Jump to content


Brian Dzyak

Recommended Posts

Before we continue.....Tim is this the longest running thread in c.com history yet?


It may be the longest running "two hander"in c.com history?


Now back to my friend Brian here, let's say for a moment that every one of your arguments is true and correct. What has that achieved in stopping film tax credit programs? How will you stop foreign nations from implementing film tax credit programs?


I do find your comment here quite hilarious:

"Sometimes, they even write scripts based on the locations handing out the bribes."


Let's say that is so, how will you stop people from doing this? What kind of totalitarian society are you proposing?


If I want to write a script based in North Korea just so I can take advantage of their generous film incentives who will stop me?


What I object to is the clause in their legislation that says Kim Jong-un gets a cameo in every movie shot there. Oh well I guess he can play, Man 1.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member



Let's say that is so, how will you stop people from doing this?


The world contains many things which are less than ideal. I don't expect to be able to stop most of them. However, if enough people gather around, point, and declaim in a loud voice, this person is a dick for doing this thing, perhaps the overall quality of society will, even if almost imperceptibly, be improved. It's happened before.


Or, to put it another way - your argument for doing something bad appears to be "you can't stop me." Well, okay, if you really want to slip directly into the mould of the sort of investment banker who recently caused us so many problems by doing things they knew were wrong, well, fine, I can't stop you doing that either!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, to put it another way - your argument for doing something bad appears to be "you can't stop me."


Phil...as a free human being I can shoot a movie anyplace I please, using any subject matter I feel free to write about. I can take advantage of any national, state, or provincial, tax incentive I choose to. I do not need permission or moral guidance from you or Brian. Nor do I need permission from any union boss with regards to where I shoot or who I hire.


You and Brian may not like this, but it is a fact. The two of you have very weird view points with regards to how a free society should be run.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The bill would increase funding to $400 million annually and would scrap a lottery system to allocate subsidies. Instead, applicants would be chosen based on how many jobs they would create."


Well good luck with that California. In Ontario there is no cap on our funding and it has nothing to do with how many jobs a production would create.


This new system is going to put small independent filmmakers in California at a huge disadvantage. Obviously larger budget shows will employ more people, that's hardly fair, and will do nothing to stimulate growth.


If you use a system whereby projects are "chosen by a committee" you automatically open the door to cronyism or worse. In Ontario everyone gets the rebate on labour dollars spent, there is no committee deciding who gets what. It's much fairer and much more attractive to US producers.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Carolina Film-TV Incentives Sliced Amid Conservative Tide


Dave McNary

North Carolina legislators have ditched the state’s longtime film and TV incentives program amid a conservative push to cut back on such government support.

“We knew that this would be an uphill battle and we were cautiously optimistic,” said Johnny Griffin, director of the Wilmington (N.C) Regional Film Commission. “The problem was that a lot of legislators were philosophically opposed to any incentives, period. So we were absolutely not surprised.”

North Carolina has been home to 800 productions over the past three decades.

TV series recently shot in North Carolina include CBS’ “Under the Dome,” ABC’s “Secrets and Lies” and Fox’s “Sleepy Hollow.” Recent movies include “Iron Man 3,” “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” “Tammy,” “The Longest Ride” and Relativity’s untitled heist drama about the 1997 Loomis Fargo robbery.

The state’s legislature decided to end North Carolina’s current 25% incentive program — which is covering about $300 million in production expenditures this year — and replace it next year with a grant program for movie and TV productions with a total annual cap of $10 million in grants.

That means the state will only be able to provide incentives to cover a total of $40 million in production expenditures in 2015. Griffin said North Carolina will probably see productions begin to depart at that point and the Motion Picture Assn. of America issued a statement predicting the new grant program will be ineffective.

“Under the current production incentive program, film and TV production supports over 4,000 jobs in North Carolina and brings millions of dollars in direct spending all across the state,” the MPAA said. “It’s disappointing that the new grant program included in the budget agreement will prevent North Carolina from remaining competitive in attracting this prominent source of in-state economic activity.”

