Skip to content

April 5th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jason Francia (Cross Examination), Kris Kallman, Blanca Francia (Direct & Cross Examination)

November 28, 2012

Jason Francia’s testimony continued today, and a complete summary and analysis can be found in this post.

The next prosecution witness was Kris Kallman, the attorney for Jason and Blanca Francia who represented them against Jackson in 1994. He and his partner Terry Canon contacted Jackson’s attorneys Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas, and threatened to file a civil lawsuit claiming that Jackson had abused Jason Francia in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Jackson’s attorneys decided that it was in his best interest to settle the matter out of court, rather than subject him and his family to further public humiliation by defending this frivolous lawsuit in civil court. Jason and Blanca received a $2.4 million dollar settlement, and were required to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from speaking with the press, but did NOT prevent them from speaking with police! However, there was a “notice” requirement that stated that if Jason or Blanca did decide to cooperate in a police investigation, they would have to give Jackson’s attorneys five days’ notice:





27 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kallman.


28 A. Good morning, Mr. Sneddon. 4949


1 Q. You’re an attorney?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. Licensed to practice in the State of


4 California?


5 A. Yes, sir.


6 Q. And what is your brief educational


7 background to prepare you for the practice of law in


8 the State of California?


9 A. Well, I graduated from Santa Barbara High


10 School. Went to Santa Barbara City College.


11 Graduated from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Went to


12 Pepperdine University Law School.


13 Q. Do you have a certain area of law that you


14 specialize in?


15 A. Yes. I am a civil trial lawyer, and for the


16 most part, I represent people that get injured due


17 to the fault of another person or company.


18 Q. How long have you been practicing law in the


19 State of California?


20 A. 29 years.


21 Q. And how long have you lived in Santa Barbara


22 County?


23 A. My whole life, except when I was away at


24 college.


25 Q. And where do you live in Santa Barbara


26 County?


27 A. I live in Santa Barbara, on the mesa, in the


28 city. 4950


1 Q. Now, during the time that you’ve practiced


2 law in Santa Barbara County, have you had associates


3 that have practiced with you in your firm?


4 A. Yes.


5 Q. Are you a sole practitioner?


6 A. Essentially. Although I currently have two


7 lawyers that office with me and they act as “of


8 counsel.” They’re not employees, but they help me


9 out on cases.


10 Q. Are you familiar with an attorney by the


11 name of Terry Cannon?


12 A. I sure am.


13 Q. And how long have you known Mr. Cannon?


14 A. Oh, I’ve known Mr. Cannon for at least 20


15 years.


16 Q. And at some point in time prior to today,


17 was Mr. Cannon one of the people who was associated


18 with you in the practice of — your civil practice?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. And during what period of time was that; do


21 you recall?


22 A. Well, the relevant period here would have


23 been in the early to mid ‘90s.


24 Q. And at that time Mr. Cannon was practicing


25 with you?


26 A. He was associating with me on certain cases.


27 Q. And do you recall where Mr. Cannon was


28 residing at that particular point in time? 4951


1 A. I believe he was living in Santa Barbara.


2 Q. Now, at some later time, did Mr. Cannon


3 leave your association and take up the practice of


4 law somewhere else?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. To your knowledge, where was that?


7 A. In Oregon.


8 Q. And then after that, did Mr. Cannon come


9 back?


10 A. He came back to San Luis Obispo County, and


11 then moved to San Diego County.


12 Q. And at this particular point in time, do you


13 know where Mr. Cannon is?


14 A. Not exactly this moment. But I happen to


15 know that he bought a condominium here in Orcutt.


16 Q. And is he, once again, associated with you


17 in the practice of law?


18 A. Yes, sir.


19 Q. Now, did you have occasion to represent


20 Jason Francia in some litigation?


21 A. He and his mother, yes.


22 Q. And can you tell us, did you ever prepare a


23 lawsuit on behalf of Jason Francia?


