactly why there is currently a petition for writ of certiorari pending before the US Supreme Court.

As I stated in a previous post, the GC (those with "the genius" you refer to) will argue against allowing this matter to be heard before the high court because they *fear* losing all their power to wield the "sword of Caesar" in protection of the name.

"[...] all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matt. 26:52)

February 7, 2011

This question begs to be asked..

Other than raise funds to take on GC legal, and raised a lot of funds for that, what did this get accomplished??

AND on another note, not confrontational, where in Uganda are you? I have been there a couple of times, and follow the Ugandan Newspapers online daily.

Stan,

Not meaning to be confrontational, though I am challenged by so much of your seemingly misinformation, I did not successfully raise any funds for *defending* our cause. Attorneys have been working pro bono.

"What did this get accomplished?" Thanks for the question.

ANSWER: I vindicated the character of my Father in Heaven. I remained true to my conscience, and I sleep soundly every night.

I am a moving target. I travel Uganda widely. Thanks for your interest.

February 7, 2011

Shane,

Since you seem ignorant respecting the source of "the genius of those in [your] organization [who] have enough foresight to trademark [the] name," I will share some of the history with you.

Actually I am quite familiar with the history as we have had these discussion on this board before. SDA Kinship is a social network and not an off-shoot from the Adventist church. SDA Kinship is not a separate denomination competing for members, tithes and offerings. If I recall correctly, the court allowed SDA Kinship to use the SDA name because the organization is made up of Adventists and former Adventist members who consider themselves Adventists. If they had broken away and started their own denomination the court may well have taken a different view of the issue.

February 7, 2011

Naw......you get it alright!

So, because I did not "get it alright," you slam the door?

If we both have the great blessing of residing in God's Heaven, I pray that we have better communication transfer there, though from what I understand in the Bible, if we cannot labor together for understanding on this dark planet, we shall never have a chance anywhere else.

Interceding...

February 10, 2011

Let's bring "a voice of reason" into this thread. On that thread under "Religious Liberty Issues," Barry Bussey is quoted from the NARLA "Liberty Blog:"

Quote:

Yet I also appreciate that though I have such an elevated concept of the Holy Bible I would not want to have any person suffer persecution of any sort for their misuse, defamation, burning or destruction of a physical copy of the Bible.

That may seem strange but it comes from the authority of Christ – who suffered horrible abuse from pagan Rome. He stated, “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.”

The point is my God is able to look after Himself. He does not need me to punish the blasphemer – He may do that in His sovereign time if He desires. It is not my role.

Is it not true that "God is able to look after" His Church, His work, and His people? Does He need any humans to punish those who "use our name without permission?" Is the "sword of Caesar" necessary in the hands of the church?

February 15, 2011

Dear LynnDel

Yes, you are right. It is true that in Jesus’s day the name "trademark" didn’t exist at that time, but the concept of names, marks, and lawsuits are mentioned in God’s word.

And it is also truth that iniciating lawsuits against fellow believers doesn't fit with 1 Corinthians Chapter 6, Have you read it before?

You asked what Jesus would do. Well, if you allow me I will share a few biblical examples related to names (reputation):

“And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. Mark 9: 38-40

---------

“Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand. And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, [Peter and Jhon] By what power [authority], or by what name, have ye done this [spreading the gospel and performing miracles]? …

[...] “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. […]But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, […] And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

“But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” [Read Acts Chapter 4]

------------

“And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. Then certain of the vagabond Jews [independent from Christ’s Church], exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

“And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.” Acts 19:11-17

---------

“I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.”

Rev 3:8

1. Question: Did Jesus prohibit others, who were not part of His group of disciples, to preach on His name, when they were preaching and performing miracles to gloryfy Him?

The implied answer is, NO

2.Question: Did the disciples were instructed by Jesus to look for a civil authority to refrain others from using His name?

Jesus answers,“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” Jhon 18:36

3.Question: In case an independent ministry, like the vagabond Jews, is dishonoring God’s name with their testimony by claiming to be part of God’s Church, or pretending to have His authority. ¿Isn’t God alone able to protect the reputation of His Church, His name?

Implied answer: Yes!

“And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.”

4 Question: Did Paul go to the civil authorities to prohibit these men from bringing shame to God’s name, even Paul’s name?

Implied answer: No!

----------------

Now, Ellen White said the following:

Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist, to all intents and purposes. It was He who called Moses into the mount and gave him instruction for His people. . . . In awful grandeur Christ made known the law of Jehovah, giving, among other charges, this charge: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Medical Ministry pages 49).

