HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of property (7)Bob: I don't have an organization or meetings. I'm just a concerned
local historian and citizen. There are many local people concerned with
losing our local ancient cultural history for the lack of taking a quick
look before destruction
Rick
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Bob Baugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com
<mailto:bbaugher@cfl.rr.com> > wrote:
Rick: First nobody in your organization reach out to the owners
of the property or invited them to your meeting. Second the report
covers all the 10.6 acres within the boundary of the report which
included the developed land previously mention, that now you accused me
of including to "confuse the issue". I did not write the report! When a
report shows the boundary of the land included in the report and states
the acres The report clearly says it follow all the state and federal
concerning archeological site survey.
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com
<mailto:ricksbigart@gmail.com> > wrote:
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 that 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
<mailto: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
<mailto:aebrech@aol.com> >
To: Timothy.Parsons
<Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com
<mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com> >; D.Dickey
<D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >
Cc: R.Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
>; B.Hoog <B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net <mailto:agarganese@orlandolaw.net> >; kkopp
<kkopp@orlandolaw.net <mailto:kkopp@orlandolaw.net> >; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com <mailto:Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>
>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com <mailto:gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com> >;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com <mailto:bbaugher@cfl.rr.com> >; rko153
<rko153@gmail.com <mailto:rko153@gmail.com> >; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com <mailto:Ari@cumberlandfarms.com> >; ricksbigart
tional <ricksbigart@gmail.com <mailto: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
<mailto:info@a1aresearch.com> >
To: Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com
<mailto:ricksbigart@gmail.com> >; Alan Brech <AEBrech@aol.com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<8BR1936 diagram.jpg>
<Cape Canvaeral Contiguos Village Site Shoreline Map
copy-8x10-5.jpg>
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
귿䅡턂瓠䏡獖阑꼡呰Ƅ鄉䍪ꈡﾅ쌝郣ꄩ版愇Ⓒ荶뗿鑡뒒∣념燎ｂ씘Ʌ鐙틠㼔伕弖ꔼ㔤䠲葀삔詁￥⇤热뀼熖틡뭿鑀殔㋁霠꺢뇳櫰쫁�昐낔섍浆㠢錀㦡멀１낓䂝膹珪䀽⇦ၰꏿᩓ룇霦腦疰扈넙ᮍ癹⧿伪⛲ꂂ셕⚂訳ｐ道ꅵᅾ툵ぷ呔膌滿洴贒谊䢁끀葐ﾃᅳ萸뇄ၾꊷ䇇触ᅉ䇿壟ག낔烢玵既｡烀ꊍ偭冯韠쉬녱咬铿꾐犐鬠淠㰂㴏㸟ＯĊ핵ઍ㊡ꀉ痷횤ꍠ琤漂缃垞퉸�胡ฒ鸞洣䑒ჩ蟥區ᇩ捓낶큵傢
꽲饱꽱饀ﾳ텾劙팹Ꮳ뎁⃫痿쳐딶鐿尰ꑂ１䖬゛탄ꋫ掷텯၁懼쭺虁頖㏢＂愢㽌位彎ꢒ䍾ᅳ恸棴ꈭ竐끿炊傍悲铿긒慰洒�愠包독ￒᅷ䋋烶㕚튳ﳻ女禂ჩ烤낤ꆳ冰뇿髰餡阰␀첣ﾥ搝ᇢ掵䒯쉽苁䣿頉똰絲繡勂掲䩴ൎ饡䇀퀡䃇倍珮쁾탡Ⴚ蔴콀淀뾤킕�･㗲ꏨ홢｠䁫팴샸ၾ䓇푩阙䃉뛽泡덈낁炊䍇䃇偭엿䈱ངﰱ媁퇦ⓠሑﯴ㌈儵鑴왁ਐ쮐Ｐ턧戯腊쀆瀢憢淲正䓇ァ憎껿뾑賱筲즓ￒǣ숌䓮苹逍놬䆖냿癑侮
㚠跑殑掶缐3郙戡［潸罹⛲Ὁ撢ꀉ愳퀡Y䡄쏉덑˳≥輒⇒읔﹣ݳ䉰椤ꇔ鼱謓큏ﾟ꿑ྎ쿓�ᾗ࿘Ῑ�垺ִ蚻＿Ⴜ錢냵ቭ틌�퀉㛻꜀∙⢛傡炮烩焢⇾ྤᾥ栄傡놯炮Ⴎ쟑쭣⚑㽒萯Ǵ⏩폠䅄哼靁豯鮿佟偯౿ﾄ彔潕蘄胈〛큈邢ވഢခ朓ᵵق뼑ዣ⇠鈟苃懣൭≀䋮ꃣ詤懂换缄≝ㇳ닳挈搎怰ᨧ배ὡ㪒⸡ｗ嘺珃�쉋쁪ꃣ⁶錳擾瀢芼₋ꄉ諿䊀೧矱끟녯Ｆ㈰艜怬瀢瀊䁝鈛冏㌠⅓௱᭣′݅䑡㾡놢ꏨ拳㐝慽뀵畃涮
쀏運苹驆淠쁴緿䥰ཱི᭰䭄묅㕦ﾰ蔌㋬苪넴䀲꒷怍᳟獁⑲拰ぢ玢煣럿勑ⳡ䞰☡ᦓＡ鉽쑑세脋쁪ꀶ百ꄐ퇡ῇ⿈㿉㗲ｦ쀋닧ϭㆪ쀋ㄅꌏ嫶䯿樄挂ᄓ䀆塁ൡၐœ㍣넙腵ꉳ랣䈆ꆭ샸⊀ꄟ〭瀆૿ᾱ坰鐰镟陯ｿ龘꾙뾚쾛�ﾞꃛꄏ划。繐Ｑ쿦�俭￩Ῥ㿮㉤犡∽倫狼ꃏ㖙ﵐˡ勒〭煜荒㿴俵忶濷勵摒ﮟﲯﶿ뗏Ҳ痱㥶祡悬郿灮䅲愯〺硰ဠ⸷㡚廱ⶁ悬硦㩴ေꩁꁐ䇰枡戤ꄨ㐠ሬ⧵［뀍삺ş딑་漍ｼ艣漡켔�
笎ᥟ᩿᷋ꁿ䆩缺䒡ꈳ䧟⁁ⅶ⌮Y﹉┧圐핲폀䐔䧲ﾲ톬节䍅ꑆ臙ꆬ酮耶챿愁䢁煔轆絑캒撡툟㾲㓁䭦Ʞ湟獢灂ꦨ❜ちষㆺ艽㌠⅁ı䈤⫿⬯ⰿ륊❰롁庡炠ﾣ䃓ᅩ≝샥v恘퓇ꍑ쮰ㆢ✰၆缮⽯ⲏ뱊䑁酙קּ̳匨娐䣁ꝅ䤐Ｂ༇�漚僤⁒悂プ珯ᮣ䝰䤀⥡㝼㇟푂⛿焗妱케䪝炕⣁�夳峑庀棲琁삿˂緟流椢㌁械磡䒄僤쳿橐釁쳤쭒䓡屒�ﾁⅽ愩膈遨㋙댿蠦政囿㓠㕿ⲏꯐ㿲牵ﯥ걣悀ퟢ莠ｰ섘遳쀱⃀Y�㯿柿턆㧔衴⢳빲蚡칂虡�옠氠ꅵ胱０
₂퍆ᕎ爨㌩慿끫녿惿⧡袇솳樠⍡쏲Ｑ⌿瀛䆇덞耊쒒꩕͂⫿䬟Ⰿ‽쐐爒䁢⍴Ｓ퇘ᡙ㑎씿慲荚쯿烡笑审왷寒蠅�ﵠ튓偬兿劏�臵鄀ﭠ䂏샕猠쒑輒빣ﾡ獛ꗁ灮膀샕ꆁ僤Ⴇꣿ獠㺂⇤狕�⋃랏㉿愒醽큽웿褡톁巅ꡯ桯싧㤓Ｔ맂潲罳ᢷ甧ɂ彝潞⳽䔼䑯勏䂏⇁퐥샑惀솆선�⊁䷳䊘壛孱䏂ꅅ䄨깈膈뼐둿ｧཀྵ�＠å佝傡儩⋯팃鉁䀒畠ꃳ胿迒뽀룀绂휤㠠ⷧￒ邻烟ꉭს惟㇃䇅䃅쳿㝐볐罀樦䊁䵁㻘﯀샑끎汵遣완山蝟ｿ辈豟ᇀ쇂逸땽ꍫ
呻텉曁逾늼털ｷ郁憬눣ᆧ刳ꗁ収惟懾၃⁈拍�ﾄᯓ볐㊑✸㑦큂쎟哻亅玶里㓎龔Ⱜࢋॏіጌಀᵑ똼�＜Ἒ堄䄌Ⰵ缊ꯟ鴏Ṑ귏Ǐ单㇃튘�䉰扯톷偩낺ꗿꛏ꣯넏곿괯缿羻徯澰꾿農龳帠敏'㵏㇡㸵ǀ㆐ጷ䠐ꄰ㚀䵁㹿⇀聒쮂ꊁ�矠㳉싛癏㳧腣䂚ས䎢鴐僥唺נ줠䀁鉡章툮∱惙턏ユ郚䁐ᥫ晬⁃˃昆≃に䡻偙䱒义瑋쵐칯屜絮⇄㇑ტ峠晣就邌ঞ�몯횲黯㦝䈌ౡ햝䉷睧㺺襸❷寰﹀кԏ؟鰯﹟��ﾏ鿠龷꾸뾹Ῐ뿂迡ᢻ謥澠냳艷⅗⥹
䉣ᤑ셪뿤뷏彿达澥蜠‴뼸㓞ꃽ㰠ᆙꀱ邏臿燏컰曀鄏Â.ｬ氙탔䀌郐忰꾜滪㫣叹紻鋸來ⷀ壐틠變ⰲ➽沰쁫퉰퐃쁯�呂‴瑰漙ῼ鿱꿲�ﮯ履�´㿗�ἀ⼁૿ଟయി๏ᑟᓏ殟꼐ꘂቢ村녅紭␃㹴ꑱ怐㻁ነ䆆ӯ膳հ㸖珀焧䁁槬콦⏍厪D၄쀾橿淀㤀ㆀ摀䔰述淑ꋳ䠀ⷲ歷ㄢ澠䓠鍤ꎟ䳯创耹䄒佲矿硯䡹㋵㌟砯折壑ｦ撛䁇䅯༲㼶젣툭༵㩷硏摫挰갮デＯ爑鼗�缘輙鼚쿨⏟࣯ᮏ῟ᴏ䳿₯？Ｂ㼢㽑弹뼯讉뽈�䷿