24 A. We prepared a Complaint, which is a document


25 that’s the beginning of a lawsuit, yes.


26 Q. And when you say “we,” who’s “we”?


27 A. Mr. Cannon and myself.


28 Q. So Mr. Cannon was working with you on that 4952


1 particular case?


2 A. Yes, sir.


3 Q. And after the preparation of that


4 document — well, with regard to that document, what


5 were the allegations set forth in the proposed


6 Complaint to be filed?


7 A. Well, it’s been —


8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;


9 relevance.


10 THE COURT: Sustained.


11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Who was the individual that


12 the Complaint was directed towards?


13 A. Mr. Jackson.


14 Q. At some point in time, did you have contact


15 with individuals who were representing Mr. Jackson


16 over the proposed filing of the criminal — of the


17 civil complaint?


18 A. Yes.


19 Q. And who did you make contact with?


20 A. Initially our contacts were with Johnnie


21 Cochran and his associate, Carl Douglas.


22 Q. Do you recall approximately when it was when


23 you first made contact with Mr. — or when contact


24 was made between you and Mr. Cochran and Mr.


25 Douglas?


26 A. It was either late ‘94 or early ‘95.


27 Q. Did you, after your conversations with those


28 individuals, file the civil lawsuit? 4953


1 A. No.


2 Q. At some point in time later, were you then


3 dealing with other lawyers with regard to the


4 proposed filing of that civil lawsuit?


5 A. Yes. At some point, Mr. Jackson’s


6 representation was assumed by a lawyer named Zia


7 Modabber, and a lawyer named Howard Weitzman.


8 Q. And do you recall approximately when it was


9 that you then began contact with those particular


10 individuals?


11 A. I believe it was in mid 1995.


12 Q. And the purpose of those contacts?


13 A. Well, the —


14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;


15 foundation.


16 THE COURT: Overruled.

17 You may answer.


18 THE WITNESS: The purpose of the contacts


19 was that they knew that we had a Complaint that we


20 were about to file in Santa Barbara County Superior


21 Court, and they didn’t want us to do that.


22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;


23 foundation.


24 THE COURT: The answer is stricken.


25 Sustained.


26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: As a result of the


27 conversations between these individuals, did you


28 pursue your lawsuit? 4954


1 A. Well, we never filed the lawsuit.


2 Q. Did you reach an agreement, a settlement


3 agreement?


4 A. Yes, we did.


5 Q. Did you reach a settlement agreement in


6 which Jason Francia received monetary compensation


7 from Mr. Jackson?


8 A. Yes, sir.


9 Q. Did you receive — did you reach an


10 agreement in which Blanca Francia received monetary


11 compensation from Mr. Jackson?


12 A. Yes, we did.


13 Q. During the time that you were


14 representing — during the time that you had


15 prepared a Complaint ready to be filed and you were


16 in contact with attorneys representing Mr. Jackson,


17 can you give the ladies and gentlemen of the jury an


18 idea of how old Jason Francia was at that particular


19 point in time?


20 A. Well, he was about 14 years old. He’s 24


21 now, as I understand it, and we’re talking about


22 things that happened just about exactly ten years


23 ago.


24 Q. And in your position as a civil litigator,


25 at the time that an individual is of minority, at


26 the age of 14, how do you deal with representing a


27 person like that?


28 A. Well, a child – 4955


1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;


2 foundation; relevance.


3 THE COURT: Overruled.


4 You may complete your answer.


5 THE WITNESS: A child, under California law,


6 under the age of 18, is not permitted to enter into


7 a contract. I suppose he or she could, but it


8 wouldn’t be enforceable. So the only way a child


9 can act legally is through a guardian ad litem. And


10 it’s normally the parent and normally the mother.


11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Was that the case in this


12 particular instance?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Now, during the course of the time that you


15 were involved in obtaining a settlement from Mr.


16 Jackson on behalf of the Francias, did you deal


17 personally with Jason at any time?


18 A. Yeah. Sure.


19 Q. In what respect?


20 A. Well, I knew who he was, I met with him. I


21 met with he and his mom. He was a teenaged boy, and


22 a nice young man.


23 Q. Now, at some point in time was Jason


24 required to sign some kind of documents in


25 conjunction with the settlement?


26 A. Yes. When he turned 18, part of the


27 condition was that he sign a confidentiality


28 agreement. 4956


1 Q. Now, with regard to the confidentiality —


2 and to your knowledge, did he sign that?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. And with regard to the confidentiality


5 agreement, did it have a provision that required


6 notice to Mr. Jackson in the event that Jason


7 Francia talked to anybody?


8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to


9 strike.


10 THE COURT: Overruled.


11 You may answer.


12 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.


13 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And what was the


14 requirement notice in the confidentiality agreement


15 with regard to notice to the defense?


16 A. I believe it’s five days.


17 Q. And were you at some point contacted by Mr.


18 Zonen of our department with regard to interviewing


19 your — Jason Francia?


20 A. Yes.


21 Q. And in that particular case, did you


22 indicate to Mr. Zonen that you would have to do


23 something before you could agree with that?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. And what was that?


26 A. Well, I’d have to notify somebody on Mr.


27 Jackson’s legal staff that they wanted to talk to


28 him. 4957


1 Q. And did you do that?


2 A. Yeah. Yes. Excuse me.


3 Q. And did you then grant permission for Mr.


4 Zonen to have a conversation with your — with Jason


5 Francia?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. Now, were you present during the


8 conversations between Jason Francia and Mr. Zonen?


9 A. I don’t think so. I think I was there, and


10 then I think I had to go to another court or


11 something like that. I don’t remember being an


12 integral part of any of those — if there was more


13 than one, I don’t even know.


14 Q. And I’m talking about the conversations that


15 occurred after you gave notice to the defense in


16 this case, or gave notice to Mr. Jackson. To your


17 knowledge, was Mr. Cannon present?


18 A. I believe so. At least for part of it.


19 Again, I’m not certain.


20 Q. Do you remember when it was that you


21 finally — the year that you finally reached a


22 settlement agreement with Mr. Jackson?


23 A. Yes. It’s been a long time. But it was a


24 big deal. And I do remember —


25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;


26 move to strike.


27 THE COURT: The answer is stricken.


28 Nonresponsive. 4958


1 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just —


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. And what year was that, approximately?


4 A. It was either ‘95 or ‘96, I believe.


5 THE COURT: Counsel, we’ll take our break.

Before ending his direct examination, Sneddon made sure that he reminded the jury again of exactly why Jason and Blanca Francia threatened to sue Jackson:

11 THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, you may proceed.


12 MR. SNEDDON: All right.


13 Q. Mr. Kallman, I think I just have a couple


14 questions left.


15 I think where we were headed before the


16 break was you told us the approximate year in which


17 the case actually reached a settlement.


18 And what I wanted to know was, after the

19 settlement of the case, have you kept in contact


20 with Jason over the years?


21 A. Yes.


22 Q. And to your knowledge, has Mr. Cannon kept


23 in contact with Jason over the years?


24 A. I believe so.


25 Q. Now, with regard to the lawsuit that was


26 contemplated against Mr. Jackson at the time, the


27 basis of the — of the nature of the representation


28 of Jason Francia involved inappropriate sexual 4965


1 conduct against Jason by the defendant, Mr. Jackson?


2 A. Yes.


3 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor.


4 THE COURT: Cross-examine?


5 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please. Your Honor.

Under cross examination, Kallman testified that there were separate agreements between Blanca and Jason; Blanca signed her settlement agreement on April 1st, 1996, and Jason signed his settlement agreement on June 1st, 1998. Jason didn’t receive his portion of the settlement initially because he could not sign his contract until he turned 18 years old:





9 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kallman.


10 A. Good morning.


11 Q. My name is Thomas Mesereau and I speak for


12 Mr. Jackson.


13 A. Pleasure to meet you.


14 Q. I want to ask you some questions about the


15 settlement agreement you referred to in response to


16 the prosecutor’s questions, okay?


17 First of all, you had separate settlement


18 agreements for the mother, Blanca Francia, and the


19 son, Jason Francia, correct?


20 A. I believe so. I can tell you, I have not


21 reviewed this material and it’s been ten years, but


22 I believe that was the case. Some of this I’m going


23 to have to take your word for it.


24 Q. Well, I can show you a copy if you need it.


25 A. I don’t disbelieve that.


26 Q. Okay. The settlement agreement with Blanca


27 Francia was entered into approximately April 1st,


28 1996, right? 4966


1 A. I don’t know.


2 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show


3 you a copy of the agreement?


4 A. Sure.


5 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?




7 THE WITNESS: That’s what it says.


8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The settlement agreement


9 with Jason Francia was entered into approximately


10 June 1st, 1998, right?


11 A. Don’t know.


12 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just


13 show you a copy of it?


14 A. Sure.


15 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?


16 THE COURT: Yes.


17 THE WITNESS: That’s what it says.


18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Now, that would


19 suggest, wouldn’t it, that the mother had agreed to


20 get money for herself before there was any agreement


21 for Jason to get money in a settlement, right?


22 A. No, it was all part of one global


23 settlement.


24 Q. Then why would there be a two-year


25 difference between the execution of those settlement


26 agreements?


27 A. Remember when I told the jury that a minor


28 can’t enter into a contract? 4967


1 Q. Yes.


2 A. Jason wouldn’t have been able to sign before


3 he was 18. My guess is that’s probably when he


4 turned 18, and that’s what Mr. Weitzman and Modabber


5 wanted.


6 Q. And then just for the jury’s benefit, why


7 would the mother sign in ‘96?


8 A. She was an adult. She could sign.


9 Q. The point I’m making is that she had a


10 separate settlement from her son.


11 A. Exactly. I mean — yes. She got money.

Next, Mesereau emphasized to the jury the fact that Jackson vehemently denied any wrongdoing, and the settlement was not a sign of guilt; in fact, there was extra language that was carefully drafted by Jackson’s lawyers to further accentuate the fact that Jackson asserted his complete innocence:

12 Q. Yes. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you


13 some questions about provisions in the settlement


14 agreement, okay? And one of the issues that was


15 carefully negotiated by the people representing Mr.


16 Jackson was that he deny any wrongdoing in that


17 agreement, right?


18 A. Again, the best evidence of that would be


19 what’s in the agreement. I don’t remember what’s in


20 there.


21 Q. Okay. Well, let me — the prosecutor read


22 you a provision, asked you about it.


23 Let me ask you about this: There was


24 language in that agreement that said, “The parties


25 acknowledge that Jackson has elected to settle the


26 claims solely in view of the potential impact any


27 litigation could have in the future on his


28 reputation, earnings and potential income, and not 4968


1 because of any alleged wrongful conduct on his


2 part,” right?


3 A. If you’re asking me if that’s in the


4 document, I’ll have to take your word for it. You


5 don’t need to show it to me. It sounds pretty


6 standard to me.


7 Q. The agreement further said — excuse me, let


8 me rephrase that.


9 Both agreements, the one involving Jason and


10 the one involving Blanca, his mother, both had


11 language which said, “This agreement shall not, in


12 any manner, be construed as an admission by Jackson


13 that he has acted wrongfully with respect to


14 Francia, Blanca, or any other person, or at all, or


15 that Francia or Blanca have any rights whatsoever


16 against Jackson or Jackson’s releasees.” Sound


17 familiar to you?


18 A. It sounds like standard language in


19 virtually every release that I deal with. But, yes,


20 it does sound familiar.


21 Q. Actually, there’s a whole separate paragraph


22 entitled, “Denial of Claims by Mr. Jackson,”


23 correct?


24 A. Don’t know.


25 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show


26 you a copy?


27 A. It would.


28 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? 4969




2 THE WITNESS: It does refresh my


3 recollection.


4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And do you recall


5 that language being in both agreements?


6 A. I believe so, yes, sir.


7 Q. Okay. In addition to the language that I


8 have read, there’s further language which says,


9 “Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to,


10 and denies any wrongful acts against, Francia,


11 Blanca or any other person and may continue to do so


12 publicly, to the extent reasonably necessary, to


13 respond to any inquiries in this regard.” Right?


14 A. Correct.

15 Q. It said further, “The parties acknowledge


16 that Jackson is a public figure, and that his name,


17 image and likeness have commercial value and are an


18 important element of his earning capacity.” Right?


19 A. That’s true.


20 Q. And that language was in both settlement


21 agreements, the one involving Blanca Francia and the


22 one involving Jason Francia, correct?


23 A. I don’t remember that. I will take your


24 word for it. You don’t need to refresh my


25 recollection. It sounds like it should be or would


26 be.


27 Q. Now, Mr. Kallman, provisions in which a


28 settling party denies liability are fairly standard 4970


1 in settlement agreements, right?


2 A. True.


3 Q. But the language that I just read to the


4 jury is not standard language in a settlement


5 agreement, is it?


6 A. This is not a standard case, or was not.


7 And no, you’re right. These were carefully drafted


8 by a team of lawyers, and we agreed to the terms.


9 Q. And the reason those terms are different is


10 because Mr. Jackson is an unusual individual in


11 terms of his need to preserve his reputation and


12 public image so he can earn a living, right?


13 MR. SNEDDON: Calls for speculation on this.


14 It wasn’t drafted by him. No foundation.


15 MR. MESEREAU: I think it was drafted by


16 this witness.


17 THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain a


18 foundation.


19 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.


20 Q. When you settled these matters – and I’m


21 talking about matters involving Michael Jackson,


22 Blanca Francia, and Jason Francia – you put in


23 language involving denial of claims by Mr. Jackson


24 that was not standard language in a typical


25 settlement agreement, right?


26 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to


27 object to the question as lack of foundation; that


28 he put the language in there. 4971


1 THE COURT: Well, that was the foundation I


2 was looking for.


3 So I’ll allow you to answer the question as


4 long as you understand the limitations of your


5 answer.




7 THE COURT: If you put the language in.


8 THE WITNESS: I didn’t draft that agreement.


9 THE COURT: Okay.


10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did lawyers from your


11 office draft the agreement?


12 A. No.


13 Q. Who drafted the agreement?


14 A. Somebody in Mr. Modabber’s office, the


15 Katten, Muchin, Zavis & Weitzman firm in Century


16 City.


17 Q. Did you have any input into the language in


18 the agreement?


19 A. Only to review it. And if there was


20 language we found objectionable, we could strike it,


21 I suppose.


22 Q. Okay.


23 A. But they wanted that in there, and I didn’t


24 find it objectionable.

In this excerpt, Kallman testified that he merely “assumed” that the notice requirement applied to law enforcement requests to speak with Blanca or Jason Francia, and that is why he gave Jackson’s attorneys notice in this case. It is ILLEGAL for civil contracts to preclude people from cooperating with police, and Kallman confirmed that the notice requirement did NOT preclude Jason or Blanca from cooperating with police (hence their testimony in this case):

25 Q. Okay. Now, you made a statement, I believe,


26 in response to the prosecutor’s questions, that if


27 someone from law enforcement wanted to speak to your


28 client, you had to first notify representatives of 4972


1 Mr. Jackson, true?


2 A. True.


3 Q. That — really, that language is not in that


4 agreement, is it?


5 A. I don’t know.


6 Q. Then why would you say it?


7 A. Because that’s part — in one of the


8 agreements, I have to give notice to the defense


9 team. And I’ve given notice once to Mr. Sanger.


