Remove A Repealed Offence From Your RCMP Report

KSCOTTposted 1 week ago

This is a topic that may be of interest to the members of the forum. We endeavour to show relevant items that directly involve US Entry Waiver Cases. We have a new client that we are attempting to get a lifetime clearance for that has an interesting situation. Among other things, the gentleman apparently has a conviction that has been repealed and removed from the Canada Criminal Code.

The question that we are working on is can we get a repealed item removed from an RCMP report? I have reached out to Michelle for an Advisory Opinion and she is researching it. This question is relevant because it could impact a US Entry Waiver case since It is always better to have less convictions on your RCMP report in order to facilitate said case approval. We also will be researching this topic for obvious reasons and may also present it to a criminal defence lawyer associate. Why give CBP any more ammunition to use against a client when adjudicating a waiver case?

Contrary to popular belief, I do welcome debate on academic/intellectual work-based topics in an attempt to solve a problem. I also want that said information presented can be fact checked and documented in the applicable manuals, regulations, laws, and statutes. I will not engage in non sensical female type laden debates based on a girl’s night out type agenda/topic that does not solve a problem but only perpetuates gossip.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

Replies (recent first):

@ Michelle you are 100% correct but we are going for the Lifetime Clearance for this person. Sex Assault convictions are major work and we still accept them. I cannot speak for others, but we have had success getting them cleared. This includes if the victim is under 18 BUT...the amount of rehabilitation and remorse is staggering, and that is on a small offence sex assault case. We currently have people now doing their rehab since I checked in on yesterday.

We have an extraordinarily complex case now where a former female babysitter has molestation convictions. I told her she has a 20% chance of success, but she still wants to try and is doing her rehabilitation. This is even more complex since she previously held a position of public trust. I cannot go into any further details at this point.

We can easily charge minimum $5,000 - $15,000 on these cases now and some people will indeed pay it. They do have to be extremely dedicated to sticking this process out though. I even joke with them that they will get gray hair from us and cringe when they see our number on their call display. I say this because we constantly check up on them and the progress regarding their case processing.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 2 days ago   #20

@Ken and John, I just used rape an example for the change in criminal code. I do not accept any waivers for sexual assaults as in most cases, for the amount I charge, I do not have the time or resources to put into like Ken does, and I cannot grantee that a waiver will be granted. The last waiver I received for a sexual assault was several years ago, and I did not consider it a sexual assault. However, the law stated the event was. (it was touching a body part while walking past someone at a party)...Ken, you will be able to get a waiver for your client for the Impaired Driving causing bodily harm. I have 2 clients that have Impaired Driving causing Death..and in both cases, they received their waivers. The first one was relatively easy, the 2nd one did require a panel review by the doctor..but the end result was a five year waiver first time. As you know, the biggest points will be remorse and rehabilitation..

Michelle replied 3 days ago   #19


Impaired causing bodily harm is an interesting challenge. Your earlier posts make much more sense.

As for sexually based offences. You posted in 2020 that you heard of a Law Firm in BC who got ONE client a waiver. You even posted the phone number of the law firm. This was in response to me saying "they are not giving out waivers for sexually based offences".

The post you just made completely contradicts THAT post. Which post is therefore incorrect?

I am trying very hard to keep this very civil. So I will explain "why" I don't think Homeland Security is giving out waivers since 2018 for sexually based offences.

1. I do a LOT of waivers. Most of my clients are ongoing. Some go as far back as the 90's when I advertised a LOT om the Toronto Star and SUN and 150 smaller papers nationwide. A certain percentage had sexually based offences. They had ongoing waivers that were now suddenly refused.

2. For the past 4 years I went to the airport EVERY time they were open. I would meet 20-50 people I did NOT do the waiver for, many of whom do it themselves, and many have referred people. These are people who call me for advice, but still do their waivers elsewhere. (usually themselves) They usually just do the fingerprints through me. The ones with sexually based offences of this group are not getting waivers now.

3. I have a small group of lawyers/immigration consultants who "stay in touch" and send the odd harder case my way, but really just use me for up to date info on the waivers I do. They are not seeing any sexually based waivers.

4. I have a colleague in Quebec, been in business since the 90's, used to work with me at Pardon Services Canada, and he is very well connected in the Quebec scene. (Lawyers/immigration consultants) Again, no sexually based waivers given out.

5. Even Ken said that he had heard of ONE and said it was a BC law firm.

6. Michelle has also not seen sexually based waiver being approved

Children are an absolute NO GO. They do not care about rehabilitation. You also cannot get a Pardon.

