Prison Art Drawings Inmate

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION: FACT OR interpreted

"We must develop new principles and establish new rules that would adequately new problems that arise in a highly industrialized economy. We can not allow our judicial thinking to be restricted by reference to the law prevailing ".

Chief Justice Bhagwati

From the first instances in late 1970, the category of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has become associated with his own "people-friendly 'procedure. The biggest change came in the form of dilution of the requirement of" standing active "to start the procedure. Since the intention was to ensure relief to those who were otherwise too poor to move the courts or were not aware of their legal rights, the Court allowed the action to be taken on their behalf by social activists and lawyers. In many cases, the Court suo moto knowledge of cases involving the abuse of prisoners, workers in domestic servitude and mental institutions, through letters to the judges hearing. This practice of initiating the proceedings on the basis of letters has been simplified and has become described as "epistolary jurisdiction.

"Litigation public law "The sentence was the first prominent American scholar Abram Chayes used by to describe the practice of lawyers and people of spirit groups seeking to precipitate social change through court-ordered decrees that reform legal rules, enforce existing laws and articulate public norms. However, the development of public interest litigation (PIL) in India, or Social Action Litigation – as Professor Upendra Baxi choose to describe it, has given way several other distinctive features.

In public interest litigation (PIL), the nature of the process itself does not fit in the accepted common law framework of contentious litigation. Cutting dynamics are substantially different from ordinary civil or criminal remedies. While an adversarial environment can prevail in cases where administrative remedies available to highlight the apathy or relief from abusive government in the proceedings related interest with most groups, the judges take on a much more active role in terms of posing questions to the parties, and the search for solutions. Especially in actions seeking directions to ensure government accountability and environmental protection, the orientation of such a procedure is often more collective bargaining to solve problems instead of bitter competition between the councils. Since these issues are presented immediately in the Supreme Court level or Superior Court, the parties have no real opportunity to present evidence on the record before the start of judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court of India has been able to provide adequate resources for a variety of situations because of the wide discretionary powers to grant constitutional remedies which have been attributed to him as by the Article 32 of the Constitution. Moreover, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, Supreme Court decisions are considered the "law of the land" and become binding precedent for all courts in the country's legal system. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision in the public interest litigation (PIL) cases have been in the form of a single case which gives due weightage to the interests of disadvantaged and back into society. An important consequence of this is that creative solutions designed for specific factual situations come to be widely reported and are referred by courts throughout the country. Thus, the judgments in the cases PIL to create an active dialogue in the legal court general.

The advent of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is one of the key components of the approach of "judicial activism" that is attributed to the courts higher in India. The intervention of the courts "have played a key role in promoting the protection of civil liberties, the rights of workers, gender justice, accountability of public institutions, the conservation of the environment and ensuring sustainable socio-economic rights housing, health and education among others. This has not only strengthened the position of the judiciary in relation vis the other wings of government, but also raised its prestige among the general population.

Nativity of the Civil Service dispute interest

Traditionally, a petition may be filed by a person who suffered the infringement of his rights and was "the person aggrieved." Except in the case of habeas corpus, where a family member or friend can file a petition on behalf of the detainee. The emergence of programs government bond issue, which is the case as an instance of a public-spirited person espousing the cause of others, known as the litigation public interest or social action litigation has been considerably relaxed the traditional rule.

Peter Reed has suggested in his book on Administrative Law, in public law grant the resource depends on public policy considerations. In the field of public law the court will hear and grant recourse if they are satisfied that the public interest requires that the appeal be granted. We can see this incorporated into the judicial process in our country. After a careful and thorough examination of the evolution of the right foot in several countries including ours, Bhagwati, J. in SPGupta c. Union of India that allows, among others, the lawyers' requests against a circular from the Ministry of Law and Justice on the ground of the violation or threat to the independence of the judiciary, stated:

"Any audience member who has sufficient interest may maintain an action for damages in court public liability for breach of public law or the violation of any provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement that public law and constitutional or legal enforcement of such measures. "

Such an expanded focus on the issue of locus standi Bhagwati, J. noted "it is absolutely essential to maintain the rule of law, promote the cause of justice and speeding the pace of implementation of the constitutional goal . One of the proposals set out in support of this broad approach was repeated in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India in the context Article 32 specifically in the following words of Bhagwati, J.:

"When a person or class of persons to whom legal injury is caused by reason of violation of a fundamental right can not approach the court for legal redress because of poverty or disability or social or economic position disadvantaged members of the public who acted in good faith can move the court action under Article 32 … .. for fundamental rights can be useful not only for the rich and well to do who have the means to get closer to justice, but also for the broad masses of people who live the life of misery and destitution and are due to the lack of awareness, assertiveness and resources can not seek legal redress. "

The Supreme Court of India had explained the nature of public interest litigation in Sheela Barse v. Union of India, the technique Interest Litigation groups serves to provide an effective remedy to enforce the rights and interests of the group. Often important public issues relating to the interpretation of the provisions constitutional are raised through PIL.

With the introduction of the PIL can potentially see the government's actions with environmental impacts that threaten to dislocate the poor and disrupt their lifestyles. Conservative estimates place the figure of the Indian project displaced persons in the last four decades to 16 million no more than a quarter of which are satisfactorily rehabilitated. The World Bank Report Morse, who reviewed the Sardar Sarovar project on Narmada notes that "The record of resettlement and rehabilitation in India …. He has been successful in virtually all projects with an" resettlement component. Now the court may take cognizance of the matter and proceed suo moto or on a petition of any public body or spirit.

Milestones in Public Interest Litigation in India

One of the first cases of public interest litigation was reported Hussain Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar. This case involved a series of articles published in a major newspaper – the Indian Express, which exposes the plight of undertrial prisoners in the state of Bihar. A request for appeal was filed by an advocate to draw attention to the plight Court sorry for the prisoners. Many had been imprisoned for periods longer than the maximum permissible punishment for crimes they had been charged. The Supreme Court accepted the legitimacy of the defender to maintain the writ petition. Thereafter, a series of cases followed in which the Court instructed by which it was considered the "right to a speedy trial" to be an integral and essential part of protecting life and liberty personal.

Soon after, two prominent law professors filed petitions brought before the Supreme Court highlighting various abuses of the law, they said, constitute a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. These included the inhumane conditions that exist in homes for protection, pending lawsuits over the courts, trafficking, importation of children for homosexual and non-payment of wages to workers in servitude, among others. Supreme Court accepted the legitimacy to represent the suffering masses and guidelines and the orders passed a significant improvement of these people.

In another case, a journalist, Ms. Sheela Barse, took the plight of the prisoners who were confined in the prisons of the police in the city of Bombay. She said they were victims of custodial violence. The Court took cognizance of the matter and instructions issued to the Director of the Department of Labor Social, Bombay.

public interest litigation has acquired a new dimension – namely, that of 'epistolary jurisdiction "with the decision in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, was initiated by a letter written by an inmate housed in the jail to a Supreme Court Judge. The prisoner complained of a brutal assault committed by a guard in the head by another inmate. The Court treated the letter as a petition for review, and, by issuing various directions, held:

"… Technical and legal details are no impediment to the court to receive even an informal communication as a process habeas corpus, if the basic facts are. "

In the City Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand, the Court recognized the right active group of citizens who sought directions against local Municipal Council for the removal of open drains that caused stench and disease. The Court, recognizing the right of the citizens group, said that if:

"… The center of gravity of justice is changing as states the Preamble to the Constitution mandates, from the traditional individualism of locus standing to the orientation of the community of public interest litigation, the court must consider the issues, since it is necessary to focus on the common man. "

C. In Parmanand Katara Union of India, Supreme Court accepted a request by a lawyer who said a story entitled "An Act to assist the wounded to die", published in a national newspaper, The Hindustan Times. The petitioner highlighted the difficulties faced by people injured in road accidents and others in the use of emergency medical and rescue because many hospitals and doctors refused to treat unless certain procedural formalities were carried out in these medico-legal cases. The Supreme Court ordered establishments physicians to provide immediate medical aid to those injured, subject to the formalities to be followed under the criminal procedure law.

In many other cases, the Supreme Court has risen to the changing needs of society and take proactive steps to address these needs. Therefore, the broad liberalization standing rule that gave birth to a flexible system of public interest litigation. A far-reaching aspect of public interest litigation was given by a judge-bench 7 in the case of SP Gupta v. Union of India. The ruling recognizes the standing of the Bar Association to file briefs by way of litigation public interest. In this particular case it was accepted that had a legitimate interest in questioning the executive's policy arbitrary transfer Court judges who threatened the independence of the judiciary.

The unique model of public interest litigation that has developed in India not only looks at issues such as consumer protection, gender justice, the prevention of environmental pollution and ecological destruction, which also is directed toward finding a social and political space for vulnerable, disadvantaged and others in society. The courts have issued rulings in cases involving with different types of rights and protections, such as food availability, access to clean air, safe working conditions, political representation, action affirmative measures to combat discrimination and the regulation of prison conditions, among others. For example, in the People's Union for Human Rights Democratic v. Union of India, a petition was filed against government agencies who questioned the employment of minors age and payment of wages below the legal minimum wage levels for those involved in the construction of facilities for the Asian Games after shortly in New Delhi. The Court has serious exception to these practices and ruled that it violated constitutional guarantees. The use of children in work clearly related to the building was a victim of the constitutional prohibition on child labor and non-payment of minimum wages are equated with extraction of forced labor. Similarly, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court's attention the incidence was brought to the widespread practice of age, age of bonded labor that persists despite the constitutional prohibition. Among other interventions, one can refer to the Shriram Food and Fertilizer case the Court issued instructions to employers to control the production of hazardous chemicals and gases that endangered the lives and health of workers. It is also the vehicle through PIL, that Indian courts have come to adopt the strategy of giving monetary compensation for constitutional errors, such as illegal detention, torture and extrajudicial detention by state agencies.

In the field of environmental protection, many of the major decisions have been made on appeals by renowned environmentalist MC Mehta. It has been a tireless fighter in this area and requests have resulted in liability orders by the Oleum gas leak at a factory in New Delhi, directions to check pollution around the river Ganges, the transfer of hazardous industries in the town of Delhi, directions to state agencies to check pollution near the Taj Mahal and several measures of forestation. An important decision was made in a petition that raised the problem of extensive air pollution vehicle in Delhi. The Court was faced with considerable statistical evidence of increasing levels of harmful emissions caused by the use of diesel as fuel for commercial vehicles. The Supreme Court decided to make a decisive intervention in this matter and ordered the buses run by the government to change the use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), an environment friendly fuel. This was followed shortly afterwards by another order that is required of private management "autorickshaws" (vehicles three wheels that meet local transport needs) to change the use of CNG. At the time, this decision was criticized as an unwarranted intrusion into the functions authorities to control pollution, but has now become widely recognized that it is only because of this judicial intervention pollution air in New Delhi has shown a substantial extent. Another important intervention was made at the Environment Council of Legal Action v. Union of India, where a registered NGO had sought instructions from the Supreme Court in order to tackle environmental degradation in coastal areas. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken up the mantle of forest conservation measures throughout India, and a special "green bank" set up to give instructions government agencies that deal. An important step in the field of gender justice was the decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. The petition in this case originated from the gang rape of a social worker. In this opinion, the Court invoked the text of the Convention the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the guidelines framed for redressal mechanisms to combat sexual harassment of women in jobs. Although the decision has been criticized for trespassing in the domain of the legislature, the fact is that to date the legislature has not enacted no law on the point. Remember that meaningful social change, like any sustained change requires a long-term commitment. Despite a petition particular, may fail to ensure a healthy relief or be slow in its application, however, litigation is an important step toward systemic reform. An example recently this approach was the decision of Popular Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, where the Court sought to ensure policy compliance-day supply lunches in primary schools run by the government. The system of mid-day meal had been released with great fanfare a few years ago with the multiple objectives of promoting education for children of low income families in schools and also ensure that receiving adequate nutrition. However, there have been numerous reports of problems in the implementation of this system as the theft of foodgrains. In response to it, the Supreme Court Court issued orders of governmental authorities in all States and Union Territories, while the instructions laid by adequate publicity and implementation of the scheme.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion-Equilibrium of a double-edged sword

The power of the Court to deal with any circumstances that might hinder the growth of society, or may cause difficulties for a class of individuals not without inhibitions. Is carefully regulated with tight reins, and cases of public interest are taken only after rigorous scrutiny. For example, in a case where it became a challenge to the Government of the telecommunications policy in India, the Supreme Court refused to hear the matter on the basis that only concerned a matter of policy. Similarly, public interest litigation have requested prohibiting the sale of liquor or recognition of a particular language, national language, or the introduction of a uniform civil code, have been rejected on the grounds it was the policy issues and went beyond the scope of judicial control.

At the time of admission of the questions in the form of litigation public interest (PIL), courts must carefully consider whether or not within your domain. In considering the issues involved, which must consider whether the orders that the intention of spending can be realistically implemented. Judges also should be consistent with the fact that inconsistencies in the observations made by the courts different compared to the same set of problems, you can add to the administrative difficulties. There is also a need to maintain surveillance over the abuse of process litigants to avoid a situation where these cases are disproportionately time employment tribunals. SP Barucha Justice has expressed the need for caution in the following words:

"This court should refrain from passing orders can not be imposed, regardless of the fundamental right can be and how good the cause. It makes no sense to issue some high-profile mandamus or statement that may remain only on paper. It is counterproductive when people say "The Supreme Court has been able to do anything "or worse. It is paramount to the confidence people have in the Court for orders and obeyed implicitly promptly and, therefore, crucial that the orders are incapable of obedience and implementation are not done. "

Bronson, The Prison Drawings – Courtesy of the Princess.

1964 ROY LICHTENSTEIN PENCIL INK DRAWINGS AUTHENTICATED W/ FOUNDATION LETTER $750,000.00

Antique Victorian C E Knight Charcoal Drawing RARE EARLY PIECE Choir Scroll $500,000.00

1938 SALVADOR DALI ORIGINAL VERY LARGE INK DRAWING ON PAPER FEMALE NUDES FRAMED $185,000.00

Peter Paul Rubens Old Master drawing study Wife Helene $176,000.00

Roy Lichtenstein Pencil signed original colored drawing of an explosion w/ C.O.A $112,500.00

Famous Tom Stefopoulos Drawing in pencil Artist of Love Joy Ramp $100,000.00

dutch golden age Old Master drawing of Nicholas Steno $85,000.00

SIGNED Jean-Michel BASQUIAT Action Comics 1986-87 ORIGINAL DRAWING $75,000.00

Jimi Hendrix Original Drawing by Guillaume Azoulay!! $75,000.00

Andy Warhol MAMMY orig draw estate authenticated mint $69,500.00

Andy Warhol “Price War” Original Drawing c.1985-86 Estate Stamped Lichtenstein $65,000.00

Original One of a Kind Giacomo Manzu Ink Drawing $55,000.00

Andy Warhol “Seated Cat” Original Gold Leaf & Ink Drawing c.1956 Estate Stamped $55,000.00

Andy Warhol Happy One Million Dollars Original Drawing c.1954 Warhol Foundation $50,000.00

Peter Paul Rubens signed Old Master drawing Silenus $48,000.00

1919 AMERICAN SYNCHROMY #2 STANTON MACDONALD-WRIGHT ORIGINAL CHARCOAL DRAWING $45,000.00

Andy Warhol Three Pink Shoes Original Drawing c.1960 Estate Stamped Lichtenstein $45,000.00

ART BY KURT COBAIN RARE ORIGINAL DRAWING of Guitars Nirvana Indie Rock Grunge $45,000.00

Guillaume Azoulay Dixhuit Chevaux Original Pen Drawing, Painting SUBMIT OFFER! $40,000.00

Andy Warhol Girl with Easel Original Ink Drawing 1959 Estate Stamped $40,000.00

“French Drawing Room” by Georges Weiss (1861-1913) $40,000.00

Andy Warhol “Portrait with Cat” Original Ink Drawing c.1956 Lichtenstein Hirst $40,000.00

KIKI SMITH 1995 “Untitled (Rib Drawing)” Original Art! $38,000.00

Andy Warhol “Hand Mirror with Rose” Original Drawing c.1950′s Estate Stamped $38,000.00

Stanislas KOSTKA Original Oil on Canvas DOGS with concept art drawing RARE $35,000.00

Yoshitomo Nara “Untitled” 3 Girls Original Drawing 1997 Signed Dated Murakami $32,000.00

Andy Warhol “Female Head” Original Drawing c.1950′s Estate Stamped Lichtenstein $32,000.00

RC Gorman Untitled Purple Skirt Original Pastel Drawing, Hand Signed MAKE OFFER $30,000.00

R C Gorman “Cherokee Girl” Original Pastel Drawing Hand Signed Fine Art, Framed $30,000.00

Magnificent Drawing By F. Kimki, $30,000.00

Sir Peter Paul RUBENS (1577-1640) – authentic drawing $29,950.00

MUSEUM WORK CLAES OLDENBURG ORIGINAL BLACK MARKER TUBE DRAWING SIGNED DATED 1969 $28,000.00

R C Gorman “Shaina” Original Pastel Drawing Hand Signed, Make An Offer! L@@K $28,000.00

R C Gorman “Rainbow” Original Pastel Drawing Hand Signed Fine Art Custom Framed $28,000.00

MAGNIFICENT MINIATURE DRAWING : HOUSEIN BEHZAD MINIATUR $28,000.00

Keith Haring Untitled Soap Bowl Drawing 1984 Authenticated $28,000.00

Bernard BUFFET Original Color Pencil Drawing, Toreador, Signed/Framed $27,995.00

R C Gorman “Window River Girl” Origjnal Pastel Drawing Hand Signed, Gallery Art $27,500.00

R C Gorman Original Pastel Drawing Hand Signed Artwork, Make An Offer! L@@K! $27,500.00

R C Gorman “Liana” Hand Signed Original Pastel Drawing with CoA, Make An Offer! $27,000.00

Andy Warhol “Tondo” Curtain Motif Original Drawing c.1950′s Estate Stamped $27,000.00

SALE 15% OFF LARGE DIEGO RIVERA SIGNED DRAWING GRAPHITE AND PAPER 23″ BY 37″ $26,500.00

Andy Warhol “Glove Holding Rose” Original Drawing c. 1950′s Estate Stamped $26,000.00

Christopher Wool & Richard Hell Untitled Mixed Media Drawing 2008 Signed $26,000.00

Keith Haring “Untitled” Dancing Man Original Drawing 1987 Signed Authenticated $26,000.00

Andy Warhol Untitled Female Fashion Figure Original Drawing c.1959 Estate Stamp $25,000.00

PICASSO ORIGINAL DRAWING SIGNED AUTOGRAPH PADA AUTHENTICATION $25,000.00

R C Gorman Untitled Original Pastel Drawing Hand Signed, figure of woman L@@K $25,000.00

Andy Warhol Birds Original Ink Drawing c.1950′s Estate Stamped Lichtenstein $25,000.00

MAGNIFICENT17C PERSIAN SAFFAVI MINIATURE PENCIL DRAWING $25,000.00

Original IL Corregio (Antonio Allegri) Drawing ~ Early 1500′s ~ With Apprasial $25,000.00

Henri Matisse Original Drawing Signed COA Provenance $24,999.00

R.C Gorman Untitled Original Pastel Drawing Hand Signed Custom Framed Make Offer $24,000.00

Andy Warhol “Monkeys” Original Drawing c.1950′s Estate Stamped $24,000.00

R C Gorman Hand Signed Original woman Pastel Drawing with frame, Make An Offer! $24,000.00

Mitchell Siporin Museum Quality WPA Art Social Realism Black Americana Drawing!! $22,500.00

Andy Warhol “Shoe” Original Ink & Tempra Drawing c.1959 Lichtenstein Vintage $22,000.00

Andy Warhol “Cooking Items” Original Drawing c.1954 Estate Stamped Lichtenstein $22,000.00

Andy Warhol “Shoe” Original Ink & Leather Collage Drawing c. 1955 $22,000.00

Raymond Pettibon “With His Notes at His Elbows…” Original Drawing 1989 $22,000.00

FEININGER Lyonel, 1871-1956, drawing, Luneburg, 1923 $20,000.00

Raymond Pettibon “Untitled” Trapeze Guy Original Ink Drawing 1980 100% Authentic $20,000.00

Raymond Pettibon “Untitled” You Cant Kill Original Drawing 1984 100% Authentic $20,000.00

Slater Bradley “Untitled” Michael Jackson Ink Drawing on Photograph 2004 Framed $20,000.00

Roy Lichtenstein Pencil signed original drawing Ha Ha Ha w/ C.O.A $18,750.00

Dale Chihuly Beautiful Float Drawing Painting 60×40 Framed 2001 $18,500.00

Richard Prince “Untitled” Joke Drawing Ink on Paper 1986 Original $17,500.00

Andy Warhol “The Summer Dancers” Original Illustration Drawing 1957 Stamped $17,000.00

Andy Warhol “Still Life” (Purple Bunch) Original Drawing c. 1954 Estate Stamped $17,000.00

Keith Haring “Untitled” Book Cover Page Original Drawing 1983 Authenticated $17,000.00

Andy Warhol “Angel on Pink Paper” Original Drawing c.1950′s $16,000.00

FRANCISCO ZUNIGA Signed 1976 Original Crayon & Pastel Drawing $16,000.00

Original Signed Female Relief Nude Drawing by William Zorach $15,000.00

Carroll Dunham “Untitled” Original Crayon Graphite Drawing of Tree 2007 Signed $14,000.00

COKE ORIGINAL ELVGREN SODA POP DRAWING PINUP for PIN-UP COCA COLA Lomis Sunbloom $13,775.00

Archipenko, Alexander, Untitled Study, Pen and Ink Drawing, Hand-Signed $13,500.00

R Crumb “The R. Crumb Coffee Table Art Book” Original Drawing 100% Authentic $13,000.00

John Lennon ~ GIANT TOOTHED FIGURE ~ FRAMED ORIGNAL ART DRAWING ~ Beatles ~ RARE $12,999.95

PINO DAENI – UNTITLED – 20×16 – ORIGINAL DRAWING – FRAMED – OFFERS WELCOME $12,900.00

PINO DAENI – UNTITLED (SPANISH FAN) – 20×16 – ORIGINAL DRAWING – FRAMED $12,900.00

PINO DAENI – SILK TAFFETA – 20×16 – ORIGINAL DRAWING – FRAMED – OFFERS WELCOME $12,900.00

Rare Signed Dario Campanile Male & Female Nude Drawing $12,600.00

Louis Legrand, Original Pen & Ink Drawing, French Master, Ballerinas, Framed $12,500.00

Salvador Dali – INK DRAWING – Femme Giraffe 1937/42 $12,000.00

KELLY FREAS MAGAZINE DRAWING & FINAL COVER NATIONAL LAMPOON AUGUST 1971 $11,000.00

German expressionist drawing Otto Dix, attributed $10,000.00

JEAN COCTEAU Drawing 1946 FRANCE $10,000.00

Dante Leonelli Original Art Mixed Media Framed Drawing 1960′s Vintage $9,999.00

1952-53-54 SIGNED PRINTS MEN WOMEN ORIGINAL DRAWINGS EUROPE RARE COMPLETE GROUP $9,998.89

RUFINO TAMAYO Signed 1934 Original Drawing – RARE $9,750.00

Guillaume Azoulay “Buster” Original Pen & Ink Drawing On Paper OBO Buster Keaton $9,500.00

ORIG 1986 KEITH HARING DRAWING AUTH BY THE HARING FOUNDATION ORIG CERT MINT CD $9,500.00

ZZ TOP SIGNED PEN & INK DRAWING BY TERRY BALDWIN 1983. $9,500.00

Azoulay “Etude Rires” Signed Original Pen And Ink Drawing On Paper SUBMIT OFFER! $9,500.00

Guillaume Azoulay “Pause” Signed Original Pen & Ink Drawing, nude woman, framed $9,500.00

Jean Michel Basquiat “I Just Let A Man…” Original Ink Drawing 1988 $9,500.00

MAX OPPENHEIMER, 1911: NUDE – SIGNED ORIGINAL DRAWING $9,100.00

1972 ELLSWORTH KELLY ORIGINAL SIGNED PENCIL DRAWING WITH LETTER UNTITLED FRAMED $9,000.00

Roberto Lupetti red sanguine drawing nude bust female $9,000.00

AUTHENTIC Keith HARING Original Graffiti Signed Art Radiant Baby Artwork Drawing $8,995.00