Police Abuse

Texas Police Turning Into Mobile Debt Collectors

So warns the Electronic Freedom Foundation.

|

Two new technologies and one failed state program could make highway travel perilous for Texans traveling between San Antonio, Austin and Houston.

Law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over I-10 east of San Antonio and I-35 between San Antonio and Austin have signed contracts with Vigilant Solutions, a license plate reader company, with the aim of stopping drivers who have outstanding traffic warrants.

The company's database syncs real-time license scanning with a government warrants database to ping police when a target approaches.

At the same time, a new law enacted in 2015 allows police to install credit card readers in patrol vehicles. The idea was to allow people to pay their fines rather than be taken to jail. Vigilant Solutions is piggybacking on that policy.

The company's contracts with Guadalupe County and the City of Kyle call for a 25 percent service charge, most of it payable to Vigilant, to be tacked onto the outstanding fines, putting a detained driver into bind: either pay all outstanding debts plus the service charge, or go to jail.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning that this turns police into mobile debt collectors for a private company, andr raises questions about the legality of the surcharge, which hinges on whether the fee is "reasonably incurred in providing the access or service."

EFF posted a PowerPoint slide from a Vigilant presentation assuring officials that the charge could be justified under state law. The organization argues that the surcharge is not reasonable because it pays not just for direct costs, but the entire system.

Texas already has a problem with administrative charges tacked onto fines for motor vehicle violations. It's estimated that 10 percent of Texans have outstanding warrants – many of them unaware – because of the state's Driver Responsibility Program.

Since its creation in 2003, the program has billed Texas drivers more than $3.6 billion, but just half of that has been collected, according to the Legislative Budget Board.

"The Driver Responsibility Program was supposed to improve public safety," the Texas Observer reported. "Instead, it has saddled countless drivers with onerous fines, introduced a new form of double jeopardy to the legal system, stripped more than a million drivers of their drivers' licenses and—in a classic example of perverse incentives—decreased DWI convictions."

If you are convicted of any number of driving violations, or rack up more than six points on your driving record, you fall into the clutches of the program, and face additional fines of $100 to $2,000 every year afterward for three years.

The program has struggled with notifying drivers of their fines, leading to rampant license suspensions. As of April 2014, some 1.4 million Texas drivers had their licenses suspended for nonpayment.

Watchdog.org's reporting on license plate readers in Northern Virginia raised a number of privacy and surveillance concerns.

The Texas program raises even more, according to the EFF. Vigilant Solutions gets to keep a copy of all license plate data gathered by police. It also sent out an undisclosed number of erroneous warrant notices across the state last month, although the company denies that any "personal information was divulged to any unintended recipients."

This article originally appeared at Watchdog.org.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

108 responses to “Texas Police Turning Into Mobile Debt Collectors

  1. The company’s contracts with Guadalupe County and the City of Kyle call for a 25 percent service charge, most of it payable to Vigilant, to be tacked onto the outstanding fines

    Sweet! What do the contracts say about false hits?

    1. I’m not concerned about a 25 percent service fee. What I’m concerned about is those damn ATM fees that can be as high as five, FIVE dollars. If only there were someone with an iron fist to rule over me to solve this injustice.

      1. It’s all of those greedy banks making money on the backs of the poor!

        Those traffic fines are only for the really bad guys, like the drunk drivers … right?!

        1. *pats on back*
          Sure buddy, sure.

      2. If only Stalin knew what was happening in the Ukraine!

  2. Saturday morning but punch. Thanks a lot.

    1. I would rather get punched in the butt instead of the tremendous testicular trauma that is served here daily.

      1. Ducking autocorrect!

        (Get it?)

        1. I’m not seeing it…
          /turns popular meme on head

    2. It’s just about time for the revolution, isn’t it?

      1. The Beatles don’t agree.

    3. Getting punched in the nuts is part of your male privilege.

  3. I’d be mostly concerned about the implications on probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

    It’s one thing if they pull you over because you ran a stop sign and subsequently discover, when they run your license, you have a failure to appear or an unpaid ticket. Quite another if they pull you over despite you not having done anything to justify them pulling you over.