Anyways, I do not turn down business "just because". If I thought it was possible, I would attempt it.
I cannot in good conscience take money for something I KNOW is going to fail.

I will leave it at that.

[ J Rogers appended this reply on September 15, 2020 @ 2:52 pm ]

Remember when I went to the airport, it was 20-50 people EVERY single week, and NEVER the same people. Think about how many people that is. Every single week for over 3 YEARS.

J Rogers replied 4 days ago   #18


I had forgotten about those outlaw wheat selling farmers. A real "scourge" across the Prairies.

The terms for sexual assault have been changed over the years many times. If a client has a "rape" then he SHOULD NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES go to the border with a waiver. He needs to hide that record. No one with rape/sexual assault is getting waivers right now, and who knows if that will change under Biden. If I am understanding this correctly (I don't know all the facts) trying to convince the RCMP to removed a rape conviction is NEVER happening. A Pardon isn't even a slam dunk.

From the Criminal Code:

Laws Prior to 1983:
Before Canadian laws changed in 1983 with the passing of Bill C52, rape was defined at the time in Section
143 of the Criminal Code as:
• A male person commits rape when he has sexual intercourse with a female person, who is not his
wife, without her consent, or with her consent if the consent is extorted by threats or fear of
bodily harm,
• Is obtained by personating her husband, or
• Is obtained by false and fraudulent representations as to the nature and quality of the act.
What is the significance of BillC52?
• Changes the term from rape to sexual assault—focus on violence rather than sex.
• Other forms of sexual activity beyond penile/vaginal sexual intercourse are included.
• Tiers of sexual assault changed to parallel existing ‘assault’ offences—level 1, 2, 3.
• Abolished spousal immunity.
• Limited admissibility of past sexual history of victim.

I have clients who had multiple 5 year waivers with just "indecent act". That is basically being caught having CONSENSUAL sex in a car. The letter they received from Homeland Security made is CLEAR they believed the past waivers were ALL IN ERROR and that the person would not be getting a waiver.

A client with "rape" who has never been denied entry should HIDE the record with a Pardon. Then they have a chance of travelling. Sending this person to the border and trying to "convince" Homeland Security is a waste of time, and worse, that person may be then banned for LIFE.

No sane person would do this to someone.

J Rogers replied 4 days ago   #17

@John and Ken, maybe we are talking about the same things, just using different terms?

John, item #1 you mentioned is reference to the Expungement Historical Unjust Convictions Act.. I have not done one of these requests to the Parole Board, but this is the only time I refer to the word "Expungement" as it is a true removal of any and all records and I believe it is used in only two circumstances - the one you referred too and the Farmers who sold their grain illegally in the early 80s, without using the Wheat POOL and were charged with theft and fraud. Those farmers received automatic Expungements when the Wheat Pool dissolved. Unfortunately our competitors, use the word Expungement as a way to charge more money in almost all other cases.

Item #2 - Cannabis Pardon, I am not sure if this will be entirely removed in the system, since this is new, and I no longer have access to is will not argue that point.

Ken, I believe you are refering to something different then these two seniarios, can you please clarify what the term and context you are using the term "repealed".

I was understanding the context you were referring to would be an example of "Rape" This term is no longer used in the criminal code, and the code and wording was changed to "Sexual Assault" several years ago.


Michelle replied 4 days ago   #16

@KenScott @Michelle

There are only 2 instances where I have seen offences "altered" and even in those cases you had to apply.

1. LBGQ+ individuals who were convicted of offences basically because they were "caught" in bathhouses or having consensual sex. You still had to "apply" to remove it.

2. Cannabis pardon you apply like a pardon, but in reality your simply not paying the Parole Board Fee.

If what a person did WAS criminal at the time, then unless its these two examples above, the RCMP doesn't really have the authority to arbitrarily "retract it", nor would they want to.

In this case, as I said before, hide the record with a pardon and explain to the client how it works. He can then decide if he wants to tell Homeland Security about it. I wouldn't. If he does, he is going to be doing waivers for the rest of his life. This is a NO BRAINER to me.

J Rogers replied 5 days ago   #15

@Ken, Thanks for reaching out and asking me about a "repealed" offense. I am really interested to see how this will go for your client. Unfortunately, I have no experience to draw on regarding a "repealed" offense, as I have never seen it or hear of it. I have seen "appealed" offense or plead down to lesser offense on a criminal record, and court documents. I have dealt with sections of the criminal code that changed meaning, such as Sexual Assault is much more broad now days, then it was years ago. My research into this, has proven what you already found out, that even though a charge in the criminal code changes, it does not change on the existing criminal record. As you noted also, it may just become another criminal code section. This is all I can really add at this time.

