On Facebook this morning, Tony Ortega posted this: BREAKING: Finally, a major new development in the Laura DeCrescenzo forced-abortion lawsuit: A Los Angeles judge put the case on hold until Scientology turns over Laura's confidential "pc folders" -- something the church has been resisting for years in the complex case. It's a make-or-break moment, and feels like the kind of reality-check that could cause Scientology to fold like it has in other recent embarrassing court battles. We talk to Laura about her four-year legal ordeal. And much more in today's post! Scientology Ordered to Turn Over Files in Forced-Abortion Suit | The Underground Bunker Laura DeCrescenzo let us know there’s been an interesting break in her years-long lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. She’s suing because during the time she was a worker in the Sea Org — which prohibits its members from having children — she says she was forced to have an abortion, a claim that numerous other former Sea Org workers have also made. (See our previous story about her complex lawsuit.) The church has argued back that DeCrescenzo took too long to bring her lawsuit after she left the Sea Org, and it has also fought every request to turn over her confidential “pc folders,” which contain detailed information about her time in the church. But now Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian has put the case on hold until Scientology finally forks over those files, and he’s given the church a deadline of May 6. It’s potentially a huge new development in a case that has dragged on for years. We checked with the court file to verify that the judge had made the order, and here’s what Laura told us about it: Continued at http://tonyortega.org/2013/03/20/sc...onfidential-files-in-forced-abortion-lawsuit/ Here's the previous thread: Former Scientologist accuses the church of 'forcing her to have an abortion, false imprisonment, sleep deprivation, brainwashing and harsh punishments' https://whyweprotest.net/community/...g-her-to-have-an-abortion-false-impri.103900/
Lots of additional case summary information available online, there has a been a ton of back-n-forth filings and proceedings since the last time this case made news last fall. See: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/ Run a search for Case Number: BC411018 and Filing courthouse: Stanley Mosk Under Proceedings held these are the most recent actions: Document images require login access, but these are the recent dox listed under Documents Filed: DO WANT a copy Laura's most recent declaration from February 8, 2013. And the List of Exhibits 1-42 from the same date, showing the 2,891 documents Scientology is trying to deny releasing on their priviledge log as being subject to the clergy-penitent privilege, sounds fascinating. If we have any lurking lawfags that happen to have online access to ^^those additional dox, please share! 'kthxbai.
Tikk's review of the recent actions, mentioned on Ortega's blog but NOT directly linked to for posterity sake, is worthy of mentioning in this thread since it explains the latest lawsuit update better: Laura DeCrescenzo's Motion to Compel Scientology & The Priest-Penitent Privilege http://realitybasedcommunity.net/ar...scientology-the-priest-penitent-privilege.php
Scientology Lawsuits: Laura DeCrescenzo Dox Collection on Scribd, updated with OCR'd versions of the latest stuff released on The Underground Bunker (see bottom of the list)): http://www.scribd.com/collections/3108078/Scientology-Lawsuits-Laura-DeCrescenzo
Can't the "Church" just remove those sheets in her PC folder that relate to the forced abortion, destroy those sheets, and give what is left to the court? They are loose sheets, after all. It's not as if they will see that some pages have been torn out.
. Cross-posted to ESMB: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30969-Laura-DeCrescenzo-forced-abortion-lawsuit-updates .
I know....it was just the ninja in me... no harm meant though To be honest, it actually might be a very difficult process to just "delete" pages depending on how things are printed up...if pages go missing the subsequent page may become incomplete. That could be a reason why they have stalled, they literally cannot edit it. My tiny paws are crossed so hard for that to be the case.
The sheets are always loose and get numbered from page one each time so it would be easy for them to chuck the whole lot for a single session / interview / interrogation.
Scientology Denied: California Appeals Court Won’t Help Church in Forced-Abortion Lawsuit Things have really heated up in Laura DeCrescenzo’s forced-abortion lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. As we reported earlier, the church has been ordered to turn over more than a hundred of DeCrescenzo’s “PC folders” — which contain notes taken while she underwent intense interrogations at the hands of church officials, and which should yield thousands of pages of supporting evidence for her allegations of abuse in Scientology’s “Sea Org.” But with only days to go, the church is fighting mightily not to release that material. We have learned that a petition filed by Scientology was denied by California’s Appeals Court, and on Monday the church then filed a petition with the state’s Supreme Court. If that petition is denied, Scientology may even petition the US Supreme Court. The church claims that it should not be forced to turn over what it says are confidential confessionals protected by clergy-penitent privilege — even though it’s the penitent, DeCrescenzo, who wants access to the documents. “They are fighting tooth and nail not to produce those PC folders,” DeCrescenzo tells us. The church has been racing to beat a May 6 deadline to produce the documents, but this week Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian agreed to wait until a May 16 meeting to discuss a new production date. That gives the church more time for its appeals, and we’ll be waiting to see how they come out. For now, the church struck out with the state appeals court, which denied its petition without a written order. Here’s the brief that the church submitted: Continued at http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/01/sc...documents-release-in-forced-abortion-lawsuit/
they will take the petition to supreme court and bitch there, when shit really start to go down DM orders his hoes of the babble o's into the fray and boatlods of money to silence Laura they simply don't want to give those PC folders back to her (to which, she has full rights to),i wonder why the cult wants to hide these do they contain information o her abortion or something else the cult wants to hide?Gee, seems legit to me, naw why is it so bloody hard to provide the confessional files that rightfuly belong to her? Same litigious bullshit they've been using for decades
The dox posted appear to be the CA Appeals court petition. Anybody know if the CA Supreme court dox can be gotten online?
This could get interesting. If this ends in the High Court, and they decide the cult has to hand over the files, we are will have a very interesting ruling going! Then again, it might go the other way.
I'd like to see this backfire on the CoS with a ruling that PC Folders are essentially equivalent to patient records. This would not only entitle CoS members to get copies of them but would mean HIPAA applied to them.
"Ooops, we retroactively sent the PC folder to Australia before the court order." Church of Scientology defied coroner on suicide October 23, 2009, Sarah Elks, The Australian
What's that rumbling noise I hear in the distance . . . could it be the sound of the Scientology mega-shredder warming up?
Good luck with shredding the contents, OSA - the legal system totally has never thought of that (since Enron). So, the CoB is right, shred away!
If cos dropped or lost this appeal, does that mean that, in future, in California, a precedent has been set wherein cos must release the folders if requested in all future court cases? Are they separating the auditing folders from the sec check folders?
On what basis? The Scientology corporation's private client information has nothing whatsoever to do with medical records. And it couldn't because they would then fall under FDA and AMA jurisdiction and the scam would be shut down in a heartbeat.
No, I am referring to the folders cos does not want to turn over in Laura's case. Right now the court has ruled cos has to turn them over, but cos is appealing that decision. I was wondering, if the current decision ultimately stands, for whatever reason, what the repercussions might be in future litigation.
US Supreme Court decisions are operative and decisive case law, until those decisions are reversed. By the Supreme Court or the legislature enacting laws that say different than the ruling. Simple, but oh so complex, because every legal case relying on the case law is different. But, yes, simply put, it would make cos' s legal world in this regard very different. Also, it is most likely (tho not a certainty) that the supremes say "meh" and decline to hear the case. Essentially affirming the lower court ruling. End of story for cos.
Scientology Invokes Clergy-Penitent Privilege To Refuse Discovery In Forced Abortion Case http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/01/scientology/ By Jonathan Turley, legal scholar and law professor at GWU.
I like the words he choses. Only if the state intends for the coercive organisation to get away with it... I know that the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology would like to keep teh folders secret (they might contain instructions on how to mess up the victim - the ethics folders sure do, apparently), but I hope that the court will not allow law which is intended to protect the penitent to protect in this case the "priest" which - all of a sudden - is everyone in the organisation who's ever had a look at the information...
Nobody piped up with an answer to my question above re: whether or not a copy of the cult's recent California Supreme Court petition could be gotten online, so I went on a googlefu adventure. I did not find it. But I noticed all the relevant case numbers got updated today (May3), as well as an interesting twist that is reflected in Scientology's lawfare goon squad - they seem to be decreasing in number the higher this case gets on the judiciary ladder. DeCrescenzo v. Church of Scientology, et al. CA State Court,2nd Appellate District Division 3 Case Number B224409 http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....reen.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1943132&doc_no=B224409 Current status: this is the oldest open case (filed 05/13/2010 ) where the original disposition that was filed in favor of Scientology was "Reversed & Remanded to trial court w/directions" and thus bounced back to state court for more lawfare. Key Dox: Appeals Court Opinion: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58723048/...gy-CA-2nd-Appellate-District-Opinion-06-24-11 Appeals Court Decision http://www.scribd.com/doc/61408767/...tional-CA-Court-of-Appeals-Decision-July-2011 Church of Scientology : Defendant and Respondent Attorneys of record: Religious Technology Center : Defendant and Respondent Attorneys of record: Church of Scientology International v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.CA State Court,2nd Appellate District Division 3 Case Number B247794 http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....reen.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2041628&doc_no=B247794 Current status: Filed 03/29/201 with the disposition entered 04/25/2013 for "Petition summarily denied by order" that is currently being appealed at the state Supreme Court level. Key dox: Petition for stay http://www.scribd.com/doc/138807787/Church-of-Scientology-petition-CA-state-appeal Latest docket actions: Future scheduled actions: Record returned from Supreme Court 08/01/2013 Church of Scientology International : Petitioner Attorneys of record: Religious Technology Center, Inc. : Real Party in Interest Attorneys of record: LAURA ANN DECRESCENZO VS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL CA Superior Court Case Number BC411018 Current status: Case file originally opened 4/2/2009 with current motion to compel ruling being appealed at the Supreme Court Level. Future hearings: 05/16/2013 at 08:30 am in department 41 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Order to Show Cause(RE VACATE ORDER OF 4/15/13) 06/13/2013 at 08:30 am in department 41 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Status Conference Key dox: Motion to Compel PC Folders Discovery - http://www.scribd.com/doc/131412929/DeCrescenzo-v-Scientology-Motion-to-Compel-Feb-2013 Motion to Compel Opposition - http://www.scribd.com/doc/131412928...ology-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Compel-Feb-2013 Warren McShane Declaration - http://www.scribd.com/doc/131412930/DeCrescenzo-v-Scientology-Warren-McShane-Declaration-Feb-2013 Motion to Compel Opposition Reply - http://www.scribd.com/doc/131412927...sition-to-Motion-to-Compel-Reply-Feb-2013-PDF Recent actions of note that we don't have dox on (yet) - see also post #3 ITT: Scientology Attorneys of record: DEIXLER BERT H. ESQ. - Attorney for Deft/Respnt MARMARO MARC ESQ. - Attorney for Deft/Respnt ONCIDI ANTHONY J. ESQ. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent PROSKAUER ROSE LLP - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL v. S.C. (DESCRESCENZO) CA Supreme Court Case Number S210314 http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....reen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2044171&doc_no=S210314 Current status: Petition for Review requesting a stay on the appellate ruling filed 04/29/2013. Key dox: (we haz none) EDIT - WE DO NOW (/hattip TonyO) Petition - http://www.scribd.com/doc/139382462/Scientology-CA-Supreme-Court-petition Amici Letter - http://www.scribd.com/doc/139382328/Amici-Letter-in-Scientology-Petition Latest docket actions: 04/29/2013 Petition for review with request for stay filed 04/30/2013 Filed: Notice of errata on petition for review, indicating that the critical date is May 16 and not May 6, 2013. By petitioner's counsel Nicholas Daum. 05/01/2013 Filed: counsel for petnr. amended proof of service. Church of Scientology International : Petitioner Attorneys of record: Religious Technology Center, Inc. : Real Party in Interest Attorneys of record:
California Superior Court Case BC411018 - PREVIOUSLY UNRELEASED 2013 DOX! 2/08/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology Laura DeCrescenzo Declaration - Motion to Compel PC Folders (Feb 2013).pdf - 4 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139312453...laration-Motion-to-Compel-PC-Folders-Feb-2013 2/21/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013).pdf - 28 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139315160...laration-Motion-to-Compel-Opposition-Feb-2013 2/21/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology Allan Cartwright Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013).pdf - 13 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139316903...laration-Motion-to-Compel-Opposition-Feb-2013 2/21/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology CSI Evidentiary Objections to DeCrescenzo Declaration (Feb 2013).pdf - 3 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139318983...bjections-to-DeCrescenzo-Declaration-Feb-2013 2/27/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology Plaintiff Evidentiary Objections to Cartwright Declaration (Feb 2013).pdf - 9 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139321056...Objections-to-Cartwright-Declaration-Feb-2013 2/27/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology Plaintiff Evidentiary Objections to McShane Declaration (Feb 2013).pdf - 45 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139323280...ry-Objections-to-McShane-Declaration-Feb-2013 3/04/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology CSI Evidentiary Objections to Cartwright Declaration Reply (Mar 2013).pdf - 17 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139326119...ions-to-Cartwright-Declaration-Reply-Mar-2013 3/04/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology CSI Evidentiary Objections to McShane Declaration Reply (Mar 2013).pdf - 129 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139329441...ections-to-McShane-Declaration-Reply-Mar-2013 4/24/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology CA Superior Court Order To Show Cause (Apr 2013).pdf - 3 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139331120...A-Superior-Court-Order-to-Show-Cause-Apr-2013 4/29/2013 - DeCrescenzo v Scientology Ex Parte Application to Clarify Court Order To show Cause (Apr 2013).pdf - 14 page(s) http://www.scribd.com/doc/139332552...to-Clarify-Court-Order-to-Show-Cause-Apr-2013 Major highlights: The Allan Cartwright Declaration, which was filed in conjunction with the Warren McShane Declaration and Scientology's Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cartwright is a life long Scientologist and Sea Org member who is CSI's Legal Director. Also, the pissing match that ensued over the McShane and Cartwright declarations - Scientology does not like being told NoU. Lulz. Full set: DeCrescenzo v Scientology 2013 CA Superior Court Dox.zip (Includes all of the above plus 4 Motion to Compel filings originally posted on The Underground Bunker March 20, 2013.) https://hotfile.com/dl/211383651/32...ientology_2013_CA_Superior_Court_Dox.zip.html Entire archive: Scientology Lawsuits: Laura Descrenzo (Includes the full legal archive of dox released online since the initial case started plus some background materials) http://www.scribd.com/collections/3108078/Scientology-Lawsuits-Laura-DeCrescenzo
Thanks, anon. I really appreciate your writing Major Highlights when releasing dox. There is so much I need to priortize and not allocate time to what is merely procedural. Keep doing it pl0x.
just in from Tony Ortega: SCIENTOLOGY TO CALIFORNIA SUPREMES: State’s Priest-Penitent Law is Unconstitutional dox included http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/04/sc...ates-priest-penitent-law-is-unconstitutional/ Wrong guy has probably posted this already, but the message should be spread: cult is being screwed at every corner.
Thanks! (For some reason, in the middle of the night, I was sleeping.) Here's what Tony posted on Facebook a few hours ago: WE HAVE THE DOX: Here's Scientology's petition to the California Supreme Court, arguing that the state's priest-penitent law is unconstitutional. With only days to go, it's the church's Hail Mary attempt to keep from turning over thousands of pages of evidence to Laura DeCrescenzo in her forced-abortion lawsuit. Scientology To CA Supremes: Priest-Penitent Law Unconstitutional | The Underground Bunker Excerpt: But here’s what the church is not saying in its petition to the supreme court. Much of the material in DeCrescenzo’s folders was produced not in the sort of voluntary confessionals that one thinks of in a Catholic setting, but in brutal, involuntary interrogation sessions — called “security checks” — that Sea Org members go through as a matter of course. The church talks about “auditing” as a spiritual sacrament, and taking notes during those sessions as simply a part of its creed. But any Sea Org member will tell you, “sec checks” are about anything but spirituality. Questions are designed to root out any possible misdeeds, thoughts of rebelling, information about other people, or other secrets that a person may be harboring. As we reported earlier, Sea Org members know that they can have no sexual secrets in Scientology, and information about every partner they’ve ever had is gathered in sec checks and then shared among church officials. DeCrescenzo tells us that most of the material she’s trying to get the church to release came from security checks, not auditing sessions — but you don’t get any sense of that in the church’s petition to the state supreme court. For four years, DeCrescenzo has been fighting to have her story heard in court — that she was abused as a Sea Org member who was forced to spend three years in the Sea Org’s prison detail, the “RPF,” and also was forced to have an abortion because having children in the Sea Org is against the rules. Throughout that experience she was repeatedly interrogated for her “crimes” against Scientology, and those sessions were noted in thousands of pages over more than a decade. But in the church’s petition, there’s no sense of that. Instead, Scientology complains that it’s being singled out for discrimination simply because its confessional system differs from Catholicism. http://tonyortega.org/2013/05/04/sc...ates-priest-penitent-law-is-unconstitutional/
YES. Sec Checks are not considered priest / penitent files as LRH specified that sec checks are not auditing. Sorry, no dox, Sec check results are routed to Ethics for further handling. Red Vols (HCOBs) have this info somewhere; try asking an Indie...
Let me be explicit, Sec Checks are considered Ethic files, not auditing (religious) files. Let CofS take this to the Supreme Court. DM is panicking right about now.
What am I missing here? The cult tried to claim protection under California's priest-penitent law. The Superior Court told the cult that the law doesn't apply to this situation. The cult's response is to try to get the law overturned. But if they were successful in getting the law overturned, it still wouldn't apply to this situation, since it would be nonexistent, right? So how could they expect any judge to see this as anything other than a transparent delaying tactic?
Sorry for replying to myself, but I just thought of one more thing this tactic could be seen as: Attempted extortion. The cult figures the state of California loves its priest-penitent law so much that it will give in to any and all demands rather than risk losing it. Dunno why that didn't occur to me before. Hmm...if I were a lawyer...which would I rather have a judge think I was doing? Deliberately delaying...or attempting to extort? Damn, it's hard to make decisions without the benefit of LRH tech!
LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK LIEK
