Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow. To join, email foggy at thefogbow dot com.

Guest Announcements

To join the forum, email me: foggy at thefogbow dot com.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11029 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 ... 442  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:10 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Posts: 2387
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Occupation: I'm the Grand Panjandrum of the uber-sekrit cabal that controls our faithful puppet George Soros, the Trilateral Commission, and Agenda 21 (among other things) as part of our grand plan to dominate maple syrup production.
I'll readily admit that I my lack of knowledge of legal ethics is perhaps only surpassed by a lack of knowledge at the law itself. Nevertheless, I have nothing but admiration for those who have the integrity, even if they were doing their jobs with the best of intentions, to retract something that has turned out to be misleading. I understand that this is a cornerstone of legal ethics, but to me it is a significant mark of character.

_________________
It is easy to hope when things go right. Harder to choose to believe in it when things are blackest. However even the greatest darkness can be slain with the faintest of lights. And hope is more than enough to flicker in the dark.

I blog about my life and mental health issues @ Life of a Schizophrenic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Posts: 4284
Location: Cone of Silence
Occupation: Secret Chimp
ZekeB wrote:
Mark wrote:
Definition of PORNOGRAPHY: "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement."

I took a Viagra and took a second look at the paintings. Nothing! Damned Canadian mail order pharmacy - they must have sent me some blue sugar pills.

They must have sent you saltpeter instead. How could you NOT be excited after seeing Orly?


But for a 90-year-old infirm garage racist widower troglodyte tea partier (you know, her donor base), Orly's accent brings home fantasies of those young Hungarian twin actresses from the '50's.

Ooooh, baby.

=;

_________________
"What are you talking about, 99? We have to shoot and kill and destroy - we represent everything that's wholesome and good in the world." - Maxwell Smart
"I'm American." - Wong Kim Ark
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 1751
Location: Out there in the cold
Occupation: Chemistry Teacher
realist wrote:
Case Update...


Quote:


In the legal field, candor with the court is an ethical obligation of utmost importance. I've been around the legal game for approximately 40 years. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly among attorneys, both in quality of representation and how they treat their ethical responsibilities.

Everyone makes mistakes. When an attorney makes a representation to the court he believes is correct but upon reflection and investigation/research realizes it is incorrect, he has an obligation to correct that error.

I commend Mr. Tepper for his honesty and in meeting his professional responsibilities in the proper manner.

THIS is the way it's done.

I salute you, sir.


I am confident Mr. Tepper will further manifest his honesty when he will disregard any time spent on research and writing this letter in calculating 1927 attorneys' fees. :D

_________________
“Two things are infinite: the universe and Orly Taitz's stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein: "Sternsig and the Law of Universal Truth."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm
Posts: 2605
When will we know if Orly really submitted that letter in the form that she has posted it on her site?

Did she send copies to the other parties?

Was the request to send this information directed to her alone or to all the co-plaintiffs?

Did the other co-plaintiffs sign this as well?

Does Orly have any understanding of what the words "predicate acts" actually mean in a simple linguistic sense? (obviously her understanding of the legal nuances of the term is a non-starter)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 6767
Occupation: retired
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
There is a Sandra Inman who is a paralegal at Phelps Dunbar here in Jackson, I wonder if this could be our mystery "assistant" at the hearings? I'll have to make a couple of calls and try to get a physical description of her.


Well, that's very interesting. Any more ideas about who Joe Dirt might be? Got any contacts in Hernando? :mrgreen:

_________________
Quote:
Research shows that 84.74358 per cent of all statistics are made up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm
Posts: 2605
IANAL, but to me, when someone says: “submit a description of the predicate acts in single sentences,” I would expect the worlds greatest lawyer to wind up writing something like this:

“1) On August 4, 1961, Barack Hussein Obama II, a Kenyan national, did illegally enter this country through the birth canal of one Stanley Ann Dunham in violation of the Bundog’s Immigration Act (1858) Section 2, part 9.

2) On or about August, 1980, the Postmaster of the Maui Wowie branch of the USPS, Mr. Jeff Spicoli, in contravention of USPS rule number xyz, did illegally use a faulty postal meter to stamp the selective service registration of one, Barack Obama II.

3) In January, 2009, Mr. Richard Cheney, VPOTUS, did illegally accept and certify the electoral college vote that illegally installed the great usurper in office as President of the United States.”

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 1751
Location: Out there in the cold
Occupation: Chemistry Teacher
ObjectiveDoubter wrote:
'
Another gem of OrlyLaw:

Image

Read the code (maybe); fail to understand the code; have a hired stranger call an unnamed clerk to interpret the code; disregard the facts that the clerk is unnamed and phone advice is just that, advice with no legal weight; submit a daffydavit from hired stranger -- calling her a paralegal, why not -- to override the code.

Image


What's with the crossed out dates on the affidavit?

_________________
“Two things are infinite: the universe and Orly Taitz's stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein: "Sternsig and the Law of Universal Truth."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a real lawyer operates.

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Posts: 8307
Location: Freehold, Iowa
Occupation: The Stig
ix nay


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 3001
Why not consult the Rules of Civil Procedure?... Weird..

_________________
- Credimus quod credere volumus -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:42 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Garage Dubois, Choisy-le-Roi
Occupation: teacher (of English and translation), translator
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
Mark wrote:
The main point is not that the paintings were offensive to Orly but that they are "pornography" and, therefore, an actionable predicate act. I will have to agree, though, with Orly that these are "obscene materials." I just threw up on my keyboard and I think I will be skipping my trip to IHOP this morning.


They are not "obscene materials" in the legal sense, which would mean they were unprotected by the First Amendment.

Nor are they "pornography."


Orly does not know what porn is. THIS is porn:



If the gentlemen (and ladies) are in a hurry, they should fast forward to 55 seconds. But there are bonus points for those who take the time and are able to recognize Orly Taitz at 20, Pan Tadeusz (with a lady in pink) and the cat the morning after (there are a few ambiguities that do not work welll in English).

That is a different lady, she has blue eyes. And a pink dress, that is all I like.
How beautifl the world is, at 20!
Why are you surprised, and curl your smiley? You are the only one I send long letters to>
How beautiful ...
So put on that dress, and your white shoes. Smile at me, it is for a good cause.
How beautiful ..

_________________
Ja nigdy nie będę mówił, że Orly Taitz została usunięta z palestry, chyba że, w rzeczywistości, Orly Taitz została usunięta z palestry.
Я никогда не скажу, что Орли Тайц лишилась статуса адвоката - до того момента, когда, на самом деле, Орли Тайц лишилась статуса адвоката.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:42 pm
Posts: 4174
Location: The 808
Occupation: World-class procrastinator and perpetual late-bloomer.
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a real lawyer operates.


Absolutely, and then some.

_________________
"And with the advent of LexisNexis and WestLaw, there is no more need for attorneys to spend hours researching. The relevant case law simply comes straight to the computer, ready to be copied to a word processor."
--Larry "Leisure Suit" Klayman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am
Posts: 4407
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a real lawyer operates.

And in stark contrast to boffoonsTM like Taitz.

TM used under license from Scott J. Tepper.

_________________
@Orly: "No one is listening to you anymore. And that’s the way it should always be." - Scott J. Tepper (11/5/2012)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm
Posts: 8264
Location: Intersection of Godwin Dr. and Poe Blvd.
Occupation: Personal security.
Hektor wrote:
I'll readily admit that I my lack of knowledge of legal ethics is perhaps only surpassed by a lack of knowledge at the law itself. Nevertheless, I have nothing but admiration for those who have the integrity, even if they were doing their jobs with the best of intentions, to retract something that has turned out to be misleading. I understand that this is a cornerstone of legal ethics, but to me it is a significant mark of character.

NO offense at all to the pretty one, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is not a letter of retraction.

IANAL, so perhaps the distinction is either moot or non-existent... but the ethical stance here is all the stronger, IMO, for simply pointing out an "inaccuracy," and leaving it to the Court to make of that what it will. He makes no special plea to ignore or strike or retract, or any such thing.

:geezer: :notworthy:

_________________
Imagex3 Image
"You unlock this door with the key of imagination.
Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of
unsound mind, a dimension of unreality, a dimension
of really, really bad law. You've just crossed over
into the Orly Zone."
-- Geritol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:51 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Posts: 14844
Location: New England
Occupation: Professor of Sociology
neonzx wrote:
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a real lawyer operates.

And in stark contrast to boffoonsTM like Taitz.

I'm glad you put that in. Until your post, Orly was undoubtedly thinking that her Mississippi Supplemental Brief was what you meant by "how a real lawyer operates."

_________________
I always have a quotation for everything-- it saves original thinking. -- Lord Peter De'ath Bredon Wimsey as reported by Dorothy L. Sayers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:33 am
Posts: 564
Deleted.

_________________
The truth, if it exists, is in the details.
--Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 16206
Occupation: Obamunist Agitator and Fake American
Circumspect wrote:
esseff44 wrote:
Is this the first time she has included the pancake paintings? This is truly a masterpiece and nothing, like we have seen before. :shock:
I think she's under the mistaken impression that the defense counsel need help in making a laughingstock of her.

=)) =)) Circumspect!!

_________________
All my ideas are worth twice their weight in gold.
Like, fer instance, this one weighs . . . hey, that ain't much!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 4078
Location: Brigadoon
Occupation: Retired
Frog marchin wear.

Image

And for our stylish ladies.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 6068
Location: FEMA Camp Pontchartrain, Tchefuncte River Lighthouse Annex
Occupation: Rhesus monkey litigation trainer
realist wrote:
Case Update...


Quote:


In the legal field, candor with the court is an ethical obligation of utmost importance. I've been around the legal game for approximately 40 years. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly among attorneys, both in quality of representation and how they treat their ethical responsibilities.

Everyone makes mistakes. When an attorney makes a representation to the court he believes is correct but upon reflection and investigation/research realizes it is incorrect, he has an obligation to correct that error.

I commend Mr. Tepper for his honesty and in meeting his professional responsibilities in the proper manner.

THIS is the way it's done.

I salute you, sir.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This. It demonstrates counsel's fulfillment of his duty of candor, even though it is on a point not raised by TWLITHOTU. (Recall that her RICO statement said the predicate acts were defamation and misprision of a felony.) Sometimes attorneys make mistakes but rarely do they correct them. Nevertheless, they have a duty, as an officer of the court, to do so.

Based on my notes, Tepper started off by reading from Taitz v. Obama in the US District Court opinion (in the quo warranto case) where Lamberth laid out the elements of a RICO claim and said Orly failed to meet them. Tepper observed that it should sound familiar to Orly because it came from a case in which her RICO claim was rejected. (Surprise, surprise, huh?) From the D.D.C. opinion:


Quote:
In order to bring a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 a civil plaintiff must allege:

(1) That the defendant (2) through the commission of two or more acts (3) constituting a “pattern” (4) of “racketeering activity” (5) directly or indirectly invests in, or maintains an interest in, or participates in (6) an “enterprise” (7) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce. ... [P]laintiff must [also] allege that he was “injured in his business or property by reason of [the] violation of § 1962.” Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir. 1983).

Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d. 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2010)


When Orly realized (during Tepper's argument) that the allegations in the FAC were predicated on defamation and misprision -- something that Judge Wingate questioned her about -- she began to backtrack. She argued that the basis of her RICO claim also included forgery and uttering of forged documents. Of course, this is not what she pleaded, thus she was ambushing defense counsel and the court with this new fantasy and it was necessary to address it in some fashion. Research was done and, since clarification was necessary, Tepper has done so with this letter.

At the end of the day this will not impact the ruling. The court is asked to rule on the pleadings, and nowhere in the pleadings does Orly or her cohorts plead what Orly argued on the 16th in a desperate attempt to salvage something from her sinking ship. She's stuck with a poorly drafted, word salad of a complaint.

Kudos to Scott Tepper. He is a true professional. (Unlike some pretend lawyers we know.)

_________________
"This could be it Folks!" - charlesmountain January 19, 2011 at 1:09 am


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:18 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 5295
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
Kudos to Scott Tepper. He is a true professional. (Unlike some pretend lawyers we know.)


Agreed. It's one thing to expose an error in order to do it before your adversary does.

It's very unlikely that that would have happened here, of course. Instead, the Teppernator gets to show the Chaleria one more way in which he's a much better lawyer and person than she is.

Stickin' it to her.

Figuratvely of course!!

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 6068
Location: FEMA Camp Pontchartrain, Tchefuncte River Lighthouse Annex
Occupation: Rhesus monkey litigation trainer
Lani wrote:
Hurray! The Supplemental Brief is available, just in time for quiet evening of reading - with red wine and lots of popcorn. Five pages, plus zibits, for a total of 31 pages. -xx :evil: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/ ... -brief.pdf :evil: I've only quickly scanned it, but she seems to be in top form... considering the entertainment value.


Let's see. Judge Wingate asked her to provide authorities under Mississippi law that the court is empowered to enjoin the Mississippi SOS from carrying out a nondiscretionary duty under Mississippi law. (Are you starting to see a pattern here?) Soooooooooooo, Orly cites a case applying Alaska law and another case applying Texas law. ](*,)

Yeah, that ought to do the trick.



Does she frickin' read the cases she cites? For example, Orly contends that in Nu-Life Constr. Corp. v. Board of Education "[e]mployees of the Board of Education of the city of New York were convicted in Civil RICO for their actions in their capacity as employees of the city." :o However, here is the actual holding of the E.D.N.Y.:

Quote:
[T]his Court holds only that a municipal entity, while a "person" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), is incapable of forming the criminal intent necessary to establish the underlying predicate offenses under the Hobbs Act, and therefore may not be held civilly liable under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).


True, the court did allow one claim to go forward. It explained,

Quote:
Although the RICO claims are dismissed as against these defendants, the Court notes that the tenth cause of action contained in the second amended complaint alleges negligent hiring and negligent supervision by these defendants, which cause of action has not been challenged on this motion.


IOW, a non-RICO claim that was not challenged in the 12(b)(6) motions. As another example, contrary to Orly's representation that "Public officials were found guilty in civil RICO in bribery" in Environmental Tectonics v. W.S. Kirkpatrick, lnc., not a single defendant was a public employee. All of the defendants were corporations.

Quote:
... defendants W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. ("Kirkpatrick") and W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. International ("Kirkpatrick International"), both of which are New Jersey corporations. Kirkpatrick is in the business of selling and brokering aircraft equipment, parts and facilities to airlines and foreign air forces. Kirkpatrick International, its wholly-owned subsidiary, was formed to carry out Kirkpatrick's duties under the contract to be awarded by the Nigerian government. Also named as defendants were Kirkpatrick's parent corporations, DIC (Holding) Inc. ("DIC"), a Delaware Corporation, and International Development Corporation, S.A. ("IDC"), a Luxembourg corporation.

_________________
"This could be it Folks!" - charlesmountain January 19, 2011 at 1:09 am


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
At the end of the day this will not impact the ruling. The court is asked to rule on the pleadings, and nowhere in the pleadings does Orly or her cohorts plead what Orly argued on the 16th in a desperate attempt to salvage something from her sinking ship. She's stuck with a poorly drafted, word salad of a complaint.


Now we see (although Orly won't even if she reads this post) another reason why they filed for judgment on the pleadings. Well familiar with Taitz's perpetual habit of changing tack and making up new bullshit when the bullshit she filed is obviously woefully deficient, they nailed her to her deficient pleadings at the outset.

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
Did she frickin' read the cases she cited? For example, Orly contends that in Nu-Life Constr. Corp. v. Board of Education "[e]mployees of the Board of Education of the city of New York were convicted in Civil RICO for their actions in their capacity as employees of the city." :o However, here is the actual holding of the E.D.N.Y.:

Quote:
[T]his Court holds only that a municipal entity, while a "person" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), is incapable of forming the criminal intent necessary to establish the underlying predicate offenses under the Hobbs Act, and therefore may not be held civilly liable under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).


I'd also emphasize ONLY, because the court held nothing else relevant to RICO. The court did not hold anything Orly claimed it did. She lied, whether she actually understood the case and chose to lie about it, or completely failed to understand it, yet claimed that it said something she wanted it to say.

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:04 pm
Posts: 526
Is a legal filing, such as calling a non party a criminal in a RICO complaint and then posting that filing on your web site an exception to libel per se?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 6068
Location: FEMA Camp Pontchartrain, Tchefuncte River Lighthouse Annex
Occupation: Rhesus monkey litigation trainer
Poor, poor Mississippi paralegal Sandra Inman asked the wrong question:

Quote:
I called the Hinds County Circuit Clerk to ask a question regarding the computation of deadlines for filing court papers.


The issue is not how to compute the drop dead date for filing court papers (which is governed by the rules of civil procedure). Rather, the issue is whether Orly met the drop dead date for filing a petition to contest the qualifications of a candidate in a political party primary election under Mississippi Code section 23-15-961. The statute abundantly clear and needs no interpretation:

Quote:
(4) Any party aggrieved by the action or inaction of the appropriate executive committee may file a petition for judicial review to the circuit court of the county in which the executive committee whose decision is being reviewed sits. Such petition must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days after the date the petition was originally filed with the appropriate executive committee.


A paralegal who cannot read the plain language of a statute. Hmmmmmmmm. Worse, a 10-year attorney who cannot read the plain language of a statute.

_________________
"This could be it Folks!" - charlesmountain January 19, 2011 at 1:09 am


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 3:40 pm
Posts: 424
MaineSkeptic wrote:
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
Kudos to Scott Tepper. He is a true professional. (Unlike some pretend lawyers we know.)


Agreed. It's one thing to expose an error in order to do it before your adversary does.

It's very unlikely that that would have happened here, of course. Instead, the Teppernator gets to show the Chaleria one more way in which he's a much better lawyer and person than she is.

Stickin' it to her.j

Figuratvely of course!!


Are you kidding me? Orly just fell over her chair with glee thinking she finally got her smoking gun.

Amended-emergency-amended-amended complaint paragraphs 3b7 to £29 incoming.

_________________
There's nothin' wrong with being a fool for Christ. I ain't here to uh, you know, we should not be here to impress people with our intelligence, I think God, uh, respects loyalty and obedience and uh, loyalty and obedience much more than, you know, showing off how smart you are. But anyway... ~ LoneStar1776


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11029 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 ... 442  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group