WHEN THE RECORD BECOMES EVIDENCE
Email Set 7 shows how ongoing communication was preserved, reframed, and positioned for use beyond the dispute it was originally meant to resolve
By Aaron Christopher Knapp, BSSW, LSW
Investigative Journalist and Public Records Litigant
Editor-in-Chief, Lorain Politics Unplugged
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
I. INTRODUCTION THE POINT WHERE THE RECORD BECOMES EVIDENCE
This series was never built on assumptions, and it was never dependent on interpretation alone. Every section that came before this one was grounded in what the City of Lorain and its officials actually wrote, how they responded, and how they handled the communication that was directed at them. The earlier reporting established that my emails were not ignored, that they were not lost, and that they were not isolated. They were received, forwarded, discussed, and circulated across departments that included the Law Department under Law Director Patrick Riley, Assistant Law Director Joseph LaVeck, and administrative leadership operating under the authority of the Safety Service Director. That foundation matters because it removes any argument that what follows is based on misunderstanding or lack of awareness. The record itself shows awareness, participation, and continued engagement at every level that had the authority to act.
As those earlier sets developed, the record showed something more than participation. It showed contradiction, and that contradiction is tied directly to named officials and their own written positions. Joseph LaVeck, acting in his role within the Law Department, took the position that certain complaints or records were not known or not in the City’s possession, while at the same time asserting that those same materials would fall under confidentiality provisions if they did exist. That contradiction is not abstract. It is grounded in the language used in response to my requests and in the emails that were later produced. The City could not simultaneously claim that a complaint was unknown while also arguing that it was protected from release. Those are mutually exclusive positions, and they appear in the record together.
The same pattern appears in how communication was handled internally. Emails referencing me, my employment, and actions taken against me were not confined to a single office. They were shared across departments, including communication involving law enforcement, court-connected individuals, and City officials. In those communications, language was used that went beyond neutral administrative handling. Phrases such as references to me “becoming unhinged” were circulated before any formal determination, and before any resolution of the issues I was raising. That language was not contained within a single conversation. It was transmitted, repeated, and allowed to exist within official channels while the underlying dispute remained unresolved.
At the same time, outward responses did not reflect that internal activity. Requests made under R.C. 149.43 were met with delays, partial responses, or assertions that records did not exist or were not subject to disclosure. Those responses came while internal communication continued to reference the very materials being sought. That disconnect is what transformed this from a routine public records issue into something that required deeper examination. The system was not unaware. It was actively communicating while maintaining positions that did not align with that communication.
By the time the later sets were released, including the material immediately before this one, the pattern had become unmistakable. The system was not failing to respond. It was responding in a controlled way. It acknowledged communication without resolving it. It engaged without producing final answers. It allowed the record to build while avoiding positions that could be definitively challenged. Patrick Riley’s office remained central to that process, as did Joseph LaVeck, who was directly involved in shaping and issuing responses. The Safety Service Director’s office remained within the communication structure, receiving and being included in emails that documented the ongoing dispute. No one removed themselves from the process. No one issued a directive to stop communication. Instead, the record was allowed to grow.
Email Set 7 is where that shift moves out of the background and into full view. This is no longer a situation where the change has to be inferred from tone or delay. This is the point where the communication that was preserved across the earlier sets begins to function as something beyond its original purpose. The same emails that documented requests, legal arguments, and ongoing disputes are no longer confined to that role. They begin to move into a space where they are treated as evidence for something else entirely. The same distribution lists, the same recipients, and the same unresolved issues remain present, but the role those emails are beginning to play is no longer limited to the dispute they came from.
Nothing about the underlying communication changes at this point. The words remain the same. The recipients remain the same. The timeline remains intact. Joseph LaVeck is still responding in his official capacity. Patrick Riley’s office is still involved in the legal posture of the City. The Safety Service Director remains within the chain of communication. What changes is how that communication is used and where it is taken. That distinction is what defines this section of the record and what separates it from everything that came before it.
II. CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT AND THE UNDERLYING PUBLIC RECORDS DISPUTE
Nothing about the communication stops at this stage, and more importantly, nothing about the underlying dispute is resolved. What remains in place is a clearly defined legal conflict grounded in specific public records requests, specific responses issued by the City, and specific statutory obligations under Ohio law. From the beginning, I was seeking records tied directly to communications between City officials, law enforcement, and court personnel that referenced me, my employment, and actions taken against me. Those requests were made under R.C. 149.43, which requires public offices to promptly produce records, and they were supported by direct legal arguments when those records were denied, delayed, or partially withheld. I also cited R.C. 149.011(G), which defines a public record as any document created or received by a public office that documents its activities, leaving little room for ambiguity about what should have been produced.
The conflict developed because the City’s responses, issued through the Law Department under Patrick Riley and Assistant Law Director Joseph LaVeck, did not match what the record itself showed. On one hand, positions were taken that certain records did not exist, were not in the City’s custody, or were not subject to disclosure. On the other hand, the emails that were eventually produced showed those same records being discussed, forwarded, and circulated internally. That contradiction is not theoretical. It is documented within the City’s own communications, where internal handling of records exists alongside outward denials or limitations on their release. The issue, at that point, was no longer limited to whether records would be produced. It became whether the explanations being given for withholding those records complied with the law.
That dispute continues here without narrowing or changing form. I continue to press for complete production of records that the City’s own emails indicate exist. I continue to challenge the legal basis for withholding those records, particularly where no valid exemption is properly identified as required under R.C. 149.43(B)(3), which mandates that a public office provide a legal explanation when records are denied or redacted. I continue to document delay, inconsistency, and the failure to reconcile internal communication with external responses. At the same time, the City continues to engage in the communication through its officials and legal representatives without resolving the underlying conflict.
Joseph LaVeck remains involved in issuing or shaping responses, maintaining positions that do not eliminate the contradiction already established in the record. Patrick Riley’s office continues to serve as the legal authority behind those positions. The Safety Service Director remains within the chain of communication and continues to receive emails that outline the ongoing dispute. No one disengages. No one issues a directive to stop. No one reframes the communication as improper at the time it is occurring. Instead, the same structure remains in place, where communication is acknowledged, received, and allowed to continue while the central issues remain unresolved.
There is also no moment where the nature of the dispute changes. It does not become personal. It does not shift into something unrelated to public records or legal compliance. Every email continues to tie back to the same statutory framework and the same unresolved questions regarding the existence, custody, and disclosure of records. The communication remains exactly what it was from the beginning, a documented legal dispute between a requester asserting rights under Ohio law and a public office obligated to respond to those requests.
What the record also shows, just as clearly, is what does not happen. No warning is issued. No boundary is set. No statement is made by any official that the communication has crossed into something improper. The Law Department does not instruct me to cease contact. The Safety Service Director does not limit communication. No one within the system signals that the emails fall outside the scope of a lawful dispute. Instead, the communication is allowed to continue in full view of the individuals with authority to act.
That matters because it fixes the nature of the communication at the time it was occurring. It establishes that this was an active, ongoing public records dispute, grounded in statute, documented in writing, and fully known to the officials involved. It also establishes that the system chose to remain engaged without resolving it, allowing the record to continue building in real time.
III. THE ROLE OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSISTENCY OF THEIR POSITION
As Email Set 7 continues, the involvement of the Law Department remains constant, and that consistency is one of the most important aspects of this record. The attorneys representing the City are not absent from this communication. They are included, aware, and in a position to respond to the legal arguments being raised. That matters because the dispute at this stage is not simply administrative. It is legal. The questions being asked involve statutory obligations under R.C. 149.43, the definition of what constitutes a public record under R.C. 149.011(G), and whether the explanations being provided for withholding records meet the requirements imposed by Ohio law.
Throughout this set, the Law Department does not indicate that the communication is improper. There is no assertion that the emails fall outside the bounds of a lawful records dispute. There is no warning issued that continued communication would be treated as harassment or misconduct. Instead, what appears is a continuation of the same posture that existed in the earlier sets, where legal positions are maintained, responses are shaped through counsel, and the communication remains within the structure of a dispute that is being handled, even if not resolved.
That consistency becomes critical when viewed against the substance of the arguments being made. The positions taken by the City do not shift in a way that resolves the contradiction identified earlier. Records are still described as unavailable, not in custody, or otherwise not subject to disclosure, while the broader record continues to show internal awareness and handling of those same materials. The legal arguments remain in place, but they do not eliminate the conflict between what is being said and what is being shown.