    Seems to me that you should have an expectation of privacy in your car so long as you don’t do anything that would justify pulling you over.

    1. “Seems to me that you should have an expectation of privacy in your car so long as you don’t do anything that would justify pulling you over”.

      What if you’re driving a car registered to your wife? The cops pull you over while you’re driving alone because a camera reads your plate and shows that your wife has an outstanding ticket–but what’s their justification for pulling you over? If your wife’s ticket is the only reason they have for pulling you over, then they don’t have a justification.

      1. I believe that is clearly listed in the FYTW portion of the law.

        1. Damn your nimble fingers!

      2. They have plenty of justification for thinking that the registered owner of the car is in the car. Once they determine that she’s not in the car, they should let you go.

        1. ….They have plenty of justification for thinking that the registered owner of the car is in the car. Once they determine that she’s not in the car, they should let you go…..

          That’s cute…

    2. It’s all justified by the FYTW Clause.

    3. I got popped for an unregistered vehicle last month. The cop was sitting in the median with his nose glued to his computer. With all the traffic it was impossible for him to have seen the little sticker on my plate. The only thing I can think of is that he must have had a plate reader, and the computer was flagging him when it got a hit. $140 fine. It really put a damper on Christmas.

    4. The dogs get to decide.

  4. Another case of a private company profiteering with the help of the government-in this case the Texas state police. This opens up a huge can of worms.

    1. You don’t love the free market hard enough. Love it harder. Then you’ll see how state goons acting as collectors for a “private” company is a free market.

      1. Free market Benito Mussolini style!

    2. Government is just the things we do together to fill the pockets of the connected.

      1. And fuck the ones who aren’t. Those funds aren’t going to fund themselves. Or maybe they are.

    3. Just wait till they add instant asset forfeiture to the mix… I am sooo ashamed to be a Texas descendant right now. First Holy War death-for-hemp Bush, then War and asset-forfeiture Bush, and now this! Somebody unleash the Dixie Chicks!

      1. Hey tone down on the Texas descendant shit. George fucking bush was not born in Texas. That fucker was born in pennsylvania or some other northern liberal bastion.

        1. Nevertheless he considered himself a Texan with Texan values. Do not fret though, Texas has produced many prominent adherents to the classical liberalism school of thought.

    4. State police? The only thing in the article about the Texas Department of Public Safety is the DPS car in the photo. It’s the Guadalupe County Sheriff’s Office and the City of Kyle Police Department who are using the tech.

  5. It’s good to be the king

  6. It would be interesting to see who sits on Vigilants board or owns a stake.

    1. That would be interesting.

      It would also be interesting just to run a forensic audit of their books, see who gets money from this company. Betcha anything big “donations” are made to the FOP and various other cop fronts.

      1. Betcha anything big “donations” are made to the FOP and various other cop fronts.

        No doubt.

      2. Well, I’ve found these

        Dick Boyce, career executive, formerly with Bain & Co and Romney acolyte

        William Pickle, 37th United States Senate Sergeant at Arms, Transportation Security Administration’s first Federal Security Director

        It’s also worth noting that Vigilant requires customers (cops) to sign a contract that forbids them from talking about Vigilant and their offerings.

        1. I’m astonished that the courts haven’t struck down confidentiality clauses like that in public sector contracts.

          1. I was going to say “I’m not”, but then noticed you correctly used “astonished” instead of “surprised”.

          2. You can put indentured slavery, hold harmless and forcible kidney extractions in a contract, call it “confidentiality” or “nondisclosure” and the suckers will line up to sign it and not even remember to keep their pens or a copy.

        2. Dick and Pickle Collection Company?

          Sounds legit.

        3. He’s a pickle. Or at least some facsimile.

    2. “That’s classified, peasant!”

  7. whether the fee is “reasonably incurred in providing the access or service.”

    Its self-justifying. The fee is set in the contract, so it is by definition reasonably incurred, etc.

    Without the contract, you’d have to look at the actual cost of the state providing the service. With the contract, the contract fee is the state’s cost.

  8. Are the cops going to break these too? Wait for them to be repaired, and then break them the very next day?

    1. If you’ve done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide.

      1. “Wrong” or”illegal?” There’s a huge difference.

        1. If the cops do it, it’s not illegal.

    2. No, Silly Billy. Becoming a debt collector for Vigilant solutions isn’t going to risk them losing their benefits and pension like recordings of them beating on minorities on their bodycams. Texas police should now be obligated to say “This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information gathered will be used to collect that debt. License, registration, debit or credit card…we don’t take checks.”

  9. I picked up a hitchhiker a few months ago who was caught up in the grinder. It started with a traffic ticket that he couldn’t afford to pay. So they took his license and tacked on a bunch of fines and fees. Because the fees are accumulating faster than he can pay them off, as far as he was concerned he will never have a drivers license again. It really sucked.

    1. It’s expensive to be poor in this country.

      1. The traffic ticket grinder can be really hard on the poor. Progressives like to complain about the abuses of pawn shops and payday lenders, but they are softies compared to governments. If one fails to pay a small toll at an unmanned toll station because it does not accept bills or credit cards, the fines, interest, and fees can amount to tens of thousand percent per year. Not only that, the State has authority to confiscate the debtor’s property at will and to kidnap and imprison the debtor. If the debtor resists, the State has authority to kill the debtor. Except for certain gangs of vicious criminals, the vilest of lenders do not resort to such methods of collection.

        Another thing that’s overlooked about how expensive it is to be poor are the marginal tax rates that imposed by the welfare state upon low income people. Poor people who rely upon various safety net programs face several income thresholds that effectively have marginal tax rates that are well over 100%.

        The second most ridiculous income threshold is imposed by ObamaCare at 400% of poverty line. The sudden disappearance of the ACA subsidy at this threshold effectively imposes a marginal income tax rate of about 600,000% in my case.

        1. The most ridiculous income threshold is also imposed by ObamaCare. The ACA subsidy only applies to people who earn between 100% and 400% of the poverty line. Fall below 100% and the subsidy disappears. Now this doesn’t seem to be a problem to progressives because, of course, they think that Medicaid will take care of these people. However, lots of low income people do not qualify for Medicaid. I work with a charity that provides training and counseling services to cognitively impaired adults. For the past 40 years we’ve provided the services necessary to facilitate the gainful employment of these people. We’ve helped to keep them off the welfare rolls and on the payrolls. Along the way we encouraged them to save for their retirement, and most have significant savings in IRA and 401(k) accounts. In some states (at least in Texas), that will disqualify a person, even a handicapped person, from Medicaid. The residents are getting older now, and in many cases they cannot maintain year-round, full-time employment and fail to earn 100% of poverty line. Their savings disqualify them from Medicaid and their poverty (i.e., income less than 100% of poverty line) disqualifies them from the ACA subsidy that a higher-income earner would receive.

          I am not really an anarchist, but no government would be better than this government.

          1. I came at anarchy from two converging viewpoints: First, the Vietnam War and post-Apollo NASA started me on the road to realizing that government is simply incompetent, and further historical readings have convinced me this is 100% valid; not just 99% or 90% — government is the worst self-defining bureaucracy, and literally incompetent at everything it does except propagating itself. Second, my idea of self-control — “the right, and duty, to control self and property, regardless of harm to self or distaste of others” leaves government without any moral underpinnings, whether practical or theoretical.

            Once these thoughts combined in my head and had jelled for a while, I began to see everything in a much simpler light, I suppose a confirmation bias of sorts. I have yet to hear of a single government effort which actually helped the people it claimed to help, but they did further the expansion of government. Whether it’s roads, radio spectrum allocation, legal proceedings, or military defense, I simply no longer have any faith that the government way works even middling well.

