BEFORE THE OFFICE OF. Applicant. Southwest Ambulance of Casa Grande, Inc., dba Southwest Ambulance and Rescue of

Similar documents
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF. Applicant. Southwest Ambulance of Casa Grande, Inc., dba Southwest Ambulance and Rescue of

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Professional Medical Transport, Inc., dba PMT Ambulance ( PMT ), R/M Arizona

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant ABC Ambulance ( ABC ), through counsel undersigned, hereby

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF ARIZONA

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

Case 2:07-cr EEF-ALC Document 152 Filed 10/03/2008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO STRIKE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO.

Written materials by Jonathan D. Sasser

COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION * * * * * * * * *

Case5:08-cv PSG Document498 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6

PlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v.

Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

RAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor. v. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ODECE DEMPSEAN HILL, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR

In re the Marriage of: JAIME SHURTS, Petitioner/Appellant, RONALD L. SHURTS, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV

DISTRICT COURT EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 885 E. Chambers Road P.O. Box 597 Eagle, Colorado Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

Case 3:01-cv AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : :

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

E. Expert Testimony Issue. 1. Defendants may assert that before any photographs or video evidence from a camera

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: 03-K UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2018

In re the Matter of: DENNIS MICHAEL SMITH, Petitioner/Appellant, TRICIA ANN FREDERICK, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 11-CV-236

Defendants Trial Brief - 1 -

IN THE PASCUA YAQUI COURT OF APPEALS IN AND FOR THE PASCUA YAQUI INDIAN RESERVATION, ARIZONA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:15-cv WJM-KLM Document 136 Filed 05/12/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paloma Inv. Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins, 978 P.2d 110 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, 1998)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY. CASE No CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI V KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MOTION FOR REHEARING

How to Testify. Qualifications for Testimony. Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc

IN RE: THOMAS C. No. 1 CA-MH SP

Case 2:11-cr KJM Document 334 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:05-cr RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:09-cv JAT Document 198 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, SAMUEL BRETT WESLEY BASSETT, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR

BEFORE THE BOARD OF OIL, GAS AND MINING DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATE OF UTAH

Case 3:03-cv JCH Document 100 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Defendant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC L.T. Case Nos.: 4D DR011685MB

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case 1:12-cv JD Document 91 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ARMC 2011, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant,

EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON CHARLES H. MOORE S JOINDER TO MOTION OF THE CREDITORS

Case 3:14-cv KRG Document Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ELIZABETH S. STEWART, Plaintiff/Appellee, STERLING MOBILE SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Appellant. No.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The Honorable Edward O. Burke, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED

TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY ROBERT BLECKER

Case 2:09-cv MHM Document 22 Filed 12/03/09 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Filing # E-Filed 04/04/ :49:40 PM

No CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Special Action Industrial Commission

Case 2:15-cv CRE Document 64 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Meredith, Graeff, Arthur,

SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE

EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

2017 CO 6. This case, like the recently announced case Venalonzo v. People, 2017 CO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA Case No. 1:08-CV WTL-JMS

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

CACH, LLC, a limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, NANCY M. MARTIN and ROBERT MARTIN, Defendants/Appellants. No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:11-cv RJS Document 283 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

mg Doc Filed 09/09/16 Entered 09/09/16 17:51:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

RHYTHM MOTOR SPORTS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant,

smb Doc 373 Filed 05/10/17 Entered 05/10/17 20:38:30 Main Document Pg 1 of 11

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and MOORE *, District Judge.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNAC

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION. Defendant Gary Blount ("Defendant") s response to Plaintiff s Motion for Partial

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Docket No. 31,080 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2008-NMSC-063, 145 N.M. 280, 196 P.3d 1286 November 7, 2008, Filed

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:16-md VC Document 2866 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:11-cv JTM-JCW Document 379 Filed 10/08/12 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 2018 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 12

Transcription:

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ATIORNEYS AT LAW SUITE EAST CAMELBACK ROAD PHOENIX, ARIZONA () - Lawrence J. Rosenfeld, SBN Attorneys for Intervenors SW General, Inc. dba Southwest Ambulance; and Southwest Ambulance of Casa Grande, Inc., dba Southwest Ambulance and Rescue of Arizona BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS In the Matter of: ABC Ambulance, Applicant. NO. A-EMS- -DHS EMS No. SOUTHWEST INTERVENORS' MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER [] TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH B. MONTY (Assigned to the Honorable Thomas Shedden) Intervenors SW General, Inc. dba Southwest Ambulance (CON No. ), and Southwest Ambulance of Casa Grande, Inc., dba Southwest Ambulance and Rescue of Arizona (CON No. ) (collectively, "Southwest"), by and through their attorneys undersigned, submit herewith their Motion in Limine Number [], excluding from this hearing all testimony of Ms. Elizabeth B. Monty ("Monty"), based on the description of her testimony included in Applicant's Third Supplemental List of Witnesses and Exhibits dated August, ("Applicant's List of Witnesses"). PHX v

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this i.i day of September,. r-. U.l l- ",,, - ti)- CI: cl ~ ~«oo Vl~O«g "'E-<"'Zo ~ ~O,,? t::" o ~.,., o CI: «'" ::::: ~ \oil CXl ««CXl ill. ~ -'Z::E ~:::. \oil«z \oilui CI: I- :r:: ~ti)", «U.l.,., r-. '"N II awrence J. Rosenfeld East Camelback Road, Ste. Phoenix, Arizona Attorneys for Intervenors SW General, Inc. dba Southwest Ambulance; and Southwest Ambulance of Cas a Grande, Inc., dba Southwest Ambulance and Rescue of Arizona MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Ms. Monty Lacks Personal Knowledge to Authenticate Exhibits ABC- through ABC-I. Monty's testimony should be excluded as inadmissible and cumulative, as Applicant proposes to call her as a witness to "opine" that certain graphic summaries prepared by Mr. Neal Thomas ("Thomas") accurately reflect data retrieved from the Intervenors' ARCRs. Specifically, Applicant has summarized Monty's testimony, in its entirety, as follows: Elizabeth B. Monty, CPA, Managing Director of Veriti Consulting, LLC: "She will testify that she has reviewed supporting public record documents including ARCRs for Intervenors including Rural/Metro, PMT, American Ambulance, American Com trans, and Southwest Ambulance and has compared them to the graphic summaries that ABC Ambulance has prepared which are listed as Exhibits ABC- through ABC-I in this Second Supplemental List of Witnesses and Exhibits, and that these graphic summaries accurately reflect the contents of the ARCRs and other documents filed with the Department of Health Services filed by these Intervenors and illustrate discrepancies in the financial reporting of these Intervenors to the Arizona Department of Health Services." Applicant's List of Witnesses, ~ (emphasis added). PHX v - -

e-. '" I-< "s'"... cz:: "'-. ~~~ ",~o-<g "'E-o"::Zo ~ ~ ~ ~o u ~ V') o cz:: -<..:: ;g: :;: ~ C!l -< ~ -<~Gl...J Z::E ~ ~ ~ -< Z ~u~ cz:: I-< :r: ~<~ '"on r-. «) N The "graphic summaries" that Thomas prepared are, as noted above, listed as Exhibits ABC- through ABC- on Applicant's final witness and exhibit list. These documents purport to summarize certain costs and expenses derived from the ARCRs that were filed with the Arizona Department of Health Services. Monty's proposed testimony "that the graphic summaries [prepared by Thomas] accurately reflect the contents of the ARCRs" - is patently inadmissible. As a preliminary these exhibits. matter, Monty cannot lay the foundation needed to admit any of Applicant asserts that it was Thomas - and not Monty - who reviewed the ARCRs and prepared the summaries. is the proper witness to "validate" these exhibits.' Thomas, as the admitted author of these summaries, Before an exhibit may be entered into evidence, basic foundation requires that the witness identify or authenticate the exhibit, showing that the exhibit is or shows what it purports to be or show. See Ariz. R. Evid.,; Merrick v. United States Rubber Co., Ariz. App., P.d (Ariz. ). In order to authenticate an exhibit, the authenticating witness must have personal knowledge of its provenance. See Ariz. R. Evid.. In fact, Ariz. R. Evid. provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter." By Applicant's own admission, Monty did not assemble, compile, or prepare these exhibits, nor were they prepared under her supervision or at her direction. She will testify only that she "reviewed supporting public record documents including ARCRs for [Southwest] and has compared them to the graphic summaries that ABC Ambulance has prepared" and that "these graphic summaries accurately reflect the contents of the ARCRs and other documents filed with the Department of Health Services... " (Emphasis added.) It is Thomas - not Monty - Alternatively, if Thomas directed someone to prepare the exhibits, and that person did so under his supervision, Thomas may also be able to lay foundation on that basis. PHX v - -

c-. >Ll f-< "s'" - CI:: "'-. ;l~~ ",~o<:g "'E-<O::Zo ~ ~ ~ :::" u t:l.,., o CI:: <: :: : '" -<~Gl "'" o:l <:.~ ~ >-l Z::E ~ ~ "'" <: Z ","ui: Cl::f-<:r: e,:,:<~ >Ll.,., e-- '"N who thus must lay foundation for these "graphic summaries". Either he will succeed in doing so (in which case Monty's testimony is utterly unnecessary), or he will fail (in which case Monty, who did not prepare or direct the preparation of the documents, cannot "fix" the problem). Moreover, if Applicant intends to call Monty as an expert witness for this purpose, her testimony would still be inadmissible. Ariz. R. Evid. (a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] witness who is qualified as an expert... may testify... if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or otherwise specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue... " Monty's review of these exhibits does not meet this standard, as she is only confirming that certain numbers, which Thomas purports to have extracted from ARCRs and put on charts he created, match up. One does not have to be credentialed as a CPA - or, indeed, even have an undergraduate degree in accounting - to be able to make that simple comparison. Thomas, on direct, can explain what he did. If, on cross, it turns out that he did not do so accurately - that is, that the numbers on the "graphic summaries" do not match the numbers he purports to have taken from the ARCRs - the testimony of a CPA cannot remedy that error. II. The Proposed Witness Testimony is Cumulative Moreover, the prof erred testimony is, in its entirety, utterly cumulative of Thomas' testimony. That is, having Monty testify that "I checked Thomas' numbers and he correctly transferred them from the ARCRs to his summaries," is a complete time-waster. Either he did so or he didn't, and Thomas' testimony (on direct and cross) will settle the matter. Courts may exclude evidence when "its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of... undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Ariz. R. Evid.. Cumulative evidence that merely augments or tends to establish a point already proven (or disproven) by other evidence should be PHX v - -

r-. - t.il l- (.;)", II (/)- g::. ;l~~ ",~o«g "'E-< ex Z ~ ~ "? t;:e"u~v'i og::«ex~ ~ IoJ o:j «~ <CQ@.~...lz z ~::: IoJ«Z lojutj g:: I- :t ~(/)o.. «t.il or> r- '"N excluded. So, for example, if Thomas correctly transferred an item of data (for example, the number of ALS transports done by one of the Intervenors in, say, ) from that party's ARCR to his summary, he will testify "the ARCR says that the Intervenor did ALS transports in, and I put that same number,, on my chart, see?"; or, on direct or cross, it will turn out that the ARCR says "", but when he transferred it to his chart, he put "", in which case the trier of fact will conclude "You did it wrong". What, exactly, can Monty's testimony possibly add to this simplistic exercise? Nothing. See State v. Kennedy, Ariz.,, P.d, (Ariz. Ct. App. ) (evidence is cumulative where it "merely augments or tends to establish a point already proved by other evidence"). III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, we respectfully request that the Administrative Law Judge issue an order in limine, excluding from evidence in this case all of the proposed testimony of Elizabeth B. Monty. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this thday of September,. GREENBE'tG TRfX ORIG~AL of the foregoing e-filed this day of September,, with: Clerk, Office of Administrative Hearings West Washington, Suite Phoenix, Arizona La rence J. enfeld East Camelback Road, Ste. Phoenix, Arizona Attorneys for Intervenors SW General, Inc. dba Southwest Ambulance; and Southwest Ambulance of Cas a Grande, Inc., dba Southwest Ambulance and Rescue of Arizona PHX v - -

r-- U.l l- c.:ls", _ enc:z:. -e ;;:>'"..: - s s s s "'E-<c.:zo ~ ~ "? ~~ u ~ V") o c:z:..: c.: :::: ~ ~ ~..: ~ <CQ @.~ = z ::E ~ :e ~..:z ~uc C:Z:I-:r: e"enp.. -c U.l '" r- <') N II COpy of the foregoing e-mailed via the OAR portal (https://portal.azoch.com/oedf/), to: Honorable Thomas Shedden Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings Will Humble, Director Arizona Department of Health Services Jan.Escotocaazdhs.gov Kevin Ray, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Attorneys for ADHS kevin.ray@azag.gov Harry Eth, Health Program Manager Certificate of Necessity Program ADHSIBEMS harry.eth@azdhs.gov Bryan F. Murphy, Esq. James M. Stipe, Esq. BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A. Attorneys for ABC Ambulance bmurphy@bcattorneys.com j stipe@bcattorneys.com Paul J. McGoldrick, Esq. SHORALL McGOLDRICK BRINKMAN Attorneys for Rural/Metro Corporation paulmcgoldrick@smbattorneys.com Philip R. Wooten, Esq. PHILIP R. WOOTEN, P.C. Attorney for PMT Ambulance, American Ambulance, ComTrans Ambulance Service, and Canyon State Ambulance philip. wooten@azbar.org Ronna L. Fickbohm, Esq. SLOSSER STRUSE FICKBOHM, et al. Attorneys for Buckeye Valley Rural Volunteer Fire District and Fire District Sun City West rfickbohm@tucsontrusts.com Lonnie Guthrie Ajo Ambulance, Inc. uthrie@tabletoptelephone.com Charlie M. Smith American Ambulance csmith@lifestar.us Thomas A. Birch Black Canyon Fire District chief@bcvfd.org Scott Benbow Buckeye Valley Rural Volunteer Fire District markalexander@cox.net Brian Tobin Daisy Mountain Fire District brian. tobin@dmfd.org David Birchfield Gila Bend Rescue/Ambulance j carpenter@gilabendaz.org Cheryl A. Smith Life Line Ambulance Service, Inc. csmith@lifelineaz.com Ray Temple City of Phoenix Fire Department ray.c.temple@phoenix.gov Jim Roeder PMT Ambulance jroeder@pmtambulance.com John Valentine River Medical, Inc. john. valentine@emsc.net Roy Ryals Director of EMS Southwest Ambulance et al. rryals@swambulance.com PHX v - -

Paul L. Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS & CARVER Attorneys for Life Line Ambulance paulroberts@cableone.net Robert Biscoe Fire District of Sun City West Ambulance rbiscoe@scwfire.org Steve Holt Tonto Basin Fire District tbfdchief@netscape.net Paul S. Wilson Sun Lakes Fire District pwilson@slfd.org t:: c u ~ V' oa:«~~ ~Iolal«~ «CQ Lil ~..J;z~~~ Iol«Z Iolutj Q:i I-< :I: UJ I-< "S>c> a: - "'-. ~ClV">...: <n~o«g UJE-<~Zo ~ ~ O? c.!i"'''- -c UJ V"> r-,.., N r-, PHX v - -