NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CHARLES DIRKS, No. 09-56187
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02664-GAF- FMO v.
JOE GRASSO; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 9, 2010 Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, BERZON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department officers appeal the district court’s
order denying in part their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in a suit
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Professor Charles Dirks (“Dirks”). The
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. officers—Sargent Joe Grasso (“Grasso”) and Deputies Ricky Baker and Darren
Inana (“Baker” and “Inana”)—brought the renewed motion after a jury deadlocked
on Dirks’s unlawful arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims.
We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo, taking
all disputed facts in the light most favorable to Dirks, the non-moving party.
Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 550 (9th Cir. 2010). A Sheriff’s Department
employee recorded the events leading up to Dirks’s arrest on video, and Dirks
made an audio recording. Viewing and hearing the recordings, we agree with the
district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.
1. The district court correctly concluded that the officers are not entitled to
qualified immunity on Dirks’s unlawful arrest claim. At the time of Dirks’s arrest,
it was clearly established that an officer must have probable cause to execute a
warrantless arrest. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 699-700 (1981).
Here, the officers could not have reasonably believed they had probable cause to
arrest Dirks.
The officers first claim they had probable cause to arrest Dirks for disturbing
the peace, a violation of California Penal Code §§ 415 and 415.5. At no point prior
to Dirks’s arrest could a reasonable officer have found, as required by California
law, that there was a “clear and present danger of imminent violence,” nor that the
2 intent of Dirks’s communication was merely to disturb. See In re Brown, 510 P.2d
1017, 1023 (Cal. 1973). A reasonable officer would have known that Dirks
intended to express his opposition to Grasso’s attempt to meet with, interrogate, or
fire a student Sheriff’s Cadet, Yesenia Franco (“Franco”). Dirks in no way
threatened the officers with violence, nor were his words likely to induce an
immediate, violent response by the officers. See United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d
1077, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, a reasonable officer could not have
concluded that there was probable cause to arrest Dirks for a violation of California
Penal Code §§ 415 or 415.5.
The officers next claim they had probable cause to arrest Dirks for
obstruction of justice, a violation of California Penal Code § 148. However, verbal
criticism of police officers and refusal to respond promptly to police orders do not
support probable cause for a violation of § 148. See Mackinney v. Nielsen, 69 F.3d
1002, 1005-07 (9th Cir. 1995); People v. Bower, 597 P.2d 115, 122 (Cal. 1979). A
reasonable officer could not have concluded that there was probable cause to arrest
Dirks for violating § 148 based on Dirks’s failure to immediately leave the
sheriff’s substation, his objection to Grasso’s attempt to meet with Franco, or his
standing in the entrance to the substation while engaged in a discussion with
Grasso.
3 Baker and Inana argue that even if probable cause did not exist, they are
entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting pursuant to Grasso’s
orders. Baker and Inana cite no binding authority holding that following a
superior’s orders entitles officers to qualified immunity, and none exists. They
personally observed all the events leading up to the arrest of Dirks. Based on the
totality of facts and circumstances within their knowledge, Baker and Inana could
not reasonably have believed that probable cause to arrest Dirks existed. See
Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. Grasso is not entitled to qualified immunity on Dirks’s First Amendment
retaliation claim. Grasso argues that Dirks failed to prove that Grasso’s desire to
chill protected speech was a substantial or motivating cause of Dirks’s arrest. See
Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999).
At the time of Dirks’s arrest, the First Amendment right to “verbally. . . oppose or
challenge police action without thereby risking arrest” was clearly established.
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462-63 (1987). Even assuming, without
deciding, that the front lobby of a sheriff’s substation is a nonpublic forum,
Grasso’s argument fails. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Dirks,
Grasso arrested Dirks because he voiced his opposition to the planned interrogation
or termination of Franco for her off-duty activities at a contentious student
4 government meeting. The arrest was not a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral
restriction on Dirks’s speech. See Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303
F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2002). A reasonable officer could not have concluded that
it was constitutional to arrest Dirks for expressing his opposition to Grasso’s
conduct.
AFFIRMED.
