Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:16 AM
Sledhead71 Sledhead71 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
Hopefully his wife can legally own firearms...otherwise people looking to do harm to Stanley now know he canít have them.

LC
Unfortunately if the firearms are in the same residence, Constructive Possession Law would still apply to Gerald.
  #62  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:18 AM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Camrose
Posts: 8,333
Default

Was it the pistol or a unrestricted firearm that he was charged for unsafe storage?
  #63  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:21 AM
R3illy R3illy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
I spoke with a cop I know last week, he says he has studied the evidence very closely and he feels the jury totally made the right decision regardless of any goof-ups from Crown witnesses. Says the evidence for it being an accidental shooting was very strong. I hope the man comes out with a fat bank account for all he has been through. He and his wife went to bed as normal that night, not knowing their lives would be forever altered. Ironically, this cop grew up on a farm 6 miles away. His dad is still on the farm and the stories of the crime they are subjected to is ridiculous. With everything I heard, I can understand why his guns were not locked up. He does not deserve to lose firearm privileges for 10 years. The law may say otherwise, and he will have to live with that, but he doesn't deserve it. There is a difference. That's my two cents.
I fnd this amusing. There are well known lawyers out there who have many issues with the prosecutor and the judge. These lawyers will all be studying the case together and will be reporting their findings. I think the most important issue i read was how the judge shouldnt have allowed hear say evidence from 2 random gun owners who shot guns that were different then stanleys in different conditions that were unrelated to the trial.

They submitted hear say evidence and the judge allowed it. Thats a massive mistake that the judge and prosecution should have prevented.

So to counter any expert in any field all we need in a court of law are 2 random dudes to take the stand and say otherwise.

Your cop friend presses charges for a crime not defends someone from it. Their job isnt to determine whos guilty or not.. hes got an opinion just like everyone else. Thats about it.
  #64  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:31 AM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
I fnd this amusing. There are well known lawyers out there who have many issues with the prosecutor and the judge. These lawyers will all be studying the case together and will be reporting their findings. I think the most important issue i read was how the judge shouldnt have allowed hear say evidence from 2 random gun owners who shot guns that were different then stanleys in different conditions that were unrelated to the trial.

They submitted hear say evidence and the judge allowed it. Thats a massive mistake that the judge and prosecution should have prevented.

So to counter any expert in any field all we need in a court of law are 2 random dudes to take the stand and say otherwise.

Your cop friend presses charges for a crime not defends someone from it. Their job isnt to determine whos guilty or not.. hes got an opinion just like everyone else. Thats about it.
How is that hear say? If they shot the guns it is not hear say. Hear say means you are repeating what you are told by someone else.

I'm confused now what grounds there is to not allow their testimony?
  #65  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:32 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 6,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
I fnd this amusing. There are well known lawyers out there who have many issues with the prosecutor and the judge. These lawyers will all be studying the case together and will be reporting their findings. I think the most important issue i read was how the judge shouldnt have allowed hear say evidence from 2 random gun owners who shot guns that were different then stanleys in different conditions that were unrelated to the trial.

They submitted hear say evidence and the judge allowed it. Thats a massive mistake that the judge and prosecution should have prevented.

So to counter any expert in any field all we need in a court of law are 2 random dudes to take the stand and say otherwise.

Your cop friend presses charges for a crime not defends someone from it. Their job isnt to determine whos guilty or not.. hes got an opinion just like everyone else. Thats about it.
I find you amusing. Quite often actually. You appear anti-gun, and that's okay, it's just that you are on a gun friendly forum. Lots of other forums out there that would adhere to your worldview. This one is probably not your huckleberry though.

I'd also suggest you refrain from smart aleck comebacks which you are want to take part in.

Last edited by sns2; 04-17-2018 at 12:02 PM.
  #66  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:36 AM
pistolero1860 pistolero1860 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom55 View Post
Only one would wonder and that would be the guy who joined this conversation long after the main thrust of it had been thoroughly discussed before that 'one' joined the group. Everyone else knows my position and I say your theories are nonsense made from fragments of your limited knowledge and contain more than a few inconsistencies and misrepresentations of verifiable facts. For example: this is not a firearms forum, per se.
I was under the impression that, according the AOF forum rules, there was no "seniority" regarding a member's post count or when he joined the forum.
In that respect, ALL members opinions do have value.

If, as you say, my theories are nonsense, then I would be pleased to here you quote them and refute them with specific arguments, instead of making unfounded and unsupported accusations simply proclaiming my arguments to be nonsense and limited in knowledge.

If you believe that I have misreprented verifiable facts, and that my opinions are inconsistent, and that I possess limited knowledge, then please prove it with specific examples.

And AOF is very much a firearms forum, as much as it is a hunting forum, and a trapping forum, and a fishing forum, as evidenced by the fact that
these discussion groups all exist here.

However, perhaps I did get a little carried away in describing you as pro-Crown and questioning your agenda. You're right. I haven't been here long enough to really know you enough to make that claim.

Last edited by pistolero1860; 04-17-2018 at 09:47 AM.
  #67  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:50 AM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Camrose
Posts: 8,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolero1860 View Post
You're right. I haven't been here long enough to really know you enough to make that claim.
Hello! And welcome to the forum newcomer!
  #68  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:05 AM
pistolero1860 pistolero1860 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Hello! And welcome to the forum newcomer!
Thank you for your warm welcome.

And, thank you for agreeing that my opinions are as valid as any other member, regardless of post count or seniority.
  #69  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:10 AM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Camrose
Posts: 8,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolero1860 View Post
Thank you for your warm welcome.

And, thank you for agreeing that my opinions are as valid as any other member, regardless of post count or seniority.
Your welcome. You are correct. Opinions are just as valid as anyone elseís. Only after the opinion is stated does validity diminish or increase. But in the end, validity is in the eyes of the jury.
  #70  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:15 AM
pistolero1860 pistolero1860 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Your welcome. You are correct. Opinions are just as valid as anyone elseís. Only after the opinion is stated does validity diminish or increase. But in the end, validity is in the eyes of the jury.
Such as the Stanley jury.

In this, I am in full agreement.
  #71  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:08 AM
R3illy R3illy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
How is that hear say? If they shot the guns it is not hear say. Hear say means you are repeating what you are told by someone else.

I'm confused now what grounds there is to not allow their testimony?
Perhaps hear say isnt the right word. The lawyers took issue with a random guy shooting a different gun in different conditions with different ammo, 40 yrs previous when it had nothing to do with the trial.

It was flawed evidence that the judge and prosecution should not have allowed. Who needs experts when you have a dude whos shot a gopher 40 yrs ago....

David tanovich is one of the lawyers amongst many others who have dived into this topic.
  #72  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:15 AM
jef612 jef612 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 49
Default

It is not flawed evidence at all.

The crown firearms expert had argued that the hangfire would have lasted at most 2-3 seconds, and the defence produced two witnesses to counter that argument with their own testimony regarding their experience with hangfires that lasted significantly longer than 3 seconds.

Maybe you don't like it - but that is exactly how evidence and counter evidence works. Don't tell the world that hang fires last "up to three seconds" and then bitch when people come forward and counter your theory with first hand experience to the contrary.
  #73  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:17 AM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
Perhaps hear say isnt the right word. The lawyers took issue with a random guy shooting a different gun in different conditions with different ammo, 40 yrs previous when it had nothing to do with the trial.

It was flawed evidence that the judge and prosecution should not have allowed. Who needs experts when you have a dude whos shot a gopher 40 yrs ago....

David tanovich is one of the lawyers amongst many others who have dived into this topic.
  #74  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:22 AM
The Cook The Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canmore
Posts: 1,123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
Hopefully his wife can legally own firearms...otherwise people looking to do harm to Stanley now know he canít have them.

LC
Time to buy a crossbow, compound bow, throwing knives, and bear spray or wasp and hornet spray etc etc.
__________________
Woke up with a pulse, best day ever
  #75  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:25 AM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is online now
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,139
Default

How does a police officer loose a patrol carbine and nothing happened to him?
  #76  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:35 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 32,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norwest Alta View Post
How does a police officer loose a patrol carbine and nothing happened to him?
That was at least stolen, the loaded RCMP pistol was just left on the B.C. ferry, for anyone to find.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
  #77  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:04 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jef612 View Post
It is not flawed evidence at all.