“We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, “No, no! We are not.” It is the name the Lord has given us. It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches. Letter 110, 1902, p. 6.

We are Seventh-day Adventists, and of this name we are never to be ashamed. As a people we must take a firm stand for truth and righteousness. Thus we shall glorify God. We are to be delivered from dangers, not ensnared and corrupted by them . That this may be, we must look ever to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our Faith. Letter 106, 1903, p. 3.

Questions: Are the gifts from our Heavenly Father for discriminatory purposes or for private use? NO!

Aren’t ALL His gifts free to those who want to receive them, even the name “Seventh day Adventist”? YES!

Are Seventh day Adventist only those who are members from a religious institution with that name? NO!

Can anyone who follows Christ in all intents and purposes [ taking a firm stand for truth and righteousness] call himself, “Seventh Day Adventist”, if they are teaching the Eternal Gospel of the Three Angels? YES!

Isn’t God powerful enough to protect His own name and Church’s reputation from any threat? YES!

“Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.” Zec 4:6b

“The LORD [is] my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, [and] my high tower. I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.” Psalm 18:2-3

CONCLUSION: What the SDA Church did and is doing with those lawsuits is anti-Christian for the leaders don't rest/trust in Jesus as their God, but instead have chosen the world as their judge, and Cesar's sword as their weapon.

"WHENEVER THE CHURCH HAS OBTAINED SECULAR POWER, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have FOLLOWED IN THE STEPS OF ROME BY FORMING ALLIANCE WITH WORLDLY POWERS have manifested a similar

desire to restrict liberty of conscience..." Great Controversy 443.

Note: These lawsuits are being iniciated in the name of all the Seventh Day Adventist members. Did you know that?

February 16, 2011

More on the RFRA litigation has come to my attention.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit

BRIEF FOR THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE

AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

PETITIONER

Read the full text at the following URL:

http://www.whypastorwaltermcgillisnotaff...ford_Amicus.pdf

February 19, 2011

"When troubles arise in the church we should not go for help to lawyers not of our faith. God does not desire us to open church difficulties before those who do not fear Him. He would not have us depend for help on those who do not obey His requirements. Those who trust in such counselors show that they have not faith in God. By their lack of faith the Lord is greatly dishonored, and their course works great injury to themselves. In appealing to unbelievers to settle difficulties in the church they are biting and devouring one another, to be "consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15).

These men cast aside the counsel God has given, and do the very things He has bidden them not to do. They show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and in heaven their names are registered as one with unbelievers. Christ is crucified afresh, and put to open shame. Let these men know that God does not hear their prayers. They insult His holy name, and He will leave them to the buffetings of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sin.

Matters connected with the church are to be kept within its own borders. If a Christian is abused, he is to take it patiently; if defrauded, he is not to appeal to courts of justice. Rather let him suffer loss and wrong." [3SM 299]

February 23, 2011

Those who trust in such counselors show that they have not faith in God.
[...]

They show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and in heaven their names are registered as one with unbelievers.

[...]

This sounds very serious to me. Does anyone else agree?

February 26, 2011

A new court document was filed February 18, 2011. It is the General Conference response to the Defendants' objections to the Dec. 23rd Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Bryant.

You may find the PDF version at the following link:

http://www.whypastorwaltermcgillisnotaff..._objections.pdf

February 27, 2011

This question begs to be asked..

Other than raise funds to take on GC legal, and raised a lot of funds for that, what did this get accomplished??

[...]

I thought it fitting to share "My Final Answer" publicly just in case there are any doubts.

Hello Mr. Holliday (attorney for Defendant),

Please excuse the length of this "answer." I have endeavored to keep it as brief as possible.

From the very beginning, we have been doing our Father's business. Every move has been orchestrated by YAHWEH (i.e., the name of the Creator). We have not really been guilty of any of the assorted accusations brought against us, though technically, we *are* currently "guilty" of trademark infringement as presently interpreted by the Court.

A Creation Seventh Day Adventist *must* obey the Father in Heaven. We must evangelize; we must witness to our faith and testify of who we are--Creation Seventh Day Adventists; we must seek to save the lost; we must heal the sick and relieve the suffering, oppressed, and broken-hearted; we must spread our message to the "four corners of the earth" via every venue we can find. Our efforts are NOT a blatant disregard of the District Court's order(s), though it has been and will be construed in that way. It is the unregenerate mind that oppresses the conscience of God's little children, and those poor souls often "know not what they do." We forgive them, for they are blind to their errors.

