Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

ANYONE DENIED A SUCTION DREDGE PERMIT IN CA - SHOULD


elder-miner

Recommended Posts

HIT CA WITH A TORT CLAIM - FOR MONEY DAMAGES

1. Introduction

In California, before you may sue a public entity (a state, county or local governmental entity) or a government employee for money damages, you must first file a claim meeting the requirements of the California Tort Claims Act. California Government (Gov’t) Code sections 810-996.6. With very limited exceptions, no lawsuit for money damages may be brought against a governmental entity unless a written claim has been properly filed within the six-month time limit. So, even if you are injured by the government and do not currently intend to sue, you should still consider filing a claim in order to protect your rights and to keep your options open.

The California Tort Claims Act sets out the procedures you must follow when filing a claim against the government for money damages. This memo describes the most significant parts of the Act. This memo is based on the laws in effect at the date of its writing, which are, of course, subject to change. Also, depending on the type of action you are bringing, other procedures and time lines may apply. We recommend that you talk to an attorney who specializes in the relevant area of law (for example, personal injury or medical malpractice) to get more specific information about your potential claims and time lines.

2. When a claim is necessary

You might choose to sue the government for a variety of reasons. Some reasons might be that a governmental entity has violated your rights, or it is responsible for a death, physical injury, or property damage. If the government injures you, this injury is called a "tort." The person filing the "tort claim," usually the injured person is called the "claimant." In most cases, you, as the claimant, must file a tort claim if you are trying to get money or "damages" from the governmental entity. Gov't Code sections 905, 905.2.

3. Who may file a claim

You may file a claim against a governmental entity on your own behalf or on behalf of someone else who was injured. Gov't Code sections 910, 910.2. An "injury" includes not only physical injury, but also damage to personal property (possessions) and violations of protected rights.

4. How to file a claim

You can file a claim against a county or local governmental entity or employee directly with the entity's governing board or clerk. You may deliver the claim in person or by mail. Gov't Code section 915(a).

You can file a claim against the state or a state agency or employee with the State Board of Control (SBC), by delivering it to any local SBC office or by mailing it to the main office. Gov't Code section 915(b). The address for the main SBC office in Sacramento is:

State Board of Control

Government Claims Branch

P.O. Box 3035

Sacramento, CA 95812-3035.

(916) 323-3564 (voice)

(916) 323-5768 (fax)

You can ask for a claim form by calling the SBC toll-free number

1-800-955-0045, or you can download it off the SBC web cite at

http://www.boc.ca.gov/claims/howtofile.aspx.

Claim form link

http://www.boc.ca.gov/docs/forms/claims/GCClaimForm.pdf

If you deliver the claim in person, the filing date is the delivery date. If you mail the claim, the filing date is the mailing date - not the date the entity receives the claim.

If you decide to mail a claim, we recommend that you mail it certified mail with return receipt requested. Some governmental entities have their own claim forms. You may want to contact them to obtain such a form. So long as you include all the required information (see below), however, it is not necessary that you use the entity’s particular form.

5. Contents of the claim

According to section 910 of the Government Code, a claim against a governmental entity must contain the following:

A. Your name (the claimant's name) and post office address;

B. The post office address where you want to receive notices;

C. The date, place, and circumstances of the occurrence giving rise to the claim (that is, describe what happened and how you were injured);

D. A general description of the injury, damage, or loss;

E. The name(s) of the government employee(s) causing the injury, if known;

F If the amount is less than $10,000, the dollar amount claimed (including an estimate of future injury) and the basis for computing the amount; and

G. If the amount is greater than $10,000, you do not have to set out a specific amount on the claim form. You must, however, indicate whether the case would be a "limited civil case." Gov’t Code section 910(f) and California Civil Code of Procedure sections 85, 86.

Whether a case is a "limited civil case" depends on the amount of money damages you are asking for and what else you are asking the governmental entity to do. Generally, a case is a limited civil case if the amount of money you are seeking is less than $25,000 (not including reasonable attorney fees and costs) and you are not asking for any of the following:

A permanent injunction (that is, a court order granted after a final hearing which commands or prevents the governmental entity from taking the action complained about);

A determination of title to real property;

Enforcement of an order under the Family Code; or

Declaratory relief (asking the court to make a statement which establishes the rights and other legal relations of the parties without ordering enforcement), except as is allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 86.

