Griswold Author: Bram

v.

Connecticut

91965)

Relevant Facts: Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. (it was not a crime to sell birth control devices, but it was a crime to use any drug or medicinal instrument for the purpose of preventing contraception) Issue: Under constitutional law, does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? Holding: Yes. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void. Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. Under the rulings of Meyer and Pierce, and other 1st Amendment cases, the implicit right to do things associated with those Amendments has been granted. The same rule should apply here: the 3rd Amendment stops soldiers (read: police power or executive branch) from quartering soldiers in one's home, the 5th Amendment enables persons to a zone of privacy which the gov't may not force someone to surrender to their detriment, and the 9th Amendment explicitly says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (read: the explicit and heretofore decided implicit guarantees in the Bill of Rights cannot be used against people) Rule: Under the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th Amendments, the right to family was created and thus protects the right of marital privacy. Important Dicta: N/A. Dissenting: (Justice Black with Stewart): There is no constitutional right to privacy, as the majority says there is. There are some constitutional guarantees, like the 4th Amendment, but not the 14th, which Black generally calls a stretch. As for the 9th Amendment, there is no need for this analysis, as the Framers created this Amendment to "assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions was intended to limit Federal Government to the powers granted expressly or by necessary implication. (Justice Stewart with Black): The law does not violate the Constitution, although the law itself is silly, outdated, and unenforceable.

Concurring: (Justices Goldberg, Warren, Brennan): Doesn't think that the ninth amendment, as introduced by Madison to Congress, was to protect the people from the other eight amendments' specificity. This concurrence feels that the original eight were fine enough to stand on their own as protective of the penumbra the majority brings to light in this decision. (Harlan): The use of the constitutional amendments are not necessary to justify this ruling, when the court takes a look at the doctrines of federalism and separation of powers. (White): Feels this is a due process violation of the 14th Amendment. This is the state acting to limit a right to family, and there is no justification by Connecticut's argument it reinforces a ban on illicit sexual relationships. New York Times v Sullivan 376 U.S. 967 84 S. Ct. 1130 12 L. Ed. 2d 83 1964 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Sullivan (Plaintiff) sued the Defendant, the New York Times Co. (Defendant), for printing an advertisement about the civil rights movement in the south that defamed the Plaintiff. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Facts. The Plaintiff was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama, who claimed that he was defamed in a full-page ad taken out in the New York Times. The advertisement was entitled, “Heed Their Rising Voices” and it charged in part that an unprecedented wave of terror had been directed against those who participated in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the particulars of the advertisement were false. Although the advertisement did not mention the Plaintiff by name, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had oversight responsibility of the police. The Defendant claimed that it authorized publication of the advertisement because it did not have any reason to believe that its contents were false. There was no independent effort to check its accuracy. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant retract the advertisement. The Defendant was puzzled as to why the Plaintiff thought the advertisement reflected adversely on him. The jury found the ad libe lous per se and actionable without proof of malice. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $500,000 in damages. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The Defendant appealed. Issue. Is the Defendant liable for defamation for printing an advertisement, which criticized a public official’s official conduct? Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied without proof of actual damages, and that, for the purpose of compensatory damages, malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge

Pp. the court said that malice could be inferred from the Times' "irresponsibility" in printing the advertisement while "the Times. Sullivan. Constitution does not protect libelous publications. (b) Expression does not lose constitutional protection to which it would otherwise be entitled because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement. if you desire. 144 So." precludes any verdict. . Alabama Code. 285-292. 265-292." "falsity and malice are presumed. Respondent served such a demand upon each of the petitioners. implies legal injury from the bare fact of publication itself. It held that. P. (d) State court judgment entered upon a general verdict punitive damages. where presumption of constitutional requirements. as to which. and the State Supreme Court affirmed.2d at 50-51. The jury found for respondent. 656. as far as we could see." "general damages need not be alleged or proved. trade or business. and others. from the Times' failure to retract for respondent while retracting for the Governor. he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded. are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you. and the Governor was." Id. award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice"--that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp." and were not privileged. Held: A State cannot. 284. more particularly." to make such an award. who asserted that the publication charged him with "grave misconduct and ." Id." and "punitive damages may be awarded by the jury even though the amount of actual damages is neither found nor shown. The jury was instructed that. [256] Alabama law denies a public officer recovery of punitive damages in a libel action brought on account of a publication concerning his official conduct unless he first makes a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant fails or refuses to comply. The judge rejected petitioners' contention [263] that his rulings abridged the freedoms of speech and of the press that are guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. . Pp." He refused to charge. 7. at 674-675. under the above doctrine." Respondent filed this suit a few days later without answering the letter. at 686. It rejected petitioners' constitutional contentions with the brief statements that "The First Amendment of the U. under state law. so that petitioners might be held liable if the jury found that they had published the advertisement and that the statements were made "of and concerning" respondent. the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper . 676.S. ." and "you might. . The court reaffirmed a statement in an earlier opinion that "There is no legal measure of damages in cases of this character. the ad did refer to the action of the State authorities and the Board of Education. None of the individual petitioners responded to the demand. reversed and remanded. such as police and firemen. or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. to award a judgment in a civil action. improper actions and omissions as Governor of Alabama and Ex-Officio Chairman of the State Board of Education of Alabama. 265-266." and "The Fourteenth Amendment is directed against State action.2d 25. primarily because each took the position that he had not authorized the use of his name on the advertisement.2d at 39. but are presumed. 656. and.2d 25. . in the sense of "actual intent" to harm or "gross negligence and recklessness. 273 Ala." they are "libelous per se".2d at 50." Id. and therefore had not published the statements that respondent alleged had libeled him. the Secretary of the Times testified: "We did that because we didn't want anything that was published by The Times to be a reflection on the State of Alabama. . and the judge charged that "mere negligence or carelessness is not evidence of actual malice or malice in fact. we had by that time learned more of the actual facts which the and purported to recite and. and that it was actionable without "proof of pecuniary injury . he thought the two paragraphs were "substantially correct. under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. and would not justify an award of punitive damages. at 676. profession. actual damages. 144 So. under the direction and control of a single commissioner. P. In affirming the judgment. that "we . Tit." The trial judge submitted the case to the jury under instructions that the statements in the advertisement were "libelous per se. had articles already published which would have demonstrated the falsity of the allegations in the advertisement". subsequently publish a retraction of the advertisement upon the demand of Governor John Patterson of Alabama. presumably of which the Governor is the ex-officio chairman. whether statutory or not. or tend to bring the individual into public contempt. . or both.2d at 37. that the jury must be "convinced" of malice. 144 So.2d at 40. 144 So. representative of the State. . is "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment. and." When asked to explain why there has been a retraction for the Governor but not for respondent. he testified that he did not think that "any of the language in there referred to Mr. however. are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice"--knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth--is alleged and proved." Id. The Times did. if it was published of and concerning the plaintiff". In sustaining the trial court's determination that the verdict was not excessive. among other things. It approved the trial court's ruling that the jury could find the statements to have been made "of and concerning" respondent. but wrote respondent a letter stating. 41. or charge him with an indictable offense. . [255] (c) Factual error. (a) Application by state courts of a rule of law. 144 So. content defamatory of official reputation. Pp. "where the words published tend to injure a person libeled by them in his reputation. 279-283. libelous per se. 273 Ala.instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice. as to which it is "presumed. . 144 So. since it failed to support a finding that the statements were made with actual malice or that they related to respondent. and requires reversal. stating: "We think it common knowledge that the average person knows that municipal agents. 144 So. [264] apart from the statement that the dining hall was padlocked. and from the testimony of the Times' Secretary that. the Supreme Court of Alabama sustained the trial judge's rulings and instructions in all respects. such injury being implied. at 686-687. and he also refused to require that a verdict for respondent differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. are under the control and direction of the city governing body. finally. The Times did not publish a retraction in response to the demand." Id. "the law . that "the matter complained of is. at 673. and does not justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages. . and general determination as to the basis of the malice is inconsistent with federal (e) The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent. which are compensatory in nature--apparently requires proof of actual malice under Alabama law. which does not differentiate between malice must be proved. praise or criticism is usually attached to the official in complete control of the body." On the other hand. however. § 914. and not private action. . 265. furthermore. in its own files. let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you." An award of punitive damages--as distinguished from "general" damages. In measuring the performance or deficiencies of such groups. whereas the falsity of some of the allegations was then known to the Times and "the matter contained in the advertisement was equally false as to both parties". because the statements were libelous per se.

They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. 496. against the claim that the accessory statute as so applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. .S. [381 U. 946. Tileston v. Scanlon for the Catholic Council on Civil Liberties. Harriet F. 318 U.Because of the importance of the constitutional issues involved. medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.S.S. following examination. 381 U. Caplan for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. instruction. In that situation we thought that the requirements of standing should be strict. They gave information. 371 U. causes. Ernst. or cannot constitutionally be. 1. CONNECTICUT. 481-486.S. Pilpel and Nancy F. v. a crime. Joseph B. Ullman. Fox for Dr. Karpatkin. 1961. Clark argued the cause for appellee. The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. 1965.a center open and operating from November 1 to November 10. Supreme Court GRISWOLD v. Appellant Griswold is Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. P. 480] MR. under the proper safeguards. the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and. although some couples were serviced free. Here those doubts are removed by reason of a criminal conviction for serving married couples in violation of an aiding-and-abetting statute." Section 54-196 provides: U. Wulf and Jerome E. Roraback. Briefs of amici curiae. 479 (1965) 381 U.. for there the plaintiff seeking to represent others asked for a declaratory judgment. We hold that the rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct. Ullman. We reverse the judgment. John M. 479. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant Buxton is a licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven . abets. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants.. The statutes whose constitutionality is involved in this appeal are 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev. With him on the briefs was Catherine G. 481. Wechsler for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America." The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. Melvin L. Pp. 318 U. Emerson argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was Julius Maretz. by Morris L. and by Rhoda H. 479 GRISWOLD ET AL. 44 . Inc. Tileston v. Appellants have standing to assert the constitutional rights of the married people. 1965. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.).[note 4] We [265] further hold that. Fees were usually charged. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. is different. and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception.S. distinguished.S. No. We think that appellants have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship. Thomas I. hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender. Adams et al. the evidence presented in this case is constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent. by Alfred L. were filed by Whitney North Seymour and Eleanor M. 44 . counsels. Decided June 7. Argued March 29-30. a licensed physician. when appellants were arrested. Certainly the accessory should have standing to assert that the offense which he is charged with assisting is not. and its medical director. CONNECTICUT. prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. 2. The former provides: "Any person who uses any drug. Held: "Any person who assists. An intermediate appellate court and the State's highest court affirmed the judgment. urging reversal. lest the standards of "case or controversy" in Article III of the Constitution become blurred. we granted the separate petitions for certiorari of the individual petitioners and of the Times.S.

8  .7. 4:/ .3/90:/0.9020398 3 90 .0 8 3.3/4190570889.:9470/ 90 :80 41 8 3.943-74:943 .70/297.0733 8 411.43.4.4:/ 800  90 02-4/2039 41 90 $9.509943078708543/0/9490/02.70/9.3/902.425038..7010.0307.85:-80/-%0%20894-0.7/ 4109079.0472.950994307829-00/ .00/47574.9:.9907..43/:.08  .43/:./.9:.907 / .0.0.3911 .92.98  ..8089.90/509943078 ..079802039 !5   (  .9:94747349 94..3:7174290-.9 .9  -0.031.0780/.:. 13/3 9. /. 89.3/   2574507.33 90 97.947.7029.2.3/.0/ 41 2.079802039 1742 90 %208  1. 9 8 5708:20/  570.90 41 .:800//3 9.0 9.0/.9:.2.3.0 47 /01...  :3/07 89..43..2.0 8:.0/.7/41/.2.03 94: 90 .078.854.943.90 .079802039.990 89.3/5:39..9730 -04:850780 19.920703003.90203989./:.42243340/0 9.943 ..3//70.708420. . . .990784341.0/ -:9....-04110380 47903/94-73903/.4:39 41 ....-..9 90 2..03 90707010770/947 $:.2.7. 830 .8 0 .2.93 94 8 411.70.3/07034957.088..3/.73:7    8:../ 5:-80/ .8 .99089.11720/   0/$9.3/34957.08 .07/.. 147 /01..43899:943..94394.-.38073 90 09907  %0 %208 //  40.-..93 .  03 .0 /.2..72.7/415:39./ .08  0 701:80/ 94 .0 /4.08 .07347 070.9. .79. .9434390$9.0 /0243897./408349/1107039. 090789..730/24704190.920703003.   25080.74190%208908910/0//9..4:79841.7.. /.9438  ./9.90-09003.7/  . ./.9 90 89.3/ 706:708 70.943  5708:2.3/ .0 ..70 5708:20/  .943  574108843  97.9.9:. .9  07090 47/8 5:-80/ 903/ 94 3:70 .9     $4 / .3/ -:97490708543/039.3:.0883090714:3/347843 3.8 94 90 -.8947970.3/9.3/17429090892434190%208 $0..3 .5:-.78390147241.3/4:29 14:/0870 09:8343.84 701:80/ 94 706:70 9.2.9.9415:-.07415:39./-9.0734741.90/.7038:11.3   %0 97.3 .08.2..088/870.3.041.3903994.9 (.990:7 2:89 -0 .990.8084198.99..2.970850..-.08 %0:714:3/147708543/039 . 7097. .90.7 :3/07 90 /70.9020398:3088.43.9  9 700.07347 890 0 411.9 $4 /..3900/-90 789.3/5:754790/9470.. .39.74:58 57.079802039 7010..70:.70:3/0790.943 4: .894184204190.0 .. .90..0770.7/41/:.2.3/ 0 ...9  9./03.07/.080701:80/943897:.806:.2.3897:.90./.90. 55..-.85..3/ 1:79072470 0.0733905.0.9020399.9.709.3/90 4.7-0.08  .701.425090 .3/0/ (  .3/ 5:39.943 41 90 .72.9434190$9.0:3/07.9:.07.43899:943..9020398 .9:. /02.-.990.- 41 .2.3903994.0733708543/039 89.989.98./.08 .9  $4 /.99.9433708543809490/02.3/ 13.3/4:790039203/20398   3..9 :3088 0 1789 2.43974 41 90 -4/  /  .43.828:8:../ 349 .9438.00/.3/574.2.24:39 41 ./.9 147 708543/039 /1107039.943 .8 3897:.07/..5./03..4 .:/2039 3.7..07/.5574.028../ 349 5:-80/9089.4.9.9438 3 90 .2./09340/041981....9  ..2.43974.5708843/408349480..0/ !5     / $9.9020398 070-04:850780 90.0/  .90/94708543/039 !5     .3/ 3897:.990:7.. 70850..90   ./0 9.99200.8 1.9 0 .943 .422884307  3 20.29.90 -09003.083.07347 .9  .30/9097.-.894-495.0.3..83490.9439801  1./.34190$9.3//408349:891.943 147 90 4.9 / ./0 47 -:83088 47.39 .-7/0/901700/428418500.7/419097:9 8.8901.3/70..904. 1.880790/9.7:041..94741411.2...079802039090%208 39843 108  .90.9 147 708543/039 0 7097./.08 %0:/0700.-0190:714:3/9.088/870./03.7917429089.947 3 3.9 :3088 0 574.4:798.3/ 90$9.4:/-0310770/ 174290%208 77085438-935739390.425038.90.947 1.4390259  90 .2434907938  9./:.2.3  9070 .4:/13/9089.7/415:39.43903943( 9.8:7041/.03.2.-.9438 9.90203983./ 94-014:3/-014705:39.82.3/ %0 4:790039203/20398/70.3/147..///701079490.990.943:3/07904:790039203/2039 !   . 79903 /02.07747 .0..411.0733-4/ .943 47-49 ..79./.550.80/ 94 05.9020398 070 2.. 10 /.907 94:9 .3:7-03250/ / ./-00/2 %0%208//3495:-8..9:..:809.9 %0708340.9020398 9.3/414..3/2..930939.8/893:80/ 1742 0307..9:. . 41 90 509943078  430 41 90 3/.9:.3/ 0307.7/0/ 479.  070 5708:25943 41 2.902039 3 ./0 41 .. 38:11.0/9490411.987:38..30/390.08 2.3349 :3/0790789.079802039070-04:850780 .3/904.0398 8:. 2.39.04190$9.3/4:/349:891.9   $4 /.07347 -:9 349 147 708543/039 90$0.8 -003 ./041.9020398070 2.9020398 3 90 .9-0.:947908.9 9070..3/ 90 574507 705708039.0883088.9020398 94.2.00/.1172390:/2039 90$:570204:7941 .9439. 904.724774883003...2.389$9.0733 708543/039  %0 :7 .8047.9 %0 789 203/2039 41 90 & $  43899:943 /408 349 57490.43899:943.7039 706:708 57441 41 .0/. 2.9    %0 .70  40..7/0/ - 90:7 0.79.0.9:..0/94 8:55479.43/:.425  .425.77.9:70 .7 47 5:39.80 94 90 :7 :3/07 3897:.709.724770..2./.90$:570204:79.08418:.943 889.393 9.439039438 9 90 -701 89.8 94 .847701:80894 ..3/ 0908910/9..701.3/4288438.43889039 9 10/07.0734743!.3.89 41 90 .94341.039 94 8:55479 90 :/2039 147 708543/039  83.706:7020398 !    0  %0 0. 7097.7010.9   3 8:89.9 -04:8 5:-./. 90.2..081471.3/5:39.7//.0 /.5:-.7/ 41 /:.3/ 11. 7097.897:0471./.9147708543/03984:/ /1107039.94.3.0 340/09.9:..85:-80/41....943-89.943 / .20.2.3/4:790039203/20398 .43.0/.  $4 / 70.33/. 507843 -00/ - 902 3 8 705:9.9.9:.8047370.079802039:54390/02.0/ 094:990945.99089.947. 411.9     $4 / .. 4.-094:9574414150.0990789.391.89.943..08300/349-0.3/170203 .94:...9 .990 /33.0/./5:-80/90..80 !5      .0 2:89 -0 574.7 .3/ :543 0.8:73 90 5071472.-4.4:79 87:39.7097.1.89444:939089.43974 41 ..3.8:89.8044/ 70.07  8:-806:039 5:-8 .-0.4:79:/2039039070/:543.20 43 90 .9..9438.041.08  .0 90.2.3/9./. . :/0 8:-2990/ 90 .:/08 ...90/9.88 41 90 ...9.9041..:8090 89.0 47 9.580708:-89.57490. 2.8 94 .90.0/9097.0 /.    $4 /   9 0/9.55.-.90.9907 .03994.083.0.90//349939.8 . .7/410025.90 .0/.3/ 24705..0894..0883088 942.  .3/702.4:79 8 /090723.70 .439039/01.3/ 90701470 .2.943.4770.4/0  %9    V   #08543/039 807.7/.2.93147904.3 0.2.08 .705:9.8 .70 -04:8 507 80 9.:800.11720/ ..3/49078  .34190. 5:-.09 1.2.0 3908038041./0308.07/.3/ 572.3/90/0103/.90/ 509943078  .9.943 .3945:-.05078433489.9.3     3904907.9 43 4:  #08543/039 10/ 98 8:9 .047.5:-.5.95:0/.80. -0 .30/ 41 8  :3/07 90 .3/ .2.07 9.079802039  .890334394 90%208.9438 3.8 4.439.7908  .:70 94 7097.94:/490780-003990/ -0.0/ 8:.707 45343 9.90 .2./4.3 /090723..43899:943.:/0 87:38 .700883088 83490..9434190.90/ 9.9708543/039. .5.90-09003 5:39.99089.990 5:-.705708:20/ 0307.902039.4:/-0.00/ 849.425038.92:3.83490.79.:3.944905489439.99.4:79 70..0-0032..90/ 90 1.079802039.

7.05943 %00.-0993 89.411.3/130/ 0.70 706:70/-90789.550/-90.0 0/.0 :7370.43/:.947 :/2039  3 9.08847 84:/ .3 . .330/!..:7094574..7:0/90.550/.574108843.230/9010.10:.070.9 90 .:9.9..4.90 8089..0884708 147 ...3 /7: 47 . .43899:943.3/-#4/.770890/   %0..3/7: 20/.422. 0.7/81471700/42418500.  %&%  !!# %$&!#  &#% ## #$  %&% 4  7:0/.-07908 .9.9:90 2.23.3.9:90.8 41 8 411.0380/ 58.4.0884789.0 89.0473897:2039147905:7548041570.0780 90:/2039 04/9.550.943 5708.3/ 20/.943 147 807. 57.3. %0147207574..9 89:.70 7024.8347 24709.3/3 94 .43.3/07420 .-098 .79841902..3/4190570889.4:7988.709   701841.:80147.7.43.8 .:94:79..7.-0 . &2...05943  550.90.9:90.10:.0419043899:943-0.$9.3841 570.059.8047.0 43 4 94 570.4:79..55000 924390-701.3/ . .390/ 90 805.43.9474190!..0/ .4:508 3 .9.0/  0 7.398 900.770/ 5078438 31472.88079 9.-057480..720 147 .3 & $  /893:80/ !      %0 4330.0/ 3 98 .02-07  03.0884708.94.94385 %08943.059.4397.720     .0380/ 58.3 14790207...34314790.3 & $  8/1107039  147 9070 90 5..84341 907.947 147 90 0.8 207843.703944/0.7/8 900.4229.90.:9 70.550./03.3.059438..943 41 ..943-74:9-..7-0/90-089. 70.94341207.3/90$9.9 90706:7020398 41 89.1..3/5:380/.550.0/0..05943 .0391471.398070.723.3  070 .9:90  079.3/.:9  550..943 . .90.8090.:. -170/ $...039 .0393.8949020.907.:9 89..9907:041.5:-.. 07010/-930479$024:7.79.  %&% & $    & $ #$ %  .:7.884... .4:3808 .5.94:8420./08   35078434:808.3 41103802.:0414330.3/   41 90 0307.03994 8:55479 90 :/2039147708543/039    & $ $:570204:79#$ .3 :1.908 90 79 41 2.43899:943.398.:808 70847.330/!..509943078.059.90/904:790039203/2039  3390720/.07947..943 3897:./. /01.9:908 480 .4. 38:11.398.7709 !50.90/ .41103/07   %0..:80 41 90 25479.089. 0.070/904534341904:79   550.550/. -4778 7389 .3911 8003 94 705708039 49078 .8.0 472.770/50450 94290..39784/80.0 94 570.9 3490 ( 0 ( 1:7907 4/ 9.:90/.943 .9:90 147-//3 :80 41 ./08  35078434.0 41 90 . 3.3 2.3/2578430/   $0.. 574108847 .20/9.9 90 4110380.90730  #47..0472.703944/0/07.90 5099438147.79..79. /0..3 2.:80147.4.03  .3.. .7-3.43.9317424./3 .70   .0884789.   4805 .93 0.43899:943.389/.43899:943.. ..1479010 8:80 4330..44 4 807.-07908&34309.:9.02-07944.:9 89./:.3/98 20/. & $   (  # &$% &$/0.330/!.943 574.39008419041#98 !5     %42.43.././..9.420-:770/ 0709480/4:-98.078379.70/ .-..9..08 9 .7..08 .88898 . .3 507843 94 :80 .43899:943.770/50450 %08943.0 57080390/ 398 .43899:943.770/ .29.:0414330.703944/0.8 0/.3/0.75.8807990.-. /70.3/..38990...0942.389 .3/394.-0130/3490889.   0.3/ .9474190!.3490794.  &2.3/3947.943 0 94:9 9.398. .039 .43974.990 . $...2..11720/   0939. .78472578430/3490889.0393 .14707:80 008070:8:.:0 .43899:943.3119/4..7/8 41 .80 8 .8::8.070.770/5078438.4.7:0/90..347  41477 43 /.41850.3/4:790039203/203983..089.79.3 .70.4397.807 14790!.031472.11720/90:/2039 0/    550.3/4190%208 & $  070.9.4397.888938349 47.843 41 ..4:79.79841902...078.43.9 08990 89.7. ..39 :943 8 .9  :3/07 90 574507 8.398 924390-7018.0/1700   %0 89.3/20/..2809..3/8.550.3/  1443 0. 88:08 3.741903/.3/ 4507.3/3 84:/ -0897.81007090573.947  ..2.3/5708.998 03907 3 0 .08.90/904:790039203/2039 %0550.3 90 .70/9.5. .03907 4503 .80/ 147 .89390503:2-7..9:908414330.-0.0/0.34300.9./0908.550.9 8 3.39807014:3/:9.550.0/ - 70. 4:3.747-0-49130/.8.8.990../0/ :30    550.43.907.3349.4..:9 .4:508070807.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful