Why Bragg's case is bogus

[AU9377 5,109]

13 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Except the leading prosecutor in the case was a top Biden DOJ official:  https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/prosecutor-trump-hush-money-case-previously-paid-dnc-consulting-report

And that has NOTHING to do with having the decision making ability to either bring this case or not.  I'm pretty sure that you can find someone that worked in the Trump Justice Dept in the D.A.'s office as well. 

[AU9377 5,109]

14 hours ago, aubaseball said:

I’ll give it to some of you…you never seem to answer a direct question or statement.   Bravo on the deflection 

That isn't a deflection.  That is a clear distinction.  You want to excuse the behavior of Fox and others like OAN by claiming that they all do it.  The truth is that they don't all do it to that scale and there is no comparison.

[homersapien 11,486]

15 hours ago, aubaseball said:

I’ll give it to some of you…you never seem to answer a direct question or statement.   Bravo on the deflection 

Your question was specious.

No other major news organization has lost such a large liable suit by admitting what they did and paying such a huge fine.

If that's wrong, please enlighten us.

Edited May 7 by homersapien

[aubaseball 2,663]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Your question was specious.

No other major news organization has lost such a large liable suit by admitting what they did and paying such a huge fine.

If that's wrong, please enlighten us.

That wasn’t the question.   The question was has any other network been sued and lost.   The Fox was sued and lost.   I don’t care about the amount…to me it’s irrelevant.   You lied and got sued, period.    Other news organizations have lied, twisted the truth or have had defamatory statements and been sued.  It’s not a figment of my imagination or a stance to defend Fox.   

[auburnatl1 5,198]

15 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

That wasn’t the question.   The question was has any other network been sued and lost.   The Fox was sued and lost.   I don’t care about the amount…to me it’s irrelevant.   You lied and got sued, period.    Other news organizations have lied, twisted the truth or have had defamatory statements and been sued.  It’s not a figment of my imagination or a stance to defend Fox.   

The scale of the award matters because it was uniquely seen as broadly systemic within the organization. It was organized and planned - not one host going off.  Or to use a maga term - a conspiracy. If that doesn’t matter to you, ok.

[Cardin Drake 1,876]

On 5/4/2024 at 4:07 PM, auburnatl1 said:

Look at these 180 interpretations of hicks testimony. 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ny-vs-trump-braggs-witness-hope-hicks-implodes-case-against-trump

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/05/03/hope-hicks-trump-hush-money-trial-reid-digvid.cnn

Honestly, there is some truth to both sides, if that is possible. This case is a perversion of justice that will never survive appeal.  Everybody understands this case would never have been brought against anyone else, and would not have even been brought against Trump if he were not running for President. Heck, even you lefties can probably admit that.  Ok, nevermind, you can't admit anything. 

Nevertheless the jeopardy is real, and if I had to bet, I'd bet on conviction. The best Trump can hope for is a hung jury.  12 New York liberals voting to acquit is about as likely as 12 Alabama grads unanimously voting an Auburn grad Miss Alabama over a Bama grad when the contestant is one of their daughters. The link details some of the incredible dirty dealings done by the Judge so far. His rulings are astonishing!  It's hard to believe this is America. Long but definitely worth the read.  Most incredibly, he won't allow the defense to bring up the fact that Trump was never charged by the DOJ with a campaign violation, even though that goes to the heart of the case, and won't let them bring in an expert witness to testify about what constitutes a campaign finance violation. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/how-judge-merchan-is-orchestrating-trumps-conviction/

 

So yeah, the case is utter garbage, but CNN may very well be correct that so far Trump is losing.  Bragg and the judge don't care if Trump wins on appeal, because they can delay that until after the election.  All that matters is getting convicted felon next to  Trump's name for the rest of the election cycle.  The only conspiracy to commit election interference is coming out of Bragg's office.

Edited May 7 by Cardin Drake

[1716AU 731]

On 5/2/2024 at 12:19 AM, Cardin Drake said:

Nice straight forward explanation of why Bragg's case is ridiculous:

https://thelibertydaily.com/trumps-hush-money-prosecution-is-bogus-case-bogus/

Here’s a quick tutorial on why Bragg doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on—call it “Federal Campaign Finance Law for Dummies 101”—an apropos title, given what’s going on.

Daniels claims that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, fully 10 years before the 2016 presidential election, which Trump denies. For the payment, Daniels agreed to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which is a standard provision in many settlement agreements of personal injury cases and other claims.

Bragg contends that Trump falsified business records, a misdemeanor, when this payment was listed as legal expenses instead of a campaign expense.

