Does the federal government or a (United States Federal Marshall) have the right to seize property at will with a warrant for your belongings if they pertain to a crime of some nature or even due to repossession from loans, or some kind of property theft IF your belongings or items are somewhere other than your property like a neighbors, a friends, or even a family member's (that has no direct involvement in the situation) house?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Does the federal government or a (United States Federal Marshall) have the right to seize property at will with a warrant for your belongings if they pertain to a crime of some nature or even due to repossession from loans, or some kind of property theft IF your belongings or items are somewhere other than your property like a neighbors, a friends, or even a family member's (that has no direct involvement in the situation) house?
if i understand the question, the answer is yes and they don't necessarily need a warrant if it's related to a crime. i'm not sure about that part related to repossession from a loan though.
0
if i understand the question, the answer is yes and they don't necessarily need a warrant if it's related to a crime. i'm not sure about that part related to repossession from a loan though.
So you think that lets say my friend who robs a department store of
thousands of dollars worth of jewelry and travels across state lines
violating intrastate and interstate commerce laws granting his crime as a
federal offense. Then he takes that merchandise that he stole and drops
it off at my house without my knowledge.
And the Federal
Marshal or Government only has a warrant to search my friends house they
can, in turn if they found out, without a warrant come to my house and
reclaim the item if for a criminal offense obviously?
Yeah I
wonder though what the ruling on the repossession would be because I
can't imagine that a bank or a loan officer would have the right to go
to a neighbors house and repossess something that was on different
persons property.
0
So you think that lets say my friend who robs a department store of
thousands of dollars worth of jewelry and travels across state lines
violating intrastate and interstate commerce laws granting his crime as a
federal offense. Then he takes that merchandise that he stole and drops
it off at my house without my knowledge.
And the Federal
Marshal or Government only has a warrant to search my friends house they
can, in turn if they found out, without a warrant come to my house and
reclaim the item if for a criminal offense obviously?
Yeah I
wonder though what the ruling on the repossession would be because I
can't imagine that a bank or a loan officer would have the right to go
to a neighbors house and repossess something that was on different
persons property.
Yeah It's interesting most likely a U.S. Supreme court case in terms the source of these laws. But I don't think its a federal crime clubdirt unless you're robbing a federal institution like an FDIC bank or a post office as such..
Does seem like too much power could be abused especially with regards to a United States Federal Marshal's power. They were one of the first law enforcement agencies, I think after the constitution was ratified.
Yeah I wonder how the feds would respond to income tax evasion or something of that nature. Definitely some kind of precedent set.
0
Yeah It's interesting most likely a U.S. Supreme court case in terms the source of these laws. But I don't think its a federal crime clubdirt unless you're robbing a federal institution like an FDIC bank or a post office as such..
Does seem like too much power could be abused especially with regards to a United States Federal Marshal's power. They were one of the first law enforcement agencies, I think after the constitution was ratified.
Yeah I wonder how the feds would respond to income tax evasion or something of that nature. Definitely some kind of precedent set.
what about asset stripping via currency manipulation?
encourage people to utilize debt instruments inflate asset (house) prices via said debt crash the economy and constrict the money supply
you have literally no rights to property in this country anymore. I had cops let themselves in my house by simply opening an unlocked door and they seized a large sum of cash. How is that any different than me kicking in your door and whooping your ass and taking whatever i please? (other than that they are allowed to open carry a handgun and run around in a gang)
0
what about asset stripping via currency manipulation?
encourage people to utilize debt instruments inflate asset (house) prices via said debt crash the economy and constrict the money supply
you have literally no rights to property in this country anymore. I had cops let themselves in my house by simply opening an unlocked door and they seized a large sum of cash. How is that any different than me kicking in your door and whooping your ass and taking whatever i please? (other than that they are allowed to open carry a handgun and run around in a gang)
Yeah I agree I think we've lost our right to property in this country. It's really God awful how some of these property search and seizure incidents are conducted by police officers and even other institutions like the TSA, loan agents, ....
I've heard cases of people not even getting their shit back because of having to win in a civil trial
Why did the cops seize your cash?
0
Yeah I agree I think we've lost our right to property in this country. It's really God awful how some of these property search and seizure incidents are conducted by police officers and even other institutions like the TSA, loan agents, ....
I've heard cases of people not even getting their shit back because of having to win in a civil trial
Yeah It's interesting most likely a U.S. Supreme court case in terms the
source of these laws. But I don't think its a federal crime clubdirt
unless you're robbing a federal institution like an FDIC bank or a post
office as such.
trust me, if you rob just about any store, it's a federal crime. it does not need to be a federal institution of any kind. take a look at 18 USC 1951(a).
0
Yeah It's interesting most likely a U.S. Supreme court case in terms the
source of these laws. But I don't think its a federal crime clubdirt
unless you're robbing a federal institution like an FDIC bank or a post
office as such.
trust me, if you rob just about any store, it's a federal crime. it does not need to be a federal institution of any kind. take a look at 18 USC 1951(a).
The person in question would have to prove they didn't know. I'm sure the cops have heard that one before.
What about when cops pull someone over in a stolen car? The person driving says "I didn't know it was stolen. My buddy let me drive it." The problem was it wasn't his buddy's car. And when the cops ask the suspect what's his buddy's name he doesn't know his real name. He only knows his street name, which is "Peanut".
0
The person in question would have to prove they didn't know. I'm sure the cops have heard that one before.
What about when cops pull someone over in a stolen car? The person driving says "I didn't know it was stolen. My buddy let me drive it." The problem was it wasn't his buddy's car. And when the cops ask the suspect what's his buddy's name he doesn't know his real name. He only knows his street name, which is "Peanut".
Yeah It's interesting most likely a U.S. Supreme court case in terms the
source of these laws. But I don't think its a federal crime clubdirt
unless you're robbing a federal institution like an FDIC bank or a post
office as such.
trust me,if you rob just about any store, it's a federal crime. it does not need to be a federal institution of any kind. take a look at 18 USC 1951(a).
Also:There are three important federal robbery statutes. The Federal Bank
Robbery Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 2113) punishes robbery of property in the
custody or possession of any national bank or of any bank that is
insured by the federal government. Two provisions (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2112,
2114) punish robbery when the property taken is from the U.S. mail or is
property belonging to the federal government. The Hobbs Act (18
U.S.C.A. § 1951) punishes the obstruction of interstate commerce by
robbery.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
Yeah It's interesting most likely a U.S. Supreme court case in terms the
source of these laws. But I don't think its a federal crime clubdirt
unless you're robbing a federal institution like an FDIC bank or a post
office as such.
trust me,if you rob just about any store, it's a federal crime. it does not need to be a federal institution of any kind. take a look at 18 USC 1951(a).
Also:There are three important federal robbery statutes. The Federal Bank
Robbery Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 2113) punishes robbery of property in the
custody or possession of any national bank or of any bank that is
insured by the federal government. Two provisions (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2112,
2114) punish robbery when the property taken is from the U.S. mail or is
property belonging to the federal government. The Hobbs Act (18
U.S.C.A. § 1951) punishes the obstruction of interstate commerce by
robbery.
stiln, it's not even a question. it's absolutely true. you posted the same statute i did, 18 USC 1951. if you commit a robbery and it in affects interstate commerce in any way, it's a federal crime, which is going to be every robbery i can think of involving a store. there are many people who would be let out of federal prison today if it wasn't true.
as an example, if you take a gun and rob the walgreens down the street for a pack of gum and $10, it's a federal crime. walgreens is an interstate company. the gum was manufactured in another state or country, the gun used in the crime was manufactured in another state or country, i doubt the state prints its own money so that affects interstate commerce. if you used a cell phone to call your buddy who is the lookout outside, the cell phone was made in another state or country, the cell phone signal went to a tower in another state before reaching the other person.
there will be an interstate connection to just about every robbery one can commit for many reasons for each robbery
0
stiln, it's not even a question. it's absolutely true. you posted the same statute i did, 18 USC 1951. if you commit a robbery and it in affects interstate commerce in any way, it's a federal crime, which is going to be every robbery i can think of involving a store. there are many people who would be let out of federal prison today if it wasn't true.
as an example, if you take a gun and rob the walgreens down the street for a pack of gum and $10, it's a federal crime. walgreens is an interstate company. the gum was manufactured in another state or country, the gun used in the crime was manufactured in another state or country, i doubt the state prints its own money so that affects interstate commerce. if you used a cell phone to call your buddy who is the lookout outside, the cell phone was made in another state or country, the cell phone signal went to a tower in another state before reaching the other person.
there will be an interstate connection to just about every robbery one can commit for many reasons for each robbery
clubdirt, just because that link says that there are interstate laws, and foreign commerce implications involving theft it seems like its only pertaining to U.S. Supreme Court cases. I don't see any mention of the act of robbing store like your scenario being a 'federal crime.'