䖏䚏䞟墯䥏䫏䯟ｌཎ⽐ན⽥孓慮跹猀崬塯戟娿嬿ｏ彜轪罞轟齠꽡뽢콣擿柟瞿卯呟啯硿槏ｫὮ⽯㽰佱彲珿聯生皏禟繿貯薯ｒ飈径ཿ⾉⾁㾂侃꾑藿虯蝿袏覟誯访軏ﾯ辞佺彻潼ﾐྒᾓ铿锯阿靏顟饯驿ꞏ＿꾜뾝龠쾥쾳羬ྣᾤ릏ꞯꡏ꥟ꩯ뭿갟ﾟ꾭ἂ⼃㼄伅弆뾻⾱뉟딿됟챟쀿ⷵ苏쵏ဓጀ‰ⵍ⧠㾠퀬菏￡ῤ輕䙽�浐輺뚹⛟メ�㲆迓愼栠〸暦ဒ숸潴퉥ꥀ㆐慀胄쐮浰耒십爀턬ဒ椱⨀⥩搀苁�판ⴰ 䡻偙剅䥌东㹋��岵湜給燞獲냔凎ﰱ畜
磘ᷠ⿀�뿘쎷땡뿠憰惒迖㵧뻊퇿튟퐏哉‐楔㵭械僺烂㠰ퟯ뿙쏟෯摀獯윮倭烞ꃄ摩迴鿵ῢ뿺컻㭯⹄⥄ⱐⶀѠ伟༃㿳쏟瘇捀‹둹景샆遰栰懰 ⟷�쒰枠꿶뿷쿸㳟ඟﲯሽᎯʽȿ／㼊⼄㼅伆翪迫鿬꿭綈捃냕⹒桒ﻰ⥤࣯⇿ட�⎥ﾷ众⼎㼏伐弑꼨뼩缔ᗿ솏⼱ᜏ⛯Ჟ／Ἕ弆烯倫냯㼤伥㟿✿ቯ㬵㏆⫏⮏ⲟﾯ뼭꽀뽁Ｐ༲"ｆ弴㙿㚯㹿㢯㦟㪯㮿埀웽猠濖伽ཏ漿蝆덓䯿䊟䍿䒏䖟墯奯䡿ｉ虓Ὗ꽌뽍콎�ὔ凿ۿ⋦
숯啲뙧퐿暇⹊擀齖ὕ⽭埿ሿ湄掴娯嬯尿嵏｟罳轴齠꽡꽹�齿朏栏椟刯䢯潯ｧ꽱⽰辁佲陆⊆ཾ⽵盿眿硏詟诏篟粏邟뽾콿ﾂ྄贆Ⴢ跷鈑퀐数ﾈ羇�龉�鶵䁧ꃄꆍﹷ℮은賀軿輏�ꉌﾯ랣ﾒ㻢侨떣ᾘ㾠驿鬏鰟欯氏꼟湿欶毰灯ꁰ龏딏ꇿＯ䐒获�侤徥澦羼ꪟắ쇱귏깏륟냯흿辱龲┇詇敀䀡澺룿죯뭯ሏ쵆锄豟빿｟澿翀쿑�뾒ￃꈖ㿘陿옏�졏짏쫟쯯䇽띁�쾱컿＿鿐䐒룤뿜鿓꿔뿕쿖���ｿ俟鿧濡翢迣�迸滱吶䴮⇂�俦ꝯ
¶缅輆⿲㿳惿켋鿵ο勵䪯僑䂊界퀐㼼ἂጏӟ礿ᠶ䁺瑡Ⅻ儊汧扯愍潣淾뼇켈�쵸ﰞ糿⎾ởᏺሯ᯿ᕿᘟ휯㼗샌耮쵯樰삝켛᩿⭏Ჯ흯ゴဦ≠⸠狼ὲⁿ⊟㖯┿ｿ輦凿輺輩鼪켲뼬켭ﳟ﷏䃟滯战䀟ﱵ桧䀍㼳뼱轇�듗䧿㔖㛏㟟㣯䷿㮿㰟Ｏ顋罓＿뽋ὂ⽃㽄쳅犢邷㔱䰳䨯쾯ｙ콌듗瑞杀닯⽏僿儿剏损呯喯梿妎㼿ཙὡ⽛㽜佝釤楲慿彯滯抯珅ူ畠洬ൢ쉀時聆獭擿政晏束睯磯槷ｾ载፹뽭齵�ｱ䔟䙯葿猖挰獫拔鵩瑡灹ര｠潴ﾊ
轶╨颌��竿篯釿鋟翫樏鞾芿㽏徃뾏羅辆龇事ㄱ㚒肏牢ꦔ汜攮炋⾢岉쵓琰:圠摥捏赇帠Ꞡ㊠倀ㄺ솫ꉭꏏꓟꗯ秿§扵瀰킧傧䂨䌰档敡胂扯ŧ猀牵」Ţ卅⁉䘨M䙓⌠㌱㜸ㄈ ₖ潮趷〡趀攠မケ赀悮转ၰ₰牰ꂷ၀ꦐꨏ갯ꀿ댬㿟ﾵﾜಞ㈷蹿觷黒謸鹰룬陁瘠铧붫㘡섴볟릣ﵐ남밸骠鼀闀뭠꼡徼俆Ὰ您輸暀ュ跷錠ὠ爠႔䆔ꂌ磙提鑥褐槰怍鲔죿멏뭏읟퀟뵏빏뽟ｯ翀苁逐႔폊恓쭕㭒苊砭淐瀣찺Ⱃ恉൬贰ీ⇰䓘楳敺ꆨ瑰铿출
컟틣뜑섏쉏썟ｯ翄迅鿆ῤῊ쯿찯칏콟｟濱翓返鿕连鿟꿠뿡ﮯﱿﶏﺟﾯ꽯瓩◗䀟ꂌ뉧疐끸ⷺ铗൴限�ꝡ뎖ⅳ䇙䠠蛙ꂧճ뎡僚䀍晩鶔년馀潄킧逍倠珎悍逰ꅸ䴠၏ည豻꾑⠱戋ₖ傖�䦰끠鏐ⵠဝ瀐灆肕ェ⥳뜺㕜룽⽁苩ꦔ쿱漐缑輒፟띿ヅ↑Ｏ㾞쿜㿶俷濹翺ÿᓿ≿⍿⒏▟Ưꃯಙ扮쀅❜ち⛿ᓏⰿⵟᕿ᠏？⼙伛弜漝缞輟鼠⇿⢯㰯㷏㻟㿯䇿祀醯猧㼩伪娫}�ꃪ邲鍭䦠楠䵽灰ê₍킯¯�ꠠ㜑錰꣠ꂧ挞僗
