Home  » Blog

LAPPL Blog: The official blog of the Los Angeles Policy Protective League

Leavin’ (a troubled City) on a jet plane

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 11/13/2014 @ 05:45 PM

Dark clouds are gathering over Los Angeles. Violent crime is up. Thousands of dangerous felons could soon flood the area after state voters passed Proposition 47 last week. LAPD officer morale is low and sinking even further due to the City’s woefully inadequate and indeed insulting contract offers. And where, you ask, is Mayor Eric Garcetti? He is leaving L.A. on Saturday on a 12-day junket to Asia – further proof that public safety is way down on his list of priorities.

A quick look at last weekend’s news headlines underscores the increased dangers our brave officers are facing every day on the City’s increasingly violent streets. On Saturday night, an assault suspect repeatedly fired at police who began pursuing him in East Los Angeles. The next afternoon, officers were threatened by a knife-wielding man on Victory Boulevard and Haskell Avenue in the San Fernando Valley. In other weekend incidents, a woman was shot and killed when a gunman fired multiple rounds into a car in downtown Los Angeles, a car-to-car shooting left a man dead in South Los Angeles, an Army veteran was shot and killed in Sylmar and a group of men attacked a 69-year-old woman in Hancock Park in broad daylight, holding her down while cutting her Rolex watch off her wrist. This might sound like a crime roundup for Chicago, but it’s happening right here.

Unfortunately, incidents such as these are not aberrations.

Violent crime has leaped 9 percent this year compared with the same period in 2013. Homicides are up 4.5 percent, reported rapes 12 percent and aggravated assaults an astonishing 20 percent.

Things are likely to get worse when Prop 47’s hidden provisions are unleashed onto an unsuspecting city. Felons with prior convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon and many other serious crimes are eligible for early release.

But instead of recognizing the outstanding work LAPD officers have been doing amid increased threats to public safety, the City presented a regressive contract offer that forced the LAPPL to declare impasse in the contract negotiations. There is already demonstrable evidence that the City’s refusal to address this issue is affecting morale and the Department’s ability to retain highly-skilled officers. Officer attrition, of course, negatively affects public safety – we just have to look north to San Jose as a case in point.

The mayor has made it clear he’s happy to spend taxpayer money – just not on police. He was more than willing to shell out $170,000 to subsidize Live Nation’s two-day downtown music festival over the Labor Day weekend. And he’s aggressively pursuing a $1 billion federal plan to restore a few miles of the Los Angeles River. It’s folly to think the City’s share of the cost won’t amount to millions, at least.

We’re certainly not against public entertainment or beautification projects. But a true leader must have priorities – and the top priority must be public safety. Our message is clear. Step up, Mr. Mayor. Take responsibility and lead this City.

A good start when he returns to L.A. would be to take care of the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect its residents, instead of nickel-and-diming them.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Prop 47 jeopardizes public safety

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 10/31/2014 @ 04:44 PM

Click on the image to view as a full size PDF.

Click on the image above to view as a full size PDF.

What if we told you that you had the opportunity to release thousands of dangerous inmates with serious criminal records back to your community? Would you do it? Would you risk the safety of your family and community by allowing felons back onto your streets?

That is exactly what you would be doing voting for Proposition 47 on November 4, 2014.

Felons convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon and so on, would be eligible for early release specifically under Prop 47.

Prop 47 handcuffs judges from preventing the early release of convicted felons except under the rare exception, defined by “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” As vague and ambiguous as that definition of a rare exception is, even more perplexing and deceptive are the supporters of Prop 47 with their claims of “safer neighborhoods and schools.”

Prop 47 will not only release convicted inmates, but will also automatically change serious crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, leading to a hollow law enforcement system and criminal justice system.

Misleading tactics have propelled Prop 47 supporters in deceiving the public in favor of this masked legislation. How can “safer neighborhoods and schools” be accomplished by allowing serious criminals into your community that are benefiting from a legislation that will only give them a slap on the wrist?

Prop 47 DOES NOT put public safety first and we're not the only ones who have concerns. For more information, read the articles below.

Dianne Feinstein- California Senator

“Danger from Prop. 47 is that it will result in the resentencing—and often outright release—of thousands of California convicts.”

Sacramento Bee Editorial Board

“If voters approve Proposition 47, about 40,000 offenders a year would be affected, facing misdemeanors rather than felonies.”

Sandra Hutchens- Sheriff, OC Sheriff’s Department

“Prop. 47 is a bad idea. It will result in more crime, new victims, and less safety. Safe Schools and Neighborhoods Act? I’m not buying it.”

Bill Brown- Sheriff, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department

Joyce Dudley- District Attorney, Santa Barbara County

“Reducing the penalties for gun theft, possession of date rape drugs, agricultural crime and other serious offenses will expose our communities to increased criminality.”

Los Angeles Daily News Opinion

“Also worrisome is that Proposition 47 allows no extra penalty for repeat offenders. What about someone who forges 10 checks for $500 each over the years? This proposition doesn’t deal with that. And for poor communities, where a few dollars matter, that is huge.”

Greg Munks- Sheriff, San Mateo County

Steve Wagstaffe- District Attorney, San Mateo County

“Proposition 47 inappropriately takes away the discretion of the district attorney to determine whether criminals with serious and violent records should be prosecuted as felons when they commit certain crimes against victims in our community. This is bad public policy and should be rejected.”

George Skelton – Los Angeles Times

“Proposition 47, which would reduce drug and theft penalties, is a bill that shouldn't be on the state ballot… The thief who steals a $200 bracelet from a mom-and-pop jewelry in Boyle Heights gets a slap on the wrist. But walk off with a $2,000 necklace from a Beverly Hills shop and it's a felony. Doesn't click.”

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

The Latest Rush to Judgment

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 10/25/2014 @ 02:45 PM

After all of the recent high profile cases where the initial reports of an incident did not tell the entire story, one would expect that politicians would not rush to judgment in a case that they know nothing about except for what they read in the Los Angeles Times. However, that was not the case for Councilmember Curren Price, who has apparently already passed judgment in the Clinton Alford case.

The Times story says that a Los Angeles police officer is being investigated by the department's Force Investigation and Internal Affairs divisions for allegedly using excessive force during the arrest of a drug possession suspect, Clinton Alford, in South Los Angeles last week. Citing "anonymous sources close to the investigation," the Times reported that a private company's surveillance camera captured images of the officer kicking the suspect in the head.

Councilmember Price said in a statement that he was "deeply disturbed to hear about this incident as our community is still reeling from recent incidents of excessive and even deadly force." He demanded that the LAPD "take every action necessary to ensure that these officers are held accountable for their actions."

Even more frustrating are the comments NOT made by Chief Beck. Beck was quick to comment on the investigation, stating "This investigation is ongoing and there is still much that needs to be done to determine the facts of this matter, but let me be very clear, any officer that is found to abuse the public is not welcome in this department, and we will apply whatever legal or administrative means necessary to insure the community's trust without exception." We all agree the investigation needs to happen, but it's disappointing that the Chief isn't reminding people to hold their judgement until all of the facts are known. Furthermore, where is his outrage about "police officials" in the department leaking information for a story that hasn't been verified by the Times? Quite frankly, what he doesn't say, speaks volumes to our membership.

Tyler Izen, President of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, spoke with the Times reporter before the story was published; however his comments reminding that the public should not rush to judgment in this case and that all the officers have not even been interviewed yet, never made the story. Izen told the Times that the League wanted a quick and thorough investigation just like everyone else, because the officers are assigned home and that's not good for anyone.

Gary Fullerton, an attorney representing the officers, disputed accounts of the story and said that, "It's is my belief once everything is explained and all the nuances of the incident are understood, it will be clear the force the officers used was appropriate and necessary." Fullerton said the officers were responding to a detective's radio call for help in locating a robbery suspect when they spotted Alford and attempted to apprehend him. Alford turned out not to be the man the detective was pursuing, but the officers ended up arresting Alford for possession of cocaine, the attorney said.

We would expect that Councilmember Price and the community-at-large would be encouraged to know that the LAPD thoroughly investigates all allegations. We would also hope that Chief Beck and the community will balance their enthusiasm for the investigation with the commitment to due process. We've been in this situation before and everyone needs to be reminded that in many instances, a video alone does not hold all of the facts necessary to determine the truth.

Judging the officers actions and vilifying them in a rush to judgment based on partial information and an incomplete investigation is innappropriate, unfair and irresponsible. We urge everyone to allow the investigation to run its course without premature, inflammatory or condemning remarks. The facts will be revealed by interviewing the officers involved and reviewing ALL of the evidence - not just a single video - all of which may not provide the headline or instant judgment that a politician might desire, but will assist in determining the truth.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Picking the wrong target

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 10/01/2014 @ 03:45 PM

“Watch out,” Mayor Garcetti said during a downtown news conference on Monday. “We’re going to make sure that we’re coming after you.”


The mayor was reacting to an Los Angeles Times story reporting that the city spent $328 million on salaries, medical bills and other expenses between 2009 and 2013 for police and firefighters on leave due to injuries. Using one of the Times’ favorite tactics of generalizing, the story sought to portray an abuse epidemic of the worker’s compensation system. Nothing could be further from reality.

It’s tough enough to be a public safety officer forced off duty with an injury without the mayor threatening to come after you as if you were somehow abusing the system. In a YouTube video after the LAPPL declared an impasse in contract talks, the mayor professed to respect LAPD officers. Mere weeks later, telling us to watch out and that he’s coming after us is a strange way to show it.

Is it too much to ask the mayor to get his facts straight before he speaks in front of the news cameras?

The fact is public safety officers injured on duty are unable to get prompt and efficient medical treatment, causing them to remain off duty far longer than they should or want to. Compounding the problem is the stress caused by a system that doesn’t make fixing it a priority. The broken worker’s compensation system in California, as administered in the City of Los Angeles, is the root of the problem. The mayor should know that and target it in his public comments.

Julie Sherman, a partner in the law firm Straussner-Sherman and a representative of injured employees for 25 years, was interviewed for an hour by the Times for its story. Fewer than 50 words of the interview were printed by the Times in its 3,500-word article. As a result, the law firm published a strong rebuttal to the story on the firm’s website. It is recommended reading for anyone – starting with the mayor – who needs to understand why the increased cost of IOD is the result of inaccessible medical treatment in the workers’ compensation system, not fraud.

On behalf of the 99.9 percent of the public safety officers who are injured on duty and are off work because they have to be, not because they want to be, we call on the mayor to withdraw his offensive and veiled threat, and apologize to the men and women of the LAPD and LAFD. Moreover, we think the mayor should turn his attention to fixing the broken worker’s compensation system and helping us get cops to work.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

LAPD Disciplinary Process – Clearing the Air?

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 09/26/2014 @ 02:22 PM

As said in the book To Kill a Mockingbird, “The best way to clear the air is to have it all out in the open.” And, all out in the open is precisely what happened following the detention of actress Daniele Watts on September 11, 2014, following her social media posts claiming LAPD officers only detained her because of her race. LAPD Sergeant Jim Parker, the officer who first encountered Ms. Watts, put everything “out in the open” by recording his interaction between him and Ms. Watts the day of the encounter, clearly disproving her claim of racial bias by LAPD officers.

It appears the tape and photos of Ms. Watts’ conduct prior to police arrival seem to disprove any racial bias by officers, who according to an LAPD press release “responded to a radio call of indecent exposure in the 11900 block of Ventura Boulevard. The citizen who called the police to complain told the 9-1-1 operator that a male and a female were involved in indecent exposure inside a Silver Mercedes with the vehicle door open.” After listening to the tape and seeing the photos, community activists such as Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson held a press conference to call on Watts to apologize to the LAPD for her racial bias allegations. Hutchinson said the audio recording and photos cast doubt on Watts’ account.

“I was one that was very outspoken about it,” he said. “We take racial profiling very seriously. It’s not a plaything. It’s not trivial.” Hutchinson told KNBC that this incident was a teaching moment for him. “We began to see pictures that actually show that perhaps there was probable cause for the stop. There was probable cause for the detention,” he said. “You must have your facts. You can’t rush to judgment. If you do that, you have no credibility.”

One might think that the tape, photo, that fact that it appears no formal complaint was made by Ms. Watts, and the outspoken judgment by community leaders that there was no racial bias by police in this incident would end the matter for the LAPD. Wrong.

Although it appears that a complaint has not been filed by Watts, LAPD Internal Affairs has launched an internal affairs investigation of the sergeant and two other officers who responded to the incident. The officers have not been told what they constituted “misconduct.” Perhaps this investigation is driven by the consent decree entered into years ago by the LAPD, which demands an investigation when wrongdoing comes to the attention of the LAPD. However, we would be guessing as that being the basis, because when asked for comment by the media as to the nature of the investigation, the Department responded, “we don’t have a comment to make.”

One can only imagine what would have happened had Sergeant Parker not taped the incident, and had the tape not been released to the media. Likely, there would have been a long debate about racial bias in the LAPD, the names of the involved officers would have leaked, then tarnished, and it would have been much later before the investigation ended and the “air cleared.” Instead, although what did happen is known, a mysterious foray into some unknown wrongdoing will commence.

Regardless of the investigation’s conclusions, and even if the officers involved in this incident are cleared of wrongdoing, this unwarranted investigation will have future repercussions. The fact the officers were investigated will always remain in their personnel files, and may detrimentally affect their careers going forward. As an appellate court has noted in a 2013 ruling on an LAPPL lawsuit regarding internal affair investigations, the LAPD may use prior complaints without finding of wrongdoing to establish “a ‘pattern of conduct’ that for purposes of, be used to sustain a future complaint.”

The investigation into this incident brings into the open what many LAPD officers have long claimed; the LAPD disciplinary system is arcane, unfair and needs to be reformed. The tape and photos in this incident, viewed by the public and concerned community activists, “cleared the air” and allowed persons of commonsense to quickly come to rational conclusions about what happened. Unfortunately for the officers involved, they will now be forced into the “rabbit hole” of the LAPD disciplinary process, a process that would make the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland chafe with envy.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Providing ID To Police Officers - A Public Service Announcement

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 09/16/2014 @ 12:12 PM

The Los Angeles Police Protective League provides the following as a public service for those whose understanding of the law regarding the necessity to provide identification to police comes from watching, or acting in, fictional police dramas. Instead, they might want to rely on the considered advice of legal professionals, such as the prosecutors at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. Those prosecutors have opined that when you are detained by a police officer, you must provide identification when asked to do so, or face arrest for obstructing or delaying a police officer.

The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the requirement to provide identification to an officer during a detention. In 2004, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Humboldt County, the court ruled on the case of a man detained by the police who “refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business.” The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling a police officer has a right to request identification during a valid detention. The court ruled that obtaining identification was a minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, with the need for law enforcement to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justifying the requirement a suspect is required to disclose his or her name. As a California Appellate Court summed up, “where there is a right to detain, there is a companion right to request and obtain the detainee’s identification.”

What constitutes a lawful detention is also clearly established law for several decades. As the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sokolow, a person may be detained if there is reasonable suspicion that the detainee may be involved in criminal activity. What is reasonable suspicion is a level of justification considerably less than probable cause for an arrest, and it does not matter that there might be a possible innocent explanation of the activity witnessed by the police officer.

We remind those who rely on fictional police dramas as the basis of their refusal to identify themselves during a lawful detention, that they should know the friendly prosecutors at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office have said, while failure to identify oneself cannot, on its own, justify an arrest, nothing in United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case law prohibits officers from asking for, or even demanding, a suspect's identification. Instead, Ninth Circuit cases, as well as those of the United States Supreme Court, suggest that determining a suspect’s identity is an important aspect of police authority. For example, one of the most common investigative techniques used in investigatory stops is interrogation, which may include both a request for identification and inquiry concerning the suspicious conduct of the person detained. The Alameda District Attorney’s Office have opined that a detained person’s refusal to furnish written identification if they have it, or to walk away from an officer requesting identification, is a violation of Penal Code § 148(a)(1). That is the Penal Code section that makes it unlawful to willfully delay or obstruct an officer in the performance of his duties. As a California Appellate court ruled, to allow otherwise and to “accept the contention that the officer can stop the suspect and request identification, but that the suspect can turn right around and refuse to provide it, would reduce the authority of the officer… to identify a person lawfully stopped by him to a mere fiction.”

We are hopeful the advice of these prosecutors — the ones who decide whether criminal charges are filed — will avoid future encounters with individuals whose erroneous understanding of their “rights” end up leading to either their arrest, or a detention that is prolonged past the few minutes that would have been necessary to ascertain their ID and send them on their way.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Proposition 47 does not put public safety first

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 09/16/2014 @ 10:01 AM

Californians are facing one of our most serious public safety threats in recent memory. The threat is Prop 47 — a ballot initiative that would flood the streets with thousands of dangerous felons and soften penalties to make misdemeanors out of serious crimes that are now felonies.

We face a huge uphill battle to defeat it. According to a recent San Francisco Chronicle column, the pro-Prop 47 forces have raised more than $3 million, compared to just $8,000 by the opposition. Recent polls show that about 6 in 10 people support it. But do they really know what Prop 47 is going to do if it passes?

That’s why it’s so important for you to get the word out about this ill-conceived and dangerous initiative. Its backers are peddling the sham that it would create safer neighborhoods and provide money for schools. They don’t want the public to know the following:

  • An estimated 10,000 inmates could apply to have their charges reduced to misdemeanors and get early releases. An independent analysis determined the vast majority of these people have violent crime histories. Felons with prior convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon and many other serious crimes will be eligible for early release under Prop 47.
  • Prop 47 will protect gun thieves by eliminating the current automatic felony prosecution for that crime. Under Prop 47, firearm theft would be a felony only if the value of the gun is greater than $950, and almost all handguns sell for less than that amount. People don’t steal guns to add them to their collection — they steal guns to commit other crimes, including murder.
  • Prop 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of date-rape drugs, such as ketamine, to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, or with stalking female victims, it will only be a misdemeanor. The judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their first time in court.
  • A defendant with priors for carjacking and armed robbery will receive a misdemeanor sentence for daytime commercial burglary.
  • Judges will be prevented from blocking the release of dangerous felons, except in very rare cases. Even if the judge finds that an inmate poses a risk of committing crimes such as kidnapping, robbery, assault, spousal abuse, torture of small animals, carjacking, or felonies committed on behalf of a street gang, Prop 47 requires their release.
  • All drug possession cases, including possession of heroin, methamphetamine or cocaine, will become automatic misdemeanors.
  • Shoplifting, theft, forgery and fraud — where the value of the stolen goods or forged documents is less than $950 — would be misdemeanors. The language of the measure suggests that even if a person forges multiple documents whose total value exceeds $950, the person could only be charged with a misdemeanor.

Prop 47 coddles sexual predators, increases the prospects of addicts continuing their addictions and committing crimes to feed their habits, eliminates current gun-theft deterrents and puts an enormous burden on small business by going easy on petty theft and fraud. It will burden our criminal justice system by overcrowding jails with dangerous felons who should be in a state prison, and it will jam courts with hearing requests from inmates seeking to obtain “Get out of prison free” cards.

Law enforcement professionals, prosecutors, business leaders and crime victim advocates recognize Prop 47 for what it is; a radical package of poorly thought-out policies, wrapped in a poorly drafted initiative, that will endanger all law-abiding Californians.

San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe put it succinctly when he recently told the San Jose Mercury-News, “Someone can commit petty theft 10,000 times and we’d still have to always charge it as a misdemeanor.”

Clearly, we’re not going to win the Prop 47 fundraising battle. But we must win the ballot box battle, and it’s critical for this state that we do. So, please talk to your friends, neighbors, relatives — everyone you can think of — and encourage them to vote NO on Prop 47 in November. Call and email your elected officials and encourage them to speak out against this dangerous and irresponsible initiative.

When a career criminal steals a firearm, or a suspected sexual predator possesses date-rape drugs, or a carjacker steals yet another vehicle, there needs to be an option besides a misdemeanor slap on the wrist. Proposition 47 DOES NOT put public safety first.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

The aftermath of police encounters with “unarmed” individuals — 57 murders

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 08/26/2014 @ 04:44 PM

Repeated descriptions of a suspect as “unarmed” when shot by a police officer does not, contrary to the belief of the New York Times and others who use the term without further describing the facts of the encounter, determine if the force used by an officer was lawful or reasonable. Labeling the suspect as “unarmed” does not begin to answer the question of the danger they posed in each instance where deadly force was used.

According to the FBI’s online database of officers feloniously killed, as well as the Officer Down Memorial Page, since 2000, there have been at least 57 occurrences where the suspects have taken officers’ weapons and murdered the police officer with it. Fifty-seven times, loved ones of those officers heard the awful knock on their front door, notifying them that their husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter would never be coming home again. Fifty-seven times, the threat that some loudly continue to claim does not exist, ended with fatal results.

While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI and www.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least 51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless. Twenty-five years ago, in the case of Graham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal standard for evaluating a use of force. The U.S. Supreme Court wrote an officer’s action is judged in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Crucially, the “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.” The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the “calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

The reality is that police officers need and wear guns. Those firearms can be taken by “unarmed” suspects and turned against the officer. Many armchair experts across the country sit around their air-conditioned conference rooms, pondering their views on how police officers could kill an “unarmed suspect” and the non-existent threat they pose to officers. We must ask, what did they use to as the factual basis for their conclusions? Is it from fictional police dramas on TV? Gut instinct?

We won’t be so crass as to suggest that we give a gun to the columnists and editorial writers who equate “unarmed” with “not dangerous,” and then tell them that although we are unarmed, we are going to try to take that gun from them. If successful, we will use the gun to shoot them. While we are confident this scenario might slightly affect their mindset on “unarmed” suspects, the tragic reality is that scenario has happened at least 57 times in 14 years.

Until all of the facts surrounding the use of force by any officer are known, the urge to decide whether the use of deadly force was reasonable and lawful is simply a “rush to judgment”—no matter how many times the suspect is referred to as “unarmed.”

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Currently reading page 6 of 44.

Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next Page