Katherine Jackson versus AEG set for trial 9-10-2012

  • 1143 Replies
  • 96818 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RK

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoaxer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3542
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/showbiz/michael-jackson-new-trial-motion/

Quote
Los Angeles (CNN) -- Four jurors in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial said they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.
The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson's mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.
The jurors, whose sworn statements were attached to a motion for a new trial filed Thursday by Katherine Jackson's lawyers, said most of the jury wanted to find concert promoter AEG Live liable in Jackson's 2009 death.
Along with arguing that the verdict form was faulty, the Jackson lawyers contend the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.
AEG not liable in Michael Jackson's death, jury finds
Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon's insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.
They jurors used the words "stunned," "upset" and "shocked" when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed that the answer was "no" to the second question on the verdict form -- "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"
One juror called the question "a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case."
"After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve," another juror said. "Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded."
Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contend that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazeulos erred by denying their request to add the words "at any time" to the question.
The four jurors, whose names were redacted from the documents released by the court, agreed.
"I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray's duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray," one juror said.
The jury voted "no" only after one member convinced them that the question could have only meant "at the time he was hired," two of the juror statements said.
Conrad Murray talks about Michael Jackson's death
"During our deliberations, I asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered 'no' and followed the instructions to sign the form," one said. "I feel so cheated because I sat through five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created -- yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in."
Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because "we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations."
"I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded incorrectly, and as phrased, Question 2 was a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case," a juror said.
The same juror described the emotional toll it has caused. "Since the jury verdict, I have been very upset, and initially I was unable to eat or even check my e-mails because I was so sorry about the verdict and the fact that justice was not done in this case, because of how question 2 on the verdict form was worded."
"I do not think that justice was achieved in this case," another said.
The affidavits revealed that one of the 12 jurors refused to stop deliberating despite being told it was over. "He insisted that we continue answering the rest of the questions," a juror said.
Judge Palazeulos will hear arguments on the new trial motion on January 3.

Offline curls

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3111
Thanks for posting this ^^^ RK.  Interesting that certain jurors are airing their grievances now, after they've given their verdict, and after KJ's lawyers have had a chance to speak to and influence them. Should've stood up for themselves at the time, and not allowed themselves to be railroaded into a hasty decision if they really weren't happy with it.

Offline RK

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoaxer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3542
Thanks for posting this ^^^ RK.  Interesting that certain jurors are airing their grievances now, after they've given their verdict, and after KJ's lawyers have had a chance to speak to and influence them. Should've stood up for themselves at the time, and not allowed themselves to be railroaded into a hasty decision if they really weren't happy with it.

Agreed. They should have stuck with  their convictions.  This is  like watching  The Never Ending Story.

Offline blankie

  • *
  • Registered users
  • Hoaxer
  • It's all for L.O.V.E.
  • Posts: 2350
Thanks for posting this ^^^ RK.  Interesting that certain jurors are airing their grievances now, after they've given their verdict, and after KJ's lawyers have had a chance to speak to and influence them. Should've stood up for themselves at the time, and not allowed themselves to be railroaded into a hasty decision if they really weren't happy with it.

Agreed. They should have stuck with  their convictions.  This is  like watching  The Never Ending Story.

Uh..uh... this is beautiful....  :ghsdf: really the Never Ending Story   :icon_razz:

Thanks for sharing RK  :bearhug:
LOVE YOU MORE

Offline everlastinglove_MJ

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2884
  • a.k.a. Susan
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/showbiz/michael-jackson-new-trial-motion/

