Marijuana: Lawsuit claims special pot taxes are illegal and unconstitutional

Categories: Marijuana

marijuana.money.565.jpg
Last year, attorney Rob Corry, who helped author Amendment 64, the 2012 law that legalized limited recreational marijuana sales, campaigned against cannabis taxation measures by, among other things, co-hosting rallies featuring free joints.

Corry's efforts fell short at the ballot box, so now he's trying his luck at the courthouse. In a complaint filed this week in Denver District Court, Corry and other plaintiffs argue that special pot taxes should be eliminated and all the money paid to date be refunded.

The entire document is below, along with a summons to defendants such as Governor John Hickenlooper and Denver mayor Michael Hancock. (Plaintiffs include marijuana activist Kathleen Chippi and Miguel Lopez, founder of the Denver 4/20 rally.) But here's the synopsis of the complaint:

Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, hereby petition and apply for injunctive and declaratory relief, and for a refund and damages, against Defendants and their collection and enforcement of illegal and unconstitutional Marijuana Taxes, as provided in Colorado Proposition AA and Denver Referred Question 2A.
anti.marijuana.taxation.rally.1a.jpg
Rob Corry at an anti-marijuana taxation rally last year.
It's important to note at the outset that Corry isn't against taxes on marijuana. However, he believes cannabis should be "taxed just like any other product -- no more and no less. There should not be specific marijuana taxes."

This view would seem to contradict Amendment 64, which calls for an excise tax of up to 15 percent. However, he says, "there's nothing in Amendment 64 or the campaign for it that ever mentioned a separate sales tax on top of the excise tax. Basic economics tells you that a 15 percent excise tax is already high, and a sales tax that's directly assessed on the consumer raises costs astronomically when you couple them with the excise tax. But the government has expanded that narrow mandate to create a much more massive tax burden."

The special pot-tax provisions are attacked on a number of fronts that Corry says are "independent causes of action -- they stand alone." Here's his synopses of each one.

"The primary cause of action is based on the Timothy Leary case before the U.S. Supreme Court," he says, referring to 1969's Leary v. U.S. "That case struck down the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 after Leary successfully argued to the court that payment of a marijuana tax was a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

"The second claim is based on the public-policy argument that state and local governments cannot collect taxes expressly on activity that is federally illegal," he continues. "So the taxes are illegal.

"Our third claim," he goes on, "has to do with Amendment 64 itself. The purpose of Amendment 64 was to tax marijuana like alcohol -- and there's also a component in Amendment 64 that prohibits any regulation that is 'unreasonably impracticable.' And this is that. The taxes are so high that it makes it impracticable to run a reasonable business.

"Amendment 64 set out to end prohibition, the black-market trade in Colorado, and transform it from an unregulated, underground market into a regulated, legitimate, tax-paying market. But if you set taxes too high, you empower an underground market. So high taxation is 'prohibition lite.' And even as the state government has made it a criminal offense not to pay marijuana taxes, the federal government has made it a crime to pay the taxes. That puts individuals between a rock and a hard place."

Continue for more about the marijuana-taxation lawsuit, including three original documents and more of our interview with attorney Rob Corry.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
149 comments
KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

“The states position is that the government of Colorado and the individual governmental officials implementing the medical marijuana program are engaged in abetting violations of federal drug laws,”PCRLP attorney Andrew Reid, Springer and Steinberg.


After 14 years with medical marijuana in the state Constitution, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has finally clarified its position/interpretation on/of Section 14 (A20). The office that “oversees, represents and defends the legal interests of the people of the State of Colorado and its sovereignty” has come out against patient and caregiver “rights”and is upholding federal law over the state Constitution in the first and only medical marijuana case being heard by the Colorado Supreme Court.


Brandon Coats, a paralyzed medical marijuana patient, was fired from his job at Dish Network after testing positive for THC on a random drug screening. Coats,through his attorney Michael Evans, argued that since he was a legal medical marijuana patient under the Colorado Constitution, his offduty use of medical marijuana was covered under the “Colorado Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute” (CLODAS). Therefore Dish Network could not legally fire him.


The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Coats’ use of medical marijuana is not covered by CLODAS, even though medical marijuana is protected in the state Constitution, because marijuana is illegal under federal law.


Some of the (more offensive) language in the states amicus brief in Coats v. DISH Network for consideration in the Colorado Supreme Court:


“Contrary to popular perception, Colorado has not simply legalized marijuana for medical and recreational purposes.Instead, its citizens have adopted narrowly drawn constitutional amendments that decriminalize small amounts of marijuana for patients with a debilitating medical condition, at issue in this case, or for recreational use by adults over the age of 21.”  …


“… invoking the language of “rights” would only lead to confusion as citizens and jurists alike may misunderstand both the nature of the right and the scrutiny associated with the right.”  