Supposedly, according to Bragg, that converted the misdemeanors into felonies because Trump was concealing another crime. That other crime, according to prosecutors, is a violation of Section 17-152 of New York law, which make it a misdemeanor to “promote … the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.”

Besides the fact that it’s very strange to allege that the commission of a misdemeanor for the purpose of covering up the commission of another misdemeanor is enough to allege a felony, the only plausible theory that Bragg is pushing for the alleged “unlawful means” was a violation of federal law by concealing a campaign-related payment.

With me so far?

But Trump was running for president. The raising and spending of money for campaigns for president and Congress is governed by federal law, the Federal Election Campaign Act, not state law. Any wrongdoing related to federal campaign financing falls under the enforcement authority of federal officials, not a local prosecutor like Bragg.

In fact, the Federal Election Commission, on which I served as a commissioner, has civil enforcement authority and the U.S. Department of Justice has criminal enforcement authority over violations of this law.

For the nuisance-value settlement payment to Daniels to fit within Bragg’s rickety legal structure, it would have to be a crime under federal law. In other words, it would have to be considered a campaign-related expense that was falsely reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

If you want an example of such a violation, just look at the $113,000 civil penalty the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee agreed to pay in 2022. They listed the payments for the opposition research that formed the basis for the infamous Steele dossier, which fabricated the entire Trump-Russia collusion hoax, as legal expenses instead of opposition research.

But opposition research on the opposing candidate is obviously a campaign-related expense under applicable federal law, so the FEC had authority to investigate and enforce the law against this deception.

That’s not the case with the Daniels’ payment. For starters, the incident in question that led to the payment is alleged to have happened 10 years before the 2016 campaign. More importantly, the payment fails the test the FEC applies to determine whether an expense is campaign-related.

Under federal law and corresponding regulations, the FEC applies the “irrespective test” to “differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses.” As the FEC explains on its website, under the irrespective test, “personal use is any use of funds … to fulfill a commitment, obligation, or expense of any person that would exist, irrespective of the candidates’ campaign.”

In other words, if the expense would exist even if the individual were not a candidate, then it’s personal and not a campaign expense.

The payment to Daniels clearly fails that test. Trump was a celebrity long before he ran for office, and celebrities get these kinds of nuisance claims all the time. In fact, the prosecution’s first witness in the New York case, David Pecker, said he had helped settle similar claims to avoid legal costs and embarrassment by suppressing stories for numerous other celebrities, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tiger Woods.

The easiest way to understand this test is to take the example of a personal injury claim.

Candidate A has a car accident several years before he runs for Congress that injures another driver. After the campaign has started, the candidate decides to settle the personal injury claim made by the other driver by paying that driver $130,000 in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement.

Settling and paying the claim may help the candidate in his campaign by avoiding personal embarrassment. But that doesn’t make it a campaign expense. It’s a claim that would exist even if the candidate were not running for office and is thus considered a personal expense under federal law.

Daniels’ claim is also a personal claim that existed long before Trump ran for the presidency and, given his celebrity status, would have continued to exist even if he never ran for president.

That’s no doubt why neither the FEC nor the Justice Department ever filed an enforcement action against the Trump campaign or Trump personally over the payment; specifically, because it was not a campaign-related expense.

You know what would have led to enforcement actions? If Trump had actually claimed this was a campaign-related expense and had used campaign funds to make the payment, I have no doubt he would have been prosecuted by the feds for the illegal use of campaign funds to pay a personal expense.

That’s what former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., went to prison for after he pleaded guilty in 2013 to spending $750,000 on personal expenses.

Keep in mind that Bragg’s entire manufactured case of 34 counts of falsifying business records depends entirely on the legitimacy of his contention that the settlement payment should have been listed as a campaign-related expense.

It shouldn’t because it wasn’t.

And all of the other testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses about this payment and other settlement payments that are obviously intended to blacken the character of the former president and prejudice the jury doesn’t change the fact that none of these payments were campaign-related expenses. Period. End of story—or at least it should be.

Hate to break your heart, because you're wrong, and the problem Trump has is that Bragg is kicking his butt, and Trump lost the jury last week.

Right now, the prison orange is looking pretty likely...

[auburnatl1 5,198]

3 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Honestly, there is some truth to both sides, if that is possible. This case is a perversion of justice that will never survive appeal.  Everybody understands this case would never have been brought against anyone else, and would not have even been brought against Trump if he were not running for President. Heck, even you lefties can probably admit that.  Ok, nevermind, you can't admit anything. 

