Official Ballot Arguments For and Against Proposition S ("S" for "Shady")
Official Ballot Argument Against Proposition S. ("S" for "Shady")
1. Your taxes would go up.
Proposition S would restore an illegal tax hike the courts threw out.
In March 2003, City Hall increased your phone tax illegally, by failing to get voters' approval. In July 2005, the Superior Court threw out the illegal tax hike. City Hall filed an appeal -- but continued to collect the tax, despite the ruling. In May 2007, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's ruling: the tax hike was illegal.
Now City Hall wants to restore the illegal tax hike. To trick you into thinking Proposition S is a tax cut, proponents say it would reduce the tax rate from 10% to 9%. Don't fall for it. If you vote "no," you won't have to pay the tax at all, because the courts threw it out. If you vote "yes," the tax comes back, and you'll pay 9%. "No" means "no tax."
Proposition S would create a new tax on internet and wireless services.
City Hall would tax you for using the internet, wireless networks, text messaging, instant messaging, VoIP and similar services.
2.You would pay more (9%) than telemarketers (5%).
3.You already pay more than enough taxes.
City Hall's annual revenues are at an all-time high: $6.7 billion per year. That's over $1.4 billion more per year than in 2004-5. Taxes are higher in L.A. than in surrounding cities, and high enough to hire more police. As for the City's "general fund," it is just one of over 50 budget funds. Rather than raising our taxes for the "general fund," City Hall should cut waste, and ask voters to amend the City Charter to use other budget funds to hire police.
4.You can learn more at NoOnPropS.com.
Walter Moore
Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles
PLUS THIS REBUTTAL TO MAYOR ANTONIO'S ARGUMENT "FOR" PROP S. ("S" for Shady.)
1. “Updates” and “modernizes” just means “taxes new technology.”
2. Prop S would increase your taxes, not reduce them, by: a) restoring the illegal tax hike of 2003; and b) creating the new internet and wireless tax.
3. Prop S would not apply the tax “more evenly and fairly:” you would pay 9%, telemarketers would pay 5%. How is that “fairer than the current tax?”
4. Prop S would tax internet and wireless services. Read the proposed ordinance. Only downloads are exempt from the tax.
5. Prop S contains no provisions requiring the tax money to “be used for essential services.” (That would make it a “special tax” under Prop 218, and require a two-thirds vote to pass.)
6. Prop S is not “necessary to comply with recent court decisions.” The Superior Court’s 2005 judgment simply invalidated the 2003 tax hike, and did not require: restoring that tax hike; imposing a new tax; or giving telemarketers a lower rate.
7. Substantial cuts in important services are unnecessary because: a) phone taxes account for less than 4% of the City’s tax revenues; b) the City’s annual tax revenues are up over $1.4 billion per year more than in 2004-5.
8. Existing law (Prop 218) already requires voter approval for tax hikes. That’s been the law since 1996.
9. The Mayor and City Council should always ensure taxes are “collected properly” and “properly spent” -- whether Prop S passes or not.
10. The career politicians backing Prop S may have fooled many outstanding people into believing we need this tax. Don’t let those politicians fool you, too. Vote “no” on Prop S.
Walter Moore
Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles
PLEASE EMAIL this page link to your address book so they can see it. The Shady Mayor and his co-shadiants are going to spend TONS of money to pass this bamboozle.
zumadogg@gmail.com
See ZD's "No on Prop S" Music Videos as featured on AM 870 KRLA here.
Labels: los angeles politics, proposition s ballot arguments
Posted by Zuma Dogg @ 1/06/2008 07:42:00 AM
20 Comments:
Prop S will cause each of us to be charge $10.00 per $100.00 CHARGE FOR EACH LINE. Ethernet - DSL $10.00, HOUSE LINE - $10.00, MOMS NUMBER $10.00, DADS NUMBER, $10.00, EACH CHILD NUMBER $20.00; APPOXIMATELY $60.00 PER MONTH IN TAXES; $720.00 PER YEAR. Businesses pay more. When business expenses go up, the charges are passed on to the consumer; Dell may not accept toll free numbers; AT&T may charge you more for a smaller area, etc.
Our Mayor and the Mayor of NY have been campaigning for Hillary in Iowa, New Hampshire AND OTHER STATES TO COME. I know that Mayor Bloomberg, is wealthy enough to go anywhere he wants to campaign. But whose money is Mayor Villariagosa using? He has none. He is going to lose %50 of his assets in his impending divorce. Is this why Villa wants to run the schools and get Pro S so he gets our money to buy him a new career?
I can’t afford to support the Mayor in his grandiose schemes!
VOTE NO ON PROP S
VOTE YES ON THE "9"'S
I have respected Walter Moore in the past because he is a stickler for the truth.
At least I thought he was. As a lawyer, he should know better that no court has thrown the tax out. It has merely been challenged and this maintains an existing tax at a lower level (thus a reduction) which is critical to the city.
I'm no fan of taxes in general, but they do fund critical city services and a small tax on our cell phones that we already pay seems reasonable to continue.
I expected better from you Walter. Let's get back to the truth and you will have me as a fan again.
10:17 is a city staffer if there ever was one!
I'll bet their credit cards are maxed out too.
There is no better example of how a
once great Los Angeles Administration has lost contact with Legal Citizens and has become
an Outlaw City,a Sanctuary City a
city becomming more UnAmerican every day than Prop S....!This represents the worst kind of Third World corruption here so far.
Spinning the truth about an illegal
tax increase to trick the unwary into thinking they are lowering
the tax!
Vote Mitt,Vote Fred..Recall
the dropout mechA Mayor who
failed the bar 4 times and
ALL his friends!!
VOTE to
Take Back the City our schools
our hospitals and our streets!
Los Angeles it can be Good Again.
Why is everybody who opposes any comment here assumed to be a city staffer?
The paranoia factor is very high on this blog, I expect to here about spies being sent out to see what the Blogging Burros are having for lunch.
If Bitter Bernie and his Budget Commmittee had been paying attention all year to the inevitable deficit, they'd not have put the Council and city in this mess last minute -- first he tried to swipe an equal amt. raised from the trash tax explicitly promised to voters would go to cops, to balance (his) mismanaged budget by sweeping it into the general fund, and that meant a fight from the Mayor and his allies and LAPD. Now this. Without it, there will be a cut in LAPD, LAFD and other vital services.
Meanwhile the union raises coming at the end of the fiscal year, which the Daily news played up, didn't help the public perception.
We really don't have a choice this year. Of course the better long- term answer is, to balance the budget all along -- incl. the 50 depts. which operate independently of the general fund and have no ovesrsight at all from City Council. Which needs to oversee Bernie and Budget more closely and cut its own being beholden to unions. (The LAX-area hotels living wage ordinance has been condemned by both the LA Times, DN and business journals -- it's the kind of thing the libs drag the whole council into, because if all the members don't go along, they're made out the reactionary villains.)
Then there's the County Budget which is having similar problems -- let's have trasparency on the activities of Molina, Zev, Burke, Antonovich and the other one, knabe (you can barely remember their names and they have much more money and power than the city), and their depts. and spending.
They control the Sheriff's/Baca's office, which gets way more money and cops than Bratton's LAPD, yet Baca's crime stats are Up and he blames it on the economic and social problems which plaugue L A even more, yet where crime is down.
Keeping that in mind Bratton is doing a great job and needs support and more cops (which means supporting the cops in their opposition to the financial disclosures Mach/Police Commission want to lay on them), not more cops quitting.
Bernie is responsible for that mess with Rampart, as well as leading us blind over the cliff when it comes to the annual city budget -- and he wants to run for the Supes, with their even less transparency? On his "record as a fiscal conservative?"
Being incompetent and then cheap/ sneaky last-minute doesn't make you a fiscal conservative. We have no choice but to vote yes on Prop S now -- and vote Bernie out for good.
(Pro-union Ridley-Thomas has to understand he needs to change his union and Baca pandering and spendthrift ways, too -- and if he leads the charge in getting the Supes to give up their private chauffeurs, that will be a good start.)
To Truth at 10:17 a.m.
Don't take my word for it. Read the Court of Appeals opinion for yourself at my website.
Every statement I make about Prop S is backed up with the supporting material at my website, including the Court of Appeals opinion and the docket entries from the Superior Court action.
You do NOT want to believe something about Prop S just because someone at City Hall or in a newspaper article said it. Check the source material for yourself.
For your convenience:
http://www.ftpmoore.com/sisbad/annotatedlawsuit.pdf
Bubbles in the toilet -- too much protein. haha. Don't worry I crap on people all the time! haha.
Anyway I'm reading The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucians, First Freemasons by Tobias Churton. I just finished "Shadow of the Silk Road" which is a new and excellent history and from the ground report on Central Asia.
I mention these books because on the internet it's too easy to be cerebral but in real life I'm sitting in full-lotus and people can freak -- just from the energy exchanges that happen naturally. Best to look to these cultures where philosophy was still physiology before it was morphed into logarithmic-based science that originated with Archtyas and Plato. Hidden beneath the traditional Muslim, Buddhist and Persian cultures is tribal trance transduction.
I barely survived the holidays because sitting in full-lotus at the dinner table is too much of a threat! haha. The energy begins to rewire synapses, causing everyone's subconscious intentions to get messed with. That's conspiracy activism.
Someone online mentioned they're reading Chris Knights' Blood Relations book on the origins of language, based on my recommendation. His new book "The Human Conspiracy" (CUP) should be out by now. Anyway Knight emphasizes that primates use analog signals (like full-lotus yoga) but humans use digital signals. This person posted a quote from Blood Relations saying a male chimp "gazed into the distance" to distract his attackers -- so the menacing chimps thought there was a new external threat.
That's EXACTLY what the full-lotus does -- it's a third eye gaze that turns people's subconscious attention to an "attack" of pure formless knowledge. The full-lotus 3rd eye gaze threatens the digital "win-lose" paradigm of technological right-hand, left-brain logic.
So in property law there's the standard of "fraudulent concealment" but in human rights law there's the "right to remain silent." STATUTORY LIMITS validate the second right over the first. Time is on our side.
The "right to remain silent" was first used when a submissive male primate was off in the bushes with an alpha female and both silently copulated -- intentionally silent.
That's what tantra is -- the submissive males secretly understanding not only the intention of alpha females but the uber-female -- the Cosmic Mother as formless awareness -- the gaze into nowhere whose source in space will never be revealed. Full-lotus is a threat because for most people this primate gaze is still subconcious. As Gurdjieff states, modern people are machines but modern people don't understand how their machines work.
Fruit for primates (gibbons) became the first cause for monogamous territorality property law -- the forbidden fruit. Gorillas -- with their small dicks and green leave diet -- are able to sublimate their male sexual energy to maintain a very peaceful lifestyle. The female gorillas, contrary to popular belief, are free to come and go but the males at least know whom they've impregnated. As Professor Robert Sapolsky reports, when he looked into the eyes of a gorilla -- big, black eyes -- Sapolsky felt the need to confess all his sins. That's REAL -- the spiritual gaze. Chimps, in contrast, have big balls used for forceful control -- because paternity is uncertain and this creates a lot of stress. Yet the females, in contrast to mountain gorillas, not only get fruit but also juicy meat.
3:20,
Do you really think anyone made it past the first paragraph?
What a bunch of mental masturbation.
Vote No on Proposition / Measure S
Thank you Mr. Walter Moore!
Prop S Would Tax Internet And Wireless Services
Set forth below is the actual text of provisions Prop S would add to the Municipal Code. As you can see for yourself, Prop S specifically applies to internet and wireless services, including but not limited to text messaging, instant messaging, and VoIP.
SEC. 21.1.1. DEFINITIONS.
The following words and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined in this section:
* * *
(b) "Communications Services" shall mean the transmission, conveyance, or routing of voice, audio. video communications, data or any other communications information or signals to a point, or between or among points, whatever the technology used, and whether or not that information is transmitted through interconnected service with the public switched network, or through fiber optic, coaxial cable, power line transmission, broadband, digital subscriber line or other wireless transmission.
The term "Communications Services" includes transmission, conveyance, or routing in which computer processing applications are used to act on the form, code or protocol of the content for purposes of transmission, conveyance or routing without regard to whether those services are referred to as voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services or are classified by the Federal Communications Commission as enhanced or value added, and includes video and/or data services that are functionally integrated with "Communications Services."
"Communications Services" include, but are not limited to the following services, regardless of the manner or basis on which those services are calculated or billed: central office and custom calling features (including but not limited to call waiting, call forwarding, caller identification and three-way calling); local number portability; text messaging; instant messaging; Ancillary Telecommunications Services; prepaid and post-paid telecommunications services (including but not limited to prepaid calling cards); mobile telecommunications services; Private Communications Services; paging services; and 800 services (or any other toll-free numbers designated by the Federal Communications Commission).
Note: “Communications Services” is defined to include ALL voice, audio and data communications, including DSL, wireless, VoIP, text messaging, instant messaging, PCS, etc.
"Communications Services" does not include either digital downloads, such as downloads of books, music, ringtones, games and similar digital products, or that portion of cable or video television services subject to a cable or video television franchise fee.
Note: The only exclusion is downloads (e.g., the 99 cents you pay an iTunes download).
* * *
SEC. 21.1.3. COMMUNICATIONS USERS TAX.
(a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every Person with a billing or service address in the City of Los Angeles who uses Communications Services, including services for intrastate, interstate or international Communications Services, to the extent permitted by state and federal law.
The tax imposed by this section shall be at the rate of nine percent of the charges made for those Communications Services and shall be paid by the Person paying for those services. However, as to the charges made for services to any independent telemarketing agency, as defined in Section 21.47(b) of this Code, incurred solely in performing the functions of an independent telemarketing agency, the tax imposed by this section shall be at the rate of five percent of the charges made for those services.
Note: “Communications Services” are taxed. You pay 9% but telemarketers pay just 5%.
Visit link:
http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/NoOnPropS/Internet_And_Wireless.html
looking forward to a brand new council year....
NO on S
I'll have whatever drug Santa Monica Sally is taking. I need that right now.
I haven't read anything on Proposition S yet. I know I still have time, but I hate VICA.
EVERY issue, but one, that I've ever worked on, VICA has been on the opposite side. Therefore, if VICA is against it, I'm going to tell everybody I know that it's a great idea!
Nice payback for me.... I hope it passes just for them.
What's The Plan? I'm no fan of VICA either. The way I read it is this way...WOW, this Prop S is so bad, even VICA couldn't go along with it.
Let's ignore anyone who uses "Zuma's" anything as their nickname. It's stupid, everyone knows who you are moron and you should be deleted on sight.
Fuck off. Let's ignore you instead. And I'm not a staffer or anyone pretending to be anything else. You, on the other hand, are a loser.
The Midget Mexican Mechista Mayor will be winning this one as well.
The word is that he pays Zuma to oppose his legislation in order to assure passage. Now he has enlisted the help of Matt Dowd and probably Mike Hunt (can't help it, I get the giggles every time I type his name)to oppose Prop S.
Remember, Zuma and gang seldom win one; it is their lot in life to be losers.
No, I am not a paid blogger or a member of a City Hall staff. But I do know what goes on there, as opposed to the fools who use up their lives waiting to have two minutes on City of LA TV.
You have another treat waiting for you on the Feb 5th ballot...
Proposition S--"Reduction of Tax Rate and Modernization of Communications Users Tax."
Wow!!! Great!!! A tax REDUCTION to vote on!!!
What's that you say? Politicians have actually put something on the ballot to reduce our taxes??? Sounds too good to be true??? IT IS!!!!
The following article gives a rather in-depth backgrounder on what's up with our LA City Council and the Mayor. Both of them want this badly to keep the phone tax you now pay streaming into the general fund. The reason it's on the ballot NOW, is because there are court cases that could invalidate the tax COMPLETELY. Our illustrious City Council, including my guy, Dennis Zine, voted to put this on the ballot BEFORE the court case is decided. By doing this, they get the city voters to VOTE IN THE TAX so that any subsequent court decisions are moot and will not apply since the voters have APPROVED the tax. Sleazy, eh??
Now it well may be that the city needs these funds for various services. But, aren't you a little tired of being lied to? I know I am. Wouldn't it be nice if they could just present their case clearly? Have enough respect for the voters to actually tell the full story? TRANSPARENCY would go a long ways to restoring some level of believability. As it is, most people are assuming that most politicians are lying all of the time, and they're not far from wrong. This proposition re-enforces the rampant distrust of our electeds.
Listen to these sales points from the ballot: "reduction of tax rate," "10% to 9%," exempt low-income senior-citizen and disabled households," fund general municipal services, such as 911, police, fire protection." On and on, and NO WHERE ON THE BALLOT is there a full disclosure that court decisions are pending that could ELIMINATE the tax entirely, UNLESS voters are fooled into voting in this tax permanently. The best part is the "treat taxpayers equally regardless of technology used." This obfuscation really means that you get to pay MORE by adding the tax onto internet services. Wow, great tax reduction! Oh, and you'll be happy to know that telemarketers are treated MORE equally than you with a tax break...they get to pay 5% instead of your 9%.
The Voter Information Pamphlet sent from the city gives the complete legal language as well as analysis from the City Legislative Analyst and the City Administrative Officer. Both of these are beholden to the City Council and tailor their writing accordingly. There are the usual suspects listed supporting this and a single person opposing it....funny how they never seem to have many opposition voices included.
Just be sure that you do NOT ever vote for ANY of these propositions without doing a thorough study. This should include who is behind the measure as well as who has paid for the signatures if it's one put on by an interest group. ALL of them recently seem to have a hidden agenda concealed by seemingly innocuous language written for voter consumption. The casual voter will be fooled every time.///
LA Weekly-- "Better Than Phone Tax"
Villaraigosa makes a Lazarus play to keep alive a pricey, illegal tax on residents
By RANI GUPTA
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 11:00 am
If you ask the voters to reinstate a tax after it's been thrown out by the courts, it's a new tax. But if you beat the courts to it — by convincing voters to approve a slightly lower tax before the higher one is invalidated — is it a tax "reduction"?
Yes, says Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is pitching a ballot initiative that would ask voters to approve a 9 percent tax on cell-phone and land-line calls. That's slightly lower than the 10 percent residents currently pay — an illegal tax on Los Angeles residents that Villaraigosa and the City Council never should have collected because voters did not approve it, according to recent court rulings.
If those court decisions are upheld, there's a good chance the phone tax — one of the highest in California — will be wiped out. To keep collecting the estimated $270 million per year now reaped off Angelenos' phone bills, officials engaged in some head-scratching tactics leading up to Tuesday's City Council vote on the issue. That day, Villaraigosa got the unanimous vote he needed from the 15-member City Council, which placed the tax on the presidential primary ballot next February 5 by declaring an "emergency." Between now and February, Villaraigosa and the council hope to convince voters that their phone bills should be taxed by the city.
But the mayor faces an image problem: Only if voters are presented with his 9 percent tax before the slow-moving courts halt the probably illegal 10 percent tax can he attempt to paint his new tax as a "reduction." If the courts wipe out the old tax before Villaraigosa gets the new one on the ballot, then it can be more easily slammed as a stiff, new phone tax.
Villaraigosa's pollster has reportedly determined that pitching the tax as a reduction would win it more support. The mayor's spokesman, Matt Szabo, argues that characterizing the tax as a reduction is accurate because the 10 percent rate has not yet been halted by the courts. "As it stands now, the tax is at 10 percent," says Szabo, who insists that Villaraigosa is now giving voters "an opportunity" to reduce that rate.
Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, has another view of City Hall's graciousness: "In any other situation, what they're doing would be called lying," Vosburgh says, "but in politics and government, it's just standard operating procedure."
Legal experts believe the tax — which the Los Angeles City Council was repeatedly warned was illegal but dramatically increased in 2003 anyway — could be invalidated by one of three lawsuits. The case that is furthest along was filed by wireless companies challenging the city's decision to collect taxes on portions of cell-phone bills that had previously gone untaxed.
The city insisted the new tax was in response to new federal laws and was not a tax hike — which would require voter approval. Then City Hall promptly began using the tens of millions of dollars from its vast new revenue source to support an ever-expanding city budget.
A Los Angeles trial judge — and many critics — disagreed with City Hall. Then in May, a state appeals court upheld the trial judge's decision, saying the city violated Proposition 218, California's hard-fought 1996 constitutional amendment requiring voter approval for such tax increases.
"The Proposition 218 voters rebelled against local government taxes that are moving targets," Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. The lawsuit she ruled on challenged just the city's tax on cell phones — not on land lines. But losing the cell-phone tax alone could cost the city $162 million a year, according to a memo from City Administrative Officer Karen Sisson. Other lawsuits are challenging the entire tax, which is expected to net the city $270 million this year.
Getting the replacement tax on the ballot by February — presumably before a judge has a chance to throw the tax out for good — required some special wrangling: City Hall had to once again get around Proposition 218, which requires phone taxes to appear on the ballot only during a regular municipal election. The next one of those is a very long way off for Villaraigosa — April of 2009.
Forcing cities like Los Angeles to await a general election before suggesting new taxes was designed to end cities' common and clever practice of proposing new taxes during special elections — events in which cities found it easy to turn out special-interest groups to approve taxes on the wider population.
There is, however, an "emergency" exception. If the City Council votes unanimously that an emergency exists, the city can put the tax on the ballot before 2009. Villaraigosa said dire consequences would occur if the tax were allowed to lapse, including a possible halt to the buildup of the police department and other cuts. "There would be draconian cuts, massive cuts to critical services," Szabo claims.
The taxpayers association, which drafted Proposition 218 and wrote the language about "emergencies," says a city's desire to avoid budget trims is not the "emergency" that exception was meant for. "We were thinking, perhaps naively, in terms of an earthquake or a flood or a natural disaster," Vosburgh says.
Leading up to Tuesday's unanimous vote, some council members were not convinced there was an emergency. When the council voted October 3 to write up ballot language asking voters to back the replacement tax, councilmen Dennis Zine and Greig Smith voted against it. Had either one voted "no" on Tuesday, the tax would not have made the ballot. Zine, a former cop and one of only a handful of fiscal watchdogs on the council, said he dropped his opposition a few days before. "I told them if there was an emergency, demonstrate that, and they said they would." It will cost the city more than $5 million to put the measure before voters, according to City Clerk Frank Martinez.
With the issue heading for the ballot, Jon Coupal, an attorney and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the group may sue. Coupal says while courts tend to defer to elected bodies when they declare an emergency, those bodies do not get a free pass.
"Words in statutes and words in the Constitution are usually accorded their normal, regular meaning, and the word 'emergency' generally connotes some kind of immediate crisis," Coupal says. "I guess the issue we have is whether overspending and mismanagement are the kinds of things that would rise to the level of 'emergency' as that word is commonly understood by the normal Californian. I would think not."
FROM THE ALARM Villaraigosa is displaying about losing the phone-tax money, City Hall observers might think this year's courtroom defeat caught him by surprise. It didn't. A judge first ruled that the wireless tax violated Proposition 218 in July 2005. Villaraigosa's proposed budget for the 2007-'08 fiscal year ignored that nearly 2-year-old warning shot from the court, and assumed that the tax would continue to be collected.
On May 9, the appeals court upheld the 2005 ruling against the city. Yet 12 days later, the City Council passed a budget ignoring that second court ruling as well. The paperwork supporting Villaraigosa's current-year budget, prepared by Sisson's office, plainly states that the mayor chose not to create a budget that anticipated a defeat in court: "No adjustment is made for challenges facing collection of utility users' tax on telephones."
Szabo says Villaraigosa didn't plan for the court defeats because he was committed to increasing the city's reserve fund and reducing the city's deficit.
Vosburgh says the citywide vote in February could backfire, turning into a referendum on mediocre city services in a time of rapidly increasing city spending. That might stoke the anger of residents who feel that tax hikes go toward lining the pockets of city workers and subsidizing big developers, rather than improving local services.
"There are certainly a lot of people in the public who feel we pay a great deal in city fees and services and... we're getting so little in return," Vosburgh said.
Of 149 California cities that have such a tax — many do not — only Culver City and Seal Beach, at 11 percent, have a higher tax rate than L.A.'s. But even if the tax is "reduced" to 9 percent, Angelenos would still pay more than residents of all but nine California cities.
An earlier version of this story was posted on laweekly.com on Oct. 15, 2007
###
Great post Mayor Sam's Sister City - Home of Los Angeles Politics! I used AV Planners before and they did a good job! Here you go - http://www.avplannersinc.com/ca-los-angeles
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home