HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of property (2)Bob,
The 2006 report by ESI labels the dunal ridge in the middle of the
property (shown as a dashed line on the survey map from the 2006 ESI
report *See highlighted attached map) as "disturbed", a conclusion they
reached from 3 test holes near it. They did Not label the entire front
side (A1A side, east side) of the property as "disturbed", which by the
way does not disqualify anything from having archeological potential or
"not meet the state standard for archeological sites" as you state, what
ever that means in your mind. The map does show that there were No Test
Holes done on the A1A side (east side) of the parcel in question and
that there are three small structures there since 1948+/- and the
majority of the east side of the parcel is in state as it was since the
1943 aerials, undeveloped other than the "yards" of these small homes
under the trees. The existence of these small structures does not make
any archeology in the ground around them evaporate.
There is archeological occupation evidence throughout the area that
includes this parcel, including the known and recorded midden site on
the river edge side (west side) of this parcel (BR1936). We have learned
recently that there are at least 4 new significant ancient archeological
sites in context and contiguous to this parcel indicating a here to
unknown or recorded probable large village site. We have recently
discovered, standing in this area of Cape Canaveral, portions of it's
ridge mound still intact in plain sight with midden and artifacts all
over it, until now unrecorded (we are in process of site filing these
new discoveries). These new parts of this ancient puzzle explaining and
unifying the archeology of this parcel's site (BR1936) and most if not
all the sites in the adjacent area, including the Fuller Mounds, middens
and Burials to the north end where part of the ridge mound still stands,
with the other end of the Ridge mound standing in the Cape Shores Condo,
right next door to this parcel. In fact the dunal ridge that runs
through this parcel appears to be aligned as the natural structure that
the ridge mound starting in Cape Shores was built upon, adding
significance to the disturbed dunal ridge on the parcel. I have informed
DHR of all this new information along with the attached diagrams and
asked for their consideration.
The attempt to confuse the Mini Golf Course site and the new Dollar
Store site for purposes of obfuscation of the recipients is sad. This
parcel is mostly open never before developed land all the way from the
river to the highway (A1A), We all know this reality. And the A1A side
(east side) has not been phase one tested with test holes, the ESI
survey map shows this. The ESI 2006 report quite rightly included -
"Unexpected findings can occur during project development and might
include discovery of human remains, which would require additional
coordination with the state archeologist in compliance with Chapter
872.05, Florida Statutes...". Considering that other bodies of
pre-contact individuals have been found in the adjacent area (within 50
meters+/-) in the recent past, taking 2 days to allow some properly
supervised phase one test holes (small holes) and gather the data that
is present before your development destroys and paves over anything that
may be there, is only rational. It's not a big deal. If by any chance
human bones are found during the middle of your excavating, you Will
have to Stop or be Breaking the Law, and at that point it could be way
more of an expense than getting in and getting out right now.
There is archeological data available on this site to help complete the
understanding of this overall ancient site that is revealing itself in
this area of Cape Canaveral (even if we find very little it establishes
the limits of the known site). There is no real downside for you or the
developer that is engendering your knee jerk reaction of lashing out and
trying to impugn the Chairman and the Unanimous Advice from the BCHC,
that a look should be taken at the east side of the parcel in question
because it has never been tested, before the opportunity is gone. You
could decide to be a good corporate neighbor and citizen and allow this
little thing to happen to help preserve the history of Florida that
belongs to all of us, but apparently there is a desire, rational or not,
to believe that this cooperation somehow injures you or is a plot to
take something from you, when it is just about preserving historical
data and science. The chance of finding anything so unimaginable that it
would initiate some major expense or difficulty for you and the
developer is extremely remote, even fanciful and in Florida there is
nothing the state will do to stop development anyway. Even bodies are
just examined and removed for protection and development proceeds. This
is not Windover, a site that turned out to be one of the most important
anthropological sites in the world... and still the development
continued all around it. We are not going to find the Dead Sea Scrolls
but perhaps some pieces of evidence that will help with filling out our
understanding of what went on in the daily lives of our amazingly
ancient local culture of the Ais (Ah-eez) people, who lived their lives
around a thriving village for perhaps a thousand years (dated material
from your site) right there on your property. The Ais are one of the
oldest resident cultures in North America, possibly 4000 years on this
barrier island, and their history was almost wiped out, save for
precious pieces like this last stretch of beautiful original shoreline
hammock, and coincidentally a probable archeological site of a here to
unknown and unrecorded significant village occupation. I have informed
DHR of all this new information and asked for their consideration.
What is the big deal? Is your only thought "Who Cares!" Why so dark and
angry about this simple reasonable idea of preserving historical DATA
before it's lost? You could be the good guy that helps add to our
communities knowledge of our own local history with no down side. You
won't be compelled to do anything to stop your development... unless you
dredge up bodies in your excavation and then it will screech to a halt
for however long that takes. Is this really the way Cumberland Farms
wants to be known in the community before it even opens it's doors,
destroy and insult the community's concerns about history as well as all
the other unfavorable feelings they seem to be engendering in their
local neighbors and potential customers? There's a lot of places to
choose to get gas.
Rick Piper
Alan: What you seem to be missing and I'm not sure it is intentional or
not that the eastern half of the property has already been developed.
It has a 36 miniature golf course on it, with several ponds dug to 10',
now a Dollar General (time of the report a defunct restaurant), and the
section that the proposed Cumberland Farm sites on has 3 buildings (two
story house, duplex, and a foundation for a house that was torn down)
all on the eastern section. This section of the land is clearly label
disturbed land on the report and has no archaeology value because the
land has been previously developed and does not meet the state standard
for archaeology sites. If you are proposing all developed land in that
area has to meet a higher standard then state and federal law I suggest
you have no standing to make such a request and that you are either
misinformed or politically motivated in the "stop the redevelopment" of
the site. Either way I do not think you are doing the mission of the
Brevard County Historical Commission by your actions. When you sit on a
public board I would think one of the minimum requirements is following
the laws of the land, including laws on archaeology sites. I believe
(do not have the report in front of me while I'm responding to this
email) that page 28 of the 43 page report clearly shows this.
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com> wrote:
Sorry, I keep getting my east-west confused. Replace "eastern"
in previous email with "western" etc.
thanks,
Alan Brech
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com>
To: Timothy.Parsons <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>;
D.Dickey <D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
Cc: R.Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Hoog
<B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net>; kkopp <kkopp@orlandolaw.net>; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com>;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com>; rko153 <rko153@gmail.com>; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com>; ricksbigart tional <ricksbigart@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 7:10 am
Subject: 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not
test eastern half of property
Dear Doctor Parsons and Mr. Dickey (and distinguished
co-recipients):
ESI's map from their 2006 report (Figure 5, page 21, FMSF
#13871) clearly shows that ESI did not conduct any subsurface testing on
the eastern half of the property in question (6455 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape
Canaveral, FL, called "Cabo Verde" in ESI documents).
If you consult that map you will see that ESI did not excavate
any tests along the eastern half of the property, and, perhaps just as
important, did not place a sufficient number of tests along the relict
dune line that roughly bisects the property, an landform that has been
known from nearby sites to often contain prehistoric sites.
How could this happen? Perhaps the 2006 "area of impact" was
different than the present-day "area of impact?" From my experience in
both contract archaeology in general and as a technician who has worked
for ESI and for Mr. Brent Handley, it is too often the case that
archaeology companies limit their sub-surface testing to the areas
specified by the client as the "area of impact." Once given the "all
clear" by the archaeology company and the Division of Historic
Resources, the client then shifts the area of impact.
Regardless how it came to be that half the property was not
tested, the ESI survey was plainly deficient for the current proposed
impacts--the eastern portion of the site was never tested and the
central portio of the site was not tested sufficiently.
yours,
Alan Brech
Chairman, Brevard County Historical Commission
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Osborne <info@a1aresearch.com>
To: Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com>; Alan Brech
<AEBrech@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 12:56 pm
Subject: Fwd: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
I followed up with Mr. Parson to see if David Dickey left
anything out. Here you go. Nice long exchange
of email with important points that David leaves out.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parsons, Timothy A. <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM
Subject: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
To: Ray Osborne <rko153@gmail.com>
Hello Ray,
Here is the email exchange that I had with David last week.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:53 PM
To: 'David Dickey'
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
No further investigation is required or requested by the state
in the area covered by the survey report, because the area was
previously surveyed to Florida standards as part of a permit application
process (pursuant to Ch. 267 and 373, Florida Statutes). I can’t speak
to local (county, city, etc.) requirements. Based on the information
that we have, it seems that the entire tract was surveyed. That said, I
have not seen the boundary/project area for the proposed project, so it
is possible that part of the project area remains surveyed if it is not
contiguous with the surveyed area in the report.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:43 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – I have another question related to the Cabo Verde
tract (BR 1936) in Cape Canaveral. First, let me spell out the issue
and share several observations.
On August 8, 2014, the City received the attached letter from
the Brevard County Historical Commission regarding its recommendation
for further archaeological analysis of the entire property on which the
BR 1936 site is located. The impetus for the Commission’s letter is the
proposed development of the northeast portion of the Cabo Verde Tract,
adjacent to A1A.
The Commission indicates in its letter that the “2006 survey did
not test the entire property going to the east, towards Highway A1A.”
This is their justification for further analysis. However, in Section
I. Introduction, of the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Cabo
Verde Tract (Study), which is attached, it states that the survey
includes a 10.61 acre property, between U.S. 1 and the Banana River.
Further, page 2 (Project Location Map) and page 5 (Soils Map) of the
Survey shows the project boundary, which includes the area from the
river to A1A (U.S. 1). In fact, page 21 of the Survey shows that
several sites (BR 1939 & BR 1940) on the extreme east end of the study
area, adjacent to A1A were evaluated.
My understanding is that no further investigation is required of
the 10.61 acre Cabo Verde Tract prior to its development. Should any
research be conducted of the Cabo Verde Tract, it will be voluntary on
the part of the property owner. This understanding is largely based on
the position you articulate in your email below.
Now for my question…would you agree that no further
investigation within the 10.61 acre project area is required prior to
its development?
Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this
further, please call me at (321)868-1221, ext. 11. Thank you for your
assistance with this. Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
[mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 3:03 PM
To: David Dickey
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Yes, that is correct (though we recommend avoidance of the site
whenever possible). The exception would be if human remains or
significant amounts of archaeological material were to be uncovered
during development. At that point, Ch. 872.05 requires consultation
with the Division regarding human remains, and most state/federal
permits contain conditions requiring notification if archaeological
material is discovered.
Any research that takes place at this point is voluntary, would
be a collaboration between the property owner and the researcher(s), and
does not involve DHR. Though, if any archaeological work does take
place, we would be pleased to receive an updated Site File form and a
copy of the report for our records.
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons - Thank you for your quick response. My
understanding of your email is that if a site has been determined to be
ineligible for listing, the State will not require protective measures
be taken during its development. And, any further investigation or
protection once a finding of ineligible has been made, will be voluntary
on the part of the property owner. Is that correct? Thanks! Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
[mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:06 PM
To: David Dickey
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
BR1936 is the only archaeological site recorded as part of the
2006 survey of the Cabo Verde Tract. The site was evaluated as
ineligible for listing on the National Register at that time, as I noted
in my letter to Mr. Osborne in 2013.
Unless a state or federal permit (Water Management District,
Corps of Engineers, DEP) will be necessary for the development, no
further review by the Division of Historical Resources is required under
law. If a permit is required, we will review it for impacts to eligible
sites pursuant to Ch. 267, Florida Statutes, and/or Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Since the site was
determined to be ineligible in 2006, it is unlikely that my office would
request any specific course of action as regards the preservation or
investigation of the site. That said, we obviously have no objection to
further investigation of the site before it is destroyed, as long as
such a project involves a professional archaeologist and proceeds with
the permission of the landowner.
It is not unusual for human remains to be present at
archaeological sites in Volusia County (and along this stretch of coast
generally). If human remains were to be encountered during development
regardless of eligibility status, all work must stop and notification
procedures to law enforcement and the State Archaeologists office must
be followed pursuant to Ch. 872.05, Florida Statutes.
I hope that this has been helpful. Please let me know if I can
answer any other questions.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:18 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – by way of this email I would request your
assistance in determining the status of the Cabo Verde Tract (BR 1936)
that is within the city limits of Cape Canaveral.
The City has received a development application for a site that
may include a portion(s) of the Cabo Verde Tract. As part of the City’s
due diligence, we are reaching out to your office to: 1- determine what
resources are on the site; 2- if these resources are of a quality to
warrant preservation; and, if so, 3 - what measures are required by the
State to protect these resources.
In the attached letter you indicate that site BR 1936 is
ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. I have also
included a letter (below) from Mr. Frederick Gaske, with the State
Historic Preservation Office, dated June 1, 2006, where he states his
office concurs with the finding by Environmental Services, Inc. that
development of the Cabo Verde site “will have no effect on cultural
resources listed or eligible to be listed in the NRHP, or otherwise of
historical, architectural, or archeological value.”
Thank you for your assistance with this matter and I look
forward to hearing from you. If it would be helpful, I can be available
for a phone conference at any time.
Dave
<image001.png>
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any
written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
@ItsWorkingFL
<image002.jpg> <https://twitter.com/ItsWorkingFL>
The Department of State is committed to excellence.
Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey
<http://survey.dos.state.fl.us/index.aspx?email=Timothy.Parsons@dos.myfl
orida.com> .
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any
written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
針沌춆줁怖ṿᏓ爘쟍뒦➰이顝硚䬿᐀⌯ⷺꞾ岋剻䣐뫊ܗ趦⏌橒촛⥮ꯪ⤕ਯ霤༌緔륁�ꗕ⊤ⴀ榶㇃푐ꐇ醼㑉遪ꮷ㝙爍큇囻蕆掤∝ꭶ뗖㋫ꅀᙬ组Ἀ텽劼디呏ꎐ堐躁ⲳ띬ݐ튠삯㨍곒ཌ퐃䂈ꛕ⹀ⷜ짯㷽黕﵁㶠둹㐭༐蕓蕴ܗᾷ終˨巋ꜝꛏ⒤᐀껧伯呍啬颣聜쀏뜗�뗓棆疠摘鍵榎痔⯆欫뽷䏶”ÿҰ齜뭮厠蹓劇錉릦⒩辡䳏叒힐�诜䀐笤㉋훆샬⦮펁モ廗ᶆ馃ꮭ즃呑ꅙ嘅鋣港爫ꊅ兼⥍�√䙁姨餳ɢ崕嵶䙞钽㿾ᆔ鳀ꛧ迗
䵍摆䚒ᐛ㸷憣ॾꨌ�喍ㄬ稷鷢饆呪봨薘ᘶ풹㰏洏헺뉒蟸賥왨ꌈ뷻⅗櫋孥㿪㹍溟倃㴀嘶똺晴䖝좡暾檦푲뇪妆䈦昄끅英仚蝹笟栊栅攺£⏪ꞿ抩恈࣑鲅ᴀ❿篱ꭘ띿냷띊坯⯓瑄㶎銧鼩넫偦ᝬ⧺ﰃꬽҏ꘧虢瑭㑤岧ㄌ崱ꠌ硬㳾欏䆑픔짩딕瀀⾘傢滚㼮笤傰噵羄ꮃ菋迃ᑙ嬥䦐帟㼸ﮋٱཅౚ뒬ᐙ鯫龵ṐꂒЇ繙熀ꦦત㴞奦┡伬脧䖐㻏෴蹫喟♅䚍績㦝⥃鞍᳖뱰䷾᳇䣾뇡蟠쪫喲ሴ᳔嗺㇐᧖锕罱겭䯻밽罻䮗⑭橠᧵झ퐱鏋䧃
骅虴蠊摌놹㑚䡮轫ᅇ숧꼀䎟☙隼贴裝ꐃ㬾䌭늰凭隟銢魚臐蛥銮᫂쩙ࢷ酐ퟏ胞騱룒雨剸ࢴ圵ᨽￌ鐀▽柱힢㙥�鿝빳⢩꣠ꊎ뮂唛ꔲᔭ詀陦좛ₕ퐩鸾淍袐玥翠璀躠턈ḧ̠�獵�抱줦縛ꚶꖦꗢꕜሤ㈔確㚤됚緜潋杣焤깏ꠞ柞㮣碹鉞쾈麀ꚖꞶᨓṁॗR⤣巾怤쬟�솓腤⦕辁ꎷ믍詉ݗ綣뀭퓕맴䔬�檝Ꙓ鹵鲢멈ᶅ൳♂㙥즵鼟敥剩㨽婈ꔧ位⹂㽋窶槵亷᱇叉誔掔⨨㹼ᨪ쯚ᭅ⇈撑ᄄ�䕾ꣽາ伒ക轫폙㖠竢뜎�괺
颧駙�殺텪뵨爕튉唧橨䴕滮ꌽ疽腠⩾喢䍒謞䎆徬詚襚썤嗐⍧涔隈饚ᙰ莥⌡뽈⫰靦祢ᳶ容މ㑨턍뵝청厗貱擸㼒靯ћ煼绨퉃㽸ᶑ㳅鴵麃궎켺佣꽈歪캨쏖萲ᢞꗏ�죭䕔쨊星㼉䝧喊쌗罷ꪛ걊컷귫벏⨪낪餝냘兢겤쇄⍝⃟똋ⶽ罡浪뎊ꫡש쏅뭥蜼ꕖﰯ嬥큥罔숗赼탈勗綜�涜ꂍ⦒禘ት栤舕螺⇶䞷꽈걍咚㪭캦潜샮叀䧤�ﯱ榝얧壏徛栢㋨ꊖꘪ孆鎖ၯ沆튑闈暌ރ�㮝立渡鿏㤽ﮱ늻対⫥爐ⷌ嵕�짒猽⥣䕥뵏⽩䰤
ꖏ㹁Ღ蟏讎㣒庣䫁䟴䙾⽿漜틲㣞㗟�纃勉鈢圪≪禔娊敨ꔈ⮘傖령낿Ӥ蔺퉫ᖩ䂥樐鳨귮뎳㎪寔躆⮃≛Åぁ」咻ꩽ劼ﰱ�堺ƫ黽₌ꀒꂌ֣忩뭓ﴶ굘龎鸇ᖤ統隧靪茍ዋﮓ慭ρ쯎蕣❚ƞ覧닪잳읰㳃㩽眃佦푭�쇐⏦㋞凑聇銯ᖵ죢劶骒놢⒪䢐搙䆕ư퍽뙰㚆䊛ၒ粼햺貽懝쐊ྷꯋ趮茍亻瑫럣姭ꢮᣝ镌⩺哕핔◁䩠웊궼䵏䗺眓䤲ᐭ㑩翨ѫ皶²ꖴ撧ﯤ㝣啋躑儑ꒌ褐止讥鸩眪䲓⊅끵ី忼뻙촑䛢呵앿ࣴ뫦㾒씝驂魿ᶨ뀳츶
里팓�襅퓚ꙛ虌魆⤥⪍꒥訖욘ꯀꯪ윩לּ㥛페ᮤ萧ᆒ툨膺쿪蝻慽龶ꘂ溛Ⴔ奏ꞙ憕碧ꛩᾎ∕㸠⨶恽쉲ÿ摟麸⭁ꂀꐞ틊毣荒ᩰ橝㵍欨竕䧼姘옞ᷮ룹ጬ뇠땎Ώ逥躦�帓ÿ䍱㐬⇓쪄嫑㷬㙖찾Ꞓꃓ뗅뺕⚲⡊紞鴞꽃溷ﭫ뫛嘶귉凊銖ꪚᎇ轇䦥喒卽폒䤩⻥ﲗ篜鈯㏤ๆᘺ�왭仕丩犝ᵝ놶嵦맡뭰驞ᐬᥔ届䔟验躎䎝处ૡ葎⸚緄꙽�銋땃༽硛샶忁蝿鶢煉뎪鎿鰗螝➏ﯙ둏뤧餳♼꧌뜺鷭勁㍿뱉쮦止褢銢╊閧㧒襘鐇㖷춞렴覍⫎頏웲Ժ
㕳궒헗矛끛팀䠺௨셯苟輛ﮯꝻ癷띯뿻쇾뷛띭㢔귬뫱祰购ﺄ휯ۻ炻盵霍㞳琕姕犩驩囈ǃ扪蠙蔓햊模低竻᳴⽿闎㻫�漛俣察샅穬턽﮼累ࠚ蘪꼫誤涎횽鐍倱뽉뤳憙⾊鄬㔽䤳ᵓ觤ⴁ䕋馽�᳨굇빼痊ꐢ︑轮㳭剏蹼駸鷝鷙쫫ꈮ�旝㷐絟欷㪵粷국�뼝턐�퍻뒲鳹薩㊄ृ繵ᡔ궮䮔嬔瀜톕ी䙲풖ꑩ꠨㻒퐪竵咉ᦂম纭捞틧띻輯ᕿꎓ柷揇㟶融ﯔ稽甫띧��及差錙퇆⧙烫ꚣ銝ﶠ諕缁桾캒윋弯혐躃죒䮞呢쌃쯇
䶍襺㸤牫潼퓛懝燗ÿ弳붅膇�ଦ茛뗜蠍釸寛獿뫯딽❉훚ꧢ칷鵞㏲ꔃ낋婮틞ෛ䱛⣬ꩫ뺚整쬺扬ኍ䉃訴猭縙ﰷ裕뿬ﮆ刟杶浓謍Ί眥쳭䝜檧젧㝶쑡况쵽쁀확뙢嗬圈딜ᢢ厈歯⛭⢷䎐⮍ꋃ식栗阥앻曮܀띕믱熹疱ᣙ蘟錛밣㗶唷绶뜓�㜢졮㚾珡緔滯湮쎷⻅�㶹ힻ㤸 饺鶇埥⑽둻䃲ᮏᵍ졟蟓�畃猼ሬ鼐嚈뱮좷稟ቼ痊杏�莝龿畽륉螷晍텵坶慪垷潘ꔽ솕䛤쯇ꑣᖃ슞沵㢵燥疩㕈ᰕ䘺줺伺﮷肋횉围ꡓ獺韣畺읏谟
㾻令�鵕듫䭾챬�튻皸욠啁繯浑鑬㳩쬴ᄈ咪ᤲᴐ껵몄퉞ứ蕏쫸쏞ෙ纰騿崙�⯝嵗窺㮎ᷦ嵎㌺㚨勈釁及ㄳ心⧶释�嬀捩䡗උ썭쇔崾ﴃ합嶎縼軨퍍꿲鿣卶dž롙鴰퍫㊨�铟귝孟욎㚜�࣑㖩旈楽슭㪇䛷祟�捛볹ꟼ뷚훕闝陼租鴍�驛�寜됫劾䛵�練ힹ鰙马鳮䓀盻銢蹥ꑨপ㈚紒꿻镴㶐휹쳟齤盄⎶몬ꊯ厾믣瀛扐忎屾盖涛䵭뻇啐煤㐻㋥扰鉫ঞ䨥衕廷⇨�㜽巔팛㟛羴힗癜䭦㷦猗䵬斳뻇宺㘞婧端㭹묧嚷ᕯ
뙇햰蝛仮茺ⴏ驇⮹꙼䤽䳯艴뉺抩⼭敂笾⛼鷝횱坻ꦠ魻惹믦댗仌샚믦뚺䲽뫙Ნ鉦ꦕ㎧큊䇈㢒⣘�핣ꗃ揻芐ꀫ鏐篛劎뒣㯻宇㛴呿쉖仮ꋻ븓锰눭�궘駇ⷎ列髍∕椚㵍艞壀涟㙭ꯪ쀥괦征鱎⻝豌誐ᥩ㔴䓏㧻衇톓襝廬≶뼾쳟�㫪픭쥱ᝯ翛樛Ꮋ浮븼㱒妧ﷵቶ释γ痭䣔㝌헄�雴囚㔋ꚨᚉ龟缐탉뾱쟶籚졿佷湱馮芫�ﺏ㵠휻ꭹ✵迉뮑ᱪ䝦ﻣԇ輬岈⌦湰㋉扐䐉辥ꐞ䖀쒅ﴱ핇緱老灃ÿⵎ쁏뼚瓬㞦㺢
簗圣箺寷껮듫䭻矫睆筼芺庞�㹳㜃弇㛡֝읱팪⩈걼▤ײ눀뭓漿㕌쥉탡ཱུ翈喇⅟頿吧㽭㮖꪿㳾쥞瓁ฮ국Ꞹ�浪俵멍ﴷਆ�얏泮�姛ᗚ쎦ᩐꝄ醎ڽ節╉Ⲕ暔ꜙ鉊䀄胦ꃣ諢襏뷘皮❵ⷳ峻䈭뙽饊ﲺ쳀䦒塔ዓ⢕䂈ꡯffl鼮腯䖙㨨踷剗�黇謽뎷蹸�鍽�嚻ꘌ牧뛇橠髚顚䘖꺯厈疙묔넸휿淙뷍³犦�睳♆琜甝⟖壹淂೫㣝쏊䅁聙ᒋ땱䧋�䉇钵台僇눦쉲뿗ᮽ〫嚊퍜�誨䢣⹛鏩봨뺗延ᄏ豁�进䛸쳝쥓≅굽阨蔬Ⓥ땮薳䢑ꐿ
嗛ᬅ廉۷㒌⣉뼦ᚽ汊祾靈陌ꩲ팼쇀졘풌⬵᱑촰ፏᔛ薛ﾺ开쉻볚ﺊᙽ렇뢹앉㕋滫贎탂⋣旍濲礞ꘃ脒馔ᒒ喌凁㈻劼첤ﰈ晻 ᄏꨆ㷱␟㔳ꎫ튩ꔾ䳫剆춧煥핑諒ꉨ癳⍉⋡ꌱǵ勇檟䖚ᐍ凴뷻풕Ф㼟䞟칆譭쫌ꛥ嗋Ꝫ鞂ᰓ⨎፲쫊砌࣡佭㜑뀷ሀݬ袽癚ꅘꔅ䁣ᨇ鷽洉튏錬㓊ׄ㱉㨰Ớ綧돉�㥴听ޙಞ剽䭋�ᇕ떴穀ꇥ些둄푵듅ᩈ῀㺡폍릔�軕烑གྷ��５娀穹䁭훮蟢젠從䲟恷ꑷ펔櫢朌樈⬗ꢈ婥ᦚኔ㒉홪輱レ낺ዤ鄽쉝眴ᔑᲔ莃軐棆忧✞čᅜﷀ
폿莠嵁搕灴ᡔ졩␓ʄ․鋟絽∝ᶙଆ㵣쬾幟踏㒖곲칠ꃮ쎂쟫쟒髞팟꿉ꑎ⒔亟쮳挽叓ƪ鈜ኆ嚄͐谭㢈榏护䠗�噟琜軛躤씙䴢㬣陫䭹ㄛ얽볾髭犚䨼ᶎ㴸吥ʵ饵꘥⇵ꦄ寢겐㽮鼧䠽㶡譑Ԓ稰ᑲㅵ梬槭☀⍕㞆场⿺Ⴝ툔咽ⶢ佪쿄䲩蕪ᜈﲸ侀�勝ஹ䇕쾩ꐞ銩夦윯뀈ÿ糖ꍆꟗ㱪厇咪览ꔮᩥ≽㵠⋘⦢婓뛵ᴸ䕅葖㲍﮿뛇퓜⌄苗裩峋몎ꑙ鞝Ⴭ豕欍㾀篘ꅏ捔䲦芄퀴戨喡㲇얟풏䣽�䥗⾭玐몞㦞₡뱨潺ﲪﾰༀ懫班惶ꎯᏫ뿡
ﹳ�恻㌳見�⍉誦壧ᛖIJ쐒�僛黾邨乏꺹岑屮闽ﲩ풁鮢陟孕ꢏ�㣤꽕䆧Ǚ䨒䆏ᇴê∷鏼ﳁ迟䡦튵훪疠⸴憑ÿﺓﻚ綯ﷵꓻ௮=㫫ซꝾﳈ烺尨댎⹆뛗羫羚ÿ�䨗⸘ہ䡲瓎课黛긡Ẹ뒼璭곓䚋豕犋㼉毣ﷅ닚⪎⒕玀プ鸘줭ꁊ旫䆕鴢걄岇赨篹Ԟ쿭윦㶒ꧨ谱굣锬䅱廛㚞沽ᔔ䝍趩Ⴣଃ鉾ݿ둗엲䡀됦櫩垽ꄣ⎡ᕈ钍伏鏤藬뒒Ḅⰽ㕉팊꧓嗔뉐ð誵䶒鞾펷뷛珎璌躜ꤧȁ㊡朰籲끤ﴣẤ빾뇓偣ှ䱺
笰벛ድ䬓ㄌꪦ䂍戱㹹⼲臺卣툁앐븚⑽꭪쐡犼뒌䫲ӓ╖쾋酶臘תꢽꅕ俐祔瀉섀⎇⩝ⳉⓐ쩱낟럩럵뒻㙠⮒鑎㝅埩咆തⱗ췳ꞿ閽ᚢ嗔隈쐢ﻱ砌�鋔ཪ�獢䋗ᘢ䷟祎ﴃཾΏ坯遏㶡ࠦᢪṹⶲ鰵怩㜇ÿᾑ흶槸헥ᅁ攡鹊쮰ꙏ淾ﴛᙹ蓾췵눺㒱輇⍙讣ﶓ☿ÿ綎燘㨝ఁꕞ锳勭ꪮꏧ쀈툫騡𧻓ଋÿᚪꊾ⌹纏햐Ꝥ聯喺Ԓ㕉읡앒♪ᖡ䩲앩⚒渪䍸翲篛ญ㫅穎밞尼‱豴৭�⌯㢍ᨙ铜♂蚬ᡂ퓚仫碠㖒
緾廗㧨ᙾ鄚従ꆳ牗扑鶳遽ₗᘪᅠꋒ味퐊쵐⁎桶赡�鮪�榻䘪턩䜒趩畸亹ﻑｈ쬀놓荺㎪�篴狻鷬妫䀾䥕Ꞇ췊ᴵ�顊푱뒑홓⼞뵶跽厭勼㠥◶ᨉ쪠햁罪Ｔ萀ᐾ峭ᝎ웢쓉仭諐蚾瞿毣ꕫ㷈흖⮪ő甔끨ⱔ↕⁀蒒殃梏蠮䊎鸸掌튯忉㒃㸟宬糹ÿ뼮㶇慃뛶㊈쮛㘿뽮摰︾隦쩆債〵ꧏ鑁䥓勩聅篠浗漜朙큚说ኪ擾甝炴댡�橾�䳹�ꂦ㫑ꃣꪦॣ䦚塙棅㿀結郸켗鶧呀覎�좤�㼓幑ᕆ고隩堵騣ꆹ虤場蚘핗侧�줅䔈㸆굧剉䝨⭗䟱㪥燯圭癹Ử�ᢘ
죱ꡤ詋㩺∉ᵿ蠚⧞欫諪詆翥홟폞㎋ّ�鱗磴計⨤됻ﺁ䓏쨯仉꧍諎⦹�플溘�冼豃폂⍌ᾣ㒽眩蘒鏛ꛄ癦枯㱀톩蝤핂齇迺�꿅쿲龘ꠓ腣喼酝妎ᑪĻ䮠�ꐭ䜟鮵ɰ㷈㼕쩵ķᵞꕯ듟澵䲷쫘얬娆誚ꢕ㐲ٕល뼔꣄迈㈯늺ꆬ굊ᏻ圜醥緹殽ﲓ𢡊㛮暟⏢��蛬웫辣夕쪐驏ꦪ䕥靚䳊쫤㗬繉罯坻䷐≀ꎣ娻㱽粄뷺醽�筛㍦䤓✾浨퍭悶溋訢ᾏꀩ楨黨栕ಖ繳ᖩ땅윁䦳踀抾툱硨䟵ꆢﾵ谀髴ﺮ댿갴蘣䘺틉釹⪀皢讐ﯺ䀁鸆ṙӦ畹�
ज़솀빵㬫鍁뚊⾣殴꽞刋⫊闱唔䜑Ⲅ챙ꞟ�♱辀퇁檐㮀ݨ蝅ᚷ싢峉撰왾뚒杈⓾퉾벱啎踞…䳋柳彫ꏙ킸鐖龧卅ङ弬䕽뚶솘䷮뻝뭞谟辣䬗紅㐌喍㹑⍗證ᢆ훫彡剎끊ꁘ䠥�䄋嘰ꚠ䙇㑻몴ﶶ蘱헣霺踅㓙筴玷ꫧﭰፇക愚琪확ꛓ阽㲞䎝鹈㑙˻ߏ�눺煵敲鎷뮞ᯓ薙얥�퀜单揕揪瞫㍁鷢펁ೌꂈऎ輻ᏻ곀䢑줁ÿ霧幑쏓«쟵捶ꌲ䍧乛賟鮎伧䵓ᱏᒵ䇕䵕㝗祀ﯺ♥搤帍㾽愌ᔉ㿁ꮳꜽ鑋ﻩ㮿翠䪤쌭窍껬℻╗ꩡ⧉ﭕ�봪伫ਬᛅ먕셳
᥋⭩佒ꐎ빽醮ꝃĚヨ淭荑赁듛ⶴ镖蓉揇毫따側ꠊ�鄚覍諩웑聴啟ế�阭詋№帩率ѿ䋌㏾芎纉ꑶ隊ج奆ƌ퐼돻ᜬỮ䘦斞둄ौÿ罣䒶႖㯞逸ꐣ﮶苃ᢐ㴅﹫鍎�붭軷✣ᔱ䤹荿ᶭ᭖묡䋲宦䣊ᅰ熄爡茍뜕�촛涭肄婉产쵸癱낺䞬ટ굴俨羈ﬖ涯퓐盧⾜닪鰍钒䅖判哉쪰ᓅ怕༙裑篼䠌০嗢鉌퀳쟎詬웢�뗎䙒Ľ단멧݇�㮰栟舘☼У謔얂䋃ᓵ�蓖ꗤ咋ᖕभᎳ黂윅鶱覗䤺䫢샌➎뮨ࡰᚭ砐뵽븪屟ṶꝪ븇⨚ﮝ즊䕑양鋖橹ꪊꊚ棟ᆵ㧜လ玟梖�颢
⎭ٮ䞞釸䖞踫啫쯸毱盛㷙ꛗ�ㅛ㮎暻ﻵጟꆸꢢ헆䩆㞒㒩び쫒‸ÿ瘗젽暮華頸騒떪፪ﱊỺ笛ᙉ༕傁娇貟漻�䴙뗭ﺶ�奸룍�䵌ヹ牫匵ࣅ햴톌溝⹀ﻦ뷲�姕㾉逾ˉ빆⠢輄㸯첂짬껷፷�摫噤㶞飕飛�䦒渝엛ꖑ䃎퉓ኴḤᨒ맞蔅綮嶓ۯ㋛ᶓ㤁忣劗쮎㛋迻씬ᚸ畑艴ࡅ绠跎痧ÿ宵�딍�搓季ﺶᑦ瓜䖼畴᧴楹鳫佃ⴶ婨ℹ钌㚞❥箛뀷늊ꂄ滑ϴ跦妤넼몴芪懕Ɑ祟筡뢛붲ÿ삕��漧�䝶⻚�믔愷婭ꇝ�㐜죸
ᣱ険ꆿ멋쾃�귫쓃敤�葇힓蜇㷟뻫蜻ﮠ齶忤湏寱띤籒ꕶ緞눓嬲车큢㙅ἷ�繛풺蔝ㅘ졓冉꽘✣Ｆ伀፪㑶텟㶞쬖ᑬ늂༂蝇浵ÿ㞡잷绩ﱀ�Ჟ狟緭鯭췫憣軵웁쌌䴥뙓᭱蹖灘◣圴ᣉ᪂寢Ⳋ�箻烱ߨ齷裢�ꈧ�ᔿ쿻뺪뺶쏵公�↿幵�♱茆圫ꪖ⺟牻삡棡僲㗇ᐔᡑ绡톞⯜膛虰ྌ㿸胸푸ꂱ뼢茾ﹸ籞ÿﯚ㼗皱�梱帷蜆�纶�ﻬ싇櫣㉩ᖔ蜽熿鱱働ㅥ卩혣鉂熓시ꥇ좢䏣퀧ꞵ﵌挧癵�믻籷�窣뻚违�桃꽷峈쮎
蜦﮹ᔓ㙷⌿쒙啁㊐骳拹䄆⟪쯗恺탞憀㷻䎻ﱳ�藽�돝魳ᴣῙ똥柇ṭ쳵琬望딩宻䔿㞸怛찱砌根⧕⡼椼㵰鮸妵ᇫ磐䤚⇒퀉⭍彤湯艞鷘ퟱ㯻柤⻅ꖞ䫬齾拏场柦❇ﱣỬ�퇳筦ិ岟稶뽭巙驿䪪뙿㢖ꤣ㬳❪뫪懎䴬⩙跡硪踎╨ꟓ芶鲆᩺拾맼ᾔῌ瞥㬶腝梫ᛴꎽ➵巙뽡컷ꭂ圑늻箽ꮆ장亶⌏楀彠ℂ⸒䞀턾Ꮿਏ吨햂ﮯ嘝㔄䄬◩线ﰬ欺ꖫ揻ﱴ�밸㍕滓�뮹ꨢꙬꜦ⮲퀾硿楓⫢ꊥ劉佚誶ᩏ余龴厼ዩ耡㶡䬩㱙팣ޤ
퍬䕷獎㺻�石Ꮶ뚬玟䡭⼱촾钼魻䝓頜ﭝ�俄㐀僪첬쳞㼮�氯㾧䘢픺䛐誹ꈵ軉澎ﱟ︶�彞껢�畽뺻ﰠ蹚껺哃륓︷곢蕜ཽ噝ꌹ瑼⏻圇摞䒍裾䣠큀ࠀ獟棕啣䨢빒⡝록ږ㐾ÿ靗�뇭鏕෬ힳ⿻畢昷浮뛻轶᷎侗ꊛ룯⽲좞竧穷證蝧錭媦ࡓ⎪捈ഥ뛃襻畋捙舦辀珓④᙮₧ÿꪓ贚闟挻湰㧪뚷귦쒣쵬妽ꖔ䪂ⱚȮ骂쑴뛢�ﲇ醖⩵ꗈ�鷙쾜찢룬ᷲ鄥ܖ鵀쳇擵痽臼卾㙧ፆ弝畛⚽죤过揄⺷ꧪ쪩ꫥ㧜汜撢鄇ਯ贬꒪
긨ㅺљꮀ弃嚗�ၿ�竹䅼멷᯳鬪�㱙㫦㞋玱Კ䛞Ꭳ쵚䍗ꮍ쮤텓ᗇᴝ稤ꄵﯼ촎ࡉ椺鏓勊蠰ᩏ딞꿃ꣶ욨兔ꫤ霦̱릏ଏ䨺⩦ퟪ㝷笤䉾╼∽ꫫ쿗�쎭ᩀ薾Å퓏硓褕尵ᐒꅓ劦禉釪ⶈﳵ䋻蛀جꄺ酅⁌ﵡ팋罝寙㘁篞却牆ꎺ謱ꢪ쇅쐐烣வᔄ祵ﴶ궯졸猫汯廕皏蓘╦䴌砍돋컶⣌ᗝꌝ뭍犉뵘軋쟁嘞툹冊鐔緳觡㸝䮗ﶳ끽䧨樒탡�趣厕뷊ᴗ�᭔雊⤩夰ၬ쑣ꗹ⭢は❈릨ᣗ⁶㢞伟䕷둙펚䕏㎋鿔긾麟瑡쾪評ޟ鱑緉ꯈ隥丬謺錁▇冖⍛䙖䣦᱉
进筧퐕뭖궽ꓴᘬ◌疨ﬓ䴇ѳ�ᯬ貍뜂옳ꃑ矵ݒ⓭側띶ﻊ㶋뮭홶싹䱶砛⑶췘몣䠰凓蛍鍜搢䐵퍲튅ㄐ渪챽➛菷齲㷯滓盟ﷴ⛞성愬挍蛊獰㣇ᤇ挽ㄧ쇽쟽짽댜࣌⽷ኦ䇝렳娢톆⨕⬎酚헩促稆ﾾ�礴꤈ꏺ턋ύ됟ᱟ雛㦷ꚍﺮ阱䳡咵⌂攔單轘ཱ渹鮶�귻꤫摚閏뷽罤津鯗쵞띣鋟洮틭⒍̀㹿ꋔ杘☋삉㱿⠭⺹⡇麤뀇☚閪䜚晁判㶃왁汮䩦驚퀼槉㘄崮쨍绰ﾶ愀䫯귂楐ꟃ嬊ോ剄롕ᙲ뜯蓱䕂ྕᔼ뒿䊲ᙂ囡䋩䍼ᐵ㌝Åꢦᬩꃋı徂緵멏숿䥇橧誳ꉴ鶊뮊
Ⲩ⮤섏ⴥ莫ຶ娈畷Ⅽÿ切䮝╆誑㶙䥅뮶큇뙿踔㖺ꅒ傤骎䮙㾖繐禚堼냻쁒㦱⫩훤ྼ뇆您삦ￚ혀饰㓯䗩턵萼ҕ꿘㚏뾽移藆쬣圜ꧏ蔑蚌ᕢｍ꜀緐ᘿﶽ暧㈆껪숛꾧鉒�䡋鄬媝㚹ߛ傻鮾㩌㔨갇ᗨ顂죬�귍뇾磷Ẕ槒飂勏䆥太僉ԇ寜隣맶ਁ꡵嫇펃楅磱틁·ﴋ䕮䂬�詸䐍闖䷫䩁叠㰿ᳪ戁曖伿런㘖�觕쪈銎改੪쾏Ạ춽呍ኒ⬂궏鳾釟컬↡乳枉䬺긶갧淩⼊䵯蟾忺緺ꤽ⒉됪䞵ᄠ꧃⡱忺꽿�⥞ꬁ嵼ꍐ鄃࿗ጋ
ꉲÿ㠞ࢡ䌈ꑡꬃᐴ掫澮ᨱ롈ꛓÿ抃빾෪㴈蹗㩽ઙ脪൦ͫﹱ꓾퐠픃욉Ȋኻ勞缚猪䳻ή픓⨝䎫鵎ꮣुὝ䛯ῖ汎�筟༾졍䵀˪⒕Ʒ掁率ﲹ蝿�⇩灢䵇螩Ҭ肽劸㢒ﳶ脢Ἃ팳⻱䎦㫸핋끓㲔進嗟窛�¦Èꔃ芺쾷튨ᙚ㦦蠪Ő颙Ზ䍿羨�ꖱ琐룻됧畐댕鲹옴穊鞺坐ⲇ䣣刿袺笼孤핸V꡴豎伲幂㈉ⶱ䔮鼒靌ᵩㆂ�缎쬞�䚤尥飩蛘晧Ꜵ浂睎렞䣱㆕봶眶흰鬀맺咦巩⠵㸖祪ᓪꮳ腄㩀⾵涥Ձ쾀큚ዀ㩆ﵓ労飸ꝋせ䉕
潭⏁槚⻁㰨犺崵먃窜⢖◮﹂坏뒥㣲䋝钐ݮႥ⏐蹵☊雾ꑓᲖ濲⋀ᛗ卆鄫釖蟃臔ƌ뭴뜩쫒헗㿵ኋꗞ麅뒆컩ේᴣ퐶࣓뒑⒝䥺�ꞿ�럽䆿訔⛕薫ଢ଼⥀ꉞ┬䂄꒶�ﵩ㙖筫ꍽ艱稨ፏ逅⺳먼탠鳨욺⥊郺�緾ヮ헚콼驊茆�驤甆芺␀玛醨Űÿ꠸垯芉䎁鑞⤘㖒鑥ᴲ縺亟Ｔ똀�⍒阅㢼ÿ谮患䓒ﰣଽ燛놬ᘱ禎�迺坡綮퐳떧渼㚆樕똫㞶㤰㧚쭂ᐃ憨奰≦孫䮚뺂删低筄헆嘥Jﾺ쌀웓⡮턿㕵ᬽ⩞鵺享ᗜ쮴熸剞붖壗�諵䓪ꤵ鿑ꂷ耤쒥铒ﺯ
纅䴲ᘥ絪뚭�籅�帽夌屿劕ផ罐❈浻땕䦁˶䨌ꛖ컟돎潲魯줝좎狣鮴搟빬課禓奁�擑硲ꭧ용䡃곓쿓㱍롿ੑ惘綐릢몡렺㪀踵䒟�錄䕓㴡Ս譄븻Ⱇꩣ隺躬뱆畕缄䓊芠�뭥䎨ࠒꜘ顚ㅿ�봴뻉钰间വ勏哗ể蒥ꐡ癱䨪ÿ蒫猪㫦耳醬터博᷼봓랥ݷ崏뻴俕쮺䫮䦺ᠲퟨꗂ敤瑺䁾ᅗ㽲範�㕅cÿꤾḐ䘢鸸�最糐꾾珸쮁䥏鑓믫ꁑ閎뉪᳙⊕僔⭢楪禥퇱廝ј㷲犽ᓞ쀱∟뺅⩿뫼癕䁔零틪쨾卽揉ᑰ鞸�昚Ɽ固呉⠛頥괭뿸熴�䋖匁䗑쫌
š읉䚟嵮拉쨃ࣱ篫阮䦠М᳇퀲䧖嘌喙荋䑭㽰퐞�언艁繸⁝禒복쨇阜湫ꋦ쾧ㅥ㖫ᨶ潪ḭ驆ꪖꦚ▪Ι劼㓅㐢⇶䌌윐⧱켇窭皾Ữ�땝瞲盝釛⸷ꯑᓘ研榩釖쇲⠪�誖娽俞ĬŃ량偳퉗쾿箣ᩣ塚ྸ♮�慄ꚜ㌿﮼輾頣췂봃텔꼍ᡙꈥ하秵숅랕△䛗糖⦺⮹璩藺卵ÿꃰ竺둌庝峸�쿸ꦻ햳쏒戆잓ᥟ澹먜͵㷽㞅퀬뛓辧汋뛖쎒♑눺ᘊ됕᬴虮届궤嚨볓שׂꏔ단්ﳸ㓻ʴ嚈穼⥝⨪簰皶깊螞偱闎ﴒ䷕匓姏㣰ᨂູ冸풿ꞏ嚳怈聑Ꮭᵈ↥푳㉨舻
굼�瓛馔폺䕉ᙑ죖굀╋㥄椚ꏑ蚝㢑꠩筠㒨驏睴Ⴔ䆲ě퓢濵氹掯㙤㘽ᴾ侙礬ԬהּЙ떏넆횧䐌ጛỵ�䮁Ҵ殒쫐ᩰᴉ⥎嗕嶬뭌툣ꩥ秱앆ൢ屸◇䐚茜␜䝺篸嬓븬萔駼⫪擞溍聭弾ꚙ�誑䡷龱냡쳊꧖⹕꣎݀纏ᾱ〛⺍㍐�넙颵ꈾ髫헍窒鏓沦㖤늎쪊ꤧ▕ᥚਣ塖龄ᙀ笜�吤㎄صꖾ娾柔얧籈퇾哑⿹ꞝ�왳હ仅푞ð曔걗�ᶏ띂绐ᒈ�勢挌�濐ꮘ䫢⍁ꥏ捫퓇ⵖ䬖�咯㢫騑灡�됇㡌ƻ数躷먰⌀瓐ᄓौ垗��솝띟⢫ㅪᳩ秊鸗
隚娹卭╉⡁ᢉᢺ뗔ꢿ姶춹ⱦ揧騚亏䋭륦抷헙듕叼俈곝濴ᵋᑜ䕊塆貪ᓉ轷މ皒쁒꾏箸驳紣蠑鋶퐩랻輹멭썗흐Ỷ쾫撻㇜延쟹ꧮᘵ뱶≔啄펢騬筁樍큇潳䵣샸冷뒩썿蟓㫁話ﳬ嗋噑啐ᐌ咲諻塩靸ໆ뺖ꮡ⿼꯭�ꟊ嘵ÿ骶꧵詓펊뷼╮悺來뢏◘䟱�⢇谶桌扪吁㫘飸羛硏뒛緑�轱计㳾䢽䜬쟓쑃ÿ궓⻫�⎟忩䄙㎸椽嬽ꖫꪑҩサ癉⨾儺퀡튶ⶊワ䙣Ἦꃋ껼멘쟪뭆霏䉣켍롌躬䝼龪콷ꂈ圑䤳⠭꒤ԭ蹌劗팏滘滳鞺㍶겄띥齯뉍棅⺷মꋆἀㄠ瓹
꺣ᮕ暿⥢ㄫ伏캉瘵쇜䮾铸昱䞡䣲�ᦣ㟧혈浒板녖ㄼ䖀㴀뜇셍摯搪儭拾鮻홷�璔䮻੪㨚ᱪ㉶땬䧢㠌Ꭷ䫔枱럺ҵ胸䐷⩒賂ꐺ�쪘다딴拘ᣕᷠⷤ鴺쩰አ稣墳⭥⍍�슌뚤孏罗踩�徛㎬ￛ대砱�赃ർ䙕꿖⓻㦇ꐠ露꣤쳇㫾Ωߔગ슮㓢Ⱨ⻝䵘Ⳓ푴㗩幾鹴鷝덥ᐱ친爿䏁⢷ꖣᓚゴ쵑ⵍ㰍ᰫᕋ㱂飁锢学�⚮췔垧ᩨϙ㇊ﴍÿ藴桌⤩蓨秦ㄠ仇어쉩⋃斩⬲룪�榟ᇑ띟⊤硋ퟧ瘢鞟㵋놡鍺鈻澋婮苼ꑑ鈦荜ꈘ雱ȍ初눗
�쌺廛ᬽᗅ쎫དྷ㎝ῒ뚸䝆敡칶ꈺ덚氍ᗵ破摩陷ꪺ侚銷벙ҥ쒴ி᳴녻䄅擕튊唩┼鰄ꭣ诛嗘ᕿ㷷䷛趐ᢰ굾�䱹ᴝ㙶踼鋬熟樮ꪭ鉏㆙軉脨爯﯀ⶼ䦕䷕뜿ꯏ㛊歅�⛕繷秏�홱賽�囜ᕇ잎袪ㅪ苢蘥ਤ事큦䟁Ỵᯫ༐䦊鹯⽺Ⓔꆑ徱甬�ⵗ芓⮗辖唳昖봽놲裓䋵䮉ᰞ囝濗哛몷㦎틡㟺蒂့討쮮跫�⤟猾捑�櫹⻌鎮齫ᖏ덃蛦Ꞧ⌋䴼琝䩰뙴憡旮渀콝�번䕆ܬ븒ꁣﯭ譕卷纫菸鿒뜢㮾놺巴�䎝폎泑嵚뗽㧱친ቻ튔투䵦繝좪怞�掓懬얖綸뵣톤걅
馧뫼熗儅伭嵕쯼ᵾྲྀ跇肽��牴껭痢댵鸺ⶂ䦑흃홏묛벪ᚆᐽ맫묲Ꮃ⁉溕䵠ꑈ착鏼쭩┛䟃鈨껡⚐℈㘘ꕗ瞖�쑝騘㕩㸟䚊ﻌ뽎眬叧ﭢ꿟즎ꕝ욗翛�艁篟ῃő鎞뜳쿱達䟉瘜䤆㙞≦�䷶黙淟䢚ᦑ踀붜盟㭛랅�訠た饿渝닳﨨䙧黵꓾�慪㢱드屸⛶皏七㒵埓坐㵗昮⾢萧讵拉俶麛拜믺怩¯哪쎑ᤕ됞滩뫛韭䟆붰憊癚樰둽锦맨ÿ돜꿵湐촍ꛡ퇅�튄見Ꞙ哅ꚉ颎掀䩰ᗽ疡踑嶖攕㡀귗樶ㆪ喱다⸭癆䣊櫞䠈叚肩ꭓⳉ纤윍늵훦⸪
㨍鰢瘷䚓竔ಪ䙾鎦輛⫇뛔䝄䠵劁륏픶踗菤ꋬ셂ẘ㤝ݬ肈파쮣魏밸⫎⒳邴ꄠ㋛见挒彩㿐坢⽲ϫ擝쌃ꕦ퀱얒Ḵս웛֓쪗࣮뒱楿춌䷖㑑셡匵䯊徉겒㿷桟㻘殂仛磃⡲戔ԯ炶ⵔꢷ鸠ᱏ퉲孁�鶞增闔쥳ැﻀ�쥭緔⌺㞆㵌㵬�딵鄽몷豇䜱�債ᔬ혱ꋂ뺚▣羿ꐓᚭꦃ㙚�玔鰔ꠁᲡ݁⎈ῌ贾⛌ૡ僤ẊḄἵꟕ큋褽ᵛ坮浫诟몹梊骤ᆟ窹湧㇡ᗵᤍ俱朾䤟簽ᑭ䧄葰뚒ﯼ뭂┧♪䩮瓛Ꟗዴ澿㴎鈩駯꘩攞ල㥏鵚됂⽻皱ᙅⅫ篙ྗ랸蚪鬌롭쭾ꎡᗕ⌮䤁
㶢�츸몔풭㵽禿靰∲ࣅ�⨔ᐨꌊ