Thaksin Presses Libel Against Celebrity Actress

[MarkCyr]

**Ring Riiiing.

Hello?

Hi, it this the kettle?

Yes. Why?

This is the pot. You're black!

Thaksin is a crook.... and now just a whiney D-bag.

[fab4]

You mean a wanted criminal that fled the country when he realized he couldn't bribe his way out of a conviction, and didn't want to pay the penalty for the crime(s) he committed, now wants charges filed against other people, and probably expects that they should be found guilty and thrown into the same prison by the same justice system he himself refuses to comply with ?

It's almost scary to think that things could (easily) get much worse, in a very short amount of time.

They wouldn't be faced by the same justice system he faced, unless of course, the Military Junta from 2006 have expressed an interest in getting involved in libel cases..............

Brilliant comment !!!

Yes he seems to come out with some real crackers, that are totally unrelated. Thaksin wasn't found guilty by a junta.... OMG!!! What drugs??

Hi, my reply obviously went way over your head. I'll explain.

The Military Junta set up a special organisation , the AEC, Assets Examination Commission purely to look into assets held by Thaksin or members of his government that may have been gained against the law. The AEC was staffed by people who, shall we say, were not supporters of Thaksin. It was they who insisted the FIDF (the owners of the land) bring charges against Thaksin and his wife in the Land buying "scandal" despite the FIDF and the Bank of England saying there was no case to answer. The rest we know.

Hence the lady who is facing libel charges from Thaksin will not be subject to the same judicial system. See the point now?

If you have problems understanding any more of my posts, try reading them again, slowly to see if you pick up the subtlety of the reply or ask me to explain, it's no problem.

[fab4]

You mean a wanted criminal that fled the country when he realized he couldn't bribe his way out of a conviction, and didn't want to pay the penalty for the crime(s) he committed, now wants charges filed against other people, and probably expects that they should be found guilty and thrown into the same prison by the same justice system he himself refuses to comply with ?

It's almost scary to think that things could (easily) get much worse, in a very short amount of time.

They wouldn't be faced by the same justice system he faced, unless of course, the Military Junta from 2006 have expressed an interest in getting involved in libel cases..............

The military junta didn't convict Thaksin. They set up a committee to investigate him. That results of the investigation were then presented to the courts by prosecutors, and in 2008, when Thaksin's brother in law was PM, the courts convicted him.

The AEC was especially set up to look into assets possibly illegally gained by Thaksin and his Ministers. It was part of the Justice System and staffed with people who were not Thaksin supporters, quite the opposite. They forced the FIDF to make charges against Thaksin and his wife despite the Head of the Bank of Thailand and the FIDF themselves saying there was no case to answer.

Therefore unless the AEC has been reformed and will investigate this woman in the libel case she will not face the same loaded justice system the Thaksin did.

Understand now?

Edited November 14, 2013 by fab4

[thaicbr]

Hi, my reply obviously went way over your head. I'll explain.

The Military Junta set up a special organisation , the AEC, Assets Examination Commission purely to look into assets held by Thaksin or members of his government that may have been gained against the law. The AEC was staffed by people who, shall we say, were not supporters of Thaksin. It was they who insisted the FIDF (the owners of the land) bring charges against Thaksin and his wife in the Land buying "scandal" despite the FIDF and the Bank of England saying there was no case to answer. The rest we know.

Hence the lady who is facing libel charges from Thaksin will not be subject to the same judicial system. See the point now?

If you have problems understanding any more of my posts, try reading them again, slowly to see if you pick up the subtlety of the reply or ask me to explain, it's no problem.

WHAT'S the Bank Of England or in fact the Friends of the Israel defense force got to do with the case?

https://www.fidf.org/

[Nickymaster]

You mean a wanted criminal that fled the country when he realized he couldn't bribe his way out of a conviction, and didn't want to pay the penalty for the crime(s) he committed, now wants charges filed against other people, and probably expects that they should be found guilty and thrown into the same prison by the same justice system he himself refuses to comply with ?

It's almost scary to think that things could (easily) get much worse, in a very short amount of time.

They wouldn't be faced by the same justice system he faced, unless of course, the Military Junta from 2006 have expressed an interest in getting involved in libel cases..............

All Thaksin's cases started in 2006?

[mrtoad]

Hi, my reply obviously went way over your head. I'll explain.

The Military Junta set up a special organisation , the AEC, Assets Examination Commission purely to look into assets held by Thaksin or members of his government that may have been gained against the law. The AEC was staffed by people who, shall we say, were not supporters of Thaksin. It was they who insisted the FIDF (the owners of the land) bring charges against Thaksin and his wife in the Land buying "scandal" despite the FIDF and the Bank of England saying there was no case to answer. The rest we know.

Hence the lady who is facing libel charges from Thaksin will not be subject to the same judicial system. See the point now?

If you have problems understanding any more of my posts, try reading them again, slowly to see if you pick up the subtlety of the reply or ask me to explain, it's no problem.

WHAT'S the Bank Of England or in fact the Friends of the Israel defense force got to do with the case?

https://www.fidf.org/

Like most of his posts, he's just trying to throw up smokescreens. I'm wondering if fab is actually old Bob Amsterdam.

[fab4]

Hi, my reply obviously went way over your head. I'll explain.

The Military Junta set up a special organisation , the AEC, Assets Examination Commission purely to look into assets held by Thaksin or members of his government that may have been gained against the law. The AEC was staffed by people who, shall we say, were not supporters of Thaksin. It was they who insisted the FIDF (the owners of the land) bring charges against Thaksin and his wife in the Land buying "scandal" despite the FIDF and the Bank of England saying there was no case to answer. The rest we know.

Hence the lady who is facing libel charges from Thaksin will not be subject to the same judicial system. See the point now?

If you have problems understanding any more of my posts, try reading them again, slowly to see if you pick up the subtlety of the reply or ask me to explain, it's no problem.

WHAT'S the Bank Of England or in fact the Friends of the Israel defense force got to do with the case?

https://www.fidf.org/

I made a mistake - thank you for pointing it out. And strangely enough the Israelis also have nothing to do with the case.

For those of the hard of thinking I meant the Bank of Thailand and the FIDF is the Financial Institutions Development Fund who were the owners of the land being sold to Thaksins wife, though I think that I pointed that fact out in my post, oh look, yes, I did.

[fab4]

Hi, my reply obviously went way over your head. I'll explain.

The Military Junta set up a special organisation , the AEC, Assets Examination Commission purely to look into assets held by Thaksin or members of his government that may have been gained against the law. The AEC was staffed by people who, shall we say, were not supporters of Thaksin. It was they who insisted the FIDF (the owners of the land) bring charges against Thaksin and his wife in the Land buying "scandal" despite the FIDF and the Bank of England saying there was no case to answer. The rest we know.

Hence the lady who is facing libel charges from Thaksin will not be subject to the same judicial system. See the point now?

If you have problems understanding any more of my posts, try reading them again, slowly to see if you pick up the subtlety of the reply or ask me to explain, it's no problem.

WHAT'S the Bank Of England or in fact the Friends of the Israel defense force got to do with the case?

https://www.fidf.org/

Like most of his posts, he's just trying to throw up smokescreens. I'm wondering if fab is actually old Bob Amsterdam.

See post 97.Of course you would know all this information, being so well informed on Thaksins guilt.

[fab4]

You mean a wanted criminal that fled the country when he realized he couldn't bribe his way out of a conviction, and didn't want to pay the penalty for the crime(s) he committed, now wants charges filed against other people, and probably expects that they should be found guilty and thrown into the same prison by the same justice system he himself refuses to comply with ?

It's almost scary to think that things could (easily) get much worse, in a very short amount of time.

They wouldn't be faced by the same justice system he faced, unless of course, the Military Junta from 2006 have expressed an interest in getting involved in libel cases..............

All Thaksin's cases started in 2006?

I was talking about Kerryd's post who was asserting that the justice system that Thaksin was involved in and the justice system the actress being libelled will be involved in are one and the same. I was pointing out the difference (too complicated for some to realise).

I don't know what you are talking about.