            1. I voted libertarian, sent them money, distributed agitprop in my hood. Morons who stuck the DemoGOP in their mouths and pulled the trigger will get no sympathy from me.

              1. Get some help. Seriously.

                1. Kill yourself, suicidy. Seriously.
                  You suck.

            2. I would be an anarchist except that reality gets in the way. There will always be men who use organized violence to get their way, and the only way to defeat them is with organized violence. Unfortunately, defeat only means replacement, because having the last word in violence means having a license to steal (otherwise known as the power to tax), and very rarely has any man ever willingly given up that power. So there will always be some sort of government, even if it is nothing more than a gang of marauders who take what they wish because no once can stop them.

              That’s why I’m a libertarian, because I accept that government will exist. So my goal is to limit it. Though over time I’m wondering if even that is feasible, since the only thing that can limit government is the people who run it. Since they have the last word in violence, no one outside government can make them do anything.

              George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms. He could have been a king, but he didn’t want it. People like him could limit government only by limiting their own ambition. But people like that do not seek power. The most rotten among us are the ones who do. And they certainly are not going to limit themselves.

              So…. We’re fucked.

              1. I’m an optimist. I dream of a very minimal charter, establishing only a system of redress, where only victims could file complaints, where police, courts, and all had to be DIY or hired, and government only defined common things like “threat”; anarchy for all practical purposes. Even those definitions could be challenged, without government courts to defend them; only other people who wanted to preserve the definition.

                I believe such lack of monopolistic coercive government and its inevitable cronies could be self-supporting. Cronies and coercive organizations would still exist, but be harmless without government backing. If the Institute for Justice and the Second Amendment Foundation can roll back government intrusions in the face of the government courts biased in favor of the government, think how much better they could do without the government running interference.

                I also believe that just a few years under such freedom would be enough for most people to never want to go back to coercive government. Of course, eventually a generation would arise without memories of coercive government, but while they might dream of having the power to force everyone else to live “correctly”, fiscal reality and lack of coercive backing would keep these proto-fascists in check, and their failures would provide enough examples to everybody else to keep them too few to take over.

                I am an optimist.

                1. I’m not that optimistic. We’re talking about the initiation of violence here. That is what government or any other security service provides. As soon as one of these service providers tries to put their talents to use at putting their competition out of business, then it’s war. Literally. This isn’t a product to which normal economic laws apply. Especially when one party with one provider has a quarrel with another party with another provider. It’s a lot easier to end such an argument with violence than to go through the bother of a court. Besides that, who cares what a court says unless it has its own goons to enforce its decisions? As I see it, when what you do is initiate violence on others, especially in an organized way, then you’re going to win a monopoly by literally killing off the competition, or die trying.

                  1. It’s a lot easier to end such an argument with violence than to go through the bother of a court.

                    No. You are flat wrong. People are mostly rational. Just as male animals fighting over territory and mates don’t kill each other, so humans don’t go all out to initiate violence. Even the wild west wasn’t nearly as wild as the movies and books portrayed it. If you do believe that, you have been mislead.

                    As for who would enforce court decisions, quite simple: the winners. If the courts say Joe lost and owes Sue $5K, loser pays means Sue can hire whomever she wants to collect, and those costs are part of what the loser pays. There are reputations to consider too. Who is going to trust Joe with any deal if he has a record of not honoring court verdicts?

                    People are far more rational and civilized than you give them credit.

                    1. People are far more rational and civilized than you give them credit.

                      Either that is a joke, or you’re too optimistic. There are far, far too many authoritarians who rely mostly on emotion to justify their tyranny for me to believe that is the case.

                    2. Pay attention, please. There are far more rational people who do do rational things than there are authoritarian fucks who rampage around destroying society. This even applies in prisons, for instance.

                      Back to my analogy of animals competing for territory and mates — evolution can’t allow any species to have rampage as a success story, because it would doom the species to extinction. Cooperation is far more successful than warfare. Even viruses and bacteria and animal parasites evolve best when they don’t kill their hosts.

                    3. As for who would enforce court decisions, quite simple: the winners. If the courts say Joe lost and owes Sue $5K, loser pays means Sue can hire whomever she wants to collect, and those costs are part of what the loser pays

                      What if Joe pays “whomever” $100K to fuck off?

                    4. People are far more rational and civilized than you give them credit.

                      You’re wrong, buddy. Individuals are rational and civilized. People are downright dangerous.

                    5. And it is individuals who cope with a legal system, just as it is individual deer who butt heads and herds who rampage. You are mising the damage of herds with the actions of individuals.

                    6. “A PERSON is smart. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

                    7. Who is going to trust Joe with any deal if he has a record of not honoring court verdicts?

                      What does it matter if his security provider has literally killed off the competition?

                    8. All you have done is transfer the straw argument to a new man.

                    9. **People are far more rational and civilized than you give them credit.**

                      turn the electricity off for two days and see if you still believe that…

              2. +1 raw dog.

            3. I wouldn’t mind anarchy, if I had powered armor and were cybernetically enhanced to the point of basically being invulnerable. Actually, that’s why I’m a transhumanist. I think that minarchy/anarchy exists best alongside the knowledge that an armed society is a polite society.

              The only real social contract is SUPPOSED to be be that you accept rules in exchange for not having to spend all your time protecting against criminals or rampaging Huns. Now, the rulers feel no obligation to protect against criminals and they import the Huns. They’re not holding their end.

              1. They are the Huns.

            4. This is pretty much me, except much later. I basically ran right off the edge of libertarianism and into full on market anarchism. “If I take this argument to its logical conclusion…”

        2. I know what you’re getting at, and don’t disagree, but I challenge your semantics. Having a government handout taken away is not a tax. That’s the kind of wording a prog. would use.

      2. No, it’s expensive to be RESPONSIBLE in this country. I personally know plenty of “poor” people whose quality of life rivals my hard working middle class ass.

      3. +1 Food stamp.

    2. A good friend of mine is facing the same situation. A $15 fix-it ticket turned into a $600 ticket with all the fines. What was the fix-it? She forgot to put the 2015 registration sticker on her license plate. She had one, already paid for, but simply forgot to stick it on the plate.

      So, she is getting penalized not for driving badly, not for not paying her registration, but for failing to put a sticker on a license plate.

      $600 is high enough she can’t afford to pay it. Way to go, greedy-ass State of Calif.! And what’s weird is, this traffic ticket amnesty bill that recently passed has a cutoff date that excludes her! So some people get 50% off, but she and a slew of other drivers don’t…

      1. The thinking man’s move in California is to ask for a bench trial. At the bench trial, show the receipt that shows the decal was paid for. Tell the judge that it must have been stolen and that you requested a duplicate from te DMV.

        Of course this requires lying to a judge in court but I see no problem with an innocent person doing so in the face of a corrupt system.

        1. I’ve never had a car registered in CA, but in every state I’ve lived in those stickers are near impossible to get off. The judge is not going to believe that story and now is going to throw the book at you for lying to him.

          1. Many people put the new stick over the old sticker that’s already on the plate. Using a razor blade you can scrape the old stickers while leaving the last one on top intact.

          2. Texas converted to inside-the-windshield stickers because too many license-plate stickers were being stolen.

      2. “What was the fix-it? She forgot to put the 2015 registration sticker on her license plate. She had one, already paid for, but simply forgot to stick it on the plate.”

        I had that problem once and got pulled over, but the cop just waited while I put on the sticker, then left without charging me.

        Maybe your friend drew a cop with an attitude.

      3. Wait a minute, is the other $585 in fees that are automatic once you get the $15 ticket? Or are they penalties for not paying the $15 ticket?

