I've had my summons for pulling over on zig zags
Discussion
Hi All,
A while back i posted on here as i had been pulled over for parking on zig zags lines whilste i picked up my girlfriend, but i wasn't on the zig zags.
Below is the statement but there are things that are wrong in it (surprisingly enough!!!)
1.) No one sounded there horns
2.) I was not on Zig Zags and they dont even exist at the set of lights he has stated i was stopped at! (Got to double check this and take pictures!) When i asked where the lines where he said they were the zig zags from the lights behind me! and thats why the taxi infront of me that was pulle dover was not in the wrong.
3.) The liughts behind me were on red so that would explain part of the traffic anyway. I know this as my girlfriend came across when they changed and i had pulled over before she started to cross.
4.) the reason no-one could get round me was because of cars moving over lanes because of a ambulance on the opposite side of the road.
5.) He never cautioned me!
6.) he was really cocky he even said to me in the car "Right charliam we have 2 options here! We either give you a warning and let you go... Or we give you a fixed penaulty of £60 (I think) and 3points... and we're going to give you a fixed penaulty!" I was like WTH!! Why wind people up like that!?
7.) The officer really really pushed me into taking the fixed penaulty saying i wouldnt want to go to court because of my baby and how i would end up with a massive fine and so on. I ummed and ared and he told me to take it then if i did want to contest then just rip it up! Lucky that i read the back as i would have been in big doo doo if i had ripped it up as the fine increases! He's then kind of turned me signing the penaulty as kind of an admission at the time of me being in the wrong.
Front page
On 19/05/07
On upper parliament street
At Nottingham you
Being the driver of a vehicle, namely a motor car KF54BWW caused it or part of it to stop in a pelican controlled area on upper parliament street.
Contrary to regulation 20(2) of the zebra, pelican and puffin pedestrian crossings regulations 1997, section 25(5) road traffic regulation act 1984, schedule 2 road traffic offenders act 1988
Witness statement
I am a police officer in the Nottinghamshire police currently based on the Nottingham armed response unit.
On Saturday the 19th of May 2007 I was on duty in full uniform on mobile patrol in a marked police vehicle in company with PC XXXX [surname]. At approximately 2250 hours we were driving along upper parliament street. At this time traffic was busy in the city centre area. We were in a line of traffic as we approached the south Sherwood street junction with four or five vehicles in front and four or five behind. The flow of traffic then stopped as we got outside flares nightclub. I saw ahead of me that a Vauxhall Corsa motor vehicle had stoppedwithin the zig zags for a set of traffic lights for no obvious reason. Due to the layout of the road, vehicles could not get past the Corsa. I noticed about ten vehicles behind us were queued in the traffic and there were two vehicles ahead of me stuck behind the Corsa. Several drivers sounded there audible warning devices, but the Corsa did not move.
I then noticed a female walking along the nearside footpath towards the Cauxhall Corsa. She spoke to the driver for a short while, then got into the front passenger seat of the vehicle. The Corsa drove forwards after being stationary for between forty to fifty seconds.
I followed the Corsa and cause it to stop when it was safe to do so. I noticed the registration of the vehicle was KF54BWW. I spoke to the driver, a male who identified himself to be Liam xxxxxx xxxxxx, date of birth DD/MM/YYYY, of XX XXXXX XXXX Road, Carlton Nottingham. Wheldon informed me that he had driven into the city centre to pick up his girlfriend, and that is why he had stopped on the zig zags. I said to Wheldon, “Stopping within the zig zags without good reason is an offence.”
I cautioned him to which he made no reply.
Wheldon re-iterated that he had stopped to pick up his girlfriend who was at the time pregnaunt. I pointed out to him that there are many other more legal and convenient places nearby to pick up pedestrians. I offerd Wheldon the option to have the matter dealt with by way of fixed penalty notice or to be reported for summons. Wheldon elected to have the fixed penalty notice. I reported him for summons and then issued him with fixed penalty notice reference 31E02673100. Wheldon signed the form and took the drivers copy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What should i write on the Mitigating Circumstances?
Thanks for reading if your still with me by this stage
Regards
Liam
A while back i posted on here as i had been pulled over for parking on zig zags lines whilste i picked up my girlfriend, but i wasn't on the zig zags.
