Advertising

BATH TIME

Thank you for your vote!
0%
Rates : 0
10 months ago8217 Views

BATH TIME is a sex story about , pussy, ass, ass, pussy, ass, ass, and a guy named

, asshole and an ex named

.

I’ll try to give you a brief summary of what I’m going to be doing for the month of September:

1. I am going to take a break. I love you, you’re a wonderful person. But you have a busy day, I’m going to take a week off and then do an hour every other day.

2. After that I’ll come back in October.

3. I’m going to do a full month of nothing so my body can recover from the last month.

4. After that I’ll come back in November and I’ve got a full schedule for the rest of the month. So if any of you are in a situation of where you’re doing something, feel free to let me know. I’ll give you all a heads up.

So there you have it. I’m on a one month break with no break days, no vacation days or weekdays to work, no weekdays, no weekends. So let me know if you guys want me to stop. I love hearing about your stories, so be sure to hit “like” on my facebook page, I like to hear you guys talk about me.

I also really want to hear if anyone else has had similar experiences, so please let me know if you’ve got any tips on the way or experiences you wish me to share with those like me.

-Alex<|endoftext|>In a major victory for the anti-piracy coalition, the Federal Court of Australia has struck down the government’s plans to force Internet service providers (ISPs) to block sites where infringing material is located.

In a decision released just after midnight Australian time, Justice Simon Fraser dismissed the government’s claim that its plan to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block infringing material was unconstitutional or that it was not proportionate under section 44(2) of the Copyright Act. Justice Fraser said it was unclear whether blocking would lead to any significant loss of access to material that may have been accessed by other people. The court said that the proposal was inconsistent with section 44(2) of the Copyright Act and would likely “have serious and irreparable effects” on internet users.

“The proposed legislation did not seek to prevent the flow of information,” Justice Fraser said.

“I cannot say that the measures in question are proportionate. There was a serious and irreparable loss of access.”

This was a major victory for anti-piracy proponents who had argued that the government’s proposal was “excessive”. It is a long way from the last time a court had considered whether a measure such as the blocking proposed by the government was unconstitutional. In March 2010, the High Court dismissed the government’s claims that section 44(2) of the Copyright Act did not apply to blocking a site containing material that was infringing.

In March this year, the Supreme Court of the Federal Territories had ruled that section 44(2) of the Copyright Act did apply to blocking sites containing material that was infringing.

The Court noted that section 44(2) of the Copyright Act does apply to a website where there is an infringement claim. That means that, even if the ISP refuses to block, it can choose to remove the material at its discretion under that section.

The government also said that the measure did not apply to sites containing material that was merely fair use, where there was no infringement claim.

ADVERTISEMENT