潨ﭷ䀋쁇赡꼠낒䒱䕟筯娫侐鑵喫냻黱僯㖊ு異톧怋튮䷿꾰놲ణ닡녀䟠េ羱≗蚲阠‰畱嘋嚂⣱퀺㔵丠௹䇀鑴�껁ܠﻀ䝃䥀孀赠ݰՐڐ䱆ꂧ희끐䳐㞟恙±丢寘扠嘠〈륤嶁帿呏뾆ㅙ醯濭ﾉཏᖌﮀ傁ጎ匮⾿梯榿ハ｟漱缲輳鼴轥뼶켷Ｚ㧿瓯㲟䈏䆏秏稯笿ｏ彼潱Ὅ⽎彫㾂侃径毿泟淯濿瀏焟爯猿ｏ彴⾇罶轷ཾ佽뾓쾔闗雟韯䧻ѹ哐�쁕ၤ쑋㉇슚�凐佰 兖硥ｶ䁉艕㊱䄋ꂮ셖⽗墿ꜽ䥡ࡱ기灠䀋櫜녵녑掐洐鉈녚ꜻ날炶凪憞晦�໐
뀂柠扐〈⍘�ן맰啐啑뤰⁰効쑋ө柁䭨扁뀌醭뉋ꂿ揬撏貟晟媵撡胩狼罭胏臟䯪ꃓୀ퍀肥欠げꁷ䜠点悫䭢楑煖恖ꗿ鿀꫰꽌乏啾ꨁ姰櫓ꁘ桥넌ê厳콧蛿뤯몏蚟蟟裯諿謏？侬㾍侎徏澐羑辒ྙ믿짿쯿찏촟숯됿떯⾼࿓⿕㿖뾽쾾�샿쇯쏿쐏씟휯쟿졏罟�῎迤鿥꿦뿧쳨罈運恑耋쁇뀌ㆠ殺큘㽮꿐뿑쫒퀊֢鿿䢂懟�ԗꓡꖀ�耄屒꿱䱢ꉷುﾠ삤〈እ텋ї醷 ₥ⷸ慤남濴翵Ӵ𢡊�呟䚤艇淾남텘Ď䅖ㅙ䝏럀ԃ喐牒ꁣ敀濺ゟ奧䤓Ʞ岀１羯뼀멎戋
솢肤�⇸䭷놀瞓¸ဌট기䰱ओ䵂婲褐䢳ᄉK熡悳ၣ돿뎒곿昏齌岂ꢠ썋㼆伇嬈Uᇴ돻ꞁ涰悳�鲰嗽ⷁ﹕놳芟苳삱逘ꕰऀ댰ሡ꜃ꖰ뼒솢芟漗翻ӴḮ徯뼟漐８더͏枂눐ḁ⍯‟鲌䩱⣳翟桔唝뼕酕ሉ芟꽄რ킷뉙솥띈勖聖髿Ӑ因ꆀᶀ䞉ꃁ䬠ｰ烷▩苳漎缏輤땦ꠡ�흯㨟㬟휯���Ｖ㿟濢忡ｅ翣䨿䮏䲟䶯䊿●ｿ輦뼼齓꽔뽕㼽伾弿䃿䅯䉿䎏䒟䖯墿䞏潏꽎ὥ⽦㽧佨孩㋭材6ᄍඁﵱ䀒᭭ੁ녰뇠ꁆꥡｚ늝戛ဋ舋
倨濏ꐔ꜡ꣀ撡ꑥ̒돷銩ꡯৰ鼭ꎊㄒ齕뎂ﵒ⑯⡥牐澡ッ᭷а｢ꀫ摵�硯馤ꂨ⼹轗糿絿墏夿婏孟屯嵿ﾏ齞꽟뽠콡�潪賿路迿透蔟儯功羯？ﾕྗᾘ⾙꾀뾁쾂�蓿藯蟿蠏騟諯謿酏뿏ྑ羧辨龩꾪벫㉹ﾁ퀲徟ྚ꾯뾰뾚쾛�鷿黯ꃿꄏꈟꔯꑟ뭏ﾏ澦⾬῀⿁㿂促徸铿锟눯쥏쨯쬿뉏돏ﾵྷᾸ⾹㾺侻῎뷿빯쑿쓿��煁ㅰҁ티쵿Ｏῤ�ￏ࿑ῒ⿓퓿픿�흿���翳迴鿵꿶럫湃ᨐ७ഐ皁Ⅼú耲珟ᙐㅐ磆ﮁ洰〗灬ㇿﶿﻟﾏ
鿩꿪뿫쿬�뼉ໟཏၟᅯٿﾏ㿇俈缀弗漘缙༂ϿПԯؿݏ९᱿ｏ鼋꼌⼓漒�Ｊ༬ᓿᔟᘯⴿᩯ㋟㓿㔏？鼜꼝뼞켟輶ＢԤ瘇潀氀㵐挢汯碉㫀煢捰㭫聲玩ⵐ浦椠끱墨湩Ⱐ끴睬砀淠⌐瑀냼敺㨺烀ﹴ␢╿⚏➟⺯㔯䟟뿏�ｊᠼ聴煎ﭏ뛰照ﲐ䴡慬⁅乥ﰹ我䍲䘹皱忠뀯Ἴ댽獆涐㪊煡俀扳쁸盛⚯Eऱ刼み愼nび㽦猪䅠贀탻焺犐䂀ㅡ氫瑠狠â㼮淀圢끭ꁏ㽴徠⅀깮䍫第䄀撰툼嵦͠遱u䡻偙剅䱠义⁋齙ꭚ湜絽ᅝ恝邮E䷱ㅁ畜ー硗潟
⅛㮿㙿圯⎿⻡㮰愀ぃ嗵枏꩖放僯冏榟᷿륓彔呀箰欐倠槼睰朑囟沟壿徿ᴓ啫丐瓰杀廿寲尟崯帿瑏甯怵ￏ�齹콣�齱ｦཨὩ能㮒秡⽲꽰往콲џ䇼忓㾠痐癏睟ｯ罸ྊｺ칡ᶏ齿潿뾇腿芏莟檯歯汿涏綟厌䁥咠咠敵郺佀瑣ㄠ勤㊐う낞ꂞ㨲瀐派羙辚龛꾜낝扵橆睆ꑤ垁呉䎠啡†潖摰嗩呠䁲瑀쾟�ꋿ㷿ꟼꠏꤟꨯ鐳鑟Ｏ뾯쾰�ＸἾ弤ᾭ㶷㹟띭牀ꀿE䍲솻톹슼Ǣ扱䐊랟ￏ뽆㽍罌࿃ῄ⿅莸䦔䀠沀敷჻畀⁰楷蕴䵠独漮侮珰탼ႋ悥娋喰楠䂇慄楶﮵䐐ůﭥ㾀
暀邞譍秐僉ꂍ䃻ꃉ潈啰祠䃻朠潺ꃉ潎唀㽠쳠救磾â킋ꁏ辭鮮�뾱퇿튏펟뺯됟떏뚟뾯ｿ澾㿚迀࿇俆쿞�룿潴䂇幥짲椤涼㽰�䃐龠澐ꂍ瓼譳塚鸠쪐㿔쪀￠珌濩翪鿕꿖㪿㬏렟륏𧳿ｯ傫熖겫ꇳ쾬ℿ挞삋灏ꀿ煟瑯䍥��ﾟ뿫�＃༅칍獎邤㿝矰큟낥佭ࡤ뾉辪龫꾬ￎ啔ᾈﱢﴜ끚ꕮ喰䁀ွව땨쓉鹳呐ღჽ周⹁龕戯俱댍涙㓼ム蓠믱뱿薆뽑漍ﾅ྇뼏ⵙ蔔ጮ胵摀獯洮赹ﭰË詡诏賟路？⼡ྐᾑ伦帧编Ῥ켝雿靏顟鿬ぱ᠀ᛢ｟
鼲켋�瓺탊ྞ齇㙁㪀ㄲ삄ｍ뼵켶�তྥᾦ⼽㻿㼿湏咆ᯟ᷿䜏玟潫뀳琳⋯⎯Ⓙￏ콋轺༩ꕼ嵑缴鼭�⿿タ㇏䋟䍟䑯䕿ꪏｿ콜�｟ཡὢ⽣꾮囿楏橯�뮟쨔晶歡烼異탧䵿焰䵴㫠牰츱ﲁ䕰买唭ᥓ캽㎰㏾㽰⿵罵轶俻ﲵ䵒❎僀泐俽淿｟oٿ毿臯菿萏⾅⽵⼘ﳐ剰̐넧け执㌨ⰱ㟈ⰳ䂟⤵潽咈쳗죐䚑Ⳓ㽊譵叫ﶛ踯基踿轏鉟釿ｿ辒伳⾗⽬�ﾜྞ淿溿濏鞿禯篿簏？⽽뾟使往�ᾆ澭羮꿿낏螟裏觟諯鍯㼏ᾔ⾕㾖㾤쾸腈扮ᣃ䣠峙愧봰릯
ｯ羺辻龼促ﾘ⿅��짿쫯鿿ꁟꅯꉿꎏ얟ﾯ뾥쾦�뿍ྫᾬ龲뇿��뎟뒏떟辯뾶濙⊍怟椠䵳�䝨斀퉐郧᩸珀圡聇쀔脻䭉慐쀉ᑩ⃀:ⅶ珀企ラ敥ᕫ뼜쀟术ｿ詨꿡迁鿂쿯뿄뿒濰욯履챏ﲿ⼀俎忏濐翑쿹폿功���ି౿ﾏ鼍꼎뼏翺ꘘ迥缒㿮ÿᠯᩏɟ̏ПＯ伔俘Ａ�弑鼐⛿➏⢟⦯⪿ᓏￏ�弭濵翶弲鿸鼆꿪㏏㑏㩟㛟㝿ﮏ／༿輛뽂콃�ｆ᷿ԏ䡿ݯ풟ⁿ⅏｟漢缣輤鼥Ἤ彖潗罘姿媏丏⽟〯ㄿ幏ﰷ敂ც�Ἴ⼽㼾罍㯿搏斯
暿柏䃟䅟䝯ｿ⽰㽱佲彳潴ནｊ䳿䴏洟俟倿兏扟匟ｿ侀齕⽝�ﾆྈ褿帟弟怯愿艏咮﹩桭櫿谏氏笯酯鉯ｿᾖ龔꾕佮彯潵ﾝྟꃿꄟꈯ耿矿磟积篿／꾛⽽㽾使ྐ澁ᾮ较諿褏뉏뎯뒿뗏뛟ꧯﾟᾍ⾎㾏羹�羾ྚ㡏㥟썯뾯쁯셿슏ﾟ俉羜⿋龣�࿒폿ꐟ꜏ꠟ쬯ꩿꭏ｟撬龽忚濛ྫྷᾭ翝㾯놏띟럟흏快Ꟈ手㿉쾺묃볟㯨潦瑮-慦業祬债慀祰畲昼㔆짰㆑瑯票䔠惵溰ⱳ表䐮剰䅐翌췿�쫿ﯚῶ㿾�ῼ࿋༇ٟݯࡿಏ寧ဿ２
༔ἕ鿔꿕뿖쿗�ໟ��ᜟ＿俥쿫�輥鼦꼧뼨켩ﻏႯ⍽䏹浯፰뀤탿散癥i睥匠灵牥ㄇ‰Ẑ粐䐠灥疮က瀱သぴ䣰瓒ꀀ捩捲ㅠ薱ũ⃐晏㍦뾀뀱′俄必櫆䁣㍵畡漠⼳㌴ㄲ㇠㓠㡂⁹ㇰ 㢐ﴐ㕳㘟㜯㔻㴏㜯F榑慤䈲퀙뀪旾戸쌲⼿㽀濆똢⯿ạ⩳ಗ༏Ჯ䠟⻯佯봣Ἷ콄ⰷ〵퀉띓쀻샷䁣Ų㯐柀䁒㋳㏀旀乴俟㻯协�齔样⁔⃰栠ㄠ⁓䉰㌖㌲㤹彖埿啯孿尟㜯䥨䨿䭏｟േ）་ལ罌轍켉ꄛ䈓㑰氐u♁㐣㎐ㄻ儸㋀愴庰氳⇠樟气ꅬ퉬潢輌鈍浡怠懟
�Ἅ轳꽧뽨콩佞彟巿穯箏悟犟皯睏｟ￏ꾼뽸콹剫ﾆｷ봣㆜滰斠㟀ﰀ㠷ﾀ漖�뽰콱軿遯調謟锯絏线糏侙⹁硡挺䞯鞿澓羔辕뾃쾄�辣ﾇꟿ꒿ꤿ溟氼娰ꇜ迯ｏ⾰澑羒㾯辱ྫᾬᾶ鯿鳟髯뫿묟振龟뺏ￏ澴羵辶�ﾦ㿄ᝫ栚쀳왦⩠璠㩰⼈眯ニ昮桬ㄥ榰ᄞ胆⽭∼Ḡ옐叠옰彠饢†歮ﴂ䀱摬鈝쬇᭰瑐䡻偙䖀䱒义⁋뿊쯁峊湜絽釶烎∠⯰ㄱ��嗓탽浿�龰鿙꿚農돿팏퓯뾟샟濞翟�⿅㿆俇￢⽥替畟Ｏ㿲鿦꿧㿛迺鿻꿼뿽⋏ᨏᬟ
/ᴿ摏ﾏ缄輅鼆꼇鼟꼠뼡켢⏿ⓟ⯯ቯ፯ᑿᖏﾯ弬漊Ύ会鿳꿴⇏벟뷯⓿ⁿℿｏ弢漣Ἢ㿹俿鼮꼯뼰ㇿ㋏ßƯʿߏ࣯⳿ｏἋ䠻ꁬ섛ԮἻ⼼씌ṟ㨏㻏ಿᱻ扅ᥤ眭做げㄺ遰⁴敭耹浵㬶䌜ഺᇀ擠뤠遒敮͈홆렜ᴲ䫀䤬⧅」牵ၓ噮ᱴ䪳㮋칤柱㫴䔳パÏ＝轁䋿ಟ൯䵿ྯ功ᆿᢿ缿缗佗彘潙罚潎㔨譒嵢䘙챲鸰⭼猣�椺倠瀷吠浩䕯禐鐠⹁촚儱戁割ﾉŖえ뀤⽝䳤콝�ᝧ匾텊뽠콡뢝×慤禂큣捏潴홢◰炌挰㋐ᬰ₠㔺挳䵐꽤뽥콦柏棟槯狿哸歯泯⇿랝
䐧癡楄揠敫❹�ｲ煿爏紟璟甿癏歟畲扸敪뽷콸랝⁒㩅䌠䑡⃰⁅慲徂꼨胿⩯蟏褏詯蹿谟趟ﾯＭ༴ﾕྗᾘ⾙轓㛿㞯㢿髏亟膯黯鿟ﾠྡྷᾣ⾤㾥ὐ⽑㽒鯿吿啟孯寯넯눏댟Ｏ㾴��辷ྒ⾨�◿볯뢿륿몏뮟떯쒟쿅�辛龜꾝�忉ꣿ갟괯긿꽏끟ｯ俗忘濙翚进�뼛᱇᷏�䜖潯�瑦ぅ၈⁈쀬섿ｏ濃鿎ῤ쿨俧忨铿锏젟퓟｟㿋俌忍俵翏运鿑꿒폿풿헏훟�ͯпՏ｟漆缇濻濟翠迡༊ᄟ뵟뻟ᓯ༿༑ἒ⼓�迯忴弞漟ⅿ
羅﨟ᰯ＿俼忽濾輀漭꼂⼉ࣿㅯ㏿㐏㔟⤯ଟయ伍אָ퀬映ꁊ遅慯䲉癰㥥槰慧ှ䠓㴠现䨠燀極䪿䟀䯰㸱㷒㿱戱偤㵿㥱㻡䡀䵀䀁╢旰懺㵯㿠䀢䨶㶠毠偤쁊㩰璐큣偯塣畡䡳䅀眷倬혠䩰竀澐摬䉐뾴ㄿは聮脺녮鉀湮�큈뀾쉄큌ᙯ䅐አ衰淀䱩懐灰ヿ䏐㻀腒⨏㚢㞷臟㍧퀨捯뀾瀨㶟䉐㦰䣀䚠䌱摨㘲䝠瀐㬐䘱詗䁓疱큀⥳ᐮ輕騖䤠쀹瀖䣷㦠䆠殐≆耺쁃候⣚怺歵滀握遈斠捴⤮옾歭偳冏功䊬倬㈿ᑁ㷽曀匾つ䀾ꁄ聀寿㷐揠䣐䎑困㻐宰ￃ所녫ᄿ偀⊉
ꍄꙅ㽗壋剏咬퉛慳ꁆ聃叻岀⁂샣덜ᑁ肈偕䟹礡䴯蔑䄲孤䤡ｿ轊齋ꕌ所ᅍ䁃剚핤䌟Ⲁ岰㺒榡珡扩㩿嬠䞴榶敵嘈拁溰广㶸ᚰ歐挄㩲嵠柑痮䅅ꁄ遈䉨㽩䄱ｳՁ⑃彟潠輖ὦ⽧⼗ᩏ⡟睟秿稏笟Ｏ㽼弸輝弢辄龅꾆뾇␟⛿✏⠟舯⩯⹈ﾯ༼켰伷輶辔龕꾖뾗迿㥯㭈骿皟衟龟ꁏ｟澡羢⾊㾋侌伫弬澜ꩿ鈟駿顿꺿꾯낿ￏ�ﾜＹ༻羵载绿몟聿躿犿珏瓟믯ｯ羼ￂ龾꾿⾃⿇꾣�쯿쳯컿켏ꔟ꘏ꜟ贯ﾟ运뾏꼪澨義辪龫꾬귿뒿��떿弯翖侷徸澹埦㵂⳱쏿쐿왏핯
ｿ￮迈鿉꿏忸濹翺ﯿﲏ�툿팟퐯픿／濗翘这俪꿛缈쿝俤ඏฏ༟ုᄿ͏읟濨翩�楔Ｏ⼔俴較輙鼚㼞뼜켝ﵿ⚏✟⠯⤿⩏｟Ἁ༁ἂ⼃켣伅弆߿ᡯय㚏ିኯᄯ㩯ￏ�］༿뼱㼕伖弗䇿ẟ䘏⊟ㄯ쁯셿ﾏ콋轇齈꽉뽊潑鼤体⯿嚿壿夏娟嬯ⴿ⸟Ｏ㼯估齓漲缳萴뽅罢揿㒏㔯政㞟機㦯㽿㼿㽯佰影潲罳⽦읏扺歪兢䉟䏯䗿퓴 悡TÄ\ᥥ