(Plaintiffs) collective realleges and incorporates fully set forth all fact’s defendant Judge Charles R. Norgle “knowing and willing” took the Constitutional oath of office On September 10, 1984, defendant Norgle was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois created by 98 Stat. 333. defendant Judge Charles R. Norgle confirmed by the United States Senate on October 3, 1984, and defendant Judge Charles R. Norgle received his commission on October 4, 1984 (Defendants) Confederate State of Mississippi was not in the (Plaintiffs) United States of America Union Government on or about the dates of September 10, 1984, October 3, 1984, and October 4, 1984
(Plaintiffs) collective
realleges and incorporates fully set forth all facts Further factual (Defendants)
Confederate State of Mississippi was not in the (Plaintiffs) United States of
America Union Government on or about the dates of March 6th of 1937 defendant
Judge Charles R. Norgle “actual vital birth records defendant Judge Charles R.
Norgle born cultivated by white supremacy under direct international false
slavery data scheme in Chicago, Illinois on or about March 6th of
1937 defendant Judge Charles R. Norgle false slavery data scheme within
(Defendants) U.S. Army from 1955 to 1957, (Defendants) Confederate State of
Mississippi was not in the (Plaintiffs) United States of America Union
Government on or about the dates of 1955 to 1957,
Further factual defendant
Judge Charles R. Norgle cultivated by white supremacy false slavery data scheme
within (Defendants) Northwestern University, where he received a Bachelor of
Business Administration in 1964 Further factual defendant Judge Charles R.
Norgle coniune cultivated by white supremacy false slavery data scheme within
(Defendants)John Marshall Law School, where he received his Juris Doctor in
1969, (Defendants) Confederate State of Mississippi was not in the (Plaintiffs)
United States of America Union Government on or about the dates of 1969
including but not limited to
defendant Judge Charles
R. Norglean cultivated by white supremacy while under oath of office assistant
state's attorney of DuPage County, Illinois from 1969 to 1971, and continue the
same defendant
Judge Charles R. Norglean cultivated by white supremacy deputy public defender
for DuPage County from 1971 to 1973 defendant Judge Charles R. Norglean became
an associate judge for DuPage County in 1973, and then a circuit judge from
1977 to 1978, again serving as an associate judge from 1978 to 1981, and as a
circuit judge from 1981 to 1984 (Defendants) Confederate State of Mississippi
was not in the (Plaintiffs) United States of America Union Government on or
about the dates of 1971 throughout 1984
Accordingly, Honorable
Fatou Bom Bensouda Chief Prosecutor International Criminal Court” Notwithstanding
defendant Judge Charles R. Norgle being accused of (Conspiracy to Commit an
offense against Plaintiffs United States of America Union government) judicial
decrees international mail, wire fraud, submitting false slavery data against
all (Plaintiffs) negro slave’s freedom, ensuring abuse of power to committing fraud
of court judicial decrees records
On or about the dates of July
14th of 2003 OPINION AND ORDER In re African-American Slave Descendants'
Litigation MDL No. 1491, Lead Case No. 02 C 7764 OPINION AND ORDER CHARLES
NORGLE, United States District Judge
Before the court is
Plaintiffs' Motion to Preserve Evidence. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs'
motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
In Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs identify themselves as formerly enslaved
African-Americans or descendants of formerly enslaved African-Americans and
seek monetary and injunctive relief against various corporate institutions,
Defendants, for present and past wrongs in connection with the institution of
slavery. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint tracks the course of early
legislation and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution following the Civil War, at the conclusion of which, in 1865, half
a million people including substantial numbers of African-Americans had died.
Plaintiffs concede that the actual institution of slavery has formally ended
(Pls.' Consolidated Am. Compl. ¶ 46.), and no party disputes the evils of
slavery. One specific remedy Plaintiffs seek is that Defendants be
"compelled to produce documents that reveal crucial information
surrounding the institution of slavery and the economic benefits that flowed
therefrom." (Pls.' Mot. to Preserve Evidence, at 1.)
