fast4truth2
Instructions and contact details link at top of Start MenuTW to Tolley 21 SEP 90
-====================================================-
Letter from Tim WILMOT to TOLLEY,
written just after the their second FOUR HOUR meeting on 17 SEP 90.
Caradon's solicitor would not spend a total of EIGHT hours with Tim Wilmot
if there was no truth whatsoever in his allegations, as claimed.
Tolley's reply dated 9 OCT 90 states:-
1.1. I thank you for your letter of 21 September received late Friday.
1.2. I have read what you say very carefully.
The point is that Tim Wilmot's 21 SEP 90 letter to Mr Tolley
proves that Mr Tolley was fully aware of the legal issues involved in the allegations,
and that he was caught out lying ( see CLUNK! below ).
What is more, NOTHING detailed below was ever denied by Tolley.
-====================================================-
1a. Tim WILMOT. English Earth Project, The Burrows, South Hill Road, Callington. PL17 7LH
1b. to
1c. Michael TOLLEY, Caradon DC
1d. 21 SEP 90
1e. Dear Mr TOLLEY,
-====================================================-
This section highlights the second four hour meeting.
-====================================================-
2a. 1). Thank you for seeing me on Monday 17 at only four hours notice,
2b. and for once again staying late at the office.
Caradon say Tim Wilmot's allegations are "entirely without foundation".
If that were true,
there is absolutely NO WAY that Tolley would waste time
on two four hour meetings with Tim Wilmot -
this one of which was at only four hours notice - i.e. Tolley cleared his desk!
Only an EMERGENCY would warrant that!
An emergency such as the Chief Planning Officer falsifying the planning committee minutes!
-====================================================-
3.1. 2). I think it would be a good idea for me to put on paper the position as I see it now.
-====================================================-
This section records the landfill gas survey 'blocks'.
-====================================================-
3.2. Two important points have emerged.
3.3a. First, that although we all have considered a gas survey report
3.3b. could only be done by drilling at vast expense,
3.3c. nonetheless it was my clear intention ( see letter T18 )
3.3d. to produce a technical report for a detailed application.
3.4a. Not only was the Council quite wrong to say that I had no intention of producing a report,
3.4b. but, by denying any consultation,
3.4c. I was denied any opportunity of demonstrating
3.4d. that my idea would fully meet any safety requirements.
Right from the beginning, the Planning Department wanted Tim Wilmot
to believe that ANY landfill gas survey was VASTLY expensive -
probably involving drilling rigs
that by themselves required a separate planning application -
in the hope that he would simply quit.
It was not until MUCH later that Tim Wilmot became aware
that a survey could be done with handheld probes.
The point is that in 1991, Mike Bullock,
Caradon's newly appointed Environmental Health Officer ( replacing Inman ),
FULLY supported Tim Wilmot's building proposals
but was rapidly slapped down by the Chief Planning Officer.
Bullock was saying that proper design in a detailed application
meant no survey was required.
-====================================================-
This section records the environmental 'blocks' known up to SEP 90.
-====================================================-
4.1a. In addition I have been denied access to the E[nvironmental] H[ealth] O[fficer]
4.1b. to discuss what I have in mind.
4.2a. Twice in 1989,
4.2b. and after our meeting of 24 APR 90,
4.2c. when you said that you would instruct Mr HEARL to contact me.
4.3a. Clearly someone has put a brake on this route,
4.3b. and by your statement that the EHO is advisory only to the Planners,
4.3c. a planner must be responsible?
It was obvious in 1989 to Tim Wilmot that he was being 'blocked'
from consultations with the Environmental Health Department
because the Planning Department did not want him to demonstrate
that his contruction concepts fully satisfied any possible landfill gas problem.
Both Tim Wilmot AND the environmental officers
knew that gas was definitely being emitted from Target landfill site,
but the Planning Department wanted to pretend that the purpose of the investigation
was to see IF gas was being emitted
( as if ANY gas meant no possibility of planning approval ).
An incredibly simple difference, but vital.
The point is that Hartridge had blocked Tim Wilmot's intended full application
that was agreed between him and Harvey in DEC 89
because it outmanouevred his landfill gas smokescreen.
And in at the first four hour meeting with Tolley on 24 APR 90,
Tolley had said that Hartridge's position was unreasonable,
and that he would instruct Mr Hearl, the Environmental Health Officer, to contact Tim Wilmot.
Like so many of Tolley's promises, his word proved worthless.
Just like producing a draft report upon serious criminal offences within 14 days,
it evaporated.
-====================================================-
5.1a. You said that the Council cannot accept my word in the matter,
5.1b. that you need reports signed by men with letters after their name.
5.2. True.
5.3a. But by misinterpreting my intentions to Committee,
5.3b. and denying consultations to establish the basis for a report,
5.3c. my position was left very vague.
'Vague' has to be the understatement of 1990!
5.4a. Mr HARTRIDGE in his letter of 26 May 89 says simply:-
5.4b. "If you [] now wish to produce a survey."
5.5a. That is the total specification I have ever had to work upon,
5.5b. and only after the Refusal Notice.
-====================================================-
This section records Smale BEFORE he was 'nobbled' by Tolley.
-====================================================-
6.1. There is clearly confusion over what the October decision really means.
6.2a. Miss PEARCE will play safe,
6.2b. but Godfrey SMALE is adamant that he wanted Consent issued
6.2c. with any gas survey to follow.
6.3a. He is entirely behind my original question,
6.3b. which was to establish on paper a principle
6.3c. from which all else can follow.
It is very important to remember exactly what happened -
Tolley was desperately trying to head Tim Wilmot off
from proving that Caradon District Council had committed serious criminal offences.
Tim Wilmot and Tolley had had TWO four hour meetings,
and Tim Wilmot was fully aware that Tolley was a lying shit.
So he phoned Councillor Ann Pearce - the proposer of the motion,
but she was extremely cagey, and unhelpful -
perhaps Tolley had been there before.
However Councillor Godfrey Smale was AT THAT TIME
only too willing to state the truth.
Tim Wilmot wrote:-
"Godfrey SMALE is adamant that he wanted Consent issued with any gas survey to follow"
because that is exactly what Smale said -
and 'adamant' is a powerful description.
In fact, Smale said this too:-
"How else can a businessman go to his bank, except with a piece of paper in his hand!" -
which was recognised as a classic Smale comment by the late Councillor Knott.
What is surprising is that Draper, when writing Smale's police witness statement,
failed to clarify the position,
and Smale, while no longer 'adamant' on the issuing of a Consent Notice
before any work on landfill gas,
is nonetheless not as categoric as Tolley's 'pre-requisite' in his second report dated 22 NOV 90.
-====================================================-
7.1a. If no agreement can be reached on this matter,
7.1b. I suggest that the matter be urgently returned to Committee
7.1c. to let the Members decide between the two positions.
7.2. At the same time the whole question can be made public.
7.3. Will you let me know ASAP your decision?
8.1a. I have suffered a heavy financial loss,
8.1b. and the issuing of a Consent would at least halt any further losses.
8.2a. At the very least a letter stating
8.2b. that the Council is "minded" to grant consent
8.2c. together with the reasons we discussed
8.2d. which would make it very difficult to refuse Consent,
8.2e. would be helpful.
9.1. Another important point.
-====================================================-
Tolley caught redhanded lying
-====================================================-
9.2a. You said that Mr HARTRIDGE has "no recollection"
9.2b. of taking any particular interest in this application,
9.2c. or of even speaking at the October Meeting.
9.3a. However, when I glanced at the Minutes,
9.3a. and said "Then who is the Planning Officer?"
9.3b. there was a CLUNK! which hit the floor,
9.3c. after which you said that usually referred to the Chief Planning Officer.
What is the involuntary response of many liars caught out?
They swallow!
In this case, it was so loud, so strong, it was literally "a CLUNK! which hit the floor!"
And "usually"? Always!
-====================================================-
10.1. After nearly 3 hours of discussion, we reached the crux of the matter.
10.2a. You had repeatedly said that you could find "no thread to follow",
10.2b. and that following an allegation,
10.2c. I could not expect the guilty party to "come out with his hands up",
10.2d. and I had as repeatedly said that I could see a very clear thread indeed
10.2e. which appeared to me to lead directly to one man.
I could not expect the guilty party to "come out with his hands up",
but surely I could expect a council solicitor to expose him for serious criminal offences?
A solicitor whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law?
And note Tolley's freudian slip use of the words "guilty party".
10.3a. You finally said, very softly, "But I can't prove it!",
10.3b. and continued that if you put on paper in your report the "thread",
10.3c. both you and the Council would be sued for defamation of character.
Good try, Tolley! Playing for the sympathy vote!
And "But I can't prove it!",
proves that you had evidence of offences,
but were pretending that the evidence was insufficient.
10.4a. We agreed that we were not talking of sloppiness or incompetence,
10.4b. but, if proven, a "deliberate act"
10.4c. which could well result in a prosecution under Criminal Law,
10.4d. as well as the dismissal of one of the Council's chief officers.
Here is the crux of the matter.
Tolley knew full well the seriousness of the situation,
and was desperately trying to prevent Caradon admitting the truth.
Tim Wilmot suggests that the words "deliberate act"
are probably words used by Tolley,
as at that time Tim Wilmot's legal terminology was minimal.
11.1a. I hope that I have convinced you
11.1b. that there is no personal malice behind my actions,
11.1c. beyond my determination to ensure to my satisfaction
11.1d. that Caradon has a Planning Officer whose word I feel I can rely upon.
Tim Wilmot does not like being governed by liars.
How rare is it for a man to express himself in this way to government?
Are we not conditioned to accept lies and deceit as the price of authority?
11.2. Nothing Mr HARTRIDGE has done has relieved my position.
11.3a. Beyond saying "You are mistaken!",
11.3b. he has ignored both my letter of December 1989 (T 39)
11.3c. and my Affidavit (T40),
11.3d. which is strange because they must be a threat to his own position.
Who advised him to ignore them - Tolley?
And if Caradon District Council were truly innocent,
would they not have invited Tim Wilmot to their offices
to demonstrate that this was so?
12.1a. I repeat, the crux of the matter is "Who altered the Minutes?",
12.1b. and it MUST be answered.
12.2. There must be no doubt left in either my, or the Public's mind, over this.
12.3a. You have accepted
12.3b. that at no time did I give permission for either withdrawal or deferral,
12.3c. so clearly the October Minute is false.
The entry minuted as Tim Wilmot's request for deferral
is obviously falsehood amounting to deliberate misrepresentation.
12.4a. If the Minute Clerk has made such a monumental error, then let's look at it,
12.4b. but I think it unlikely in view of the next step,
12.4c. which was the discovery of the loss of the original handwritten notes
12.4d. after I had strongly indicated to the Planning Department
12.4e. that I had an interest in seeing them.
I.e. Tolley's play-acting discovery ( he is an accomplished Shakesperian actor ).
13.1a. I repeat, I would like to see my application back to the vote - ( in full Council? )
13.1b. and the issues, on both sides, explained clearly
13.1c. ( and to my satisfaction, i.e. not hiding facts as was done in OCT 88
13.1d. when the Committee was NOT told that only two hours previously
13.1e. the EXPERTS on which the Planners had pinned their hopes
13.1f. were happy to see Consent granted and gas covered by a condition ).
in 1990, Tim Wilmot was still three years away from sight of Draper's police report,
and therefore did not yet know that the EXPERTS had briefed the Chief Planning Officer.
13.2a. I have clearly suffered a major injustice
13.2b. and I say that the Council has a clear duty to halt any further losses.
Understatement.
13.3a. The question of compensation will be looked into through the Ombudsman and Law
13.3b. ( I am hoping to engage the National Farmers Union over this
13.3c. as I feel that it is of sufficient importance.
13.3d. Telephone conversation looks good
13.3e. and I have ( another! ) short notice appointment on Monday at SW regional HQ ).
At that time, Tim Wilmot did not realise
that The Ombudsman is just a toothless old crone.
Ever heard that The Ombudsman has uncovered criminality in planning?
No? Me neither!
-====================================================-
Link -Return to top of this webpage
-====================================================-
Link -TW Letter to Tolley 21SEP90 - the crux of the matter - sequential
-====================================================-
Link -Return to Start Menu to Two Four Hour Meetings 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.
-===============================================================================-
-===============================================================================-
Letter from Tim WILMOT to TOLLEY,
written just after the their second FOUR HOUR meeting on 17 SEP 90.
Caradon's solicitor would not spend a total of EIGHT hours with Tim Wilmot
if there was no truth whatsoever in his allegations, as claimed.
Tolley's reply dated 9 OCT 90 states:-
1.1. I thank you for your letter of 21 September received late Friday.
1.2. I have read what you say very carefully.
The point is that Tim Wilmot's 21 SEP 90 letter to Mr Tolley
proves that Mr Tolley was fully aware of the legal issues involved in the allegations,
and that he was caught out lying ( see CLUNK! below ).
What is more, NOTHING detailed below was ever denied by Tolley.
-====================================================-
1a. Tim WILMOT. English Earth Project, The Burrows, South Hill Road, Callington. PL17 7LH
1b. to
1c. Michael TOLLEY, Caradon DC
1d. 21 SEP 90
1e. Dear Mr TOLLEY,
-====================================================-
This section highlights the second four hour meeting.
-====================================================-
2a. 1). Thank you for seeing me on Monday 17 at only four hours notice,
2b. and for once again staying late at the office.
Caradon say Tim Wilmot's allegations are "entirely without foundation".
If that were true,
there is absolutely NO WAY that Tolley would waste time
on two four hour meetings with Tim Wilmot -
this one of which was at only four hours notice - i.e. Tolley cleared his desk!
Only an EMERGENCY would warrant that!
An emergency such as the Chief Planning Officer falsifying the planning committee minutes!
-====================================================-
3.1. 2). I think it would be a good idea for me to put on paper the position as I see it now.
-====================================================-
This section records the landfill gas survey 'blocks'.
-====================================================-
3.2. Two important points have emerged.
3.3a. First, that although we all have considered a gas survey report
3.3b. could only be done by drilling at vast expense,
3.3c. nonetheless it was my clear intention ( see letter T18 )
3.3d. to produce a technical report for a detailed application.
3.4a. Not only was the Council quite wrong to say that I had no intention of producing a report,
3.4b. but, by denying any consultation,
3.4c. I was denied any opportunity of demonstrating
3.4d. that my idea would fully meet any safety requirements.
Right from the beginning, the Planning Department wanted Tim Wilmot
to believe that ANY landfill gas survey was VASTLY expensive -
probably involving drilling rigs
that by themselves required a separate planning application -
in the hope that he would simply quit.
It was not until MUCH later that Tim Wilmot became aware
that a survey could be done with handheld probes.
The point is that in 1991, Mike Bullock,
Caradon's newly appointed Environmental Health Officer ( replacing Inman ),
FULLY supported Tim Wilmot's building proposals
but was rapidly slapped down by the Chief Planning Officer.
Bullock was saying that proper design in a detailed application
meant no survey was required.
-====================================================-
This section records the environmental 'blocks' known up to SEP 90.
-====================================================-
4.1a. In addition I have been denied access to the E[nvironmental] H[ealth] O[fficer]
4.1b. to discuss what I have in mind.
4.2a. Twice in 1989,
4.2b. and after our meeting of 24 APR 90,
4.2c. when you said that you would instruct Mr HEARL to contact me.
4.3a. Clearly someone has put a brake on this route,
4.3b. and by your statement that the EHO is advisory only to the Planners,
4.3c. a planner must be responsible?
It was obvious in 1989 to Tim Wilmot that he was being 'blocked'
from consultations with the Environmental Health Department
because the Planning Department did not want him to demonstrate
that his contruction concepts fully satisfied any possible landfill gas problem.
Both Tim Wilmot AND the environmental officers
knew that gas was definitely being emitted from Target landfill site,
but the Planning Department wanted to pretend that the purpose of the investigation
was to see IF gas was being emitted
( as if ANY gas meant no possibility of planning approval ).
An incredibly simple difference, but vital.
The point is that Hartridge had blocked Tim Wilmot's intended full application
that was agreed between him and Harvey in DEC 89
because it outmanouevred his landfill gas smokescreen.
And in at the first four hour meeting with Tolley on 24 APR 90,
Tolley had said that Hartridge's position was unreasonable,
and that he would instruct Mr Hearl, the Environmental Health Officer, to contact Tim Wilmot.
Like so many of Tolley's promises, his word proved worthless.
Just like producing a draft report upon serious criminal offences within 14 days,
it evaporated.
-====================================================-
5.1a. You said that the Council cannot accept my word in the matter,
5.1b. that you need reports signed by men with letters after their name.
5.2. True.
5.3a. But by misinterpreting my intentions to Committee,
5.3b. and denying consultations to establish the basis for a report,
5.3c. my position was left very vague.
'Vague' has to be the understatement of 1990!
5.4a. Mr HARTRIDGE in his letter of 26 May 89 says simply:-
5.4b. "If you [] now wish to produce a survey."
5.5a. That is the total specification I have ever had to work upon,
5.5b. and only after the Refusal Notice.
-====================================================-
This section records Smale BEFORE he was 'nobbled' by Tolley.
-====================================================-
6.1. There is clearly confusion over what the October decision really means.
6.2a. Miss PEARCE will play safe,
6.2b. but Godfrey SMALE is adamant that he wanted Consent issued
6.2c. with any gas survey to follow.
6.3a. He is entirely behind my original question,
6.3b. which was to establish on paper a principle
6.3c. from which all else can follow.
It is very important to remember exactly what happened -
Tolley was desperately trying to head Tim Wilmot off
from proving that Caradon District Council had committed serious criminal offences.
Tim Wilmot and Tolley had had TWO four hour meetings,
and Tim Wilmot was fully aware that Tolley was a lying shit.
So he phoned Councillor Ann Pearce - the proposer of the motion,
but she was extremely cagey, and unhelpful -
perhaps Tolley had been there before.
However Councillor Godfrey Smale was AT THAT TIME
only too willing to state the truth.
Tim Wilmot wrote:-
"Godfrey SMALE is adamant that he wanted Consent issued with any gas survey to follow"
because that is exactly what Smale said -
and 'adamant' is a powerful description.
In fact, Smale said this too:-
"How else can a businessman go to his bank, except with a piece of paper in his hand!" -
which was recognised as a classic Smale comment by the late Councillor Knott.
What is surprising is that Draper, when writing Smale's police witness statement,
failed to clarify the position,
and Smale, while no longer 'adamant' on the issuing of a Consent Notice
before any work on landfill gas,
is nonetheless not as categoric as Tolley's 'pre-requisite' in his second report dated 22 NOV 90.
-====================================================-
7.1a. If no agreement can be reached on this matter,
7.1b. I suggest that the matter be urgently returned to Committee
7.1c. to let the Members decide between the two positions.
7.2. At the same time the whole question can be made public.
7.3. Will you let me know ASAP your decision?
8.1a. I have suffered a heavy financial loss,
8.1b. and the issuing of a Consent would at least halt any further losses.
8.2a. At the very least a letter stating
8.2b. that the Council is "minded" to grant consent
8.2c. together with the reasons we discussed
8.2d. which would make it very difficult to refuse Consent,
8.2e. would be helpful.
9.1. Another important point.
-====================================================-
Tolley caught redhanded lying
-====================================================-
9.2a. You said that Mr HARTRIDGE has "no recollection"
9.2b. of taking any particular interest in this application,
9.2c. or of even speaking at the October Meeting.
9.3a. However, when I glanced at the Minutes,
9.3a. and said "Then who is the Planning Officer?"
9.3b. there was a CLUNK! which hit the floor,
9.3c. after which you said that usually referred to the Chief Planning Officer.
What is the involuntary response of many liars caught out?
They swallow!
In this case, it was so loud, so strong, it was literally "a CLUNK! which hit the floor!"
And "usually"? Always!
-====================================================-
10.1. After nearly 3 hours of discussion, we reached the crux of the matter.
10.2a. You had repeatedly said that you could find "no thread to follow",
10.2b. and that following an allegation,
10.2c. I could not expect the guilty party to "come out with his hands up",
10.2d. and I had as repeatedly said that I could see a very clear thread indeed
10.2e. which appeared to me to lead directly to one man.
I could not expect the guilty party to "come out with his hands up",
but surely I could expect a council solicitor to expose him for serious criminal offences?
A solicitor whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law?
And note Tolley's freudian slip use of the words "guilty party".
10.3a. You finally said, very softly, "But I can't prove it!",
10.3b. and continued that if you put on paper in your report the "thread",
10.3c. both you and the Council would be sued for defamation of character.
Good try, Tolley! Playing for the sympathy vote!
And "But I can't prove it!",
proves that you had evidence of offences,
but were pretending that the evidence was insufficient.
10.4a. We agreed that we were not talking of sloppiness or incompetence,
10.4b. but, if proven, a "deliberate act"
10.4c. which could well result in a prosecution under Criminal Law,
10.4d. as well as the dismissal of one of the Council's chief officers.
Here is the crux of the matter.
Tolley knew full well the seriousness of the situation,
and was desperately trying to prevent Caradon admitting the truth.
Tim Wilmot suggests that the words "deliberate act"
are probably words used by Tolley,
as at that time Tim Wilmot's legal terminology was minimal.
11.1a. I hope that I have convinced you
11.1b. that there is no personal malice behind my actions,
11.1c. beyond my determination to ensure to my satisfaction
11.1d. that Caradon has a Planning Officer whose word I feel I can rely upon.
Tim Wilmot does not like being governed by liars.
How rare is it for a man to express himself in this way to government?
Are we not conditioned to accept lies and deceit as the price of authority?
11.2. Nothing Mr HARTRIDGE has done has relieved my position.
11.3a. Beyond saying "You are mistaken!",
11.3b. he has ignored both my letter of December 1989 (T 39)
11.3c. and my Affidavit (T40),
11.3d. which is strange because they must be a threat to his own position.
Who advised him to ignore them - Tolley?
And if Caradon District Council were truly innocent,
would they not have invited Tim Wilmot to their offices
to demonstrate that this was so?
12.1a. I repeat, the crux of the matter is "Who altered the Minutes?",
12.1b. and it MUST be answered.
12.2. There must be no doubt left in either my, or the Public's mind, over this.
12.3a. You have accepted
12.3b. that at no time did I give permission for either withdrawal or deferral,
12.3c. so clearly the October Minute is false.
The entry minuted as Tim Wilmot's request for deferral
is obviously falsehood amounting to deliberate misrepresentation.
12.4a. If the Minute Clerk has made such a monumental error, then let's look at it,
12.4b. but I think it unlikely in view of the next step,
12.4c. which was the discovery of the loss of the original handwritten notes
12.4d. after I had strongly indicated to the Planning Department
12.4e. that I had an interest in seeing them.
I.e. Tolley's play-acting discovery ( he is an accomplished Shakesperian actor ).
13.1a. I repeat, I would like to see my application back to the vote - ( in full Council? )
13.1b. and the issues, on both sides, explained clearly
13.1c. ( and to my satisfaction, i.e. not hiding facts as was done in OCT 88
13.1d. when the Committee was NOT told that only two hours previously
13.1e. the EXPERTS on which the Planners had pinned their hopes
13.1f. were happy to see Consent granted and gas covered by a condition ).
in 1990, Tim Wilmot was still three years away from sight of Draper's police report,
and therefore did not yet know that the EXPERTS had briefed the Chief Planning Officer.
13.2a. I have clearly suffered a major injustice
13.2b. and I say that the Council has a clear duty to halt any further losses.
Understatement.
13.3a. The question of compensation will be looked into through the Ombudsman and Law
13.3b. ( I am hoping to engage the National Farmers Union over this
13.3c. as I feel that it is of sufficient importance.
13.3d. Telephone conversation looks good
13.3e. and I have ( another! ) short notice appointment on Monday at SW regional HQ ).
At that time, Tim Wilmot did not realise
that The Ombudsman is just a toothless old crone.
Ever heard that The Ombudsman has uncovered criminality in planning?
No? Me neither!
-====================================================-
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 |