Nevertheless the jeopardy is real, and if I had to bet, I'd bet on conviction. The best Trump can hope for is a hung jury.  12 New York liberals voting to acquit is about as likely as 12 Alabama grads unanimously voting an Auburn grad Miss Alabama over a Bama grad when the contestant is one of their daughters. The link details some of the incredible dirty dealings done by the Judge so far. His rulings are astonishing!  It's hard to believe this is America. Long but definitely worth the read.  Most incredibly, he won't allow the defense to bring up the fact that Trump was never charged by the DOJ with a campaign violation, even though that goes to the heart of the case, and won't let them bring in an expert witness to testify about what constitutes a campaign finance violation. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/how-judge-merchan-is-orchestrating-trumps-conviction/

 

So yeah, the case is utter garbage, but CNN may very well be correct that so far Trump is losing.  Bragg and the judge don't care if Trump wins on appeal, because they can delay that until after the election.  All that matters is getting convicted felon next to  Trump's name for the rest of the election cycle.  The only conspiracy to commit election interference is coming out of Bragg's office.

I can’t keep up with the number of things that are rigged against Trump. It’s literally never ending.

[I_M4_AU 8,028]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

I can’t keep up with the number of things that are rigged against Trump. It’s literally never ending.

Ya know, if the prosecution of these cases would be competent and not screw up daily, you might be able to convict him of something.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has indefinitely postponed former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial in Florida pending the resolution of multiple pretrial issues.

The trial had been scheduled to start May 20.

“The Court ... determines that finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury,” Cannon wrote Tuesday. “CIPA” is a reference to the Classified Information Procedures Act.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-indefinitely-delays-trumps-classified-documents-criminal-trial-rcna151145

The Georgia trial has been a disaster since day one and the SCOTUS is going to weigh in on immunity before that the DC case can continue.  You will have you shot, maybe.

[Cardin Drake 1,876]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I can’t keep up with the number of things that are rigged against Trump. It’s literally never ending.

I agree. You would have to be willfullly blind not to see the DOJ is actively working against Trump. They literally said that Biden was guilty of mishandling classified documents, but they weren't going to charge him "because the jury would likely not convict" because he is elderly.  Yeah, they always let people go based on that. And then charge his political opponent for the same crime. You can't make this stuff up. They aren't even trying to hide it any more. It's part of the intimidation factor for others who want to oppose them. It will be interesting to see if Judge Cannon throws it out based on selective prosecution.  That issue is now on her docket. 

Edited May 8 by Cardin Drake

[arein0 980]

4 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

I agree. You would have to be willfullly blind not to see the DOJ is actively working against Trump. They literally said that Biden was guilty of mishandling classified documents, but they weren't going to charge him "because the jury would likely not convict" because he is elderly.  Yeah, they always let people go based that. And then charge his political opponent for the same crime. You can't make this stuff up. They aren't even trying to hide it any more. It's part of the intimidation factor for others who want to oppose them. It will be interesting to see if Judge Cannon throws it out based on selective prosecution.  That issue is now on her docket. 

I get what you are saying, and would agree with you if it were anyone without Trump's history. Trump has been involved in over 3000 court cases before he made his original presidential bid. 

[auburnatl1 5,198]

39 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

I agree. You would have to be willfullly blind not to see the DOJ is actively working against Trump. They literally said that Biden was guilty of mishandling classified documents, but they weren't going to charge him "because the jury would likely not convict" because he is elderly.  Yeah, they always let people go based that. And then charge his political opponent for the same crime. You can't make this stuff up. They aren't even trying to hide it any more. It's part of the intimidation factor for others who want to oppose them. It will be interesting to see if Judge Cannon throws it out based on selective prosecution.  That issue is now on her docket. 

It’s more than the DOJ. Hell it’s everything from every state’s election system or any judge to Stormy Daniel’s. The entire universe is out to get the poor guy.😉

Ah, the good ol days.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

 

Edited May 8 by auburnatl1

[Cardin Drake 1,876]

13 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I get what you are saying, and would agree with you if it were anyone without Trump's history. Trump has been involved in over 3000 court cases before he made his original presidential bid. 

So, he's a billionaire. Most of those are as a plaintiff chasing guys who stiffed his casinos.  He went his whole life without being charged with a felony, and now he's got 91 indictments just in time for his Presidential campaign. Nobody is buying that is a coincidence. There's an interesting dynamic going on. If he is convicted, I think he may gain as much support as he loses. He will lose a small percentage of his support, but it's actually surprising how little he lost with the indictments.  The credibility of the justice system is that damaged by these twisted Rube Goldberg indictments.  But there is also a backlash helping him, especially in the black and Hispanic communities.  Apparently, those communities know prosecutorial abuse when they see it.

[AU9377 5,109]

10 hours ago, aubaseball said:

That wasn’t the question.   The question was has any other network been sued and lost.   The Fox was sued and lost.   I don’t care about the amount…to me it’s irrelevant.   You lied and got sued, period.    Other news organizations have lied, twisted the truth or have had defamatory statements and been sued.  It’s not a figment of my imagination or a stance to defend Fox.   

You are suggesting that a kid stealing a 10 cent piece of gum has the same culpability as Bernie Madoff and his ponzi scheme.

[AU9377 5,109]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

So, he's a billionaire. Most of those are as a plaintiff chasing guys who stiffed his casinos.  He went his whole life without being charged with a felony, and now he's got 91 indictments just in time for his Presidential campaign. Nobody is buying that is a coincidence. There's an interesting dynamic going on. If he is convicted, I think he may gain as much support as he loses. He will lose a small percentage of his support, but it's actually surprising how little he lost with the indictments.  The credibility of the justice system is that damaged by these twisted Rube Goldberg indictments.  But there is also a backlash helping him, especially in the black and Hispanic communities.  Apparently, those communities know prosecutorial abuse when they see it.

The timing of the charges are the result, in large part, of when the accused committed the crimes.  Nobody made Trump attempt to overturn the results of an election by scheming to replace valid electors with his hand picked slate.  Likewise, nobody forced him to refuse to cooperate and return classified documents.

[AU9377 5,109]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

I agree. You would have to be willfullly blind not to see the DOJ is actively working against Trump. They literally said that Biden was guilty of mishandling classified documents, but they weren't going to charge him "because the jury would likely not convict" because he is elderly.  Yeah, they always let people go based on that. And then charge his political opponent for the same crime. You can't make this stuff up. They aren't even trying to hide it any more. It's part of the intimidation factor for others who want to oppose them. It will be interesting to see if Judge Cannon throws it out based on selective prosecution.  That issue is now on her docket. 

There were reasons other than age.  All Trump had to do was to return the damn documents and work with the Archive as he is legally obligated to do and he would not have been charged.  The only one with blinders on is the person that cannot see the difference in the cases.  You might want to try laying off Hannity and Laura for a few days.

[Cardin Drake 1,876]

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There were reasons other than age.  All Trump had to do was to return the damn documents and work with the Archive as he is legally obligated to do and he would not have been charged.  The only one with blinders on is the person that cannot see the difference in the cases.  You might want to try laying off Hannity and Laura for a few days.

Trump had the documents stored securely. Regardless of the difference in the cases, Biden was guilty. And he didn't have a poor memory when he took the documents. It's just a big F.U.  He's guilty but we ain't charging him. What are you going to do about it?   As they put it:

"uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified information after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said. We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.  

And don't expect us to turn over the tape either. 

 

[AU9377 5,109]

10 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Trump had the documents stored securely. Regardless of the difference in the cases, Biden was guilty. And he didn't have a poor memory when he took the documents. It's just a big F.U.  He's guilty but we ain't charging him. What are you going to do about it?   As they put it:

"uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified information after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said. We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.  

And don't expect us to turn over the tape either. 

 

Biden is not alone.  Again, all Trump had to do was to cooperate.  He refused to do that.  In fact, he went farther and attempted to obstruct the process in an ongoing manner.  Biden is the current President.  If he acted like Trump, he would have simply insulated himself by de-classifying everything found.  You don't have a problem with Trump doing that, but you have an issue with Biden's actions, which included an all day interview with the FBI as the current sitting President.  Trump wouldn't agree to be interviewed and he is a civilian. 

[AUFAN78 3,942]

This thread will make one's head hurt. FOX is the worst! FTLOG. We all remember the lies of Russia, Russia, Russia. COVID lies for $500 anyone? Should we broach the Hunter Biden lies? To point out FOX as some outlier of daily lies or dishonesty is laughable and the words of a simpleton. 

 

[Cardin Drake 1,876]

CNN, surprisingly:

 

[homersapien 11,486]

On 5/7/2024 at 1:38 PM, aubaseball said:

That wasn’t the question.   The question was has any other network been sued and lost.   The Fox was sued and lost.   I don’t care about the amount…to me it’s irrelevant.   You lied and got sued, period.    Other news organizations have lied, twisted the truth or have had defamatory statements and been sued.  It’s not a figment of my imagination or a stance to defend Fox.   

I can't think of any.  Reference the cases and I'll be glad to parse them with you.

[AUFAN78 3,942]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I can't think of any.  Reference the cases and I'll be glad to parse them with you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/12/06/fox-nbc-cnn-all-hit-with-high-profile-lawsuits/?sh=3b03ca1d2e7a

Have at it homey. 

[homersapien 11,486]

22 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Honestly, there is some truth to both sides, if that is possible. This case is a perversion of justice that will never survive appeal.  Everybody understands this case would never have been brought against anyone else, and would not have even been brought against Trump if he were not running for President. Heck, even you lefties can probably admit that.  Ok, nevermind, you can't admit anything. 

Nevertheless the jeopardy is real, and if I had to bet, I'd bet on conviction. The best Trump can hope for is a hung jury.  12 New York liberals voting to acquit is about as likely as 12 Alabama grads unanimously voting an Auburn grad Miss Alabama over a Bama grad when the contestant is one of their daughters. The link details some of the incredible dirty dealings done by the Judge so far. His rulings are astonishing!  It's hard to believe this is America. Long but definitely worth the read.  Most incredibly, he won't allow the defense to bring up the fact that Trump was never charged by the DOJ with a campaign violation, even though that goes to the heart of the case, and won't let them bring in an expert witness to testify about what constitutes a campaign finance violation. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/how-judge-merchan-is-orchestrating-trumps-conviction/

 

So yeah, the case is utter garbage, but CNN may very well be correct that so far Trump is losing.  Bragg and the judge don't care if Trump wins on appeal, because they can delay that until after the election.  All that matters is getting convicted felon next to  Trump's name for the rest of the election cycle.  The only conspiracy to commit election interference is coming out of Bragg's office.

That post deserves a good "whataboutism":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/08/judge-trump-classified-documents-trial-date/

Trump’s classified documents trial blown apart by Cannon

Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee in charge of the Florida prosecution, has repeatedly given Trump’s team exactly what it wants. His fans have noticed.

"........Some of Cannon’s approach may be explained by inexperience. She has not been a judge for long. Her appointment (by Trump) came despite her having limited trial experience; she’d spent 14 days trying four criminal trials before being tapped for her current position. She also has reportedly seen two clerks resign in the past year.

If there were a judge who actively wanted to delay Trump’s Florida trial, though, it’s not clear what they might have done much differently."

 

[homersapien 11,486]

13 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/12/06/fox-nbc-cnn-all-hit-with-high-profile-lawsuits/?sh=3b03ca1d2e7a

Have at it homey. 

 

Fox, NBC, CNN All Hit With High-Profile Lawsuits

Topline: When Karen McDougal, the former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Donald Trump before he became president, sued Fox News for defamation Thursday, she became only the latest public figure this year to file a high-profile lawsuit against big media companies.

Here are McDougal’s and other claims against media outlets across the world:

• McDougal, who claimed to have an affair with Trump, alleges that Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson intentionally defamed her on his show by claiming she extorted Trump and is seeking unspecified punitive damages from the network⁠ (Carlson is not named as a defendant).
• George Zimmerman, the highly controversial figure who shot and killed Trayvon Martin (a 17-year-old African American) in 2012, filed a $100 million suit against Martin’s family for malicious prosecution, defamation and conspiracy Wednesday⁠, and against HarperCollins, the publisher of a book by the Martin family’s lawyer.
• Republican representative Devin Nunes sued CNN for $435 million Monday claiming the network defamed Nunes when it reported he traveled to Vienna and met with Viktor Shokin, the former top Ukrainian prosecutor that Joe Biden helped oust in 2016; Nunes says the story is untrue, while CNN claims it reportedly asked him to comment before publishing.
• Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sued the Daily Mail’s parent company in October for the misuse of private information, copyright infringement and for breaking a U.K. data law, with Harry issuing a sharply worded statement about the media’s treatment of Meghan that referenced his mother, the late Princess Diana (who died while being chased by paparazzi); Harry also filed separate claims the same month against the Sun and Daily Mirror tabloids for allegedly hacking his phone. 
• When Nicholas Sandmann was thrust into the national spotlight after a January viral video appeared to show him facing off with a Native American drummer, his family brought defamation lawsuits against the Washington Post in February for $250 million in damages, CNN for for $275 million in damages and NBCUniversal for another $275 million in damages⁠—and while his suit against the Post was initially dismissed, in October a federal judge revived part of it, and advanced the CNN and NBC cases in separate decisions.
• Other claims this year: On December 4 motivational speaker Tony Robbins filed a libel suit in Ireland against Buzzfeed for reporting on his alleged sexual misconduct (which he denies).

============================================

So what's your point?  Are you claiming these are equivalent to what Fox pleaded guilty to???

 

 

Edited May 8 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,942]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What was the outcome in each case? Who won?

No need to weasel. Research them and let us know. After all, you stated you'd parse them.

Edited May 8 by AUFAN78