This link says here that usually robberies unless committed against federal institutions are state crimes and violations of state laws. Because I think each state has its own set of laws unless act of robbery violated some kind of federal law in which a writ of mandamus would be issued. .
I don't think just because some product is produced somewhere else and it ends up in a different area that it automatically qualifies that every robbery of a store in the U.S. is instantly brought to a federal district court.
Anyone else know anything about robbery: state vs federal offenses?
0
clubdirt, just because that link says that there are interstate laws, and foreign commerce implications involving theft it seems like its only pertaining to U.S. Supreme Court cases. I don't see any mention of the act of robbing store like your scenario being a 'federal crime.'
This link says here that usually robberies unless committed against federal institutions are state crimes and violations of state laws. Because I think each state has its own set of laws unless act of robbery violated some kind of federal law in which a writ of mandamus would be issued. .
I don't think just because some product is produced somewhere else and it ends up in a different area that it automatically qualifies that every robbery of a store in the U.S. is instantly brought to a federal district court.
stiln, i'm telling you, this is what i do for a living, or part of it. robbery of a store is a federal crime in almost every case. it's not even a question. i feel like your asking me if 2 + 2 = 5 and when i say no your going to the internet for other opinions.
i'm not referring to a link, i'm referring to the fact that i've handled robbery cases in federal court and the issue of whether or not it's a federal crime will not come up because everyone knows it is. the law is very clear on that. just like no one comes in and asks which person is the judge. it's a similar question, meaning it's not a question.
i'm not being critical since i know this isn't your area and it can be confusing. i think the confusion may stem from the fact that a crime can be both a state crime and a federal crime at the same time. most crimes are. there are a shitload of federal crimes and they cover just about everything.
here's how it works. if you rob a store, it is a federal crime and it is a state crime. in all likelihood, you will be prosecuted by the state and the federal government will never know you or your crime existed. however, the federal government can prosecute you for that crime either in addition to the state (extremely unlikely) or instead of the state. the federal government might be interested in taking the case from the state if it's a particularly bad crime, i.e. you shot someone, or you've done a few of these, i.e. a string of convenicen stores, you are on federal probation or you have a bad record.
however, your last post that said unless the robbery is against a federal institution, the robbery is a state crime, is false but has the right idea. robbery against a store is a federal crime and a state crime, but most likely only the state will deal with it.
my post #15 may also have been confusing. to get federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause, the courts use a depletion of assets theory. basically the government just has to show that the store is involved in interstate commerce. and that is extremely broad. but the easiest way to do it is for the government to prove that the store purchases items from outside the state, which is the case in almost every store. but just about any connection to another state is good enough.
0
stiln, i'm telling you, this is what i do for a living, or part of it. robbery of a store is a federal crime in almost every case. it's not even a question. i feel like your asking me if 2 + 2 = 5 and when i say no your going to the internet for other opinions.
i'm not referring to a link, i'm referring to the fact that i've handled robbery cases in federal court and the issue of whether or not it's a federal crime will not come up because everyone knows it is. the law is very clear on that. just like no one comes in and asks which person is the judge. it's a similar question, meaning it's not a question.
i'm not being critical since i know this isn't your area and it can be confusing. i think the confusion may stem from the fact that a crime can be both a state crime and a federal crime at the same time. most crimes are. there are a shitload of federal crimes and they cover just about everything.
here's how it works. if you rob a store, it is a federal crime and it is a state crime. in all likelihood, you will be prosecuted by the state and the federal government will never know you or your crime existed. however, the federal government can prosecute you for that crime either in addition to the state (extremely unlikely) or instead of the state. the federal government might be interested in taking the case from the state if it's a particularly bad crime, i.e. you shot someone, or you've done a few of these, i.e. a string of convenicen stores, you are on federal probation or you have a bad record.
however, your last post that said unless the robbery is against a federal institution, the robbery is a state crime, is false but has the right idea. robbery against a store is a federal crime and a state crime, but most likely only the state will deal with it.
my post #15 may also have been confusing. to get federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause, the courts use a depletion of assets theory. basically the government just has to show that the store is involved in interstate commerce. and that is extremely broad. but the easiest way to do it is for the government to prove that the store purchases items from outside the state, which is the case in almost every store. but just about any connection to another state is good enough.
ok, stiln, because i'm done for the day, i found a case for you. this is the first one that came up. it's not a link to some website, it's an actual appellate court decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which is one level below the Supreme Court. this case is as good as any, even though there aren't many in these kinds of cases because it's really not an issue.
basically, some idiot goes into an amoco gas station that also has a convenience store and robs it with a hand grenade. he got $300 and then was arrested for robbery. this was a federal case although it was also a state crime.
on the issue of whether it was a federal crime, the amoco station sold gum, tobacco, beer, and other things, all of which were made out of state. that's all the interstate commerce connection you need. the only other thing a store needs to show is depletion of assets and to do that, they just need to show they lost assets, or closed the business or anything minimal happened that even slightly affected their ability to continuously participate in interstate commerce.
ok, stiln, because i'm done for the day, i found a case for you. this is the first one that came up. it's not a link to some website, it's an actual appellate court decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which is one level below the Supreme Court. this case is as good as any, even though there aren't many in these kinds of cases because it's really not an issue.
basically, some idiot goes into an amoco gas station that also has a convenience store and robs it with a hand grenade. he got $300 and then was arrested for robbery. this was a federal case although it was also a state crime.
on the issue of whether it was a federal crime, the amoco station sold gum, tobacco, beer, and other things, all of which were made out of state. that's all the interstate commerce connection you need. the only other thing a store needs to show is depletion of assets and to do that, they just need to show they lost assets, or closed the business or anything minimal happened that even slightly affected their ability to continuously participate in interstate commerce.
one last point since the clock on your bill is still going. the only case i've ever heard of where this was even an issue the judge considered was when some guy robbed a furniture refurbishing store. it was a a local store that fixed up old furniture and appliances. the federal government wanted the guy because he was a big time drug dealer. the federal government assumed jurisdiction was a given because the guy sold old furniture and appliances which were obviously made all over. however, it turned out that the owner of the store got all of the furniture and appliances from local garage sales and local people getting rid of their stuff. not one item was obtained by him from out of state.
the guy clearly had no interstate connections with his products. however, even this one stayed in federal court. i forgot the explanation but i think it had to do with the products originally being manufactured elsehwere. i'm not sure, but the point is the commerce clause is basically meaningless. the government interprets the constitution to make government bigger. particularly the rightwing.
0
one last point since the clock on your bill is still going. the only case i've ever heard of where this was even an issue the judge considered was when some guy robbed a furniture refurbishing store. it was a a local store that fixed up old furniture and appliances. the federal government wanted the guy because he was a big time drug dealer. the federal government assumed jurisdiction was a given because the guy sold old furniture and appliances which were obviously made all over. however, it turned out that the owner of the store got all of the furniture and appliances from local garage sales and local people getting rid of their stuff. not one item was obtained by him from out of state.
the guy clearly had no interstate connections with his products. however, even this one stayed in federal court. i forgot the explanation but i think it had to do with the products originally being manufactured elsehwere. i'm not sure, but the point is the commerce clause is basically meaningless. the government interprets the constitution to make government bigger. particularly the rightwing.
I understand what you're saying, What exactly do you do for a living? Do you work for the department of justice as an attorney?
If most of the time robbery is brought to state courts then it is my understanding that it would be a state offense if you were to casually ask someone.
My area of more of international security but I have taken U.S. law courses. I know that you can be in violation of a state and federal offenses at the same time but typically/more often than not/usually when someone asks you if robbery is a federal crime its not because MOST of the time its tried and seen in a state court unless the feds have a reason to prosecute the man. So this isn't like 2+2=5 like you think I'm asking you which person is a judge. You're bringing up a very technical reason for how the feds have the power to exercise that they can review a case of robbery if they feel necessary by exercising a writ of certiorari. I'm sure you know what means.
But more so I'd like to hear what others have to say about this issue because I understand what you're saying but there are different degrees to robbery, and different state laws concerning these degrees and from what you've said Feds don't usually see these robbery cases unless in special circumstances.
The Federal courts can technically review case if it goes through the appeals process or certiorari is issued etc... So you could make an argument for a variety of different crimes being federal offenses but more often than not they are tried in a state court therefore the common person understand them to be a state offense.
0
I understand what you're saying, What exactly do you do for a living? Do you work for the department of justice as an attorney?
If most of the time robbery is brought to state courts then it is my understanding that it would be a state offense if you were to casually ask someone.
My area of more of international security but I have taken U.S. law courses. I know that you can be in violation of a state and federal offenses at the same time but typically/more often than not/usually when someone asks you if robbery is a federal crime its not because MOST of the time its tried and seen in a state court unless the feds have a reason to prosecute the man. So this isn't like 2+2=5 like you think I'm asking you which person is a judge. You're bringing up a very technical reason for how the feds have the power to exercise that they can review a case of robbery if they feel necessary by exercising a writ of certiorari. I'm sure you know what means.
But more so I'd like to hear what others have to say about this issue because I understand what you're saying but there are different degrees to robbery, and different state laws concerning these degrees and from what you've said Feds don't usually see these robbery cases unless in special circumstances.
The Federal courts can technically review case if it goes through the appeals process or certiorari is issued etc... So you could make an argument for a variety of different crimes being federal offenses but more often than not they are tried in a state court therefore the common person understand them to be a state offense.
I understand what you're saying, What exactly do you do for a living? Do you work for the department of justice as an attorney?
If most of the time robbery is brought to state courts then it is my understanding that it would be a state offense if you were to casually ask someone.
My area of more of international security but I have taken U.S. law courses. I know that you can be in violation of a state and federal offenses at the same time but typically/more often than not/usually when someone asks you if robbery is a federal crime its not because MOST of the time its tried and seen in a state court unless the feds have a reason to prosecute the man. So this isn't like 2+2=5 like you think I'm asking you which person is a judge. You're bringing up a very technical reason for how the feds have the power to exercise that they can review a case of robbery if they feel necessary by exercising a writ of certiorari. I'm sure you know what means.
But more so I'd like to hear what others have to say about this issue because I understand what you're saying but there are different degrees to robbery, and different state laws concerning these degrees and from what you've said Feds don't usually see these robbery cases unless in special circumstances.
The Federal courts can technically review case if it goes through the appeals process or certiorari is issued etc... So you could make an argument for a variety of different crimes being federal offenses but more often than not they are tried in a state court therefore the common person understand them to be a state offense.
i didn't mean it's 2 + 2 =5 like it's obvious for everyone, that's a bad example. i meant it's an issue that has been decided with certainty and just doesn't come up in these cases anymore because it's pretty much set in stone for people who work on federal criminal cases. and that's because the commerce clause has been interpreted so broadly to basically interpret it away. if you ask any federal prosecutor (Assistant united States Attorney) if they can charge someone in federla court for robbing some kind of store, they'll tell you they can all day, everyday.
but again, i can see where it isn;t common knowledge because most people assume your average robbery of a store case will be charged in state court and they'd be right.
i no longer work for the government. i do mostly criminal defense now. i actually have a robbery case in federal court as we speak involving pharmacies and a convenience store.
as to your other points, yes, the overwhelming majority of robberies not involving a federal institution wil be in state court and charged as a state crime. so, if someone said it is a state crime, they would be 100% correct. they'd only be wrong if they said it could not be charged as a federal crime as well, although it rarely is. it's incorrect to say it's not a federal crime. it's more accurate to say it is not charged as a federal crime or not charged by the federal government, which means the state government decided to charge the person rather than the federal government.
and yes, different states have different robbery laws. but generally you have robbery which is taking something from someone by force, threats or intimidation which is serious but not necessarily too bad. and then you have armed robbery which is using some kind of dangerous weapon to effectuate the robbery. that's usually pretty bad no matter what state you're in.
my weekend rate is $450/hour which started 43 minutes ago.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
I understand what you're saying, What exactly do you do for a living? Do you work for the department of justice as an attorney?
