Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cops dealing with people, understanding your rights...by a dude

page: 2
86
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by brokedown
 


well said friend regarding 1865!! many sheeple still spout the "slavery" lie.... can we get everyone to read Jefferson Davis??

O.P. bang up job buddy!!

TPTB have SO many sheeple slaves licking their boots we can point out bully behavior by a criminal syndicate till we a blue in the face, i mean finger..haha

here are a couple of priceless quotes for those still blind..

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice."
^^^^Charles de Montesquieu^^^^


"Men had better be without education than be educated by their rulers;
for their education is but the mere breaking in of the steer to the yoke;
the mere discipline of the hunting dog, which, by dint of severity,
is made to forego the strongest impulse of his nature, and instead of
devouring his prey, to hasten with it to the feet of his master."
^^^^Thomas Hodgskin^^^^




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Each party has its own interests.

In the end, it's all about the money.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Perhaps this will shed light on any further doubts that this is real. I have been driving without a license since 1996.

In the State of Ohio if you get caught driving without a License they suspend it and charge you a $250 re-instatment fee. If you get caught during this suspension you get charged another $250 re-instatment fee. If you never ever go get your License back even still when you get caught the State charges you the same $250 re-instatment fee. ANYWHERE ELSE IN AMERICA THIS IS CALLED RACKETEERING!

I got tired of it. I never even tried to get it back as I did not have the funds to do so back then. Then one day I ran across this:

The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Never again will I hold a License. I have been stopped only 3 times since that period, none of the stops were for me breaking a law but random check points.

I showed the cops this paper which I carry in my car @ all times:

COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE
CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE
THE UNDERSIGNED Common Law Citizen_________________________: hereby Certifies, by Rights Secured under provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the several states, Common Law, Nature and Laws of Natures GOD, that these Rights are retained in FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, and held and protected with special regard to Rights designated and/or set forth as follows: ALSO NOTE Rights and Property are ONE AND THE SAME THING-by the Honorable Justice LOUIS BRANDIS U.S. SUPREME COURT.

NOTICE AND ADVISORY OF RIGHTS CLAIMED INVIOLATE:


1) The Right to TRAVEL FREELY, UNENCUMBERED, and UNFETTERED is guaranteed as a RIGHT and not a mere privilege. That the Right to TRAVEL is such a BASIC RIGHT it does NOT even need to be mentioned for it is SELF-evident by Common Sense that the Right to TRAVEL is a BASIC CONCOMMITANT of a FREE Society to come and go from length and breath FREELY UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED distinguishes the characteristic required for a FREE PEOPLE TO EXIST IN FACT. Please See SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. The above named Common Law Citizen listed IS NOT OPERATING IN COMMERCE and as such is thereby EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE AS SUCH. Further, the _______________ state, is FORBIDDEN BY LAW from converting a BASIC RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and requiring a LICENSE and or a FEE CHARGED for the exercise of the BASIC RIGHT. Please SEE MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, and if _______________, state does ERRONIOUSLY convert BASIC RIGHTS into PRIVILEGES and require a License or FEE a Citizen may IGNORE THE LICENSE OR FEE WITH TOTAL IMMUNITY FOR SUCH EXERCISE OF A BASIC RIGHT. Please see Schuttlesworth vs. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 U.S. 262. Now if a Citizen exercises a BASIC RIGHT and a Law of ANY state is to the contrary of such exercise of that BASIC RIGHT, the said supposed Law of ANY state is a FICTION OF LAW and 100% TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD IT AND NO Citizen is REQUIRED TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR LICENSE REQUIREMENT. Please see MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which has never been overturned in over 194 years, see Shephard's Citations. Now further, if a Citizen relies in good faith on the advice of Counsel and or on the Decisions of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT that Citizen has a PERFECT DEFENSE to the element of WILLFULNESS and since the burden of proof of said WILLFULNESS is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, said task or burden being totally impossible to specifically preform there is NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED BY A COURT OF LAW. Please see U.S. vs. Bishop 412 U.S. 346 . OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO LAWFUL CHARGE AGAINST EXERCISING A BASIC Right to TRAVEL for a regular Common Law Citizen NOT IN COMMERCE on the common way Public HlGHWAY. THAT IS THE LAW!!! The above named Citizen IS IMMUNE FROM ANY CHARGE TO THE CONTRARY AND ANY PARTY MAKING SUCH CHARGE SHOULD BE DULY WARNED OF THE TORT OF TRESPASS!!! YOU ARE TRESPASSING ON THIS Common Law Citizen!!!

2) The original and Judicial jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is ALL actions in which a State may be party, thru subdivision, political or trust. This includes ALL state approved subdivisions and/or INCORPORATED Cities, Townships, Municipalities, and Villages, Et Al . Please see Article 3, Section 2, Para. (1) and (2), U.S. Constitution.

3) The undersigned has NEVER willingly and knowingly entered into ANY Contract or Contractual agreement giving up ANY Constitutional Rights which are secured by the CONSTITUTION, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. This Common Law Citizen has NOT harmed any party, has NOT threatened any party, and that includes has NOT threatened or caused any endangerment to the safety or well being of any party and would leave any claimant otherwise to their strictest proofs otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW. The above named Citizen is merely exercising the BASIC RIGHT TO TRAVEL UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED on the Common public way or highway, which is their RIGHT TO SO DO!!! Please see Zobel vs. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, held the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is Constitutionally PROTECTED!!

4) Conversion of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL into a PRIVILEGE and or CRIME is A FRAUD and is in clear and direct conflict with she UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. LAWS made by any state, which are clearly in direct CONFLICT or REPUGNANCY are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and are NOT WITH STANDING IN LAW AND ARE BEING CHALLENGED AS SUCH HERE AND THEREBY ARE NULL AND VOID OF LAW ON THEIR FACE. NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD SUCH FICTIONS OF LAW AND NO Citizen is bound to obey such a FICTION OF LAW. SUCH REGULATION OR LAW OPERATES AS A MERE NULLITY OR FICTION OF LAW AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED IN LAW. No CITIZEN IS BOUND TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!!!!

5) The payment for a privilege requires a benifit to be received As the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is already secured it is clearly unlawful to cite any charges without direct damage to the specific party . Nor may a Citizen be charged with an offense for the exercise of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, in this case the RIGHT TO TRAVEL. Please see Miller vs. UNITED STATES 230 F2d 486 . Nor may a Citizen be denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW or EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

6) The undersigned does hereby claim, declare, and certify ANY AND ALL their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INVIOLATE from GOD and secured in THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF THE state wherein they abode as a SOVEREIGN, COMMON LAW CITIZEN existing and acting entirely AT THE COMMON LAW, and retains ALL BASIC RIGHTS under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD AND UNDER THE LAWS OF GOD THE SUPREME LAW GIVER.

7) ANY VIOLATOR OF THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND CLAIM IS CRIMINALLY TRESPASSING UPON THIS ABOVE NAMED COMMON LAW Citizen and WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT UNDER THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. BE WARNED OF THE TRESPASS AND THE ATTACHED CAVEATS. ALSO TAKE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE!!



SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE NOTED Common Law Citizen is signed_________________________________________

WITNESS________________________________________ Date_______________

WITNESS________________________________________ Date_______________

or

NOTARY PUBLIC_________________________________ MY COMMISSION EXPIR


I was released and told to drive directly home or to my destination. You can believe it or not. S&F for you OP! Nice Post this is relevant stuff to peoples RIGHTS here!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Spot on OP!!!
This is an area that I am very well versed in. The greatest problem that we are facing as free and sovereign individuals is the fact that neither the police nor the sheeple know the difference between Common Law and Uniform Commercial Code. Society presently functions under UCC and everything is contract law. If people understood that they are corporations entering into contract then it would better illuminate the differences between what the framer's intended versus what we have today. Those who know, such as yourself, have the ability to avoid entering into such contracts, living under common law and taking control of their strawman so that they avoid the manipulation.