Quote
Los Angeles (CNN) -- Four jurors in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial said they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.
The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson's mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.
The jurors, whose sworn statements were attached to a motion for a new trial filed Thursday by Katherine Jackson's lawyers, said most of the jury wanted to find concert promoter AEG Live liable in Jackson's 2009 death.
Along with arguing that the verdict form was faulty, the Jackson lawyers contend the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.
AEG not liable in Michael Jackson's death, jury finds
Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon's insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.
They jurors used the words "stunned," "upset" and "shocked" when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed that the answer was "no" to the second question on the verdict form -- "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"
One juror called the question "a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case."
"After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve," another juror said. "Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded."
Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contend that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazeulos erred by denying their request to add the words "at any time" to the question.
The four jurors, whose names were redacted from the documents released by the court, agreed.
"I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray's duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray," one juror said.
The jury voted "no" only after one member convinced them that the question could have only meant "at the time he was hired," two of the juror statements said.
Conrad Murray talks about Michael Jackson's death
"During our deliberations, I asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered 'no' and followed the instructions to sign the form," one said. "I feel so cheated because I sat through five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created -- yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in."
Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because "we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations."
"I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded incorrectly, and as phrased, Question 2 was a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case," a juror said.
The same juror described the emotional toll it has caused. "Since the jury verdict, I have been very upset, and initially I was unable to eat or even check my e-mails because I was so sorry about the verdict and the fact that justice was not done in this case, because of how question 2 on the verdict form was worded."
"I do not think that justice was achieved in this case," another said.
The affidavits revealed that one of the 12 jurors refused to stop deliberating despite being told it was over. "He insisted that we continue answering the rest of the questions," a juror said.
Judge Palazeulos will hear arguments on the new trial motion on January 3.

Thanks for posting RK.
Indeed this ain't over yet.

Here's a link about the filed motion dated December 12th:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/191359618/Jackson-Motion-for-New-Trial
It's all for L.O.V.E.

Offline everlastinglove_MJ

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2884
  • a.k.a. Susan
Quote
Judge Rejects Bid for New Michael Jackson Trial
LOS ANGELES January 14, 2014 (AP)
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY AP Entertainment Writer
 Associated Press

A judge has refused to grant a new trial in a lawsuit by Michael Jackson's mother against the promoter of his ill-fated comeback concerts.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled Monday that there isn't any basis to re-try Katherine Jackson's suit against AEG Live LLC.

A jury determined in October that AEG Live was not liable for Jackson's June 2009 death despite hiring the doctor who was convicted of giving the superstar an overdose of a powerful anesthetic.

Lawyers for the Jackson family matriarch argued that jurors were given an improper verdict form that didn't allow them to consider all issues in the case after five months of testimony last year.

AEG's lawyers argued that there was no mistake in the verdict form.

 
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/judge-rejects-bid-michael-jackson-trial-21519320



I'm curious on what basis Judge Palazuelos ruled that there isn't any basis for a new trial.  :suspect:
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 06:26:04 PM by everlastinglove_MJ »
It's all for L.O.V.E.

Offline RK

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoaxer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3542
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_25564788/judge-michael-jacksons-mom-should-pay-costs


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Jackson's mother should pay more than $800,000 in trial costs to a concert promoter that she targeted in a failed negligent hiring lawsuit involving the death of her son, a judge said Monday.
Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos issued the tentative ruling calling on the Jackson family matriarch to pay AEG Live LLC after it won the case.

The five-month trial ended in October with a jury determining that AEG Live did not negligently hire the doctor convicted of causing Michael Jackson's death in 2009 as he prepared for a comeback tour.

The ruling is expected to be finalized after AEG Live submits an amended list of its costs for items such as court filing fees, court reporters and travel. Attorneys for the company and Katherine Jackson agreed not to argue Palazuelos' tentative ruling, but it might be appealed.

Katherine Jackson's attorney Kevin Boyle said a decision on appealing the order would be made after reviewing its final language. The verdict and rulings in the case are currently being appealed.

AEG Live initially sought more than $1.2 million to cover its costs. Katherine Jackson's lawyers claimed only about a quarter of that amount was justified.

AEG Live attorney Marvin Putnam said the court did the right thing "by ordering Katherine Jackson to pay nearly $1 million spent in having to defend a matter that she should have never brought in the first place."

A motion filed by her lawyers last week stated that the costs would be borne by her and the singer's three children, all of whom are supported by his estate.

The estate has earned hundreds of millions of dollars since the singer's death and paid off his debts. It also covers schooling, housing and other costs for his children and mother.

Jackson died in June 2009 after receiving an overdose of the anesthetic propofol, which former cardiologist Conrad Murray was giving the superstar as a sleep aid during preparations for his planned "This Is It" shows. Murray was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

———

Anthony McCartney

Offline luvandmissumike

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 123
it's a shame this 80+ yr old women has to go thru all this stress

Offline curls

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3111
There have been some recent updates on the court docket: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2061332&doc_no=B252411

I thought this was all over .. apparently not.

Offline iamhere4mj

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 479
This will continue into 2015:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2061332&doc_no=B252411

07/28/2014   Respondent's appendix & brief filed.   Defendant and Respondent: AEG LIVE LLC
Attorney: Jessica Lyn Stebbins
Attorney: Marvin Stanley Putnam
 Defendant and Respondent: Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc.
 Defendant and Respondent: Brandon Phillips
 Defendant and Respondent: Paul Gonaware
 Defendant and Respondent: Timothy Leiweke     ONE VOLUME of APPENDIX
07/29/2014   Default notice for responsive filing fee sent to:  Counsel for respondents AEG Live etc
07/29/2014   Letter sent to:  E-Notice re lack of original signature on Respondent's Appendix
07/29/2014   Filed document entitled:  Master index for reporter's transcripts
07/30/2014   Filing fee.   Responsive filing fee by Counsel for respondents AEG Live etc
08/01/2014   Filed proof of service.  Original Signature for proof of service of Respondent's Appendix.
08/18/2014   Errata filed to:  Errata filed to respondent's brief
09/16/2014   Appellant's reply brief.  Plaintiff and Appellant: Katherine Jackson
Attorney: Margaret M. Grignon
 Plaintiff and Appellant: Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr.
Attorney: Margaret M. Grignon
 Plaintiff and Appellant: Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson
Attorney: Margaret M. Grignon
 Plaintiff and Appellant: Prince Michael Jackson, II
Attorney: Margaret M. Grignon  Brief extended by +30 days when respondent's brief was filed.
 
09/16/2014   Case fully briefed.       
09/26/2014   Filed document entitled:   Amended Master Index which includes volume numbers for Reporter's Transcripts by counsel for appellant Jackson.
09/26/2014   Motion filed.  For leave to file surreply brief by counsel for respondents AEG et al.
09/30/2014   Order filed.  The motion filed with this Court September 26, 2014, for leave to file surreply brief by counsel for respondents AEG et al. is denied.
10/01/2014   e-Brief received.   Two copies filed by ReedSmith
11/17/2014   Calendar notice sent electronically. Calendar date:   December 9, 2014 at 11:00 AM
11/18/2014   Request to continue oral arg - to court.  Appellant's request to continue argument to January 2015
11/19/2014   Response filed:   Respondent's response to appellant's request to continue argument
11/19/2014   Reply filed to:   Appellant's reply to respondent's response to appellant's request to continue argument
11/20/2014   Grant request to continue oral argument.  Appellant's request to continue argument is granted. The above-entitled matter is rescheduled for January 22, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.
11/20/2014   Calendar notice sent electronically. Calendar date:    January 22, 2015 at 09:00 AM
11/24/2014   Request for oral argument filed by:  Marvin S. Putnam, counsel for respondent [for January 22, 2015 date]
11/25/2014   Request for oral argument filed by:  Gringon for appellant Jackson [for January 22, 2015 date]
12/02/2014   Calendar notice returned with proof of service.  All calendar notices received.

Love you Michael!

