Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

obvious Child · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
Untrue, untrue!

Failing with Flying Colors!!!!

Income Tax Returns Your Accountant Should Not File | Pope Consulting Inc.
The Cost Of Secrecy
Article: Former ThyssenKrupp accountant testifies.(News)(Brief Article) | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy
7203 - Accountant-Client Privlege

Hence why you hire a tax attorney as the lawyer provision is the key.

Just Stop Talking.

Yeah, they get subpeonaed all the time...as a third party auditer. But, an accountant cannot testify against his client, based on that accountant's assumption of wrong doing.

Then how did the various accountants in my links do just that? :2wave:

You are ignoring the part where you claimed that an accountant can't rat his client out despite being utterly wrong.

No, refusing to pay your taxes is evasion. Falsifying your tax return is fraud. Huge difference.

Did I give those examples? No. You can file your taxes and yet evade at the same time. Rangel essentially did it by not declaring income from property sales.

Evading taxation is not limited to not paying.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

obvious Child said:
Glad to see you are once again changing your argument, this is what? the 500th time since you started posting? You first claim that you won't get prosecuted...but then you agree that it DOES happen. Just what side are you arguing?

It's called, "finding common ground". It usually happens in a discussion. Should I expect you to understand that?

Yours must have been small numbers. People have gone to jail for tax evasion.

Yeah, the first audit, I wrote a check for about 1500 and the second I wrote a check for 3 grand. I threatened to shoot the auditer in the second audit, so I knew that check was going to be purdy big.

Richard Hatch anyone?
Janine Lindemulder anyone? (I'm sure that names rings some bells here)
Thomas Carbo anyone?

they went to jail, because the IRS knew they would never see their money, anyway. Ya see, tax evasion laws aren't for people temporarily punk Uncle Sam out of his money. They are for people who permanently punk Uncle Sam out of his money.

Depends on what other assets you have. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that the IRS tends from time to time to make examples of people. Often the IRS will actually spend more money in proving a case then what they get from the judgment JUST to make a point that tax evaders will get hunted down.

Very rare and it only happens when 7+ figures are involved. It's usually politically motivated. How much did Tim Geithner **** the government out of? That we know of, that is?

Depends on the materiality. And seriously, I don't trust a damn thing you say about your life.

I could give a **** about how much you trust what I say. You don't sign my paycheck, so it's irrelevant.

RightinNYC · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
Yeah, the first audit, I wrote a check for about 1500 and the second I wrote a check for 3 grand. I threatened to shoot the auditer in the second audit, so I knew that check was going to be purdy big.

EL
OH
EL

Yea, it was no big deal, I mean, I just threatened the life of a federal agent cause I'm hardcore like that. No repercussions whatsoever. He tried to stiff me for a few extra grand so I ripped his larynx out and kicked him in the balls so hard that his sister walks funny.

That's just how I roll.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

obvious Child said:
Failing with Flying Colors!!!!

Income Tax Returns Your Accountant Should Not File | Pope Consulting Inc.
The Cost Of Secrecy
Article: Former ThyssenKrupp accountant testifies.(News)(Brief Article) | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy
7203 - Accountant-Client Privlege

Hence why you hire a tax attorney as the lawyer provision is the key.

Just Stop Talking.

Ahh, ya see, you left out the part where the accountant/lawyer turned states evidence, because he didn't want to go to jail for a helluva lot more than a wee bit of tax cheating.

From your link:A former attorney, accountant and confidant of two former ThyssenKrupp N.A. Inc. executives last week described in detail how he filtered money the men are accused of taking in a $6.5 million kickback scheme.

Jerome Allen, who reached a plea agreement, said former Thyssen-Krupp N.A. CEO Kenneth Graham approached him about a plan to make money off the expansion of the company's Detroit steel-processing plant in the 1990s. He said Graham told him to work with former Vice President Kyle Dresbach.

Apples and oranges.

Did I give those examples? No. You can file your taxes and yet evade at the same time. Rangel essentially did it by not declaring income from property sales.

Evading taxation is not limited to not paying.

