Jump to content
JONEZY

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, downzy said:

Summarized by who?  You must have got it from somewhere. 

I saw this particular list posted by a fan on Twitter. But I've read the court transcripts from the lawsuit with MJs estate, so none of it was new information to me. Someone has merely condensed it down into an easy read for folks who are too lazy/busy to trawl through pages of court transcripts. Again, if you're doubting the validity, I could happily send you a link to the court transcripts.

Edited by Towelie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Towelie said:

This is not an article, it is a list summarising information that is in the public domain, most of which is taken from court records. If you think it is bogus, check the court transcripts online. It's all there.

You know I love you Towelie but you’d call him innocent if they found him in the caretakers cupboard holding an 8 yr old like a bowling ball he’s about to lob :lol:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

You know I love you Towelie but you’d call him innocent if they found him in the caretakers cupboard holding an 8 yr old like a bowling ball he’s about to lob :lol:  

What can I say Len, I do like Billie Jean. :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Towelie said:

What can I say Len, I do like Billie Jean. :lol:

Fair dues it is a belter :lol:  The Thriller album in general is worth a reprieve at least :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Towelie said:

Oh God, are you serious with this shit? Do you not realise what a totally hysterical bellend comments like this make you sound?

At least that particular bellend hasn’t been up a little boy’s bum unlike MJ’s. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, action said:

the majority of people will believe the victim, because this is a natural instinct. you're just a bit short of being an asshole if you dare to look at the victim's confessions with a cautious mind.

that's the way it's always been, and is ever prevalent in our social media culture.

but the argument that "the victims are so believable, if they are lying they deserve an oscar" is flawed, in that I can say the same about jackson: "if jackson is really guilty, then he deserves an oscar for playing so innocent".

can't you people see, that either way, one of the parties has put on an oscar worthy act? don't matter who lies: the victims or jackson: at least one of them has put on a brilliant act.

so the sympathy card is played and the victims are believed.... because why would a victim lie. But MJ claimed to be a victim too, so we can turn circles to the end of days.

I think you're still not looking at certain things correctly. I get it, you don't want to be told how you should think. But you are still promoting inaccuracies regarding abuse and victimization. Some of which is addressed on the documentary (as posters are saying, I haven't seen it), and some of which is just general knowledge if you've examined the particularities of situations like this.

I'm seeing multiple posters repeating the 'many kids traveled with him and most say they weren't molested' - this fact does not exonerate him, for reasons already described ad nauseam in this thread.

No on deserves an Oscar.

If the accusers are lying, they deserve civil charges for slander/defamation/libel (depending on what medium(s) they've accused with). I think that point hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, the accusers are risking being found libelous (which generally includes financially punitive actions) if their claims can be proven false. Moreover, if it can be proved they conspired to lie to law enforcement, that may be a criminal offence (emphasis on may be, I'm not expert on federal or CA codes relating to the degree of lying necessary to be criminally liable for misleading law enforcement/the judicial system). So, the victims are likely taking big risks by pursuing this - if they are lying. Of course, they're risking ridicule and public notoriety too, but that was going to happen regardless of the truth.

3 hours ago, action said:

Before 1993, before the first allegations, there were many people who appreciated this character of "grown up man with childlike voice who sleeps in an oxygen chamber and has a pet monkey named bubba" or something.

it's an outrageous character, it speaks to the imagination.

Not that anyone of his fans would go through real life like MJ, it's nothing about that. What it meant to them, is this persona of someone who was completely shut off from the big cruel world, living in his neverland pretending to be an eternal child...... that really spoke to a lot of people.

then came the shock and the illusion was shattered, and the madness began.

I wouldn't want to feed the people, people who are lost in life who are looking for a bit of dreams. some people follow the Queen and wonder at all the richess and the crown.... it's all bells and whistles and it speaks to the imagination. fairytales of kings and queens, peter pan and mickey mouse.... the feeble minded, the lost people (and there are many) eat it all up like hot cakes

Again, it's already been pretty well-stated in this thread that Jackson was not the 12 year old he often projected. From the little I know about him, it seems he had some business sense and absolutely understood and navigated the adult world (Beatle's rights and drug abuse are two items that come to mind). He just had an additional side to him that most law-abiding adults don't have. 

1 hour ago, Towelie said:

A few reasons why I believe Robson and Safechuck are liars:

 

For five years, these men have been suing Michael Jackson’s estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents. I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

  • Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

  • Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

  • In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

  • Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

  • Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

  • When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

  • The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway.

  • Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars.

  • Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

  • Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

  • Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.

  • For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

  • But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

  • Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

  • Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public.

Please point me to the court record that shows a number reflective of "hundreds of millions of dollars."

The rest of that is pretty damning, but I imagine there are errors and misleading points in the exposition. Long bullet point lists compiled by laymen (especially those who are emotionally invested in the issue and take a side) generally don't hold up when scrupulously examined. It does look like someone put a lot of work into this, but without knowing who that is and how they conducted their argumentation, it's not a be-all-end-all for me. Unfortunately, I don't care to research it myself so I can't systematically examine it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I must confess to a certain degree of satisfaction at these establishment darlings going down the kermit.  Jacko, Saville etc.  I mean like, the punk lot, these were all considered degenerates, denigrated and insulted and attacked and like, as time goes on all these establishment darlings are falling...now tell me where John Rottens nonce charges are?  Or Joe Strummers?  Or Captain Sensibles or Poly Styrenes?  Turns out the freaks and losers turned out to be alright didn't they, whereas your charity fun runners and fuckin' patronising Earth Song wankers turn out to to be cunts.  Beware the saints.  

Edited by Len Cnut
  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the millions figure came from the letter MJs Estate sent to HBO. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I must confess to a certain degree of satisfaction at these establishment darlings going down the kermit.  Jacko, Saville etc.  I mean like, the punk lot, these were all considered degenerates, denigrated and insulted and attacked and like, as time goes on all these establishment darlings are falling...now tell me where John Rottens nonce charges are?  Or Joe Strummers?  Or Captain Sensibles or Poly Styrenes?  Turns out the freaks and losers turned out to be alright didn't they, whereas your charity fun runners and fuckin' patronising Earth Song wankers turn out to to be cunts.  Beware the saints.  

Even more mindblowing than Saville's disgusting actions is the fact people knew it was happening and protected him and, in my opinion, participated with him in a widespread still ongoing pedo ring(which involves the Vatican); zero repercussions.

I say this basically on pure instinct but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jeremy Paxman is a pedo or something. Unless my radar is way off. 

P.S. Everyone should watch the documentary 'Conspiracy of Silence'

 

Edited by Oldest Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Even more mindblowing than Saville's disgusting actions is the fact people knew it was happening and protected him and, in my opinion, participated with him in a widespread still ongoing pedo ring(which involves the Vatican); zero repercussions.

Johnny on the other hand said this as early as 1978...and the BBC didn't run the interview:

 

Edited by Len Cnut
  • GNFNR 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

I think the millions figure came from the letter MJs Estate sent to HBO. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

Thanks, but I just searched the letter for the terms: money, millions, million, dollars, financial, thousands. Nothing turned up. Admittedly, I didn't read the full ten pages, but Control + F is generally pretty reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Towelie said:

I saw this particular list posted by a fan on Twitter. But I've read the court transcripts from the lawsuit with MJs estate, so none of it was new information to me. Someone has merely condensed it down into an easy read for folks who are too lazy/busy to trawl through pages of court transcripts. Again, if you're doubting the validity, I could happily send you a link to the court transcripts.

Can you provide a link to the court transcripts.  I've been unable to locate them.  As far as I'm aware, they haven't been made public.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Towelie said:

Well, you won't get any arguments from me about the sleepovers being inappropriate, but that doesn't mean he molested anybody. Plenty of kids stand by these sleepovers. Brett Barnes in particular, who spent an entire year on the road sharing a hotel room with Jackson on the Dangerous tour is currently suing HBO and regularly tweets about what a liar Wade is. I don't imagine many pedophiles could travel half way around the world with a child without feeling the urge to offend. Child molestors are opportunisric and, much like rapists, rarely able to resist the urge to offend if the opportunity is handed to them on a plate. 

See, that's the thing.  By sleeping in the same bed as kids, it opens him up to these kinds of accusations.  It's also behaviour that's associated with pedophiles.

We also can't be sure that those who said they weren't abused are telling the truth.  Coming to terms with a sexual assault is, from what I've read as I didn't experience one myself, extremely difficult and can take years.  There's also the possibility that they have financial settlements with the Jackson estate.  

He may very well be innocent.  But for the same reasons I don't really feel sorry for Instagram morons who fall off cliffs because of their pursuits of a selfie, it's hard to feel for MJ if he is innocent and all four of those who have publicly accused him are lying.  You don't get to sleep with kids and then complain when some of those same kids accuse you of sexual assault. 

Everyone needs to decide what makes sense to them.  For yourself and others, the possibility of discrepancies by Robson and Safechuck is grounds to dismiss their charges.  For others, hearing their accounts is enough to believe them.  

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@downzy @OmarBradley I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the documentary I've posted above.

It's not related to MJ but is extremely relevant to the topic of discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Towelie said:

Well, you won't get any arguments from me about the sleepovers being inappropriate, but that doesn't mean he molested anybody. Plenty of kids stand by these sleepovers. Brett Barnes in particular, who spent an entire year on the road sharing a hotel room with Jackson on the Dangerous tour is currently suing HBO and regularly tweets about what a liar Wade is. I don't imagine many pedophiles could travel half way around the world with a child without feeling the urge to offend. Child molestors are opportunisric and, much like rapists, rarely able to resist the urge to offend if the opportunity is handed to them on a plate. 

 

Let's just say Michael is perfectly innocent. Then after the Chandler thing, why did he then resume sleeping with kids? As that Chris Rock sketch Len posted said: ''ANOTHER KID!!''. If I was innocent and accused of such vile allegations I would never look at a child again. I would erect a big barrier around Neverland: ''Child Free''. I found this weird before this documentary. What the hell was he, a 30-40 something bloke, doing in bed with kids? Assuming he is innocent...

I am a big fan of his. Off the Wall is in my top ten rock-pop albums - way ahead of Appetite or any of that bollocks. I want to be completely wrong about all of this - I really do. I want Jackson to be the legend that he was. But christ, there was something seriously amiss here.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Towelie said:

A few reasons why I believe Robson and Safechuck are liars:

  •  
  • In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

  • Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

Wouldn't that put Robson in legal jeopardy were he lying under oath?  I have a hard time believing the judge would simply just dismiss the case and not hold Robson in contempt or have authorities investigate for perjury.

7 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@downzy @OmarBradley I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the documentary I've posted above.

It's not related to MJ but is extremely relevant to the topic of discussion. 

I would suggest starting a different topic if you wanted to discuss it.  Let's keep this limited to Leaving Neverland.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, downzy said:

Can you provide a link to the court transcripts.  I've been unable to locate them.  As far as I'm aware, they haven't been made public.  

Many of them are public, but you have to purchase them from the court. This website has links to the court documents that have been made public:

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/277-robson-v-estate-case-court-documents

Interestingly, MJs estate recently requested a public arbitration, whereby all the court documents would be made public. Wade and James's legal counsel are resisting. Seems one side has a lot more to hide than the other.

Edited by Towelie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Many of them are public, but you have to purchase them from the court. This website has links of the court documents that have been made public:

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/277-robson-v-estate-case-court-documents

Interestingly, MJs estate recently requested a public arbitration, whereby all the court documents would be made public. Wade and James's legal counsel are resisting. Seems one side has a lot more to hide than the other.

I went back to @OmarBradley's post where he linked this site.  I've been reviewing some of the documents but haven't come across any of the claims made by whoever wrote that summary of the findings (I don't see anything that indicates a dollar amount).  Perhaps they are within the documents requiring payment.  Hopefully everything will come out at some point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Let's just say Michael is perfectly innocent. Then after the Chandler thing, why did he then resume sleeping with kids? As that Chris Rock sketch Len posted said: ''ANOTHER KID!!''. If I was innocent and accused of such vile allegations I would never look at a child again. I would erect a big barrier around Neverland: ''Child Free''. I found this weird before this documentary. What the hell was he, a 30-40 something bloke, doing in bed with kids? Assuming he is innocent...

I am a big fan of his. Off the Wall is in my top ten rock-pop albums - way ahead of Appetite or any of that bollocks. I want to be completely wrong about all of this - I really do. I want Jackson to be the legend that he was. But christ, there was something seriously amiss here.  

 

I know it beggars belief for many that he carried on with the sleepovers after 1993. But I think there was an arrogance to him, that he wasn't prepared to change his behaviour as he felt he'd done nothing wrong. For what it's worth, both Robson and Safechuck's alleged abuse was before 1993 (although Robson claims his continued after).

Stars of his level (and lets face it, there aren't many) often live in a bubble surrounded by sycophants and aren't used to people standing up to them. I think this could possibly explain his cavalier attitude about this, which ultimately came back to bite him in the ass.

There is evidence that he took extra precautions after 1993 though. It emerged in the 2005 trial that MJ asked his longtime friend and employee Frank Cascio to join him when the Arvizo kids stayed over as he felt uneasy about being alone with them. The implication was that he suspected the mother had ulterior motives.

