November 22nd: One of Modern History’s Darkest Days BY LARRY WINES That year, it was a Friday. It had rained the night before, but the weather had turned bright, sunny, comfortably warm and beautiful. So the glass bubble top was ordered removed. It would be top-down on the convertible limo for the motorcade, on instructions from The Boss himself, who enjoyed working on his tan. The crowds everywhere in Texas had been visibly enthusiastic and friendly, thrilled to greet the President of the United States and the First Lady, reveling in the fact that she was there for them. That was something she never did — accompanying her husband on a political trip that wasn’t an overseas diplomatic mission. Being Texas, there were Texas-size egos to assuage. So, rather than driving from Fort Worth — where they spent the night and were guests at a breakfast filled with laughter and instantly-built good will — it required a ridiculously short hop on Air Force One to the Dallas airport so citizens there wouldn’t feel like second choice for the prom. Indeed, Dallas would get a parade, with the whole city turning out to see the First Couple. A luncheon gala was set to follow, where the President had prepared an especially moving speech. Surely his words would capture plenty of column-inches in all the nation’s Friday evening and Saturday morning newspapers. Looking back to that November 22nd of 53 years ago, there is cause to find hope, and even more, a teachable moment, as we consider the terrible consequences of allowing bold dreams to die. But Friday’s news wouldn’t turn out that way. And that luncheon speech would be forgotten for years, and then relegated to a footnote that can still produce tears, even from those too young to have been there. We’re bringing you the encore that follows because the news of the last two weeks warrants it. This was published in 2013, when it marked the 50th anniversary of that terrible day. When the story appeared then in the L.A. Progressive, the boxed quote was, “It is certain that America lost its innocence and its faith in its leaders during the 1960s and 1970s. And it’s certain that began on November 22, 1963.” That still rings true. So does the sense of living in dark times that seem so hopeless. Looking back to that November 22nd of 53 years ago, there is cause to find hope, and even more, a teachable moment, as we consider the terrible consequences of allowing bold dreams to die. Here it is, in full, beginning with the 2013 title. Also note the art that ran with it, which is quite significant: it’s an image of the famous Jamie Wyeth oil portrait of JFK. (Strangely enough, the author was once assigned to safeguard the original, but that’s another story.) _____ (from 2013, on the 50th anniversary) A Final Word on November 22: The Day We Lost the Future of the Future By Larry Wines We’ve just finished a week of television’s incongruous mixes of wallowing in horrific forensics juxtaposed with revealing tributes, of critical commentary and analysis mixed with half-century-old images and memories of genuine grief and hand-wringing angst. A few more words beg to be said about John Fitzgerald Kennedy, because we don’t want questions of how he died to continue to overshadow the kind of leader he was. Sadly, even after five decades, society isn’t quite capable of separating those things. It is certain that America lost its innocence and its faith in its leaders during the 1960s and 1970s. And it’s certain that began on November 22, 1963. The 800,000 who lined JFK’s funeral route, and the 75 million who watched on television, were processing the shock and the grief. Few, if any, could have understood the substance of what was lost. Even today, it’s almost overwhelming. And it is transcendent. We live in a time that looks nothing like the future we expected. Would there have been a Watergate, a Vietnam quagmire, a preeminence of the Military-Industrial Complex, or even a Nixon Presidency, had there not been the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? Would America have seen the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act had JFK, instead of consummate political-arm-twister LBJ, been president? Would there have been a Cuban Missile Crisis if Nixon had beat Kennedy in 1960? Would there have been global thermonuclear war in 1962 had anyone but Kennedy been president? Would we have gone to the Moon without a Kennedy Presidency, and would we have gone had he not been killed? Would the spirit of unity and common effort — and asking what we can do for our country — have vanished in favor of high-tech narcissism? Would today’s politics of “I’ve got mine, you’re on your own,” have been possible had the culture of suspicion and cynicism and distrust not developed from the post-assassination / Vietnam war world? At last, historians are focusing on questions like these, instead of the titillating and salacious boudoir gossip and the assassination theory du jour. Enough facts are emerging to clarify all these questions, and more. And what is clear is that the man who founded the Peace Corps and the Green Berets; who faced-down the Russians over Cuba; the man who challenged us to “choose to go to the Moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” remains the most forward-looking American President since Woodrow Wilson. After being one of only two men in history – the other was Nikita Kruschev – who looked into the face of hotter-than-the-sun destruction of human society and a radioactive wasteland for survivors, JFK was deeply committed to achieving lasting peace with the Soviet Union, three decades before it happened. After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, he was in the middle of quiet negotiations with the Castro regime to normalize relations – something that still has not happened. Conventional wisdom holds that the Apollo program and its lunar explorations were possible only because of the Cold War. Was it just an exercise of the national ego after Russia launched Sputnik as the first artificial satellite and Yuri Gagarin as the first human in space? We now know that JFK had taken his overture beyond his UN speech about the new frontier of space exploration, proposing that the US and the USSR go to the Moon together as a cooperative venture. How many conflicts, uprisings, revolutions, refugee crises, flood and drought and famine deaths, and individual and collective cases of human mortality and suffering were prevented because JFK founded the Peace Corps? He has been found wanting in historical speculations as someone with the savvy to convince Southern Democrats that Southern segregation – the American apartheid – needed to end. It became conventional wisdom that only Lyndon Baines Johnson, as a prominent leader from Texas — a state more Southern than Western, a state of the Confederacy — had the political skills to pass President Kennedy’s Civil Rights Act. That may not be the case. JFK’s Texas trip, until the moment of the assassination, was a resounding success with the crowds. It was likewise a success with the warring factions of the Texas Democratic Party, who seemed to reconcile their differences with the visit by the President — and Jacqueline Kennedy, whose popularity and charm have never been exceeded by any other First Lady. Internationally, President Kennedy had a proactive Latin America policy, a resounding success in the wake of Eisenhower’s Vice President Nixon getting stoned – it had a literal meaning then – in Latin America. No American president since JFK has understood the concerns of the Western Hemisphere south of Texas. And like the Europeans, the rest of the Americas loved him. Not until George W. Bush took steps to fund AIDS prevention in Africa have we had a president that understood Kennedy’s “Africa for Africans” policy – and no president but JFK — including our current president — was proactively pro-African. But we need not speculate simply on the basis of terrestrial perceptions. What enabled his global popularity was the largely intangible embodiment of one of JFK’s favorite words: vigor. America was seen as a leader — happily, expectantly, peacefully and vigorously racing into a bright future, embracing it even before it was there, and inviting the rest of the world to come along. Secretary of State Dean Rusk was on his way to Japan when the assassination turned his plane back home. Along with the many concerns of his trade delegation, Rusk had a personal mission: to arrange a reunion of mariners for 1964. It would have been a reunion of the crew of PT 109 with the crew of the Japanese destroyer that rammed and sunk them in the South Pacific during World War II in 1944 — twenty years earlier. Little things are often as important as big ones when they are characteristic of outlook. And so many things about the Kennedy Presidency reveal a thoughtful, forward-looking leader who couldn’t wait to get to a brighter future. When the trips to the Moon were achieved, Nixon omitted the name of the man who started us on humanity’s greatest voyage. There are plaques affixed to the descent stages of the six Lunar Modules, still on the Moon where they will last for millenia, and each bears the signatures of the crew of that mission and the signature of Richard M. Nixon. With no mention of the man who had committed us to be bold and go there. And Nixon’s complex personality of paranoia, petty resentment and retribution was no doubt at work when he cancelled the final three Apollo missions and mandated the long starvation diet to suck the vigor out of the manned space program. Had Kennedy lived, there is good reason to believe the American presence in Vietnam would not have escalated. There is reason to believe we would have achieved détente with the Soviet Union, beyond Kennedy’s Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Those things alone would have freed billions of dollars for human empowerment and scientific exploration, two things dear to the spirit John Kennedy embodied with his dual sense of noblese oblige and bold adventure. Perhaps the twenty-first century that Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick portrayed in their 1968 epic, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” would have come to pass. Given the momentum that Nixon abruptly stopped, there is more reason to believe that we would have achieved the lost world of “2001” than not to believe it. Without the assassinations and the personal threat of getting drafted into the pointless meat-grinder of Vietnam, could the hopeful vigor of the Kennedy years have soured into disillusioned cynicism, protest and riots? And without the modern outlook of suspicion and mistrust, would we instead have presidents today who could challenge us to boldly go forth to explore and discover and take humanity to a realization of ever-increasing aspirations? Barack Obama can’t even get enough congressional support to repair the infrastructure we inherited from the administrations of Roosevelt and Truman, or of Eisenhower and Kennedy. It is excruciatingly impossible to imagine President Obama challenging us to reinvigorate the human spirit by returning to the adventurous exploration of space. Had Kennedy lived and completed a second term, I might be writing a column from a colony on Mars. November 22, 1963, was a singularity, one with implications so far-reaching we will never comprehend all that we lost: it was a specific moment in time when everything changed, when, transcending the shock and grief, the future of the future was forever stolen. Larry Wines POSTED ON NOVEMBER 22, 2016 shared from

SC defers petition to exhume Marcos

SC defers petition to exhume Marcos  0 BY JOMAR CANLAS, TMT ON NOVEMBER 23, 2016 The Supreme Court (SC) has deferred action on the petition seeking the exhumation of the remains of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. During the deliberations of the SC en banc, the justices decided to postpone action on the case because the ponente, Justice Diosdado Peralta, was on leave. The tribunal will tackle the petition next week. On Monday, separate petitions were filed before the SC en banc by martial law activists who asked the high court to cite in contempt the Marcos family and some military officials for the unannounced interment of Marcos. Many people were caught by surprise on Friday when the remains of Marcos was flown from Ilocos Norte to the heroes’ cemetery. The petitioners asked the court to order the detention of Marcos’ heirs and military officials involved “until they have satisfactorily cleansed themselves of the contemptuous act or until such further orders of the Court.” Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said Marcos’ remains should be exhumed because the decision of the high court allowing the burial of the former leader at the heroes’ cemetery is not yet final and executory. shared from

Lagman: Nothing unchristian in move to exhume Marcos remains

Lagman: Nothing unchristian in move to exhume Marcos remains There is nothing unchristian in exhuming the remains of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani because jurisprudence allows it in cases of litigation, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said on Tuesday. In the press briefing of the “Magnificent Seven” minority bloc at the House of Representatives, Lagman, a petitioner against Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, said the Supreme Court has made decisions allowing the exhumation of one’s remains. Lagman said the Supreme Court earlier allowed the wife of a deceased lawyer to exhume the remains of her the husband after the common-law wife managed the burial. “They are most likely unaware of Supreme Court decisions which have ruled that exhumation in proper places is allowed. There was one case where the legal wife was separated from the deceased husband a long time, and the common-law wife managed the burial,” Lagman said of those criticizing their move to exhume the Marcos body as “unchristian.” “The legal wife filed the petition, it was initially denied by the trial court but consequently the Supreme Court ruled that the legal wife has the right to … determine where the deceased husband should be buried. So the Supreme Court ordered the exhumation,” he added. READ: Lagman: Ask SC to exhume Marcos’ body to check if wax or not Lagman said there are several more Supreme Court decisions allowing the exhumation of a body in cases of litigation which do not describe the exhumation as unchristian. “The Supreme Court did not consider that unchristian, because such a Supreme Court decision to order the exhumation of the deceased in proper cases. And this case is a proper case, because the implementation of the decision of the Supreme Court is not valid and executory,” Lagman said. Lagman filed a motion to exhume the body before the Supreme Court in order to determine if the interred remains were the bones or the wax figure of the dictator. WATCH: Marcos buried at Libingan ng mga Bayani Lagman also said the hasty secret burial was “premature, void and irregular” because the Supreme Court decision was “indubitably not final and executory, and the lifting of the status quo ante order, an accessory directive, was also not yet final.” Lagman also sought the Supreme Court’s agreement to have the Marcos family cited in contempt for conspiring with the military and police in preparing the “premature and clandestine Marcos burial.” RAM/rga shared from

SC asked to order exhumation of Marcos' remains Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at Nov 21 2016 05:35 PM MANILA - Opposition lawmaker and Albay Representative Edcel Lagman urged the Supreme Court (SC) to order the exhumation of the remains of former President Ferdinand Marcos, three days after Marcos was interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). In an 8-page pleading filed with the high court before lunchtime on Monday, Lagman said the exhumation of Marcos' remains was necessary since his burial was "premature, precipitate and irregular" on the basis that the decision allowing the burial "has not attained finality and was not executory." On November 8, the high court, voting 9-5, with one abstention, junked seven petitions assailing the move of President Duterte to allow Marcos' interment at the LNMB. The ruling also ordered the lifting of a status quo ante order (SQAO) earlier issued that halted the burial for some two months. "Since the object of the premature burial is the so-called interred 'mortal remains' of Marcos, perforce the same must be exhumed as a rectification of the void execution.  "The exhumation is imperative in order not to render moot and academic the petitioners' forthcoming and seasonable motion/s for reconsideration, the resolution of which had been preempted by the precipitate burial in the wake of nationwide protests and cogent commentaries against the subject Decision of the [SC]," Lagman's motion read. The exhumation is also intended to "effectively censure and discipline" the Marcos family and top defense and military officials for their "disrespect" against the SC, the motion stressed. The motion further pointed out that "with the inordinate haste and stealthy circumstances which shrouded the interment, there is no certainty as to what was actually buried in the LNMB." As such, Lagman asked that a forensic examination of the buried remains be conducted to determine whether what was actually interred were Marcos' remains, and "not any other artifact or a wax replica of the late dictator, since his remains could have been buried decades ago in Batac, Ilocos Norte as he reportedly wished to be buried near his mother, the late Doña Josefa Edralin Marcos in Batac." READ: 'Is it real?' Lagman wants buried Marcos body examined Lagman also informed the high court that he will also be filing a pleading to cite respondents in contempt of court. Another group of petitioners, led by former Bayan Muna Representative Saturnino Ocampo, filed a separate petition with the SC, also on Monday, to cite respondents in indirect contempt.  shared from

Ruling in Nalundasan case may yet bar Marcos burial at Libingan By Miguel Paolo Reyes and Joel Ariate Jr. (Vera Files) | Updated November 16, 2016 - 1:18pm MANILA, Philippines – In the rules of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, AFP Regulations G 161-375 to be exact, only two conditions disqualify deceased personnel from being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The first is dishonorable discharge from the service; the second is conviction by final judgment “for an offense involving moral turpitude.” The second may yet apply to former President Ferdinand Marcos whose burial at the Libingan, 27 years after his death, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a decision on Nov. 8, to the anger of people who say he doesn’t deserve a hero’s burial. Seventy-six years ago on October 22, 1940, the Supreme Court itself convicted Marcos for an offense that may be judged as involving moral turpitude. He and three of his relatives were found guilty of contempt of court for filing eight separate complaints against the principal witness of the prosecution in the murder of Julio Nalundasan, even before the conclusion of the trial. Nalundasan was the rival of Ferdinand’s father, congressman Mariano Marcos. The story goes that Nalundasan was killed by a sniper’s bullet on the night of September 20, 1935, while he was brushing his teeth by the window of his home in Batac, Ilocos Norte. This was just a few days after he defeated Mariano in the congressional elections, and was declared the duly elected representative of Ilocos Norte’s second district. Charged with murder were Mariano, his brother Pio, their brother-in-law Quirino Lizardo, and Ferdinand, then an 18-year-old University of the Philippines student and, by various accounts, a sharpshooter.   The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which recounts in G.R. No. L-47388, People of the Philippines v. Mariano Marcos et al., that the four filed eight separate complaints against Calixto Aguinaldo, the prosecution’s principal witness. They accused him of making false testimony against them during the preliminary investigation on Dec. 7, 1938, and during their trial. But it turns out that they filed those eight complaints when only Lizardo’s trial had commenced. The trial of the three Marcoses had then not even begun. The rules of court require a judgment to be rendered before a charge of false testimony can be filed against a witness. Ilocos Norte’s Court of First Instance found Quirino Lizardo, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos guilty of contempt of court. The Supreme Court said, “It is evident that the charges for false testimony filed by the four accused above mentioned could not be decided until the main case for murder was disposed of, since no penalty could be meted out to Calixto Aguinaldo for his alleged false testimony without first knowing the extent of the sentence to be imposed against Lizardo and the Marcoses (Revised Penal Code, art. 180).” “The latter should therefore have waited for the termination of the principal case in the lower court before filing the charges for false testimony against Calixto Aguinaldo. Facts considered, we are of the opinion that the action of the Marcoses and Lizardo was calculated, or at least tended, directly or indirectly to obstruct the administration of justice and that, therefore, the trial court properly found them guilty of contempt,” the High Court said.  The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte had convicted Ferdinand Marcos and Lizardo of murder and contempt. Ferdinand, then a law student, brought the case to the Supreme Court and asked that it overturn his and Lizardo’s conviction. Mariano and Pio, meanwhile, appealed their conviction for contempt.  Justice Jose Laurel penned the decision acquitting Marcos and Lizardo of the murder charge. But it sustained the Ilocos Norte Court of First Instance’s decision that all three Marcoses and Lizardo were guilty of desacato (contempt). The Court of First Instance ordered them to pay a fine of P200 or, in case of insolvency or non-payment, the corresponding jail time. Laurel’s decision for the Supreme Court lowered the fine to P50. But the conviction stayed. Hence, the first element in the AFP provision for disqualification is met. For the contempt of court offense, after Marcos was afforded due process by the Court of First Instance and heard on appeal by the Supreme Court, a final judgment was reached. He was guilty.  Moral turptitude? But does a guilty for contempt of court verdict necessarily mean having committed an act involving moral turpitude? What is moral turpitude in the first place? Until 1940, the Supreme Court made only two rulings involving moral turpitude.In the first case, a lawyer was convicted of abduction with consent, and the petitioner asked that he be suspended or disbarred. The Supreme Court issued a one-year suspension to be served after he was released from prison. In his decision on that case, In Re: Basa (December 7, 1920), in what is considered the first decision involving the issue, Justice George Malcolm used Bouvier’s Law Dictionary to define it. “Moral turpitude, it has been said, includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals,” Malcolm said. “The inherent nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the accepted rule of right conduct,” Malcolm continued.   Another pre-1940 case In Re: Isada (November 16, 1934), also penned by Malcolm, maintained that the crime of concubinage involves moral turpitude. The respondent, also a lawyer, after serving his conviction for the main crime, was also suspended for a year. Succeeding Supreme Court rulings have either adhered to the law dictionary definition of moral turpitude as established in In Re: Basa (though they have moved on from Bouvier’s to Black’s) or have done particular refinements on how to determine if moral turpitude is concomitant with certain offenses. The court now holds that “not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude”  (dela Torre v. Comelec, G.R. 121592, July 5, 1996). What evolved in practice is “the way for a case-to-case approach in determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude” (Brion concurring in Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009), and “as to what crime involves moral turpitude is for the Supreme Court to determine” (A.M. 1162, A.C. 1163, A.M. 1164, August 29, 1975). In recent cases involving moral turpitude, the Supreme Court employs three approaches in making its determination (Brion concurring in Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009). First, to determine whether “the act itself must be inherently immoral”; second, “to look at the act committed through its elements as a crime”; and the third, “essentially takes the offender and his acts into account in light of the attendant circumstances of the crime: was he motivated by ill will indicating depravity?” In deciding Garcia v. De Vera (A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003), the Supreme Court had occasion to rule on whether or not indirect contempt of court can be an offense involving moral turpitude. But following the Supreme Court’s own prescription for determining involvement of moral turpitude in a case, that decision does not automatically preclude all contempt of court cases—both direct and indirect—as free of moral turpitude. In that case, the respondent had been previously found guilty of indirect contempt by the Supreme Court itself for having made a statement in public that in the court’s appreciation, was “clearly made to mobilize public opinion and bring pressure on the Court.” For that very specific act alone, the Court said, “the act for which he was found guilty of indirect contempt” does not involve moral turpitude because “it cannot be said that the act of expressing one’s opinion on a public interest issue can be considered as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity.” In the Philippines, contempt can be considered criminal or civil. According to the Supreme Court in People vs. Godoy (G.R. Nos. 115908-09, March 29, 1995), “the real character of the proceedings is to be determined by the relief sought, or the dominant purpose, and the proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment, and civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial.” In Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, et al. v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, et al. (G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011), the Supreme Court stated that “proceedings for contempt are sui generis, in nature criminal.” The Court said that a criminal contempt “consists in conduct that is directed against the authority and dignity of a court or of a judge acting judicially, as in unlawfully assailing or discrediting the authority and dignity of the court or judge, or in doing a duly forbidden act.” Meanwhile, it stated that a civil contempt “consists in the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or judge in a civil case for the benefit of the opposing party therein.” The Court continued: “Where the dominant purpose is to enforce compliance with an order of a court for the benefit of a party in whose favor the order runs, the contempt is civil; where the dominant purpose is to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court, and to protect the interests of the general public, the contempt is criminal.” In the final decision on the Nalundasan case, Laurel said, “The inherent power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle (Villavicencio vs. Lukban 39 Phil., 778), and on the corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of punishment.” Based only on this statement, it would appear that the contempt committed by the Marcoses was construed by the High Court as being indirect and civil in nature.  However, in the same decision, the Supreme Court described the action of the Marcoses and Lizardo as “directly or indirectly [obstructing] the administration of justice,” which could mean they committed “a duly forbidden act.”  While there is currently no jurisprudence in the Philippines that states that obstruction of justice involves moral turpitude, what Marcos and his relatives did was to harass the main witness in their murder trial with legal action. They filed eight separate complaints alleging that the principal witness for the prosecution, Calixto Aguinaldo, committed false testimony while the Nalundasan murder trial was still ongoing.  At the very least, this demonstrates a lack of faith in the judge trying the case, insinuating he is incapable of discerning the veracity of the testimony of witnesses before his court. In American jurisprudence (see Padilla v. Gonzales, 397 F.3d 1016), obstruction of justice is considered a crime involving moral turpitude. Since the possible sentence for Marcos and his kin for the murder of Nalundasan ranged from 12 to 20 years imprisonment to death, the Revised Penal Code provides that had they been convicted and Aguinaldo proven to have committed false testimony, then Aguinaldo would be in jail from six to 20 years. The cost of defending himself against eight lawsuits would have also been prohibitive. Marcos and his relatives may not have committed an act that is evil in itself, but there is no doubt malice, the ill will that was inherent in their action to corrupt legal avenues for redress for their own self-serving ends. (Miguel Paolo P. Reyes and Joel F. Ariate Jr. are researchers at the Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman. Christian Victor Masangkay provided research assistance in writing this article.)  shared from

Tsunami Warning Issued as Quake Strikes Off Fukushima in Japan BY Edward Johnson edwardrjohnson November 21, 2016 — 1:46 PM PST A magnitude 7.3 earthquake struck Japan off the coast of Fukushima, home to the nuclear power plant badly damaged in a March 2011 quake, triggering a tsunami alert. The local currency rose. The temblor struck at 5:59 a.m. local time at a depth of 10 kilometers, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency. Tokyo Electric Power Co. said it was checking the plant and would issue updates as soon as information became available. State-run broadcaster NHK said a tsunami was expected imminently at Iwaki City. shared from

95TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_22NOV16_TO THE SCP JUSTICES_MARCOS A MENACE LIVING OR DEAD

PERTH, AUSTRALIA...BEAUTY IN THE BUSH BY JOEL CANO