At the same time, the presence of legal counsel reinforces the legitimacy of the communication as it existed at that moment. These are not informal exchanges occurring outside official channels. They are part of a documented interaction between a citizen asserting rights under the Public Records Act and a municipal law department responsible for responding to those assertions. Every email that includes counsel confirms that the issues raised were understood as legal issues, not personal ones, and that the communication itself was being treated as part of that legal process.
This becomes even more significant when considering what follows. The continued involvement of the Law Department, without any indication that the communication was improper, stands in direct contrast to any later attempt to characterize that same communication differently. The record does not show a point where counsel identifies a problem with the existence of the emails themselves. It shows a legal dispute that remained active, with both sides continuing to engage through the channels that had been established from the beginning.
That is what Email Set 7 preserves in this section. It shows a Law Department that is fully aware of the communication, fully engaged in the issues being raised, and fully positioned to respond, even as the underlying dispute remains unresolved and the record continues to build.
IV. THE EXPANSION OF THE RECORD AND THE GROWING DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNICATION
As Email Set 7 continues to develop, another pattern becomes impossible to ignore, and that is the continued expansion of who is included in the communication. This is not a contained exchange between a single requester and a single office. The emails continue to move across departments, across roles, and across levels of authority within the City’s structure. Individuals connected to administration, legal counsel, and other governmental functions remain part of the distribution, and in some instances the scope of that distribution appears to widen rather than narrow.
That expansion is not incidental. It reflects the same structure that was established in the earlier sets, where my emails were not only received but shared internally and externally among those with involvement in the underlying issues. The communication does not remain isolated within a records clerk’s office or a single point of contact. It continues to circulate, and that circulation confirms that multiple officials had awareness of both the content of the requests and the legal arguments being raised in support of them.
At the same time, the content of those emails remains consistent with the dispute that has already been defined. The communication still centers on public records, legal obligations, and the conduct of officials in relation to those requests. Even as the distribution grows, the purpose of the communication does not change. It remains tied to the same statutory framework and the same unresolved issues that have carried through from the beginning of the series.
What makes this expansion significant is how it interacts with the later use of the record. A broader distribution means a broader base of awareness. It means that more individuals had access to the communication, more individuals had the opportunity to respond, and more individuals were in a position to address the issues being raised. That level of inclusion undermines any suggestion that the communication existed outside the knowledge or control of the system. The emails show the opposite. They show a network of officials who were collectively aware of what was being said and who allowed that communication to continue within official channels.
This also reinforces the absence of any limitation placed on the communication at the time it was occurring. If there had been a concern about scope, tone, or frequency, the structure of the communication provided multiple points where that concern could have been addressed. It was not. The emails continued to move, continued to be shared, and continued to include the same individuals who had been part of the process from the beginning.
That matters because the expansion of the record is what gives it weight. It is not a single voice operating in isolation. It is a documented exchange that was visible across the system, preserved in real time, and allowed to develop without interruption. By the time Email Set 7 reaches this stage, the record is no longer just a series of messages. It is a fully developed body of communication that reflects participation, awareness, and continued engagement at multiple levels of government.
That is the condition the record exists in before it is taken into the next phase.
IV. THE EXPANSION OF THE RECORD AND THE GROWING DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNICATION
What becomes impossible to ignore at this stage is how wide the communication has spread and how many people are now inside it. This is no longer a narrow exchange directed at a single office responsible for handling records. The emails are moving across the structure of City government, reaching the Law Department under Patrick Riley, responses shaped or issued by Joseph LaVeck, administrative leadership operating under the Safety Service Director, members of Council, and individuals connected to law enforcement and court-related functions. The distribution is not shrinking as the dispute continues. It is expanding, and that expansion is visible in the email chains themselves.
That expansion is not accidental or the result of misdirection. It reflects the same internal handling that was exposed in the earlier sets, where communication about me, my records requests, and the issues I raised was shared beyond the initial point of contact. Emails were forwarded, discussed, and circulated among officials who had varying levels of authority and involvement. What should have remained a direct response to a records request instead became part of a broader internal conversation. That internal movement confirms that the issues being raised were not confined to a single office and were not treated as routine or isolated matters.
At the same time, the substance of what is being communicated does not change as the distribution grows. The emails continue to center on public records requests, legal obligations under R.C. 149.43, and the City’s duty to produce records that fall within the definition set by R.C. 149.011(G). The issues remain tied to communications involving City officials, law enforcement, and court-connected individuals that reference me and actions taken against me. Even as more people are included, the purpose of the communication remains anchored in that legal framework. The expansion affects who is aware of the dispute, but it does not alter what the dispute is about.
What makes this expansion significant is the level of awareness it creates. The more individuals who are included in these emails, the more individuals who have direct knowledge of both the requests being made and the legal arguments supporting them. Patrick Riley’s office is aware. Joseph LaVeck is aware. The Safety Service Director is aware. Others within the administrative and operational structure are aware. That level of inclusion removes any argument that the communication existed outside the knowledge of those responsible for responding. The record shows the opposite. It shows a system where awareness is widespread and where the communication is allowed to move freely within official channels.
This widespread distribution also highlights what does not happen. At no point does anyone within that network take action to limit or redirect the communication. No instruction is issued to narrow the scope of recipients. No directive is given to restrict the emails to a single point of contact. No concern is formally raised about the number of individuals being included. The structure exists to control or manage communication if necessary, and that structure is not used. Instead, the emails continue to move across the same broad network, reinforcing the fact that the communication is being accepted within that system as it exists.
The internal tone of some of those communications also reflects that awareness. Statements made within the broader record, including references describing me as “becoming unhinged,” are not made in isolation. They are part of the same network of communication that includes officials responsible for responding to my records requests. Those statements are circulated within the same system that is outwardly maintaining legal positions about records and disclosure. That combination of internal characterization and external response further demonstrates that the communication was not only seen, but actively processed within multiple layers of the City’s structure.
The expansion of the record is what gives it weight. This is not a situation where a single individual is sending messages into a void. It is a documented exchange that is visible across departments, preserved in real time, and allowed to develop without interruption. By this point, the record reflects participation, awareness, and continued engagement from multiple officials who had the authority to act, respond, or intervene at any point.
That is the condition the record exists in at this stage. It is broad, it is known, and it is fully developed within the system before it is taken into the next phase where it is used for something beyond the dispute that created it.
V. THE SHIFT IN PURPOSE FROM RESOLUTION TO POSITIONING
As this portion of the record develops, the most important change is not found in a single statement or a single response. It appears in how the communication begins to function within the system. Up to this point, every email had a clear and identifiable purpose tied directly to the underlying public records dispute. I was requesting records, challenging the City’s legal positions, and documenting inconsistencies between internal communication and external responses. The City, through Patrick Riley’s Law Department and with Joseph LaVeck actively involved, was maintaining positions, issuing responses, and continuing to engage within that same framework. Even without resolution, the communication still operated as part of a dispute that was, at least in structure, moving toward an answer.
What begins to change at this stage is not what is being said, but what the communication is being prepared for.
The emails continue without interruption. The same issues are raised. The same statutory arguments under R.C. 149.43 and R.C. 149.011(G) are repeated and expanded. The same officials remain included, and the same unresolved questions continue to define the dispute. From my position within the communication, nothing has shifted. I am still pressing for compliance with Ohio law, still demanding production of records that the City’s own emails indicate exist, and still documenting the failure to reconcile internal handling with external responses.
At the same time, the way the communication is being handled within the system begins to suggest that it is no longer being treated solely as something that needs to be resolved. It is being preserved in a way that reflects accumulation rather than conclusion. The record is not narrowing toward an answer. It is expanding in a way that captures volume, frequency, and scope. Every email adds to that record. Every response, even when incomplete, becomes part of the timeline. Every inclusion of another official increases the breadth of awareness and the size of the documented exchange.
That distinction is critical because it explains why the dispute does not resolve despite continued engagement. The system is not disengaged. Patrick Riley’s office remains involved. Joseph LaVeck continues to participate in shaping responses. The Safety Service Director remains within the communication chain. Emails are still being received, read, and allowed to circulate. The absence of resolution exists alongside active participation, and that combination only makes sense when the purpose of the communication begins to shift away from resolving the dispute and toward preserving the record itself.
The communication, at this point, begins to exist for two purposes at the same time. It continues to function as part of an active public records dispute, with ongoing requests and legal challenges, but it also begins to take on a second role as something that can be compiled, reviewed, and later presented in a different context. That second role does not require any change in what is being said. It relies entirely on the existence of the emails, the number of emails, the distribution of those emails, and the way they can be organized once removed from the timeline in which they were created.
This is the stage where persistence can be reframed as repetition, where broad distribution can be reframed as expansion, and where a documented legal dispute can be repositioned as something else entirely once it is taken out of its original context. That transformation does not occur within the emails themselves. It occurs in how the record is later used.
What this section captures is the moment before that use becomes fully visible.
The communication has not stopped.
The dispute has not been resolved.
But the record is no longer being built for resolution alone.
VI. THE ABSENCE OF ANY WARNING AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SILENCE FROM AUTHORITY
One of the most revealing aspects of this portion of the record is not found in what any official says, but in what no one says at all. At no point in this communication does Patrick Riley, Joseph LaVeck, or any official operating under the authority of the Safety Service Director issue a directive that the communication should stop. There is no written warning that the emails are excessive. There is no notice that the tone has crossed into something improper. There is no statement that continued contact would result in legal consequences or enforcement action. That silence is not an omission that can be brushed aside. It is part of the record itself, and it carries both factual and legal significance when the communication is later evaluated.
That absence matters because the communication was not hidden, indirect, or conducted through informal means. Every email was sent openly, through identifiable accounts, to officials who had the authority to respond and the responsibility to address any issue arising from that communication. The distribution lists included the Law Department under Patrick Riley, responses shaped or issued by Joseph LaVeck, and administrative leadership connected to the Safety Service Director. These are not passive recipients. These are individuals with the authority to define boundaries, enforce policies, and take action if communication crosses a line. If there had been any concern regarding the form, frequency, or content of the emails at the time they were being sent, there were multiple points within this structure where that concern could have been raised clearly and immediately.
It was not.
Instead, what the record shows is continued acceptance of the communication within the system. Emails were received by Patrick Riley’s office. They were read by Joseph LaVeck. They were included in distribution chains that reached the Safety Service Director and others within the City’s structure. In some instances, responses were issued that continued the legal dispute. In others, the emails were simply preserved as part of the ongoing exchange. What does not appear is any effort to intervene, restrict, or reclassify the communication at the time it was occurring. That pattern reinforces the fact that the communication was being treated as part of a legitimate and ongoing public records dispute rather than something outside the bounds of acceptable interaction with public officials.
The significance of that silence becomes even more pronounced when the record is later viewed in a different context. Any attempt to characterize this communication as improper must be measured against the fact that no such characterization was made when the communication was actually taking place. Patrick Riley was aware. Joseph LaVeck was aware. The Safety Service Director was aware. The emails themselves establish that awareness through inclusion, distribution, and continued engagement. These officials were not in the dark. They were present, they were included, and they were fully capable of acting if they believed the communication required intervention.
This is not a situation where communication escalated suddenly or moved into territory that triggered an immediate response. The record shows a steady continuation of the same type of interaction that had been occurring from the beginning of the dispute. The same legal arguments were being made. The same records were being requested. The same officials were being included. The absence of any contemporaneous warning or limitation, despite full awareness and repeated opportunity, establishes that the communication existed within a space that was, at the time, permitted to continue.
That is what this section establishes when read in full context. Authority was present within the communication at every stage. The opportunity to intervene existed with every email that was received and every distribution list that was expanded. The decision not to act, not to warn, and not to limit the communication was made in real time by those with the power to do so, and that decision is now embedded in the record alongside every email that was sent.
VII. FINAL THOUGHT THE RECORD IN ITS LAST UNALTERED FORM
By the time this portion of the record reaches its conclusion, what exists is a complete and intact body of communication that has not yet been broken apart, shortened, or reframed. This is not a fragment and it is not a selective presentation. It is the full exchange as it existed in real time, showing exactly how the dispute developed, how it was handled, and who was involved at every stage. The emails reflect an ongoing public records dispute grounded in R.C. 149.43, shaped through responses from the Law Department under Patrick Riley, with Joseph LaVeck actively involved in issuing and shaping those responses, and with continued inclusion of the Safety Service Director and other officials who remained aware of the communication as it unfolded.
Looking back across the earlier reporting, this set carries forward every element that had already been established. The communication never stopped. The same officials remained included in the email chains. The same legal issues remained unresolved. The contradictions that were identified in earlier sets, where records were described as nonexistent or unavailable while being discussed internally, were not corrected here. The responses issued through the Law Department did not eliminate that conflict. Instead, the record shows that the same pattern continued, with internal awareness existing alongside outward positions that did not align with what the emails themselves revealed.
At the same time, the internal tone reflected in parts of that communication continues to exist alongside the formal legal posture. References within the broader record, including statements describing me as “becoming unhinged,” were circulated among individuals connected to the same network of officials who were responsible for responding to my requests. That language exists within the same body of communication that includes legal responses, records requests, and ongoing disputes. It further demonstrates that the system was not only aware of the communication, but actively processing it at multiple levels while maintaining a separate outward position through the Law Department.
Looking forward, this is the last point where the communication can be understood entirely within its original purpose. Within these emails, I am still asserting rights under Ohio law. I am still pressing for the production of records that fall within the definition established by R.C. 149.011(G). I am still challenging the legal explanations being provided by Patrick Riley’s office and by Joseph LaVeck. The communication is still directed at obtaining answers and enforcing compliance with statutory obligations. That purpose is clear when the emails are read in sequence, with full context, and without alteration.
What changes after this point is not the content of the record but the way it is used.
Once this communication is removed from its timeline, it can be reorganized and presented in a way that no longer reflects the dispute it came from. The sequence that explains why the emails were sent can be broken apart. The legal arguments that anchor those emails can be separated from the language used to express them. The continuity that shows ongoing engagement by Patrick Riley, Joseph LaVeck, and other officials can be replaced with isolated excerpts that appear disconnected from the broader exchange. The record itself remains the same, but the way it is framed changes how it is perceived.
That is why this set matters as much as any that came before it. It preserves the record before that separation takes place. It shows what the communication actually was when it existed in real time, tied to specific requests, specific legal arguments, and specific responses from the officials involved. It connects the earlier sets that established awareness, participation, and contradiction with what follows, where that same record is no longer treated as part of a public records dispute but as something else entirely.
Nothing about the emails themselves changes.
Patrick Riley remains the Law Director responsible for the City’s legal posture. Joseph LaVeck remains the assistant law director issuing and shaping responses. The Safety Service Director remains within the chain of communication. The emails remain exactly what they were when they were sent.
What changes is the role those emails are made to play.
And everything that follows depends on that shift.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is part of an ongoing investigative journalism series authored by Aaron Christopher Knapp and published by Knapp Unplugged Media LLC. It is based on documents obtained through lawful public records requests, including email correspondence, attachments, and related materials maintained by public offices. All factual statements contained herein are derived from those records or from the author’s direct involvement in the events described.
This publication addresses matters of public concern involving the conduct of government, the actions of public officials, and the administration of public records under Ohio law. Any analysis, interpretation, or conclusions expressed are the protected opinion of the author based on disclosed facts and a good faith review of the available evidence. To the extent that statements may be interpreted as opinion, they are presented as such and are grounded in the underlying record.
This article may reference individuals who are public officials, public employees, or participants in matters of public concern. All such references are made strictly in a journalistic context for the purpose of reporting, analysis, and public accountability. Nothing in this publication is intended as a direct communication to, or solicitation of action from, any public official, government employee, attorney, or party referenced herein.
Certain subject matter discussed in this article relates to ongoing legal proceedings. This publication is not intended to interfere with, influence, or prejudice any pending case, nor is it directed toward any court, judge, or tribunal. It is a work of journalism disseminated to the general public in furtherance of transparency and the public’s right to know.
No statement in this article is made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Allegations, claims, or statements attributed to third parties are identified as such and are included for the purpose of reporting on their existence within the documented record. Readers are encouraged to review the underlying materials and draw their own conclusions.
All content is published in accordance with the protections afforded by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of Ohio law governing freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
This article does not constitute legal advice. Any references to statutes, case law, or legal standards are provided for informational and analytical purposes only.
© 2026 Knapp Unplugged Media LLC. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of this material, in whole or in part, is prohibited without prior written permission, except as permitted under applicable fair use doctrines.
About The Author