 

Edited by Towelie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The precautions thing is interesting.  Like Mike Tyson used to film every bird he ever shagged after his rape case to prove the shit was consensual.  Apparently he had like thousands of tapes of him shagging birds...though now I stop to think about it perhaps it wasn't purely a precautionary act :lol: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One thing that is interesting is that Wade claims MJ sexually abused him every time they were alone at Neverland together. But Wades mother testified that although they had stayed at Neverland dozens of times, they only ever spent about four nights at the ranch with MJ as most of the time he was off the property. In Wades initial complaint (which he later changed) he claimed that the first two nights staying with MIchael no abuse occurred.

His mother also testified that MJ didn't contact Wade for six months in 1992 while he was on the Dangerous tour and she got very angry on the phone with him about this. She begged him to take Wade on tour with him but he refused. It seems that they were a lot more keen to be around MJ than he was to be around them.

Edited by Towelie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading some of the rebuttals in an article and a blog and a lot of good points are raised, some of which are raised by Towelie. The problem is few of them have seen the documentary as they're nearly all refusing to watch it! So they are all producing these straw mans which are dealt with in the actual film, e.g., why wasn't Culkin and the other kids molested, why did they testify on Jackson's behalf in 1993 and 2005. The second point is they rather over egg their own case with their own fanaticism. Playing the race card is simply ridiculous at this late stage. Much of it is a character assassination of Wade and James. 

At the very least watch the bloody thing so you know what you have to argue against! Torrent the bugger for free if you don't want to give it ratings.

9 minutes ago, Towelie said:

One thing that is interesting is that Wade claims MJ sexually abused him every time they were alone at Neverland together. But Wades mother testified that although they had stayed at Neverland dozens of times, they only ever spent about four nights at the ranch with MJ. Most of the time he was off the property, and in his initial complaint (which he later changed) he claimed that the first two nights staying with MIchael no absue occurred.

His mother also testified that MJ didn't contact Wade for six months in 1992 while he was on the Dangerous tour and she got very angry on the phone with him about this. She begged him to take Wade on tour with him but he refused. It seems that they were a lot more keen to be around MJ than he was to be around them.

Didn't his family leave him there? Michael booked these trips around the states for them whilst Wade stayed at Neverland. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EvanG said:

Perhaps, I really don't know, I haven't seen the documentary. I don't think everything is black or white, no pun intended. I think you can have a good soul and still really fuck up. For a lot of people that is incomprehensible, once you've overstepped the line you're nothing but a monster. That's why the fanbase reacts this way, they don't believe, and don't want to believe, that everything about the person they grew up with was fake... but even if this is true, that doesn't mean he didn't also have good intentions towards the world, mankind, and a lot of the things he stood for.

Well, I ended up watching the whole thing. Even though there are some questionable things in there, it's hard not to believe them. The fact that one of them didn't testify in 2005 makes it even more believable because before watching this I was under the impression that they both testified. I'm leaning even more towards thinking Jackson is guilty, but I know how manipulative documentaries can be, so without any real evidence, I guess we will never know for certain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most disturbing thing has always been...

the parents who sent their kids to neverland with an agreement to spent the night there. 

the accusations were always money driven, while i never heard any child abuse case, where a kid and his parents wanted money from a priest or their church.

i think MJ was pretty asexual and really just childish in his mind. 

Robert Kelly instead did sexual abuse. you can see in his eyes and reactions that he is not telling the truth. but as dave chapelle said: even when you are just 14 years old, you should be old enough to say: no, i don't wanna be pissed on by you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, downzy said:

Yeah, I think it should be left up to the individual.  I don't fault corporations for making the choices they're making.  They're private companies and can do what they want.  If a radio station decides to no longer play MJ, well, people can get it elsewhere.  I don't think anyone is for societal bans where by the government confiscates all MJ songs.

There's also the issue of the crime itself as well as the medium involved.  Abusing small children ain't the same as domestic abuse; just as seeing the Mona Lisa isn't the same as hearing a Michael Jackson song.  I think it depends on each audience member to decide what they can accept and how far removed the artist is from their art.  I still love many of MJ's songs, but I can no longer hear him perform them.  I wouldn't be opposed to hearing someone else perform them.  And my standards are my own; i wouldn't expect others to adhere to what I think is right in this situation.  There's far too much judgement of others on matters that are highly personal.

That's totally fair, though I would say it's different for different forms of the medium. Playing a cover of a Michael Jackson song could still be enjoyable; playing a remake of a Charlie Chaplin movie would almost certainly not be, just to use the example. 

As you said, though, it's a personal judgement at this point. It blows my mind that a documentary coming out a decade after the man himself died is causing people to change their opinion (and playing of) his working when he was alive and faced multiple allegations. If people sincerely wanted to discredit his work because of allegations of this they probably should've before 2019. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×