The crown firearms expert had argued that the hangfire would have lasted at most 2-3 seconds, and the defence produced two witnesses to counter that argument with their own testimony regarding their experience with hangfires that lasted significantly longer than 3 seconds.

Maybe you don't like it - but that is exactly how evidence and counter evidence works. Don't tell the world that hang fires last "up to three seconds" and then bitch when people come forward and counter your theory with first hand experience to the contrary.
I didnít like the crownís expert testimony either. When I heard that I was thinking the CFSC insistence you wait 60 secs after a hangfire would be great to introduce to evidence.

I donít see why the evidence of lay people couldnít be presented. The expert testimony presented an unclear picture at best I felt. I felt he was leading with his chin, and counter evidence was easy to provide. You don't have to take "expert" testimony as fact, as it often isn't.
  #78  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:36 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
I spoke with a cop I know last week, he says he has studied the evidence very closely and he feels the jury totally made the right decision regardless of any goof-ups from Crown witnesses. Says the evidence for it being an accidental shooting was very strong. I hope the man comes out with a fat bank account for all he has been through. He and his wife went to bed as normal that night, not knowing their lives would be forever altered. Ironically, this cop grew up on a farm 6 miles away. His dad is still on the farm and the stories of the crime they are subjected to is ridiculous. With everything I heard, I can understand why his guns were not locked up. He does not deserve to lose firearm privileges for 10 years. The law may say otherwise, and he will have to live with that, but he doesn't deserve it. There is a difference. That's my two cents.
I agree with your cop friend's opinion. I do not agree with the crown piling on those extra charges. The crown went with their best bet and the jury did not buy their case.

It may be just me, but to go with the other charges just seems vindictive after the crown's loss. In my mind the crown had an opportunity to do the right thing but failed.

As far as politics goes, it is obvious that the governing party took sides and would not let the jury have the final word.
  #79  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:39 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 4,860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolero1860 View Post
Just for the education of us all, would you mind listing all of the"multiple" firearms laws that Mr. Stanley broke?

- Not unsafe storage of a restricted weapon - that was unsubstantiated.
- Unsafe storage of an unrestricted firearm was substantiated.

But what other firearms laws were broken?
What other firearms laws has he been charged under?

Also, stating that Mr. Stanley actually profited from the donations received sounds like you have a distinct prejudice against a man receiving a fair trial without being financially destroyed.
Unsubstantiated? They decided not to pursue charges for one reason or another, I saw one brief comment in an article saying due to lack of evidence.

I am perhaps jumping to a conclusion that he improperly stored restricted firearms but things point to that being the case. I also doubt the Tokarev was stored properly out in his shed.

One of the other laws he admitted to breaking(but was never charged for) is improperly using that Tokarev, a restricted firearm, to chase off coyotes. What is the chances of him storing it properly if he uses it improperly and doesn't store any of his other firearms properly?

Breaking the law, being charged for breaking the law and being found guilty of breaking the law are 3 very different things. Stanley clearly broke multiple laws and had a severe disregard for the proper storage of firearms(look at the photos, firearms laying around the house with ammo beside them etc).

I have no issue with Stanley receiving the support he did, instances like what happened at his farm need to stop and he was in a tough place. If there truly was a mysterious 1 in millions chance hang fire that caused this whole issue I feel very sorry for the guy.

I am just saying considering everything that happened he did very well. It is not very often that you can admit to accidentally killing a man and breaking multiple firearm related laws and walk away with only one minimal firearms related charge and a bunch of financial support.
  #80  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:22 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,086
Default

The gov't was going to try to nail him for something after the trial, one way or another, nature of the beast that is our legal system.

Unfortunately for him, he gave them that opportunity on a silver platter, so, he only has himself to blame for it in that regard. If the non-restricted guns had been stored properly, and his restricted lockbox was open still, he may possibly have beat that, due to circumstances at the time. But, he still most likely would have had to go to court over that, even if he had locked up everything else.

