# Snowboarders suing a ski slope on constitutional grounds



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

Finally. I'm not sure why it took snowboarders so long to sue them. I think they will win too. I have no issue with a resort on private lands baring snowboarders but discrimination on public land is pretty unconstitutional.


----------



## Rob23 (Dec 4, 2013)

What the skiers at Alta think about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwWDMAEYe5c

Wonder if these are the same guys suing them.


----------



## supham (Feb 14, 2011)

It sucks, but I do not see Snowboarders as a protected class. 

I say they should be aloud, but think the law is on Altas side and they will win.


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

The people who voted that this is legal and constitutional are ignorant fools. Yes, I supposed you could expect a snowboarder to say as much, but here is the rub...this is NOT a private resort. MY TAX MONEY pays for this forest land, and as such, I have just as much legal right to enjoy it as do skiers. Period. No discussion. A privately-held resort can do anything they want. They can say you can't wear pants. They can say there are no greens or blues. The can charge you $20,000 a day to ride (good luck), because they are private companies. While the "resort" of Alta has a lease with you and me, the taxpayers, they are not a private resort. The forest land is owned by the taxpayers, and therefore they have absolutely no right to discriminate against snowboarders anymore than they do blacks, Chinese, New Yorkers, goofy foots, whatever. You are paying for it, you should be allowed to use it. Or allow me to take a tax deduction to offset my denial of use.


----------



## supham (Feb 14, 2011)

So hikers should be allowed as well?
How about I walk my dog?


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

Technically snowboarding is allowed there. The resort is public property so you can do as you please. However the lifts and lodge, etc are owned by the resort, so they feel that they have the right to limit who gets to ride their lifts. Alta pays for their right to run the resort there. Yeah it's unfair, and Alta has some sweet terrain, but if you really want to snowboard there you have every right to hike up.


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

supham said:


> So hikers should be aloud as well?
> How about I walk my dog?


Why not? It is pretty common out here in the East...since it is PUBLIC LAND you've paid for with your taxes, leased to the resort by the government to which you've paid your taxes, you can walk up the mountain if you want. Snowshoe. Bring your dog. I've seen it many, many times. You can't use their lifts for free...there is a fee for that. But there is no way the government can keep you off of government land which you've paid for (unless, of course, it is a secure military location, or an airport, etc). 

They just ask that you walk to the perimeter of the trails. All the same rules. Let's take it a step further...what is to stop "them" from saying snowboarders can't drive on the access roads to the ski resorts? It's public land, paid for with public funds. Who gives a fuck what is strapped to your feet?

You can hike up it in the summer. I know people who do it naked, because there are so few people. What difference does it make if there is snow on the ground?


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

It's funny cause the resort I patrol at is on public land. When people go out of bounds we won't clip their passes (as far as I know) we just stop them when they come back in bounds and explain to them the dangers of heading out of bounds.

As for the ALTA issue, I say fuck it. Why give them the right to have your money?!? If it's public land just snowmobile up the thing and board down poaching the best powder stashes! Elitist dorks...


----------



## lisevolution (Sep 20, 2007)

surfinsnow said:


> The people who voted that this is legal and constitutional are ignorant fools. Yes, I supposed you could expect a snowboarder to say as much, but here is the rub...this NOT a private resort. MY TAX MONEY pays for this resort, and as such, I have just as much legal right to enjoy it as do skiers. Period. No discussion. A privately-held resort can do anything they want. They can say you can't wear pants. They can say there are no greens or blues. The can charge you $20,000 a day to ride (good luck), because they are private companies. Alta is NOT. It is owned by the taxpayers, and therefore they have to right to discriminate against snowboarders anymore than they do blacks, Chinese, New Yorkers, whatever. You are paying for it, you should be allowed to use it. Or allow me to take a tax deduction to offset my denial of use.


You're half right... your tax money pays for the land that's owned by the US Forrest Service that Alta ski resort sits on. The resort itself is a privately owned and operated entity and thus everything besides the mountain itself is privately owned. I can see this going the route of allowing boarders to ride the mountain but with no use of the privately owned lifts or lodges which essentially means almost everyone will just go next door to snowbird or down the road to Brighton and Solitude. 

To me if a mountain wants to restrict their profit by limiting their mountain to just skiers that's on them for their stupidity. The best part of this story is when you read some of the comments on the articles by skiers who continue to push the old stereotypes of snowboarders and why the mountain is better if we're not on it. Things like we stop in the middle of runs and sit down... ok it's better when a pack of skiers stops in the middle of the run because they're standing? Or we scrape all the snow off a run, because beginner skiers don't do that when they're pizza slicing down the mountain either. My favorite is that we ride the mountain out of control and cause accidents. That one cracks me up because I've been taken out at least a dozen times by skiers who either aren't paying attention, pop out of the trees in front of you without looking or just aren't that good yet and fall and take you out. Meanwhile maybe once or twice was I taken out by a fellow boarder in my near 15 years riding a snowboard now. 

I thought we'd moved past most of that animosity but I guess at the skiers only mountains the old stereotypes still hold strong.


----------



## MichaelRyanSD (Dec 22, 2013)

supham said:


> So hikers should be allowed as well?
> How about I walk my dog?


I have a degree with an emphasis in constitutional law, while I don't have legal precedent for my opinion, and my opinion is no more "valid" than any of yours, I think maybe I can offer a little more insight on the "constitutional rights" of protected classes.

Snowboarders in and of themselves are not protected classes, that's reserved for sex, religion, age, etc. But it doesn't mean that people aren't protected from discrimination. 

But, I believe there is some sort of system the US government uses to determine what public lands can be used for. Such as certain land can be hiking only, or hiking and mountain biking. All the way up to something of the effect of Dirt Biking and ATV'ing, while prohibiting hikers from such land. Because its in the best interest of the safety of both parties involved.

So yes, they can open Alta up to snowboarders while still prohibiting hikers and such because of the risks involved with having two different types of recreational activities and the risks involved between having the two on the same land. The same can't be said for having snowboarders and skiers on the same land since both activities are so similar.

I should add that just because snowboarders are not a protected class, does not mean they don't have legal rights to not be discriminated against. Alta is going to have to prove why being skiier only is in the best interest for both parties involved. With 99.9999% of resorts being snowboarder/skier friendly. I think they are going to have a tough time proving it.

The other big issue is its tax payer funded. Hate to say it, but that's going to be the deal breaker for the skiers.


----------



## supham (Feb 14, 2011)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> I have a degree with an emphasis in constitutional law, while I have legal precedent for my opinion, I think maybe I can offer a little more insight on the "constitutional rights" of protected classes.
> 
> Snowboarders in and of themselves are not protected classes, that's reserved for sex, religion, age, etc. But it doesn't mean that people aren't protected from discrimination.
> 
> ...


Nice argument, I hope you are correct. I just have the feeling they are going to let Alta determine the exact types of activities that are allowed. Actually, I bet it never gets that far. Its going to take some $$$ to move forward, I see Alta having deeper pockets unless the group can get the SB industry behind them footing the bill.


----------



## MichaelRyanSD (Dec 22, 2013)

lisevolution said:


> You're half right... your tax money pays for the land that's owned by the US Forrest Service that Alta ski resort sits on. The resort itself is a privately owned and operated entity and thus everything besides the mountain itself is privately owned. I can see this going the route of allowing boarders to ride the mountain but with no use of the privately owned lifts or lodges which essentially means almost everyone will just go next door to snowbird or down the road to Brighton and Solitude.


Being a privately owned entity on government land is usually considered irrelevant. Its the business choice to operate on the land, not the other way around. In San Diego, there was a case to take down a huge cross on a mountain that overlooked much of the city. The Cross and the monument around it were privately owned, but the mountain they were on was government land. They ultimately won their case and the cross came down (or is coming down).