Offline RK

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoaxer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3542
And here we go again....maybe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2922123/Court-hears-arguments-Jackson-concert-promoter-lawsuit.html
Court hears arguments on Jackson concert promoter lawsuit
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 09:16 EST, 23 January 2015 | UPDATED: 09:16 EST, 23 January 2015


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Lawyers for Michael Jackson's mother argued Thursday for a new trial in her case against concert promoter AEG Live LLC, but faced a skeptical panel of appellate justices who focused on the superstar's relationship with the doctor convicted of killing him.
Attorneys for Katherine Jackson appealed a jury's verdict finding that AEG Live was not financially responsible for the singer's June 2009 death. They contend that the trial court judge incorrectly dismissed negligence and employment claims before the trial, and jurors were given an improper verdict form and instructions.
The trial spanned more than five months in 2013 with testimony that focused on the relationship between Jackson, AEG and Dr. Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for giving the singer a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol.
Much of the questioning from the appellate justices focused on Jackson's relationship with Murray, the details of the cardiologist's contract drafted by AEG, and who was paying the physician's $150,000 a month fee to care for Jackson as he prepared for his ill-fated "This Is It" comeback concerts.
The panel noted that Murray treated Jackson before the concerts were planned and questioned whether the doctor's fee would be reimbursed by Jackson after the shows.
Associate Justices Sandy Kriegler and Richard M. Mosk questioned how AEG could have known that Murray was giving Jackson treatments of propofol.
"What is the fault of AEG in this?" Kriegler asked Jackson attorney Margaret Grignon toward the end of the hourlong arguments. "I'm just lost in all of this.
"They just don't seem to have any knowledge of any of this," Kriegler said.
Mosk said it would be one thing if AEG suspected Murray was giving Jackson painkillers or traditional sleep drugs. "Isn't it a stretch to go from that to propofol, which is beyond the pale."
Grignon countered that it was a decision that a jury should answer.
AEG attorney Marvin Putnam said the case hinged on whether the concert promoter could have foreseen that Murray was giving Jackson propofol in the singer's bedroom. The drug is supposed to be administered solely in hospital settings.
"Everyone in the world, not just AEG, learned about propofol because of this tragic death," Putnam told the panel.
Grignon however argued that AEG inserted itself into Jackson's medical care, allowed the doctor to set the singer's rehearsal schedule and controlled Murray's actions, which a jury should be allowed to consider.
"This is not a case where AEG simply agreed to pay Mr. Jackson's personal physician to accompany him on tour," Grignon argued.
Katherine Jackson did not attend Thursday's arguments.
The justices did not state when they would issue a ruling. Two justices must agree on the decision.
___







Offline iamhere4mj

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 479
Thanks for posting this RK!

I find it odd that the appellate justices focused on the relationship between Michael and Murray; just because you have known someone for years doesn't mean one of them couldn't or wouldn't try hurting the other one. In another part of the article it also stated that the trial had  focused on the relationship with Michael, AEG and Murray; the singer, promoter and the Dr.

The last part of the article states this:

Mosk said it would be one thing if AEG suspected Murray was giving Jackson painkillers or traditional sleep drugs. "Isn't it a stretch to go from that to propofol, which is beyond the pale."

If you recall how Michael was acting at rehearsals those were signs of someone on 'something other than propofol'. Propofol wouldn't make a person act that way or give the symptoms that Michael had. Why wasn't Murray questioned more at that meeting at Michael's house since everyone was so concerned that Michael was missing rehearsals.

So why was propofol used as to what killed Michael Jackson? Why didn't he die of a drug overdose?

The very last part of the article says this:

Grignon however argued that AEG inserted itself into Jackson's medical care, allowed the doctor to set the singer's rehearsal schedule and controlled Murray's actions, which a jury should be allowed to consider.

"This is not a case where AEG simply agreed to pay Mr. Jackson's personal physician to accompany him on tour," Grignon argued.



And that is exactly what Karen Faye had testified to when she talked about the past tours.

One other thought. If this moves forward will this have an effect on Murray's appeal? Will that be resurrected?


Love you Michael!




« Last Edit: January 24, 2015, 04:44:58 PM by iamhere4mj »

Offline suspicious mind

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5984
  • reading between the li_es
a little off topic: the other day carlo riley posted something to the effect of hoping the estate would do something with black or white video to i guess edit out wade robson . that made me wonder if something new had come along on this front or is he just now( i can not imagine it)  hearing about this? has anyone heard anything?
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves."  




