|
woozle wuzzle posted:I think you owe somebody $3770. The insurance company didn't get the anesthesia.... The Anesthesiologist MD then amends his contracts to reflect that any unpaid amount by the insurance company will be billed to the patient. He'll get his full amount.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Feces Starship posted:No WAY. Someone could be BILLED but not PAY?!?! Why I'm just a simple countray lawyer I wouldn't know NOTHING about such FOOLISHNESS nosiree yes let me be unequivocal all clients pay and that's that yes sir that is a totally correct statement of the way that things are for lawyers in today's world 100% true. A couple of years ago, all our investigators were busy and couldn't accompany one of our female attorneys to a scene visit/ witness talk on a murder case. (old-fashioned boss) She press ganged one of our appellate attorneys to go with her. He'd been out of private practice for about 5 years. The location was in a rough part of town. It was a bar/poolhall where a number of low-end prostitutes hung out. The male clientele was mostly down-on-your-luck-biker types. So these two attorneys walk into a bar. She starts asking if her witness is there, her 'bodyguard' attorney watches this big guy push himself away from the bar and come up to him. The attorney thinks the scary guy looks familiar. The guy says to the attorney, "You're [name], right? I got somethin' for you," and reaches toward his back. Scary guy brings around his biker wallet, pulls out three $100 bills and gives them to the attorney. "I think this is what I owe you, man. Thanks."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
I thought I started a new thread for this, but thankfully I didn't, now that I see this thread! How legal does this sound: State: Florida Occ: Server Got a 2nd job in May 2012. Got work week at restaurant down to Fri,Sat,Sun. Around August, hours got ramped down until just Saturday afternoons. Then I come in one Saturday afternoon and find that I'm not scheduled. The main manager plays dumb and says to talk to Richard (the scheduling manager), after a week of phone tag, Richard says that no hours are available for me until around Christmas time when business picks up. Every week, I go in to see if I'm on the schedule. Finally my name drops off the schedule and I call Richard... he accuses me of having missed scheduled work! He doesn't say I am fired or anything, just accuses me of that... I tell him that I just talked to him a few weeks ago and he didn't indicate anything like that; he had nothing to say. I called HR a few days ago and at some point I was considered terminated on 10/6, but they don't know when it was keyed in etc. This whole time of being strung along fired, my vacation time was basically held at ransom and I didn't get a chance to take any. Unfortuanately, Florida doesn't give a poo poo about normal people and there's no requirement for vacation or sick time to be paid; I have to hope corporate (O'Charley's, gently caress it) has a policy in place that pays out vacation; which would be helpful, I had a few hundred bucks worth of vacation saved up. Since I was never full time, does the whole hours thing matter? What about being strung along fired? It was kind of embarrassing that they didn't even have the respect or whatever to straight up fire me; I'm guessing it's their technique to try and screw people out of unemployment by forcing them to quit or something like that. I already have contacted a lawyer for a free consultation. I will be really happy if I break even or get my vacation time. I really just want to this motherfucker's deplorable management activities to be made more known. I'm not the first he's done this to, and I won't be the last.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Aw guys don't be mad. Insurance companies suck was the joke (and my arithmetic skills, evidently). They exist to stiff providers and collect premiums. Next thing you're going to tell me is it doesn't cost hundreds of thousands to go to law school and you don't just work 9 to 5 and roll in money when you get home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
ayekappy posted:Normal ways hourly workers get fired If you were working part-time, started in May, and were terminated in October, you probably didn't have much vacation saved up. I can tell you from first-hand experience in Florida that if your employment lawyer takes your case, you will be fronting him $300 or so an hour with some minimum number of hours in advance. Your recoverable damages will probably end up being something like 5 hours of vacation time at minimum wage for a server. You're mad they couldn't nut up and fire you, I don't blame you for that. You should really move on though, it's healthier to let it go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
ayekappy posted:I thought I started a new thread for this, but thankfully I didn't, now that I see this thread! You're probably poo poo out of luck on the vacation time. The way your employer's acting makes me think they're hoping to prevent your getting unemployment, too, so make sure your lawyer discusses that with you, too. (Though the not-scheduling-hours-till-the-employee-quits gambitis a pretty common and stupid tactic that a lot of unemployment boards see right through.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
How does it work to fight a civil traffic ticket in Arizona? I know for criminal tickets you can plead not guilty and talk to a prosecutor where they offer a plea bargain. Is it similar for civil ones? I don't get a poo poo about paying a fine, I just want the points dropped. Improper left and improper right turn, if it matters. Two for one stop. BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
I have kind of a weird question about will beneficiaries that's probably going to make me sound insane, but I'm'a go for it anyway. I came from a very wealthy family (more than 10s of millions but less than 50s depending on the years) but cut off all contact with them because they're assholes and I wanted to live my own life. At one point, I was in my grandmother's will for 3 million upon her death, and my two children for a trust of 1 million each that had some sort of "must-be-thirty-years-old" restriction that I can't imagine. My grandmother passed away this last summer and my mother was the executor of her will. She tried to get into contact with me regarding the will, but I didn't answer. I think probably this means that my kids were willed something or other by my grandmother, but I don't want to be involved at all. Any idea where I could look to find out the legal status of what I'm doing? My kids are under 18, so I can't imagine that any money that was destined for trust funds for them or whatever could just disappear and never be theirs, but I guess it's possible. My grandmother and mother live in Texas, which is where the will was filed. We're American citizens living in The Netherlands (although we'll probably be Dutch citizens within the next 5 years or so, if that's relevant.) Edit: Also, lots of the money is invested in land and real-estate if that changes anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
If will is being probated it's probably in a public court file. If you or one of your kids is a beneficiary you should be able to look at the will. I also love the practiced indifference to money that can only come from people with lots of it in their family. "Could be a couple million dollars in trust for me? Ho hum, whatever, I suppose I'll make a post on the internet about it" Call the executor or hire a lawyer to look into it for you
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:If will is being probated it's probably in a public court file. If you or one of your kids is a beneficiary you should be able to look at the will. That's why I knew it would sound crazy, but in the end it was kind of a question of losing who I was. I benefited from all the privileges of all that money for so long (good schools that let me get into college, etc.) that I don't NEED it to survive, and, well, money's only more important than your mental health when you don't have enough of it. We live a perfectly nice life without it. I'm not getting involved with my mother (the will's executor) for any reason, regardless, so I was just looking for a simple answer that would allow me to 100% take my mind off of it. If there's no such thing, then I'll just have to not care until she's dead, and then investigate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
I don't see how having an agent look at the court file or contact her for you to find out what / if anything your children are entitled to would require to deal with her
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Chib posted:That's why I knew it would sound crazy, but in the end it was kind of a question of losing who I was. I benefited from all the privileges of all that money for so long (good schools that let me get into college, etc.) that I don't NEED it to survive, and, well, money's only more important than your mental health when you don't have enough of it. Yes, a lawyer will do that without you having to deal with your family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:If will is being probated it's probably in a public court file. If you or one of your kids is a beneficiary you should be able to look at the will. This exactly, on every paragraph. Wills are typically public documents and anyone can pull them and just have to pay a copying fee to take them away. Get an attorney and tell them you want a copy of the will and a report on where the will is in the probate process. For a probate attorney, I'd tell them you'll pay up to 3 hours of their billable rate for it. You don't need Probate Matlock for this, either; anybody who's taken a will through the probate process is more than capable here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:No WAY. Someone could be BILLED but not PAY?!?! Why I'm just a simple countray lawyer I wouldn't know NOTHING about such FOOLISHNESS nosiree yes let me be unequivocal all clients pay and that's that yes sir that is a totally correct statement of the way that things are for lawyers in today's world I see someone else has been playing the "What could I buy if my A/R was suddenly paid in full?" game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:I also love the practiced indifference to money that can only come from people with lots of it in their family. "Could be a couple million dollars in trust for me? Ho hum, whatever, I suppose I'll make a post on the internet about it" Such indifference can come from a variety of different sources, including being well-raised and educated. Money-grubbing is most unattractive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Addy posted:So out of sheer curiosity - and assuming there's anyone here who knows the laws involved in either country - this whole thing with the hospital and Kate and all... I note that some reports have the radio station saying they're confident they didn't do anything illegal... being pretty ignorant of the laws surrounding that anywhere, let alone between England and Australia, is there nothing against calling up a hospital and impersonating someone else in order to obtain personal information about a patient that the patient and/or hospital would otherwise refuse to divulge? Here in the US we have something called HIPAA that makes what the nurse did incredibly illegal. Even if no similar law exists in the UK, it's still incredibly unethical to give out medical info over the phone and also plain stupid without having any reliable way to authenticate the party on the other end of the phone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:Here in the US we have something called HIPAA that makes what the nurse did incredibly illegal. Even if no similar law exists in the UK, it's still incredibly unethical to give out medical info over the phone and also plain stupid without having any reliable way to authenticate the party on the other end of the phone. I thought Saldanha just put the call through to the ward, would that be illegal? She didn't give them any information.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Queen Elizatits posted:I thought Saldanha just put the call through to the ward, would that be illegal? She didn't give them any information. I suppose it depends on what was said on the other end of the phone. Something like, "Can you put me through to Princess Kate's room?" *transfers call* is pretty much a tacit admission she is there, I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
I have an odd legal question and I'd search myself but not really sure where to start. In this video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N5OhNplEd4&feature=youtube_gdata_player what would happen if someone just started beating the poo poo out of the little girl? Could that person get in trouble or would the TV show be held responsible? I know it takes place outside of the United States but treat it as if it happened here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
So I may have already hosed myself on this one, but I got a parking ticket today for being too close to a fire hydrant. I say that I may have hosed myself because I already moved my truck. The ticket says 9' 4" away, and you have to be 15+ feet away. I thought for a second that I should take pictures of it, but then thought that they wouldn't be worth anything because I easily could have backed my truck up another couple feet and lied about it. So I went ahead any moved it to the other side of the street. No sooner had I parked my truck on the other side when ANOTHER car parked in exactly the spot I was in, about the same distance away. Needless to say, I want to fight this. I am aware of the law, but as the law is enforced, it is safe to just leave a car length in between for a fire hydrant. I have NEVER seen two cars parked 15ft away from a fire hydrant, leaving a 30 foot gap. It's usually just big enough for one more car to squeeze into. What kind of recourse do I have?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
TheFrailNinja posted:... I got a parking ticket today for being too close to a fire hydrant. I say that I may have hosed myself because I already moved my truck. The ticket says 9' 4" away, and you have to be 15+ feet away... TheFrailNinja posted:So I went ahead any moved it to the other side of the street. No sooner had I parked my truck on the other side when ANOTHER car parked in exactly the spot I was in, about the same distance away. TheFrailNinja posted:Needless to say, I want to fight this. TheFrailNinja posted:I am aware of the law, but as the law is enforced, it is safe to just leave a car length in between for a fire hydrant. TheFrailNinja posted:I have NEVER seen two cars parked 15ft away from a fire hydrant, leaving a 30 foot gap. It's usually just big enough for one more car to squeeze into. TheFrailNinja posted:What kind of recourse do I have? Has this police officer repeatedly harassed you with similar tickets? Do you have a recording of him/her saying that he/she is specifically targeting you because [insert reason here]? Do you have a certified copy of the memo by the mayor/City manager/legal dept directing the police not to enfore the codified 15 foot rule and substituting 'about a car length' as the standard, except for you? Has the officer never written a 'too close to hydrant' ticket to anyone else? Has the city as a whole never pursued a ticket for 'too close to hydrant' for anybody else anywhere else in years (like at least 5)? If you can answer yes to these, MAYBE you have some kind of (legal) recourse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Curious regarding the legality of the following: Party A's cell phone was seized by the police as evidence while they were searching for Party B to arrest him. While the phone was in police custody, they send several text messages to known friends of Party B and B himself, asking where he is (impersonating Party A). Party A is never charged with anything, B is eventually arrested. I searched briefly regarding this, but all that came up was use of cell phones and pagers of drug dealers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
As a start (unfortunately it is now dark out) I walked up and down my block from end to end and took pictures of several cars that were within 15ft of fire hydrants, and how they appear from the other side of the street. They appear to be well over a "safe" distance from the hydrant. Unfortunately, my street is usually filled up during the day with commuter student vehicles, which would offer much better examples. At the time being, it is relatively sparse. I never said that I intend to have the ticket dropped, but I would like to fight it. The law in this case is not what is in practice. The point I was making about the other car is that any driver would consider it a safe spot/distance from the fire hydrant. It was not 60 seconds later that another car took the spot I was in. One thing that might be worth mentioning (if whomever I speak to has any interest) is my driving record. I got a speeding ticket when I was 16, about a month after I got my license, and I haven't had one in 4 years since. I had one parking ticket since I moved into this apartment in August, and I have been vigilant about where I park since then. It's not as if I put my truck there and said "eh, I'm within 15 feet, but gently caress it." I understand where you're coming from, but I'm asking what is the best/most effective way to defend myself? I am asserting that the civilian practice is to leave a car length in front of a hydrant, rarely more than 10 or 12 feet. I understand that I was under 15 feet, just like I would hypothetically understand that I was 6mph over the speed limit. The speeding ticket would be thrown out. CDG posted:Curious regarding the legality of the following: I would think they would need explicit permission from Party A to use Party A's identity/likeness/guise in an attempt to catch Party B. I think if they had pulled some blackmail deal with Party A, it would be a different story, but they seized Party A's property without his consent and impersonated him. It reminds me of this video I saw recently- there was some kind of motorcycle event/show, and there was a guy with a GoPro camera attached to his helmet. The police pull him over under the pretense of an obscured license plate on his motorcycle (a pretense which morphed several times during the video into "reckless driving" or something vague, it's all on youtube somewhere) and then proceeded to confiscate his camera because it "will have video of other riders breaking the law." They then proceeded to push the man around, and forcefully shove him into a police car despite the fact that he was showing no resistance. Anyway, a couple months after I saw the video, I heard that one of the officers was catching hell for it, like he was under investigation, or lost his job or something. TheFrailNinja fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Seriously, dude, how much is that ticket? Fighting it will not be a productive use of your time. Also you will lose because the law says 15 ft and you broke the law. Sucks that you're the guy who got caught. "Other people do it all the time" is not a recognized defense in the school yard scene, I doubt it's any better in actual court. (Not a lawyer)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
TheFrailNinja posted:I understand that I was under 15 feet, just like I would hypothetically understand that I was 6mph over the speed limit. The speeding ticket would be thrown out. No, it wouldn't. Maybe some one is found guilty of speeding and the court makes it a non-moving violation based on their driving record. But it's typically not thrown out. "Other people do it all the time" is absolutely positively not going to get you anywhere in court. I specifically advise you not to raise that, as it'll guaranteed make the judge want to fine you. Instead you plead guilty, say it was a mistake and the sun was in your eyes and aunt Sue just died, or whatever is true for you, and ask for leniency. The court fines you like $25-$150 (0 if you save versus CHA and the system is setup for it), and that's it. Traffic court isn't exactly "innocent until proven guilty". You'll be found guilty, the question is punishment. With a cleanish record it will be very low, unless the particular location is out to fleece people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
We new to add to the op, in addition to the landlord tenant and criminal issues FAQ, a section about how 'everyone else doing it' or 'they never ticket for these types of things before' not only is not a defense, but has the opposite of intended effect in that it requires you to admit you broke the law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
There was one guy in this thread who may have had a defence to a strict liability offence, but he's like one in a hundred.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Seriously, dude, how much is that ticket? Fighting it will not be a productive use of your time. The ticket is $115. That's a paycheck for me. "Other people do it all the time" is not the defense, on its face. The implication is that there is inconsistent enforcement of the law, or a discrepancy between the written law and the practiced law. The VAST majority of cars in this city that are parked adjacent to fire hydrants are parked under 15 feet away. I think that if you presented this case to a somewhat reasonable legal representative of the prosecuting body (because I have no idea who this would be. some city hall desk clerk? a judge?) they may feel inclined to knock down the fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
No, you idiot. "Other people do it all the time" is exactly what you're saying, and it's exactly the wrong defense. You can and should plead poverty as lawyers who understand How Things Work are telling you. You're twenty and have never handled any kind of legal matter before, I would defer to the professionals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Your defense is literally "other people do it all the time". Lawyers (who are not your lawyer and are not giving you legal advice) have already told you that that is the worst approach to take. Then one of them explained what you should do. Do that, if you must. And get a better job, because holy poo poo 115$ a paycheck?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
TheFrailNinja posted:The ticket is $115. That's a paycheck for me. "Other people do it all the time" is not the defense, on its face. The implication is that there is inconsistent enforcement of the law, or a discrepancy between the written law and the practiced law. The VAST majority of cars in this city that are parked adjacent to fire hydrants are parked under 15 feet away. I think that if you presented this case to a somewhat reasonable legal representative of the prosecuting body (because I have no idea who this would be. some city hall desk clerk? a judge?) they may feel inclined to knock down the fine. Go to court, be really sorry, and see if they'll let you do community service instead. You broke the law. If you want to feel better about other people breaking the law too, why don't you sit by the fire hydrant and call the cops every time someone parks there? That should help ease your mental burden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