5 Ú×ÔÛÜ Ü·®µ- ªò Ù®¿--±ô »¬ ¿´òô Ò±ò ðçóëêïèé ÍÛÐ ðî îðïï Ý¿´´¿¸¿²ô Ý·®½«·¬ Ö«¼¹» ÓÑÔÔÇ Ýò ÜÉÇÛÎô ÝÔÛÎÕ ËòÍ ò ÝÑ Ë ÎÌ ÑÚ ßÐ ÐÛ ß ÔÍ
× ¼·--»²¬ò × ¾»´·»ª» ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ·² ¬¸·- ½¿-» ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ¯«¿´·º·»¼ ·³³«²·¬§
º®±³ ¬¸» ½´¿·³- ³¿¼» ¾§ Ю±º»--±® Ü·®µ- ¿²¼ ©±«´¼ ®»ª»®-»ò
Ú·®-¬´§ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·³³«²·¬§ ±² Ü·®µ-Ž «²´¿©º«´ ¿®®»-¬ ½´¿·³
•«²´»-- Ŭ¸»·®Ã ½±²¼«½¬ ª·±´¿¬»¼ ¿ ½´»¿®´§ »-¬¿¾´·-¸»¼ ½±²-¬·¬«¬·±²¿´ ®·¹¸¬òŒ л¿®-±²
ªò Ý¿´´¿¸¿²ô ëëë ËòÍò îîíô ïîç Íò ݬò èðèô èïí øîððç÷ò Ü·®µ- ¿®¹«»- ¬¸¿¬ ¸» ¸¿¼ ¿
½±²-¬·¬«¬·±²¿´ ®·¹¸¬ ²±¬ ¬± ¾» ¿®®»-¬»¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-»ò •Ì¸» Í«°®»³» ݱ«®¬
¸¿- •®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ·- ·²»ª·¬¿¾´» ¬¸¿¬ ´¿© »²º±®½»³»²¬ ±ºº·½·¿´- ©·´´ ·² -±³»
½¿-»- ®»¿-±²¿¾´§ ¾«¬ ³·-¬¿µ»²´§ ½±²½´«¼» ¬¸¿¬ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ·- °®»-»²¬òŽŒ α¼·-
ªò Ý·¬§ ¿²¼ ݱ«²¬§ ±º Í¿² Ú®¿²½·-½±ô ëëè Úòí¼ çêìô çêèóêç ø笸 Ý·®ò îððç÷
ø¯«±¬·²¹ ß²¼»®-±² ªò Ý®»·¹¸¬±²ô ìèí ËòÍò êíëô êìï øïçèé÷÷ò •Ì¸» ¯«¿´·º·»¼
·³³«²·¬§ -¬¿²¼¿®¼ ¹·ª»- ¿³°´» ®±±³ º±® ³·-¬¿µ»² ¶«¼¹³»²¬- ¾§ °®±¬»½¬·²¹ ¿´´ ¾«¬
¬¸» °´¿·²´§ ·²½±³°»¬»²¬ ±® ¬¸±-» ©¸± µ²±©·²¹´§ ª·±´¿¬» ¬¸» ´¿©òŒ Ø«²¬»® ªò
Þ®§¿²¬ô ëðî ËòÍò îîìô îîç øïççï÷ò ̸«-ô ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ·- ©¸»¬¸»® ¿ ®»¿-±²¿¾´»
±ºº·½»® ½±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¾»´·»ª»¼ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¬± ¿®®»-¬ »¨·-¬»¼ò ׺ -±ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¸»®»
¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·³³«²·¬§ò Ø«²¬»®ô ëðî ËòÍò ¿¬ îîéò
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CHARLES DIRKS, No. 09-56187
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02664-GAF- FMO v.
JOE GRASSO; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 9, 2010 Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, BERZON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department officers appeal the district court’s
order denying in part their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in a suit
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Professor Charles Dirks (“Dirks”). The
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. officers—Sargent Joe Grasso (“Grasso”) and Deputies Ricky Baker and Darren
Inana (“Baker” and “Inana”)—brought the renewed motion after a jury deadlocked
on Dirks’s unlawful arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims.
We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo, taking
all disputed facts in the light most favorable to Dirks, the non-moving party.
Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 550 (9th Cir. 2010). A Sheriff’s Department
employee recorded the events leading up to Dirks’s arrest on video, and Dirks
made an audio recording. Viewing and hearing the recordings, we agree with the
district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.
1. The district court correctly concluded that the officers are not entitled to
qualified immunity on Dirks’s unlawful arrest claim. At the time of Dirks’s arrest,
it was clearly established that an officer must have probable cause to execute a
warrantless arrest. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 699-700 (1981).
Here, the officers could not have reasonably believed they had probable cause to
arrest Dirks.
The officers first claim they had probable cause to arrest Dirks for disturbing
the peace, a violation of California Penal Code §§ 415 and 415.5. At no point prior
to Dirks’s arrest could a reasonable officer have found, as required by California
law, that there was a “clear and present danger of imminent violence,” nor that the
2 intent of Dirks’s communication was merely to disturb. See In re Brown, 510 P.2d
1017, 1023 (Cal. 1973). A reasonable officer would have known that Dirks
intended to express his opposition to Grasso’s attempt to meet with, interrogate, or
fire a student Sheriff’s Cadet, Yesenia Franco (“Franco”). Dirks in no way
threatened the officers with violence, nor were his words likely to induce an
immediate, violent response by the officers. See United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d
1077, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, a reasonable officer could not have
concluded that there was probable cause to arrest Dirks for a violation of California
Penal Code §§ 415 or 415.5.
The officers next claim they had probable cause to arrest Dirks for
obstruction of justice, a violation of California Penal Code § 148. However, verbal
criticism of police officers and refusal to respond promptly to police orders do not
support probable cause for a violation of § 148. See Mackinney v. Nielsen, 69 F.3d
1002, 1005-07 (9th Cir. 1995); People v. Bower, 597 P.2d 115, 122 (Cal. 1979). A
reasonable officer could not have concluded that there was probable cause to arrest
Dirks for violating § 148 based on Dirks’s failure to immediately leave the
sheriff’s substation, his objection to Grasso’s attempt to meet with Franco, or his
standing in the entrance to the substation while engaged in a discussion with
Grasso.
3 Baker and Inana argue that even if probable cause did not exist, they are
entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting pursuant to Grasso’s
orders. Baker and Inana cite no binding authority holding that following a
superior’s orders entitles officers to qualified immunity, and none exists. They
personally observed all the events leading up to the arrest of Dirks. Based on the
totality of facts and circumstances within their knowledge, Baker and Inana could
not reasonably have believed that probable cause to arrest Dirks existed. See
Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. Grasso is not entitled to qualified immunity on Dirks’s First Amendment
retaliation claim. Grasso argues that Dirks failed to prove that Grasso’s desire to
chill protected speech was a substantial or motivating cause of Dirks’s arrest. See
Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999).
At the time of Dirks’s arrest, the First Amendment right to “verbally. . . oppose or
challenge police action without thereby risking arrest” was clearly established.
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462-63 (1987). Even assuming, without
deciding, that the front lobby of a sheriff’s substation is a nonpublic forum,
Grasso’s argument fails. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Dirks,
Grasso arrested Dirks because he voiced his opposition to the planned interrogation
or termination of Franco for her off-duty activities at a contentious student
4 government meeting. The arrest was not a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral
restriction on Dirks’s speech. See Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303
F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2002). A reasonable officer could not have concluded that
it was constitutional to arrest Dirks for expressing his opposition to Grasso’s
conduct.
AFFIRMED.
5 Ú×ÔÛÜ Ü·®µ- ªò Ù®¿--±ô »¬ ¿´òô Ò±ò ðçóëêïèé ÍÛÐ ðî îðïï Ý¿´´¿¸¿²ô Ý·®½«·¬ Ö«¼¹» ÓÑÔÔÇ Ýò ÜÉÇÛÎô ÝÔÛÎÕ ËòÍ ò ÝÑ Ë ÎÌ ÑÚ ßÐ ÐÛ ß ÔÍ
× ¼·--»²¬ò × ¾»´·»ª» ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ·² ¬¸·- ½¿-» ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ¯«¿´·º·»¼ ·³³«²·¬§
º®±³ ¬¸» ½´¿·³- ³¿¼» ¾§ Ю±º»--±® Ü·®µ- ¿²¼ ©±«´¼ ®»ª»®-»ò
Ú·®-¬´§ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·³³«²·¬§ ±² Ü·®µ-Ž «²´¿©º«´ ¿®®»-¬ ½´¿·³
•«²´»-- Ŭ¸»·®Ã ½±²¼«½¬ ª·±´¿¬»¼ ¿ ½´»¿®´§ »-¬¿¾´·-¸»¼ ½±²-¬·¬«¬·±²¿´ ®·¹¸¬òŒ л¿®-±²
ªò Ý¿´´¿¸¿²ô ëëë ËòÍò îîíô ïîç Íò ݬò èðèô èïí øîððç÷ò Ü·®µ- ¿®¹«»- ¬¸¿¬ ¸» ¸¿¼ ¿
½±²-¬·¬«¬·±²¿´ ®·¹¸¬ ²±¬ ¬± ¾» ¿®®»-¬»¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-»ò •Ì¸» Í«°®»³» ݱ«®¬
¸¿- •®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ·- ·²»ª·¬¿¾´» ¬¸¿¬ ´¿© »²º±®½»³»²¬ ±ºº·½·¿´- ©·´´ ·² -±³»
½¿-»- ®»¿-±²¿¾´§ ¾«¬ ³·-¬¿µ»²´§ ½±²½´«¼» ¬¸¿¬ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ·- °®»-»²¬òŽŒ α¼·-
ªò Ý·¬§ ¿²¼ ݱ«²¬§ ±º Í¿² Ú®¿²½·-½±ô ëëè Úòí¼ çêìô çêèóêç ø笸 Ý·®ò îððç÷
ø¯«±¬·²¹ ß²¼»®-±² ªò Ý®»·¹¸¬±²ô ìèí ËòÍò êíëô êìï øïçèé÷÷ò •Ì¸» ¯«¿´·º·»¼
·³³«²·¬§ -¬¿²¼¿®¼ ¹·ª»- ¿³°´» ®±±³ º±® ³·-¬¿µ»² ¶«¼¹³»²¬- ¾§ °®±¬»½¬·²¹ ¿´´ ¾«¬
¬¸» °´¿·²´§ ·²½±³°»¬»²¬ ±® ¬¸±-» ©¸± µ²±©·²¹´§ ª·±´¿¬» ¬¸» ´¿©òŒ Ø«²¬»® ªò
Þ®§¿²¬ô ëðî ËòÍò îîìô îîç øïççï÷ò ̸«-ô ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ·- ©¸»¬¸»® ¿ ®»¿-±²¿¾´»
±ºº·½»® ½±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¾»´·»ª»¼ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¬± ¿®®»-¬ »¨·-¬»¼ò ׺ -±ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¸»®»
¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·³³«²·¬§ò Ø«²¬»®ô ëðî ËòÍò ¿¬ îîéò
̸» ³¿¶±®·¬§ ¸±´¼- ¬¸¿¬ ²± ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ±ºº·½»® ½±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ½±²½´«¼»¼ ¬¸»®»
©¿- °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¬± ¿®®»-¬ò ر©»ª»®ô ¬¸·- ½¿-» ¸¿- ¿´®»¿¼§ ¾»»² ¬®·»¼ ¬± ¿ ¶«®§ô
ï ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¶«®§ ¼»¿¼´±½µ»¼ ±² ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ±º ©¸»¬¸»® °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¿½¬«¿´´§ »¨·-¬»¼
¬± ¿®®»-¬ Ü·®µ-ò ̸» ¼·-¬®·½¬ ½±«®¬ ²±¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ •¬¸» º¿½¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¶«®§ ·² ¬¸» º·®-¬ ¬®·¿´
¼»¿¼´±½µ»¼ ±² ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ±º °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¼·®»½¬´§ -«°°±®¬- ¬¸» ½±²½´«-·±² ¬¸¿¬
®»¿-±²¿¾´» ³·²¼- ½±«´¼ ¼·-¿¹®»» ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ·--«»òŒ É» ²»»¼ ¹± ²± º«®¬¸»® ¬¸¿²
¬¸¿¬ò ̸» º¿½¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¶«®§ ©¿- -°´·¬ ±² ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ±º ©¸»¬¸»® °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-»
¿½¬«¿´´§ »¨·-¬»¼ »-¬¿¾´·-¸»- ¬¸¿¬ ¿ ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ±ºº·½»® ½±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¾»´·»ª»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¸»
¸¿¼ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¬± ¿®®»-¬ô »ª»² ·º ¸» ¬«®²»¼ ±«¬ ¬± ¾» ©®±²¹ò ̸» ¼·-¬®·½¬ ½±«®¬
²±¬»¼ ¬¸·-ô ¾«¬ º¿·´»¼ ¬± ¿°°®»½·¿¬» ¬¸» ®»-«´¬ ¬¸¿¬ ³«-¬ ²»½»--¿®·´§ º±´´±©æ ¬¸»
±ºº·½»®- ¸»®» ©»®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ¯«¿´·º·»¼ ·³³«²·¬§ò Ø«²¬»®ô ëðî ËòÍò ¿¬ îîéò
Í»½±²¼´§ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¿®» ¿´-± »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·³³«²·¬§ º®±³ Ü·®µ-Ž Ú·®-¬
ß³»²¼³»²¬ ½´¿·³ò ̸» ¼»°«¬·»- ¿®¹«» ¬¸¿¬ ¿ -¸»®·ººŽ- -«¾-¬¿¬·±² ´±¾¾§ ·-
¬®¿¼·¬·±²¿´´§ ¿ ²±²ó°«¾´·½ º±®«³ô ¾«¬ ¿°°¿®»²¬´§ ¬¸»®» ©¿- ¿² ±ºº·½·¿´ °±´·½§ ¬± ¸±´¼
¬¸·- ´±¾¾§ ±°»² ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ º±® ¬¸» °«®°±-» ±º ´±¼¹·²¹ ½±³°´¿·²¬-ò ̸»®»º±®»ô ¬¸»
´±¾¾§ ³«-¬ ¾» ½±²-·¼»®»¼ ¿ ´·³·¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ôï -»» Ú¿·¬¸ Ý»²¬»® ݸ«®½¸
Ûª¿²¹»´·-¬·½ Ó·²·-¬®·»- ªò Ù´±ª»®ô ìèð Úòí¼ èçïô çðè ø笸 Ý·®ò îððé÷ ¿¾®±¹¿¬»¼ ±²
ï ̸» -¸»®·ººŽ- -«¾-¬¿¬·±² ´±¾¾§ ©¿- ½´»¿®´§ ±°»²»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¬± ¬®¿²-¿½¬ ´¿© »²º±®½»³»²¬ ¾«-·²»--ô ¾«¬ ¸¿- ²±¬ ¾»»² ±°»²»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ º±® -°»»½¸ ¹»²»®¿´´§ò ׬ ¸¿- ¾»»² ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ½»®¬¿·² ½¿¬»¹±®·»- ±º -°»»½¸ô ²¿³»´§ ½±³°´¿·²¬- ¿¾±«¬ ¼»°¿®¬³»²¬ °±´·½·»- ¿²¼ °®±½»¼«®»-ò •ß ´·³·¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ ·- ¿ -«¾ó½¿¬»¹±®§ ±º ¬¸» ¼»-·¹²¿¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ô ©¸»®» ¬¸» ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ±°»²- ¿ ²±²°«¾´·½ º±®«³ ¾«¬ ®»-»®ª»- ¿½½»-- ¬± ·¬ º±® ±²´§ ½»®¬¿·² ¹®±«°- ±® ½¿¬»¹±®·»- ±º -°»»½¸òŒ Ú¿·¬¸ Ý»²¬»®ô ìèð Úòí¼ ¿¬ çðè ²òèò
î ±¬¸»® ¹®±«²¼- ·² É·²¬»® ªò Ò¿¬«®¿´ λ-±«®½»- Ü»º»²-» ݱ«²½·´ô ײ½òô ïîç Íò ݬò
íêë øîððè÷ô ¿²¼ º®»» -°»»½¸ ·² ¬¸» ´±¾¾§ ·- ²±¬ ¿² «²º»¬¬»®»¼ ®·¹¸¬ò •Î»-¬®·½¬·±²-
¹±ª»®²·²¹ ¿½½»-- ¬± ¿ ´·³·¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ ¿®» °»®³·¬¬»¼ -± ´±²¹ ¿- ¬¸»§ ¿®»
ª·»©°±·²¬ ²»«¬®¿´ ¿²¼ ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ·² ´·¹¸¬ ±º ¬¸» °«®°±-» -»®ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» º±®«³òŒ ×¼ò
̸» ¯«»-¬·±² ·- ©¸»¬¸»® ¬¸» ¼»°«¬·»-Ž •®»-¬®·½¬·±²ôŒ ·ò»òô ¼»³¿²¼·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ Ü·®µ- ´»¿ª»
¿²¼ ¿®®»-¬·²¹ ¸·³ ©¸»² ¸» ¼·¼²Ž¬ô ©¿- ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ·² ´·¹¸¬ ±º ¬¸» °«®°±-» -»®ª»¼ ¾§
¬¸» º±®«³ò
̸» Í«°®»³» ݱ«®¬ ¸¿- »¨°´¿·²»¼ ¬¸¿¬ •²»½»--·¬·»- ±º ½±²º·²·²¹ ¿ º±®«³ ¬±
¬¸» ´·³·¬»¼ ¿²¼ ´»¹·¬·³¿¬» °«®°±-»- º±® ©¸·½¸ ·¬ ©¿- ½®»¿¬»¼ ³¿§ ¶«-¬·º§ ¬¸» ͬ¿¬» ·²
®»-»®ª·²¹ ·¬ º±® ½»®¬¿·² ¹®±«°- ±® º±® ¬¸» ¼·-½«--·±² ±º ½»®¬¿·² ¬±°·½-òŒ α-»²¾»®¹»®
ªò 뽬±® ¿²¼ Ê·-·¬±®- ±º ˲·ªò ±º Ê¿òô ëïë ËòÍò èïçô èîç øïççë÷ò λ-¬®·½¬·±²-
¾¿-»¼ ±² ½±²¬»²¬ ¿®» °»®³·--·¾´» ·º ¬¸»§ °®»-»®ª» ¬¸» °«®°±-»- º±® ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» º±®«³
©¿- ±°»²»¼ò ×¼ò ¿¬ èíðò Ù®¿--± ±®¼»®»¼ Ü·®µ- ¬± ´»¿ª» ¿- -±±² ¿- ¸» ¼»¬»®³·²»¼
¬¸¿¬ Ü·®µ- ©¿- ²±¬ ¬¸»®» ¬± ½±³°´¿·² ±º ¬¸» ¼»°¿®¬³»²¬Ž- ´¿© »²º±®½»³»²¬ °±´·½·»-
Š ¬¸» ®»¿-±² º±® ¬¸» ´±¾¾§Ž- ´·³·¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ -¬¿¬«- Š ¾«¬ ®¿¬¸»® ¬± ·²¬»®¶»½¬
¸·³-»´º ·²¬± ¬¸» °»²¼·²¹ °»®-±²²»´ ³¿¬¬»® ¾»¬©»»² Ù®¿--± ¿²¼ ¸·- ½¿¼»¬ò ̸«-ô ¬¸»
®»-¬®·½¬·±² °´¿½»¼ ±² Ü·®µ-Ž -°»»½¸ •°®»-»®ª»Å-à ¬¸» °«®°±-» º±® ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» º±®«³
©¿- ±°»²»¼ôŒ ¿²¼ ·- ¬¸»®»º±®» ®»¿-±²¿¾´»ò α-»²¾»®¹»®ô ëïë ËòÍò ¿¬ èíðò ̸»
®»-¬®·½¬·±² ©¿- ª·»©°±·²¬ ²»«¬®¿´ ·² ¬¸¿¬ Ù®¿--± ½«¬ ±ºº ¿´´ -°»»½¸ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹
í °»®-±²²»´ ¿½¬·±²-ô ®»¹¿®¼´»-- ±º ©¸·½¸ -·¼» ¬¸»§ ©»®» ±²òî Í»» Ú¿·¬¸ Ý»²¬»®ô ìèð
Úòí¼ ¿¬ çïîò
Í·²½» ¬¸» ®»-¬®·½¬·±² ±² Ü·®µ-Ž -°»»½¸ ©¿- ®»¿-±²¿¾´»ô ½±²¬»²¬ó¾¿-»¼ ø®¿¬¸»®
¬¸¿² ª·»©°±·²¬ó¾¿-»¼÷ô ¿²¼ °®»-»®ª»¼ ¬¸» °«®°±-» º±® ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» º±®«³ ©¿- ¸»´¼
±°»²ô ¸·- ¿®®»-¬ ©¿- ²±¬ ¿ ª·±´¿¬·±² ±º Ü·®µ-Ž Ú·®-¬ ß³»²¼³»²¬ º®»»¼±³ ±º -°»»½¸
®·¹¸¬-ò α-»²¾»®¹»®ô ëïë ËòÍò ¿¬ èíðò ̸»®»º±®»ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬±
·³³«²·¬§ º®±³ Ü·®µ-Ž Ú·®-¬ ß³»²¼³»²¬ ½´¿·³ ¿- ©»´´ ¿- ¸·- º¿´-» ¿®®»-¬ ½´¿·³ò ×
®»-°»½¬º«´´§ ¼·--»²¬ò
î ̸» ®»-¬®·½¬·±² ³·¹¸¬ ²±¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ª·»©°±·²¬ó²»«¬®¿´ ·ºô º±® »¨¿³°´»ô ·¬ °®±¸·¾·¬»¼ -°»»½¸ ½±²¼»³²·²¹ ¬¸» ¼»°¿®¬³»²¬Ž- °»®-±²²»´ ¿½¬·±²-ô ¾«¬ ¿´´±©»¼ -°»»½¸ º¿ª±®¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸»³ò
ì