Royal Panda Play Now! 10 free spins - No deposit 100% bonus up to ÂŁ200 Read more
Winner Play Now! 99 free spins - No deposit 200% bonus up to ÂŁ300 Read more
Prime Slots Play Now! 10 free spins - No Deposit 100% bonus and 100 free spins Read more
ComeOn Play Now! 10 free spins - No deposit 100% bonus up to ÂŁ200 Read more
Cashmio Play Now! 20 free spins - No deposit 200 free spins on 1st deposit Read more
LeoVegas Play Now! 50 free spins - No deposit 200% bonus and 200 free spins Read more

🎰 Treasure Bay (St Lucia) Ltd v The Gaming Authority et al - Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

australia-icon

St. Lucia has historically been grouped with the other non-gambling nations, but the island has recently opened its first casino, The Treasure Bay Casino.
St. Lucia Casinos: Browse our selection of over 552 hotels in St. Lucia.. Take that lucky streak all the way to the gambling halls, slot machines, blackjack ...
Treasure Bay Casino is a favorite for locals and visitors. It's Saint Lucia's Only Casino with tables, slot machines. Turn your play into REWARDS!

The Best Of Online Betting Through Casino Gaming

Compare Marigot Bay casinos with hotels & save more with our daily hot rate deals.. This means you'll have more time to explore St. Lucia and more cash to discover what isn't on the maps or. It's not really gambling if you always win, right?
Compton's administration had argued that allowing casino gambling at. The tourism industry is a significant player in St. Lucia's economy.
Need Online Casino, that's available for players from St. Lucia? Here at Casino Hex™ we have collected The Best Online Gambling Sites in St. Lucia, that are.
CASINO NAME FREE BONUS DEPOSIT BONUS RATING GET BONUS
spinson
Spinson 10 free spins no deposit Up to 999 free spins PLAY
royal panda
Royal Panda - 100% bonus up to $100 PLAY
guts
Guts - $400 bonus + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
PrimeSlots
PrimeSlots 10 free spins 100% bonus up to $100 + 100 free spins PLAY
leovegas
LeoVegas 20 free spins no deposit 200% bonus up to $100 + 200 free spins PLAY
mrgreen
MrGreen - €350 + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
skycasino
BetSpin - $200 bonus + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
casinoroom
CasinoRoom 20 free spins no deposit 100% bonus up to $500 + 180 free spins PLAY
thrills
Thrills - 200% bonus up to $100 + 20 super spins PLAY
karamba
Karamba - $100 bonus + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
casumo
Casumo - 200% bonus + 180 free spins PLAY
GDay Casino
GDay Casino 50 free spins 100% unlimited first deposit bonus PLAY
kaboo
Kaboo 5 free spins $200 bonus + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY

Sandals Grande St Lucia Casino Gambling casino in st lucia

pokie-1

Find out what the best casinos and online casino sites are in Saint Lucia, or learn more about the legal status of casino gambling in the country.
Zynga poker chips online casino st lucia helicopters. casino grand prairie jail visitation casino north dakota fighting sioux football helmet casinos rochester ...
Need Online Casino, that's available for players from St. Lucia? Here at Casino Hex™ we have collected The Best Online Gambling Sites in St. Lucia, that are.

starburst-pokieSandals Grande St Lucia Casino Gambling casino in st lucia

Sandals Grande St Lucia Casino Gambling casino in st lucia

The largest gambling city in Saint Lucia is Gros Islet with 1 gambling facilities, 200 gaming, slot, and video poker machines. The largest casino in the entire country of Saint Lucia is Treasure Bay Casino - St Lucia which is located in Gros Islet. Treasure Bay Casino - St Lucia has 200 gaming and video poker machines.
Brush up on your poker face while you take in the view from your hotel room, then. Hotels close to a casino in St. Lucia offer the convenience of easy access to ...
Treasure Bay (St Lucia) Ltd v The Gaming Authority et al. Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. About Us · Court Overview · Meet the Chief Justice; Past Chief ...

Gambling casino in st luciacasinobonus

gambling casino in st lucia THE GAMING AUTHORITY 2.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SAINT LUCIA 3.
THE NATIONAL LOTTERIES AUTHORITY Respondents Appearances: Mr.
Foster for the Claimant and with him Ms.
Esther Greene-Ernest for the First Respondent.
Raulston Glasgow, Solicitor General for the Second Respondent and with him Mr.
Deale Lee and Ms.
Vern Gill for the Third Respondent.
C for the Applicant, CAGE St.
Alana Gore and Ms.
On July 6 th 2011, the Claimant filed its fixed date claim form seeking judicial review of certain decisions and certain relief.
The Applicant, CAGE St.
Counsel for CAGE stated that CAGE had not had sight of the amended fixed date claim form and therefore it could not speak to it.
The hearing therefore proceeded on the basis of the palazzo montecasino hotel johannesburg date claim form filed July 6 th 2011.
Susan Varnes, president of the Claimant.
She deposed that the Claimant is the owner and operator of Treasure Bay Casino situate at Bay Walk Mall, Gros Islet and it commenced operations on December 13 th 2010.
The Claimant was issued as a series unlawful gambling enforcement act text short term licenses for operation from 2005 onward.
At October 13 th 2010, the Claimant was granted a license with effect from October 1 st 2010.
The license first period was that of six 6 months to facilitate finalization of a report to be submitted to the First Respondent by SPECTRUM who was conducting due diligence checks on behalf of the First Respondent.
A favourable report was received and the Claimant sought from the First Respondent a licence pursuant to section 21 of the Gaming Control Act and received a license for the period April 1 st 2011 to June 30 th 2011.
The First Respondent further requested of the Claimant a Gaming bond.
The Claimant submitted a draft bond for approval to the First Respondent and did propose that it also offer its immoveable property as security for the bond.
Pursuant to the gaming licence the Claimant is authorized to conduct gaming on its property.
CAGE has imported or caused to be imported VLTs into Saint Lucia.
The Claimant was informed that CAGE houses the VLTs in a warehouse at Vide Bouteille, Castries, and that CAGE has received permission from the Cabinet of Ministers or the Government of Saint Lucia to import, distribute and operate VLTs.
The Claimant came to understand these matters from a report published in the media of an interview with the Minister for Social Transformation, he is the Minister with responsibility for the National Lotteries Authority Act.
This all concerned the Claimant as VLTs are gaming devices, and are essentially the equivalent of slot machines.
No reply was received from either of the Ministers.
On February 23 rd 2011, the Claimant requested a meeting.
It stated that CAGE had entered into a management agreement with the Third Respondent to manage certain additional lottery games for the Third Respondent and it alleged that any claim of any adverse effect on Saint Lucia by the impact of the VLTs was without merit.
The Claimant on February 23 rd 2011, by letter from it attorneysat-law responded to CAGE.
The First Respondent advised that a meeting had been convened by the Honourable Prime Minister the Minister with responsibility for administering the Gaming Control Act at which the Minister for the Third Respondent was present, the Attorney-General, the Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary of Finance, a representative of the Third Respondent and members of the First Respondent.
The letter stated that under the directions of the Honourable Prime Minister, a representative of the First Respondent and Third Respondent were to meet the Second Respondent as a matter of urgency to chart a possible way forward to be proposed to the Cabinet of Ministers.
The VLTs are now widely distributed in and around Saint Lucia in restaurants, bars and rum shops.
They are available for use by the public, unmonitored and are within the reach of minors.
CAGE has never claimed to hold such a licence.
The agreements provide for no term between the parties.
In the press release, CAGE LLC referred to and described itself as amongst other things as being i in the business of gaming, and ii they accepted VLTs are gaming devices used in the Hard Rock branded casino.
At September 27 th 2011, CAGE filed an amended 7 notice of application seeking orders pursuant to CPR 2000 Part 19.
The orders sought were: i That CAGE be added to the proceedings as Fourth Respondent; ii That the Claimant file an amended fixed date claim form within 14 days of the date of the order granting the application by CAGE; iii That the Claimant do serve upon CAGE within 14 days of the date of filing the amended fixed date claim form: a a certified copy of the amended fixed date claim form, together with copies of all affidavits filed in connection with the claim; b any prescribed forms; and c copies of any applications for interim relief filed herein together with any affidavits filed in support or in opposition thereto.
CAGE is a wholly owned subsidiary of CAGE Holding.
CAGE employs approximately forty 40 employees in its business.
CAGE has entered into third party contracts with various agents relative to the operation of the VLGs at sixty four 64 locations throughout Saint Lucia.
These agents receive commission of 25 percent of the net win after payment of the monthly fee to the Third Respondent.
Rafael De La Cruz filed respectively on September 23 rd 2011, and October 13 th 2011.
De La Cruz is the executive vice president for strategy and business development of CAGE LLC an affiliate of CAGE.
His responsibilities include expansion and development of CAGE and as a result of which he is familiar with the business of CAGE especially the operation of VLGs and terminals at Saint Lucia.
De La Cruz states that he was informed by Mr.
Robert L Johnson, the chairman of RLJ Companies and which company is the majority shareholder of 9 CAGE LLC that in or about August 2009, Mr.
Johnson had met with senior Ministers of the Government of Saint Lucia to discuss a number of potential investment and project opportunities.
At that meeting the interest of CAGE providing lottery games to the Government was raised.
At September 19 th 2009, the Prime Minister of Saint Lucia issued to CAGE LLC a letter of intent to discuss and negotiate the design, deployment and operations of VLGs in Saint Lucia.
De La Cruz together with other members of CAGE LLC held several meetings with members of Government, the Board of the Third Respondent, and the Minister for Social Transformation reviewing the VLGs venture, negotiating the terms and conditions of the venture and discussing how the venture would be executed pursuant to the laws of Saint Lucia.
Robert Washington, chairman and CEO of CAGE LLC advising that Cabinet had taken a decision to authorize the responsible Minister of Government to instruct the Third Respondent to execute a ten 10 year exclusive contract with one 1 ten 10 years exclusive option term with CAGE LLC.
By a Contract dated August 12 con gambling pro 2010, CAGE Holding agreed with the Third Respondent that it would develop, supply and operate VLGs and VLTs in Saint Lucia on an exclusive basis for the Third Respondent.
The VLGs are all played by means of VLTs.
CAGE Holding through CAGE implemented the Contract by carrying out various site visits, placing certain advertisements, carrying out personnel training and importing VLGs and ancillary equipment.
By March 18 th 2011, CAGE began a full deployment of VLGs in approved agent locations at Saint Lucia.
There are presently sixty-four agents 64 just click for source gambling casino in st lucia at Saint Lucia, with an estimated forty 40 employees.
CAGE pays the Third Respondent an average monthly service fee of an estimated three hundred thousand E.
De La Cruz was, that CAGE and its partners had invested over eight million, one hundred thousand E.
CAGE was responsible for all operational costs and expenses of the VLGs system and neither the Government of Saint Lucia nor the Third Respondent had invested any money in the VLGs operations.
An interim injunction would have the effect of putting CAGE and its agents out of business and thereby cause CAGE to suffer or sustain severe hardship, economic and financial loss and irreparable damage.
De La Cruz, there exist between CAGE Holding and CAGE a loan agreement made in or about August 2010, and the proceeds of which were used for marketing research and development, and other start up expenses.
There are monthly repayments to be made out of earned income on this loan.
The Third Respondent depended on this revenue to pay its loan obligation that is secured by a mortgage over the National Cricket Grounds at Beausejour.
There is also spent approximately twelve thousand E.
All of these payments would cease on the grant of an interim injunction.
Should the interim injunction be granted the VLTs would no longer be profitable to Scientific Games Worldwide Limited and that company would retake the VLTs and terminate its agreement with CAGE LLC and this would essentially put CAGE out of business.
De La Cruz added that should the interim injunction be granted then CAGE would lose a significant portion of its customer base as regular players would go elsewhere to play VLGs.
The Third Respondent was empowered under National Lotteries Authority Act section 4 1 to carry out or provide for the operation of lotteries at Saint Lucia.
The VLGs fell under the definition of lottery as contained in the National Lotteries Authority Act and as such the VLGs operations were implemented and regulated pursuant to the National Lotteries Authority Act.
No licence is or was required by the Third Respondent for the importation, distribution or operation of the VLGs.
The sole issue is whether pursuant to CPR 2000 Part 19 CAGE ought to be joined in these judicial review proceedings as a Respondent.
An application to add a party may be made by any person who wished to become a party.
D 105 Sep where he said it was held that Part 19 of the Rules regarding addition and substitution of parties did not to apply to public law cases however, that case stated that power to add or substitute parties in public law cases could be had from the inherent jurisdiction of the Court which could be exercised in accordance with the principles under Part 19.
Thus this Court may exercise its inherit jurisdiction in the circumstances to add CAGE as a party to the judicial review proceedings, and it could exercise that discretion in accordance with the principles of rule 19.
This power may be exercised upon application by a party or by a person who wishes 14 to intervene in proceedings to become a party, or by the Court acting on its own initiative.
He added that in United Film Distribution Ltd.
Chhabria and Others 2001 Times, 5 April, the court of appeal said that the discretion to add a party under CPR rule 19.
Browne 1889 22 Q.
It is not necessary that the evidence in the issues raised by the new parties being brought in should be exactly the same; it is sufficient if the main evidence and the main inquiry, will be the same, and the Court then has power to article source in the new parties and to adjudicate in one proceeding upon the rights of all the parties before it.
Another great object was to diminish the cost of litigation.
That being so, the Court ought to give the largest construction to those Acts in orders to carry out as far as possible the two objects I have mentioned.
By doing so, the Court achieves the object of the rule.
They are directly affected, not only in their legal rights, but also in their pocket.
They ought to be allowed to come in as defendants.
It would be most unjust if they were bound to stand idly by watching the plaintiff get judgment against the defendant without saying a word when they are the people who have to foot the bill.
A matter in dispute is not, in my view, effectually and completely adjudicated upon, unless the rules of natural justice are observed and all those who will be liable to satisfy the judgment are given an opportunity to be heard.
Here Radio Tara Ltd.
The applicant, a local resident appealed the decision to the second respondent, but the Board then granted permission subject to conditions.
The applicant sought by way of judicial review an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Board on certain grounds.
The trial judge held that the decision of the Board was procedurally bad and source void by reason gambling regulator french i of the failure of the Board to state adequately reasons for its decision, and ii the failure of the Board to keep minutes of its deliberations leading to its decision.
The Board appealed this decision.
Before the court of appeal, Radio Tara applied to be added gambling casino in st lucia a party for the purpose of the appeal.
If application is made for liberty to issue proceedings for judicial review and the claim includes one for certiorari to quash the decision of a court or of an administrative decision-making authority the applicant must seek to add as a party any person whose rights would be affected by the avoidance of the decision impugned.
As was stated in the case of Long v.
Order 15 Rule 13 of the Superior Courts, 1986.
Here the plaintiff bank which was incorporated in Luxembourg, gambling casino in st lucia ÂŁ1.
When the company 1 Page 7817 later failed to repay the ÂŁ1.
The Court of its own motion made an order under RSC Ord.
As I have said, I made the order for its joinder of my own motion pursuant to Https://partysutra.com/gambling/top-gambling-web-site.html Ord.
I considered that the presence of the company before the court was necessary to ensure that all in dispute in the cause or matter might be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon by adding the company as a party.
I also considered that the position of the company fell within the broad provisions of Ord.
Chambra and Another then CAGE was entitled to benefit of the cross undertaking in damages.
As the exclusive operator of the VLGs at Saint Lucia, and as the party with the most intimate knowledge of the workings of the VLGs, and as the party with the most invested financial interest in the VLGs, CAGE was in the best position to respond to the allegations of facts and law raised by the Claimant, including the allegation that the VLGs were gaming devices within the meaning of, and regulated by, the Gaming Control Act.
The Third Respondent Counsel for the Third Respondent also said that the Third Respondent supported the application by CAGE to be joined in the application for judicial review.
Essentially, the matter he said was a public law matter to review the decisions of the Government of Saint Lucia and public authorities on the ground that the Claimant was adversely affected by those decisions which the Claimant claims to be unlawful.
The Contract purports to be a management contract pursuant to section 5 3 of the National Lotteries Authority Act authorizing CAGE and CAGE by its own admission has stated expressly, that its operations are for the Third Respondent and in doing so it operates and manages the VLTs on behalf of the Third Respondent.
The Claimant has asked the Court to review this decision and determine whether it is unlawful and improper in view of the Gaming Control Act and the National Lotteries Authority Act.
What the Cabinet of Ministers and the Government considered in making the decision is within the knowledge of the Second Respondent and Cabinet of Ministers.
The Claimant rejected the notion that CAGE could be an interested party to the proceedings merely because it entered into discussions and negotiations.
Declarations are gambling casino in st lucia to determine questions of law that arise in the course of a judicial review application.
The declarations sought by the Claimant are sought alongside the claim that the First Respondent ought to enforce the provisions of the Gaming Control Act.
Consequently, the Claimant has sought a declaration that the VLTs are gaming devices.
Further, the Claimant seeks a declaration that the importation, distribution and operation of the VLTs by the Third Respondent is unlawful and in breach of the Gaming Control Act and National Lotteries Authority Act.
CAGE was therefore not a necessary and proper party to the 21 proceedings as CAGE holds no expertise in interpretation of the legislation and its intention.
CAGE claims a pecuniary interest in the proceedings it being the party with a management contract under which it conducts gaming operations on behalf of the Third Respondent.
CAGE was purporting to operate under such a management contract for and on behalf of the Third Respondent and so could have no separate interest.
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY The Authority shall have power to carry out or provide for the operation of lotteries in Saint Lucia.
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection 1 the Authority shall- organize, https://partysutra.com/gambling/gambling-should-not-be-banned.html, conduct and control the operation of lotteries in or outside of Saint Lucia either alone or in conjunction with any other companies or organizations in or associate with any other company or organization concerned with the business of lotteries; … 5.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATING LOTTERIES 1 The Authority shall be the body responsible for operating lotteries in Saint Lucia.
The NLA shall not contract for or purchase other online services, material or equipment for use as part of, or adjunct to, the Online Video System or establish another Online Video Lottery processing system during the original ten 10 year Term of this Professional Services Contract or any extensions or renewals as contemplated hereunder without the express prior approval in writing, of the Operator… Section 3.
The same fee shall apply during the additional ten 10 year extension Term.
The Operator acknowledges and agrees on behalf of itself, and any affiliate of the Operator providing services to the NLA, and any of its directors, officers, and employees, that in performing their professional services pursuant to this Contract, each shall exhibit complete loyalty towards the NLA and shall have no adverse or Conflict of Interest, as specified in the following provisions below.
The Operator certifies that it does not have any other contracts with the Government, its agencies, corporations or municipalities and will immediately disclose in writing to the NLA any contract between the Operator and other government authorities and shall immediately notify the NLA in writing upon obtaining any necessary waivers.
Any such future Contract shall not conflict with the obligations of the Operator under this Contract.
The Operator and the NLA agree to cooperate fully, to work in good faith and mutually to assist each other in the performance of the Contract.
For this purpose, the parties will meet to resolve problems associated with the Contract.
Neither party will unreasonably delay, or condition its approval of any act or request of the other to which its approval is necessary or desirable.
There were no other Professional Services Contract laid before the Court.
There has also been no other contract whatsoever laid before the Court showing the Applicant, CAGE as legal gambling age in florida party or 26 Operator.
Section texas gambling news 2020 et seq.
External companies carrying on business An external company carries on business within Saint Lucia— a if business of the company is regularly transacted from an office in Saint Lucia established or used for the purpose; b if the company establishes or uses a share transfer or share registration office in Saint Lucia; c if the company owns, possesses or uses assets situated in Saint Lucia for the purpose of carrying on or pursuing its business, if it obtains or seeks to obtain from those assets, directly or indirectly, profit or gain whether realised in Saint Lucia or not.
Exceptions This Division does not apply to an external company that is exempted from this Division by an order of the Attorney General published in the Gazette.
Prohibition 1 An external company shall not begin or carry on business in Saint Lucia until it is registered under this Act.
The Court was not informed of such exemption.
Counsel for CAGE 27 went to great lengths to demonstrate how much business was being done at Saint Lucia by CAGE and with payments to the Third Respondent being made pursuant to the Contract and Mr.
De La Cruz did say that CAGE was a wholly owned subsidiary of CAGE Holding.
Courts he said had allowed private citizens into proceedings to protect their interest.
CAGE did not need to be a party for the orders to be made against it.
The orders and declarations would be made against the First Respondent and the Third Respondent.
Pursuant to section 5 of the National Lotteries Authority Act, Third Respondent is the only body at Saint Lucia authorized to operate lotteries and pursuant to section 5 3 it could give a third party a contract to operate lotteries, and this could only mean on its behalf since it was the only authorized body.
He referred to the Contract between the Third Respondent and CAGE Holding page 13 section 1.
The NLA hereby represents, warrants, and covenants the following during the Term of this Professional Services Contract: a Existence and Powers.
The NLA has the full legal right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform under this Professional Services Contract in accordance with the Laws of Saint Lucia.
A dispute or liability consideration appear to be a necessary element for consideration in an application for joinder.
CAGE by its application is seeking to force the Claimant to draw pleadings against it in these judicial review proceedings.
The position CAGE seeks by joinder as a Respondent is very different to that of a Claimant in a civil suit.
Looking at the authorities on judicial review the Court has to ask itself the following questions: a Is CAGE a public body?
The answer is undoubtedly No.
Again the answer is No, it has merely rights and duties under a private contract with the Third Respondent.
Once again the answer is No.
Judicial review is a central control mechanism of administrative law public lawby which the judiciary take the historic constitutional responsibility of protecting against abuses of power by public authorities.
It is an important safeguard which promotes the public interest, assists public bodies to act lawfully and ensures that they are not above the law, and protects the rights and interest of those affected by the exercise of public authority power.
This special gambling casino in st lucia jurisdiction is different from both 1 ordinary adversarial litigation between private parties and 2 an appeal rehearing on the merits.
The question is not whether the judge disagrees with what the public body has done, but whether there is some recognizable public law wrong….
Sheffield City Council v.
It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view to forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case.
It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do.
It may have abused or misused the authority which it had.
It may have departed from the procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed.
As regards the decision itself it may be found to be perverse, or irrational, or grossly disproportionate to what was required.
But while the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in a case of review as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of the evidence.
Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p.
The Court to the contrary believes that its focus must be on the three 3 grounds set out for review.
The Court is of the view that only the Respondents can answer the grounds raised.
CAGE does not claim to have been part of the decision making process.
Always looking for application of the general principles.
It is as Laws J said in R v.
R 51332 elected local authority by Parliament gambling expert picks wide enough to allow what was done in this case.
As the Court understands the authorities, it is not a gambling casino in st lucia that in https://partysutra.com/gambling/i-stopped-gambling-on-my-own.html instance that the Court grants interim relief in judicial review proceedings that the Court will seek an undertaking in damages.
Secretary of State for Transport, ex p.
Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p Greenpeace Ltd.
This though is not the purpose of judicial review proceedings.
Indeed no similar case was furnished by CAGE.
Wilkinson High Court Judge 2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building Waterfront P.
Box 1093 Castries Saint Lucia T: +1 758 457 3600 E: offices eccourts. gambling casino in st lucia gambling casino in st lucia gambling casino in st lucia gambling casino in st lucia gambling casino in st lucia gambling casino in st lucia

The Best Of Online Betting Through Casino Gaming



Zynga poker chips online casino st lucia helicopters Gambling casino in st lucia

Sandals Grande St Lucia Casino Gambling casino in st lucia

Treasure Bay Casino - St. Lucia is located in the Bay Walk mall of Rodney Bay, in St. Lucia. The facility offers players 257 slot machines, three poker tables, ...
Treasure Bay Casino - Saint Lucia is in Rodney Bay, Saint Lucia and is open daily 11am-1am. The casino's 15000 square foot gaming space features 350 .
Saint Lucia's first and only licensed casino at the Bay Walk Mall was. Initially, gaming licenses required casinos to be housed in hotels and ...

COMMENTS:


24.03.2020 in 17:25 Mazurisar:

You commit an error. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.



26.03.2020 in 10:14 Maur:

Charming phrase



20.03.2020 in 20:10 Zujas:

Where here against authority



17.03.2020 in 12:44 Fenrilrajas:

You are not right. I am assured. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.



17.03.2020 in 03:12 Taubei:

It is difficult to tell.



17.03.2020 in 21:55 Tezilkree:

I think, that you are mistaken. I can prove it.



20.03.2020 in 04:59 Gardar:

Very curious question



26.03.2020 in 07:06 Kile:

On mine it is very interesting theme. Give with you we will communicate in PM.



19.03.2020 in 20:02 Douzil:

Paraphrase please the message



23.03.2020 in 09:41 Zulucage:

Certainly. All above told the truth. Let's discuss this question. Here or in PM.



17.03.2020 in 10:10 Kajilkis:

I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are not right. Let's discuss it.



18.03.2020 in 16:22 Vudokasa:

The excellent answer, I congratulate



23.03.2020 in 22:49 Zulurr:

It is remarkable, very valuable phrase



17.03.2020 in 07:20 Morg:

Excuse, that I can not participate now in discussion - it is very occupied. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion on this question.



20.03.2020 in 21:50 Kazahn:

So it is infinitely possible to discuss..



24.03.2020 in 09:09 Mak:

I join. It was and with me. Let's discuss this question. Here or in PM.



19.03.2020 in 09:15 Dikasa:

I consider, that you are not right. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.



23.03.2020 in 12:37 Modal:

Many thanks for the help in this question, now I will not commit such error.



20.03.2020 in 11:48 Arashijas:

In my opinion you have deceived, as child.



25.03.2020 in 14:12 Gale:

Logical question



18.03.2020 in 06:47 Akilrajas:

It is interesting. Tell to me, please - where I can read about it?



22.03.2020 in 15:49 Mim:

It is very valuable answer



26.03.2020 in 05:34 Gule:

I consider, that you are not right. I am assured. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.




Total 23 comments.