legitimate rape

Hero Connecticut Supreme Court Justices Defend Rapists From Clutches of Temptresses With Cerebral Palsy

Justice is blind, but not in a wheelchair with cerebral palsyHere, Wonketteers, let us blog at you about a very, very sad story made EVEN SADDER by the geniuses serving on the Connecticut State Supreme Court. See, back in 2008, a man from Bridgeport, Connecticut, was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 26-year old woman with cerebral palsy who can’t speak and has very little body movement. But was it LEGITIMATE RAPE? No. No it was not, and the Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the victim did not “scream,” nor did she “bite” or “kick” her assailant. Nor was she considered legally unconscious, which would have spared her the burden of managing to bite, kick, or scream in spite of her substantial physical disabilities. But there is a bright side, dear readers, because this young lady will surely be relieved to discover that she was not legitimately raped!

Justices ruled, 4-3, that despite evidence that the 26-year-old woman cannot speak and has little body movement, there was no evidence she could not communicate her refusal to have sex with the defendant, Richard Fourtin Jr.

The woman, who was not identified in court, has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate, according to court documents….[In its opinion, the court wrote:] “(W)e, like the Appellate Court, ‘’are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault,’ the opinion states.

OBVIOUSLY the burden was put on the victim to communicate her unwillingness because it is common sense that people with cerebral palsy, in wheelchairs, with limited mental capacity, are down for seks all the time, no matter what (but only if they are ladies). Live and learn, victim. Live and learn!

[NBC, via AngryBlackLady]

Related

About the author

Kris E. Benson writes about politics for Wonkette and is pursuing a doctorate in philosophy. This will come in handy for when they finally open that philosophy factory in the next town over. @Kris_E_Benson

View all articles by Kris E. Benson

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

162 comments

      1. mrpuma2u

        Yet another reason to not believe in gawd/boodah etc.. because a real deity would send an avenging entity to stake these morons down between 3 fire ant hills and pour honey on their privates (with votes)

        1. MittBorg

          It's not often that I wish vote-fueled harmz upon teh fuckwits with whom I am compelled to share this world, but.

          Also too. Privates with votes.

          1. MittBorg

            I'm fucked, darlz. I can barely move. Plus, I'm all alone, boo hoo. Partner's off on a business trip. Luckily, I made a lot of food and stuck it in the freezer, so I won't starve to death. And you?

      2. CthuNHu

        Suck this does. But the court made the correct decision.

        No, really.

        pretzlcoatl explains it well:

        Footnote 20: (pdf)
        Indeed, as the Appellate Court suggested; see State v. Fourtin, supra,
        118 Conn. App. 49; this appears to be a case in which the state ultimately
        proceeded against the defendant under the wrong statute.

        Effectively, the prosecutors charged a bank robber with check fraud, or an unarmed mugger with armed robbery. Guilty as hell, but not of the crime charged.

        Rape is obvious if the victim indicates refusal. The problem arises when the victim doesn't say no — say when the victim is passed out drunk. A law was passed, and a category of crime created, to address exactly that situation. The rapist in this instance was charged under that law.

        The court, and the law, do not say that rape is okay if a victim does not fight back. They do say that you cannot prosecute someone under the statute that specifically says, "Don't fuck someone who is totally incapable of communication," if the victim in fact is capable of communication to some degree. The court strongly suggests, and common sense screams, that the prosecution should have been for: sexual assault in the second degree in violation of § 53a-71 (a) (2), attempt to commit sexual assault in the second degree in violation of §§ 53a-71 (a) (2) and 53a-49 (a) (2), and sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (B), all of which require that the victim be unable to consent to sexual intercourse because the victim is ‘‘mentally defective . . . .’’, which were the original charges filed.

        Instead, some genius prosecutor thought, "No, I'm going to go for broke for the stone-drunk/rohypnol conviction, because a severely mentally and physically disabled person is exactly like a totally unconscious person."

        And since the decision affirms the Appellate Court's decision that the trial court was wrong to deny the defense's motion for a judgment of acquittal (on the grounds that the state had failed to offer sufficient evidence that the victim was "physically helpless" — which due to the brilliance of legislators is the term used to describe physically helpless people who cannot communicate, so that Stephen Hawking, so long as he has his voicebox thing, does not count as "physically helpless"), this isn't just a conviction thrown out; the defendant has been officially acquitted.

        Congratulations, hellbound girlfriend's-disabled-daughter-rapist Richard Fourtin Jr.! Enjoy your newfound freedom for the next several hours. Prosecution under an actually appropriate statute should not, in my semi-educated non-lawyer opinion, raise any double jeopardy issues, and should furthermore be a doddle.

  1. hagajim

    Does this mean that if I put duct tape over their mouth and tie them down I can get away with raping them too? Holy hell!

  2. Callyson

    despite evidence that the 26-year-old woman cannot speak and has little body movement, there was no evidence she could not communicate her refusal

    Pray tell, assholes, just how was she supposed to communicate her refusal given her disability? Look at him cross – eyed in the hopes of confusing him and making him forget what he was trying to do? Silently calling for her guarding angel to come and bust his balls? Kill him with votes?

    Assholes.

    1. Jus_Wonderin

      It is becoming ever more clear that there are no guardian angels. Now, if I ran the universe that PoS would be vaporized.

    2. rickmaci

      Am I the only that can't figure this one out? If she can't communicate her REFUSAL, what evidence was there that she did anything to communicate any kind of actual CONSENT? Unless they took her lying perfectly still to be evidence of consent, in which case we have more information about the sex lives of Connecticut Supreme Court Justices than any of us ever wanted to know.

      1. Liberalatchi

        You are right how could she consent? OMG this is bad for lots of cases where the victim does not kick or scream or object or whatever. An incompetent person is by definition not competent to refuse or defend themselves, you know like children …

        1. rickmaci

          I'm no Public Defender but I have to think the problem has something to do with a screw up by the prosecutors, like they charged under the wrong section of the criminal code and went to a trial on a charge that makes victim consent an issue. Otherwise this decision makes no fucking sense.

          1. BerkeleyBear

            Not the prosecutors but the Legislators, who (like a lot of states) didn't write provisions equating mental incapacity with physical incapacity.

      2. BerkeleyBear

        Under the statutes charged, the burden was on the prosecution to prove a victim is "physically helpless", which is apparently defined as "unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act."

        This was probably done because otherwise Connecticut would have required proof of unwillingness to act as an element of the crime, to cover things like GHB attacks. The prosecution no doubt (and the trial judge and jury, from the sounds of it) took the common sense idea that an inability to verbalize and extremely limited mobility/communication skills meant the victim was always "helpless" in the legal sense. The justices apparently took an absolutist view, which is arguably in line with the requirements that criminal laws be construed narrowly – but still makes this complete bullshit as a matter of justice.

      3. kingofmeh

        well, that seems to be the issue. blame the CT legislature for writing a bad sexual assault statute, and maybe the DA for charging and arguing the case wrong.

        there SHOULD be a catch-all provision of the sexual assault statute that just defines some variety of sexual assault as "engaging in sexual intercourse with another without that person's consent, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not believe that the other person consented to sexual intercourse."

        the DA argued the case, apparently exclusively under the theory that she was incapable of resisting. the Connecticut court took the DA's arguments on their face and said, apparently correctly, "no, there's plenty of evidence that she was capable of resisting."

        the DA couldn't charge the defendant with having sex with the victim without her consent, period, end of sentence, because, amazingly, that's NOT A CRIME in connecticut. compelling her to engage in intercourse by force is a crime.

      4. kingofmeh

        i guess what the DA could have done is charged him with plain old sexual assault by force and argue that the kind of force that would coerce this particular victim was so negligible that the statute applies.

        anyway, my read is the terrible is about 50% CT legislature, 40% DA, and 10% CT supreme court.

    3. Warwhatgoodfor

      Given her three year old level of mental function, she is by definition incapable of giving consent in exactly the same way as a normal three year old cannot give consent. I live in this state, and these fools need to be taken out behind the barn, shot, and buried in unmarked graves. For the record, this is NOT a threat to committ violence that should be deleted. Sheesh!

  3. Barbara_

    If it were a "legitimate rape," the body of Justices has ways to try to shut that whole thing down .

  4. mwittier

    The eyes say unmitigated terror, but the body says probably lose on appeal.

    So, sure, climb right up."We, like the Appelate Court, can find no evidence that she wasn't asking for it, and should cross her fingers that he calls her again, the twitchy little flirt."

    1. Jus_Wonderin

      Let's hope you don't drink to a stupor and don't live in Connecticut. Because then, you were just asking for it.

      1. BerkeleyBear

        Nah, you drink til you pass out and you're covered. This loophole only hurts people above the theoretical age of consent who can potentially fight back in a theoretical sense but never would in reality.

    1. Warwhatgoodfor

      Funny you should mention that. As a pediatrician in this now literally god-forsaken state she is by definition of mental capacity incapable of giving consent.

    2. BerkeleyBear

      Apparently Connecticut wants evidence of non-consent, and proof of physical (not mental) helplessness is one way to do it. Completely screwed up.

      Now, I'm sure she couldn't consent to an abortion on her own if her horrible experience left her pregnant, since she obviously lacks the mental capacity to make serious life choices on her own. And yes, that is precisely the sort of fucked up Catch-22 people with severe intellectual disabilities find themselves in all the fucking time.

    3. Mahousu

      Connecticut's different. Heck, in Connecticut you can serve on the Supreme Court!

      (My apologies to real three-year-olds, who would not actually have issued such an insane opinion.)

  5. skmind

    If she was NOT pregnant, it is a clear sign that she was not legitimately raped, and therefore the abortion performed on her by doctors was totally unnecessary.

    Damn it, Akin was right!

  6. LibertyLover

    Hmmm. People with the mental capacity of a 3 year old ( and that includes 3 year olds, BTW) are NOT capable of giving consent. Especially if they "cannot Speak" and "cannot Move."

  7. proudgrampa

    Jesus Fucking Christ.

    I am convinced that Supreme Court-level justices are absolutely so fucking insulated in their ivory towers that they don't have a fucking clue how the world really works.

    This is a sad day for justice.

  8. MaxNeanderthal

    Connecticut Supreme Court? Is that an important administrative body, like, say, the Grand Admiral of the Nebraska Navy, or the Ruritainian police force?

  9. Estproph

    So, the question is: who is the worst scumbucket in this story – the rapist or the justices? Seems like a tie to me.

  10. LibertyLover

    I suppose the victim's family should now tattoo the victim's body with: " I do not consent to being raped." Just in case someone else should get any ideas.

    1. KeepFnThatChicken

      Might as well tattoo a teardrop under her eye, which means "I consent to killing in prison."

    1. anniegetyerfun

      You can in New York, as long as you take her out of state for her abortion and then drop her back off at the swingset.

  11. Hammiepants

    So, I guess, by these standards if a three-year old was raped, there had better be evidence of a hell of a struggle, or it's just another case of sexy toddler enticement, correct. Okay then…

  12. Callyson

    State Rep Gerald Fox III (D-Stamford), who serves as House Chair of the Judiciary Committee, said he will push for legislation to clarify state law.

    I'm not a Nutmeg State resident, but a humble suggestion for the clarification

    "Dumbass, if you do not have consent, do not fucking proceed. A person's sexual favors are theirs for the giving, not yours for the taking."

    Can't wait to hear the Conn Supremes talk about how ambiguous that clarification is…

    Assholes.

    1. pdiddycornchips

      Yeah, I don't know what the law says in my state but I'm pretty fucking sure it doesn't say, if I happen upon a person who's so disabled they cannot speak and have severely limited mobility, I can whip out my penis and fuck her. As sick as that thought is, having four judges rule this is not a crime is truly frightening.

  13. Jus_Wonderin

    See, this is where my refusal to believe in a HELL runs up against my actual reality. Fuck this shit.

  14. coolhandnuke

    I was under the impression that law enforcement and the courts gave a voice to the voiceless. But, this travesty is just too difficult to put into words.

  15. Eve8Apples

    So in Connecticut, women are presumed to consent to rape unless they verbally or physically object to rape? Does this work for other crimes too? Can I rob and kill people in Connecticut and then say, "The victim didn't object to be robbed and killed so it must be consensual, legitimate robbery and murder?"

    1. Jus_Wonderin

      I am there with you then. I don't dwell on it but often thought that I could take it to that level if need be.

  16. pretzalcoatl

    Footnote 20:

    Indeed, as the Appellate Court suggested; see State v. Fourtin, supra,
    118 Conn. App. 49; this appears to be a case in which the state ultimately
    proceeded against the defendant under the wrong statute. Originally, the
    state also had charged the defendant with sexual assault in the second
    degree in violation of § 53a-71 (a) (2), attempt to commit sexual assault in
    the second degree in violation of §§ 53a-71 (a) (2) and 53a-49 (a) (2), and
    sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev.
    to 2005) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (B), all of which require that the victim be unable
    to consent to sexual intercourse because the victim is ‘‘mentally defective
    . . . .’’ Because the evidence established that the victim’s cognitive abilities
    are significantly limited, the state could well have prosecuted the defendant
    under those provisions. The record does not indicate why the state decided
    not to do so and opted instead to pursue charges requiring proof that the
    victim was physically helpless. By electing to prove that the victim was
    physically helpless rather than mentally defective, the state removed from
    the case all issues pertaining to the victim’s mental capacity to consent to sex.

    So basically, shitty prosecutor

    1. dennis1943

      Well then….that is a horse of a different color…..so the blind prosecuter was leading the blindfolded "lady of justice"……

    2. An_Outhouse

      this makes me not inclined to not like lawyers. they couldn't do both- physical and mental?

  17. Callyson

    I guess this crap is this century's update of A Dry White Season:

    "Law and justice are distant cousins, and here in Connecticut they're not on speaking terms at all."

  18. glamourdammerung

    And of course, there is a Democrat that wants to "clarify the law" and put Big Government in between you and your "rapist".

    1. Jus_Wonderin

      I bet the Republican's would call the rapist a job creator because, well, look at all the work court clerks and lawyers got out of this appeal.

  19. Cheburashka64

    Holy Crap, looks likeI owe Steve King an apology.
    Seriously, though, someone round up an angry mob, I'll get the torches and pitchforks, with votes.

  20. Eve8Apples

    If there is a God, the four Supreme Court Justices who voted in the majority will be reincarnated as deaf, blind quadriplegic women who are repeatedly legitimately raped by their caretakers.

  21. Pithaughn

    What's the difference between this rapist and Elvis? The rapist is fer sure dead. I publicly endorse a vigilante solution to this injustice.

  22. fawkedifiknow

    I'm going to assume here that the asshole was convicted of something, for having sexually assaulted a person legally not capable of giving consent, even if she couldn't verbalize "no." Because, I can't believe anybody – even Republicans – are as stupid as this story gives plenty of evidence that they are..

  23. BlueStateLibel

    So this means the next time I see a drunk, passed out guy at a party, or one with cerebral palsy, I can just steal their wallet? Because if you don't scream, it's not an actual crime, right? This is a good day for violent felons everywhere.

  24. Boojum

    It's not as awful as it sounds. The statute under which he was charged is a roofie law, which requires proof the victim was unable to communicate — at all — a lack of consent. The question wasn't whether she DID communicate a lack of consent, but whether she COULD do so.

    I don't know if this was a prosecutorial fuck up or if Conn. just doesn't have a better law to charge him under, but given the narrow issue and the evidence they cited, I have a hard time saying the prosecution proved the case.

      1. Boojum

        Well, yeah. She was raped by her Mom's boyfriend. She has the mind of a three year old and a body by Rigid. But if anybody fucked up, it was the prosecutor for charging the wrong crime.

    1. mille derps

      Possibly it wasn't the justices who fucked up, but somebody did. If this woman had the mental capacity of a 3YO, why is consent even at issue? Does it seem likely that she even understood what was happening in order to protest or consent to what he did???

      1. Boojum

        Because she was charged under a statute that requires the prosecutor to show that she was PHYSICALLY unable to show lack of consent, as an element of the crime.

        1. mille derps

          Yes- so somebody fucked up.

          Presumably, CT does HAVE laws on their books that this man could have been charged with that would have actually fit the crime, but the prosecution chose this inappropriate, narrowly-defined statute, despite the rather clear language about physical incapacitation.

          If all this was some stupid dog-and-pony show about getting the interpretation of that particular statute broadened, I'm not sympathetic. That asshole should be locked up, & he's walking free instead.

  25. Radiotherapy

    OT, and considering the sadness of this post, its a good thing. But I just heard Innanity and the Bow Tie Blowhard call Howie Kurtz and Andrew Sullivan "left wing" media types and bloggers. Srsly, WTF? They are off the rails — even more so than usual.

  26. Detesticle

    So the court is basically saying she loved the sex, this 95-pound mental 3 year old who testified against him for four days. Her aftermath (from her local paper two years ago):

    "She began having physical difficulties to swallow food and began losing weight," she said. "There were flashbacks of the sexual assault that resulted in bouts of anger, sobbing and every other emotion in between. It has only been now, in 2010, that LK has truly put the past events behind her and has moved forward with her life."
    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Overturned-co

  27. calliecallie

    I wonder how those Supreme Court Justices wives feel about this verdict? I wonder how their daughters feel? Their sisters and daughters-in-law and grandaughters? And their mothers, if they're still alive?

    Jesus, this war on women shit is getting fairly fucking tiresome. That poor woman.

  28. Antispandex

    She had a WHEEL chair people. WHEELS! Hello?! She was just asking for it, or she might have rolled away……aw, shit, even I can't make as big of a joke of this as the Connecticut State Supreme Court has made of itself. Well done sirs, well done!

  29. mavenmaven

    I should think the "Kill Bill" rule would apply here. Someone should smash that guys head in with a door, sick raper of disabled women sicko.

  30. SaintRond

    So let's get this straight — banging a total stranger who happens to be unconscious is perfectly legal, because they didn't say no?

    WHAT THE FUCK?!!

  31. MittBorg

    Geesh, I hate to be the one to pee on everyone's parade, but: I think the appeals court is merely rebuking the prosecution for failing to introduce evidence to prove the crime, rather than speculating on the abilities of the victim herself.

    1. Rotundo_

      And in the bargain, a monster is set free to repeat this sort of thing again and there will be another victim. I'm sure the next child or incapacitated adult will feel much better having had this guy freed to rape them for a brisk legal slap at an incompetent prosecutor. I guess it really is the thought that counts.

  32. BornInATrailer

    The ol' "your eye blink says no but your otherwise complete lack of response says yes" routine, eh?

    This represents my firm belief that anything can be fodder. Having said that, I can also say my heart is not in it and when I get home I'm going to drink a little more than usual.

  33. docterry6973

    Reading this makes me feel all stabby. What this case needed was justice, not hair-splitting.

  34. Fare la Volpe

    You know, if I didn't already feel sick before, I sure as fucking fuck do now.

    And can one of you lovely people please inform me, a person with no cable, what time EST the debate is tonight? Not a single story I have read will tell me a FUCKING START TIME and I am sick and I feel lousy and I had to call off a date tonight because of it and if I can't watch my dream husband Barry kick the fuck out of Thurston Howell, I am going to scream until I vomit. Thank you. Allah bless.

  35. poorgradstudent

    It's times like these I can only go all Masterpiece Theater and say this about American government and society: "Let all the poisons in the mud hatch out."

  36. Rotundo_

    I certainly hope that someone out there is waiting for this guy, and for the four justices, with a shiny new aluminium softball bat, for a pickup game. Yeah, that's the ticket, for a nice game of softball. A nice non-violent game of softball, yeppers, just a swingin' the old bat around, smackin' that old ball with everything you have. A good game of softball would be just the thing.

  37. BlueStateLibel

    It's Connecticut, of course, so in a way, I'm not surprised that the birthplace of Lyme disease, eminent domain for wealthy developers, and Joe Lieberman would suck so bad.

  38. 102415

    I know something about CT. The crookedest meanest little place where they practice eminent domain on your wee little seacoasty home and send you to prison for putting your homeless 5 year old into the *wrong* school and the Mayor of Waterbury himself is in prison for 37 years for being rapey with children. I forget is that legitimate or not? This story is more than it looks like. They have an excuse for whatever ails you. And Lieberman.