Why not just tell people I'm an alien from Mars? Tell them I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight. They'll believe anything you say, because you're a reporter. But if I, Michael Jackson, were to say, "I'm an alien from Mars and I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight," people would say, "Oh, man, that Michael Jackson is nuts. He's cracked up. You can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth."

Offline curls

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3111
Jackson vs AEG Live - appellate arguments
A summary of arguments to a California appeals court by lawyers for Michael Jackson's mother. Katherine Jackson is seeking a new trial in her negligent hiring lawsuit against AEG Live, the promoters of her son's ill-fated "This Is It" concert. I was the only reporter to cover the entire session.
byAnthony McCartney 3 days ago 205 Views



Link to the rest of the post with all his tweets from the session: https://storify.com/mccartneyAP/jackson-vs-aeg-live-appellate-arguments

...and his Twitter: https://twitter.com/mccartneyap
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 03:54:03 AM by curls »

Offline iamhere4mj

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 479
I took a look at the tweets and thought this was interesting.

Anthony McCartney        ✔   @mccartneyAP 
Follow
Putnam said Question 2 was specifically requested by Katherine Jackson’s lawyers, and appeared exactly as they wanted it on the verdict.


Anthony McCartney        ✔   @mccartneyAP 
Follow
“This is precisely what they requested,” Putnam said of the verdict form’s Question 2. “They did not object at all to this one.
1:54 PM - 22 Jan 2015

So what was question # 2?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/03/us-michaeljackson-verdict-idUSBRE99216K20131003

Was the physician convicted in 2011 of involuntary manslaughter in the singer's death, Conrad Murray, "unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"

That question was the second in a series of 16 posed to the jury as the case was turned over to the 12-member panel for deliberations last week.

According to jury foreman Gregg Barden, the wording of question No. 2 was a curve ball that gave the jury's six women and six men pause before they returned the verdict absolving concert promoter AEG Live of negligently hiring Murray, the physician who administered a fatal dose of the surgical anesthetic propofol to Jackson.

"We started looking at the wording of it and realized everybody was not comfortable with that," Barden explained to reporters outside of a Los Angeles courthouse following Wednesday's verdict.

"We spent the morning clarifying the question in our minds and to each other, and again votes changed," Barden added. "I'd say at least three or four times (votes changed) before we were able to come to the final tally."



So the jury actually thought that a Dr. giving propofol outside of a hospital setting was fit and competent?



Love you Michael!

Offline RK

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoaxer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3542

Offline everlastinglove_MJ

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2884
  • a.k.a. Susan
Katherine is headed to the Supreme Court.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/michael-jackson-mom-lawsuit-calif-supreme-court-article-1.2132288

Quote
"Katherine very much misses her son, and she very much would like to see justice done and is hoping for a favorable result," he said.

 
I'm hoping with her and I very much would like to see justice done.

Quote
"The jury saw that AEG was in no way negligent in the tragic death of Michael Jackson. And nothing done today or in the papers changes that," he said. [Putnam]

 

Well I believe that things may change, because truth will prevail after all  :judge-smiley: :Michael_Jackson_dancing_smile



LOVE to you all
It's all for L.O.V.E.

Offline Do

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 850
I just don't understand. Why, if Michael is still alive, is Katherine heading to Court again for another shot at her megabucks wrongful death claim against concert promoter AEG Live. It is just not making sence to me.

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind."
Bertrand Russel

Offline ShyBleuEyes

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 623
It could be AEG is a mayor spill in trying to get MJ down in the past, and MJ came to insight that they tried to get the doctor under pressure maybe he wants to learn them a lesson, a expensive lesson. if he didn't get out that day he certainly would have died..
AEG have to admit they were very responsable for the extortion.
Maybe it's a lesson for all the artists who had  the same sort of conditions aswell.

but it's just my thought.
“In a world filled with hate, we must still dare to hope. In a world filled with anger, we must still dare to comfort. In a world filled with despair, we must still dare to dream. And in a world filled with distrust, we must still dare to believe.”
― Michael Jackson

 

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal