Disciplinary Action against Jordan Weiss, M.D.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


In February 2005, as noted below, the Medical Board of California charged Jordan Paul Weiss, M.D. with negligence, sexual misconduct, and unprofessional conduct in connection with his treatment of two female patients. In both cases, he was accused of sexual molestation (including vaginal massage) while administering a treatment he invented called "psychoenergetic therapy." Four months later, the case was settled by a consent agreement and order under which Weiss surrendered his medical license. His now-defunct Web site described psychoenergetic healing as a "new kind of therapy (combining elements of psychotherapy, bodywork and energy healing) specifically aimed at releasing negative emotions." The site also claimed that Weiss was clairvoyant and was "one of only a handful of physican energy healers in the United States with his unique abilities."


BILL LOCKYER
Attorney General of the State of California
VIVIEN H. HARA,
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
LYNNE K. DOMBROWSKI,
State Bar No. 128080
Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 703-5578
Facsimile: (415) 703-5480

Attorneys for Complainant

BEFORE THE
DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY
MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

JORDAN P. WEISS, M.D.
2102 Business Center Drive
Irvine, California 92612

Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate # G39210

Respondent.


|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|


Case No. 04-2002-137129

OAR No. L2004 010490

FIRST AMENDED ACCUSATION

Filed February 16, 2005

Complainant alleges:

PARTIES

1. David T. Thornton ("Complainant") brings this First Amended Accusation solely in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Medical Board of Califomia, Department of Consumer Affairs ("Board").

2. On or about May 7, 1979, the Board issued Physician and Surgeon's Certificate Number G39210 to Jordan P. Weiss, M.D. ("Respondent"). The Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein and will expire on April 30, 2005, unless renewed.

3. Complainant understands and believes that, at all times relevant to the charges brought herein, respondent practiced under the business name of the Center for Psychoenergetic Therapy located at 20 Corporate Park, Suite 125, Irvine, California 92606.

JURISDICTION

4. This Accusation is brought before the Division of Medical Quality ("Division") for the Board under the authority of the following laws. All section references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise indicated.

5. Section 726 of the Code states, in pertinent part:

"The commission of any act of sexual abuse, misconduct, or relations with a patient, client, or customer constitutes unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary action for any person licensed under this division, under any initiative act referred to in this division and under Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 3."

6. Section 729 of the Code states, in pertinent part:

"(a) Any physician and surgeon . . . who engages in an act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual contact with a patient or client, ... is guilty of sexual exploitation by a physician and surgeon.

"(b) Sexual exploitation by a physician and surgeon ... is a public offense:

(1) An act in violation of subdivision (a) shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine . . .

"(3) An act or acts in violation of subdivision (a) with two or more victims shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of 16 months, two years, or three years, and a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000); or the act or acts shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than one year, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by both that imprisonment

"For purposes of subdivision (a), in no instance shall consent of the patient or client be a defense. However, physicians and surgeons shall not be guilty of sexual exploitation for touching any intimate part of a patient or client unless the touching is outside the scope of the medical examination and treatment, or the touching is done for sexual gratification.

"(c) For purposes of this section: ...

"(3) Sexual contact" means sexual intercourse of the touching of an intimate part of a patient for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse.

(4) "Intimate part" and "touching" have the same meanings as defined in Section 243.4 of the Penal Code." (Emphasis added.)

7. Section 243.4 of the Penal Code defines "touches" as "physical contact with the skin of another person whether accomplished directly or through the clothing of the person committing the offense" and defines "intimate part" as "the sexual organ, anus, groin, or buttocks of any person and the breast of a female."

8. Section 2234 of the Code states:

"The Division of Medical Quality shall take action against any licensee who is charged with unprofessional conduct. In addition to other provisions of this article~ unprofessional conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

"(a) Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, assisting in or abetting the violation of, or conspiring to violate any provision of this chapter [Chapter 5, the Medical Practice Act].

"(b) Gross negligence.

"(c) Repeated negligent acts. To be repeated, there must be two or more negligent acts or omissions. An initial negligent act or omission followed by a separate and distinct departure from the applicable standard of care shall constitute repeated negligent acts ...

"(d) Incompetence.

"(e) The commission of any act involving dishonesty or corruption which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon."

9. Section 2227 of the Code provides that a licensee who is found guilty under the Medical Practice Act may have his or her license revoked, suspended for a period not to exceed one year, placed on probation and required to pay the costs of probation monitoring, or such other action taken in relation to discipline as the Division deems proper.

10. Section 2242 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, that prescribing, dispensing, or furnishing dangerous drugs as defined in Section 4022 without a good faith prior examination and medical indication therefore, constitutes unprofessional conduct.

11. Section 2246 of the Codes provides, in pertinent part, that:

"Any proposed decision _ .. that contains any finding of fact that the licensee engaged in any act of sexual exploitation, as described in paragraphs (3) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 729, with a patient shall contain an order of revocation. The revocation shall not be stayed by the administrative law judge."

12. Section 2266 of the Code states: "The failure of a physician and surgeon to maintain adequate and accurate records relating to the provision of services to their patients constitutes unprofessional conduct."

13. Section 2285 of the Code states, in pertinent part, that: "The use of any fictitious, false, or assumed name, or any name other than his or her own by a licensee either alone, in conjunction with a partnership or group, or as the name of a professional corporation, in any public communication, advertisement, sign, or announcement of his or her practice without a fictitious-name permit obtained pursuant to Section 2415 constitutes unprofessional conduct."

COST RECOVERY

14. Section 125.3 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, that the Division may request the administrative law judge to direct a licentiate found to have committed a violation or violations of the licensing act to pay a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case.

15. Section 14124.12 of the Welfare and Institutions Code states, in pertinent part:

"(a) Upon receipt of written notice from the Medical Board of California ... that a licensee's license has been placed on probation as a result of a disciplinary action, the department may not reimburse any Medi-Cal claim for the type of surgical service or invasive procedure that gave rise to the probation, including any dental surgery or invasive procedure, that was performed by the licensee on or after the effective date of probation and until the termination of all probationary terms and conditions or until the probationary period has ended, whichever occurs first. This section shall apply except in any case in which the relevant licensing board determines that compelling circumstances warrant the continued reimbursement during the probationary period of any Medi-Cal claim, including any claim for dental services, as so described. In such a case, the department shall continue to reimburse the licensee for all procedures, except for those invasive or surgical procedures for which the licensee was placed on probation."

UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

16. Section 11007 of the California Health and Safety Code1 defines a "controlled substance", in pertinent part, as a drug included in Schedules I through V, inclusive, pursuant to Health and Safety Code §§ 11054 through 11058.

1Hereinafter referred to as the "Health and Safety Code".

17. Section 11056 of the Health and Safety Code sets forth Schedule III controlled substances.

18. Section 11153 of the Health and Safety Code states, in part, that a prescription for a controlled substance shall only be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his or her professional practice.

19. Section 11171 of the Health and Safety Code states that no person shall prescribe, administer, or furnish a controlled substance except under the conditions and in the manner provided by this division.

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES/DANGEROUS DRUGS INVOLVED

20. Vicodin ES (7.5 mg. tablets) (Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen) is a Schedule ill controlled substance and narcotic as defined by section 11056(e) of the Health and Safety Code and is a dangerous drug as defined by section 4022 of the Business and Professions Code. Vicodin ES (extra strength) is a semi-synthetic narcotic analgesic and may have additive effects on central nervous system depression when taken in combination with other narcotic analgesics, anti-psychotic or anti-anxiety drugs, alcohol or other central nervous system depressants.

21. Trazodone hydrochloride (also known as Desyrel) is an anti-depressant and a dangerous drug as defined by section 4022 of the Business and Professions Code.

22. Serzone (Nefazodone HCL) is an anti-depressant and a dangerous drug as defined by section 4022 of the Business and Professions Code.

23. Prozac (Fluoxetine HCL) is an anti-depressant, MAO inhibitor, and a dangerous drug as defined by section 4022 of the Business and Professions Code.

24. Lorazeparn (also known as Ativan) is a benzodiazepine anti-anxiety agent with a depressant effect on the central nervous system. It is a Schedule IV controlled substance as defined by section 11057(d)(13) of the Health and Safety Code and is a dangerous drug as defined by section 4022 of the Business and Professions Code.

25. Buspar (Buspirone HCL) is an anti-anxiety agent with sedative/hypnotic properties and is a dangerous drug as defined by section 4022 of the Business and Professions Code.

26. Alprazolarn (also known as Xanax) is a benzodiazepine anti-anxiety agent, a Schedule IV controlled substance as defined by section 11057(d)(I) of the Health and Safety Code, and is a dangerous drug as defmed by section 4022 of the Business and Professions Code.

27. Ambien (Zolpidem tartrate) is a non-benzodiazepine hypnotic with a depressant effect on the central nervous system and is used in the short-term treatment of insomnia. It is a Schedule IV controlled substance as defined by section 11057 of the Health and Safety Code and a dangerous drug as defined by section 4022 of the Business and Professions Code.

FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Unprofessional Conduct: Gross Negligence and/or Incompetence—Patient RB.2)

2The names of the patients are kept confidential to protect their privacy rights, and, though known to Respondent, will be revealed upon his written request for discovery.

28. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct under section 2234 of the Code, subsections (b) and/or (d) in that he is guilty of gross negligence and/or incompetence in the care and treatment of patient B.B. as detailed herein below.

29. On or about February 16, 2001, patient B.B., a female patient who was forty-years-old at the time, saw Respondent with complaints of emotional problems secondary to asthma. Patient B.B.'s asthma was being treated by another physician. Patient B.B sought traditional psychiatric treatment from Respondent. Respondent diagnosed the patient as suffering from recurrent major depressive disorder and prescribed Prozac, an antidepressant medication.

30. The patient thereafter saw Respondent several more times for regular psychotherapy sessions. Over the course of these sessions, Respondent prescribed more antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications, including Trazodone, Lorazepam (Ativan), Buspar, Serzone, and Ambien. Respondent often provided patient B.B. with sample packets of Serzone and/or Buspar. During the course of her treatment with Respondent, patient RB. experienced fatigue, lethargy, and had trouble functioning in everyday activities.

31. On or about February 23, 2001, at or about the second session with patient B.B., Respondent discussed "psychoenergetic therapy," which he described as a type of acupressure. Respondent gave the patient some written information about "psychoenergetics" and also referred the patient to Respondent's website (www.idoheal.com) and to his self-published book on "psychoenergetics." In actuality, "psychoenergetic therapy" is a therapy of Respondent's own creation that has been neither tested nor scientifically proven to be beneficial. At the following sessions with patient B.B., Respondent continued to encourage the patient to undergo "psychoenergetic therapy."

32. On or about March 21, 2001, Respondent sent a letter regarding his diagnosis and prognosis of patient RB. to Captain Lewis of the L.A. City Fire Department, using the letterhead of the "Center for Psychoenergetic Therapy."

33. On or about July 5, 2001, patient B.B. agreed to undergo "psychoenergetic therapy" with Respondent. Patient RB. signed a document entitled "Treatment Agreement for Psychoenergetic Healing" with the belief that the touching involved would be similar to acupressure. Respondent asks in said document that the patient "be open to the varieties of Psychoenergetic techniques and trust that as a highly trained professional and therapy innovator I know how best how to help."

34. At that session on July 5, 2001, Respondent started with a traditional therapy session and then ended with "psychoenergetic therapy." During the "psychoenergetic therapy" part, Respondent instructed the patient to sit and hold vials of substances while Respondent chanted and passed a chiropractic instrument known as an activator over the patient, touching her upper torso, arms, and legs.

35. On or about July 20, 2001, Respondent again administered "psychoenergetic therapy" to the patient but this time Respondent had patient B.B. lie on her back on a massage table. Respondent chanted and rocked, using the same chiropractic instrument to touch her upper torso, arms, and legs, placing the instrument very close to her breasts.

36. On or about August 6, 2001, Respondent administered "psychoenergetic therapy" to patient B.B. a third time. During this third treatment session, the patient fell asleep on the massage table. When she awoke, her underwear had been pulled down to her mid-thigh and Respondent's hand was in her crotch and his finger was inserted in her vagina. When confronted, Respondent told the patient that he was reaching for the patient's "grounding" or 'root" chakra. Patient B.B. realized, after the session, that it had lasted much longer than one hour and that her underwear was very wet and her left nipple was sore. Patient B.B. never again returned to Respondent's office.

37. Patient B.B.'s condition of major depression worsened as a result of her experience with Respondent. Starting sometime in or about September 2001, Patient B.B. sought treatment from another psychotherapist to deal with the harm caused by Respondent's conduct, in addition to dealing with her continuing issues related to depression.

38. On or about August 7, 2002, the Medical Board received a consumer complaint from patient B.B., which the Board investigated.

39. More specifically, Respondent committed gross negligence and/or incompetence in his treatment of patient B.B., jointly and separately, as follows:

A. By using "psychoenergetics," a therapy of his own creation, on patient B.B. which has not been tested or scientifically proven to provide benefit to the patient and do no harm. Respondent's use of an untested and unproven therapy represents an extreme departure from the standard of care; and/or

B. By engaging in intimate and/or sexual contact with the patient under the guise of providing psychiatric care and treatment for a patient with major depression and anxiety. Such contact, which is likely to cause patient harm and violates therapist/patient professional boundaries, constitutes an extreme departure from the standard of care; and/or

C. By performing a treatment procedure on patient B.B. while she was asleep or unconscious and unable to provide consent to any treatment, which constitutes an extreme departure from the standard of care.

SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Sexual Misconduct and/or Sexual Exploitation—Patient B.B.)

40. Paragraphs 29 through 37 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.

41. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for sexual misconduct pursuant to section 726 and/or for sexual exploitation pursuant to section 729 in the care and treatment of patient B.B., because Respondent touched intimate parts of patient B.B. (breasts, groin, genitalia, vagina) outside the scope of an appropriate medical examination and treatment and/or which touching was done not for a medical or therapeutic purpose but for sexual gratification.

THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Unprofessional Conduct: Gross Negligence and/or Incompetence—Patient H.L.)

42. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subsections (b) and/or (d), of the Code in that he is guilty of gross negligence and/or incompetence in the care and treatment of patient H.L. as detailed herein below.

43. On or about May 18, 2000, patient H.L., a female patient who was then twenty-four-years-old, presented to Respondent with symptoms of depression and anxiety stemming from a number of significant losses and a history of being sexually molested as a child. Patient H. L. sought traditional psychiatric treatment from Respondent. Patient H.L. told Respondent that she had recently been diagnosed with lupus. Respondent diagnosed the patient as suffering from major depression.

44. At the first session, Respondent prescribed for patient H.L. Prozac, Ativan, and Vicodin ES. However, Respondent did not perform a physical examination of the patient and did not document the medical/clinical indication for his prescribing of a controlled substance, the narcotic analgesic Vicodin ES.

45. At their first session, Respondent also discussed "psychoenergetic therapy" with patient H.L. and gave her some written information about the "treatment." Respondent referred patient H.L. to his website ("www.idoheal.com") and to his self-published book on "psychoenergetics" and gave her some cassette tapes to review. Respondent also gave the patient a consent form for "psychoenergetic healing," which she never signed.

46. At or about the first session, Respondent also demonstrated "psychoenergetics" to patient H.L. by touching and putting pressure with his hands on her head.

47. Respondent's patient records show that he saw the patient approximately seven more times following his May 18, 2000 session, with the last session occurring on or about July 27, 2000.

48. Toward the end of a subsequent treatment session with patient H.L in May or June of 2000, Respondent asked patient H.L. "what hurts?" and then administered "psychoenergetic therapy" while the patient was seated. Respondent spoke in tongues, tapping her repeatedly on her chest, then with skin-to-skin contact massaged her right and left breasts and touched her left nipple. At the end of the session the patient, uncomfortable that Respondent had touched her breasts, told Respondent she did not want any more "psychoenergetic therapy" treatment.

49. During a subsequent treatment session with patient H.L. in May or June of 2000, Respondent commenced traditional psychotherapy for most of the session, but near the end of the session he again asked her "what hurts?" and when she told him her head hurt, Respondent insisted on administering more "psychoenergetic therapy." Respondent massaged and/or used pressure on the patient's head.

50. On or about July 6, 2000, Respondent saw patient H.L. for another treatment session. At this session, patient H.L. told Respondent that she recently learned that she had been mis-diagnosed with lupus and that instead she had fibromyalgia. Respondent discussed with her various boundary problems and molestation issues, then performed "psychoenergetic therapy" on her. Respondent had patient H.L lie face-up on a massage table and remove her top. Respondent rubbed the patient's chest area and massaged her right breast. Unhooking the patient's bra, Respondent massaged both of her breasts using both of his hands and pinched her nipples. He touched the patient's navel and began massaging her pelvic area. Respondent also rubbed her anus, unzipped her pants, cupped her vagina in his hand and touched her clitoris. The patient began to shake and whimper and related her discomfort to Respondent, who attempted to hug her. The patient became hysterical and got off the massage table. Respondent thereafter spent approximately ninety minutes attempting to calm the patient and justify the "psychoenergetic therapy" he had purportedly just administered.

51. On or about July 11, 2000, patient H.L. sought treatment from another psychotherapist to deal with the harm caused by Respondent's conduct, in addition to dealing with her continuing issues related to depression.

52. On or about July 27, 2000; patient H.L. saw Respondent for one last session, which lasted less than 30 minutes and which involved no "psychoenergetics."

53. Sometime in or about August 2000, Respondent tried to contact patient H.L. by telephone calls and by letter on stationery from the "Center of Psychoenergetic Therapy."

54. Sometime in or about September, 2002, the Medical Board began an investigation after it received a Report of Settlement pursuant to Business and Professions Code 801 in which it was reported that Respondent's insurer had paid $50,000 to settle a civil matter brought by patient H.L. against Respondent.

55. More specifically, Respondent committed gross negligence and or incompetence in his treatment of H.L., jointly and separately, as follows:

A. By using "psychoenergetics," a therapy of his own creation, on patient RB. which has not been tested or scientifically proven to provide benefit to the patient and do no harm. Respondent's use of an untested and unproven therapy represents an extreme departure from the standard of care; and/or B. By engaging in intimate and/or sexual contact with the patient under the guise of providing psychiatric care and treatment for a patient with major depression and already facing psychological conflicts regarding boundary issues and sexual abuse. Such contact, which is likely to cause patient harm and violates therapist/patient professional boundaries, constitutes an extreme departure from the standard of care.

FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Sexual Misconduct and/or Sexual Exploitation—Patient H.L.)

56. Paragraphs 43 through 53 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.

57. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for sexual misconduct pursuant to section 726 and/or for sexual exploitation pursuant to section 729 in the care and treatment of patient H.L. because Respondent touched intimate parts of patient H.L. (breasts, groin, genitalia, clitoris, anus) outside the scope of an appropriate medical examination and treatment and/or which touching was done not for a medical or therapeutic purpose but for sexual gratification.

FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Repeated Negligent Acts—Patients B.B. and H.L.)

58. Paragraphs 29 through 37 and paragraphs 43 through 53 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.

59. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under sections 2234, subsection (c) and/or section 2266 of the Code in that he committed unprofessional conduct through repeated acts of negligence in the care and treatment of patient B.B. and patient R.L. and/or inadequate record keeping as follows:

A. Respondent used "psychoenergetics," a therapy of his own creation, on numerous occasions on these two patients who came to him for traditional psychiatric therapy and whom Respondent had diagnosed with treatable psychiatric conditions. "Psychoenergetics" is a purported therapy that has not been tested or scientifically proven to provide benefit to patients and to do no harm; and/or

B. Respondent engaged in intimate and/or sexual contact with the patients under the guise of providing care and treatment, which contact repeatedly crossed therapist/patient professional boundaries; and/or

C. Respondent performed a "psychoenergetic" procedure on patient RB. while she was asleep and unable to provide consent; and/or

D. Respondent prescribed a controlled· substance, Vicodin ES, for patient H.L. without documenting a treatment plan, without performing a good faith prior examination and without a medical/clinical indication therefor; and/or

E. Respondent delayed and prematurely terminated traditional psychiatric treatment for both patient B.B. and patient H.L., and/or

G. Respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records relating to the provision of services to patient B.B. and/or patient H.L.

SIXTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Prescribing Without A Good Faith Medical Examination—Patient H.L.)

60. Paragraphs 43, 44, and 47 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.

61. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under sections 2234(b) and/or 2234(e), 2238, and 2242 and Health and Safety Code sections 11153, 11157, 11171 and 11210 in that Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct, gross negligence and/or dishonest or corrupt acts in that Respondent has prescribed controlled substances without a good faith prior examination and medical indication therefor and without a legitimate medical purpose, as detailed herein below.

62. For a period of about 10 weeks, from about May 18, 2000 until about July 27, 2000, Respondent prescribed approximately 240 tablets of Vicodin ES (more than 3 tablets daily) without a documented medical indication and without performing a good faith medical examination. More specifically:

A. On May 18, 2000, Respondent prescribed #30 Vicodin ES with 2 refills of #30 each to patient H.L.;

B. On June 22, 2000, Respondent prescribed #90 Vicodin ES to patient H.L.; and,

C. On July 27, 2000, Respondent prescribed #60 Vicodin ES to patient H.L..

SEVENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Unprofessional Conduct: Failure to Obtain a Fictitious Name Permit)

63. Paragraphs 3, 32, and 53 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.

64. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct under section 2285 of the Code in that he used the false or fictitious business name of "Center for Psychoenergetic Therapy" in public communications, advertisement, or announcement of his practice without obtaining a fictitious-name permit obtained pursuant to Section 2415.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Division of Medical Quality issue a decision:

1. Revoking or suspending Physician and Surgeon's Certificate Number G39210, issued to Jordan P. Weiss, M.D.;

2. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of Jordan P. Weiss, M.D.'s authority to supervise physician's assistants, pursuant to section 3527 of the Code;

3. Ordering Jordan P. Weiss, M.D. to pay the Division of Medical Quality the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of this case, and, if placed on probation, the costs of probation monitoring; and/or

4. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper.

DATED: February 16, 2005

____________________________
DAVID T. THORNTON
Executive Director
Medical Board of California
Department of Consumer Affairs
State of California
Complainant

This page was posted on February 26, 2007.

Links to Recommended Companies