Major Stefan Frederick Cook v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility - Dr. Taitz)

Reading through this thread there is no doubt about it that both common sense and the constitution is dead.

Political correctness has supplanted common sense and entitlement has supplanted the constitution.

Some of my favorite replies have been from people who don't even live in the United States weighing in on how silly our constitution must be to seek such a requirement as someone actually being born and raised in the United States to be elligble to run it.

Whether Obama is legitimate or not becomes a mute point.

The divisiveness of the issue takes on a life of it's own and that is why divide and conquer warfare is so effective at dividing and conquering.

The shameful thing is, as a nation, as we bomb indiscriminately other nations to impose our democratic values and morals on them, clearly we ourselves do not even follow our own democractic values and morals but many people who were born and raised in America argue strenuously and vehemently against following our own democratic values and morals.

Trial by media has replaced trial by jury. Postings of three dimmensional articles on a one dimmensional internet suffices as proof absolute of somethings existence. The vaugest statements by elected officials can be construed as proof positive for those who want to read into them ellements clearly not stated. Ommission becomes not just tollerable but preffered, serious questions are considered and rendered to be mute and should be abandoned or defferred.

We have in fact become even worse in how we exercise and follow our own idealogy than any of the nations we decry for failure to live up to standards we ourselves have chosen for the sake of expedience, political correctness and just getting along or to gain selfishly abandoned.

America is in big trouble because not only have it's citizens abandoned the values and morals and traditions and practices that once made it great even it's leaders would now prefer to spend millions on lawyers than utilize common sense themselves.

There is not a chance in the world that Obama is unaware that a controversy continues to brew over this issue and that he knows simply displaying one document through proper channels would elliminate the controversy.

A leader would care about such things, and a leader would feel humble to be chosen to lead, and a leader would empathize with those concerns of the people and their fears and take concrete and complete, credible steps to allay those fears and earn the faith and devotion and loyalty of those who chose to place trust in him.

Of course a dictator wouldn't care.

Of course the citizens in a dictatorship wouldn't care either.

America is dead and with hardly an exception most of the people posting on this thread could care less about it's finer values, traditions, and ideals that put them in the envied position to for vanity and egos sake decry and villianize the very same notions of fairplay and equity and justice and liberty that once made America great.

Shame on all of us for becoming the petty and vendictive, narrow minded fools and simpletons devoid of common sense, empathy and compassion our forefathers fought so hard and died in vain to attempt to perpetuate something far grander and better that most of you now consider simply an inconvenience and an impedement to ego and inflated self worth.

How sad when the guillotine does claim it's bloody prize as it always has and always shall, there will likely hardly be a head left attached in what was once the home and the land of the free and the brave, now to cowardly from the head down to even display a simple document for public inspection.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by andrewh7

 

This is a legal matter. I'd just show the darn piece of paper and get it over and done with. If I was innocent of the charges there would be no problem.

I'd go one further - I'd file a counter suit, then produce the evidence of slander.

Obama has not, and has spent huge sums of money to sweep it under the rug. Speaks volumes to me.

And you'd all be playing their game exactly as they want you to.

President Obama's citizenship is in itself a deflectionary tactic meant to draw out the opposition and give them a point to focus their efforts and attention thus wasting theirs and others time on a completely pointless, baseless allegation, which the Obama administration would like to keep drawn out and shrouded in mystery for as long as possible.

It works for them, not against them.

They could put this and other allegations and issues to rest very easily, but have not... There is a reason for that and, it should be painfully clear by now.

Meanwhile, shocking new developments in the Jackson case...

...



[edit on 12-7-2009 by Walkswithfish]

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So your telling me, if you feel your commanding officer is not a resident from the U.S. and you are unsure of his intentions then it is ok for you to not comply with his orders?

how about all the phillipinos that have never stepped foot on U.S. soil before entering the military?

are they u.s. citizens?

do you not have to take ordes from them?

I would like to see someone say that to my old chief...haha...hed eat you alive.

"umm sorry chief, I think you may have lied during the recruiting process about your eligibility, therefore I don't have to do what you say"

sorry, it doesnt work like that dude. what you are talking about is if you were given an order that was against your morals or the law...nothing here is against either one of those.

hes wrong. i have no doubt the review board for his dishonorable discharge will see it the same way.

I'd be happy to entertain this argument as soon as you can show me where citizenship is required for membership in the US Armed Forces.

I can show you where citizenship is required for presidency.

If my "chief" had willfully lied during his recruiting and I got wind of it, I assure you whether or not I would follow his orders would be the least of his worries.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish


President Obama's citizenship is in itself a deflectionary tactic meant to draw out the opposition and give them a point to focus their efforts and attention thus wasting theirs and others time on a completely pointless, baseless allegation, which the Obama administration would like to keep drawn out and shrouded in mystery for as long as possible.


[edit on 12-7-2009 by Walkswithfish]

except that the only people paying attention to this matter are on the fringe, like us. do you think they fear us so much they have to find something to distract us? i don't think so. i bet they thought the matter would die out by now, and are mildly annoyed that it hasn't, but i don't think we are important enough in the big picture for them to need a strategy or a distraction.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



If the State of Hawaii were so sure that his birth records were genuine, then why were the records sealed ???

ProtoplasmicTraveler hath writ:

Obama is CIA, and was initially recruited out of Occidental College as a prized recruit who held a passport from an Islamic country and whose name and face would make him ideal for playing a part in the clandestine covert war against the Soviets by utilizing him in the ‘closed’ Pakistan of the day even though clearly Zia ul Haq had close ties with the CIA up until his transport plane exploded in mid-air.

[...]

It is likely Obama’s real father had ties to the CIA as did his adopted father who likely operated under Harry Reid when he was Station Chief for Indonesia where note was first taken of the young man. His entire family seems linked to various intelligence agencies on both the Kansas and African sides of the family. The meeting of his mother and father was certainly a ‘cutting edge’ relationship for that period and much of his past and associated families past are circumspect to say the least.

[...]

He appears to have been literally born and bred to be a Manchurian candidate and the 2 billion dollar multi-media Madison Avenue and Hollywood branding of him began far before the public introduction on the stage as Keynote Speaker to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was already tagged to be the next President at that point and his Senate accomplishments bear out the transitory nature of that decision.

They simply fast tracked him through Columbia and Harvard when he returned and mentored him through some fringe operatives and assets operating under the ‘revolutionary’ counter culture umbrellas to give him ‘liberal’ appeal as well as ‘street’ credit and all the right introductions to all the right people who can make things happen in the political world while keeping him well distanced from the ‘usual suspects’.

[...]

They have adjusted the time table when it comes to pushing the self destruct button on Obama, in part because conditions on the ground aren’t optimum yet and they are still sucking the remaining vestiges of wealth out of the economy.

A young guy with little significant past writing not one, but two biographies was a tip-off there were big plans for this novice to the political arena. Looking at almost non-existent samples of his writing style it's more likely Ayers ghost wrote them.

Obama's much lauded editorship of the Harvard Law Review ia notable in that he didn't produce any pieces for it. And the volume containing his contribution is the least borrowed from libraries.

Those who sat with him in the Senate noted he was mysteriously in the washroom a lot when critical issues came to vote.

He is a smooth talker, thanks to a team of 4 speechwriters. Use to getting by on easy charm and wit. But these are not components of a great statesman.

There is theory with convincing circumstantial evidence that Chicago writer and activist, Frank Marshall Davis, is Obama's natural father. He was in Hawaii at the right period and a close friend of the Dunhams.

Davis claimed to have attended Columbia University 1980 to 1983, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.

His mentor was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a professor in the school there at that time.

Maybe all dot connecting coincidences, maybe not.

The fact that the actual birth records of Barry O are problematic my be conspiracy theory run wild. Ditto his connections with now imprisoned Syrian 'businessman' Rezko. Rezko also engineered the career of Illiinois Governor Rod Blagojevich who has very serious legal problems, among them trying to sell Obama's vacant seat.

The deeper you dig the shadier his past becomes and the shallower his accomplishments. Add to all this his on record 'spiritual advisor' even at the beginning of Rev Wright, was running what some refer to as a "Mosque in drag" in the heart of Chicago's "Farrakhan Land."

Running with the conspiracy theories, and I find hard not too, Obama has been dropped into the Oval Office for a purpose. It might be as simple as him being a compliant game player who won't create waves. It might be something sinister, like he's set up for a fall.

That he's bluffing his way through his term in office seems clear to me. He deals with minor issues and makes guest appearances and generates right sounding non-sequiturs when necessary.

What the game plan is for the Black Knight I'm not sure. Maybe the people that put him in the White House are waiting to decide.


Mike


[edit on 12-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


What's more important than establishing a legitimate administration, and restoring the people's faith in the voting process ??

reply to post by mmiichael


great review! having been in the book publishing for years, I know how difficult it is to sell books, including a book by an unknown writer to a publisher. yet obama sold an unwritten book and got an advance. I dug out the details of all that last fall. They believed his (as yet unwritten) book would sell on the basis of him being first black president of harvard law review. unbelievable. it took quite a while to produce that book, and i believe you are correct that ayers ghost wrote it. nothing to do with this case really but interesting.

i'm familiar with the scenario that believes frank marshall davis is obama's father. very many details fit. though if this is true, there would no longer be doubt about obama's citizenship. american father, born on american soil. so you'd think that now, after the election, why not reveal the truth? shocking yes. okay his entire life is built upon a lie about who is father is. but obama supporters continue to "believe" in him in spite of him being in way over his head as president.

Originally posted by earlywatcher

great review! having been in the book publishing for years, I know how difficult it is to sell books, including a book by an unknown writer to a publisher. yet obama sold an unwritten book and got an advance.

[...]

i'm familiar with the scenario that believes frank marshall davis is obama's father. very many details fit. though if this is true, there would no longer be doubt about obama's citizenship. american father, born on american soil. so you'd think that now, after the election, why not reveal the truth? shocking yes. okay his entire life is built upon a lie about who is father is. but obama supporters continue to "believe" in him in spite of him being in way over his head as president.

Thanks for the feedback. I worked in publishing for years, back when. Interesting that Obama's primary source of income the past few years has been from his book royalties. If need be the mysterious 'they' could pick up copies wholesale to boost his income.

The jury is out for me on Davis being Obama's Daddy. Compelling circumstantial evidence. They look similar at the same age. Possible Mr Obama Sr from Kenya was not aware of the paternity of his son.

I still entertain the notion that making sure BO had American citizenship by implanting his birth in the Hawaiian record is a possibility. In 1961 there was much less diligence in official record keeping.

Coincidentally and tragically and the day before his nomination, Obama flew to Hawaii to say farewell to his dying maternal grandmother. She knew.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael

Interesting that Obama's primary source of income the past few years has been from his book royalties. If need be the mysterious 'they' could pick up copies wholesale to boost his income.

I've been thinking about this too. It is the easiest thing in the world to purchase multiple copies of a book to funnel money into his pocket in royalties. I'm not saying it's the best way or the most efficient way, but certainly an easy and invisible way to enrich a chosen person. it also creates the impression the book is popular, selling many copies. there are stories in publishing of authors doing this to their own books to get onto bestseller lists.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
It is the easiest thing in the world to purchase multiple copies of a book to funnel money into his pocket in royalties. I'm not saying it's the best way or the most efficient way, but certainly an easy and invisible way to enrich a chosen person. it also creates the impression the book is popular, selling many copies. there are stories in publishing of authors doing this to their own books to get onto bestseller lists.

I've done extensive research for a book that deals with the internal workings of the publishing industry itself.

As publishing, printing, and distribution became integrated, it became nearly impossible to track bonafide retail sales, actual print runs, or special preferences given for certain items.

There are endless documented cases of system abuses.

In Obama's case, given his alignment with the Democrats, the word would have been out from the level of unionized truckers to reviewers to ensure positive reception and abundant shelf stocking everywhere.

As soon as he was vetted as a presidential candidate the expected rush to check him out resulted in increased sales.

Many retail outlets only carry books by profile name authors, boosting their sales even further.

The Barack Obama Cookbook would have an initial print run of a quarter million copies.


Mike

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by xyankee
How much more evidence does there have to be?

What evidence? The constitutional arguments have been debunked thus far,

No, they have not. They've not even been heard, merely stonewalled. Logically, no one throws that much money and effort into stonewalling, unless they have cause to stonewall. Especially when it would have been so cheap and easy to lay these "rumors" to rest, if they were in fact unfounded. Logically, then, there is something to hide.

all we have left here is the fact "he didnt release his long form and his college records", sure you may play your suspicions but that doesnt mean your accusations are true.

Nor does it mean they are false.

Until you come up with actual evidence that he was born off these United states your dead in the water and will continue to do so. You may get praise on fringe websites and Obama hating blogs but under the court of law,

As you're so fond of saying, how 'bout we let the courts decide that? Evidence suppressed is not a lack of evidence. "Until you come up with the evidence" is not the issue. The issue is, will your system ever allow the evidence to be heard within it?

the the rest of the world you realy have nothing to show for it.

The rest of the world has no dog in this fight. He's alleged to have usurped the US throne, not that of the rest of the world.

[edit on 2009/7/12 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by JulieMills
WHY WOULD OBAMA NEED 39 SS NUMBERS? (hypothetically speaking of course

)

Ill ask you now, does the plaintiff have proof of this accusations, wheres the proof? Your basing your arguments now on supposed evidence that is yet to be proven. We have seen the other lawsuits claim similar things and they have all fell flat under the court of law.

Again, the other lawsuits have been suppressed. Not the same thing as "falling flat under the court of law".

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Im still waiting for them to counter my response regarding why the other lawsuits failed, none of them seem to want to reply to it... because they they dont have anything on them but talk.

Now you've been answered.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by nenothtu
No, they have not. They've not even been heard,

Really?

One lawsuit said during the 60's foreign children were able to attain a Hawaiian birth certificate; truth is the law regarding that only came in place following 1982, before that you had to have been born in the US to have attained a birth certificate.

Another past lawsuit argued Obama attained Indonesia citizenship, due to Indonesian laws you had to give up your US citizenship thus making Obama ineligible, however the laws at the time of Indonesia disprove this fact as Obama was too old to automatically gain Indonesian citizenship as he resided there less than 6 years, over the age of 5. In addition his natural born citizenship does not recognize the laws of other nations so it was irrelevant. Regarding his attendance in public school his step father obviously lied because the laws did not allow under any circumstance Obama to gain Indonesian citizenship.

Yet another lawsuit came out arguing his Kenyan/British dual citizenship where the constitution forbids.... however Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21 as he did not give up his natural born American citizenship. The laws of Kenya at the time were also not recognizing by the US in anyway thus the laws there did not affect Obama. The constitution also states dual citizenship at the time of running for the presidency.

And then there was one lawsuit that argued that his mother was too young to pass her citizenship on to Obama when he was born.... yet Obama was born on US soil in any case so he is by all means natural born, in addition the marriage of his mother and father was not valid as his father was already married in Kenya, so any complications there don’t work out. This notion that somehow Miss Dunham went to Kenya at such a young age, 8-9 months pregnant, had Obama there, then rushed back makes no sense, especially considering his announcement in the Hawaiian papers at the time, that required you to have a birth certificate.

The only arguments that are left apart from the debunked ones are speculative at best. His trip to Pakistan to which Pakistan actually did not ban US tourists as many claimed. His supposed grandmother’s audio tape which actually turned out to be his estranged step-grandmother who said Barrack Obama senior was born in Kenya. The of course, there is the allegations of his deception, his multiple identities, which really go around the realm of story telling. Obama had another name before, yet him as a child can hardly be blamed for the actions of his folks.

And then of course lastly it’s the "why doesn’t he just show his long birth certificate" which is a moot of course because there will always be something he will need to show to somebody. Also given the fact not every president in the past can be accounted for presenting their long form.

This lawsuit now, where are now claims suspicions regarding social security numbers, is something the plaintiff should then show us. By all means if somebody wants to prove something they have that right, yet like the lawsuits before, this is another hype attempt, attention grabber and nothing more.

Counter the above one by one, tell me where constitutionally I was wrong. By all means reference the constitution, reference the law.

The lawsuits you speak of that were dismissed before hearing were the ones that demanded Obamas release of his long form birth certificate, which by Hawaii law nobody but a relative or Obama himself can release. Most of the other lawsuits were reviewed then dismissed because of the above.

Nor does it mean they are false.

What, for example that Obama's folks could have attained a birth certificate if he was foreign born despite this law being enacted only in 1982? Or the fact he as dual citizenship despite the fact he lost that dual citizenship back in 1981, or the fact the consitution onyl forbid those from becoming president when they currently hold dual citizenship? How about the fact natural born laws of the US do not recognize the laws of Kenya? I could go on.

By all means tell me where I was wrong, you would be the first in this entire thread, everybody else for some odd reason is reluctant to do so.

As you're so fond of saying

Im fond of seeing that evidence that makes you think Obama was born off american soil, not what you "suspect" because he didnt show you his kindergarten certificate.

SG

Originally posted by nenothtu
Now you've been answered.

I have?? All I see are a list of names and addresses that are yet to authenticated, verified. If you want I can take afew minutes typing out supposed multiple SS numbers from Ron paul and claim it to be true.

The plaintiff has every right to present what he feels as evidence, but like the past 14 or so lawsuits Im not confident this will be going anywhere either.

Originally posted by whatukno

This lawyer is a fraud, a sham and a phony, he is a hoaxer and people on this board are buying it up worse than when the GFL was supposed to come to town.

He" is a "she". Are you in a constant habit of calling folks "shams, phonies, and hoaxers" when you know absolutely nothing about them, not even gender? Or is it just because that individuals argument goes against your pet notions?

I put forth EVIDENCE of his innocence, EVIDENCE that was from reliable sources. EVIDENCE with credible factual accountable people behind it.

Did you now? What was it's source again? The Annenberg Foundation perhaps?

So far no one has brought forth anything that is even remotely EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Well, not from Annenberg, anyhow. The evidence you choose to blind yourself to is not my concern. If you're unwilling to hear it, then you just are.

Hell they can't even for the most part figure out Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. let alone Amendment 14.

"Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Source

What part of that is difficult to understand? I emboldened the salient part so you could find it.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Source

Again, what part of that is difficult to understand? It primarily delineates who is qualified to vote, but it DOES narrow the scope of the definition of "citizen", not presidential requirements, which are dealt with in Article II, Section I, paragraph 5, US Constitution.

These two parts of the Constitution are the bases for the challenges that have been thus far unmet, and YOU wanted to bring them into the argument? Bully for you! there they are in black and white.

Now that I've done my homework, it's your turn. Bring me back the history of the vote on that 14th Amendment, please.

I'll wait.

[edit on 2009/7/12 by nenothtu]

[edit on 2009/7/12 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by nenothtu
Did you now? What was it's source again? The Annenberg Foundation perhaps?

Whenever fringe conspiracy is debunked there is either an implication of a greater government conspiracy or the source is then implicated in the conspiracy. It isnt just "fackchecker", politifact came to the same conclusion. However this goes beyond the source right, its the accusation in itself that has been debunked.

And to think the website pushing for this lawsuit is freerepublic themselves. The hypocrisy.

Originally posted by mental modulator

I wanted YOU to think, not toss propaganda links to me, these addresses do not even exist madam, WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF USING AN ADDRESS THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST?

Have fun, I prefer monopoly

To insure that no untoward mail would arrive there that raises questions.

Next, please.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by nenothtu
Now you've been answered.

I have?? All I see are a list of names and addresses that are yet to authenticated, verified. If you want I can take afew minutes typing out supposed multiple SS numbers from Ron paul and claim it to be true.

The plaintiff has every right to present what he feels as evidence, but like the past 14 or so lawsuits Im not confident this will be going anywhere either.

Oh I found one...

RAWN PAUL
123 E Baldwin Street
La Habra California CA 91603

DAMN I have a lawsuit SG!!!