Below is the statement but there are things that are wrong in it (surprisingly enough!!!)
1.) No one sounded there horns
2.) I was not on Zig Zags and they dont even exist at the set of lights he has stated i was stopped at! (Got to double check this and take pictures!) When i asked where the lines where he said they were the zig zags from the lights behind me! and thats why the taxi infront of me that was pulle dover was not in the wrong.
3.) The liughts behind me were on red so that would explain part of the traffic anyway. I know this as my girlfriend came across when they changed and i had pulled over before she started to cross.
4.) the reason no-one could get round me was because of cars moving over lanes because of a ambulance on the opposite side of the road.
5.) He never cautioned me!
6.) he was really cocky he even said to me in the car "Right charliam we have 2 options here! We either give you a warning and let you go... Or we give you a fixed penaulty of £60 (I think) and 3points... and we're going to give you a fixed penaulty!" I was like WTH!! Why wind people up like that!?
7.) The officer really really pushed me into taking the fixed penaulty saying i wouldnt want to go to court because of my baby and how i would end up with a massive fine and so on. I ummed and ared and he told me to take it then if i did want to contest then just rip it up! Lucky that i read the back as i would have been in big doo doo if i had ripped it up as the fine increases! He's then kind of turned me signing the penaulty as kind of an admission at the time of me being in the wrong.
Front page
On 19/05/07
On upper parliament street
At Nottingham you
Being the driver of a vehicle, namely a motor car KF54BWW caused it or part of it to stop in a pelican controlled area on upper parliament street.
Contrary to regulation 20(2) of the zebra, pelican and puffin pedestrian crossings regulations 1997, section 25(5) road traffic regulation act 1984, schedule 2 road traffic offenders act 1988
Witness statement
I am a police officer in the Nottinghamshire police currently based on the Nottingham armed response unit.
On Saturday the 19th of May 2007 I was on duty in full uniform on mobile patrol in a marked police vehicle in company with PC XXXX [surname]. At approximately 2250 hours we were driving along upper parliament street. At this time traffic was busy in the city centre area. We were in a line of traffic as we approached the south Sherwood street junction with four or five vehicles in front and four or five behind. The flow of traffic then stopped as we got outside flares nightclub. I saw ahead of me that a Vauxhall Corsa motor vehicle had stoppedwithin the zig zags for a set of traffic lights for no obvious reason. Due to the layout of the road, vehicles could not get past the Corsa. I noticed about ten vehicles behind us were queued in the traffic and there were two vehicles ahead of me stuck behind the Corsa. Several drivers sounded there audible warning devices, but the Corsa did not move.
I then noticed a female walking along the nearside footpath towards the Cauxhall Corsa. She spoke to the driver for a short while, then got into the front passenger seat of the vehicle. The Corsa drove forwards after being stationary for between forty to fifty seconds.
I followed the Corsa and cause it to stop when it was safe to do so. I noticed the registration of the vehicle was KF54BWW. I spoke to the driver, a male who identified himself to be Liam xxxxxx xxxxxx, date of birth DD/MM/YYYY, of XX XXXXX XXXX Road, Carlton Nottingham. Wheldon informed me that he had driven into the city centre to pick up his girlfriend, and that is why he had stopped on the zig zags. I said to Wheldon, “Stopping within the zig zags without good reason is an offence.”
I cautioned him to which he made no reply.
Wheldon re-iterated that he had stopped to pick up his girlfriend who was at the time pregnaunt. I pointed out to him that there are many other more legal and convenient places nearby to pick up pedestrians. I offerd Wheldon the option to have the matter dealt with by way of fixed penalty notice or to be reported for summons. Wheldon elected to have the fixed penalty notice. I reported him for summons and then issued him with fixed penalty notice reference 31E02673100. Wheldon signed the form and took the drivers copy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What should i write on the Mitigating Circumstances?
Thanks for reading if your still with me by this stage
Regards
Liam
Edited by shocker-z on Friday 16th November 15:56
Hi again Liam,
I remember your thread and what I said about it, and thought this may happen in about six months!
By 'mitigating circumstances' you are not thinking of pleading guilty are you?
You have every chance of winning this by defending yourself, and my offer of a bit of direction is still there. What you need at this stage is photos, photos and more photos of the scene. Some of where you actually stopped and how close this is to the crossing. Also, and most importantly, from the police car's point of view.
Your most compelling case would be to actually park a car exactly where you parked and take some photos from the police car's point of view or as close as you can get. The point you will be making with these is that from their point of view they can guess where the zigzags are but from their view parallax error and perspective will be such that this is very difficult.
For you to win this case all you need to do it give your honest testimony - if your girlfriend can testify as well this is even better. After that if you can introduce any doubt into the officer's testimony with your photos and cross-examination you will win.
It will be a bit of work getting the photos etc, and putting the questions together but it is worth it when you are vindicated, believe me!
I remember your thread and what I said about it, and thought this may happen in about six months!
By 'mitigating circumstances' you are not thinking of pleading guilty are you?
You have every chance of winning this by defending yourself, and my offer of a bit of direction is still there. What you need at this stage is photos, photos and more photos of the scene. Some of where you actually stopped and how close this is to the crossing. Also, and most importantly, from the police car's point of view.
Your most compelling case would be to actually park a car exactly where you parked and take some photos from the police car's point of view or as close as you can get. The point you will be making with these is that from their point of view they can guess where the zigzags are but from their view parallax error and perspective will be such that this is very difficult.
For you to win this case all you need to do it give your honest testimony - if your girlfriend can testify as well this is even better. After that if you can introduce any doubt into the officer's testimony with your photos and cross-examination you will win.
It will be a bit of work getting the photos etc, and putting the questions together but it is worth it when you are vindicated, believe me!
shocker-z said:
I was not on Zig Zags and they dont even exist at the set of lights he has stated i was stopped at!
One question... Why did you not say this to the BiB when he booked you? At least it would have been recorded in his notes as your reply.The reply he has recorded - "Wheldon informed me ....... that is why he had stopped on the zig zags won't make life easy IMHO.
I wish you the best of luck. As stated above, if you were in the right, fight!
Shocker-z said:
I was not on Zig Zags and they dont even exist at the set of lights he has stated i was stopped at! (Got to double check this and take pictures!)
Does that mean you have double checked already, or you have got to later? If it was a crossing for pedestrians it would have had zig zags.I don't think it's a good idea to mention that you double parked opposite an ambulance.
Good luck anyway
Witness statement said:
I then noticed a female walking along the nearside footpath towards the Cauxhall Corsa. She spoke to the driver for a short while, then got into the front passenger seat of the vehicle.
This makes me wonder whether the police officer initially suspected the OP of kerb-crawling and the female of soliciting, and decided on an alternative charge once the relationship was determined. I too wonder why the OP didn't point out the lack of zig-zags at the time - StreakyMg6b said:
I am sorry to say there don't appear to be many mitigating circumstances save the fact you girlfriend was pregnant (if that is even a mitigating circumstance). How pregnant was she? Could you not have stopped somewhere other than in the zigzags?
Of course i could have stopped somewhere else, thats not really my main stance. My maine stance is that i wasn't on them anyway!JustinP1 said:
Hi again Liam,
1.) By 'mitigating circumstances' you are not thinking of pleading guilty are you?
2.) You have every chance of winning this by defending yourself, and my offer of a bit of direction is still there. What you need at this stage is photos, photos and more photos of the scene. Some of where you actually stopped and how close this is to the crossing. Also, and most importantly, from the police car's point of view.
3.) Your most compelling case would be to actually park a car exactly where you parked and take some photos from the police car's point of view or as close as you can get. The point you will be making with these is that from their point of view they can guess where the zigzags are but from their view parallax error and perspective will be such that this is very difficult.
4.)For you to win this case all you need to do it give your honest testimony - if your girlfriend can testify as well this is even better. After that if you can introduce any doubt into the officer's testimony with your photos and cross-examination you will win.
1.) No chance - I thought Mitigating cercumstances was like where i write what I want them to read in court e.g. show pictures and explain ihow i was not on them.1.) By 'mitigating circumstances' you are not thinking of pleading guilty are you?
2.) You have every chance of winning this by defending yourself, and my offer of a bit of direction is still there. What you need at this stage is photos, photos and more photos of the scene. Some of where you actually stopped and how close this is to the crossing. Also, and most importantly, from the police car's point of view.
3.) Your most compelling case would be to actually park a car exactly where you parked and take some photos from the police car's point of view or as close as you can get. The point you will be making with these is that from their point of view they can guess where the zigzags are but from their view parallax error and perspective will be such that this is very difficult.
4.)For you to win this case all you need to do it give your honest testimony - if your girlfriend can testify as well this is even better. After that if you can introduce any doubt into the officer's testimony with your photos and cross-examination you will win.
2.) I've got 17 pictures of where they said i was pulled over whilste in the police car.
3.) Yeah may be worth a try once night when it's quiet on the roads
4.) Girlfriend said she will stand up in court (should had half a bottle of WKD so she is still fine to stand up in court.)
peterguk said:
shocker-z said:
I was not on Zig Zags and they dont even exist at the set of lights he has stated i was stopped at!
One question... Why did you not say this to the BiB when he booked you? At least it would have been recorded in his notes as your reply.The reply he has recorded - "Wheldon informed me ....... that is why he had stopped on the zig zags won't make life easy IMHO.
deeps said:
Shocker-z said:
I was not on Zig Zags and they dont even exist at the set of lights he has stated i was stopped at! (Got to double check this and take pictures!)
1.) Does that mean you have double checked already, or you have got to later? If it was a crossing for pedestrians it would have had zig zags.2.) I don't think it's a good idea to mention that you double parked opposite an ambulance.
Good luck anyway
2.) I soiund sbad double parking with an ambulance but opposite side of the road has 2 lanes so it's not as bad as it sounds
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yeah i was confused reading that too! Lolstreaky said:
Witness statement said:
I then noticed a female walking along the nearside footpath towards the Cauxhall Corsa. She spoke to the driver for a short while, then got into the front passenger seat of the vehicle.
This makes me wonder whether the police officer initially suspected the OP of kerb-crawling and the female of soliciting, and decided on an alternative charge once the relationship was determined. I too wonder why the OP didn't point out the lack of zig-zags at the time - StreakySo the plan of action is hopefully at the weekend (Early Sunday morning i’m going to pop down town and get pictures of where the police officer said i stopped to prove that where he states i was, there are no zig zags and also point out that i was actually further back than the office mentioned and that in the police car he claimed that i was even further back than this)
Any other advice on what to actually do as in poutting it together.. is it worth having lots of photoes and keep the most relivant seperate, to show and use the others if needed?
Regards and thanks
Liam
Sorry if I'm being dense or this has been covered already...but could someone clear a few points up for me?
What are these so-called' ZIG-ZAGS?
Were/are they white or yellow...or some other colour?
If yellow then I would expect that a notice giving the times when parking was a no-no to be evident somewhere in the vicinity...(outside a school entrance perhaps?) Was it outside a school?
Or are they the white variety denoting the LIMITS of a pedestrian crossing...or perhaps some other road marking unique to Nottingham Highways Authority? Were the lights in question controlling that crossing...or were they lights controlling a junction?
If a pedestrian crossing, I would have thought that the offence would be one of 'parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing' and a verbal NOIP would be the absolute minimum required ("You will be reported for the consideration of the question...etc"
In fact any offence involving non-compliance with any approved road sign/marking is NOIP territory yet I don't see where a verbal NOIP is mentioned in the officers' statement...
What are these so-called' ZIG-ZAGS?
Were/are they white or yellow...or some other colour?
If yellow then I would expect that a notice giving the times when parking was a no-no to be evident somewhere in the vicinity...(outside a school entrance perhaps?) Was it outside a school?
Or are they the white variety denoting the LIMITS of a pedestrian crossing...or perhaps some other road marking unique to Nottingham Highways Authority? Were the lights in question controlling that crossing...or were they lights controlling a junction?
If a pedestrian crossing, I would have thought that the offence would be one of 'parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing' and a verbal NOIP would be the absolute minimum required ("You will be reported for the consideration of the question...etc"
In fact any offence involving non-compliance with any approved road sign/marking is NOIP territory yet I don't see where a verbal NOIP is mentioned in the officers' statement...Edited by oldsoak on Thursday 15th November 09:38
oldsoak said:
Sorry if I'm being dense or this has been covered already...but could someone clear a few points up for me?
What are these so-called' ZIG-ZAGS?
Were/are they white or yellow...or some other colour?
If yellow then I would expect that a notice giving the times when parking was a no-no to be evident somewhere in the vicinity...(outside a school entrance perhaps?) Was it outside a school?
Or are they the white variety denoting the LIMITS of a pedestrian crossing...or perhaps some other road marking unique to Nottingham Highways Authority? Were the lights in question controlling that crossing...or were they lights controlling a junction?
If a pedestrian crossing, I would have thought that the offence would be one of 'parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing' and a verbal NOIP would be the absolute minimum required ("You will be reported for the consideration of the question...etc"In fact any offence involving non-compliance with any approved road sign/marking is NOIP territory yet I don't see where a verbal NOIP is mentioned in the officers' statement...
White line both before and after pedestrian crossings. Might take a trip to town tonight just to see if the lights are pedestrian and then get pics on sunday when traffic is low.What are these so-called' ZIG-ZAGS?
Were/are they white or yellow...or some other colour?
If yellow then I would expect that a notice giving the times when parking was a no-no to be evident somewhere in the vicinity...(outside a school entrance perhaps?) Was it outside a school?
Or are they the white variety denoting the LIMITS of a pedestrian crossing...or perhaps some other road marking unique to Nottingham Highways Authority? Were the lights in question controlling that crossing...or were they lights controlling a junction?
If a pedestrian crossing, I would have thought that the offence would be one of 'parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing' and a verbal NOIP would be the absolute minimum required ("You will be reported for the consideration of the question...etc"
In fact any offence involving non-compliance with any approved road sign/marking is NOIP territory yet I don't see where a verbal NOIP is mentioned in the officers' statement...Edited by oldsoak on Thursday 15th November 09:38
The confusing thing about it is he stated in the police car the lines started behind me yet in his statement he says they are from the lights infront of me.
Regards
Liam
What is a NOIP?
shocker-z said:
oldsoak said:
Sorry if I'm being dense or this has been covered already...but could someone clear a few points up for me?
What are these so-called' ZIG-ZAGS?
Were/are they white or yellow...or some other colour?
If yellow then I would expect that a notice giving the times when parking was a no-no to be evident somewhere in the vicinity...(outside a school entrance perhaps?) Was it outside a school?
Or are they the white variety denoting the LIMITS of a pedestrian crossing...or perhaps some other road marking unique to Nottingham Highways Authority? Were the lights in question controlling that crossing...or were they lights controlling a junction?
If a pedestrian crossing, I would have thought that the offence would be one of 'parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing' and a verbal NOIP would be the absolute minimum required ("You will be reported for the consideration of the question...etc"In fact any offence involving non-compliance with any approved road sign/marking is NOIP territory yet I don't see where a verbal NOIP is mentioned in the officers' statement...
White line both before and after pedestrian crossings. Might take a trip to town tonight just to see if the lights are pedestrian and then get pics on sunday when traffic is low.What are these so-called' ZIG-ZAGS?
Were/are they white or yellow...or some other colour?
If yellow then I would expect that a notice giving the times when parking was a no-no to be evident somewhere in the vicinity...(outside a school entrance perhaps?) Was it outside a school?
Or are they the white variety denoting the LIMITS of a pedestrian crossing...or perhaps some other road marking unique to Nottingham Highways Authority? Were the lights in question controlling that crossing...or were they lights controlling a junction?
If a pedestrian crossing, I would have thought that the offence would be one of 'parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing' and a verbal NOIP would be the absolute minimum required ("You will be reported for the consideration of the question...etc"
In fact any offence involving non-compliance with any approved road sign/marking is NOIP territory yet I don't see where a verbal NOIP is mentioned in the officers' statement...Edited by oldsoak on Thursday 15th November 09:38
The confusing thing about it is he stated in the police car the lines started behind me yet in his statement he says they are from the lights infront of me.
Regards
Liam
What is a NOIP?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ummm... The officer has to report him for summons - i.e. "I am reporting you for consideration of the question..." or "I am reporting you for the offence of..." so the matter can go to court. That he then offers a FPN as a way of dealing with it is up to the officer. Should the recipient of the FPN choose to have the matter heard in court, or fail to deal with the ticket at all, if he hadn't been reported then he couldn't be sent a summons. You will always be reported even if being issued a FPN.Edited by AndyRw on Thursday 15th November 12:01
tigger1 said:
Just looking at local.live.com (windows maps) but unfortunately their pictures of that road are about 3 years old!
If it's before the tram lines, heading East on Parliament Street, I'll have a look later
It's heading towards the cornerhouse before the tram lines outside flares.If it's before the tram lines, heading East on Parliament Street, I'll have a look later
Regards
Liam
JustinP1 said:
shocker-z said:
oldsoak said:
Sorry if I'm being dense or this has been covered already...but could someone clear a few points up for me?
What are these so-called' ZIG-ZAGS?
Were/are they white or yellow...or some other colour?
If yellow then I would expect that a notice giving the times when parking was a no-no to be evident somewhere in the vicinity...(outside a school entrance perhaps?) Was it outside a school?
Or are they the white variety denoting the LIMITS of a pedestrian crossing...or perhaps some other road marking unique to Nottingham Highways Authority? Were the lights in question controlling that crossing...or were they lights controlling a junction?
If a pedestrian crossing, I would have thought that the offence would be one of 'parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing' and a verbal NOIP would be the absolute minimum required ("You will be reported for the consideration of the question...etc"In fact any offence involving non-compliance with any approved road sign/marking is NOIP territory yet I don't see where a verbal NOIP is mentioned in the officers' statement...
White line both before and after pedestrian crossings. Might take a trip to town tonight just to see if the lights are pedestrian and then get pics on sunday when traffic is low.What are these so-called' ZIG-ZAGS?
Were/are they white or yellow...or some other colour?
If yellow then I would expect that a notice giving the times when parking was a no-no to be evident somewhere in the vicinity...(outside a school entrance perhaps?) Was it outside a school?
Or are they the white variety denoting the LIMITS of a pedestrian crossing...or perhaps some other road marking unique to Nottingham Highways Authority? Were the lights in question controlling that crossing...or were they lights controlling a junction?
If a pedestrian crossing, I would have thought that the offence would be one of 'parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing' and a verbal NOIP would be the absolute minimum required ("You will be reported for the consideration of the question...etc"
In fact any offence involving non-compliance with any approved road sign/marking is NOIP territory yet I don't see where a verbal NOIP is mentioned in the officers' statement...Edited by oldsoak on Thursday 15th November 09:38
The confusing thing about it is he stated in the police car the lines started behind me yet in his statement he says they are from the lights infront of me.
Regards
Liam
What is a NOIP?
Liam
shocker-z said:
tigger1 said:
Just looking at local.live.com (windows maps) but unfortunately their pictures of that road are about 3 years old!
If it's before the tram lines, heading East on Parliament Street, I'll have a look later
It's heading towards the cornerhouse before the tram lines outside flares.If it's before the tram lines, heading East on Parliament Street, I'll have a look later
Regards
Liam
It's an odd crossing there - there's 2 sets of lights very close together, with one "crossing" unmarked in-between them. If you were outside the Bed Factory (now a coffee shop I think?) - I'll take a look next time I pass...but I don't remember white zig-zags there - and you've said they're not.
E36GUY said:
I'd maintain that even if there were ZigZags, the fact that bib was at the back of a line of 10 cars (about 30-40m) then he'd be hard pushed to see if you were actually on them or not!
he was a white van and an exstate car behind me.. them 10 cars are from him looking in his mirrors i reckon or just plane guessing as he states there were 10 cars infront and yet when i stopped i still caused 10 cars to be one the road.Thats a good point!!!!!
If there was a line of 10 cars infront before i stopped! and then a line of 10 cars after I stopped! What issue did i cause!???
Thanks for that E36GUY
One line that might be worth following... If he was in an armed response car, then you need to know if it had a camera installed and recording that day.
If the camera was installed, where is the video of you stopping on the zig-zags?
This could install a large amount of doubt if the video wasn't brought forward - even if it can't see your car
If the camera was installed, where is the video of you stopping on the zig-zags?
This could install a large amount of doubt if the video wasn't brought forward - even if it can't see your car
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff