Taylor, in response to Ms. Gordon's question about joking with Plaintiff, did state:. The meaning conveyed by Mr. Taylor in the interview was that he and Plaintiff used to joke about becoming revival preachers to get rich.
The alteration of the "I" to "we" did not change the meaning which had been conveyed by Mr. Although Plaintiff contends that Mr. Taylor was not referring to Plaintiff when using "we," the Court finds that no reasonable jury would find that Mr.
Taylor did not include Plaintiff when referring to "we" and no reasonable jury would find by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants acted with actual malice in making the edited change. In their motion, Defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment in regard to Plaintiff's challenge of the above-quoted segments. They contend that there is no evidence to suggest they did not believe the accuracy of their statements.
Defendants state that they conducted an extensive investigation of the relationship between Plaintiff and Herman Beebe, which Plaintiff has conceded. Defendants also state that their report, contrary to Plaintiff's claim, did not imply that Plaintiff was linked to drug smuggling and organized crime.
As to the term "courted," Defendants contend that it was an editorial characterization of Plaintiff's efforts to obtain a loan and was accurate based upon the facts. Defendants further argue that the term is not actionable and it is a constitutionally protected opinion.
In regard to the other statements, Defendants contend that the evidence establishes the truth of the statements. Although Plaintiff claims Defendants conveyed that the loan proceeds received from Mr. Beebe were used to pay for his permanent wave and plastic surgery, Defendants state that no such fact was conveyed by the report.
The evidence, they argue, supports such facts. Defendants further state that the evidence shows that Jim Bakker was a friend of Plaintiff and that Plaintiff could cry on demand.
Plaintiff, in response, contends that there is no evidence to support Defendants' contention that they reviewed the news article purportedly linking Herman Beebe to organized crime prior to the broadcasts. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the article does not support their statement that Herman Beebe had links to organized crime.
Plaintiff asserts that the article merely states he had associations with individuals who have organized crime connections. In addition, Plaintiff states that the statement in the report that Plaintiff "courted" Herman Beebe is false and not a protected opinion.
Plaintiff concedes that he met Herman Beebe and that Mr. Beebe agreed to loan the Church money at their first meeting. However, he states that Mr. Plaintiff admits that he called Dale Anderson, an associate of Mr. Beebe, about the loan approximately three times but states he also referred Plaintiff to the bank. Plaintiff thereafter called the bank's president numerous times to obtain the loan. Plaintiff additionally states that the evidence shows that the segments of the broadcast falsely implied that Plaintiff hit the big time as a result of the loan.
Plaintiff states that by , he and his Church were in debt and were incurring more debt. Plaintiff states that the Church had to pay the Beebe loan with other loans, which resulted in further debt. He admits that the article in the Dallas Morning News stated that "Tilton declined to be interviewed, but said through a spokeswoman that he never met Beebe," but states that Defendants' statement that "though Tilton claims to have never met the man" is false.
Furthermore, Plaintiff states that Defendants' report falsely implied that he obtain a permanent wave and plastic surgery from the Beebe loan. According to Plaintiff, the permanent wave and the plastic surgery were obtained in As to Jim Bakker, Plaintiff states that he knew Jim Bakker only as a minister and not as a good friend.
Plaintiff also contends that Defendant, Robbie Gordon's credibility is at issue in regard to the statement that Plaintiff can cry on demand. The Court, having reviewed the evidence pertinent to the challenged segment, finds that Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a question of fact that Defendants knew the challenged segments were false or that Defendants subjectively entertained serious doubts as to their truth.
Despite Plaintiff's contention, the evidence does reflect that Defendant, Robbie Gordon, reviewed the news article concerning Herman Beebe. The evidence also shows that Ms. Gordon discussed the article with the author prior to the initial broadcast. As to "courting," the evidence shows that Ms. Gordon, in her investigation, was told that Plaintiff sought out Herman Beebe to obtain a loan.
According to Ms. Gordon's affidavit, the inception of the relationship between Herman Beebe was described by Mr. Beebe's associate as "courting. Gordon also reviewed prior to the initial broadcast, the Dallas Morning News article which quoted Plaintiff's spokeswoman as saying that Plaintiff did not know Herman Beebe. Plaintiff has not shown any evidence to establish that Defendants knew the statement "though Tilton claims never to have met the man" was false.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown any evidence that Defendants knew that Plaintiff incurred more debt after receiving the Beebe loan and he has not shown that Defendants knew that Jim Bakker was not a good friend of Plaintiff.
Furthermore, even if Ms. Anderson, U. Finally, Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish an issue of fact that Defendants intended the alleged false implications that Plaintiff was connected to organized crime and drug smuggling, and Plaintiff paid for his permanent wave and plastic surgery from the loan proceeds received from Herman Beebe.
In their motion, Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment in regard to Plaintiff's challenge to the above-quoted segments. Defendants state that the gist of the challenged segments was not, as Plaintiff claims, that Plaintiff lived in more than one house at a time but rather that unbeknownst to and in stark contrast to his "poor and hurting" followers, he lived lavishly in "parsonages" that were hardly modest homes which the word conveys.
According to Defendants, whether or not Plaintiff lived in more than one home at a time, or instead moved about from one to another does not affect the truth of the gist of their report.
Defendants also state that the segments in regard to Plaintiff's houses was meant to describe Plaintiff's style of living which was quite lavish and to raise with viewers the question of whether the homes in which Plaintiff reside while pastor of his Church reflected his or their idea of a parsonage. As to Plaintiff's challenge regarding the Florida residence, Defendants state that the broadcasts accurately reported that bank records reflected Plaintiff, not the Church, as the owner.
Plaintiff, in response, contends that Defendants' parsonage segments were false in that they implied that Plaintiff was a liar because he possessed more than one parsonage as represented in his Church magazine. Plaintiff contends that at the time of the broadcasts, he no longer resided at the house in Rancho Santa Fe, California, and the residence in Fort Lauderdale, Florida was personally owned by Plaintiff and his wife rather than the Church.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants acted with actual malice because Defendants knew Plaintiff only had one parsonage at a time; they knew he was living in a leased house on Krohn Court while the Church's new parsonage in Los Colinas was being remodeled; they knew he no longer resided at the house in Rancho Santa Fe, California; and they knew the Florida residence was owned by he and his wife personally.
The Court, upon review of the challenged segment and the record thereof, finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact, even under the preponderance of the evidence standard, as to falsity of the segments and has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to actual malice on the part of Defendants.
The Court finds that no reasonable jury would conclude the broadcasts at issue stated that Plaintiff owned four parsonages at one time.
It is clear the challenged segments were only raising questions as to whether the residences were "parsonages. Saenz, F. Plaintiff challenges this report in the broadcasts on the basis that it states that Plaintiff will pray for his followers' miracles if they send money, that it states that he stayed in a "posh" ski resort in Colorado and that it implies the Colorado trip was a fundraising campaign.
Defendants, in support of their summary judgment motion, contend that their statements were true. Defendants contend that the evidence shows Plaintiff repeatedly appealed to his followers for funds. Defendants state that Plaintiff in one appeal specifically asked his followers to "carefully write down the areas of your life especially financial where you want me to release my anointing on your behalf With respect to his trip to Colorado, Defendants contend that Plaintiff undisputedly encouraged viewers to pay vows and the broadcasts repeatedly referenced the payment of vows.
As to the "posh" reference, Defendants contend that it is not actionable as it is a constitutionally protected opinion. The Court, having reviewed the submitted evidence, finds that Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient proof, even under a preponderance of the evidence standard, to show Defendants' statements were false. The evidence shows that Plaintiff, in his mailings, did ask his followers to write a check at the same time he asked for them to write down their prayer request.
In addition, Plaintiff has admitted that he encouraged viewers to pay vows during the broadcasts in Colorado and the broadcasts referenced the payment of vows, tithes and offerings. The Court further finds that Plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence whatsoever which establishes with convincing clarity that Defendants knew of the falsity of their statements or that they had serious doubts as to the truth of those statements.
In his motion and in response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff asserts that the statement that Plaintiff "claims that his contribution to his mission in Guatemala is percent of their needs" misstates Plaintiff's deposition testimony. Plaintiff states that it was his original understanding that he would underwrite percent of the expenses of the Guatemalan mission's ten schools and its mobile clinic, but that he did not mind if others gave additional funds.
He also states that he explained in his deposition that even with intentions of full support of foreign missions, nominal donations were often received from other sources. Plaintiff contends that Defendants knew their statements in the above-quoted segment were untrue. According to Plaintiff, Defendants knew the meaning and content of Plaintiff's deposition testimony. Plaintiff states that Defendants also possessed audio tapes and notes of two phone calls to Mr.
Morales showing that Mr. Morales' first response to questioning concerning Plaintiff's support was that Plaintiff financed the mission and its schools totally.
Defendants state that they spoke with Mr. Defendants also state that Mr. In addition, Defendants state that discovery has confirmed that Mr. Having reviewed the evidence applicable to the challenged segment, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants had knowledge of the alleged falsity of the challenged statements or had serious doubts of the truth of those statements.
Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to suggest that Defendants did not believe the statements of Mr. Even if Ms. Sutherland's credibility were at issue and her testimony were discredited, Plaintiff has also not submitted affirmative evidence to satisfy his burden of proof in regard to the issue of actual malice.
In their motion, Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment in regard to Plaintiff's challenge of the above-quoted segment. Defendants contend that Fernando Muniz confirmed in his deposition that he was the official spokesman for the president of Guatemala, that the president did not know who Plaintiff was and that neither the president nor his government invited Plaintiff to the inauguration.
Muniz explained that Plaintiff may have received an invitation from an evangelical church in Guatemala, but even if he had, it would not have been an invitation from the government. Based upon Mr. Muniz's testimony, Defendants contend their statement that Plaintiff was not invited to the inauguration by the president of Guatemala was true.
Plaintiff, in response, argues that Defendants' statement that he was not invited to the inauguration was false. Plaintiff contends that he did receive an official invitation to the inauguration ceremony. According to Plaintiff, he never claimed that the president invited him to the inauguration or that the president was his friend. Plaintiff maintains that the Church magazine article at issue, which Defendants had a copy of prior to the broadcast, only stated the "government" was so appreciative of Robert Tilton Ministries' contribution to the Guatemalan people that it sent an official invitation to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants' interview with Mr. Muniz solely focused on whether the president invited Plaintiff, whether he knew Plaintiff's work personally and whether he appreciated Plaintiff's work. Plaintiff further states that Mr. Muniz indicated to Defendants in the interview that it was probable that some international official of the president's party may have begun a relationship with Plaintiff.
The Court, upon review of the evidentiary materials, finds that even under the preponderance of the evidence standard, Plaintiff has not raised a genuine issue of fact as to the falsity of the report.
Irrespective of the fact that the Church magazine article reported the government had invited Plaintiff and not the president, Plaintiff has failed to dispute the fact that he did not receive an invitation by either the government or the president. The evidence merely shows that he received an invitation from a religious minister.
That minister, as Mr. Muniz testified and Plaintiff has not disputed, was not a part of the Guatemalan government. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants knew the challenged segment was false or had serious doubts as to its truth. Although Plaintiff suggests that Defendants' possession of the magazine article which stated that the "government" had invited him and their decision to focus solely on whether an invitation was received from the Guatemalan president shows actual malice, the Court finds that such facts do not support a finding with convincing clarity that Defendants knew or were aware their statements in the broadcast were false.
In his motion and in response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff claims Defendants falsely stated that he passed collection plates during the crusade in India. Plaintiff states that the offering was taken up at the request of Jack Harris, the coordinator for the India Crusade, before Plaintiff arrived to preach. Plaintiff also asserts that ABC's raw footage of Plaintiff shows that he did not pass a collection basket and was not present when the collection plates were passed among the crowd.
He claims that ABC's raw footage instead shows another person preaching as the offering was taken by the lady worker. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that the offering was not taken up for Plaintiff and his Church. Rather, it was taken up for the benefit of local pastors in India. Plaintiff contends that Defendants had full knowledge of their own raw footage and cameraman's dope sheets and were therefore aware that no collection was taken while Plaintiff was present, as portrayed by the broadcasts.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants had no evidence that any collection of money was taken up by Plaintiff and Defendants had no evidence that any of the money collected went to Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' editing of the broadcast videotape to include Plaintiff's voice while the woman was passing the collection basket as well as Defendants' failure to investigate obvious sources who would have had knowledge of what happened in India demonstrates Defendants acted with actual malice.
Defendants, in response and in support of their summary judgment motion, argue that the evidence fails to establish that Defendants knew the alleged falsity of the report or had serious doubt about its truth. Defendants contend that they obtained their information about the India crusade from J. Sharma reported that he had personally attended Plaintiff's crusade, advertised in Madras as the Robert Tilton India Crusade.
Sharma also reported that he personally observed Mr. Harris, a person whom he understood to be a representative of Plaintiff, ask the crowd at the crusade to donate money. Sharma reported that he observed Plaintiff on stage while the collection was taken up and observed many people contributing. Sharma sent taped interviews of individuals who had been present at the India crusade.
One of those interviewed stated that Plaintiff had asked for the money and another stated that the followers of Plaintiff had begged for money. Defendants also state that Plaintiff cannot dispute that if each of the people had given just a few pennies that hundreds of thousands of dollars would have been collected. Defendants assert that the statement does not remark as to what was to be done with the funds after they were collected.
According to Defendants, the gist of the report was that Robert Tilton India Crusade took collections from the masses of the desperately poor who attended the crusade. Upon review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants knew the alleged libelous statements were false or had serious doubts as to their truth.
Plaintiff's only evidence in support of actual malice is that ABC's raw footage did not have a picture of Plaintiff on stage during the collection of the offering, that the footage was edited to show Plaintiff preaching when the collection basket was passed and Plaintiff's and other persons' testimony that Plaintiff was not on stage.
Such evidence, however, does not establish with convincing clarity that Defendants knew the alleged falsity of the statements or had serious doubts as to the truth of these statements. Plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence to dispute the evidence that Mr.
Plaintiff has argued that if Defendants had interviewed Jack Harris and Reverend Dayanandhan, the assistant coordinator of the India crusade, they would have discovered the truth of the statements. However, a failure to investigate is not sufficient to establish actual malice. Amant, U.
In his briefing, Plaintiff asserts that Mr. The Court, however, disagrees. Plaintiff, in support of his assertion, relies upon Mr.
Sharma's affidavit. Yet the affidavit does not establish Mr. Sharma was an employee of ABC or was acting within his employment when reporting on the India crusade. Indeed, the affidavit as well as the contract attached thereto indicates that Mr. Sharma was an independent contractor for ABC. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to show to the contrary. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff's assertion not compelling.
Defendants, in their motion, contend that summary judgment is appropriate as the statements made in the above-quoted segment were true. Defendants assert that, during their investigation, they attempted to obtain information from the Church in regard to its missions, but the Church denied access to any information.
Defendants contend the above-quoted segment of PrimeTime II was based upon the information they were able to gather from their investigation. Defendants thus argue that Plaintiff cannot establish falsity of the segment. Furthermore, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish actual malice in regard to the segment as Plaintiff has no evidence to show Defendants deliberately selected missions which received less contributions and has not shown that they had knowledge of the alleged falsity of their report or serious doubts as to the truth of the broadcast.
In response, Plaintiff concedes that the Church spent more on billboards than the five missions shown on the broadcast. However, Plaintiff contends that the gist of the report was to accuse Plaintiff of misleading his followers concerning support of missions and denigrate the amount of his support. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants knew the gist was false. Even if the Court were to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to the issue of falsity, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the challenged segment or the gist of that segment was false.
In regard to the issue of actual malice, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to present any proof with convincing clarity to raise a genuine issue of fact that Defendants knew the alleged falsity of the statements or that they published the statements with a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity.
In his motion and in response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff contends that Defendants knowingly created a context in their broadcast whereby the viewer would understand that Plaintiff's contribution to his missions, such as Wings of Mercy, was "meager, paltry and insignificant. Plaintiff contends that he provided support to the mission when no one else would. Thus, his contribution was not negligible as the broadcast implied. Defendants, in response and in support of their motion, contend that their broadcast was true.
Defendants state they believed the information to be true. Having reviewed the challenged segment and the evidence related thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue, under a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, that the broadcast was false. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants knew the report was false as alleged or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the broadcast.
The last three paragraphs of Plaintiff's statement of material facts in his partial summary judgment motion set forth facts addressing the issue of "malice. He needs to be stopped. The third and final paragraph refers to handwritten notes of Defendant, Kelly Sutherland, taken during a telephone conversation with Defendant, Robbie Gordon, which state "no fraud to be had on this guy can have fun with him though.
Defendants responded to Plaintiff's statement of facts believing the paragraphs pertained to the issue of actual malice. Defendants addressed each of the paragraphs and argued that none of the facts stated proved actual malice. In reply to Defendants' response, Plaintiff states that the paragraphs have nothing to do with knowledge of falsity or publication with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity.
He states they are concerned with malice, which is a prerequisite for punitive damages under Oklahoma law. Because of Plaintiff's latter statement that evidence of malice may bolster the inference of actual malice, the Court has reviewed the evidence in regard to the issue of actual malice. Esprit De Corp. However, even if the evidence were admissible and proper for submission, the Court finds that the newspaper article as well as the other evidence cited by Plaintiff in his statement of material facts are not sufficient alone or in combination with all other evidence presented by Plaintiff to establish with convincing clarity that Defendants had knowledge the alleged defamatory statements in PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II were false or that they entertained serious doubts as to the truth of those statements.
Judgment shall issue forthwith. In light of the Court's findings in this Order and the absence of any facts which brings Plaintiff's claim within one of the exceptions to the general rule that equity will not restrain libel or slander, see, Schmoldt v. Oakley, P. Similar to libel, the tort of false light invasion of privacy requires proof that the challenged statements were false and that they were made with actual malice.
See, Rinsley v. Brandt, F. World Publishing Co. Accordingly, the discussion in this Order concerning the falsity and actual malice elements applies to both the libel and false light claims. Jones ran a money laundering scheme whereby W. Grant would claim Mr. Jones' orphanage and send money to Mr.
Jones for the orphanage and then Mr. Jones would return a kickback to him from the money received. Morales, F. Consequently, the Court opines that no reasonable juror would conclude that Plaintiff was not responsible for the use of the three names to describe the orphanage in Haiti. While purposeful avoidance of the truth may suffice to prove actual malice, see, Harte-Hanks, U.
Cooke's interview with Mike Groves. Notwithstanding, the Court finds that Mr. Cooke's failure to ask the location of the Haiti orphanage does not in and of itself demonstrate an avoidance of the truth. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to show that Mike Groves would have been privy to that information and would have disclosed that information to Mr. Cooke during his job interview. Instead, it reported "[s]o even though his magazine calls it the Robert Tilton Ministries Children's Home, it's not really Tilton's place at all, which is why government officials we spoke to in Haiti hadn't heard of Tilton or his orphanage.
Sutherland showed Mr. Jones the picture of the canvas sign featured in the Church's magazine and led him to make the statement about the sign. Nevertheless, Plaintiff does not dispute that Mr.
Jones made the statement to Defendants. Nor does he present any affirmative evidence to establish that the picture of the canvas sign did not bring Mr.
Jones' statement to mind. Gordon could not have believed that Mr. Moore was referring to Plaintiff's mailing items when he said "[w]e get stuff from Taiwan. Moore, Mr. Cooke had left the room where the display of the Church's button mailing was located and Ms.
Gordon, when asking her question to Mr. Moore, was pointing to the far wall of the room they were in at the time. Plaintiff states that it is clear that Mr. Moore was distracted when the question was asked. However, the Court finds that such facts do not establish that Ms.
Gordon did not understand Mr. Moore to be referring to Plaintiff's mailing items. The transcript of the interview reveals the parties had been looking at wall displays of fund-raising activities, one of which included a button mailing of Plaintiff's Church.
Gordon's question to Mr. Moore referenced buttons. See, e. And a friend of mine that used to work there, I had him do the media buying for him initially to get him started. Then we are doing it here in Tulsa, but out of the downtown office. The statements were attributed to Marte Tilton from a deposition. In that deposition, Ms. Tilton acknowledged that the handwriting on personal letters to Plaintiff's followers was not Plaintiff's handwriting. She also admitted that letters sent to Plaintiff's Church by individuals seeking spiritual guidance were answered by individuals hired by the data processing center in Tulsa.
In this action, Ms. Tilton has attested to the accuracy of those comments and Plaintiff has not presented evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Plaintiff's attack to those statements fail. He's careful not to say what donation goes where so he can avoid, again, how Jim and Tammy got caught.
In the mailing, Plaintiff agreed to pray in agreement with the individuals for 21 days. The mailing contained three forms on which the individuals were asked to write prayers to Plaintiff for the 1st, 8th and 15th days. The "PB" and "PC" forms were for the 8th and 15th days. The Court concludes that a jury could not reasonably find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendants acted with actual malice in relying upon Mr. Plaintiff contends that Defendants knew Ms.
Reynolds' statement "I know for a fact that he did not pray over them" could not be true because Defendants knew she was not with Plaintiff enough hours of the day or days of the week to know. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently show that Defendants had any reason to doubt Ms.
Reynolds' credibility or the truthfulness of her statements. Defendants knew that Ms. Reynolds was Plaintiff's housekeeper and nanny. Moreover, Ms. Reynolds specifically told Defendants that Plaintiff told her to "just take [the prayer requests] to the trash" and "[t]hrow them away. It appears that the news article was produced to Plaintiff during the preliminary injunction hearing and it was admitted into evidence. The Court finds no reasonable viewer or listener would interpret the statement as anything other than an expression of opinion.
It is an evaluative characterization, not susceptible to proof of its truth or falsity. Metcalf, F. Sharma's credibility is at issue. Enjoy a window into the Proctor community provided through news stories, blog posts, video, assembly podcasts, and images of day-to-day life on and off-campus. Twitter Proctor Main Proctor Athletics. Taylor Weaver started the game in net, although a sore leg had her turn the net over to Kelsey Crawford at the end of the first period.
The two combined for 21 saves, while the Hornet offense outshot the Rams by 10 shots. Courtney got her first goal of the game at the eight minute mark, when she popped home a puck from in front of the Tilton net after Michelle Holmes had come close on her play.
Tilton came back 30 seconds later with a steal at the blue line which left the Tilton forward coming in alone, making a nice move on Weaves and scoring on the backhand flip. Proctor proceeded to put on the offensive pressure again, but it wasn't until there were only 30 seconds to play in the period that Michelle Holmes skated the puck down the left side into the offensive zone, around behind the net, and found Emily White out in front who popped it home.
When Emily got the the bench her comment was "it's easy when Michelle does all the hard work! Tilton was lucky to get out of the first period with only a deficit. KUA continued their incredible play in the second period, actually picking it up a notch. KUA played disciplined hockey and perfected the systems, creating many great opportunities.
KUA's second goal came halfway thru the second period when Taylor Johnston bumped it up the boards to Kellie Joyce who made a saucer pass cross ice pass to Jen Hand. Jen Hand skated passed the defensemen at the blue line, giving her a clean breakaway on Tilton's goaltender. Jen faked out the goalie, went to her backhand and slid the puck passed the goaltender, making it look very easy. The entire play was one that would make the ESPN top ten plays of the week!
KUA ended the second period with a lead.
0コメント