Plaintiffs have now filed
their Motion to Preserve Evidence. In their motion, Plaintiffs' fail to
specifically identify what documents they are seeking to preserve or what time
frame the document preservation order should encompass. Plaintiffs merely
present an overly broad and vague statement as to the documents that they are
seeking and assert that document preservation is needed.
Plaintiffs primarily base
their need for a document preservation order on two public statements. First, a
Professor at Emory University, William J. Carney, stated that "[a]ny
company that's retaining records that are 100 years old is absolutely insane.
Every company needs to have a regular document retention policy that call [sic]
for regular destruction of documents that are not required any more for
business reasons." William J. Carney, Will American Companies be Forced to
Repay Profits of Slavery. (http://www.knowledge.emory.edu/ss_100902c.html).
Plaintiffs contend that this statement is in essence telling the Defendants to
destroy all of their documents that might relate to this case. Second, an
executive at J.P. Morgan made a comment on January 21, 2003, which indicated
that after searching its business archives, J.P. Morgan could find no evidence
to support the allegations that it is linked to any slave transactions.
Defendants object to the
entry of any preservation order. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs has failed
to make a sufficient showing that there is a need for a preservation order, and
that the "entry of such an order would suggest that Defendants are guilty
of something that Plaintiffs have shown absolutely no evidence or basis for suggesting."
(Defs.' Resp. Br., at 9.) Defendants have not filed a counter-motion for
document preservation in this instance.
II. DISCUSSION
The court has broad
discretion in determining whether to enter a preservation order. "A motion
to preserve evidence is an injunctive remedy and should issue only upon an
adequate showing that equitable relief is warranted." Madden v. Wyeth,
2003 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 6427 at *2 (N.D. Texas 2003), (citingPepsi-Cola Bottling
Co. of Olean v. Cargill Inc., 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 19735, at *3 (D. Minn. Oct.
20, 1995); Humble Oil Refining Co. v. Harang, 262 F. Supp. 39, 42 (E.D. La.
1996)). The court will look at three factors in determining whether a
preservation order is warranted in this instance: 1) whether Plaintiffs can
demonstrate that Defendants will destroy necessary documentation without a
preservation order; 2) whether Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if a
preservation order is not entered; and 3) the burden imposed upon the parties
by granting a preservation order.
1. Whether Plaintiffs can
demonstrate that Defendants will destroy documentation without a preservation
order.
Plaintiffs fail to
demonstrate that Defendants will destroy any necessary materials related to
this action without a preservation order. Plaintiffs rely on two statements
made by individuals not directly related to the litigation to support their
contention that a preservation order is needed. First, the statement made by
Professor William J. Carney has no bearing on this action whatsoever. Carney's
statements are those of an uninterested third-party and will be given little
weight. Furthermore, Carney's statements merely relate to his opinions on
whether companies should be forced to repay profits for slavery. Carney further
discusses what a company's normal document preservation policies should entail.
Carney in no way implies that Defendants should destroy documents related to
this litigation, nor can Plaintiffs impute Carney's statements to actions by
Defendants. The mere presence of an article by an uninterested third-party does
not warrant a document preservation order.
Second, Plaintiffs assert
that a statement made by a J.P. Morgan executive warrants a document
preservation order. Again, the court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' argument.
Although J.P. Morgan is a named defendant in the suit, the statement which
Plaintiffs rely on merely states that upon J.P. Morgan's review of its records,
it has found no evidence connecting it with the slave trade. The statement in
no way connotes that J.P. Morgan or any other Defendant has destroyed or
intends to destroy documents. The statement made by a J.P. Morgan executive
does not warrant a preservation order. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to
show that Defendants will destroy documentation without the issuance of a
protective order.
2. Whether Plaintiffs
will suffer irreparable harm if a preservation order is not ordered.
Plaintiffs fail to
demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm if a preservation order is
not issued. Defendants have a duty, which they fully acknowledge, not to
destroy documentation relevant to the pending litigation. (Defs.' Resp. Br., at
5.)
Generally, Rules 26
through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern matters pertaining to
discovery in the federal courts. Rule 26(b), which outlines the scope and
limits of discovery, provides in part:
Unless otherwise limited
by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is
as follows:
(1) In General. Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description,
nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other
tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of
any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any
matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant
information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Where there is abuse of
the discovery process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for
sanctions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. In cases where a party fails to disclose
information or amend prior discovery responses as required by the rules, the
court may impose appropriate sanctions, including, among other things,
informing the jury of the failure to make such a disclosure. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(c)(1).
Defendants and Plaintiffs
have a duty to preserve evidence once a lawsuit has commenced. The Seventh
Circuit has stated that parties have an affirmative duty to preserve evidence
which may be relevant to the litigation. Smith Barney. Inc. v. Schell, 53 F.3d
804, 807 (7th Cir. 1995). When a party breaches this duty, sanctions are the
appropriate remedy. See Shepherd v. Am. Broadcasting Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 1469,
1481 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (upholding the district court's order of sanctions where
a party consciously disregarded its obligation to preserve evidence).
Furthermore, by Defendants' attorneys responding to this motion, all attorneys
in this case have acknowledged their obligation under the rules regarding the
preservation of evidence. Defendants have stated that "[e]ach Defendant
herein acknowledges its obligations and agrees to continue to comply with such
obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the common
law." (Defs.' Resp. Br., at 5.) Any improper conduct by an attorney in
this case may be subject to control by Rule 11, and any request for sanctions
under Rule 11 will be analyzed in great detail by this court. See Nisenbaum v.
Milwaukee County, No. 02-4296, ___ F.3d ___, 2003 WL 21464590 (7th Cir. June
25, 2003).
3. The burden imposed
upon the parties by granting a preservation order.
Finally, the court finds
that the issuance of a preservation order would impose too immense a burden on
the parties. A review of Plaintiffs' proposed preservation order depicts the
various problems and burdens that would befall the discovery process if placed
on the parties. Plaintiffs are requesting in essence, that Defendants preserve
any and all documents that may relate to the establishment of the company, in
past or present form, and any and all documents that "touch on economic
benefit. . . ." (Pls.' Proposed Order, at 1-2.) To order Defendants, some
of whose business structures have been analogized in size an diversity with
that of the New York Stock Exchange, to retain any and all such documents would
be too burdensome at this stage. (See Bonny v. The Society of Lloyd's. et al.,
3 F.3d 156, 158 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1992).
The Court is well aware
that the entry of a preservation order may interfere with the operations of a
business entity and its enforceability might be difficult without placing heavy
burdens on the parties given the broad allegations against numerous Defendants.
Retention and preservation of records not specifically identified would be
difficult to carry out. The costs of preservation may substantially outweigh
the probability of the relevance of the material sought in the lawsuit. Manual
for Complex Litigation. Third, § 21.442 at 75.
Plaintiffs' overly broad
and vague requests would place a great burden on the Defendants before they can
even test the legal sufficiency of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The Seventh Circuit has noted that "[b]efore the defendant may be put to
the burden of producing evidence, the plaintiff has to show that there is some
ground for suspecting that the defendant has indeed violated the plaintiffs’
rights. Otherwise we would have a regime of precomplaint discovery."
Latimore v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 151 F.3d 712, 714 (7th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that their desire for a preservation order
outweighs the burdens it would impose on Defendants at this stage of the
litigation.
By prior order,
Defendants will answer or otherwise plead to the Consolidated Amended Complaint
on July 18, 2003.
III. CONCLUSION
Given Plaintiffs'
interest in court-compelled preservation and Defendants' acknowledgment of
their obligation to preserve relevant documents, the court concludes that a
document preservation order is unnecessary at this time. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provide sufficient immediate protection for the interest of all
parties. The court is convinced that all of the parties are fully aware of the
consequences that may befall a litigant who destroys relevant documents and
information. "To further embellish the grave importance of document
preservation, through an administratively demanding mechanism, seems
inordinate, at best." In Re Potash Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 981, 1994
WL 1108312, at *8 (Minn. 1994). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preservation of Evidence is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(Plaintiffs) direct cause
of action of criminal fraud acting under color of law overt acts of mail and
wire fraud usage in all judicial ruling propounding to depict correct “international
slavery data” being absolute false statement (RICO) judicial decrees obstruction
of justice of defendant Judge Charles R. Norgle committed to the same on (Appeals
records) mention herein (Defendant)
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and (Defendant) POSNER and (Defendant) MANION,
Circuit Judges United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit further
conspirers to the same false slavery data acting under color of law did so
concealing on or about the dates of (a) throughout (e)
(a) Madden
v. Wyeth, 2003 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 6427 at *2 (N.D. Texas 2003), (citingPepsi-Cola
Bottling Co. of Olean v. Cargill Inc., 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 19735, at *3 (D.
Minn. Oct. 20, 1995); Humble Oil Refining Co. v. Harang, 262 F. Supp. 39, 42
(E.D. La. 1996)).
(b) Smith
Barney. Inc. v. Schell, 53 F.3d 804, 807 (7th Cir. 1995). When a party breaches
this duty, sanctions are the appropriate remedy.
(c) Shepherd
v. Am. Broadcasting Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 1469, 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (upholding
the district court's order of sanctions where a party consciously disregarded
its obligation to preserve evidence).
(d) Nisenbaum
v. Milwaukee County, No. 02-4296, ___ F.3d ___, 2003 WL 21464590 (7th Cir. June
25, 2003).
(e) (See
Bonny v. The Society of Lloyd's. et al., 3 F.3d 156, 158 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1992).
(f) "
Latimore v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 151 F.3d 712, 714 (7th Cir. 1998).
(g) In
Re Potash Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 981, 1994 WL 1108312, at *8 (Minn.
1994).
Accordingly, Honorable Fatou
Bom Bensouda Chief Prosecutor International Criminal Court (Defendants)
Confederate State of Mississippi was not in the (Plaintiffs) United States of
America Union Government on or about the dates of said case law (a) throughout
(g) submitted by defendant Judge Charles R. Norgle
Accordingly, Honorable
Fatou Bom Bensouda Chief Prosecutor International Criminal Court Defendant
Judge Charles R. Norgle concealing under usage of judicial decree (Defendants)
Confederate State of Mississippi with (Defendants) the 13th Confederate States
of America illegal existences” against the civil rights of (Plaintiffs) Negro
slaves and others similarly the same
Accordingly, Honorable
Fatou Bom Bensouda Chief Prosecutor International Criminal Court Defendant
Judge Charles R. Norgle concealing with usage of judicial decree committed to
obstruction of justice false slavery data (“Defendants”) The Confederate States
of Mississippi America” never ratified 13th amendment not freeing one single
Negro slave’s entire population within their Jurisdiction on or about the dates
of (1861 – Feb. 6th 2013). Citing undersigned council proceeding “Pro Se” (Hamilton)
own federal case *See Case 3:16-mc-00016
13th
Amendment being ratified 2013 7th day February
Accordingly, Honorable
Fatou Bom Bensouda Chief Prosecutor International Criminal Court On or about
the dates of July 14th of 2003 OPINION AND ORDER In re African-American Slave
Descendants' Litigation MDL No. 1491, Lead Case No. 02 C 7764 OPINION AND ORDER
CHARLES NORGLE, United States District Judge
Defendant Judge Charles
R. Norgle knowing and willing concealing false slavery data mail and wire fraud
scheme under overt acts RICO acting under color of law usage of government judicial
decree, federal employee falsifying material facts (Defendants) Confederate
State of Mississippi international wire fraud scheme including to continue to
occurred
On or about the dates of
July 14th of 2003 throughout 2013 February 6th within (Plaintiffs)
United States of America Union government since (1865) federal employee falsifying
material facts (Defendants) Confederate State of Mississippi
Accordingly, Honorable
Fatou Bom Bensouda Chief Prosecutor International Criminal Court On or about
the dates of July 14th of 2003 OPINION AND ORDER In re
African-American Slave Descendants' Litigation MDL No. 1491, Lead Case No. 02 C
7764 OPINION AND ORDER CHARLES NORGLE, United States District Judge
Defendant Judge Charles
R. Norgle knowing and willing represented false slavery data against the 13th
amendment being ratified and (Plaintiffs) Negro slaves are being wrongfully classifications
as ancestor and descendants have no standing and forever not entitled to
reparation under the falsifying material facts (Defendants) Confederate State
of Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment of colonial America in
the past (1865) which this legally never physically occurred until in the
future year 2013 7th day Defendant Judge Charles R. Norgle knowing
and willing RICO criminal party to (Defendants) Confederate State of
Mississippi joins (Plaintiffs) United States of America Union government February
7th 2013
Accordingly, Honorable
Fatou Bom Bensouda Chief Prosecutor International Criminal Court Defendant
Judge Charles R. Norgle On or about the dates of July 14th of 2003 acting
under color of law overt acts RICO concealing with usage of judicial decree (Defendants)
Confederate State of Mississippi was not in the (Plaintiffs) United States of America
Union government
Estate of Louis Charles Hamilton II Cmdr. US Navy MSS (Pro Se Plaintiff) 2724 61st Street, Suite 1-B17, Galveston, TX 77551
CC: Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, KG, KT, PC, ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis) Prince Henry of Wales, KCVO, (Henry Charles Albert David), Prime Minister Boris Johnson The British Consulate 1301 Fannin Street #2400 Houston Texas 77002-7014
CC: Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Christopher A. Wray, FBI Headquarters 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
CC: United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres United Nations Headquarters 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017
CC: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. 46th and current “President of the United States 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500
CC: International Criminal Court “Honorable Mrs. Fatou Bensouda
#ICC #Honorable #Ms #Fatou #Bensouda #pursuant #to #Nuremberg #Nazi #Criminals #Trials #™Cmdr. #Bluefin
Tina Fey
Prince Harry Windsor
Will Smith
Bill and Hillary Clinton
Megyn Kelly
Cara Delevingne
Samuel L Jackson
Jerry Springer show
Jerry Seinfeld
China Turkey
Israel
North Dakota
British Royal Family
President Barack Obama
United States Navy Seals
Will Ferrell
Derek Zoolander
The View
Jimmy Fallon
Bill Muhar
Fox News Live
BBC World News
Dixie Chicks bitches
Sen. Ted Cruz
NATO
Nobel Prize
ABC NBC CBS
India
Tiwain
Texas
Supreme Court
Sarah Palin
Bristol Palin
Track Palin
Star Trek
Star Wars
It always sunny in Philadelphia
As the world turns
Days of our lives
LA Clippers
British Parliament
Inspector Callahan
David and Charles Koch
Africa
Thailand
Bill Gates Bill Cosby
Cheers
Big Bang Theory
30 Rock
Alec Baldwin
Clint Eastwood
Tom Cruise
Tom Jones
Jimmy Kimmel
Jimmy Carr
Jimmy Hendrix
Japan
Soviet Union
Madonna
Cher
Chris Isaac
Oscar
Conan Congress
Washington DC
Texas
Alaska Air
The Beetles
Johnny Depp
Johnny Cash
Pirates of the Caribbean
Super Mario Bros
Victoria Secret
NASA Space Station
Hogwarts
Kim Kardashian
Jim Carrey
Jim Morrison
Courtney Love
The Who
James Brown
Black Lives Matters
Michael Jackson
Michael Jordan
Cobey Bryant
Olivia Newton John
Track Morgan
United States Marshal
UPS FedEx
PTSD
US Marines
US Army
US Coast Guard
British Royal Navy
Harvard University
Jesus Christ LDS
Pope
Vatican City
Middle East
Hong Kong
Tabitha
Black History
Martin Luther King Jr
Malcolm X
Barnie Sanders
Sen. Ted Cruz
Penelope Cruz
Mission impossible
Days of our lives
Married with children
I Love Lucky
MASH
Dred Scott
Catholics
Jew
Syria
Iran
CBS News
NBC News
ABC News
CNN
Hot News
The Daily Beast
Jebb Bush
Sheldon Cooper
Rushi Barot
Geeta International Inc.
Harry Potter
Harry C. Arthur Esq.
Jesus Christ
Holy Bible
Allah
Samsung Galaxy S3
BBC Radio
BBC Technology
Samsung Galaxy A5
Rick Santorum
Mobile Gallery
Germany
Portugal
France
Italy
Mitsubishi
Toyota
Ford Trucks
Jeep Eagles
Pearl harbor Hawaii
Lady Gaga
Libya
Apple
Bill Gates
Cher
Verizon
At&T
Sprint
Ben Carson dumped
Deep Sea Horizon
Enron
Hezbollah ISIS
Military
British Columbia University
British Columbia
British Vogue
Bill Murray
Stephen Colbert
Stephen Hawking
Boris Johnson
Beijing
Solar panels
Pegasus
Native Americans
Mexico
United States
Apple iPad
Maia Shibutani
California
New York City
New Jersey Shore
Abraham Lincoln
National Geographic
David Beckham
David Cameron
Cameron Diaz
Drew Barrymore
Justin Bieber
Marco Rubio
Eva Longoria
London
King Kong
David Spade
Ben Stiller
Adel
Dallas Cowboys
John Mayer
John Saseen
Iowa
Angela Mcglowan
Rajinder Singh Dhiman
Dr Seuss
Dr Pepper
Dr Piper
Europe
Locheed Martin
Martin Lawrence
Jack Black
Jaguar
BMW
Mariah Carey
Chiang Rai
Baltimore
British India
Jarad Leto
Tom Hanks
Tom Hardy
The Hollywood Reporter
John Lennon
John Kerry
Ash Carter
Republican Party
Russia
Chicago
Kristen Stewart Samuel L Jackson
Kevin Hart
Kevin Durant
Jay Z
Kareem Abdul Jabar
Lakers
NBA
Republican party
Selena Gomez
Will Smith
Thailand
Fox Sports
Charles Barkley
Jerry Springer
Jerry Seinfeld
North Dakota
Hollywood
Oscar
Nobel Prize
British Parliament
Switzerland
Geniva
Paris Hilton
Paris
Donald Trump
Sen Ted Cruz
It's always sunny in Philadelphia
Derek Zoolander
Ben Stiler
Owen Wilson
Jackie Chan
Chris Tucker
Canada
Mexico
Russia
Egypt
Africa
Will Ferrell
Isreal
Saudi Arabia
Morgan Freeman
Spike Lee
AL Sharpton
Tonya Lewis Lee
Donald John Trump Jr.
Rex Marsav
Melissa Whitley
Joe Czyzyk
Linda Adewole
Mitt Romney
United States Veterans Initative
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Mike Lee
Sen. Ted Cruz
Sen. Jeff Flake
Sen. David Vitter
Sen. David Perdue
Sen. Thom Tillis
David Duke
Jessie Jackson
NAACP
ACLU
NSA
William McCants
Sigmar Gabriel
Professor Roger Griffin
Ivana Trump
Marla Maples
Ben Carson
Candy Carson
Chris Rock
Vanessa D Gilmore
Willie M Zanders
Karen Wells Roby
Danny Devito
Ray Romano
Amy Poehler
Ashton Kutcher
President Donald Trump
Ellen DeGeneres
Pinky Rose De Chavez
Prince Harry Windsor
Lalisa Manoban
No comments:
Post a Comment