The issue of using state funds to provide incentives for the film and TV business has drawn a concerted attack from conservatives since last year with the Americans for Prosperity group — backed by the Koch brothers — asserting that the incentives were not working.

“The film tax incentives are not proven job creators or overall government revenue enhancers, despite what proponents say,” wrote Donald Bryson, deputy director of the group in North Carolina, earlier this year. “In state after state, from Connecticut to Louisiana to Ohio, film incentives have been found to be net revenue losers.”

“And job creation?” Bryson added. “Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin have two things in common. All four have terminated their film incentive programs – and all four have lower unemployment rates than North Carolina, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

Bryson contended that the state needed to widen the tax base by eliminating targeted tax credits and cutting overall tax rates “instead of subsidizing its favorite industries with tax credits.”

North Carolina’s program — along with those in New York, Georgia, Louisiana and New Mexico — had been able to lure productions away from California, where an incentive program providing $100 million a year has been in effect only since 2009.

Legislation to increase the size of California’s program to $400 million per year is currently in the state Senate. Backers of the bill staged a rally this week at the state capitol, drawing several hundred supporters that included actors Carl Weathers, Daniel Stern and Ron Perlman.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Economic development programs are really a net loss, no matter how many jobs you attract," said Peacock of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. "The jobs that these kinds of programs produce are dwarfed by the overall job growth in Texas.

And no matter how many protections a state builds into its programs, experts argue that taxpayers and politicians never know what's happening inside corporate boardrooms. Companies can always threaten to leave to shake more money out of state governments — regardless of whether it really makes business sense to move, said Fisher, the tax incentive expert.

"The company still holds all the cards," he said."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Working great in Ontario, no signs of any changes here. Of course Toronto employs 250,000 film workers. All of these states you're bringing up have very small to non-existent film industries. Toronto has the biggest sound stages in North America.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


Are film tax credits cost effective?

"Our economists tell us it's the worst return on investment of any of the tax-credit programs," said Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam, the Republican speaker pro tem of the North Carolina House of Representatives.

Others point out that the generous subsidies given to Hollywood productions have to be paid for by either cuts in government services or higher taxes on other groups and individuals.

"They don't pay for themselves," said economist Bob Tannenwald, who authored a national study on film tax credits for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a group that researches policies affecting low- and moderate-income people. "They have to be financed somehow, so spending has to be cut or taxes have to be raised elsewhere."

Even the California legislative analyst's office voiced unease over the program. It pointed out that California's incentives returned 65 cents in tax revenue to the state for each $1 in film tax credits, disputing findings from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. that the program generated a positive return on investment.

And while expanding incentives may be necessary to protect a "flagship California industry," the legislative analyst's office noted, doing so may encourage other states to ratchet up their own credits.

"It is unclear how these sorts of competitions end," the legislative analyst's office said in a report this spring. "In responding to other states increasing subsidy rates, California may only stoke this race to the bottom."

What is clear is that filming is highly mobile, and studios and producers increasingly rely on this so-called soft money to lower their production costs. They routinely expect taxpayers to offset as much as 30% of their qualified production costs. States now pay out about $1.5 billion in film incentives each year, up from a few million dollars a decade ago.

"All you're doing is moving jobs from California to other states," said Joe Henchman, vice president for state projects for the Tax Foundation, a Washington organization and frequent critic of tax credits. "We've just thrown a lot of public dollars to make that happen. There is no net national gain."

A study for the Louisiana Department of Economic Development concluded the state lost more than $12,000 for every job created by the film tax credit. The Louisiana Budget Project, which monitors public policy, said taxpayers paid an average of more than $60,000 per direct film job.

"Unfortunately, the returns to the state on this investment, like many of the movies made here, have been a flop," the group said.

Edited by Brian Dzyak
Link to comment
Share on other sites


"Unfortunately, the returns to the state on this investment, like many of the movies made here, have been a flop," the group said.





Oh ouch, going after the movie itself as well, how rude!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically all US states should just get out of the film tax credit program. It's a system that was invented in Canada and works well here. It doesn't seem to be a viable system in the US considering the vast differences in taxation policies.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MPAA has declared outright war on the American taxpayer.