        1. I think there are some steps missing in this story. I don’t exactly recall what the California DMV regs are for a fix it ticket (we moved away 8 years ago), but if she had put the sticker on and paid the $15 ticket that should have been the end of it. She may have needed proof such as with a picture or take it to the police department. With most fix-it tickets, like a burned out brake light or head light, you should be able to show proof of the fix and pay the ticket (at most) BEFORE the due date. There should be no more extra costs after that.

          One time in California I received our tags right around the deadline. I gave it to my wife. During a rain storm a cop pulled her over for out of date tags. He said why don’t you have tags. She showed him the tags & said it is pouring rain, that’s why I haven’t put them on. He didn’t give her a ticket.

      4. “but for failing to put a sticker on a license plate.”

        Every law, every regulation, every tax, every form is a gun pointed at your head.

  10. This is why I’ve been saying for years that there is no legitimate purpose justifying mandatory license plates.

    1. We need common sense license plate control.

    2. Identifying cars that hit and run is the primary legitimate purpose. After that comes advertising the state’s tourism website.

  11. Now we really know what the mean when the cops call the rest of us sheep.

    1. Redneck voters in Texas also see LIB on the ballot and–with Nixon still paying the media not to tell them otherwise–think it stands for LIBeral, which is what the Klan calls communists.

      1. Is that issue isolated to Texas, however? How many people can really tell you there is a difference between today’s use of liberal in comparison to the classical use of liberal? Given liberal is used interchangeably with Democrat or progressive I can see, although it does not excuse, why people could be confused.

  12. *They* mean. What is it about typos that leap from the page in the split second between clicking submit and the update of the screen?

    1. It’s a subconscious attempt at shaming the Reason techs to implement th EDIT button.

  13. I don’t know. I don’t think I’d want roided out business partners with guns while I’m the only asshole who doesn’t have sovereign immunity.

  14. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ========== http://www.richi8.com

  15. From the article:

    “At a hearing in August, Rep. Joe Pickett, the El Paso Democrat who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said, “There is no intention on my part to do away with” the program.”

    “Pickett was blunt: “We’re the government. We’re living off of these monies ? We’re not going to give up the money.”

    From Rep. Joe Pickett’s state webpage:

    “His love of cars has earned him the reputation of being somewhat of a car collector. He has several antique and unusual vehicles that include a varied selection, a double-decker English bus that belonged to a famous Southwestern artist named Ted DeGrazia, and working fire trucks that are used for children’s charities and parades. His collection also includes several military vehicles, English automobiles, one of a kind historical vehicles and just neat cars!”

    http://www.house.state.tx.us/m…..istrict=79

    Ol’ Joe needs his name on a lamp post. Fuckin’ looter.

    1. “We’re the government. We’re living off of these monies ? We’re not going to give up the money.”

      ISIS makes a bumper sticker like that.

  16. The Texas State Troopers have state wide jurisdiction. This program is being enforced state wide I believe. I live in west Texas, Mid/odessa area and the fucking highway patrol are up and down the highways. Just yesterday I drove to a neighboring town and observed highway patrol pulling up to every car to read their license plate (including mine). He pulled over one person while weaving in and out of traffic. On my way back about 30 mins later he had someone else pulled over in the opposite direction. Texas is a great state but the it seems to me moving violations is where the state seems to generate a lot of fines. The article stating drivers not being notified is absolutely true and to compound this you get additional fines without even knowing it. This needs to stop.

  17. Guys on the roads with guns shaking down people for money. That’s the way every lawless pisshole in the world works.

    I remember a guy from India telling me about how cops would basically just rob you. We’ve got guns, give us money. I used to think I was lucky to live in a society where that wasn’t tolerated.

    1. +1 Highwaymen. :-/

  18. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    ????? http://www.WebReport30.Com

  19. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  20. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  21. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://www.onlinecash9.com

  22. ??My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com ?

  23. ??My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.