  39. CivicHoliday

    How in the ever loving fuck is this not considered, at a minimum, statutory rape? She has the mental capacity of a child. Even if she giggled and said "do me hard" it would still be completely inappropriate for a normal functioning grown man to have sex with her. Instead, she was probably lying there still and terrified while he sweated all over her. Jesus I need a drink just thinking about this.

  40. Warpde

    "assaulting a 26-year old woman with cerebral palsy who can’t speak and has very little body movement."

    Not to worry.
    He was planning on doing all the work anyway.
    Sound effects supplied by xnxx.

  41. HobbesEvilTwin

    The only way this could possibly not suck is if the assailant also had the mental capacity of a three year old and this happened in some sort of group home setting.

    [</nosnark>]

  42. HELisforHEL

    I was just in the city today, serving jury duty (although at the Federal Court)…sigh. These judges, WTF
    I can't help but assume that the judges sitting on this were more of the same 80+ year old men who are fucking clueless and should be forced to retire. I swear, I think none of them are under 70, blah or female.

  43. glamourdammerung

    Is this case really all that different from Paul Ryan, Todd Akin, and a supermajority of the House Republicans' stance on what is "real rape"?

  44. Arishii

    Seems even the rules for commenting on Wonkette are more stringent than the rules for men who want to fuck the severely disabled.

  45. Comrade Snowball

    I saw the headline and it gave me a sad. I should have stopped there but I couldn't help myself and read the whole thing. Now I have a big sad and not enough alcohol.

  46. bobbert

    Theoretically, law exists to codify and depersonalize the methodology of achieving justice, and since nothing is perfect, there are always plenty of examples where the mechanism of law does not result in justice. Some examples, like this one, suck even worse than others.

    A question for the wonkelawyers: I was under the impression that the notion of "case law" was supposed to be sort of an incremental autocorrection process for imperfectly written laws. For example, if a particularly unusual case would be decided, marginally, one way under a literal interpretation of the written law, but such a decision would obviously conflict with legislative intent (or perhaps common sense), the decision could be made the other way, and this would then be a precedent that would clarify that particular "loophole".

    Now, it appears to me that this is a case where the trial court decided that such a clarification was justified (root word: "justice"), but the appeals court and now the CT Supremes disagreed (barely).

    If (and that's a big if) this is sort of the situation, my questions would be "What judicial good did the majority think they were protecting by interpreting the written law in favor of the now-exonerated rapist? How does this decision advance the cause of justice?" There are documented cases of what we might call retroactively-non-consensual sex. While I'm sure they are vastly outnumbered by the cases of actual-non-consensual sex, it is still a valid concern to try not to convict people in error.

    But this case here? This is so far into the loophole, it has pulled the loophole in after it. The majority Justices have lost sight of the meaning of their own fucking titles.

  47. FrankFuror

    Everybody calm down – No one is saying he didn't rape her. What they are saying is that he was convicted of the wrong thing, that being rape of an unconscious/insensible victim. He should have been convicted of raping someone who couldn't give consent because of mental defect, which is apparently a separate statute. It's a technical matter, which is just the way laws work. Just remember this next time that the republicans are whining about somebody who was spared the death penalty because of a technicality, the details are there for a reason.

  48. FeloniousMonk

    The majority on this "court" deserves a punishment suggested by Hunter Thompson for lawyers using smartass tricks to get rapists off: they should be publicly buggered by several large perverts in the town square. (I think the word "pervert" is allowable here, because a person of either gender would have to be pretty damned twisted to want to have sex with these scum.)

  49. sullivanst

    Just when the "Love for Levon" concert had given me a little faith in humanity, you go and erase it all again. Thanks!

  50. jamsie25

    This insane ruling by the Connecticut Supremes makes me very sad and ever more angry. F*** then all with a splintered, creosoted telephone pole with the climbing spikes attached.

  51. outragedcitizen

    Sorry at the moment, I have no snark only lots and lots of disgust for both the sick asshole that raped this poor woman and the idiots on the court who can not see beyond their law books to see that there is absolutely no justification for what he did in the sane world.

Comments are closed.