MPAA Plans Runaway Production Summit In D.C.

Just days after the state Senate voted overwhelming to increase and expand California’s $100 million Film and TV Tax Credit Program to $330 million for the next five years, the MPAA has announced it is hosting a shindig in the nation’s capitol to help other states compete. “We will discuss how to better garner legislative and other political support for your jurisdiction’s production incentive program,” said the studio lobby group’s Chris Dodd in an email that went out to state film commissioners across the nation. “Hear from film comissioners how MPA can help with your production incentive program.” That’s what Georgia, Louisiana and the more than three dozen other states with film & TV tax credit programs want to hear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...


Citing "special circumstances," the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development granted Paramount a waiver that allowed the studio to claim a 25% tax credit on $29 million in visual effects work performed outside the state, according to a Nov. 12, 2008, letter to Paramount obtained by the Los Angeles Times in a public records request.

The waiver saved the studio about $7 million. Or, put another way, it cost Pennsylvania that much in lost tax revenue.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Bad timing: Scandals, criticism erupt around Louisiana’s film credit program

Though spared in Jindal budget, program not safe from cuts

The timing couldn’t be much worse for supporters of Louisiana’s film industry.

As the state stares down a $1.6 billion budget shortfall, one due in part to the spiraling cost of corporate giveaways, a fresh wave of scandals has erupted around the film program, giving new ammunition to critics at a moment when the program is under scrutiny as never before.

Most recently, Stephen Street, the state’s inspector general, confirmed that his office has opened an investigation into a firm that appears to have claimed it spent more money making films in Louisiana than it actually did, landing tax credits it didn’t earn, according to recent reports by New Orleans’ WVUE-TV.

That news came on top of the recent revelation that the state had been ordered by an arbitrator to issue $6.5 million in disputed tax credits to a firm co-owned by former lawyer Malcolm Petal, who admitted bribing the state’s top film official in 2004.

The bribes were intended to ensure that the official, Mark Smith, would interpret the film program’s rules leniently, thus generating more money for Petal, and the arbitrator relied in part on one of Smith’s rulings in ordering the credits to be issued.


Both of those scandals are unfolding as the curtain is about to rise at the federal courthouse in New Orleans on a high-profile trial over alleged fraud in the film tax credits program. The trial, as it happens, is set to begin the same day the Legislature convenes — April 13 — in a session where many believe the program will be a ripe target.

The wave of bad publicity “certainly doesn’t help,” said Sherri McConnell, who oversaw the state’s film program for years and now serves on a panel recommending changes to it. While she thinks the program is still relatively popular, she adds that “there are probably some sharks in the water who just don’t like it and want to get rid of it — particularly those who don’t see any real benefit in their areas.”

Cuts to the film incentives were noticeably absent from the budget proposal unveiled by Gov. Bobby Jindal on Friday, which proposed nearly $600 million in cuts to refundable tax credits but spared film — in part, perhaps, because it would be difficult to achieve any savings from the program in the current budget year.

Trimming the sails of the film program also could cause the governor to run afoul of a no-tax pledge he signed that is promulgated by the anti-tax lobby Americans for Tax Reform. The film tax credits are transferable but not refundable, though those who receive them may sell them back to the state for 85 cents on the dollar.

Even if Jindal has left them alone, the film incentives are hardly safe from the ax, and supporters of Louisiana’s film industry are scrambling to craft a proposal that will rein in the program’s excesses enough to satisfy those who say it is a fraud-laden boondoggle.

“Right now, film is like the stepchild of the tax credits,” said state Sen. J.P. Morrell, D-New Orleans, an avowed fan of the program who has drafted legislation to curb abuses. “Film is the one everyone points to as to how tax credits are full of fraud. I promise you if you look, you’ll find it in other programs. But film is the one everyone talks about.”

‘It’s kept us very busy’

Street, the inspector general, confirmed this past week that his office has opened a probe into Horizon Entertainment, which was at the center of recent reports by WVUE-TV that raised pointed questions about expenses the company claimed in connection with a handful of projects that received tax credits.

The film program has repeatedly drawn the attention of Street’s office, resulting in at least nine federal indictments. “It’s kept us very busy in recent years,” Street said in an interview last fall.

State records show Horizon got tax credits totaling $3.1 million for five different projects: “Saintsational,” “The Sean Payton Show,” “Emancipated,” “Big Easy Funny” and a series of ads for EA, the video-gaming firm. All told, the company reported spending nearly $10 million in Louisiana to qualify for those credits.

“Saintsational,” which focused on the New Orleans Saints’ cheerleading squad, reported Louisiana expenses of $3.5 million, qualifying it for $1 million in tax credits.

WVUE-TV’s reports quoted John Beyer, a video editor on the production, saying many of the expenses were questionable. For instance, he told the station that the film’s producers reported using five editing systems when only three were used, and they said they rented a “jib camera” at a cost of $111,600 when the production didn’t require one. Beyer estimated the total cost of the show — which, according to WVUE, never aired — at $250,000 or less, perhaps a tenth of what the producers claimed.

In making “The Sean Payton Show,” Horizon claimed to have paid one employee $1,300 a week, but the employee told WVUE that he got only half that much. And a producer of “Emancipated” told the station that the cost reports Horizon submitted to the state in connection with that program — a TV pilot — also appear to be inflated.

Meanwhile, Horizon has claimed that it split the tax credits it received with Saints owner Tom Benson’s Louisiana Media Co., which owns WVUE-TV, the station reported. But a Benson spokesman said the company got none of the proceeds.

The state’s economic development arm, which oversees the film program, issued a news release Friday noting that in 2010, the state’s film office, run by Chris Stelly, had requested a probe by the inspector general of some Horizon productions. That inquiry did not result in any prosecutions, the release said. The office asked the IG to take another look at Horizon based on WVUE’s stories, the statement said.

Walter Becker, a defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor who represents Horizon and its owner, Jason Sciavicco, issued a statement saying his client did nothing wrong.

“Once Horizon finished work on the productions, an independent certified public accountant thoroughly audited Horizon’s expenditures on all of these productions,” Becker said. “The independent CPA followed the state’s rigorous audit guidelines that applied to these productions.”

He said Stelly signed off on the release of the tax credits, and added: “Our clients believed then and continue to believe that the state properly certified these credits.”

Auditing questioned

Becker’s response highlights one common criticism of the film program — that the audits are not rigorous enough and that the auditors who perform them are not truly “independent” because, under the current state law, they are hired and paid by the producers seeking the credits.

Some of Horizon’s reports were audited by Mock & Associates, of Baton Rouge, while others were audited by Malcolm M. Dienes, of Metairie; neither uncovered any questionable expenses.

Mock sent a statement to The Advocate saying, “We were provided with ample and sufficient documentation to render our opinion that the productions were in full compliance with the audit guidelines that LED (the state) has set forth.” The Dienes firm did not respond to a request for comment.

The two firms handle a large proportion of film audits in Louisiana, with Mock’s firm specializing in that arena. A review of 50 film files by The Advocate found that roughly 70 percent were handled by either Mock or Dienes.

A June report by the consultant Alvarez & Marsal aimed at finding savings in the state budget said film audit reports are generally of “mixed quality” and sometimes “substandard,” though it didn’t single out any particular firm.

Improving the quality and independence of the audits is one focus of draft legislation proposed by Morrell and state Rep. Julie Stokes, R-Kenner. One crucial change would be having the state, rather than the filmmakers, hire the auditors.

“Audits should be conducted in a way that’s consistent, by quality people, and the state needs to be a party to those engagements,” Stokes said. “For me, it’s about accountability, trying to eliminate fraud. We’re trying to bring as much good government into this program as we can.”

Haircut on the way?

Those who say the program needs more good government need only point to recent headlines. Not only has a new probe into the program been opened, but many critics of the program were outraged to learn that state taxpayers have been ordered to issue $6.5 million in disputed tax credits to LIFT, the firm at the center of the program’s first major scandal.

If the credits are issued, Petal, a co-owner of LIFT, will be one of two major beneficiaries, along with fellow owner John Anderson, according to Anderson.

Petal pleaded guilty to bribing former film commissioner Smith in 2004, the same year Smith wrote a letter that essentially granted the credits Petal and LIFT are now due to receive. It’s not clear whether the arbitrator who ruled in favor of Petal considered the bribery scandal; a spokeswoman for the firm that handled the case said arbitrators are barred from discussing their deliberations publicly.

Meanwhile, a California film producer and a local lawyer are set to stand trial in April on charges that they gamed the film program by shifting money among companies they controlled, thus inflating the cost of a studio they were building and receiving more than $1 million in unearned tax credits.

Morrell’s proposed legislation seeks to deal with such abuses by retroactively denying credits to anyone caught corrupting the program. But as the debate on his and Stokes’ bills is set to begin, film boosters are working on a counteroffensive aimed at protecting the program in something close to its current form.

The Louisiana Film Entertainment Association, which represents the industry, will release a study sometime before the session begins that undertakes a new analysis of the program’s benefits.

State studies have consistently found that the program returns less than 25 cents to state coffers for every dollar taxpayers invest. But film boosters question those studies and finally decided to underwrite their own.

While the group’s final report isn’t ready, LFEA President Will French released some preliminary findings in a recent appearance before the Baton Rouge Press Club. The biggest takeaway: The group’s research found that seeing Louisiana in film or on TV drove roughly one in seven tourists to the state to visit here. If that level of tourism were counted as a benefit of the film program, the program likely would easily pay for itself — although that conclusion will face plenty of skepticism.

On the chopping block?

“My gut feeling is it’s ridiculous,” said Greg Albrecht, chief economist for the Legislative Fiscal Office, who serves on a panel with Stokes and Morrell that is recommending changes to film and other entertainment subsidies. “New Orleans is an international city with tons of tourism. I don’t think it would matter if we didn’t have a single movie shot here.”

The biggest change proposed by Morrell and Stokes is to set a cap on the program’s cost: $300 million a year. That exceeds by about $50 million what the film program has cost the state in any given year to date, and some critics have said the cap is far too high.

Morrell says he fears if the program’s worst abuses aren’t trimmed, it will be gutted entirely, as happened last year in North Carolina — which had been a leading competitor with Louisiana for landing “runaway” film productions.

Even if the Legislature follows Jindal’s lead and takes a hands-off approach to film this year, Morrell and others believe a day of reckoning is on the way. The next governor — who will take office in January — is likely to call a special session to discuss tax breaks.

“If anyone thinks film can stay the way it is, and that it can survive a special session targeting tax credits, they’re crazy. If we don’t address film now, the first credit on the chopping block will be film,” Morrell said. “I think people in the industry understand that, and they’re saying, ‘Let’s get ahead of this.’ Instead of film being the biggest bull’s-eye, why don’t we fix the film program and then do this to all the other tax credit programs?”


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

even Hollywood is mystified at how Georgia can justify its large-scale tax incentives. He says he's had conversations with Hollywood execs, “and they acknowledge they can’t figure out how the states return to the treasury anything from the grants.”

Moret, who is leaving his position as Jindal’s key economic development adviser in May to lead the LSU Foundation, cautioned that altering the film tax credit would not be a panacea for the $1.6 billion shortfall Louisiana faces in the coming year.

“You need to look at the whole picture,” he said, but he didn’t shy away from discussing its pitfalls.

Louisiana’s lucrative film tax credit program generates about 20 cents in state tax revenue for every $1 the state hands out in incentives.

Edited by Brian Dzyak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Film tax credit is a flop


By Thomas FarragherGLOBE COLUMNIST


The gravitational pull of the stars is surprisingly magnetic, strongly intoxicating. Faster than you can say Jennifer Lawrence, serious-minded people get all rubber-legged.

I’ve seen it up close. When big-name Hollywood actors make the occasional visit to the Globe, reporters capable of putting the toughest of questions to the most powerful of politicians can melt like tittering teenagers.

Newton native John Krasinski, of “The Office’’ fame, stopped by a few years ago and I thought I’d have to finally learn how to use one of the portable machines that shocks the heart back into normal rhythm.

The entire town of Plymouth fell under the spell of “moguls” who promised to bring Hollywood East to the woods of the South Shore in 2009. That spell was broken after our Spotlight Team reported that their supposedly solid financier was a con man, a faker who now resides in a federal prison in North Carolina.

I bring up the stars-in-our-eyes factor now because there’s a renewed and real debate underway about whether to kill the multi-million dollar handout Massachusetts taxpayers give to Hollywood production companies every year, in the form of a bogus tax credit that no longer makes sense if it ever did.

“It’s a bad thing for taxpayers,’’ Governor Charlie Baker’s chief economic development officer, Jay Ash, told me this week. “It’s a tax loser. This is not a hard choice for us. Why would we perpetuate something that’s losing the state money?’’

That’s a good question and one that will be the focus of intense debate as budget writers at Beacon Hill consider how to dig themselves out of a $1.8 billion hole. This tax credit should be tossed out when the first shovel hits the ground.

Think tanks across the political spectrum have assailed the tax break as a giveaway that has never lived up to its promise. Simply put, the film tax credit pays for 25 percent of wage and production expenses, in exchange for promised jobs and revenue.

The calculus is bleak. Since its inception in 2006, the administration says taxpayers have lost $169 million. The state Department of Revenue said that deal cost the state $78.9 million in 2012, the latest year figures are available. Most of the economic benefits — and most of the jobs created — went out of state, the department said.

I spoke with an official at the Motion Picture Association of America Friday who predicted a nuclear winter for the Massachusetts film industry if the tax credit is killed. And he questioned the methodology of the bipartisan economic reports which pronounce it a boondoggle.

Let’s see. Democratic and Republican administrations have called it a dog, as have independent analysts. But Hollywood now says it has crunched its own numbers only to find that it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Gee. I’m so star-struck that I don’t know what to say except: I’m ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille.

There are real jobs at stake here. I don’t dismiss or diminish that. If this were a time of plenty, fine. But this is wasting money when there’s no money left to waste.

Baker wants to use the money saved by killing the film tax credit to help put more money into the hands of low-income working families. That’s good politics, but the tax credit should rise or fall on its own and, considering competing needs, it should fall.

Just ask Linda Spears, the new commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, what she could do with an extra $80 million a year. She’ll likely start salivating.

All of this seems like an easy choice to me. But House Speaker Bob DeLeo, Beacon Hill’s self-appointed indispensable man, wants to keep this subsidy. Seems he’s talked to the owners of some sandwich shops which sell lots of Italian grinders whenever Tom Cruise comes to town.

Look, I like those telescopic photos of Ms. Lawrence and co-star Bradley Cooper alighting from their trailers on the set in North Reading as much as anybody.

But not at this price.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not sure what you hope to accomplish by continuing this Brian? Ask David Mullen for the date of the last movie he shot in LA, ask him how many he has shot in LA total. Very small number.


You have to face the facts that movies are not coming back to the LA area, the've been gone for decades. Star Trek 3 is ramping up in Vancouver, why is it not shooting in LA?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not sure what you hope to accomplish by continuing this Brian? Ask David Mullen for the date of the last movie he shot in LA, ask him how many he has shot in LA total. Very small number.


You have to face the facts that movies are not coming back to the LA area, the've been gone for decades. Star Trek 3 is ramping up in Vancouver, why is it not shooting in LA?





States/Nations that can't get the work honestly because they have proper infrastructure, quality crews, and appropriate climate have to use bribes. As soon as the bribe money dries up, the jobs will go to the next highest bidder.


In the meantime, taxpayers all over the planet will continue to get the shaft from every industry that utilizes extortion to extract bribe payments from the public coffers.

Edited by Brian Dzyak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call them what you want, fact is they are shooting in Canada not LA. And there is nothing you can do about it.


You LA people need to get over yourselves thinking that your unionized crews are better than the crews elsewhere on the planet. I'm shooting in South Africa and the non-union crews here would work an LA crew under the table. They are far superior to the crews in Toronto or Vancouver as well. Which is why such a huge amount of production work is being done here.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...