----------



## jml22 (Apr 10, 2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZveHvu8ZoiI


----------



## vknyvz (Jan 23, 2013)

i am sure they will most likely win, coz justice system in this country is not all that you know right lol but hope they will lose some money in the process. alta probably owned by Mormons or something


----------



## Rasse (Dec 12, 2013)

Read the title and thought this was a joke... holy crap, that must be one of the shittiest business plans ever I hope the snowboarders win. Or at least that the douchebags lose a lot of money in the process


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

jml22 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZveHvu8ZoiI


Just caught the tail end of that, thanks! Interesting stuff...


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 3, 2013)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> Being a privately owned entity on government land is usually considered irrelevant. Its the business choice to operate on the land, not the other way around. In San Diego, there was a case to take down a huge cross on a mountain that overlooked much of the city. The Cross and the monument around it were privately owned, but the mountain they were on was government land. They ultimately won their case and the cross came down (or is coming down).


You're talking about the cross on Mt. Soledad, and it's not coming down.... yet. The judge in charge of the case stayed his order pending appeal. As it has been for decades now, the cross will continue to be tied up in the legal process and nothing will actually happen.

Same thing is likely to happen with Alta. An extended court case followed by nothing actually happening.


----------



## MichaelRyanSD (Dec 22, 2013)

Hank Scorpio said:


> You're talking about the cross on Mt. Soledad, and it's not coming down.... yet. The judge in charge of the case stayed his order pending appeal. As it has been for decades now, the cross will continue to be tied up in the legal process and nothing will actually happen.
> 
> Same thing is likely to happen with Alta. An extended court case followed by nothing actually happening.


Yeah I grew in San Diego for 25 years, left like 2 years ago (Army). I didn't go into all the detail about that case. Granted nothing has happen yet, but the legal precedent has been set on that case and legally the cross has to come down (When and whether it does, we will see).

To be honest, I watched part of that youtube clip from the UT tribune. They pretty much said the same thing I was saying, about protected classes, and discrimination in regards to snowboarding. Snowboard undoubtedly have an uphill battle against Alta, and what it really is going to come down to is who has higher priced lawyers.


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

Hank, I'm baffled and curious...why are you using my avatar for your avatar? That is the top of 53 at Homewood..that is me and my friends. Why is that your avatar? Or is it an amazing coincidence?


----------



## ksup3erb (Jan 25, 2013)

Lol busted


----------



## mhaas (Nov 25, 2007)

I don't know why they keep fighting it. Everyone here is missing the real point of this argument. Alta is terrible for snowboarding. Too flat, too many traverses. There is a huge flat bench mid mountain. Ive ridden there a bunch early/late season and at night. There are alot of good lines up there but they all end with cross country snowboarding. 

Besides, Id rather have all the uptight bigots all confined to one place anyway. Snowboarders can legally use the USFS land. They just cant use the lifts, which Alta owns. And they also own a lot of the land that you use to access it. Right or wrong, Im pretty sure that they are legally good to go with what they are doing.


There are more important issues out there to used the courts resources for. I don't think they should be tied up with this nonsense. This is not a constitution issue.

ALSO, you CANT walk your dog they because its shit eventually gets washed down into my drinkin water.


----------



## Saint Alphonso (Aug 25, 2013)

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Alta itself is behind this. Publicity and the potential to increase user days significantly.... More $$. Don't tell me that Alta's management is pandering to the 85 year old skiers on that video. If they are, they should be fired. Those people are going do die. Soon.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

so if they win i will be able to ride my kayak too, awwwesome


----------



## budderbear (Nov 27, 2011)

CassMT said:


> so if they win i will be able to ride my kayak too, awwwesome


Shopping cart? Surfboard? Maybe... but I draw the line at kayaks! :blowup:


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

Lol quite honestly if I was running a resort I wouldn't allow snow bikes. So stupid.


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 3, 2013)

surfinsnow said:


> Hank, I'm baffled and curious...why are you using my avatar for your avatar? That is the top of 53 at Homewood..that is me and my friends. Why is that your avatar? Or is it an amazing coincidence?


LMAO not sure if kidding or just retarded. My avatar is me at Bear Mountain 3 years ago and I'm the only one in the picture. I'd say you made a mistake but there is no park terrain at Homewood that even looks similar to the backdrop of Big Bear and there aren't even multiple people in the picture.

You have a KP-style head injury recently or what?


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Hank Scorpio said:


> You have a KP-style head injury recently or what?


Ooofff a little early maybe? Funny but..


----------



## jml22 (Apr 10, 2012)

What do they do about split boarders?


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 3, 2013)

jml22 said:


> What do they do about split boarders?


They are shot on sight by ski patrol.


----------



## nillo (Dec 18, 2013)

jml22 said:


> What do they do about split boarders?



These guys bought lift tickets and made it onto the lifts using split boards. Then they joinedthem at the top and boarded down. That is when they were ejected.

This actually gets to an interesting point. It is National Forest Service land and as such snowboarders can use the land. However they can allow only skiers to use the lifts and lodge that are private. However, split split boards are skis. So they were skiers when using the lift so the resort would have to be able to discriminate based on past behavior, not the current behavior at the time of using the private facilities.


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

A couple of the boarders are pretty well known, One of them is a pro boarder bjorn lienes, the other is the owner of skull candy...


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 3, 2013)

nillo said:


> These guys bought lift tickets and made it onto the lifts using split boards. Then they joinedthem at the top and boarded down. That is when they were ejected.
> 
> This actually gets to an interesting point. *It is National Forest Service land and as such snowboarders can use the land. However they can allow only skiers to use the lifts and lodge that are private. However, split split boards are skis. So they were skiers when using the lift so the resort would have to be able to discriminate based on past behavior, not the current behavior at the time of using the private facilities.*


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Argo said:


> A couple of the boarders are pretty well known, One of them is a pro boarder bjorn lienes, the other is the owner of skull candy...


This story just went from a little interesting to very entertaining. Pretty funny and smooth to use split boards. Can't believe it took someone this long to think of it actually... There' s a lot of us out there going how did I not think of that right now. Go Bjorn!


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

Argo said:


> A couple of the boarders are pretty well known, One of them is a pro boarder bjorn lienes, the other is the owner of skull candy...


now we are talking. this is getting very interesting with all the big names.


----------



## MarshallV82 (Apr 6, 2011)

Do they allow monoskiers at Alta? 

Those guys look like such tools, Last year I rode up the chair with some old dude at Breck that had one. I seen him 3-4 times a week for awhile. It's pretty funny watching them swing their hips down the hill. IMO That's the equivalent to fruit-booters in the skate park. 

I was going to demo new skis last year and try Alta out but one guy in our group never skied before. Should of got him a split, that had to be pretty awesome!


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

Hank Scorpio said:


> LMAO not sure if kidding or just retarded. My avatar is me at Bear Mountain 3 years ago and I'm the only one in the picture. I'd say you made a mistake but there is no park terrain at Homewood that even looks similar to the backdrop of Big Bear and there aren't even multiple people in the picture.
> 
> You have a KP-style head injury recently or what?


I was kidding! It looks just the pic I just switched out a few days ago.
Homewood, Lake Tahoe.


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

I'm not sure what sucks more, being an Alta snowboarder not being able to enjoy his hometown resort or a closed minded Alta skier with an ignorant view on snowboarders...

It's sad we're in 2014 and some shit just refuses to change...


----------



## Kevin137 (May 5, 2013)

I was already thinking of splits boards the minute i saw this conversation...!!! The 1st thing that popped in my head...!!!

As a person who bought a lift ticket, and abided by there ski only rule, for using the facilities, and knowing that the publicly owned land can be boarded, if i was ejected, there would most definitely be a lawsuit coming, as i film everything, so i would have the proof that i ride the lift as a skier...!!!

I hope they get a hiding, have to pay all the legal fees, get screwed over on the very 1st day that people are allowed by having 1000's of boarders turn up, for them to simply never go again...!!!

Just out of interest, what happened if 1000's of boarders turned up, filled up the car parks, and went nowhere...??? How would they deal with that...??? You know like all stand in a line to buy tickets, to be told sort no, and just go join another queue, the place simply could not operate surely...


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

It be rad to see 1000 boarders head up there on skies, purchase a lift ticket, then switch over to their boarding gear... I wonder if the resort will still be ready to part with nearly a hundred grand worth in profit?


----------



## bseracka (Nov 14, 2011)

ItchEtrigR said:


> It be rad to see 1000 boarders head up there on skies, purchase a lift ticket, then switch over to their boarding gear... I wonder if the resort will still be ready to part with nearly a hundred grand worth in profit?


no refunds on lift tickets, they wouldn't care about denying you service after you've given them the money; in fact they'd probably welcome it


----------



## andrewdod (Mar 24, 2013)

ill bet the skiers would shit bricks if a snowboarding only mountain opened... They can keep their skiers only... i dont wanna ride in a place im not welcome at anyhow...


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

that would be great to be up there the first days they open to boarders and have a flashmob that does all the things skiers HATE about boarders all day, hhhahahaa!


----------



## Okierider66 (Aug 29, 2013)

How sad that any resort would stereotype snowboarders as troublemakers.:huh:


One of my favorite quotes:
"can't we all just get along"


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

if anyone can correctly cite that quote i'll mail you a cookie


----------



## Okierider66 (Aug 29, 2013)

CassMT said:


> if anyone can correctly cite that quote i'll mail you a cookie


I left off the "Why" not to mention the ? at the end. I forgot there is always a troll in the forums. Why didn't you complain that I didn't use the correct or any punctuation in the quote? It was a paraphrase in which technically I should have used 'can't we all get along.' 

BTW, i'll should have been capitalized. Don't fuck with me kid!


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

who is complaining?

who is a kid? or a troll?

get a grip, get a nap cupcake


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

Okierider66 said:


> I left off the "Why" not to mention the ? at the end. I forgot there is always a troll in the forums. Why didn't you complain that I didn't use the correct or any punctuation in the quote? It was a paraphrase in which technically I should have used 'can't we all get along.'
> 
> BTW, i'll should have been capitalized. Don't fuck with me kid!


It's funny when new folks overeact to forum regulars. Maybe you should of lurked a little longer....:blink:


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

CassMT said:


> if anyone can correctly cite that quote i'll mail you a cookie


Wasn't that from the Rodney King trial? Or the riots right after?


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

bluebird wax/Kevin Jones, and he's right.


----------



## campfortune (Apr 22, 2008)

you u.s people are so lucky...tons of snow, huge mountain and very mild temperature. we here...it's -30C already and icy


----------



## RightCoastShred (Aug 26, 2012)

Why do people care about Alta? Snowbird is just as good and gets the same if not more snow than Alta. Plus Alta attracts hoards of skiers away from other mountains.


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 3, 2013)

RightCoastShred said:


> Why do people care about Alta? Snowbird is just as good and gets the same if not more snow than Alta. Plus Alta attracts hoards of skiers away from other mountains.


Ding ding ding ding! Finally, someone gets it. 

Let skiers have Alta. It's one mountain, and it keeps the mountains we go to less crowded. Besides, who cares about one particular mountain (especially one so unremarkable as Alta) when there are hundreds of great mountains/resorts for us to enjoy in the US?

This is such a non-fucking-issue that it's almost laughable.

I'm actually jealous of those fighting for Alta to allow snowboarders though because they must not have any _real_ problems in their life to focus on. Must be nice.


----------



## supham (Feb 14, 2011)

*Feds Back Alta's Snowboarding Ban*

No snowboarding at Alta.