Code of Civil Procedure section 580.

6. Timelines

The California Tort Claims Act sets out strict timelines that you must follow when filing a claim against a governmental entity. You must file a claim for personal injury (that is, one based on death, physical injury, or damage to personal property) within six months of the date of the injury. Gov't Code section 911.2.

If you did not know the reason for filing the claim at the time of injury (for example, in some medical malpractice cases), the six-month time period begins at the point when you became aware, or should have become aware, of the reason. See, for example, Whitfield v. Roth (1974) 10 C.3d 874, 112 Cal Rptr 540.

7. Late claims

Sometimes a claimant waits longer than six months to file a personal injury claim. The law treats two types of claims differently: claims that are simply filed late and claims that are filed late, but are accompanied by an "application for late filing."

If you do not file a claim for personal injury within six months of the date you were injured, you may lose the chance to file a lawsuit unless you write to the governmental entity and "apply" to be allowed to file a late claim. Gov't Code section 911.4(a). In your letter, you must state the reason(s) that you did not file the claim within six months from the date of injury, and you must include an actual claim. Gov't Code section 911.4(b). There are four valid reasons for a late claim:

Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;

Minority (the claimant was a minor during the entire six month period);

Physical or mental incapacity; and

Death of the claimant.

(See Gov't Code section 911.6(b))

You must write to the public entity within a reasonable time not to exceed one year from the date of the injury to apply for leave to file late. Gov't Code section 911.4(b).) The "reasonableness" of the delay is determined on a case-by-case basis, and in any given case even a short delay may be considered unreasonable. You should therefore apply for leave to file a late claim as soon as possible.

8. What happens to the claim once it is filed.

After you file a claim, the board must respond (allow or reject the claim in whole or in part) within 45 days. If the board does not respond, the claim is treated as rejected on the 45th day. Gov't Code sections 912.6(a), 912.4©.

9. Suing the governmental entity if the claim is rejected

The board must notify you of its action on the claim (or its rejection through failure to act). If the board rejects the claim in whole or in part, you have six months from the date the notification is mailed to file a lawsuit against the governmental entity. Gov't Code sections 913, 945.6(a)(1).

If the board fails to notify you of its action (or inaction), such failure is treated as a rejection of the claim (as discussed above) and you have two years from the date of the injury to file suit. Gov't Code section 945.6(a)(2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my humble opinion, but CA pro-suction dredge litigants attorneys went about it wrong. All the briefs I read, were overloaded with peripheral facts, regulation, statutes & legislation that supported but diluted the effectiveness of sticking to a very few critical points, that should have clinched a decision or ruling in pro-suction dredge litigants favor. For that very reason, (IMHO), the CA District Federal court refused to hear it. As, it appeared like a 20 foot long dumpster load, containing everything but the kitchen sink

One, 2 or 3 concise points presented in a “one-shot-one-kill”, 2 shots - 2 kills, 3 shots - 3 kills manner would have been much more effective. Instead, briefs were full of 40 pages of issues, so much so - they diluted their own effectiveness - like shooting a 12 gauge shotgun shell loaded with a 1000 sand particles, at a target ½ mile away. Which, might appear & sound good, but certainly will have no lethal effect.

Valid unpatented mining claims can only be initiated on Federal lands (USFS-BLM lands open to mineral entry). California law provides for & conforms to Federal law.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prc&group=03001-04000&file=3900-3924

New 49’ers - operating suction dredges - on valid placer claims - were operating under both Federal & CA State law, including a Federal permit (USFS approved Plan of Operation).

Impart, the point should have been driven home, Federal Statutes provide the authority to suction dredge mine placer gold on valid unpatented mining claims. An approved USFS Plan of operation (which - the New 49’ers had) is the Federal “permit” to do so. The State of California - has not lawful authority to over-ride - circumscribe, delay or deny an operators “right” to operate under a Federal permit.

The term “vested mining right” includes both a right established by use, as well as a right established by permit. (See; TransOceanic Oil Corporation v. Santa Barbara (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 776; Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Comm’n. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 790

A permit becomes a vested property right where the permittee has incurred substantial liabilities and performed substantial work in reliance on the permit“; Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1519; Hansen Bros. Enterprises v. Board of Supervisors of Nevada County (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533 (“Hansen”).)

