100 Main Street, 3rd Floor I Northampton, MA 01060 I TEL 413?586?4800 I FAX 413-582-6419 I EMAIL Experience, Dedication, integrity Howard s. Sasson .1. Turnbult November 1, 2014 Patrick Devlin Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 patrickk.devlin@state.ma.us VIA E?rmii AND LES. MIL Re: Newly Discovered Evidence Dear Attorney Devlin: My purpose in writing today is to bring to your attention certain evidence I discovered during the inspection that took place at your office on October 30, 2014, in accordance with the protective order I executed in the pending Hampshire County Superior Court case of Commonwealth v. ?yne Burston, indictment No. 13-113.1 Because you did not participate in the litigation that took place in Hampden County Superior Court last fall, the signi?cance of what I found may not be immediately apparent to you. Accordingly, before discussing this evidence, 1 am going to provide the following summary of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Farak?s arrest and the litigation it spawned in other criminal cases. Sonja Farak was one of four chemists who worked analyzing unknown substances at a forensic laboratory in Amherst. On January 17, 2013, an evidence of?cer named Sharon Salem discovered that two samples entrusted to Farak, and were not in the main evidence vault where they were supposed to be. The following morning, another supervisor named James Hanchett discovered a sandwich bag containing cocaine at Farak?s workstation, as well as counterfeit cocaine and the two missing samples that inspired Salem?s original search. The condition of the K?pac bags containing A12-04793 and A12-04791 proved to be a source of great concern. Hanchett later explained that these bags would have had to have been heat-sealed when they were returned to the main evidence vault. However, on the morning of January 18, 2013, they were not only unsealed; they had not been cut open. This led Hanchett to conclude 1 A copy of that protective order is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit A. Luke Ryan David P. Home SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE 2 that arak had cut open the original bags and removed the contents, then put other substances into a new bags she created to take the place of the original ones. According to Hanchett, if Salem had not happened to check the main evidence safe that day, Farak could have sealed the replacement K-pac bags for A12-04791 and returned them to the vault, and her tampering would have gone undetected. As much as it pained him to admit, Hanchett conceded that Farak could have been doing this sort of thing for years. When Farak?s malfeasance came to light, it had serious implications for hundreds, if not thousands, of criminal cases in which she had purportedly done analytic testing. Many, but not all, of these cases that were pending at the time of her arrest were dismissed. See, e. g. ?Arrest of chemist Sonja Farak results in dismissals of drug cases against 14 people in Hampden County? far 14 defendants (Feb. 21, 2013). In addition, these allegations of evidence tampering called into question the integrity of convictions in many other cases where Farak had either testified at trial and/or signed her name to so-called ?drug certs,? attesting that samples assigned to her for testing contained controlled substances. At the time, I happened to represent defendants in both camps. Commonwealth V. Rolando Penate, Hampden County Indictment No. 12-083, was a pending case where my client was charged with multiple counts of distribution of heroin and possession of heroin and cocaine with the intent to distribute. Discovery in that case indicated that the substances at issue were assigned to Farak for testing on December 20, 2011, and January 4, 2012. Commonwealth v. Rafael Rodriguez. Hampden County Indictment No. 10-1181, was a post? conviction case where my client had pled guilty on September 9, 2011, to possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute and received an agreed upon sentence to state prison of four to five years. Eventually, it became clear that the Hampden County District Attorney?s office remained committed to prosecuting Mr. Penate and keeping Mr. Rodriguez in state prison. In both cases, prosecutors took the position that there was no evidence suggesting that Farak was engaging in misconduct either at the time the substances in question were at the Amherst Laboratory or when Mr. Rodriguez tendered his plea. I subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Mr. Penate and a motion to withdraw Mr. Rodriguez?s plea. Judge Mary-Lou Rup decided that Mr. Penate was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Judge Jeffrey Kinder reached the same conclusion in Mr. Rodriguez?s case and decided, for reasons of judicial economy, to consolidate his hearing with hearings for fourteen other post-conviction defendants. In advance of the consolidated post-conviction hearing that began on September 9, 2013, the Hampden County District Attorney?s office provided defense counsel with certain discovery, including police reports and the grand jury minutes related to Farak?s prosecution. First SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE 3 Assistant Frank Flannery was assigned to Mr. Rodriguez?s case, and I quickly learned from my conversations with him that he was essentially acting as a conduit in providing defense counsel with whatever discovery he received from your of?ce. As you may know, on the day arak was arrested her car was impounded and investigators obtained a warrant to search it. In a report memorializing that search, Trooper Randy Thomas indicated that among the items seized was ?assorted lab paperwork.?2 Photographs were taken of Farak?s car at the time of the search, but few captured the contents of this paperwork and no reports were authored detailing what exactly these papers contained. During the grand jury proceedings that culminated in Farak?s indictment, the only papers from her car that your of?ce offered as exhibits were news articles concerning chemists and/or law enforcement of?cers who had been caught mishandling drug evidence. One of these articles appeared onnline at Pitts?eldcom and was printed on September 20, 2011.3 This article reported that an investigation into the illegal possession of steroids led to the removal of a Pitts?eld Narcotics Of?cer named David Kirchner from the Berkshire County Drug Task Force. The bottom right-hand corner of the article contained the following handwritten correspondence: 0 And Kirchner seemed like such a good guy. I do feel bad for his 5 yo daughter. a (Thank god I?m not a law enforcement of?cer) a p.s. Most of the cases he?s been a part of have been dismissed for exactly this reason. 317 rip-nor: Hisclosed t0 rigfn?nqp a ?1 Ann n'P ?n?ar 1d 1 U1. FIGUU UJ. payui 00115 11 counsel insofar as it undercut an of?cial version of events that depicted Farak as a model employee with ?meticulous . . . work habits? up until ?the last few weeks prior to the incident.?4 That being said, the value of the document to defendants like Rolando Penate and Rafael Rodriguez depended on a factfinder making a number of crucial inferences. 1.113 11105 CGurye First, one had to infer that Farak was responsible for printing the article and/ or received it shortly after it was printed. Second, one had to infer that Farak?s possession of the article re?ected her interest in what might happen to her should she be caught doing something similar. Finally, one had to infer that Farak had such an interest because she was in the process of doing something similar at the time she printed and/or received the article. 2 A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit to this letter. 3 A cepy of this article is attached as Exhibit C. 4 In fact, lead Farak investigator Sgt. Joseph Ballou went so far as to tell grand jurors that when he met Farak for the ?rst time the summer before (during the Dookhan investigation), he found her to be ?somewhat pretty,? at least in contrast to her ?drawn and pale? appearance on the day of her arrest. SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE 4 Due, in part, to my concern that a factfinder might not draw all these inferences, I filed motions seeking documentary evidence in the possession of your of?ce and/or the State Police. Among other things, I sought any evidence suggesting that a third party had knowledge of Farak?s alleged malfeasance prior to her arrest. In response to this request, your office took the position that: The AGO has turned over all grand jury minutes, exhibits, and police reports in its possession to the District Attorney?s office. Based on these records, to which the defendant has access, there is no reason to believe that a third party had knowledge of arak is alleged malfeasance prior to her arrest. Several days before the consolidated post-conviction evidentiary hearing began, First Assistant Flannery agreed to arrange for me and two other defense attorneys to View the evidence in your office?s possession. Much to our surprise, he subsequently informed us that your office was unwilling to permit this inspection to occur. During Sergeant Ballou?s testimony at that hearing, we had the following exchange: Q. Sir, we?ve been talking quite a bit now about the evidence that was in Ms. Farak?s car, correct? A. Yes. Q. And what we?ve been talking about is how you described that evidence in various reports you wrote, correct? A. Yes. Q. And we?ve been lookin A. Yes. Q. And the reason we?re doing that is because this evidence no longer exists, right? A. No. It still exits. Q. Oh, where is it? A. it?s in a drug storage locker I mean, excuse me, evidence storage locker. Q. And can you tell me why none of the counsel for none of the defendants have been permitted to look at any of this evidence? MR. FLANNERY: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (By Mr. Ryan) Well, there?s'this physical evidence that we?ve been discussing from the car, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you would agree that your reports regarding what was in the car are summary notes? A. Summary, yes. Q. You didn?t write paragraph after paragraph about what assorted lab paperwork was found, right? A. As you mentioned, we also took pretty detailed photos, yes. SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE 5 Q. Well, how many photos did you take? A. I didn?t take any. This was from -- the crime scene services took these. Q. And whatever is in that book, is that a fair representation of how many photographs were taken? A. From the car, sir, yes; vehicle search warrant, yes. Q. A couple dozen? A. Yes. - Q. And about how many items of evidentiary interest were there? MR. FLANNERY: Objection, Your Honor. This is not to the scope of the direct. THE COURT: Sustained as to what has evidentiary interest. (By Mr. Ryan) Well, you did an evidence log, correct? 7 A. Yes. Q. And that had some 67 items on it? A. Yes. Q. And a number of those items were from the car? A. Yes. That included all of the evidence seized in the case. . Q. Did you photograph every piece of evidence that was seized from the automobile? A. As I said, I didn?t photograph anything. But yeah, crime scene services photographed the evidence as we seized it, yes. Q. Did anybody make a video recording of the execution of the search warrant? A. There?s no video, no. At the conclusion of the hearing on September 9, 2013, I informed the Court that your of?ce had refused to permit me to inspect the physical evidence and conveyed my opinion that neither Sgt. Datimi?a fnofimnn1r nm- Hm mrHr?mnp in ravithth cerved nq 9m ndemmte substitute: UCLIJULL I.le .uJ. yzxnuevaavv my; v? ?u m- ?uw?lwwv' vauvA for such an inspection. Judge Kinder encouraged the parties to ?work through some agreement about viewing, physically, the evidence? and placed the onus on the defense to file a motion if no such agreement could be reached. As you know, subsequent discussions did not produce an agreement. Your of?ce took the position that ?Viewing the seized evidence [was] irrelevant to any case other than Farak?s.?. I then ?led a motion to impact in Mr. Penate?s case, which Judge Kinder denied due to the pendency of the criminal charges against Farak and the existence of the aforementioned photographs. Judge Kinder went on to deny both Mr. Penate?s motion to dismiss and Mr. Rodriguez?s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In his decisions, Judge Kinder found that while Farak?s conduct was ?deplorable,? it ?postdate[d] the testing in th[ese] cases.? With respect to the aforementioned news articles, Judge Kinder drew the inference that Farak was responsible for downloading and printing them, but refused to infer that ?she was engaged in criminal conduct at that time.? In his View, defense counsel could not point to any persuasive evidence of tampering that took place prior to July, 2012. SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE 6 Mr. Penate?s case proceeded to trial before Judge Tina Page. After the Commonwealth rested, I attempted to show that the samples in question could have been tampered with due to the poor oversight that existed at the Amherst lab. Judge Page sustained Comrhonwealth objections to this line of questioning based on the absence of any concrete proof that Farak was tampering with evidence in December, 2011 or January, 2012. Mr. Penate was ultimately convicted of one count of distributing a Class A substance and sentenced to 5.5 - 7 years in state prison. As for Mr. Rodriguez, he and several other post-conviction defendants appealed Judge Kinder decisions denying their motions to withdraw their pleas.5 Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review in one of these cases, see Commonwealth v. Erick Cotto Jr., SJC-11761, and invited Mr. Rodriguez to submit an amicus brief. Oral argument in Mr. Cotto?s case has been scheduled for December 4, 2014.6 This past Thursday, the Justices issued an announcement seeking additional amicus briefs on the following issue: Where a defendant pleaded guilty to a drug offense and thereafter sought to withdraw his plea on the basis of evidence that had surfaced concerning misconduct in other cases by the analyst at the Amherst drug laboratory who had tested the substances in this case, whether the judge erred in denying the motion because the defendant had failed to establish that any misconduct by the analyst had occurred prior to the date of the defendant?s plea, or whether the defendant is entitled to a conclusive presumption that egregious misconduct occurred in his case in the same manner as a defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea on the basis of misconduct at the Hinton drug laboratory pursuant to this court?s decision in Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336 (2014). >14 All of this brings me to what I discovered yesterday. In the box containing items seized from Farak?s vehicle was an evidence bag containing the aforementioned articles, along with other 5 have continued to represent Mr. Rodriguez and ?led an appellate brief on his behalf on August 1, 2014. 6 The Cotto case has been joined for argument with Commonwealth v. Ware, SIC-11708. In Ware, the Justices issued the following announcement seeking amicus briefs on this issue: Whether the defendant, who pleaded guilty in 2011 to multiple drug-related offenses, was erroneously denied postconviction discovery under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (4), specifically, comprehensive retesting of numerous drug samples that had previously been tested by Sonja Farak, a chemist at the State drug lab in Amherst who subsequently pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence at the lab, to determine whether Farak was engaged in such misconduct at the time the substances in his case Were tested. SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE 7 papers Trooper Thomas had described as ?assorted lab paperwork.? A review of these other papers revealed the following. Two papers have this type-written heading: EMOTION REGULATION Worksheet OBSERVE AND DESCRIBE EMOTIONS DIRECTIONS: Write as much as you can about each as soon as after "event?" as possible. Write on back for more room. Below this heading are boxes for the following categories: Vulnerability FGCTOPSI What me more vulnerable? Emotion Name(s): - Intensity: 0 Promptinq EVENT: For my emotion (what, who, where, when?) 3 What are my Thoughts, Judgments, Beliefs, Assumptions, Appraisals of the situation? 9 Face and BOCIY Chanqes: What am I feeling in my face and body? I 0 Language: What is my facial expression, body posture and gestures? 3 ACV'i'iOl'l Urge: What do I feel like doing or saying? 0 What I Did or Said: 0 After EffBC'i'Si What is my state of mind, other emotions, actions or thoughts? FUi?iC'l'lOl?l Of El?l?iO?l?lOl?lSl Communicate? Organize? Give Information? One of these worksheets contains these (and other) handwritten notes: Vulnerability Factors: last night w/ Molly Sharon Becky) not taking today off Emotion Name(s): (Pre-) Shame Intensity: (0?10) 1 Promptina Event: got a ?good? sample work having urges to use knowing that I will be the only one here after lunch) Interpretations: I?m a bad person for having urges I know I should I?m a bad person for not wanting to stop them call Anna, but I It doesn?t matter I won?t get caught don?t want to. Know I?ll feel worse when/homework Action Urge: SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE 8 hurry up prepare/use (my mind says to get it out of way, but I don?t think that will be the end of it.) give in and go w/urge The other worksheet contains these (and other) handwritten notes: Vulnerabi liTy Factors: - tired this morning (though enough sleep) I - urges to use beforehand Emotion Nome(s)z Shame Intensity: (0-10) 6?1/2 Promptinq Event: told Jim earlier in week I put DEA application in, but I didn?t (?gured I would later/soon). Today found out I need his signature on it he knows/Will know I lied) Intergr'etations: - He will know I lied judge me - wondering if I can sen have boss over him sign it - have to wait until at least tomorrow to tell/face him build up anxiety Action Urge: Asking Becky who she had Sign it Use (have 12 urge-?ll samples to analyze out of next 13) - make up lie What I Did or? Said: call Anna commit to not using asked Becky she thinks Jim signed her stuff With respect to the names referenced in these worksheets, I believe that ?Sharon? is Evidence Officer Sharon Salem, ?Jim? is Supervisor James Hanchett, and ?Becky? is the other chemist at the lab, Rebecca Pontes. As for ?Anna,? on another piece of scrap paper I found these handwritten notes: Anna Kogan MSW LICSW 256 N. Pleasant St Suite 6 Am 01002 SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE I PAGE 9 do you BAP accept Based on these notes, I believe that the ?Anna? referred to in the worksheets is an Amherst therapist who lists ?addiction? as one of the ?issues? for which she provides treatment. See Kogan MSWLICSW Amherst Massac husetts 72054 (last visited Nov. 1, 2014).7 1 do not know whether the reference to ?Molly? is to a person or the recreational drug. As for the reference to ?homework,? another page I came across has, in the top left-hand corner, the following handwritten heading: ?Homework 11-16-11:? Below that is handwriting describing a specific ?Problem/Solution.? It would appear that Farak had an appointment the following day with a ?prescriber.? This appointment seems to have served as a source of anxiety for Farak because while she intended to disclose an intention to stop taking one medicatiOn, she was so invested in staying on a second medication she was prepared to ?lie about certain things to possibly help prevent being taken off [this] med.? Also included in these papers described by Trooper Thomas as ?assorted lab paperwork? are two ?ServiceNet Diary Cards,? which contain the following pertinent boxes: Name: Week of: Observe and Describe Emotions: Today 1 feit (0-5): --?Tues mWed -??Sun Target Behaviors: Today I felt an urge to (0-5): Kill myself Injure myself Drink or take drugs Binge, purge or not eat Write ?Yes? in the box next to the number if you acted on an urge. On the line next to ?Name? on one diary card is the handwritten name ?Sonja.? The ?Drink or take drugs? box indicates that Sonja experienced an urge to take drugs that rated a on Thursday and succumbed to that urge. This ?ServiceNet Diary Card? does not contain any dates. The other ?ServiceNet Diary Card? has the folloWing handwritten dates at the top of the form: 7 Based on these notes, i believe I have the requisite good faith basis to seek records pertaining to Farak? 5 treatment that are in the possession of Ms. Kogan and intend to file a motion pursuant to Commonwealth v. Dwyer, 448 Mass. 122 (2006), on Monday. SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE 10 Observe and Describe Emotions: 12-26 12-20 12-21 12-22 12-23 12-24 12-25 Today I felt - ?~~Tues ?--Wed ?Thurs mFri ~-?Sat No year can be found on this document. However, a look at past calendars reveals that ?1226? fell on a Monday in 2011.8 Accordingly, it would appear that this document memorializes actions Farak took during the week of December 20, 2011, i.e. more than six months before Judge Kinder found that there was any evidence that she engaged in criminal behavior. On December 22, 2011, the very same day a sample assigned to Farak in the Penate case supposedly went back to the main vault, she admitted to taking drugs. This Diary Card indicates that Farak also took drugs on December 23 and December 26, 2011. It would be difficult to overstate the signi?cance of these documents. In terms of establishing misconduct on the part of arak prior to July, 2012, they constitute much stronger evidence than the notes 0n the aforementioned articles as they do not depend on a fact ?nder drawing inferences favorable to the defense. Whether law enforcement officials overlooked these papers or intentionally suppressed them is a question for another day. For the time being, I believe that two things must take place immediately. First, your office should assent to the emergency motion to amend the protective order in Mr. Burston?s case, which I intend to file on Monday. This motion will request the removal of the condition that I not reveal the results of my inspection to other defense attorneys handling Amherst Lab cases. As the attorney of record for Rafael Rodriguez, I believe I have an ethical obligation to advise counsel for the defendants in the Egg and Ware cases that new, exculpatory evidence exists calling in question the factual basis of the paradigm Judge Kinder adopted in adjudicating Amherst Lab cases. Second, your office should provide copies of the papers in question to each and every defendant who moved for post?conviction relief based on misconduct on the part of Farak. I understand that you did not become involved in this litigation until recently and want to be clear that to the extent this letter and prior pleadings I have filed paints your office in an unfavorable light, I am not suggesting that you have engaged in any misconduct. I appreciate the professionalism you exhibited in arranging the inspection that occurred on Thursday and trust that you will discharge the responsibilities you now have as the recipient of this letter in the same conscientious manner. If you would like to discuss this matter, I can be reached at the number above. Inasmuch as I would like to give you and your of?ce time to formulate a position with respect to my motion to 8 In 2012, December 26th fell on a Wednesday. SASSON, TURNBULL, RYAN HOOSE PAGE ll amend, looming deadlines in the Cotto and Watts cases leave me little choice but to ask the Hampshire Superior Court to schedule a hearing on this motion as soon as possible. Si Enc. Cc: Steven Gagne First Assistant Northwestern District Attorney One Gleason Plaza Northampton, MA 01060 stevene.gagne@state.ma.us Jane Davidson Montori Of?ce of the Hampden County District Attorney Hall of Justice 50 State Street Spring?eld, MA 01102?0559 [Fax] 413.731.9019 a CONNONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT Hampshire, ss. l3 COMMONWEALTH v. WAYNE BURSTON ASSENTED-TO MOTION TO INSPECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE The defendant, Wayne Burston, and non-party Attorney General?s Of?ce respectfully request that this Court grant the defendant?s motion to inspect physical evidence pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. 17(a)(2) with the follovving terms: 1. Within a reasonable time and on an agreed~upon date, the defendant may have access to the physical evidence pertaining to the prosecution of Sonja Farak that is in the care, custody, and control of the Attorney General?s Of?ce While under the supervision of the Massachusetts State Police, and may conduct a visual inspection of said physical evidence; 2. The defendant may take photographs, video recordings, measurements, notes, and/or drawings of said physical evidence; 3. The defendant may not remove said evidence from the Attorney General?s Office nor may he conduct testing on said evidence; and 4. The defendant may not share the results of his inspection with other defense attorneys handling cases involving the Amherst laboratory, including but not limited to, photographs, Video recordings, measurements, notes, and drawings made during the inspection. Accordingly, the defendant and the Attorney General?s Of?ce respectfully request the Court to allow the defendant?s motion with the above terms. Respectfully Submitted, Luke Ryan, Esq. Sasson Tumbull Ryan Hoose 100 Main Street, 3rd Floor Northampton, Mass. 01060 (413) 586-4800 Kris C. Foster Assistant Attorney General Massachusetts Attorney General?s Of?ce One Ashburton Place Boston, Mass. 02108 (617) 963-2833 Patrick K. Devlin 7 Assistant Attorney General Massachusetts Attorney General?s Of?ce One Ashburton Place Boston, Mass. 02108 (617) 963-2957 kg wag ngg?g ?m @f {Egg A?f?gm?y Wag: 3f? .Mg?gfgg Sa?fgm'; Egm?ffg E93 Emmi}! Ef?z ig? ?eim?w Mama-33.322153; Iarwi?gz SFEU Ail-E? Cm?ams?giag Ef?mg Trmgef Raw-i? 3?13}ng Wags: Subg?ieit?i - 3??-3?-43?ii?E Stz?rgh wa??anz E?a?hicia 13f Seer-:33 FREAK ii {32% a: $3323 Emmi aag?am?f; maxim: mg {3:2 :3 'if?if??i? ?wzag? by iLmzreE '331?5 swig} was mfg: Em: Efei?imggm ?32533; mlm? bias?i? am? ?ezxz??g M53 gimg it}. Smaja E. 37%; 5523mm. was ma?mieszi ?t'ihii Siafa ?Qiiz:?ac 33:3- 32% va??zzlisq hadiiraizm sacutgii ?ag-gravi?us T3153. was}: laws aamgimazz? is}; ,Igig?a?em?i Rabat I'm-3m S?yg?a?tjm?g?z 13432321531: Ehi?m??g, asaigm?-m??m 3121?: ?ake B?iagzivg-U??it- {f it: {Ei?imi?fgf?i' the- Sfi?i?f??ice {Ema Swag S?a'vicszg Sa?im Eggh?wgmgimi ?zz: b?f?m a?ii ?uxi?g the Emma; I Search. a: {3323 3261233,. "'i'im fa} liming hams ware 'f?jund it: i333 V?i?li?i?? Midi? WEE Semarg? ami $113.5 mri?zizim i 1 ma?a {3289" magma- 92113:? Eu? 1 aim-1521:3ng ?Fm?im E~Emmhaif" {ask Wiliia' (?43.3 4% ??ig?m??ii'i?b'y?ii?i?wl?gfk g?a?im 113%? ?gaiaziaz?ia?ma'z? sawg?? :?fk'ai? ma?a. yeasi??s-ifcg-imems? wu? may; if; 'Ererfirg?gi? Qagmam fS-zsggawiam 3 132% Mam {ax ma?m AK i? ?a 154 Em?l?m if; Eimi?ry Raw? maia?mmg iaib papeywmk; mm?a wvei?g?ag 53:33:}, 3i .Imis: mg 1m: m?igi?g wi?i? pawiiafsui?iama. i Emk baggmmiigi?g 241} I ?Ta Elz'fzniwm?x ??i??mnpm? Miz?a?i mi?ain?ing aggm?imi 322i? Fapmgm gmii?iw mm?rghw E. amieiigpz?: ?Tam? gaig?afwafkanii $313233: g?ag?ia ?gs. ?32.15}: Wm)? i Ear-3:353- wiiM-?mm 33% Lab ram a??mgs. amiai?ing 34 91x33.) i Ma?i?i?a._ imaging mwaiapalaka?g? "?gural a} mmigr" gag? wmii 2 ?Eyianiiaramgiwga i cgataini?g- Eat? i gai? cmxiaii?zxi?g gigs i} magma: igbeiagi? ganja ?f?ari'a?c? :1 Eswkax ?ew} ma?a, ii mm} ma sisax'yiasiia baggimimtaiz??g miargti s??'gsigmg wax paw? m?ia?ni?g Whim- a?hu?is: f1 2335:; yiasi?i: 'Ezaggig fam?aiging whiza ahmfk' aui?smam (7??me was imi?a {if 2 wig Eaggiegg E. 233:3] 33631an 325%? gagnziai?i?g Wk?i?: _j?3il_i?3 1: gill? im?tiifa 'Eia?a??a?i $313k? ?if: 2% Wife gaii?ig ?mmk wafmz? $3313 {if gm?a 2i} 3 ?g EEG-TE ?gzg? :31? Kagigafa?m fay fie-g gig-mag Z?i? Gait; 8123a Saagja Fara: This; mam}; film ?x?a?xi?ig- wag-cmip?atgii gi- 111mm,, i125 S??mh mirrai?f ?wjefi in {1:2 whisk Thegaxwag- at. Efm??mmg?a? Emmiig $313 wiszi?tgiiza was Sagan: Baggy. and '?wmr Emma?)- ?zz: Gaga-32%: {333533314333 - iEi?M?i? my W??m wags-saga; R?z?spegi?g?ig 33:12:31; Emma-as- '?'aapgg Ii?sziawacl'zzm?s: Ei?t? E??iisza a?hi?: Miami-jg fy?a . - mgim} a? s?nmis ?xai?fm . 23233.3 mg? gig-3.53% EIBI Riga if}? 3: .- ?aws Edutaifm? A515 Q??ua?za? Eif??i? 'Gm'?m 1 at: Siami? F?m?e zaixaig?agm?s. 1 Infamy,- Mam?: a magi. The as?cieg, immisa?a gags am; 2% ?nvies Ema meme awash? ism? anfm?amat enigma was gaming} e3 Wags-w an "Mada? a?amw?, {mam A?am?y Emits. $.z?agzgams?mwme? 2m gamma 9? ma 3m??csziad in Baf?e; {Ea?isg 3w max mam gig/gang? m3" teamw? ?33 a magma}:- Mme {Sammy Drug; 383$; mm. Iim?m?ma215m:Ehg?me??iga?eg 3;?er un?e?ak?m is? aisigh?f??iee ma?a 25:32 mum}: wag am?rmag? if; gamma" giammgia; 275% - a?agaa?w scam-id usa-mse wougm in his mm a ?matdegaa?tmeai $5.633 egmxle?' by .a'iai?e'fa} agean 3:53:3th- Fi? gagem?g wmhp??m diegazgaqgmm??mh ?ggemm [?ag ??stai Esgwm?h?? 2:356 933% ma?a {133: mm is aa mt 3:32.13 Wm {If what} the wage-wag figs: rawaaig? ?xings an 53:92: Tagaixa??m?m' ire?z?rs'g ma 33?. Hea??e?s ?325: Hw?z am 632%: (mm. gs fa?iawad am w?h Ewa- a?ims 'Ehai savaafa?- wigh?a?'s imamt?zm?gm m6 ??zae {ima- {imaged-3mg eggs: Efgmm?? 5?3 giggl- gamma saiG-?mm? mam tim??ad 923333;?? sigmm ism-SEW: 1th inves?gafm ?t me {ma?a fwasz?s?m ?xgaw?m ts; am i??im?ni?m mgaming g- stem-33 armimairzsaie- and age hat-a in 335 Ecs?sira Gamay, again-gag ?g 3. Ra? farm ??hg?i my a?izre ma: i2: i n?gm gaga?gg 'imas?gra?mgg Imam $310 diwggaa meg; 332mm. as {my maintaki mi ?a?a?eg axeeg?ms Maxi-{aha .r?ad?w?-mgi??m gui??z'saf'eiy a: $113533: :s?fi??rxeis bang igapai??zed a kick: fin 322359? i if:an higigi?zz?l'te iim?asi'gphiig ?f?i?mg?hi? d?y?i'gi?gaa?g {hm Mama:ng {832355.31}! E9 :a?am?eiy emia?mhe mam :gma?igs 23$? swam; mm?afal Pf?swiai waeigsa'ga? a mag 51am egepzammam wag csnizz?mf'?y a: {gem} aimi?hamjihgi my zivim?ggzigaiiam 3:32;: 132% imgazzia??n ??'?gmi?a?ad ummem? ?aaiv??asi?iimheirmm; A 123%}: i?wa?gaiim matm?a?s rama?gti mam: [m gammamem a?'iaa?mi 53mg:ng aim was: E33621 53mm? {33' 3mm: izf?im Sam-shim {Emmy ?smigga??araa} am? 52mg m?eg 'Saa?gaam mm imam, gamma;- ?213 52% ?ya?a?r?a?a?s 112i .Egadapgsagen?y Marika fmigiams akiam?? 'd'giiva?as; SEQ, fag; {1:9 magma ms'imn anargmmi 99mm 35:: 33$}th cam: my: 3553?s: . Et?f?i?? 535323239 ivm. {far aha: my ?1.22 Emma} i ?2215? M13 ammadg 122a @xztai'im?s?gaziag a gamma: the ?aixs?ite?aumy {Mg his gug?sviismrsiin ihe'i?gs?s'game; who Simia- manna wag 3% the ?ag; mus 2m; Tgsi?awa; ii-waa agrsad ?323: 1% wm?e'! 432%: 51533313323 7 ?imm-w?skia 113:2 35mg in gnawing,ng g?igw Saigue?m Mar units ix: $629: ?aizis?fc?m? ware ?i'sg 2:283:33: .396 am prasanxfy {$331 ?umwi 3521;313:533; hagi?i?aig? 'adm??s'j?isim?va giazce'a?ing's Wh?? ma imm?g??m ?g max-35m. g; 33mm?d?3iaiy ?aw-81$; 3735?; Farm?. mimi?ai.?a??iv?g; and {take-@3133 gazigugiy ?ue {eyuiammisf me 'rest 5% us: ?22: fay?: :e'n?fam?meni we: have; m?ijn??i w?h is?egf?gg?man??a mast: been made ami?iagy?e?is?zm 1 {gram arf?aiami mating- izt: :hase ?lm? ma?a. Mm a ?my'ai? a; imam: 132?me gut ?my er?amg?a?m 13f gha-a?ggmg Mas?gazmn} - 7 max ?ia?sizi-aziam?y-m Mamas my: iavesiiga?a? magma a {raft gammy Eta-g? 11 de?a?enwhish msuag? if? i?a mg:th 3f siemmgan? the gamma; asaawit wazsaa-LAH examiza'a?aa a? Mama mg ragga 323 3:93;? Pm??g, ram: P?s?e?i Pa?tg c5122 meme; wag - "i :iait?-v?fg??a?ms?y aay?a?agazmma: 'izf?ga?h?i? i573 ma?a Emsi- by engagi?g 53'2- 2? Pages a $553212? E'Eszai?iqg, 53;? ?rm mag ?n??aw?2?giiwsi?lx?$om 23mm: '31! 9 E, i ?atizrmadgs}: ?m?k??irs 33:23, mg? Fm #3;er Sg?a?m gag? Vick31352;? i ?am Mama"? Fm . .PgGgizi 3311