**** CASE NUMBER: 502023CA013062XXXXMB Div: AA ****

Filing # 180188380 E-Filed 08/22/2023 08:46:50 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

JOHN MONROQUE,

Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 50-2023-CA-012443

v.

ADAM MYERS, and WEST

PY
PALM BEACH LODGE NO. TWO,
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
INC.,

CO
Defendants.
____________________________/

D
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
IE
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, JOHN MONROQUE, by and through the undersigned
IF
counsel, and sues Defendants, ADAM MYERS, and WEST PALM BEACH LODGE NO. TWO,
RT

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, INC., and alleges:

JURISDICTION & IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES

CE

1. This is an action for damages in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS

($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

A

2. Plaintiff, JOHN MONROQUE, is a 66-year-old individual who is sui juris and resides in
T

Palm Beach County.

O

3. Defendant, ADAM MYERS, is an individual over the age of 18 who is sui juris and
N

resides in Palm Beach County.

4. Defendant, WEST PALM BEACH LODGE NO. TWO, FRATERNAL ORDER OF

POLICE, INC. (hereinafter “FRAT”), is a domestic not-for-profit organization,

whose principal place of business is in Palm Beach County.

FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK, 08/22/2023 08:46:50 AM
5. The events which gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in Palm Beach County, which is

the proper venue for this action.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

6. On November 1, 2019, in the parking lot of the Food Plus grocery store located at

5501 Broadway Avenue in West Palm Beach, Florida, Officer Nicholas Lordi, of the

PY
West Palm Beach Police Department, grabbed Mr. Monroque from behind, pushed

him face first onto the front of his police car, and then took him to the ground where

CO
he placed Mr. Monroque in a head lock.

7. Screenshots below are taken from the surveillance video of the incident which was

D
used by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct an investigation on

Nicholas Lordi’s use of force.

IE
IF
8. The abovementioned video accurately depicts the events captured by the
RT

surveillance camera.
CE
A
T
O
N

2
9. Officer Lordi, now having Mr. Monroque in a headlock, punched him in the head

approximately six times with a closed fist.

PY
CO
D
IE
IF
10. Officer Lordi then rolled Mr. Monroque over onto his back, and continued punching
RT

him in the face with a closed fist approximately five more times.
CE
A
T
O
N

3
11. Officer Lordi did not stop punching Mr. Monroque in the face until a civilian

bystander defended Mr. Monroque by grabbing Officer Lordi to stop his attack. Mr.

Monroque was left lying unconscious and bleeding on the pavement.

PY
CO
D
IE
IF
RT

12. A few minutes later, Mr. Monroque was laying on the pavement in handcuffs when

Officer Lordi continued his assault by forcefully placing his knee, and body weight,
CE

on his head.
A
T
O
N

4
 PY
CO
13. Paramedics transported Mr. Monroque to St. Mary’s Hospital where he was

D
diagnosed with a significant head injury, including a suspected skull fracture and

broken nose. IE
IF
14. Officer Lordi arrested and charged Mr. Monroque for the incident.
RT

15. After Officer Lordi arrested Mr. Monroque, video footage of the incident was

obtained from the Food Plus grocery store’s surveillance cameras.

CE

16. In the criminal case, the video was authenticated as a true and accurate recording in

court, and entered into evidence.

A

17. After the video was disclosed, the State Attorney’s Office dropped all charges
T

against Mr. Monroque, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement opened an
O

investigation against Officer Lordi.

N

18. On or about February 15, 2022, Officer Lordi was arrested and charged with

aggravated battery for his brutal assault of Mr. Monroque.

5
19. On or about February 16, 2022, Adam Myers, the president of the FRAT released a

statement:

We are extremely disheartened with the decision of the Palm Beach County State
Attorney Dave Aronberg to charge Officer Nicholas Lordi with a crime, simply for
performing his duty. This charge stems from an incident in 2019 in which Officer Lordi
responded to a convenience store and asked to remove an intoxicated suspect. Two
officers were dispatched to the store after the clerk reported the subject being belligerent
and refusing to leave the property. Officer Lordi spent several minutes trying to convince
the intoxicated suspect to leave the store, but he continued to refuse. When the suspect

PY
was told that he would be arrested, he became violent. When the officers attempted to
and cuff him, he reached for one of the officer's gun.

CO
Police officers are trained if someone tries to take your gun, they are trying to kill you. In
202 [sic], 64 police officers were killed by gunfire, more than one officer every week.
Officer Lordi was protecting himself, his partner, and the public; he acted within the law
and within policy. When faced with the subject's acts of aggression, he used restraint and
did not escalate to the use of deadly force. The subject was treated for his injuries and

D
was transported to the county jail. This subject turned a simple call into a deadly force
IE
situation. Had Officer Lordi not been well trained and experienced, this routine call for
service could have ended tragically.
IF
In 2019 this entire incident was reviewed internally by the West Palm Beach Police
Department. Officer Lordi’s actions were determined to be a justifiable use of force, and
RT

within policy. Based on a doctored video of the incident which began to circulate social
media, Chief Frank Adderley requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to
conduct an outside investigation. Since this incident occurred, Officer Lordi has
CE

continued working to protect the citizens of West Palm Beach.

The Fraternal Order of Police stands firmly behind Officer Lordi. The actions he took in
2019 were fully justified. Officer Lordi feared for the life and safety of himself, his
A

partner, and the public as a violent felon was trying to take an officer's weapon. It is a
sad day when a police officer is arrested for protecting his life and the lives of others
during his duty. At the conclusion of the legal process, we are confident Officer Lordi
T

will be vindicated.” [emphasis added]

O

20. This press release was published in full, and subsequently quoted by multiple news
N

media, including WBPF (channel 25) news, WTVX (channel 34) news, NBC news,

and the Palm Beach Post.

6
 21. However, Mr. Monroque was neither violent—in his life or during the incident

Defendant Myers discussed—nor has he ever been convicted of a felony.

22. Furthermore, the video that prompted Chief Frank Adderley to request the Florida

Department of Law Enforcement to conduct an investigation into Officer Lordi’s

misconduct was not “doctored,” and, in fact, had previously been authenticated as a

true and accurate recording in court.

PY
23. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff served written notice via certified mail on both

CO
Defendants with this complaint in attachment, which specifies the false and

defamatory statements underlying this action.

D
COUNT I – DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST ADAM MYERS AND THE FRAT

IE
24. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 6 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
IF
25. Defendants’ statements were communicated to the public verbally and in writing. Exhibit A
RT

is one example of a news media outlet reprinting the FRAT’s statements one day after the

press release was issued by Defendant Myers.

CE

26. Defendants’ statement that called Mr. Monroque a violent felon was factually false,

as Mr. Monroque was a 65-year-old man who was not violent, and who is not a
A

felon.
T

27. The fact that Mr. Monroque has never been convicted of a felony makes Defendants’
O

false public statement in their press release defamation per se. See Madsen v. Buie,
N

454 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (“Under Florida law, a publication is

libelous per se when it imputes to another a criminal offense amounting to a

felony…”); see also Smolla, Law of Defamation § 7:12 (2d ed. 2023) (“The

7
 statement that ‘John is a felon’ . . . is actionable as slander per se.”).

28. Moreover, Mr. Monroque never tried to take any officer’s weapon.

29. Further, the video of officer Nicholas Lordi attacking Mr. Monroque from behind

and punching him repeatedly in the head was not doctored but an authentic

recording of the incident.

30. Defendants made the false statements in their press release with malice and/or intent

PY
to harm Mr. Monroque.

CO
31. Defendants had a duty to verify their claims before stating false facts about a private

citizen publicly.

32. Defendants knew and/or had reason to know that the statements they issued to the

D
IE
press were false even before they issued these statements because, among other

reasons:
IF
a. Defendants lacked any evidence suggesting that Mr. Monroque was a felon;
RT

b. Defendants, being police officers, had free, easy and quick access to various
CE

databases so they could check Mr. Monroque’s background for criminal

records;
A

c. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that Mr. Monroque was a violent

person;
T
O

d. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that the video seen by Police Chief
N

Adderley was doctored, but had access to police forensic experts who could

confirm the authenticity of the video; and moreover, with even minimal due

diligence, would have known the video had already been authenticated as a

true and accurate recording in court, and entered into evidence;

8
 e. Defendants had no evidence that Mr. Monroque tried to take any officer’s

weapon;

f. Defendants, with even minimal due diligence, would have determined the

truth which was contrary to the false statements in their press release.

33. By publicly issuing false statements about Mr. Monroque, Defendants acted with

actual malice and/or reckless disregard, and at least negligence in breaching their

PY
duty to verify their claims.

CO
34. Defendants’ false statements were defamatory on their face and, because of its

widespread reach on broadcast news and the internet, prejudiced Mr. Monroque in

the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community.

D
IE
35. Defendants’ false statements subjected Mr. Monroque to hatred, distrust, ridicule,

contempt, and disgrace.

IF
36. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused actual damages to Mr.
RT

Monroque, including but not limited to, reputational harm, emotional distress,
CE

personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.

A
T
O
N

9
COUNT II – DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST ADAM MYERS AND THE FRAT

37. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 6 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.

38. Florida Statutes 836.01 states: “Any person convicted of the publication of a libel

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.

775.082 or s. 775.083.”

39. This statute was enacted precisely to protect Florida citizens from defamatory

PY
statements such as the ones Defendants publicly issued about Mr. Monroque.

CO
40. Defendants’ statements were communicated to the public verbally and in writing.

41. Defendants’ statement that called Mr. Monroque a violent felon was factually false,

D
as Mr. Monroque was a 65-year-old man who was not violent, and who is not a

IE
felon. Mr. Monroque has ever been convicted of a felony.
IF
42. Moreover, Mr. Monroque never tried to take any officer’s weapon.

43. Further, the video of officer Nicholas Lordi attacking Mr. Monroque from behind
RT

and punching him repeatedly in the head was not doctored but an authentic
CE

recording of the incident.

44. Defendants made the false statements in their press release with malice and/or intent
A

to harm Mr. Monroque.

T

45. Defendant Myers and the FRAT had a duty to verify their claims before stating false
O

facts about a private citizen publicly.

N

46. Defendants knew and/or had reason to know that the statements they issued to the

press were false even before they issued these statements because, among other

reasons:

a. Defendants lacked any evidence suggesting that Mr. Monroque was a felon;

10
 b. Defendants, being police officers, had free, easy and quick access to various

databases so they could check Mr. Monroque’s background for criminal records;

c. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that Mr. Monroque was a violent person;

d. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that the video seen by Police Chief

Adderley was doctored, but had access to police forensic experts who could

confirm the authenticity of the video; and moreover, with even minimal due

PY
diligence, would have known the video had already been authenticated as a true

CO
and accurate recording in court, and entered into evidence;

e. Defendants had no evidence that Mr. Monroque tried to take any officer’s

weapon;

D
IE
f. Defendants, with even minimal due diligence, would have determined the truth

which was contrary to the false statements in their press release.

IF
47. By publicly issuing false statements about Mr. Monroque, Defendants acted with
RT

actual malice and/or reckless disregard, and at least negligence in breaching their
CE

duty to verify their claims.

48. Defendants’ false statements were defamatory on their face and, because of its
A

widespread reach on broadcast news and the internet, prejudiced Mr. Monroque in

the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community.

T
O

49. Defendants’ false statements subjected Mr. Monroque to hatred, distrust, ridicule,
N

contempt, and disgrace.

50. Defendants’ misconduct violated Florida Statute 836.01.

51. Defendants’ violation of Fla. Stat. 836.01 directly and proximately caused actual

damages to Mr. Monroque, including but not limited to, reputational harm,

11
 emotional distress, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.

COUNT III – DEFAMATION PER QUOD AGAINST ADAM MYERS AND THE FRAT

52. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 6 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.

53. Defendants’ statements were communicated to the public verbally and in writing.

Exhibit A is one example of a news media outlet reprinting the FRAT’s statements

PY
one day after the press release was issued by Defendant Myers.

54. Defendants’ statement that called Mr. Monroque a violent felon was factually false,

CO
as Mr. Monroque was a 65-year-old man who was not violent, and who is not a

felon. Mr. Monroque has ever been convicted of a felony.

D
55. Moreover, Mr. Monroque never tried to take any officer’s weapon.
IE
56. Further, the video of officer Nicholas Lordi attacking Mr. Monroque from behind
IF
and punching him repeatedly in the head was not doctored but an authentic
RT

recording of the incident.

57. Defendants made the false statements in their press release with malice and/or intent
CE

to harm Mr. Monroque.

58. Defendants had a duty to verify their claims before stating false facts about a private
A

citizen publicly.
T

59. Defendants knew and/or had reason to know that the statements they issued to the
O

press were false even before they issued these statements because, among other
N

reasons:

a. Defendants lacked any evidence suggesting that Mr. Monroque was a felon;

12
 b. Defendants, being police officers, had free, easy and quick access to various

databases so they could check Mr. Monroque’s background for criminal records;

c. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that Mr. Monroque was a violent person;

d. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that the video seen by Police Chief

Adderley was doctored, but had access to police forensic experts who could

confirm the authenticity of the video; and moreover, with even minimal due

PY
diligence, would have known the video had already been authenticated as a true

CO
and accurate recording in court, and entered into evidence;

e. Defendants had no evidence that Mr. Monroque tried to take any officer’s

weapon;

D
IE
f. Defendants, with even minimal due diligence, would have determined the truth

which was contrary to the false statements in their press release.

IF
60. By publicly issuing false statements about Mr. Monroque, Defendants acted with
RT

actual malice and/or reckless disregard, and at least negligence in breaching their
CE

duty to verify their claims.

61. Defendants’ false statements were defamatory on their face and, because of its
A

widespread reach on broadcast news and the internet, prejudiced Mr. Monroque in

the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community.

T
O

62. Defendants’ false statements subjected Mr. Monroque to hatred, distrust, ridicule,
N

contempt, and disgrace.

63. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused actual damages to Mr.

Monroque, including but not limited to, reputational harm, emotional distress,

personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.

13
COUNT IV – DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST THE FRAT (VICARIOUS LIABILITY)

64. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 6 through 63 as if fully set forth herein.

65. Defendant Adam Myers was and still is the President of the FRAT during all time

relevant to the events underlying the claims in this action.

66. Defendant Adam Myers publicly issued the abovementioned false statements about

Mr. Monroque in his representative duty as the President of the FRAT.

PY
67. Defendant Adam Myers publicly issued the abovementioned false statements about

CO
Mr. Monroque during the time he performed duties for the benefit and purpose of

the FRAT.

D
68. Issuing public statements on behalf of the FRAT was an activity Defendant Myers

IE
was hired, paid, or elected to perform for the FRAT.
IF
69. Defendant Myers publicly issued the abovementioned false statements during the

course of his employment by the FRAT.

RT

70. All claims in the above paragraphs are incorporated here, since they apply equally to
CE

Defendant Myers as to the FRAT through vicarious liability.

71. Defendants’ false statements were defamatory on their face and, because of its
A

widespread reach on broadcast news and the internet, prejudiced Mr. Monroque in
T

the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community.

O

72. Defendants’ false statements subjected Mr. Monroque to hatred, distrust, ridicule,
N

contempt, and disgrace.

73. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused actual damages to Mr.

Monroque, including but not limited to, reputational harm, emotional distress,

personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.

14
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendants ADAM MYERS and

the FRAT as follows:

i. Requiring Defendants to make a public retraction of the false statements and publicly

apologize for the harm they have caused Mr. Monroque;

ii. Awarding Plaintiff all compensatory damages, including consequential and incidental

PY
damages, as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, in an amount to be determined at

CO
trial;

iii. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

D
iv. Awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs;

v. IE
Such further relief this Court deems just and proper.
IF
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
RT

The Plaintiff in the above styled cause hereby demands a trial by jury of all of the issues

triable by right.
CE

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2023.

Kelley | Uustal
A

Attorneys for Plaintiff

500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
T

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Telephone: (954) 522-6601
O

Facsimile: (954) 522-6608

fli@kulaw.com
N

shp@kulaw.com

By: _/s/ Fan Li_______________

Fan Li, Esquire, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 118317
Sean H. Parys, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 1007701

15
 FLI/bf

N
O
T
A
CE

16
RT
IF
IE
D
CO
PY
>"0œ{7Œœ¾>ÿ?žœKÞœo´¶¬°œ º»

 æ úľ*“œÅ7ĪŀĈ“œ «œė”œ ¼œÆ):Đ>œ Őœ 

 
  

Exhibit A
Ùpãpï4Ì

 






 
   

   
I`Ŀ
œý2%>œ#!œ
a2’
œ%ķœTœ*2Ń
Ÿœ   
Ā<*
œđ
0!œ
‡
%œĉ0
œ


!œ…
)
œ  

   

PY
 


 
 <&#A(&I III)%I
I 
I
C
^)œĊ GœÓIög!œ
İ
ĸ2%
œ Ü+ċ
œC^Gb*œÐƒ7
%œ
!U!ı
%
%œ‚œ
C00
œ~+‡
!

CO
C!0
œ | ĭ;œßēœŒœ |QĘœèĞQœ

őœ Ŏœ
 



w+œþ
F+…œ
ij<
ĹTˆ
_œ`œ
%
%bœ)2T¤%ō
<+œād!)œ+œ
!0œ

D
çī*œ¿
^)œ

2
 
C
ĂĬ*Fň
_œ
x<2G+œKœ€GŁœ
2,2

IE
IF
K/ˆ%—!œ+>#œĒ/„œ
RT

ăœb#œĦ#œ 2ħœ
-2

 !
CE


 x
#!œ]œÇ œÝU/œ

 


  ""  " " 


I
I .*I3$B+@BI%>+$2 9,IC=&$B*@I&*51F+>*&I@B>$1-/BIB;IH;D>I+7$16I4:%;GI
0

";E>I8$15I''?+@@I 
 "
A

K>#Gğ!œ!
0œ„`œ
)'2-2w**œ 
 

ø
**2+aœ'
2
± · l
l*_œ

!
%œ $ !WW'#(W?,W¥ ñ
œÔ œÍ
$
.œœu#œÑ6 
8
œ
&
œœM
œé œ
T

J
,-œ$ ,
œ  
œ6 œ
œN
Ňœ
œ
œ‘
œ 
œ 3œòe
&'Aœ

O

IĢƒ
œIĠ
ĵœ ÕÎYqœ#œ
‰œœy
N
œ
W
(5=c
œO
#

(œy D œv hœ-
œę5
œœ-
œR5 §
# 2,'2!
1($2ĺT¦œ02 ó-
œĚ.
FœO
œ(œà'œ
 W
È<+œ‚œČ<%œ
N

*2
a)
-58"#&!78
#8#17&78'#!8 8873*8
"

ä6  œ œH.œ1
œ
 e.
iœZ  œ.œ
œ1
œ 66 D
œ

-%!2
0'' 2 ,'2 
$
œœ
&œ
œ ,ě8œœ
&$œDnQ’Àœ#( œœœ
.( 2(2&2 M
&œê œÀ
,œ
'œ 
Aœ
!/'+-2Lœ
-"-2
"2
L
‰œœœ Y œH
œ
Ņ5
 
œ5
œ(œ
œ œ(œ

œ$Ą
&&œ 6œ 
œ œO'œ$H.Fœ
œD œ .œ
œ)
œ
œ
œ=  $‹
œ8
&œœP
Sœ œ( 
AœXč
œ
œF œ
#&œĖ=Ď
hœZ œ$ ,
œ&œS

œ œ@œ1
jœ,@œœ

œ 
  (Aœ

Lœ
œÖÏvqœ
$Ķ¡œ-
œ 5Šœ$  
œœ#œ
ģ
œœ

ud œœV˜ 88
™œ-&œď d
1
œœ
œ1œœ -
œIJ D
œDVœ
œV
œœfP
œ
8
P
;.œ#œ1$$

œ
œ-¢œ&œ

 
œœO
,
œš‘,(f&A•›

Y œU
œ 
œ.œôH
'œœŠœ cœ-
œë ĤœJ
ąœÉ=.'œ

t ªœ

 ÁĔœĻû’QœĮĨœõQĥ<

 '4/GBB5C152W

WDW0HDPK=.TP=IDNWB+36WQIWB+VIKNW0+BJ+>9EWB+C+96LNW%W+:6+2WI8W*6NQW
&,@BW4,/;W",M=F,WUGR4W

ÚRœ 'kœá@
‹œð 3@SœSœœP
œ œœĜœ#œ,3 ʼn,jœ'@œZ RœœN3œœ$ œ
į ĴœRņœ';kœńœ#œ =;ļœW+œX1@œœœ² W;'œ(œ7œWœì œJ)œÊ=3'¨œ

tf
œË
œJe0œ
;
œœ

WN(©œ

X8œâ'£œ1œ$ œœ)œ×ĩ œåœœ{ġĆœ œMœí7œÂ5-iœ œœœ

Mc'½œ

ARÀE“RÀTµ£™S‡R†·ÀOp oTE”£RˆROÀ³q¢oÀ¢oTÀOTKp qˆÀXÀ¢oTÀ8E‚‡À(REHoÀ*«ˆ£·À<¢E£TÀ&¥¥“ˆR·À,E­RÀ&“ˆFR“kÀ
¢À IoE”kRÀ7WfIR“À6pIo‚E À4™PrÀ´p£oÀEÀI‰‡R
À p‡‚·ÀX“ÀT“X‰ŠˆkÀop ÀO«¢ºÀ>#$ ÀIoElTÀ £T‡ ÀX“‡ÀEˆÀ
qˆIsORˆ£ÀˆÀ 

ˆÀ³oqHoÀ7XeIR”À4“OrÀ“R ˆOROÀ£ÀEÀIˆ°ˆpRˆIRÀ ¢“RÀ EˆOÀE ROÀ£À“R‡­RÀEˆÀ qˆ£µsIE¢ROÀ
 « RJ£À >´ÀXfIRš À³R”RÀOs E¢IoROÀ£À£oRÀ £”RÀEX¢R“À¢oRÀJ‚R“À“R”¢ROÀ¢oRÀ «F|RI£ÀFRqˆmÀFR„ƒsmR”Rˆ£ÀEˆOÀ
“RX« sˆmÀ£À‚RE­RÀ£oRÀ“R”£¼À7XfJR“À4”OpÀ Rˆ£À R­R“E‚À‡sˆ«¢R À¢•·sˆmÀ£ÀIˆ®sˆIRÀ¢oRÀsˆ¢¶sIE¢SOÀ « RI£À
¢À‚RE±À£oTÀ ¢“SÀF«£ÀoTÀNˆ£sˆ«TOÀ£À“SX« TÀBoTˆÀ¢oTÀ « RJ£À´E À£‚OÀ¢oE£ÀoRÀ³«‚OÀGTÀE“ £TOÀoTÀ

PY
FRJE‡TÀ­s‚Tˆ£À BoTˆÀ£oTÀXfJT› ÀE£¨T‡£TOÀ¢ÀoEˆOJ«cÀopˆ ÀoTÀ“TEIoTOÀX“ÀˆTÀXÀ¢oTÀXXtJT“Àm«ˆÀ

;„¦IRÀYfIR•¡ÀE”RÀ¢“EpˆROÀpXÀ ŠRˆRÀ£‰T À£À¢ERÀ·«”Àk«ˆÀ¢oR·ÀE“RÀ£”·rˆkÀ£À¤3À·«À 1ˆÀ 


¾ qI À
‚pIRÀ
XXsIRš À ´R•RÀ¤‚ROÀF·Àm«ˆg•SÀ ‡”RÀ¢oEˆÀˆRÀYfIR“ÀT­R•·À³RRÀ7YfIR“À4”OÀ³E À“£RI¢rˆmÀop‡ R‚aÀ¬ À
E•£ˆRœÀEˆOÀ£oRÀ«F‚pI%ÀoRÀEI¢ROÀ´r£opˆÀ£oRÀ‚E³ÀEˆOÀ´p¢orˆÀ‚sI¸ÀCoRˆÀXEJROÀ³s£oÀ£oRÀ «F}RI¢ÀEJ£ ÀZÀ

CO
Emm–S  tˆÀoTÀ« TOÀ“T ¢”Erˆ¢ÀEˆOÀOtOÀˆ£ÀT JE‚E¢TÀ¢À¢oTÀ« TÀXÀOTEO‚·ÀX–MTÀ?oTÀ «F~TJ£À´E À£“TE£TOÀX”Àos À
sˆ«”sT ÀEˆOÀ ´E À£“Eˆ “£TOÀ¢À¢oTÀI«ˆ£·À€EyƒÀ ?os À «F~TJ£À£«“ˆTOÀEÀ s¤Š‚TÀJE„ƒÀsˆ£ÀEÀOTEO‚·ÀX“JTÀ s£«E¢sˆÀ
0EOÀ7_`xIT“À4“OsÀˆ£ÀFTTˆÀ³T…‚À£“EsˆTOÀEˆOÀT¶T“sTˆJTOÀ£op À“«£sˆUÀJE„…ÀX“À T“®uJTÀJ«‚OÀoE­TÀTˆOTOÀ
¢“EkqJE‚‚·À

D
1ˆÀ

¢ov ÀRˆ¢s“RÀpˆJpOTˆ£À´E À“R­sR³ROÀpˆ¢R“ˆE„ƒ¹ÀF·À£oRÀCR £À9E‚ˆ!À)REJoÀ9„¦JRÀ-RE•£žRˆ§À7dIRÀ
4“OtÀEI¢sˆ À¿¯T“TÀOTª“‡sˆTOÀ£ÀFTÀEÀ~« £shEF‚TÀ« TÀXÀX“JRÀEˆOÀ³q¢osˆÀ‚tI·À)E TOÀˆÀEÀOJ¢“TOÀ ­sOTÀ
XÀ£oTÀsˆJsOTˆ£À´opJoÀFTmEˆÀ¢ÀJr—J«‚E¢TÀ JtE‚À‡UOsEÀ+osTXÀ/“EˆÀ&OOT“‚T·À–S‘«T £TOÀ£oTÀ/‚“pOEÀ

IE
-TE“£‡Tˆ£ÀXÀ4E³À.ˆX“JT‡Tˆ£À£ÀJˆO«I£ÀEˆÀ«£ sOTÀpˆ² £pkE¢pˆÀ=sˆJTÀ£os ÀsˆJsOTˆ¥ÀJI«““TO À7[iJT“À
5“OsÀoE ÀKˆ£pˆ«TOÀ³“pˆkÀ£À“£TL¢À¢oRÀIp£s½Rˆ ÀXÀBT £À:E‚‡À(TEIoÀ
IF
@oRÀ/“E¢R“ˆE‚À7”OR“ÀXÀ9‚tJRÀ ¢EˆO ÀXsŸ‚·ÀFRoqˆOÀ7cwIR”À4“OpÀ @oRÀEJ¢tˆ ÀoTÀ ¢ÀsˆÀ

³R“RÀX«„ƒ·À
}« ¢sXsTOÀ7\iIT“À4“OrÀXTE“TOÀX“À£oRÀ‚pXTÀEˆOÀ Eb¢·ÀXÀop"Š T‚^Àos ÀE“£ˆT˜ÀEˆOÀ¢oRÀ«F‚sIÀE ÀEÀ­s‚Tˆ£ÀXT‚ˆÀ
³E À¢˜º{ˆmÀ¢  À¢ETÀEˆÀXXtJT“À´TEŒÀ 2¢Às ÀEÀ EOÀOE·À³oTˆÀEÀ‚sJTÀ]fJT“Às   ÀE““T ¢TOÀj“À–Ž£TJ¢pˆmÀop À„zXTÀ
RT

EˆOÀ£oUÀ‚p­U ÀXÀ£oR–¡ÀO«“pˆkÀos ÀO«©» À'£À£oRÀJˆJ‚« sˆÀXÀ£oUÀ‚UmE‚À“JT  À³UÀ EšVÀJˆhOTˆ¢À7dIT“À4“OsÀ

³¤3ÀFRÀ­¤ˆOsJE¥SOÀ

2‹À.78
"+8,72'8/+80+78%'0/#")68$$4"8.8'$878 8$#8(+!"8
7'" "87".'8
CE



 
A
T

)<7W7OSWB"(œ7-AOW µ®ŏœć "œ}? :ĕ"œ:œ ³¹œÃ"œ49Ō:œ[9œ zE"Œ"œ

œ\†Žœ4?Eœ6œ 49ŋ3œ})Ľœ€=œ œ Bœ îœB/"œœ\Žĝ œ 4:;"œ\/œL"œ
49Ŋ:œ[9œBœ ÷"œ 4/7œ?œ]9œm [/H"œ ùłœrUœØEœ z7œ Ûœm sœœ
O

n­noœ ]?gœ~3Eœ–¸¯œ ?œÄ"œÒ/œ r"†:œ

ü3Eœs9œB/"œ
N