Apparently the AG believes“citizens and jurists” will be confused if the Colorado Supreme Court overturns the lower court ruling and confirms patients and caregivers have fundamental“rights”. 


“The State of Colorado contends there is no reason in this case to address the question of describing the medical use of marijuana as a “right” under the state constitution. Resolving this case does not require this Court to reach the question of what type of a right, if any,protects medical marijuana patients and caregivers.   As a matter of statutory interpretation the undeniable and unambiguous illegality of marijuana under federal law answers the question in this case.”…


“If the Court chooses to describe the use of marijuana as a “right,” however, the Court should act with caution…. To the extent any level of review is appropriate, it should be highly deferential as to capture the spirit of the voters who enacted a specific, criminal-law focused provision. Any other result would undermine the need for the executive branch and the General Assembly to regulate and legislate in this complicated and fluid policy arena.” …


“If the People want to enact a broadly applicable “right’ to use marijuana as the dissent in Beinor declared,then a new amendment to the Colorado Constitution should be required.”


Considering The Attorney Generals job is to represent/defend the people of Colorado and sovereignty, one has to wonder:

1.     How many “citizens and jurists” believe the state needs“a new amendment to the Colorado Constitution” in order to (really)legalize medical marijuana?   

2.     How many agree that the Colorado Supreme Court “invoking the language of “rights” would only lead to confusion” for “citizens and jurists”?  

3.     How many agree “….there is no reason in this case to address the question of describing the medical use of marijuana as a “right” under the state constitution.”

4.     How many agree the AG should be arguing for federal laws over the state constitution?

5.     Does the AG support the arrest of Governor Hickenlooper, the Board of Health, the General Assembly, the DoR and other local government employees?

6.     How many Coloradans feel like they are being represented and/or defended by the AG?

7.     And food for thought: If the AG believes MMJ patients don’t have “rights”, what is the AG’s position on A64? 



Briana Wilson Ballinger
Briana Wilson Ballinger

This lawsuit serves no purpose but to set back the progress we have made! Colorado has set a precedence that the rest of the country can follow. We have made an industry out of marijuana and have created jobs and tax revenue. We have proven to the rest of the country that legal MJ creates jobs, tax revenue and reduces crime. Rob Correy needs to step back and shut up. It is working.

Zachary Giesie
Zachary Giesie

Go home Rob Corry, you're drunk. As stated above. We voted yes. I was not persuaded to vote yes on AA. Say this passes and we are all granted a refund. How would it be disbursed? Dumdum of the year-Rob Corry.

Recalls4All
Recalls4All

Is anything these clowns do at the Capitol considered 'Constitutional' anymore? Re-call, Re-call. Re-call....Who is next?

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

Surely voters did not vote yes thinking  when they passed either A20 or A64 that pot would REMAIN ILLEGAL for the PEOPLE of CO but 'legalize' it for the state government money laundering scheme and more pot enforcement.

Hot.Sauce
Hot.Sauce

Seems like the commercial dispensaries are the sole cause of nearly all of these problems.

Get rid of them.

Colorado cannabis users would be better off without the trouble they bring.

Ronnie Jiegert
Ronnie Jiegert

So are income taxes, but that's not going anywhere either.

Ashley Kittrell
Ashley Kittrell

Take away the taxes, take away the incentive to legalize it. Don't mess this up, please. This guy just can't have it good enough, like it's hard to sell weed.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

Congratulations, Rob!  I would like to have been one of the plaintiffs -- with almost all the taxes on retail cannabis going to the pigs, we should all become patients!  The juxtaposition of the two suits is wonderful -- Dish v. Coats and No Over [sic] Taxation v. John Hickenlooper (those compound words are apparently so tricky, they're starting to catch up lawyers).  If employers can fire employees for what they do at home under State law because cannabis is illegal under Federal law, the State cannot compel people to pay taxes on cannabis when that amounts to self-incrimination under Federal law.  Colorado's Establishment wants to tax cannabis heavily, allow employers to fire people for using it at home, disclose information about purchasers of cannabis at dispensaries to employers and others, incriminate those who buy cannabis at retail under Federal law, and make people who sell 2.6 lbs to twenty-year-olds Class 1 felons (while allowing licensed twenty-one-year-olds within the dispensary system to transact much larger amounts freely) -- something's got to give!  Incidentally, under Federal law, as the principal administrator of a continuing criminal enterprise which has taken in more than $10 million in gross receipts in a single calendar year from the sale of a Schedule 1 substance, Gov. Hack is a "super drug kingpin" under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute -- what will the Collaborationist Party do when their candidate for Governor is hauled away to begin serving his mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole?


The Denver Post demonstrates its utter incompetence, even compared with the other corporate media outlets in Denver -- John Ingold only modified an article about booming sales of cannabis to mention No Over Taxation v. John Hickenlooper, and he ignored the primary cause of action in the suit!  Even the dimbulbs at the Post might pick up on the fact that most other outlets gave far more coverage.  Likely they deliberately garbled and buried the story, but the Post's prohibitionist stands against employment for people who use cannabis and for exorbitant sales taxes on cannabis may come back to bite it when the Courts confront the issues raised in Dish v. Coats and No Over Taxation v. John Hickenlooper.

Shaughnessy McDaniel
Shaughnessy McDaniel

This is silly. And it makes him a very special brand of doushe because he wants to take money away from education to mildly line his own pocket. No validity to the argument different taxes on certain commodities are totally legal and this one is completely voter approved. What a dick.

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

Progress?  The state Attorney General is arguing that ALL pot in CO is ILLEGAL to the CO Supreme Court right now in Coats v. Dish Network--because voters in CO didn't read the shit language they passed in A64. A64 removed NO penalties in the CO Criminal Code Title 18 and people are currently still being arrested.


I ask you is it progress when the state says pot is illegal for citizens yet legal FOR THEM TO LAUNDER THE DRUG $$$$?  Was THAT what the voters intended? 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

... any state that followed Colorado's idiotic commercialization clusterfuck would have to be as clueless as you.

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

Lawsuit claims marijuana taxes violate Fifth Amendment

Attorney accuses Governor and Mayor of "Kingpin" violations

{Denver} -- Attorney Robert J. Corry, Jr. filed a lawsuit on June 9, 2014 in Denver District Court seeking to permanently end Colorado's marijuana taxes, on the grounds that payment of the taxes violates a citizen's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, since marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Corry also accuses Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock of violating the federal "Kingpin" statute (aka, the federal law against operating a "continuing criminal enterprise") for collecting taxes and laundering money on a federally illegal substance.

The complaint was filed on behalf of an unnamed licensed medical and retail marijuana center, the "No Over Taxation" issue committee (which campaigned against Proposition AA, the marijuana tax issue approved by Colorado voters in 2013) and several individuals, including Kathleen Chippi, Larisa Bolivar, Miguel Lopez and William Chengelis.

Corry is seeking unspecified damages and a refund of all tax monies collected by the state.

If successful, Corry's lawsuit could be the basis for overturning ALL regulations regarding marijuana licensing and registration in Colorado on the same grounds. As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law, states cannot require people to give any information about themselves in order to distribute or purchase marijuana. ANY and ALL requirements to identify oneself would result in a "real and appreciable" risk of self-incrimination, and would require a citizen to implicate himself in federal crimes.

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:
<a>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution</a>

Corry cites a 1973 Colorado Supreme Court case (People vs. Duleff) that overturned a man's conviction for "selling marijuana without a license" because compliance with the licensing requirement would have required that person to violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination and reveal a violation of federal law. Corry writes, "The Colorado Supreme Court held specifically that the Fifth Amendment prohibits state licensing requirements that force a person to reveal a violation of federal law."

From the Duleff decision, Corry quotes the Colo. Sup. Ct.: "The Fifth Amendment prohibits licensing requirements from being used as a means of discovering past or present criminal activity which is subject to prosecution by calling attention to the licensee and his activities....There is no doubt that the information which Duleff would have been required to disclose would have been useful to the investigation of his activities, would have substantially increased the risk of prosecution, and may well have been a direct admission of guilt under federal law. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from such compulsory, incriminating disclosures and provides a complete defense to prosecution." -- Colorado Supreme Court (1973)

Corry also cites a 1969 US Supreme Court case (Timothy Leary v. United States) in which the highest court in the country overturned Leary's marijuana possession conviction and ruled that the federal Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was illegal, due to the fact that a person seeking a tax stamp and complying with the law would be forced to incriminate himself, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Corry writes, "Marijuana-specific taxes require plaintiffs and any other person paying said taxes to incriminate themselves as committing multiple violations of federal law, including but not limited to, participating in, aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit a 'continuing criminal enterprise' and 'money laundering.' These illegally-collected taxes are ultimately laundered by the State of Colorado through J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, which also participates knowingly in the continuing criminal enterprise." Item 67, Corry complaint filed 6/9/14.

Corry concludes, "It is illegal for government to retain tax monies illegally collected in violation of the constitution, so all amounts must be returned, and all records related to previous tax payments, destroyed."

Corry asks the Court to:


"Enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or permanent injunction ordering the Defendants, and all those acting in concert with them, to cease and desist from enforcement of the marijuana tax statutes, to cease and desist from any further collection, deposit, or laundering of the marijuana taxes, for a full refund of marijuana tax monies paid by any person or entity, and for destruction of all tax records and identifying information after full refunds are made."

"The state can't have it both ways. If it's illegal under federal law, you cannot collect taxes on it," says Kathleen Chippi, a plaintiff and member of the Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project. "We have another case pending in the Colorado Supreme Court now, Coats v. Dish Network, where Colorado Attorney General John Suthers argues that medical marijuana patients can be fired from their jobs for using medical marijuana off-duty, even though it is legal under state law. Suthers argues in the Coats case that, since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, patients have no rights."

"Yet Suthers and Hickenlooper, as kingpins in their continuing criminal enterprise, happily collect and spend the marijuana taxes, even though they were collected in spite of multiple clear violations of federal law," Chippi concludes.

Read Boulder Weekly article on Federal Preemption issues and the Coats v. Dish Lawsuit (5/22/14):
<a>http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-12900-local-attorney-argues-fed-laws-donrst-apply-to-mmj.html</a>
o


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

... only Colorado Stoners were STUPID ENOUGH to BAIT and OFFER marijuana up as a Fat Tax Pig to be bled and slaughtered by the insatiable Dept. of Revenue.

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

The pot shops are required to video record ALL transactions and since they are all shared with the DoR and CBI and NSA computers--they should be able to get you back your money Rob fought for, even when your an asshole bashing Rob over it while hoping for your refund....

Hot.Sauce
Hot.Sauce

33% of the millions to himself as lawyer.

A free ounce of dispensary schwag to everyone else.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@Recalls4All -- totally impractical, and pointless, if all the voters do is elect more Fascists (Republicans) and Collaborationists (Democrats).  People who use cannabis must educate themselves politically, organize themselves politically, and seek viable candidates for office who represent our views if we are to have any hope of ending Prohibition.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@KathleenChippi ... surely the voters -- especially the pro-pot stoners -- failed to read, much less comprehend either amendment before they blindly voted for them.


KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

Don't mess what up, please?  the shitty language in A64 does all the damage for itself....solid language would never allow of one person to fuck anything up.  And this is a constitutional amendment so until the voters vote to change it--no changes can be made.  This language was written intentionally to be able to be worthless.


The ONLY benefit of A64 passing is the media and the SCAMPaign have lied to the world and now everyone believes it's legal--when it is clearly not in the court of law and that is all that matters. 

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

All the many people who use cannabis and all the victims of our drug laws should have ample incentive to legalize it absent any State-sanctioned sales (or taxation).


In a nutshell:  the civil rights argument against the criminalization of drugs is perceived to have failed -- since 1980, the so-called "land of the free" sharply increased its rates of incarceration, so that, in terms of the proportion of the population not confined to a cell, the U.S. is now the least free country on Earth.  The Marijuana Policy Project and other groups have had success with another sort of argument -- if money talks.  The only problem with counting on the commerce in cannabis to reform our laws is that it is doing little or nothing to educate, politicize, or organize those who use cannabis to militate against criminal penalties for it.  In Colorado, while cannabis can be bought and sold legally in Denver, one county south, it is entirely felonious to sell any.  Growing enough cannabis for personal use or selling any cannabis outside the dispensary system are felonies across Colorado, and in the face of the People's declaring that cannabis "should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol", the General Assembly and Gov. Hack not only re-instituted all the many felonies for cannabis in State statute, they actually increased the maximum severity of cannabis offenses to a Class 1 felony.  Urban-dwellers' self-centered gratification with all the cannabis they can smoke and the associated greed is abetting the Establishment's efforts to maintain the gross contradiction of the will of the People effected by SB13-250 (the bill re-felonizing cannabis last year).  If you care for the fate of those the State continues to victimize over cannabis, you may have a conscience.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Ashley Kittrell "Take away the taxes, take away the incentive to legalize it"


So increase the "incentive" by INCREASING the TAXES !!


Give the Government 100% of ALL marijuana profits -- take the greed out of marijuana by making all dispensaries NON-Profits, with VOLUNTEER directors and workers.


Or make all Dispensaries and Grows STATE OWNED and OPERATED -- like Liquor Stores in Pennsylvania and Virginia -- with ALL the $$ flowing to the State!


Yeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaa!


Look Mom! -- we "legalized" it !!



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "I would like to have been one of the plaintiffs"


It's all about YOU, isn't it Robert?


Vanity much?


RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

Correction:  Ingold mentioned the existence of Rob's suit, but failed even to state that Hack and Hancock are being sued!

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

I hate it when people who have no clue what they are talking about make comments.....hang it up.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?  Go read SB14-215 and you will see that the sales tax revenue from retail cannabis does not go to education.  Gov. Hack and Sen. Steadman contrived to prevent any of the revenue being spent on the State's needs, most is to go to law enforcement, prosecutors, and the Executive Branch -- the revenue goes into the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund, which is only to be used to mitigate supposed harms the Establishment imagines can be attributed to cannabis.

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay The SAME DoR that FAILED their state audit on MMJ last year -- partially over spending 10 million dollars on things like $1,200 chairs (made by inmates that were never delivered), SUV's etc.



Recalls4All
Recalls4All

@RobertChase A vote for the Constitution is always a good deal for the people and a bad deal for the current powers that be. Find a libertarian candidate who is broke and works at a crappy job. Why people vote for wealthy elites that work for themselves and their wealthy buddies is beyond me.

Hot.Sauce
Hot.Sauce

Westword had a prominent role in promoting that scam.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  I agree with the suit; I would have liked to have been one of the plaintiffs -- do you find evidence of egotism in that statement?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase ... Ingold and the DP are prohibitionist hacks merely exploiting their readers to capture some marijuana advertising $$.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase ... you really don't expect Stupid Stoners to READ, much less comprehend, the initiatives they vote for, do you?


RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@Recalls4All  The Libertarian Party is even more in thrall to corporate capitalism than the Republican -- it denies the commonweal and would deliver all property into corporate hands.  Even now, e.g. Libertarians argue that the flood of cheap consumer goods from China outweighs in value to the U.S. the loss of intellectual capital and manufacturing jobs from our country to China -- a position I believe most Americans have come to reject.  Vote socialist!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase ... what, other than egotism, conceit and vanity -- and perhaps a bit of jealous envy --, caused you to insert this utterly unnecessary self-referential declaration ""I would like to have been one of the plaintiffs" as your opening phrase ?


You could have -- if you weren't such an egomaniac like Rob -- simply written thus:


Congratulations, Rob!  -- With almost all the taxes on retail cannabis going to the pigs, blah blah blah...

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  Yes, I do (in the sense that I believe they should read the laws, regulations, and initiatives that affect them).

fishingblues
fishingblues topcommenter

@RobertChase You are full of crap bobbie boy.  Only a cheese dick socialist would bad mouth and lie about the Libertarian Party.


If you want a socialist government, there are a few failing socialist economies in the world; go find one.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  You are partially correct -- it was stylistically inappropriate to begin by admixing mild annoyance (as opposed to greed, envy, sloth and the rest of the Seven Deadly Sins) together with my genuine pleasure at seeing Hack and Hancock sued.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase ... and there must be Pink Unicorns and fields of Candy Canes in your world too.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@fishingblues  I just spoke with the Libertarian candidate for Governor at the People's Fair; I stand by my assessment of his stance on the issue.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  See meanings 1.3 and 1.4 below:


expect


VERB [WITH OBJECT]

1 Regard (something) as likely to happen:we expect the best[WITH OBJECT AND INFINITIVE]: he expects the stock market to sink further[WITH CLAUSE]: we expect that farmers will harvest 63 million acres of hay

1.1 Regard (someone) as likely to do or be something:[WITH OBJECT AND INFINITIVE]: they were not expecting him to continue

1.2 Believe that (someone or something) will arrive soon:Celia was expecting a visitor

1.3 Look for (something) from someone as rightfully due or requisite in the circumstances:we expect great things of you

1.4 Require (someone) to fulfill an obligation:[WITH OBJECT AND INFINITIVE]: we expect employers to pay a reasonable salary

1.5 (I expect)  informal Used to indicate that one supposes something to be so, but has no firm evidence or knowledge:they’re just friends of his, I expect[WITH CLAUSE]: I expect you know them?

fishingblues
fishingblues topcommenter

@RobertChase


Who cares?  As a Socialist, you have no seat at the table and no voice in the discussion.  Take your vile, failed philosophy and  sell it in some communist country.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase ... and when will the bitter reality finally disabuse you of such whimsical expectations?



fishingblues
fishingblues topcommenter

@RobertChase 


Feeling sorry for yourself, slick?  Quit trying to sell your perverted socialism in a country which was clearly established as a free-market capitalism economy and a representative democracy government.


If a group of doctors were gathered to discuss the health of the country, the dialogue concerning disease (an apt analogy for your socialism) would be only in relation to its eradication.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...