Always remember the number 1 objective of a corporation is to turn a profit. The federal government, state governments, county and municiple governments are ALL incorporated! They trick you, unlawfully I might add, to enter into contract. Some examples include driver's licensing, building permits, property taxes amongst a myriad of other things. These schemes are designed to generate revenue for the corporation. Unbeknownst to the masses, they enter into contract to become chattal and for their corporation to become indentured to the greater corporation. The sheeple do this willingly and I am quite suprised at their vociferous defense of the system that enslaves them when one attempts to illuminate the truth.

Thank you for your insight, OP!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
some people just don't live in the real world. This thread is proof of that. What i've learned in my short time on this planet is that people always have the strongest opinions about things they understand the least.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I am always left the same after reading JPZ's posts... Bewilderment. I wish I was able to comprehend the words he so eloquently writes, because despite this world being ankle under boot, I know he's speaking with wisdom.

It's such a pain when I try to remember what he's said when talking to others, and fail at it, for them to look at me with shifty eyes and wonder if I'd been drinking from 6am.

I wish he spoke Australian. Maybe then I'd understand better..



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Brilliant essay and we may all agree you are correct. But, and unfortunately, as the saying goes, "Good luck with that."



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
some people just don't live in the real world. This thread is proof of that. What i've learned in my short time on this planet is that people always have the strongest opinions about things they understand the least.


Care to elaborate? You make a very lofty claim without any supporting evidence. Who doesn't live in the real world? HOW does this thread prove that? Who understands what the least? Thanks for taking the time to clear up the confusion.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


Badw0lf... Start with reading this... Johnny Liberty's Sovereign Handbook. It has alot of religious basis, but ignore that and the rest is an excellent unveiling of the truth.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
To the OP. Excellent post my friend, S&F for you. For far to long TPTB have ignored the 9th amendment. You will almost never hear of it in any civics or government class. I did not really learn about it until I was in my 30s finally finishing my history degree. That is when my eyes finally opened and I saw that the federal government was not a wise benevolent ruler as I thought. It was in fact a corporate fascist regime in which so called party distinctions meant nothing. As much as the liberals complained about the patriot act, why has their messiah not moved to eliminate it? There are literally hundreds of examples I could enumerate on both sides of the aisle. The truth is that the two party system is a sham and has been since at least the time of FDR.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Morning Jean, Great post.

One thing that you forgot to mention when arguing with the officer from NC, Seebrese, is that whether is jay walking, driving without a license & the whole of the "statues" is, that none of them are valid.

The reason that they are not valid is because the statues book are missing a critical piece of text on each and every single statue...

This missing piece on each statue is the ENACTING CLAUSE!

The North Carolina Constitution on Section 21 of article 2 clearly states the following:



The style of the acts shall be: "The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:".


This simple sentence gives the law their power, if missing said law is simply void.

Enacting clauses are called by every constitution of each and every state. This is how important they are!

Florida states the following in Article 3



SECTION 6. Laws.—Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of EVERY law SHALL read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.


As we can see, the enacting clause of EVERY law SHALL read, which clearly means that if missing, the law is void.

But let's not just take my word for it, lets see some case law




KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Appt., v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD' COMPANY. (— Ky. —, 170 S. W. 171.) Statute — absence of enacting clause — effect. A statute without an enacting clause is void where the Constitution provides a form of law which includes such clause.




Under a constitutional provision requiring an enacting clause, the majority of the courts hold that an enacting clause is a necessity, the requirement of such a clause being regarded as mandatory. Burritt T. State Contract Comrs. 120 111. 322, 11 N. E. 180; May v. Rice. 91 Ind. 546: People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 595, 44 L.R.A. 164, 77 N. W. 450; Sjoberg v. Security Sav. & L. Asso. 73 Minn. 203, 72 Am. St. Rep. 616, 75 N. W. 1118; State ex rel. Chase v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250, 21 Am. Rep. 738; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 660, 4 S. E. 350; State ex rel. Gouge v. Burrow, 119 Tenn. 376, 104 S. W. 520, 14 Ann. Cas. 809; Montgomery Amusement Co. v. Montgomery Traction Co. 139 Fed. 353, affirmed in 72 C. C. A. 6S2, 140 Fed. 988.



Chapter 68, Acts of 1914 (2J-ccnt fare Law), is void for want of an enacting clause.



Consequently, a statute which has no enacting clause is void. Walden v. Whigman, 120 Ga. 646, 48 S. E. 159; People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 505, 44 L.R.A. 164, 77 N. W. 450; Sjoberg v. Security Sav. & L. Asso. 73 Minn. 203, 72 Am. St. Rep. 610, 75 N. W. 1116; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 000, 4 S. E. 350.



Some decisions in which the enacting clause is absent go merely to the extent of holding that at least a substantial compliance is necessary, and there being none the statute is void. Vinsant v. Knox, supra.


Now, if any of us where to go to any of our State's law libraries to look at laws, we would find something that does not sit right with us - This would be that there are 2 sets of books...

The first set would be the "Laws of such and such state" and the 2nd set would be "Such and Such State STATUES" - When you sit down and grab these books, they are completely different and one of them is missing the enacting clauses on each and every single "law"!

Guess which one it is?

Now, lets say that Officer Seebreze of North Carolina did not know until today that the laws that he has been enforcing since day one are all void, would that not make him a criminal by going out tomorrow to falsely arrest and enforce void laws?

See, when Officer Seebreze, or any other officer for that matter, charges anyone with a crime, they write on their report, summons or ticket that the defendant broke such and such Statue.

The defendant then goes to a "court of law" and makes mistake # 1 which is pleading, but not all is lost.

The defendant should now throw in his motion to dismiss and give a copy to the prosecutor and show them that the law is void since it is missing the Constitutional mandated, enacting clause.

Once Officer Seebreze's laughing judge denies said motion, the defendant now has a wide open door to appeal as well as a personal lawsuit against the laughing judge & as well as officer Seebreze!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by AntiCitizenZone
 

Right On! and good for you. I assume that you still must purchase a state "identification card" to prove that you are the undersigned am I correct?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Outstanding work!
I remember reading the post which your title parodies and thinking, "as well-meaning as this 'cop' may be, he is still essentially telling us to lick boots and kiss butt!" I wish that we could shift back to the government being subserviant to the people, fearing the people, wanting to please the people. I feel like the first thing a cop should do when he pulls you over is apologize. Cops, judges, legislators have all begun to think that they are above us, the people. Like they are smarter or better than the rest of us simply because they had the initiative to reach whatever post they occupy.
Also, ever since I was 15, I was baffled at how the gov't could tell us that we HAVE to go to a private insurance company and pay for their services (which we may very well NEVER use) before we can drive. Would the American people just lay down and take it if they told us we needed to be registered with a walking safety class and have shoe insurance before we could walk out the door? Pathetic.
Posts like this make me glad that ATS exists, but it pains me to see that one of the first replies was some snide, kiss-a$$ comment about "where in the constitution does it say its your right to drive a car?" If that halfwit would have thought before he posted, he would have realized that cars were not around when the constitution was written, but that the Privileges and Immunities Clause along with an 1823 court ruling recognize the right to Freedom of Movement as a fundamental, constitutional right.
There is one thing in the OP that i would have to disagree with and that is your assertion that all or most cops are earnestly trying to protect and serve. Perhaps a majority of them are, but a fair and growing number of cops seem to get off on power, be bullies, use their power position for personal gain or are out and out criminals infiltrating the police dept to help their buddies. Even the "good" cops have that urge in them to lord over the people, to tell them what they are and aren't allowed to do and to use whatever means and force required to prove their point.
At the end of the day, all written laws are simply opinions, not fact, Truth or divine. The only true Law is God's Law of the Jungle, GHW Bush be damned!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Interesting.

The Constitution doesn't say right to bare Horses or Carriages either.

Hmmm. I suppose it does cover all travel devices.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Upon first read of the OP, I am inclined to cheer and walk away agreeing. But, isn't it true that all of us pay for those roads, bridges and highways through an agreed upon tax system?

Now, I say "agreed upon" because we have elected officials through the years to enact and uphold tax laws on our behalf, and we retain the right and ability to vote in or out politicians who will serve the will of the (most) people.

As long as we continue to support the politicians who support/make these laws, then we are obliged to follow them.

I understand the notion that natural human rights come before privilege under law, but by refusing to obey the laws that we as a people have voted into existence (by way of voting politicians into office), then we are stepping on the rights of other people who may actually want these laws in place and enforced for their own protection. If the majority of people uphold and see fit to abide by these laws, then isn't it our duty to do the same? We shouldn't break the laws to argue against them, we should just argue against them. When the majority agree that certain laws are not required, then it can vote them away.

Until then, we can buy up acres of land, build our own private roads and bridges and drive all day without a license.

Please go easy on me. I'm open to changing my mind


Great thread S,F



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Hey Muzzleflash!

There are aspects to this issue that go beyond the generalities discussed here. For example... My wanting to fly a 767 and being forced to be "licensed" would fall under the same argument. Why can't I fly a jumbo jet without a license? Obviously, because I lack the requisite skills to do so and would surely kill myself, and probably others, if I tried to do so.

Licensing, in many cases, is less about restriction of "freedom" and more about ensuring proper training to operate the machinery in question.

Whether or not automobiles would qualify as a machine that requires some level of training to safely operate... Well that's another issue entirely.

~Heff



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by thepresenttense
 


The problem is that all those laws that you are talking about are not the ones being enforced, what is being enforced is a STATUE.

Statues that are missing their enacting clauses at that thus making each and every single one void.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

I understand your position. But, I am a realist. The reason you could not find any case law, especially recent case law it that it does not exist. That's my point. I love the idealism of your post, but that is all it is.
You are right, I took an oath to uphold the state and the US Constitution. I keep that oath and I am a Oath Keeper. I have to do my job and I have no problem with that as long as I do so in a fair and balanced manner.
You don't even know me and you assume that I am a crooked cop. You also imply that if I were a mod, that I would be crooked. Since, I have been on ATS, I have seen bias, jaded, and showing favoritism from the mods. Do you know why this is? Because they are human. This is not an attempt to justify anything as I'm sure that is where your mind went, but it is a fact. Cops are human too.
Again, I admire the content of your post, but to try and live by these precepts is simply living a lie.
You will have to forgive me for the lack of clarity and organization in this post, I am suffering from the flu and it is kind of hard to put my thoughts together.
Peace
Seeashrink



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


If you are a cop then I will tell you that you need to get right with God and either quit your job and get over here on the winning side for the sake of your family or do everything in your power to expose corruption from the inside and make sure you are a well known, and well respected pillar in your community so the people may spare you when the time comes.

I am not the only one who can feel things heating up. People are pissed at COPS right now and they are heavily armed. I wouldn't want your job for anything right now that's for sure. It won't be long until we are experiencing what Egypt is going thru. Will you take off your uniform and join the movement??? Or are you willing to fight a losing battle because you are too drunk on your own sense of authoritahhhh to ever let it go????

I'm sure you are one of the good ones. That is evident from your op but it isn't enough to "Not abuse your imagined authoritahhh" but to expose others who do lest you be judged guilty in the court of the people when the time comes.

I am no making any threats here, I am simply stating teh obvious. Any fool can see what's coming and it isn't going to be pretty for either side but I would rather be on the side of the people than the government any day. I suggest you do the same for the sake of your family.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ummmm........I have read through the entirity of this thread, whenever, I read threads like this, one question stands out glaringly and I have not asked it yet, nor have I seen an adequate representation of an answer anywhere.......

How can an individual, lawfully, be considered to have entered into a binding contract with a federal or state corporate entity, when the individual in question was 1... too young to have lawfully represented or been represented or informed of such contract, ie., social security, as per an social security number. 2... never been informed of or approached by a federal, state, or local corporate entity, that a contract was even implied, when various federal, state, or local, "statuates" were entered in upon by said individual. ie., licensing, taxation, registration, etc...?


Wouldn't the noninformative, unimplied, nature of any contract, unknowingly, entered into, by purposeful, nondisclosure of said contractual nature, be considered nefarious and coercive, therefore unlawful...?

Is this a lawful argument, in regaining your "strawman"...?

YouSir
edit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to add final line
edit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to add salutation
edit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to readd salutation





new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join