TheFrailNinja posted:The implication is that there is inconsistent enforcement of the law, or a discrepancy between the written law and the practiced law. The VAST majority of cars in this city that are parked adjacent to fire hydrants are parked under 15 feet away. I think that if you presented this case to a somewhat reasonable legal representative of the prosecuting body (because I have no idea who this would be. some city hall desk clerk? a judge?) they may feel inclined to knock down the fine. They absolutely will not be inclined to knock down the fine based on that. Guaranteed in every county in this great nation. You are correct, the law is applied inconsistently and stupidly. It's bullshit you got the ticket. The state is allowed to inconsistently and stupidly apply bullshit to you. Rather than get you leniency, it will make the judge want to demonstrate to you the reach of their discretion.... The advice about asking for service instead is good. Rather than say the ticket is bullshit, say you're broke and it's a severe burden, and you'd rather work it off if the court would graciously allow it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
CDG posted:Curious regarding the legality of the following: This is far more interesting than some guy's parking ticket. I'd love to hear an answer myself. I do remember reading this a few months back, which I assume came up in your search. Based on that it would seem to be legal. IANAL but I'd question why Party A's cell phone was seized to begin with. "As evidence" of what? Knowing someone who has a warrant isn't illegal and sure isn't cause to have your cell phone seized; your hypothetical is a bit lacking in detail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Traffic ticket procedure makes more sense when viewed as revenue generation rather than any type of justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:This is far more interesting than some guy's parking ticket. I'd love to hear an answer myself. I do remember reading this a few months back, which I assume came up in your search. Based on that it would seem to be legal. IANAL but I'd question why Party A's cell phone was seized to begin with. "As evidence" of what? Knowing someone who has a warrant isn't illegal and sure isn't cause to have your cell phone seized; your hypothetical is a bit lacking in detail. But B hasn't got standing to assert that the seizure of A's phone was illegal. Lawerese--->English: Only A can assert A's constitutional right not to have his/her phone illegally seized, and then only on his/her (A's) own behalf. Constitutionally, B hasn't got a dog in A's fight and can't claim A's Constitutional right as his own. I think the impersonation angle is the most interesting - you've got a cop lying to a suspect about the identity of someone known to the suspect, using that person's phone/identity in order to get the suspect to do something Assuming that the impersonation was illegal with regard to B, (a big assumption) if the police just use the information to arrest B, there's no problem (at least with regard to the case they wanted to arrest him for) On the other hand, if B confesses after he's arrested or the police find other evidence they could use against B when they arrest him, then there's a problem for the police. joat mon fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:No, you idiot. "Other people do it all the time" is exactly what you're saying, and it's exactly the wrong defense. You can and should plead poverty as lawyers who understand How Things Work are telling you. The best part is when he proceeded to try to answer the question following his own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Assuming that the impersonation was illegal with regard to B, (a big assumption) if the police just use the information to arrest B, there's no problem (at least with regard to the case they wanted to arrest him for) I ain't no expert, but I think the impersonation is A-OK. (legally) Let's say the police don't even bother with A or their cell phone. Without anyone's consent, a police officer just straight up calls B from the police station and says "hey this A, I'm in a rush and using this weird phone, meet me at the 7-11 on main st. in 1 hour, its an emergency!", it somehow works and they catch B. I don't see how they have a problem. Use of A's cell phone just adds another layer, but the police are totally allowed to straight up loving lie. It's a pretty useful tool... woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:We new to add to the op, in addition to the landlord tenant and criminal issues FAQ, a section about how 'everyone else doing it' or 'they never ticket for these types of things before' not only is not a defense, but has the opposite of intended effect in that it requires you to admit you broke the law. Also please add "my buddy's lawyer got them to drop his charge like nothing, why can't you" edit: also that "impersonating the guy to nab his associates" is like the first thing cops do when they arrest a guy with 6 cellphones in his pockets, it's probably legal/constitutional
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Also please add "my buddy's lawyer got them to drop his charge like nothing, why can't you" Is there a cause of action for if the police use a legitimately seized cell phone for purposes unrelated to police work? E.g. Person A is legitimately arrested, phone is seized as a legitimate search incident to the arrest. Officer B pockets the phone, takes it home and starts making prank calls to A's contacts, orders a pizza, and calls a 900-number. Is that just trespass to chattels, something in crim pro, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Glowing Red Sign posted:Is there a cause of action for if the police use a legitimately seized cell phone for purposes unrelated to police work? E.g. Person A is legitimately arrested, phone is seized as a legitimate search incident to the arrest. Officer B pockets the phone, takes it home and starts making prank calls to A's contacts, orders a pizza, and calls a 900-number. Theft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 10:12
|
|