As an example - federal law allows you to buy agricultural property, to plant apple trees on the property , then grow & harvest those apples, for your own economic benefit (profit). California law allows the same. Except, here - California law - will not allow you to “harvest” the apples. Which, unconstitutionally “takes” all economic benefit from you. The only thing a valid mining claim owner “owns”, are the locatable minerals within it, and the right to mine them, under reasonable regulation. Take that, and you take everything.

The California Constitution provides, "Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation ... has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19.)

The California Statehood Admission Act (Sec. 3) expressly provides; “…said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned…”.

Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. California Coastal Comm 'n v. Granite Rock, 480 U.S. 572, 581, 107 S. Ct 1419,94 L.Ed.2d 577 (1987).

The policies contained in FLPMA explicitly state that the management, protection, disposition and disposal/withdrawal of federal lands is vested in the federal government and not with the state. In short, a state cannot dictate to the federal government, or a federal agency what specific land uses are or are not allowed on federal lands.43 U.S.C. 1712©(9

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder you may have missed your calling as a enviormental attorney. Enjoy your posts and clear thinking. I posted it on the 49er board but Dave deleted it as not having any constructive content

Edited by Oakview2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder you may have missed your calling as a enviormental attorney. Enjoy your posts and clear thinking. I posted it on the 49er board but Dave deleted it as not having any constructive content

I don’t doubt “Dave” deleted it. It was constructive criticism & from what I gather he doesn’t tolerate critic’s well.

Few outside effected miners understand what caused suction dredging gold in California to come under the scrutiny it did. Irrefutably, it was caused by long lasting ugly publicity caused by the new 49’ers - Karuk tribe litigation. The longer it continued - the uglier it got, and the more nation-wide publicity it generated.

Naturally, other tribes & all the greenies jumped on the boat, then the river & fish protectionists did to. No matter who was right - or wrong. The well funded greenies, etc gained momentum, support & the writing on the wall eventually evolved into the CA State wide suction dredge ban., that exists now.

As a consequence of the new 49’ers - Karuk tribe and associated litigation publicity, even more insidious nation-wide effects followed.

The New 49’ers publicity, including the fact they hold 40 (+/-) miles of the Klamath river under large association placer claims, ¼ mile, ½ mile or a mile long , up to 160 acres each. Then their move into SW Oregon waters, with more large association placer claims - recorded, cause even more anti-suction dredging publicity. Much of which was eventually directed at all association placer claim owners - nation-wide.

All that publicity impart caused “someone” to sneakily introduce a couple short simple paragraph rider (without peer revue or public notice) into legislation, funding “veteran affairs” matters, that had broad bipartisan support, that would certainly pass without serious scrutiny

As planned, those couple paragraphs went unnoticed. What they did was amend the mining laws nation-wide increasing association placer mining fee initiation & annual maintenance costs up to seven hundred (700) percent ($140 for each 20 acres - up to 160 acres) per claim, depending on the amount of acreage it contained.

That same regulation also caught all association placer mining owners, that either held over 10 claims, that did not qualify for a small miners waiver, and others who rather than file a small miners waiver, simply paid the former $140 per claim fee.

All in that situation were blindsided on short notice - or no notice at all by the new annual association placer claim fees, that in many cases increased from $140, to $1120. End result - thousands lost their association placer mining claims, because they could not afford the new dramatically increased fees, on short notice

So - the CA new 49’ers v Karuk tribe squabble ended up detrimentally effecting the mining laws nation-wide, and a large number of association placer claim owners in every state the mining laws are applicable to.

A quick review of the 40 miles worth of large association placer mining claims - under control of the new 49’ers wasn’t effected at all. Those are all held by individuals - owning 10 or fewer claims - all with small miners waivers in place. So, the new increased fee’s had no effect on them, but victimized thousands of others nation-wide. One notorious apple in the barrel - spoiled everything nation-wide.

Prior to the new 49’ers, the Karuk’s had no issues with a few individual claim owning placer miners, suction dredging here & there along the Klamath river. Once the new 49’ers cranked up, the publicity they themselves generated, as well as opposition to them - was inevitable. That publicity did the miners & mining law, a detrimental blow. Ponder those facts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only problem is claims are not private property so you must own private property for this to apply as claims are public lands. Lawyers AND corrupt rights groups-deliberately screw up(most of it comes to them naturally) to make the lawsuits last MUCH longer to milk the proverbial cow-aka miners wallets and extend pocket pickn memberships to newbies-John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of the new 49ers being the host of Hosers Cancer in the Klamath. And any post on their board that does not toe Daves line is yanked asap, which is fine, it is his show. But considering how miserably he has failed, you would think he might be up for any good idea. As far as I can see he and his organization is soley reponsible for the death of underwater mining in Ca and shortly, Oregon as well.

Edited by Oakview2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my humble opinion, but CA pro-suction dredge litigants attorneys went about it wrong. All the briefs I read, were overloaded with peripheral facts, regulation, statutes & legislation that supported but diluted the effectiveness of sticking to a very few critical points, that should have clinched a decision or ruling in pro-suction dredge litigants favor. For that very reason, (IMHO), the CA District Federal court refused to hear it. As, it appeared like a 20 foot long dumpster load, containing everything but the kitchen sink

One, 2 or 3 concise points presented in a “one-shot-one-kill”, 2 shots - 2 kills, 3 shots - 3 kills manner would have been much more effective. Instead, briefs were full of 40 pages of issues, so much so - they diluted their own effectiveness - like shooting a 12 gauge shotgun shell loaded with a 1000 sand particles, at a target ½ mile away. Which, might appear & sound good, but certainly will have no lethal effect.

Elder Miner, there used to be a contributor to this forum that went by the name of Old Gold Miner(I was told he assumed room temp, but now I wonder?). He pointed this very same thing out to PLP/Gerry Hobbs. It was ignored by them and that very bad attitude on PLP's part is why I stopped my almost unlimited support for them(Hoser warned me about them and I did not listen to him carefully enough). I started letting the cat out of the bag years ago about the Karuk and 49r situation and no one would believe me... I mean no one! Just ask Hoser John about my rampage against McCrack and his goons from many years ago on another forum........It darn near makes my blood boil that I can no longer dredge in CA.

Edited by El Dorado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OGM

so, I think i may have a case. We purchased a 40 acre patent on the S. Fork of the American River. It was to be primarily used for dredging that 3/4 mile of River with the future possibility of building a home. We did get to dredge it for 3 years until they banned dredging. The Property now sits un-used since the ban. I feel that the State caused a serious taking from us even though the patent clearly states that I have the right to mine this property. It was signed by a US President (Taft in 1911). Any thought on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only problem is claims are not private property so you must own private property for this to apply as claims are public lands. Lawyers AND corrupt rights groups-deliberately screw up(most of it comes to them naturally) to make the lawsuits last MUCH longer to milk the proverbial cow-aka miners wallets and extend pocket pickn memberships to newbies-John

John, working right now - on a pressing matter - like my shirt is on fire.

Will reply to the "private property" issue ASAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OGM

so, I think i may have a case. We purchased a 40 acre patent on the S. Fork of the American River. It was to be primarily used for dredging that 3/4 mile of River with the future possibility of building a home. We did get to dredge it for 3 years until they banned dredging. The Property now sits un-used since the ban. I feel that the State caused a serious taking from us even though the patent clearly states that I have the right to mine this property. It was signed by a US President (Taft in 1911). Any thought on this?

I believe you do, but buried in a project at the moment, that requires all my attn.

Will reply at length - ASAP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve-is that'n the one you and Killer Freddie hiked,floated into so long ago. Stupid question #1-deeded mineral rights??? If so sue'm to high heaven BUT all losses must be PROVEN by gains aka taxed income as all else nuttn' but bs. Without proven taxed income,just like insipid suits down south now, you'll then have to explain to IRS/ State tax board why all that court stated income was never declared. TWO EDGED SWORD, err on the side a caution as you can get in some deep kaka easily. Loss must be proven by gains-John ..Cancer from klamath/PLOP killed the golden dream with their pompous obstructionism-YOU were in court for that insane dog/pony show-44 pigs-18 cows and 10 miners,followed by PROVE we're bad and last but not least elmer Fudd the 1872 mining laws line year after year after year...still have cd of fiasco sic sic sic mess. Ya'all keep cash and I'll just dredge ok???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only problem is claims are not private property so you must own private property for this to apply as claims are public lands. Lawyers AND corrupt rights groups-deliberately screw up(most of it comes to them naturally) to make the lawsuits last MUCH longer to milk the proverbial cow-aka miners wallets and extend pocket pickn memberships to newbies-John

John,

Certainly, a valid unpatented mining claim is not “private property”, in the ordinary sense of the word, as the land is subject to multiple use. However, valid unpatented mining claims are real property, that carries with it “private property” rights, that belong to the owner. It is those rights that are protected by statutory law, and constitutionally protected.

A (unpatented) mining claim has been "perfected" where, assuming the performance of the requisite acts of location and recordation, a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit has been made within the physical limits of the claim. See, e.g., United States v. Mavros, 122 IBLA 297, 301-302 (1992); United States v. Nickol, 9 IBLA 117, 122 (1973); Clear Gravel Enterprises, Inc., A-27967 (Dec. 29, 1959).

The discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within its limits validates a mining claim located on public land in conformance with the statute and its locator acquires an exclusive possessory interest (valid existing private property rights) in the claim; a form of real property which can be sold, transferred, mortgaged, or inherited, without infringing the paramount title of the United States. 30 U.S.C. § 26; Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286, 295 (1920); Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 767 (1877).

"When the location of a mining claim is "perfected" under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term; and may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited without infringing any right or title of the United States. The right of the owner is taxable by the state; and is "real property", subject to the lien of a judgment recovered against the owner in a state or territorial court. The owner is not required to purchase the claim or secure patent from the United States; but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent." Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445.

“Valid” federal mining claims are "private property" Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F.Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973).

This possessory interest entitles the claimant to "the right to extract all minerals from the claim without paying royalties to the United States." Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1993).

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to state and local governments by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.

"Uncompensated divestment" of a valid unpatented mining claim would violate the Constitution. Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1981).

Even though title to the fee estate remains in the United States, these unpatented mining claims are themselves property protected by the Fifth Amendment against uncompensated takings. See Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334 (1963); cf. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 766 (1876); U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5; North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. U.S., 1918, 53 Ct.Cl. 424, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 518, 253 U.S. 330; United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 107, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 1799, 85 L.Ed. 2d 64 (1985); Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1981); Rybachek v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 222 (1991).

Such an interest may be asserted against the United States as well as against third parties (see Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336 (1963); Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45, 50 (1885)) and may not be taken from the claimant by the United States without due compensation. See United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920); cf. Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OGM

so, I think i may have a case. We purchased a 40 acre patent on the S. Fork of the American River. It was to be primarily used for dredging that 3/4 mile of River with the future possibility of building a home. We did get to dredge it for 3 years until they banned dredging. The Property now sits un-used since the ban. I feel that the State caused a serious taking from us even though the patent clearly states that I have the right to mine this property. It was signed by a US President (Taft in 1911). Any thought on this?

Still buried in a pressing matter & my time has to be spent there - right now.

But, no doubt, you have a claim.

Info below adds credibility to a claim.

Fact you had a permit to dredge & did - does to.

California Constitution:

‘It is hereby declared …. riparian rights in a stream or water course attach to, but to no more than so much of the flow thereof as may be required or used consistently with this section, for the purposes for which such lands are, or may be made adaptable, in view of such reasonable and beneficial uses; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as depriving any riparian owner of the reasonable use of water of the stream to which the owner's land is riparian under reasonable methods of diversion and use, or as depriving any appropriator of water to which the appropriator is lawfully entitled. This section shall be self-executing, and the Legislature may also enact laws in the furtherance of the policy in this section contained“. Cal., Con., Art., 10 Water Sec., 2. (California Water Code sections 101 is identical).

California Supreme Court Case law

“Whether the water right is riparian, appropriative or prescriptive in nature, it is a property interest the courts will protect. When these property rights are “taken” for public use within the meaning Fifth and fourteenth Amendments to the United States constitution, or “taken or damaged” within the meaning of Article 1, Section 14 of the California Constitution, just compensation must be paid”. (See Alta Land & Water Co. v. Hancock, 85 Cal. 219, 24 P. 645 (1890); Collier v. Merced Irr. Dist., 213 Cal. 553, 2 P. 2d 790 (1931), ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 P. 674 (1886); A riparian right is “part and parcel” of riparian land, and the right to the flow is real property. Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Miller & Lux (1920) 183 Cal. 71, 81.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as the 9th Circuit Court descenting judges specifically stated-the courts now go into areas they have NO legal right to adjudicate, they do not any longer follow the rule and word of law and for all the legaleze in the world --rule anyway they want no matter what.

post-23710-0-50928100-1375363701_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...