If most of the time robbery is brought to state courts then it is my understanding that it would be a state offense if you were to casually ask someone.
My area of more of international security but I have taken U.S. law courses. I know that you can be in violation of a state and federal offenses at the same time but typically/more often than not/usually when someone asks you if robbery is a federal crime its not because MOST of the time its tried and seen in a state court unless the feds have a reason to prosecute the man. So this isn't like 2+2=5 like you think I'm asking you which person is a judge. You're bringing up a very technical reason for how the feds have the power to exercise that they can review a case of robbery if they feel necessary by exercising a writ of certiorari. I'm sure you know what means.
But more so I'd like to hear what others have to say about this issue because I understand what you're saying but there are different degrees to robbery, and different state laws concerning these degrees and from what you've said Feds don't usually see these robbery cases unless in special circumstances.
The Federal courts can technically review case if it goes through the appeals process or certiorari is issued etc... So you could make an argument for a variety of different crimes being federal offenses but more often than not they are tried in a state court therefore the common person understand them to be a state offense.
i didn't mean it's 2 + 2 =5 like it's obvious for everyone, that's a bad example. i meant it's an issue that has been decided with certainty and just doesn't come up in these cases anymore because it's pretty much set in stone for people who work on federal criminal cases. and that's because the commerce clause has been interpreted so broadly to basically interpret it away. if you ask any federal prosecutor (Assistant united States Attorney) if they can charge someone in federla court for robbing some kind of store, they'll tell you they can all day, everyday.
but again, i can see where it isn;t common knowledge because most people assume your average robbery of a store case will be charged in state court and they'd be right.
i no longer work for the government. i do mostly criminal defense now. i actually have a robbery case in federal court as we speak involving pharmacies and a convenience store.
as to your other points, yes, the overwhelming majority of robberies not involving a federal institution wil be in state court and charged as a state crime. so, if someone said it is a state crime, they would be 100% correct. they'd only be wrong if they said it could not be charged as a federal crime as well, although it rarely is. it's incorrect to say it's not a federal crime. it's more accurate to say it is not charged as a federal crime or not charged by the federal government, which means the state government decided to charge the person rather than the federal government.
and yes, different states have different robbery laws. but generally you have robbery which is taking something from someone by force, threats or intimidation which is serious but not necessarily too bad. and then you have armed robbery which is using some kind of dangerous weapon to effectuate the robbery. that's usually pretty bad no matter what state you're in.
my weekend rate is $450/hour which started 43 minutes ago.
"it's incorrect to say it's not a federal crime. it's more accurate to
say it is not charged as a federal crime or not charged by the federal
government, which means the state government decided to charge the
person rather than the federal government. "
You're absolutely right on that count, correct terminology is everything, especially with lawyers.
$450/hour sounds about right. More money in the private firm for sure
My uncle worked under Bobby Kennedy back in the 60s for the Justice Department for many years but the real cheddar is obviously opening up or working for a private firm. So you do trial law eh?
Definitely fascinating work.
0
Ah I get it:
"it's incorrect to say it's not a federal crime. it's more accurate to
say it is not charged as a federal crime or not charged by the federal
government, which means the state government decided to charge the
person rather than the federal government. "
You're absolutely right on that count, correct terminology is everything, especially with lawyers.
$450/hour sounds about right. More money in the private firm for sure
My uncle worked under Bobby Kennedy back in the 60s for the Justice Department for many years but the real cheddar is obviously opening up or working for a private firm. So you do trial law eh?
i'm joking, we don't charge that much. the most i've heard a lawyer charge is around $1,000/hour but that was a big time intellectual property lawyer who worked for the big companies and had very specialized knowledge and experience.
0
i'm joking, we don't charge that much. the most i've heard a lawyer charge is around $1,000/hour but that was a big time intellectual property lawyer who worked for the big companies and had very specialized knowledge and experience.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Just sayin
Hot Forum Topics