10 And then when I got subpoenaed on Friday, I gave


11 notice to Mr. Modabber down in Los Angeles.


12 Q. But the notice you’re supposed to give to


13 the defense team does not involve requests by law


14 enforcement to speak to your client, does it?


15 A. I assume that anybody from law enforcement


16 that wants to talk to my client, there was a


17 requirement to notify somebody from the defense


18 team.


19 Q. Nowhere in those settlement agreements is


20 there language to that effect, is there?


21 A. I have no idea.


22 MR. SNEDDON: Object as immaterial;


23 irrelevant.


24 MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor brought it up


25 on direct, Your Honor.


26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. And


27 the answer came in as, “I have no idea.”


28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: It would be against public 4973


1 policy for a civil litigator to put language in a


2 settlement agreement precluding anyone from


3 cooperating with law enforcement, wouldn’t it?


4 A. In my opinion, yes.


5 Q. Lawyers are not allowed to have language


6 like that in settlement agreements, right?


7 A. Wrong.


8 Q. Pardon me?


9 A. No. It’s a notice requirement. It’s not a


10 preclusion requirement.


11 Q. When did you last review the notice


12 provisions in these agreements?


13 A. Probably in 1996 or 1997.


14 Q. Well, let me ask you this question: Did you


15 talk with Mr. Sneddon about what questions he was


16 going to ask you before you testified today?


17 A. No. I mean, we talked, but it was very,


18 very general and I don’t think the conversation was


19 more than five or ten minutes long.


20 Q. Okay. The notice provisions that you


21 describe talk primarily about anyone who’s suing Mr.


22 Jackson or if he’s contacted by the media, correct?


23 A. I don’t — not the notice provisions I’m


24 thinking about. I think there’s a specific


25 provision — it may not be in that agreement. Maybe


26 it’s in another agreement, but there’s a provision


27 that I’m supposed to contact either Johnnie Cochran


28 or Zia Modabber or somebody on the defense team if 4974


1 there was a request to speak or interview my


2 clients.


3 Q. But never in the agreement did it refer to


4 law enforcement, right?


5 A. That I don’t remember. It’s been a long


6 time.


7 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, you answered some


8 questions about Terry Cannon.


9 A. Yes, sir.


10 Q. When did — excuse me, you’re currently


11 associated with Mr. Cannon, correct?


12 A. He is “of counsel” to my law firm.


13 Q. When did he become “of counsel” to your law


14 firm.


15 A. He’s been “of counsel” twice. Once about


16 ten years ago, during this period, and then again


17 just recently, within the last two months.


18 Q. So he wasn’t “of counsel” to your law firm


19 in October, November and December of last year,


20 right?


21 A. I don’t believe so, but I can’t be sure.


22 Q. During October, November and December of


23 last year, he was with the District Attorney’s


24 Office in San Diego, wasn’t he?


25 A. Well, I know he recently retired from the


26 San Diego D.A.’s Office. I don’t know precisely


27 when he retired, but you’re right, it’s been recent.


28 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions, 4975


1 Your Honor.


2 MR. SNEDDON: No questions, Your Honor.


3 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may


4 step down.


5 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.


6 MR. ZONEN: We’ll call Blanca Francia to the


7 stand.


8 THE COURT: Come to the front of the


9 courtroom, please.


10 When you get to the witness stand, remain


11 standing. Face the clerk over here, and raise your


12 right hand.


13 Remain standing.


14 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Remain standing.


15 THE COURT: Face the clerk here. Right over


16 here.


17 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Right over there, please.

The next prosecution witness was Blanca Francia, the mother of Jason Francia and a former maid of Jackson at both his Hayvenhurst and Neverland estates. You can read a summary and analysis of her testimony in this post:

For more information on the frivolous lawsuit that Jason and Blanca Francia threatened to file against Jackson, read these two posts: Part 1 and Part 2.

To be continued:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: