The Connecticut Law Review
Monday, September 12, 2011
The Editorials on this page are the product of the Editorial Board. The views expressed are not necessarily those of any individual Board Member or of the Law Tribune’s management. The Editorial Board has no role in the management of the Law Tribune.
In the wake of mounting concern over its detention and deportation practices, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) in June announced policy guidelines regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in removal cases. Critics argue that ICE enforcement programs, designed to target and deport illegal immigrants identified as dangerous felons, instead have fostered community insecurity by seizing and deporting thousands of non-citizens with no criminal records or evidence of dangerousness. Indiscriminate enforcement actions are seen as deterring victims, witnesses, and plaintiffs from calling police and pursuing justice for fear of coming to the attention of ICE.
A notable local example occurred early on a June morning in 2007, when armed ICE agents descended on a primarily Latino neighborhood in New Haven. Without warrants or consent and without notice to local authorities, the agents raided numerous private residences and arrested 29 of the occupants. Eleven of those arrested, who were held in custody for days and, in some cases weeks, subsequently sued, alleging that the agents forced their way into their homes illegally, thereby violating their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and 10th Amendments.
The 11 plaintiffs are represented by Yale Law School’s Jerome Frank Legal Services Organization. The plaintiffs, none of whom are fugitives, argue that the raids were not part of routine immigration enforcement. Instead, citing e-mails between federal officials as evidence, they claim that the raids were in retaliation against the City of New Haven for its decision to issue optional “Elm City Resident Cards” to all residents regardless of their legal status.
Washington Colala is one of those arrested in the 2007 raids. Although he posed no criminal or national security threat, and had a 15-year work history with the community, he was swiftly put into immigration proceedings and a removal order was issued. While he was appealing the removal order, his civil rights case was filed, naming him as one of the 11 plaintiffs. In addition, Colala is the primary witness for his roommate, also a plaintiff. After Colala lost his last appeal and deportation was imminent, his lawyers obtained a temporary stay so they could make their arguments before the federal judge assigned to the civil rights action.
Colala’s bid to stay in the country was denied last December by a sympathetic judge, Judge Stefan Underhill, who could find no basis in the law to forestall deportation orders issued by an immigration court and upheld by an appeals court. Clinic lawyers appealed to ICE Director John Morton to exercise discretion to allow Colala to remain in the country until his civil rights case is concluded. Ultimately, ICE consented to postpone Colala’s deportation for the duration of the lawsuit.
In June of this year, Director Morton issued a new policy regarding the use of prosecutorial discretion in similar situations. In a memo entitled “Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs” he directs that: “Absent special circumstances, it is … against ICE policy to remove individuals in the midst of a legitimate effort to protect their civil rights or liberties.”
A second memo calls on ICE officials to refrain from pursuing non-citizens with close family, educational, military, or other ties to the U.S. and instead focus on persons who pose a serious threat to public safety or national security. It establishes that ICE employees are to consider prosecutorial discretion on a case-by case basis, “without waiting for an alien or alien’s advocate or counsel to request a favorable exercise of discretion.”
Director Morton’s memos make ICE policy clear that prosecutors have, and should exercise, discretion to refrain from pursuing low-priority targets and victims of crime or civil rights violations. However, we note that prosecutorial discretion is a central feature in law enforcement generally, and should not be viewed as extraordinary in the immigration context. Furthermore, the memos establish no guidelines for discretionary review, and include no reporting requirements. At a minimum, ICE employees must be trained to apply the discretionary factors to each case, and to be held accountable when the policies set forth in the memos are not followed.
Unfortunately, even the minimal protections outlined in the Morton memos have already drawn the wrath of some members of Congress. Texas Rep. Lamar Smith immediately introduced a bill titled “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act” (or HALT), which would suspend discretionary enforcement until Jan. 21, 2013 — the day after the first Obama Administration ends.
This type of enforcement-only legislation is exactly the wrong way to address the overwhelming problems in our broken immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reforms that account for current labor needs, end racial profiling, and provide immigrants with the rights expected under a civilized system of justice. Detaining more immigrants — as would happen if prosecutors had no discretionary authority under the HALT bill — diverts scarce enforcement resources away from the pursuit of dangerous criminals and exacts a needless human toll. A humane and rational system of justice would give eligible undocumented migrants some sort of official status — such as the New Haven Resident Cards and the Dream Act provide — that will bring them out of the shadows, into the workforce, and onto a path towards citizenship.
http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=41560
Showing posts with label Yale Law School. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yale Law School. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Lawsuit Spurs New Policy On Deportation
ICE Will Hold Off If Immigrants Part Of Civil Rights Actions Or Labor Complaints
By MARK SPENCER
The Hartford Courant
July 5, 2011
A civil rights lawsuit brought by an undocumented immigrant in Connecticut facing deportation has prompted federal officials to adopt a new policy that will have a national impact.
Washington Colala was just days from being deported to Ecuador in December when federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials reversed an earlier decision and let him stay to pursue a civil rights lawsuit concerning controversial ICE raids in New Haven in 2007.
While seeking a deportation delay for Colala, his attorneys and other immigration advocates also asked ICE to avoid deporting any undocumented immigrant involved in a civil right lawsuit or a labor complaint.
In a letter sent earlier this month to field offices and agents, ICE Director John Morton said that, absent special circumstances, it is "against ICE policy to remove individuals in the midst of a legitimate effort to protect their civil rights or civil liberties."
Colala is both a plaintiff and key witness in the civil rights lawsuit currently pending in federal court in Bridgeport, said his attorney, Michael Wishnie, a Yale Law School professor with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization. He said it would have been nearly impossible for Colala to be a part of the suit had he been deported.
Yale lawyers were joined by representatives of immigrants' rights groups, labor unions and faith-based organizations in pushing ICE to adopt the policy. The new policy is similar to ICE rules that discourage the deportation of immigrants who are victims or witnesses in criminal cases.
"We believe people who have a civil rights claim should be able to meaningfully participate and have their voices heard," said Laura Vazquez, an immigration legislative analyst with the National Council of La Raza in Washington.
Colala was among 32 immigrants detained in ICE raids in New Haven in June 2007. Some advocates thought the raids were retaliation for New Haven adopting a resident identification card system, which was available to undocumented immigrants.
Yale lawyers represented 17 of those detained in federal immigration court and five of the cases have been dismissed because of constitutional problems with how the raids were conducted. Some of the immigrants have since become legal, while other cases remain in court.
Ten of the immigrants, including Colala, filed the civil rights lawsuit.
"They're harming people who really don't do any damage," Colala said through an interpreter. "We're just people who are working hard to support our families."
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-colala-ice-0703-20110702,0,6908726.story
By MARK SPENCER
The Hartford Courant
July 5, 2011
A civil rights lawsuit brought by an undocumented immigrant in Connecticut facing deportation has prompted federal officials to adopt a new policy that will have a national impact.
Washington Colala was just days from being deported to Ecuador in December when federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials reversed an earlier decision and let him stay to pursue a civil rights lawsuit concerning controversial ICE raids in New Haven in 2007.
While seeking a deportation delay for Colala, his attorneys and other immigration advocates also asked ICE to avoid deporting any undocumented immigrant involved in a civil right lawsuit or a labor complaint.
In a letter sent earlier this month to field offices and agents, ICE Director John Morton said that, absent special circumstances, it is "against ICE policy to remove individuals in the midst of a legitimate effort to protect their civil rights or civil liberties."
Colala is both a plaintiff and key witness in the civil rights lawsuit currently pending in federal court in Bridgeport, said his attorney, Michael Wishnie, a Yale Law School professor with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization. He said it would have been nearly impossible for Colala to be a part of the suit had he been deported.
Yale lawyers were joined by representatives of immigrants' rights groups, labor unions and faith-based organizations in pushing ICE to adopt the policy. The new policy is similar to ICE rules that discourage the deportation of immigrants who are victims or witnesses in criminal cases.
"We believe people who have a civil rights claim should be able to meaningfully participate and have their voices heard," said Laura Vazquez, an immigration legislative analyst with the National Council of La Raza in Washington.
Colala was among 32 immigrants detained in ICE raids in New Haven in June 2007. Some advocates thought the raids were retaliation for New Haven adopting a resident identification card system, which was available to undocumented immigrants.
Yale lawyers represented 17 of those detained in federal immigration court and five of the cases have been dismissed because of constitutional problems with how the raids were conducted. Some of the immigrants have since become legal, while other cases remain in court.
Ten of the immigrants, including Colala, filed the civil rights lawsuit.
"They're harming people who really don't do any damage," Colala said through an interpreter. "We're just people who are working hard to support our families."
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-colala-ice-0703-20110702,0,6908726.story
Friday, December 3, 2010
ICE to deport one from the 2007 Fair Haven raids
By Betsy Yagla
New Haven Advocate
December 01, 2010
One of the “New Haven 30” who were swept up in the controversial 2007 Fair Haven immigration raids is facing imminent deportation.
ICE (Immigration, Custom and Enforcement) is attempting to deport Washington Colala by Monday, Dec. 6. He’s already bought his plane ticket.
That’s a problem, says Yale Law student Mark Padulla, because Colala is one of 11 plaintiffs who’ve filed suit against ICE claiming that the feds violated their civil rights in the raids.
“They’re trying to rush him while his claims are still pending,” says Padulla. In addition to his own claims, Colala was a witness for his roommate. And a federal judge deemed Colala’s witness testimony to be credible; the judge dismissed the immigration charges against Colala’s roommate.
Colala has no criminal history, but does have two U.S.-born children, including a 10-year-old daughter who lives in the area.
Colala is from Ecuador and has been working in the U.S. for 15 years. He’s been fighting his deportation in immigration court. He lost the case and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On Tuesday, the second circuit denied his appeal.
The raids happened the day after New Haven aldermen voted to move forward with the city’s innovative residency card, an ID program available to all city residents regardless of citizenship status. It’s widely believed that the immigration raids happened in direct response to the program.
Local immigrant rights groups have been fighting on behalf of the men and as part of a records request found emails between the federal Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s office (located next to City Hall) showing that the USAO wanted to send a message to New Haven.
For its part, ICE has said that the raids were pre-planned and had nothing to do with the ID card program.
Of the 30 picked up in the raids, 11 have filed a civil rights case against ICE, claiming, for instance, that agents did not identify themselves and forced their way into homes in the wee hours of the morning on June 7, 2007.
Colala is the only one of the 11 facing deportation. The other 10 raised constitutional issues in their immigration cases and five won because a judge concluded that ICE agents committed Fourth Amendment violations during the raids. The remaining five lost and are appealing those decisions.
If Colala is deported on Monday he will not be able to participate in the civil rights case. He is a key witness in the case.
Colala is one of several people found on the street, and presumably because of his skin tone and lack of English skills, was assumed to be an undocumented immigrant. According to court papers, here’s his version of what happened that June 2007 day:
Colala left his home to walk to work but returned home to pick up something. At his building, officers approached him and asked if he lived there. They also asked for his ID. His ID was inside, he said. Then he was handcuffed and forced inside and upstairs to his apartment. At the apartment’s landing, officers drew guns and demanded he open the locked door. Without a search warrant or consent, officers entered the apartment.
According to a 2007 interview with the Advocate, one of Colala’s roommates was in the shower when ICE agents entered the home. He was handcuffed when he exited the shower and found Colala handcuffed and sitting on the living room floor.
http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/drive-by-media/ice-to-deport-one-from-the-2007-fair-haven-raids-035619
New Haven Advocate
December 01, 2010
One of the “New Haven 30” who were swept up in the controversial 2007 Fair Haven immigration raids is facing imminent deportation.
ICE (Immigration, Custom and Enforcement) is attempting to deport Washington Colala by Monday, Dec. 6. He’s already bought his plane ticket.
That’s a problem, says Yale Law student Mark Padulla, because Colala is one of 11 plaintiffs who’ve filed suit against ICE claiming that the feds violated their civil rights in the raids.
“They’re trying to rush him while his claims are still pending,” says Padulla. In addition to his own claims, Colala was a witness for his roommate. And a federal judge deemed Colala’s witness testimony to be credible; the judge dismissed the immigration charges against Colala’s roommate.
Colala has no criminal history, but does have two U.S.-born children, including a 10-year-old daughter who lives in the area.
Colala is from Ecuador and has been working in the U.S. for 15 years. He’s been fighting his deportation in immigration court. He lost the case and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On Tuesday, the second circuit denied his appeal.
The raids happened the day after New Haven aldermen voted to move forward with the city’s innovative residency card, an ID program available to all city residents regardless of citizenship status. It’s widely believed that the immigration raids happened in direct response to the program.
Local immigrant rights groups have been fighting on behalf of the men and as part of a records request found emails between the federal Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s office (located next to City Hall) showing that the USAO wanted to send a message to New Haven.
For its part, ICE has said that the raids were pre-planned and had nothing to do with the ID card program.
Of the 30 picked up in the raids, 11 have filed a civil rights case against ICE, claiming, for instance, that agents did not identify themselves and forced their way into homes in the wee hours of the morning on June 7, 2007.
Colala is the only one of the 11 facing deportation. The other 10 raised constitutional issues in their immigration cases and five won because a judge concluded that ICE agents committed Fourth Amendment violations during the raids. The remaining five lost and are appealing those decisions.
If Colala is deported on Monday he will not be able to participate in the civil rights case. He is a key witness in the case.
Colala is one of several people found on the street, and presumably because of his skin tone and lack of English skills, was assumed to be an undocumented immigrant. According to court papers, here’s his version of what happened that June 2007 day:
Colala left his home to walk to work but returned home to pick up something. At his building, officers approached him and asked if he lived there. They also asked for his ID. His ID was inside, he said. Then he was handcuffed and forced inside and upstairs to his apartment. At the apartment’s landing, officers drew guns and demanded he open the locked door. Without a search warrant or consent, officers entered the apartment.
According to a 2007 interview with the Advocate, one of Colala’s roommates was in the shower when ICE agents entered the home. He was handcuffed when he exited the shower and found Colala handcuffed and sitting on the living room floor.
http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/drive-by-media/ice-to-deport-one-from-the-2007-fair-haven-raids-035619
Friday, October 2, 2009
Immigrants sue feds over 2007 raids
By Esther Zuckerman and Colin Ross
Yale Daily News
Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Ten New Haven residents intend to file a lawsuit today against federal immigration agents and officials, accusing them of violating constitutional rights during the raids in New Haven on June 6, 2007.
The 10 residents, who will be represented by Yale Law School students, claim that the raids were unconstitutional because federal agents lacked search warrants and arrested people solely on the basis of race and ethnicity. The residents are expected to sue not only the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who participated in the raid on the ground but also their supervisors, whose decisions the plaintiffs say led to the infringements of civil rights.
This is the first time lawyers have challenged the constitutionality of the New Haven raids in the federal judicial branch. Previous lawsuits have been filed in federal immigration court, the entity within the executive branch that deals with deportation.
The Yale lawyers say the raids were mounted in retaliation of the Board of Aldermen’s approval two days earlier of the Elm City Resident Card, an ID card provided to residents regardless of immigration status. ICE officials have said the raids were routine enforcement in full accordance with the law.
On June 6, 2007, ICE agents raided eight apartments and homes, detaining 29 New Haven residents — five of whom were the intended targets of the raids.
“ICE agents broke into my home without permission while I was still sleeping, pulled the covers from my bed, and arrested me for no reason,” said Jose Solano-Yangua, a plaintiff in the case, in a press release. “I was terrified and humiliated. We are bringing this suit, because we refuse to let our families and community live in fear.”
Since 2007, a team of lawyers and students led by Law School professor Michael Wishnie ’87 LAW ’93 has been working to prove that the individual arrests were
illegal. They have argued that the searches and seizures violated the immigrants’
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantee due process of law.
One of the detainees has been deported, five volunteered to leave, and 17 cases are still pending.
Until now, the lawyers have been litigating the individual cases. This new lawsuit seeks to hold individual ICE officials accountable for the alleged constitutional violations.
In a press release, Lindsay Nash LAW ’10, one of the Yale law students representing the plaintiffs, blamed senior ICE officials for the raids because they pressured regional ICE offices to make “arrest quotas.”
In 2006, the director of ICE’s Detention and Removal Office, John Torres, increased the agency’s goal for immigration arrests to 1,000 per regional enforcement team, up from 125, according to internal ICE memos obtained by the Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law through a Freedom of Information request.
That same year, Torres permitted arrests of immigrants without criminal records or fugitive status to count toward ICE’s goal, according to the ICE documents.
In February, ICE spokesman Richard Rocha told the News that the goal increase was in accordance with the agency’s mission.
“The number of arrests is a goal, not a quota, and we do prioritize,” he said at the time. “But if, in the course of our work, we encounter other illegal individuals, we have to enforce the law.”
Norma Franceschi, a Fair Haven proprietor and community leader, praised the suit for providing the federal court an opportunity to reform immigration law.
Father James Manship of St. Rose of Lima Church said that the neighborhood supports the plaintiffs in the case.
“Our community will not be intimidated or silenced,” Manship said in the press release. “We will stand with the plaintiffs in this lawsuit in order to seek justice.”
Ana Munoz LAW ’10, one of the Yale law students working on the lawsuit, did not return a phone call seeking comment.
New Haven is home to an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 undocumented immigrants, most of whom live in Fair Haven.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/city-news/2009/10/28/immigrants-sue-feds-over-2007-raid/
Yale Daily News
Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Ten New Haven residents intend to file a lawsuit today against federal immigration agents and officials, accusing them of violating constitutional rights during the raids in New Haven on June 6, 2007.
The 10 residents, who will be represented by Yale Law School students, claim that the raids were unconstitutional because federal agents lacked search warrants and arrested people solely on the basis of race and ethnicity. The residents are expected to sue not only the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who participated in the raid on the ground but also their supervisors, whose decisions the plaintiffs say led to the infringements of civil rights.
This is the first time lawyers have challenged the constitutionality of the New Haven raids in the federal judicial branch. Previous lawsuits have been filed in federal immigration court, the entity within the executive branch that deals with deportation.
The Yale lawyers say the raids were mounted in retaliation of the Board of Aldermen’s approval two days earlier of the Elm City Resident Card, an ID card provided to residents regardless of immigration status. ICE officials have said the raids were routine enforcement in full accordance with the law.
On June 6, 2007, ICE agents raided eight apartments and homes, detaining 29 New Haven residents — five of whom were the intended targets of the raids.
“ICE agents broke into my home without permission while I was still sleeping, pulled the covers from my bed, and arrested me for no reason,” said Jose Solano-Yangua, a plaintiff in the case, in a press release. “I was terrified and humiliated. We are bringing this suit, because we refuse to let our families and community live in fear.”
Since 2007, a team of lawyers and students led by Law School professor Michael Wishnie ’87 LAW ’93 has been working to prove that the individual arrests were
illegal. They have argued that the searches and seizures violated the immigrants’
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantee due process of law.
One of the detainees has been deported, five volunteered to leave, and 17 cases are still pending.
Until now, the lawyers have been litigating the individual cases. This new lawsuit seeks to hold individual ICE officials accountable for the alleged constitutional violations.
In a press release, Lindsay Nash LAW ’10, one of the Yale law students representing the plaintiffs, blamed senior ICE officials for the raids because they pressured regional ICE offices to make “arrest quotas.”
In 2006, the director of ICE’s Detention and Removal Office, John Torres, increased the agency’s goal for immigration arrests to 1,000 per regional enforcement team, up from 125, according to internal ICE memos obtained by the Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law through a Freedom of Information request.
That same year, Torres permitted arrests of immigrants without criminal records or fugitive status to count toward ICE’s goal, according to the ICE documents.
In February, ICE spokesman Richard Rocha told the News that the goal increase was in accordance with the agency’s mission.
“The number of arrests is a goal, not a quota, and we do prioritize,” he said at the time. “But if, in the course of our work, we encounter other illegal individuals, we have to enforce the law.”
Norma Franceschi, a Fair Haven proprietor and community leader, praised the suit for providing the federal court an opportunity to reform immigration law.
Father James Manship of St. Rose of Lima Church said that the neighborhood supports the plaintiffs in the case.
“Our community will not be intimidated or silenced,” Manship said in the press release. “We will stand with the plaintiffs in this lawsuit in order to seek justice.”
Ana Munoz LAW ’10, one of the Yale law students working on the lawsuit, did not return a phone call seeking comment.
New Haven is home to an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 undocumented immigrants, most of whom live in Fair Haven.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/city-news/2009/10/28/immigrants-sue-feds-over-2007-raid/
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Testimony in ICE raid case postponed?
Testimony in ICE raid case postponed?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:19 AM EDT
By Mary E. O’Leary
New Haven Register
HARTFORD — A hearing on whether to suppress evidence collected in the arrest of dozens of Greater New Haven residents by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last year was postponed Monday over procedural questions.
Immigration Judge Michael W. Straus was persuaded to put off testimony by six of the 32 residents picked up in two raids in June 2007 until their lawyers and counsel for ICE can confer with the U.S. attorney’s office.
The government appeared amenable to granting “testimonial immunity” — basically an agreement that testimony in the hearing before Straus could not be used against those arrested in any subsequent hearings.
A ruling by the U.S. attorney’s office would more explicitly define that agreement.
Of the 32 people arrested, the government is charging that the majority were here illegally by ignoring deportation orders, overstaying their visas or entering the country illegally.Their attorneys are challenging the arrests, claiming the government agents conducted illegal searches, lacked probable cause and arrested the immigrants based on race, all of which violate the Fourth and Fifth amendments.
John Marley, an ICE attorney, said it was better to resolve the immunity issue now rather than “dancing around” it as the hearings proceed. “Let’s get all the answers to all the questions,” he said to Straus.
Attorney Michael Wishnie, of the Yale Law School, who is representing the immigrants through the school’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, said immunity was offered in similar cases he dealt with in New York. An agreement between the parties would “substantially expedite” the Connecticut case, he said.
URL: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/10/21/news/a3-neraid.prt
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:19 AM EDT
By Mary E. O’Leary
New Haven Register
HARTFORD — A hearing on whether to suppress evidence collected in the arrest of dozens of Greater New Haven residents by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last year was postponed Monday over procedural questions.
Immigration Judge Michael W. Straus was persuaded to put off testimony by six of the 32 residents picked up in two raids in June 2007 until their lawyers and counsel for ICE can confer with the U.S. attorney’s office.
The government appeared amenable to granting “testimonial immunity” — basically an agreement that testimony in the hearing before Straus could not be used against those arrested in any subsequent hearings.
A ruling by the U.S. attorney’s office would more explicitly define that agreement.
Of the 32 people arrested, the government is charging that the majority were here illegally by ignoring deportation orders, overstaying their visas or entering the country illegally.Their attorneys are challenging the arrests, claiming the government agents conducted illegal searches, lacked probable cause and arrested the immigrants based on race, all of which violate the Fourth and Fifth amendments.
John Marley, an ICE attorney, said it was better to resolve the immunity issue now rather than “dancing around” it as the hearings proceed. “Let’s get all the answers to all the questions,” he said to Straus.
Attorney Michael Wishnie, of the Yale Law School, who is representing the immigrants through the school’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, said immunity was offered in similar cases he dealt with in New York. An agreement between the parties would “substantially expedite” the Connecticut case, he said.
URL: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/10/21/news/a3-neraid.prt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)