It is a good illustration of the way things are, like it or not.
  #81  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:26 PM
Looper's Avatar
Looper Looper is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 336
Default But....

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
Unsubstantiated? They decided not to pursue charges for one reason or another, I saw one brief comment in an article saying due to lack of evidence.
I am perhaps jumping to a conclusion that he improperly stored restricted firearms but things point to that being the case. I also doubt the Tokarev was stored properly out in his shed.

One of the other laws he admitted to breaking(but was never charged for) is improperly using that Tokarev, a restricted firearm, to chase off coyotes. What is the chances of him storing it properly if he uses it improperly and doesn't store any of his other firearms properly?

Breaking the law, being charged for breaking the law and being found guilty of breaking the law are 3 very different things. Stanley clearly broke multiple laws and had a severe disregard for the proper storage of firearms(look at the photos, firearms laying around the house with ammo beside them etc).

I have no issue with Stanley receiving the support he did, instances like what happened at his farm need to stop and he was in a tough place. If there truly was a mysterious 1 in millions chance hang fire that caused this whole issue I feel very sorry for the guy.

I am just saying considering everything that happened he did very well. It is not very often that you can admit to accidentally killing a man and breaking multiple firearm related laws and walk away with only one minimal firearms related charge and a bunch of financial support.
That's what unsubstantiated means.


un∑sub∑stan∑ti∑at∑ed

adjective

adjective: unsubstantiated

not supported or proven by evidence



Looper
  #82  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:35 PM
Headdamage Headdamage is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
He broke multiple firearm laws and accidentally killed a person with a firearm.

A 10 year firearm ban seems very reasonable especially considering that it sounds like it is a common ban for much lesser cases.

Stanley did very well to walk from this whole situation with only one minor fine. He likely made money considering the financial support he received.
I agree that he is very lucky to have come out of this with as little penalty as this, I thought they would go after him for careless use of a firearm at the very least.
  #83  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:04 PM
pistolero1860 pistolero1860 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
Unsubstantiated? They decided not to pursue charges for one reason or another, I saw one brief comment in an article saying due to lack of evidence.

I am perhaps jumping to a conclusion that he improperly stored restricted firearms but things point to that being the case. I also doubt the Tokarev was stored properly out in his shed.

One of the other laws he admitted to breaking(but was never charged for) is improperly using that Tokarev, a restricted firearm, to chase off coyotes. What is the chances of him storing it properly if he uses it improperly and doesn't store any of his other firearms properly?

Breaking the law, being charged for breaking the law and being found guilty of breaking the law are 3 very different things. Stanley clearly broke multiple laws and had a severe disregard for the proper storage of firearms(look at the photos, firearms laying around the house with ammo beside them etc).

I have no issue with Stanley receiving the support he did, instances like what happened at his farm need to stop and he was in a tough place. If there truly was a mysterious 1 in millions chance hang fire that caused this whole issue I feel very sorry for the guy.

I am just saying considering everything that happened he did very well. It is not very often that you can admit to accidentally killing a man and breaking multiple firearm related laws and walk away with only one minimal firearms related charge and a bunch of financial support.
The Crown did NOT charge him with unsafe storage of a restricted weapon, so he obviously did not break that law. There was a lock box for it.

I am also unaware of a law described as "Using a Tokarev to chase away coyotes." What law are you actually referring to?

Also, since we have dealt with the unsafe storage of unrestricted firearms as well, what are the rest of these "multiple firearms laws" that you vaguely claim that he violated?

And, surely police would have charged Mr. Stanley with all of these other violations of "multiple firearms laws" if they could.

So, again, could you clarify what all of these other "multiple firearms laws" were that you claim Mr. Stanley violated?
  #84  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:34 PM
Suzukisam Suzukisam is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 536
Default

I donít understand why he could not have chosen the healing circle or is that only a one way station. Is that not what the guys who raided his place get. Tragic That some one died but should not both sides use the same justice system
  #85  
Old 04-17-2018, 05:09 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,979
Default

[QUOTE=pistolero1860;3772320]
Quote:
The Crown did NOT charge him with unsafe storage of a restricted weapon, so he obviously did not break that law.
That is not obvious! The only thing that is obvious is the fact that they did not charge him with that.

Quote:
And, surely police would have charged Mr. Stanley with all of these other violations of "multiple firearms laws" if they could.
That is not a sure thing either! Police do not always charge an offender with absolutely every single thing they can!
  #86  
Old 04-17-2018, 05:27 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headdamage View Post
I agree that he is very lucky to have come out of this with as little penalty as this, I thought they would go after him for careless use of a firearm at the very least.
I do not think it unusual that he was not charged with careless use!
They did charge him with murder which requires proof of deliberate intent.

The jury was also instructed that if they did not feel there was deliberate intent that he may be convicted of manslaughter.

To charge careless use would raise the question, Was it deliberate intent or carless use? The careless use is included in the evidence required to prove manslaughter.

The crown wanted a conviction of murder and the idea of careless use thrown in might push the jury in a way that the crown did not want.
  #87  
Old 04-17-2018, 07:06 PM
6.5swedeforelk 6.5swedeforelk is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: N. Canada
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolero1860 View Post

...Considering that this is a pro-gun firearms forum, there sure seem to be a lot of members who have agenda to defend the Crown.

Odd, don't you think?
Hmmm... you noticed that too?

Well, flag'em and tag'em in your memory.

If nothing else, this thread has floated them to the surface.



And Pistolero, welcome to the site..


Here... take Rug's chair. Perhaps you can fill that huge void.
  #88  
Old 04-17-2018, 07:11 PM
kingrat kingrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: prince albert
Posts: 833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolero1860 View Post
The Crown did NOT charge him with unsafe storage of a restricted weapon, so he obviously did not break that law. There was a lock box for it.

I am also unaware of a law described as "Using a Tokarev to chase away coyotes." What law are you actually referring to?

Also, since we have dealt with the unsafe storage of unrestricted firearms as well, what are the rest of these "multiple firearms laws" that you vaguely claim that he violated?

And, surely police would have charged Mr. Stanley with all of these other violations of "multiple firearms laws" if they could.

So, again, could you clarify what all of these other "multiple firearms laws" were that you claim Mr. Stanley violated?
I thought he was charged for the restricted one.The crown dropped that charge when he plead guilty to the non restricted. So global news says he was and other ones say he wasn't .

Last edited by kingrat; 04-17-2018 at 07:25 PM.
  #89  
Old 04-17-2018, 07:30 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6.5swedeforelk View Post
Hmmm... you noticed that too?

Well, flag'em and tag'em in your memory.

If nothing else, this thread has floated them to the surface.



And Pistolero, welcome to the site..


Here... take Rug's chair. Perhaps you can fill that huge void.

Please tag me as a pro Crown guy. I have nothing against the Crown. They have a job to do. That also goes for defense lawyers.

What I have a problem with is politicians that try to steer an agenda. What I also have a problem with is those who do not honor the decision of the jury.
The jury who have the unpopular duty of rendering a decision should not have to see the leaders of our country cozy up to those to those on the other side of their decision.
  #90  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:01 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 4,860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
I thought he was charged for the restricted one.The crown dropped that charge when he plead guilty to the non restricted. So global news says he was and other ones say he wasn't .
He was charged. Then the charges were dropped. I am guessing he was charged because the pistol didn't have a trigger lock on it. There are reports that say none of his firearms had trigger locks and the court photo of the ruger blackhawk did not have a trigger lock on it(so either the RCMP/court took the lock off which seems unlikely or it didn't have one).

I am also guessing the charges were dropped because the crown was happy with the results of him pleading guilty to the first charge. He already had a fine, firearms ban and had given up his firearms. Going through the proceedings for the second charge would have only resulted in a small fine and would have been a waste of time for everyone involved.

Going back to using the Tokarev for scaring coyotes. Criminal code section 95 (1). Obviously there is no evidence to support such a case hence why he wasn't charged... Go tell a police officer you have sped in the past, you won't get charged for that either, doesn't mean you didn't break the law...
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.