Michelle replied 5 days ago   #14


I do have experience with removal proceedings.

I don't think its that important so I will leave it at "I disagree" with how you have portrayed the role of ICE with Canadians at the border. I don't think its that relevant to waivers in any case.

ICE is getting a huge funding boost, which is responsible for the "defunding" of Homeland Security. This is (according to the press release from Homeland Security) why the fees (for waivers and other applications) are going up significantly. Trump literally wants to focus on "grabbing people off the street" at the expense of actual border security.

J Rogers replied 5 days ago   #13

I will assume that you have no experience with actual U.S. Immigration 240 removal proceedings, and this is not meant to be an insult. I.C.E stands for Immigration Customs Enforcement and they indeed play a role with immigration enforcement. The government lawyer in removal proceedings works for I.C.E. Canadians are sometimes placed in 235 and 240 removal proceedings.

They may not be working in the booths, but they indeed play a major role and can arrest a Canadian at the border. I know with 100% certainty that they can also be called to the border to chat with a waiver client if needed. This includes if he is just filing for a waiver. I will not go into how I know this on a public forum. I will agree with you and say that I am no fan of I.C.E either. I have a friend that is an I.C.E Special Investigator and there are a lot of things that they do that does not go public.

Also, I do not know how many times people have been prosecuted for getting caught making false statements at the border. I will say that this is our 3rd one for the moment. This one is different because he got 2 years in jail but another one got 9 months before.

Anyway, the point is that this is an option for the government to use on people getting caught making false statements. I will say that I have been told by others that they made false statements at the border but were never caught.

Anyway, I inform people of the consequences of getting caught making false statements to CBP officers. It is another thing if you cannot recall or are unaware of certain details since you cannot get penalized for having a faulty memory. I will never tell someone to make false statements at the border. However, I make them aware of certain processing procedures used by CBP to determine if a person is making a false statement or is even inadmissible.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 6 days ago   #12


Thank you for the update. I agree with this statement.

So again I am respectfully telling you that making a false statement at the border to gain entry to the United States MAY or MAY NOT get prosecuted under 18 USC 1001.

My contention was that it is RARELY more than a denial of entry.

2 things.

1. I advise my clients on the reality of CPIC. I am a Canadian, and they are Canadian. The United States holds no moral authority over me, and I will give clients honest advise.
2. ICE has nothing to do with Canadians attempting to enter the United States. In a practical sense, all they do know is grab people illegally in the United States for deportation. I know they have broad reaching powers, but since 2016 their budget has been increased for the purpose of political vote getting. They literally had transformed into a "gestapo"-like group, grabbing people off the street, in courtrooms etc. This has been done because Trump supporters LOVE this approach to immigration.

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #11

We also have an update on the actual topic of this thread. So our criminal defence lawyer associate told me today that a repealed offence could indeed get removed from an RCMP report. Unfortunately, it will not help in this waiver case since the government repealed his offence but replaced it instead with a brand new statute in a totally separate section of the Canada Criminal Code as we both discovered. So the answer is yes that a repealed offence MAY get removed but it MAY get replaced with whatever relevant statute that MAY have replaced it. So now we will just have to see if CBP will send back a future RFE asking about the offence since they may or may not. His packet is not ready for filing yet since the borders are still closed anyway.

Also, among other things, we have an individual coming to the Surrey office next week that has a unique case regarding a US Greencard sponsorship and a 5-year ban. This one promises to have an interesting twist. The client has no criminality but apparently does have an immigration violation. This is one where we have mentioned said particulars before regarding having a US Entry Waiver and possibly needing an I-601 Waiver for a USA spousal sponsorship. Sometimes a person can talk themselves into needing a waiver and they have to be careful that it does not land into the lifetime ban category. This person will avoid that category but special due care and attention have to be focused on the letter of explanation.

We are sorry that we cannot go into more detail but we must keep certain details vague to protect the identity of the clients. I have previously stated that the Lower mainland is a place where people have multiple connections of known persons. Hence we have to post this way since some members of our community read this forum and any small thing that may not matter to someone in Nova Scotia or Quebec could immediately point out the name of the client in East Vancouver. Hence, this is why we do not go into too many details online.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

K Scott replied 1 week ago   #10

Ok, so I believe that you previously said that you wanted the forum to be cordial and I have been trying to be that way. However, I will not allow you to refute the fact that people MAY get into trouble for "getting caught" making false statements at the border. This is a dangerous thing to push and I do not want people reading this to get a false sense of security thinking that I.C.E cannot prosecute them for events that occur at a USA border.

So I am here to say that I do not care if you believe it or not. You have not seen the file and I am telling you that Mr. So & So received 2 years under 18 USC 1001 for getting caught making a false statement at a certain border. Canada cannot stop the American government from enforcing American laws at an American border. Also do you not understand what the word prosecute means? He was prosecuted and convicted by I.C.E. after their counsel felt that the case warranted prosecution. You can still get prosecuted by the government and do not necessarily have to have a "trial." Also, I have not even stated what were the specific false statements that he mentioned and it had nothing to do with him using a fake name.

18 U.S. Code § 1001. Statements or entries generally:

(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government
of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),
imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of
imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted
by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1)administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or
support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2)any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with
applicable rules of the House or Senate.

I am unsure why you are debating this topic since this poor guy has a lifetime ban and will always need a waiver. He is the one that will pay the outlandish govt application fee and no amount of debate will change it. Also, a waiver provider cannot "advise" a Canadian to voluntarily make a false statement at a USA border since this is now slipping to a Conspiracy charge. If you wish to do this then it is your choice but we will never do it.

Conspiracy is one of the easiest charges that the U.S. or Canada govt could lay on an individual since it is " A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful." So it is best to steer clear of the appearance of such a thing. This is something that people should avoid like the plague.

You do not have this particular case so obviously you do not have the particulars. I am trying to be cordial but if you are going to persist in such a way then I do not mind going back to being the old way on here. I have no tolerance for nonsense and I can respectfully say that no one here knows absolutely everything on every subject or case that is pending or has been processed by DHS. Debating this case will not solve anything so there is really no point in it. I only engage in debate if it will help discover some answers or tools to help solve a problem.

So again I am respectfully telling you that making a false statement at the border to gain entry to the United States MAY or MAY NOT get prosecuted under 18 USC 1001. It is true that not every case will suffer this fate but it is no guarantee since prosecutorial discretion rests solely with I.C.E Counsel.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

K Scott replied 1 week ago   #9


There is a big difference between "my name is John Rogers" and they find out it is "Steve Austin". That's a deliberate deception. I have even had cases where people were CAUGHT being smuggled into the United States. Even then, no jail time. Could there be? Potentially. But Canada will not let one of their citizens be arbitrarily detained for 2 years without a proper trial. So even in the worst of cases, there is an actual TRIAL, and judges aren't sending Canadians to jail for lying.

If you get a pardon. Seal the record. Go to the border. They ask "ever been arrested?" and you say "No". But they catch you lying (i have pointed out the ways they can still catch you in the past) although their "options" could be possible prosecution, I have never had a case of anything worse than a waiver. Never.

We want to be accurate here. If clients are caught WITH drugs at the border (weed) and are simply turned away, how can Homeland Security just grab you because you lied and send you to jail? If the person did jail time, there has to be more to the story.

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #8

Well, this guy got caught for making a false statement in an attempt to enter the USA. He was arrested, convicted, and did 2 years in federal detention for it. We are doing his case now for making a false statement to gain entry to the USA under 18 USC 1001. It is possible that they decided to make an example out of him. I also heard back from Counsel and he said that it is possible to remove a repealed ofence from the RCMP report. However, in this case, they repealed the stature but then redesigned it under another category.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908 -3841
604 332-9213

K Scott replied 1 week ago   #7


With the Parole Board, you may want to try email.

To give you my perspective, I am Canadian, and I have no problem telling my clients (who are Canadian) the best way to get around a system that in my opinion, treats them unfairly.

I am 100% confident that a client "caught" lying is NEVER going to serve jail time in the US. Remember, a person who travels to the US and doesn't voluntarily disclose a criminal record is in effect (according to the US) entering illegally.

I have been doing pardons since the mid-90's. Imagine how many of my clients in over 20 years have been crossing with sealed records. Now the odd one forgets how to respond and gets caught. The consequences are always the same. Trip usually ruined (in some cases they simply had their partner fax the pardon to the border and in return were even allowed to go on THAT trip) a stern warning from Homeland Security, and then a waiver.

In my opinion, hiding the record is ALWAYS the best approach, unless it is not an option. Waivers are ALWAYS a last resort. No one likes a lifetime of waivers.

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #6

I still have not heard back from Counsel on this issue so I will just call the Ottawa RCMP to pose this question. I may call the Parole Board of Canada and pose this question since we received a call from a gentleman named Paul that works there on Tuesday. Anyway, will keep the forum posted on the outcome of this search.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 1 week ago   #5

There is 1 big problem if they get caught making false statements under 18 USC 1001. They could simply get 2 years behind bars. I know because one of our clients made a false statement to CBP to gain entry and he got 2 years at the Federal Detention Centre in Washington State. We have another person that has a pardon and CBP could not see his record. However,they contacted a special BC task force and they provided some information which led CBP to go on a fishing trip and found his information.

It is true this will not apply to everyone, but people need to be aware of the penalty if they are caught. People seasoned with the system have no trouble with this issue. However, people with no experience with dealing with the justice system are often the ones that get into trouble at the BC borders and I will assume the other ones.

This person is not seasoned and will get into trouble if he is taken into a back room and gets caught making a false statement. The other issue is that we cannot legally tell someone to make a false statement if they are asked if they have criminality and they falsely say no under 18 USC 1001. However, he would not be in trouble if the item were removed from the report and the question was not even posed to him.

Either way, I can appreciate your opinion on this topic. I can research it further to see if it is possible to remove repealed items from the RCMP report. If so, then it is an additional service that we can offer people and I can share my findings with you and Michelle.

Yeah I think I had better not state too much in regard to his offence other than it is one that has been repealed by the Canadian Government but has nothing to do with witchcraft or a sex offence. He has to know that we respect his privacy since he has entrusted us to do his case. The big thing though is trying to get a repealed offence from the RCMP report.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 1 week ago   #4


Unless they have a weapons ban (or something similar) what makes you believe that they aren't just better off sealing (hiding) the record?

If you send him to the border with a packet, they are going to have to pay $585 or possibly $1400, and they might be "stuck" doing waivers. (Obviously if they get a September Letter it would only be the one fee)

If they "seal" the record, and then get "caught" trying to cross and lying to Homeland Security, I don't see a big consequence. Many clients who have done Pardons have been "caught" because they say the wrong thing, or even get tricked into admitting they lied. I don't find they face any extra "ban" or penalty. (I am sure Homeland Security threatens this but I don't see it implemented)

If the client WANTS to file a waiver for CERTAINTY, then I get that.

I am interested in the "repealed" offence. Gay males were persecuted and that is an example of an offence you do not need a pardon for. (they have a special designation for removing that) Marijuana possession you need a Cannabis Pardon for. I am curious what "other" offence could possibly have been "repealed"?

In the cases I pointed out above, Homeland Security still considers the offences criminal, and in the case of "Indecent Act", they will not even issue a waiver under Trump.

Now if its something obscure like

Every one who fraudulently
(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,

(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or

(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,

Is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Then I ASSUME the US might still consider what the person did "fraud".

I have to admit, I have never done a Waiver for someone convicted of "Witchcraft".

You brought up the conversation that you were doing this "interesting case" but no one is going to be able to compare their situation to this one if you don't at least give some information about the offence. Others may be able to benefit.

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #3

This person has never applied for a waiver and we are going for the lifetime clearance on him. He also has never been denied entry. There is 1 conviction that I would prefer in a perfect world was not on his RCMP report. Luckily, it is a repealed offence and we are searching for a way to see if it can be removed before his packet is submitted. We have already found other methods to knock out his other convictions.

So yes, CBP will assess it based on USA statutes and this is why we would prefer to remove it if possible. I have posed this question to 3 court clerks and none of them know how to do it. I am still waiting to hear back from counsel on this issue.

The record sealing technique does not always necessarily work for a variety of reasons. We have a guy that had a pardon but still told CBP about his convictions after they threatened him with 18 USC 1001 for false statements. I think that if we can get it knocked off then CBP can still view his convictions and agree that his other offences do not make him inadmissible based on our presentation.

I will also say that the does indeed work at times but a lot of it unfortunately depends on the client. I decline to say if we have used this technique on some cases, but I can say that certain known persons have used it in BC, and it is indeed working. However, the big thing is that it is no guarantee and that is where the problem comes in since a lot of our clients want as close to a guarantee that we can present to them.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 1 week ago   #2


So the person is doing a waiver because they were already denied entry into the United States?

If they HAVE, then removing the offence is irrelevant. You could simply show that the offence is no longer in the criminal code, but Homeland Security will assess it based on THEIR interpretation anyways. So removing it is a waste of time. (for waiver purposes)

If they have NOT been denied entry, then the person can simply seal the record (if its something that doesn't need a pardon any longer than even better) and Homeland Security will never know.

Were they denied entry?

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #1

Reply to this thread

There is no need to “register”, just enter the same name + password of your choice every time.

Pro tip: Use to add links, quotes and more.