Annnnnnnnnd, where is Charlie Rangel, today? He ain't in jail? neither is Tim Geithner, nor Tom Daschle. Tax laws have teeth, may ass.

obvious Child · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
It's called, "finding common ground". It usually happens in a discussion. Should I expect you to understand that?

Perhaps you should not start with absolutist statements then?

Yeah, the first audit, I wrote a check for about 1500 and the second I wrote a check for 3 grand. I threatened to shoot the auditer in the second audit, so I knew that check was going to be purdy big.

Again, tiny numbers.

they went to jail, because the IRS knew they would never see their money, anyway. Ya see, tax evasion laws aren't for people temporarily punk Uncle Sam out of his money. They are for people who permanently punk Uncle Sam out of his money.

Except all of them had assets at the time. You do know what an asset is?

Very rare and it only happens when 7+ figures are involved. It's usually politically motivated. How much did Tim Geithner **** the government out of? That we know of, that is?

Actually, it's often for drug dealers, importers and manufacturers.

I could give a **** about how much you trust what I say. You don't sign my paycheck, so it's irrelevant.

Except what I say I can back up. You can't. It's hilarious how you think that a lawyer-client relationship exists with accountants. Maybe you outta actually talk to one for a change before talking out of your rear?

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
EL
OH
EL

Yea, it was no big deal, I mean, I just threatened the life of a federal agent cause I'm hardcore like that. No repercussions whatsoever. He tried to stiff me for a few extra grand so I ripped his larynx out and kicked him in the balls so hard that his sister walks funny.

That's just how I roll.

I didn't threaten him directly. he asked why I wrote a gun club membership as an entertainment expense. By that time, I was purdy pissed. I told him I needed the target practice. He asked why. I told him that I needed the target practice, so when I shot an asshole IRS agent, I could kill him with the first shot. It was worth the grand, or so extra he stiffed me for. My accountant still laughs about that ****.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
No, there's actually not. Tax evasion/fraud are the same thing. Presumably, when you refer to "cheating," you're referring to tax avoidance, which is legal. However, since this entire thread is about tax evasion/fraud, I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

gee whiz, I don't know.

Maybe this has something to do with it?

Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

obvious Child · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
Ahh, ya see, you left out the part where the accountant/lawyer turned states evidence, because he didn't want to go to jail for a helluva lot more than a wee bit of tax cheating.

Not relevant. The point is that the accountant testified against their client...proving you, as usual to be wrong about just about everything you've said here.

There is no accountant-client relationship confidentiality despite your wishful thinking.

Apples and oranges

Yet both are accountants testifying against their client.

Did you not say this: "But, an accountant cannot testify against his client"

Hmmm. Looks like you are wrong. Again. As usual.

Annnnnnnnnd, where is Charlie Rangel, today? He ain't in jail? neither is Tim Geithner, nor Tom Daschle. Tax laws have teeth, may ass.

Are you incapable of staying on subject? Wait. I know the answerto that. Evasion is not limited to not filing. Interesting how you AGREED that people go to jail for tax evasion yet claim the tax laws have no teeth. By the way, ever hear of a concept called garnishing?

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

obvious Child said:
Not relevant. The point is that the accountant testified against their client...proving you, as usual to be wrong about just about everything you've said here.

There is no accountant-client relationship confidentiality despite your wishful thinking.

It's very relevant. Th fact is, they were no longer, at that point, his clients. You seem very educated, but you also seem to lack real world experience.

Yet both are accountants testifying against their client.

Did you not say this: "But, an accountant cannot testify against his client"

Hmmm. Looks like you are wrong. Again. As usual.

Can a lawyer testify against his client? Even if his client is guilty as hell? He can't, huh?

Are you incapable of staying on subject? Wait. I know the answerto that. Evasion is not limited to not filing. Interesting how you AGREED that people go to jail for tax evasion yet claim the tax laws have no teeth.

That's exactly right, the laws have no teeth. Having teeth would be a person going to prison for jilting the government out of 100 bucks. In the real world, how millions does one have to screw the government out of, before one goes to prison?

By the way, ever hear of a concept called garnishing?

And, that has what to do with going to prison? You do understand that you can't garnish the wages of someone who is prison, right? hence, the reason why the IRS is very hesitant to put someone in jail for tax evasion, fraud, whatever you want to call it.

RightinNYC · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
I didn't threaten him directly. he asked why I wrote a gun club membership as an entertainment expense. By that time, I was purdy pissed. I told him I needed the target practice. He asked why. I told him that I needed the target practice, so when I shot an asshole IRS agent, I could kill him with the first shot. It was worth the grand, or so extra he stiffed me for. My accountant still laughs about that ****.

So you didn't actually "threaten to shoot the auditor" like you said. Glad we clarified that.

apdst said:
gee whiz, I don't know.

Maybe this has something to do with it?

The fact that the headline writer for this paper used a colloquial term doesn't change the fact that the entire program is dealing with tax evasion/fraud, not tax avoidance. If you realized that already, then you're just being disingenuous by focusing on that choice of words now. If you didn't pick up on that before now, then I don't know what to tell you.

RightinNYC · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
It's very relevant. Th fact is, they were no longer, at that point, his clients. You seem very educated, but you also seem to lack real world experience.

Can a lawyer testify against his client? Even if his client is guilty as hell? He can't, huh?

Because you seem to have missed it before, accountant-client privilege is much narrower than attorney-client privilege. Accountant-client privilege only applies in civil cases. An accountant can be forced to testify against his client in a criminal trial even if he is still a client.

edit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7525(a)(2).html

(a) Uniform application to taxpayer communications with federally authorized practitioners
(1) General rule
With respect to tax advice, the same common law protections of confidentiality which apply to a communication between a taxpayer and an attorney shall also apply to a communication between a taxpayer and any federally authorized tax practitioner to the extent the communication would be considered a privileged communication if it were between a taxpayer and an attorney.
(2) Limitations
Paragraph (1) may only be asserted in—
(A) any noncriminal tax matter before the Internal Revenue Service; and
(B) any noncriminal tax proceeding in Federal court brought by or against the United States.

That's exactly right, the laws have no teeth. Having teeth would be a person going to prison for jilting the government out of 100 bucks. In the real world, how millions does one have to screw the government out of, before one goes to prison?

If the laws have no teeth and the only penalty is that you have to pay the difference, why don't you just report 0 income every year? I mean, if you get caught, you only have to pay the difference, and the chance of getting caught is basically nil. Sounds like a great plan.

Let me know how that works out for you.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
So you didn't actually "threaten to shoot the auditor" like you said. Glad we clarified that.

I thretened to shoot an auditor, not the auditor. It was funny, though. Too bad you couldn't have been there.

The fact that the headline writer for this paper used a colloquial term doesn't change the fact that the entire program is dealing with tax evasion/fraud, not tax avoidance. If you realized that already, then you're just being disingenuous by focusing on that choice of words now. If you didn't pick up on that before now, then I don't know what to tell you.

Sounds to me like you lost your ass in the argument, perhaps you didn't get your money's worth with that shiney new degree you got, I dunno, and now you're trying to argue semantics. Just spitballin' here.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Because you seem to have missed it before, accountant-client privilege is much narrower than attorney-client privilege. Accountant-client privilege only applies in civil cases. An accountant can be forced to testify against his client in a criminal trial even if he is still a client.

But, you now admit that there is an accountant-clietn privilage. Yes? Thank you for admitting to that fact, instead of insisting that no such thing even exists.

If the laws have no teeth and the only penalty is that you have to pay the difference, why don't you just report 0 income every year? I mean, if you get caught, you only have to pay the difference, and the chance of getting caught is basically nil. Sounds like a great plan.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Who said I didn't? There's no law that says a company has to make a single dime in income, nor any law that says a company has to ever make a profit.

RightinNYC · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
I thretened to shoot an auditor, not the auditor. It was funny, though. Too bad you couldn't have been there.

No, you said:

I threatened to shoot the auditer in the second audit, so I knew that check was going to be purdy big.

Doesn't matter, cause I didn't believe it then, but don't pretend like you didn't say it.

apdst said:
But, you now admit that there is an accountant-clietn privilage. Yes? Thank you for admitting to that fact, instead of insisting that no such thing even exists.

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you misread what I was saying, because I thought it was pretty ****ing clear when I first said:

Incorrect. Accountant-client privilege is far narrower than attorney-client privilege. The accountant-client privilege only applies in civil matters. If the government decides to bring criminal charges, there is no privilege.

But if I'm wrong, and you're living in some alternate universe where that means I was denying that it exists, please feel free to clear things up for me.

While you're at it, you might also want to clear up:

1) How the Acct-client privilege covers criminal trials like you claim (It doesn't)

or

2) How the IRS has to show probable cause to audit, like you claim (It doesn't)

Who said I didn't? There's no law that says a company has to make a single dime in income, nor any law that says a company has to ever make a profit.

I'm aware. I just assumed that you made more than $1500/year. See, earlier, you claimed that if the government audits you, all you have to do is pay the difference between what you claimed as income and what you actually earned. Then, you claimed that when you got audited, you had to pay $1500. Since I assume you have more income than that, I assumed you acknowledge some income each year.

If true, why are you reporting it at all? Come on man, have the courage of your convictions. Go balls to the wall. Dare the IRS to **** with you. Threaten to shoot people. This will only end well.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
No, you said:

Doesn't matter, cause I didn't believe it then, but don't pretend like you didn't say it.

Whatever, dude! Who gives a ****?!?

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you misread what I was saying, because I thought it was pretty ****ing clear when I first said:

But if I'm wrong, and you're living in some alternate universe where that means I was denying that it exists, please feel free to clear things up for me.

While you're at it, you might also want to clear up:

1) How the Acct-client privilege covers criminal trials like you claim (It doesn't)

or

2) How the IRS has to show probable cause to audit, like you claim (It doesn't)

No, up to that earlier post, you and Obvious Child try to tell me that there was no way that an accountant was ever obligated not to testify against a client. While I admit that the accountant client privilage has it's limits, just as the attorney client privilage has it's limits, the accountant client privilage does actually exist, as I stated in my previous posts.

I'm aware. I just assumed that you made more than $1500/year. See, earlier, you claimed that if the government audits you, all you have to do is pay the difference between what you claimed as income and what you actually earned. Then, you claimed that when you got audited, you had to pay $1500. Since I assume you have more income than that, I assumed you acknowledge some income each year.

No, I never said any such thing. What I said, was that when you get audited and the auditer finds illegal deductions, he subtracts them from your deductions. Example: you write off $5,000. The auditer finds $1,500 worth of illigitmate deductions. Then, he subtracts those from the $5,000 and you cut him a check for $1,500. I assumed you already new how audits worked, so that is why I didn't go into such detail.

If true, why are you reporting it at all? Come on man, have the courage of your convictions. Go balls to the wall. Dare the IRS to **** with you. Threaten to shoot people. This will only end well.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?...:rofl

RightinNYC · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
Whatever, dude! Who gives a ****?!?

You, apparently.

No, up to that earlier post, you and Obvious Child try to tell me that there was no way that an accountant was ever obligated not to testify against a client. While I admit that the accountant client privilage has it's limits, just as the attorney client privilage has it's limits, the accountant client privilage does actually exist, as I stated in my previous posts.

This is a pretty bold-faced lie. Nowhere did either of us deny that it exists - we merely tried to explain to you that it doesn't exist in all contexts, a concept that apparently continues to elude you.

Since the entire point of the discussion was your claim that the accountant could never send you to jail by betraying you, the fact that he very clearly can is pretty solid evidence that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

No, I never said any such thing. What I said, was that when you get audited and the auditer finds illegal deductions, he subtracts them from your deductions. Example: you write off $5,000. The auditer finds $1,500 worth of illigitmate deductions. Then, he subtracts those from the $5,000 and you cut him a check for $1,500. I assumed you already new how audits worked, so that is why I didn't go into such detail.

Here's what you said:

you said:
You won't go to jail. Growup! They'll just make you pay the money you owe them, plus interest and penalties. The IRS is made up of a bunch of pricks, but they're not stupid. They know that they can't get their money, if you're in jail and your business closes. And, you're only responsible for the sales that they can prove.

you said:
And, at the end of the day, all they're going to do is an audit. That's all. Depending on the kind of business, the monthly tax reports are going to be made. You can't really cheat on sales tax, unless you make cash sales that aren't registered anywhere. You can't cheat on payroll taxes, either, trust me, I've tried. It can't be done.

I've learned throughout this thread not to assume that your interpretations of things are accurate, so rather than rely on what things actually are, I'm just responding to your claims. Since you were claiming that you're only responsible for the sales they can prove, and you were claiming that you only had to pay $1500, then it seems fairly obvious that you reported income > $0, unless you're the most convincing liar known to man.

Furthermore, the fact that you acknowledged that you couldn't lie about your sales or payroll, you obviously reported numbers > $0. Again, I'm asking you why you bothered to do that.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
This is a pretty bold-faced lie. Nowhere did either of us deny that it exists - we merely tried to explain to you that it doesn't exist in all contexts, a concept that apparently continues to elude you.

Since the entire point of the discussion was your claim that the accountant could never send you to jail by betraying you, the fact that he very clearly can is pretty solid evidence that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Ummmmm, no, I'm not the liar, sir:

obvious Child said:
obvious Child said:

Not relevant. The point is that the accountant testified against their client...proving you, as usual to be wrong about just about everything you've said here.

There is no accountant-client relationship confidentiality despite your wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

obvious Child said:

This is patently false and you really outta stop talking about this subject. There is no such thing as an accountant-client relationship that prohibits the same actions as a lawyer-client relationship. You are ignoring that accountants regularly get subpoenaed to testify. An accountant would lose their license for pushing illegal tax shelters and knowingly helping a client evade taxes. In fact, Circular 230 along with several other pieces of legislation and ethical guidelines requires an accountant to inform authorities of illegal actions by your client that your client refuses to cease. Auditors are legally required to inform the SEC of illegal actions that the board of directors will not fix. The law makes it mandatory to rat out a client that does not change their actions.

Click to expand...

How much are you paying to go to college? You might want to ask for a refund on some of that.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
I've learned throughout this thread not to assume that your interpretations of things are accurate, so rather than rely on what things actually are, I'm just responding to your claims. Since you were claiming that you're only responsible for the sales they can prove, and you were claiming that you only had to pay $1500, then it seems fairly obvious that you reported income > $0, unless you're the most convincing liar known to man.

Do you undertand how deductions work? More importantly, do you understand how audits work? Just because I owed the IRS $1,500, after the audit, doesn't mean that I reported zero income. It means that the auditer only found $1,500 worth of illegal deductions. When you consider that I wrote off over $150 thousand in deductions that year, that ain't too damn bad.

Furthermore, the fact that you acknowledged that you couldn't lie about your sales or payroll, you obviously reported numbers > $0. Again, I'm asking you why you bothered to do that.

Because, the law says, that even if a corporation loses money, a tax return has to be filed. That's why.

RightinNYC · Oct 29, 2009

apdst said:
Ummmmm, no, I'm not the liar, sir:

How much are you paying to go to college? You might want to ask for a refund on some of that.

This is where I point out that you're again failing to comprehend OC's point, which is that there is no AC privilege in the context you were claiming. He very clearly acknowledges that some version of it does exist in some circumstances, considering that he linked to articles explaining it. I'm assuming that the reason he didn't feel the need to make it even more explicitly clear is because you were making embarrassingly false claims about how it applies in the criminal context and he didn't feel like explaining everything to you nine times, like I find myself doing now.

Throughout this thread, you've made one bull**** claim after another.

You claimed that the IRS needs probable cause to conduct an audit. That was a lie.

You claimed that accountants cannot testify against clients in court. That was a lie.

You claimed that the government doesn't prosecute for tax evasion. That was a lie.

You claimed that a competitor finding out about your fraud and reporting it to the government is "industrial espionage." That was a lie.

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and that I shouldn't believe a word that you say. As a result, I'm done with you.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
This is where I point out that you're again failing to comprehend OC's point, which is that there is no AC privilege in the context you were claiming. He very clearly acknowledges that some version of it does exist in some circumstances, considering that he linked to articles explaining it. I'm assuming that the reason he didn't feel the need to make it even more explicitly clear is because you were making embarrassingly false claims about how it applies in the criminal context and he didn't feel like explaining everything to you nine times, like I find myself doing now.

Throughout this thread, you've made one bull**** claim after another.

You claimed that the IRS needs probable cause to conduct an audit. That was a lie.

You claimed that accountants cannot testify against clients in court. That was a lie.

You claimed that the government doesn't prosecute for tax evasion. That was a lie.

You claimed that a competitor finding out about your fraud and reporting it to the government is "industrial espionage." That was a lie.

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and that I shouldn't believe a word that you say.

OC's point, was that there was no such thing as accountant-client privilage. She said those exact words. nice try at a salvage, but it didn't work.

At this point, your only argument, is that I'm a liar. You're not even man enough just to say I'm wrong, then prove me wrong.

You seriously need to ask for a refund on all that money you spent on college.

jamesrage · Oct 29, 2009

Councilman said:
Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats | NBC Chicago
I hope this is acceptable as braking news since it's from NBC Chicago and listed as news.

Why do I bring this up? How many of you remember flag@whitehouse.gov an address we could use to report on information we felt was a lie about the so-called Health Care reform? Well that was met with so much opposition it had to shut down. Hell I was disappointed because I used it to report on the three biggest liars about it out there. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.
Well since that effort to get you to start thinking about becoming a "Block Warden" so to speak they have this new plan to get you thinking about becoming an informant. How you could possibly know that your neighbor is a tax cheat is beyond me unless unless he or she is an idiot and tells you. But I don't think that is the point. I think the idea is to get you once again thinking about how you can help big brother and his efforts to control.
And hey if you rat out the folks next door under this Chicago plan you get paid for your efforts. I just wonder how much fun it will be to have the folks next door hate your guts. It sure will make the next block party a fun event. Or maybe it will be an occasion for a weenie roast in the flames of your house as it's burned to the ground in retaliation.
This is a bad idea. I'm not saying people should get away with being tax cheats. I'm saying is it our job to possibly put ourselves and our families at risk to help a corrupt system do the job they were hired to do.
I know your saying that could never happen most neighbors are good decent people. To that I say what is it we hear all the time about murderers? Oh John he was a quiet guy kept his lawn mowed and his car washed. Hell he dressed up like a clown and did kids parties. I never would of thought of him as dangerous.
It's something to think about that before you become the next Block Rat for any corrupt system.
Think about it.

They should have something like this to report companies who hire illegals.

RightinNYC · Oct 29, 2009

jamesrage said:
They should have something like this to report companies who hire illegals.

If the company is employing illegal immigrants off the books, then you can most certainly use this program to report them.

apdst · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
If the company is employing illegal immigrants off the books, then you can most certainly use this program to report them.

But, whose going to do the reporting? The accountants aren't.

Agent Ferris · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
I don't understand all the outrage over this. It provides people with an incentive to report crimes. Are you similarly outraged at the organizations that provide rewards for people who turn in copkillers?

It sounds to be pretty Stalinist to me to encourage neighbors to inform on neighbors for non-violent victimless crimes.

Agent Ferris · Oct 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
If the company is employing illegal immigrants off the books, then you can most certainly use this program to report them.

What would be the point? Chicago is a sanctuary city. Nice try though.

Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

apdst

RightinNYC

Girthless

apdst

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

apdst

apdst

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

apdst

RightinNYC

Girthless

RightinNYC

Girthless

apdst

apdst

RightinNYC

Girthless

apdst

RightinNYC

Girthless

apdst

apdst

RightinNYC

Girthless

apdst

jamesrage

RightinNYC

Girthless

apdst

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris