The incredible amount of arrogance in his "answer" to me made me want to troll this little gt9whatever bitch so fucking hard. I too am amazed that they sincerely seem to believe the bullshit that spews from their keyboards. Truly these people believe that if they say something enough times it comes true? All while skipping over questions like yours to nitpick about the difference in the cashout policy vs Pokerstars cashout policy (hint: it's a huge one).Originally Posted by Deal
This g9 guy owns pokerforums.org. I always thought that site was owned by Steve-O, but I guess not.
Anyway, it's ridiculous that he is demanding we have the discussion over on his site. He took my post from this site, copy and pasted it to his, and responded there. Now he's expecting me to continue the discussion over there?! What? I don't have time to post on three different forums about the same matter. I'm already posting both here and 2+2, and that's enough. His reasoning for wanting the discussion over there is ludicrous, too:
So he's trying to imply that the users on this site are fake, or perhaps have multiple accounts to make it look like there are more anti-Lock people than in reality.
Let me assure you that, while I don't know the identity of every user on this site, it's very clear to me that almost no active accounts are duplicates, and in those few cases, the person makes it obvious and it's done for comedic effect, not to deceive. Everyone posting in this thread is individual from one another. g9olt also made the same implication about 2+2 -- that people are creating fake accounts to make the situation on Lock look worse than it actually is. Never mind the fact that all of the major complaints about Lock on 2+2 come from know, longtime, respected grinders with hundreds or thousands of posts on the site. Rather than address this fact, g9olt is blaming the victims and accusing them of being fake. Classy.
And now he's accusing the users of this forum of being fake -- or at least strongly implying it.
In any case, g9olt, you definitely know who I am. I don't need to be on your forum to verify that. So why not answer my questions in detail rather than acting insulted or simply saying that I "don't want answers" or "am looking for material" to use against Lock. You're engaging in shady doublespeak in order to avoid giving specific answers to the tough questions, because you know that many of these questions have no answers other than "Lock is guilty of defrauding its players."
Why do you keep insisting that the Lock transfer policy is similar to that of Stars?
Stars has never refused a cashout of a player who did some reasonable playthrough, regardless of how much was transferred.
Lock is both refusing cashouts and stating a policy repeatedly that transferred money can NEVER be cashed out. This wasn't just told to a "few players". This was told to every player who e-mailed support/security to ask a question about the policy. Sounds pretty clear to me, especially given that Lock has had 3 weeks to clear up any errors or misinformation, and yet those same 5 customer support reps keep saying the same thing.
Again, have you seen actual evidence of "transfer abuse", or are you just going by what you were told? To me, it sounds like the latter, and you're eating it up like a brainwashed cult member. Until you see evidence that this so-called "transfer abuse" occurred on a widespread scale, you should stop using this as a talking point.
Furthermore, are you telling me that ALL of those longtime, respected grinders posting in the 2+2 thread were guilty of so-called transfer abuse? None of these players even have affiliate accounts, so how could they have possibly been abusing it? Most of them don't even know each other. So they were all guilty of this? Even Shane admitted that there could have been "some mistakes" in identifying the "abusers". Oh, and notice that three weeks later, none of these cashouts have been re-approved, despite the fact that it takes 5 minutes to check accounts and make sure everything is okay.
You don't have a leg to stand on. You work for Lock, and it is to your benefit that they stay in business. That's why you're defending them, and that's why you are remaining willfully ignorant to what's really going on.
Guys, the problems were with the OLD lock poker cashout system. The NEW system will solve everything.
This is a lie.Please show me where we said "We don't allow you to cashout AT ALL."
We told the few accounts that where abusing the transfer system that they can't cashout transfered funds. But this was only a few accounts.
But please tell me the differance between what Pokerstars says and what Lock says to actual poker players accounts. (Using what we ay to fraudulent accounts doesn't count, also what other people are saying also doesn't count.)
But please tell me the difference between Pokerstars policy and Locks. (As I said before please don't use hearsay in your argument.)
I emailed security to ask them what the transfer policy was, and they told me the same thing they told everyone else.
I have never sent or received a transfer on my Lock account, I've never abused anything.
Uh oh!
Remember this?
Well guess what?
Take a look at the WHOIS registration information for lockpoker.com:
http://www.whoisentry.com/domain/lockpoker.comDomain Name: LOCKPOKER.COM
Registrar: GANDI SAS
Whois Server: whois.gandi.net
Referral URL: http://www.gandi.net
Name Server: UDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET
Name Server: UDNS2.ULTRADNS.NET
Updated Date: 22-jan-2011
Creation Date: 03-apr-2008
Expiration Date: 03-apr-2020
owner-c:
nic-hdl: JS3733-GANDI
owner-name: JDB Services
organisation: JDB Services
person: JDB Services
address: "Stasinou 1, Mitsi Building 1\r\nFirst Floor, office 4"
zipcode: 1060
city: Nicosia
country: Cyprus
phone: +33.0686998163
tech-c:
organisation: JDB Services
person: Conrifil Investments Ltd
address: "Stasinou 1, Mitis Building\r\nFirst floor, flat four"
zipcode: 1060
city: Nicosia
country: Cyprus
phone: +011.8002845952
Here are the important take-aways from above:
The owner of lockpoker.com is JDB Services. I'll get to that shortly.
The technical contact is listed as both JDB Services and Conrifil Investments Ltd. Interestingly, Conrifil Investments Ltd has a US-based 1-800 number listed, while JDB Services has a French number.
Most important, lockpoker.com is registered to a company in Cyprus! Is this a coincidence? I doubt it. Keep in mind that I didn't know this until today, so it had no influence in my initial report that a source told me Lock lost player money in Cyprus banks.
Are we to believe that Lock's corporate headquarters are in Cyprus, yet they never banked there? Riiiiiiiiiight.
But it goes deeper.
Let's take a look at JDB Services.
First, let's look at their domain, jdbservicesnv.com
http://www.whoisentry.com/domain/jdbservicesnv.com
So both Lock and JDB Services are in Cyprus, both are registered through GANDI SAS, and both have the same NIC handle (JS3733-GANDI). For more about NIC handles, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIC_handleDomain Name: JDBSERVICESNV.COM
Registrar: GANDI SAS
Whois Server: whois.gandi.net
Referral URL: http://www.gandi.net
Name Server: NS1.SLICEHOST.NET
Name Server: NS2.SLICEHOST.NET
Name Server: NS3.SLICEHOST.NET
Updated Date: 15-jul-2012
Creation Date: 30-jul-2009
Expiration Date: 30-jul-2013
nic-hdl: JS3733-GANDI
owner-name: JDB Services
organisation: JDB Services
person: JDB Services N.V.
address: "Dr. M.J. Hugenholtzweg z/n\r\nUTS Building"
zipcode: 1060
city: Willemstad
country: Cyprus
phone: +33.0686998163
Try googling "JDB services poker payment processor", and you will see that indeed, it's a payment processor, and it seems to work exclusively for Lock Poker -- or at least Lock is their only poker processing client.
Here is a small profile on JDB Services from the BusinessWeek website:
http://investing.businessweek.com/re...apId=206819540
While this lists them as being based in the Netherlands, the WHOIS registry for both domains says otherwise.JDB Services N.V. doing business as Lock Poker offers online poker services. The company is based in Oss, the Netherlands.
Now, while the BusinessWeek profile does not mention any "Recent Private Company Transactions" in the past 12 months, if you view an archived page of the site from last year, you will see this listed:
Notice that May 7, 2012 is the same date of this Pokernews article, announcing Lock buying the Cake network:Type
Date
Merger/Acquisition
May 7, 2012
Target
Cake Gaming N.V.
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/0...oker-12601.htm
... except this is JDB Services buying the Cake Network, according to BusinessWeek!
Finally, look at the websites for JDB Services and Revolution. They're fairly similar, especially the menu at the top of each page:
http://jdbservicesnv.com/index.html
http://revolutiongaming.eu/
So it's pretty certain from all of this that JDB Services and Lock Poker are the same company.
Here is a post from 2011 (one of many) where Lock Poker Manager Eric "Rizen" Lynch verifies JDB Services is the payment processor for Lock:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=4057
This was in response to a player complaint:
So Lock Poker is apparently processing its own payments, under this JDB Services name.
And JDB Services is based in Cyprus.
And Shane wants us to believe that somehow they never held any money in Cyprus banks, even though their company (and internal processor) are based in Cyprus.
No, not my site.This g9 guy owns pokerforums.org. I always thought that site was owned by Steve-O, but I guess not.
Anyway, it's ridiculous that he is demanding we have the discussion over on his site. He took my post from this site, copy and pasted it to his, and responded there. Now he's expecting me to continue the discussion over there?! What? I don't have time to post on three different forums about the same matter. I'm already posting both here and 2+2, and that's enough. His reasoning for wanting the discussion over there is ludicrous, too:
So he's trying to imply that the users on this site are fake, or perhaps have multiple accounts to make it look like there are more anti-Lock people than in reality.
Let me assure you that, while I don't know the identity of every user on this site, it's very clear to me that almost no active accounts are duplicates, and in those few cases, the person makes it obvious and it's done for comedic effect, not to deceive. Everyone posting in this thread is individual from one another. g9olt also made the same implication about 2+2 -- that people are creating fake accounts to make the situation on Lock look worse than it actually is. Never mind the fact that all of the major complaints about Lock on 2+2 come from know, longtime, respected grinders with hundreds or thousands of posts on the site. Rather than address this fact, g9olt is blaming the victims and accusing them of being fake. Classy.
And now he's accusing the users of this forum of being fake -- or at least strongly implying it.
In any case, g9olt, you definitely know who I am. I don't need to be on your forum to verify that. So why not answer my questions in detail rather than acting insulted or simply saying that I "don't want answers" or "am looking for material" to use against Lock. You're engaging in shady doublespeak in order to avoid giving specific answers to the tough questions, because you know that many of these questions have no answers other than "Lock is guilty of defrauding its players."
Why do you keep insisting that the Lock transfer policy is similar to that of Stars?
Stars has never refused a cashout of a player who did some reasonable playthrough, regardless of how much was transferred.
Lock is both refusing cashouts and stating a policy repeatedly that transferred money can NEVER be cashed out. This wasn't just told to a "few players". This was told to every player who e-mailed support/security to ask a question about the policy. Sounds pretty clear to me, especially given that Lock has had 3 weeks to clear up any errors or misinformation, and yet those same 5 customer support reps keep saying the same thing.
Again, have you seen actual evidence of "transfer abuse", or are you just going by what you were told? To me, it sounds like the latter, and you're eating it up like a brainwashed cult member. Until you see evidence that this so-called "transfer abuse" occurred on a widespread scale, you should stop using this as a talking point.
Furthermore, are you telling me that ALL of those longtime, respected grinders posting in the 2+2 thread were guilty of so-called transfer abuse? None of these players even have affiliate accounts, so how could they have possibly been abusing it? Most of them don't even know each other. So they were all guilty of this? Even Shane admitted that there could have been "some mistakes" in identifying the "abusers". Oh, and notice that three weeks later, none of these cashouts have been re-approved, despite the fact that it takes 5 minutes to check accounts and make sure everything is okay.
You don't have a leg to stand on. You work for Lock, and it is to your benefit that they stay in business. That's why you're defending them, and that's why you are remaining willfully ignorant to what's really going on.
To be quite honest, if you really want real answers G9OLT is your best chance. I've known him for about 4 years and he has never misled me or given me bad information on anything. He's definitely not a brainwashed cult member of Lock. It's also not his primary source of income and I believe there is no way he would fall on his sword to try to protect Lock Poker. Other than being associated with Lock Poker his reputation is impeccable, I think even TJ from 4Flush (a major lock critic) would agree with that.
Now, could he be wrong? yes. Could he be receiving bad information? yes. But I would never question that what he says is a talking point or that he's simply reading from a script. Obviously we've had disagreements on here but I've always been an honest broker with you and everyone at the site, so hopefully my opinion of G9OLT gives his words a little more credit.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Now this is interesting. Oddly the LockPoker.net domain is owned by Jenn Larson, and according to that site nobody owns lockpoker.eu which is where the site is currently hosted?
Also interesting is that the address for Jenn Larson is 33 Water St Vancouver, while the Cake Poker registrant's address is 375 Water St Vancouver. Is this street like a Cayman islands shell corp for online poker sitesWhois Record
Registered through: eNom, Inc.
Domain name: lockpoker.net
Registrant Contact:
Brand Theory
Jennifer Larson ()
Fax:
33 Water Street
Apt 301
Vancouver, P V6B1R4
CA
Administrative Contact:
Brand Theory
Larson (
)
+1.6045618072
Fax: +1.5555555555
33 Water Street
Apt 301
Vancouver, P V6B1R4
CA
Technical Contact:
Brand Theory
Jennfier Larson (
)
+1.6045618072
Fax: +1.5555555555
33 Water Street
Apt 301
Vancouver, P V6B1R4
CA
Status: Locked
Name Servers:
udns1.ultradns.net
udns2.ultradns.net
Creation date: 08 Apr 2008 15:25:38
Expiration date: 08 Apr 2014 15:25:38
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
But look at his answers thus far.No, not my site.
To be quite honest, if you really want real answers G9OLT is your best chance. I've known him for about 4 years and he has never misled me or given me bad information on anything. He's definitely not a brainwashed cult member of Lock. It's also not his primary source of income and I believe there is no way he would fall on his sword to try to protect Lock Poker. Other than being associated with Lock Poker his reputation is impeccable, I think even TJ from 4Flush (a major lock critic) would agree with that.
Now, could he be wrong? yes. Could he be receiving bad information? yes. But I would never question that what he says is a talking point or that he's simply reading from a script. Obviously we've had disagreements on here but I've always been an honest broker with you and everyone at the site, so hopefully my opinion of G9OLT gives his words a little more credit.
They're nonsensical.
He's regurgitating the outrageous Lock company line that only players "abusing transfers" had their cashouts canceled, and that Lock's cashout/transfer policy is very similar to that of Pokerstars (even you have to LOL at that one, right?)
How come so many people are brainwashed by Jennifer Larson's ridiculous statements, especially without seeing any proof that they're true? Did she master the art of Jedi mind control or something? I don't get it.
I just used a different WHOIS server, and this is what comes up for lockpoker.eu:
Registrant:
NOT DISCLOSED!
Visit www.eurid.eu for webbased whois.
Technical:
Name: Pascal Bouchareine
Organisation: Gandi SAS
Language: fr
Phone: +33.143736851
Fax: +33.143731851
Email: reg.eu-tech@gandi.net
Registrar:
Name: GANDI
Website: www.gandi.net
Name servers:
udns1.ultradns.net
udns2.ultradns.net
So they're hiding the registrant for lockpoker.eu, but they're registered through that same gandi.net provider. I think that Pascal guy listed as the technical contact works for Gandi, not Lock.
Anyway, this isn't really important. The important things are:
1) Payment processor JDB Services and Lock are the same company
2) They're both currently based in Cyprus
At this time G9OLT has yet to say anything but meaningless double speak on topics he doesn't know the answers to and he is total silence on straight forward questions about things that show that Lock is Shady.
The least he could do is concede that they are making a huge mess out of whatever problems they are having and they have done a piss poor job of communicating whatever it is these problems are and are instead making stuff up to hide whatever it is that is going on.
This cannot be explained away by simple incompetence. Everything Lock is doing is explainable by the assumption that they don't have access to the player money.
I asked him straight out if there was a playthrough requirement and he said yes. My understanding is that the people accused of abusing the P2P transfers cannot cash out (ever) but everyone else can so long as they reach the playthrough requirement --a requirement that they do not state publicly (which is an issue I had with FTP pre-Black Friday, they used to send me the same message that transferred funds are to be played with, and support wouldn't even acknowledge there was a playthrough even though I knew it existed). I think it's just a matter of poor communication (typical) so people were left to decipher it however they want to. So, if there is a playthrough, then there wording is precisely the same as PokerStars --whether they are abiding by it is a different matter entirely.At this time G9OLT has yet to say anything but meaningless double speak on topics he doesn't know the answers to and he is total silence on straight forward questions about things that show that Lock is Shady.
The least he could do is concede that they are making a huge mess out of whatever problems they are having and they have done a piss poor job of communicating whatever it is these problems are and are instead making stuff up to hide whatever it is that is going on.
This cannot be explained away by simple incompetence. Everything Lock is doing is explainable by the assumption that they don't have access to the player money.
So my verdict is: yes there is playthrough for legitimate transfers but Lock Poker cannot even communicate this properly. NOW, I have no idea if they are being honorable with it, but the T&C is that there is a playthrough requirement before cashing out.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
People have asked repeatedly about the playthrough and transfer/cashout policy, and nobody gets any clear answers.I asked him straight out if there was a playthrough requirement and he said yes. My understanding is that the people accused of abusing the P2P transfers cannot cash out (ever) but everyone else can so long as they reach the playthrough requirement --a requirement that they do not state publicly (which is an issue I had with FTP pre-Black Friday, they used to send me the same message that transferred funds are to be played with, and support wouldn't even acknowledge there was a playthrough even though I knew it existed). I think it's just a matter of poor communication (typical) so people were left to decipher it however they want to. So, if there is a playthrough, then there wording is precisely the same as PokerStars --whether they are abiding by it is a different matter entirely.
So my verdict is: yes there is playthrough for legitimate transfers but Lock Poker cannot even communicate this properly. NOW, I have no idea if they are being honorable with it, but the T&C is that there is a playthrough requirement before cashing out.
The only "clear" answers come from support, who state that transferred funds can never be cashed out.
It's not like this was just posted today and Lock management hasn't had a chance to clear up confusion with their few customer service reps.
This has been going on for 3 weeks, and has been one of the major points that has been rapidly eroding everyone's opinion of Lock.
Do you really believe it's possible at this point that it's an unintentional miscommunication, given the 3 weeks of intense fallout over the matter? Four pros quit over this, and it's just miscommunication?
Come on, Steve. You're smarter than that.
I'm relaying what I was told, I'm not giving you the company press release. I trust G9OLT and asked him straight up about it, and after about 10 follow-ups this is what I realized they meant. Honestly they suck at communication across the board. Also, stop trying to degrade this into an intelligence contest --you're smarter than that Druff-- I said in two spots whether they are abiding by their policy is up for debate --I'm not defending them here-- I'm just telling that you that according to G9OLT there is a playthrough requirement for legit transfers, and the company hasn't wanted to state it publicly so they keep sending out that stupidass response to player questions.People have asked repeatedly about the playthrough and transfer/cashout policy, and nobody gets any clear answers.
The only "clear" answers come from support, who state that transferred funds can never be cashed out.
It's not like this was just posted today and Lock management hasn't had a chance to clear up confusion with their few customer service reps.
This has been going on for 3 weeks, and has been one of the major points that has been rapidly eroding everyone's opinion of Lock.
Do you really believe it's possible at this point that it's an unintentional miscommunication, given the 3 weeks of intense fallout over the matter? Four pros quit over this, and it's just miscommunication?
Come on, Steve. You're smarter than that.
Everyone seems to have me pegged as a Lock defender, but I've said from the get-go that I don't trust any US poker sites. But I'm also skeptical and try not to jump to conclusions, at least not publicly, so I tend to come off as saying "pump the brakes" an awful lot.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Read the bolded part you wrote.I'm relaying what I was told, I'm not giving you the company press release. I trust G9OLT and asked him straight up about it, and after about 10 follow-ups this is what I realized they meant. Honestly they suck at communication across the board. Also, stop trying to degrade this into an intelligence contest --you're smarter than that Druff-- I said in two spots whether they are abiding by their policy is up for debate --I'm not defending them here-- I'm just telling that you that according to G9OLT there is a playthrough requirement for legit transfers, and the company hasn't wanted to state it publicly so they keep sending out that stupidass response to player questions.
Everyone seems to have me pegged as a Lock defender, but I've said from the get-go that I don't trust any US poker sites. But I'm also skeptical and try not to jump to conclusions, at least not publicly, so I tend to come off as saying "pump the brakes" an awful lot.
Have you stopped to consider WHY the company hasn't wanted to state the transfer/cashout policy publicly?
This "policy" has been absolutely destroying the public faith in their company AND their traffic over the last 3 weeks. Four pros have walked away in the past few days, and I'm sure more will follow.
What downside is there to publicly stating the correct policy, especially if it's a reasonable one?
Do you think it's a better strategy to let the customer service reps tell people that Lock will be stealing everyone's transferred funds?
I'm sure none of this is an accident or incompetence, as the three week timeframe makes no sense. Nobody -- not even a complete idiot -- would sit by and watch their company's rep crumble due to misinformation and not make a statement correcting it.
you're preaching to the choir. I've already said I think they are communicating poorly. I think they have handled this from a PR standpoint about as badly as you can, whether they are legit or scammers. as to your first point:
As I said above, FTP used to do the same thing pre-Black Friday. They would deny they had a playthrough, even though they did, when I contacted support when my withdrawals were denied. I have no freaking clue why a site wouldn't just post their playthrough requirements, but for whatever they don't. I've never seen an official PokerStars post for their's either, but we know they have one.Have you stopped to consider WHY the company hasn't wanted to state the transfer/cashout policy publicly?
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
There's a big difference, because FTP and Stars would just hold your cashout until you played some reasonable amount of poker through, while Lock is just outright stealing people's money.
If Full Tilt or Stars had their reputation and business crumbling to the ground based upon the transfer/cashout policy, you know for sure they would have come out and clarified it. Even a poorly managed company like Full Tilt would have done it.
You seem to be asking two different questions:There's a big difference, because FTP and Stars would just hold your cashout until you played some reasonable amount of poker through, while Lock is just outright stealing people's money.
If Full Tilt or Stars had their reputation and business crumbling to the ground based upon the transfer/cashout policy, you know for sure they would have come out and clarified it. Even a poorly managed company like Full Tilt would have done it.
What is the Lock Policy?
What is Lock doing?
All I did was relay you the policy based on what I was told by someone I trust. What Lock is doing is a different matter. If you can prove that no playthrough requirements have been honored than that's a different ball of wax.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
What do you mean "if I can prove"?You seem to be asking two different questions:
What is the Lock Policy?
What is Lock doing?
All I did was relay you the policy based on what I was told by someone I trust. What Lock is doing is a different matter. If you can prove that no playthrough requirements have been honored than that's a different ball of wax.
Did you read the 2+2 thread that started this whole brouhaha?
Like 10 different people came forward, all of whom were longtime active Lock grinders, and everyone stated that they had their cashouts canceled for receiving transfers despite easily hitting playthrough many times over. A few even stated that they didn't receive any transfers at all at any time.
Either all of these longtime 2+2 members and high limit Lock players are lying, or Lock isn't honoring this supposed playthrough policy.
If there is one person I like to think I COULD trust from Lock Poker - G9OLT is it. He was brought in as an additional AM rep when Lock was beginning to pick up steam at Merge, and has been with them since their move to Revolution as well. I've frequently lambasted him in private via Skype over his decision to stay the course with Lock, but his shortcomings in career choices aside he's always been a stand-up guy; but also one with zero power or authority to really voice anything publicly at 2+2.
We've had frequent discussions recently over a good friend of mine attempting to get a cashout. This player has been at the top of the SnG leaderboards ever since he moved to Lock (to be honest, he was actually poached from me at Carbon but I let the hard feelings go after a while - nature of the business), but was also apart of a staking crew. He transferred money to the main staker/money man but it was discovered this guy was not just a staker but also someone who had been frequently buying up Lock chips at bargain rates for awhile and was busted by Lock security.
G9OLT (Gerry) told me my friend's account was in good standing but the fact he transferred money to the now "red flagged" staker's account, he too was pretty much implicated by association. Gerry told me he would try to help my buddy out, but insisted that the best route was to get the staker to xfer the cash back, then he go on with his normal play schedule and become eligible for cashout via playthrough requirements.
That's all he can seem to do for me at this moment, but he has insisted multiple times to me via Skype that the P2P transfer issues only applied for red-flagged accounts such as the one I spoke of above. It's a pretty shitty T&C and it's one I wish he would've been more vocal about at 2+2 and other places, but the management at Lock really seems to be adamant on sinking their own ship with all the silence regarding these rules, which has only added fuel to the fire. The fact they won't even allow their reps to clarify these more publicly and allow an independent audit of their financials is pretty crazy FWIW.
>> iGaming News, Legislation Updates and Poker Site Reviews @ PokerLaws.org
Great job Druff!! You belong on 60 Minutes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
