fast4truth2
Instructions and contact details link at top of Start MenuTim Wilmot - First Affidavit DEC 89
-====================================================-
1.1a. My name is Tim Wilmot, of The Burrows, South Hill Road, Callington,
1.1b. and I make oath as follows:-
1.2a. I made an outline application to Caradon District Council
1.2b. for "Change of use of redundant council rubbish dump
1.2c. to Garden Centre, Target, South Hill Road, Callington,"
1.2d. which was approved under unusual circumstances on 03 OCT 88,
1.2e. and then refused ( under equally unusual circumstances ) on 06 FEB 89.
1.3a. I am going to the trouble of creating an affidavit
1.3b. because I believe that my application
1.3c. was treated in a devious and deceitful manner,
1.3d. and my attempts to alter this have been met with transparent whitewash.
2.1a. The original response to my proposal, from a senior planning officer ( Kimberley ) was:-
2.1b. "I can't think of anything immediately against it."
2.2a. This later hardened into a refusal recommendation,
2.2b. together with a high degree of interest from Mr Hartridge, Chief Planning Officer.
3.1a. Concern was expressed by Caradon's Environmental Health Dept.,
3.1b. and Cornwall's Waste Disposal Officer over landfill gas emissions.
3.2a. The earliest day they could visit the site
3.2b. was the very morning of the October Planning Meeting
3.2c. ( luckily the application was due to be heard after lunch ).
3.3a. The implications of landfill gas were explained to me,
3.3b. together with the Planning Department's suggestion
3.3c. that I withdraw the application and get a gas report.
3.4a. I explained my position,
3.4b. namely that this was an OUTLINE application
3.4c. to determine whether the Committee felt
3.4d. that the site was suitable for use as a garden centre
3.4e. ( and as you will see below, they did ),
3.4f. and that any other question could be covered by a condition
3.4g. ( as, in fact, it was ).
3.5a. I saw little point in considerable prior expenditure
3.5b. if the site was untenable.
3.6a. My view prevailed
3.6b. and we went to Luxstowe House to put this privately to the Planners
3.6c. ( I was barred from this meeting ).
4.1a. I therefore listened to other applications
4.1b. (an experience in some ways more, in some ways less impressive than I had expected!)
4.1c. until the tea break when I talked with Councillor Pengelly ( Callington ),
4.1d. who introduced me to Mr Hartridge.
4.2. Mr Hartridge pressed me very hard indeed to withdraw.
4.3. My refusal clearly upset him.
5.1. The Committee reconvened and about half an hour later my application was heard.
5.2a. Both Councillor Pengelly and myself
5.2b. were staggered to hear Mr Hartridge state
5.3c. that the applicant wishes to withdraw.
5.4a. Unfortunately missing the opportunity
5.4b. to ask Mr Hartridge to produce his authority for such a statement,
5.4c. Mr Pengelly spoke in favour and asked for a deferral.
5.5a. To my considerable surprise Councillor Miss Pearce stood up
5.5b. and said "No! Let's approve, subject to a report!",
5.5c. and the voting 16 - 0 demonstrates the true feeling upon this.
5.5b. and said "No! Let's approve, subject to a report!",
6.1. Between 03 OCT 88 and the years end nothing was heard from the Planners.
6.2a. My minimum expectation would be a Consent Notice with it's condition,
6.2b. together with a report specification.
To receive nothing after deliberate misrepresentation
is too much of a coincidence to be an accident.
6.3. To receive nothing seems to me to be a fundamental omission.
7.1a. Enquiries into the probable cost of a gas report
7.1b. ( insofar as it was possible to obtain estimates without a specification )
7.1c. revealed an expense in the region of £5-7,000.
7.2a. Other enquiries into building methods
7.2b. and precautions against gas accepted and approved elsewhere
7.2c. indicated to me that the best course of action
7.2d. would be to accept the presence of gas as probable,
7.2e. and design the site accordingly.
7.3a. Various options were suggested to me:-
7.3b. the use of portable buildings on stilts,
7.3c. the inclusion of an adjacent field ( i.e. solid ground ),
7.4d. a willingness IF NECESSARY to accept NO buildings whatsoever on the infilled ground.
8.1a. To get things moving I visited the Planning Dept. on 21 DEC 88,
8.1b. where I explained verbally what I had in mind,
8.1c. together with a letter (***T 18) setting out some of my proposals
8.1d. ( others I reserved for consultation )
8.1e. and asking for comments.
8.2a. The letter ( which is in the application file )
8.2b. is extremely difficult to interpret
8.2c. in the manner stated in the listing for the February Meeting ( T29 ).
9.1. No contact was made between then and early April ( 3.5 months ).
10.1a. On 18 JAN 89 the Planners sent the Environmental health Department Memo NGH/JS/88/1140
10.1b. which I am unable to see ( I've tried twice ).
10.2. The result was a scare report. (***T 22)
10.3a. On 06 FEB 89, the earliest date
10.3b. ( such unaccustomed efficiency! )
10.3c. and quite unknown to me,
10.3d. the application was returned to Committee
10.3e. in what Mr Hartridge denies being "heavily loaded in a manner designed to secure refusal."
10.4a. Denied consultation,
10.4b. denied knowledge of the Meeting,
10.4c. denied representation of my case
10.4d. ( that Minuted as mine being demonstrably false ),
10.4e. I would suspect that only Sir Robert Armstrong ( of Spycatcher fame )
10.4f. would believe such a denial.
11.1. My case is not unreasonable.
11.2a. Landfill gases are only dangerous under certain conditions,
11.2b. and with the site in question, and my flexibility over the type and positioning of buildings,
11.2b. together with adjacent hard ground,
11.2c. all safety problems are surmountable.
11.3a. In Mr Hartridge's letter dated 26 May 89,
11.3b. he refers to the Department of the Environment Circular 21/87.
11.4a. I, too, have a copy of the Circular,
11.4b. and while it is true that developers are responsible to ensure public safety,
11.4c. it is not so cut and dried as to say all developments will be banned without a full survey,
11.4d. for clearly many developments would involve no risk at all.
11.5. It also speaks of bringing derelict land back into profitable use.
11.6a. However, the real question should be:-
11.6b. "Is the reasonable or otherwise nature of Mr WILMOT's case in any way relevant,
11.6c. or ( having been decisively defeated in October )
11.6d. was the intention to delay or destroy this application by any means?
12.1a. Listed as No. 17 for the February Meeting, paragraph 3 of the details reads:-
12.1b. "The applicant has now stated that he will not be having a survey carried out."
12.2. The Planning Officer responsible possessed nothing to warrant such a statement.
13a. Not surprisingly, the "application" -
13b. an application by the PLANNING DEPARTMENT
13c. ( but under my name without my knowledge or consent) -
13d. was refused.*************************************
14a. TWO further months passed before I received a Refusal Notice -
14b. the first contact since before the October Meeting.
15.1. On 12 MAY 89 I wrote in complaint to the Chief Executive.
15.2. On 26 MAY 89, a whitewash reply from Mr Hartridge.
15.3a. He said that I had asked for deferral in October,
15.3b. but produced no evidence,
15.3c. continuing:-
15.3d. "You are mistaken in thinking that I said that you wished to withdraw the application
15.3e. ( a copy of the Minutes are attached ).
16.1. These Minutes are acknowledged by the Council itself not to be accurate!
16.2a. In addition if Mr Hartridge had NOT said that I wished to withdraw,
16.2b. Mr Pengelly would not have been moved to suggest deferral in his surprise,
16.2c. leading to Miss PEARCE's proposal.
16.3. The one clearly follows the other.
16.4. My very determination to swear on Oath must count for something!
17.1a. I have not appealed against the refusal
17.1b. because I am disgusted at the devious and deceitful handling of my application.
17.2. In the autumn I asked Robert HICKS, MP, to make enquiries.
17.3a. The second paragraph of his letter reads:-
17.3b. "Mr Hartridge has investigated this subject on my behalf,
17.3c. and does outline the sequence of events []
17.3d. as well as confirming the reasons [] not to grant you planning permission.."
17.4a. No answer at all to the awkward questions
17.4b. Mr [Robert] HICKS[, MP,] had been primed with.
17.5a. I can only describe this
17.5b. as being like a poacher apprehended at 3 in the morning, miles from his home,
17.5c. with a dead rabbit in his pocket,
17.5d. and telling the Magistrates that he had lost his way in the dark,
17.5e. had stumbled into a field,
17.5f. where to his great surprise a rabbit,
17.5g. closely pursued by a fox intent upon it's dinner,
17.5h. had leapt for safety into the inner pocket of his jacket,
17.5i. regrettably breaking it's neck in the process!
18a. I trust that anyone reading this affidavit
18b. in conjunction with the enclosed documents
18c. will find it very hard indeed to believe Mr Hartridge's version.
19.1a. I would be obliged to receive support for a complaint to the Ombudsman,
19.1b. as there is a clear case of gross maladministration.
19.2a. I would also appreciate support for the removal of the February refusal,
19.2b. in order that the October approval can stand,
19.2c. together with what the Planning Department should have issued in the first place,
19.2d. namely an approval notice together with a report specification.
19.3. In addition, consultations should take place upon my proposals of 21 DEC 88.
20.1a. I am determined that Callington shall have a Garden Centre,
20.1b. and that a number of people shall have the opportunity
20.1c. to operate their own businesses under the Garden Centre "umbrella".
20.2a. Precisely because of this kind of government behaviour,
20.2b. I am not prepared to employ anyone,
20.2c. preferring to use such skills as I have
20.2d. to securing opportunities for genuine self-employment.
20.3a. I want to see a sturdy, vibrant and independent citizenry,
20.3b. not knock-kneed yes-men.
Sworn by the above named Tim WILMOT at Callington in the County of Cornwall before me.
Tim Wilmot
Vivian Carne A Solicitor
-====================================================-
Link -Return to top of this webpage
-====================================================-
Link -Solicitor Linda Brown advises CPO on Affidavit - sequential
-====================================================-
Link -Return to Start Menu to The Enforcement Action section
-===============================================================================-
Click "back" to your last webpage location
[C] 2010 - Zen asserts copyright on text, context, and design.
-===============================================================================-
Go to Instructions & Contact Details at top of Start Menu for:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. you want to use some of this site for a non-commercial purpose.
2. you want to use some of this site for a commercial purpose.
3. you want to use the design of this site for your own legal work,
and would welcome professional assistance.
-===============================================================================-
-===============================================================================-
1.1a. My name is Tim Wilmot, of The Burrows, South Hill Road, Callington,
1.1b. and I make oath as follows:-
1.2a. I made an outline application to Caradon District Council
1.2b. for "Change of use of redundant council rubbish dump
1.2c. to Garden Centre, Target, South Hill Road, Callington,"
1.2d. which was approved under unusual circumstances on 03 OCT 88,
1.2e. and then refused ( under equally unusual circumstances ) on 06 FEB 89.
Please note immediate use of the word "approved".
1.3a. I am going to the trouble of creating an affidavit
1.3b. because I believe that my application
1.3c. was treated in a devious and deceitful manner,
1.3d. and my attempts to alter this have been met with transparent whitewash.
"devious and deceitful manner" is pretty direct.
2.1a. The original response to my proposal, from a senior planning officer ( Kimberley ) was:-
2.1b. "I can't think of anything immediately against it."
2.2a. This later hardened into a refusal recommendation,
2.2b. together with a high degree of interest from Mr Hartridge, Chief Planning Officer.
3.1a. Concern was expressed by Caradon's Environmental Health Dept.,
3.1b. and Cornwall's Waste Disposal Officer over landfill gas emissions.
3.2a. The earliest day they could visit the site
3.2b. was the very morning of the October Planning Meeting
3.2c. ( luckily the application was due to be heard after lunch ).
3.3a. The implications of landfill gas were explained to me,
3.3b. together with the Planning Department's suggestion
3.3c. that I withdraw the application and get a gas report.
3.4a. I explained my position,
3.4b. namely that this was an OUTLINE application
3.4c. to determine whether the Committee felt
3.4d. that the site was suitable for use as a garden centre
3.4e. ( and as you will see below, they did ),
3.4f. and that any other question could be covered by a condition
3.4g. ( as, in fact, it was ).
The logic for this is inescapable.
3.5a. I saw little point in considerable prior expenditure
3.5b. if the site was untenable.
Although Tim Wilmot did not phrase it this way then,
all he wanted answered by his outline planning application,
was the geograhical location suitability question.
If the answer to the geograhical location suitability question was "No!",
nothing else mattered.
3.6a. My view prevailed
3.6b. and we went to Luxstowe House to put this privately to the Planners
3.6c. ( I was barred from this meeting ).
The Environmental Officers stressed that they were advisory only to the Planning Department,
but agreed that their professional responsibility was covered.
This was highly inconvenient to the Chief Planning Officer -
who rapped them over the knuckles -
and their police witness statements bear marks of "closing ranks".
4.1a. I therefore listened to other applications
4.1b. (an experience in some ways more, in some ways less impressive than I had expected!)
4.1c. until the tea break when I talked with Councillor Pengelly ( Callington ),
4.1d. who introduced me to Mr Hartridge.
4.2. Mr Hartridge pressed me very hard indeed to withdraw.
It was immediate.
4.3. My refusal clearly upset him.
The Chief Planning Officer lost his temper.
5.1. The Committee reconvened and about half an hour later my application was heard.
5.2a. Both Councillor Pengelly and myself
5.2b. were staggered to hear Mr Hartridge state
5.3c. that the applicant wishes to withdraw.
"Staggered" is a very strong term indeed,
and as Councillor Pengelly spun around to Tim Wilmot
"like a scalded cat with his eyes popping out",
staggered is not an overstatement,
and appropriate for the lie told by the Chief Planning Officer.
5.4a. Unfortunately missing the opportunity
5.4b. to ask Mr Hartridge to produce his authority for such a statement,
5.4c. Mr Pengelly spoke in favour and asked for a deferral.
Pengelly asked for deferral because he thought it better than withdrawal.
5.5a. To my considerable surprise Councillor Miss Pearce stood up
5.5b. and said "No! Let's approve, subject to a report!",
5.5c. and the voting 16 - 0 demonstrates the true feeling upon this.
In 1989, Tim Wilmot's knowledge of planning terms and methods was limited.
Tim Wilmot was not aware then that the text of conditions
were not set by the Planning Committee,
but by the Planning Department after the Meeting.
So Tim Wilmot's statement at:-
5.5b. and said "No! Let's approve, subject to a report!",
is not accurate,
because Tim Wilmot's mind was conditioned by the Planning Committee Minutes.
What was actually said was:-
"No! Let's approve, with a condition on gas!"
This is proven by examining the Listing,
the Chief Planning Officer's verbal offer to the Committee,
and the words of the seconder, Councillor Smale, before nobbled by Tolley.
6.1. Between 03 OCT 88 and the years end nothing was heard from the Planners.
6.2a. My minimum expectation would be a Consent Notice with it's condition,
6.2b. together with a report specification.
To receive nothing after deliberate misrepresentation
is too much of a coincidence to be an accident.
6.3. To receive nothing seems to me to be a fundamental omission.
7.1a. Enquiries into the probable cost of a gas report
7.1b. ( insofar as it was possible to obtain estimates without a specification )
7.1c. revealed an expense in the region of £5-7,000.
7.2a. Other enquiries into building methods
7.2b. and precautions against gas accepted and approved elsewhere
7.2c. indicated to me that the best course of action
7.2d. would be to accept the presence of gas as probable,
7.2e. and design the site accordingly.
Can the reader see Tim Wilmot acting irresponsibly here?
7.3a. Various options were suggested to me:-
7.3b. the use of portable buildings on stilts,
7.3c. the inclusion of an adjacent field ( i.e. solid ground ),
7.4d. a willingness IF NECESSARY to accept NO buildings whatsoever on the infilled ground.
8.1a. To get things moving I visited the Planning Dept. on 21 DEC 88,
8.1b. where I explained verbally what I had in mind,
8.1c. together with a letter (***T 18) setting out some of my proposals
8.1d. ( others I reserved for consultation )
8.1e. and asking for comments.
This was the few minutes only with Kimberley.
No consultation took place,
and no comment was received on Tim Wilmot's proposals.
Instead, it was rushed back to Committee
without Tim Wilmot's knowledge or consent.
8.2a. The letter ( which is in the application file )
8.2b. is extremely difficult to interpret
8.2c. in the manner stated in the listing for the February Meeting ( T29 ).
And placed in the context of the Harvey File Note
( of which Tim Wilmot knew nothing in 1989 ),
it was simply confirmation of an agreement
to await the arrival of Tim Wilmot's detailed planning application.
9.1. No contact was made between then and early April ( 3.5 months ).
No contact either way.
10.1a. On 18 JAN 89 the Planners sent the Environmental health Department Memo NGH/JS/88/1140
10.1b. which I am unable to see ( I've tried twice ).
The Planning Department were stripping the file whenever Tim Wilmot looked at it in 1989-91.
10.2. The result was a scare report. (***T 22)
The report - written within a few days of retirement by John Inman,
boils down to this:-
"In the absence of a consultant's report
the Council has no alternative
but to work on the assumption
that there is methane gas being produced on this seven acre site
[] which, to put it simply,
means that there should be no development of any kind".
10.3a. On 06 FEB 89, the earliest date
10.3b. ( such unaccustomed efficiency! )
10.3c. and quite unknown to me,
10.3d. the application was returned to Committee
10.3e. in what Mr Hartridge denies being "heavily loaded in a manner designed to secure refusal."
10.4a. Denied consultation,
10.4b. denied knowledge of the Meeting,
10.4c. denied representation of my case
10.4d. ( that Minuted as mine being demonstrably false ),
10.4e. I would suspect that only Sir Robert Armstrong ( of Spycatcher fame )
10.4f. would believe such a denial.
Armstrong was caught redhanded being "economical with the truth" in an MI6 trial.
11.1. My case is not unreasonable.
11.2a. Landfill gases are only dangerous under certain conditions,
11.2b. and with the site in question, and my flexibility over the type and positioning of buildings,
11.2b. together with adjacent hard ground,
11.2c. all safety problems are surmountable.
So easily surmountable,
that Mike Bullock,
Principal Environmental Health Officer from JAN 89 onwards,
wrotememos to the Chief Planning Officer
saying that Tim Wilmot's original ideas were perfectly viable.
As this destroyed at a stroke
Alan Hartridge's Great Landfill Gas Deception,
Bullock was instantly slapped down,
which is concrete evidence
of the Chief Planning Officer's blocking moves.
11.3a. In Mr Hartridge's letter dated 26 May 89,
11.3b. he refers to the Department of the Environment Circular 21/87.
11.4a. I, too, have a copy of the Circular,
11.4b. and while it is true that developers are responsible to ensure public safety,
11.4c. it is not so cut and dried as to say all developments will be banned without a full survey,
11.4d. for clearly many developments would involve no risk at all.
An open-field site poses no dangers -
it is the alteration of gas dispersal by poorly planned building works
that can cause gas traps leading to fires or explosions.
11.5. It also speaks of bringing derelict land back into profitable use.
11.6a. However, the real question should be:-
11.6b. "Is the reasonable or otherwise nature of Mr WILMOT's case in any way relevant,
11.6c. or ( having been decisively defeated in October )
11.6d. was the intention to delay or destroy this application by any means?
Here is Tim Wilmot's real question.
All the evidence suggests a concerted campaign.
12.1a. Listed as No. 17 for the February Meeting, paragraph 3 of the details reads:-
12.1b. "The applicant has now stated that he will not be having a survey carried out."
Tim Wilmot had an agreement running with Harvey on the detailed application,
and had asked in writing for both consultations and comments on his proposals.
Neither consultations nor comments were offered -
merely a slammed door marked "Refusal".
12.2. The Planning Officer responsible possessed nothing to warrant such a statement.
13a. Not surprisingly, the "application" -
13b. an application by the PLANNING DEPARTMENT
13c. ( but under my name without my knowledge or consent) -
13d. was refused.*************************************
Ambushed.
Cheated.
Robbed.
The planning department made sure
that I was not informed of their intention
to return my 16 votes to nil "approved" application
to the Planning Committee,
in such a dishonest and devious way
that the Committee was manipulated into voting for refusal.
14a. TWO further months passed before I received a Refusal Notice -
14b. the first contact since before the October Meeting.
15.1. On 12 MAY 89 I wrote in complaint to the Chief Executive.
15.2. On 26 MAY 89, a whitewash reply from Mr Hartridge.
15.3a. He said that I had asked for deferral in October,
15.3b. but produced no evidence,
15.3c. continuing:-
15.3d. "You are mistaken in thinking that I said that you wished to withdraw the application
15.3e. ( a copy of the Minutes are attached ).
16.1. These Minutes are acknowledged by the Council itself not to be accurate!
16.2a. In addition if Mr Hartridge had NOT said that I wished to withdraw,
16.2b. Mr Pengelly would not have been moved to suggest deferral in his surprise,
16.2c. leading to Miss PEARCE's proposal.
16.3. The one clearly follows the other.
The logic!
16.4. My very determination to swear on Oath must count for something!
Tim Wilmot thought the sun shone out of the law's backside,
but soon learnt what a disreputable bunch of sharks they all are.
And as Judge Chubb found out,
sharks burn,
when The Law of Karma comes calling for it's debts.
17.1a. I have not appealed against the refusal
17.1b. because I am disgusted at the devious and deceitful handling of my application.
17.2. In the autumn I asked Robert HICKS, MP, to make enquiries.
17.3a. The second paragraph of his letter reads:-
17.3b. "Mr Hartridge has investigated this subject on my behalf,
17.3c. and does outline the sequence of events []
17.3d. as well as confirming the reasons [] not to grant you planning permission.."
17.4a. No answer at all to the awkward questions
17.4b. Mr [Robert] HICKS[, MP,] had been primed with.
Robert Hicks, MP, was a typical system puppet,
who turned his face to the wall.
17.5a. I can only describe this
17.5b. as being like a poacher apprehended at 3 in the morning, miles from his home,
17.5c. with a dead rabbit in his pocket,
17.5d. and telling the Magistrates that he had lost his way in the dark,
17.5e. had stumbled into a field,
17.5f. where to his great surprise a rabbit,
17.5g. closely pursued by a fox intent upon it's dinner,
17.5h. had leapt for safety into the inner pocket of his jacket,
17.5i. regrettably breaking it's neck in the process!
18a. I trust that anyone reading this affidavit
18b. in conjunction with the enclosed documents
18c. will find it very hard indeed to believe Mr Hartridge's version.
19.1a. I would be obliged to receive support for a complaint to the Ombudsman,
19.1b. as there is a clear case of gross maladministration.
It did not take Tim Wilmot long to learn
that the Planning Ombudsman is a toothless geriatric.
How many times has the Planning Ombudsman exposed planning crimes?
None that I recall.
19.2a. I would also appreciate support for the removal of the February refusal,
19.2b. in order that the October approval can stand,
19.2c. together with what the Planning Department should have issued in the first place,
19.2d. namely an approval notice together with a report specification.
Please bear in mind
that this is exactly what an outside solicitor,
appointed by Caradon in 1991 to look at the file,
recommended.
It was turned down bya secret "Emergency Committee" of just four people -
three of whom were accused by Tim Wilmot of criminal offences.
This committee was unknown to The Public
until Tim Wilmot cross-examined the Cardon District Council Chairman,
Eric Distin.
Conveniently, for criminal conspirators,
it keeps no minutes,
and reports as and when it sees fit.
Perfect for the abuse of power!
19.3. In addition, consultations should take place upon my proposals of 21 DEC 88.
Blocked throughout.
20.1a. I am determined that Callington shall have a Garden Centre,
20.1b. and that a number of people shall have the opportunity
20.1c. to operate their own businesses under the Garden Centre "umbrella".
20.2a. Precisely because of this kind of government behaviour,
20.2b. I am not prepared to employ anyone,
20.2c. preferring to use such skills as I have
20.2d. to securing opportunities for genuine self-employment.
20.3a. I want to see a sturdy, vibrant and independent citizenry,
20.3b. not knock-kneed yes-men.
Our whole nation is now knock-kneed yes-men.
Sworn by the above named Tim WILMOT at Callington in the County of Cornwall before me.
Tim Wilmot
Vivian Carne A Solicitor
-====================================================-
Link -
-====================================================-
Link -
-====================================================-
Link -
Click "back" to your last webpage location
[C] 2010 - Zen asserts copyright on text, context, and design.
-===============================================================================-
Go to Instructions & Contact Details at top of Start Menu for:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. you want to use some of this site for a non-commercial purpose.
2. you want to use some of this site for a commercial purpose.
3. you want to use the design of this site for your own legal work,
and would welcome professional assistance.
-===============================================================================-
 |
Zen wishes to say "Thank You!" to BLOGGER |