[Rich teacher]

You mean a wanted criminal that fled the country when he realized he couldn't bribe his way out of a conviction, and didn't want to pay the penalty for the crime(s) he committed, now wants charges filed against other people, and probably expects that they should be found guilty and thrown into the same prison by the same justice system he himself refuses to comply with ?

It's almost scary to think that things could (easily) get much worse, in a very short amount of time.

They wouldn't be faced by the same justice system he faced, unless of course, the Military Junta from 2006 have expressed an interest in getting involved in libel cases..............

The military junta didn't convict Thaksin. They set up a committee to investigate him. That results of the investigation were then presented to the courts by prosecutors, and in 2008, when Thaksin's brother in law was PM, the courts convicted him.

And then went on to dissolve Thaksin's brother's party & ban them for 5 years. And you are trying to imply that the courts were not biased against Thaksin & his lot in 2008. Poor argument. We all know that even after PPP won against all odds in 2007 that the courts & most importantly the army were firmly in the Dem/yellow court. It may not fit in with your whole TS demonization agenda, but you know it's the truth.

[metisdead]

A post meant to insult and bait another poster or antagonize another member has been removed.:

5) Not to post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling.Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[whybother]

The military junta didn't convict Thaksin. They set up a committee to investigate him. That results of the investigation were then presented to the courts by prosecutors, and in 2008, when Thaksin's brother in law was PM, the courts convicted him.

The AEC was especially set up to look into assets possibly illegally gained by Thaksin and his Ministers. It was part of the Justice System and staffed with people who were not Thaksin supporters, quite the opposite. They forced the FIDF to make charges against Thaksin and his wife despite the Head of the Bank of Thailand and the FIDF themselves saying there was no case to answer.

Therefore unless the AEC has been reformed and will investigate this woman in the libel case she will not face the same loaded justice system the Thaksin did.

Understand now?

As I said, the junta didn't convict Thaksin. Neither did the AEC. They just investigated. It seems they found enough evidence to have Thaksin charged with enough crimes that the decided that he needed to flee the country.

[icare999]

before we get another post saying this load of thugs and evil megalomanic at thew top were elected I would like to remind everyone Hitler was elected as were many vile dictators. Think about it you Takhsin brainwashed lot.

[bigbamboo]

You mean a wanted criminal that fled the country when he realized he couldn't bribe his way out of a conviction, and didn't want to pay the penalty for the crime(s) he committed, now wants charges filed against other people, and probably expects that they should be found guilty and thrown into the same prison by the same justice system he himself refuses to comply with ?

It's almost scary to think that things could (easily) get much worse, in a very short amount of time.

They wouldn't be faced by the same justice system he faced, unless of course, the Military Junta from 2006 have expressed an interest in getting involved in libel cases..............

The military junta didn't convict Thaksin. They set up a committee to investigate him. That results of the investigation were then presented to the courts by prosecutors, and in 2008, when Thaksin's brother in law was PM, the courts convicted him.

The AEC was especially set up to look into assets possibly illegally gained by Thaksin and his Ministers. It was part of the Justice System and staffed with people who were not Thaksin supporters, quite the opposite. They forced the FIDF to make charges against Thaksin and his wife despite the Head of the Bank of Thailand and the FIDF themselves saying there was no case to answer.

Therefore unless the AEC has been reformed and will investigate this woman in the libel case she will not face the same loaded justice system the Thaksin did.

Understand now?

The law regarding government officials by government land was and is quite specific and there to stop corruption. Thaksin broke it, he knew it. his lawyers knew it and that's why he ran. He's not the first to do that.

I suppose you can't blame him for that but don't come the raw prawn later and say it was all a fit up. Then again he's not the first to do that either.

[Thaddeus]

Hi, my reply obviously went way over your head. I'll explain.

The Military Junta set up a special organisation , the AEC, Assets Examination Commission purely to look into assets held by Thaksin or members of his government that may have been gained against the law. The AEC was staffed by people who, shall we say, were not supporters of Thaksin. It was they who insisted the FIDF (the owners of the land) bring charges against Thaksin and his wife in the Land buying "scandal" despite the FIDF and the Bank of England saying there was no case to answer. The rest we know.

Hence the lady who is facing libel charges from Thaksin will not be subject to the same judicial system. See the point now?

If you have problems understanding any more of my posts, try reading them again, slowly to see if you pick up the subtlety of the reply or ask me to explain, it's no problem.

WHAT'S the Bank Of England or in fact the Friends of the Israel defense force got to do with the case?

https://www.fidf.org/

I made a mistake - thank you for pointing it out. And strangely enough the Israelis also have nothing to do with the case.

For those of the hard of thinking I meant the Bank of Thailand and the FIDF is the Financial Institutions Development Fund who were the owners of the land being sold to Thaksins wife, though I think that I pointed that fact out in my post, oh look, yes, I did.

At the scene of a murder, it is found that the victim is a policeman, the man holding the bloody knife is also a policeman.

Who decides that the case should go to court or not, the police department?

[rubl]

Funnily enough we never saw any details on the MoD's committee investigating or an explanation of the MoD himself. As for courts, well isn't the defamation case filed by Abhisit against Jatuporn still in court?

Searching I can't find a conclusion to that case, only to another case

"On September 27, the criminal court in Bangkok sentenced UDD co-leader Jatuporn Prompan to a suspended term of six months and a fine of 50,000 baht ($1,600) for defaming Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva by stating that he ordered soldiers to kill red-shirt protesters when he was prime minister."

Funningly enough one of the cases that abhisit lost against Jatuporn was the one about about abhisits military service. The Court said abhisit was lying about paperwork he had (but couldn't find just at the moment ) that proved he was excempt from military service. He hasn't got it , he wasn't excempt, he was lying.

[fab4]

Funnily enough we never saw any details on the MoD's committee investigating or an explanation of the MoD himself. As for courts, well isn't the defamation case filed by Abhisit against Jatuporn still in court?

Searching I can't find a conclusion to that case, only to another case

"On September 27, the criminal court in Bangkok sentenced UDD co-leader Jatuporn Prompan to a suspended term of six months and a fine of 50,000 baht ($1,600) for defaming Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva by stating that he ordered soldiers to kill red-shirt protesters when he was prime minister."

Funningly enough one of the cases that abhisit lost against Jatuporn was the one about about abhisits military service. The Court said abhisit was lying about paperwork he had (but couldn't find just at the moment ) that proved he was excempt from military service. He hasn't got it , he wasn't excempt, he was lying.

Couldn't find any links backing up your quote above but my info is all here

BANGKOK: -- The Defence Ministry has found that a falsified military document was used when opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva applied to serve as a lecturer at the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Fake-document-got-Abhisit-his-military-job-Defence-30186684.html

This came about as part of defamation charge that abhisit was filing on Jatuporn who amongst other things called abhisit a draft dodger. Funningly enough the Court found Jatuporn guilty of defamation on the others things he said but NOT the draft dodger comment.

"The court did not find Jatuporn guilty of libel for accusing Abhisit of draft-dodging, saying the documents presented by Abhisit in his defence were suspect.The suit also stated that on January 29, 2010, Jatuporn had alleged that Abhisit must be disqualified as prime minister because he used falsified documents to apply as a lecturer to the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy. The suit said the accusation had misled the public into believing that Abhisit had no credibility or grace to continue as prime minister since he had evaded military conscription.

The court said that although Abhisit testified that he was a student under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission and received a Sor Dor 41, which is an exemption for military draft, he could not produce the document in court.

Although Abhisit argued that he once showed the Sor Dor 20, the list of people exempted from military draft, with his name as the third on the list, to Parliament, the Sor Dor 20 cannot be used as an official draft exemption. Only the Sor Dor 41, which is countersigned by the Interior Ministry, is the legitimate document.

Abhisit also could not back his claim with solid evidence that he never used fake documents in applying to the academy."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Jatuporn-handed-suspended-jail-term-for-defaming-A-30191262.html

[thaicbr]

^^^^ and yet the Army investigated twice and found no wrong doing. Amazing isn't it.

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[thaicbr]

Getting back to the OP.

Could Fab4 or someone else please call Thasksin or Amsterdam and confirm WHAT the defamation charges are against the actress. Thanks

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[rubl]

Funnily enough we never saw any details on the MoD's committee investigating or an explanation of the MoD himself. As for courts, well isn't the defamation case filed by Abhisit against Jatuporn still in court?

Searching I can't find a conclusion to that case, only to another case

"On September 27, the criminal court in Bangkok sentenced UDD co-leader Jatuporn Prompan to a suspended term of six months and a fine of 50,000 baht ($1,600) for defaming Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva by stating that he ordered soldiers to kill red-shirt protesters when he was prime minister."

Funningly enough one of the cases that abhisit lost against Jatuporn was the one about about abhisits military service. The Court said abhisit was lying about paperwork he had (but couldn't find just at the moment ) that proved he was excempt from military service. He hasn't got it , he wasn't excempt, he was lying.

Couldn't find any links backing up your quote above but my info is all here

BANGKOK: -- The Defence Ministry has found that a falsified military document was used when opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva applied to serve as a lecturer at the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Fake-document-got-Abhisit-his-military-job-Defence-30186684.html

This came about as part of defamation charge that abhisit was filing on Jatuporn who amongst other things called abhisit a draft dodger. Funningly enough the Court found Jatuporn guilty of defamation on the others things he said but NOT the draft dodger comment.

"The court did not find Jatuporn guilty of libel for accusing Abhisit of draft-dodging, saying the documents presented by Abhisit in his defence were suspect.The suit also stated that on January 29, 2010, Jatuporn had alleged that Abhisit must be disqualified as prime minister because he used falsified documents to apply as a lecturer to the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy. The suit said the accusation had misled the public into believing that Abhisit had no credibility or grace to continue as prime minister since he had evaded military conscription.

The court said that although Abhisit testified that he was a student under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission and received a Sor Dor 41, which is an exemption for military draft, he could not produce the document in court.

Although Abhisit argued that he once showed the Sor Dor 20, the list of people exempted from military draft, with his name as the third on the list, to Parliament, the Sor Dor 20 cannot be used as an official draft exemption. Only the Sor Dor 41, which is countersigned by the Interior Ministry, is the legitimate document.

Abhisit also could not back his claim with solid evidence that he never used fake documents in applying to the academy."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Jatuporn-handed-suspended-jail-term-for-defaming-A-30191262.html

my quote from m.state.gov/md204241.htm

other sides have different wording od same case.

The court case, well there is still a case of Abhisit versus the MoD and Abhisit has stated that some evidence could not be used in the defamation case in order not to undermine his case against the MoD.

[rubl]

Funnily enough we never saw any details on the MoD's committee investigating or an explanation of the MoD himself. As for courts, well isn't the defamation case filed by Abhisit against Jatuporn still in court?

Searching I can't find a conclusion to that case, only to another case

"On September 27, the criminal court in Bangkok sentenced UDD co-leader Jatuporn Prompan to a suspended term of six months and a fine of 50,000 baht ($1,600) for defaming Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva by stating that he ordered soldiers to kill red-shirt protesters when he was prime minister."

Funningly enough one of the cases that abhisit lost against Jatuporn was the one about about abhisits military service. The Court said abhisit was lying about paperwork he had (but couldn't find just at the moment ) that proved he was excempt from military service. He hasn't got it , he wasn't excempt, he was lying.

Couldn't find any links backing up your quote above but my info is all here

BANGKOK: -- The Defence Ministry has found that a falsified military document was used when opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva applied to serve as a lecturer at the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Fake-document-got-Abhisit-his-military-job-Defence-30186684.html

This came about as part of defamation charge that abhisit was filing on Jatuporn who amongst other things called abhisit a draft dodger. Funningly enough the Court found Jatuporn guilty of defamation on the others things he said but NOT the draft dodger comment.

"The court did not find Jatuporn guilty of libel for accusing Abhisit of draft-dodging, saying the documents presented by Abhisit in his defence were suspect.The suit also stated that on January 29, 2010, Jatuporn had alleged that Abhisit must be disqualified as prime minister because he used falsified documents to apply as a lecturer to the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy. The suit said the accusation had misled the public into believing that Abhisit had no credibility or grace to continue as prime minister since he had evaded military conscription.

The court said that although Abhisit testified that he was a student under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission and received a Sor Dor 41, which is an exemption for military draft, he could not produce the document in court.

Although Abhisit argued that he once showed the Sor Dor 20, the list of people exempted from military draft, with his name as the third on the list, to Parliament, the Sor Dor 20 cannot be used as an official draft exemption. Only the Sor Dor 41, which is countersigned by the Interior Ministry, is the legitimate document.

Abhisit also could not back his claim with solid evidence that he never used fake documents in applying to the academy."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Jatuporn-handed-suspended-jail-term-for-defaming-A-30191262.html

My excuses. My previous reply on this was made in haste as it was late and I hadn't logged on for more than 24 hours. The quality of the reply was not on the normal level as you have come to expect from me. So please allow me a retry.

In one of your posts here you stated "He hasn't got it , he wasn't excempt, he was lying." Following you come with a link to theNation aerticle, quoting some and highlighting a few sentences as if they prove your statement.

Well, if I may be so bold as a non-native English speaking Dutchman to try to explain to a native English speaking Brit (or may be even Englishman?) some of the intricacies of the English language.

The court ruled 'documents provided suspect', 'wrong document, 'dcouldn't produce right document'. None of this clearly states that Abhisit was lying. Also there doesn't seem to be a clarification why documents were suspect or what excuse Abhisit offered for not providing the document the court could accept as proving Jatuporn defamation guild. So your conclusion 'Abhisit lied' is at the least a bit premature and at the most a case of defamation in itself.

Now back to the topic, it's interesting that some stated that the burden of the proof is on the accused, not the accuser. Why then does that seem not to have applied to the Abhisit/Jatuporn case?

Note that Abhisit had said that his legal team urged him to be careful with providing evidence in the defamation case as that might effect his criminal case of 'wrongful dismissal' against the MoD. I'm not providing a link for that. you found the Jatuporn acquital link, you can find all about the MoD antics. With more than 500 posts in a month you seem to have enough spare time for it.

PS my original quote on 'Jatuporn getting a suspended term' for which you coudn't find a link to back it up? Well theNation article you provided a link for actually starts with it

"The Criminal Court yesterday sentenced red-shirt activist Jatuporn Prompan to six months in jail and fined him Bt50,000 for defaming Abhisit Vejjajiva, the opposition Democrat Party leader, and inciting public hatred against him by taking to the red-shirt stage and claiming Abhisit ordered the killing of people."

Edited November 17, 2013 by rubl

[thaicbr]

Can i ask again.. Why has Thaksin filed a libel case against this actress?

Is it the normal that in fact NO libel case or a BS libel case has been filed. BUT the actress in question is already in the cross hairs so to speak.

[waza]

Can i ask again.. Why has Thaksin filed a libel case against this actress?

Is it the normal that in fact NO libel case or a BS libel case has been filed. BUT the actress in question is already in the cross hairs so to speak.

Its Thaksin way of censuring people and organisations, the charges don't have to be successful because the punishment for the defendant is the loss of both money and time, needed to mount a defence. The result is that, no only does the defendant feel less inclined to repeat offending Thaksin as they cant afford the time or finances to publicise any more of his crimes or machinations and others would be less inclined to as well.

Edited November 17, 2013 by waza

[JRSoul]

Can i ask again.. Why has Thaksin filed a libel case against this actress?

Is it the normal that in fact NO libel case or a BS libel case has been filed. BUT the actress in question is already in the cross hairs so to speak.

Its Thaksin way of censuring people and organisations, the charges don't have to be successful because the punishment for the defendant is the loss of both money and time, needed to mount a defence. The result is that, no only does the defendant feel less inclined to repeat offending Thaksin as they cant afford the time or finances to publicise any more of his crimes or machinations and others would be less inclined to as well.

In another venue outside Thailand, Thaksin might well be ruled a vexatious litigant but in Thailand that would be libel and he would undoubtedly sue.