Adoption, News & Media

Michelle Riess on Extreme Genes with Scott Fisher

Michelle Riess was recently a guest on Extreme Genes with Scott Fisher. It’s a two part interview, now available for free on the Extreme Genes website, plus a bonus interview that is only available to Extreme Genes paid subscribers.

Michelle’s portion of the episode begins at around 10:45, then continues after the commercials. The bonus interview is in the Patron’s Club section, but is only available to Fisher’s paid subscribers. (click here to learn about becoming a paid subscriber to Extreme Genes)

If you haven’t already, please read the full story about Michelle’s shocking 2017 adoption discovery after taking an Ancestry.com DNA test, and our family’s beautiful adoption reunion story.

Click here to listen to the interview  (free)

extremegenesmichelleriess

 

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess / Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.

Adoption, Law & Ethics, News & Media

Newspaper articles about Michelle’s 1976 adoption

If you would like to read some of the newspaper articles regarding the case against the attorney that illegally arranged the adoption, you can view them HERE. In some of the articles, Michelle is the adopted child referred to simply as the December 4, 1976 “incident.”

Many of these articles include statements taken from Kent’s court testimony that contradict Hollie’s experiences, including his heavy involvement after Michelle’s birth. They also contradict information given to Michelle in 2017 by her adoptive father. We will make a separate post about these inconsistencies at a later date.

So far, our research has produced about 12 articles from a variety of newspapers including the Courier-Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The New York Times. We will add a few new articles to this page at a later date.

VIEW ALL OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES HERE

 https://ouradoptionreunion.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/1981convicted.jpg

 

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess/ Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.

Law & Ethics, News & Media

‘Adoption lawyer’s’ term suspended (1981)

Original Publication: Courier-Post
Original Publication Date: October 17, 1981

N O T E : Much of the information taken from Kent’s testimony completely contradicts Hollie’s experiences and even some of the details that were provided to Michelle by her adoptive father in 2017. We will be writing about these inconsistencies at a later date.

By RENEE WINKLER
Of the Courier-Post

CAMDEN – A Willingboro attorney, convicted in July of illegally acting as an intermediary in three adoptions, yesterday was given a suspended jail term and placed on probation for one year.

Before Edward Kent, 55, was given the sentence he made an emotional speech, criticizing the law that makes it illegal for persons to help in the placement of unwanted children.

Kent, who lives in Edgewater Park, praised Deputy Attorney General Nancy Singer, who presented the state’s case against him, and Superior Court Judge Peter J. Corruzzi, who convicted him after a non-jury trial, commenting that both were complying with the law.

The state law requires all private adoptions to be supervised by the state Division of Youth and Family Services.

Kent had contacted clergymen in several Burlington County municipalities after unmarried pregnant women came to him looking for adoptive parents for their children.

Kent, who specializes in matrimonial and family law, is an opponent of abortion.

He objected to a statement by a Camden County probation officer who commented that he had helped in the adoptions because of a profit motive. No allegations were made that Kent charged excessive fees for the adoptions and his defense lawyer, Carl D. Poplar of Haddonfield, argued that he had given hundreds of hours of unpaid work to help in adoptions.

Kent, who began to sob before sentence was announced, said that his average fee for an adoption was $500. “I charge $1,000 or more for a divorce, an act of destruction, compared to this, an act of construction, of building a family,” he said.

With tears in his eyes, he said that “the years over 50 won’t be golden for me. Now I’m a convict. I’m going to pay for the rest of my life because the system wasn’t fair.”

“If I ever thought that calling up a priest or a rabbi would have gotten me into a prisoner’s dock, I would have been better off going into the garment district,” he said.

Corruzzi, who suspended a six-month term in the Camden County Jail for Kent, said he would not comment at length “because I’m afraid I might agree with some of the things you said. But the statute exists prohibiting assistance in the placement of children for adoption.”

Kent still faces disciplinary action by the Ethics Committee of the state Supreme Court. That action could be suspension of his license to practice law or disbarment.  

View Original Article: Click here to view a JPG of the original newspaper article

 

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess / Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.

Law & Ethics

State v. Kent | NJ Super. App. Div. (1980)

173 N.J. Super. 215 (1980)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EDWARD KENT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued March 10, 1980.
Decided July 1, 1980. [1]
*218 Before Judges SEIDMAN, MICHELS and DEVINE.
William C. Levine, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (John B. Mariano, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney).
Carl D. Poplar argued the cause for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by SEIDMAN, P.J.A.D.
We granted the State’s motion for leave to appeal from an order dismissing four counts of an eight-count indictment and severing for separate trials three other counts.

Defendant, an attorney, was accused in three of the counts of violating N.J.S.A. 2A:96-6 in 1975, 1976 and 1977 by placing, offering to place or assisting to place a child for purpose of *219 adoption in each of those years without proper authority. In connection with these matters he was also charged in four counts with obstruction of justice, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:85-1. The remaining count, which charged defendant with giving false information to a law enforcement officer concerning a child placement, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:148-22.1, is not involved in this appeal.

The substance of defendant’s argument in support of his severance motion is that since each of the alleged unlawful placements involved a different natural mother and different adopting parents and was “not temporally related and not related to any common scheme or plan,” the cumulative effect of a joint trial would increase his chances of conviction and thus would be prejudicial to him. The State’s position is that although each placement was a separate incident, the connecting link was a common source of information available to defendant and, in addition, the State intends to establish that defendant was engaged in an ongoing course of conduct of acting as an intermediary in the placement of children for adoption. In granting the severance motion (which included the related charges of obstruction of justice prior to their dismissal), the trial judge, while expressing concern over the time span of approximately a year and a half, was particularly motivated by “the fact that when a defendant is indicted and tried on a series of offenses, allegedly all of the same type, that it has to carry a cumulative force and weight prejudicial to the defendant.”

R. 3:7-6 provides that two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character. R. 3:15-1 authorizes a joint trial of two or more indictments if the offenses could have been joined in a single indictment. However, where there is a substantial possibility of harm to the defendant if separate and unconnected offenses are tried together, a pretrial motion for severance should not be lightly regarded. State v. Baker, 49 N.J. 103 (1967), cert. den. *220 389 U.S. 868, 88 S. Ct. 141, 19 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1967). But the trial judge’s rationale in this case is of such breadth that it would bar in all cases the joinder of like offenses at a single trial and thus render the rule ineffective.

More must be demonstrated than the mere claim that prejudice will attach because of a joint trial. See State v. Reldan, 167 N.J. Super. 595, 598 (Law Div. 1979). Here, the argument advanced by defendant is that evidence of the commission of one of the unauthorized placements might induce the jury to find guilt of the others when the evidence as to the latter, if considered separately, might produce a different result. But the three alleged placements in this case appear to be more than merely offenses of a like or similar character. We find persuasive the State’s response that a common thread binds them together, evidencing such a course of conduct on the part of defendant as to make evidence of the commission of one unauthorized placement relevant as to either or both of the others in order to establish motive, intent, or common scheme or plan. Evid.R. 55. In the circumstances, we do not believe that defendant would suffer any more prejudice in a joint trial than he would in separate trials where the evidence of the other alleged crimes would in all probability be admissible under Evid.R. 55. We are convinced that the trial judge mistakenly exercised his discretion in ordering separate trials for each of the alleged unauthorized placements. To that extent, the order under review is reversed.

We turn next to the dismissal of the four counts charging obstruction of justice. Accepting defendant’s argument, the trial judge held that the nature of the common law crime of obstruction of justice, N.J.S.A. 2A:85-1, has been so changed in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice by N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 that the crime is no longer an offense under the Code. Defendant advances in his brief the alternate argument that if it is determined that the obstruction of justice charges should proceed, prosecution of them should be as disorderly persons offenses. We disagree as to each concept.

*221 It should first be noted that, except as otherwise provided, the Code does not apply to offenses committed prior to its effective date, and disposition of such offenses is governed by prior law. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-1b. But if the offense committed is no longer an offense under the Code, the court should dismiss the prosecution. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-1c(3). The term “offense” means “a crime, a disorderly persons offense or a petty disorderly persons offense.” N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14k.

In our view, the prosecution of an offense committed prior to the effective date of the Code is not barred where the forbidden conduct, previously constituting a crime, has been downgraded by the Code to a disorderly persons offense. See State v. Glass, 171 N.J. Super. 157 (Law Div. 1979). Nor may the accused now be prosecuted only on the downgraded charge. It is clear to us that the prosecution in such case should be for the offense charged in the indictment. If the penalty would be less for a comparable offense under the Code, the court is authorized upon a defendant’s conviction, with his consent, to “impose sentence under the provisions of the Code applicable to the offense and the offender.” N.J.S.A. 2C:1-1c(2).

We reject the trial judge’s concept that the common law crime of obstruction of justice is not an offense under the Code. N.J.S.A. 2A:85-1 does not specifically refer to obstruction of justice. It broadly designates as misdemeanors “all other offenses of an indictable nature at common law, and not otherwise expressly provided for by statute.” Under the common law, it was a misdemeanor to do any act which prevented, obstructed, impeded or hindered the due course of public justice. State v. Cassatly, 93 N.J. Super. 111, 118 (App.Div. 1966).

Defendant is accused in the second, third and fourth counts of “contriving and intending to obstruct, hinder and impede the due course of public justice” by unlawfully seeking to induce others, in connection with an investigation of the child placements, to “mislead said investigation and to not tell the persons conducting said investigation the true and complete *222 facts” concerning defendant’s participation in or the circumstances of the placements. The seventh count charges defendant with “contriving and intending to obstruct, hinder and impede the due course of public justice” and “seek[ing] to mislead” the county prosecutor in his investigation of a placement by representing that he would “fully and truthfully disclose his participation,” and, instead, sending a letter which allegedly did not “fully and truthfully” disclose his participation. These allegations, if true, would support an indictment and prosecution for the crime of obstructing justice. Cf. State v. Cassatly, supra.

The wide sweep of the common law crime of obstruction of justice has been significantly narrowed in the Code. The proscribed conduct, restricted in scope, is now classified as a disorderly persons offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 deals with obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function. Using language similar to that contained in the common law definition, see State v. Cassatly, supra, the Code states that a person commits a disorderly persons offense if he purposely “obstructs, impairs or perverts” the administration of law or other governmental function, but the section requires that the obstruction be “by means of intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act [emphasis supplied].” The indictment here, in the second, third and fourth counts, charges defendant with obstructing, impairing or perverting the administration of law. The obstructions alleged are that defendant induced persons involved in the placements to mislead the investigation and withhold “the true and complete facts.” Such conduct, assuming it to be true, would constitute an obstruction of the administration of law “by means of any independently unlawful act.” Such independently unlawful act is found in N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5a, which declares it to be an offense for a person, “believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted,” knowingly to induce or cause a witness to testify or inform falsely, or to withhold any testimony. We are satisfied *223 that the obstruction of justice charged in the second, third and fourth counts remains an offense under the Code, although downgraded to a disorderly persons offense.

The alleged conduct which is the subject matter of the seventh count is that defendant himself sought to mislead the investigation by failing fully and truthfully to disclose his participation in the placement under investigation. This conduct clearly is not of the kind referred to in N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5a, and our attention has not been called to any other section of the Code that would be pertinent. It would appear, in any event, that the seventh count is superfluous since the sixth count, which was not stricken, and charges a violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:148-22.1, relates essentially the same facts.

Paragraph (1) of the order under review is reversed. Paragraph (2) of said order, except with respect to count 7, is also reversed, and counts two, three and four are reinstated. The remainder of the order is not encompassed within this appeal.

NOTES[1] The untimely death of Judge Devine occurred while this appeal was under consideration by this part of the court. Counsel graciously consented to a determination of the appeal by the remaining members of the part.

Cites: State v. Glass | State v. Reldan | State v. Baker | State v. Cassatly

Cited by: State v. Flagler | State v. Castoran | State v. Hutcherson | State v. Ex Rel RF | State v. Camillo | State v. Lado | State v. Pitts | State v. Moore | State v. Krivacska | State v. Davidson | State v. Crescenzi | State v. Stevens | State v. Coruzzi | State v. Kates | Vitale v. Hotel California, Inc. | State v. French Funeral Home | State v. Ahmadjian | State v. Jordan |

Law & Ethics, News & Media

Appeal of lawyer is rejected (Nov. 1978)

Original Publication: Courier-Post
Original Publication Date: November 18, 1978

N O T E : Much of the information taken from Kent’s testimony completely contradicts Hollie’s experiences and even some of the details that were provided to Michelle by her adoptive father in 2017. We will be writing about these inconsistencies at a later date.

By RENEE WINKLER
Courier-Post Staff

A Superior Court judge in Camden has denied an appeal by a Burlington County attorney who had been turned down for Camden County’s pre-trial intervention program.

The program, which has been in operation in Camden for more than two years, diverts defendants in criminal cases from trial. Instead, the defendants are placed on supervised probation for three months. At the end of that period, the criminal charges are dismissed.

The lawyer, Edward Kent, 52, who has a practice in Willingboro, was indicted in April by a Camden County grand jury on charges of illegally acting as an intermediary in the adoption of six children.

According to the indictment, Kent had instructed the natural mothers of the children to deny that he participated in placing the children with others families.

It is illegal in New Jersey to place children for adoption without going through a state agency.

Kent is also charged with obstruction of justice for filing false reports with the Camden County prosecutor’s office when it began to investigate the adoptions.

The indictment covers alleged incidents between Dec. 4, 1976, and May 7, 1977.

Kent had been rejected for the pre-trial program b the county’s probation department.

IN ARGUMENTS Friday before Superior Court Judge I.V. DiMartino, Kent’s attorney, Carl D. Poplar, claimed the ruling to reject Kent was arbitrary.

Poplar also said Kent’s alleged violations were technical ones and were not evidence of corruption and that his indictment was the result of the county prosecutor’s decision to test the law.

View Original Article: Click here to view a JPG of the original newspaper article

 

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess / Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.

Law & Ethics, News & Media

Divorce lawyer convicted for adoption assistance (June 1981)

Original Publication: Courier-Post
Original Publication Date: June 25, 1981

Continue reading

Law & Ethics, News & Media

Lawyer indicted on adoptions (April 1978)

Original Publication: The New York Times
Original Publication Date: April 15, 1978

Continue reading

Law & Ethics, News & Media

Lawyer accused in 3 adoptions (April 1978)

Original Publication: The Philadelphia Inquirer
Original Publication Date: April 15, 1978

N O T E : Much of the information taken from Kent’s testimony completely contradicts Hollie’s experiences and even some of the details that were provided to Michelle by her adoptive father in 2017. We will be writing about these inconsistencies at a later date.

By Francis M. Lordan
Inquirer Staff Writer

A Burlington County lawyer has been indicted on charges that in 1977 he illegally assisted in the adoption of three children in Camden County, Thomas J. Shusted, Camden County prosecutor, said yesterday.

Edward Kent, 52, who has a law office in Willingboro, was named in the eight-count indictment issued Thursday by the grand jury. No hearing date has been scheduled.

The parents and the children who were adopted were identified in the indictment only by their initials.

The indictment also charged Kent with obstructing justice by asking several of the parents not to tell of his involvement and asking another person to mislead investigators, indicating that she would “receive money if she was to mislead the investigators.” It also charged that he gave false information to a former county prosecutor.

If convicted on the eight counts, all of which are misdemeanors, Kent could face a maximum penalty of 24 years in jail and an $8,000 fine.

Shusted said that, according to state law, only authorized agencies may handle the placement of children for adoption.

Two of the children were placed in foster homes in Cherry Hill, and the third in Berlin, he said.

Shusted said Kent was the first person indicted by a grand jury on adoption-related charges since he took office six years ago.

During that period, Shusted said, evidence had been presented to the grand jury on about 10 such cases, including two that involved lawyers. But the grand jury did not indict because it did not find “criminal intent,” Shusted said.

Two years ago, Shusted said, he had sent memoranda to the Camden County Bar Association and the Camden County Medical Society asking them to remind members not to assist in such adoptions.

View Original Article: Click here to view a JPG of the original newspaper article

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess / Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.

Law & Ethics, News & Media

Memory fails witness in adoption case (June 1981)

Original Publication: Courier-Post
Original Publication Date: June 5, 1981

N O T E : Much of the information taken from Kent’s testimony completely contradicts Hollie’s experiences and even some of the details that were provided to Michelle by her adoptive father in 2017. This article is particularly disturbing because this biological mother was clearly being influenced in some way to lie or to withhold information about Kent’s involvement in her child’s adoption (read this article about Kent offering to pay her to lie to investigators.) We will be writing about these issues and inconsistencies at a later date.

CAMDEN — A woman who was to have been the state’s chief witness against a Willingboro lawyer charged with acting as an illegal intermediary in a series of adoptions was able to recall only sketchy information about the case yesterday.

When first called by Deputy Attorney General Nancy Singer, the woman said she couldn’t remember anything about her pregnancy in 1977, her meeting with attorney Edward Kent or the couple who adopted her baby.

When pressed by Superior Court Judge Peter J. Coruzzi, the witness remembered coming to the Camden Courthouse in February 1978 to testify in connection with an investigation of three adoptions.

But she couldn’t recall whether she lied during that testimony.

She gave birth to a baby May 1, 1977, and turned it over five days later to a woman she could not identify. At the time, she was living in Burlington Township.

Despite strong objections from defense attorney Carl Poplar, Singer read portions of her grand jury testimony into the record.

The case is being heard without a jury.

Six days of pre-trial motions were needed to compile transcripts of tape recorded conversations between Kent and yesterday’s witness. Poplar is expected to ask the court to exclude some of these tapes from evidence.

Kent, 55, is charged with obstruction of justice and three counts of acting as an intermediary in the adoptions.

Poplar said his client, who specializes in matrimonial matters, did tell pregnant women who did not want to keep their children after birth that he would pass on their names to couples seeking to adopt children. Poplar said Kent told both the natural and adoptive parents that he could not make any arrangements for the adoption.

He said Kent’s involvement ended at that point.  [A note from the Riess family: This is completely false. His involvement greatly increased at that point.]

Yesterday’s witness said she met Kent only once prior to the birth of her child and that she called him to set up the meeting. She did not speak to him again until requested to do so by members of the Camden County prosecutor’s staff, who were investigating allegations that the lawyer participated in several adoptions.

The adoptions occurred between December 1976 and May 1977.

During pre-trial motions in the case last week, reporters agreed to withhold the names of the women who gave up their children for adoption and the couples who adopted the babies.

View Original Article: Click here to view a JPG of the original newspaper article

 

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess / Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.

Law & Ethics, News & Media

Lawyer indicted as a middleman for adoptions (April 1978)

Original Publication: Courier-Post
Original Publication Date: April 14, 1978

N O T E : Much of the information taken from Kent’s testimony completely contradicts Hollie’s experiences and even some of the details that were provided to Michelle by her adoptive father in 2017. We will be writing about these inconsistencies at a later date.

By RENEE WINKLER
Courier-Post Staff

A Burlington County lawyer who specializes in matrimonial matters was indicted Thursday by a Camden County grand jury for illegally acting as an intermediary in the adoption of three children.

Edward Kent, 52, who has a law office in Willingboro, also was charged with obstruction of justice in the eight-count indictment. None of the children or the couples who wanted to adopt them is named in the indictment, although it specifies that their identities are known to the grand jury.

It was not immediately known if any of the adoptions have been finalized.

Reached at his law office in Willingboro late Thursday afternoon, Kent had no comment on the charges.

According to the indictment, Kent agreed to assist in placing children of three women with families. Knowing that papers later would have to be filed in county court for the adoption, Kent allegedly instructed the mothers to deny that he participated in the placement.

He later induced persons receiving the children to withhold information about his involvement in the placements, according to the indictment.

The indictment also charges that when Kent learned that the Camden County prosecutor’s office was investigating circumstances surrounding the placement of the children, he tried to convince one of the mothers to mislead investigators and withhold information. It further charges that Kent offered to pay the mother if she lied to investigators.   [Note from the Riess Family – now read this article]

The indictment covers incidents between Dec. 4, 1976, and May 7, 1977.

It charges that in February 1977, Kent wrote to former Assistant Camden County Prosecutor Archibald Kreiger and lies about his participation in the adoptions. That letter was in response to questions from Kreiger.

View Original Article: Click here to view a JPG of the original newspaper article

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess / Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.

Law & Ethics

High Tribunal Raps Attorney for Conduct (1963)

Original publication: Courier-Post
Original publication date: January 22, 1963

“His conduct is dishonorable and brings the profession into disrepute.” -a NJ Supreme Court Justice referring to attorney Edward Kent

TRENTON (UPI) – The State Supreme Court Monday reprimanded lawyer Edward Kent of Levittown* for bypassing a Pennsylvania lawyer and dealing directly with his client.

The Pennsylvania lawyer, James P. Geoghegan, complained to the Burlington County Ethics Committee that Kent had sought to arrange settlement of an auto accident through direct dealings with Geoghegan’s client.

He said this violated the professional ethics. 

Kent represented Paul Colton, who was involved in an automobile accident with Geoghegan’s client, Harvey P. Moyer. Colton, who had moved from Pennsylvania to Levittown, N.J., was seeking to pay off $1,569.50 to Moyer in order to obtain a driver’s license in New Jersey.

Kent said neither he nor Colton, were able to contact Geoghegan and that he then arranged to meet with Moyer in order to settle the manner of payment. Kent said he worked directly through Moyer because Colton needed to clear up the matter of payment quickly as he needed his car in order to work.

Kent sent a letter of apology to Geoghegan. The court held that because of Kent’s “candor and his acceptable apology,” Kent should not be disbarred from practice but should be reprimanded.

* Levittown is now Willingboro, NJ

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess / Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.