Feds Back Alta's Snowboarding Ban | News from the Field | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## td.1000 (Mar 26, 2014)

:huh:"It demeans the Constitution to suggest that the amendment that protected the interests of former slaves during Reconstruction and James Meredith and the Little Rock Nine must be expanded to protect the interests of those who engage in a particularized winter sport"

I'm no politician, but isn't that basically saying the constitution is out-dated?

still don't get their argument tho. are they saying snowboarding is dangerous for skiers? shouldn't they have to prove that first? otherwise you're back at square one with that big ugly word called "prejudice"


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

td.1000 said:


> :huh:"It demeans the Constitution to suggest that the amendment that protected the interests of former slaves during Reconstruction and James Meredith and the Little Rock Nine must be expanded to protect the interests of those who engage in a particularized winter sport"
> 
> I'm no politician, but isn't that basically saying the constitution is out-dated?
> 
> still don't get their argument tho. are they saying snowboarding is dangerous for skiers? shouldn't they have to prove that first? otherwise you're back at square one with that big ugly word called "prejudice"


Exactly. Only THREE resorts in the entire country ban snowboarding. It would seem facts and statistics are not on Alta's side. This is a ridiculous court decision. But will the plaintiffs really feel the need to take it all the way to the Supreme Court? With the bozos running the show now it would seem to be a waste of money...they'll just rule for the big corporation.


----------



## hardasacatshead (Aug 21, 2013)

There are enough great mountains in Utah that surely it makes no difference if Alta opens to boarders or not. I'm picking up that this is a case of proving a point rather than the plaintiffs actually having a vested interest in the outcome. 

At the end of the day Alta is losing money by reducing their potential customer base. Their loss. I'd probably boycott the joint anyway because if the cock bags running it are that old school and set in their ways, it's probably got a fucked vibe anyway.


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

hardasacatshead said:


> There are enough great mountains in Utah that surely it makes no difference if Alta opens to boarders or not. I'm picking up that this is a case of proving a point rather than having the plaintiffs actually a vested interest in the outcome.
> 
> At the end of the day Alta is losing money by reducing their potential customer base. Their loss. I'd probably boycott the joint anyway because if the cock bags running it are that old school and set in their ways, it's probably got a fucked vibe anyway.


all off this. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bertieman (Jan 19, 2014)

mhaas said:


> Besides, Id rather have all the uptight bigots all confined to one place anyway.


Yes! :thumbsup:


----------



## jtg (Dec 11, 2012)

I don't buy the "just ride somewhere else" argument.

Alta is an amazing mountain, of which there are only a handful in any geographic area, and only a handful of areas that have comparable resorts. It's consistently rated as one of the top 5 resorts in North America on several different criteria, and often rated #1 in North America for snow quality. 

"Keeping the skiers on that mountain" is a confusing one, because it's not like any other mountain doesn't have skiers as the majority, so I don't think it's to anyone's advantage.

Even though snowbird is next door, Alta averages 530" a year compared to snowbird's 459". The only place that gets more snow is Mt. Baker, and Baker snow is heavy wet shit in comparison. So not only do they basically get the most snow, but also the best snow. Snowboarders are also at an economic disadvantage because skiers get a pass that covers all of the terrain on both mountains.

So it's pretty much bullshit that they are denying access to public, national forest land, that is arguably the most desirable place on the continent for this recreational activity, over nothing more than petty snobbery.

Also, note that this is just the forest service backing Alta. The forest service are also defendants in the lawsuit. The snowboarders haven't lost yet. 



> Under a 40-year permit issued to Alta by the Forest Service in 2002, the ski area is allowed to restrict any type of skiing device that creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers.


The crux of their argument is that a snowboard creates an unnecessary risk to skiers. That is pure unmitigated bullshit.


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

Just to be clear folks this is NOT a court decision. The snowboarders sued the gov; the gov responds. These quotes are just from the government attorney's response to the lawsuit. If the government had agreed with the snowboarders, the forest service would have likely just made Alta allow skiers. 

Now the Court will review the arguments from both sides and make a decision. Believe me, just because the government pleadings claim the policy is rational does not automatically make it rational! The Court can still disagree.

Edited to add: yeah, what he said!



jtg said:


> Also, note that this is just the forest service backing Alta. The forest service are also defendants in the lawsuit. The snowboarders haven't lost yet.
> 
> The crux of their argument is that a snowboard creates an unnecessary risk to skiers. That is pure unmitigated bullshit.


----------



## SnowDogWax (Nov 8, 2013)

Rational who needs rational, thats why we have attorney's…


----------