Somewhere in the legal record you wrote about the Bible account where the apostles said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." This is where we are today--obeying YAHWEH rather than men. We are not sorry for our actions, for they are prompted by the Spirit of the Living God, borne from a conscience sealed to comply with divine duty. We would rather die than sin. And, sin no more has dominion over us.

Please accept my personal apology for your having to deal with this most shameful and unpleasant controversy. I am truly sorry for any and all inconvenience you might have suffered on our part. It is an abomination to God that such a conflict should have ever been brought before the civil magistrates. Judge King (see the Perez case) would certainly agree with me.

You have done all you can do to fulfill your duty respecting a code of ethics for lawyers. You have appealed to me/us to abide by the Court's order(s). You have not in any way countenanced or supported our civil disobedience. You have consistently required that we comply with every stipulation of the District Court. We forgive you for this, as you are not a member of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. But, for a Creation 7th Day Adventist to comply with this particular injunction, would be unconscionable and tantamount to spiritual suicide. Few souls in this present world have any idea of what being "true as steel to righteous principle" means. The Bible has taught CSDAs that compromise with evil is not an option.

Finally, in my humble opinion, Mr Galanter (the GC attorney) has erred somewhat in his selection of websites that are now called into question, unless he is purposely seeking to initiate an inquisition cleansing the Internet of any reference to Walter McGill, Pastor "Chick" McGill or general journalism covering the lawsuit and/or differences between the General Conference SDAs and the CSDAs. An insightful investigation will show that the majority of the websites listed appear to be out of the jurisdiction of the District Court, and thus, outside of the boundaries of the District Court injunction. If Mr. Galanter will kindly draft a list of websites that fall within the jurisdiction of the United States injunction, specifying exactly what is violative about each website, then we can ask our Father what we might do to satisfy his demands. I think this is a reasonable request on my part.

Let it be well understood that Creation Seventh Day Adventists around the world will be continuing their Divinely appointed tasks. As I have posted on my personal home page, "With Thomas Jefferson, 'I,' Walter "Chick" McGill, 'have sworn on the altar of God Eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." In so doing, I will not discourage any member or friend of the CSDA Church from obeying their Master, exercising a conscience undefiled. We have no "presidents," "popes," or "visible heads" that dictate what each person might do. As I said at the top, YAHWEH is the One who orchestrates our work around the world. He is ultimately the Person on trial in this conflict.

I wish to finalize this, my "answer," with a quote from the renowned and "disobedient" reformer, Martin Luther. In the Diet, April 18, 1522, to the Emperor, to the papacy, to the Diet itself, to all Germany, to Europe, and to the world, Luther had given his "answer." That answer, as summed up by Luther himself, after having spoken two hours, stands as follows:

"Since your most serene majesty, and your high mightinesses, call upon me for a simple, clear, and definite answer, I will give it. And it is this: I cannot subject my faith either to the Pope or to Councils; because it is clear as day, that they have often fallen into error, and even into great self-contradiction. If, then, I am not disproved by passages of Scripture, or by clear arguments, -- if I am not convinced by the very passages which I have quoted, and so bound in conscience to submit to the Word of God, I neither can nor will retract anything. For it is not safe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen."

I have obviously copied this email to Mr. Galanter. I hope I have not violated some other law by this action. My purpose has been to make my/our position crystal clear and with due respect for all parties concerned. Please forgive me if I have erred.

With peace that surpasses all understanding, and with a heart to keep the Sabbath in spirit and letter, I am

Praying for my enemies, both perceived and declared,

Pastor "Chick" McGill

August 7, 2009

February 28, 2011

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

The real problem was this.

They were impersonating the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

That's not the real problem. The real problem is a religious institution invoking corporate laws created by government for financial institutions, and uses them to monopolize a religious faith.

Basically, GC decided to define an SDA believer as the one who is affiliated with GC. If you are not affiliated with GC and you call yourself Seventh Day Adventist... it's grounds for a lawsuit.

Now, after the lawsuit, what? The General Conference wins, and the Court orders you to cease and desist under potential for civil contempt sanctions if you disobey. Now, why would you enter a defense to the lawsuit and contest the matter if you were not set to disobey in the event you lost?

So, then you are coerced with monetary sanctions amounting to more than $35,000, and threatened with jail time. When you are found in contempt again, the sanctions escalate.

Why don't you just give in? Simply because of conscience' sake.

"It is neither safe nor right to violate conscience."

March 9, 2011

Sign In

RFRA

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

fccool

Link to comment

Share on other sites

doug yowell

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Light Fox

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Stan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naraiel

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Light Fox

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pastor_Chick

Link to comment

Share on other sites